It's obvious to those who can see it. Sorry you're not one of them.but I bet you can't "prove it".
pj
chgo
It's obvious to those who can see it. Sorry you're not one of them.but I bet you can't "prove it".
lol....P.J.
....cute reply.
I would Amazed if, Earl, Alex, Orcullo and thee alike use Any kind of system or ever did.
A baseline of thinking and approach/balance/swing Maybe, but the land of ''hard knocks either knocks you down or you get up and keep at it and learn MORE than a system.
Did Efren learn a system?
I know that Varner got taken under wing by Hubert Cokes in the early 70's, and he had an instructor Hal Nix??
But I never heard of men like, McCready, Rempe, Hopkins etc that learned a system.
I'm not knocking your thinking; I just know that you can only go so far with basic shot execution/thinking system.
As I've said before, I beat Earl in 79 four straight sets of race to 11/roll out nine ball over a 6-7 hr period, and NO one had ever given me any swing system instruction. I've beat Buddy Hall and thee alike, but never understood the game well enought to Always beat em. Once you're in balance and have developed a proper swing and your body weight is right, your able to learn thru trial error and asking questions why I missed/or understanding' 'ball and play condition collisions'' .... when technically.... all the moving parts were systematically correct.
Stan has never said anything indicating that feel when applying sidespin is used and neither have I. What I do say is that the aiming systems that work give the shooter a reliable baseline. And from that baseline the application of spin becomes way easier in my experience.Most of these "popular" aiming systems only account for center ball axis.
The minute you start adding rotations to the Cue ball you are bringing the element of "Feel" into the shot. I'm now talking rotational spin on the CB not where you are actually hitting on the CB. You can hit the CB in the same spot at different speeds and now you have rotational differences. We all know that if you hit the CB soft and put a ton of rotation on the ball and it hits the OB you can throw the ball into a pocket.
I've never seen an aiming method to "throw" a cue ball into the pocket. You spin it to hard you're off, to soft you're off.
On a personal note. I prefer to hit the Cue ball with as much Center Axis as possible. Side spin is a necessary evil.
.....
So it isn't like adding a tip of spin negates the system and makes the aiming process all feel. Quite the opposite, it makes the aiming process very very very deliberate even with the choice to use sidespin.
Yes you can learn through the school of experience.I would Amazed if, Earl, Alex, Orcullo and thee alike use Any kind of system or ever did.
A baseline of thinking and approach/balance/swing Maybe, but the land of ''hard knocks either knocks you down or you get up and keep at it and learn MORE than a system.
Did Efren learn a system?
I know that Varner got taken under wing by Hubert Cokes in the early 70's, and he had an instructor Hal Nix??
But I never heard of men like, McCready, Rempe, Hopkins etc that learned a system.
I'm not knocking your thinking; I just know that you can only go so far with basic shot execution/thinking system.
As I've said before, I beat Earl in 79 four straight sets of race to 11/roll out nine ball over a 6-7 hr period, and NO one had ever given me any swing system instruction. I've beat Buddy Hall and thee alike, but never understood the game well enought to Always beat em. Once you're in balance and have developed a proper swing and your body weight is right, your able to learn thru trial error and asking questions why I missed/or understanding' 'ball and play condition collisions'' .... when technically.... all the moving parts were systematically correct.
Right. So having a reliable no-spin baseline is a better way to develop that feel for spin in my opinion.I agree that adding spin doesn't negate the primary aiming system/process. However, developing a good feel for spin and spin is the only way to consistently know how much to adjust or tweak the aim. And that's a skill that must be developed through experience, regardless of whatever aiming method a player prefers.
Right. So having a reliable no-spin baseline is a better way to develop that feel for spin in my opinion.
And fwiw I am not convinced that there isn't a way to systematically calculate for spin. It's all just variables and the more that a person is aware of the variables the more chance to correctly adjust for them in my opinion.
I mean I could see a possibility of developing a chart that is reliably accurate for combinations of speed and spin and conditions. We each have that chart in our minds to some degree. When we are instructing and we tell the student to use one tip of spin at medium speed we do so because we have an expectation of what that will produce. And knowing that we can and do apply that knowledge in shot situations that we haven't practiced to give ourselves a better chance than blindly guessing.
What we don't typically do is hard code that knowledge into a physical chart whereby the inexperienced user of the chart can use it as needed.
Although some have done so in various ways. Buddy Hall created the clock system whereby he equated specific tips of offset to specify diamonds of position. Others have codified x-amount of speed with x-amounts of travel.
I don't think that anyone has scientifically tested these assertions but I can say confidently that just having something is likely to be better than just guessing.
All technique exists to train the mind and body. If someone somewhere devised/discovered a method that they think works to build skill then it is highly likely that they did so with the best of intentions. This is why I bristle so much at the people who go out of their way to mock systematic approaches to skill building.
Yes, "references", not solutions (unless the solution happens to be a system reference alignment).Aiming systems provide solid references (the good systems anyway) for a vertical axis hit on the cb.
Yes, "references", not solutions (unless the solution happens to be a system reference alignment).
pj
chgo
Yes, "references", not solutions (unless the solution happens to be a system reference alignment).
Really? Take fractional aiming, for instance - how many system alignments do you suppose it defines exactly?And that's a very common occurrence, much more common than most people think.
Are they subjective though?I agree with a lot of this, but not the chart for speed and spin. Cue shaft deflection, tip size and shape, muscle memory, sense of speed, cue delivery, etc.... These are subjective variables that make it nearly impossible for a one-size-fits-all solution to aiming with spin.
Really? Take fractional aiming, for instance - how many system alignments do you suppose it defines exactly?
pj
chgo
Well, when I can show someone a series of steps and their pocketing goes up immediately I conclude that it is the system they are now deliberately and consciously applying.I'm sure believing that is a comfort... that actually helps subconscious aiming.
pj
chgo
Which may mean less feel is involved, but not that feel is eliminated.If the only difference is the application of the system then it's a fair conclusion that the aiming system is the reason that their pocketing percentage went up.
.....
Whether it works because it somehow turns on some ability to pick the right shot line subconsciously that for whatever reason wasn't turned on prior to learning the system is really not relevant.
The important criteria is the results. Can I succeed more often and enjoy playing more when I use the system? If yes then keep using it and have more fun and play more often.
Of course feel is always present. Pool is a tactile sport with pretty high precision requirements. Objective aiming directs feel to where it is most needed in my opinion and that is in the actual delivery of the cue tip to the cue ball.
The flame wars started at RSB/ASB and continued to AZB long before Stan showed up. I said this EXACT thing as did many others back then. Nothing has changed in the intervening 24 years in regard to the flamers and haters. I also didn't make this post in reference to CTE. I made it in reference to objective aiming systems and objective knowledge in general. I am, if nothing else, remarkably consistent on this subject.This is the best and most honest post I've seen when referring to CTE. If Stan had said this 20yrs ago, the whole flame war would've died right then. This is what it all boils down to! It doesn't matter what you or anyone else believes or thinks about how the system works. All that matters is whether or not a player can use it and get better and have more fun playing pool. If they can't, dump it and find something that works better. It's up to the player to find what works best for him or her.
The war will never end because the "feel" proponents, or "anti Stan" opponents, same thing really, will always claim there is a degree of feel involved in pocketing all shots. regardless of the aiming method used. They know no one can possibly prove them entirely wrong, even though they can never prove they are entirely right, well other than the fact that Patrick said so.This is the best and most honest post I've seen when referring to CTE. If Stan had said this 20yrs ago, the whole flame war would've died right then. This is what it all boils down to! It doesn't matter what you or anyone else believes or thinks about how the system works. All that matters is whether or not a player can use it and get better and have more fun playing pool. If they can't, dump it and find something that works better. It's up to the player to find what works best for him or her.