Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?
- Thread starter SamLambert
- Start date
Whether or not I'm a troll is insignificant, because my overall effect on this forum is minimal. It was an honest question. Literally EVERY single thread I've seen on here that you have participated in results in going way off topic, with personal attacks, and arguments over semantics and what not. Whether or not you actually cause all of this could be debatable, but you sure seem to be the common factor.
EDIT: And yes I realize I'm doing the same thing right now just by mentioning it, but it should be addressed somewhere at some point.
EDIT #2: Case in point, the post right above this one.
Last edited:
Poor Rick, more misunderstandings and clarifications. Will he ever be able to actually say what he means?
A small minority of people involved in any human endeavor might appear to be a cult to outsiders. That doesn't make them lunatics, though.
I suggest you ignore the outsiders and go with what you think will help you achieve your personal goals. Each aiming system has something unique to teach because they all work in unique ways. I don't use any system, but I'm glad I took the time to play with several of them.
In the end you will shoot by feel whether you want to or not because that's the way your brain works, but if CTE gets you real close to the shot line you'll have a lot better success in your learning than you would just hitting balls and watching where they end up.
That's pretty brutal from a beginner. Good luck with your quest to become a pro with such an open mind.
Since there is no test to be a pool professional I hereby declare you one. However if there was a test I'd bet $10,000 that you wouldn't pass it inside five years.
My advice is to stay as far away from CTE and any aiming systems as possible. Get all your coaching from a guy named Duckie on here. Between you and him you ought to become double world champs in no time.
100% wrong.
Respectfully, I don't need you to post for me. As for falsehoods sorry I have not posted one single thing in this thread that is not correct. As for explaining CTE or any other method, it has been explained and it has been proven to be beneficial. Thank you to you and others for your constant knocking because it has led to many videos on youtube with hundreds of thousands of views. You all have done more to advance Hal's methods than Hal ever could have. For that I will always be grateful to you.
Last edited:
Yes it does "find" the correct aiming line. Just because you don't understand how and I can't adequately enough for you why it does doesn't mean it doesn't. Which is why it's results oriented.
The table doesn't lie. Either you make more balls or you don't when you learn a new method. If you don't then either you don't use it right OR it doesn't work. So with enough people trying the truth comes out as to which one of these is correct. With CTE and several other aiming systems the conclusion is that they work as claimed.
If you want to nitpick the language and say that it doesn't work as claimed then that's always going to be your right but to date no one one the "nitpicker" side has been able to produce one single video disproving any claims made.
So you and anyone else can have fun arguing ad infinitum over the language used or whether the "science" or math makes sense...I guess that is pleasurable for you on some level. But what it doesn't do is help any player anywhere become a better player.
Practical use of the aiming methods does that. Stan's videos and the videos of several other players on YouTube prove adequately enough that the methods work. Those demonstrations are enough to pique people's interest and get them to the table. None of your nitpicking helps pool on tiny bit. Great scientists of the past have been wrong about the WHY of a phenomena yet right in their conclusions. Years later other scientists have discovered the actual WHY that underlies the discoveries.
So in conclusion WHY CTE (or other accurate methods) works is really insignificant. Millions of people have learned to use ghostball without the math. They are told to do certain steps and they do it and have success with it. Same thing with good aiming methods.
Good night, about to try and snap off a tournament using my "magic" aiming skills
The fact that 39% of respondents say they use aiming systems is significant. 10 years ago it would have been much less and ten years from now it will be much more.
I predict that in ten years more than 50% will say they use aiming systems and that the understanding of them will be much more widespread.
There will come a day when the debate isn't WHETHER they work or not but instead which one is best to start with.
I predict that in ten years more than 50% will say they use aiming systems and that the understanding of them will be much more widespread.
There will come a day when the debate isn't WHETHER they work or not but instead which one is best to start with.
Actually, flat earthers are exactly like CTE’ers, and I have been using that analogy and label on here in regards to CTE'ers for many, many years so you might want to come up with one of your own. Just the same way that flat earthers assume the earth must be flat, because it looks flat when they look at the horizon, CTE’ers assume that CTE must be finding the correct aim line, because they are still able to pocket some balls while using it. The two are absolutely identical in their lack of logic, lack of knowledge, lack of evidence, and their lack of willingness to accept and deal with reality.
As for my second paragraph, I said that “one time I tried to make a very quick and rough calculation of how many angles a system would need” to pocket every shot possible on a pool table, and “I think I came up with something like 500”, and “I’m sure my number isn’t near close to exact”. Are you really sitting there saying I am presenting 500 as being an exact and factual number? Really? Seriously? As clear as I was to the contrary in several different ways? Really? Come on, you aren't really serious right? That isn't just a reading comprehension error on your part. You saying I was claiming that number as a fact is such a blatant mischaracterization that I don’t see how anyone would have any choice but to believe that it was completely intentional and not just a comprehension failure. Reasonable discussions can never be had if one isn't even willing to be honest about what the other guy actually said.
Detail? What detail? That is the whole thing about your CTE "system". There is no detail. Everything is vague and lacks so much detail that it leaves room for everybody to do things differently, and they all do, yet they still all claim it works. There is no detail, and that is the problem. There is no detail because you have to leave room for feel to be used to adjust for its inaccuracies, otherwise it wouldn't "work". Detail would kill the system because it would eliminate the ability to make adjustments with feel and then it wouldn't "work". If you actually had an objective system that found the correct aim line, you could explain how to do it in a way that was so detailed that it eliminated any vagueness that left all that room for the adjustments by feel to be made, and eliminated the ability for everyone who is using it to be doing it differently than the next guy. There is no detail.
But if you disagree, then go ahead and provide us the exact and detailed explanation for the following, and make sure your instructions have enough detail so that it doesn't leave room for people to use feel with it or for everyone to be able to be doing it differently.
Precisely explain all the steps in detail you would need to find the correct aim line and be able to pocket the ball if you have a long shot that is a quarter ball hit cutting the object ball to the left and you have to hit it very hard with about half of maximum low and about three quarters of maximum right english to get position.
Then explain all the detailed steps of CTE that get you the correct aim line and will pocket that same shot but where you have to hit it soft with maximum left and a naturally rolling cue ball to get position.
There is some evidence that it helps some people sometimes. There is ZERO evidence that it finds the correct aim line. And in fact it can and has been proven that it does not. But in any case, you claim that there is much evidence that it works as described, and it is described as always finding the exact correct aim line, so lets hear all your evidence to substantiate that it finds the correct aim line. Nobody else has ever been able to provide a shred of evidence that it finds the correct aim line in two decades of being asked for any but maybe you have had it all along and have just been holding out. So lets hear it.
I think I made it clear earlier in this thread where I stand on CTE these days.
But you're way out line with your request.
CTE is a center ball system. Meaning that if you want to use side spin, then yes, there will definitely be adjustments made by feel.
Ron Swanson
Banned
I accidentally omitted a few words and it should have read "second to last and last paragraph"
As far as dealing in reality, that appears to be your problem, not mine. I have no problem following the directions and using it successfully. I have to scratch my head though when you state lack of evidence, lack of logic and lack of knowledge. The evidence is plain as day, there is nothing illogical about it, and I am not the one with the lack of knowledge about it. I, as well as several others, have detailed on here how to go through the steps. You, don't even know what all the steps are .
So, what is illogical, is for you to make the statements you have. You have no evidence that it doesn't work as described, little knowledge of it, yet feel qualified to make broad statements about it that just aren't true. Truth is, many of you are just blinded to the steps of it because you refuse to hear them. Stan, Mohrt, and I have given detailed steps on here, and it all has fallen on deaf ears. Those posts were just plain ignored. Not giving them again.
As I said in the last post, several of us have given detailed steps. They were ignored each and every time. Not doing it again.
As far as you stating that it has been proven that it does not find the correct aim line, that is just plain false. It has not. Some of you think you have proved it on paper. But, that means nothing. Game is played on the table. And, in the case of the "5 shots", that many claim as proof, it was shown in detail what all of you omitted. That also was ignored.
As far as evidence, there has been plenty given. It's just that you and others constantly refuse it. You ask for curtain videos as definitive proof. You get them and then dismiss them as a parlor trick. You (all against it) ask for the 5 shot drill. You get the explanation of how to do it, and dismiss it. No amount of evidence will ever be sufficient for you guys.
You guys should know me good enough by now that if it didn't work as described, I would be one of the first ones railing against it. Yet, I'm all for it.
Ron Swanson
Banned
But who ARE the respondents? I doubt anyone in their right mind would view AZB as respresentative of anything other than exceptionally average pool players.
Not a single pro snooker player has ever used an aiming system. Do the same poll on TSF and people won't know what you're even talking about.
I predict in ten year's time people will be going 'remember aiming systems? Of course I didn't use them myself but know people who did, the fools'.
Regardless, there's not a chance they'll be [ahem] sweeping the world anytime soon. They are a panacea, a placebo. Improvement comes through hard work. Talent, technique and hard work are what gets you to become a good player - nothing else.
Last edited:
Who cares what works and what doesn't? There is no replacement for table time IMO. Systems, whether aiming or any other form are of no use without enough time practising them. There will never be evidence of whether this time spent practising improved a player purely because they put in lots of practise or whether they improve because they spent time practising with a system.
From my experience they appeal to beginners and those looking for a way out of admitting they haven't been paying much attention to how balls react. I can get 10 new comers to pick out the ghost ball position after 5 mins of explaining it. Aiming isn't hard.
I don't see CTE as an aiming system. It is more of a PSR for getting a person aligning correctly. It sets them up so their body is aligned following some guidelines but the actual player aims the shot, CTE just gets them close enough to the line of aim for them to spot it.
Lots of players struggle with repeatable alignment, even those at the top of the pecking order. There is no shame in it, it's difficult to imagine where your grip is, hips are and so on along an imaginary line without looking at them. Feel players especially struggle with alignment. They tend to spot the line of aim and just get down and have footwork that's different shot after shot, they preach the cue ball from all kinds of different angles. There is no better or worse in these arguments. There are pros and cons for both. But people making claims like it makes them aim to centre pocket every time are living on cloud 9. I see players shopping balls in a diamond down the rail using CTE. That isn't centre pocket but I'm sure someone will develop and argument as to why it is doesn't matter and how it was the shooters fault.
I have a friend who is one of the best cueists I've seen that isn't a pro and I gave him my 1st DVD to take a look at. He was shopping balls on left right and centre and missing shots on a snooker table he would never miss. Why? Because he followed the instructions too literally. He forgot all he knew about pool and snooker and focused on what the system tells him to do. He gave it a good 6 months before he gave up. 6 months is no where near to learn real Cte, pidge! For someone of his skill level it is. He had a decent potting percentage with it, probably in the 75% region on a snooker table. He had 87% potting average in the 5 tournaments running up to me giving him the DVD. For someone with a near perfect cue action 75% is terrible IMO. He found playing with side a nightmare, this is why I say it's for beginners. You can't get anywhere near the top without using side effectively. He definitely took a step back in his level of play. Why? He had no alignment issues before. Cte caused him to align differently than he had been doing for decades. Not that he was aligning wrong with Cte it was just not what he way used to. Again, this is why I say it's for beginners or those struggling with alignment. If a newcomer doesn't know how to align then it gets then aligning a bit better.
Lastly I know I may get abuse for my post but it is how I feel regarding the matter. I don't expect people who think I'm wrong to lay down and take it, I respect people who stand up for what they believe, especially if they can do it in a logical and civil manner.
From my experience they appeal to beginners and those looking for a way out of admitting they haven't been paying much attention to how balls react. I can get 10 new comers to pick out the ghost ball position after 5 mins of explaining it. Aiming isn't hard.
I don't see CTE as an aiming system. It is more of a PSR for getting a person aligning correctly. It sets them up so their body is aligned following some guidelines but the actual player aims the shot, CTE just gets them close enough to the line of aim for them to spot it.
Lots of players struggle with repeatable alignment, even those at the top of the pecking order. There is no shame in it, it's difficult to imagine where your grip is, hips are and so on along an imaginary line without looking at them. Feel players especially struggle with alignment. They tend to spot the line of aim and just get down and have footwork that's different shot after shot, they preach the cue ball from all kinds of different angles. There is no better or worse in these arguments. There are pros and cons for both. But people making claims like it makes them aim to centre pocket every time are living on cloud 9. I see players shopping balls in a diamond down the rail using CTE. That isn't centre pocket but I'm sure someone will develop and argument as to why it is doesn't matter and how it was the shooters fault.
I have a friend who is one of the best cueists I've seen that isn't a pro and I gave him my 1st DVD to take a look at. He was shopping balls on left right and centre and missing shots on a snooker table he would never miss. Why? Because he followed the instructions too literally. He forgot all he knew about pool and snooker and focused on what the system tells him to do. He gave it a good 6 months before he gave up. 6 months is no where near to learn real Cte, pidge! For someone of his skill level it is. He had a decent potting percentage with it, probably in the 75% region on a snooker table. He had 87% potting average in the 5 tournaments running up to me giving him the DVD. For someone with a near perfect cue action 75% is terrible IMO. He found playing with side a nightmare, this is why I say it's for beginners. You can't get anywhere near the top without using side effectively. He definitely took a step back in his level of play. Why? He had no alignment issues before. Cte caused him to align differently than he had been doing for decades. Not that he was aligning wrong with Cte it was just not what he way used to. Again, this is why I say it's for beginners or those struggling with alignment. If a newcomer doesn't know how to align then it gets then aligning a bit better.
Lastly I know I may get abuse for my post but it is how I feel regarding the matter. I don't expect people who think I'm wrong to lay down and take it, I respect people who stand up for what they believe, especially if they can do it in a logical and civil manner.
A PM sent.
That's actually personally funny because its not only totally wrong but I have been carrying on a series of discussions with flat earthers.
You all nitpick way to much. It's pool not some dangerous undertaking. No one gets hurt trying an aiming system.
CTE users don't just pocket some balls, those who have mastered it pocket all makeable shots using CTE, as long as they stroke properly.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
lol
You need a serious reality check.
pj
chgo
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]