I agree with this to a point Dennis. I wonder though if this guy you speak of actually had to "do the work" so to speak. I have a nephew who at 10 years old could walk around the table draining cut shot after cut shot and grinning at his opponent after every shot. He knew nothing about position play, or banking, or defense, but damn he could cut balls in. He is now 21 and could care less about playing pool, and rarely even bothers. He never "did the work", just a natural eye. Any system that says to hit a ball exactly the same way while the ball positions change about the table makes me skeptical, and while I think it's close on many shots, I think the ones who are successful doing it likely make an unconcious adjustment due to a natural instinct. Another system promotes never aiming at the ball, but yet using fractional ball perceptions to align one to the shot line, and then aiming at the cueball. For some people, like me, consistently seeing and actually hitting a contact point on a ball is not easy. I happen to use the perception idea on many shots because I have more faith in it. I have thrown balls out and made 20-25 balls in a row many times without ever paying any attention to contact points or portions of the object ball when I aimed. That said, any system has an "individual factor" involved and therein lies the determining factor of how successful one is with a system. The goal I think with either, or any system, is to get the shooter on a good alignment and then train ones eyes to naturally see and hit the shot correctly, which without a system, a given player may lack the focus to get to that point, so I think any system that keeps a practicing player focused on practicing is better than just hitting balls because they saw someone else do it.