Would you like me to verbally express each shot in the collins test?
You're always asking for stuff but not giving much back. I asked you if you were serious about pool and nary a peep!
"Aiming Systems" are Junk, DO the Work!
- Thread starter Bobkitty
- Start date
Would you like me to verbally express each shot in the collins test?
You're always asking for stuff but not giving much back. I asked you if you were serious about pool and nary a peep!
Do what I did in Colin's test which was take it. I was serious enough to do it and not cry like a baby or make excuses before it like you.
I'm thinking you're full of crap and nothing more than an irritant troll. This is my last post to your garbage until AFTER you post the video. (like that's going to happen, but surprise us)
The funny thing is, we're both on the same side concerning the op's thread title. We just have two different methods. And, believe it or not, both can be fine-tuned. With fractions, a player isn't confined to a basic quarter or eighth or sixteenth or whatever. By using their eyes any aim point can easily be thickened or thinned as needed, just as you can shoot several different angles using one perception with CTE. Can any CTE user do this? Or is it something that one eventually learns after a while, like being able to recognize when a shot perception is slightly thick or thin?
CTE can't be fine tuned any further with its CCB foundation. It's not like, oh yeah, a little thicker here and a little thinner there.
CTE handles various angles without any adjustment. Again, there's no thicker or thinnner necessary to get the job done.
Sure, CTEers are already doing it and anyone can do it, .but that does not mean that they grasp all that's happening at this time.
Stan Shuffett
Ok. I don't mean any adjustment it fine tuning is done after you reach your CCB solution. I mean as soon as you get the perception you somehow know if it's thick or thin, and this is what determines the sweep or pivot. Even with my fractions (not traditional fractions) the fine tuning takes place before aligning the shot, before getting down into execution mode. I look at the shot, determine if it's dead on one of the basic fractional aim points or somewhere in-between. If it's in-between then it's simply a visual comparison between the two closest aim points, like looking at an open doorway and immediately having a very accurate center of the opening based on the fixed door jams at each side. Now, if a person is blocking the right half of the opening, you can still visually pick the center of the open space between that person and the left door jam.
There's no fudging on thick or thin via the perception and no adjustment to the CCB that makes the shot.
Stan Shuffett
I don't know CTE well enough to use it 100% in matches although I do use it 100% practicing. I just feel stupid in a match when I miss an easy shot because I saw it wrong or misapplied something.
I don't use Poolology 100% in matches for the same reasons you don't. In a match I need to keep up my pace to stay in the flow and it slows me down a little.
Both systems though - now that I have internalized them - act as a kind of a enhanced reality overlay. So now I have three reference points, including my stored library of shots (intuition). Four if you count my old aiming system of using the edges and center of the cuestick and the contact point.
When they come together I know I will make the shot. If they don't all come together then I have to pick one and trust it. I feel like a shot making computer when the overlay starts happening in my brain.
Practicing the other day on a 9' table with 4.25" pockets I ran three tables of 8-ball. First solids, spot the 8, then stripes. 48 balls that way. And a lot of long, off-angle shots. Off the rail, etc... I was intentionally taking on long shots because that is what I was working on.
IMO this is the most productive aiming thread so far on AZB. Thanks guys.
I don't use Poolology 100% in matches for the same reasons you don't. In a match I need to keep up my pace to stay in the flow and it slows me down a little.
Both systems though - now that I have internalized them - act as a kind of a enhanced reality overlay. So now I have three reference points, including my stored library of shots (intuition). Four if you count my old aiming system of using the edges and center of the cuestick and the contact point.
When they come together I know I will make the shot. If they don't all come together then I have to pick one and trust it. I feel like a shot making computer when the overlay starts happening in my brain.
Practicing the other day on a 9' table with 4.25" pockets I ran three tables of 8-ball. First solids, spot the 8, then stripes. 48 balls that way. And a lot of long, off-angle shots. Off the rail, etc... I was intentionally taking on long shots because that is what I was working on.
IMO this is the most productive aiming thread so far on AZB. Thanks guys.
Great post! Sounds you have a pretty handy pool toolbox. :thumbup:
I know there's no fudging. I guess I'm just trying to understand how an average player knows when a perception is thick or thin.
As a music instructor, I've noticed how the average guitarist (the player that knows a few chords and has good strumming technique) struggles with tuning by ear. They just haven't developed an ear for it yet and have to use a tuner every time. Their brain simply doesn't recognize the correct pitches/frequencies for each string. This isn't something that can be taught. It must be learned/developed through experience. So I can't help but wonder how an average pool player (one that struggles with differentiating various cut shots) can tell when a particular CTE perception is thick or thin.
Determining thick or thin is a very very very simple visual task. I will leave it at that for now. I promise you precision instruction for that in my online videos. The concept and how to it is ridiculously easy. Average ability is not a requirement.
Stan Shuffett
Alrighty then. Of course, what I think is very simple for a beginning to moderate guitar player, piano player, or percussionist is only simple for me because I've been doing it since I was a kid. That applies to any learned skill, from music to advanced mathematics to pool and billiards. But if you prove to be right about this -- that any player can easily recognize whether or not the CTE fixed CB will cause an over cut or under cut -- I'll surely admit I'm wrong in thinking this standard learning curve applies to CTE.
I think it would be very interesting to see your earlier videos, i assume they are like CTE pro1 videos on youtube with you doing the instructions? Any way, the interesting part, you in the videos doing manual sweeps or even before that with the manual tip pivot as part of your progressions BEFORE you realized a visual sweep.
I keep progressing to the point of staying ahead of a step to try and improve the last step, so now for instance, max 3 or 9 o'clock spin with no chalk and i mean no chalk as in rub your tip into the carpet as "chalk". This forces a severe awareness and remedy with alignment and stroke and it sure as hell starts from the eyes.
The thing is, i have no idea when these progressions cease because it keeps leading to another more radical or subtle thing.
I don't know if i'll ever feel like i came to the end of the road.
Don't you ever wonder?
Did your instinct tell you that manual sweep was not good enough per say?
I wonder if that instinct shows in your earlier videos that I assume are out there for purchase or free, but I would be very interested in seeing you in those videos at that previous time of history.
Thanks Mr. Shuffett
CTE is visual. Manual is nothing more than a means to an end. Manual pivoting is more about visual learning than the actual act of pivoting.
The sweep is a different deal but uses the same CCB.
My stop sign for all this has been tough to see. It's challenging when trying to put things together from inside another mind......but when the stop sign hit me in the face I knew it was the end. The stop sign for me was being able to define CCB for handling different angles with the same visual.
Stan Shuffett
It's so simple that you'd get it immediately but the technique does occur subsequently to seeing a perception. The directions after that are precise. I wouldn't bet a million against the electric chair that my wife would get it..........CTE is an advanced visual system after all but I'm not worried about anyone getting it that's properly motivated. It's too simplistic. If the perception is seen then thick and thin won't be a big deal......just gotta know what to focus on.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
Simplicity is a beautiful thing.
CTE is simple but there is a learning curve. It's not an overnight deal. A person has to decide what they want. It's odd and different at first.
Simplicity and comfortableness is often an indicator that it's wrong, too. That's why most aiming systems can be learned overnight....EASY STUFF! 3 days later they realize they're still in the same boat.
Stan Shuffett
Yep....for too many years I've watched players struggle with various aiming systems, only to end up not improving. They waste a lot of time. Like you, with CTE, I'm getting enough positive feedback and proof through testimonials to know that my system is actually helping players improve, dramatically. It's a good feeling.
:smile:
This has been my overriding point all of these years. I went from a "meh, I don't need to even care about this" person to a "are you kidding me this is the nuts" type person literally overnight after being asked to meet Hal Houle by a friend of mine. I didn't want to spend time with Hal, I just wanted to be polite and play hooky from work and look for action.
But Hal opened my eyes to ways to aim that were different and weird and incredibly effective. I honestly wasn't aware of the depths of vitriol that had been heaped on him and those who had already met him and were telling everyone how great the systems were. Once in a while I would open an aiming thread - way before AZB - and quickly close it thinking I didn't really need to discuss aiming.
So after meeting Hal and getting the first hand information, more than I could digest, I simply related the experience and affirmed that what he had to teach was the real deal. And that's when the attacks and insults started in.
My point has always been why not leave people alone to try whatever is presented and if it works for them and helps them then great. If not then they can always go back to whatever they had been doing. But the more people who try something the more opportunity there is to find out if it really works, how or why it works, and most importantly, if it can be modified or simplified to work even better. The one thing that is absurd and classless in my opinion is for people to denigrate others for daring to teach aiming systems and to denigrate those who want to try to learn aiming systems. This activity is reprehensible to me.
The whole point of aiming systems is to get the player aligned to the shot accurately. If that doesn't end up being what happens then the system will fall out of favor and be discarded. But if it does happen then it leads to higher skill levels and more enjoyment of the game. Why would anyone make a point of trying to dissuade anyone from attempting to reach a higher skill level and having more fun and success in pool?
I mean in the absence of formal aiming "systems", even GB is an aiming system, the pool student is left with the default brute force trial and error million ball way of figuring out how to aim. So that is ALWAYS there and thus there is a HIGH PROBABILTY that anyone who discovers or develops any other way to aim is going to be an improvement over the brute force method. That's simple logic imo. So why not give them a chance and let the crowd filter out what ends up being the best balance between precision and complexity?
Personally I like how the conversation is shifting away from "are aiming systems real" to "which aiming system is best". In another 10 years maybe the precise objective aiming systems will be the default way people learn to aim in pool instead of brute force or imaginary balls. Then imaginary balls can SUPPLEMENT the objective methods in the way that they do now for SOME aiming system users.
Anyway, count me in for the Aiming Systems are GOLD crowd. (as if I needed to say that.)
Well, I have to disagree. If CTE perceptions lines on the OB are not easier to see than contact points, why do it? AND, in my lesson yesterday, we spent about an hour on "forced follow" shape. There are many, many places on the pool table where the only position can be found through "forced follow" and not what most of you have seen, the OB sitting close to the pocket and you want to stay on the end rail. Either clusters or the perfect angle must be gained this forced follow way. I'm pretty damned sure very few of you have ever seen this but my instructor can do it and teach it. AND, the most important thing to know is the portion of the pocket for the OB from an angle. I may do a video where the CB can be positioned straight in for the 9 ball on the spot or on down the table for a shot down there. Anyway, the 1,2,3,4,5 of the pocket makes all the difference... a HUGE difference. So... if your aiming system has your ball going into the center, how can you do this stuff?.... you've got to come off of it and shoot contact to contact points to fathom the different portions of the pocket. If you've seen what I've seen, you'll quickly realize "no aiming system" except contact can do it.
Last edited:
i would like to see a video of this and the "forced follow " shape