With the object balls placed near the rails, all the shooter needs to do is aim the cue ball at the outside edge of the object ball to pocket it. No need to invoke the power of CTE; this type of shot isn't rocket science.
Last edited:
It's The CB
- Thread starter Johnnyt
- Start date
- Status
With the object balls placed near the rails, all the shooter needs to do is aim the cue ball at the outside edge of the object ball to pocket it. No need to invoke the power of CTE; this type of shot isn't rocket science.
With the object balls placed near the rails, all the shooter needs to do is aim the cue ball at the outside edge of the object ball to pocket it. No need to invoke the power of CTE; this type of shot isn't rocket science.
Aiming at the edge of the OB will only work for a small set of angles close to 28 deg. He is shooting multiple angles in this video. That won't work for very thick or very thin cuts along the rail.
I can do that! As long as the piece of paper is 4 1/2 by 9 feet. :wink:
You're correct, mohrt -- I did take it that way. "champ" did indeed seem to say "CTE works all the same" as if to say "results would be the same" as the table size increases / pocket size decreases. The only reason I even jumped into this silly melee was to do a "Whoa Nellie!" hold-your-horses on that claim. However, I think I have a surprising revelation to those that've been limited to playing on smaller tables, thinking an aiming system will be the panacea for larger and larger table sizes. Something else creeps in, that becomes ever more important. Read on below...
champ2107:
You're reading far too much into things. The point of my request (suggestion, actually) was to show you there is much more to shot-making than just "determining the correct aiming point." Regardless of the system you use -- CTE, SEE, Back-of-ball (snooker), CP-to-CP, ghostball, whatever -- that you have to now DELIVER the cue ball to that spot.
I would offer that most here who are arguing about aiming systems don't have a clue about how much more important EXECUTION becomes over aim as the table size / real estate gets bigger. I would say the ratio becomes more in favor of aiming on smaller tables, and less so on larger and larger tables. Rationale? You can get away with lousy fundamentals on smaller tables as long as the aiming point you arrived at is true, but lousy fundamentals will bite you in the *ss on much larger tables.
BTW, that shot I proposed to you? It's not a straight-in shot. Re-think that one. If you're placing the cue ball in the "D" area on a snooker table, and shooting at a center-spotted blue, you are definitely cutting the ball, albeit the cut isn't as drastic as a spot-shot. So you definitely have to exercise your aiming system on this shot. The real lesson to be learned from this shot (and you'll see it, when you try it) is "can you deliver the cue ball to that aiming spot you arrived at?" My bet is that unless you've spent a lot of time honing your fundamentals, you can't. (Or at least not consistently enough to "bag" a good chunk out of a number like "10.")
This, BTW, is in keeping with the topic of this thread -- whether cue ball control or shot-making is more important. After you try my suggested shot, you be the judge. I think this shot is going to surprise you.
-Sean
ok i got ya sfleinen, well as a matter of fact i have been experimenting with grip,stroke change and i am totally not comfortable with it yet, i really do not play a lot of pool so it will take a bit i guess to get comfortable and every time i say i suck...i get it thrown in my face from someone on here for some reason lol? i have a few video ideas i want to do ( i really want to get my stroke criticed and get some advice) and yours will be one of them 
i will try tonight if the table is empty and we will see what happens and i know for a fact i miss shots too
i will try tonight if the table is empty and we will see what happens and i know for a fact i miss shots too
Last edited:
Both shot making and cue ball control are important. However in my own experience, if you can get very confident with your shot making, the rest of the game (CB control included) comes along very quickly. If your shot making consistency is not up to par, the rest of the game suffers from it.
I have shot the pace of an "A" player for a decade. CTE changed the way I look at shooting balls... Instead of aiming at contact points (mostly guess and feel), I'm using centers and edges (objective targets to start with) to line up the aim. Now that my shot making has soared in a matter of months, my cue ball control and other aspects of the game are coming along for the ride. The amount of practice I put in now vs. over the last decade has not changed much, if at all.
TheThaiger
Banned
Anyone that is capable of making a clearance on a snooker table is a proficient player - how many times out of 10 would you make it, Sean?
I'm going to give it a go next time I can be bothered to play snooker - probably not going to broadcast it though!
TheThaiger
Banned
Judging by some of the clips, I think that's the scale he had in mind anyway...
TheThaiger
Banned
Amongst the instructors, who are the best players?
the guy with the aiming system dvd :thumbup:
mohrt:
The part of my post that you quoted -- I'm not sure if you were agreeing, or attempting to counter? We're actually in agreement, if there was any confusion.
I'm probably clocked AAA - Open (depending on the scale/system used), but like you, have been in the A tier for a very long time. My game kicked into high gear only after I completely reworked my fundamentals (in my case, tossing out the pool stance and adopting a nearly-pure snooker style). For me, aiming stayed the same (I'm a natural ghostballer that'd migrated to ghostball's logical conclusion -- Back-of-ball aiming), but mechanizing my fundamentals did the trick. Here in the Northeast, unlike other parts of the country, big tables rule the roost, so the point about fundamentals is at that "tipping point" where execution is more important than simply "aiming" (e.g. "point-and-shoot" doesn't work nearly as well on a 9-footer as it does on a barbox).
-Sean
Hi Tim:
I'm a 139-break player, but've made quite a few 102s, 109s, etc.
That particular shot, I usually make 8-9 times out of 10, on average. But I have to be honest, I had to work to get to that level of consistency. That is one HECK of a tough shot, and it's my "pet" shot when I first walk up to a snooker table, to warm up.
Do give it a try, if you've not tried it before. You're in 12-footer country, so that is going to be a great test of cueing!
-Sean
Stan is a great player, who puts his money where his mouth is (although Stan is such a good-natured guy, it's extremely difficult to say he's "got a mouth"
). His great performance at the U.S. Open is "Exhibit A" for anyone wanting to see what he can do.And I'm sure Stan himself would say his performance went far beyond a mere "aiming system."
-Sean
Stan is a great player, who puts his money where his mouth is (although Stan is such a good-natured guy, it's extremely difficult to say he's "got a mouth"
And I'm sure Stan himself would say his performance went far beyond a mere "aiming system."
-Sean
almost all of us with common sense know that using an aiming system is just a link in the chain to shooting good pool. I think a lot of the problem in these threads is, that non aiming system guys think that guys that use an aiming system, believe an aiming system will take them to a pro level and the debate goes in a circle. They just dont understand that aiming system guys know its only a link in a chain.
Last edited:
It is a link in the chain, but an important one. IMHO, the master link, so to say. If you miss a shot, 99% of the time you will learn absolutely nothing about your positional play or anything else on that shot. You won't bother to pay attention to it... you missed the shot and that is that, what happened beyond missing does not matter anymore. However if you are potting balls with deliberation, you are going to get a lot more time and focus on the other parts of the game, because now they matter for the next shot.
The "best"? Most of us don't have the time to play seeing how we teach a couple times a week.
Most all SPF Instructors are really good players. Scott & Stan come to mind right away. But Mark, Brad, Red, Rufus, Craig, Pete, Gordy, Tony, Jerry, Page, Rory and the list would go on forever. We teach first and play second.
I would bet that most of these mentioned are National caliber players......:thumbup:
Even I won a couple of games last night.
randyg
Joe Tucker ain't too bad.
TheThaiger
Banned
Thanks. Do any suck? You don't have to name names!
- Status