Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[Patrick Johnson]

For me [CTE] seems 99% objective in my subjective experience.

You left a couple of words out.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

John,

I would agree, except when one makes an assertion about an aiming method's nature that is not accurate & it is that inaccurate assertion that would make the method different from ALL other methods.

That said, the rest of what you say certainly is applicable.

Best Wishes, even if you truly think that I am a horrid human being.

How much of CTE is objective and how much is subjective? Please break down the whole method and give us the numbers?

I say it's 99% OBJECTIVE and 1% subjective.

The 1% subjectivity comes in mentally drawing lines to places on the object ball. The edge is objective, the center of the cue ball is objective. Dividing the object ball into quarters for the purpose of obtaining an A, B, C, and 1/8th line is subjective and dependent on practice to train one's perception to a higher level of accuracy. Coming into the shot from a stance position is OBJECTIVE since the shooter is placed into a fixed position BEFORE he goes down into the shooting stance. A shooter has effectively no choice if they want to adopt a comfortable shooting position. So that's objective forced by the steps taken.

Choosing the inside or outside sweep? Subjective until trained. After training completely objective. Thin is in(side) is the rule.

So please tell us your percentages.

 

[JB Cases]

You left a couple of words out.

pj
chgo

Ok, for me in my experience CTE seems 99% OBJECTIVE in my EXTENSIVE experience.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Simple logic says that no aiming system can be totally "objective" - that's "proof" until real evidence to the contrary is presented. None has been presented for CTE or any other aiming system. NOTE: "Is too!" isn't proof (or even evidence).

pj
chgo

For the most part, I agree & because of the nature of objective & objectivity...

proof can ONLY be had in the realm of logical, rational, critical thinking & explanation...

& NOT in the form of demonstrations or video of demonstrations.

But...I do not use the thinking that just because something has not been proven that it has been dis-proven.

I understand your point, but to those that can NOT see the reality of the simple logic that no aiming system can be totally "objective" the thought or dream of such has not been dis-proven... to them.

Thanks for trying clarify but I will stick with my way of looking at it for the sake of being fair to those that have not yet seen & understood the reality of the situation.

Even Dan White is still in the undecided 'realm'.

 

[ENGLISH!]

My apologies then. You're right it doesn't matter. Dan writes it as if someone sent him some incriminating information.

Since you brought up five shot videos and the like I mistakenly assumed you were the PM antagonist in this situation. My apologies.

I was the determining factor of whether to return to AZB or not. My presence on AZB is between myself and the OWNERS of this forum, Mike Howerton and Jerry Forsyth.

And yes, I stand by my statement just as you attacked a dead Hal Houle. Hal Houle endured brutal vicious verbal attacks from Pat Johnson and Lou Figueroa on the unmoderated RSB group. IF in fact Hal played with them on the phone it's unfortunate but not entirely unjustified.

What IS unjustified is actively waging a campaign to STOP folks from trying new ways to play pool.

You do it passive/aggressively even if you don't see it.

They do it DELIBERATELY and OPENLY.

That's wrong and a horrid way to be as a human in my opinion. If anyone did this in the pool room (where they don't DARE to interfere) I would give them an earful at the least about staying out of my business. No what ACTUALLY happens in the pool room and at shows whenever I start demonstrating CTE on the table is a small crowd gathers and we all have a GREAT discussion on aiming in pool where everyone gets into it and we all learn.

John,

When doing as you state, do you make the assertion that it is a totally objective 'system' or method or do you just say something like 'here's a great aiming method'?

Best Wishes & Thanks for the apology even if you still think I am a horrid human being for dong what I can to try to keep the public from being misled & pulled in by an unproven & incorrect assertion, even if it is sincerely BELIEVED.

 

[JB Cases]

John,

When doing as you state, do you make the assertion that it is a totally objective 'system' or method or do you just say something like 'here's a great aiming method'?

Best Wishes & Thanks for the apology even if you still think I am a horrid human being for dong what I can to try to keep the public from being misled & pull in by an unproven & most probably incorrect assertion, even if it is sincerely BELIEVED.

Can we move this to you stating your percentages please? You claim to have cte experience, even if unverified, so put some numbers with your opinion.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JoeyInCali]

I have a question for Stan.
Who are qualified to teach CTE and/or Pro-One?
From watching your video, I believe you pivot with your arm.
No fiddling with the feet or head or body.
I've seen on video and in person some that are different from your pivot process.
Thanks.

 

[LAMas]

Is aiming the center of the CB at the center of the OB objective and precise?
Is aiming the center of the CB at the edge of the OB objective and precise?
Is aiming the center of the CB at fractions on the OB objective and/or approximate
Is aiming the edge of the CB at fractions on the OB objective and/or approximate
Are all of these approximations and given to errors of perception, intension (shape) and mechanics?

I think that these are all tools that can be used to get you to the door but I want to ring the door bell.

Be well.

 

[ENGLISH!]

If I don't care to learn about astrophysics then the terms used in an astrophysics lecture won't be intelligible to me.

Same thing here. Those who don't care to learn the meaningful terms in CTE won't have much of a clue what they mean in a demonstration or an instructional video.

The sad part is that all of these terms have been defined dozens of times but they are buried under mountains of crap by you and a few others.

If I were the moderator I would allow Stan Shuffett to have his own forum where he can speak to his students without interference. Then the terms can be defined and left in a clean space where they are easily found and referenced.

John,

I agree with the part that I put in Blue.

I tried to start two(2) threads in the aiming forum for positive input & positive questions only & both were killed, not by anti CTE guys but by pro CTEers. The problem with that is that it would take a full time moderator if the intent were not honored.

With all of the money that Stan wants to wager why has he not put an interactive site in place. That would seem to be the best solution for him.

If a sub forum were put here, I would think that a disclaimer should be in place as to the assertion of it being a totally objective 'system' with regards to that being in dispute or some such wording & if that were to be in place & displayed for easy view, then Stan & anyone that wants to learn or investigate CTE should have at it & be allowed to do so without any 'negative' ongoing input. Please note that negative is in single quotes. That sometimes means that the word is not being use by it's strict definition & I did that because negative is a subjective term & it's meaning is dependent on one's own subjective perception of the situation.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

How much of CTE is objective and how much is subjective? Please break down the whole method and give us the numbers?

I say it's 99% OBJECTIVE and 1% subjective.

The 1% subjectivity comes in mentally drawing lines to places on the object ball. The edge is objective, the center of the cue ball is objective. Dividing the object ball into quarters for the purpose of obtaining an A, B, C, and 1/8th line is subjective and dependent on practice to train one's perception to a higher level of accuracy. Coming into the shot from a stance position is OBJECTIVE since the shooter is placed into a fixed position BEFORE he goes down into the shooting stance. A shooter has effectively no choice if they want to adopt a comfortable shooting position. So that's objective forced by the steps taken.

Choosing the inside or outside sweep? Subjective until trained. After training completely objective. Thin is in(side) is the rule.

So please tell us your percentages.

Very much of what you say here is totally incorrect.

I'll wait & see if PJ explains your errors & if not I'll give it a shot later on.

But, you've just shown, like I have been saying all along, that their has been misuse of words, especially objective & objectivity & when one misuses words it is usually from a misunderstanding.

Best Wishes.

PS One can not put it in any real terms of any percentage. It's either this is or this is not. But at least we may be heading in a good direction, at least where you are concerned.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Can we move this to you stating your percentages please? You claim to have cte experience, even if unverified, so put some numbers with your opinion.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

John,

Please see my reply to your earlier post & please understand that we are not in real time here.

Did you not 'scold' Dan for saying what you can & can't do when you want to do so. You said that you would do something & did not do it. That's not saying that you won't if & when you get around to it, but like Dan said you've spent much time here typing when you could have done what you said you were going to do for him.

Anyway, I may as well say it now. One can NOT put any percentage numbers on it. One can only indicate that this aspect is & this aspect is not. No percentage can realistically be put on it other than some arbitrary guess.

Best Wishes.

 

[Jal]

...
So, all systems are ghostball based. The only difference in systems is how the ghostball position is determined between each.

So true. Any method of aiming has to start with the fact that the cueball must contact the object ball opposite the pocket. This is a physical fact and cannot be derived from pure geometry. With that fact in hand, you can develop various derivative statements using geometry, but the salient things you have to work with are precious few, namely, the centers and edges of the balls. Using them to arrive at the ghostball position involves some combination of two things: visualization and feel, the latter being memorization from experience.

In principle, if you could perfectly visualize the cueball opposite the objectball's direction at contact (perspective/foreshortening was not a problem) you would not need any feel. From day one, no shot would be a mystery. Alas, few of us have that skill from the get go and must acquire it through trial and error. We have to memorize and then rely on those memories.

The big problem some of us have with CTE is the denial of that process. The correct aim line relative to the reference lines (to A,B,C) varies continuously, not only with cut angle, but with the distance between the balls. To use them to arrive at the aim line, whether you perceive them differently from shot to shot, or do something different with the same perception, obviously involves subjective processes and memorization. Given that you not only have to deal with the variable of cut angle, but CB-OB separation as well, it's no small amount of memorization at that. It suggests that CTE users, despite fervent claims to the contrary, simply revert to their pre-CTE methods at the moment of truth.

Maybe part of the disagreements have to do with the meanings of terms like "feel" and "required adjustments/tweeks to the system." The CTE advocates might be picturing a certain amount of fidgeting and groping for the shot line, while this isn't necessarily what the skeptics mean by them.

Jim

 

[JB Cases]

Is aiming the center of the CB at the center of the OB objective and precise?
Is aiming the center of the CB at the edge of the OB objective and precise?
Is aiming the center of the CB at fractions on the OB objective and/or approximate
Is aiming the edge of the CB at fractions on the OB objective and/or approximate
Are all of these approximations and given to errors of perception, intension (shape) and mechanics?

I think that these are all tools that can be used to get you to the door but I want to ring the door bell.

Be well.

AIming center to center. Objective and allows the user to be fairly precise.

Center of the CB to fractions of the CB - subjective since the visually it is difficult at first mentally divide a sphere into precise fractions. However with practice it becomes easier and more objective. It is not a hard task to split the ball in half and then to learn to split that half again to find the quarter line. So, conclusion - objective.

Edge of Cueball to OB fractions - Objective with increasing precision with practice.

I mean in any endeavor a person is almost always awkward at that task in the beginning and they get better and more refined. This is no different. Let's take pool out of it and just give a person the task of segmenting a circle.

They will probably not be that great at first but after a while they will be pretty close to the right portions.

Surely if this all boils down to what's objective and precise then trying to use the actual physical balls rather than spots on the cloth, phantom balls, or nothing has to be considered far more subjective.

Let's take a spot shot as an example.

If I take two players and instruct one to place the ball at two diamonds down and one diamond in and aim the center of the cb through the edge of the ob and the other one gets no instruction I will bet that the one who has learned the dead nuts aim for a spot shot from this position will have a better success rate over 10, 100, 1000 shots.

 

[ENGLISH!]

So true. Any method of aiming has to start with the fact that the cueball must contact the object ball opposite the pocket. This is a physical fact and cannot be derived from pure geometry. With that fact in hand, you can develop various derivative statements using geometry, but the salient things you have to work with are precious few, namely, the centers and edges of the balls. Using them to arrive at the ghostball position involves some combination of two things: visualization and feel, the latter being memorization from experience.

In principle, if you could perfectly visualize the cueball opposite the objectball's direction at contact (perspective/foreshortening was not a problem) you would not need any feel. From day one, no shot would be a mystery. Alas, few of us have that skill from the get go and must acquire it through trial and error. We have to memorize and then rely on those memories.

The big problem some of us have with CTE is the denial of that process. The correct aim line relative to the reference lines (to A,B,C) varies continuously, not only with cut angle, but with the distance between the balls. To use them to arrive at the aim line, whether you perceive them differently from shot to shot, or do something different with the same perception, obviously involves subjective processes and memorization. Given that you not only have to deal with the variable of cut angle, but CB-OB separation as well, it's no small amount of memorization at that. It suggests that CTE users, despite fervent claims to the contrary, simply revert to their pre-CTE methods at the moment of truth.

Maybe part of the disagreements have to do with the meanings of terms like "feel" and "required adjustments/tweeks to the system." The CTE advocates might be picturing a certain amount of fidgeting and groping for the shot line, while this isn't necessarily what the skeptics mean by them.

Jim

:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:

You should post more often. I'm sure you would be a great asset to the site, but I totally understand why you refrain from doing so.

Best Wishes,
Rick

 

[JB Cases]

So true. Any method of aiming has to start with the fact that the cueball must contact the object ball opposite the pocket. This is a physical fact and cannot be derived from pure geometry. With that fact in hand, you can develop various derivative statements using geometry, but the salient things you have to work with are precious few, namely, the centers and edges of the balls. Using them to arrive at the ghostball position involves some combination of two things: visualization and feel, the latter being memorization from experience.

In principle, if you could perfectly visualize the cueball opposite the objectball's direction at contact (perspective/foreshortening was not a problem) you would not need any feel. From day one, no shot would be a mystery. Alas, few of us have that skill from the get go and must acquire it through trial and error. We have to memorize and then rely on those memories.

The big problem some of us have with CTE is the denial of that process. The correct aim line relative to the reference lines (to A,B,C) varies continuously, not only with cut angle, but with the distance between the balls. To use them to arrive at the aim line, whether you perceive them differently from shot to shot, or do something different with the same perception, obviously involves subjective processes and memorization. Given that you not only have to deal with the variable of cut angle, but CB-OB separation as well, it's no small amount of memorization at that. It suggests that CTE users, despite fervent claims to the contrary, simply revert to their pre-CTE methods at the moment of truth.

Maybe part of the disagreements have to do with the meanings of terms like "feel" and "required adjustments/tweeks to the system." The CTE advocates might be picturing a certain amount of fidgeting and groping for the shot line, while this isn't necessarily what the skeptics mean by them.

Jim

It is only true that the actual shot line must resolve to the gb position. It is NOT true that all players use GB or any form of it to aim.

I do not revert to GB EVER unless I deliberately choose to do so.

 

[JB Cases]

John,

Please see my reply to your earlier post & please understand that we are not in real time here.

Did you not 'scold' Dan for saying what you can & can't do when you want to do so. You said that you would do something & did not do it. That's not saying that you won't if & when you get around to it, but like Dan said you've spent much time here typing when you could have done what you said you were going to do for him.

Anyway, I may as well say it now. One can NOT put any percentage numbers on it. One can only indicate that this aspect is & this aspect is not. No percentage can realistically be put on it other than some arbitrary guess.

Best Wishes.

Sorry I don't OWE you or Dan or anyone any of my time. You could have also gone to the table and filmed your objections a 100 times over in the time it takes you to write a single long post.

 

[ENGLISH!]

It is only true that the actual shot line must resolve to the gb position. It is NOT true that all players use GB or any form of it to aim.

I do not revert to GB EVER unless I deliberately choose to do so.

Never mind, John. Sorry.

I just think you will take it too wrong no matter how I worded it.

I'm heading out to buy my only Grandchild His 2 year old Birthday Presents. I'm such a horrid human being.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Sorry I don't OWE you or Dan or anyone any of my time. You could have also gone to the table and filmed your objections a 100 times over in the time it takes you to write a single long post.

Yet you want to dictate how & when this discussion goes where it goes.

Peachy.

 

[daphish1]

Why spend so much time worring about trying to defend your aiming method. Even if you are going to use CTE, it still comes down to hitting a million balls to become a top player.

For all the people that don't want to buy into your method there's others that will....find those and preach on. If you want people to support your system then ignore posts from people that say it doesn't work and put your efforts into helping people who want to use your system.

 

[JoeyInCali]

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=307955&highlight=rodney

John, I thought all of your old posts were deleted. They were not .
You said you don't know if Rodney ever used CTE .
That thread contradicts with that .