Objective v/s Subjective aiming

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Sounds like a couple of the lads are a tad paranoid at the moment.

LMAO! Paranoid? Of who, you or what you write? What an overblown out of touch ego you possess.

In any case I'm looking forward to reading your book and, contrary to some opinions, will provide an honest review.

I still predict it will be a glowing review whether you think so or not.

That having been said, I think it should be a positive review even though I've just watched some of his youtube videos. It was very creative to add to a long standing aiming system for improvement the way he did it.

I also predict you won't ever use it or consider using it.


Lou Figueroa

I can't wait for the day when you get a lifetime ban from AZ like onepocket.org was wise enough to do and make their forum a much better place.
 

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yep, you bought it but with no intention of doing anything with it other than bad mouth the system so you could then say "I bought the DVD".

Couldn't he have borrowed it and saved $40?

or just say he did, write his "review", and save both $40 and time?

I'm certain Lou went into watching the DVD with a closed mind, but I doubt he went into it knowing how he was going to write his review (see reasons above).
 

Mkindsv

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't get it. I just don't. I honestly don't get why finding Center Cue ball is such a problem. Stand back from the table, visualize the shot, line up center cue ball, fire away. Center Cue ball is not hard to find.

A good stop shot drill will have you hitting center cue ball like a pro in about 7 minutes...if you are a slow learner.

Thing is, often you don't need center cue ball for a shot, think banks or shots that you have a half a pocket to get into, or if you need to cheat the pocket a bit...really the examples of this are endless.

I also don't get why every time an alternative system (not CTE) is being discussed, that somehow it is an attack on Mr. Shuffet's system. It's like the CTE folks see the words Objective/Subjective and lose their damned minds. I get that y'all spent a lot of time and $$$ using and learning the system, but for goodness sake, there is an ignore button.

I looked into Mr. Shuffet's system, for short shots that are less than half a table away it is a fantastic system when shooting into a corner pocket, but that is as far as I have gotten with it. But then I don't miss alot unless it is a shot that CTE probably wouldn't be much help with.

That being said, I never felt finding center cue ball was an issue. Good fundamentals and a PSR get you there pretty predictably. I will probably buy BC's book after I get Tor's latest releases, just to see what it is all about, but honestly that doesn't mean I hate Stan's stuff, if his stuff was 10 bucks I would probably buy it as well.

As for Objective/Subjective, who really cares a whit??? There is probably at least one or two gems in every system that can be applied to a person's game without having to have complete zombie-like dedication.

Not trying to offend anyone, good luck in all your endeavors.
 

tonythetiger583

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
First off, my vision originates from behind the CB. Eyes see 2D images.

Second, I haven't a clue what you're talking about with "spin alignments", and when it comes to true CCB.... well, there have been many great instructors say the same thing, that hitting CCB dead on with consistency is nearly impossible. (If you think Dr. Dave or any of the other experts will disagree with that statement, it really shows how out of touch you are with reality. Either that or you are just so much more professional than the rest of us.)

We have your opinion, Mr. Shuffett. That is that CTE is truly objective. All other methods (despite similar visual subjectiveness) are not objective. Thank you for your opinion.


I just wanted to add some background info, I don't know if it will clarify anything.

Let's take a half ball hit for example. When you hit a half ball hit, it will cut the ball 28 degrees (or w.e degree it actually is after throw). So you can categorize a shot as being half ball, and you can make those shots on the table, and pocket them, but they might not be "truly" half ball hits. Some could be 28.9 degrees, some are 28.0001 or heaven forbid 27 degrees. There are very few shots where the exact 28.000000 degree hit will result in pocketing the ball center pocket. And by center pocket, I don't mean 0.01mm to the right or left, but dead 0.0. The exact infinitesimal corner where the two rails complete a rectangle that is perfectly twice as long as it is wide.

I think the term objective get's used a lot, but I think when they say objective, they mean geometrically pure. When you solve for center to edge and edge to c, and pivot, all those slightly different cuts are being consolidated towards an absolute 0.0 point in the middle of the pocket (by using a slight overcut for throw). So instead of using 28.0 degrees to pocket a range of shots roughly center pocket, you are applying steps that let you arrive to the 28.9 line, and the 28.0001 line that results in a center pocket shot.

Fractional aiming you make an informed decision of where to hit the ball. You send the ball on it's path, and if you're within reason, the ball will go in.With CTE, where center pocket is located in relation to the shot, determines the exact line that you eventually land on.

I hope that makes sense. One, you determine that a 28 degree hit will almost certainly make the ball, the other you solve for the "equation" by following the steps, and it will put you on the appropriate 27, or 28.01, or 28.00005 degree line.

I think that's part of what a cte person is thinking when they say objective.
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Couldn't he have borrowed it and saved $40?

or just say he did, write his "review", and save both $40 and time?

Excellent points. Maybe he did do as you stated. Proof of sale or proof of purchase would settle the issue real quick.

I'm certain Lou went into watching the DVD with a closed mind, but I doubt he went into it knowing how he was going to write his review (see reasons above).

Apparently you never scoured the archives of RSB to see the history of his writings against CTE and Hal Houle starting in the 90's for about 10 years or more. And don't forget about the history here on AZ before any DVD came out.

What makes you think anything positive would have been written?
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
And by center pocket, I don't mean 0.01mm to the right or left, but dead 0.0. The exact infinitesimal corner where the two rails complete a rectangle that is perfectly twice as long as it is wide.

I might regret this, but tony I have a question. Does CTE take the object ball to that exact infinitesimal corner on every shot? Also, when you say the two rails complete a rectangle are you talking about the nose of the cushions, or in farther like maybe drawing connecting lines through all the diamonds on the rails and let them intersect more inside the corner pocket? In other words, where exactly in the pocket is that one intersection point?
 

tonythetiger583

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I might regret this, but tony I have a question. Does CTE take the object ball to that exact infinitesimal corner on every shot? Also, when you say the two rails complete a rectangle are you talking about the nose of the cushions, or in farther like maybe drawing connecting lines through all the diamonds on the rails and let them intersect more inside the corner pocket? In other words, where exactly in the pocket is that one intersection point?


I think it's where the two cushions would meet into a corner. If you were to use the diamonds, or even use the very edge of the table, it would still work as long as the rectangle used was a 2x1. The only difference is the ball would not be pocketed, and would actually be on a different track line (say a 3 rail route to a different pocket). If you were to hypothetically enlarge the rectangle to now be the size of the rectangle that the original diamonds would make, and extend the corner pockets to that size, you would probably be using a different perception.

But now you have me thinking...if you were to incrementally make each rectangle sliiiightly bigger than the last one infinitely outwards. How would there be enough categories...
 
Last edited:

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
I might regret this, but tony I have a question.

If you know within your own mind you're asking the question to set a trap for more contentious bickering based on the answer, regret would be an apt word.

I have two follow up questions to your question. If you knew CTE as well as you claim to know, wouldn't the answer to your question be evident which means there was no need to ask the question to Tony in the first place?

Secondly, did you or did you not say you were 100% out of any and all CTE discussions and posts?

No need to answer my questions because I already know the answers. Please do not respond.
 

BilliardsAbout

BondFanEvents.com
Silver Member
I don't get it. I just don't. I honestly don't get why finding Center Cue ball is such a problem. Stand back from the table, visualize the shot, line up center cue ball, fire away. Center Cue ball is not hard to find.

A good stop shot drill will have you hitting center cue ball like a pro in about 7 minutes...if you are a slow learner.

Thing is, often you don't need center cue ball for a shot, think banks or shots that you have a half a pocket to get into, or if you need to cheat the pocket a bit...really the examples of this are endless.

I also don't get why every time an alternative system (not CTE) is being discussed, that somehow it is an attack on Mr. Shuffet's system. It's like the CTE folks see the words Objective/Subjective and lose their damned minds. I get that y'all spent a lot of time and $$$ using and learning the system, but for goodness sake, there is an ignore button.

I looked into Mr. Shuffet's system, for short shots that are less than half a table away it is a fantastic system when shooting into a corner pocket, but that is as far as I have gotten with it. But then I don't miss alot unless it is a shot that CTE probably wouldn't be much help with.

That being said, I never felt finding center cue ball was an issue. Good fundamentals and a PSR get you there pretty predictably. I will probably buy BC's book after I get Tor's latest releases, just to see what it is all about, but honestly that doesn't mean I hate Stan's stuff, if his stuff was 10 bucks I would probably buy it as well.

As for Objective/Subjective, who really cares a whit??? There is probably at least one or two gems in every system that can be applied to a person's game without having to have complete zombie-like dedication.

Not trying to offend anyone, good luck in all your endeavors.

There are many players who think they're aimed center ball but aren't. Factors including eyesight, random rather than fixed head position between shots and etc. are to blame.

You can set someone in a drill but they will often be habitually misaimed regardless--like aimed slightly left on all points of aim including center ball, so that they tend to hit center ball with a swerving right cue and so on...
 

BilliardsAbout

BondFanEvents.com
Silver Member
To perform a task in an objective manner (whether it's shooting an OB into a pocket or climbing straight up the face of a rock cliff) means the process does not require personal opinion or individual judgement. If rock climbing is the task, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of hand-grabs and feet-placement combinations that one could use. Simply telling a person to use their hands, feet, and eyes to climb the cliff does not constitute an objective climbing method. Too much is left up to personal opinion/judgement, making the climb subject-dependent. In other words, it would be the climber's individual choices that gets him (or her) to the top. This is the subjective method.

Now let's apply the same logic to aiming pool shots. The rote method of learning to aim is purely subjective. Each player learns through their own renditions of trial and error. Ghostball is also subjective because it is nearly impossible for the average player to accurately visualize the center of an invisible ball with repeated consistency. Traditional fractional aiming by the quarters method is subjective due to the fact that choosing the appropriate aim point is purely based on individual interpretation of angles. However, a fractional aiming method that provides this information would be objective because there​ would be no individual interpretations. Pivot systems, which includes the CTE manual pivot method, are actually objective within specific shot parameters, then become subjective when shots fall outside of those parameters, forcing the player to estimate or guesstimate some sort of compensation or visual correction. Most players develop their own way of doing it. Just go surfing on YouTube for 30 minutes and you'll find numerous players doing their "own" version of CTE. That alone is proof that either the system is too complicated to learn as designed (like studying string theory), or it's purely subjective, dependent on personal perceptions/opinions.

This has been the aiming debate for as long as I can remember.....we hear "this system is objective, unlike these other systems that are not objective." Well, here's a good test for determining objectivity:

If a player can use a certain method to pocket a ball and get immediate results in a quick, simple, and accurate manner, within a few seconds, then show another player the same method, who then gets the same immediate results, the method is undeniably objective. It would be like numbering the rocks for hand-holds and feet-placements on a rock cliff so every climber has a guaranteed path to the top if they prefer to take it.

If you have to spend weeks or years trying to figure out a certain method, whether your shooting pool or climbing rocks, the method you're using is not objective.
That's why it's taking so long to learn, because the method is subject-dependent, better known as subjective.

What are your thoughts? Anyone?

I'm not sure subjective v. objective is the issue. Since subjectivity comes into play for all aim systems unless you have an easy-to-target objective (say, for example, the precise middle of the space between the ones on an 11-ball happens to lie perfectly on the equator to give a clear target on a cut shot - hint: you can rotate the balls to place their numbers on geometric aim lines for practice) the real issue is "are some aim systems better than others"?

Of course they are.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There are many players who think they're aimed center ball but aren't. Factors including eyesight, random rather than fixed head position between shots and etc. are to blame.

You can set someone in a drill but they will often be habitually misaimed regardless--like aimed slightly left on all points of aim including center ball, so that they tend to hit center ball with a swerving right cue and so on...


This is very true. In my experience this centering issue can vary from shot to shot. IOW, sometimes you might be lined up correctly but other times you might not. It's a problem that can haunt some players for years.

Lou Figueroa
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I just wanted to add some background info, I don't know if it will clarify anything.

Let's take a half ball hit for example. When you hit a half ball hit, it will cut the ball 28 degrees (or w.e degree it actually is after throw). So you can categorize a shot as being half ball, and you can make those shots on the table, and pocket them, but they might not be "truly" half ball hits. Some could be 28.9 degrees, some are 28.0001 or heaven forbid 27 degrees. There are very few shots where the exact 28.000000 degree hit will result in pocketing the ball center pocket. And by center pocket, I don't mean 0.01mm to the right or left, but dead 0.0. The exact infinitesimal corner where the two rails complete a rectangle that is perfectly twice as long as it is wide.

I think the term objective get's used a lot, but I think when they say objective, they mean geometrically pure. When you solve for center to edge and edge to c, and pivot, all those slightly different cuts are being consolidated towards an absolute 0.0 point in the middle of the pocket (by using a slight overcut for throw). So instead of using 28.0 degrees to pocket a range of shots roughly center pocket, you are applying steps that let you arrive to the 28.9 line, and the 28.0001 line that results in a center pocket shot.

Fractional aiming you make an informed decision of where to hit the ball. You send the ball on it's path, and if you're within reason, the ball will go in.With CTE, where center pocket is located in relation to the shot, determines the exact line that you eventually land on.

I hope that makes sense. One, you determine that a 28 degree hit will almost certainly make the ball, the other you solve for the "equation" by following the steps, and it will put you on the appropriate 27, or 28.01, or 28.00005 degree line.

I think that's part of what a cte person is thinking when they say objective.


One thing I've never understood is how guys can be aiming for 28 degrees, or 26 or 30 and so on, particularly at distance. First off, who can tell the difference between 28 degrees and 30 degrees from six seven feet away? Add english and hitting an exact angle and creating a precise trajectory seems unattainable.

Back on RSB I recall an argument with some snooker trolls about CIE and CIT and one thing stuck with me: a proposition was make to set up two balls with just enough room for a ball to pass through and then shooting a third ball between the two balls. It's incredibly hard to do, so I've always wondered about these systems that require visualizing all these infinitesimally accurate lines and angles.

Lou Figueroa
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
You can set someone in a drill but they will often be habitually misaimed regardless--like aimed slightly left on all points of aim including center ball, so that they tend to hit center ball with a swerving right cue and so on...

I haven't seen very many if any right handed players who aim left or have a slight offset of the tip left of center and then swerve back to the right to hit center ball. It's an unnatural move even if accidental.

But I have seen plenty of players who can find and get dead on center ball and then strike the CB left of center.

The swerve doesn't occur in the forward stroke but actually in the back stroke. For a righty, depending on their feet and body alignment, the elbow, upper arm, and back hand gripping the cue drift ever so slightly away from the torso which changes the shaft alignment to be aimed left of center ball at the completion of the backstroke. When they transition into the forward stroke the cue goes very straight along the new line and strikes left of center every time.

A Jim Rempe training ball or Elephant training balls will illustrate it all day long based on the chalk smudge.
 
Last edited:

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
FWIW,...........recently while playing, something didn't look right. I was not hitting the pocket exactly where I wanted. Not by much, but still not where I wanted.

See, my standard for a good shot is when all the balls go where I want.....not just close to where I want.

Turns out the CB was smaller then the other balls. The smaller CB required a change in where I put the CB when the CB was the same size as the other balls.

It's these little things like this, along with dirty balls, dirty table, humidity, spin, CB speed and so on that make using any system useless. There is no system that can take these variables into account.

Learning to adjust to playing conditions is a art that no system can teach. Only table time.......on a wide variety of tables and pocket openings can do this.

Too many are try to make a system "work" instead of learning how to win at pool.
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Back on RSB I recall an argument with some snooker trolls about CIE and CIT and one thing stuck with me: a proposition was make to set up two balls with just enough room for a ball to pass through and then shooting a third ball between the two balls. It's incredibly hard to do, so I've always wondered about these systems that require visualizing all these infinitesimally accurate lines and angles.

Lou Figueroa

I don't think the test your describing has anything to do with aiming to strike another ball into a pocket. Trying to run the CB between two stationary balls is like putting a coin on the foot rail and knocking it off or flipping it up in the air when shooting from the head spot. At least there's something to aim AT, the coin.

What do you aim AT or use to aim when trying to run the CB through 2 balls? Aim at dead space between them unless they're both on the rail and then you can use a spot on the rail? Left edge of the CB to the right edge of the left ball with a hair for a miss? Right edge of the CB to the left edge of the right ball with a hair for a miss?

That's called EDGE to EDGE. Sounds like a very familiar way to aim to me when using EDGES. How about the tip of the cue aimed to the dead center of the open space between the two balls while set up on center CB? Sounds like another way to aim. Some may call them aiming systems.

It has more to do with the quality of the stroke and every single fundamental that goes into feet and body alignment, head position, the grip, the bridge, grip pressure, tempo, transition, speed of stroke and more.

Everybody talks about the "stroke", "the stroke", "the stroke" over and over a million times. The stroke is either good or bad based on the quality and sum total of all the fundamentals and factors to create a good stroke prior to even drawing the cue back for the shot. (see above previous sentence) If a player is thinking about his stroke itself as he takes the tip of the cue away from the CB, all the way back, and then to start the forward motion, he's DEAD MEAT! He might as well go park his butt back in the seat immediately because he will have missed the shot.

The stroke is typically from 1/2" inch to about 3" when the tip of the cue moves from the back of the CB before going forward the same distance sending the CB forward.
How hard is that?! But it is, just like aiming. They work together and need each other.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsAbout

BondFanEvents.com
Silver Member
I haven't seen very many if any right handed players who aim left or have a slight offset of the tip left of center and then swerve back to the right to hit center ball. It's an unnatural move even if accidental.

But I have seen plenty of players who can find and get dead on center ball and then strike the CB left of center.

The swerve doesn't occur in the forward stroke but actually in the back stroke. For a righty, depending on their feet and body alignment, the elbow, upper arm, and back hand gripping the cue drift ever so slightly away from the torso which changes the shaft alignment to be aimed left of center ball at the completion of the backstroke. When they transition into the forward stroke the cue goes very straight along the new line and strikes left of center every time.

A Jim Rempe training ball or Elephant training balls will illustrate it all day long based on the chalk smudge.

Ah, well I had one famous case study--a student who was off left at aim quite often. You can guess the solution. "When you are in your full stance, I will simply ask you, "On or off?" If you say on, I'll say shoot, if you say off, you must stand erect again and fix your stance."

Knocked it out in minutes.
 

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
FWIW,...........recently while playing, something didn't look right. I was not hitting the pocket exactly where I wanted. Not by much, but still not where I wanted.

See, my standard for a good shot is when all the balls go where I want.....not just close to where I want.

Turns out the CB was smaller then the other balls. The smaller CB required a change in where I put the CB when the CB was the same size as the other balls.

It's these little things like this, along with dirty balls, dirty table, humidity, spin, CB speed and so on that make using any system useless. There is no system that can take these variables into account.

Learning to adjust to playing conditions is a art that no system can teach. Only table time.......on a wide variety of tables and pocket openings can do this.

Too many are try to make a system "work" instead of learning how to win at pool.

Aiming systems assist with your shot line alignment, a huge part of the game. If you can make the aiming part easier, it makes the other parts much, much easier to manage. Aiming systems can be a big benefit along side most any table conditions. If you are using a table where the CB is a different size than the other balls on the table, just quit playing, that isn't a pool table worth playing IMHO.

On another note, the other day I was playing a table where the balls were egg-shaped. It made my finding cueball center completely useless. ;)
 
Last edited:
Top