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

[Neil]

Sorry, but just as I predicted. A cop-out.

It's not for or about me. It's about those considering CTE & are perhaps intrigude & perhaps enticed by the description of 'an objective aiming system' & perhaps due to the objections regarding that description that have been voiced they are sitting on the fence & can just not make themselves pull the trigger & buy & try CTE.

So... do it for them. Give a concise logical objective explanation as to the how & why CTE is an objective aiming system that uses objective visuals to get one on the specific shot line for ALL of the required angles necessary for the game.

That is up to 75 different & distinct outcome angles.

Again... Like Nike says, 'Just Do It'... not for me or PJ or Satorie or 8Pack Anthony or Dan White or TonyTheTiger, etc.

... but do it for all those that you want to help that are sitting on the fence & just can't seem to make themselves buy it.

But please do not come out with anything but a complete concise, reasonable, logical, non science bending explanation that is filled with supposition(s) & conjecture(s) & irrational statements.

I know I am asking for the impossible because such does not exist.

Best Wishes & You Have a Great Day & a Great Weekend.

So, I'm coping out because you are so close minded that you can't begin to comprehend what you read? That surely isn't logical.

Where are all these people just sitting on the fence waiting on the outcome of these silly threads to buy it? Are you talking about all those imaginary people in your head that you made up thinking you were actually making a point with any substance to it?

 

[stan shuffett]

Well, again, with all due respect, Sir, that is about what I expected... no such explanation.

I guess the dispute & the discussion & the discourse, etc. will continue until your book comes out & then it will probably pick up as I surmise that if you can not give such an explanation here, you will not be able to give one in your book either.

So I would guess that the turmoil will just rage on in one form or another. That is a shame, as such an explanation from you would certainly seem to quell at least some of, if not most all of, the objections.

Best Wishes & You Have a Great Day & a Great Weekend.

PS Is there an approximate release date for your book?

What does everyone get from you?

A DEBATER THAT DOES NOT AND I REPEAT DOES NOT KNOW HIS SUBJECT MATTER AND IS UNWILLING TO BECOME EDUCATED WITH THE TOPIC. And that is exactly what I expect from you and that will never change......that is who you are.....a word man.

My book will be out when it is out.....It is a huge project! Writing, table work, writing, table work....redoing and redoing.....scores and scores of illustrations and pictures.....the best I can say is 2016..

Stan Shuffett

 

[Patrick Johnson]

With visual intelligence. A key ingredient you do not yet possess because you won't take it to the table to acquire it,

CTE's "visual intelligence" is described by CTE users (including Stan) as the ability to recognize the correct final shot alignment, learned by practice and experience. How is that different from how anybody else recognizes the final shot alignment? It's exactly how I do it - by "feel".

Undefined terms like "visual intelligence", "acquire the visual", "3D perception", etc. are the signposts that tell us we've reached the end of the "objective instructions" road - from there on it's every player for himself, using his own "visual intelligence" gained from lots of practice.

Since nobody can describe it any more clearly, why should we believe "visual intelligence" isn't just another term for "by feel"?

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Has already been done. Marvin Chin. "Billiards Accuracy". He invented the "equal/opposite" method. Jimmy Reid highlighted it in a few of his instructional videos. Can be proven geometrically on paper, and on a table. And it works with the larger cueball on the barbox as well. I'm not sure CTE can do that (that's an assumption - I've never heard the big ball being addressed in CTE conversation).

I think that Equal/Opposite is the same as Joe Tucker's aiming by the numbers, which is the same method taught in one of the Willie Mosconi instruction books.

 

[JB Cases]

I don't see what's so important about arguing about CTE being objective or not. It's clear to me that most people who claim that it is, has no real idea what the word entails, or are using the word in an ad-hoc definition of their own designs. It's marketing, and clique politics. Nothing more, nothing less. These are pool players and instructors, not scientists. No actual scientist would claim a system as a "center pocket system" without tons of disclaimers and explanations, because balls act differently with different speeds and spins (yes even on the vertical axis), not to mention balls being different etc.

On the matter of objectivity, I think a truely objective system could be made, on paper at least. The easiest would be a stick aiming system. Such and such a number of tips (size defined obviosly) away from center will produce x amount of angle at a standard speed and spin under standard conditions (which would be a PIA to define). Then you could have a table with compensations etc. You would also need to make a system to measure the angle to the pocket of course, which would be more of a challenge. Nobody would actually use such a system, though, because you'd either be looking up data in a book or having to memorize at least 75 different tip alignments (according to PJ). Then there's the matter of the compensations. Someone would have to invent a measurement system as well. The problem as well would be that the implementation would be subjective (obviously in the strictest sense), but also in a more general sense. We are not perfect machines, and we will not always be able to accurately aim the stick at a target outside of the ball, for instance. You might be bette at certain aims than at others etc.

Good systems are simple. A few standard alignments, and the subconscious fills out the blanks. Most good systems are of this type. It appears CTE is like this as well, from the videos Dan White posted. I could clearly see Stan Shuffet steering, as could anyone else with their eyes open. I believe this is what makes good shotmakers. When they are wrong, their subconscious make the correct adjustments with good timing and they end up making the ball anyway.

We've all experienced shooting a shot and feeling the arm swoop. Sometimes it works and at other times it fails in almost comical fashion. As we get better the fails become fewer and fewer, because we align more or less correctly for the most part. You will probably not even feel the corrections. Still you will have unwanted spin on the ball every now and then, even if you play decently.

Also it's weird how angry people get over this issue. Pool is supposed to be fun. When I watched this commercial in the 90's my first reaction was amusement, then pity for the people who needed the product and then both believed that it worked and that using it would be a good idea . So long as using something is not directly detrimental to a persons life and well being, I believe it should be left to peoples common sense to protect them. You will make errors, and if the products are of a harmless type, you will learn from your mistakes. Of course I've bought almost every aiming system ever created, so I took the expensive course on the matter, lol:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GeF7A05zQ8

So um, engineers and other science professionals don't know what the word objective means?

But on the whole I agree with you.....pool is supposed to be fun and part of that fun is the discovery and the journey.

Knockers take all the fun out of it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think that Equal/Opposite is the same as Joe Tucker's aiming by the numbers, which is the same method taught in one of the Willie Mosconi instruction books.

Kind of. Joe's version uses a fixed grid parallel with the rails, while equal/opposite uses a "moving" grid parallel with the CB/OB centerline. Other than that it's pretty similar in concept.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Good Post, Sir & I thank YOU for YOUR input.

The only real concern I have is for those that might waste time, more than a year for TonyTheTiger, & never get that for which they are pursuing, 'an objective aiming system'. A waste of one's valuable time is harmful.

If that description would be retracted & never repeated, then perhaps all of the hub bub would go away along with it.

Please do not let the attempted 'bullying' put the thought of going away back into your mind as it did a while back. You & your experience are an asset to AZB & all of the many many that only read & hardly ever if ever post, along with others that might learn from your experience & what you say in your posts.

Best Wishes & Thanks Again for YOUR input.

Any links to this Tony the Tiger's posts? Any chance of the "holes" being diagrammed?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Knockers take all the fun out of it.

You mean those who "knock" others who want to explore the underlying logic of a system?

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

With visual intelligence. A key ingredient you do not yet possess because you won't take it to the table to acquire it. It's akin to you sitting in a basic 5th grade math class and asking how to solve a calculus problem. You first have to learn the basics before you can begin to understand the rest of it.

You demanding to know the higher aspects of CTE without even understanding the basics is not logical, and surely is not using critical thinking skills.

Can you give a reasonable, logical, cognitive definition of just what is 'visual intelligence'

If it is an 'ingredient', doesn't that mean that is a physical inanimate object.

Where does one put it?

On the cue? On the Bridge Hand? On the Stroking Hand? On top of one's head like a hat. Or in one's food or drink one hour before playing?

Sorry for the sarcasm but it's what you so often do.

Would the coined phrase of 'visual intelligence' perhaps mean one's acquired subjective perception & 'knowledge' of all of the shots in pool?

I guess you can not legitimatly answer that.

I guess the ONLY one that can answer that is the individual that coined the phrase which apparently is Howard Gardner, a psychologist.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/visual-intelligence-definition-lesson-quiz.html

Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences
In the past century, numerous theories about intelligence have emerged. One of the more famous theories was created by developmental psychologist Howard Gardner in 1983. Gardner proposed that intelligence is not made up of one factor, but rather eight. They are:

Musical intelligence: includes your awareness of musical sounds, tones, and rhythms

Naturalistic intelligence: includes your awareness of trees, mountains, flowers, and other elements found in nature

Interpersonal intelligence: includes your ability to relate to those around you, understand their motivations, their goals, and their feelings

Intrapersonal intelligence: includes your ability to understand yourself, your strengths and weaknesses, your goals, and your motivation

Logical/mathematical intelligence: includes your ability to reason, think critically and analytically, and your understanding of complex mathematical concepts

Linguistic intelligence: includes your ability to appreciate language and use it effectively to accomplish goals

Bodily/kinesthetic intelligence: includes your athletic ability and being aware of your body

Visual-spatial intelligence: includes your ability to visualize, remember images and details, and an awareness of your surroundings

Each intelligence is independent of the others. This means that having a high level of one intelligence will not guarantee that you are high in the other intelligences. For example, a Spanish professor may have a strong appreciation for language (linguistic intelligence), but may have a hard time relating to his students (interpersonal intelligence).

Visual-Spatial Intelligence

Leonardo Da Vinci and I. M. Pei are famous people with high visual-spatial, or visual, intelligence. In other words, they possess the ability to visualize the world accurately, modify their surroundings based upon their perceptions, and recreate the aspects of their visual experiences. People with high visual-spatial intelligence are good at remembering images, faces, and fine details. They are able to visualize objects from different angles.

People with high visual-spacial intelligence also have good spacial judgement & reasoning. that is they are able to accurately judge the distance between themselves & an object, how far the object is to the right, etc.

They are skilled at using their ability to visualize & their spacial judgement to complete tasks & projects that include design, judgement & creativity. For this reason they make good painters, artists, architects, engineers, & designer.

Visual-spacial intelligence as also has also been found in individuals that are blind or visually impaired. For example, a blind individual who uses touch & spacial reasoning to calculate the size, shape, width, & length of an object which results in an accurate visual picture of the object is showing visual-spacial intelligence.

It seems that perhaps Stan is somewhat mis-applying this phrase as well & using it in an improper inference.

It is more of one's ability or aptitude in certain areas rather than any real 'intelligence'.

 

[JoeyInCali]

CTE's "visual intelligence" is described by CTE users (including Stan) as the ability to recognize the correct final shot alignment, learned by practice and experience. How is that different from how anybody else recognizes the final shot alignment? It's exactly how I do it - by "feel".

Undefined terms like "visual intelligence", "acquire the visual", "3D perception", etc. are the signposts that tell us we've reached the end of the "objective instructions" road - from there on it's every player for himself, using his own "visual intelligence" gained from lots of practice.

Since nobody can describe it any more clearly, why should we believe "visual intelligence" isn't just another term for "by feel"?

pj
chgo

You go by feel or experience?

 

[Neil]

CTE's "visual intelligence" is described by CTE users (including Stan) as the ability to recognize the correct final shot alignment, learned by practice and experience. How is that different from how anybody else recognizes the final shot alignment? It's exactly how I do it - by "feel".

Undefined terms like "visual intelligence", "acquire the visual", "3D perception", etc. are the signposts that tell us we've reached the end of the "objective instructions" road - from there on it's every player for himself, using his own "visual intelligence" gained from lots of practice.

Since nobody can describe it any more clearly, why should we believe "visual intelligence" isn't just another term for "by feel"?

pj
chgo

Pat, you ask how that is different than other aiming systems. The answer is what makes CTE work so well. In most other aiming systems, one must first recognize the rough final shot line, then adjust by feel until they think they are on the correct line.

In CTE, one first recognizes the rough shot line, then from there the visuals of the system and the pivot but one right on the final shot line without having to guesstimate it.

"Feel" is a best guess, and nothing more. Knowledge is not "feel". Knowledge is gained from experience or book learning, or visually, or some other method. Knowledge tells one that THIS is the rough shot line. It's not a " I think it's about here", but rather a " I know it is here".

One can visually see it. It becomes objective rather than subjective. That is why you can watch a video of someone playing, and you can see that they are not lined up properly for the shot. There is an objective place to align to.

The fine tuning of that objective place can either be subjective, or objective. Depending on how one goes about it. If one fine tunes just by feel, then the procedure is subjective. There is no known guidelines to go by. However, if one finetunes by objective things, such as equal/opposite overlap, 90/90 visuals, CTE visuals, then one is finetuning with objective points.

You state that once one uses visual intelligence that we leave the realm of objectivity. Actually, you have it backwards. As the article I posted part of stated. Once one acquires visual intelligence, they are now in the realm of objectivity.

 

[ENGLISH!]

So, now you want to throw logic, common sense, and critical thinking right out the window? Rick, it has been explained to you many times before. You don't understand it because you have nothing to base the explanations on. You want the answers to the test but won't do the work to figure out the answers.

If you really want to understand it, then get your butt on the table, go through the practice drills the DVD says to do, and actually learn the system. Then you will have a basis for asking questions and will have the knowledge to understand the answers.

You blaming me, Stan, or anyone else for your failure to understand is beyond absurd. And is nothing more than a cheap excuse for your laziness to actually do a little work to learn something. You want everything handed to you on a silver platter. Time to grow up, life doesn't work like that. With your attitude, you reap what you sow- years of frustration of not being able to understand or do instead of having something to help your game. It's getting old listening to you cry about not wanting to do the work required.

More of the same old same old that does not hold any water & is basically a cop-out because the type of explanation, which is simply a rational, logical, non science bending one, can NOT be given because one does not exist.

It is the same type of explanation that has been requested numerous times by myself, PJ, Satori, 8Pack Anthony, Dan White, TonyTheTiger, etc. That has been refused to be given each & every time.

I think that speaks very loudly as to just what the reality of the situation is & especially when put into the larger context of other goings on.

You seem to always make extremely poor assumptions or utilize the omniscience that you seem to think that you have & then go off making a 'ton' of inaccurate statements.

Enough about me...

Let's just have that type of explanation.

Give it & the whole hub bub is over, but not the illogical nonsense that has been forth that basically has convinced NO ONE because the one's presenting such have been BELIEVERS or rather quick converts but still can not give an OBJECTIVE explanation.

Are You Having a Great Day Yet?

Best Wishes.

PS AGAIN, it's NOT for me, but for all those sitting on the fence & can't make themselves buy & try it because of the controversy regarding this issue. So... do it for them.

 

[Neil]

Can you give a reasonable, logical, cognitive definition of just what is 'visual intelligence'

If it is an 'ingredient', doesn't that mean that is a physical inanimate object.

Where does one put it?

On the cue? On the Bridge Hand? On the Stroking Hand? On top of one's head like a hat. Or in one's food or drink one hour before playing?

Sorry for the sarcasm but it's what you so often do.

Would the coined phrase of 'visual intelligence' perhaps mean one's acquired subjective perception & 'knowledge' of all of the shots in pool?

I guess you can not legitimatly answer that.

I guess the ONLY one that can answer that is the individual that coined the phrase which is Howard Gardner, a psychologist.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/visual-intelligence-definition-lesson-quiz.html

Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences
In the past century, numerous theories about intelligence have emerged. One of the more famous theories was created by developmental psychologist Howard Gardner in 1983. Gardner proposed that intelligence is not made up of one factor, but rather eight. They are:

Musical intelligence: includes your awareness of musical sounds, tones, and rhythms

Naturalistic intelligence: includes your awareness of trees, mountains, flowers, and other elements found in nature

Interpersonal intelligence: includes your ability to relate to those around you, understand their motivations, their goals, and their feelings

Intrapersonal intelligence: includes your ability to understand yourself, your strengths and weaknesses, your goals, and your motivation

Logical/mathematical intelligence: includes your ability to reason, think critically and analytically, and your understanding of complex mathematical concepts

Linguistic intelligence: includes your ability to appreciate language and use it effectively to accomplish goals

Bodily/kinesthetic intelligence: includes your athletic ability and being aware of your body

Visual-spatial intelligence: includes your ability to visualize, remember images and details, and an awareness of your surroundings

Each intelligence is independent of the others. This means that having a high level of one intelligence will not guarantee that you are high in the other intelligences. For example, a Spanish professor may have a strong appreciation for language (linguistic intelligence), but may have a hard time relating to his students (interpersonal intelligence).

Visual-Spatial Intelligence

Leonardo Da Vinci and I. M. Pei are famous people with high visual-spatial, or visual, intelligence. In other words, they possess the ability to visualize the world accurately, modify their surroundings based upon their perceptions, and recreate the aspects of their visual experiences. People with high visual-spatial intelligence are good at remembering images, faces, and fine details. They are able to visualize objects from different angles.

People with high visual-spacial intelligence also have good spacial judgement & reasoning. that is they are able to accurately judge the distance between themselves & an object, how far the object is to the right, etc.

They are skilled at using their ability to visualize & their spacial judgement to complete tasks & projects that include design, judgement & creativity. For this reason they make good painters, artists, architects, engineers, & designer.

Visual-spacial intelligence as also has also been found in individuals that are blind or visually impaired. For example, a blind individual who uses touch & spacial reasoning to calculate the size, shape, width, & length of an object which results in an accurate visual picture of the object is showing visual-spacial intelligence.

It seems that perhaps Stan is somewhat mis-applying this phrase as well & using it in an improper inference.

It is more of one's ability or aptitude in certain areas rather than any real 'intelligence'.

Really, that's what you come up with? No logic or critical thinking at all? I have given definitions of what visual intelligence means several times, as have others on here. But, I guess you wouldn't know that because you are too busy trying to nitpick instead of actually learn something or help others on here.

For you to actually type out the definition as given by one guy, and then state that Stan doesn't use it correctly, shows that you don't even understand what the guy you quoted even said. Visual intelligence, as well as other intelligence's, can be learned. Something you might want to take the time to try.

 

[cookie man]

On the contrary, it is totally 100% applicable to CTE & any other supposed 'objective aiming system'.

Please see Poolplaya9's explanation regarding 'you' & other vocal CTE defenders.

I have no inclination to have a discussion with you for nearly the same reasons that I have no inclination to have such with one of your like individuals.

Best Wishes to You & Have a Great Day.

PS I prayed for you too last night & will also do so again after I hit submit.

You can pray for me all you want, Thanks.

As to Poolplaya9, if you or he understood CTE then you would know how ridiculous this statement is.
We look at the same thing everytime, so if one shot is defined then they all are.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Pat, you ask how that is different than other aiming systems. The answer is what makes CTE work so well. In most other aiming systems, one must first recognize the rough final shot line, then adjust by feel until they think they are on the correct line.

In CTE, one first recognizes the rough shot line, then from there the visuals of the system and the pivot but one right on the final shot line without having to guesstimate it.

This just repeats the same old phrases: "the visuals" and "the pivot" do it.

"Feel" is a best guess, and nothing more. Knowledge is not "feel". Knowledge is gained from experience or book learning, or visually, or some other method. Knowledge tells one that THIS is the rough shot line. It's not a " I think it's about here", but rather a " I know it is here".

You're not describing knowledge; you're describing confidence. I'm confident when I aim too.

One can visually see it. It becomes objective rather than subjective. That is why you can watch a video of someone playing, and you can see that they are not lined up properly for the shot. There is an objective place to align to.

It's an objective "place", but where are the objective instructions that tell us how to recognize it? That's what would define an objective system.

The fine tuning of that objective place can either be subjective, or objective. Depending on how one goes about it. If one fine tunes just by feel, then the procedure is subjective. There is no known guidelines to go by. However, if one finetunes by objective things, such as equal/opposite overlap, 90/90 visuals, CTE visuals, then one is finetuning with objective points.

The "objective points" are guidelines, as you yourself say above. One doesn't "finetune by objective guidelines"; one fine tunes to get from objective guidelines to the final aim line.

Once one acquires visual intelligence, they are now in the realm of objectivity.

Visual intelligence = "I know it when I see it" = aiming by feel. You haven't said anything that means anything different.

pj
chgo

 

[Neil]

More of the same old same old that does not hold any water & is basically a cop-out because the type of explanation, which is simply a rational, logical, non science bending one, can NOT be given because one does not exist.

It is the same type of explanation that has been requested numerous times by myself, PJ, Satori, 8Pack Anthony, Dan White, TonyTheTiger, etc. That has been refused to be given each & every time.

I think that speaks very loudly as to just what the reality of the situation is & especially when put into the larger context of other goings on.

You seem to always make extremely poor assumptions or utilize the omniscience that you seem to think that you have & then go off making a 'ton' of inaccurate statements.

Enough about me...

Let's just have that type of explanation.

Give it & the whole hub bub is over, but not the illogical nonsense that has been forth that basically has convinced NO ONE because the one's presenting such have been BELIEVERS or rather quick converts but still can not give an OBJECTIVE explanation.

Are You Having a Great Day Yet?

Best Wishes.

PS AGAIN, it's NOT for me, but for all those sitting on the fence & can't make themselves buy & try it because of the controversy regarding this issue. So... do it for them.

Let's just start here- you say it has been requested numerous times by Tony the Tiger. That means by the way your statement is worded, that he has asked us numerous times.

That would mean that he is a poster here. Numerous times, you have been asked just who he is. Each time, you totally ignore the question. Could it be that you ignore it because he is fictitious? In the past, you have stated that he is just some guy that plays real well in your local room and that he does not post on here. And that he tried CTE for a full year, and stated that it does work, but has holes in it.

Other times you have stated that he is what you think is a good player, but you can't remember his posting name on here. But, you do remember him stating that CTE does not work and has holes in it.

If I recall correctly, you have also stated that he says it is not objective. As if he is some sort of authority on the subject.

So, in the guise of being accurate, precise, qualifying statements, being logical, rational, ect., Tell us just who this fictitious person you keep referring to as some authority actually is.

 

[ENGLISH!]

You are not interested in CTE.....you were selected for free training and a sharing of everything CTE and YOU turned it down. You never asked to reschedule.....

Like I said......You can NOT last 5 minutes with me at a table before you are lost! Why, because you do not have the wherewithal to do what I have done at a table....You can toss your math stuff...your logic crap down the drain.....POOL is visual and I know visual.....it about CTE CTE CTE.....get used to it cause it's never going away.

I am going to share additional info that is extremely important to our game! and what do you and what do your cohorts do.......YOU ALL try to stifle my info......and make it go away.

I have worked to share CTE with players everywhere and I am full steam ahead!!!!! PJ and others could have worked to do the same thing but their egos got in theirway........

Stan Shuffett

Again, with all due respect, Sir, your offer was made at a time when I was intrigued by the description of 'an objective aiming system' & not long after I ruptured a disc in my back & travel was completely out of the question. I've opted not to have surgery & hence have been& am living in an amount of somewhat ongoing reoccurring discomfort & have had & still have no inclination to travel unless ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

Since the time of your offer, I came to realize that Your CTE was not an objective aiming system, but... I was waiting for your 2nd. DVD installment of Pro1 as it was supposed to make things more clear, etc. In the rather short interim, I saw your 5 shots YouTube Video on 'Perception' & realized that there would not be anything forthcoming on the 2nd. DVD that would show or indicate 'an objective aiming system'.

So... you & others are correct when you say that I am no longer interested in learning CTE, I am not... & for that reason.

What I am interested in is showing that it is not such so that perhaps some will not waste their time in pursuit of what is not there & does not exist.

I am rather amazed that I lost my senses for a brief time & even considered that there might be such an aiming system or method. I am very thankful that that time of senselessness regarding the subject was rather short & hence I did not waste much time considering it as an option as some others apparently have.

All this said, I am NOT saying that Your CTE is NOT a good 'aiming' method. It may very well be... but NOT because it is 'an objective aiming method'.

Thank You for the opportunity to set the record straight, so to speak.

Also, you should realize that IF you could give me the type of explanation of which I seek, that I would probably be you most significant convert & probably become your most significant ally & would certainly promote Your CTE.

The fact that do not provide such to me is rather telling, I think.

BUT... it is obvious that no such 'explanation' will be forthcoming just as I predicted way back when.

Best Wishes & You Have a Great Weekend.

 

[cookie man]

CTE's "visual intelligence" is described by CTE users (including Stan) as the ability to recognize the correct final shot alignment, learned by practice and experience. How is that different from how anybody else recognizes the final shot alignment? It's exactly how I do it - by "feel".

Undefined terms like "visual intelligence", "acquire the visual", "3D perception", etc. are the signposts that tell us we've reached the end of the "objective instructions" road - from there on it's every player for himself, using his own "visual intelligence" gained from lots of practice.

Since nobody can describe it any more clearly, why should we believe "visual intelligence" isn't just another term for "by feel"?

pj
chgo

I view visual intelligence more as to seeing the correct relationship of the ctel and reference line. To me they are both defined and used objectively, not by feel.

 

[cookie man]

You mean those who "knock" others who want to explore the underlying logic of a system?

pj
chgo

If you want to explore the underlying logic of the system, shouldnt you first learn it

 

[ENGLISH!]

So, I'm coping out because you are so close minded that you can't begin to comprehend what you read? That surely isn't logical.

Where are all these people just sitting on the fence waiting on the outcome of these silly threads to buy it? Are you talking about all those imaginary people in your head that you made up thinking you were actually making a point with any substance to it?

As has been suggested to me by several individuals, one should just ignore ALL of your nonsensical comments & posts.

I am again going to try to do that & NOT give you the benefit of doubt that I have so often given & that you have so often shown was undeserved.

Best Wishes.

PS I think the many many of those that just read AZB & hardly ever if ever post can see the realities.