Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

  • I always go by feel

    Votes: 153 53.5%

  • Usually by feel, with aiming systems for hard shots

    Votes: 68 23.8%

  • Usually with aiming systems, by feel for easy shots

    Votes: 24 8.4%

  • I always use aiming systems

    Votes: 26 9.1%

  • I just hit balls very hard and hope they sink

    Votes: 15 5.2%
  • Total voters
    286
bstroud said:
I feel that correct body alinement to the path of the cue ball is the most important part of being able to deliver a straight stroke.

That is the biggest problem I see with the CTE method. All that pivoting and calculating. Way too complicated. No real target.

"Accum's Razor" says it best. "The simplest solution is usually the best."

Bill S.
Click to expand...
There is a target. The CTE method is smooth and easy once practiced. You couldn't even tell that the person you are playing is using CTE if they are experienced at it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
JB Cases said:
What does the warm up stroke have to do with the hit on the cue ball? When Stan hits the cueball he is hitting it dead center, or incredibly close to dead center since we can't actually see the tip on the ball at contact.

I think you're chasing a unicorn here on this.

For one thing as Colin CLEARLY showed the shooter can swoop and add backhand spin and STILL make the ball when the dead nuts perfect shot line for center ball is plotted, marked, known and used 100% for each taken.

So even if Stan was a tiny bit off center in the delivery, which he wasn't in my opinion it likely wouldn't matter and certainly isn't gearing the object ball into the pocket.

You found that in a warm up stroke the shaft near the joint came off the line you drew on screen slightly. What does that translate into at ball contact? Nothing because at ball contact the cue came straight through the ball. But the overall point is that the butt of the cue can rotate like an egg when stroking and still come through dead straight on impact.

My video rebuttal is still uploading - https://youtu.be/tiZjW0zHGJc

I went frame by frame in it to illustrate what I see.
Click to expand...

Youtube says this is a duplicate video and it doesn't do anything,
 
Simple is best

bstroud said:
I feel that correct body alinement to the path of the cue ball is the most important part of being able to deliver a straight stroke.

That is the biggest problem I see with the CTE method. All that pivoting and calculating. Way too complicated. No real target.

"Accum's Razor" says it best. "The simplest solution is usually the best."

Bill S.
Click to expand...

I agree that simple is best, I think that a big reason people resort to CTE is the absence of a clue system for knowing the cut on the shot and I think that good players develop themselves one. When you do that youre golden.
 
Dan, besides reverse engineering it, you can also try this- take a piece of paper and draw out a circle 2 1/4" diameter. Cut it out of the paper. Place the paper on the table in one of the positions of the 5 shots. Place an actual ball centered on the paper and then place another ob touching the ob on the paper lined up to a slight overcut from center pocket.

Now, remove the ghost ball ob, leaving just the paper in the ghost ball position. (you can have a mark at center of the ghost ball on the paper to make it easier to see center) Place the cb where you want to shoot from. Now, just line up dead center cb to dead center ghost ball.

Once you have done that, now start reverse engineering the shot. Pivot back 1/2 tip and see what you have to do to see the visuals correctly. Once you see the visuals correctly, pivot back to center cb and you should be centered on the ghost ball.
 
LAMas said:
English,

I don't like to pivot but it can be used for aiming like some of Hal's original thoughts that included different tip offsets.

One can aim the center of the CB at the contact point on the OB, parallel shift the cue to the center of the OB, pivot back to the center of the CB and then shoot.

I have proffered this before. It was/is simple to explain....I just did.:thumbup:

It is more parsimonious than what is being "discussed" in this thread.

Be well
Click to expand...



I hear you & understand.

Was a claim made that that method & other's like it are completely objective in nature & require no subjectivity in their application for their total success.

TOI can be CTC or CTE parallel shift & shoot. I would NEVER call TOI a completely objective method.

Stay Well.
 
peppersauce said:
I'm not trying to get in the middle of this, but I thought I would share my experience with aiming systems.

When I first started playing, I was told over and over that I "have a good eye", whatever that's supposed to mean. I later discovered that the way I've naturally seen shots since the very beginning has a name and is actually a "system" similar to what Mr. Stroud and others spoke of earlier. From the beginning, I would look at the path of the OB to the pocket, get the CP, and go back to the CB and look at The path from CTP to CTP. Behind the CB, I would look at the overlap created by the CP on the CB to the edge of the CB when the CPs are lined up. Then I ditched the CP all together and shot at the overlap.

My biggest problem before CTE was getting my body and vision center in such a position that my cue flows through the shot on the correct line. For many years, unless I was just in dead punch, I felt awkward over the shot and and like I might miss at any given time.

About 7 years ago I pretty much quit playing and went back to college. My focus shifted from riding the highs to building my worst game up for consistency, because you can't ride the highs when you are out of stroke and there are none. On my journey to improve my weaknesses, I was introduced to CTE and, like many others, was extremely skeptical. I've been given so much bad advice over the years that I immediately dismissed the idea as BS. But I tried it anyway.

Fact is, I've tried it, quit, and gone back again quite a few times. I've had mixed feelings about the system, but I'm to the point now that I'm not going back to my old way of doing things.

My reason is is simple.. it works for me. I've found that I can switch from manually pivoting on a bad, or off, day to just using more of a Pro One approach when I'm feeling good. And I'm to the point now where I'm comfortable enough that there is very little conscious thought to the process. I no longer look at the shot and mentally say, "CTE-ETB with a right pivot". My brain just processes the visuals and I roll with it.

The one single thing that made me turn the corner and and actually made this system work for me was finally understanding how to approach the CB, lock in on the visuals, and move into the shot WHILE KEEPING THE VISUALS FIXED. As Stan likes to say, the eyes lead and the body follows. I don't have that awkward feeling when I'm down on the shot anymore. My body just falls into the correct place and my cue is on line.

I have several acquaintances on this forum on both sides of the debate, from the very outspoken ones who vehemently oppose the system to others who view it as the best thing since sliced bread.

I will say this though, I use systems for a lot of things...kicking banking and now aiming. My comfortable approach to any task is a very regimented, methodical, almost military style..so this suits me.

I've also said this on these forums before and stand by it. I view systems as useful tools to enhance your existing skills, not replace them. No system in and of itself is going to make anyone a great player. Lots of table time is required to develop a solid straight stroke and repeatable accurate delivery. The only system for that is table time and hard work. (That I know of) What stands out as a big advantage for CTE users is that you are placed in a very strong position to start with. Of course you still have to make the ball and you can't do that without putting in work on your delivery.

Anyway, have fun gents. I just wanted to throw that perspective out there for those who might be on the fence about whether or not to even learn an aiming system. Just some food for thought.
Click to expand...

Good Post, Sir. :thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:
 
JB Cases said:
You misunderstood the reference. In diving the high and low scores are thrown out to account for bias among the judges.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Good Day, John.

Thanks. You're correct. I did, but now that I do get it, You're in there too. You're judgement would be thrown out too.

Best Wishes.
 
ENGLISH! said:
After I was berated into trying them, I got the same results & when reported back 'I got my thumbs broken'. Others like 8Pack/Anthony, others, & I think Satorie, as well as I. did similarly with the 5 shots.

I don't think I would agree with you comparing CTE to the blue dress thing. I thing it may be more of a self hypnosis thing or an unconscious consciousness, if that make sense to you.

Duckie gave an example of individuals 'seeing' some things that are not the reality of what is actually happening like a a car wheel spinning slowly backwards when the reality is that it is spinning very fast in the forward direction. I commented that they really are 'seeing' the reality but some can't differentiate reality from their subjective perception of what they are 'seeing'. Maybe Clinton was right. Maybe it does depend on what the definition of IS is.

Best 2 Ya.

Best 2 Ya.
Click to expand...

You got Duckie and Clinton in the same post. English is on a roll.
Unless of course I'm misunderstanding and my reading comprehension is terrible. or my objectivity is ruining my subjectivity. Either way if I read objectivity and subjectivity again i might just puke.
 
Got his thumb's broken? WTH

He loves movie references, to make a point though what it is I have no clue. I wonder if Fantasy Island was his favorite TV Show.


cookie man said:
You got Duckie and Clinton in the same post. English is on a roll.
Unless of course I'm misunderstanding and my reading comprehension is terrible. or my objectivity is ruining my subjectivity. Either way if I read objectivity and subjectivity again i might just puke.
Click to expand...
 
Dan White said:
Two major instructors not on the CTE bandwagon that come to mind:

Jerry Briesath
Mark Wilson
Click to expand...

And then you have Randy G, Scott Lee, Tom Simpson and of course Stan.
And I would think that Mark has softened his stance after working with Landon the last few years, but that's just my opinion.
 
cookie man said:
You got Duckie and Clinton in the same post. English is on a roll.
Unless of course I'm misunderstanding and my reading comprehension is terrible. or my objectivity is ruining my subjectivity. Either way if I read objectivity and subjectivity again i might just puke.
Click to expand...

Hey,

The original author for objectivity regarding CTE that started the whole thing is who?

I hope you make it to a trash can or some similar container.:wink:
 
336Robin said:
I agree that simple is best, I think that a big reason people resort to CTE is the absence of a clue system for knowing the cut on the shot and I think that good players develop themselves one. When you do that youre golden.
Click to expand...

I am not sure I follow your reference to a "clue system".

People don't resort to CTE. People who want to be way more accurate in their aiming will learn CTE or some other good ball-to-ball method of aiming.

I personally find that when I don't have to know the cut angle or have a shot picture that my mind is much clearer when shooting.

You wrote a book on aiming and yet you are very dismissive of CTE and similar systems. I don't really get it if you think aiming is important enough to write a book only about aiming why you wouldn't study and become proficient with every form of aiming in pool that is out there?

I do agree that with enough table time a player doesn't really need any formal method of aiming. Do any task deliberately enough and you can get good at it through brute force. Maybe not as good as you could be with guidance in various forms but you can get to a decent level in any task if you have the desire to stick with it.

But even the fractional overlap method of aiming that Bill describes IS a formal way to aim. Steve Davis also teaches it in an instructional video that can be found on YouTube. It is more than just feel and less than CTE but it can work very well as a guide to aiming and is certainly better than guessing.

Here is Steve teaching basic sighting, alignment and stroking (cueing). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Xzd_MfDy0

I will find the one where he teaches the fractional aiming.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Good Day, John.

Thanks. You're correct. I did, but now that I do get it, You're in there too. You're judgement would be thrown out too.

Best Wishes.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, that leaves all the people who have reported that they are doing great with CTE.
 
Tony_in_MD said:
Got his thumb's broken? WTH

He loves movie references, to make a point though what it is I have no clue. I wonder if Fantasy Island was his favorite TV Show.
Click to expand...

There's actually a scene I'm considering submitting for a new Dirty Harry movie.

There is this guy that thinks himself to be funny, who keeps hounding Harry with all kinds of smart A$$ remarks, crap & such. then when Harry is in a bad mood regarding something a bit important, this guy makes one of his wise cracks & Harry looks at him & says, 'you know... you're just a smart A$$ & it's time you grow up a bit & learn the lesson about what's at the heart of being civil & that nobody likes a Smart A$$.'.

Harry then beats the living daylights out of the guy until he's unconscious & his face is like mush with blood ooozing out & gushing out in a few small spots.

Then Harry looks at him & says, 'Thanks... you just made my day... Now what do you have to say... Punck.'.

I hope you enjoyed the story.
 
Last edited:
JB Cases said:
Fair enough, that leaves all the people who have reported that they are doing great with CTE.
Click to expand...

Along with all those that have had no 'real' success with it & all those that would never try it because of the outrageous assertion.

It's the one's in the middle that you're after & I'm fine with that as long as they go in knowing the fact that the outrageous assertion is unproven.

I'm NOT trying to stop anyone from trying to improve however they wish to do so, I just think & feel that they should not be 'drawn in' by unproven outrageous assertions.

I'm not of the NO METHOD clan you seem to pigeon hole many in.

I went to the equal overlap method naturally without being taught at the age of 13.

It's real simple... if an assertion that goes against known reality is made, then it should be proven or it should be retracted.

Retracted & perhaps reworded at least until it can be proven... or accepted by those making it that it is not as asserted.

To me... THAT's reasonable.

Best Wishes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top