Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[ENGLISH!]

This thread is a general question about the use of aiming systems vs. feel. So I will talk about any aiming systems I want. I gave my PERSONAL experience with CTE as an answer to to Sam Lambert's questions.

I am only in this conversation because it is a subject of interest to me. Not because I want to convince you or any of the other knockers to change your position. You have already lost. More than a 500,000 views on YouTube and hundreds, perhaps thousands of DVDs sold shows that there is plenty of interest in CTE. I have no idea how far Ekkes reach is but I know that 90/90 has gained a lot of traction. Shane's aiming video does well as far as I know so people are hungry for this information.

The teeny amount of knockers on here, you, Lou, Satori, Thaiger, Banks, Johnson and a few others are so inconsequential at this point that it's only for charity purposes that we continue to indulge you.

You're good for views and nothing else. If a picture is worth a 1000 words then videos are worth a million and we have won by providing videos that demonstrate players using CTE successfully. Ekkes has videos demonstrating the effective use of his methods and so with no video rebuttals the majority of new aiming system users are coming from youtube and not from AZB.

All your words don't mean anything. You can't (or won't) DEMONSTRATE what your objections are on the table so barring that all you leave the wider world with is the POSITIVE demonstrations and POSITIVE testimonials by aiming system teachers and users. I haven't counted all the views but I bet overall it's close to a million. Let's make a silly assumption and say that this represents a 90% overlap which still leaves 100,000 people who are getting a POSITIVE demonstration of the merits of good aiming systems. To think that plenty of them wouldn't go on to explore those methods is silly in my opinion.

Couple that with the fact that the nations BEST instructors all teach aiming systems now and that thousands more introduced to them yearly.

So think what you want but empirically you have already been made irrelevant. Anything you say now is truly a waste of words and a waste of time if you continue your present course. While you write a paragraph on this forum hundreds more people are watching Stan, and Ekkes, and Gerry and myself among others telling them why they should consider trying an aiming system to improve their game.

That's an interesting post, John.

Especially since it does not relate at all to what you quoted of me.

I don't care if 1 Million individuals ordered CTE from Stan tonight as long as none of them did so looking for what is not there.

AND... I hope that CTE helps them to play better.

That said, ALL of what you said here even if totally 100% true does not make the assertion that CTE is a totally objective aiming 'system' true.

AND... if anyone with any critical intellectual thinking ability did slip up & buy it with that in mind, I think they will rather quickly realize that that assertion is false.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I didn't say that. Doesn't sound like you know Shane's method though if that's how you think it works. I am not sure but I think that the severity of the cut requires different parts of the shaft.

I'd have to watch the TAR video again to be sure.

Again, using the shaft AT ALL makes it more than just feel and INCREASES the amount of objectivity used in aiming significantly.

John,

You make it sound here like when one using one's 'Feel' or subconscious that they are not using any concrete form of reference.

That can not be farther from the truth.

You make it seem like they are doing a pin the tail on the donkey game with their eyes blindfolded.

 

[JB Cases]

That's an interesting post, John.

Especially since it does not relate at all to what you quoted of me.

I don't care if 1 Million individuals ordered CTE from Stan tonight as long as none of them did so looking for what is not there.

AND... I hope that CTE helps them to play better.

That said, ALL of what you said here even if totally 100% true does not make the assertion that CTE is a totally objective aiming 'system' true.

AND... if anyone with any critical intellectual thinking ability did slip up & buy it with that in mind, I think they will rather quickly realize that that assertion is false.

Best Wishes.

Ok, so in my opinion it's 99% objective and 1% subjective. Or to put it another way, 99% concrete steps using fixed objects to align to and 1% estimation of the line placement on those objects. The result is near 100% accuracy in finding the right shot line in my experience.

Thank you for hoping people will play better, the majority that I know of who try CTE end up playing better because of it. In my opinion most find a method that feels 100% objective and which brings them to the exact shot line based on the results.

And a bonus is that with CTE banking users can find the shot line for almost every bank shot that exists, if their experience is like mine, which so far it seems to be for the majority of people I know who have learned CTE.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Or maybe your iq is a joke..... You will never find out.....

I was going to say something but you beat me to it again & I'm kind of glad that you did.

I know you know this... but for the sake of others, if not Bieber Jon.

When looking at a given situation one can willfully see something with both eyes or either eye. Some are more adept at doing such while others may not be able to do it at all.

Also, one can hit the cue ball with the tip moving up & forward which applies two different force vectors as opposed to those of the tip moving in a straight line as opposed to moving on an arc as in the first instance described here.

Best 2 You, Sir.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Ok, so in my opinion it's 99% objective and 1% subjective. Or to put it another way, 99% concrete steps using fixed objects to align to and 1% estimation of the line placement on those objects. The result is near 100% accuracy in finding the right shot line in my experience.

Thank you for hoping people will play better, the majority that I know of who try CTE end up playing better because of it. In my opinion most find a method that feels 100% objective and which brings them to the exact shot line based on the results.

And a bonus is that with CTE banking users can find the shot line for almost every bank shot that exists, if their experience is like mine, which so far it seems to be for the majority of people I know who have learned CTE.

Hey John,

I sort of like that, except for the percentages, but I too would only be guessing if I were to put any numbers on any actual ratio just as you are guessing.

But... at least you are NOT saying that CTE is a TOTALLY objective aiming 'system' when it comes to finding the shot line.

I guess that's a start to a possible resolution of the issues.

Best Wishes.

 

[Dan White]

John,

As I think I said in one of my PMs, It seems as though you don't have a good understanding of what the issues actually are.

It's not that an object can or can't be used as an objective point of reference. We could argue as to the validity of calling the A & B lines on the OB as objective points of reference but some of us have 'conceded' that to move on to the more pressing issue.

When one looks to simultaneously see the CTE & 'edge to' line & locates themselves on a line where that is accomplished & gets that 'fixed' cue ball. That is IT... relative to the two balls. There is no need of ANYTHING else & NOTHING from the outside of that that is objective can influence that. If one moves off of that line they have then lost the fixed CB & have lost the objectivity of that relationship.

(Unless... A B & C are not points or 1 point wide lines but instead are an array of points forming rather wide lines almost to the point of complete fractional sections of the OB, but I have NOT heard anything like that said. If that is the case Then they are certainly objective in nature.)

Put the two balls on a round table with no pockets & what I just stated above is possible & will be duplicated because it IS objective (If we concede that the ABC points are objective points.).

Now go cut a pocket in on that round table. Nothing changes.

I know the 2:1 ratio & 90* will be launched within seconds of when I hit submit. That has nothing to do with the objectivity of seeing the CTE & the 'edge to' lines simultaneously. They do not change in the objectivity of that vision. Move them anywhere on the table & they do not change objectively.

If for one the OB hits center pocket & I rotate the whole 'mechanism' 4* the OB does not hit the pocket & the balls & vision center relationship does NOT change objectively just because the whole mechanism has been rotated or move over laterally.

ANY change is of a subjective nature because one now wants to send the ball out on a different outcome angle line because the pocket is no longer on the outcome line of that objective relationship.

To do that something has to change. Either the amount of pivot or the losing of the 'fixed' CB from the objective visual. BOTH of those are subjective in their nature with no definitive objective guidelines.

If one can not see that with their critical intellect, then something is lacking & I do not yet know how to say it much more clearly than that, if at all.

Best Wishes.

Tap, tap, tap.

This was my experience as well. When I brought it up here was told must have done something wrong. Then someone said when the balls move something about the relationship between the 2 lines changes, or something. All I want to know is if I pot a ball in the side pocket by cutting it to the left, using CTE, then I move both balls 1 inch farther down the table so that nothing changes other than the location of the pocket, how does CTE put me on the correct shot line now that I"m an inch away from where I was before? I can't see a way for it to be resolved other than by looking at the pocket location and adjusting (yes by feel) the aim line so the ball goes in.

If I buy the latest super whamo version of CTE from Stan will this question be adequately answered?

 

[Ron Swanson]

SHANE calls it a SYSTEM. He doesn't care what you think nor do other players who use aiming systems.

I guess what Darren uses isn't an aiming system either, correct?

Just as I predicted, all of the naysaying aiming system trolls are piping in with their absurd garbage about pro players and top instructors not knowing what they're talking about or actually using. Only the hack playing TROLLS know for certain.

Lol. Hack? Anyway...

Appleton has been potting em off the lampshade since he was about 6 years old. Absolutely insulting to suggest he uses an aiming system. He's British FFS!

 

[ENGLISH!]

Tap, tap, tap.

This was my experience as well. When I brought it up here was told must have done something wrong. Then someone said when the balls move something about the relationship between the 2 lines changes, or something. All I want to know is if I pot a ball in the side pocket by cutting it to the left, using CTE, then I move both balls 1 inch farther down the table so that nothing changes other than the location of the pocket, how does CTE put me on the correct shot line now that I"m an inch away from where I was before? I can't see a way for it to be resolved other than by looking at the pocket location and adjusting (yes by feel) the aim line so the ball goes in.

If I buy the latest super whamo version of CTE from Stan will this question be adequately answered?

Dan,

I think you know the answer to that question.

Have you seen Stan's videos on perception with the 5 parallel shots & the one with the 3 very large colored balls.

If not look at them & I think you will find your answer (one way or another), if indeed you do not already know the answer.

Thanks for the Taps & Best 2 Ya.
Rick

 

[Ron Swanson]

Says King hack Troll , he can call it blue if he wants but by definition it's a method not a system ,, I don't know how Darren aims ,,

1

Neither does he, nor does he care. Only complete losers who cannot play care about such matters anyway.

 

[JB Cases]

Tap, tap, tap.

This was my experience as well. When I brought it up here was told must have done something wrong. Then someone said when the balls move something about the relationship between the 2 lines changes, or something. All I want to know is if I pot a ball in the side pocket by cutting it to the left, using CTE, then I move both balls 1 inch farther down the table so that nothing changes other than the location of the pocket, how does CTE put me on the correct shot line now that I"m an inch away from where I was before? I can't see a way for it to be resolved other than by looking at the pocket location and adjusting (yes by feel) the aim line so the ball goes in.

If I buy the latest super whamo version of CTE from Stan will this question be adequately answered?

So the end result of all your questions Dan is that you just want to be a knocker? I mean I answered your question and I think I missed your reply. You have a table and I asked you to post the shot and you didn't bother to do that.

If you were to post it then as I told you I would make a video demonstrating the two positions and the solutions to each one as I know it. But it seems like you are only interested in putting the method and the people who use it down rather than having a good discussion with examples.

Anyway the offer stands.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Sorry I disagree. While Shane's method is based on estimating portions of the shaft it's a proven fact that PEOPLE in general get better at estimating with practice.

If you tell someone to fill a bag with a half pound of nuts they tend to be way off the first time they do it and pretty close the 50th time they do it. They train their own senses to become more in tune with what a half pound feels like in weight and looks like in volume.

That's why the clerks at the supermarket are able to very often grab a handful of meat and get within a fraction of an ounce of a pound when it's placed on the scale.

Dave put up a link to an animated estimation game once where the user had to do things like a place a dot in the center and bisect shapes. It was clear that most people didn't do very well the first couple times but with repetitions scores improved.

Maybe Dave can find the link and repost it.

Do you mean feel, B?

 

[JB Cases]

John,

You make it sound here like when one using one's 'Feel' or subconscious that they are not using any concrete form of reference.

That can not be farther from the truth.

You make it seem like they are doing a pin the tail on the donkey game with their eyes blindfolded.

Some people do. Some people treat aiming as not much more than pin the tail on the donkey. They just give it a cursory look and get right down and whack at it.

And just like I said about people developing their senses the more they do this the more their "feel" will be refined. If I give a total beginner a shot he might miss it horribly the first ten times and eventually he would get closer and closer to right until he was able to make it or barely miss it each time. Test him on the same shot a month later and he might miss badly the first time and get back to a much closer miss in less than 10 shots.

If I give a CTE user the same shot he might miss it by a little the first time but by the fifth try at most he will own that shot forever. A month later the CTE user is likely to NAIL the shot first try and nail it every time thereafter.

That is the spectrum I am talking about and CTE puts the shooter on the Consistently Accurate end of it.

 

[JB Cases]

Lol. Hack? Anyway...

Appleton has been potting em off the lampshade since he was about 6 years old. Absolutely insulting to suggest he uses an aiming system. He's British FFS!

Well I guess someone forgot to tell him that. He made a video with Ekkes demonstrating the system and he endorses it.

Maybe you should simply ask him and post the screenshots of the conversation. OR send him a PM as he does post on AZB from time to time.

 

[Spimp13]

Out of curiosity I have sent Daz a PM to see if he would be kind enough to reply to this thread. I always like to hear the pros thoughts on these things.

Matt

 

[Ron Swanson]

Well I guess someone forgot to tell him that. He made a video with Ekkes demonstrating the system and he endorses it.

Maybe you should simply ask him and post the screenshots of the conversation. OR send him a PM as he does post on AZB from time to time.

AZB Members One: shameless hawkers of goods of dubious benefit.
AZB Members Two: gullible sheep.

STILL haven't seen any system sellers on thesnookerforum.
STILL haven't seen any polls on which snooker players use systems.
STILL haven't seen you throw out your ludicrous bets to members of thesnookerforum. Ask them if they are impressed with your curtain botherers. Off you go.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

s

One can be taught in seconds the method of aiming while the other could take months or yrs to learn and some can't grasp it at all ,,
1

A BASIC aiming system like ghostball or contact point aiming can absolutely be taught, not in seconds but probably minutes. The beginner still has to be able to home in on the VISUALS and ALIGN correctly. Plus, they have a horribly crooked stroke.

Your statement about CTE shows how little to NOTHING you know about CTE or any other aiming system because they DO NOT take months or years to learn.

With CTE you still have to learn the VISUALS and ALIGNMENT because they are different from all others so there is a transition and learning process. But if a player has half a brain, which I'm not sure you do and a decent stroke which I'm not sure you have, it comes within a very reasonable to quick amount of time.

In your case you don't have the aptitude or the desire so stay out of CTE, the SEE System, or Shane's ferrule aiming. Go to the AIMING FORUM and teach exactly what you do to beginners to 10 years of playing like yourself and be a hero instead of a dolt.

In any case if you'd like to prove me wrong, please post something about what the alignment visuals are for CTE based on various cut angles. FEEL FREE.

 

[JB Cases]

AZB Members One: shameless hawkers of goods of dubious benefit.
AZB Members Two: gullible sheep.

STILL haven't seen any system sellers on thesnookerforum.
STILL haven't seen any polls on which snooker players use systems.
STILL haven't seen you throw out your ludicrous bets to members of thesnookerforum. Ask them if they are impressed with your curtain botherers. Off you go.

Yawn. Now everyone is a sheep.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Out of curiosity I have sent Daz a PM to see if he would be kind enough to reply to this thread. I always like to hear the pros thoughts on these things.

Matt

You invited him into the snake oil pit?

Some friend...

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Lol. Hack? Anyway...

Appleton has been potting em off the lampshade since he was about 6 years old. Absolutely insulting to suggest he uses an aiming system. He's British FFS!

Why has he been a co-developer of the SEE-SYSTEM with Ekkes and user? He's British and you're an (starts with an "A")

 

[one stroke]

Some people do. Some people treat aiming as not much more than pin the tail on the donkey. They just give it a cursory look and get right down and whack at it.

And just like I said about people developing their senses the more they do this the more their "feel" will be refined. If I give a total beginner a shot he might miss it horribly the first ten times and eventually he would get closer and closer to right until he was able to make it or barely miss it each time. Test him on the same shot a month later and he might miss badly the first time and get back to a much closer miss in less than 10 shots.

If I give a CTE user the same shot he might miss it by a little the first time but by the fifth try at most he will own that shot forever. A month later the CTE user is likely to NAIL the shot first try and nail it every time thereafter.

That is the spectrum I am talking about and CTE puts the shooter on the Consistently Accurate end of it.

It's highly unlikely a beginner is going to pick up CTE faster than general alignment and start pocketing balls since we have already seen questions asked by players who have been playing for yrs that have trouble picking it up ,,
Yes I'm sure you could take a real good player and make him better with CTE but whether that spike comes from heighten concentration or the system has yet to be determined we saw Stevie spike but he has not done since I know a few pro's that know it one mentioned here but I wouldn't say he's any better than before , so the results are really inconclusive ,,

1