And yet you eat up every word CJ says on here. Despite all the belligerent, mocking, insulting posts he has made. Why should anyone look at what you posted as anything other than an attack? Despite the obvious lie you added to it. How can you possibly expect anyone to believe that they can't even get a sample of CTE with all the free you-tube videos Stan has made on it? Or was it just a weak attempt on your part at slandering Stan?
Fear of Feel
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
And yet you eat up every word CJ says on here. Despite all the belligerent, mocking, insulting posts he has made. Why should anyone look at what you posted as anything other than an attack? Despite the obvious lie you added to it. How can you possibly expect anyone to believe that they can't even get a sample of CTE with all the free you-tube videos Stan has made on it? Or was it just a weak attempt on your part at slandering Stan?
I've seen Scott do it, CJ does it a lot, Randy doesn't say much of anything on here, sadly.
You say you have asked questions that no one has answered. Despite finding that very hard to believe, ask them again unless they are the same old questions that always get asked, then answered, then people post and say they were never answered. If they are legit questions, I will try and answer them for you.
As far as easy to understand...yes and no. It takes time to learn it. It always takes time to adapt to something new and let go of the old way of doing things. Once one does understand it, they then see that it works exactly as described. And, is not really hard at all. Getting people to actually follow directions as given is the hard part. Not many are actually willing to do that. They always want to add or detract from the directions.
Funny how you are always right there to attack CTE and call Stan a huxter. Which you did and you know it. But, when a certain someone else on here does much worse, you fall silent. Also rather telling and sad that the ones always calling "huxter" are the ones that can't use the method described and don't even really know if it is false or not.
As far as having to have feel to not have an off day, it only showcases that you don't know what you don't know. People have off days because they are using feel, and don't even know what they are doing. When you stop using so much feel and start doing things the right way, you don't get those off days. You stay consistent and improve.
You guys that keep looking to how someone says something instead of what they say are never going to get any better. You don't have the right attitude to. You guys want to say Stan is so bad for saying something back after getting slammed hundreds of times, well, guess you never heard of a guy named Sailor that would teach some of the past pros how to play. He wouldn't even give you guys the time of day with your attitudes.
My belief (in case you hadn't noticed) is that all aiming necessarily involves learning to recognize the correct "shot picture" or "visual" based on repetitive trial and error - otherwise known as learning to do it "by feel". Obviously learning this way can be aided by a system or method, but I believe it can't be eliminated or replaced as the central aiming requirement.
Some players seem to want (need?) to believe otherwise, unwilling to consider evidence to the contrary. Maybe they lack confidence in their ability to do it - and that's understandable; it amazes me we can do it. And maybe, since confidence is such a big part of successful play, they start with a strong desire to believe "feel" can be avoided.
Do you agree "fear of feel" exists? If so, why do you think it does? And should we try to educate players about the unavoidability of learning by feel, or simply leave them to form their own beliefs? Can it be bad for some players' development to recognize this (assumed) fact?
Thanks,
pj
chgo
P.S. I hope this doesn't become focused on any particular aiming method. Please let's keep it generic if we can.
And if it's just too "volatile" a subject, feel free to ignore it (like you need my permission for that).
You are free to believe whatever you want to Pat. That doesn't make you right. I can think of two methods of aiming just off the top of my head that don't require feel. When you rely on just feel, you will inevitably have ups and downs and not be a consistent player.
I think some players want to believe in just feel because it gives them an "out" to being inconsistent. They then can blame it on "genes" or "lack of natural talent" to give them the needed excuse for not doing the required work at the table to improve beyond what they thought was possible.
Ok, I might not have made the cut of this "Sailor" character, I'll take your word for that. I won't lose any sleep over that fact. I'm not in pool to impress anyone, especially not forum members or mystery men from ages ago. I'm only in pool to learn and improve and have some fun doing it. I've tried several different systems and have kept the ones I had success with and discarded the others.I'm not anti-system by any means, if anything I use more systems than most. Kicking/banking, and yes even aiming systems. I don't want to get into a flaming war with anyone, I put my opinion out there and you are free to disagree with the content and delivery of it (of course). I have nothing against you personally and actually liked your video explaining the pivot for the 90/90 system. I'm stating this for the record, and not in an attempt to "suck up" to you (What would be the point of that?). You are of course free to dislike me as much as you want.
Last edited:
Just wondering why you stated that I am free to dislike you just because I disagree with what you stated. (incidentally, that disagreement doesn't come from an idea or thought, but from experience on the subject of consistency)
A few things
1. There's no need to be afraid of asking a question here. You won't get chastised if you are truly sincere. Just be warned, that over the years, it's become very easy to spot the sincere ones from the trolls.
2. Stan has plenty of available videos on Youtube. It's not enough to learn the system, but it can give you an idea of what's in store. If it still doesn't interest you, then you're free to move along and try something else. No one is forcing you to try something out.
3. The DVD is $45...not $80. Get your facts straight.
Sure, all of the supplemental videos could have been included on the DVD, but we all know (or at least the smart ones do) what that would have done.
It would have raised the price. So instead, Stan goes out of his way to record a myriad of videos and uploads them for free on the internet. At the same time, he spends what free time he has here answering questions from those that are genuinely interested, and weeding out those who are not.
Yeah, he's such a bad guy.
I agree with this, but I don't call it feel. Judging from some of the responses, others don't call this feel either and then begins the disagreement. But it's a disagreement on the terminology or definition.
I think if you took your above statement alone and stopped, most would agree.
What are people trying to visualize changes depending on their method. A ghost ball, a fractional overlap, a contact point to contact point collision, an edge hitting a point, etc.. They all involve a learning process and visualization in your minds eye.
I look at "feel" in aiming as using your subconscious from past experience to tell you when the shot looks or feels right. You aren't going by any objective aiming points, but relying on past experience to tell you if you are aimed to thin or to full. Basically, it's an educated guess. Which is exactly how most use english when aiming.
This is my definition of feel as well. I don't aim with feel.
I use english by initially establishing my aim to sink the ball w/o english. Then I adjust for english with feel. But my initial aim uses visualization or perception of objective points.
Using the above definition of feel, I find it hard to believe people successfully aim non english shots this way. Deciding exactly how thick or thin to cut shot should involve visualizing something. A collision, a spot, a point, something.
Last edited:
If you aim with the quarters system you would start by comparing the cut angle to the full/three quarter/half and quarter aimpoints which are ingrained through years of practice. You could say that these are "objective" aimpoints, but it would be foolish, because your ability to recognize these angles vary from person to person and day to to day, and that is what matters. The fact that a given angle/aimpoint is "objective" is a completely moot point. You might as well say that "the pocket is objective". What matters is your ability to recognize them correctly, and then position your body and perform the stroke that makes your cueballs path conform to your perception of the aimpoint. All in all I like the quarters system and dropping straight onto the shotline, better than most pivot systems twisting into the shotline. I feel that the body position is a bigger obstacle to success than observing the aimpoint, no matter how objective that aimpoint may be.
The quarter system aimpoints gives you something concrete to focus on during your aiming, and it is very effective at doing just that. There is no method I know of that lets you completely negate feel, that is a mechanical procedure that produces a perfect result every time without any feedback from your experience. If you try to do that even with the "perfect" CTE system you will miss a bunch of shots because you made some sort of mistake in your pivoting or perception or whatever, and ignored that your experience told you that the shot looked wrong. We are imperfect human beings,with various flaws in our vision, concentration etc. Feel is your subconscious chiming in with it's views on the aiming line. For an experienced player it is right most of the time.
Last edited:
Well, again, I have to disagree. Many times, in learning various systems, I followed the procedure to the letter. Then, looking at the ob, I would tell myself "well, you did something wrong, because this doesn't look right". Since I was learning, and practicing, I would shoot the shot anyways to see what happened. You would be amazed how many times the ball went in anyways.
What that tells me, is that the system worked without any subconscious adjustments by me. The shot didn't look right once I went through the steps because I didn't have my head in the proper position once I got down on the shot. So, I knew I could trust the system, but had to practice how I got down on the shot so my head would be in the correct place to also see the shot correctly.
I call aiming with quarters, objective. I understand your point of view, but have a difference of opinion on the definitions.
Reading through many of these aiming debates, much of the disagreement is on the terminology and definitions. It's sometime humorous to see 2 people in a heated argument not realize they actually agree. They are saying the same thing using different words.
Somewhat. I play purely by feel. I don't like the word feel as different people use it to refer to different things. I class it as experience and visual memory to know what will pot, and what won't pot. So for me, and I can only really speak for my self on this, I have tried almost every system out there just out of curiosity and feel had a say in every system I used. I've always reverted back to just picking my line of aim and putting my cue on the line. Experience trumps everything IMO.
The Feel
Absolutely! I speak for myself and my System. Being able to control the feel was the primary reason I have written what I have.
I felt it was important that something be written down somewhere that represented the feel side of the story.
When I started working on anything that that had to do with pool I used to get a real kick out of asking people how they aim. Some of the answers you wouldn't believe and at least one fellow is still telling me after several years.
Its about this clear:
"You just take the stick and you hit the thing and you put the thing where the thing is supposed to go and that's about as plain as it gets."
Playing by feel should be a little easier to describe than the above explanation but anything other that what was said above.... is a system.
If your system is a way to learn all of the shots and hone your feel then it works for you because its very clear in this game. You cannot play it well unless you can also learn to spin the ball.
Without that piece feel is not had.
Up until now I would say that "hamb" has been completely true for feel players in fact it might even be more than a million balls.
The problem with hamb is that people lose patience with it and want to get down the road to skillful play sooner and that is understandable so any way they can figure out how to do it is a good thing.
That is the one thing that I want to be able to do. I want to get the player enjoying the game and I want to direct him on how to find "the feel" of the game because when you find it, all things become possible and your game can open up and you find the beauty inside it.
Pool is the greatest interactive game ever created in my opinion but there is some contention about how to make it easier to play and I really don't want to feed that contention and I will try not to but this subject is the very thing that I have sought to bring to light and I fully believe that I have and I will by the time all of its done.
As in all things something has a beginning and my first book is that beginning and a new perspective from which progress to feel is easier in my opinion. The next book is specific direction and expansion that focuses directly on the category of spin and feel.
Its original material and its copyrighted. It's free to purchase and to use but not to reproduce or use in any other way.
No mysteries exist in it and you wont have any problem understanding the concepts and the continuation of it as its written as I explain it from a behind the cue ball perspective.
The shot making is only one part.
The feel is quite another and that is where the true mysteries of the game are opened and the real game comes out and the depth of your feel and knowledge of the moves are the game and are the difference in truly good players and who is favored to win.
Well, that's just my opinion.
Absolutely! I speak for myself and my System. Being able to control the feel was the primary reason I have written what I have.
I felt it was important that something be written down somewhere that represented the feel side of the story.
When I started working on anything that that had to do with pool I used to get a real kick out of asking people how they aim. Some of the answers you wouldn't believe and at least one fellow is still telling me after several years.
Its about this clear:
"You just take the stick and you hit the thing and you put the thing where the thing is supposed to go and that's about as plain as it gets."
Playing by feel should be a little easier to describe than the above explanation but anything other that what was said above.... is a system.
If your system is a way to learn all of the shots and hone your feel then it works for you because its very clear in this game. You cannot play it well unless you can also learn to spin the ball.
Without that piece feel is not had.
Up until now I would say that "hamb" has been completely true for feel players in fact it might even be more than a million balls.
The problem with hamb is that people lose patience with it and want to get down the road to skillful play sooner and that is understandable so any way they can figure out how to do it is a good thing.
That is the one thing that I want to be able to do. I want to get the player enjoying the game and I want to direct him on how to find "the feel" of the game because when you find it, all things become possible and your game can open up and you find the beauty inside it.
Pool is the greatest interactive game ever created in my opinion but there is some contention about how to make it easier to play and I really don't want to feed that contention and I will try not to but this subject is the very thing that I have sought to bring to light and I fully believe that I have and I will by the time all of its done.
As in all things something has a beginning and my first book is that beginning and a new perspective from which progress to feel is easier in my opinion. The next book is specific direction and expansion that focuses directly on the category of spin and feel.
Its original material and its copyrighted. It's free to purchase and to use but not to reproduce or use in any other way.
No mysteries exist in it and you wont have any problem understanding the concepts and the continuation of it as its written as I explain it from a behind the cue ball perspective.
The shot making is only one part.
The feel is quite another and that is where the true mysteries of the game are opened and the real game comes out and the depth of your feel and knowledge of the moves are the game and are the difference in truly good players and who is favored to win.
Well, that's just my opinion.
Last edited:
Is there something that you do call feel?
pj
chgo
Another one of your endless questions which has already been answered. Stan laid it out very succinctly:
There is:
Visual objectivity
Visual subjectivity
Feel for speed
Feel for spin
Feel for shot pictures
Feel for proper hold or gripping of one's cue.
Surely you must disagree with something he said. What is it?
My definition of feel follows what Neil wrote and is in my posted reply above.
" I look at "feel" in aiming as using your subconscious from past experience to tell you when the shot looks or feels right. You aren't going by any objective aiming points, but relying on past experience to tell you if you are aimed to thin or to full. Basically, it's an educated guess. Which is exactly how most use english when aiming.
This is my definition of feel as well. I don't aim with feel.
I use english by initially establishing my aim to sink the ball w/o english. Then I adjust for english with feel. But my initial aim uses visualization or perception of objective points. "
Not saying my definition is correct, it's just how I interpret and use the word. Reading the posts in this thread, people are using the word differently and that could be part of the disagreement.
Last edited: