This thread has turned out to be quite interesting with some well thought out responses and good points.
Here are the original questions I asked and the general majority consensus regarding aiming by feel:
1. Is feel the same for all players in determining what to do and how to use it?
a. "feel" is something you develop on your own.
b. Probably not because different people learn in different ways.
c. Maybe it's "feel" but I would call it "visualizing the shot". I don't think the term "feel" is accurate.
d. No
2. Is feel transferrable from one player to the next and can it be taught?
a. Nope, it's experience. You could say it's taught... but it's self-taught.
b. No, feel is individual. but feel theory can be discussed.
3. How is feel geometrically correct over all other methods?
a. Pool isn't geometrical, it's far more complicated than that. All I know is, geometry, as a subject, does not cover pool in its entirety.
b. I doubt that it is. It is based more on neurological principles of learning than on math.
c. But feel doesn't claim geometrical correctness and obviously can't be illustrated as such. It just claims results.
d. It's not, but who cares about geometry when you are spinning, bending, curving and pinching balls anyway.
4. Can feel be illustrated on a Wei table?
a. No, because the Wei table is two dimensional and it doesn't give a player the correct perspective we are used to. Depth perception is needed to properly visualize a shot.
b. No
5. Can the exactness of feel be shown in an algebraic or mathematical formula which seems to be the final word to validate a system?
a. Nope. Not many systems can. Ghost ball, I guess could.
b. Aim must add in depth perception, the players head position, speed, spin and the other forces that affect the shot -"mentally seeing the shot". I will add that playing on tight pockets requires more exactness and better visualization - playing on such a table develops sharpness.
6. Is feel the same for an APA3 or anything in between compared to a short stop or pro?
a. No. The better player will have much higher levels of precision. I saw Johnny Archer shoot between two balls that could have had as little as 1/8th inch of clearance - I couldn't believe he could do it. Now, that's visualization.
7. Is feel consistent and exact from one shot to the next or from one day to the next?
a. No. If you feel good physically and mentally, "feel" is much easier, but if you don't, your "feel" will feel like crap. Same way you can play phenomenal, and then get tired and suck. It's all relative to that individual at that particular time.
b. No. Brain activity has measureable differences day to day which can be influenced by mood, rest, health and many other things. In truth, there is no physical activity you can successfully mimic day to day, not one.
8. How do you know if your feel manipulation is correct or incorrect before taking the shot?
a. You don't.
b. No way of knowing, I will say, in fact, that if I can't visualize the shot properly, that is my first clue that something is amiss.
c. I will say that you don't always know it's correct. Everyone misses from time to time. There will be times when you believe you're aiming for the correct spot only to realize afterward you weren't.
d. Sometimes you just aren't sure, you only know you're in the ballpark but not positive you're on the exact line.
I'm with you guys on playing by feel because I do play that way most of the time and my answers fall right in line with yours.
But after spending a good amount of time in person with Hal Houle learning CTE and other pivot based systems, there's a flip side of me that asks why I don't use it 100% of the time based on yours and my answers to this thread. It also brings up some questions as to why more people don't get involved with it and how "feel" is highly praised as the best way and CTE is vilified, castigated, and denounced.
After reviewing and analyzing all the responses, here's what I'm taking from them:
Aiming by feel is the best way to do it, yet it is: (based on question 1-8) 1. HIGHLY INDIVIDUAL 2.cannot be transferred from one person to the next or taught 3.cannot be proven from one player to the next to be geometrically correct because no one knows how others are seeing it and setting up 4. It can't be placed on a Wei table because of variations from one shot to the next even for the same ball placement or how you come to the conclusion of the final aiming point 5. It certainly can't be illustrated in a math or geometry formula from one player to the next or even know if it's on the money to begin with 6. A lesser player compared to a higher level player isn't developed the same way nor see things with the same perspective 7. It's very inconsistent from one day to the next based on physical, emotional, energy levels, or focus and concentration 8. You're never really certain if the "inner voice" is giving you the right advice or the wrong advice on what looks on or off with the shot and where you should hit the CB or aim.
CTE and other pivot based systems have a few things in common with "feel aiming" but get blasted by certain people who don't fully understand the way to do it properly. They're pounced on due to unproven geometrical correctness, the inability to show a Wei table set up or two-dimensional drawing, or to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the mathematical accuracy that can't possibly work for anything to do changes from on table to the next or other variables.
Why is it perfectly OK for feel aiming but not CTE?
CTE can be the same for all players and how to use it; it is transferrable from on player to the next and can be taught; if balls are going in the hole and the pocketing % is higher, it must be geometrically correct; it adds to consistency because there are specific visual alignments that aren't dependent on daily bio-rhythms or setup variables to "sense" the aiming point; it's been proven by some highly talented pros to be effective based on it's concept.
Am I off base with my assessment or missing something? Do you see anything much differently with all of the posts right here in front of us?
Thanks to everyone so far for the well thought out responses.
Koop
