My Thread… Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE

[ENGLISH!]

Just for all reader's information, after a seemingly polite & civil PM conversation yesterday, John Barton all of sudden demanded that I not contact him ever again. I did not, yet John made a follow up post re-demanding the same.

Therefore I will not be specifically responding to his post other than to say here that it is chocked full of unsubstantiated statements & premises & very poorly associated 'analogies'.

Also... I would ask that ALL CTE advocates not be hypocritical & not make advocating posts in this thread just as they are now basically demanding that "negative" comments or explanations NOT be made in their threads.

This thread is for LIKE MINDS regarding the fact that no objective aiming system or method exists at this time & most probably never will.

I would ask that every one that has doubts as to that, please read the posts of swest & Patrick Johnson with an open, logical, non science bending mind & attitude.

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Ghost ball covers everything but it is at the subjective end of the spectrum as far as an aiming method goes.

All aiming methods, even your favorite one, are "at the subjective end of the spectrum". They all rely on practiced visualization using some objective landmarks.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

Recently I performed a visual exercise geared towards increasing Objectivity.

1. If you know where you cue ball should arrive for the shot...even at a distance

2. If you imagine the arriving cue ball to seem the same perceived size as you perceive the object ball

3. Simply aim your cue ball through the center with your cue at the center of the proposed arriving cue ball.

4. You will have a parallax adjusted arrival for your cue ball and its very much on target with your picked arrival location. So in that way its very objective.

The caveat is you have to deliver, which is never objective, but each thing you do towards making yourself an objective non changing target lends to more assurance or objectivity that you will definitely make the shot. This includes elimination of the application of spin and a perfect delivery.

The increase in Objectivity has nothing to do with Aiming Systems only.

Hi Robin,

Thanks but...

Given this post & especially your first sentence & your #1 using the word 'know', I do not think you have a good understanding of just what is meant by objective in this context or I am not understanding exactly what it is you're saying.

I would respectfully ask that you read the quoted post of Patrick in my OP & the subsequent ones by him & swest.

Regards & Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

since ghost ball and contact point to contact point aiming have infinite object ball cue ball relationships dont they cover all possible shots ????

Larry,

Thanks for you input.

Obviously all of the shots can be made using virtually any method, BUT the methods are not objective they are subjective.

The shooter must make chooses with no real objective indicator as to what actually is applicable for success.

I agree that ghost ball & CP2CP or a properly perceived equal & opposite overlap which is basically based on contact point can cover all of the shots but there are no objective indicators. They involve subjective selection visualization & implementation.

I think it is Joe Tucker that put out a matching numbers method in which one visualizes 8 or 9 numbers along the outside quarter of the OB & 8 or 9 numbers on the inside quarter of the CB & then match them up after one is chosen for the shot at hand. The thing is that 'visualization' placement of those numbers is subjective & the selection of which would be applicable for success is also subjective. No where in that method or any method does the method 'say' for this shot it's X.

The shadow changes as the OB position changes on the table as it seen from the perspective of the different CB positions, so... it might be consider as the best 'objective' method but... there is a point of a certain angle of cut that an adjustment must be made as to how one aligns the CB to it & that 'point' of when that is... IS subjective. ( i'm interested in seeing what Eeekes' new SAMBA method incorporates.)

I hope I have said this clearly.

Best Wishes & Again Thanks for You Input.

 

[336Robin]

Objectivity in Shot Making

I do understand what you said. This is my opinion where it comes to shot making. As to the definition pertaining to anything else, I don't think that is a problem here on the pool forum. Very few people are completely objective and there aren't too many situations where people are concerned that objectivity exists, there are situations where extreme confidence exists but then again, nothing is perfect. If I missed the point just dismiss my post and carry on.

Hi Robin,

Thanks but...

Given this post & especially your first sentence & your #1 using the word 'know', I do not think you have a good understanding of just what is meant by objective in this context or I am not understanding exactly what it is you're saying.

I would respectfully ask that you read the quoted post of Patrick in my OP & the subsequent ones by him & swest.

Regards & Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I do understand what you said. This is my opinion where it comes to shot making. As to the definition pertaining to anything else, I don't think that is a problem here on the pool forum. Very few people are completely objective and there aren't too many situations where people are concerned that objectivity exists, there are situations where extreme confidence exists but then again, nothing is perfect. If I missed the point just dismiss my post and carry on.

Thanks Robin.

You're correct in that when it comes to people, individuals, few are capable of being objective & performing objectively & that is part of the issue as it relates to the topic of the supposed objective aiming system or method.

What is thought or believed by some is not the reality.

Best Wishes.

 

[bbb]

All aiming methods, even your favorite one, are "at the subjective end of the spectrum". They all rely on practiced visualization using some objective landmarks.

pj
chgo

well said patrick....:thumbup:

 

[bbb]

Larry,

Thanks for you input.

Obviously all of the shots can be made using virtually any method, BUT the methods are not objective they are subjective.

The shooter must make chooses with no real objective indicator as to what actually is applicable for success.

I agree that ghost ball & CP2CP or a properly perceived equal & opposite overlap which is basically based on contact point can cover all of the shots but there are no objective indicators. They involve subjective selection visualization & implementation.

I think it is Joe Tucker that put out a matching numbers method in which one visualizes 8 or 9 numbers along the outside quarter of the OB & 8 or 9 numbers on the inside quarter of the CB & then match them up after one is chosen for the shot at hand. The thing is that 'visualization' placement of those numbers is subjective & the selection of which would be applicable for success is also subjective. No where in that method or any method does the method 'say' for this shot it's X.

The shadow changes as the OB position changes on the table as it seen from the perspective of the different CB positions, so... it might be consider as the best 'objective' method but... there is a point of a certain angle of cut that an adjustment must be made as to how one aligns the CB to it & that 'point' of when that is... IS subjective. ( i'm interested in seeing what Eeekes' new SAMBA method incorporates.)

I hope I have said this clearly.

Best Wishes & Again Thanks for You Input.

just for accuracy tucker does have an objective way to determine if a shot is a 2 or 5 on his number scale
but as you say above regarding ghost ball
They involve subjective selection visualization & implementation.

 

[8pack]

Anthony,

How many posts have you made in the aiming forum just the past few days.

But this is not about them. They are actually not invited & indeed uninvited, because it is like you say regarding logic.

This is for anyone that wants to make a point as to why any so called objective aiming system or method simply can not be such, as PJ did in the post that I quoted.

He's basically brought the crux of why there can not be an objective aiming system or method to simple & concise, logical 'light'.

The need for a sufficient number of visual markers is too great to be had even though the numbers are not astronomical.

If there is not enough different objective markers to cover the required angles then subjective interpretation & execution must come into play just as it does for ALL methods.

Best Wishes to You & All.

Sorry Rick I didn't read the whole post, thought you copied something from the other.


There are visual objective points on the ob, the edges. Other then that , you're trying your best to find the spot you need.

The pro 1 guys have A,B and C to deal with. I posted along time ago while these could be objective aim points, finding them is another story.

All ways of aiming have a somewhat of an objective side, the starting point. Some weaker then others and probably require more visualizing.

 

[ENGLISH!]

just for accuracy tucker does have an objective way to determine if a shot is a 2 or 5 on his number scale
but as you say above regarding ghost ball
They involve subjective selection visualization & implementation.

Larry,

Could you PM me with his 'objective' means for such?

I am not aware of any such means being objective.

Thanks in advance.

 

[JB Cases]

All aiming methods, even your favorite one, are "at the subjective end of the spectrum". They all rely on practiced visualization using some objective landmarks.

pj
chgo

No surprise but I disagree. The spectrum for aiming in my opinion runs like this.

Mostly Subjective <-----------------------Somewhat Objective------------------------->Mostly Objective

I refrain from saying totally so as to not induce a novel.

Mostly Subjective though covers - "I just look and shoot" through "I imagine a ball behind the object ball"

Mostly Objective covers systems where concrete points are used to align to.

Center to Center or Edges to Edges for a straight in is 100% objective. Any system that is able to to use those concrete points to align consistently is objective in my opinion. And in my experience close enough to totally as to not matter.

As for training being your reason to call any system subjective I disagree as well. There is a reason that the carpenter's rule is to measure twice and cut once. Just because a person has a tool doesn't mean they know how to use it effectively right out of the box. It isn't subjective to learn to see alignments that you have never used before. That's simply practice.

But you do bring up a great point and let's assume that learning the proper perspective visuals as they are called for CTE is in fact a subjective exercise. After all no visible line exists between the balls, center cueball is easy to see but maybe everyone sees it slightly off where it actually is...I can concede that for the sake of argument.

CTE proponents contend that one of a limited amount of visual perceptions will cover just about all shots. So if true, which I think it is, then the shooter will need to subjectively learn to recognize a small number of approaches that get him close enough to the actual shot line with sufficient accuracy as to provide him with a tool that does indeed work for all shots.

In other words instead of fumbling for a ghost ball that must be placed in the exactly right position the subjective estimation is reduced enormously by use a method that reduces the choices to a few "keys" (called visuals). Choose the right key and you are on the shot line every time.

As an example I could set up a "difficult" cut shot and teach someone the right perception and their make percentage would be way higher and their misses way tighter to the pocket than someone trying to guess at the line or to consistently try to place an imaginary ball. That's my prediction and it seems to bear out when we look at the results of the shotmaking contests where CTE users consistently rank high or even the highest.

I predict that if you take two C players and one is a pure feel or a claimed ghost ball shooter and you teach the other one CTE that after one month of practice the CTE user will be a far better shotmaker. And that's EVEN IF the feel/GB user spends his month working on his shotmaking. The reason is that the CTE user will NOT have to practice every shot that is possible because he will instead have a set of keys that unlock every possible shot in a better way than GB and Feel ever can. And IF CTE is also "feel based" as you claim then it's a way way way way higher level of sensitivity and sensuality than any other method I have seen.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Sorry Rick I didn't read the whole post, thought you copied something from the other.


There are visual objective points on the ob, the edges. Other then that , you're trying your best to find the spot you need.

The pro 1 guys have A,B and C to deal with. I posted along time ago while these could be objective aim points, finding them is another story.

All ways of aiming have a somewhat of an objective side, the starting point. Some weaker then others and probably require more visualizing.

Yes. Some of us have conceded for the sake of discussion that the points could be considered objective even though Duckie/Greg is a sticker that they really are not.

The vertical center line & especially the center point is not as it is one's subjective interpretation or feeling of just what the exact vertical axis is especially since the exact bottom of the ball is not seen & every one would not choose the exact same points of A & C as everyone does not have the same ability of estimating what is the 1/2 way point...

as in estimating the center of a 4 foot long piece of wood.

Oddly, I think the "visual 'edge'" is the most 'objective' & that seems to be Greg's greatest objection

All of those, to me, are a bit nit picking & not of the main concern even though technically they are not objective.

The point that I have been making & what Patrick said so simply & concisely are the main reasons & the crux of why there can be no objective system even if the reference points are conceded as such.

Anyway, Thanks for Your Input & Best Wishes to You... & ALL.

 

[JB Cases]

I keep seeing an assertion that any system must "define" all cut angles.

I am not sure what define means in this context but perhaps it means resolve with? So Ghost Ball on paper handle ever imaginable cut angle because it's a phantom object placed at the exact spot where the cut happens.

In reality it gets much harder to make a human being place a phantom ball precisely for every shot. but on paper, sure, Ghost Ball is perfect.

Now CTE, give a CTE user any shot and they can tell you immediately what the right visual (key) is for that shot. So ON THE TABLE CTE for example, resolves to every cut angle.

I mean I don't know what else to call it when two CTE users can agree 100% what the visual is for any given shot. They aren't guessing, they are using an alignment tool that is accurate.

 

[JB Cases]

Just for all reader's information, after a seemingly polite & civil PM conversation yesterday, John Barton all of sudden demanded that I not contact him ever again. I did not, yet John made a follow up post re-demanding the same.

Therefore I will not be specifically responding to his posts other than to say here that it is chocked full of unsubstantiated statements & premises & very poorly associated 'analogies'.

Also... I would ask that ALL CTE advocates not be hypocritical & not make advocating posts in this thread just as they are now basically demanding that negative comments or explanations NOT be made in their threads.

This thread is for LIKE MINDS regarding the fact that no objective aiming system or method exists at this time & most probably never will.

I would ask that every one that has doubts as to that, please read the posts of swest & Patrick Johnson with an open, logical, non science bending mind & attitude.

Best Wishes to ALL.

I asked you not to PM me any more. Those of us who get your PMs know why this is a request. I am sure you are a decent guy but I don't have time to give you in private.

As for the thread premise, do not address me in any thread or use my words IF you don't want me to post. That should have been clear to you. I wouldn't quote you in public and then deny you the chance to rebut.

I have explained again my viewpoint on the question of OBJECTIVITY in aiming as I see it. When I have the opportunity I will make a video doing the same so that people can see it in action rather than to swim through so many words.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I will state AGAIN...

That the purpose & intention of MY THREAD is NOT to discuss or ARGUE whether or not any particular system or method is an objective aiming 'system'.

The purpose & intentions of THIS, MY THREAD is to have a place where individuals can comment on WHY there can NOT be such a system.

Just like the advocates or proponents of such a supposed system basically 'demand' that no opposing comments be made in 'their' threads so that those that want to discuss such can do so without dissension & distraction...

I respectfully ask, AGAIN that no comments or arguments be made FOR any system being an objective 'system'.

That is NOT for what THIS, MY THREAD is about.

I Thank mohrt/Monty for respecting my wishes & would kindly & politely ask that others please do the same.

In fact. I politely ask that those that have made posts NOT of the nature that I intended for this thread kindly edit them out.

Best Wishes to ALL.

PS I made a reference to hypocrisy in my OP & it appears that my prediction is coming to reality.

 

[cookie man]

Did you not read the part of my OP regarding what the intentions & purpose are for this thread? If not, please do so by reading the entire OP.

It is the same of which has been said by CTEers that they want for their threads, a place for LIKE MINDS.

There should be no disagreement expressed here & no dissension nor distraction for the purpose of this thread. which is for comments on why there can be no such thing as an objective aiming system or method.

I sincerely hope that you can not be hypocritical & so comply with my wishes & intentions for this thread.

Thank You in Advance & Best Wishes to You & All.

I would have hoped that you and your followers would have learned CTE in its entirety before making assumptions that simply are not true.
If you are going to post anything about cte please include the amount of your training and the quality of the instructor teaching you. Otherwise how could anyone take you seriously?

 

[Neil]

All aiming methods, even your favorite one, are "at the subjective end of the spectrum". They all rely on practiced visualization using some objective landmarks.

pj
chgo

From the book Objectivity, trained judgement can produce objectivity.

In the early 1900s, the strategy of trained judgment started to be added to the goal of producing objective images by mechanical means. As one example, Daston and Galison show an image from 1959 of the sun’s magnetic field which was the result of both the output of complex scientific apparatus together with intervention of scientists, using trained judgment, to smooth the data in order to eliminate artifacts produced by their instruments.

From another source- Objective Versus Subjective
Objective knowledge consists of things that can be observed or reproduced, or is made up of hard facts that come from consensus built over time. Subjective knowledge is realm of personal perspective and belief. While the Washington Monument's location is objective knowledge, calling it tall is subjective knowledge. People who have traveled elsewhere may think that the monument is small compared to the Eiffel Tower or Empire State Building. Stating that the height of the Washington Monument is 555 feet is objective, but the Eiffel Tower is over 1,000 feet in height.

So, what we have then, is an objective edge that we all (except duckie) can see. The A, and the C references are at 1/4 ball. 1/4 ball is also a very objective term. While one unpracticed with finding 1/4 ball may need subjectivity to learn where the objective is, that does not equate to it not being an objective point to look at. As seen above, trained judgement is objective.

So, as you can see, your statement is not correct. It is a wishful opinion at best.

 

[cookie man]

All aiming methods, even your favorite one, are "at the subjective end of the spectrum". They all rely on practiced visualization using some objective landmarks.

pj
chgo

So an aiming system can be OBJECTIVE at it's core and used subjectively if so desired. English ain't going to be happy with you.

 

[cookie man]

Sorry Rick I didn't read the whole post, thought you copied something from the other.


There are visual objective points on the ob, the edges. Other then that , you're trying your best to find the spot you need.

The pro 1 guys have A,B and C to deal with. I posted along time ago while these could be objective aim points, finding them is another story.

All ways of aiming have a somewhat of an objective side, the starting point. Some weaker then others and probably require more visualizing.

Seems the people English thinks are on his side keep disproving his point.

 

[Neil]

I will state AGAIN...

That the purpose & intention of MY THREAD is NOT to discuss or ARGUE whether or not any particular system or method is an objective aiming 'system'.

The purpose & intentions of THIS, MY THREAD is to have a place where individuals can comment on WHY there can NOT be such a system.

Just like the advocates or proponents of such a supposed system basically 'demand' that no opposing comments be made in 'their' threads so that those that want to discuss such can do so without dissension & distraction...

I respectfully ask, AGAIN that no comments or arguments be made FOR any system being an objective 'system'.

That is NOT for what THIS, MY THREAD is about.

I Thank mohrt/Monty for respecting my wishes & would kindly & politely ask that others please do the same.

In fact. I politely ask that those that have made posts NOT of the nature that I intended for this thread kindly edit them out.

Best Wishes to ALL.

PS I made a reference to hypocrisy in my OP & it appears that my prediction is coming to reality.

For anyone to state why there can not be such a system means you only want people to post that don't even know the definition of the term objectivity, and then to make a blanket statement covering all aiming systems when they don't even know what half of them even are. Basically, you are asking people to lie for you to bolster your false and derogatory arguments against CTE.

You talk about hypocrisy only to knock others and prevent truth from being told. Have you not stated numerous times in your posts that BOTH sides must be told? Now, here you are stating that you only want one side told. The side that you feel will insult CTE and it's users. Why should anyone give you the same courtesy that you failed to show them?