Fear of Feel

[Patrick Johnson]

In my example, as in the CTE Pro1 system, your eyes ARE NOT on the lines.

If you did what I described you would know that.

Your vision and year head is between the hands which are going from your shoulders and not directly under your eyes/vision center.

In my example you align your vision center to the center of the clock, get your hands and index fingers in the air and align them to the points on the clock, in your peripheral view, your vision center and your eyes ARE NOT directly above your hands nor your index fingers.

Now if you move your head a bit right/left without moving any other part of your body while still looking at the clock and your index fingers you'll see that they don't point at the same spots on the clock, which proves that there is only one spot where your vision center can be in so that your index fingers are pointing to those spots on the clock IN YOUR PERIPHERAL view.

I hope you understand now how you're supposed to align and what I'm talking about

If your eyes are not directly behind your finger but it's in your peripheral vision, then you can't say for sure what point on the clock it's pointed at. It's your "perception" of that, and somebody else's perception may be entirely different.

You don't have to see the same "visual" as somebody else in order to associate it in your mind with the same cut angle. Your "personal visual" can be different and still remind you correctly how to "see" that same cut angle. A third person's visual can be different from both of yours, yet still remind him correctly how to see the same cut angle. In other words, the visual can be subjective and still work - as long as each person uses their personal visual consistently.

pj
chgo

 

[Mirza]

I'm with you so far. The clock represents the OB, my hands represent the edges of the CB.

But now take the same wall clock and shift it over 3 feet to the right and I also shift over 3 feet to the right. Do as you say, my head, hands and eyes will be in the same exact positions as before.

If I keep my hands in the same fixed position and rotate, my hands no longer point to 1/4 and edge on the clock.

Putting this on the table the same perception on 5 different cut angles doesn't work for me. If I let the rails and pockets influence me and use some other aiming method to give me a rough starting point as someone suggested, CTE with a 15 degree perception works ok for me on shots close to a 15 degree cut.

As cuts get thinner, I struggle using CTE and a 15 degree perception. At this point, I might as well use the same aiming method that gave me the rough starting point. I may fine tune using contact points, overlaps, fractions, ghost ball, etc..

The more I experiment with CTE, the more I conclude that for me, it works OK when I use a 15, 30, 45 perception for shots that are close to that cut angle. So for me, it works similar to fraction method of aiming with subjective adjustments.

Just my experiences. Everyone sees and thinks differently.

Look at my post #1049 thats what I think about what changes from shot to shot, its not a definitive answer but its a start, I have nothing more to offer on that subject :smile:

 

[Mirza]

If your eyes are not directly behind your finger but it's in your peripheral vision, then you can't say for sure what point on the clock it's pointed at. It's your "perception" of that, and somebody else's perception may be entirely different.

You don't have to see the same "visual" as somebody else in order to associate it in your mind with the cut angle you're trying to create. Your "personal visual" can be different from somebody else's and still remind you correctly how to "see" that cut angle. A third person's visual is different from both of yours, yet still reminds them correctly how to see the same cut angle. In other words, it doesn't have to be "objective" in order to "work" - it just has to be consistent for each person.

pj
chgo

Well that is why Stan calls it a perception :smile:

Is it objective or not, I can't prove nor disprove that, I only wanted to give you an explanation of what acquiring the visuals actually means and how you look at them/percieve them.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

There is a system description. It's just that some don't or can't follow the directions as stated.

I think you believe that, but don't yet see how your description is not "exact". Here's a good example:

You don't need to see down both lines at the exact same time. You need to look at center to edge, then, just moving your eyes over a little, look for edge to A,B, or C. If you can't find both lines from your current position, you need to move over a little until you can see both lines from the same position. Very objective.

The two parts in blue seem to be self contradictory - one says you don't need to see both lines "at the same time"; the other says you do need to see them "from the same position". Can you explain the difference?

And, by the way, thanks for your patience being grilled on the details like this. Aiming is minutely detailed and so it's the details that matter.

pj
chgo

 

[cookie man]

Cookie,

See StraightPool__99's post above.

It amazes me how you can say what 'my buddy' does having never met him nor ever spoken to him.

He does not shoot with CTE. I guess you overlooked that part.

Best 2 You, Cookie.
Rick

It was your words Rick. I personally have no idea what your Buddy does, don't know him at all, you posted what he does.
Although StraightPool sounds logical, he's wrong.

 

[Mirza]

I think you believe that, but don't really understand how your description is not "exact". Here's a good example:


The two parts in blue are self contradictory - one says you don't need to see both lines "at the same time"; the other says you do need to see them "from the same position". Can you explain the difference?

And, by the way, thanks for your patience being grilled on the details like this. Aiming is minutely detailed and so it's the details that matter.

pj
chgo

I think he meant to say that your vision center doesn't need to be on the both lines in the same time to see them both - which is what I was talking about in previous posts, we're all talking about the same stuff :smile:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Well that is why Stan calls it a perception :smile:

Yes, but I don't think Stan means "perception" as it's commonly defined.

Is it objective or not, I can't prove nor disprove that, I only wanted to give you an explanation of what acquiring the visuals actually means and how you look at them/percieve them.

Thanks for your effort.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

I'm with you so far.

But now take the same wall clock and shift it over 3 feet to the right and I also shift over 3 feet to the right. Do as you say, my head and eyes will be in the same exact positions as before.

If I keep my hands in the same fixed position and rotate, my hands no longer point to 1/4 and edge on the clock.

Putting this on the table the same perception on 5 different cut angles doesn't work for me. If I let the rails and pockets influence me and use some other aiming method to give me a rough starting point as someone suggested, CTE with a 15 degree perception works ok for me on shots close to a 15 degree cut.

As cuts get thinner, I struggle using CTE and a 15 degree perception. At this point, I might as well use the same aiming method that gave me the rough starting point. I may fine tune using contact points, overlaps, fractions, ghost ball, etc..

The more I experiment with CTE, the more I conclude that for me, it works OK when I use a 15, 30, 45 perception for shots that are close to that cut angle. So for me, it works similar to fraction method of aiming with subjective adjustments.

Just my experiences. Everyone sees and thinks differently.

Hi Ron,

That is what I & others have found. If the shot fits the 'objectively discernible' visual, then thud, click, pop. But when it does not match & fit, it takes an intuitive perceptive modification or the ball goes into the rail if executed totally by the 'objectively discernible' visual alone.

I'm with you, in that, for me, there is no benefit, & in fact it would be a rather huge regression to employ it over the other methods that I use, some of which I find to be more objective with less need for intuitive modifications, but yet they still do.

I, & others, are not saying that it can not or does not work for many, but it does not work 100% of the time for the reason stated, objectivity.

Unlike you it WAS the totally objective assertion that pulled me to it. I should have known better but my hopeful intrigue & enthusiasm for total objectivity got the better of my rational common sense for a while.

Best 2 You & Shoot Well,
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

It was your words Rick. I personally have no idea what your Buddy does, don't know him at all, you posted what he does.
Although StraightPool sounds logical, he's wrong.

Cookie,

Your words about the guy you call 'my buddy' & my words about what he told me have not matched at all.

IYO, how is StraightPool__99 wrong?

Best,
Rick

 

[cookie man]

I think a lot of us understand how to get the visuals correctly. It is easy enough to simulate, just by putting two balls out in front of you. Some of us have even understood where to put the bridgehand and how to pivot to center cueball.

The problem lies in the fact that two paralell shots can be made center pocket with the same visuals and pivot. This is from a logic and geometry standpoint completely impossible so long as the instructions are followed strictly and to the letter. I think even the most hardened sceptic will agree to the point that you can get to a specific head position where you perceive the edge of the object ball as dividing the cue ball in halves and the edge of the cueball intersecting the objectball quarter (C or A). The point is that the head position to achieve this will be the same (for a given cueball/object ball distance) no matter where the balls are situated. They could be on the ceiling, floor, kitchen table, whatever. Remember you are only looking at the balls when locking in the visual. Any initial perception of the shot will have zero influence on the head position required to see these visuals. If there would be several head positions where the visuals were locked in (fixed cueball) for the same cue/object ball pair, then I can't find it being mentioned anywhere. If you can find that, without tilting your head or something of that manner, I'd be very interested to see it. It would also mean that I don't understand CTE, which I would be happy to admit to.

If I understand Neil correctly the visuals are somehow influenced by your original "perception" of the shot. But for the two paralell shots the visuals must be the same. That is, the moment you perceive the two lines your head is at the same position for both shots (relative to the cueball and object ball).

1. How can the visuals be different on two paralell shots? It can't. Remember that the visuals are a geometric fact, influenced by the distance between our eyes, the ball distances, line convergences etc.
2. How does your perception of the shot influence the visuals? It can't.
3. The visuals determine where your center cueball is.
4. The understanding of center cueball influences where the v of your bridge hand is placed (half a tip to the side)

From this it follows that once your visual is locked, if you follow the instruction to the letter, there is only one position to put your head, from there you work out where to put your hand and since the point you are pivoting to is determined you must get the same result (again strictly following the instructions) for the two paralell shots.

Some new information has surfaced (at least new to me) that may be the missing key to understand what is happening. But I have to say that it is very hard to grasp these concepts.

The process of "rolling over" the visuals is probably where people no longer understand what is happening. I know it is for me. I know that if I use the method I outlined I can not pocket all shots using strict CTE (on a snooker table, IMO the only true test of aim). I can however pocket balls using Pro 1 from the same visuals. I would be lying if I implied that I understood exactly what is happening, as the movements are so small and subtle. I have some theories, though.

Can u do an experiment? Put two parallel shots on the table and shoot them with the visuals you think you know. Do they hit the rail at parallel spots? If I'm reading you correctly that's what your assuming would happen right? If so try it and see.

 

[cookie man]

Cookie,

Your words about the guy you call 'my buddy' & my words about what he told me have not matched at all.

IYO, how is StraightPool__99 wrong?

Best,
Rick

"He basically uses CTE as a check for certain shots that he's not sure about with his main method. He said that sometimes CTE will show him that his main method is correct because it does not match up to CTE & other times it will show him that it is correct because it does match up with CTE. " You posted it, sounds like he should just switch to CTE to me.

 

[Neil]

I think you believe that, but don't yet see how your description is not "exact". Here's a good example:


The two parts in blue seem to be self contradictory - one says you don't need to see both lines "at the same time"; the other says you do need to see them "from the same position". Can you explain the difference?

And, by the way, thanks for your patience being grilled on the details like this. Aiming is minutely detailed and so it's the details that matter.

pj
chgo

Pat, I'm not understanding why you are having such a problem with that.??? I imagine you have something in front of you that has two edges. Look at the left edge. Then, without moving your head, look at the right edge. Notice how your eyes shifted to see each edge, yet you stayed in the same place.

Now, take two glasses or something fairly rounded. Place one in front of the other. Then line up according to CTE. From various perspectives, you can line up the two lines correctly. Eventually, your perspective will be far enough over that you can no longer line up the two lines. At that point, you pick a different visual. That is, instead of A or C (left or right, 15 degree perception), you now must use B (middle, 30 degree perception). Even steeper angles, you can only use only one line (45 degree perception)

Your perspective (where you initially stand) is determined by what you want to do with the ball. From each perspective, there is only one place to see the correct visuals. However, there are several perspectives one can choose.

Your perspective is chosen by experience and visual intelligence. It's rather obvious even to a non-player about where they have to stand to shoot a ball in a certain location. Is that part objective or subjective? I lean towards objective, ( if you ask 100 people where to stand to make a shot, they all will stand in the same place, that makes it pretty objective to me) but won't argue against subjective. Don't really care. It simply does not matter which it is.

 

[ENGLISH!]

"He basically uses CTE as a check for certain shots that he's not sure about with his main method. He said that sometimes CTE will show him that his main method is correct because it does not match up to CTE & other times it will show him that it is correct because it does match up with CTE. " You posted it, sounds like he should just switch to CTE to me.

Wow!

He ONLY uses it on rare occasions where he is not sure of a certain shot & He ONLY uses it as a check of sorts on those rare occasions. He does not shoot with it at all & does not even consider any offset or pivot when using it how ever he is using a portion of it.

Did you also (conveniently) miss the part where when I asked him about it that he almost yelled, 'Oh no! It's full of holes!'

Best 2 You, Cookie.

 

[Neil]

Wow!

He ONLY uses it on rare occasions where he is not sure of a certain shot & He ONLY uses it as a check of sorts on those rare occasions. He does not shoot with it at all & does not even consider any offset or pivot when using it how ever he is using a portion of it.

Did you also (conveniently) miss the part where when I asked him about it that he almost yelled, 'Oh no! It's full of holes!'

Best 2 You, Cookie.

He's not using it correctly, but it's full of holes the way he uses it. And that is supposed to be an endorsement against CTE?? wow!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Pat, I'm not understanding why you are having such a problem with that.??? I imagine you have something in front of you that has two edges. Look at the left edge. Then, without moving your head, look at the right edge. Notice how your eyes shifted to see each edge, yet you stayed in the same place.

One reason I have a problem is that you seem to contradict yourself.

For instance, in your description above your eyes clearly look directly along the line to each edge, like sighting a rifle (you're not seeing each line "from the side" like Mirza's clock example). But you previously said "No, it's not like sighting a rifle".

And, by the way, it's usually impossible to do what you describe with a CTE line and an aimpoint line because they don't cross.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

He's not using it correctly, but it's full of holes the way he uses it. And that is supposed to be an endorsement against CTE?? wow!

You missed the whole premise & hence misstate as you so often do in order to create a distortion of the facts.

Your MO should make what you say in general, totally unreliable to anyone that has seen & taken notice of your MO.

That being the cause, ignoring you would be a good recommendation.

Was is it a guy named Peter that said more than 2000 years ago, 'What a tangle web you weave when you practice...' No. It wasn't him.

 

[8pack]

You keep saying you know CTE pretty well. In that case, does what duckie said make any sense to you? It shouldn't, because he is thinking that it is a 15 degree angle to the pocket.

Everything he say's makes sense to me.:wink:
You guys use 1 line of aim (eta plus a pivot)to make a shot (THE 5 SHOTS) from 15 to around 37 degree's and add a shift to change the cut angle. It's know different then me doing the same thing and starting at the 3/4 mark on the ob and adjusting to the right spot.. Good luck with that.

 

[cookie man]

Everything he say's makes sense to me.:wink:
You guys use 1 line of aim (eta plus a pivot)to make a shot (THE 5 SHOTS) from 15 to around 37 degree's and add a shift to change the cut angle. It's know different then me doing the same thing and starting at the 3/4 mark on the ob and adjusting to the right spot.. Good luck with that.

We keep waiting for your all encompassing super duper system to come out in public for all to see. You keep hinting and dropping little tidbits but thats all we get.

 

[cookie man]

Wow!

He ONLY uses it on rare occasions where he is not sure of a certain shot & He ONLY uses it as a check of sorts on those rare occasions. He does not shoot with it at all & does not even consider any offset or pivot when using it how ever he is using a portion of it.

Did you also (conveniently) miss the part where when I asked him about it that he almost yelled, 'Oh no! It's full of holes!'

Best 2 You, Cookie.

Now its rare occasions and no offset or pivot. Tell me again why you even brought him into it. This witnesses testimony shall be stricken from the books. The jury will disregard anything the "buddy" may or may not have said.

 

[8pack]

We keep waiting for your all encompassing super duper system to come out in public for all to see. You keep hinting and dropping little tidbits but thats all we get.

Its obvious you wouldn't wanna learn what I know, some of you wanna do things the hard way