Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[Patrick Johnson]

...the CTE folks will just keep making shots from everywhere on demand...

...and we'll all be happy in Lollipop Land!

View attachment 96771

 

[ENGLISH!]

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

To what adjustments in CTE are you referring, John?

I was sort of giving up on CTE when CJ introduced TOI here & I looked into it & would certainly prefer TOI to CTE & might still do so even if CTE was totally objective but total objectivity would be very difficult to pass on & that assertion is what drew me to it initially

I'll say again, If anyone wants to buy & try CTE they should do so. They should just know that the assertion of it being a 'totally objective 'system' or method has not been proven nor unproven & each & every individual should make their own determination.

Best Wishes.

 

[JB Cases]

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.

Ohhh brutal stab......good one.

Yes and Gerry will tell you that the REASON he is able to make these shots IS because of the concrete and objective aiming method he is using. He calls out the perceptions and even the adjustments when needed.

CTE is NOT responsible for his inner drive to put the time. It is not responsible for his straight stroke or his understanding of speed control. It is not responsible for his "pool sense" so to speak. All those things though are enhanced by having a rock solid way to aim in my opinion.

CTE is also not responsible for my laziness. I am a better player because I use it but not as good as I could be because I don't have the drive to learn it as intricately as Gerry has. That's why I don't make these five shot videos because I am NOT as consistent in applying the method as Gerry and Stan are. Sadly because I have been fortunate to have direct instruction from Stan but I just can't bring myself to practice diligently enough.

Again though nice burn on my skill level....you're 100% right about that. If I was better I would surely have won more than the $1400 I am up this week.

 

[JB Cases]

To what adjustments in CTE are you referring, John?

I was sort of giving up on CTE when CJ introduced TOI here & I looked into it & would certainly prefer TOI to CTE & might still do so even if CTE was totally objective but total objectivity would be very difficult to pass on & that assertion is what drew me to it initially

I'll say again, If anyone wants to buy & try CTE they should do so. They should just know that the assertion of it being a 'totally objective 'system' or method has not been proven nor unproven & each & every individual should make their own determination.

Best Wishes.

The subconscious adjustments you claim are there of course. Since your premise is that they exist my rebuttal is that your subconscious doesn't work then because it sure does work for other people who use CTE per my experience.

 

[Dan White]

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.

No, I think you misunderstood my intention with that comment. I love the video because it is set up scientifically and removes bias as much as possible. It is the kind of thing CTE skeptics would like to see more of as related to CTE. I don't have a dog in this fight, really. I do agree with English that a video of someone using CTE doesn't prove anything. It isn't an explanation of why it works. Objectively speaking, you have no way of removing personal bias in shot making. When I was working on improving my stroke I had people tell me I was lined up with right english. I would have bet anything that I was at center ball and when I put the cue where they said was center-follow I thought it was a joke. It took a long time but eventually I got everything lined up so that center looked like center. This was a very basic issue of perception. The mind does amazing things and for this reason people look for sound explanations of why CTE works rather than just watching someone demonstrate it.

Here's something else that would be more convincing. Take a guy with about 50% shotmaking ability and work with him for two months on his fundamentals and see where he is at (NO CTE ALLOWED). Now let's say he's at 75%. Now introduce him to CTE and see where he is after another 2 months. If he's now at 90% then you have my attention.

 

[JB Cases]

Put your money where your mouth is Pat and prove you can at least MATCH good CTE users shot for shot. I will put up $100 for every shot.

All you have to do is make the shot in the SAME AMOUNT or fewer tries and you win $100 for each you beat them in.

I can even have someone in Chicago live stream you at the exact same time as Stan will do it in Kentucky.

Do we have a bet? You know what I will give YOU 2:1 on the money. Every shot YOU win pays $200 every shot Stan wins pays $100. Any backers for Patrick? I will post $2000 and above on this. 20 shot minimum.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Put your money where your mouth is Pat and prove you can at least MATCH good CTE users shot for shot. I will put up $100 for every shot.

All you have to do is make the shot in the SAME AMOUNT or fewer tries and you win $100 for each you beat them in.

I can even have someone in Chicago live stream you at the exact same time as Stan will do it in Kentucky.

Do we have a bet? You know what I will give YOU 2:1 on the money. Every shot YOU win pays $200 every shot Stan wins pays $100. Any backers for Patrick? I will post $2000 and above on this. 20 shot minimum.

I know I wouldn't beat Stan - and if you go against him you'll prove that CTE can't beat him. Good idea.

pj
chgo

 

[Colin Colenso]

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.

JB,
My 'come on' was meant in a friendly way, which may require a tone of voice hard to represent here in text.

And I'm way past the thinking of holes in makeable angles argument. If such were true, it would have driven you all nuts by now :smile:

The question is how, and I have my own theories about that, and don't see any point in challenging CTErs to prove their how.

Your stories, which I do enjoy, remind me of sharing my enthusiasm of using BHE aim & pivot with a close mate, who has represented Oceania in snooker several times. I set up a shot, OB 9 feet from a tight snooker pocket that would make most pool players shiver, and CB a foot away, and demonstrated, by hitting the jaws a few times in a row, how to play the shot with extreme inside english. Knowing nothing of BHE, and probably never having needed to play such a shot, he smashed it in center pocket 3 times in a row with heaps of inside english, just intuitively guestimating the squirt and throw.

He's still not in the world's top 200 potters I'd guess, but I'd back him in on any potting challenge versus anyone who claims to use CTE to pot, on a table with tight pockets.

I'm not saying this as a challenge, just to make the point that there are various roads to Rome.

But, I know one thing for sure, they'd have to pot better than anyone who has represented the US in the Mosconi Cup in the event's history in order to beat him in straight out potting.

Colin

 

[JB Cases]

No, I think you misunderstood my intention with that comment. I love the video because it is set up scientifically and removes bias as much as possible. It is the kind of thing CTE skeptics would like to see more of as related to CTE.

Gotcha.

I don't have a dog in this fight, really. I do agree with English that a video of someone using CTE doesn't prove anything. It isn't an explanation of why it works.

That's not really the intent of such videos. The intent is to show consistency by a person who is honestly attesting to using CTE as the aiming method. So essentially the discredit comes in by saying a video doesn't prove they are using CTE which is the absolute equivalent of calling them a liar. Which then begs the two questions, why lie? and HOW did they get that good to make those shots on demand?

Objectively speaking, you have no way of removing personal bias in shot making. When I was working on improving my stroke I had people tell me I was lined up with right english. I would have bet anything that I was at center ball and when I put the cue where they said was center-follow I thought it was a joke. It took a long time but eventually I got everything lined up so that center looked like center. This was a very basic issue of perception. The mind does amazing things and for this reason people look for sound explanations of why CTE works rather than just watching someone demonstrate it.

Understood but the explanations of WHY it works, to the best current knowledge, has been given both in print and on video many times over the years. Unfortunately it get buried in the rubble caused by the constant shelling by the knockers.

Here's something else that would be more convincing. Take a guy with about 50% shotmaking ability and work with him for two months on his fundamentals and see where he is at (NO CTE ALLOWED). Now let's say he's at 75%. Now introduce him to CTE and see where he is after another 2 months. If he's now at 90% then you have my attention.

That's a great idea and I think Stan should get someone local and do this with them. He has the setup and the equipment to film the whole thing. It is too bad though that the testimonials from dozens of people who are good players including several pros isn't enough to hold your attention.

 

[Dan White]

Basically my feeling is that barring a physical or mental illness handicap if you're a decent player but not at the top then you have lots of room to improve no matter how good you THINK you are right now. I am absolutely certain that even good players can benefit from these aiming methods. And in fact professional players Stevie Moore, Shaun Wilkie and Phil Burford, already great players before learning CTE stand firmly in saying that that aiming method has helped their game.

I stopped listening to pro players when Shane said he modeled his stroke after the Filipino players because he thought it looked cool. Oh, and when Efren said the best player he knew had a cool stroke and so he did it, too. I think the professional instructors are better at helping people than the players are.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I think I'm too good to learn anything about pocketing balls. Quite the contrary. What I am saying, that I didn't see any response to yet, is that I think my aim is better than what CTE can give me. I only base this on my conversation with Hal and my subsequent practice at it. Again, I pocketed a ball in the side pocket. I set up the shot again with the balls an inch further down the table, and I missed the shot by an inch. I concluded that the system was just a rough approximation of the correct aim point and that it couldn't improve anything for me. Colin and John are getting a lot more out of it than I did so maybe I never learned the method correctly. I don't say that sarcastically, BTW.

 

[Dan White]

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.

Hmm. You realize what you are saying, right? :thumbup:

 

[JB Cases]

Colin your friend has a bet against Stan on a 10ft diamond with 4.25" pockets. I will bet up to $5000 on Stan. Of course a great player will already KNOW how to do the type of shot you described. I want to seem him making two three four and five railers on demand.

 

[cookie man]

Cookie has saidd the he uses feel & subjectivity but has not yet clarified exactly what he meant & where that is.


Best Wishes.

Clarified? Thought i was pretty clear for a person of your iq. ALL visual aiming is OBJECTIVE. The feel and subjectivity come into play with the delivery of the cue, grip pressure, speed and the general act of playing pool. All aiming is objective and laid out by STAN in a very precise way.
How about you? How do you do it?

 

[Dan White]

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.

I find few people, if anybody, giving so much analysis of the bridge position. I think you've carved out an interesting niche to become expert on. "Good on ya" as they say.

 

[ENGLISH!]

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

You just don't get that the issue can NOT be proven one way or the other by ANY video or demonstration.

It is an intellectual issue & the ONLY way is to convince another by means of logical critical explanation &/or debate.

PJ in the past has posted, not video, but hard copy as an aid to assist in the critical analysis.

To be honest, Cookie, it's up to you to do the critical thinking for yourself if you want to see it as it is.

If not, that's fine. Your'e happy with the way you're shooting & that's all that should matter to you.

If you believe that it's 'totally objective' then it is for you, even if it is not.

Best Wishes.

 

[cookie man]

I stopped listening to pro players when Shane said he modeled his stroke after the Filipino players because he thought it looked cool. Oh, and when Efren said the best player he knew had a cool stroke and so he did it, too. I think the professional instructors are better at helping people than the players are.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I think I'm too good to learn anything about pocketing balls. Quite the contrary. What I am saying, that I didn't see any response to yet, is that I think my aim is better than what CTE can give me. I only base this on my conversation with Hal and my subsequent practice at it. Again, I pocketed a ball in the side pocket. I set up the shot again with the balls an inch further down the table, and I missed the shot by an inch. I concluded that the system was just a rough approximation of the correct aim point and that it couldn't improve anything for me. Colin and John are getting a lot more out of it than I did so maybe I never learned the method correctly. I don't say that sarcastically, BTW.

Obviously the ball you missed in the side wasn't done with proper cte even though you think it was. But if you think your aim is as good as it can get then end of conversation. Do not change a thing

 

[ENGLISH!]

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

Colin,

I agree.

I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Colin your friend has a bet against Stan on a 10ft diamond with 4.25" pockets. I will bet up to $5000 on Stan. Of course a great player will already KNOW how to do the type of shot you described. I want to seem him making two three four and five railers on demand.

lol

This is my favorite part - when you finally drop all pretense of rationality and just go psycho on us and start screaming "BET!!! BET!!!!!".

Is it like a Tourette's thing?

pj
chgo

 

[Dan White]

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.

Uhh, John, not to be rude but I wouldn't exactly call this a ringing endorsement of the system. I could miss those shots just as well as he did. The double bank was impressive, but how many times has he hit this shot? Let me set up two balls of my choosing and see how he does on the first try. That would be more interesting to a skeptic.

 

[cookie man]

You just don't get that the issue can NOT be proven one way or the other by ANY video or demonstration.

It is an intellectual issue & the ONLY way is to convince another by means of logical critical explanation &/or debate.

PJ in the past has posted, not video, but hard copy as an aid to assist in the critical analysis.

To be honest, Cookie, it's up to you to do the critical thinking for yourself if you want to see it as it is.

If not, that's fine. Your'e happy with the way you're shooting & that's all that should matter to you.

If you believe that it's 'totally objective' then it is for you, even if it is not.

Best Wishes.

Again Rick, i use it every single shot. You don't and haven't. Same with PJ. If either of you bothered to learn it then you could at least really speak from experience. You bring up science a lot. You've been presented with a theory, cte, disprove or prove it. With your conviction and high IQ it should be a piece of cake. Or at least post something, a shot maybe, that describes a hole in the system. You think it's there, lets see it.