How Do You Aim By Feel

[Koop]

I think you are spot on about CTE being villified, castigated and denounced and the "why" puzzles me a great deal. Many of the people who do this are good and decent people at least from what I can see.

JoeyA

Thanks Joey.

I agree, most seem like good people. I guess I just don't understand fully why something so undefineable, such as "feel", seems to get a free pass when something so defineable, such as CTE, does not.

It's all good and why I love this place. So many players, much better than me, play by feel so whatever my beliefs, it's still educational.

 

[Roger Long]

I almost missed your review of this thread and your comments. You covered so many points with your conclusions I'm not even going to address any of them but I like the things you've written and appreciate the time you took to build a consensus.

CTE and CTE/Pro One are practical aiming systems that could benefit anyone who learns them. Like any other aiming system, there is a lot of other things that go into pocketing the ball besides aim.

I think "feel" is a calculated impression "seen" by our minds eye and earned not just from experience but also from innate eye-body (not just hand) coordination.

The fact that everyone has different levels of innate eye-body coordination is precisely why aiming systems are critical assets to many of us.

I think you are spot on about CTE being villified, castigated and denounced and the "why" puzzles me a great deal. Many of the people who do this are good and decent people at least from what I can see.

JoeyA

Joey,

I wholehearted agree with everything you said, except the part about CTE being vilified. I think the CTE skeptics are questioning claims from certain CTE proponents that would lead people to believe CTE is the only road to success. So it's those wild claims that are being vilified, not the system itself. I personally don't believe that CTE or ANY other aiming system is one bit more important than any of the other 80 or more things a pool player should learn.

I also believe there is most likely a lot more that goes with Pro One training than just CTE aiming, so I wasn't thinking of Stan when I mentioned "CTE proponents." To my knowledge, Stan hasn't made any "wild" claims at all.

Hang in there, Joey. You're a good man.

Roger

 

[Roger Long]

Thanks Joey.

I agree, most seem like good people. I guess I just don't understand fully why something so undefineable, such as "feel", seems to get a free pass when something so defineable, such as CTE, does not.

It's all good and why I love this place. So many players, much better than me, play by feel so whatever my beliefs, it's still educational.

Hey, Koop!

"Feel" certainly hasn't gotten a free pass from you! This thread has done a lot toward showing everyone that you can't simply make a claim in these forums and not be able to back it up.

Also consider that the feel players probably don't want any aiming system to get a "free pass" either. :grin:

Roger

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I am a "feel" player. By that I mean I've never used any sort of formal aiming system. Essentially, from childhood I learned to aim by determining the contact point of the OB simply by where I would hit it with my cue if I was shooting it in directly without a cue ball. I'm not literally placing my cue tip on the OB every shot of course.

Back then there was no talk of a ghost ball, CTE, or any of this other stuff. But obviously on anything other than a straight in shot if you are aiming at the contact point that is not really where you want to send the cue ball since you will miss on the full side on any cut shot. You really want to replace the ghost ball so to speak.

Still, I focus on and aim at the contact point. The feel part comes in when making adjustments to this aim point for ghost ball, deflection, spin and collision induced throw etc. I'm not making any formal calculations for these adjustments, I just know that even though I'm aiming at the contact point that is not exactly where I want to send the cue ball. The adjustments are made by feel or intuitively rather than any calculation.

That's what I consider aiming by feel anyway.

 

[Koop]

Hey, Koop!

"Feel" certainly hasn't gotten a free pass from you! This thread has done a lot toward showing everyone that you can't simply make a claim in these forums and not be able to back it up.

Also consider that the feel players probably don't want any aiming system to get a "free pass" either. :grin:

Roger

Excellent point Roger.

 

[Jal]

....I guess I just don't understand fully why something so undefineable, such as "feel", seems to get a free pass when something so defineable, such as CTE, does not.

It's precisely because CTE is based on salient features of the CB and OB (centers, edges) and is at the same time purported to be geometrically exact that draws the criticism. Any system that claims to be exact must use some aspect of ghostball, which the advocates deny is a part of CTE. (There's only one feasible alternative that I can think of, but it's not worth considering.)

Granted, visualizing the ghostball (or part thereof), is not an exact or infallible process. But the various offset-and-pivoting procedures, CTE being just one of them, if followed literally, are not geometrically correct alternatives. Nor are they close enough to allow you to make most shots. In other words, the more faithful you are to the system, the more likely you are to miss. However, they do apparently allow some players, for some reason, to focus in on the ghostball (or parts thereof) with increased reliability. That is worth exploring and some insightful discussion as been put forth, mainly by Colin Colenso and Mike Page.

Maybe what they've offered up is as much as we'll ever know, but the constant distraction of whether or not these systems are exact is a great impediment to learning anything further. Their "exactitude" has been debated for around a decade now, with no end in sight, and despite the fact that the ancient Greeks could have provided the answer over 2300 years ago. If everyone here had backgrounds in geometry, which I don't think is really required, the issue would have never received serious attention.

Jim

 

[Koop]

It's precisely because CTE is based on salient features of the CB and OB (centers, edges) and is at the same time purported to be geometrically exact that draws the criticism. Any system that claims to be exact must use some aspect of ghostball, which the advocates deny is a part of CTE. (There's only one feasible alternative that I can think of, but it's not worth considering.)

Granted, visualizing the ghostball (or part thereof), is not an exact or infallible process. But the various offset-and-pivoting procedures, CTE being just one of them, if followed literally, are not geometrically correct alternatives. Nor are they close enough to allow you to make most shots. In other words, the more faithful you are to the system, the more likely you are to miss. However, they do apparently allow some players, for some reason, to focus in on the ghostball (or parts thereof) with increased reliability. That is worth exploring and some insightful discussion as been put forth, mainly by Colin Colenso and Mike Page.

Maybe what they've offered up is as much as we'll ever know, but the constant distraction of whether or not these systems are exact is a great impediment to learning anything further. Their "exactitude" has been debated for around a decade now, with no end in sight, and despite the fact that the ancient Greeks could have provided the answer over 2300 years ago. If everyone here had backgrounds in geometry, which I don't think is really required, the issue would have never received serious attention.

Jim

If the CB strikes the OB and it goes in repeatedly like the videos that only CTE proponents have put up, obviously the only place they're geometrically correct is at impact and has nothing to do with drawings or Wei tables.

If it's so incorrect and doomed for failure and misses, why hasn't anyone taken Stan up on his $5,000 bet? Seems like easy money and a sure thing. You didn't have very kind words for Stan either.

Why does CTE send you into such a rage all the time? I think this is what Joey was talking about when he said good people etc.

Let's not hijack this thread into another CTE debate or bashing.

Regards,
Koop

 

[JoeyA]

Joey,

I wholehearted agree with everything you said, except the part about CTE being vilified. I think the CTE skeptics are questioning claims from certain CTE proponents that would lead people to believe CTE is the only road to success. So it's those wild claims that are being vilified, not the system itself. I personally don't believe that CTE or ANY other aiming system is one bit more important than any of the other 80 or more things a pool player should learn.

I also believe there is most likely a lot more that goes with Pro One training than just CTE aiming, so I wasn't thinking of Stan when I mentioned "CTE proponents." To my knowledge, Stan hasn't made any "wild" claims at all.

Hang in there, Joey. You're a good man.

Roger

I would like to see ONE post from ANY poster that says CTE is the ONLY road to success.

JoeyA (has lots of respect for Roger Long, the BCA instructor)

 

[CreeDo]

joey: while nobody is saying it's the only road to success exactly, we've had a poster claim it's what all the top pros (bar none) use. So that would imply you must use it to reach top pro level. But to be fair that's not the same as merely being successful. I guess you can reach "average pro" status with other methods.

Koop: geometrically incorrect doesn't mean you can't make balls with it. Going through the CTE process might help someone make balls by forcing them to focus on their aiming and by making them go through a pre-shot routine.

Also, whatever parts that are incorrect in a system can be patched up by tweaking and subconscious adjustments. Doing that might beat using no system at all, for many people.

I heard a reference recently to a quarters-type system where a pro said he learned to see every shot in terms of a half ball, quarter ball, or full hit. Obviously with just those three hits, you can't make every ball. But you can use them as starting points when lining up and then allow your experience and subconscious to steer you into the true line of aim.

I think jal and others see CTE as doing the same thing. Feel proponents meanwhile just skip the initial reference, get down on the ball, and then keep tweaking aim until it looks right.

 

[JoeyA]

joey: while nobody is saying it's the only road to success exactly, we've had a poster claim it's what all the top pros (bar none) use. So that would imply you must use it to reach top pro level. But to be fair that's not the same as merely being successful. I guess you can reach "average pro" status with other methods.

Koop: geometrically incorrect doesn't mean you can't make balls with it. Going through the CTE process might help someone make balls by forcing them to focus on their aiming and by making them go through a pre-shot routine.

Also, whatever parts that are incorrect in a system can be patched up by tweaking and subconscious adjustments. Doing that might beat using no system at all, for many people.

I heard a reference recently to a quarters-type system where a pro said he learned to see every shot in terms of a half ball, quarter ball, or full hit. Obviously with just those three hits, you can't make every ball. But you can use them as starting points when lining up and then allow your experience and subconscious to steer you into the true line of aim.

I think jal and others see CTE as doing the same thing. Feel proponents meanwhile just skip the initial reference, get down on the ball, and then keep tweaking aim until it looks right.

So now you're saying that NOBODY said that CTE was the only road to success "exactly".

Now you've found a SINGLE poster who says that all the pros "BAR NONE", use CTE. I wouldn't mind seeing that post also.

I don't think ANYONE believes that CTE or CTE/Pro One is the magic bullet. I believe that the proponents of CTE and CTE/Pro One believe that this is one of the better aiming systems out there.

As more and more information becomes available about this aiming system, I am starting to believe that it is not only a reliable aiming system but capable of doing even more than contact point to contact point or ghost ball.

I have come to the conclusion that CTE/Pro One allows a person to see the shot better and more consistently than any other aiming system.

I'm also looking forward to discovering more about CTE/Pro One.

JoeyA (still can't beat his way out of a wet paper bag) (I just figure that everyone should have their opinion heard).

 

[AtLarge]

... Now you've found a SINGLE poster who says that all the pros "BAR NONE", use CTE. I wouldn't mind seeing that post also.

I don't think ANYONE believes that CTE or CTE/Pro One is the magic bullet. I believe that the proponents of CTE and CTE/Pro One believe that this is one of the better aiming systems out there.

As more and more information becomes available about this aiming system, I am starting to believe that it is not only a reliable aiming system but capable of doing even more than contact point to contact point or ghost ball.

I have come to the conclusion that CTE/Pro One allows a person to see the shot better and more consistently than any other aiming system. ...

Joey, here are a couple of Hal Houle's statements on AzB forums:

8/4/2008 -- I TEACH PROFESSIONAL AIMING SYSTEMS. INSTRUCTORS DO NOT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT AIMING SYSTEMS. EVERY TOP PLAYER USES THE SAME PRO AIMING SYSTEM. THAT INCLUDES REYES, SOUQUET, ARCHER, ORTMAN, BUSTAMANTE, AND ON AND ON. I DO NOT CHARGE YOU FOR ANYTHING, IT IS SIMPLE ENOUGH THAT I CAN TEACH YOU OVER THE PHONE.

8/19/2008 -- I USE AN AIMING SYSTEM THAT EVERY TOP PRO IS USING. MY AIMING SYSTEM.

8/20/2008 -- THE ONLY THING THE PRO HAS GOING IS HIS AIMING SYSTEM. IF YOU TAKE THAT AWAY FROM HIM HE HAS NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, THAT IS WHY THEY AVOID IT. THERE IS ONLY ONE PRO AIMING SYSTEM OUT THERE, AND EVERY PRO USES IT, EVERY ONE OF THEM. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE CLOSED MOUTH ABOUT IT. IT HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE 1924. YOUR PRO HAS TO CLAM UP BECAUSE EVERY PRO HAS TO DO THE SAME. NOBODY LETS THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG,​

Also, given what you are now saying about your "conclusion" about CTE/ Pro One, I'm wondering whether you are really a good, unbiased subject for Stan's video. What do you think?

 

[JoeyA]

Joey, here are a couple of Hal Houle's statements on AzB forums:

8/4/2008 -- I TEACH PROFESSIONAL AIMING SYSTEMS. INSTRUCTORS DO NOT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT AIMING SYSTEMS. EVERY TOP PLAYER USES THE SAME PRO AIMING SYSTEM. THAT INCLUDES REYES, SOUQUET, ARCHER, ORTMAN, BUSTAMANTE, AND ON AND ON. I DO NOT CHARGE YOU FOR ANYTHING, IT IS SIMPLE ENOUGH THAT I CAN TEACH YOU OVER THE PHONE.

8/19/2008 -- I USE AN AIMING SYSTEM THAT EVERY TOP PRO IS USING. MY AIMING SYSTEM.

8/20/2008 -- THE ONLY THING THE PRO HAS GOING IS HIS AIMING SYSTEM. IF YOU TAKE THAT AWAY FROM HIM HE HAS NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, THAT IS WHY THEY AVOID IT. THERE IS ONLY ONE PRO AIMING SYSTEM OUT THERE, AND EVERY PRO USES IT, EVERY ONE OF THEM. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE CLOSED MOUTH ABOUT IT. IT HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE 1924. YOUR PRO HAS TO CLAM UP BECAUSE EVERY PRO HAS TO DO THE SAME. NOBODY LETS THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG,​

Also, given what you are now saying about your "conclusion" about CTE/ Pro One, I'm wondering whether you are really a good, unbiased subject for Stan's video. What do you think?

Thanks for the copy and paste. If this is Hal, he could be right about the pros using CTE but they may not know it by the name. Then again, Hal could be mistaken. I personally doubt if all pros are using CTE/Pro One.

I've been using Stan Shuffett's NEW CTE/Pro One for only a short period of time, but am convinced it has great value.

Just so you know, I never promised anything except to accept the offer to be a guest of Stan's and to study what he has to offer.

I "think" I am really good at making decisions for myself about what I like and don't like. I hope that I develop a very strong bias toward CTE/Pro One. So far it's looking GREAT.

JoeyA

 

[AtLarge]

Thanks for the copy and paste. If this is Hal, he could be right about the pros using CTE but they may not know it by the name. Then again, Hal could be mistaken. I personally doubt if all pros are using CTE/Pro One.

I've been using Stan Shuffett's NEW CTE/Pro One for only a short period of time, but am convinced it has great value.

Just so you know, I never promised anything except to accept the offer to be a guest of Stan's and to study what he has to offer.

I "think" I am really good at making decisions for myself about what I like and don't like. I hope that I develop a very strong bias toward CTE/Pro One. So far it's looking GREAT.

JoeyA

Joey, your doubt about all pros using CTE/Pro One is well founded. Stevie Moore did not use it -- until he learned it from Stan not so long ago. Does anyone think Stevie was the last pro in the world to start using it? Sometimes Hal just gets a bit carried away with his "promo's."

Now, as to your upcoming adventure, I guess I just misunderstood. I thought you would be going to Stan's to learn CTE/Pro One as someone essentially ignorant about it and without any preconceived biases. And then you'd give us feedback on how you felt about it and its "exactness."

It now sounds like you've already spent some time learning it and have had a favorable reaction so far. That's fine. I'm sure that learning directly from Stan will fill in any missing pieces for you.

I, too, hope you "develop a very strong bias toward" it, because that will probably mean it has raised your already-strong game another notch (or at least made it easier for you to play at your current level). I'm eager to read your feedback and also to view Stan's video. Regards.

 

[CreeDo]

Joey - AtLarge covered the posts I was thinking of. Only one guy posted it, but... it's THE guy.

I don't think Hal was being straight with us when he made those grandiose statements, but I trust you to be honest... even though you're showing a little bias at the start. From what I've read you seem to have your eye on the ball: namely that you plan on determining whether the system is as exact as claimed.

The exactness claim is almost more important than the other wilder ones... nobody can disprove apocryphal stories about some guy's pocketing going way up, and someone can always hedge their bets by saying "well we don't know for sure what the pros use, maybe it's true they all use CTE". But exactness is pretty cut-and-dried. The system either is or it isn't.

Looking forward to the report.

 

[CollinV]

I am a low to mid B player (grain of salt), but am a good shotmaker. "Feel" by its definition is completely right brain so cannot be analyzed in any logical mathematical way. When you go down it either feels right or it doesn't. Pros, through talent and practice, have brought their feel closer to truth. But I think that thing that clicks is very personal, and different for everybody.

Beyond the basics, The only technical thing that can be taught or learned pocketing wise is the discipline to get up when it does not feel right. Or maybe leaning/developing some pre-shot routine that enables a positive feeling when you get down to shoot.

Formulaic Aiming systems, to me, seem like a confidence booster incorporated into ones pre-shot method.

 

[Ratta]

Hussa,

usualy, after all those *aiming-thread-battles* i was trying to *not post* there something- but here my 2 cents about *Aim by Feel*.

In my opinion and from my personal experience it is all about the amount of practice and about the ability to visualize-no matter what aiming-systems somebody is using. Me for example is not able to visualize 3d things -because i m just able to watch *one-eyed* (other eye just like ray charles ). If you have practised thousands of hours you re just recalling pictures from your subconcious-mind- and if you really played thousands of hours you ve seen many, many pictures on the table! So you usualy should be able to *recall* the correct picture when you *did* the shot you have *now* on the table. And if you re in the well known and often discussed *zone* you re just playing, not thinking about systems, and just recalling pictures with your subconcious mind- you re just doing *your job*. When the moment comes where you re in a position, that you have to play a shot where you re having a bad feeling or even if you re just unsure-then this would be the moment you start to aim and also start to work with theoretical stuff to help yourself out. And this NO MATTER with WHAT KIND OF SYSTEM! For some ppl just the ghost ball works, for some other guys the contact-to-contact systems works etc.

I personally ve been using systes like ghostball, contact-to-contact, and with stick-alignment to help me with angles. But to be honest- i can only say that i just tried to find a way to *combine* a bit of each so that it works for me- for sure i can show someone how each system works- but also i would never recommend a system to ANYONE- i would just show up how the systems could work, and he/she could use them.

For me it s all about recalling pictures when playing pool-nothing else. And so in my opinion noone just pocketing balls by feel....he s just in some moments in this *zone* where he s able to just recall the KNOWN PICTURES very fast and just doing his job-executing the stroke- That s it for me.

Hope was able to transfer what i meant. And if the english was good enough to not confuse somebody )

lg from overseas,
Ingo

 

[Surly]

Hey Koopster!

Here's my thoughts on aiming:

1. If you have to consciously aim, you've already missed the shot. It's just a matter of time before you pull that trigger to [mis]deliver the cue.

2. If you have to consciously aim, you *will* be engaging the wrong parts of your brain -- i.e. the conscious, analytical side. Shooting pool is an exercise of muscle memory and of unconscious thought. You've spent thousands of hours shooting probably that same shot that's right in front of you now. Why not tap into the muscle memory and unconscious "been there, done that, old hat" thought process you've built? If you engage the conscious analytical side, it's just a matter of time before you suffer "paralysis through analysis", and "analyze" your way into a missed shot. Most folks that do really well in practice, but stink up the place when in a pressure situation (or "when the shot counts," as in a match), fall into this precise scenario.

The subconscious mind is a POWERFUL instrument -- it stores knowledge and "how to do this" instructions in deep, far away recesses, that the conscious mind can't get to, and honestly, is not supposed to, either! That's what the subconscious mind is for. You don't think about such incredibly complex activities as accurately throwing a baseball or riding a bicycle, right?

Hope that is helpful,
-Sean

This is precisely what I am beginning to discover. I have been trying to simplify by not focusing so much on the pocket... it seems that I know how to get the ball to the pocket, and I know exactly where the cueball needs to hit the object ball. That's why so many times you get down on the ball and the little voice says, "That's not it" and you try to compensate and adjust and focus and aim and stroke and miss. You've seen that shot before and you know how it's supposed to look and feel when it's right... Ignoring the pocket once I get down on the ball and just relying on memory of how that ball gets there seems to be working well for me

Several times lately I've gotten down on the ball, placed my bridge, and the little voice says, "That's it" - even before I take a practice stroke. I take one practice stroke and the voice yells, "That's it! Shoot it!" and it's just an effortless, beautiful thing...

It just goes to show that your subconscious/muscle memory learns how to shoot every shot, probably very quickly. What it takes is getting out of the way and letting it loose. It's almost like trying to remember something that's just out of reach, and then once you've stopped trying, it reveals itself...

I'm pretty sure it's something sorta like that.

 

[searcyD]

.? Its just that to get to where you are doing the right things....it takes a lot of sweat and labor.

Remember that machine they built...those m.i.t. kids?...or was it oxford science department? looked pretty spiffy, eh? Its suppose to be able to draw a neon green line of travel from a "contact point" to a destination (pocket), and then execute the shot. How they come up with the line of travel is prolly a bunch of numbers thrown together....A pool player would prolly bust that machine all up. Most of the shots were on a barbox anyways, your not suppose to miss on a barbox. I'm sure if it was on a daimond or gc the balls would be all over the place.

Anyways, I had a point. :boring2:

 

[JoeyA]

Stan shuffett's NEW CTE/Pro One Aiming System

Joey - AtLarge covered the posts I was thinking of. Only one guy posted it, but... it's THE guy.

I don't think Hal was being straight with us when he made those grandiose statements, but I trust you to be honest... even though you're showing a little bias at the start. From what I've read you seem to have your eye on the ball: namely that you plan on determining whether the system is as exact as claimed.

The exactness claim is almost more important than the other wilder ones... nobody can disprove apocryphal stories about some guy's pocketing going way up, and someone can always hedge their bets by saying "well we don't know for sure what the pros use, maybe it's true they all use CTE". But exactness is pretty cut-and-dried. The system either is or it isn't.

Looking forward to the report.

Creedo,
The fact is that I care very little about proving anything to anyone. The only thing I am interested in is elevating my own mediocre game.

If Stan Shuffett's NEW CTE/Pro One Aiming system can help do that, I want to learn it.

If I determined for myself that Stan's new CTE/Pro One Aiming System was exact, precise, measurable and is the best aiming system on the planet, it still wouldn't satisfy some of the detractors of CTE.

JoeyA

 

[JoeyInCali]

How do you control the cueball?