Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[JB Cases]

For Colin and JB:

Colin - fantastic job on your fixed bridge video! I love it! This is exactly the kind of thing skeptics of CTE would like to see more of, but I understand that not everything is subject to this kind of testing.

So you think that the video is supportive of CTE skeptics? If anything it is the exact opposite and supports any method that ensures more accurate aiming. Colin showed what power there is in being on the dead nuts PERFECT shot line.

So if you had a method that put you on that line consistently I'd think any player would want it.

 

[JB Cases]

Prove it.

That's where we've come to when the points put out get ignored & talked around with nothing to really counter those points.

We conversed most of yesterday in PM's til you decided to cease, yet you're willing to do it here.

Someone says something that Y'all don't agree & the response is prove it with a video even though it is an intellectual issue.

So now here we are with you saying something that I & others do not agree.

So, Prove it. A video will not be proof.

You can't.

So, it's he said, she said.

I thought we agreed that neither would be able to convince the other.

I have a rather high IQ & can certainly understand language. I do not have to have an experience or complete understanding of a subject to be able to be taught.

Do teachers teach what is already understood by a student? NO & they use words & language to teach.

Best Wishes.

And demonstration. Demonstration and duplication are well used to teach methods.

In fact there is a tennis academy in Russia that is low tech. They have produced several champions.

Their secret?

Duplication. Students are told to strictly copy the swings and motions of champion players. They do this hitting thousands of balls a day until they have sufficiently mastered those motions.

No swing theory. No debate. Copy what works and own it.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Yes, i would certainly expect the stranger to pocket them at a high percentage.
Yes each visual takes the ball to a particular pocket. There are some exceptions but in the context of your question yes.
That's why i said the pocket is the limitation. The goal is the pocket and that's what cte does, takes you to the pocket.

It's obvious you did not understand. I guess I was not specific enough.

Like the 5 shot perception video, if I remember correctly Anthony shot a shot into a corner pocket with a '15*' visual. He then moved the ball slightly & shot it with the same visual & the ball consistently went into the rail.

I've done a very similar thing when testing the 5 shots.

Could Anthony or I pocket those shots with the same visual?

Yes, but... we would have to call on our subjective perception of what that shot looks like.

The visual does NOT take the ball to the pocket. It's moving off of the fixed cue ball that the visual presents with the proper perception of the shot that gets one to the actual shot line.

That is subjective perception. If one makes the shot their subjective perception was correct. If one misses the shot their subjective perception was incorrect.

Without the subjective perception the places that the objective visuals alone can objectively send the ball are rather limited.

Best Wishes.

 

[Nick B]

Well JB welcome back and as expected it didn't take long.

c/w a little theme music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZzEzDkeHzI

The theme song really fits.

 

[Colin Colenso]

For Colin and JB:

Colin - fantastic job on your fixed bridge video! I love it! This is exactly the kind of thing skeptics of CTE would like to see more of, but I understand that not everything is subject to this kind of testing.

When you say that the stroke isn't that important I now see where you are coming from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are really saying that the stroke isn't important IF you get your bridge to the natural pivot point of the cue -- that being the point on the cue that balances out squirt with the offset aim. In other words, when I apply right english with BHE, I am pointing the cue to the right of the correct aim point which will send the cue ball to the right, but the off center hit will squirt the cue ball to the left. If you are at the pivot point of the cue, these exactly offset and the cue ball goes to the correct aim point.

Of course the above does not eliminate the necessity that you be able to hit the cue ball in a precise location. There is more to playing the game than pocketing a ball. You need to get position, too, and if you can't stroke the cue with precision then you will have trouble with that part of the game.

Dan,
I clipped your post quote to the parts I feel I should comment on.

Your description of the cue pointing direction cancelling out the squirt is as almost as good as it could be explained, and understood. Well done.

You may not be aware, but it doesn't just work for 1 offset, which was about 1 tip or 70% max tip offset as I showed in the video. There is an almost perfect lineal relationship between the angular change with pivot and the amount of squirt, when at the pure pivot point. Hence, I could have hit the CB with anywhere from 1% to 100% inside and with any combination of draw or follow and still made that shot, when playing near to that speed.

I was hitting this shot hard in the video, such that my pure or natural pivot point for that cue and CB, was the same as the effective or squerve pivot point. If I played the shot at about half that speed, I'd need to lengthen my pivot by a couple of inches to compensate for swerve. This is a way to use aim & pivot to compensate for swerving shots. There is throw to deal with as well, hence I didn't show outside english on this shot, as it would have thrown the OB left of the pocket. I go into how I deal with this in my thread on BHE in the aiming forum.

On your last point, absolutely the stroke is crucial in terms of speed and precision of contact with the CB in regard to CB positioning. But in making the shot, far less so.

Obviously we need both to play well, hence a good and accurate stroke is very important. But, I think there is so much confusion regarding the role of the actual stroke, versus bridge positioning, that I want more people to investigate their right functions and domains of significance.

Edit: One point I forgot to mention. While on softer longish shots, the stroke does come into play moreso in terms of how it takes a ball off one's alignment,but keep in mind that the great majority of players encounter errors playing at firm speeds even more so than they do at lower speeds. They often blame these errors on stroke faults and rarely consider their bridge positioning as the cause. And even though they are not likely bridging at their cue's pivot point length, most aren't too far away from it on firm shots, and even if they are a few inches away from it, it takes quite extraordinary cueing errors to produce the same CB travel line errors than having one's bridge 0.5mm off line produces.

Cheers,
Colin

 

[JB Cases]

Well JB welcome back as expected it didn't take long.

c/w a little theme music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZzEzDkeHzI

The theme song really fits.

Yep I feel pretty much like Kotter. Nice to see the neighborhood is the same after a year.

I like facebook way better.

 

[JB Cases]

I don't know how anyone can watch this and not think it's just awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrFBiQQFhpw

WHATEVER aiming method helps me to get to this level of accuracy, I will take two of them.

 

[poolmouse]

I love the last option. I see it all the time wherever there are bar tables.

 

[Colin Colenso]

So you think that the video is supportive of CTE skeptics? If anything it is the exact opposite and supports any method that ensures more accurate aiming. Colin showed what power there is in being on the dead nuts PERFECT shot line.

So if you had a method that put you on that line consistently I'd think any player would want it.

JB,
I think he was referring to the video as a means of making one's case for a theory.

FWIW: I can't think of any such tests that could confirm or deny various claims of CTE.

It wasn't, nor do I think Dan thought it was, a CTE skeptic video. It was purely a video demonstrating the power of accurate bridge positioning, and how various stroking methods have almost no influence on whether a shot is made or not.

Cheers,
Colin

 

[JB Cases]

I can think of a test. Simutaneously do live streams where the best CTE users do the five way shots and the most vocal skeptics do them at the same time.

The skeptics can then explain to the audience why they can't do them and the CTE folks will just keep making shots from everywhere on demand.

Conclusion: Either the CTE people are telling the truth or they are aliens since the best feel players on AZB can't touch them in shotmaking.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Context. If your intention was to show that CTE doesn't work then it would be expected that you could demonstrate WHY it doesn't work to the best of your ability along with the demonstration.

If your intention was to ask for advice on WHETHER you were applying it correctly then that would be looked at differently.

But if you just put up a video and said "I am using CTE and missing so it doesn't work" then based on the body of dispute leading up to such a video would lead to some people saying that there was too much bias to get a fair review. This is one reason in diving that high and low scores are thrown out, to eliminate bias. For the most part though normal folks with no financial investment can be presumed to be telling the truth in their demonstration.

Rick I honestly think you are nitpicking this far too much. Let's take the five way shot you speak of. Listen go to the pool room and set that shot up and let feel players try them. You will 100% see that their results are way off for most of the shots. Even if a CTE user did some kind of "adjustment" there is no doubt that the results are WAY closer on every shot than what feel players can achieve. That's the whole point.

In games I have tried those shots when I had no other choice. The make percentage for a three rail to the side is still low but the "i got really damn close" percentage goes WAY WAY WAY up when using cte to figure the shot line. And trust me when you nail one in league it really makes your team and the spectators go nuts. You have to earn that "high" and I am really glad CTE gives me a way to aim shots like that when that's all I have to shoot.

John,

When I 'tested' the 5 shots for 'objectivity' & #5 goes no where near the pocket with only 'objective' CTE, I then shot it hard by 'my feel' & rattled it & then shot it with TOI & pocketed it.

I just Friday shot & made center pocket a 3 rail shot from tight quarters up table that my opponent was shocked about & had no idea what I was doing & he is a 71 year old one pocket player.

I've gotten myself tied up on the ball before the 8 in 8 ball because the cue nipped a ball coming out 2 rails & then went 3 rails to cut the 3 ball from the exact center of the table into the side pocket.

What's your point?

Have you read my reply to your PM?

It's about the assertion that can not be proven (nor unproven) other than by critical thinking & the associated language.

There is no nitpicking. An assertion has been & continually repeated along with attempted 'defenses'.

Remove that assertion is all is fine.

ALL was extremely quiet for months until your return & a statement made that does not sit well with several others besides myself.

It's almost like YOU want publicity for CTE even if it is controversial.

 

[JB Cases]

If you take exception to anything I say then state it. Sounds like you are quite capable using whatever methods you prefer.

Maybe cte is not something that is good for you and perhaps your subconscious isn't very good at making the right adjustments. Try a different ointment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[Colin Colenso]

I can think of a test. Simutaneously do live streams where the best CTE users do the five way shots and the most vocal skeptics do them at the same time.

The skeptics can then explain to the audience why they can't do them and the CTE folks will just keep making shots from everywhere on demand.

Conclusion: Either the CTE people are telling the truth or they are aliens since the best feel players on AZB can't touch them in shotmaking.

Come on JB,
You know there are plenty of great potters around that could match a half dozen AZB CTE users in a potting challenge.

Whether or not a group who doubt some claims, or just question the 'how' of the process are good shooters is barely relevant.

It may suffice to some small degree in term of credibility, but it is not proof.

A kind of random sampling training camp showing relative improvements via one instruction method vs another has some merits, as to effectiveness, but still won't prove some claims.

That said, I'd welcome you to my abode, or happily visit you when I return to China for a friendly whack around the table, attempting to impress upon each other various talents and theories behind them.

That said, if some guy who hasn't hit a ball in 50 years, and even then, could not hit them so good, makes a good argument on any matter, I'd welcome their contribution.

If CTE has significant advantages, regardless of speculation of how it works, it will infiltrate elite potting sports as it gains proponents.

Cheers,
Colin

 

[cookie man]

Prove it.

That's where we've come to when the points put out get ignored & talked around with nothing to really counter those points.

We conversed most of yesterday in PM's til you decided to cease, yet you're willing to do it here.

Someone says something that Y'all don't agree & the response is prove it with a video even though it is an intellectual issue.

So now here we are with you saying something that I & others do not agree.

So, Prove it. A video will not be proof.

You can't.

So, it's he said, she said.

I thought we agreed that neither would be able to convince the other.

I have a rather high IQ & can certainly understand language. I do not have to have an experience or complete understanding of a subject to be able to be taught.

Do teachers teach what is already understood by a student? NO & they use words & language to teach.

Best Wishes.

Design something that i can do as a test to satisfy you and i'll do it.
Or post up the shots that show the holes you think are there

 

[Colin Colenso]

ALL was extremely quiet for months until your return & a statement that does not sit well with several others besides myself.

I thought the great majority of this discussion, when one skims past the few silly posts, is quite civil.

I don't think quietness is necessarily of great value to a forum either. I've quite enjoyed the back and forth, and am free to ignore it when interest abates.

It's just people chatting who want to chat.

Colin

 

[cookie man]

It's obvious you did not understand. I guess I was not specific enough.

Like the 5 shot perception video, if I remember correctly Anthony shot a shot into a corner pocket with a '15*' visual. He then moved the ball slightly & shot it with the same visual & the ball consistently went into the rail.

I've done a very similar thing when testing the 5 shots.

Could Anthony or I pocket those shots with the same visual?

Yes, but... we would have to call on our subjective perception of what that shot looks like.

The visual does NOT take the ball to the pocket. It's moving off of the fixed cue ball that the visual presents with the proper perception of the shot that gets one to the actual shot line.

That is subjective perception. If one makes the shot their subjective perception was correct. If one misses the shot their subjective perception was incorrect.

Without the subjective perception the places that the objective visuals alone can objectively send the ball are rather limited.

Best Wishes.

You and anthony would have to rely on subjective perception, i wouldn't. The shots are made as Stan said

 

[JB Cases]

Come on JB,
You know there are plenty of great potters around that could match a half dozen AZB CTE users in a potting challenge.

Whether or not a group who doubt some claims, or just question the 'how' of the process are good shooters is barely relevant.

It may suffice to some small degree in term of credibility, but it is not proof.

A kind of random sampling training camp showing relative improvements via one instruction method vs another has some merits, as to effectiveness, but still won't prove some claims.

That said, I'd welcome you to my abode, or happily visit you when I return to China for a friendly whack around the table, attempting to impress upon each other various talents and theories behind them.

That said, if some guy who hasn't hit a ball in 50 years, and even then, could not hit them so good, makes a good argument on any matter, I'd welcome their contribution.

If CTE has significant advantages, regardless of speculation of how it works, it will infiltrate elite potting sports as it gains proponents.

Cheers,
Colin

Well, then let's see it. To me it's about OPENING discussion. For example I have shown those multiple target/same ball position videos to feel shooters at the pool room and seen them fail miserably.

My overall point is that IF you see something done well then you should want to know how it's being done.

If I see someone make a shot and then I try it and fail I ask them for help. I want to know their technique or method or jedi mind trick if that's what it is. I don't immediately call them a liar and discount their results.

So to me it's simple. Go to the table and test yourself against these benchmarks. How long would it take you to be super consistent and by that I mean making more and missing super small with all the shots presented if adjusting by feel?

Because my experience at Stan's house after challenging him with a witness present was that ANY SHOT I presented to him was figured out and OWNED in side of five shots maximum. By owned I mean that the shots were then either made or missed by a fraction of an inch in subsequent attempts AFTER the correct CTE perception was figured out.

So while it's up to each person to figure out what motivation they have to improve I KNOW that for me I have seen a method that is deadly accurate.

That same trip in the evening when we were done with the day's session I went to the local pool room and played some bank pool. Using CTE and Stan's instruction I ROBBED the guy I was playing and Kentucky is Bank Pool Central. Did I say ROBBED? I meant - as in he had NO CHANCE because I was draining banks from stupid impossible places - just trying dumb ass shots to see if CTE could handle them.

ok it was only $10 a game but I had several times I ran five and out. I won $90 at 410 a game against a seasoned bank pool player making ridiculous banks.

And yeah then two months later I lost $10,000 to a chump but that's a different story.... :-( Pat Fleming did compliment me on my banks in that set though.

 

[ENGLISH!]

And demonstration. Demonstration and duplication are well used to teach methods.

In fact there is a tennis academy in Russia that is low tech. They have produced several champions.

Their secret?

Duplication. Students are told to strictly copy the swings and motions of champion players. They do this hitting thousands of balls a day until they have sufficiently mastered those motions.

No swing theory. No debate. Copy what works and own it.

John,

You have an extreme penchant for bringing things up that simply do not apply to the matter at hand. Is that another way of talking around matters.

Your example is about a physical action that can be seen & emulated that does not require explanation & is not a visual or mental process that does require an explanation.

I know you are more intelligent than that but you turn in a bull dog whenever you get backed into corner, you bite at anything.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I don't know how anyone can watch this and not think it's just awesome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrFBiQQFhpw

WHATEVER aiming method helps me to get to this level of accuracy, I will take two of them.

You imply by this type of post that it is purely the aiming method that has gotten Gerry to the level that he is.

Your level of play is a pure demonstration that that is simply not the case as you use the same aiming method.

 

[JB Cases]

John,

You have an extreme penchant for bringing things up that simply do not apply to the matter at hand. Is that another way of talking around matters.

Your example is about a physical action that can be seen & emulated that does not require explanation & is not a visual or mental process that does require an explanation.

I know you are more intelligent than that but you turn in a bull dog whenever you get backed into corner, you bite at anything.

Best Wishes.

First off all you don't back a bulldog into a corner, he drags you into one and rips you to shreds.

Secondly one uses the resources one has. If I see a physical action that can be copied then I can start there. If a physical action can be described I start there. Perceiving lines is such a physical action. When I introduce someone to CTE I have them observe how my head and body move and try to copy it as they are trying to see the visuals I instruct them to look at.

just because you don't use CTE well or better said you don't get acceptable results from it doesn't mean it doesn't work nor that it doesn't work as claimed. It only means that right now you and CTE don't click.

My employee is a good one pocket player. He runs eight and out a lot. Two weeks ago he played Danny Smith and my friend dogged a spot shot badly. After the game Danny showed him a simple trick to aim spot shots and now my friend drains them or puts the OB within a cm of the pocket EVERY TIME. You can be a good player and still not know or understand every method. Not everything has to click with every person. TOI doesn't click with me. I understand it, I have tried it but not given it three solid weeks as CJ instructs. It just doesn't feel comfortable to me but I didn't find anything about it to criticize. In fact I see much benefit to using it. Others, people I like and some I don't can't stand CJ or his methods. No biggie, just move on.

The gist of your message as I see it is that you think CTE is helpful but it's not 100% objectively accurate. Cool that's all you have to say. The reader can then decide to look at the videos, read the other testimonials and make up their own mind whether to pursue it or not.

But I feel that the underlying tone from you is that you're pissed that you feel duped somehow and feel that you have wasted time on CTE by being told a lie about it's properties. And thus you would prefer that NO ONE ever waste time trying it. That's a lot different message.

So for clarity can you state a clear position on CTE for the readers? Can it be a brief statement?