Well I think that much is obvious. If you weren't doing anything wrong then you better not be missing.
Ah, you're way off base here. While I freely admit I believe that CTE appears on the surface to be overly complicated, and requires me to alter the one thing I choose not to (my PSR). I am not opposed to aiming systems. In fact I think they can be of great value to those starting out, or who haven't gained any strong proficiency with HAMB.
I understand it appears as though I'm picking on you. As it seems everyone in this section of the forum is either a CTE enthusiastist or perceived as a hater by those enthusiastists.
What I witnessed in your video was a CTE enthusiastist that has been using the system for what >10yrs..?..., and missed the heavy majority of his demonstration attempts. These attempts did not include any CB control in an effort to play shape. Just straight up missed shots wherein the focus was merely potting the ball. Not easy shots granted, but still the only consideration.
I'm not saying that CTE does not work. I'm saying that if the system is truly objective as you claim, then the misses are either due to a subjective interpretation of what you're suppose to do, or horrible fundamentals in stroke. I did not see any glaring errors in your stroke, so I was inquiring about the other possibility.
It would have made an incredible difference in my opinion. Based on what I've seen in your videos, I don't consider you an overly strong player. Not that you have claimed to be. However if you made the majority of those demo shots rather than missed them, it would add credence to the power of the CTE method.
When I attempted a handful of shots with Poolology system. They all went straight in the pocket without even looking at it. Didn't miss a single one. It did exactly what it was supposed to do right out of the box. No whoops, but look how close I got.
Then use poolology. I had an opposite experience where I didn't make a lot of the shots I tried with poolology. Did that that mean that poolology doesn't work? Of course not.
What about the rest of my questions? The fact is that for you all it's only about me. No one else.
Not once has a person arguing against aiming systems or against specific systems ever said wow look at these guys running racks and making incredible banks. Nah, they pick out someone like me and go see it didn't work or that guy should be a champion.
So last night I played a guy named Bill Snider at Chesters pool room in OKC. I say this so anyone reading can confirm that I was there.
As an experiment I played the first game with no aiming system, just feel. The pockets are about 4". I missed a lot, like not close to the pocket.
The second game I used CTE. I immediately made several banks with the of them from severe angles. I made three full table shots in the heart of the pocket. I still lost because Bill is a tough player who is better than me but my little experiment just further confirmed what I already knew. For me, using this particular aiming system means I can make more shots accurately and miss a lot smaller.
And really that's the bottom line for me. The overriding question I have for myself and my game is whether anything presented to me is beneficial to me and increases my enjoyment when I play. Notice I didn't say increases my skill because that which doesn't increase my skill doesn't bring me joy when I play. How much my skill increases though is more a product of my effort to master whatever method or technique I decide to adopt.
Take kicking systems.... Like poolology many of them require simple identification of starting points and simple math to determine the shot line into the rail. They are accurate mathematically. I can't gel to the math-based ones despite having tried a bunch of times. My friends who do get them are very accurate.
I prefer different methods for kicking that don't require math and I am fairly accurate but I know that I could be even more accurate.
But I get a lot of joy out of being pretty accurate when I kick and I have discovered how to use one of those kicking systems to play safe and to play caroms. In other words when I am interested in something that both works and I personally understand how to use then I explore all the ways to use it consistently. And because of that I have been able to share what I know with others.
At times people I have shown things to have come back later and showed me an innovation/improvement that they figured out with the technique. This happened to me a couple months ago when I gave a clinic on jumping to the students at the pool dojo. Together, with five people learning to jump, Sean King had a good insight on form and aiming that improved my own ability to execute and teach.
And honestly this is my bottom line when it comes to all of these knocking posts. I subscribe to the Bruce Lee philosophy that goes try everything and keep what works. Bruce learned from boxers, from wrestlers, from martial artists and he incorporated many techniques into his arsenal of skills.
I understand that not every person is going to understand every method right out of the gate. People often can't follow simple instructions to assemble a bed so it's clear that no matter how good the instructions are there are individuals who see gibberish on the page.
But with cooperation people can take simple instructions and make them even better for a broader range of people. When aiming systems started to get lots of broad notice I honestly hoped for lots of collaboration and discovery and refinement of the methods. I am actually sickened by the amount of vitriol and knocking that poisons the minds of readers and viewers into believing that systems in general are not very good tools and the knocking of system users as cult indoctrinated players who are being held back by the adoption of systems in their games.
To me these people who do this are only interested in seeing pool die. Oh they have other "stated" reasons, such as challenging claims, consumer protection, etc.... But the end result is that every person they successfully turn against systems is another person condemned to more frustration and less joy and less knowledge in their game in my opinion.
Instead of a dynamic and broad exploration of aiming systems that could result in even better methods and better insight into why they work we have people who never tried them who derive great satisfaction from repeating the knocking