The topic is radioactive. This so-called “aiming conversation” forum is awash in the proof of that right now - and every time CTE returns. It’s unfair to other aiming topics to be locked in with it.
pj
chgo
A reality check on aiming systems of all kinds
- Thread starter JC
- Start date
pj
chgo
I was making a discerning effort to avoid the whole CTE angle of the conversation. Despite it, I did get pulled in a little...lol.
The idea that we can arrive at the same impact position as CTE or any system or method that gets us there, and that we are somehow wrong, reminds me of the comment by Stephen Wright “If a man says something in the woods and there are no women there, is he still wrong?”
You think you do but there is no way to know.
My center may not be your center. My half tip high or low will most certainly not be your half tip. We're all standing at the table differently and while we will consistently see *our* same picture, there is nothing to suggest it will be identical to anyone else's picture. At the end of the day, we create our own personal reality when it comes to pool.
Lou Figueroa
Well maybe IF the OP didn't go out of his way to knock aiming systems, aiming systems teachers and aiming system users then threads about fundamentals POSTED in an aiming forum wouldn't end up talking about aiming systems. And IF the OP didn't DELIBERATELY target the most talked about system, the very one WHICH HE HAS MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT HE THINKS THAT THE USERS ARE RELIGIOUS ZEALOUTS TOUTING A MAGIC BULLET SNAKE OIL SYSTEM PROMOTED BY A FRAUDULENT PERSON, then it's nearly 100% certain that the thread wouldn't contain anything about that system.
Lou come on. Be real for at 30 seconds in your life. Well before aiming systems came into our lives a standard practice routine was to put a cueball between two balls and to shoot that ball up and down the table and have it rebound right between those balls. The drill is to continually move the balls closer together until the shooter can achieve the task with barely any space for the cueball to pass through. There are tons of ways to test that a player is both sighting and striking the center of the cueball. This is one of those tests because you and I could never achieve the same results if we "see" and subsequently strike a different center.
But as it happens you have actually stumbled onto an important part of objective aiming. The idea of rotating centers or stepping as stan has termed it is quite real and can result in a shooter adopting a center ball approach without that cueball center line being on the right shot line. In this sense although the shooter IS addressing the cueball on a line that would bisect it sending the cueball down that line would be incorrect to have it rebound along the same line. Or in the case of a straight in shot the cueball would not contact the object ball center to center along the center pocket line. This is something that objective CTE visualization pretty much eliminates.
"we create our own personal reality when it comes to pool" is an absurd thing to say. The pool table is a constrained field of play that observes conventional physics and geometry. I don't think that Bob Jewett or Dave Alciatore would agree with you on this. Dave, in particular, does videos where he sets up the parameters such that the ball MUST be sighted and hit exactly in order to show the effect he wants to show. For you and I to complete a task equally on a pool table we must hit the balls at the same angle, the same speed and in the same place.
You are going out of your way to just say ANYTHING to discredit CTE and Stan. Next thing you will say is that you agree with Duckie in his claim that a half-ball hit (and aim) doesn't exist.
Log into Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com
Surprisingly we have two cameras, we call eyes, but only one picture in mind, not two. That fact, lays the foundation for the reality that our inner perception, is a cognitive construction. As Lou succinctly it, we create our own personal reality. The trick is to work with what we’ve got. I use my cue as an extension of myself to reach out and touch things in a predictable way. I also use its rounded surface as an alignment test. Seeing equal amounts of both sides, when viewed from above, has been a criteria for centeredness in my composite reality tunnel. But as Lou reminds us, the idea that we share an identical composite image, is just wishful thinking. Our descriptions, in words, are just encoded attempts to narrate our perceived experiences in a close approximation, a representation of that world. All this is imagineering, projecting remembrances during an interpretation process, seeking understanding. As far as extracting a shared reality, best case is, close but no cigar.
Who has promoted that idea? I will give you $10 for EVERY SINGLE DIRECT QUOTE link to that says this prior to this post if an aiming system instructor, user or cheerleader like me has said it.
I can tell you with 100000000000000000000% certainty that I have never said it or anything anywhere close to that.
What is the right pivot from the latest service pack.
Is it half ball now or is it still half a tip ?
Is it half ball now or is it still half a tip ?
JC
Coos Cues
I utilized my own aiming system to recreate Cory's famous draw shot. If I used any more touches of inside C J would probably be sending me a bill.
Then why do you keep trying to tell us how to aim?
Since the original post here has anyone really directly asked for your help specifically to use CTE aiming for themselves?
Volunteering to fix people doesn’t give you moral high ground to preach from and infers they are broken.
Religious zealots justify their interventions using the same type of reasoning.
Righteousness is not an valid reason, it’s an excuse and denial of any problem with actions.
I wish you all the best, on Facebook.
And yet, we now have the ability for a computer to extract the correct item from different people's brains just by those people thinking of that item. IF we were not able to perceive things in a remarkably similar fashion then it should be impossible for the brain to produce electrical impulses with such similarity that a computer can record one brain's neural activity when thinking of an object and correctly match it to another brain's neural activity when thinking of the same object.
So, with that in mind I completely and totally reject the idea that two different human being are unable to perceive distinct references like centers and edges of pool balls with sufficient similarity as to achieve the same consistent results on the same tasks. Does it matter if they are a tiny fraction of a millimeter different in the actual aim? No, it does not because that is well within the margin of error that allows the task to be completed. Moreover it is so miniscule that the practical effect from the shooter's perspective is one of total objectivity.
Hell we are so SURE that humans are capable of amazing mental feats consistently that we tell them to IMAGINE fully formed balls to align to. This is the most widely distributed instruction for aiming. Which is why it is so confusing that SOME people here want to argue that having several concrete reference points to aid in aiming is actually just as subjective as that imagination method.
The topic is fine. You and several others are the toxicity that ruins these threads. For proof it is SUPER EASY to see the conversations that happen between those truly interested in discussing the CTE aiming method compared to conversations between CTE users and your toxic troll band.
You literally WAIT until something is said that triggers you and can't stop yourself from making a snide remark that derails the thread.
I don't. I explain how I aim if asked. I RESPOND to whatever has been said with my thoughts on what was said. You shared what you do to aim WITHOUT ANYONE ASKING YOU. Not one person said to you, how do you aim, will you teach us and yet you felt compelled to share. I am not in the least bothered by that and look forward to taking your words to the table to try it out. Despite the fact that what you posted ALSO has ZERO bearing on fundamentals I think it was a valuable contribution and worthy of being posted and tried.
I didn't VOLUNTEER to fix anyone. I will give you $100 if you find anywhere that I said that. Read the thread again. The reason I say BET so often is because on here I know exactly what has transpired and am confident in my position. I guess now you're another one of those A****holes who is going to go down the religious zealout insult route. Sad to see that. In case you don't know you are FULLY ABLE TO UNSUBSCRIBE TO ANY THREAD and not see notifications. Why should you care about how long a thread goes? You know full well that this thread was started in bad faith to knock aiming systems and aiming systems users by someone who takes every possible opportunity to do just that. It was not a good faith discussion of fundamentals. Such a thread done in GOOD FAITH could have been posted in the main forum and had good conversation on form and execution. In fact I am pretty sure there already are plenty of threads on AZB discussing exactly that with no mention of aiming systems.
It's unfortunate that when I read your posts on how you aim I really thought you were cool. Now I see that you are simply another knocker.
Either one works just as they have from the beginning. I guess you think that once something is created that it can never be refined?
Pay attention to the part about visual acuity.
Looks pretty damn close to Corey's shot, about as exact as can get.