Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[Banks]

It's been answered, but no one is going to spoon feed you the info.
Somehow i believe the 4 part

Just like you believe the cte stuff. Both are about as accurate.

Now, I'll leave you guys to go on making stuff up, avoiding answering questions that you yourself invited and just generally being difficult to have a conversation with.

Any time you want to send one of your high rolling Bartons my way, just post it up.

I'm a 4, you're damn near pro.. whatcha gonna offer? Not in this waste of a thread, start another if you're game.

 

[(((Satori)))]

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.

Lol, It's all about the hustle!

 

[JB Cases]

No, it's impossible. I guess you know the difference between 3/4 and 2/3. Or 75% and 66,6%. And you tell me that you can look at one or another ? At any distance ? And you can also tell me that the results are the same when the object ball's "size" changes as distance increases? You aim a bigger cue ball to a smaller object ball.

No way you are getting the same results.

It is a "feel" system. Not objective at all.

Sorry I disagree. While Shane's method is based on estimating portions of the shaft it's a proven fact that PEOPLE in general get better at estimating with practice.

If you tell someone to fill a bag with a half pound of nuts they tend to be way off the first time they do it and pretty close the 50th time they do it. They train their own senses to become more in tune with what a half pound feels like in weight and looks like in volume.

That's why the clerks at the supermarket are able to very often grab a handful of meat and get within a fraction of an ounce of a pound when it's placed on the scale.

Dave put up a link to an animated estimation game once where the user had to do things like a place a dot in the center and bisect shapes. It was clear that most people didn't do very well the first couple times but with repetitions scores improved.

Maybe Dave can find the link and repost it.

 

[JB Cases]

Just like you believe the cte stuff. Both are about as accurate.

Now, I'll leave you guys to go on making stuff up, avoiding answering questions that you yourself invited and just generally being difficult to have a conversation with.

Any time you want to send one of your high rolling Bartons my way, just post it up.

I'm a 4, you're damn near pro.. whatcha gonna offer? Not in this waste of a thread, start another if you're game.

You're more than welcome to come to OKC if you think you have enough game to beat me. I will put up at least $2000 against you.

 

[one stroke]

There was never any comparing Shane's method as a point of reference in CTE. Neither have anything to do with each other. They're different SYSTEMS/METHODS.

They're both ORGANIZED in that Shane organizes DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE FERRULE to use as a reference for various CUT ANGLES and CTE uses ORGANIZED areas on the OB.

If Shane's system/method is unorganized or haphazard with just point and shoot, he wouldn't care what part of the ferrule he used. But since he does faithfully use DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE FERRULE FOR VARIOUS CUT ANGLES it's an ORGANIZED METHOD OR SYSTEM.

It's one thing that you never got your high school diploma, but you should have attempted to get a GED somewhere down the line. But now I understand where you're coming from and Forrest Gump said it best...

Dam shame all the schooling in the world can't raise a mans intelligence ..
When your pushing CTE and you give a example of players using Systems your leading someone who knows no better to believe thiers similarities between them
The only similarities is see spot see spot run after that there is no comparison
One can be taught in seconds the method of aiming while the other could take months or yrs to learn and some can't grasp it at all ,,
1

 

[ENGLISH!]

Well, since you don't have the numbers and neither do I then neither of us has any hard numbers of users. BUT I am positive that I have met many more people than you who are happy aiming system users and many of them use CTE.

That's pretty much because I travel around the world in my job as a cue case maker and get the opportunity to talk aiming with a lot of my customers. As well people come up to me at shows to talk about aiming.

John,

While I can certainly agree with much of the above your statement regarding you & your travels has a rather large fallacy. Given your very public & extreme advocacy for aiming systems, other than cases, why would one not want to talk to you about aiming systems even if they are against or unsure regarding them. For every 3 that would want to talk to you about aiming there are probably 7 or more that would have no interest in an aiming method at all nor talking to you about them.

Although the poll here doesn't mean much it is cool to see that almost 40% of the respondents say they use aiming systems at least some of the time. I am pretty confident that if we polled the hundreds of people who bought Stan's dvds that the vast majority of them are satisfied customers who successfully use CTE to some degree.

Another stat that I find cool is that the majority of top instructors in the United States teach CTE or something similar to their students. That these top instructors, the nation's best, endorse and teach a variety of aiming systems is a pretty good argument for anyone who is curious about adding precision and accuracy into their aiming.

As to your last two paragraphs there are issues in them other than that of you simply wanting to put your own pro systems slant on things.

1. Less than 40% is between 3 to 4 of every 10 individuals. That leaves 60% to 70% that do not use or have any interest in a 'system'.

2. What you say you are pretty confident in could be totally incorrect.

3. Instructors teach what they can in the time allowed by a lesson. Your analogy to them teaching any 'system' or method of aiming leading anyone to more precision & accuracy is merely opinion & not founded on any outside analysis of such. I would hazard a guess that of the ones to which you refer that are qualified to teach CTE with possibly a few exceptions most would only be teaching CTE upon a specific request to do so.

These types of things, the things of which you speak & the the manner of which you speak of them are NOT objective, but instead are subjectively stated on your part.

Best Wishes.

PS I would hazard a guess that we here will be hearing from those that do teach CTE & that's fine, but for every one of them how many are there out there that do not teach CTE.

PPS You & a few others keep conjoining the issues regarding CTE & lumping them it with 'aiming systems' in general. Is that a diversionary tactic regarding the defense of CTE?

I think I & PJ & perhaps others have stated that we are not specifically against the idea of aiming methods. Some are & hence they are against CTE in that vein. PJ, I, & others are not of that group.

 

[ps611846]

Sorry I disagree. While Shane's method is based on estimating portions of the shaft it's a proven fact that PEOPLE in general get better at estimating with practice.

If you tell someone to fill a bag with a half pound of nuts they tend to be way off the first time they do it and pretty close the 50th time they do it. They train their own senses to become more in tune with what a half pound feels like in weight and looks like in volume.

That's why the clerks at the supermarket are able to very often grab a handful of meat and get within a fraction of an ounce of a pound when it's placed on the scale.

Dave put up a link to an animated estimation game once where the user had to do things like a place a dot in the center and bisect shapes. It was clear that most people didn't do very well the first couple times but with repetitions scores improved.

Maybe Dave can find the link and repost it.

So, you tell me that aiming 3/4 of the shaft at ob edge at 2 diamonds will get you the same results if you do exactly the same thing but cb-ob distance is 4 diamonds ?

No way John. It can never happen and you can never get the same angle.

It is a "feel" thing. There is no objectivity !!!!

 

[cookie man]

It's inevitably heading for a pocket if you're using table geometry. Might be 1,2, or 3 rails but you'd have to be tracking to a pocket if the system uses table geometry to pocket shots.

The geometry tracks the OB to a pocket. Don't see why it would also track the CB to a pocket on the same shot.

 

[Colin Colenso]

There was never any comparing Shane's method as a point of reference in CTE. Neither have anything to do with each other. They're different SYSTEMS/METHODS.

They're both ORGANIZED in that Shane organizes DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE FERRULE to use as a reference for various CUT ANGLES and CTE uses ORGANIZED areas on the OB.

If Shane's system/method is unorganized or haphazard with just point and shoot, he wouldn't care what part of the ferrule he used. But since he does faithfully use DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE FERRULE FOR VARIOUS CUT ANGLES it's an ORGANIZED METHOD OR SYSTEM.

It's one thing that you never got your high school diploma, but you should have attempted to get a GED somewhere down the line. But now I understand where you're coming from and Forrest Gump said it best...

Yeah, but CTE was ORGANIZED in ANOTHER DIMENSION and WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE!

Colin Colenso BSC.Hons.

 

[JB Cases]

These types of things, the things of which you speak & the the manner of which you speak of them are NOT objective, but instead are subjectively stated on your part.

Best Wishes.[/B]

PS I would hazard a guess that we here will be hearing from those that do teach CTE & that's fine, but for every one of them how many are there out there that do not teach CTE.

PPS You & a few others keep conjoining the issues regarding CTE & lumping them it with 'aiming systems' in general. Is that a diversionary tactic regarding the defense of CTE?

I think I & PJ & perhaps others have stated that we are not specifically against the idea of aiming methods. Some are & hence they are against CTE in that vein. PJ, I, & others are not of that group.

This thread is a general question about the use of aiming systems vs. feel. So I will talk about any aiming systems I want. I gave my PERSONAL experience with CTE as an answer to to Sam Lambert's questions.

I am only in this conversation because it is a subject of interest to me. Not because I want to convince you or any of the other knockers to change your position. You have already lost. More than a 500,000 views on YouTube and hundreds, perhaps thousands of DVDs sold shows that there is plenty of interest in CTE. I have no idea how far Ekkes reach is but I know that 90/90 has gained a lot of traction. Shane's aiming video does well as far as I know so people are hungry for this information.

The teeny amount of knockers on here, you, Lou, Satori, Thaiger, Banks, Johnson and a few others are so inconsequential at this point that it's only for charity purposes that we continue to indulge you.

You're good for views and nothing else. If a picture is worth a 1000 words then videos are worth a million and we have won by providing videos that demonstrate players using CTE successfully. Ekkes has videos demonstrating the effective use of his methods and so with no video rebuttals the majority of new aiming system users are coming from youtube and not from AZB.

All your words don't mean anything. You can't (or won't) DEMONSTRATE what your objections are on the table so barring that all you leave the wider world with is the POSITIVE demonstrations and POSITIVE testimonials by aiming system teachers and users. I haven't counted all the views but I bet overall it's close to a million. Let's make a silly assumption and say that this represents a 90% overlap which still leaves 100,000 people who are getting a POSITIVE demonstration of the merits of good aiming systems. To think that plenty of them wouldn't go on to explore those methods is silly in my opinion.

Couple that with the fact that the nations BEST instructors all teach aiming systems now and that thousands more introduced to them yearly.

So think what you want but empirically you have already been made irrelevant. Anything you say now is truly a waste of words and a waste of time if you continue your present course. While you write a paragraph on this forum hundreds more people are watching Stan, and Ekkes, and Gerry and myself among others telling them why they should consider trying an aiming system to improve their game.

 

[JB Cases]

Yeah, but CTE was ORGANIZED in ANOTHER DIMENSION and WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE!

Colin Colenso BSC.Hons.

Well perhaps it wasn't in the sense that it took one man's passionate and unpaid efforts to distribute it in order to end up with not only that one but several other systems that rely on a different perception than is commonly taught and which are accurate.

 

[JB Cases]

So, you tell me that aiming 3/4 of the shaft at ob edge at 2 diamonds will get you the same results if you do exactly the same thing but cb-ob distance is 4 diamonds ?

No way John. It can never happen and you can never get the same angle.

It is a "feel" thing. There is no objectivity !!!!

I didn't say that. Doesn't sound like you know Shane's method though if that's how you think it works. I am not sure but I think that the severity of the cut requires different parts of the shaft.

I'd have to watch the TAR video again to be sure.

Again, using the shaft AT ALL makes it more than just feel and INCREASES the amount of objectivity used in aiming significantly.

 

[ps611846]

I didn't say that. Doesn't sound like you know Shane's method though if that's how you think it works. I am not sure but I think that the severity of the cut requires different parts of the shaft.

I'd have to watch the TAR video again to be sure.

Again, using the shaft AT ALL makes it more than just feel and INCREASES the amount of objectivity used in aiming significantly.

I know what he says, and it makes no sense. As I said before, it's bs. And of course you will not be able to "cover" all the possible angles using this method. And of course you will get in trouble as cb-ob distance increases.

If that's the way the best US player aims, then he must change it......

You can be sure this is not what he does.

And this video is a joke.

 

[Dan White]

Couple that with the fact that the nations BEST instructors all teach aiming systems now and that thousands more introduced to them yearly.

Keep in mind that Mark Wilson, who I personally believe has written the best book ever published on the subject of playing pool at a high level, does not think much of aiming systems. I don't think his mentor does, either.

Let's say I want to learn the latest, bestest version of CTE. Where do I go and what do I buy?

 

[mantis99]

It's inevitably heading for a pocket if you're using table geometry. Might be 1,2, or 3 rails but you'd have to be tracking to a pocket if the system uses table geometry to pocket shots.

The geometry of the table has nothing to do with where the cue ball will go after the shot. Only the natural tangent line created by the shot (plus any spin added) will determine where the CB goes regardless of how one got into that shot line.

 

[BeiberLvr]

I know what he says, and it makes no sense. As I said before, it's bs. And of course you will not be able to "cover" all the possible angles using this method. And of course you will get in trouble as cb-ob distance increases.

If that's the way the best US player aims, then he must change it......

You can be sure this is not what he does.

And this video is a joke.

You know what's a joke. Thinking people can have multiple vision centers or thinking you can stroke up on a ball.

 

[ps611846]

You know what's a joke. Thinking people can have multiple vision centers or thinking you can stroke up on a ball.

Or maybe your iq is a joke..... You will never find out.....

 

[ENGLISH!]

You're both wrong. Any item can be used as an objective reference for the purpose of measurement or alignment.

If a person knows their shaft well enough they can use it to align to the shot and be very consistent once they figure out the parameters.

I find it funny that some people have this aversion to using more concrete methods of aiming. As if somehow this takes the romance of the game and makes it clinical and surgical. Slice the ball into portions, dissect that balll, etc...... maybe it's just me but it seems like some folks in this thread prefer to just guess when they aim and they are mad if other people don't want to be guessing all the time.

John,

As I think I said in one of my PMs, It seems as though you don't have a good understanding of what the issues actually are.

It's not that an object can or can't be used as an objective point of reference. We could argue as to the validity of calling the A & B lines on the OB as objective points of reference but some of us have 'conceded' that to move on to the more pressing issue.

When one looks to simultaneously see the CTE & 'edge to' line & locates themselves on a line where that is accomplished & gets that 'fixed' cue ball. That is IT... relative to the two balls. There is no need of ANYTHING else & NOTHING from the outside of that that is objective can influence that. If one moves off of that line they have then lost the fixed CB & have lost the objectivity of that relationship.

(Unless... A B & C are not points or 1 point wide lines but instead are an array of points forming rather wide lines almost to the point of complete fractional sections of the OB, but I have NOT heard anything like that said. If that is the case Then they are certainly objective in nature.)

Put the two balls on a round table with no pockets & what I just stated above is possible & will be duplicated because it IS objective (If we concede that the ABC points are objective points.).

Now go cut a pocket in on that round table. Nothing changes.

I know the 2:1 ratio & 90* will be launched within seconds of when I hit submit. That has nothing to do with the objectivity of seeing the CTE & the 'edge to' lines simultaneously. They do not change in the objectivity of that vision. Move them anywhere on the table & they do not change objectively.

If for one, the OB hits center pocket & I rotate the whole 'mechanism' 4* the OB does not hit the pocket & the balls & vision center relationship does NOT change objectively just because the whole mechanism has been rotated or moved over laterally.

ANY change is of a subjective nature because one now wants to send the ball out on a different outcome angle line because the pocket is no longer on the outcome line of that objective relationship.

To do that something has to change. Either the amount of pivot or the losing of the 'fixed' CB from the objective visual. BOTH of those are subjective in their nature with no definitive objective guidelines.

If one can not see that with their critical intellect, then something is lacking & I do not yet know how to say it much more clearly than that, if at all.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The words system and method mean the same thing in this discussion
NONE are infallible.
It's all a matter of which method (system) gives the highest percentage of hits to the user. Pick the one that is most successful or easiest for the shooter to understand and use it.
Why do the anti-CTE guys not realize this?

I agree with you about your statement that I put in blue. I think almost all, if not all of the 'anti-CTE guys' as you say (I'm not one of them & neither is PJ) would agree with you.

The thing is that an assertion has been made that puts CTE is a class all it's own. The issue is that that assertion is not factual & has not been proven.

If the assertion were to be officially put in any nationwide advertising & a charge of false advertising were to be made the judge would agree with the charge, because in that kind of situation the responsibility is put on the one making the claim to prove it.

One can not just simply say a table spoon of MY specially concocted mustard a day will prevent everyone from getting cancer. When another mustard manufacturer calls them on that, it is they that have the burden of proof.

I know that that's not an exact analogy but I think everyone should get the drift.

I have said, what is starting to be many times now, that if anyone wants to buy & try CTE that they should certainly do so. I would just point out that the assertion of it being a totally objective 'system' has neither been proven nor unproven because it is of an abstract nature & one should make their own determinations as they should about everything regarding themselves & what they use.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Sorry I disagree. While Shane's method is based on estimating portions of the shaft it's a proven fact that PEOPLE in general get better at estimating with practice.

If you tell someone to fill a bag with a half pound of nuts they tend to be way off the first time they do it and pretty close the 50th time they do it. They train their own senses to become more in tune with what a half pound feels like in weight and looks like in volume.

That's why the clerks at the supermarket are able to very often grab a handful of meat and get within a fraction of an ounce of a pound when it's placed on the scale.

Dave put up a link to an animated estimation game once where the user had to do things like a place a dot in the center and bisect shapes. It was clear that most people didn't do very well the first couple times but with repetitions scores improved.

Maybe Dave can find the link and repost it.

.

John,

You just made a case for subjective perception & input.

When something is totally objective there is no place for subjectivity to come into play.

Best Wishes