But when a great player says he does use systems then what? Is that not as equally valid as a player saying he doesn't use any systems?
I mean the choice when learning to play IS NOT binary. It's not an either/or situation.
It is literally a Bruce Lee situation, take what works and discard the rest. If you get all that you need to succeed out of just hitting balls then great. If you don't then perhaps any number of methods can help you get what you need.
What is binary is the attitude that objective methods of aiming are somehow detrimental to a person's game. The idea that if you start down the road of exploring and adopting an aiming system that you will never become a good player much less a champion caliber player. Because that is really the message here that the hit-a-million-ballls crowd is promoting. For them it's literally an either/or tradeoff and that simply isn't true.
Then there are the absolutists whose platform seems to be along the lines of everything there is to know about human physiology and neurology is known and thus they are absolutely certain that aiming systems are nothing more than subconscious feel dressed up in an overly complicated set of instructions. The absolutists claim that any benefit derived from the study and use of aiming systems is purely incidental and not objectively related to aiming at all. They like to paint system users as self deluded. If the system user is not a champion then they are attributing any claimed improvement to the system when in fact they might be making more shots because the system has improved their pre-shot routine and not their aim. If the system user is a champion already then the standard line from the absolutists is that that person did not need an aiming system to be a champion and that they were just using a psychological crutch. Absolutists also cling to the 2d math and say if a method cannot be drawn (by an aiming system user) in 2d with an equation attached to it then it cannot be objective or valid.
Pretty odd to me that they are absolutely willing to believe the "I just hit balls and got to world class" origin story but the "I use an objective set of instructions to bring me to the shot line" story is not valid. I mean it's not as if someone is claiming to have built a house using a wet paper towel roll as a hammer.
So yeah, the ENTIRE purpose of this thread seems to me to be to dissuade people from learning and trying aiming systems because allegedly a pro player said he doesn't use any.
Well......the highest rated player on the planet, Shane Van Boening, not only uses an aiming system but he also teaches it on his instructional video series. So I guess for now, until Albin goes above him we have to all agree that aiming systems are the way to become a champion using the appeal to authority fallacy.......
Or.....Albin is world class and Shane is world class and show two pathways to becoming world class...
I mean the choice when learning to play IS NOT binary. It's not an either/or situation.
It is literally a Bruce Lee situation, take what works and discard the rest. If you get all that you need to succeed out of just hitting balls then great. If you don't then perhaps any number of methods can help you get what you need.
What is binary is the attitude that objective methods of aiming are somehow detrimental to a person's game. The idea that if you start down the road of exploring and adopting an aiming system that you will never become a good player much less a champion caliber player. Because that is really the message here that the hit-a-million-ballls crowd is promoting. For them it's literally an either/or tradeoff and that simply isn't true.
Then there are the absolutists whose platform seems to be along the lines of everything there is to know about human physiology and neurology is known and thus they are absolutely certain that aiming systems are nothing more than subconscious feel dressed up in an overly complicated set of instructions. The absolutists claim that any benefit derived from the study and use of aiming systems is purely incidental and not objectively related to aiming at all. They like to paint system users as self deluded. If the system user is not a champion then they are attributing any claimed improvement to the system when in fact they might be making more shots because the system has improved their pre-shot routine and not their aim. If the system user is a champion already then the standard line from the absolutists is that that person did not need an aiming system to be a champion and that they were just using a psychological crutch. Absolutists also cling to the 2d math and say if a method cannot be drawn (by an aiming system user) in 2d with an equation attached to it then it cannot be objective or valid.
Pretty odd to me that they are absolutely willing to believe the "I just hit balls and got to world class" origin story but the "I use an objective set of instructions to bring me to the shot line" story is not valid. I mean it's not as if someone is claiming to have built a house using a wet paper towel roll as a hammer.
So yeah, the ENTIRE purpose of this thread seems to me to be to dissuade people from learning and trying aiming systems because allegedly a pro player said he doesn't use any.
Well......the highest rated player on the planet, Shane Van Boening, not only uses an aiming system but he also teaches it on his instructional video series. So I guess for now, until Albin goes above him we have to all agree that aiming systems are the way to become a champion using the appeal to authority fallacy.......
Or.....Albin is world class and Shane is world class and show two pathways to becoming world class...
