CTE Aiming Video

[RiverCity]

You can't argue with "these people" because you're not talking about the same thing.

There are obviously good shooters who use these systems, and there are undoubtedly terrible shooters who use them. Neither of these facts tell us anything about how they work, which is what we're trying to talk about.

The fact that you and Spiderdave and eezbank and other system users keep bringing up how well people shoot only means that these systems seem to attract people who aren't particularly logical.

pj
chgo

Chuck

 

[JoeyA]

There are three ways that players might be adjusting that I can see.

1. They are making minor bridge hand adjustments in the final stage of preparation. Close focus by the player may indicate if this is true. It can be done subconsciously.

2. Swooping of the shot: Pretty easy to see when this is happening.

3. Non-Mechanical Pivoting: What I mean, is that when they 'see' 'find' the aim line to the center of the cue ball, the process seems based on intuitive influence. That is, the line they select to come into the CB center. (This is a type of adjustment.) If it was systematic, it could be described as an exact system.

I think it is no.3 where all the problems lie. I don't see anything wrong with saying this portion of going to the line (which is sometimes called pivoting to the CB center) has an intuitive aspect. The BEST potters in the world, the elite snooker players do this. They see a line and just address the CB and whack it in.

Perhaps CTE and ETE just helps people improve their ability to intuitively see the line of aim.

btw: I'm more than willing to hear descriptions of how players find this line, especially if it is systematic. A pure static back hand bridge pivot would be systematic (mechanical), but it seems most players use the bridge as a guide, not the exact point of pivot, and spidey air pivots, or air shifts to the line, as I understand.

Colin

Colin,

When you use the word "intuitively" as you did above, could you provide me with the exact definition and context that you are referring to?

Thanks,
JoeyA

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin,

When you use the word "intuitively" as you did above, could you provide me with the exact definition and context that you are referring to?

Thanks,
JoeyA

I'll try my best Joey.

By intuitively, I mean without specific reference to any points, lines or numbers.

I grant it can be a little confusing, because one might say the ghost ball system is a non-intuitive system, in the sense that it is mathematically correct.

However, to imagine the position of the center of the CB and to align the cue, through center CB, to that point requires various skills that require degrees of intuition.

Intuition is a kind of guessing, done without calculation, that occurs somewhat sub-consciously.

Maybe someone else can describe it more clearly.

What it really boils down to is this: That when myself and others follow the system guidelines, our cue does not always (in fact rarely) goes to the exactl line of the shot, unless we make adjustments. These adjustments are intuitive, in so far is we don't base them on any numbers, lines, edges, we judge them purely on what it feels like what is needed to make the shot. That is, we use intuitive adjusments. Similar to what one does using the Contact Point method.

Hope that makes sense. Some of the language we are using is not well defined, or the meanings aren't shared amongst us all. I'm doing the best I can to clarify the concepts.

Colin

btw: I can be conscious of the intuitive adjustment I am making in Contact Point aiming, but some players are not. However, it can be quite obvious in Contact Point, because a fine cut proves it in an instant and the geometry is clear to see. So it's not usually that hard to convince a CP aimer that they are using intuitive adjustments.

However, in CTE, the adjustments can seem insignifant if one has developed a pivoting method that gets them in the ball park. Also, many system users do not accept any geometrical explanation. So those factors combined might explain why they are less prone to recognize an intuitive adjustment in their method.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Then again we need to continue to disagree. Because I think it's less possible that the player, and especially a player with very little skill, can subconsciously make a large adjustment to automatically "find" the right aiming line WHEN they could not do so without using an aiming system.

What I mean by this is if you set up a shot and tell a beginner to shoot it in the hole and they are missing it by quite a bit, way over cutting, way undercutting, and it takes them many tries just to get close then that shows that this particular person needs a lot of time to consciously find the correct line.

Do the same thing with another beginner of similar skill but give them an aiming system and they either make it or get very close each time.

In the second situation I could definitely accept the idea that the aiming system gets the person to the right corridor and then finer, possibly subconscious (for better players) adjustments might take place.

All this is just another way of saying the same thing: you think these systems are capable of making all or most shots without adjustment. You're wrong and that has been proven - you just don't understand the proof.

So here is the crux Pat. You say that you really WANT to to know how these things work. You say that there MUST be some kind of adjustment.

So help to figure out where that adjustment is happening. Do a video and show us where it's happening.

I mean honestly you saying that there is adjustment without showing how it works is the same as the aiming system people who claim that the system works automagically.

I mean you know enough about these systems that you could do a video and follow the system instructions and provide a narrative as to what you perceive and what you see and provide real life demonstration of what happens when you do it and what your conclusion is.

In Dave's video we couldn't see that he was following the system without significant subconscious adjustment; we only saw him making shots and telling us that was so. To add value a video has to show how shots are made, not just show that they're made. How do you propose I do that?

Wouldn't that be much stronger than the "paper wars" we fight here?

If you can tell me how to show what we're trying to learn, yes. Otherwise it's a waste of time. Spiderdave's video was a waste of time, except to his considerable ego.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You can't argue with "these people" because you're not talking about the same thing.

There are obviously good shooters who use these systems, and there are undoubtedly terrible shooters who use them. Neither of these facts tell us anything about how they work, which is what we're trying to talk about.

The fact that you and Spiderdave and eezbank and other system users keep bringing up how well people shoot only means that these systems seem to attract people who aren't particularly logical.

Chuck

And they don't seem to know what a strawman argument is either.

pj
chgo

 

[RiverCity]

Originally posted by Patrick Johnson
...Adjustments are the other side of the coin for these systems - apparently you don't know there is another side, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Reality isn't limited by what you know.....

...LOL. In other words, you don't listen to anybody? That's not the smartest policy I ever heard of....

...If you ever figure out what we're talking about here you might eventually understand part of it and even (maybe) make an actual contribution to the conversation. I mean other than noise and bluster...

...The fact that you and Spiderdave and eezbank and other system users keep bringing up how well people shoot only means that these systems seem to attract people who aren't particularly logical....

While this thread is a little different in regards to being based on people stating that there are LESS adjustments with CTE as opposed to the debate on Vitellos system where adjustments were said to be necessary.... your words are still within the scope of the strawman argument. You might not be explicitly restating/reforming their views or opinions, however you are indeed twisting peoples words and using the twisted version in your attempt to prove that you are the one who is correct.
And then there are your ad hominem attacks by stating that proponents of these aiming systems are illogical and therefore cannot be correct about anything.
Chuck

 

[ShootingArts]

Colin, definitions and explanations

Some definitions:

intuitive:
1. perceiving by intuition, as a person or the mind.
2. perceived by, resulting from, or involving intuition: intuitive knowledge.
3. having or possessing intuition: an intuitive person.
4. capable of being perceived or known by intuition


intuition: direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.


counter intuitive: counter to what intuition would lead one to expect

Colin,

Above are the definitions of intuitive, intuition, and counter intuitive.

These definitions are important because the math guys are in general agreement that something impossible is taking place. In the case of players that can't intuitively find the angle without an aiming system, it is impossible for them to then intuitively make an adjustment after using the aiming system. If intuition didn't work to begin with, it still doesn't.

Then we have the very often made statement that the shot feels wrong but goes anyway. This is a counter intuitive event, the opposite of an intuitive event. By definition, a person can not make an adjustment that is counter intuitive intuitively. Simply can't happen.

Hu

I'll try my best Joey.

By intuitively, I mean without specific reference to any points, lines or numbers.

I grant it can be a little confusing, because one might say the ghost ball system is a non-intuitive system, in the sense that it is mathematically correct.

However, to imagine the position of the center of the CB and to align the cue, through center CB, to that point requires various skills that require degrees of intuition.

Intuition is a kind of guessing, done without calculation, that occurs somewhat sub-consciously.

Maybe someone else can describe it more clearly.

What it really boils down to is this: That when myself and others follow the system guidelines, our cue does not always (in fact rarely) goes to the exactl line of the shot, unless we make adjustments. These adjustments are intuitive, in so far is we don't base them on any numbers, lines, edges, we judge them purely on what it feels like what is needed to make the shot. That is, we use intuitive adjusments. Similar to what one does using the Contact Point method.

Hope that makes sense. Some of the language we are using is not well defined, or the meanings aren't shared amongst us all. I'm doing the best I can to clarify the concepts.

Colin

btw: I can be conscious of the intuitive adjustment I am making in Contact Point aiming, but some players are not. However, it can be quite obvious in Contact Point, because a fine cut proves it in an instant and the geometry is clear to see. So it's not usually that hard to convince a CP aimer that they are using intuitive adjustments.

However, in CTE, the adjustments can seem insignifant if one has developed a pivoting method that gets them in the ball park. Also, many system users do not accept any geometrical explanation. So those factors combined might explain why they are less prone to recognize an intuitive adjustment in their method.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

..............................................

 

[Colin Colenso]

Some definitions:

intuitive:
1. perceiving by intuition, as a person or the mind.
2. perceived by, resulting from, or involving intuition: intuitive knowledge.
3. having or possessing intuition: an intuitive person.
4. capable of being perceived or known by intuition


intuition: direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.


counter intuitive: counter to what intuition would lead one to expect

Colin,

Above are the definitions of intuitive, intuition, and counter intuitive.

They are definitions that act as guidelines when we are trying to explain the nature of how we feel, guess, what we're doing on a pool table. We must use certain words to describe what is happening. If you can think of a word and a way better than intuition then please provide it.

It is grasping the concept I'm intending to describe which is important. We could nit pick all day as to the appropriateness of the words chosen.

These definitions are important because the math guys are in general agreement that something impossible is taking place.

No they are not. They know these systems work if adjustments are made. They're claiming that system users are attributing their results to impossible means in many cases. That they are not aware of making intuitive adjustments.

In the case of players that can't intuitively find the angle without an aiming system, it is impossible for them to then intuitively make an adjustment after using the aiming system. If intuition didn't work to begin with, it still doesn't.

I've never seen a player who doesn't have intuition. It's just a matter of how well it works. That CTE can help some players utilize their intuition more effectively is not an illogical assumption as your above statement suggests.

Then we have the very often made statement that the shot feels wrong but goes anyway. This is a counter intuitive event, the opposite of an intuitive event. By definition, a person can not make an adjustment that is counter intuitive intuitively. Simply can't happen.

Hu

Well, that's funny because I've experienced the very same feeling thousands of times using other non-systematic pocketing methods. I slide up to the line, when I look up it looks wrong, I hit it (trusting my earlier intuition) and it works. This is a common phenomenon, because intuition can vary with perception at different stages of the shot.

In my mind, that phenomenon does nothing to support the argument that no intuition is involved as you are suggesting.

The shots cannot work from a static bridge pivot (without a bridge length or initial alignment change). So the pivot length is variable. If someone can explain the nature of that variation, then they have the basis of a systematic pivot, if not, the pivot must be intuitive.

Do you claim to pivot with a static bridge when using this system Hu?

Colin

 

[JB Cases]

All this is just another way of saying the same thing: you think these systems are capable of making all or most shots without adjustment. You're wrong and that has been proven - you just don't understand the proof.



In Dave's video we couldn't see that he was following the system without significant subconscious adjustment; we only saw him making shots and telling us that was so. To add value a video has to show how shots are made, not just show that they're made. How do you propose I do that?



If you can tell me how to show what we're trying to learn, yes. Otherwise it's a waste of time. Spiderdave's video was a waste of time, except to his considerable ego.

pj
chgo

You could follow the directions and TRY to be completely conscious of what is happening and WHEN it is happening. Then you could say, I do X,Y and Z and this happens and we can follow along visually.

You could then SHOW us WHERE the adjustments are happening and at least in your case how they are happening.

Or you could come to the conclusion that you don't know how they are happening and state that if that's what you find out.

As far as Dave's video goes he was telling us HOW he was lining up. To him that is using the system with no adjustment. Unless Dave is deliberately lying to us then I have to conclude that HE THINKS he is doing the same thing every time. And it looked like he was doing the same thing every time or close to the same thing every time.

That is why I say if YOU would try it then possibly you could find the missing link between what a person thinks they are doing and what you say that they are actually doing.

And please don't TWIST my words Pat. I said it SEEMS as if all or nearly all shots can be made using some of these systems. It FEELS that way when you are down on the ball to some of us. We don't feel that we are making adjustments and when you come in and say well then they must be "subconscious" then it distorts the mental picture that we formed when using the system.

So if you are right then why can't you show it? Surely you have to be able to take these adjustments from the subconscious to the conscious.

You asked me how to show it, try this, use the system on a diagrammed shot and show how much adjustment would be needed to make the shot. Be the Amazing Randi of System Busters and show HOW the trick is done.

I am TRYING to have a discussion with you in order to benefit us all. We say it works and do videos to show that we can make balls using the system as we understand it. What makes you think that we aren't LOOKING for HOW we supposedly adjust? Don't you think that at least ONE person among us would be able to observe these adjustments and report on them if we could? We aren't a religious cult and have no interest in propagating nonsense.

You say it doesn't work or only works for some shots and not for others. Ok fine, why not prove that on video? Either do a video or point to one that proves what you say. One way or the other we will all learn something.

Today I watched a show about vaccines.

When the smallpox vaccine was discovered and the rabies vaccine a hundred years later the people who discovered them had NO IDEA how they worked they just discovered that they DO work. It wasn't until the 20th century that it was discovered HOW vaccines work.

So, this is the same thing to me. The systems work and we don't really fully understand HOW they work. We can understand straightforward ones like Joe Tucker's numbers, or ghost ball, we can't understand CTE, Quarters, etc.... at least that is my take on this judging by the fact that we are still arguing about them.

 

[JB Cases]

All this is just another way of saying the same thing: you think these systems are capable of making all or most shots without adjustment. You're wrong and that has been proven - you just don't understand the proof.



In Dave's video we couldn't see that he was following the system without significant subconscious adjustment; we only saw him making shots and telling us that was so. To add value a video has to show how shots are made, not just show that they're made. How do you propose I do that?



If you can tell me how to show what we're trying to learn, yes. Otherwise it's a waste of time. Spiderdave's video was a waste of time, except to his considerable ego.

pj
chgo

You could follow the directions and TRY to be completely conscious of what is happening and WHEN it is happening. Then you could say, I do X,Y and Z and this happens and we can follow along visually.

You could then SHOW us WHERE the adjustments are happening and at least in your case how they are happening.

Or you could come to the conclusion that you don't know how they are happening and state that if that's what you find out.

As far as Dave's video goes he was telling us HOW he was lining up. To him that is using the system with no adjustment. Unless Dave is deliberately lying to us then I have to conclude that HE THINKS he is doing the same thing every time. And it looked like he was doing the same thing every time or close to the same thing every time.

That is why I say if YOU would try it then possibly you could find the missing link between what a person thinks they are doing and what you say that they are actually doing.

And please don't TWIST my words Pat. I said it SEEMS as if all or nearly all shots can be made using some of these systems. It FEELS that way when you are down on the ball to some of us. We don't feel that we are making adjustments and when you come in and say well then they must be "subconscious" then it distorts the mental picture that we formed when using the system.

So if you are right then why can't you show it? Surely you have to be able to take these adjustments from the subconscious to the conscious.

You asked me how to show it, try this, use the system on a diagrammed shot and show how much adjustment would be needed to make the shot. Be the Amazing Randi of System Busters and show HOW the trick is done.

I am TRYING to have a discussion with you in order to benefit us all. We say it works and do videos to show that we can make balls using the system as we understand it. What makes you think that we aren't LOOKING for HOW we supposedly adjust? Don't you think that at least ONE person among us would be able to observe these adjustments and report on them if we could? We aren't a religious cult and have no interest in propagating nonsense.

You say it doesn't work or only works for some shots and not for others. Ok fine, why not prove that on video? Either do a video or point to one that proves what you say. One way or the other we will all learn something.

Today I watched a show about vaccines.

When the smallpox vaccine was discovered and the rabies vaccine a hundred years later the people who discovered them had NO IDEA how they worked they just discovered that they DO work. It wasn't until the 20th century that it was discovered HOW vaccines work.

So, this is the same thing to me. The systems work and we don't really fully understand HOW they work. We can understand straightforward ones like Joe Tucker's numbers, or ghost ball, we can't understand CTE, Quarters, etc.... at least that is my take on this judging by the fact that we are still arguing about them.

 

[ShootingArts]

Colin,

You persist in the belief that people can do something counter intuitive using intuition. That is impossible by definition. It doesn't really matter what words we use to describe things, the end result is the same. You can't intuitively make an adjustment that feels wrong. That is counter intuitive. As for the first instance, although an aiming system might help you get to a line you saw to begin with, you can't possibly intuitively adjust to a line that you don't know where is as you and others allege beginners do when being introduced to a system. Some players even talk of going back and forth, being able to make a shot using the system and still being unable to without the system. If they now intuitively know the line, they no longer need the system to find it.

Advanced players can't intuitively line up a shot in a manner that is counter intuitive. Use whatever words you prefer, it still isn't possible.

All arguments(points of debate) involving an intuitive final adjustment in all cases where the math guys feel there must be an adjustment are circular in nature. Nobody can intuitively move to an unknown shot alignment.

As to how I do it, I don't pivot myself, I'm still using the 2,000,000 plus balls hit system. I don't know if all of these aiming systems require adjustment or not. I do know that the claim of an "intuitive" final adjustment on some shots doesn't hold water in many instances. This has became a sacred cow of the math guys including you and you now feel you have to defend the preposterous.

You can tell me that there are adjustments in the original alignment, you can tell me that there is an adjustment in the shift, you can tell me there is an adjustment in the pivot, and I will cheerfully agree that any or all of these things are a possibility. Tell me that players that can make the shot without using the system are making a final adjustment and I'll agree that is possible. Tell me that beginners are making shots that they can't otherwise make through intuitive final adjustments and that shooters that can normally make the shot are making the shot while seeing it from a perspective that makes it seem impossible due to final adjustments that still appear to be wrong and I'll have to tell you that you are as much or more so a believer in "magic" than the system guys.

You and the other "math guys" remind me of a fellow's wife balancing a checkbook for the first time. He was very pleased that it balanced to the penny. Then he noticed a final entry before the total: MSW $12.85. He asked his wife what "MSW" was. "Mistake Somewhere." This final magic adjustment that all system users use regardless of if they know it or not is the "Mistake Somewhere" that makes everything balance for the math guys.

Now you(the math guys) are adding the magic attraction of holes. I shot one shot for hours, it hit the same place a few inches short for hours. Where was this magic?

Until every step of a system is understood it is ridiculous to add intuitive final adjustments or the magic attraction of holes to the equation. These "quick fix" solutions to the systems that aren't understood aren't a step in the right direction, just the opposite, they inhibit further digging into each and every step before the quick fix.

Hu

They are definitions that act as guidelines when we are trying to explain the nature of how we feel, guess, what we're doing on a pool table. We must use certain words to describe what is happening. If you can think of a word and a way better than intuition then please provide it.

It is grasping the concept I'm intending to describe which is important. We could nit pick all day as to the appropriateness of the words chosen.



No they are not. They know these systems work if adjustments are made. They're claiming that system users are attributing their results to impossible means in many cases. That they are not aware of making intuitive adjustments.


I've never seen a player who doesn't have intuition. It's just a matter of how well it works. That CTE can help some players utilize their intuition more effectively is not an illogical assumption as your above statement suggests.


Well, that's funny because I've experienced the very same feeling thousands of times using other non-systematic pocketing methods. I slide up to the line, when I look up it looks wrong, I hit it (trusting my earlier intuition) and it works. This is a common phenomenon, because intuition can vary with perception at different stages of the shot.

In my mind, that phenomenon does nothing to support the argument that no intuition is involved as you are suggesting.

The shots cannot work from a static bridge pivot (without a bridge length or initial alignment change). So the pivot length is variable. If someone can explain the nature of that variation, then they have the basis of a systematic pivot, if not, the pivot must be intuitive.

Do you claim to pivot with a static bridge when using this system Hu?

Colin

 

[JimS]

Everybody wants to argue does the system work. I want a practical answer to a practical question or two.

When you line up the shot with the tip to either side and of center and then pivot back to center, how do you apply english to the shot?

Isn't the pivot system the same as the 1/2 ball and 1/2 of 1/2 ball system without the pivot?

How does one account for using a smaller shaft/tip? If the instructions are to aim one tip left or right of center and then pivot back to center won't this be a lot different from one cue to the other? I use a 11.5mm tip and someone else might use a 13mm tip. That's a significant difference in aim point... especially for a long shot.

 

[cookie man]

All this is just another way of saying the same thing: you think these systems are capable of making all or most shots without adjustment. You're wrong and that has been proven - you just don't understand the proof.


What proof. Everyone trying the systems says they are hitting center pocket. The diagram drawers are the only ones missing balls.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If you can tell me how to show what we're trying to learn, yes. Otherwise it's a waste of time. Spiderdave's video was a waste of time, except to his considerable ego.

You could follow the directions and TRY to be completely conscious of what is happening and WHEN it is happening. Then you could say, I do X,Y and Z and this happens and we can follow along visually.

Oy vey. This is about the same as me saying "pissing into the wind doesn't accomplish anything" and you responding "well, then, why don't you try pissing into the wind instead?"

And we wonder why these threads never go anywhere...

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

that has been proven - you just don't understand the proof.

What proof.

OK. In your case you don't even know the proof is there.

The diagram drawers are the only ones missing balls.

You guys obviously want that to be true. Does that make up for some other inadequacy?

Non-system users don't feel they need them.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Some definitions:

intuitive:
1. perceiving by intuition, as a person or the mind.
2. perceived by, resulting from, or involving intuition: intuitive knowledge.
3. having or possessing intuition: an intuitive person.
4. capable of being perceived or known by intuition


intuition: direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.


counter intuitive: counter to what intuition would lead one to expect

The dreaded dictionary distraction...

Colin obviously means the part of the process that isn't defined by step-by-step mechanical process - you might call it "estimation" rather than "intuition". If you try to understand rather than to argue it's easier.

These definitions are important because the math guys are in general agreement that something impossible is taking place.

Nonsense. The "math guys" are saying the systems can't work without adjustment - that would be impossible.

In the case of players that can't intuitively find the angle without an aiming system, it is impossible for them to then intuitively make an adjustment after using the aiming system. If intuition didn't work to begin with, it still doesn't.

Why not? If the intuitive part can be better "organized" or reduced to a more manageable size unknown, there's no reason it can't be made workable where it wasn't before. This all-or-nothing idea about estimating things (the same one JB proposed) doesn't make any sense.

It's like being able to aim more accurately with less squirt - it's still estimating, but it's easier when it's narrowed to a smaller range.

Then we have the very often made statement that the shot feels wrong but goes anyway. This is a counter intuitive event, the opposite of an intuitive event. By definition, a person can not make an adjustment that is counter intuitive intuitively. Simply can't happen.

Is your point that Colin misused a word? Focusing on that isn't getting anywhere.

pj
chgo

 

[JoeyA]

Finite Visual Calculation

I'll try my best Joey.

By intuitively, I mean without specific reference to any points, lines or numbers.

I grant it can be a little confusing, because one might say the ghost ball system is a non-intuitive system, in the sense that it is mathematically correct.

However, to imagine the position of the center of the CB and to align the cue, through center CB, to that point requires various skills that require degrees of intuition.

Intuition is a kind of guessing, done without calculation, that occurs somewhat sub-consciously.

Maybe someone else can describe it more clearly.

What it really boils down to is this: That when myself and others follow the system guidelines, our cue does not always (in fact rarely) goes to the exactl line of the shot, unless we make adjustments. These adjustments are intuitive, in so far is we don't base them on any numbers, lines, edges, we judge them purely on what it feels like what is needed to make the shot. That is, we use intuitive adjusments. Similar to what one does using the Contact Point method.

Hope that makes sense. Some of the language we are using is not well defined, or the meanings aren't shared amongst us all. I'm doing the best I can to clarify the concepts.

Colin

btw: I can be conscious of the intuitive adjustment I am making in Contact Point aiming, but some players are not. However, it can be quite obvious in Contact Point, because a fine cut proves it in an instant and the geometry is clear to see. So it's not usually that hard to convince a CP aimer that they are using intuitive adjustments.

However, in CTE, the adjustments can seem insignifant if one has developed a pivoting method that gets them in the ball park. Also, many system users do not accept any geometrical explanation. So those factors combined might explain why they are less prone to recognize an intuitive adjustment in their method.

Thanks Colin.

I believe that the CTE users are making visual calculations to estimate where they need to place their bridge to make each individual shot. This is a visual calculation, not an intuitive judgment and I think that with practice, the people who use Pro One Aiming Systems and the like become more accurate with body alignment and bridge hand placement and this consistency of hand and body alignment allows them to be more accurate than they previously were.

I also believe that any aiming system which allows the shooter to "get in the ballpark", shortens the learning curve of having to pot a million balls in order to obtain a proficiency in pocketing an object ball.

More experienced players who convert/adapt to utilizing Pro One or other CTE aiming systems find that they are more consistent with their alignment, bridge hand placement and their ability to find the center of the cue ball. I also find that with more experienced players, they may start out pivoting manually when they learn these type of aiming systems but quickly eliminate the manual pivoting that is seen in some videos. The pivot is still there except that it in in the air and the bridge hand placement is done with finite visual reference to the shot. The fact that bridge hand placement may vary with some shots does not mean that they are doing it intuitively IMHO.

Lesser experienced players who utilize CTE, Pro ONe and other similar aiming systems, IMMEDIATELY find themselves potting balls with more consistency than they ever dreamed possible.

Their euphoria and epiphany is diminished by those who would attempt to rdicule and discredit their new found knowledge and ability by saying that the aiming systems are, It's down by feel, it's smoke and mirrors, it's hogwash, it's poppycock, it's BS, it's a joke, aiming systems are worthless, plain stupid, it's just guessing as well as other derogatory references.

In addition there are those who say that anyone who uses an aiming system like Pro One or CTE will inhibit their ability to play at a very high level.

An aiming system no matter whose it is will have little to do with whether a person is able to play at a professional level.

The belittling of players who use aiming systems is counter-productive for your math discussions. FTR, I don't think you have been mean-spirited with your discussions of aiming systems and how the work but some of your "colleagues" have not been very accurate or diplomatic with some of their responses and critiques.

Pro One, CTE or ANY other aiming system is only a small piece of the puzzle but an aiming system can shorten the learning curve, not inhibit it.

Sure, there will be some aiming system beginning players who choose to not continue improving their pool skills and may stay at a banger's level for the rest of their life. At the same time, their will be people who do not use aiming systems and will remain bangers for the rest of their life as well.

The negative criticism pointed at aiming system users limits the amount of information that the academics are able to obtain.

At least the discussions have moved from aiming systems are worthless crap discussions to well, aiming systems MAY help some people but HOW do they work? Your efforts have been appreciated and I offer my few tidbits of perception for your discussion and consideration.

I am not sure just how "accurate" my perception is about Pro One/CTE and other aiming systems but now you have it.

I know very little more about aiming systems and as one famous scholar once said, "That's all I have to say about that."

JoeyA (going back to the table to practice stroking straight and smooth.)

 

[ShootingArts]

true futility

pj,

True futility is by your own admission arguing over the same thing for ten years. Reading your words from another forum written many years ago, they are essentially the same thing you say today. In fact, you were known for attacking system users then and there. You are either incredibly dense or incredibly closed minded to have not made any headway in ten years. It doesn't really matter which, I won't waste time trying to establish communication with someone whom nobody has been able to communicate with in ten years.

In your case definitions are meaningless, you speak your own language where words mean whatever you want them to. No need to concern yourself with systems either, you have ten years of background to prove they are beyond your comprehension. Pure magic. There is some hope of getting people like Colin, Dr. Dave, and Mike Page to see that the scientific process doesn't allow for an unknown unprovable "fudge factor" as a final step when prior steps aren't clearly defined.

If the systems indeed created intuition where none existed before then shooters would quickly learn to remember these intuitive lines and outgrow the systems in very short order. This would be a far greater claim for systems than any I have heard from the system guys, a truly miraculous event. Until the serious researchers quit grasping at straws like subconscious adjustments and the magical attraction of balls to pockets we won't seriously look at every little step along the way and that is what must be done. From the time the shooter approaches the table until they hit the cue ball every step must be scrutinized, in order, regardless of how simple it seems.

Hu

The dreaded dictionary distraction...

Colin obviously means the part of the process that isn't defined by step-by-step mechanical process - you might call it "estimation" rather than "intuition". If you try to understand rather than to argue it's easier.



Nonsense. The "math guys" are saying the systems can't work without adjustment - that would be impossible.



Why not? If the intuitive part can be better "organized" or reduced to a more manageable size unknown, there's no reason it can't be made workable where it wasn't before. This all-or-nothing idea about estimating things (the same one JB proposed) doesn't make any sense.

It's like being able to aim more accurately with less squirt - it's still estimating, but it's easier when it's narrowed to a smaller range.



Is your point that Colin misused a word? Focusing on that isn't getting anywhere.

pj
chgo

 

[SJDinPHX]

Once again, in hopes of uniting all "A.S.S. (Aiming System Supporter's) people, I am offering the following, well writen instructional book on my views regarding all aiming systems. Hopefully this will bring the warring factions closer together and provide a clearer explanation for all the unwashed, non-Phd's in pooldom.
The author wishes to thank Mr. Efren Reyes and Mr. Edwin Kelly, two of the greatest shot makers of all time, for their kind forwarding comments.

Mr. Reyes.........WTF
Mr. Kelly......Double WTF, Thank you gentlemen, SJD.... and now on to my documentary.

"Why Aiming Systems Really, Really,Really, Might Work, Maybe"
(Condensed Version)

"??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
To sum it all up,??????????????????????????????????????????????"And my dad, can kick your dad's ass !

Copyright 2008
R.J. Mc Morran