Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?
- Thread starter SamLambert
- Start date
Systems. You can look them up in the aiming forum.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
You can ask him. He said clearly that he endorses the SEE system and that it is very close to what he has always done.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
I can't wrap my head around the one Shane uses. Yes he uses feel too but he does have a system and it baffles me.
Yes I have seen CJ.Talking of hawkers who post the same message multiple times in order to plaster their gaudy products all over the screen, has anyone seen CJ?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
John,
Your first sentence is totally false. How long did you play the game before CTE? You DO HAVE individual subjective perceptions. Therefore why go on past there in any debate? Everything you say is based on a false premise.
You're basing your whole perception of the CTE situation on a falsehood & then proceeding with argument in favor of CTE based on that falsehood.
I understand what you're trying to say & I have explained that since your goal & intentions & that of others are to pocket the balls, you & they do not 'test' the system objectively but apply it with that subjective bias, even if you do not think that you are doing so.
Your first statement here indicates that you (& they) are operating under a misconception.
When at Stan's, did you do any random throw a ball out curtain shots? I'd be interested to see the results but even those would be inconclusive because the rails are an influence on recalling from past experience that the subconscious call upon.
You may be the worst advocate FOR CTE as you can always fall back on your bad fundamentals & stroke as an excuse for missing shots when it very well could be CTE that was lacking. Perhaps you just do not have a very good spacial awareness which I would think might seem a bit strange since you were a high diver but... that is a different kind of spacial awareness.
There are intelligent individuals (despite the attacks on such by the likes of others) like TonyTheTiger, that supposedly have good strokes, that have spent much time (over a year) with CTE with incomplete & little real success or improvement over their past performance level & in fact less so, according to them. So, perhaps their spacial awareness that is available to put into & combine with CTE is lacking also. That may well be why guys like Tony have looked into aiming methods like CTE.
PJ, I, & others have said that CTE can be an aid in more than one regard. PJ has made an interesting statement about it possibly being a fit for some's subconscious approach more than others. We are all very individual beings even if we can be put into groups by some classifications.
If someone asked me to recommend an aiming tutorial, I would first ask them if they wanted or would like something small & simple or something more complex with more structure. If they said that they would be fine with something complex & structured, I would probably tell them that not method is perfect on it's own & to check out CTE but then explain that it's nature is not exactly as it is said to be. (or maybe the old & new stuff by Mr. Eekees {spelling?} )
Now as to your second paragraph, it sounds like you have geometrically proven CTE. Well then, where is the proof? It seems to you that a 2D representation is sufficient while others demand a 3D representation, while still others say it works totally objectively but will never be proven until it can be explained how we see in 3D, (which can & has been done, as it too is simple physics)
As to your 3rd. paragraph, I have no doubt that one can set up a shot in which to impress another that a visual of CTE will pocket a ball, even if executed totally objectively. That & 'the claim' is what first got me intrigues with the potential possibilities of CTE that I Rather quickly found to be not there in a sufficient quantity.
In the first part of your last paragraph you suggest the possibility of different visual experiences with CTE. Yet, it is supposed to be totally objective. Are you saying that you see straight & I may be seeing in waves? No, our individual vision is governed by the same physics that governs everything else, even in the 3rd. dimension.
Now... Perception on the other hand, that certainly can be & actually IS an individual subjective thing.
Best Wishes.
It's pretty good though. Especially for some shots requiring extra accuracy. I can use CTE to get the line and then use Shane's shaft method to sort of double verify and stay zeroed in. Not that I need it but it works so why not.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Shoes can actually be important. Earl almost forfeited a match once because he realized that he had on the 'wrong' shoes & had to go back to his room to change shoes.
I certainly have more than a few pair of shoes that I would not play any serious pool while wearing them.
Just some food for thought.
Shane uses some type of ferrule aiming system
Your first sentence is false so i felt no need to go on.
Will you be satisfied with the answer or do what is always done regarding an aiming system which is whine and cry the following along with the rest of the non-aiming nobodies who troll pool forums?
It's total bullsheet;
it can't possibly work as stated;
he said he uses it but really doesn't;
what does he do for xyz cut angle differently;
the geometry is impossible;
show the math on it;
just goes to prove it doesn't work because Shane missed the shot; there's more feel involved than the visuals and lining up to them;
yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada... (with never ending drivel)
SHANE DEVELOPED THE FERRULE SYSTEM AND USES IT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ-ohU0sJXE
DARREN HELPED DEVELOP THE SEE SYSTEM WITH EKKES AND USES IT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEGa3TTzGfE
Let the negative debunking and bad mouthing begin.
I have not seen that movie but that made me want to see it.
If I watch it, will I be disappointed with it just as I was with the build up of CTE?
Is it a remake of an old movie?
Best 2 Ya.
Last edited:
Here you are Sam Lambert. This man's work is also extremely good.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK2TrVxfyRVB_R76wf7wDDA
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK2TrVxfyRVB_R76wf7wDDA
Banks
Banned
Now we're back on track with the nonsense.
Please, I'd love to see the actual evidence for not only cte being what it is claimed to be, but for these "many more" that have been successful.
Aren't you a pro by now?
Edit: this is precisely why this junk was discarded to the aiming forum
Last edited:
And from watching the video, I think Shane had contact point and aiming line confused . Side of the ferrule and shaft aiming ? Then he mentions different shafts matter.
Let's just cut to the chase, I think he aims TO CONTROL the cue ball. The OB going to the pocket is the result of that .
Just like the movies aiming systems have fans and critics. Most of the people, I'd guess the vast majority, who are CTE students love the method and give it good reviews.
A few are critical and nitpicky just like it happens with any movie. Even Oscar winning movies have critics.
Well, I have the TAR video and there isn't any confusion there. Of course he wants to control the cueball, this starts with picking a line to send it down. That's called AIMING.
Because Shane has an aiming method that is objective, as in uses objects as references, shaft portion + edge of object ball, he obviously feels quite confident when he gets down on the shot.
And yes, if the aim is dead on then the consequence of controlling the cue ball along the shot line is a pocketed ball.
John,
Shaft portions are not objective. There is no way to look at 3/4 or 2/3 of the shaft with accuracy. What shaft size? 12,75? 12,5? 12,00? It is b...shit. And it is impossible to do that at any cb-ob distance.
Shane's method isn't objective, any more than yours or mine is. He uses objective references to assist his aiming, that's all.
You don't understand the word.
pj <- what else is new?
chgo
P.S. No, I don't want to bet $100,000.