Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?
- Thread starter SamLambert
- Start date
Ron Swanson
Banned
Dennis Strickland? Ronnie Williams? English rather than Champ?
Barton never forgets.
I always go by feel 96 54.55%
Usually by feel, with aiming systems for hard shots 37 21.02%
Usually with aiming systems, by feel for easy shots 14 7.95%
I always use aiming systems 16 9.09%
I just hit balls very hard and hope they sink 13 7.39%
..................................
The results so far .
Why so much hate for the feelers ? :grin:
I can't believe nearly 8% are spray and pray shooters.
No one has hate for any of the voters. It stands to reason that MOST people would be feel players. 100 years of Ghost Ball leading to "feel" vs. 5 years of semi-organized promotion of alternative aiming systems is not too much against that. Even if someone has head of the various aiming methods it's not likely that they have tried them or truly spent much time learning them if they did.
Only very dedicated players take the time to learn the good aiming systems if they are interested in them. So to me I take it as a great sign that almost 40% of respondents say they use some form of aiming systems. Can't really read much from this poll however. The questions would need to be better formulated and there should be more that identify the respondent's experience levels to have better data.
I don't hate feel players. If they are playing great and have no aiming issues then they shouldn't change anything. I thought I didn't need an aiming system and I was wrong. Luckily for me Hal chose to give me time that I didn't ask for and it changed the way I look at playing pool for the better. I feel sad for anyone who needs a better way to aim and either thinks they don't or is prevented from trying due to knockers confusing the issue.
He was there for encouragement. And I did make a mistake, Spears is correct. Got a lot on my mind lately.
He was sitting there to keep me positive and focused. As in "get that money" and giving me attaboys for a good shot. If he had coached me Lou would have lost easily.
John, you sure do bring the trolls out the woodwork to destroy yet another thread.
Kelly
They have no useful content to offer the forum so they have to play off mine.
You would think, but when you explain a shot that didn't work usng CTE you are told that you didn't do it right. A lot would be accomplished if CTE users could debunk the reasons people say it doesn't work by illustrating its shortcomings with pen and paper. English and I believe CTE may be a method to get you close to a shot, but in the end it is your experience that tells you where to aim. If that is the case, then what good is CTE?
I haven't looked into CTE in a long time, but if someone could just debunk the simple questions challenging CTE, then I'd probably become a convert, but they don't seem to be able to do so.
It's a fallacy that experience or feel get one to the final shot line when using CTE. Simple proof is in the fact that there are shots that I have always had trouble making. Was less than 50-50 on them, no matter how much I practiced them. Yet, using CTE or 90/90, my make percentage on those shots is over 90%.
Since feel or subconscious could not get me on the correct shot line for those shots, but the system did, then it is proof that the system works and does not use adjustments from the subconscious to make the shot.
That's great that it helped you. My question, and I admit it is probably a basic one, is how do you make that same shot if you move the object ball to the left a half an inch? Is there something about the pivot or way you perceive each shot that makes that adjustment for you? Let's say I set up a shot where aiming center to edge (ie, a half ball hit) pockets the ball. If I am not using CTE aiming, then if I move the object ball a half inch to the left or right, but I still aim at the half ball hit, I will miss. That's what I don't understand about CTE. How does CTE adjust for this without requiring "feel"?
Shooting better isn't proof that the subconscious is no longer involved - in fact, I'd guess it's a sign that your subconscious is more deeply involved, maybe because CTE "speaks your mind's language" better than other methods.
The evidence in favor of the subconscious being involved is that it's logically impossible to define a set of conscious steps complex enough to produce all the cut angles needed, yet simple enough to be used by a player at the table. Evidence of that within the system itself is how vague and undefined the instructions are (except the first couple of familiar "fractional" instructions).
To avoid unnecessary sidetracks, let me restate that I don't believe this makes CTE a "bad" or "unworkable" system - just that it doesn't work exactly the way most of its users think.
pj
chgo
Well, Stan for example shows shots on his video that he clearly states have no CTE solution. For those shots he explains how he adjusts to try and make them.
Honestly though Dan there is almost no shot which can be made directly into a pocket which doesn't have a CTE solution. So the fact is that if someone claims to use CTE and they claim it doesn't work for a shot that does have a CTE solution then the only conclusion is that they are not applying CTE correctly.
The same thing applies if I tell you that drawing the ball according to your instructions does not work and you come to find out that I am not hitting it two tips below center but just one instead although I swore to you that I was using two tips as instructed.
How many times in our lives have we seen players who cannot hit the cue ball consistently where they think they are hitting it? Why can't the same thing apply to CTE? It can't and should not be assumed that just because a new user is not getting the same results as an expert that the system is not valid.
Stan, myself, Gerry Williams, Stevie Moore, Shaun Wilke, Landon Shuffet and many others have put in the time to find out what CTE works for and what it doesn't work for.
I have an example from my cases that fits here I think. Once in a while I will get a call where someone is complaining to me that my case is defective. They will say it's too tight and doesn't hold what I say it will. 100% of the time they are using the case wrong. I have made videos showing how to load the case but sometimes people get one and they haven't see the videos and they start putting the cues in the wrong slots in the wrong order. Now, I should send a card explaining this with links to the videos but I don't yet do that. Despite that lack of instruction on my part the case still works as advertised and is not defective just because the user isn't figuring it out correctly.
I think any "reference" system like that can be helpful in several possible ways:
- by reducing the "by feel" part of aiming
- as a consistent "starting alignment"
- as a choreographed pre-shot routine
- as a methodical focusing aid
- etc.
None of this mean the subconscious isn't involved - I believe these are all "aids" to the conscious and subconscious parts of the aiming process.
pj
chgo
I think if something is really just a reference system for pocketing balls time is better spent achieving a straight stroke rather than learning a complicated reference system that gets you close.
OK so maybe I'm getting somewhere now. Earlier in this thread I said that after instruction from Hal I set up a normal cut shot in the side pocket and made it using one of the CTE line ups (not sure of the correct term there). Then I moved the balls an inch farther down table and hit the same shot. Of course it missed by an inch. Where did I go wrong?
We haven't heard any real reasons cte doesn't work. Get out a pen and paper and give us something.
I miss with cte because i'm human like anyone else.
If you use,lineup, with cte to perfection and your experience makes you adjust you will most likely miss the shot or at least slop it in.
When you line up with the ctel and reference lines the system automatically adjusts for the different angles. Really you probably need personal instruction to actually understand this.
We certainly just don't make halfball hit shots with the system and feel with every angle in between.
Dan that would be impossible for me to tell you that. First I don't know that Hal was teaching you CTE per se. He had dozens of systems. Secondly I don't know what was said between you. I don't know what you thought you understood.
I can tell you this. If you go to your table and put up shots that you think will not work with CTE I promise you that by the end of the week I will go to the table and make a video showing you how I apply CTE for those shots and demonstrate as best I can how CTE handles them.
Stan or Gerry or others could do a better job than me but I relish doing things like this as it keeps me involved and keeps me sharp in this subject.
I will say this as a general statement. Whenever you move the balls you move your body as well and that changes the perceptions. The pocket however doesn't move so the fact is that the angle to the pocket is different for the two shots. Thus it stands to reason that the CTE perception would be different for both shots. Both shots may start with the CTE line as the initial orientation but the bridge hand placement will be determined by the secondary line perception and the type of sweep into the shot, inside or outside. I did cover this on a video somewhere, I will try to find it and edit this post.
I agree that CTE is more complicated than seems necessary (I wouldn't use it), but there are also simpler "reference" systems, like plain vanilla "fractional" aiming. There are also other kinds of reference systems, like banking/kicking systems, that work in similar ways - apply the system; make the adjustment.
pj
chgo
Well, it's not a "reference system". I mean I guess it would be possible to diagram 2000 shots and write down the correct "key" for each one but it is much better to learn to see the correct one without being told what it is. Then your set of 8 keys unlocks virtually any shot.
And the "really close" that CTE gets you to the shot is REALLY REALLY REALLY close, as in nearly exact, or practically exact.
Since I have to satisfy those who nitpick language......CTE takes the shooter to a shot line that is so close to exact that it works the vast majority of the time to pocket the ball on a center cueball hit in my experience and according to my observations of those who successfully apply CTE as an aiming method.
Stroke is a separate issue. The shot line for a pure centerball hit is an extremely narrow corridor. If the shooter is not on this line then the only way to make the ball is to throw the cueball INTO that line somehow.
In this video below I show how a player can aim wrong and yet still make the object ball.
https://youtu.be/TKCDjPgtCwE?list=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9
You haven't understood the real reasons.
pj
chgo
(Not reasons it "doesn't work" at all - reasons it doesn't work without feel.)