Objective v/s Subjective aiming

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
.....

Your aim points on or the near the OB don't tell the whole story. You clearly indicated that you don't use CCB but rather spin balls in in some way most all of the time which means you cannot account for exact bridge V placements.

Stan Shuffett

I don't indicate that every shot requires spin. In fact, the book suggests using CCB (actually slightly above center for a rolling CB) before diving into the effects of english. The aim points covered in the book, and accurately determined by the system, range from a 1/8 hit to a full ball hit. And I honestly don't believe the aim points are any less objective than visualizing A or C on CTE OB.
 

Neil

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I wasn't defining the word. I was suggesting how the word should be defined with regard to aiming systems. If any aiming system can't be proved through geometry, how can it be taken seriously?

When was the last time your eyes used geometry to see? Aiming is mainly about visuals, not so much geometry.
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't indicate that every shot requires spin. In fact, the book suggests using CCB (actually slightly above center for a rolling CB) before diving into the effects of english. The aim points covered in the book, and accurately determined by the system, range from a 1/8 hit to a full ball hit. And I honestly don't believe the aim points are any less objective than visualizing A or C on CTE OB.

Believe what you want!

Stan Shuffett
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Believe what you want!

Stan Shuffett

Lol. So, from the shooters perspective, a 3/4 ball aim point on the OB, which is located in the exact same place as cte's A or C are really not the same? It's like if we were both wearing blue shirts, and I say "Hey Stan, we're both wearing blue!", and you say, "Believe what you want!"

I'm confused, and just when I was beginning to understand what could be considered truly objective and what can't. Hmmmm....I'll sleep on it.
 

CueAndMe

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
When was the last time your eyes used geometry to see? Aiming is mainly about visuals, not so much geometry.

The eyes in an aiming system can be geometrically diagrammed simply as two points or more complexly as two movable points. The complexity of human sight does not preclude a proper geometrical analysis of an aiming system. The eyes can easily be incorporated in the geometry if one truly wishes to prove that the accuracy of the system requires subtle eye adjustments. All that's necessary is to simply diagram the direction that each eye needs to point for any given "visual". And consider oneself fortunate that the game is played on a single plane. It makes the diagrams that much easier.

This ain't quantum physics, folks. The spheres can even be flattened to disks because of the single plane of the playing surface.
 

Neil

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The eyes in an aiming system can be geometrically diagrammed simply as two points or more complexly as two movable points. The complexity of human sight does not preclude a proper geometrical analysis of an aiming system. The eyes can easily be incorporated in the geometry if one truly wishes to prove that the accuracy of the system requires subtle eye adjustments. All that's necessary is to simply diagram the direction that each eye needs to point for any given "visual". And consider oneself fortunate that the game is played on a single plane. It makes the diagrams that much easier.

This ain't quantum physics, folks. The spheres can even be flattened to disks because of the single plane of the playing surface.

Actually, it does.
 

tonythetiger583

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Why do my posts always get passed over?, am I not discussing the question? I know BC21 addressed my post, but this seems to be a reoccurring theme. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Lol. So, from the shooters perspective, a 3/4 ball aim point on the OB, which is located in the exact same place as cte's A or C are really not the same? It's like if we were both wearing blue shirts, and I say "Hey Stan, we're both wearing blue!", and you say, "Believe what you want!"

I'm confused, and just when I was beginning to understand what could be considered truly objective and what can't. Hmmmm....I'll sleep on it.

No, they are not the same. Completely different: apples and oranges. Why? Because you advocate operating with your vision center behind center cue ball.

Stan Shuffett
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Stan, your attempt to discuss Brian's method without knowing what it is is pointless. This is what CTE skeptics are accused of all the time, except in this case it is true. Instead of the $25,000, why not pony up $10 and buy Brian's Poolology electronic book.

Since you were too cheap to purchase CTE disc 1 OR 2 but come in here multiple times daily over a two year period denigrating the system and Stan with no trace of understanding and proficiency, why don't you spend the $10 and gift it to Stan. It's the least you could do.

You will understand exactly what he is doing in about 10 minutes after you get to the part on using the zones and the rails. His aim points are 1/2, 1/4 and 3/4 ball, which isn't much different from your A, B and C points. Only, you don't have to try and see two lines at the same time, pivot and all that.

As I've said to you before, I don't discuss CTE anymore because you've said all you are going to say until your book comes out.

Sure looks like you're discussing it above with the A, B, and C points as well as seeing two lines and a pivot. (which doesn't occur in Pro1)

There's no point to discussing anything until that happens. I do hope a book is actually published.

I'm sure you do hope a book is published! You'll be on every page with a fine tooth comb scouring it for even the slightest trace of ambiguity giving you the chance to flip it into a major controversy and flame war.

Brian's method is mathematically precise and easy enough for a young teen to understand and use. It is as objective as any system I've seen, but it acknowledges that interpolation is required for shots that fall between say 1/2 ball and 3/4 ball. Not a big deal because the difference between those two is not that great, and it is easy enough to aim between them.

So does this mean you're now a 100% convert and user of his system? If not, why not?

Don't forget what we're talking about. Poolology takes fractional aiming and marries it to a diamond system. By doing simple math using the diamonds, the player is provided with a fraction to use for that particular shot, be it 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4. You don't even need to know where the pockets are as long as you can see some of the rails!

I see where this is going now with you, Lou, and the gang members. It's a new ploy, a new tactic to pit poolology against CTE to keep the firestorm going in a new direction.

Wait until non-aimer Lou gets the system sent to him (probably free of charge), he'll give the most glowing review like it's the greatest discovery he's ever seen since he started playing pool just as you're now doing. And Lou has never given a thumbs up to any form of aiming method.

Anything to detract from CTE and make it, Stan, Hal and users look like fools just as he's been doing for 20 years starting at RSB.
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Why do my posts always get passed over?, am I not discussing the question? I know BC21 addressed my post, but this seems to be a reoccurring theme. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Maybe that's why! (Not crazy pills, but because you actually discuss the question with your honest opinion,)

I've noticed that so many threads in this forum immediately turn into personal arguments instead of genuine debate. A great post goes unnoticed because if it's on topic it doesn't have as much bite, no "wow, I can't believe he went there!" factor.

Maybe if you took some crazy pills it would help! Lol. Logical posts seem to be a among a rare breed. Often the most illogically argumentative statements attract the most attention.
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't indicate that every shot requires spin. In fact, the book suggests using CCB (actually slightly above center for a rolling CB) before diving into the effects of english. The aim points covered in the book, and accurately determined by the system, range from a 1/8 hit to a full ball hit. And I honestly don't believe the aim points are any less objective than visualizing A or C on CTE OB.

When you put your vision center behind CCB for seeing your aim points you have limited angles from you can choose and you are forced to adjust off of those lies when you make center pocket your target. There will be no one that will endorse your alignments as adjustment free.

Concerning your spin alignments alignments, I just repeated what you said. You indicated that CCB was foreign to your play and that you could not hit CCB.

Stan Shuffett
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I see where this is going now with you, Lou, and the gang members. It's a new ploy, a new tactic to pit poolology against CTE to keep the firestorm going in a new direction.

Wait until non-aimer Lou gets the system sent to him (probably free of charge), he'll give the most glowing review of it like it's the greatest discovery he's ever seen since he started playing pool just as you're now doing.

Anything to detract from CTE and make it, Stan, Hal and users look like fools just as he's been doing for 20 years starting at RSB.

I started to make about the same post myself. You hit the nail on the head, I appreciate you saying so because it's the truth.

Stan Shuffett
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
When you put your vision center behind CCB for seeing your aim points you have limited angles from you can choose and you are forced to adjust off of those lies when you make center pocket your target. There will be no one that will endorse your alignments as adjustment free.

Concerning your spin alignments alignments, I just repeated what you said. You indicated that CCB was foreign to your play and that you could not hit CCB.

Stan Shuffett

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.
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
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.

Good luck with your system and the rest of your life.

I think what you've developed is good for pool and pool players. What Hal Houle developed and Stan took much further is also good for pool and pool players.

No need for comparisons or in-fighting. Everyone has an opportunity to learn both and make a choice for themselves. Or use both depending on certain factors.

Both you and Stan are going down a black hole that's not good for either of you and you'll be played and egged on by the forum flame war pros. You're too new at this game. They've been doing it for 20 years.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Good luck with your system and the rest of your life.

I think what you've developed is good for pool and pool players. What Hal Houle developed and Stan took much further is also good for pool and pool players.

No need for comparisons or in-fighting. Everyone has an opportunity to learn both and make a choice for themselves. Or use both depending on certain factors.

Both you and Stan are going down a black hole that's not good for either of you and you'll be played and egged on by the forum flame war pros. You're too new at this game. They've been doing it for 20 years.

Thanks. Well said, and I agree 100%. In Dan's defense, he was giving his honest opinion earlier. I appreciate that, as well as your comments and solid advice about going down a black hole. This isn't a competition, it's a cooperation. Ive read quite a bit of posts over the years concerning cte, and have had up close experience with those that use it or try to use it. I can't help that I came away from these experiences with an opinion in line with Dan, Lou, and others. But to each their own. Use what works, and don't claim it's the end-all solution to an aiming debate.
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Thanks. Well said, and I agree 100%. In Dan's defense, he was giving his honest opinion earlier. I appreciate that, as well as your comments and solid advice about going down a black hole. This isn't a competition, it's a cooperation. Ive read quite a bit of posts over the years concerning cte, and have had up close experience with those that use it or try to use it. I can't help that I came away from these experiences with an opinion in line with Dan, Lou, and others. But to each their own. Use what works, and don't claim it's the end-all solution to an aiming debate.

You really do seem like a decent guy with a head on your shoulders about all of this.

Lets just say I have FAR more experience with Lou Figueroa, Dan White, Pat Johnson (now floating in space) and the rest of that group. I know exactly how they work and what their motives are.

They'll praise you and the system, become your best ally, and promise the world just to have a new inroad to destroying CTE, Hal, and Stan. Lou has done it for 2 decades. Dan White's opinions are honestly BIASED. He never purchased DVD1 or DVD2 and worked on it at home. He's also been around Lou for those 2 decades but as far as I know never got into the CTE fray back on RSB. Since coming here, he and Lou are kissing cousins. Don't be fooled by what's going on with these characters.

What I wrote to you openly here on the forum is exactly what I wrote to Stan behind the scenes. I was probably more forceful and scathing with him.

BOTH of you have great methods and don't need to be compared or beat to death.
You've greatly improved on standard fractional aiming which has been around for decades with no change until now.

And Stan has taken Hal's concepts with CTE to a point far beyond what Hal used to teach. I honestly think Hal never wanted anybody to know what he knew and just threw out bits and pieces. If he thought the person was an idiot he'd tell very little and just mess with their head. He told me and Stan more than anyone else but Stan figured it out by devoting years to it that he could have been devoting to his family or other endeavors. He's made a helluva personal sacrifice only to be denigrated and belittled by forum screwballs who have nothing better to do in a positive fashion with their lives. They live for this crap.

The best to both of you.
 
Last edited:

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I started to make about the same post myself. You hit the nail on the head, I appreciate you saying so because it's the truth.

Stan Shuffett


For the record, I have bought all kinds of books on aiming and in general have a pretty extensive library of pool knowledge sitting right behind me. And, again for the record, I am paying for my copy of Brain's book.

Lou Figueroa
bought your
1st DVD too
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thanks. Well said, and I agree 100%. In Dan's defense, he was giving his honest opinion earlier. I appreciate that, as well as your comments and solid advice about going down a black hole. This isn't a competition, it's a cooperation. Ive read quite a bit of posts over the years concerning cte, and have had up close experience with those that use it or try to use it. I can't help that I came away from these experiences with an opinion in line with Dan, Lou, and others. But to each their own. Use what works, and don't claim it's the end-all solution to an aiming debate.


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

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

Lou Figueroa
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
For the record, I have bought all kinds of books on aiming

Really? Which books? There aren't that many books on aiming out there. You've never been the least bit interested in aiming techniques. It would be like buying all kinds of books on how to rebuild a car engine to soup them up when you have no intention or interest in opening the hood to get your little hands dirty.. I say LIAR.

and in general have a pretty extensive library of pool knowledge sitting right behind me

Other pool related books, I believe you do have an extensive library. I say TRUE.

And, again for the record, I am paying for my copy of Brain's book.

I would hope you can afford $10 lousy bucks and not cry about it.

Lou Figueroa
bought your
1st DVD too

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".
 
Top