Exactly, but Stan's terminology for this is "visual intelligence." Makes it sound different from "I know when it looks right."
Cookieman...isn't it almost amazing how that Grouchy Posse trails around after us like a pack of crows?
"caw" "caw" "caw" "caw".
And I would not DARE to post a comment in one of their threads since I have no interest in what they have to say. (Wilson threw my ass out of here once for doing that so I learned to leave them alone).
They cannot control themselves, no doubt about it.
(no way is White going to get one of the books....he (White) has no clue)
.......
.......
There can be 100 threads about aiming that are not about CTE and the CTE users will not go in those threads and talk shit about the other person's aiming system and telling them that they don't work and aren't "objective" and all kinds of shit.
........
.
You are partly correct. CTE users don't go into other aiming threads to say this or that doesn't work. But they sure do come in with little comments like, "All you need is 15, 30, and 45", or "Two or three perceptions make every shot on the table"....
Not true. CTE users say that a 60 is also needed from time to time.
These innocent comments are typically, and I believe purposely, intended as sparks to keep a dying fire burning. All it takes is one little comment and the 20yr bs war is drudged up and pollutes the thread.
Big f*cking deal and who gives a rat's ass?! If the anti naysaying hate group firmly believed the only way to play the game was through math, geometry, and physics, 2D drawings, forces of nature and all the other crap, then shouldn't THEY just STFU and stick to what they know best and promote THAT?!
I'm with you....it's old news, a dead horse, a waste of time to keep tooting the same horn and expecting a different sound.
You know what I was saying. A visual sweep does the same thing as a manual pivot. Problem is that it is misnamed. It is more of a visual fudge than anything.
You are partly correct. CTE users don't go into other aiming threads to say this or that doesn't work. But they sure do come in with little comments like, "All you need is 15, 30, and 45", or "Two or three perceptions make every shot on the table"....
These innocent comments are typically, and I believe purposely, intended as sparks to keep a dying fire burning. All it takes is one little comment and the 20yr bs war is drudged up and pollutes the thread.
I'm with you....it's old news, a dead horse, a waste of time to keep tooting the same horn and expecting a different sound.
Exactly, but Stan's terminology for this is "visual intelligence." Makes it sound different from "I know when it looks right."
It's painfully obvious that you have no intention of ever learning the full system. Your only objective is to try and tear it down. You really should focus on positive things in your life and or just get a life in general.
I do NOT believe that all other aiming systems are bullshit ways to play the game because I've used just about all of them over the years effectively. If there is one I haven't LEARNED or used, there's nothing to say one way or another.
How could there be?
So are YOU saying CTE is old news, a dead horse, a waste of time to keep tooting the same horn and expecting a different sound and THEY (knockers) should STFU already?
If so...NO SH*T!! (but we all know...they'll be back and they'll be back TODAY!)
No one at all came into your last thread
I went into his last thread, watched every thing in it...AND NEVER OPENED MY BIG MOUTH ONCE! (Wilson cured me of that mistake with a ban once)No one at all came into your last thread
I'm not saying CTE is the dead horse.
I'm saying the same ol arguments over its supposed objectiveness, it's phenomena misunderstanding, it's numerology reasoning.....those arguments are like beating a dead horse.
Both sides keep tooting their horns but the tune never changes, all the notes are the same, nothing but noise, old and stagnant, monotonous, pointless noise.
So do you have a solution or are you a part of the problem?
There is no problem, so there is no solution. Two or three quick comments sums it all up....
"It looks thick."
"It looks thin."
"The eyes lead and the body follows."
It's that simple. Pocketing balls is no different than any other hand-eye coordination task. With enough practice you begin to recognize when it "looks" right and when your body "feels" like it's positioned properly to match what you're seeing, whether it's a ghostball, a fractional portion of the ob, contact points, or CTE visuals, perceptions, a "fixed" cb, a halftip offset, etc...
There is no problem, so there is no solution. Two or three quick comments sums it all up....
"It looks thick."
"It looks thin."
"The eyes lead and the body follows."
It's that simple. Pocketing balls is no different than any other hand-eye coordination task. With enough practice you begin to recognize when it "looks" right and when your body "feels" like it's positioned properly to match what you're seeing, whether it's a ghostball, a fractional portion of the ob, contact points, visuals based on ob proportions, any particular perception, a "fixed" cb, a halftip offset, etc...
Brian, not sure I understand exactly. Do you have any sports or musical analogies, perchance? :wink:
Haha. Here's one...
Ever try to return a tennis ball served by a pro player?
Unless you know the visual clues, what/where to look, AND have plenty of experience recognizing and working with those visuals, your body will not do a very good job following your eyes. At first, if you don't even know where to look or what to look for, your racquet won't stand a chance of finding that ball. And then after you finally learn where to look, what to look for, you have to practice recognizing that over and over in order to do it consistently.
Your body reaction is another part of the return serve equation. It takes a lot of practice (after you've reached a point of visual confidence) before you're able to really feel that your body and your racquet are following along accurately in accordance with what your eyes are seeing.
Exactly, but Stan's terminology for this is "visual intelligence." Makes it sound different from "I know when it looks right."
If it's too thick, sweep to the outside.
If it's too thin, sweep to the inside .
Jeesh, you need a system for that ?
And how do you know if it's too thick or too thin ?
Jeesh. HAMB and visualization of the hit .
You know the same way you visualize the carom/tangent line ?