What does define mean to you?
Niels Feijen's approach to aiming with and without side spin
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
Did he wear glasses or have 20-10 vision?
So are you saying he was able to link an equal and opposite 64th on the CB to the one on the OB and do it with incredible repeating accuracy?
All of a sudden there's no chirping from the naysayer group and it's accepted as gospel. Well, I guess it must be true.
I can't believe it didn't take off like wildfire and become the "standard" for aiming because it was obviously mathematically and geometrically correct.
The reason why you don't know how much accuracy he actually achieved and lost touch with him is because 3 months after doing this until present day he's been confined to an insane asylum!
What aiming system is marketed as a cure all? I try to keep up with the various offerings and can't recall that any of them have ever been marketed as a cure all for playing pool. Also I am not sure that I agree that most shots in rotation are hit with spin but even if they are which would be likely to be easier? Having a baseline that you know is correct to adjust from for spin or just guessing at what feels right?
I ask this because of the following demonstration I was part of with a pool playing attorney doing the filming. I witnessed, as part of the instruction, a professional player demonstrating the effectiveness of an aiming system whereby a difficult shot was set up with a difficult position route. This player then proceeded to take several cues from el cheapo to nice custom with wood shaft to carbon fiber and make the shot and get position while explaining precisely how he aimed using the aiming system and how and why he was calculating and applying the required spin. With all three cues he either made the shot first try or nailed it within two tries. And the shots he missed were within less than a quarter ball. With this aiming system that was demonstrated the professional player was able to get his alignment and aim standing up and judge the amount and type of spin/speed needed and then drop in on the shot with the tip addressing the ball at the desired position.
While I agree that deflection/squirt/throw all come into play with the use of sidespin I do not agree that the use of sidepsin is always a feel thing and that the differences between modern cues is so great that a competent player cannot fairly quickly compensate if needed. I will also agree that no player would ever want to try to play a match being handed a different cue for each shot. However I do think that this would be an interesting experiment to set up some patterns and drills and let a high level player try to run those patterns/drills using a different cue each shot as well as attempts using one cue for the whole run and repeat that with different cues and compare the results shot by shot to see where the cueball and object balls went.
As Mike Page is fond of saying more data is always better. When a top player states that they do in fact use an aiming system (not GB) with almost every shot they shoot do you think that they are deliberately lying to the public? Are they self-deluded and not really using the aiming method that they claim to be using even though they say they are consciously aware and following a clear set of instructions?
Regarding Backhand english, I fully and totally disagree, it works like any other application of spin, by choosing the right aim, speed and spin for the shot being addressed. Backhand english is not better or worse in terms of making the ball react the way the shooter wants it too. Just the steps to apply spin are different. The cue ends up in practically the same relationship to the cue ball when the shooter has correctly judged/adjusted for the spin and speed. I know this because I have done the experiments to validate it. However I am open to changing my mind if anyone can provide convincing proof to the contrary.
While there are variables I don't think that they are so great as to not be overcomeable without too much effort. A competent player and especially a professional level player can adapt to table conditions fairly quickly in my experience. A player of my speed has more trouble but not insurmountable to the point that I would play 50 fargo points lower just because of the table and other conditions. Again this is based on my experience and would clearly need data gleaned form some form of repeatable experimentation. In fact, I might have almost the perfect way to test this. My friend has a pool instruction facility called The Pool Dojo in Oklahoma CIty with four different tables.
Good Lord
Doesn't poology purport to give a definition for any shot that goes directly to a pocket? From what I can tell Brian is calling out a fractional overlap HIT for any open table shot using his method. Certainly he is saying that the method works for well more than a "few" shots.
To me if a shot is presented and someone says something like A1-B2=3/4 hit and that produces the correct aiming to lay down on the shot line then that shot is "defined" for the purposes of accuracy. "With Poolology you determine which fractional aim will pocket the ball, then you shoot the cb directly at that aim point." this indicates that it works for all shots or at least a pretty large spectrum of shots.
Can you explain how Brian is wrong in your opinion and why?
Last edited:
If a post that has nothing to do with CTE is going to be nudged in a pro CTE direction, then I think it is also fair for detractors of the system to nudge the thread back. Or all mentions of CTE can be removed from the thread.
If I were you, I'd go there and quit being an aiming system junkie.
I'd fix the chicken wing and stab stroke .
I'd shoot hundreds and hundreds of balls and have him help you fix your stance and stroke.
If someone showed me the 5-point alignment and SPF 25 years ago, I wouldn't have wasted 2 decades+ of shooting when I still had good vision.
Last edited:
I think you are absolutely right, Mr.Howerton.
There needs to be absolutely no more CTE posting or cheerleading in here. It only leads to flame wars. I tried staying away for a year just to see if things might change after Stan's book release, but I see now that the idea was futile.
I have just been designated by JC as a "follower of a parasite called CTE that has infected a perfectly good thread"
Stan was right when he stopped posting here for good. I had a slight bit more faith in the dignity of human nature, but I see it was foolish.
CTE followers and CTE detractors will never get along......and they all will certainly be happy to see no more of my yapping about it. I give up.
If I were you I'd leave me alone. Every time this subject comes around and I am posting you are nipping at my heels. Fix yourself and don't worry about what I am doing. I can ask questions and explore topics without your yapping that adds NOTHING to any of these conversations. Go talk cues and be useful in an area that you know something about.
Don't give up but just be cognizant that if we don't want "them" to destroy CTE threads with GB talk then we should not inject CTE talk into their GB threads.
I posted several videos that disagree with Niels' claims by content creators who are well respected. We can post information that pertains to the topic without making it a CTE vs. whatever conversation.
I personally feel that Niels using GB is perfectly fine and shows that a person can absolutely reach world class skill without the use of anything else. I also agree with him that there is no magic pill. No one has stated that there IS a magic pill. I don't agree with him that aiming systems other than GB have no value. I don't agree with the premise that if a top pro says they use GB then that's "valid" but if a top pro says they use something else like shaft aiming for example then that is somehow not valid.
You know some use ghost ball template to hone in their system that's not supposed to involve contact points or ghost ball ? Some guru would be all over that if he were still around.
But, this is NIELS' thread .
Let's help him get to 10K subscribers .
But, this is NIELS' thread .
Let's help him get to 10K subscribers .
no this is NOT Niels' thread. This is a thread in the aiming forum where a poster posted a link to a video about aiming. Yes, ghost ball templates are very good tools for learning how to aim.
Still hangs on the defacto implication if not exactly outright assertion that the added complexity of um, lets call it the CTE lattice, is an improvement to how pool is done if not pool itself.
That's about as wished and washed as I can think for now.
For you not for us. We are clear that cte is an improvement for aiming in pool. Since aiming is a part of pool then by default pool is improved when any method that improves results is added to the toolbox.
I don´t wanna bash anything but how did Neils help people aim? IMO he said "suck it up and practice" Even his ghost ball tip was not accurate. You have to compensate for collision included throw. Other videos his channel are mostly really good.
I liked his approach when not use english but those are obvious to anyone who played pool little more than beginner.
I liked his approach when not use english but those are obvious to anyone who played pool little more than beginner.
Perhaps to the haphazard way you might have been aiming. One more CTE thing I find bothersome is as far as I can tell it requires cinching every shot in a very constricting way. There seems to be very little leeway for independent speed, and shot precision ie. the various ratios of shot dynamics that would come up during the course of a game. Correct?
Last edited:
The clip seems to be directed at the novice player. For all it's flaws, ghostball will get a novice shooting the cue ball on a straight line.
I don't find that to be the case. All of the speed and spin and stroke techniques are still available and valid. If you can describe some specific situations where you think cte is detrimental then I can take them to the table and see how much effort is required to achieve the results you describe.