Fear of Feel

[SpiderWebComm]

Well, he definitely owes you imho, because something not referred to didn't happen, other than the air barreling.

I'm guessing a jury of CTE peers would send him to the chair!

Colin < Starting to think that I've only learned 2D logic which lacks perspective, convergence and objective physical and visual intelligence.

If you understood how your eyes need yo offset, it would 100% help your game. I'm also positive Gene stumbled upon this with his perfect aim, forcing the eyes to the outermost point for a given alignment.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Stan,

PJ's diagram, and various similar diagrams showing the range of efficiency of various fractional aiming systems have been a MAJOR discussion point for 20 years or so amongst the aiming interested community.

It wasn't a slight on any of your recent commentaries, although it posits some insights into how some may question aspects of CTE.

Not knowing that may speak volumes about you. But I wouldn't presume that.

Cheers,
Colin

That diagram is correct if pool were played like checkers...from the top-down. The moment you look outward, the perceived geometry vs actual geometry is all different.

 

[Colin Colenso]

If you understood how your eyes need yo offset, it would 100% help your game. I'm also positive Gene stumbled upon this with his perfect aim, forcing the eyes to the outermost point for a given alignment.

Dave,
In the olden days I used to always have my chin on my cue (hence eye to cue angle consistent), with a scab on chin to prove, when doing 6 hour sessions daily.

Since playing US pool I developed a higher head position and that has freed up varying eye alignment and experimentation thereof.

I see a lot of the best potters in snooker are pretty much one eye over the cue, some left and some right. I've had some success with both and can also learn to perceive lines ok from mid positions if needed.

Some days I get the feeling that X eye alignment is the way to go, but such tendencies vary.

If one picks the shot line, or visual as in CTE, from back in stance, it seems the eye to cue position is less vital.

It is a fascinating topic, certainly plays into visualization. The long straight shot on a 12' snooker table is a perfect example. The geometry is easy, CCB to COB, but it's very hard to perform consistently. From baulk it's probably an 8 or 9 from 10 shot for pro snooker players. My best was 18 from 20, with an average around 14 when playing lots of snooker.

imho, 80+% of misses were alignment based, not stroking errors. And, even though the geometry was simple, it took intuitive judgement (feel - though I don't like the term), to place the bridge along the CCB to COB line.

Colin

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Dave,
In the olden days I used to always have my chin on my cue (hence eye to cue angle consistent), with a scab on chin to prove, when doing 6 hour sessions daily.

Since playing US pool I developed a higher head position and that has freed up varying eye alignment and experimentation thereof.

I see a lot of the best potters in snooker are pretty much one eye over the cue, some left and some right. I've had some success with both and can also learn to perceive lines ok from mid positions if needed.

Some days I get the feeling that X eye alignment is the way to go, but such tendencies vary.

If one picks the shot line, or visual as in CTE, from back in stance, it seems the eye to cue position is less vital.

It is a fascinating topic, certainly plays into visualization. The long straight shot on a 12' snooker table is a perfect example. The geometry is easy, CCB to COB, but it's very hard to perform consistently. From baulk it's probably an 8 or 9 from 10 shot for pro snooker players. My best was 18 from 20, with an average around 14 when playing lots of snooker.

imho, 80+% of misses were alignment based, not stroking errors. And, even though the geometry was simple, it took intuitive judgement (feel - though I don't like the term), to place the bridge along the CCB to COB line.

Colin

The best way to make a straight in, is to visually align to a slight cut. That's why many suck at long straight in shots. If they do everything right visually, it requires slight compensation, so they miss.

 

[stan shuffett]

The problem with zero angle shots......target shooting stances...
A much superior approach is to have the shooting arm in one of two pivoted positions.

Stan Shuffett

 

[336Robin]

Dave,


I see a lot of the best potters in snooker are pretty much one eye over the cue, some left and some right. I've had some success with both and can also learn to perceive lines ok from mid positions if needed.


Colin

I am left eye dominant and play Right Handed. Until recently I played with my cue in the center of both eyes and on cut shots didn't really have any problems but those long straight ins I would have days of being off.

At the suggestion of a poster here One Pocket John he advised to line up under my right eye and give it a go. I was very surprised and the power in that line up. Long ago I had just accepted that cue under nose was the way for me but I think I found out different and will be trying under the left eye for experimentation but due to my physique....Im thinking it might not work for me. I have short arms but we will see.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I am left eye dominant and play Right Handed. Until recently I played with my cue in the center of both eyes and on cut shots didn't really have any problems but those long straight ins I would have days of being off.

At the suggestion of a poster here One Pocket John he advised to line up under my right eye and give it a go. I was very surprised and the power in that line up. Long ago I had just accepted that cue under nose was the way for me but I think I found out different and will be trying under the left eye for experimentation but due to my physique....Im thinking it might not work for me. I have short arms but we will see.

Hi Robin,

I just rather recently was shown to be cross dominant by Gene Albrecht & his Perfect Aim.

I can relay my experience. I have always been a very low head player, not chin on cue but very low. I have also never been one to focus in on the precise line from the standing position. I just sort of picked the shot to shoot & then got into the shooting position with no focus of my eyes until down on the shot & then I lined it up.

Since learning from Gene about my cross dominance, I have focused much more on the specific line while up & maintain that focus on the OB all the way down into the shooting position. Then & only then do I take a look at the CB.

Since doing this I'm shooting much quicker with very little to no need to adjust or search for the line. It's just there.

Also my head position is not as consistently low for all shots as it has been for almost all of my playing time.

I'm 5'9" with 32/33 arms & a slight beer belly at 61. It just took a slight bit of body & head tweak to keep my 'new' left shooting eye in the game.

Good Luck with Your Experimentation.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

PS There is a difference looking straight out like sighting a rifle vs. looking out below one's eye level as in 'shooting' from the hip, at least for some of us that is the case.

 

[duckie]

That diagram is correct if pool were played like checkers...from the top-down. The moment you look outward, the perceived geometry vs actual geometry is all different.

Maybe for you but not everyone.

If this is true....how can one state a angle is this degree then? If they do, they are wrong since the percieved angle isn't the true angle.

Why are those that continually speak for how others do things? Just like above. That "you" refers to me and I can assure you, I do things totally different than most......like worry about the degree of angle...it dosnt matter to me....... Eye dominance......I can shot without the my eye over the cue at all and make shots.

Best speak on how you do things and not try to gain a appearance of authority by implying what we all do or need to do.

I can never imply what someone is doing or seeing. I can imply that a fractional user is using ghost ball but this is not a true fact since I can not ever know what is going on in their minds. What they are seeing in their minds eye. This is where the magic happens....in the minds eye.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Since you posted it, how about naming screen names for the two classifications based on a reductionist vs. a holist. Who do you think belongs in each category and why? Others can and will chime in but you first. Create a list.

So, anyway, you brought this up. I gave a few, others have chimed in. You gonna add some, or just chirp from the rail? If not, at least tell me which classification you might fit into.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Maybe for you but not everyone.

If this is true....how can one state a angle is this degree then? If they do, they are wrong since the percieved angle isn't the true angle.

How can CTE work if no one can perceive the angles correctly that is reqiured to use CTE?

It is the same for everyone. Sorry, but I won't engage in that topic with you.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

So, anyway, you brought this up. I gave a few, others have chimed in. You gonna add some, or just chirp from the rail? If not, at least tell me which classification you might fit into.

If a player pours their efforts into outside the box thinking and aiming systems that have never been introduced to pool before and becomes successful with them, you tell me which classification I fit into since you're the expert. I could care less.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

If a player pours their efforts into outside the box thinking and aiming systems that have never been introduced to pool before and becomes successful with them, you tell me which classification I fit into since you're the expert. I could care less.

Hey, I never claimed to be an expert. You're the one who challenged me and asked for a list of players. Funny thing to do if you could care less about the answer. Lol

I've only seen you play a little bit. I strongly suspect you are a holist, judging only by how you seem to approach the table, and what I've read you post on AZB and on your blog. Does that surprise you?

 

[ENGLISH!]

That diagram is correct if pool were played like checkers...from the top-down. The moment you look outward, the perceived geometry vs actual geometry is all different.

Dave,

The following are sincere questions, as have been all of my questions, & I realise that you may not or probably will not respond.

But here it is anyway.

It is rather easy to agree that the visual picture one gets from looking 'straight' down from directly above is different from looking at the same actual reality from a different perspective being off to the side & lower down but not yet down to the same level as the table.

But... how does that in any way change the reality of the situation? Our minds are quite capable of differentiating from where we are looking at a reality.

It seems, at least to me, that you are implying that our seeing of the reality from a different vantage point affects our ability to understand the reality.

The reality remains real regardless from where we view it.

So, if that is what you are implying, do you know why you are implying such, & if so, can you please share that with all of the players that have inquiring minds why that would be?

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Hey, I never claimed to be an expert. You're the one who challenged me and asked for a list of players. Funny thing to do if you could care less about the answer. Lol

I've only seen you play a little bit. I strongly suspect you are a holist, judging only by how you seem to approach the table, and what I've read you post on AZB and on your blog. Does that surprise you?

You researched and posted the two classifications so you're more of an expert than anyone else. (except for PJ since he's an expert on everything)

If you strongly suspect what you do, you're the expert so it must be. It makes me feel all tingly inside , not surprised.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

You researched and posted the two classifications so you're more of an expert than anyone else. (except for PJ since he's an expert on everything)

If you strongly suspect what you do, you're the expert so it must be. It makes me feel all tingly inside , not surprised.

So, are you going to honor me by putting up a nice little cartoon of me on YouTube like you did for Jennie Malloy? Make me really fat if you do, because I am. Not as fat as Danny Basovitch, though. I can't play near his speed, either, so make sure I can't make a ball in the cartoon, K? :smile:

 

[cookie man]

Hi Cookie,

Patrick's reply was to some questions that I posed to him regarding what would it take to basically take 'feel', the topic of the thread, out of the equation as it relates to the 'aiming' aspect of the game.

I think he answered my questions rather well, even though it brought up another one to my mind.

We use 'math' like geometry, etc. to explain the real physics of the world. Going to the moon & back, a 3 dimensional operation, can & is explained with 'math' like geometry, etc.

Calculating the volume of a sphere through the formula of V = 4/3 'Pie' r to the 3rd. power is a 3 dimensional solution. There is such a thing as 3 dimensional geometry. It is not all about pencil drawn shapes on a flat piece of paper as some seem to think.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

Wrong, the diagram was supposed to answer a comment that SLOPPY POCKETS was called on. He couldn't answer for himself and deferred to PJ so now Sloppy must feel real bad cause PJ couldn't answer it either. You guys with little or no knowledge of CTE should just leave it alone. Your comments are embarrassing to you.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...the diagram was supposed to answer a comment that SLOPPY POCKETS was called on. ...PJ couldn't answer it either.

You didn't understand the answer - I posted it for readers who can.

You guys with little or no knowledge of CTE should just leave it alone.

Maybe if it wasn't brought into every thread by CTE's "defenders"...

pj <- just a thought
chgo

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Wrong, the diagram was supposed to answer a comment that SLOPPY POCKETS was called on. He couldn't answer for himself and deferred to PJ so now Sloppy must feel real bad cause PJ couldn't answer it either. You guys with little or no knowledge of CTE should just leave it alone. Your comments are embarrassing to you.

This argument reminds me of when I was studying martial arts and guys would talk about the power of their internal chi. They told me that until I experienced it though years of proper practice, I should shut my mouth and stop dissing it, because I didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

Then they'd show me a tape of some old Chinese master, who would throw a man across the room using only the power of his chi. I'd watch and think, "How do you know he's using his chi just by looking at the video? Looks to me like he just gave the guy a real good shot in the ribs."

 

[ENGLISH!]

Wrong, the diagram was supposed to answer a comment that SLOPPY POCKETS was called on. He couldn't answer for himself and deferred to PJ so now Sloppy must feel real bad cause PJ couldn't answer it either. You guys with little or no knowledge of CTE should just leave it alone. Your comments are embarrassing to you.

Ahhhh,

Patrick did quote Sloppy for the posting of the 2nd. diagram. He posted the previous diagram when quoting me.

It's all different parts of individual 'conversations' between different parties in reference to what is essentially the same topic.

But what about that topic & not who said what to whom when, etc.

What about the topic?

Can there be an aiming method that does not require any 'feel' as a means to fulfill it & make it complete for the purpose of 'aiming'?

If one can exists, why & what would make it so?

Would it be the 50 or more 'marker' 'aiming alignments' that Patrick mentioned?

What fills in for the 'in betweens' when a method has far less than those 50 or more 'aiming alignment markers'?

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

This argument reminds me of when I was studying martial arts and guys would talk about the power of their internal chi. They told me that until I experienced it though years of proper practice, I should shut my mouth and stop dissing it, because I didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

Then they'd show me a tape of some old Chinese master, who would throw a man across the room using only the power of his chi. I'd watch and think, "How do you know he's using his chi just by looking at the video? Looks to me like he just gave the guy a real good shot in the ribs."

I hear you.

What's wrong with the quoting mechanism? It looks like I said what Cookie said & now Cookie what you said, until I fix it.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick