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
Provoke- 1) stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone.
2) stimulate or incite (someone) to do or feel something, especially by arousing anger in them.


I'm not sure instigate is the right word. Provoke maybe... I'll try to watch that.:)

For the most part I do believe what I say though. Do you?

Well, you've said nothing about pool to actually help anyone, so no.
John is a great guy who is passionate about pool and his beliefs on how to play.
I think you just want to be the guy that puts him on tilt so he gets banned, then you can stick your chest out and gloat about it.
Do you even play pool?
 
Well, you've said nothing about pool to actually help anyone, so no.
John is a great guy who is passionate about pool and his beliefs on how to play.
I think you just want to be the guy that puts him on tilt so he gets banned, then you can stick your chest out and gloat about it.
Do you even play pool?

Nah, that's not it. I don't want John banned. Why would I... he is great entertainment (when he is not trying to feed cte down your throat)
 
In the end, I don't think we will ever be able to prove wither way which is side of the fence is correct about why it works, I just feel that the last several years of using CTE have swayed me to the side suggesting that it must be structurally sound from the results I have had with certain types of shots that would really limit MY personal level of feel.

You said you've been playing with CTE for the last few years. I submit to you that if you chalked the butt end of the cue and played with it for several years your success rate for pocketing balls would be about the same as using CTE. I'm not knocking CTE per se, I'm just saying that after a few years of play, certainly, you just know where you need to hit the ball to make it go in. I think it takes maybe a matter of months to learn the correct spot to aim on the object ball, but it takes years to learn to deliver the cue in a straight line to that spot. Most people miss and think they aimed wrong. I think they aimed right and just couldn't deliver the cue straight.
 
Nah, that's not it. I don't want John banned. Why would I... he is great entertainment (when he is not trying to feed cte down your throat)
No chance for me to be banned. A year of voluntary absence with a lot of Facebook experience has given me a great perspective on this place and those who post here.

As for CTE. When it is relevant to a discussion I mention it. I don't ram anything down anyone's throat. You shouldn't use metaphors that don't accurately convey the truth. Cte is one of many ways to aim in pool.

I find it to be extremely accurate. I encourage anyone to try it and other methods if they want to explore the aiming aspect of the game.

I find it deplorable that anyone would discourage players from trying things meant to help them become better players.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
I wish I could lock this thread myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why? Is your scroll function broken? No one forces you to open it. Your poll has some votes and you have seen some discussion on the topic of aiming.

Don't sweat the conversation. We have been having the same arguments for years and the knockers get their pleasure out of trying to convince readers that aiming systems in general are not needed and that CTE in particular is no good.

That will never change as they would have to die or be visited by three pro pool legend ghosts to ever stop.

The bottom line is that aiming systems exist. You can choose to learn some or not. No one here cares whether you get good or not. You're another random person posting out of thousands. But some of us care about letting aspiring players know that some damn fine alternatives exist to the conventional "hit a million balls" model of learning to aim.

We can lead a player to a better game but we can't make them think.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
Sam - your video does not play when I click on it.


I’m guessing you mean on my blog? The video is not posted yet, I’m at 2 tournaments this weekend so was a bit short on time to make them.

Will most likely upload it pretty late tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
I suspect there is something to that JB,

That thinking of things like ghost ball, contact points, double distance offset or fraction of overlap etc lead to overthinking during the time when all that is really needed is allowing one's intuition to fall into the line of the shot.

Colin

Hi Colin,

Over the course of the years, I have often said that beginning females seem to have a good eye for the game. That 'good eye' could perhaps be replaced by intuition. Their stances are bad , sometimes terrible, they generally have high head & eyes, & yet pocket balls rather well all things considered.

Now, I guess I'm not talking about all females & perhaps the same could be said for some males.

My point is that I tend to agree & perhaps intuition is more important than an aiming method or fundamentals. That said, when they do miss it is probably due to poor fundamentals.

At 13, My Dad showed me what was required to cut a ball, basically ghost ball, but he never used that term. I think he also briefly explained contact point. I very quickly left the conscious thought of ghost ball & went to the visualization of equal & opposite overlap. In fact I thought that I had invented it & for me I had, as no one had ever showed it or told me about it. The thing is that I never used any designated fractions like 1/4, 3/4 1/2 , etc. My 'fractions' were endless.

So... I guess I was using contact point to contact point based off of the point that I determined from the 'ghost ball' & then visualized it from the shooting perspective as an equal & opposite overlap.

Like some have said, every one uses some method even if just on a subconscious level. I no longer use the method that I described consciously. I just see the line to the pocket & get on the line that will send the ball on that line & I do it with outside & inside english... & TOI. That is what comes from hitting 'a million' balls.

But then what about that beginning female that sort of does the same thing? She just uses her intuition & sends the cue ball where that intuition tells her to do & while she misses shots they are generally close & I would attribute that to poor fundamentals & perhaps a lack of focus on hitting the cue ball precisely.

Anyway just a bit of food for thought regarding intuition of a young boy & females.

For me... now... CTE is TOO much structure... for me... & I would think that it would be too much structure for those beginning females with good intuition, just like it probably would have been for Fast Eddie Felson & Minnesota Fats. But... A young boy of 13 might have liked more structure than he received.

All that said, some need structure & conscious methods. Some can't seem to trust their subconscious & are constantly arguing with it & inhibiting their subconscious to be involved. Some individuals are control freaks while others are more trusting.

Hence, one size thinking cap will not fit all. Whether one side or the other is better or not, I don't know. But... I've usually found that 'balance' is usually a good thing... even if it is askew to one side or the other.

Just some early morning musings before coffee.

Cheers.

PS It may also be like how we use words that we were never ever officially taught & sometimes are not even sure of the actual definition but we intuitively know how to use them, just as it amazes me what my 2 year old Grandson already knows with no formal education. It's said that a child will learn more quantitatively in the first 6 years of their life than for the remainder of their lives. The Human Brain & Mind are amazing Entities.
 
Last edited:
I’m guessing you mean on my blog? The video is not posted yet, I’m at 2 tournaments this weekend so was a bit short on time to make them.

Will most likely upload it pretty late tomorrow.

Yeah. I clicked on the link in your signature line which took me to your blog.
 
I wonder if AZB can install a filter where Trolling Posts, replies to them & posts of no real substance do not show up as new posts in the thread listings.

I waste a lot of time going to posts that have nothing really there.

I'm guilty of such posts too when I respond to trolling posts.

That doesn't mean that those that make an occasional trolling posts are ongoing trolls.

This is one of those 'nothing' posts that should not show as a new post as it's just me thinking out 'loud'.

Sorry Guys.
 
You said you've been playing with CTE for the last few years. I submit to you that if you chalked the butt end of the cue and played with it for several years your success rate for pocketing balls would be about the same as using CTE. I'm not knocking CTE per se, I'm just saying that after a few years of play, certainly, you just know where you need to hit the ball to make it go in. I think it takes maybe a matter of months to learn the correct spot to aim on the object ball, but it takes years to learn to deliver the cue in a straight line to that spot. Most people miss and think they aimed wrong. I think they aimed right and just couldn't deliver the cue straight.
You would be wrong. You are however correct that it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a miss was due to faulty aim or faulty stroke.

With Cte for me it is way more stroke than aim.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
Why can't people simply stop whining about number of posts. Do you go to a bar and interrupt conversations by telling people they can only make so many comments?

This is a party.... Participate in conversations as much as you want and walk away when you want to.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
You said you've been playing with CTE for the last few years. I submit to you that if you chalked the butt end of the cue and played with it for several years your success rate for pocketing balls would be about the same as using CTE. I'm not knocking CTE per se, I'm just saying that after a few years of play, certainly, you just know where you need to hit the ball to make it go in. I think it takes maybe a matter of months to learn the correct spot to aim on the object ball, but it takes years to learn to deliver the cue in a straight line to that spot. Most people miss and think they aimed wrong. I think they aimed right and just couldn't deliver the cue straight.

This is very true.
 
Any proof would be good enough - you guys just don't know what a proof is. (Hint: "Look, I can make shots!" isn't it.)

Remember, I'm not talking about proof that CTE helps its users (I grant that) - I'm talking about how it does that. It doesn't do it without the need for "feel".
JB Cases:
sigh - and again for the umpteenth time - if there is "feel" then it is very very very little. Feel runs the scale from pure guessing to knowledgeable deliberation. CTE is way closer to the deliberate application end of the spectrum.
I grant that it probably seems that way to you, but you really have no way of knowing - that's what "subconscious" means. The only thing we have to help us measure it is geometry + reason/logic.

This is one of the many things you guys simply don't get.

And for all of human history demonstrations of method and showing predicted success is considered a valid form of proof that a method is good to use.
John, for the umpteenth time + 1, learn to read. It's right there in the post you quoted:

"Remember, I'm not talking about proof that CTE helps its users (I grant that)"

And for the umpteenth time +2, here's the part that can't be proved one way or the other, particularly with a video:

"I'm talking about how it does that. It doesn't do it without the need for "feel"."

You can't even prove with a video that you're actually using CTE. Of course we take your word for that, but there's no proof of it in the video.

Another thing you still misunderstand after all these years.

Lack of comprehension and talking past each other (not just you, but some system "attackers" too) is what makes these arguments go on and on for years.

Sigh.

pj <- maybe you're still reading in Chinese?
chgo
 
Last edited:
You would be wrong. You are however correct that it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a miss was due to faulty aim or faulty stroke.

With Cte for me it is way more stroke than aim.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Good Morning John,

How do you 'know' that?

If the aiming is wrong because a conscious method was used or the stance bad, or whatever, then the subconscious will many times try to save the shot & the result is a 'bad' stroke.

When people say, 'you missed because you 'jumped up' & made a bad stroke' they are mostly wrong.

The individual jumped up because the subconscious was trying to save the shot from something already wrong like, aim, stance, or an already bad stroke.

So... how do you 'know' exactly why you miss.

You imply with this simple answer that CTE is never the cause of a miss for you & that it is always your stroke.

You don't 'know' that.

Just because there are those that play very well with CTE does not mean that it's CTE that got them their. They may have been the very good players that they are with or with out CTE.

When Colin reviewed some video of Gerry demonstrating CTE, he discerned where the video would allow that Gerry was swiping off of the V of his bridge & still pocketing the balls.

That could well be Gerry saving shots that was misaligned with CTE & his subconscious subjectivity took over & voided the 'system'.

I think it would be an interesting study for you, if you were to get one of those mechanical cues & do some testing without your stroke. You use CTE, set the cue & pull the trigger.

I think that would be a reasonable test, FOR YOU.

I still think that the final setting of the cue is a subjective task & NOT totally objective, but let's not go into all of that.

It's an easy out to say that misses when someone uses the method are most all related to stroke.

You basically agreed with Dan White other than that he said knowing where to hit the OB is easy & it's the stroke to get it there that is the issue.

So if that IS the issue in both cases one should spend their time & money on stroke mechanics & not ANY aiming method.

You've wasted much time & effort on CTE when perhaps you should have spent that time & effort on your stroke.

I'm just trying to be helpful & I think that mechanical cue might be a good idea for you & perhaps others.

Best Wishes.
 
Last edited:
Good Morning John,

How do you 'know' that?

If the aiming is wrong because a conscious method was used or the stance bad, or whatever, then the subconscious will many times try to save the shot & the result is a 'bad' stroke.

When people say, 'you missed because you 'jumped up' & made a bad stroke' they are mostly wrong.

The individual jumped up because the subconscious was trying to save the shot from something already wrong like, aim, stance, or an already bad stroke.

So... how do you 'know' exactly why you miss.

You imply with this simple answer that CTE is never the cause of a miss for you & that it is always your stroke.

You don't 'know' that.

Just because there are those that play very well with CTE does not mean that it's CTE that got them their. They may have been the very good players that they are with or with out CTE.

When Colin reviewed some video of Gerry demonstrating CTE, he discerned where the video would allow that Gerry was swiping off of the V of his bridge & still pocketing the balls.

That could well be Gerry saving shots that was misaligned with CTE & his subconscious subjectivity took over & voided the 'system'.

I think it would be an interesting study for you, if you were to get one of those mechanical cues & do some testing without your stroke. You use CTE, set the cue & pull the trigger.

I think that would be a reasonable test, FOR YOU.

I still think that the final setting of the cue is a subjective task & NOT totally objective, but let's not go into all of that.

It's an easy out to say that misses when someone uses the method are most all related to stroke.

You basically agreed with Dan White other than that he said knowing where to hit the the OB is easy & it's the stroke to get it there that is the issue.

So if that IS the issue in both cases one should spend their time & money on stroke mechanics & not ANY aiming method.

You've wasted much time & effort on CTE when perhaps you should have spent that time & effort on your stroke.
Through careful study.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top