Yes, I did see that, but I would have to assume all aiming systems would want the player to see the initial contact point. What else would the player aim at whether using perception lines or whatever?
Peace proposal
- Thread starter bbb
- Start date
Yes, I did see that, but I would have to assume all aiming systems would want the player to see the initial contact point. What else would the player aim at whether using perception lines or whatever?
Good points. Especially about getting off track and reverting to bad habits. And by "constraints" and "limits" I wasn't referring to systems limiting a player, I was trying to say that a player must make his own way beyond the limitations or constraints defined by the system. Like in my book I don't dance around the limitations of the system. I specifically write that a player must develop the skills to account for shots not covered by the system. They do that through experience, and through learning how to fine tune a shot that lies slighty thinner or thicker than a 1/2 ball or whatever.
There are thick and thin CTE perceptions, and regardless of what Stan says, knowing exactly if a shot is a little thick or a little thin is a matter of experience, which means a player develops this on their own through doing it over and over until their brain automatically recognizes when a shot is thick or thin. Stan even mentions experience in one of his many YouTube clips, so there's no denying the role experience plays.
"Experience" for thick and thin has nothing to do with it. Being a little thick or a little thin has nothing to do with it. CB-OB RELATIONS ARE INHERENTLY THICK OR THIN. DETERMINING THICK AND THIN IS A NO BRAINER EXERCISE. For quantitive purposes only, thick and thin relations to a pocket could be explained as being 7.5 degrees one way or the other. In other words, easy to read.
It's about like, Is the shot to the pocket a left cut or a right cut? Pretty dang simple. The technique is straight forward. It has zip to do with FEEL.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
I never said you forget, I said you're alignment goes haywire and visually linking both balls together accurately can be off.
What aiming system did you learn how to pocket balls with and use in your early years of playing pool? Contact points; Ghost Ball; Fractions; something else? Or did you come out of the womb with this natural sense of knowing about balls striking balls in pool without any training?
I think it's the paying attention part that's really important AND THEN, based upon your observations, be willing to experiment to improve. Some paths will lead you down to a dead end but other will be fruitful, and you build on that. The guys that don't do any of that are the same guys at the pool hall who play for decades and are always at the same level.
Lou Figueroa
Experience and knowing any system is critical. Why do you think there are so many arguments and flame wars here? The ones doing the attacking don't have the experience or close to the knowledge to do it.
I'd still like to know what you use or do on those days when the sun, the moon, your biorhythms, your balance, your brain focus from issues or problems outside of pool, low testosterone and high estrogen, constipation, or whatever else is causing you to be off. Do you use the fractional aiming you teach to pull it back together or struggle from being off?
Herein lies the problem. Incorrect assumption. There are ZERO contact points or care that contact points exist in the 3 letter one. Completely immaterial.
Shiskebob is another system. No need to respond, I'm just laying it out there because it's a fact.
I've watched many players consistently miss the pocket by 1 or 2 inches. Their idea of a little thick or thin isn't as accurate as yours or mine. It will eventually become accurate with experience. This isn't an opinion, it's a pretty obvious fact.
On those days I use my system on every shot for a rack or so, paying attention to exactly where I'm aiming on or near the OB. This gets me back to seeing the shots in no time. Then I'm no longer paying attention to exactly where I'm aiming....I'm just playing.
Why quit paying attention? Now that it's internalized and nobody on the planet knows it better than you since you created the grid, system and hit thousands of balls to test it the visuals should only take milliseconds.
You can still maintain a good natural rhythm and feel for speed and spin with or without it. Why go without it? What makes without it more accurate and consistent?
Honestly, I don't choose to stop paying attention. I don't choose to let go of the system when I use it to get back on track. It just happens. But then a shot will come up where I automatically go to the system. It's like my head says, "Wait...I don't like this. Use the system here." So I do.
You are confused about the terminology because you don't know how to use CTE. Thick or thin s not a feel thing, where you just adjust a little. In CTE, once you get your initial two line visual, you simply look at the ob/cb relationship and determine from that if the pivot needs to go to the inside or to the outside (thicker or thinner).
And, as you have been told a number of times already, when learning a new system, forget what you think you know, and just follow the directions. There are a number of aiming systems that do not use contact points at all.
You still don't get it. Since you refuse to quote text you are replying to you'll have to guess what that means. "Visually linking" and alignment have nothing to do with knowing the spot on the ball you need to hit and where to send the cb to actually hit it. I'm saying that once you have played long enough, you can look at the ob and you just know where to send the cb so that it pockets the ob. Of course, and with any system including CTE, the results will depend a little on the condition of the cloth and the balls, but after a little while you automatically take that into account if you are paying attention. I'm not talking about the Stevie Wonder aim point. I'm talking about knowing where to send the cue ball in order to pocket the ball (ie, hit the contact point).
All the stuff you are talking about is mechanical. The pockets are big enough and the table is small enough that it isn't that hard to just know where to hit it. Performing the mechanics consistently is a different matter.
I think when Brian says he uses Poolology when his game is off, he isn't saying that he somehow forgot where he needs to put the cue ball. For whatever reason that day, he just isn't putting the cue ball where it needs to go. Poolology is providing him with some structure so that he gets his mechanics back into shape.
We always had a table in the house when I was young, so I honestly don't know. I'd say when I started playing for real as I got a little older it would be ghost ball, although I don't recall ever actually trying to visualize a ghost ball. I was also aware of the contact point, and just knew that I had to cut the shot a little thinner in order to hit that spot.
I took some lessons from a guy at a local pool hall. He was also way into Zen. He would set up an ob and a cb about 5' away from each other at an angle and recommended just to shoot the shot over and over until you dialed it in. That information would be entered into your subconscious databank. He didn't care how you did it as long as the ball went in. I agree with that thinking other than to say that it matters how you stroke the cue. If it isn't a straight stroke then you can be ingraining flaws that bite you when you least expect it.
But, I as well as many others have said this many times yet you ignore it like you don't get it. You don't realize that you couldn't pocket more than maybe 25% of the shots you take if your brain didn't do the same thing for you and your shooting system as it does for me. Hate to burst your bubble, but there is no such thing as objective aiming. You can have objective aiming and pocket 25 or 35% of your shots, or you can use that same system in conjunction with your subconscious databank of visual images and pocket 100% of the balls. There is more going on than you care to admit. IMO
I am clueless to what you mean.
A little thicker or a little thinner for fractions has no relation to thick or thin for CTE.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
In CTE, CB edges are aimed at object ball targets.
Sight lines are seen.
Once the cue is aligned to center. Game over. Just whack the center. There is absolutely nothing on the OB to aim at from the traditional aiming perspective. Your job is to hit CCB. It's that simple. No aiming. Just align and stroke.
Stan Shuffett
Sorry that you feel this way, never called you any names, just said I do not understand. I received more that 29 PM's most said they did not post here because they did not want to get bashed by you and a few others. I have never called names, I have personally never said your system done work, and I believe it does work for some people.
The ones that said it did not work for them were the people that private messaged me.
I know this. Stan explained it on YouTube. He said exactly what you said, that a player would just know. What I am saying is that a player won't just know unless he has the experience of knowing. I mean, you get your perception, then you automatically know it's going to miss the pocket by an inch or two, so therefore you know which way to pivot or sweep. I believe a lot of aspiring players can't just look at the balls and tell if the shot is a little thin or not....that's why they are turning to an aiming system in the first place. You guys assume every player can just see that it's thick or thin, ignoring the fact that you can do it because you have the experience needed to do it.
Last edited: