How Fractional Aiming Systems Help

[champ2107]

Welcome back from your sabbaticle Patrick. Let me say that JoeyA, and John Barton, have filled in admirably, in your absence.....I see you are approaching 200 posts, with your first aiming thread...It is exciting watching you do verbal warfare, with your same adversaries, who seem to have missed you...:boring2:

I must say, its good that you have the same 2 or 3 antagonists/experts/ASS guy's, to carry on your "debates" with... It is a shame, that you and your thinning group of 'yeasayer's', are speaking a language that NO normal person..(AKA 'naysayer') can, nor want, to comprehend..Otherwise, we'd be glad to help out..



Before you incur the wrath of the 98% of the NORMAL membership..AGAIN.. you may consider starting your own forum, PLEASE !!! No one wants to try and understand your language, as we all know, that you CANNOT teach ANYONE HOW TO AIM..At least not well enough to progress beyond an APA 3.

The necessary ingredients, to reach a HIGH level at pool..are still...HAND/EYE COORDINATION..FEEL..NATURAL TALENT, and a lot of dedicated PRACTICE, or PLAYING..(AKA million ball theory)..Also, a generous dose of common sense will help.....Nothing has changed in your absense..Still NO shortcuts to "pool nirvana"...But, welcome back anyway, I guess...

something you dont understand other than cte systems? i I have shown how it works and there is no if ands or butts

 

[lfigueroa]

No one wants to try and understand your language, as we all know, that you CANNOT teach ANYONE HOW TO AIM..At least not well enough to progress beyond an APA 3.

This is quite the coincidence, but while I was in New Orleans for several days, I had a chance to visit The Corner Pocket, Jamie Ferrel's room, and had an extended conversation with Jamie about a number of topics. (For those of you who don't know, Jamie is a pro speed player known, I believe, as "The Red Rifle," and probably the best player in town.) One of the topics was aiming systems and he expressed the exact same sentiment you just did, Dick, telling me, "You cannot tell anyone how to aim because everyone sees things differently." From there he had some choice words about aiming systems in general and some of their proponents, but we shan't go there

Lou Figueroa

 

[champ2107]

This is quite the coincidence, but while I was in New Orleans for several days, I had a chance to visit The Corner Pocket, Jamie Ferrel's room, and had an extended conversation with Jamie about a number of topics. (For those of you who don't know, Jamie is a pro speed player known, I believe, as "The Red Rifle," and probably the best player in town.) One of the topics was aiming systems and he expressed the exact same sentiment you just did, Dick, telling me, "You cannot tell anyone how to aim because everyone sees things differently." From there he had some choice words about aiming systems in general and some of their proponents, but we shan't go there

Lou Figueroa

but you can guide them in the right direction and thats why stans dvd is not as detailed as some want. You have to figure it out and find a way to make it work for yourself.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Stan specifically said that "feel" is not the same as experience.

Me:
How does Stan (or you) say aiming by feel is learned?

Neil:
Won't work Pat. I'm not getting sucked into your little play on words

If it's a play on words, it's your play on words, Neil. You brought up the claim that "feel" is not "experience".

I say "feel" is learned by experience. I think most would agree. I think even you'd agree if you weren't stuck trying to "defend" CTE from the dreaded "f" word.

pj
chgo

 

[mohrt]

This is quite the coincidence, but while I was in New Orleans for several days, I had a chance to visit The Corner Pocket, Jamie Ferrel's room, and had an extended conversation with Jamie about a number of topics. (For those of you who don't know, Jamie is a pro speed player known, I believe, as "The Red Rifle," and probably the best player in town.) One of the topics was aiming systems and he expressed the exact same sentiment you just did, Dick, telling me, "You cannot tell anyone how to aim because everyone sees things differently." From there he had some choice words about aiming systems in general and some of their proponents, but we shan't go there

Lou Figueroa

but you can guide them in the right direction and thats why stans dvd is not as detailed as some want. You have to figure it out and find a way to make it work for yourself.

You both have good points. If you give someone a discreet aiming method it may or may not work for them, depending on how they see the shots. CTE may be one of the few systems that leaves the visuals up to the player to figure out for themselves, and therefore may work for a wider audience.

 

[Neil]

.............

 

[Neil]

.............

 

[champ2107]

could you imagine if stan really got detailed on his instructions, I could only imagine what Pj,|Lou,etc would have been saying on here! The dvd is perfect and you get out of what you put into it...bottom line

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I have done my best to make that clear in the article. Instead of repeating them here, maybe you can point out what part or parts are not clear?

See below.

You can define the system in a very mechanical way: You decide on a pre-pivot reference depending on the given CB/OB/pocket relation. You line up on the reference, then in one continuous motion you slide into the shot at a pre-pivot cue tip position on the cue ball. Then you pivot to center cue ball, and you are on the shot.

The blue part above is not clear here or in the description on your website. Call it "learned by experience" if you like that better than "feel" - either way it's where user-added judgment/estimation/adjustment comes in.

And it's the part of the system where the actual aiming gets done.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What would you change after the balls are moved to then make the shot?

Obviously, I'd change my aim. The question is how does the system do that?

The answer is the system doesn't; the user does, by adjusting his aim using the same "thick cut" alignment as a starting point/reference.

And, back to the point of this thread: that's not a bad thing - it's a useful technique that anybody might find helpful, with or without a system.

The bad thing is the kneejerk objection to this simple fact that brings the system "defenders" out of the woodwork to shout down real conversation about it.

pj <- staying on topic, even in wartime
chgo

 

[sfleinen]

You both have good points. If you give someone a discreet aiming method it may or may not work for them, depending on how they see the shots. CTE may be one of the few systems that leaves the visuals up to the player to figure out for themselves, and therefore may work for a wider audience.

Monte:

You know I'm a fan of your blog. Some great stuff there, and I've no qualms about posting my feelings about that.

But the bolded above touches on something that I think Pat is trying to get at -- this whole issue of leaving the visuals up to the player to find, decipher, and integrate. Pat, I believe, is trying to nail down "what should the visual look like," as well as, "where is that fixed location where I place my cue down, to start my pivot to center ball?". We all know that "pivoting to center ball" is an EASY concept -- that's not in dispute. What is, is where that cue is placed to start the pivot -- and the science or math behind it.

I think the non-descript / ambiguous descriptions about this process -- or should I say "glossed over," which I think is more accurate -- is what drives some of the readership to continue to dig at this topic. For well over 15 years, I might add.

While there is some value to the "stop trying to propeller-head it, and just *try* it!" pragmatic approach, I think the issue is that some parts of CTE are non-scientific and therefore can't be rationalized or put down in black and white. This drives a logical, scientific mind crazy. The point of *feel* in these systems is, therefore, very valid. I don't know why certain people are taking exception to the "feel" word, when they themselves are advocates of the pragmatic "stop talking about it, and just *do* it" approach, which itself implies that one must practice it to get the feel of it.

Just some thoughts, in the spirit of trying to help,
-Sean

 

[champ2107]

Obviously, I'd change my aim. The question is how does the system do that?

The answer is the system doesn't; the user does, by adjusting his aim using the same "thick cut" alignment as a starting point/reference.

pj <- staying on topic, even in wartime
chgo

Pj now has a understanding of how the system works now, it took him 20 years to get it. So careful when discussing it with him and know your stuff

 

[cookie man]

Obviously, I'd change my aim. The question is how does the system do that?

The answer is the system doesn't; the user does, by adjusting his aim using the same "thick cut" alignment as a starting point/reference.

pj <- staying on topic, even in wartime
chgo

Changing your aim is the same as changing the ctel. You would move back 18 inches and probably a little left, and guess where to hit the ob. We would also move back 18 inches and probably a little left, then pick up our NEW ctel in relation to the pocket, and shoot the ob in the hole.

 

[champ2107]

Changing your aim is the same as changing the ctel. You would move back 18 inches and probably a little left, and guess where to hit the ob. We would also move back 18 inches and probably a little left, then pick up our NEW ctel in relation to the pocket, and shoot the ob in the hole.

This is correct and sometimes you will have to adjust the ctel from your own experience for some shots that end up laying in a certain position or switch to a 1/8 aim line on the ob

 

[cookie man]

Obviously, I'd change my aim. The question is how does the system do that?

The answer is the system doesn't; the user does, by adjusting his aim using the same "thick cut" alignment as a starting point/reference.

And, back to the point of this thread: that's not a bad thing - it's a useful technique that anybody might find helpful, with or without a system.

The bad thing is the kneejerk objection to this simple fact that brings the system "defenders" out of the woodwork to shout down real conversation about it.

pj <- staying on topic, even in wartime
chgo

Not sure of your point on "adjusting his aim", if the balls move everybody has to adjust there aim. The point is simple, I don't guess I look at the same thing over and over. Pick up the ctel and the reference line, very easy.

 

[mohrt]

See below.


The blue part above is not clear here or in the description on your website. Call it "learned by experience" if you like that better than "feel" - either way it's where user-added judgment/estimation/adjustment comes in.

And it's the part of the system where the actual aiming gets done.

pj
chgo

Agreed, this is where the meat of the system lies. What I do know is that through repetition and practice, this part becomes automatic. I also know that you are unwilling to accept that. There have been many attempts to define this step discreetly, with varying results. But here is the best I know how to explain it:

Once you are locked on the reference line, look at the cue ball. You are now done with the reference line. The important thing to do is move STRAIGHT into the cue ball. One way to think of it, imagine the cue ball as a flat disk, and you are looking right into it at a 180 degree (perpendicular) angle. Move straight in, being careful not to change this angle. As you move in, slide your bridge hand into position (about 10-12" from CB for typical shot distances) and place the cue tip at the pre-pivot location. Now you are ready to pivot. Pivot along the plane of the OB (see diagram in blog post.) This makes the pivot "flat" (more of a shift than a pivot) for longer shots, and an "arc" (more of a discreet pivot motion) for shorter shots. (With Stans system, the 1/2 tip pivot pretty much eliminates any need to think of this, and you can just pivot to center CB.)

I know this isn't the clearest concept to grasp, which is probably why Stan didn't attempt to define all the gritty details on his DVD either. Through repetition and practice, it will work. The above information is usually more helpful once the system has been taken to the table and practiced.

I will repeat, I don't have any diagrams or math to define this step discreetly, and neither does anyone else. So don't try to beat a dead horse. Maybe if you take the system to the table yourself for once, you can help us figure that out?

 

[cookie man]

Monte:

You know I'm a fan of your blog. Some great stuff there, and I've no qualms about posting my feelings about that.

But the bolded above touches on something that I think Pat is trying to get at -- this whole issue of leaving the visuals up to the player to find, decipher, and integrate. Pat, I believe, is trying to nail down "what should the visual look like," as well as, "where is that fixed location where I place my cue down, to start my pivot to center ball?". We all know that "pivoting to center ball" is an EASY concept -- that's not in dispute. What is, is where that cue is placed to start the pivot -- and the science or math behind it.

I think the non-descript / ambiguous descriptions about this process -- or should I say "glossed over," which I think is more accurate -- is what drives some of the readership to continue to dig at this topic. For well over 15 years, I might add.

While there is some value to the "stop trying to propeller-head it, and just *try* it!" pragmatic approach, I think the issue is that some parts of CTE are non-scientific and therefore can't be rationalized or put down in black and white. This drives a logical, scientific mind crazy. The point of *feel* in these systems is, therefore, very valid. I don't know why certain people are taking exception to the "feel" word, when they themselves are advocates of the pragmatic "stop talking about it, and just *do* it" approach, which itself implies that one must practice it to get the feel of it.

Just some thoughts, in the spirit of trying to help,
-Sean

Sean, we can all admit we use FEEL, though there are many interpretations of what that would mean. I also admit cte can drive the scientific mind crazy, can't help that. Obviously it hasn't been explained in the right words to satisfy the scientific mind so we are left with "try it", experience it, and then help us explain it properly to the scientific mind. If you have to practice it to get the feel of it, so be it, at least people would know a little more of what they where talking about.

 

[Neil]

...............

 

[mohrt]

Monte:

You know I'm a fan of your blog. Some great stuff there, and I've no qualms about posting my feelings about that.

But the bolded above touches on something that I think Pat is trying to get at -- this whole issue of leaving the visuals up to the player to find, decipher, and integrate. Pat, I believe, is trying to nail down "what should the visual look like," as well as, "where is that fixed location where I place my cue down, to start my pivot to center ball?". We all know that "pivoting to center ball" is an EASY concept -- that's not in dispute. What is, is where that cue is placed to start the pivot -- and the science or math behind it.

I think the non-descript / ambiguous descriptions about this process -- or should I say "glossed over," which I think is more accurate -- is what drives some of the readership to continue to dig at this topic. For well over 15 years, I might add.

While there is some value to the "stop trying to propeller-head it, and just *try* it!" pragmatic approach, I think the issue is that some parts of CTE are non-scientific and therefore can't be rationalized or put down in black and white. This drives a logical, scientific mind crazy. The point of *feel* in these systems is, therefore, very valid. I don't know why certain people are taking exception to the "feel" word, when they themselves are advocates of the pragmatic "stop talking about it, and just *do* it" approach, which itself implies that one must practice it to get the feel of it.

Just some thoughts, in the spirit of trying to help,
-Sean

Sean I completely agree with your post. And I do know that there is an element of CTE that is yet to be defined discreetly, as we are now sitting directly on top of. At this point in time, we have no math or diagrams to define it discreetly. But we do know that with practice and repetition, it works. I feel like a broken record here, but the conscious steps to the system don't involve guess work. What the "feel" part is would be the subconscious lineup that happens during this step, and it is attained by practice.

If someone can come up with a discreet explanation and blow the lid off this thing, that would be awesome. Believe me, I have tried over the past year. I am a CS/math double major, and I could post my drawings trying to figure this stuff out. It's kind of interesting, but I'm not sure how much of it is correct.

What I did was take a leap of faith. I followed the system instructions and practiced, and sure enough the "aha" moment came when things started to click. It took me many months, but now I look back and can say with conviction, it really does work. Now exactly how it all works, well that is why we are here discussing it.

 

[sfleinen]

Sean, we can all admit we use FEEL, though there are many interpretations of what that would mean. I also admit cte can drive the scientific mind crazy, can't help that. Obviously it hasn't been explained in the right words to satisfy the scientific mind so we are left with "try it", experience it, and then help us explain it properly to the scientific mind. If you have to practice it to get the feel of it, so be it, at least people would know a little more of what they where talking about.

Dave:

Thanks for the reply. I too hope when the right "wristwatch-disassembling and reassembling" mind gets a hold of CTE, dissects it, and writes up its inner workings to the finest detail. At least then this whole issue would be put to rest.

Try it I have. And I see how it works. I also see how it is of benefit to folks with different perceptive skillsets than the ones that use traditional aiming methods successfully. It's not for everyone, obviously. I'm a good example -- when I took Stan's DVD to the table, as much as I tried to "turn off" the spot on the object ball that, while I'm standing and viewing the shot, illuminates and shouts at me, "hit me here!", I couldn't. I tried to "ignore" it, and instead methodically use the steps in Stan's DVD, but that spot on the ball just kept waving its hand and saying "yoo-hoo, I'm right here -- hit me here!"

But I'm not done with CTE/Pro1 just yet. I'll keep at it, as time permits. My scientific mind won't give it a rest.

-Sean