Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

  • I always go by feel

    Votes: 153 53.5%

  • Usually by feel, with aiming systems for hard shots

    Votes: 68 23.8%

  • Usually with aiming systems, by feel for easy shots

    Votes: 24 8.4%

  • I always use aiming systems

    Votes: 26 9.1%

  • I just hit balls very hard and hope they sink

    Votes: 15 5.2%
  • Total voters
    286
one stroke said:
Well I guess that's because he trolled them back into the thread gave his meaningless 2 cents and left before the bell rang ,, that being the statement from the messiah himself that CTE is not perfet ,, here kitty kitty


1
Click to expand...

Well his 2 cents is at least twice as much sense as you and a couple others have.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
I believe a lot of progress was made with Dan White's video. First: The swooping that was taking place, IMO was very revealing. I also found the question raised by DH himself about thumb position not changing quite interesting...CTE is supposed to be the perfect center pocket system, yet the bridgehand position is the same as with the swoop requiring TOO half ball hit...(according to Stan Shuffet himself). It doesn't add up to me.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.
 
336Robin said:
I like your post. The word system doesn't accurately describe what my aiming system teaches because it teaches one how feel the shots. It like anything else takes some practice but I am continually amazed at how much the feel is a part of what I do. I saw something posted in the Aiming Section about an Aiming Metric and that's what I do. I provide a clue system that is the same on every shot creating and Aiming Metric by which you can visually measure every shot individually. When you look over a shot and apply the metric to it you are learning the shot as you perform it and this becomes a part of the shot routine.

As you repeat those steps on every shot on the table you learn exactly what to look for, you see it and apply the cue ball correctly to the situation and once this is accomplished you can learn to add spin to the shot as well.

An accurate description of the process helps all of that and the addition to the knowing of your stroke finishes the job in providing you the ability of your personal game.

The accuracy of the description ie System in my case does not take anything away from the visual perception of feel because that is exactly what it teaches by the utilization of visual information.

My system of feel connects you to your target in a way that is complete and wholesome and asks only that you practice your process for full knowing.
Click to expand...

A decent post, but I feel it is backwards.

I think feel is what leads to a system. Nobody starts playing pool by first reading a book. The very first thing they do is hit a ball.

Therefore, anyone who studies a system is adding that system to the system they have already developed out of the feel of the game.

I've never studied any systems. I learned one trick for aiming shots and I still see the ghostball.

Anybody who claims to not use a system is wrong...unless they have no short-term or long-term memory. Everything someone tries to do repeatedly automatically becomes a system completely his own.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Since I was sort of led back here by StraightPool.

I think this should be put in with the observations of Colin when he reviewed one of Gerry's videos & where the video allow, Colin noticed some similar movements of the cue there too.
Click to expand...

Super crap.
 
People who are interested in an aiming system, but who have doubts about CTE (like me), should consider fractional ball aiming. You learn to identify the cut angles, like 15°, 30°, and 45°. Then you learn that a 30° cut requires a half ball hit, aiming the center of the cue ball to the edge of the object ball (CTE!), 15° uses a 3/4 ball hit, etc.

1. It uses visual reference points, which has always seemed to me to be a real strength of CTE.
2. There is no pivoting or shifting to aim. You find the line, get down on the line, and stay there. This has always seemed to me to be a weakness of CTE. Why find the wrong line and then (hopefully) shift to the right one when it's not that hard to see the correct one right away?
3. It doesn't claim to have a discrete number of aim lines - the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 lines are visual reference points, but it's assumed that you will often say, e.g., "I have to aim for a bit more than a 1/4 ball hit."
4. There is no mystery, and it's totally transparent. I've never understood CTE - maybe I'm dumb, but I'm apparently smart enough to understand every other aiming system I've ever seen. Fractional ball aiming doesn't take aiming to a new dimension, doesn't connect to the geometry of a 2x1 table, doesn't defy written explanations, doesn't require phone calls or private lessons, and isn't on the verge of exploding with adherents, leaving the doubters in the dust.
Here is a Mike Page video with a description of it, and here is a Dr. Dave Billiards Digest piece on it.
 
Good post BRussel,
Add to that some TOO to increase the angle when needed as well as...\

Be well
 
BRussell said:
People who are interested in an aiming system, but who have doubts about CTE (like me), should consider fractional ball aiming. You learn to identify the cut angles, like 15°, 30°, and 45°. Then you learn that a 30° cut requires a half ball hit, aiming the center of the cue ball to the edge of the object ball (CTE!), 15° uses a 3/4 ball hit, etc.
Click to expand...
Here's a post I made several months ago about how to get familiar with the fractional cut angles:

Fractional Cuts Visualization Practice

To use Fractions for aiming you need to get familiar with (learn to visualize at the table) the cut angles formed by the three common fractional overlaps: 3/4, 1/2 and 1/4 ball.

To help with that, here's a practice setup diagram of the fractional cut angles (left and right) for shots parallel with the short and long rails. I hope it's self explanatory.

pj
chgo

View attachment 86840
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Fractions Practice Setup.jpg
    Fractions Practice Setup.jpg
    76 KB · Views: 214
BRussell said:
I've never understood CTE - maybe I'm dumb, but I'm apparently smart enough to understand every other aiming system I've ever seen. Fractional ball aiming doesn't take aiming to a new dimension, doesn't connect to the geometry of a 2x1 table, doesn't defy written explanations, doesn't require phone calls or private lessons, and isn't on the verge of exploding with adherents, leaving the doubters in the dust.
Click to expand...
Here's a pic that shows how fractions translate to CTE "aimpoints" and how "pivots" reach the in-between shots. (Somebody will say they're not the same, but that's another one of those debatable things about CTE.)

pj
chgo

View attachment 87249
 

Attachments

  • Fractions Grid (CTE).jpg
    Fractions Grid (CTE).jpg
    71.4 KB · Views: 312
CTE equals the quarters system with adjustments.

That is a joke of the highest order! Lol lol lol lol

And the ones that assert that nonsense will not take 5-1 and go to a table to debate that silly, preposterous position.

What a joke......that is about all that is left.....scream out fraction system.

That diagram with all the cue balls and OBs can mostly be made with TWO YES TWO simple perceptions.

My debate door is open. I do my work at a pool table not hiding behind a keyboard.


Stan Shuffett
 
stan shuffett said:
CTE equals the quarters system with adjustments.

That is a joke of the highest order! Lol lol lol lol

And the ones that assert that nonsense will not take 5-1 and go to a table to debate that silly, preposterous position.

What a joke......that is about all that is left.....scream out fraction system.

That diagram with all the cue balls and OBs can mostly be made with TWO YES TWO simple perceptions.

My debate door is open. I do my work at a pool table not hiding behind a keyboard.


Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

Or just aim contact point to contact point

1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top