i guess you missed another hanger, eh Nick b. It sounds like your used to sitting and watching, Nick b
NaySayers and YeaSayers
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
i guess you missed another hanger, eh Nick b. It sounds like your used to sitting and watching, Nick b
I agree with your post! and is there anything else you want to discuss about cte/pro1 or your just bothered at the way some people have acted about this topic?
Last edited:
Banks
Banned
First beer's on me.
Not sure if anyone found this yet, but I think this aiming system really warrants some attention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q4jEPmHFa8
I think we must use the words intuition (or feel) differently.
To me, this is the ultimate expression of our expertise. SVBs intuitive feel about whether a shot "looks" right is a testimonial to the hundreds of thousands of experiments he has performed at the pool table, to the countless coupling of expectation, execution and feedback. The quality of that feel/intuition is related to the quality of the coupling between the expectation (the aim,how the shot looks) and the feedback (the result of the shot).
Central to the quality of that coupling is the ability to recognize the sameness of shots that require the same cut angle. Having a consistent approach to finding the line that looks right --like is done with CTE as an example--enhances the recognition of the sameness of shots.
All aiming includes an intuitive component. If you have a shot that is a little thinner than a half-ball hit, and you line up for a half-ball hit, it needs to look a little thick to you. It needs to look a little wrong. In other words, no matter what aiming approaches you use, you must translate between that angle and an overlap, or between that angle and a contact point.
For a centerball shot, the exact placement of your bridge hand (and nothing else) determines the line. This simple statement of geometry is incontrovertable. So the quality of any aiming advice or system or whatever you want to call it is determined solely by how well it improves your ability to place your bridge on the right line.
Well ... maybe. In Spidey Dave's CTE (before Stan's DVD), Dave would (at least sometimes) deform the bridge hand while pivoting, to create an effective pivot point that is behind the bridge. Dr. Dave has a picture of this in his CTE section: http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE
Exact versus Feel.
Aside from the ridiculing of the people who use CTE/Pro One and the mean-spirited comments by some of the NaySayers, I think that one of the problems that the YeaSayers have with the NaySayers is the words they use "feel", "intuition" and "guessing" as it relates to their use of CTE/Pro One. The people who have learned to use CTE/Pro One correctly, do the same thing over and over and that's not "guessing" and it's not "feel" and it's not "intuition", all of which are words that go against the grain of those who have success with CTE/Pro One.
Those who use CTE/Pro One successfully do the same thing over and over. To them, that means they are being EXACT and PRECISE in how they aim.
If CTE/Pro One allows a person to position their bridge hand in the correct position each and every time so that they are lined up correctly to pocket the object ball, YOU WOULD THINK, that the majority of all the decent people in the world would be sending good will wishes to those who great success rather than the condemnation that still continues today. Perhaps even some celebration by those who at one time didn't think there was much to CTE.
Let me give you an example of the problem with aiming using let's say contact point to contact point versus CTE/Pro One:
If I use contact point to contact point to position my bridge hand and body in the correct spot, I have to "estimate" where those two contact points are based upon hundreds of thousands of shots I have previously made. You can call that "feel" or "guessing" or "intuition" although that last one sounds more like the voodoo that the Naysayers regularly accuse Yeasayers of performing. I prefer "estimating" nevertheless.
If I use CTE/Pro One (and not CTE as it is written in so many web sites) it FORCES me to get my eyes and body into a certain position that allows me to place my bridge hand in the perfect place to pocket the ball, often times FAR MORE EASILY than the "estimating" that I do when I use contact point to contact point aiming.
CTE as it was once taught to me by Hal Houle requires MUCH "estimating", probably as much as contact to contact point aiming. (Granted, I only took phone lessons from Hal but from what has been written by others, I used it just like all of the others and with mixed results, mostly very mixed results.
THAT IS NOT WHAT I SEE WITH CTE/PRO ONE. I believe that as more people are exposed to CTE/Pro One there will be a growing urgency to use this method of aiming to teach people how to aim rather than sitting there hitting hundreds of thousands of balls which REQUIRE "experience at estimating" and a high degree of eye hand coordination for high level play.
I have had mixed results teaching CTE/Pro One in the early days but there are some people who when they "get it" become almost euphoric because with all of the "guessing" and "feeling" and "intuition" that they did using ghost ball or contact point or whatever they were using ( FOR YEARS) they were still failing to make certain shots. But when they were able to use CTE/Pro One to get their eyes and their body and their bridge hand in the right spot, it was as if a MIRACLE had occured and it was instantaneous success.
CTE/Pro One has it's "difficulties" like any aiming system but for some people it is a major step toward better aiming, imo.
I haven't started teaching CTE/Pro One and may never. I've learned it because I wanted to learn it and I've learned that it has great properties and great benefits. Will it make me a pro player? I doubt it. Has it improved my play? I can honestly say it has.
JoeyA
Aside from the ridiculing of the people who use CTE/Pro One and the mean-spirited comments by some of the NaySayers, I think that one of the problems that the YeaSayers have with the NaySayers is the words they use "feel", "intuition" and "guessing" as it relates to their use of CTE/Pro One. The people who have learned to use CTE/Pro One correctly, do the same thing over and over and that's not "guessing" and it's not "feel" and it's not "intuition", all of which are words that go against the grain of those who have success with CTE/Pro One.
Those who use CTE/Pro One successfully do the same thing over and over. To them, that means they are being EXACT and PRECISE in how they aim.
If CTE/Pro One allows a person to position their bridge hand in the correct position each and every time so that they are lined up correctly to pocket the object ball, YOU WOULD THINK, that the majority of all the decent people in the world would be sending good will wishes to those who great success rather than the condemnation that still continues today. Perhaps even some celebration by those who at one time didn't think there was much to CTE.
Let me give you an example of the problem with aiming using let's say contact point to contact point versus CTE/Pro One:
If I use contact point to contact point to position my bridge hand and body in the correct spot, I have to "estimate" where those two contact points are based upon hundreds of thousands of shots I have previously made. You can call that "feel" or "guessing" or "intuition" although that last one sounds more like the voodoo that the Naysayers regularly accuse Yeasayers of performing. I prefer "estimating" nevertheless.
If I use CTE/Pro One (and not CTE as it is written in so many web sites) it FORCES me to get my eyes and body into a certain position that allows me to place my bridge hand in the perfect place to pocket the ball, often times FAR MORE EASILY than the "estimating" that I do when I use contact point to contact point aiming.
CTE as it was once taught to me by Hal Houle requires MUCH "estimating", probably as much as contact to contact point aiming. (Granted, I only took phone lessons from Hal but from what has been written by others, I used it just like all of the others and with mixed results, mostly very mixed results.
THAT IS NOT WHAT I SEE WITH CTE/PRO ONE. I believe that as more people are exposed to CTE/Pro One there will be a growing urgency to use this method of aiming to teach people how to aim rather than sitting there hitting hundreds of thousands of balls which REQUIRE "experience at estimating" and a high degree of eye hand coordination for high level play.
I have had mixed results teaching CTE/Pro One in the early days but there are some people who when they "get it" become almost euphoric because with all of the "guessing" and "feeling" and "intuition" that they did using ghost ball or contact point or whatever they were using ( FOR YEARS) they were still failing to make certain shots. But when they were able to use CTE/Pro One to get their eyes and their body and their bridge hand in the right spot, it was as if a MIRACLE had occured and it was instantaneous success.
CTE/Pro One has it's "difficulties" like any aiming system but for some people it is a major step toward better aiming, imo.
I haven't started teaching CTE/Pro One and may never. I've learned it because I wanted to learn it and I've learned that it has great properties and great benefits. Will it make me a pro player? I doubt it. Has it improved my play? I can honestly say it has.
JoeyA
Banks
Banned
That's all I ever really wanted to hear.. well, that and not being told about it in every thread. I highlited "some people", because that was my main point(I think). But, it was just fair for me to also highlite the other.
Champ and I have the first two rounds.. I'm putting Joey down for the third. We're on our way to a six pack. :thumbup:
I'm aware of that. What I'm saying is that what matters--the only thing that matters-- is where his bridge hand ends up.
Joey - I'm neither a "yeasayer" nor a "naysayer." Those kinds of words are divisive.
The folks who are put off by someone pointing out where intuition enters the aiming process should get over it. That's not a criticism of them or their approach. It's just a simple statement of fact.
Nobody denies they do the "same thing over and over." That's central to the value of the approach. EXACT means something different. It means you can program a robot to follow the steps and get to the right line--i.e., get the bridge hand in the right spot. That's not the case here.
Joey what you have done here is move the judgment around to a place that is more productive for you. You haven't removed it.
That's good.
How cute. The only CTE'er to try and answer the question and all you did was dodge it. This is why the others think that the entire idea is full of holes. Try answering a question seriously, maybe you'd get somewhere.
Heck, you wouldn't want to come off as full of hot air and make Stan look bad now, would you?
"1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.
2. a fact, truth, etc., perceived in this way.
3. a keen and quick insight.
4. the quality or ability of having such direct perception or quick insight.
5. Philosophy .
a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a previous cognition of the same object.
b. any object or truth so discerned.
c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge."
Guess? I asked you to answer a question that needs you to figure out something, but all you can do is try to question my use of intuitive?
Either CTE involves this "FEEL" that you so loath, or it doesn't. Which is it? Are you needing to be taught how to hit a baseball, or can you figure it out on your own?
We can get some of those little jesters bells for your tinfoil, if that's what you want.
You tried to act like you were going to be serious, so I asked a simple question about one scenario. Either you can answer it or not. So far the answer is not.
You forgot
Knowledge or belief obtained niether by reason nor by perception.
A hunch or unjustified belief.
Knowing or sensing without the use rational processes.
Aiming isn't intuitive, no matter what you may believe. Aiming is done through a conscious effort. A Deliberate and intentional effort. I would much rather aim on a level of reason and knowledge than through a sensory level alone.. CTE/Pro-1 puts me there..
But it doesn't.
Let me ask you a queston Mike. Are you able to play pool just as well using CTE/Pro One as you are using whatever aiming system or lack of aiming system that you use or don't use?JoeyA
Banks
Banned
Nice try there, but I didn't forget anything. That was the definition as given by dictionary.com.
Aiming is not intuitive? You mean you have never walked up to a shot and said to yourself, "Hit it there and it goes"? I guess you get out your protractor every time, Einstein?
Either you're fuller than a honey bucket or you just don't know what the hell you're talking about, because you never answer anything and just keep running your mouth.
Shooting Benchrest
Years ago I shot benchrest rifles. Insanely accurate little beasts that most that are familiar with hunting rifles wouldn't believe the potential of. For scoffers I will simply refer them to the official world records.
Shooting a rifle off of a bench we could start with a moderately accurate rifle and ammunition, capable of shooting a one inch group for example. Top it with a fairly weak scope with coarse crosshairs and add another quarter inch of error. After we deal with all of these built in errors then we still had to read the wind to shoot to the rifle and scope's potential. We still were affected by mirage too but we could rarely see it in these scopes.
Starting with a benchrest rifle and ammo potential accuracy was about five to ten times greater than the accuracy of a typical hunting rifle. Then we topped it with a very powerful scope with very fine crosshairs. We could select which side of a printed line we shot on. However, after having the most accurate rifle and scope combination man could build we still had to deal with wind and mirage, mirage which we can now see clearly.
Are you wondering what the hell Hu talking about benchrest for? Well for one thing I like to ramble and piss off a few people!
The other reason is that there are parallels between benchrest and shooting pool. Preshot routines, aiming methods and systems, experience, various strokes, all of these things are very similar to putting the best rifle and scope together that we can. We start with the greatest basic accuracy we can find a way to create. In benchrest we still have to deal with wind and several types of mirage. In pool we still have to deal with squirt, swerve, throw, rails, humidity, lighting, many things we simply lump into table conditions. However like in benchrest, the more accurate set-up we start with, the better results we get when we have to add that touch of "feel", "intuition", "experience" or whatever you choose to call it to make a shot and get the cue ball where we want it.
Maximize the accuracy of the aiming and delivery systems and we minimize the inaccuracy created by the variables that are always there. It doesn't really matter how an individual arrives at this point of maximum accuracy, more traditional stance and stroke set-up, an aiming system with or without a pivot, or spinning around three times and skipping twice to get to the table.
There is at least a real possibility that the aiming systems are the equivalent of the better scope in benchrest. I don't know, I only use two methods of aiming I learned long ago. When I try anything else including other "traditional methods" I couldn't make a ball in the ocean.
Hu
Years ago I shot benchrest rifles. Insanely accurate little beasts that most that are familiar with hunting rifles wouldn't believe the potential of. For scoffers I will simply refer them to the official world records.
Shooting a rifle off of a bench we could start with a moderately accurate rifle and ammunition, capable of shooting a one inch group for example. Top it with a fairly weak scope with coarse crosshairs and add another quarter inch of error. After we deal with all of these built in errors then we still had to read the wind to shoot to the rifle and scope's potential. We still were affected by mirage too but we could rarely see it in these scopes.
Starting with a benchrest rifle and ammo potential accuracy was about five to ten times greater than the accuracy of a typical hunting rifle. Then we topped it with a very powerful scope with very fine crosshairs. We could select which side of a printed line we shot on. However, after having the most accurate rifle and scope combination man could build we still had to deal with wind and mirage, mirage which we can now see clearly.
Are you wondering what the hell Hu talking about benchrest for? Well for one thing I like to ramble and piss off a few people!
The other reason is that there are parallels between benchrest and shooting pool. Preshot routines, aiming methods and systems, experience, various strokes, all of these things are very similar to putting the best rifle and scope together that we can. We start with the greatest basic accuracy we can find a way to create. In benchrest we still have to deal with wind and several types of mirage. In pool we still have to deal with squirt, swerve, throw, rails, humidity, lighting, many things we simply lump into table conditions. However like in benchrest, the more accurate set-up we start with, the better results we get when we have to add that touch of "feel", "intuition", "experience" or whatever you choose to call it to make a shot and get the cue ball where we want it. Maximize the accuracy of the aiming and delivery systems and we minimize the inaccuracy created by the variables that are always there. It doesn't really matter how an individual arrives at this point of maximum accuracy, more traditional stance and stroke set-up, an aiming system with or without a pivot, or spinning around three times and skipping twice to get to the table.
There is at least a real possibility that the aiming systems are the equivalent of the better scope in benchrest. I don't know, I only use two methods of aiming I learned long ago. When I try anything else including other "traditional methods" I couldn't make a ball in the ocean.
Hu
No buddy. Just resting my feet and looking at my tip while you rack again.
Wild 7 is all yours. Care to post up?
Wild 7 is all yours. Care to post up?
i guess you missed another hanger, eh Nick b. It sounds like your used to sitting and watching, Nick b
