ShootingArts said:
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.
Ok, change the word to estimate.
When I am upright and look down at the line, I estimate the line. I slide down that line to the bridge. When I get down low and take another look, I estimate that I am on the wrong line. (perhaps my body and head are a bit twisted and affecting my perspective).
Now, this is not the first time I have done this. I tend to know that when I slide up, sometimes my estimate from lower down is not as reliable. I prefer to take that earlier estimation over the latter one some times. So I'm hitting when it doesn't actually look right.
I would think most experienced players have had this feeling many times, that their perception of their estimamation of the line changes as the body moves around. If yours doesn't, you're very lucky.
And estimation requires intuition / feel. Hope that makes sense to you and clears up the semantics.
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.
It is not a sacred cow at all. I have netioned it as one possible mechanism for adjustment but suggested it is not the most likely.
So if you don't know my position, please don't assume it and then blast me for it.
And anyway, why is it so preposterous that some system users are occaissionally making slight tuning adjustements in the final parts of their tip address? Heck, every other shooter does this on most every shot. It would be bloody hard to get rid of this habit.
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.
Well I'm afraid you miscomprehend the position of the 'math guys'. You might as well think of us lollipop stealers and book burners as well, coz you like making up what you think our positions are.
Note: We are all individuals and can think for ourselves.
* Math guy shouts from the background "I can't!".
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
You're blaming us for the hole attractor theory? It's been around forever. It's a well known effect. Considering it as a possible influence is fundamental to investigating possible causes. It's like if some woman is murdered we'd expect the detective would investigate her husband. Because the attractor concept is an old and known effect, it should be considered when looking into the application of any aiming system.
So if you say you don't think the attractor theory has a significant influence here then fine, I'd tend to agree, but suggesting we are 'ridiculous' for even considering it is just arguing with a tad too much emotion I suspect.
Hu, I expect when you trialled the method you followed the system very rigorously (static pivot etc), hence there was no adjustment, and no pocket bias. That doesn't mean others don't shift things around a bit. Evidence indicates they do. The users just don't like talking about this crucial area too much, It's kind of the dirty laundry of the clean system. Cookieman and Devindra did jointly write a 17 page scientific review of their experiences and understanding of pivot adjustment, but unfortunately their dog ate it on the morning it was due.
I'm more than willing to explain my positions and to accept where they need to change or improve, so please don't assume them upon me. Perhaps ask for clarification. btw: I hope I have clarified my point above about re: intuition / estimation.
Oh, and lighten up, I think you're a pretty sharp guy, but you seem to have confused my positions / descriptions a bit here.
Colin
Years ago it bothered me when somebody posted something I thought you had to earn... Now I just laugh it off 
