Please Explain Your "Aiming System"?

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I have no idea what you are referring to, or why you feel like you are having fund at my expense. Methinks thou doth protest too much. That's Shakespeare, ever heard of him? :rolleyes:


You just what you are doing and it's called PIVOTING.

Let's get to the crux of the matter for the CCB concern that you have.

Stan Shuffett
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You just what you are doing and it's called PIVOTING.

Let's get to the crux of the matter for the CCB concern that you have.

Stan Shuffett

Stan, I really don't know what you are asking me, honestly. If you are referring to the multiple outcome angles from the same visual (aka, the mystery) then yes, that is what I was referring to. I didn't think I was saying anything new and wasn't trying to elicit anything new. You said it will be in your book so fine.

If you are talking about something else then you'll have to be more specific.
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I only know otherwise directly from the horse's mouth.

Freddie had no reason to tell this individual anything other than factual info. The relay to me was that he did not learn CTE from Hal but that he did develop a thorough understanding for Small Ball and S-Bob. I don't think it's a secret.
Freddie, I'm sure, is very accommodating and I hope that we meet and discuss Hal's work one day. I have already expressed that to him. If, in fact, he does teach CTE, then call him and get the info or just try and meet up with him. Then compare what you learn to what I have unraveled over a ten year plus period in studying Hal's work.
I have no reason to speak with a forked tongue!

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Stan, I really don't know what you are asking me, honestly. If you are referring to the multiple outcome angles from the same visual (aka, the mystery) then yes, that is what I was referring to. I didn't think I was saying anything new and wasn't trying to elicit anything new. You said it will be in your book so fine.

If you are talking about something else then you'll have to be more specific.

That's it alright. I just know why that you are touting another system as essentially having known CCBs across the board. Therefore, why is it such a mystery for me to have known CCBs across a small number of perceptions? Do you see the contradiction or I am missing something?

Stan Shuffett
I'm a pin ball wizzard! Lol
 
Last edited:

Mkindsv

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Ahhh...how do I aim??? I started out years ago and had one bit of advice, "set up a shot and try it, if it goes in good, if it goes left of the pocket, you need to hit it more on the left, and if it misses right, you need to hit it more on the right Do this same shot until you have it down pretty good and then try another one."

Years later this is still what I do. I look at the shot from a standing position, see where I need to send the ball and aim at a point that will send the ball to the hole. If I need to use English I compensate by aiming a little more left if I am using left, and a little more right if using right english...that is about all I do for aiming other than banks or kicks, where I use the Diamonds to determine distance and them hit by feel.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Ahhh...how do I aim??? I started out years ago and had one bit of advice, "set up a shot and try it, if it goes in good, if it goes left of the pocket, you need to hit it more on the left, and if it misses right, you need to hit it more on the right Do this same shot until you have it down pretty good and then try another one."

Years later this is still what I do. I look at the shot from a standing position, see where I need to send the ball and aim at a point that will send the ball to the hole. If I need to use English I compensate by aiming a little more left if I am using left, and a little more right if using right english...that is about all I do for aiming other than banks or kicks, where I use the Diamonds to determine distance and them hit by feel.

Ah yes..... the old-school way of developing an eye for shots. It works. This is also how ghostball and contact points and traditional fractional ball aiming, as well as a mess of other "systems", become workable.... via rote. A player misses enough balls until he/she finally stops missing so much. Then they give credit to whatever particular "system" they stuck with, as if their skills just didn't naturally improve due to hours upon hours of trial and error shot repitition, programming the brain. :wink:

But I suppose any system could provide a shortcut to reaching a higher skill level if the player latches on to the concept quickly.
 
Last edited:

Tony_in_MD

You want some of this?
Silver Member
Since I have been called out to take a swim in the aiming pool, I will wade into the shallow end only.

Those of my generation had very little to no resources available to us to learn this game, particularly aiming. I had transitioned from GB to contact point aiming, For the majority of play, the sight picture I see on the table will either click (or not) with my memories. When I am not freewheeling or having a hard day on the table, I supplement the shot pictures I see with SAM, as a double check. There are also other things I do depending upon the requirements of the shot. Like trying to play for those consistent angles (like half ball hits) that are very visual and predictable.

Basically I have learned from trial and error and used drill and practice even at a young age as a way fix those deficiencies. Have I fixed them all, hell no.

I also have been experimenting with coming in across the line of the shot which has given me a different perspective of the shot picture. I have been adding that to my PSR.

On my bucket list is a trip to see Stan to learn CTE - ProOne. I am the type that has to learn by doing....and questioning. I don't pick things up well from books / videos.

As far as I am concerned a player should experience a number of aiming methods. We all see the balls differently, our brains process this info differently. The aiming system that works for Tom, may not work for Dick or Harry.

Besides there is nothing wrong with being a student of the game, and having a variety of tools at your disposal.


Awesome. Now, I'd love to hear from the other instructors and better players on here; Scott Lee, Tony in MD, FranCrimi. Lou, Dan. Let's hear yours.
 

Vorpal Cue

Just galumping back
Silver Member
But what's really the point? Shooting traditionally, you use one straight stroke to aim at varying points on the ob. With this ferrule/pivot system, you aim at an approximate place on the ob and vary the amount of pivot to make the shot. So in both instances you are using feel to determine either (in traditional) the aim point on the ob or (in ferrule/pivot) the amount of ferrule/pivoting. I don't see a benefit. Variable pivoting seems more difficult than variable aim point.

Cornerman Freddie said his CTE system is only necessary if you have trouble imagining sending the cue ball to a point off the surface of the ob.

Nope, I'd say it's an objective system that uses known values: tip diameter, pivot distance, and center OB. With a knowledge of the angle needed to pot the ball you can objectively choose one of the techniques to make the shot. The different techniques fall into a 'family' of angles. I can't argue about it because it's only a loose framework now. Let's let Spider release it before you make the claim it's a feel system.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Since I have been called out to take a swim in the aiming pool, I will wade into the shallow end only.

Those of my generation had very little to no resources available to us to learn this game, particularly aiming. I had transitioned from GB to contact point aiming, For the majority of play, the sight picture I see on the table will either click (or not) with my memories. When I am not freewheeling or having a hard day on the table, I supplement the shot pictures I see with SAM, as a double check. There are also other things I do depending upon the requirements of the shot. Like trying to play for those consistent angles (like half ball hits) that are very visual and predictable.

Basically I have learned from trial and error and used drill and practice even at a young age as a way fix those deficiencies. Have I fixed them all, hell no.

I also have been experimenting with coming in across the line of the shot which has given me a different perspective of the shot picture. I have been adding that to my PSR.

On my bucket list is a trip to see Stan to learn CTE - ProOne. I am the type that has to learn by doing....and questioning. I don't pick things up well from books / videos.

As far as I am concerned a player should experience a number of aiming methods. We all see the balls differently, our brains process this info differently. The aiming system that works for Tom, may not work for Dick or Harry.

Besides there is nothing wrong with being a student of the game, and having a variety of tools at your disposal.

Good post. :thumbup:
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Nope, I'd say it's an objective system that uses known values: tip diameter, pivot distance, and center OB. With a knowledge of the angle needed to pot the ball you can objectively choose one of the techniques to make the shot. The different techniques fall into a 'family' of angles. I can't argue about it because it's only a loose framework now. Let's let Spider release it before you make the claim it's a feel system.

Oh, OK. Just one question then. How do you know the angle needed to pot the ball?
 

Vorpal Cue

Just galumping back
Silver Member
Oh, OK. Just one question then. How do you know the angle needed to pot the ball?

I used a pivot triangle, 'natch. You could also find the quarter the CP falls in or 'roll your own' method. Let Spider flesh his creation before you get all touchy, feely over it.
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Since I have been called out to take a swim in the aiming pool, I will wade into the shallow end only.

Those of my generation had very little to no resources available to us to learn this game, particularly aiming. I had transitioned from GB to contact point aiming, For the majority of play, the sight picture I see on the table will either click (or not) with my memories. When I am not freewheeling or having a hard day on the table, I supplement the shot pictures I see with SAM, as a double check. There are also other things I do depending upon the requirements of the shot. Like trying to play for those consistent angles (like half ball hits) that are very visual and predictable.

Basically I have learned from trial and error and used drill and practice even at a young age as a way fix those deficiencies. Have I fixed them all, hell no.

I also have been experimenting with coming in across the line of the shot which has given me a different perspective of the shot picture. I have been adding that to my PSR.

On my bucket list is a trip to see Stan to learn CTE - ProOne. I am the type that has to learn by doing....and questioning. I don't pick things up well from books / videos.

As far as I am concerned a player should experience a number of aiming methods. We all see the balls differently, our brains process this info differently. The aiming system that works for Tom, may not work for Dick or Harry.

Besides there is nothing wrong with being a student of the game, and having a variety of tools at your disposal.

Tony, A good post. BUT you say that we all see things differently. I disagree with that assertion. That would be like setting up a zero angle shot and asking a dozen students to see the Cb OB relationship as center-to/-center. And then they all would see center to center differently. Nope. That's a visual task that is easily accomplished by most all players and even non players as well with only minimal guidance. Concerning CTE, the perceptions can be learned and repeated just the like recognizing and seeing a zero angle set-up.
Research shows that we all construct images by the same visual rules. If I see an elephant you can construct the same image, an elephant. Working with a couple of spheres is a little more precarious but concerning a perception, you can see what I see as long as your perspective occupies the same location in space as mine.
I appreciate your interest in my work!

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Tony, A good post. BUT you say that we all see things differently. I disagree with that assertion. That would be like setting up a zero angle shot and asking a dozen students to see the Cb OB relationship as center-to/-center. That's a visual task that is easily accomplished by most players and nonplayers as well with only minimal guidance. Concerning CTE, the perceptions can be learned and repeated just the like recognizing and seeing a zero angle set-up.
Research shows that we all construct images by the same visual rules. If I see an elephant you can construct the same image, an elephant. Working with a couple of spheres is a little more precarious but concerning a perception, you can see what I see as long as your perspective occupies the same location in space as mine.
I appreciate your interest in my work!

Stan Shuffett


No -- not everyone sees things the same

They stand to one side, or the other. They get down on the shot, with the cue to left, or right, or centered. They are low in final shooting position -- some are high and some in between. Some have their head angled so that one eye is closer to the shot than the other. Some, due to the straightest or a bend in their bridge arm, are closer or further from the CB.

To say everyone sees the shot the same is a totally and completely falsely.

Lou Figueroa
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
No -- not everyone sees things the same

They stand to one side, or the other. They get down on the shot, with the cue to left, or right, or centered. They are low in final shooting position -- some are high and some in between. Some have their head angled so that one eye is closer to the shot that the other. Some, due to the straightest or a bend in their bridge arm, are closer or further from the CB.

To say everyone sees the shot the same is a total and completely falsely.

Lou Figueroa

You can have your age-old opinion that will never change. That's fine by me but to say that a group of experienced players can not align visually to see the fullness of one sphere to another as a zero angle is ca ca. That concept extrapolates very nicely to the CTE perceptions of which you actually know very little about.

Stan Shuffett
I bet we can both hitt a key hole first try!
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You can have your age-old opinion that will never change. That's fine by me but to say that a group of experienced players can not align visually to see the fullness of one sphere to another as a zero angle is ca ca. That concept extrapolates very nicely to the CTE perceptions of which you actually know very little about.

Stan Shuffett
I bet we can both hitt a key hole first try!


Whatever you say, Stan.

The fact of the matter is that pool players stand and get down into final shooting position in all kinds of ways. Extra added flavor comes from all the physical differences -- tall, short, medium, left/right handed, dominate eye stuff, pivot, no pivot. It's why some "systems" cannot possibly work -- everyone is different.

What works for you probably has zero relevance for the udder guy.

Lou Figueroa
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Whatever you say, Stan.

The fact of the matter is that pool players stand and get down into final shooting position in all kinds of ways. Extra added flavor comes from all the physical differences -- tall ,short, left/right handed, dominate eye stuff. It's why some "systems" cannot possibly work -- everyone is different.

What works for you probably has zero reliance for the udder guy.

Lou Figueroa

You make some legit points and this is where I must add some context. You aim conventionally seeking to narrow your focus along one line. There's lots of visual spaces from which that can happen for traditional aiming.
CTE expands one visual focus rather than narrowing it. You focus on one line while I work with 3 lines.......2 and 3 lines are always superior to one when aiming.
Im just coming at you from a different visual approach.

Stan Shuffett
 

medallio

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I have dabbled in many things but end up going back to feel. I like parts of poolology but start overthinking when it's not an obvious shot position and I like cte but as of yet the way it is explained throws me off. I'm sure of both systems validity, but with both systems you have to use correctly and stroke perfectly otherwise nobody would be missing. Ultimately each system (even feel) comes down to perception imo or getting your eyes in right place for brain to say eureka! That's the right spot!
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I used a pivot triangle, 'natch. You could also find the quarter the CP falls in or 'roll your own' method. Let Spider flesh his creation before you get all touchy, feely over it.

I mean, you are saying that once the correct shot angle is determined, the rest is simply objective and rote. For this shot angle use this ferrule and 10 degrees of pivot and pocket the shot, right?

I'm wondering how figuring out that correct shot angle happens for, say, a new player. Oh, and CTE users don't look for contact points. Make it simple. Just tell me in a few sentences that do not involve sines and cosines how you determine the shot angle to begin with.
 

Tony_in_MD

You want some of this?
Silver Member
I get where you are coming from, and I can see why you believe the multiple line approach based on the same location creates a constant visual perspective. More to think about, and this is why I hope to work on it with you. Lots to learn here, if one keeps an open mind.

Maybe this is off base but here is an example of an experience that happened to me.

25 or so years ago I decided to switch to contact lenses in place of glasses. First thing I did was put the contacts on at home and ran to the pool table. To my shock the balls were all ovals, they were not round any more. At some point in time they became round again, as my brain adapted to the sensory information coming in, and began processing it as a round sphere, and not an egg shaped object. Trust me I was ready to take back those contacts when it first happened.

Fast forward to last year, I had a second procedure done on my left eye which was deteriorating slowly. I know that I had compensated for the difference in visual acuity in my set position all of those years as it was slowly getting worse. This is the reason I started to come across the shotline when I was standing up. My final head position now is changed over the cue in part that both of my eyes are working as an equal team.



Tony, A good post. BUT you say that we all see things differently. I disagree with that assertion. That would be like setting up a zero angle shot and asking a dozen students to see the Cb OB relationship as center-to/-center. And then they all would see center to center differently. Nope. That's a visual task that is easily accomplished by most all players and even non players as well with only minimal guidance. Concerning CTE, the perceptions can be learned and repeated just the like recognizing and seeing a zero angle set-up.
Research shows that we all construct images by the same visual rules. If I see an elephant you can construct the same image, an elephant. Working with a couple of spheres is a little more precarious but concerning a perception, you can see what I see as long as your perspective occupies the same location in space as mine.
I appreciate your interest in my work!

Stan Shuffett
 
Top