I posted in this thread former world and U.S. open champions take on aiming systems
One of them considerd one of the best minds in pool the other well all he's done is run over 400 balls
1
Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?
- Thread starter SamLambert
- Start date
I posted in this thread former world and U.S. open champions take on aiming systems
One of them considerd one of the best minds in pool the other well all he's done is run over 400 balls
1
John,
Has Stan not said that CTE can NOT be explained in any 2 dimensional manner.
You & others just can not seem to understand that NO video can show whether or not one is employing their subjective perceptions or not or whether one is performing entirely in a totally objective manner.
So... a video, any video, wil NOT prove anything in those regards.
The question regarding those abstract issues can ONLY be resolved through intelligent critical thinking as PJ has pointed out probably thousands of times more than I have.
Best Wishes.
John,
Just how 'difficult' is it to be able to see the CTE line along with the edge to A, B, or C line?
That seems rather simple to many of us & should not take 'any' real amount of time to 'learn'.
Best Wishes.
It's pretty easy. The hard part is letting go of ghost ball and everything else. A lot of players are locked into the romantic point and shoot idea that aiming is something a good player ought to be able to always just know how to do.
So everyone is different. I was doing fairly well with using just the CTE line and a half-ball pivot until Stan's dvd came out. When it did I was pretty lazy about applying it and learned just enough to get by. When Stan came out with the banking demos I perked up and started taking it seriously and spent dedicated time really learning to the visuals as directed. Now I am a lot better at proper CTE as taught by Stan.
Players I have introduced to CTE either grasp it pretty quickly or need a little extra time to think about it. Either way they all eventually get it and enter a better way of aiming.
In other words let's all sit around freezing to death while we think about fire intellectually before we allow that weirdo over there to try his method of making fire.
We who use CTE to play serious pool don't care one bit about your salon attitude towards CTE and the exact amount of exactness that CTE provides the user. We care about what happens practically on the table. To that end if we make more shots and win more games and thus win more money then CTE works perfectly for our needs.
The same can be said for any good aiming method. Even Ghost Ball. If using imaginary balls leads to a success rate the player is happy with then by all means use that. The math and critical thinking behind GB is of zero use to the player at the table.
Let's all be honest, IF a Nobel Prizewinning Mathematician posted the "math" that governs CTE in all known dimensions and declared it to be practically objective to a 99.99% degree then you and Pat Johnson and others would tell him to shut up. Just like when Lou said if Willie Mosconi himself were to rise from the grave and declare CTE to be great Lou would tell Willie Mosconi to go back to sleep.
So if we are being honest the real problem is that knockers will be knockers regardless of what amount of evidence, math, diagrams and demonstrations are provided. Luckily the amount of knockers is teeny and insignificant and other people can see the practical side of demonstration and are curious enough to try it and be able to duplicate the results CONSISTENTLY.
If I am playing pool I want my opponent worried about how much he has to guess at the shot line. I want myself to be choosing the line confidently and accurately with as little guessing as humanly possible. CTE does that for me at this time. Sorry it does not do that for you for whatever reason that is.
I & some others are more passionate about the simple truth than we could ever be about any method about how to aim in pool.
So? John also said, "I could be wrong". And in fact he is. Corey was cut off in that session and didn't get to finish his thought. I talked with Corey for a few hours a couple weeks ago and he is 100% NOT against aiming systems. Unlike you Corey is a serious student of the game who has a very open mind for any and all concepts about how to play the game.
The only part of your statement that is true is that Corey does in fact have one of the best minds in pool.
Maybe with a good aiming system John could run 800 balls. Who knows? No one, because until John decides to try it he won't know if it's helpful or not. But his statement is not true on many levels.
Even John knows that it's more than just table time and more than just aiming. He is 100% right when he mentions the other factors that come along with execution. He is wrong when he wraps all that into aiming and commits the same mistake that knockers here do, namely calling aiming systems a magic bullet that is supposed to turn bangers into champions. No aiming system proponent has ever said that. It was created as a red herring by knockers to use when they point out that aiming system users haven't jumped from B category to spotting Shane.
They then go on to totally discount any claimed improvement. When system users report that they are winning more, have gotten to the top of their leagues, snapped off decent tournaments, making more scores, running more balls, beating the ghost etc....all this is pooh poohed by knockers as if ALL these people are lying.
But if you want to play this game - Shane has four US Open titles and uses an aiming system. Darren has two or three world titles and uses and endorses an aiming system. Landon Shuffett has many junior national championships and uses an aiming system - PUBLICLY -
So you can put John's statement on your side and I will put these guys up on the other and undecided readers can choose for themselves if they want to spend a little time trying out new ways aim or stick with hit balls until my fingers fall off. I know what I would do with my limited table time.
John,
Did I miss a post of yours or are you just repeating yourself without ever answering my question about what Stan may have said about CTE NOT being able to be explained by any 2D representations. Is that an ignore walk around instead of a talk around?
Since you've done so much study of the subject how about you diagram all the shots of each visual in one direction & show that there are no holes between them without any shading of a subjective perception or any differing amount of pivot.
That was the 'initial' assertion that has NEVER been proven other than by someone just saying that it is so.
I think PJ has posted a diagram indicating that there are simply NOT enough markers to make that possible.
Best Wishes.
And perhaps you can't understand what the simple truth actually is. All life may be governed by mathematics but life doesn't require knowledge of math to exist.
Is Rodney Morris still using CTE?
I have posted a video where I go around a 180 degree arc and show that it's the same steps each time.
In fact I posted one previously that Pat had YouTube take down because I mentioned his name in it. Which was the right thing to do since it was in direct response to his assertions.
Pat's diagrams have never shown any holes in CTE aiming. As for CTE aiming not being able to be drawn out in 2d I guess I agree with Stan BECAUSE CTE aiming starts above the table at the eyes. So any diagram would need to account for the space between the eyes and the cueball-object ball relationship and this could only be in 3-d I suppose.
The bottom line is you make claims with no proof. YOu can't seem to figure out how to make even a simple video showing the holes, you won't post any shot diagrams that show the holes you claim are there. But what you will do is write another 400 posts claiming they are there.
I don't know. And I don't know that he ever did. What he said SPECIFICALLY was that his friend Stevie Moore showed him some things about CTE and that he was playing the best of his life because of it.
If that were even remotely true, you wouldn't lie so much about it. You claim your only objection is that it is not objective, yet a few posts above you also claim that it has holes in it.
You have been given the dictionary definition of objective. It does have several meanings. You choose to only go by the exact definition that you think fits your goal, and totally dismiss the definition that does fit the situation.
You claim it has holes, but when asked what those might be, you never give an answer to the question, but only cast more excuses why your evidence wouldn't be any real evidence at all. (can't trust video, and too lazy to make a diagram of a shot)
It's very obvious to all why you are even here in these type of threads. You feel that you were slurred by Stan and CTE users, and now, for years now, seek some type of sick revenge by doing what you can to disrupt any conversation about CTE.
You don't know if he ever did but he was playing the best of his life because of it?
That's a little contradictory, I think.
He beat the snot out of Efren and Andam for his US Open and one other PBT title using the ghost ball. It worked for him.
If CTE made him shoot better, I don't see a logical reason why he'd abandon it.
Absolutely
Absolutely Aiming is a wide open subject and many aspects of it haven't been properly explained to date. Aiming is so complex its almost like the Wild West in Manifest Destiny yet some how feel players seem to do it enough that they understand it in a way that makes their art very simple and complete.
I think some thought need to be given to that and that end of things explored and cataloged. I believe the road to a knowing feel is the most worthy high road in aiming and at the moment is a road less traveled and more so because there isn't a road. That is the part I want to change.
Absolutely Aiming is a wide open subject and many aspects of it haven't been properly explained to date. Aiming is so complex its almost like the Wild West in Manifest Destiny yet some how feel players seem to do it enough that they understand it in a way that makes their art very simple and complete.
I think some thought need to be given to that and that end of things explored and cataloged. I believe the road to a knowing feel is the most worthy high road in aiming and at the moment is a road less traveled and more so because there isn't a road. That is the part I want to change.
Convergence Lines. (my thoughts on why just the CTE line alone gets the player super close to the shot line) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoQcHkU1Dzo&list=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9&index=4
No One Needs an Aiming System.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoQcHkU1Dzo&list=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9&index=4
Stroking on the KNOWN Line: ( a video showing that knowing the shot line doesn't guarantee making the shot)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vd0yHk8LMw&index=1&list=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9
No One Needs an Aiming System.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoQcHkU1Dzo&list=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9&index=4
Stroking on the KNOWN Line: ( a video showing that knowing the shot line doesn't guarantee making the shot)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vd0yHk8LMw&index=1&list=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9
Ron Swanson
Banned
You've no time to put 'thesnookerforum' in google?
I take it that's a no, then. Quelle surprise.
He said he was playing the best of his life, that wasn't my observation. And he wasn't using Ghost Ball prior to that.
Rodney used to be sponsored by Fury. He worked with us out in Vegas in 2003 and I asked him while we were playing how he aims and what hsi thoughts were on aiming systems. He told me that in Hawaii he was taught to aim at portions of the ball and he showed me what he meant. AFAIK he didn't use GB then and may have never used it.
You've no time to put 'thesnookerforum' in google?
I take it that's a no, then. Quelle surprise.
As much time as you have to write it as a link.
John,
It is not those that object to the assertion made that it is a totally objective 'system' along with other assertions in an attempt to support that one that made those assertions.
The root cause IS those assertions.
The issue is that you & others continue to portray it as such. Okay you reduced it down to 99%. I'm not sure that Stan would agree with your estimation.
I agree with much of what you've said when it comes to playing the game, etc.
The list of PJ, Satorie, 8pack/Anthony, I, & considerable others that have indicated such pretty much only take exception to the manner in which it is portrayed & the assertion(s) because intellectual analysis indicates the assertion to NOT be accurate & it has not been proven in any manner.
Some or your examples, assertions, & suppositions in the quoted post are just as intellectually lacking & certainly unproven.
If CTE can help anyone & PJ & I have indicated that it certainly can for some, then that is great for them & certainly is a good thing.
If it's helped you, then that is great for you, but helping 1,000,000 individuals does not make the assertion correct.
So, If the assertion was retracted or stopped being made or it stopped being presented as such, THEN all of the hub bub regarding it would disappear along with it.
Best Wishes.