CTE testimonial

Scott Lee said:
With SAM, about 90-95% of all shots fall within the 1/4 ball/halfball/3/4 ball hits...of that percentage, about 80% or more are halfball hits. You can't possibly make your statement, without coming to poolschool, to be taught SAM.:grin:

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

This is evidence that people are not always aware of -- or do not wish to acknowledge -- the small adjustments they make when using aiming references.

SAM may be useful for some people, but as others have stated, your claim is simply false.

(I realize people are talking about other systems besides SAM, where we don't have such explicit claims)
 
Last edited:
These types of threads about aiming make my head hurt.....

Is aiming with center ball confusing? In time doesn't a player know where to hit on an object ball in order to make it?

Does this aiming system account for english? If so I'm pretty sure there is some grey area here unless someone can use this system with any cue off the wall. (which I seriously doubt) Using english and compensating for squirt/deflection is one of the most difficult things for people to reach a consensus on.... It is different with every cue and every player.

This is something most players come up with there own system for through repetition.

If I borrow my friends cue and shoot a shot with inside english I might miss it by as much as a half a diamond because of the greater amount of deflection with his cue. How can an aiming system account for this unless this a factor calibrated through practice?

my
$.02

Dudley
 
Last edited:
Ok, guys, I think it's about time to let everyone know that all this aiming stuff was just a big joke. Seriously, there is no aiming system, it's all just a big goof.
Shoot a million balls and you'll be on your way, that's all there is to it. No magic here, no Oz behind the curtain. Systems can't be explained because they don't exist.
 
Does this aiming system account for english? If so I'm pretty sure there is some grey area here unless someone can use this system with any cue off the wall. (which I seriously doubt) Using english and compensating for squirt/deflection is one of the most difficult things for people to reach a consensus on.... It is different with every cue and every player.

This is something most players come up with there own system for through repetition.

If I borrow my friends cue and shoot a shot with inside english I might miss it by as much as a half a diamond because of the greater amount of deflection with his cue. How can an aiming system account for this unless this a factor calibrated through practice?
Click to expand...

It should be obvious that no aiming system includes compensation for squirt/swerve, and (as Dr. Dave says just three posts above yours) any common squirt/swerve adjustment, including "intuitive" adjustment, should work with any aiming system. You already do it with whatever aiming method you use.

pj
chgo
 
Ok, guys, I think it's about time to let everyone know that all this aiming stuff was just a big joke. Seriously, there is no aiming system, it's all just a big goof.
Shoot a million balls and you'll be on your way, that's all there is to it. No magic here, no Oz behind the curtain. Systems can't be explained because they don't exist.
Click to expand...

It's nonsense to think these systems work totally mechanically (except a few like ghost ball, which are still susceptible to operator error), but it's just as much nonsense to think they don't work at all. Each of them does something useful for those who like them - you yourself probably use elements of some of them even if you think you're a totally "by feel" aimer.

There's no real controversy about whether systems "work" (although in every aiming thread somebody mistakenly assumes that's what the disagreement is about). The disagreements are about how systems work and what their limitations are.

By the way, this has been said about a hundred times. Takes awhile for things to sink in around here.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
It's nonsense to think these systems work totally mechanically (except a few like ghost ball, which are still susceptible to operator error), but it's just as much nonsense to think they don't work at all. Each of them does something useful for those who like them - you yourself probably use elements of some of them even if you think you're a totally "by feel" aimer.

There's no real controversy about whether systems "work" (although in every aiming thread somebody mistakenly assumes that's what the disagreement is about). The disagreements are about how systems work and what their limitations are.

By the way, this has been said about a hundred times. Takes awhile for things to sink in around here.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


I as you probably can tell haven't followed the many threads regarding aiming on az I was just posting my response to the percieved conversation. If this system is strictly regarding center ball it is probably sound. People should use whatever system works for them.

Dudley
 
Koop said:
Ok, guys, I think it's about time to let everyone know that all this aiming stuff was just a big joke. Seriously, there is no aiming system, it's all just a big goof.
Shoot a million balls and you'll be on your way, that's all there is to it. No magic here, no Oz behind the curtain. Systems can't be explained because they don't exist.
Click to expand...

I agree, well put.
 
If this system is strictly regarding center ball it is probably sound.
Click to expand...

I don't know what "strictly regarding center ball" means, but CTE and other similar systems (like "fractional aiming") aren't "sound" in the sense that they'll show you exactly how to aim every shot. They only get you close enough to the right aim so you can more easily finish the job using your own experience and "instinct". They're what I call "approximation" systems.

But that doesn't mean they "don't work". They do what they're designed to do (get you close to the right aim) and they're useful to many players for that reason. I argue with people on here who say they do show the exact aim for every shot, but that doesn't mean I don't think they "work". It just means I don't think they work the way some claim. Oddly enough, it's the users of these systems who seem to know the least about how they work - I think that's part of how they work.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't know what "strictly regarding center ball" means, but CTE and other similar systems (like "fractional aiming") aren't "sound" in the sense that they'll show you exactly how to aim every shot. They only get you close enough to the right aim so you can more easily finish the job using your own experience and "instinct". They're what I call "approximation" systems.

But that doesn't mean they "don't work". They do what they're designed to do (get you close to the right aim) and they're useful to many players for that reason. I argue with people on here who say they do show the exact aim for every shot, but that doesn't mean I don't think they "work". It just means I don't think they work the way some claim. Oddly enough, it's the users of these systems who seem to know the least about how they work - I think that's part of how they work.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Strictly regarding center ball = shooting a shot without english.

In my opinion aiming on shots without english has more to do your mechanics then your aiming system as long as you have put in the work to learn how to sight and execute the shots---there is not much to debate.


Dudley
 
Dudley said:
Strictly regarding center ball = shooting a shot without english.

In my opinion aiming on shots without english has more to do your mechanics then your aiming system as long as you have put in the work to learn how to sight and execute the shots---there is not much to debate.


Dudley
Click to expand...

Ever hit a straight in draw shot with CTE?
 
For english, adjust one shot reference or quarter ball, pivot then use back hand english. Works for me.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't know what "strictly regarding center ball" means, but CTE and other similar systems (like "fractional aiming") aren't "sound" in the sense that they'll show you exactly how to aim every shot. They only get you close enough to the right aim so you can more easily finish the job using your own experience and "instinct". They're what I call "approximation" systems.

But that doesn't mean they "don't work". They do what they're designed to do (get you close to the right aim) and they're useful to many players for that reason. I argue with people on here who say they do show the exact aim for every shot, but that doesn't mean I don't think they "work". It just means I don't think they work the way some claim. Oddly enough, it's the users of these systems who seem to know the least about how they work - I think that's part of how they work.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Please don't confuse us with the facts.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
... CTE and other similar systems (like "fractional aiming") aren't "sound" in the sense that they'll show you exactly how to aim every shot. They only get you close enough to the right aim so you can more easily finish the job using your own experience and "instinct". They're what I call "approximation" systems.

But that doesn't mean they "don't work". They do what they're designed to do (get you close to the right aim) and they're useful to many players for that reason. I argue with people on here who say they do show the exact aim for every shot, but that doesn't mean I don't think they "work". It just means I don't think they work the way some claim. Oddly enough, it's the users of these systems who seem to know the least about how they work - I think that's part of how they work.
Click to expand...
But can't most people "get close" just by "seeing the angle" or visualizing the ghost ball, and then just getting down on the shot? :confused:

Dave
 
cookie man said:
Get close means hitting the rail, not the pocket.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point. Whether you "get close" using CTE or any other method, you still need the perception and visualization skills to get the perfect initial alignment or final line of aim (e.g., during or after the variable-length "pivot").

Regards,
Dave
 
But can't most people "get close" just by "seeing the angle" or visualizing the ghost ball, and then just getting down on the shot?

Dave
Click to expand...

Are you saying that there's one best way and everybody should use it? These systems aren't the one best way for me, but I can believe they are for some others. When comparing the effectiveness of aiming methods, I think you have to combine the method's inherent potential with the player's ability to use it effectively - some players may be more effective with a method that has less inherent potential but is more suited to their personal abilities.

pj
chgo
 
dr_dave said:
I think you missed the point. Whether you "get close" using CTE or any other method, you still need the perception and visualization skills to get the perfect initial alignment or final line of aim (e.g., during or after the variable-length "pivot").

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

DO YOU still need perception with CTE?
 
I do not know CTE or how it works. One question I have is, are you able to adjust for cheating the pocket? Caroming off a ball? Combo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top