Aiming Systems • NAYSAYERS • YEASAYERS

[JB Cases]

Everyone uses an aiming system.
For most people it is a combination of different systems that they mold into their own.
It would be impossible to play pool without an aiming system.
Type of aiming used is dependent on the shot, because some shots just work better with certain ways of visualizing.

Like it was said:
Lots of people have problems with outrageous claims of the believers.
Some people don’t want to see the fellow players getting ripped off.
There is no magic bullet. If you cannot deliver the cue straight no system is going to help you.

Finally. JB always gets the last word and if you don’t see his way he will shout at you until you do or you just give up.

If you are wrong then I won't allow the last word to be the wrong information. If you are right then I concede and call it a day.

On Stan Shuffet's DVD he says that in order to work the system it is understood that the user has a reasonable proficiency and a straight stroke.

No aiming system yeasayer has ever said that an aiming system compensates for a crooked stroke.

On the contrary it amplifies a bad stroke because being on the right line means that any steering will cause the cueball to go off line and hit the object ball in the wrong spot.

So an aiming system that works forces the student to adopt a straighter stroke. And this was my personal experience earlier this year. I was playing pretty good with the system I am using but I decided I needed som help to get my stoke back. So I went to a coach and he did help me and now me stroke is much better, smoother and more consistent. That plus system means nice clean run outs for me.

In order for someone to get ripped off they would have to be deliberately mislead and sold something that has absolutely no value. The value is what's in debate. Simply claiming something is bogus is not enough if you don't have proof. So that's a big part of the issue as I see it.

I can agree with Mayoshi, if something is claimed to be mathematically provable then the claimant OUGHT to be able to do so.

Otherwise though I don't see any claims that the yeasayers have made which are unfounded and unbelievable to the point that the naysayers have the right to call them delusional. Show an outrageous claim that can be disproven. (and regarding the math, there has been PLENTY of math tossed out there by the mathematicians on this forum on the side of aiming systems. I confess that I understand pretty much none of it)

 

[kybill9]

"NOR DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO RIDICULE THOSE WHO BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY THAN

So, stop trying to shut people up! Let the moderators do that if they deem it is necessary.

Why be so rude? I didn't read anywhere he said for people to shut up, only you. I have the perfect aiming system. It is flawless. You shoot the ball in the hole and play great shape. Repeat.

 

[Blue Hog ridr]

E Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

 

[The Chinchilla]

Actually I recall several posts where Lou and Dr. Dave and others specifically stated that CTE is a system that may be useful in helping to learn aiming, but the claims as to its mathematical accuracy are completely unsubstantiated. Yeasayers, instead of agreeing with this statement which would essentially end the argument and unite both sides, tried to prove CTE mathematically. We are still waiting.

There are only a few naysayers who actually put out insults, there were also some yeasayers who said quite nasty things. If you are against name callers, don't just single out Naysayers and try to make it look like the Yeasayers were complete angels.

This sums things up rather nicely in my estimation.

 

[cookie man]

Actually I recall several posts where Lou and Dr. Dave and others specifically stated that CTE is a system that may be useful in helping to learn aiming, but the claims as to its mathematical accuracy are completely unsubstantiated. Yeasayers, instead of agreeing with this statement which would essentially end the argument and unite both sides, tried to prove CTE mathematically. We are still waiting.

There are only a few naysayers who actually put out insults, there were also some yeasayers who said quite nasty things. If you are against name callers, don't just single out Naysayers and try to make it look like the Yeasayers were complete angels.

If I needed what I do on the pool table to be proved mathematically first, I guess I would stop playing pool.

 

[Johnnyt]

Everyone uses an aiming system.
For most people it is a combination of different systems that they mold into their own.
It would be impossible to play pool without an aiming system.
Type of aiming used is dependent on the shot, because some shots just work better with certain ways of visualizing.

Like it was said:
Lots of people have problems with outrageous claims of the believers.
Some people don’t want to see the fellow players getting ripped off.
There is no magic bullet. If you cannot deliver the cue straight no system is going to help you.

Finally. JB always gets the last word and if you don’t see his way he will shout at you until you do or you just give up.

I agree with the above. One of the reasons I am a naysayer is that I don't like to see new players or players that don't have the time to practice enough. There is no silver bullet. Some things can't be bought. Johnnyt

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Actually I recall several posts where Lou and Dr. Dave and others specifically stated that CTE is a system that may be useful in helping to learn aiming, but the claims as to its mathematical accuracy are completely unsubstantiated.

That's not correct. Lou has stated repeatedly (and recently stood by his statement) that CTE is caca ("with all of that pivoting nonsense") and Stan's DVD "purposely dooms his students to failure."

If "yaysayers" like myself say nasty things, it's because of Lou's ignoramus comments.

What perpetuates "the hate" and the wearing out of patience, is guys like you who have no understanding of what the situation is, what's been said, what so-and-so's beliefs are and so forth--- and then make false statements like the one above further perpetuating the BS.

I disagree that the claims are unsubstantiated. Claims are unsubstantiated based on our history of diagramming it on 2D Wei Table diagrams. Perspective is a key ingredient to making CTE work and that's never been properly figured. If the ball goes each and every time, the math is correct.

While guys like Dr. Dave start from the front and work their way back (based on their own understanding, which can be flawed) and say it's impossible, I start from the back (based on my understanding that the shot goes center-hole) and ask what can be missing or overlooked. To this day, neither Dr. Dave nor Lou have ever received private lessons from Stan or Hal. Lou spent 1 day on the DVD before writing a scathing review. 1 day. I took this stuff in for 6 months before commenting on any of it.

As Lou loves to point out, I have all variations of CTE diagrammed in AutoCad and have found different shots to have similar offsets from the CTEL. I'm yet to recalculate with perspectives figured in because quite frankly --- it's a LOT of time and there's no motivation to do so. I have about 40 or so pages complete and it's just sitting on my computer.

There's no motivation because 1) I understand it and 2) there are so many disgusting people on here that have fun knocking instructors and good people, it's simply not worth the effort and finally 3) I honestly feel any further good/hard work invested into this discussion will only be met with further knocking, hateful BS.

At one time there was a poll to move all aiming discussions into a sub forum and I recall I voted no. Now, however, I think it's the move and the moderators should ban all knocking, trouble-making forum members who troll to elicit lambasting responses and then point the finger at the tiger they just poked through the cage.

That way, the other 30000 forum members who want to have honest and clear dialog CAN and those who honestly want to learn the information....CAN....without the nonstop insults from the forum megalomaniacs.

Dave

 

[3andstop]

Heck, I'll just copy myself from the other thread:

That's a good idea ...

Here's my take on aiming systems.

We all stand a bit differently, we all think a bit differently, we all visualize a bit differently. Some aiming systems fall nicely into the way certain people cue the ball naturally, while for others it does not work for them. Some won't even understand what the hell you're talking about.

In an attempt to make an analogy, poor as it might be, it's like that trick drawing of the face. Some people see the smiling young girl, while others see the wicked old witch lady. If you're teaching a system to someone who sees it, then it's great, if they don't see it, it's a ridiculous waste.

Finding the one that works for you both visually as well as understanding it can help improve your game, at least in terms of confidence and consistency, but I don't think all systems can ever work equally well for everyone considering our individual differences.

An aiming system that works well for you can help eliminate that distracting variable of sighting shots and that unsure feeling about whether you're on target or not. That lets you devote a bit more toward delivering the CB on the line you are now confident is correct. ( I strongly feel you are not able to deliver the CB in a straight line to your target if you are not sure of that target, and I also feel that accurate delivery should be the ultimate goal.)

Pool has so many variables, help eliminating even one can improve your consistency.

On the other hand, I believe that trying to teach a specific system as gospel to a group of people who all stand, sight, and stroke differently is bound to result in some of those people, if not all of them at any given time, to say it's a bunch of smoke and mirrors and of no value.

When you stumble upon the people who see it like you see it, then it works. So, IMO, by definition, it's an individual, hit or miss thing. No more, no less. :shrug:

BUT ... the best thing to consider discussing is a "delivery system". Shoot we all know where to hit the ball, now if we could just get it to that spot every time!

 

[Neil]

I agree with the above. One of the reasons I am a naysayer is that I don't like to see new players or players that don't have the time to practice enough. There is no silver bullet. Some things can't be bought. Johnnyt

I agree with you that some things can't be bought, Johnny. And I agree that no matter what system or lack of system one uses, time on the table is a prerequisite.

What I don't understand is your statement. It implies that system users say that with the system, that is all you need. You don't need the time on the table. The system will automatically give you a great game. That is not in the least bit true. It HAS been stated, and I agree, that systems can shorten the time on the table necessary to become good. That is totally different than what you are implying.

But, since you feel that way, why aren't you in the for sale section where so many are trying to buy a better game with a new cue every month? The cues cost a lot more than any DVD or book does.

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

From my point of view even when the claims are backed up with evidence then it's almost always thrown out or disqualified with a bunch of personal slurs thrown in.

Dave posts a video showing him making 13 of 15 super tough cut shots using a system.

Ekkes posts a video of him making something like 12 of 14 random banks in a row.

I post videos doing tests that Naysayers diagrammed as "proof" that using a system won't work.

I posted a video showing me making three shots from the same positions and then from three different positions to show I was doing the exact same motion on every shot. Again stemming from a naysayer diagram.

So I don't know what else you guys want?

Why don't you re-post these videos so we can all see them?

 

[Pushout]

It's not a matter of getting people to shut up. That is not what Joey is saying at all. It's about people acting more decent to each other and having a decent conversation about a subject without all the trolling by some. If you don't think something works, state your case, and let it go. No need for the animosity by some on here.

What's always bothered me is, that though many people say they are using a certain system {CTE, for example} and using it for several years and having it work for them, there are others who insist that it won't, doesn't, can't possibly work. Like someone already said, I don't need anything "proven" to me that it can't work, mathematically or otherwise, when I've been using it for several years and it works just fine. If you don't like it or use it, fine. But please don't tell me it doesn't work when it does.

 

[lfigueroa]

I mean Lou even said that if Willie Mosconi himself were to come back from the dead and say that x-system works and is good then Lou would tell Willie to go back to sleep.

Against that sort of standard when the greatest 14.1 player we know of couldn't even be allowed to stand up and say something is worthwhile then how does an ordinary mortal have a chance?

John, really? Willie could come back and say anything he wanted. I'm saying that I, personally, would not believe it if he endorsed something like CTE. And I should be able to say, "Willie, you are the greatest, but that system is ca-ca" without riling anyone up. If you happen to be one of the guys that believes in the system, or just takes everything at face value, or are an even bigger fan of Willie than I am, and/or his personal friend, you should still be able to hear my opinion, disregard it, and move on without starting a witch hunt because I voice an opinion different than yours. It's that simple.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3andstop
Here's my take on aiming systems.

We all stand a bit differently, we all think a bit differently, we all visualize a bit differently. Some aiming systems fall nicely into the way certain people cue the ball naturally, while for others it does not work for them. Some won't even understand what the hell you're talking about.

In an attempt to make an analogy, poor as it might be, it's like that trick drawing of the face. Some people see the smiling young girl, while others see the wicked old witch lady. If you're teaching a system to someone who sees it, then it's great, if they don't see it, it's a ridiculous waste.

Finding the one that works for you both visually as well as understanding it can help improve your game, at least in terms of confidence and consistency, but I don't think all systems can ever work equally well for everyone considering our individual differences.

An aiming system that works well for you can help eliminate that distracting variable of sighting shots and that unsure feeling about whether you're on target or not. That lets you devote a bit more toward delivering the CB on the line you are now confident is correct. ( I strongly feel you are not able to deliver the CB in a straight line to your target if you are not sure of that target, and I also feel that accurate delivery should be the ultimate goal.)

Pool has so many variables, help eliminating even one can improve your consistency.

On the other hand, I believe that trying to teach a specific system as gospel to a group of people who all stand, sight, and stroke differently is bound to result in some of those people, if not all of them at any given time, to say it's a bunch of smoke and mirrors and of no value.

When you stumble upon the people who see it like you see it, then it works. So, IMO, by definition, it's an individual, hit or miss thing. No more, no less.

BUT ... the best thing to consider discussing is a "delivery system". Shoot we all know where to hit the ball, now if we could just get it to that spot every time!

Nice! You said it better than I've been, 3andstop.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JoeyA]

Fail.................

John, really? Willie could come back and say anything he wanted. I'm saying that I, personally, would not believe it if he endorsed something like CTE. And I should be able to say, "Willie, you are the greatest, but that system is ca-ca" without riling anyone up. If you happen to be one of the guys that believes in the system, or just takes everything at face value, or are an even bigger fan of Willie than I am, and/or his personal friend, you should still be able to hear my opinion, disregard it, and move on without starting a witch hunt because I voice an opinion different than yours. It's that simple.

Lou Figueroa

Lou,
You don't get a pass on this.

Your opinion is appreciated and some people will agree with you and some will disagree with you. It's the way of the world.

You haven't just shared your opinion. With your "spin degree", you have regularly sniped at every person who uses CTE & CTE/Pro One. You have regularly not only voiced your opinion but you have done it in a low-class way, by adding in ad hominem attacks, whether you want to believe it or not. From the PM's that I have received on your style of making your opinion known, YOU DESPERATELY NEED A RE-DO.

If it was just a matter of you sharing your opinion and then you going about your own personal business, I'm sure no one would mind you sharing that opinion. But when you run after every CTE & CTE/Pro One thread, needling posters "for sport", needling creators of aiming systems, needling instructors for teaching an aiming system that you don't care for, it is quite apparent that you are doing more than just sharing your opinion.

Patrick Johnson thought he could get away with name-calling, ad hominem attacks, besmirching fellow posters good names and that failed.

You know what you are doing. If you were just another dumb-azz on this forum, I might give you a pass.

Start treating people with a modicum of respect and you will be just fine. You have a long history of despicable behavior in these type threads to erase.

And if you are UNABLE to give the CTE & CTE/Pro One & Perfect Aim (insert any other aiming system name here) users/instructors/creators the respect that they deserve, just stay out of those discussions. It's that simple.

 

[Bambu]

They might not be nice about it all the time, I may not care for some of their personalities much. I never thought I'd say it, but I even miss reading pj's posts. I admit I am a shallow person, guilty of enjoying the drama. Right or wrong, there are alot of great posters here with tons of experience and knowledge. Both sides post so well, sometimes I even learn new words! Todays word of the day is hyperbole....thanks Joey!

 

[lfigueroa]

They might not be nice about it all the time, I may not care for some of their personalities much. I never thought I'd say it, but I even miss reading pj's posts. I admit I am a shallow person, guilty of enjoying the drama. Right or wrong, there are alot of great posters here with tons of experience and knowledge. Both sides post so well, sometimes I even learn new words! Todays word of the day is hyperbole....thanks Joey!

lol, I can only guess, since I have Joey, Spider, and a couple of the others on Ignore. It's nice!

Lou Figueroa
hyperbole |hīˈpərbəlē|
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

 

[JoeyA]

"Getting it."

They might not be nice about it all the time, I may not care for some of their personalities much. I never thought I'd say it, but I even miss reading pj's posts. I admit I am a shallow person, guilty of enjoying the drama. Right or wrong, there are alot of great posters here with tons of experience and knowledge. Both sides post so well, sometimes I even learn new words! Todays word of the day is hyperbole....thanks Joey!

You're welcome Bambu. :grin:

Pj was also one of my favorite posters of pool information. It's sad that he was not able to control his emotions and treat fellow posters with a semblance of respect.

Maybe some of the other posters will start to "get it" before it's too late for them.

 

[The Chinchilla]

You're welcome Bambu. :grin:

Pj was also one of my favorite posters of pool information. It's sad that he was not able to control his emotions and treat fellow posters with a semblance of respect.

Maybe some of the other posters will start to "get it" before it's too late for them.

Can somebody inform me here, pm or otherwise what happened to pj (ban i assume?). What thread caused it? Or was it many? If you read his "message" when it comes to aiming on Dr. Dave's page, it all comes off as quite eloquent -- it is hard to disagree with most of his selected posts there, whether you use a system or not.

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

Lou,
You don't get a pass on this.

Your opinion is appreciated and some people will agree with you and some will disagree with you. It's the way of the world.

You haven't just shared your opinion. With your "spin degree", you have regularly sniped at every person who uses CTE & CTE/Pro One. You have regularly not only voiced your opinion but you have done it in a low-class way, by adding in ad hominem attacks, whether you want to believe it or not. From the PM's that I have received on your style of making your opinion known, YOU DESPERATELY NEED A RE-DO.

If it was just a matter of you sharing your opinion and then you going about your own personal business, I'm sure no one would mind you sharing that opinion. But when you run after every CTE & CTE/Pro One thread, needling posters "for sport", needling creators of aiming systems, needling instructors for teaching an aiming system that you don't care for, it is quite apparent that you are doing more than just sharing your opinion.

Patrick Johnson thought he could get away with name-calling, ad hominem attacks, besmirching fellow posters good names and that failed.

You know what you are doing. If you were just another dumb-azz on this forum, I might give you a pass.

Start treating people with a modicum of respect and you will be just fine. You have a long history of despicable behavior in these type threads to erase.

And if you are UNABLE to give the CTE & CTE/Pro One & Perfect Aim (insert any other aiming system name here) users/instructors/creators the respect that they deserve, just stay out of those discussions. It's that simple.

Joey,

You may not have a "spin degree" but you do a fair amount of spinning yourself on this forum. I find it remarkable that you can chastise the naysayers and turn a blind eye to the yeasayers who are commiting the exact same offenses.

Since you brought up Patrick Johnson's offenses, we have a prominent poster here who has OCD and ADD who is currently getting away with name-calling, ad hominem attacks and besmirching fellow posters good names.

As there is a lot of blame to go around, let's be consistent here. For the benefit of this forum, more moderating may help bring this acrimony to an end.

 

[JB Cases]

John, really? Willie could come back and say anything he wanted. I'm saying that I, personally, would not believe it if he endorsed something like CTE. And I should be able to say, "Willie, you are the greatest, but that system is ca-ca" without riling anyone up. If you happen to be one of the guys that believes in the system, or just takes everything at face value, or are an even bigger fan of Willie than I am, and/or his personal friend, you should still be able to hear my opinion, disregard it, and move on without starting a witch hunt because I voice an opinion different than yours. It's that simple.

Lou Figueroa

The comment was made to illustrate that some of you have an impossibly high standard that cannot be met. If your opinion is that Willie Mosconi himself couldn't convince you of something pool related then what chance do I, Stan Shuffett, or anyone else have?

To turn your phrase, with that conviction that not even Willie would be able to get your attention any review of Stan's DVD that you were going to do was doomed to negativity before you opened it.

And you don't speak your opinion in such a way that it is intended to be tossed in the salad and consumed by everyone so that the readers can consider it. You make your opinion known in a needling and accusatory fashion that is designed to provoke a response from "the other side". I get it that for you it's just good old fashioned pool-room barking. But even in the pool room everyone knows when lines are crossed and it goes from barking to serious insults designed to instigate.

You and I go way back on this. Remember what you told me after I came on RSB talking about meeting Hal and learning his systems? All the insults about "the force" and tin foil hats and religion? That was 9 YEARS ago.

And you have been at it ever since. Your opinion is noted. It is perfectly clear at this point that you will not be using, trying or believing in any aiming system derived from anything Hal Houle taught. So is there any possible way that you can just leave the people be who do want to discuss it?

Just let the aiming thread open up and die of it's own accord. Watch and see. Make a pact to yourself to let an aiming thread go for three days before you comment. If you and the other diehard naysayers would do that then I predict that by day three the thread is not even on page two.