Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[Dan White]

And then you have Randy G, Scott Lee, Tom Simpson and of course Stan.
And I would think that Mark has softened his stance after working with Landon the last few years, but that's just my opinion.

If you read Mark's new book you would see that is not the case. I'm sure he would give a diplomatic answer when questioned, but Mark's main point is that the method you use to point your cue at the ball is meaningless if your stroke isn't a true one.

 

[Dan White]

Attention jb

John your latest video says that an earlier version of the same video has already been uploaded. Did you try to upload something in reply to my video?

 

[Neil]

Along with all those that have had no 'real' success with it & all those that would never try it because of the outrageous assertion.

It's the one's in the middle that you're after & I'm fine with that as long as they go in knowing the fact that the outrageous assertion is unproven.

I'm NOT trying to stop anyone from trying to improve however they wish to do so, I just think & feel that they should not be 'drawn in' by unproven outrageous assertions.

I'm not of the NO METHOD clan you seem to pigeon hole many in.

I went to the equal overlap method naturally without being taught at the age of 13.

It's real simple... if an assertion that goes against known reality is made, then it should be proven or it should be retracted.

Retracted & perhaps reworded at least until it can be proven... or accepted by those making it that it is not as asserted.

To me... THAT's reasonable.

Best Wishes.

If your above statement were even remotely true, then you should have been all over CJ for the claims he made. Yet, you never were. Not even once. And why is that? Simply because you think he once gave you a compliment.

 

[ENGLISH!]

If your above statement were even remotely true, then you should have been all over CJ for the claims he made. Yet, you never were. Not even once. And why is that? Simply because you think he once gave you a compliment.

That's just a forum acceptable way of calling me a liar.

What compliment did CJ ever give me?

IF CJ ever did complement me, it did not stick with me past the moment & I can NOT even recall one.

Do you even read the threads you post in or do you just follow me around & make off the wall non true posts about me.

I have criticized the suggestion here that it's about who is saying something rather than what is being said.

CJ basically criticized my method of play, etc.

You're jealous of Pros, it's rather obvious. You then 'worship' the science guys. That too is rather obvious. You also seem to worship almost all 'establishment' or industry related individuals.

You're a fanatic. Here's the definition.

fa·nat·ic (fə-năt′ĭk)
n.
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
adj.
Fanatical.

Why is it that you 'always' want to make it personally about me instead of focusing & directing your attention to putting together a cognitive reasonable 'argument' (explanation) regarding the subject matters?

Go Troll somewhere else. I see that my prayers of last night did not work. Perhaps you are simply beyond consideration.

I'm done with you today as I was last night.

Best Wishes.

 

[cookie man]

If you read Mark's new book you would see that is not the case. I'm sure he would give a diplomatic answer when questioned, but Mark's main point is that the method you use to point your cue at the ball is meaningless if your stroke isn't a true one.

And the book has been in the works for a while. Mark probably hasn't given any aiming system any credit ever and i'm ok with that. Just thinking he might be thinking a little different recently with the way Landon has performed with his team. No i have absolutely no expectation that Mark would teach his team CTE or any other aiming system.
Fundamentals and stroke are clearly the way to go for him, his strong suits.

 

[cookie man]

So, has Stan ever said or is he saying that it is NOT an objective 'system'?

Did I miss that?

If so, please direct me to that so we can lay this to rest.

Thanks in Advance.

He gave you a very clear answer earlier in this
thread.

 

[cookie man]

Along with all those that have had no 'real' success with it & all those that would never try it because of the outrageous assertion.

It's the one's in the middle that you're after & I'm fine with that as long as they go in knowing the fact that the outrageous assertion is unproven.

I'm NOT trying to stop anyone from trying to improve however they wish to do so, I just think & feel that they should not be 'drawn in' by unproven outrageous assertions.

I'm not of the NO METHOD clan you seem to pigeon hole many in.

I went to the equal overlap method naturally without being taught at the age of 13.

It's real simple... if an assertion that goes against known reality is made, then it should be proven or it should be retracted.

Retracted & perhaps reworded at least until it can be proven... or accepted by those making it that it is not as asserted.

To me... THAT's reasonable.

Best Wishes.

"outrageous assertion" Is this your phrase of the day?
Bet you wont even say what that assertion is. How are the tens of thousands of your followers supposed to know what you mean?

 

[ENGLISH!]

He gave you a very clear answer earlier in this
thread.

Not really at all.

I asked for a CLEAR & DEFINITIVE, Yes or No.

He basically refused & deferred to other disassociated statements.

As I've mentioned to John, It seems that much of the 2 decade long war has been as much or more about defending Stan as though it is he, personally, that is under 'attack'.

With me & I think perhaps most it is not personal at all. Like John said, even scientist make mistakes & come to wrong conclusions that are later shown to have been mistakes & that does not discredit the previous scientist.

The only criticism I have of Stan is how he has, AT TIMES, acted here by pigeon holing individuals as 'haters' & 'liars' along with, as Dan has said, a seemingly unwillingness to try to find alternative means of communicating matters regarding CTE to those like Dan that have an issue or difficulty getting what it is he is trying to communicate.

It seems as though he is saying, 'take it on faith or damn with you'.

Best Wishes.

PS Why can't we ALL get off of the personal bickering, wise guy, smart A$$, stuff & just stay focused on the ISSUES that are in dispute?

 

[ENGLISH!]

"outrageous assertion" Is this your phrase of the day?
Bet you wont even say what that assertion is. How are the tens of thousands of your followers supposed to know what you mean?

I doubt that I have any 'followers' (other than a few stalkers) , but...

there are probably tens of thousands of individual here as members that understand what I mean because they are intelligent individuals capable of intelligent, reasonable, logical, critical thinking & understand the reality of common sense science.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

To any 'fence sitting' or interested party,

You might find it interesting to look at the tone & tenor & attitude of today's posts (& last night's too) by a certain few & note how the direction is taken away from the topic matters at hand when responses are needed to set straight the incorrectness of personally related posts.

Resorting to 'attacking' the messenger is a sign that one's position is indefensible & hence the last resort is to attack the messenger.

This 'tactic' has been going on for years relating to this topic & has sent some, perhaps rather many, to quit & go off, as the persistence of that tactic & the futility of having any real logical discussion becomes apparent & eventually takes it's toll on the messenger.

Just general observation & food for thought.

 

[cookie man]

Not really at all.

I asked for a CLEAR & DEFINITIVE, Yes or No.

He basically refused & deferred to other disassociated statements.

As I've mentioned to John, It seems that much of the 2 decade long war has been as much or more about defending Stan as though it is he, personally, that is under 'attack'.

With me & I think perhaps most it is not personal at all. Like John said, even scientist make mistakes & come to wrong conclusions that are later shown to have been mistakes & that does not discredit the previous scientist.

The only criticism I have of Stan is how he has, AT TIMES, acted here by pigeon holing individuals as 'haters' & 'liars' along with, as Dan has said, a seemingly unwillingness to try find another means of communicating matters regarding CTE to those like Dan that have an issue or difficulty getting what it is he is trying to communicate.

It seems as though he is saying, 'take it on faith or damn with you'.

Best Wishes.

PS Why can't we ALL get off of the personal bickering, wise guy, smart A$$, stuff & just stay focused on the ISSUES that are in dispute?

You've been asked many questions with absolutely no answer from you.
You demanded a clear yes or no. It's Stan's system and he politely answered you. Not yes or no but a clear answer. It didn't satisfy you because it wasn't the answer you wanted.
Stan hasn't been in the argument for two decades, neither have I. How about you? Do you know the actual background of everything?
Anything Stan puts on here should be very much appreciated. He is not obligated to bend to levels of some HATERS on here.
In reality Dan and John should be left alone to work on things if they so choose. Even that I linked a good CTE video that Dan admittedly just dismissed. If he is really serious about breaking it down he should spend some time and understand the basics first.

 

[cookie man]

I doubt that I have any 'followers' (other than a few stalkers) , but...

there are probably tens of thousands of individual here as members that understand what I mean because they are intelligent individuals capable of intelligent, reasonable, logical, critical thinking & understand the reality of common sense science.

Best Wishes.

So you post this "PS Why can't we ALL get off of the personal bickering, wise guy, smart A$$, stuff & just stay focused on the ISSUES that are in dispute?"
And then immediately infer that people that don't understand your postings are in a word STUPID.
You also should learn the basics of CTE if you want anyone to answer you seriously about it.
It's not all about you and your quest.

 

[cookie man]

To any 'fence sitting' or interested party,

You might find it interesting to look at the tone & tenor & attitude of today's posts (& last night's too) by a certain few & note how the direction is taken away from the topic matters at hand when responses are needed to set straight the incorrectness of such posts.

Resorting to 'attacking' the messenger is a sign that one's position is indefensible & hence the last resort is to attack the messenger.

This 'tactic' has been going on for years relating to this topic & has sent some perhaps rather many to quit & go off as the persistence of that tactic & the futility of having any real logical discussion becomes apparent & eventually takes it's toll on the messenger.

Just general observation & food for thought.

Funny. I posted earlier how you were on quite the roll last night. hmmmmm

 

[Dan White]

You've been asked many questions with absolutely no answer from you.
You demanded a clear yes or no. It's Stan's system and he politely answered you. Not yes or no but a clear answer. It didn't satisfy you because it wasn't the answer you wanted.
Stan hasn't been in the argument for two decades, neither have I. How about you? Do you know the actual background of everything?
Anything Stan puts on here should be very much appreciated. He is not obligated to bend to levels of some HATERS on here.
In reality Dan and John should be left alone to work on things if they so choose. Even that I linked a good CTE video that Dan admittedly just dismissed. If he is really serious about breaking it down he should spend some time and understand the basics first.

Which video was that? Maybe I didn't see it. There have been so many posts here it is a little complicated to follow everything. Would you mind posting it again?

Thanks.

 

[cookie man]

Which video was that? Maybe I didn't see it. There have been so many posts here it is a little complicated to follow everything. Would you mind posting it again?

Thanks.

The one i pm'ed you.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

I am sure he totally dismissed your opinion.

Finally time for me to weigh in on this monstrosity of a thread. Non CTE'er here.

Thank everything that is good for the above quoted material. I can only hope it is true and ENGLISH! will be gone from this discussion thread very soon (not banned), like yesterday for instance. Can I get an Amen?

Rick, no offense, and nothing personal, but you really do need to be MUZZLED, as JoeyA likes to put it...you do not and have not added a single thing to this conversation. ZERO.

Neil - comes with some good written descriptors about what is going on with the perceptions and CTE in general.

JB and Dan - debating civilly and rationally after taking things to the table and both producing videos I can respect.

PJ - has a scientific mind and a succinct style I can respect.

You - childlike behavior and a modus operandi that is so transparent a blind man could see it. Arguing for argument's sake. Attempting to rally others to your side. Word games. Baiting. Shall I go on?

Perhaps there is a topic you can contribute something positive to...Given your propensity to love to post at the rate of a rabbit fugging a football, may I suggest you find that topic and have it?

Dispense some of your knowledge from your nearly 50 years of "experience" You do have something worthwhile to share after all that time in the game, don't you? Good luck. I am praying for you...

Signed,

The Silent Majority (of at least one)

P.S. I voted "feel". Apologies to anyone I missed who has contributed positively on anything regarding aiming or any technique for that matter...and then he was gone...poof...back to the shadows. :smile:

 

[ENGLISH!]

You've been asked many questions with absolutely no answer from you. Those questions asked of me were not really relevant to the actual topic and many were nothing more than of a trolling nature.
You demanded a clear yes or no. It's Stan's system and he politely answered you. Not yes or no but a clear answer. It didn't satisfy you because it wasn't the answer you wanted. I wanted no specific answer, just a simple Yes or No & we could have moved on from there. Neither was given & everyone can judge for themselves whatever they want to take from that.
Stan hasn't been in the argument for two decades, neither have I. How about you? Do you know the actual background of everything? Who said Stan, you, or I have been involved in this for 2 decades?
Anything Stan puts on here should be very much appreciated. Why, & by whom? He is not obligated to bend to levels of some HATERS on here. He's not obligated to do anything but there are some things that HE SHOULD DO.
In reality Dan and John should be left alone to work on things if they so choose. Why be left alone & not aided? Even that I linked a good CTE video that Dan admittedly just dismissed. I think Dan said that that video was not specifically related to his issue. If he is really serious about breaking it down he should spend some time and understand the basics first. He's trying to do just that, understand the basics, but is NOT getting any objectively specific help in that regard.

Thanks for proving one of the points of my earlier posts regarding the time spent NOT on the actual issue but on correcting & defending 'allegations' of ALL KINDS OF STUFF that does NOT directly pertains to the real issues at hand.

 

[Dan White]

The one i pm'ed you.

Oh yeah I see it. We had some discussion of that by pm. I'm not sure how I dismissed it. I said that it was interesting and was useful in helping me learn how and when Stan switches from one pivot to a different one depending on the shot angle. My point was that this did not address my question, really, because my question had to do with the 5 shot perception video. In that video Stan says he uses the same visual and the same 1/2 tip left sweep (pivot) on all 5 shots. The video you sent me shows how to shift from one pivot to the next. Stan doesn't do that in the 5 shot video. The video I posted last night from the pro player that Stan knows (forgot his name) was a direct explanation of what I didn't understand in Stan's video. Unfortunately, his explanation was "that's just the way it works."

 

[ENGLISH!]

So you post this "PS Why can't we ALL get off of the personal bickering, wise guy, smart A$$, stuff & just stay focused on the ISSUES that are in dispute?"
And then immediately infer that people that don't understand your postings are in a word STUPID.
You also should learn the basics of CTE if you want anyone to answer you seriously about it.
It's not all about you and your quest.

I made no referrence to MY postings & never inferred that anyone was "STUPID" as you say.

Just because one might be lacking in the ability for logical thought or critical thinking does not make them "STUPID" as you say.

Yet YOU want to imply that that is what I said or meant & that could not be farther from the truth.

More time & effort making corrections & defending one's self from personal disparagements.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I am sure he totally dismissed your opinion.

No, I did not.

I do dismiss almost all of yours though.