A long comment on "aiming systems" ...
- Thread starter Grilled Cheese
- Start date
I guess that depends on which "as advertised" statement you are referring to. All cut shot aiming systems are for "center pocket" aiming, so I have no objection there. Any "aiming system" will "work when done properly," so I also have no objection there.
The issue comes with what "when done properly" means. If you follow any of the CTE aiming system procedures exactly and strictly, they will not provide the necessary line of aim for a wide range of cut shots. This is totally obvious and has been made very clear by many people over many years. For explanations, illustrations, examples, and proof, see all of the resources here:
And even if an aiming system could somehow accurately and automatically give you the theoretical line of aim for a shot, one would still need to know and have a feel for how to make adjustments for squirt, swerve, and throw (CIT and SIT).
Regardless of all of this stuff, people can still learn to use any version of CTE, or any aiming system, effectively. I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to understand and explain "how CTE works" for a wide range of shots. If people are curious, see approaches 1-4 on my CTE evaluation and analysis page. Some of these approaches have actually been mentioned in this and other recent threads.
Do you need to know any of this stuff to be able to use CTE effectively? Absolutely not. Will this stuff help some people understand why they are not able to get CTE to work for them? Absolutely yes. Might it help some people learn how to use CTE more effectively? Maybe. Regardless, I think it is useful to understand how procedures that don't seem to make sense on the surface can in fact work in practice.
Cut-shot aiming systems offer many potential benefits to many people. Kick and bank shot systems are also extremely useful; although, it is still very important to have a feel for all of the kick and bank effects so adjustments can be made when appropriate. Systems for predicting CB path are also extremely useful, but one still needs to have a good feel for how to adjust for speed and conditions. I could go on and on, but I won't.
Systems of all sorts can be very useful to many people, and I think it is always important to understand and appreciate both the benefits and limitations of these systems. I think that helps many of us use the systems more effectively at the table.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
You always come back with cte doesn't work for a wide range of cut angles but never offered any proof. Not going to bother going to your website as there is a bunch of bad cte stuff on there, however I feel you should post some of these angles here for discussion. Please stick with those angles you have table experience with and not those you have just some opinion on. To many have opinions without table experience so lets stick to that, table experience.
Those resource pages contain far too much info to post here. If you don't want to look at the info, that is your choice; but I think the "proof" you seek is there.
Does this "proof" imply that the various versions of CTE cannot be used effectively? Absolutely not!!!
Regards,
Dave
Dave, Out of all the aiming systems that you've tried, which one(s) would you consider to be the best?
Champ i use different ways of linging up on shots but the best system on a wide range of shots is back of the ball aiming.It offers a lot my friend.
Add center tip side of tip to this and understand what distance does you will learn a lot from it.
Last edited:
I personally use and prefer DAM (Dave's Aiming Method). Ignore the spoofy marketing intro at the beginning and jump to the useful advice section.
Briefly, DAM suggests using all visual information available to help see the required angle and the necessary line of aim for a shot. It also recommends a purposeful and consistent pre-shot routine, with the vision center aligned directly over the aiming line for every shot, regardless of cut direction. Quiet eyes, both in the set position and during the final forward stroke, are also an important part of DAM. See the useful advice link for a more complete description with lots of supporting resources.
Regards,
Dave
Sure. If it is that important to you to go on video and lie about being someone you are not then if you run five racks in a row on video for all of us to see the I will never make another public post on azb. (I have to finish up the pm conversations)
So post it. You have until the 29th.
www.jbcases.com
I am a mediocre player. Every now and again I might run a 9 or 10 ball rack on a 9 ft table.
I don't know if this example can explain this situation.
There are some shots I see on the table. I know I can stun, draw, put side spin, follow, force follow, power draw and still can make the ball and get in shape.
And there are other shots, I am only comfortable with center ball or a little top spin.
And there are shots that I am not even comfortable with. Sometimes I make them but mostly I miss them.
Here is my two cents.
There is no comparison between me and Earl, Shane, Darren, Efren and other greats. I suck and I know it.
I am sure all the greats have these 3 type of shots just like I do. There are shots they are comfortable with, some they will only use the center ball and others they won't attack because they don't know if they can make it or not.
There is a difference though, these shots they are comfortable with are A LOT more than mine.
In my opinion, the problem is, we like to believe a magic formula will increase those shots which we are comfortable with.
If I hit 5000 balls a week, then yea I would have way more comfortable shots.
What do you guys think? Is this an accurate statement?
I don't know if this example can explain this situation.
There are some shots I see on the table. I know I can stun, draw, put side spin, follow, force follow, power draw and still can make the ball and get in shape.
And there are other shots, I am only comfortable with center ball or a little top spin.
And there are shots that I am not even comfortable with. Sometimes I make them but mostly I miss them.
Here is my two cents.
There is no comparison between me and Earl, Shane, Darren, Efren and other greats. I suck and I know it.
I am sure all the greats have these 3 type of shots just like I do. There are shots they are comfortable with, some they will only use the center ball and others they won't attack because they don't know if they can make it or not.
There is a difference though, these shots they are comfortable with are A LOT more than mine.
In my opinion, the problem is, we like to believe a magic formula will increase those shots which we are comfortable with.
If I hit 5000 balls a week, then yea I would have way more comfortable shots.
What do you guys think? Is this an accurate statement?
100% accurate. Shane made a point of saying this when he was talking about the way he aims. He said that the way he aims was developed THROUGH hitting about 5000 balls a week (I bet it he was hitting more than that).
In any field the more you do it the better you get. This applies to sex, softball and pool. At some point it becomes more mental than physical.
I used to think I was a pretty good player. And in fact I am a pretty good player IF compared to people knocking them around in bars while drunk.
But compared to the top pros and top amateur players and shortstops I am not a good player. It's taken me a long time to accept that I can't get to that level without putting in the time. No aiming system or fundamentals is going to transport you there. Learning these things is only one of the stepping stones across the creek on the way to the base of the mountain you have to climb. That mountain is a mountain of balls.
But you have to have something to be grounded in while doing that or you are going to spend a lot of time climbing up and sliding down.
That's why I advocate aiming systems. They ground you. Then hitting those balls becomes really meaningful.
I use Hal's systems and even when doing it wrong I still have a base to start from that has helped me to play better pool. That's what this is all about for me. It's not about figuring out a shortcut to go straight to the top of the mountain. It's about finding a way to climb that actually gets you farther up the mountain than you could get on your own.
No one does it completely alone. People say aiming systems are bogus and that they are gimmicks. Well Shane Van Boening used a BreakRak to practice his breaking. This device was developed by an amateur player because he saw a need for some way to practice hitting the rack hard without having to interrupt the flow and rerack all the time. He figured out a way for players to practice breaking hundreds of times an hour until they really developed the understanding and muscle memory to hit the cue ball at speed exactly where they needed to. Shane is the highest profile player to admit to using it and is obviously successful.
So you can hit 5000 balls a week and you can't help but get better. But what if you have Buddy Hall or Efren standing beside you when you are doing it? How much better would you get then?
Since you can't have Jimmy then you have us. You have a team of players from across the globe willing to argue to infinity about the best way to practice, play and poop. You can take what you want to the table and leave the rest.
But you do have to get up from the keyboard and take it to the table seriously and deeply if you want to get better.
For me personally, and this is COMPLETELY my personal experience, I am a better player for the things I learned from this forum's members that I took the time to really practice. There are a lot of shots that I used to dog ALL the time which I now dog SOME of the time and a very few which I dog NONE of the time thanks to some of the things I have learned here.
Any level of play requires practice. Some people get there quicker than others, some never get where they want to be. This may be due to plain lack of ability, not enough practice, or both.
So then the question: does system A work easier/better/more efficient than system B? That may not be important if you practice hours every day: you can make up for inefficiencies with brute force practice. The efficiency of a system is certainly more important if your time is limited, or your natural ability is limited, or both.
JC
Coos Cues
John I said I could do it today, not this month. But I spent an hour or so and failed so I give up. I choked a straight in nine ball in the fifth rack of one run for the cheese. I'm too embarrassed to post the video so you win. I didn't want to have to lie and all that stuff anyway. I just wanted a challenge for my practice time today. Thanks,
JC
I hate it when that happens. If it makes you feel any better at one time Williards had a big 9 Ball event where they had a huge bonus for anyone who ran five complete racks of nine ball from the break. Something like 10,000 dollars to anyone who could do it. Buddy Hall is the only player who got close and if I remember right he dogged the nine in the fifth rack.
I hate it when I am spending a little time trying to show something on video and it's cruising along well and then I dog a couple shots and have to start over. It helps to think of the Miller Lite commercial where Mizerak reportedly did close to two hundred takes to make the shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tYL2Btxmjg