Regarding John Schmidt being convinced by a friend that "it works".

ENGLISH!

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Whatever method of aiming, sighting, aligning, etc. that one is implementing as an aid, it is just that... an aid.

The phrase of "it works" can be very misleading.

AND John Schmidt is saying such based seemingly only on what his friend has told him & because he trusts his friend. To me, that is a very 'dangerous' 2nd. hand hear say endorsement for a Professional Player to make. Especially when put in conjunction with the description of 'an objective aiming system'. If it were truly 'an objective aiming system', then why would not every Pro be using it? It's been around long enough.

When cavity back golf irons came out, it took awhile, but eventually virtually every Pro (save Tiger) went to hitting cavity back irons because they truly are more forgiving of a mishit, similar to what LD shafts are.

Basically what John Schmidt said should be disregarded & translated to the fact of the matter which is that bwally says that "it works" & take any of the credibility of John Schmidt OFF of the statement of "it works", at least until he tests the method & understands the implications of how it is described, especially since it is said to be 'an objective aiming system'. The 'it works' implies that it is 'an objective aiming system' that works. I will explain why that simply can NOT be.

Regardless of what method one is using, it is the individual of whom it should be said that 'works'. It is the individual & his or her mind & body that is working well... or not.
When any shot is at hand, it is up to the individual to determine what line they will use for that particular shot. That process is subjective & not objective. Many if not most & perhaps even all are incapable of keeping their subconscious mind completely out & turned off when performing any physical operation. Some may be capable of sending a message to their subconscious mind in a redirection of sorts by defining the goal more precisely.

Anyway...

Since there are 90* of each quadrant of the cue ball & the object ball that is 90 possible lines that are EXTREMELY close to one another that can come up for any given shot & that is NOT even taking into account the half degrees between those 90 which would bring it up to 180 possible shot lines.
To think that any method (or system) would be capable of DICTATING exactly which of those lines is the precise & actual one & with a built in slight over cut to counter collision induced throw to take the ball to center pocket & to also do that for all of the single & multiple rail bank shots, etc. is simply illogical.

Hence what methods can be usedfor is to attempt to narrow down that number of subjective choices to an amount that allows one's subconscious mind to make a more simplified "determination" selected from less options.

As stated before, that "determination" is subjective.

So... does fractional do that better than ghost ball? Perhaps but a subjective determination is still required.

Does fractional with a slight parallel shift to either side & a pivot back to center provide a means of arriving at a smaller sub set than fractional alone? Perhaps, but a "subjective determination" is still required.

Does adding a different line like center CB to the edge of the OB to fractional along with that parallel offset & pivot back to center provide a means of arriving at a smaller sub set than just fractional alone? NO! & a subjective determination is still required.

Would adding the cte line get one into a very slightly different starting position than just fractional alone? Yes... but so what? A "subjective determination" is still required.

Now, please keep in mind those 90 or 180 possible required lines for all of the different shots & how EXTREMELY close one is the the next one, possibly 1/2 degree & the distance between them from the shooter's perspective gets less & less as the angle increases & the actual contact point moves more onto the outside of the OB as the angle of cut required increases.

Does ANYONE really think that there is ANY system that a normal human being would be capable of implementing in any kind of an "objective" manner while keeping their subjective subconscious mind out of the picture & not play a part in the "determination" of the final shot line that one would ultimately use. The "determination" process is subjection. That is... unless EVERY option is covered by some totally objective indicator.

Just food for thought for anyone interested that may be thinking that there is anything that might be any kind of a true 'objective system'.
 
Last edited:
Allen Brown said:
Let it go........please.
Click to expand...

Why?

Do you encourage using an inaccurate description to entice individuals to something that does NOT exist?

Please explain where what I have said here is inaccurate or..

please explain your reasoning as to why you are asking me to NOT tell the truth?

Did you even read my post or did you make a knee jerk reaction for other reasons other than the truth of matters?

If God Almighty made an obvious inaccurate statement I would point that out.

Everyone makes mistakes. Even Einstein made mistakes & when he did he readily admitted them upon recognizing them, even when it cost him two(2) years of his work on the subject.

If I am 'off base', please explain in a rational & logical manner how so.

Best Wishes for You & Yours.

PS To others: Here is another increase in my post count that is in "reply". Please do not tally it against my post count?
 
Last edited:
Logic or no logic, CTE absolutely works.

I'm glad you're not using it. I'm going to start relying on the haters to stay in the dark. I'd rather you not become a better player. It's minds like yours that set the game back.
 
ENGLISH! said:
If I am 'off base', please explain in a rational & logical manner how so.
Click to expand...

The fact that you had to create a thread when this very easily could (and should) have been posted in the John Schmidt says CTE Works... thread. Just shows me that you are not capable of logic or rational thought.


If you are really this starved for attention, I suggest you spend more time with your wife. If she can stand you.
 
fathomblue said:
Logic or no logic, CTE absolutely works.

I'm glad you're not using it. I'm going to start relying on the haters to stay in the dark. I'd rather you not become a better player. It's minds like yours that set the game back.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard the phrase "Ignorance is Bliss"? Why is it that anyone that sees the reality of what it is is called a 'hater'. Why is it that it seems that nearly EVERY proponent resorts to name calling & insults instead of giving ANY rational logical explanation to support what they BELIEVE.

No one is saying that one can not play very well while utilizing it.

Knowing the truth about it can be an aid to some & I would say most.

Knowing the truth about it might actually hurt the placebo effect that some may be operating under. That's actually a danger that I am concerned about.

Why would one want a supposed 'system' to take the credit for their good play?

It's a tool, an aid, that one has to subjectively implement.

No one is telling you or anyone else to abandon it because you can't play well utilizing it.

It is just NOT as it is described to be & to think so is totally illogical.

But if you want to do that, then that is fine for you...

but you or no one else should be 'telling' others that it is something that it is not.

That's just not kosher.

Can you imagine a Dr. having a pill that is a placebo pill that will let them think they are being cured & the Dr. makes the decision to give the patient the placebo without telling the patient that it's not the pill that is curing them but instead, it is the non truth, that it's the pill curing them, that is in their head that is curing them.

The patient doesn't really care as long as they are being cured.

But that Dr. should not go around & say that he has a pill that can cure because it is not & will NOT work for everyone.

Instead he should say, look I have this pill & it might be able to cure you but ONLY if you believe that it will. If you know the reality of it, it will not work either at all or at least maybe not as well.

You seem to be a patient that is being cured by the belief... but... there are those that can't get the placebo pill to work for them because they see the reality of it. For them the delusion is missing because they see & understand the reality.

Best Wishes & Keep Shooting Well.
 
Last edited:
BeiberLvr said:
The fact that you had to create a thread when this very easily could (and should) have been posted in the John Schmidt says CTE Works... thread. Just shows me that you are not capable of logic or rational thought.


If you are really this starved for attention, I suggest you spend more time with your wife. If she can stand you.
Click to expand...

The rules make it nearly impossible for me to respond to you in a post.
 
Last edited:
You're either clinically insane or the greatest AZB troll of all-time. You talk in circles with zero proof. I practice the method at the table and get stronger every week.

The fact that you're scared of a "placebo" speaks volumes.

I honestly think you're scared of success and having to admit that you are wrong.
 
fathomblue said:
You're either clinically insane or the greatest AZB troll of all-time. You talk in circles with zero proof. I practice the method at the table and get stronger every week.

The fact that you're scared of a "placebo" speaks volumes.

I honestly think you're scared of success and having to admit that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

If you think I am clinically insane & you are not, then PLEASE provide a rational & logical explanation that supports the description that it is 'an objective aiming system'?

You can not because it is not.

That IS reality.

The FACT that you can not see that or understand that is what it is...

but is NOT rational & not logical.

Rational & logical usually go along with sanity.

Irrational & illogical & refusal to face reality I think are matters that are more closely associated with insanity.

Look at what you said, "I practice the method at the table and get stronger every week."

Systems don't need practice & especially objective systems.

The reason that you are getting better with practice is the exact same reason that anyone gets better with practice implementing any subjective task with any subjective aid or method.

Their subjective ability improves with time learned trial & error & successes & failures.

Your subconscious will learn through experience what the shot picture is supposed to look like based on that subjectively time learned 'visual intelligence' & will begin to start recognizing what the correct shot pictures are.

Set up a difficult shot & shoot it ten times. If it is an objective system you should make all ten. In fact you should never miss.

Do your eyes work for one attempt & then not the next?

Do you miss certain shots & then the more you shoot them you start making them.

Nothing new there.

Just yesterday. When I was just hitting balls with not much focus. I'd miss a shot & then set it up again & shoot it. I 'never' miss if I can shoot a shot a second time.

This post is a reply to basically being called insane. Please do not tally it against my post total?
 
ENGLISH! said:
Whatever method of aiming, sighting, aligning, etc. that one is implementing as an aid, it is just that... an aid.

The phrase of "it works" can be very misleading.

AND John Schmidt is saying such based seemingly only on what his friend has told him & because he trusts his friend. To me, that is a very 'dangerous' 2nd. hand hear say endorsement for a Professional Player to make. Especially when put in conjunction with the description of 'an objective aiming system'. If it were truly 'an objective aiming system', then why would not every Pro be using it? It's been around long enough.

When cavity back golf irons came out, it took awhile, but eventually virtually every Pro (save Tiger) went to hitting cavity back irons because they truly are more forgiving of a mishit, similar to what LD shafts are.

Basically what John Schmidt said should be disregarded & translated to the fact of the matter which is that bwally says that "it works" & take any of the credibility of John Schmidt OFF of the statement of "it works", at least until he tests the method & understands the implications of how it is described, especially since it is said to be 'an objective aiming system'. The 'it works' implies that it is 'an objective aiming system' that works. I will explain why that simply can NOT be.

Regardless of what method one is using, it is the individual of whom it should be said that 'works'. It is the individual & his or her mind & body that is working well... or not.
When any shot is at hand, it is up to the individual to determine what line they will use for that particular shot. That process is subjective & not objective. Many if not most & perhaps even all are incapable of keeping their subconscious mind completely out & turned off when performing any physical operation. Some may be capable of sending a message to their subconscious mind in a redirection of sorts by defining the goal more precisely.

Anyway...

Since there are 90* of each quadrant of the cue ball & the object ball that is 90 possible lines that are EXTREMELY close to one another that can come up for any given shot & that is NOT even taking into account the half degrees between those 90 which would bring it up to 180 possible shot lines.
To think that any method (or system) would be capable of DICTATING exactly which of those lines is the precise & actual one & with a built in slight over cut to counter collision induced throw to take the ball to center pocket & to also do that for all of the single & multiple rail bank shots, etc. is simply illogical.

Hence what methods can be used, is to attempt to narrow down that number of subjective choices to an amount that allows one's subconscious mind to make a more simplified "determination" selected from less options.

As stated before, that "determination" is subjective.

So... does fractional do that better than ghost ball? Perhaps but a subjective determination is still required.

Does fractional with a slight parallel shift to either side & a pivot back to center provide a means of arriving at a smaller sub set than fractional alone? Perhaps, but a "subjective determination" is still required.

Does adding a different line like center CB to the edge of the OB to fractional along with that parallel offset & pivot back to center provide a means of arriving at a smaller sub set than just fractional alone? NO! & a subjective determination is still required.

Would adding the cte line get one into a very slightly different starting position than just fractional alone? Yes... but so what? A "subjective determination" is still required.

Now, please keep in mind those 90 or 180 possible required lines for all of the different shots & how EXTREMELY close one is the the next one, possibly 1/2 degree & the distance between them from the shooter's perspective gets less & less as the angle increases & the actual contact point moves more onto the outside of the OB as the angle of cut required increases.

Does ANYONE really think that there is ANY system that a normal human being would be capable of implementing in any kind of an "objective" manner while keeping their subjective subconscious mind out of the picture & not play a part in the "determination" of the final shot line that one would ultimately use. The "determination" process is subjection. That is... unless EVERY option is covered by some totally objective indicator.

Just food for thought for anyone interested that may be thinking that there is anything that might be any kind of a true 'objective system'.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we know already. We just had a 26 page thread about it.
 
Troll, Troll, Troll, Your Boats.

More of the same from SOME of the CTE antagonistic Crowd.
I've been lambasted for being repetitive & accused of disrupting threads even when my posts are on the topic, which is CTE.
But the Mode of Operation for this group is to disrupt threads by avoiding making any post with any substance at all.
They 'only' make posts with personal slurs, insults, disparagements, etc. with the only intention of such posts being to...
antagonize their target in order to try to get an emotional reaction from their target.

That is one definition of a troll & it is rather perverted IMHO. It is these proponents doing the same things over & over & over again.
Personal 'attacks' with no rational logical explanation to support their position that "IT" is 'an objective aiming system'.
The reason is because they do not have such an explanation because "IT" is not as described.
Hence the personal 'attacks' are their only means to attempt to defend their position. Attack the individual so as to try to discredit them & with it what they are saying because that is all that they have. They can provide no substance to support their position.

I think their mode of operation should be rather telling to ALL of the unbiased neutral individuals.

It is these individuals that are attempting & looking to get another member banned. I think it is them & this type of behavior that should be banned. But, they continue it because virtually no action is taken against them because an individual post may not break any rule...

but it basically amounts to stalking of the individual & if not 'discouraged' by management they will continue.

If the civil harmony that management desires is to truly come into existence & be maintained, I think it is the type of behavior of these individuals that management should 'discourage'.

Perhaps then that civil harmony might actually & really come into existence. But, I certainly know how difficult moderating these forums can be & especially when others know how to skirt the rules in their individual posts to make reporting them unproductive as nothing can be done. But... the spirit of that desired civil harmony is certainly being broken by these individuals & the 'stalking' that they do.

Many liked & many rather hated John Barton, but in some instances he was right that the lack of man power regarding the moderation of AZB is certainly one of the down sides of the site that is in need of improvement.

Mr. Wilson has a thankless 'job' for which he receives no reward. He does the best that he can. It's NOT any fault of his. It's just the nature of the beast & he needs help to sufficiently handle the task at hand.
 
Last edited:
Tony_in_MD said:
Mark this date and time down fans!

This has to be Ricks shortest post ever.


:thumbup:
Click to expand...

No, YOU ARE WRONG... AGAIN. That seems to be a very very common occurrence for YOU.

Just like you seem to be wrong about CTE. But I am not sure about that as I can not recall you ever making ANY definitive substantive statements regarding the subject even though you have made many many posts in threads on the subject.

Anyway, I've made many posts much much shorter than the one that you quoted for your trolling purpose.

Other than you being so wrong, so frequently often, about so many matters & topics, I am also sorry for you that your attention span also seems to be limited. Perhaps THAT is why you are so wrong about so many matters so frequently often.

I am fairly sure that there are medications that can treat attention disorders. Perhaps you should seek help in that area before it starts affecting your instructor capabilities if it has not already done so.

You may want to keep an eye on that if the issue is not too far along to prohibit you from doing so. Perhaps you should take someone else along as an observer. It may be time to consider retirement if you are starting to short change you customers.

Not that you are, but I'm just saying. If you have an attention issue as it appears that you might since you are opposed to any writings of any length their may also be some other issues related to an attention disorder that would prohibit you from making a proper analysis.

The fact that you show yourself on here to be so wrong about so many matters like CTE, etc. could be an indication of other issues.

You should perhaps talk to someone that you trust about those possibilities.

With Sincere Concern,
Rick
 
Last edited:
So can we expect even shorter posts in the future?

That would be wonderful. :D

ENGLISH! said:
No, YOU ARE WRONG... AGAIN. That seems to be a very very common occurrence for YOU.

I've made many posts much much shorter than that.

Other than you being so wrong, so frequently often, about so many matters, I am also sorry for you that your attention span also seems to be limited. Perhaps THAT is why you are so wrong about so many matters so frequently often.
Click to expand...
 
Captured before Rick modifies it again.

Perhaps you should reread my post to you concerning CTE.

You might then get a clue. Remember, even Einstein made mistakes.

p.s. one thing I am sure that I am not wrong about is you.




ENGLISH! said:
No, YOU ARE WRONG... AGAIN. That seems to be a very very common occurrence for YOU.

Just like you seem to be wrong about CTE. But I am not sure about that as I can not recall you ever making ANY definitive substantive statements regarding the subject even though you have made many many posts in threads on the subject.

Anyway, I've made many posts much much shorter than the one that you quoted for your trolling purpose.

Other than you being so wrong, so frequently often, about so many matters & topics, I am also sorry for you that your attention span also seems to be limited. Perhaps THAT is why you are so wrong about so many matters so frequently often.

I am fairly sure that there are medications that can treat attention disorders. Perhaps you should seek help in that area before it starts affecting your instructor capabilities if it has not already done so.

You may want to keep an eye on that if the issue is not too far along to prohibit you from doing so. Perhaps you should take someone else along as an observer. It may be time to consider retirement if you are starting to short change you customers.

Not that you are, but I'm just saying. If you have an attention issue as it appears that you might since you are opposed to any writings of any length their may also be some other issues related to an attention disorder that would prohibit you from making a proper analysis.

The fact that you show yourself on here to be so wrong about so many matters like CTE, etc. could be an indication of other issues.

You should perhaps/talk to someone that you trust about those possibilities.
Click to expand...
 
Tony_in_MD said:
So can we expect even shorter posts in the future?

That would be wonderful. :D
Click to expand...

Another completely wrong analysis by you.

Why should you expect shorter posts in the future just because I have also made many short posts.

The topic & the 'audience' rather dictates the need for the length, long or short, of any communication.

Another matter that you seem incapable of understanding.

Perhaps if the length of posts is upsetting to you because you have an attention issue, then perhaps you should just CHOICE to NOT read any such posts.

Or if you are incapable of that kind of self control then as I suggested earlier perhaps you should seek help in those regards.

Since these matters are issues of the mind I would suggest that you discuss them with someone that you trust asap.

Again, With Sincere Concern,
Rick
 
Last edited:
Here ya go:

I have a cut to the left. For this, i have multiple choices for the perception of a shot angle. On virtually all shots, I can toss out all but 2 of those perceptions. For many shots, I can narrow it down to 1 with minimal debate.

Using my body and eyes, I then line up the left edge of the CB with a quadrant line on the left half of the OB. Then I turn my attention to the center of the CB. I line it up with the right edge of the OB.

I then decide to thicken or to thin the cut. Let's say that I want to thicken the cut. So, on this given shot, I now put my focus on the CB. I step into the shot and move my tipinto a quadrant on the right side of the CB. Then I sweep the tip back to the center of the CB.

Take some warm-up strokes. Pause. Backswing. Pause. Stroke thru. Finish.

I have used lines and defined points to perform this shot.

There are various shots that I have no mental reinforcement of making in the past. I use lines and defined points to arrive at what I hope is the correct shot-line. Many times it works. When it doesn't, I simply "sticker it up", using paper reinforcers. Then I go thru the short mental list of perceptions and sweeps. It doesn't take long to all to find the correct one. Then I practice it till I VIRTUALLY can't miss it.

Now, why did I type the last sentence the way I did? Because we are all human. We make errors. STROKE errors. It's why we work on our fundamentals. We also may slide our bridge in at a slight off-angle. Or our footwork may be off. And so on.

There's not much more I can do for you. Your mission is to entertain yourself at the expense of others.

Stan's track record of molding Landon into a multiple-time national champion, not to mention soundly defeating possibly the greatest rotation player of all-time, speaks untold volumes about his method.

You spend your time arguing. I spend mine honing my stroke, fundamentals, and burning in PSR.
 
fathomblue said:
Here ya go:

I have a cut to the left. For this, i have multiple choices for the perception of a shot angle. On virtually all shots, I can toss out all but 2 of those perceptions. For many shots, I can narrow it down to 1 with minimal debate.

Using my body and eyes, I then line up the left edge of the CB with a quadrant line on the left half of the OB. Then I turn my attention to the center of the CB. I line it up with the right edge of the OB.

I then decide to thicken or to thin the cut. Let's say that I want to thicken the cut. So, on this given shot, I now put my focus on the CB. I step into the shot and move my tipinto a quadrant on the right side of the CB. Then I sweep the tip back to the center of the CB.

Take some warm-up strokes. Pause. Backswing. Pause. Stroke thru. Finish.

I have used lines and defined points to perform this shot.

There are various shots that I have no mental reinforcement of making in the past. I use lines and defined points to arrive at what I hope is the correct shot-line. Many times it works. When it doesn't, I simply "sticker it up", using paper reinforcers. Then I go thru the short mental list of perceptions and sweeps. It doesn't take long to all to find the correct one. Then I practice it till I VIRTUALLY can't miss it.

Now, why did I type the last sentence the way I did? Because we are all human. We make errors. STROKE errors. It's why we work on our fundamentals. We also may slide our bridge in at a slight off-angle. Or our footwork may be off. And so on.

There's not much more I can do for you. Your mission is to entertain yourself at the expense of others.

Stan's track record of molding Landon into a multiple-time national champion, not to mention soundly defeating possibly the greatest rotation player of all-time, speaks untold volumes about his method.

You spend your time arguing. I spend mine honing my stroke, fundamentals, and burning in PSR.
Click to expand...

Justin,

Thank you for your attempt to educate me, but I fully understand the procedure.

What you fail to understand is what you are doing is subjective learning based on the use of a method.
You could do the same thing with other methods like Joe Tucker's numbered method. His method even has a way to indicate what numbers should be used.
But, even his method, with more defined 'objective' indicators, in NOT 'an objective aiming system', as it still requires subjective determinations & implementation.
ALL methods so.

Because you believe that it is 'an objective aiming system' you blame any & every miss on some other factor such as a bad stroke or an incorrectly placed bridge hand or your feet being wrong.

What about it being that for that shot the objective visual & chosen pivot does not fit & the ball will not pocket until YOU learn to make the final subjective, probably subconscious, tweak that gets it to fit? That is the same thing that need be done for every other method, when a shot is not a specific fit for its 'objective' indicators.

I know that you only care about yourself & that you're getting better & that's fine... for you.

I am not taking the abuse that I do for entertainment purposes. I am genuinely concerned for the possibly many individuals that might be mislead by the inaccurate description enticing them into something that they think it will be when it not that.

Much as I was for a rather brief time.

I am happy for you that you are improving & are happy with the results.

I also think that anyone that understands that it is not 'an objective aiming system' but instead is a subjective method & still wants to pursue using it should do exactly as they choose.

But... as I said, you nor anyone else should NOT be telling anyone that it is something that it is not.

Language is all that we have with which to communicate & precision of language is how we can keep from conveying matters inaccurately.

You can say that you're shooting really well using the CTE method & that would be accurate.

If you say that CTE is 'an objective aiming system' & it works & I'm shooting really well with it, then that would NOT be an accurate statement.

That second statement could be very misleading to the individual that is hearing you, or others, say that.

I was very intrigued when I heard that description. I was also rather pleasantly surprised when some balls pocketed using it, but I was also very disappointed when balls went no where near the pocket using it. Those put questions in my mind.

A little testing told me that it was not 'an objective aiming system' but instead a method that required one's subjectivity to be in play. I was not interested in another one of them.

The 5 shots perception YouTube Video solidified my findings. Perception is subjective by definition & not objective. If it takes learning to see a different perception of the same objective visual, then THAT is subjectivity & NOT objectivity.

When I was in college, I had an accounting teacher that was a Doctor of Psychology. He must have been a very miserable man as he was insulting students to their faces in language that they did not understand. Well I did a little research to find out exactly what he WAS saying & that is when I learned & understood that he was insulting them in language that they did not understand. If he had used language that freshman & sophomore students understood he would probably have been punched out by a few males & certainly reported by the females.

Language is important. Proper descriptions are important.

Again, I am very Glad for You & Others that are having success with it.
No one here, that I know of, has ever said that that was not possible.

Best Wishes for You & Yours,
Rick

PS I also understand that if the learning protocols & 'curriculum' are followed as laid out that one would be creating a new & different means of seeing the shot pictures that do fit the objective visuals with the pivots & would also be subjectively learning that the shots in between that do not fit & need to be tweaked by moving to a different physical position in order to see a different "perception"... but... there is NOTHING that is "objective" to indicate just where that location is nor that actual shot line... other than one's subjectively learned shot picture(or perception) for those shots. Hence a subjective method of determination.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top