Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[ENGLISH!]

Here you go Dan. My analysis of your analysis of Stan's video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THkFF7FBGBA

John,

As I have now said many times, video proves nothing in the realm of the abstracts of whether or not one performed objectively or with subjectivity involved AND I am certainly not calling or implying that anyone is intentionally lying. As you stated earlier, people, even scientists, make mistakes.

I have also tried to relay what is many times now that video of that type can not really be used to support or deny matters of such a small degree as maybe 3 millimeters which is like a tip or a 'touch of inside' or outside even with a straight stroke.

You've said a few good things in this thread of late, but your fixation of using video is not well placed for the reasons I just stated.

The real answer is in intelligent critical thinking linking the abstracts to the physical that is supported by science.

Science governs all dimensions including 3D & time is in there too.

I sincerely hope you are capable & can come to understand what it is I am trying to convey to you and others.

Best Wishes.

 

[duckie]

Miss a shot with CTE, there is no method, no concept to use in order to help you correct your aim. The standard rely is you used the wrong visuals.

Miss a shot with ghost ball contact patch, you can determine which way and how much to move the ghost ball contact patch along the aiming arc to correct for this miss.

The farther away from the pocket the OB is, the less movement is needed to make the change in OB direction of travel end point as when the OB is closer to the pocket

This is also a example of a a objective discussions works when the system is on paper. This could not happen if it is not.

 

[JB Cases]

John,

Is that an 'admission' that Stan does not know the why & how CTE works for those that it does? Otherwise, why the need to look into the 'nuts & bolts' of it?

It seems that you really do want to play on that one way street.

You can come out & rebut what others say but they can not come in & rebut what you & others say.

It seems that to the point of finding out about the TRUE 'nuts & bolts' one should have & want input from ALL sides & not be limited to one line of thought. You seem to want to continually leave out, talk around, etc. regarding the abstract reasons that CTE might work for some & not others. IF it is truly objective in it's core nature, then it should work to a very comparative degree for everyone. That is sort of what objectivity is about.

Now as to those that want to just learn HOW TO USE & IMPLEMENT CTE... I would totally agree with you that that process should be without the side show of the 'nuts & colts'.

I think it is rather telling that you want to exclude certain thoughts from the process. That brings to mind a certain political party of the 30s & 40s that used censorship & propaganda.

Best Wishes.

What is the emoticon for exasperation?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JoeyInCali]

I thought Stan already said he compensated for the drag by adding outside on all those shots on the final stroke?
I can't do an advance search right now.
But, I thought he did in responding to Dan and Stroud.

 

[JoeyInCali]

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.

Rick, this just gonna go on in circles.
Might as well drop it .
I don't know who is right or wrong .
No video will prove it so it's not going to get settled.

 

[JB Cases]

In other words, he's guessing what the cut angle is...ie very subjective.

Well when one says it's a 30 degree, but than says it's not.....gee wonder why the are those that jumb on the inconsistencies associated with CTE.

It is either a 30 degree cut shot or not.

There are no benefits of CTE....none.

No he used another silly ghost ball device to measure a useless angle. He simply made a mistake in ball position and inadvertently showed why thinking in angles and using ghost ball is inferior to CTE.

Using CTE Stan NAILED the shots with a dead straight stroke. What the actual cut angle was doesn't matter to a CTE user as proved by Stan easily.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[stan shuffett]

I thought Stan already said he compensated for the drag by adding outside on all those shots on the final stroke?
I can't do an advance search right now.
But, I thought he did in responding to Dan and Stroud.

An overcut is an inherent part of the final aim at CCB. Does the overcut differentiate between the various shots: finesse, draw, follow, inside, outside, hard speed shots, and the worst one of all---STUN.

Stun is the one that I take extra precaution with, but for the most part, CCB is fine for most any shot.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Was it about a 30 degree angle? Yes. So, Stan said a 30 degree angle. No, he did not get out his protractor and measure the exact angle. Using CTE there is no need to do that. For a 30, or a near 30 degree angle, the visuals are the arrived at the same way.

He didn't use CTE on this shot. He set up what he thought was a half ball shot, aimed it very carefully without CTE (strictly center-to-edge with no pivot), overcut it and made it.

Since he thought it was a perfect half ball shot, why did he overcut it just enough to make it? Because he unknowingly chose the cut angle his subconscious told him was the real angle - even though he was consciously trying to line up center-to-edge, the easiest alignment in pool to get right.

So what does this mean about how CTE "visuals" work? It means that Stan unknowingly subconsciously adjusts his aim for the simplest alignment, but wants us to believe he's certain he doesn't do that when "acquiring the visual" from a much more complex (and undefined) "visual combination" of two alignments.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Miss a shot with CTE, there is no method, no concept to use in order to help you correct your aim. The standard rely is you used the wrong visuals.

Miss a shot with ghost ball contact patch, you can determine which way and how much to move the ghost ball contact patch along the aiming arc to correct for this miss.

The farther away from the pocket the OB is, the less movement is needed to make the change in OB direction of travel end point as when the OB is closer to the pocket

This is also a example of a a objective discussions works when the system is on paper. This could not happen if it is not.

The method of correcting the aim is in the system. You either recheck you visuals or you choose a different key.

Once you have it you have it forever. No devices needed, no guessing required.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

I thought Stan already said he compensated for the drag by adding outside on all those shots on the final stroke?
I can't do an advance search right now.
But, I thought he did in responding to Dan and Stroud.

If so it was the tiniest amount as the video evidence shows a straight stroke and the cue ball rebounding straight across the table.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

He didn't use CTE on this shot. He set up what he thought was a half ball shot, aimed it very carefully without CTE (strictly center-to-edge with no pivot), overcut it and made it.

Since he thought it was a perfect half ball shot, why did he overcut it just enough to make it? Because he unknowingly chose the cut angle his subconscious told him was the real angle - even though he was consciously trying to line up center-to-edge, the easiest alignment in pool to get right.

So what does this mean about how CTE "visuals" work? It means that Stan unknowingly subconsciously adjusts his aim for the simplest alignment, but wants us to believe he's certain he doesn't do that when "acquiring the visual" from a much more complex (and undefined) "visual combination" of two alignments.

pj
chgo

It doesn't mean that at all. If anything it means the exact opposite.

He lines up a shot that he consciously says is a half ball but his subconscious "shot picture" knows it isn't so a little spin is added to make the shot.

Then he goes on to line up the same shot using CTE and nails it with a straight stroke as well as the subsequent shots aimed with CTE.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

He didn't use CTE on this shot. He set up what he thought was a half ball shot, aimed it very carefully without CTE (strictly center-to-edge with no pivot), overcut it and made it.

Since he thought it was a perfect half ball shot, why did he overcut it just enough to make it? Because he unknowingly chose the cut angle his subconscious told him was the real angle - even though he was consciously trying to line up center-to-edge, the easiest alignment in pool to get right.

So what does this mean about how CTE "visuals" work? It means that Stan unknowingly subconsciously adjusts his aim for the simplest alignment, but wants us to believe he's certain he doesn't do that when "acquiring the visual" from a much more complex (and undefined) "visual combination" of two alignments.

pj
chgo

And this statement from you is particularly silly considering how often you have said video proves nothing.

Unless it shows something you thing proves your point then video is useful as evidence right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[ENGLISH!]

Rick, this just gonna go on in circles.
Might as well drop it .
I don't know who is right or wrong .
No video will prove it so it's not going to get settled.

I agree about video not settling anything in the abstract realm nor regarding physical things that are simply too small to be definitively 'defined' by that type of video.

That is just another reason to point that out to those that may not know that & perhaps help them to not become a victim of 'propaganda' even if it may be well intended.

Which is what sit now seems that some want with an 'US ONLY' Sub Forum.

What you suggest is to simply let the obstinateness on that side of the discussion to prevail.

It's not ALL about convincing those that participle or troll the discussion.

It's about not letting those out there in the silent majority not be misled by incorrect & inaccurate assertions, implications or suggestions, again even if well intended.

I just put that out & JB chose to not respond in an intelligent & genuine manner.

That's on him & whoever else that does likewise.

I think the general readership & silent majority are quite capable of making their own determinations when they see both sides.

Too often too many forget about ALL of those out there that do not participate in the forums but instead only read that can possibly be influenced.

It's those that I am more concerned about than the main 'characters' that participate here.

The thing is that I have backed off to an extent because I more readily ignore the trolls.

Thanks for your concern though & I understand from where you're coming.

Best Wishes,
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

He didn't use CTE on this shot. He set up what he thought was a half ball shot, aimed it very carefully without CTE (strictly center-to-edge with no pivot), overcut it and made it.

Since he thought it was a perfect half ball shot, why did he overcut it just enough to make it? Because he unknowingly chose the cut angle his subconscious told him was the real angle - even though he was consciously trying to line up center-to-edge, the easiest alignment in pool to get right.

So what does this mean about how CTE "visuals" work? It means that Stan unknowingly subconsciously adjusts his aim for the simplest alignment, but wants us to believe he's certain he doesn't do that when "acquiring the visual" from a much more complex (and undefined) "visual combination" of two alignments.

pj
chgo

This speaks to why those of us that were more testing it regarding objectivity sent the balls where the objective visual aligns them, because we executed objectively & did not allow or use our individual subjective perceptions to come into play.

I know you 'know' this. I just said it for others.

 

[DTL]

...................

 

[ENGLISH!]

If so it was the tiniest amount as the video evidence shows a straight stroke and the cue ball rebounding straight across the table.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

John,

That video 'evidence' would very most probably never be allowed entered in a court of law.

AND what you did with it was sort of like what statisticians can do with 'statistics'. Which is basically make them seem to say what ever they want them to seem to say.

Yet you want to refer to it as 'evidence'.

Could you definitively tell from that 'evidence' if Stan hit the cue ball 2 to 3 millimeters off center in either direction.

A truthful answer is... No, one can not tell that hardly at all, much less definitively. Hence... no evidence.

Best Wishes.

 

[Koop]

You ever take a crap and while you're wiping, the toilet paper rips and you get crap all over your hand?
I hate when that happens.

 

[jojopiff]

You ever take a crap and while you're wiping, the toilet paper rips and you get crap all over your hand?
I hate when that happens.

This is the only thing I've understood this whole thread. I sometimes think I can play pool a little, but when I read through these aiming things I find out I have NO CLUE how I do the things I do.

 

[philly]

This is the only thing I've understood this whole thread. I sometimes think I can play pool a little, but when I read through these aiming things I find out I have NO CLUE how I do the things I do.

Approaching 1900 posts. Let's go outside and watch the grass grow.

 

[Tramp Steamer]

This is the only thing I've understood this whole thread. I sometimes think I can play pool a little, but when I read through these aiming things I find out I have NO CLUE how I do the things I do.

Neither do the other two. They do, however, know how to sell their merchandise to unsuspecting players like Cookie Monster.
And, after all, isn't that what it's all about? :smile: