Not seeing any haters. These guys are discussing things they know about, as it should be.
Aiming Metrics
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
- Status
Not seeing any haters. These guys are discussing things they know about, as it should be.
lol.......
Aiming metrics
For Christ sakes just go see stan ,learn CTE PRO ONE an get on with it.
For Christ sakes just go see stan ,learn CTE PRO ONE an get on with it.
I think CTE's metrics are interesting - the use of a two-line comparison (center-to-edge plus edge-to-fraction) is different - and maybe an improvement over other visualizations. Too bad that gets buried in the system's opaque and fanciful "instructions".
Here's a fill-in-the-blanks form for anybody else who wants to plug their favorite system:
You're welcome,
pj
chgo
I agree in large part, although the way I plug my own aim, stance and stroke systems is "My students vastly improve, forever going forward, even after a single lesson."
right back at you lol..............
for whatever reason you decided to make this comment
Well since you asked. I was shaking my head that you can't seem to let a sleeping dog lie. I know exactly what you meant by your comment, which was misguided as usual. :smile:
Or more accurately, he was being pretty restrained, and pretty reasonable. The discourse has been civil, as it should be. Stirring the stuff is where it goes sideways...
This has been a good thread.
My comment was to someone bringing up haters of which there wasn't any in this thread. Pretty refreshing. Your comment was STIRRING THE POT. So do you want to keep this thread on track or keep making your petty comments.
Let me start with this. If you truly meant nothing by your comment, then fine. I'll withdraw my comment.
Having said that, here's where I'm coming from: Anytime anybody tries to have a civil discussion (like this one) about the science behind CTE, one of you guys jumps in with one or more of these tired out insults:
1. It's been explained to you a dozen times already, or
2. You don't know what you are talking about and you should stick to things you know.
Given PJ's history, I believe your comment was meant to say that PJ and Brian and I were discussing things "we know about" unlike CTE, which we no nothing about.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you didn't realize what you were saying. But think about if the shoe were on the other foot. What if Stan and you and mohrt and Spider were discussing CTE and someone said, "Welcome back Stan, ignore the haters." And then I said, "There are no haters. They are discussing things they know about as it should be." Now isn't that a peculiar thing to say? They are discussing things they know about as it should be??? Where does that come from? IMO, it comes from you constantly saying that to PJ and Brian and me relative to CTE, which is uncalled for in this thread. Looks like STIRRING THE POT to me.
Let's end this detour. I'm sure you'll feel the need for another little dig, so have at it. :wink:
No need for a dig but you are wrong. My comment was to Lamas and his hater comment. There were like 2 full pages of discussion with no hater comments so who did he have to ignore. Nobody was jumping in and pissing on PJ, it was a good discussion. I stayed out of the roots of the discussion cause it was not real interesting to me.
PS If Stan, Spider, Mohrt and myself were discussing CTE then yes you should stay away. Our knowledge of it is WAY over your head.
I think your are in denial about why you had to add the phrase "as it should be" but it isn't the end of the world. I've found that most everyone on this forum, including you, is perfectly normal and easy to get along with when the subject is not CTE. That's good enough for me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Aiming metric
All you need to know is CTE PRO ONE and the stop shot stun line.
All you need to know is CTE PRO ONE and the stop shot stun line.
Another little pot shot. Real nice
This is a place for opinions. I think you insulted some people and probably didn't even realize it. You disagree. How about we just leave it at that? It isn't that big of a deal to keep arguing about it.
Yeah, we’ve heard. And the Earth isn’t really round, and Elvis is alive (and an alien).
Thanks for the heads up. Try to get some sleep.
pj
chgo
Put another way: all you need to know is all the info on two DVDs, a forth coming book, and what you learn during a visit with Stan. At least that's what I've heard here forever and the day: Study the DVDs. Wait for the book. Go see Stan.
Lou Figueroa
viola
This is a good thread, despite the creeping in notion that that CTE pro1 is the only thing a player needs.
A player needs to own a specific set of "aiming metrics" as PJ says, PLUS a solid knowledge of cue ball control and shot selection/position play, and the skills to put this knowledge to use.
Aiming probably comprises about a third of what is needed to be a good player. Some would say more, some less. And the aiming metrics used could originate from a variety of different systems, methods, or ideas, each requiring a certain level of experience before consistency is reached when it comes to pocketing balls.
Still, not until the player develops a strong mental game and the skills needed for position play does he or she eventually become a well-rounded player.
A player needs to own a specific set of "aiming metrics" as PJ says, PLUS a solid knowledge of cue ball control and shot selection/position play, and the skills to put this knowledge to use.
Aiming probably comprises about a third of what is needed to be a good player. Some would say more, some less. And the aiming metrics used could originate from a variety of different systems, methods, or ideas, each requiring a certain level of experience before consistency is reached when it comes to pocketing balls.
Still, not until the player develops a strong mental game and the skills needed for position play does he or she eventually become a well-rounded player.
- Status