A long comment on "aiming systems" ...

iusedtoberich said:
BasementDwellers post just reminded me of something worthy of this thread:

I've completely changed my shooting style 3 times in the past 5 or so years. All changes directly affected how I visually perceived the shot.

The first change was getting pool shooting glasses. Before the glasses, I could only see the cue ball clearly, or the object ball clearly, or the pocket clearly. Only one item at a time. Never two or three simultaneously. Getting the glasses completely changed what I could see simultaneously, and hence my perception of the shot.

The second change was I bought Geno's dvd and switched to the method of head alignment and eye use that he advocates. I basically was aiming shots with different eyes now on particular shots, and with different head positions. It meant my perception of the shot changed quite a bit from what I was used to.

The third change was just a few months ago, I switched to a much higher stance due to back problems. Again, my perception of the shot changed quite a bit from what I was used to before.

In all 3 cases, I had to "relearn" some shots. They just looked different, and I had to just get a new "feel" for them by spending a few minutes on problem shots, and also just playing the ghost on my own to get a feel for the general change in my visual perception each change brought upon.

So here is the relevant part to this thread: In all 3 cases, it just took me about a week of playing to become completely comfortable with my new perception of the shot, and to have the same overall speed as before. My point is, at least in my experience, aiming and sighting are so simple, that 3 separate drastic changes in my situation, took only 1 week to feel completely comfortable with. I just can't understand how someone can say it takes months or years to see the right shot line.
Click to expand...


It is amazing how a player's "view" can change over time, even day to day. I know that when I'm playing well I actually see things slightly differently than the days when I'm not. It's actually kind of hard to describe but in particular I see the relationship between the CB and my cue tip a little differently (stay away, Geno, not talking dominant eye here :-)

Getting back to your post, I agree with what you're saying about "sighting in" the shots. For me it takes two or three days, maybe three hours a day. It certainly doesn't take months.

Lou Figueroa
 
When I have the energy I will do an honest write up and post on how I view and use cte/pro1, it should also be helpful for some people trying to learn it, and I think it will also pretty much make everyone else happy.
 
lfigueroa said:
It is amazing how a player's "view" can change over time, even day to day. I know that when I'm playing well I actually see things slightly differently than the days when I'm not. It's actually kind of hard to describe but in particular I see the relationship between the CB and my cue tip a little differently (stay away, Geno, not talking dominant eye here :-)

Getting back to your post, I agree with what you're saying about "sighting in" the shots. For me it takes two or three days, maybe three hours a day. It certainly doesn't take months.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Lou, using perfect aim sometimes and doesn't even know it. Should really learn to use it all the time.
 
champ2107 said:
When I have the energy I will do an honest write up and post on how I view and use cte/pro1, it should also be helpful for some people trying to learn it, and I think it will also pretty much make everyone else happy.
Click to expand...


That's what would be nice. A lot less testimony, and a whole lot more description or instruction.


In order to be 100% truthful, I must state that there still is a chance that CTE works, but that it has not been explained fully or correctly. However, based on current explanations, it has been disproved. Or better yet, to be most accurate with my language, it has not been fully explained or proved.


The supporters, believers and proponents of the system have failed in explaining it. Perhaps us skeptics should work on trying to prove their theory FOR them? Perhaps they are crying out for help and it is coming out the wrong way? We, the skeptics, are thus far better adherents to logic and reason, with a more staunch belief in evidence, proof and facts. We might be better equipped to explore the subject and develop a geometric / diagram proof for their system? I didn't say we're smarter, just more 'scientific' if you will in our approach. The system users are all very, very passionate about it. I tried explaining this off as placebo effect and other things. But what if it is not? What if they are onto something, and all this frustration is a result of a lack of communication (finding an explanation)?


That's kind of tough thing to ask for. I'm being an idealist. Because if someone comes up with a proof, chances are it will also come along with a slightly different procedure, and thus be an altered version of the system or it's own system. At which point, the person proving it or accurately describing it will likely want credit for said system. That along will bring forth a lot of problems.
 
Nice post Basement, I do agree with what you said about cueing fundamentals are to the game.

I learned CTE/Pro1 beginning of last year. My game experienced a spike because of it. For me, I was pretty good at making balls when I got close, but longer shots or certain angles just always bothered me. I'd make them, but say 70%. Learning CTE, and the direct and indirect benefits that came with it, allowed me to recalibrate my aim and reach a point where I KNEW that I was on the correct line. It helped me increase my percentage on those shots to 90% and made the short - medium shots automatic. Overall just increased my confidence so I could focus on other things.

Shortly after that, though, I took a lesson, started experimenting with things, changed equipment, etc. And oh yeah, shortened my playing time. Looking back, I think I pushed too hard to keep improving, sensing that next level. So I hit a slump, and as with most slumps I didn't know the problem until I came out of it.

You know what I did to come out of it? Fundamentals. I worked on my stroke and PSR, which had gotten funk'ed up from too much experimentation. I smoothed out my transitions and focus. I settled on a shaft and refined my english adjustments.

So now I'm back to normal, even better actually. With a few more weeks of practice to regain my confidence with some of the new stroke thoughts I'll be playing better than I ever have.


The CTE guys have already said that fundamentals and other aspects of the game are of course important, maybe even more so than aiming. No one is disputing that. I don't think it matters much what percentage each account for, bottom line is you can't play well without both. If you already see the balls great and have confidence in ball pocketing, as a lot of pros do from all of the time they put in to the game, then obviously CTE or any other system or change to your aiming routine would not be necessary or an advantage. Minus some of the things that were self-caused, I just know for me and some others that CTE/Pro1 allowed me to increase my pocketing ability, plain and simple.

Scott
 
Grilled Cheese said:
The supporters, believers and proponents of the system have failed in explaining it.
Click to expand...

Is the link below not explained well enough? Stan's Pro One is also very complete. Either system executed exactly as prescribed will bring real results. About the only thing (I can think of) that is not geometrically diagrammed is the "visual intelligence" component that comes through practice, explained by AtLarge on post #99 of the linked thread.

http://forums.azbilliards.com//showthread.php?t=262005

I do agree that the system is not completely defined geometrically. I disagree that it is placebo... the results are the real deal, however you may want to interpret them.
 
Last edited:
Grilled Cheese said:
That's what would be nice. A lot less testimony, and a whole lot more description or instruction.


In order to be 100% truthful, I must state that there still is a chance that CTE works, but that it has not been explained fully or correctly. However, based on current explanations, it has been disproved. Or better yet, to be most accurate with my language, it has not been fully explained or proved.


The supporters, believers and proponents of the system have failed in explaining it. Perhaps us skeptics should work on trying to prove their theory FOR them? Perhaps they are crying out for help and it is coming out the wrong way? We, the skeptics, are thus far better adherents to logic and reason, with a more staunch belief in evidence, proof and facts. We might be better equipped to explore the subject and develop a geometric / diagram proof for their system? I didn't say we're smarter, just more 'scientific' if you will in our approach. The system users are all very, very passionate about it. I tried explaining this off as placebo effect and other things. But what if it is not? What if they are onto something, and all this frustration is a result of a lack of communication (finding an explanation)?


That's kind of tough thing to ask for. I'm being an idealist. Because if someone comes up with a proof, chances are it will also come along with a slightly different procedure, and thus be an altered version of the system or it's own system. At which point, the person proving it or accurately describing it will likely want credit for said system. That along will bring forth a lot of problems.
Click to expand...


I was replying to an earlier post and just saw this one.

Cheese, I think I know where you are coming from. I'm normally very much in the math/logic/skeptic camp. I didn't get it at first and gave up messing with 90/90 and CTE a few years ago when I resumed playing again and heard about it. Then when Stan's DVD came out, I decided to give it another try and it still took some time to really get it because I was having a hard time keeping from over analyzing everything.

I tried to figure out "how" it works, tried to come up with my own diagrams and theories, as did many people here. As you mentioned in a previous post, if it does work it may require a more 3D capable rendering software than most of us have access to or understand how to use. It certainly doesn't make sense on 2D paper has many have drawn and proved.

Since I can't prove it, but I see the results and know it works, I've also mentioned many times that maybe it is a trick of the brain, "visual intelligence", just another way to calibrate a shot like the fractional systems etc. Let's face it, there are a large number of possible shots and angles, and while there is a certain amount of leeway to the pocket there certainly isn't just 3, or 6, or even 12 pure lines of aim that make all shots. But that's just what a lot of the aiming systems are based on, at least on paper.

For me, it seems that these fractions, or aim lines, or reflections, or whatever the systems are based on, move slightly as the balls move closer, farther, or laterally. This then generates a new reference line from which to begin, and from there a small adjustment/pivot can be made to reach the correct line of aim. Maybe if the table wasn't a perfect rectangle this wouldn't work - others have said "What if you want to shoot 6" above the pocket"?

For me, I keep trying to wade through any aiming discussions I see, which becomes increasingly difficult, in the hope that I do pick up some interesting knowledge from either side. And I'm certainly happy to discuss in more detail my findings and experimentation, especially since I'm a somewhat recent "convert" (I hate to use that term...) to the system.

Scott
 
JoeyA said:
Randy,
There are shortcuts to learning. You as an instructor, know this (if you are an instructor, as I don't really know who you are).


No one is saying that if you learn ANY particular aiming system that you will become a world class player, based upon that alone. The only people saying this are the ones who don't like CTE/Pro1.

I agree that motivation toward excellence is probably overlooked by many people as one of the most important mental aspects of the game.

You sound like you know the game well and that you understand teaching.
But if you truly understood teaching, you have to acknowledge that there are many people who are learning how to play better pool by learning CTE/Pro1, if not by what is in the video, then by what other people have reported in their own personal journey with CTE/Pro1.

Personally speaking I don't think that anyone has to learn CTE/Pro1 to become a great player.

I don't even believe that CTE/Pro1 is necessarily the best method for learning how to aim. I DO KNOW CTE/Pro1can help some people play better pool.

I've used practically every aiming sytem on the market and they all work to some degree. Some are so simple they can be explained in minutes but it may take you a lifetime to execute consistently.

CTE/Pro1 is an all encompassing, aiming system designed to help the player get to the correct sight pattern.

I'm with you 100% on the fundamentals, the mental game and the thousands of hours of quality practice.

You're right that no one system works for all. But you're WRONG if you said CTE/Pro1 is a waste of money and you owe Stan an apology in person and on this forum.
Click to expand...

You are quite correct! I do owe Stan an apology...not only was the video not a waste of money, but I will try hard to incorporate some of the material in my teaching. Thank you for reminding me that we are all passionate about this game...and we should share our knowledge without denigrating those whose opinions differ from ours on ANY aspect of the game! Sorry...:embarrassed2:
 
nice thread

have you ever considered marketing, this thread has averaged almost over 150 posts per day:thumbup:
 
Grilled Cheese said:
For some people, aiming systems are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I do not doubt that there are people who are deficient in their ability to aim. I just think that aiming is something that can be and is learned fairly well in the intermediate stage of one's pool game development. What is holding players back is stroke.

I also believe that when a player gets stuck at a certain point, or plateaus...chances are they can look back to stroke as the cause for that. It's not just about proper cuing, but over all consistency. That's the hard part. Building yourself into a machine that can repeat something the same way time and time again is very difficult. That is why I sometimes say the aiming system people want the diet pill easy way out.

Why think of aiming as the obstacle, when most players cannot get down and execute a particular shot exactly the same way 50 out of 50 times?


It's easier to tell someone their aim is off. It's easier for someone to cling to the idea that their aim is bad. Because on the surface, aiming is something that can be learned and applied mentally and visually. Consistency is a function of the mind, vision and body. Consistency absolutely relies on hard core muscle memory and extreme high level discipline. That takes work.


The way the whole thing is presented by many of the aimers is as if they are suggesting they've got the stroke part down pat. Now, when I say that - they freak out and say "we don't down play stroke" ...I understand that, but how/why does one toil with an aiming system when they cannot produce consistent stroke results?


Again, as I mentioned previously in this now long thread, I will bring back an analogy I used.


Say you learn something in a book. For example, you learn how to make a closed bridge. You see it. It tells you step by step how to move your fingers to get it done. Where they should be. How it should look. But that newbie player then goes to do it. And what happens? They can't quite get it right. Because while they KNOW what to do, their muscles/body does not know what to do.

Same with stroke mechanics. We all know what the text-book perfect stance and stroke looks like. Most of us know what we need to do, how to do it. But does our body and muscles know how to do it? Perhaps sometimes. For beginners, they don't. Most grips, stances and strokes (whatever the sport) are awkward for beginners. They feel unnatural. Anything being done for the first time, that is unfamiliar doesn't feel natural or right. But as it is practiced, the muscles and body become comfortable with those movements and positions.


Eventually, the body knows how to do these things. The arm knows how to stroke the ball. The muscles are familiar with the motion. At that point, it is known what needs to be done - now the problem or goal is training the body and mind to be able to do it consistently. Which means, without flaw or for a great number of repetitions before error.



It's like the saying "amateurs practice until they get it right, pros practice until they can't get it wrong"


That's it in a nutshell really. I'll talk about myself briefly. I have made every single known shot on the table several times before. The most extreme cuts. The table length draw shots. The toughest speed control shots. The most delicate hits. You name it. I have come across it all, and successfully executed all of them, many times on different occasions.


But can I do that to the vast majority of those shots nearly all the time? NO. Repeat. NO. If I could, I'd be a pro. I'm not even talking about super hard shots, those even the pros miss. Great pool isn't making tough shots all the time, it's having the control to set yourself up for easy shots all the time. To do that, one needs consistency.


It's not aim that botches that up most of the time. It's failure in speed control, it's improper cuing causing inadvertent spin, or too much or too little spin. It's improper cuing that alters angles by the ever slightest of margins, which changes the course of everything that results from the shot (direction of CB, OB etctera). It's many things like that.


To prove this to myself, I used to do practice drills where I would force myself to absolutely declare out loud every single thing I was doing before I would do it. Therefore, everything had a plan, but more so - to prove that I knew exactly what to do. There was no ignorance on the shot. Including line of aim. And that way - it becomes strictly a matter of EXECUTION. When the execution fails, I have nothing else to look at but mechanics, which includes stroke.


Aim is critical and is mandatory part of the game, but it is overrated in the over all equation of what to work on the most and what will pay off the most in one's game.
Click to expand...

It's your take that the problem doesn't exist.

Say hypothetically you take a person and train them to have a perfect stroke. You do this on a regular table not a pool table. You make a perfect line on the table for them to see their cue action, you do the bottle, you get their bridge formation perfect, you get their stance dead solid. Everything about them looks better than Van Boening's form.

Then you take them to the pool table and turn them loose with ZERO instruction on aiming.

You just toss out 15 balls and tell them to run them off by hitting center cue ball.

How many shots do you think it will take before they run those balls off?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Now repeat the experiment but this time before you let them run the balls off you give a five minute lesson on Ghost Ball aiming.

How many shots this time to run those first fifteen balls?

I think simple thought exercises like these are easy enough to prove that Aiming is a "problem" that needs a solution.

Ghost Ball has traditionally been that solution. Without it aiming in pool gets much harder to learn and much harder to teach.

------------------------------------------------------------------

All that you described applies 100% to aiming as a skill. Whether you choose to use GB, raw trial and error, or any other aiming method the fact is that you have to TRAIN in it until you master it.

As for whether stroke or aiming is more important I think it's a false dichotomy to make it one or the other or even to say one is more important than the other one.

BUT if I HAD to choose only one to learn then it would be the stroke.

Because I know that even with a good stroke a person can be successful in pool to a degree because their brain will compensate for the bad aim and the shooter will develop a steering approach to make most of the shots he plays. Thus you have the situation where the person develops a great kitchen table stroke that is textbook perfect but in game situations he steers (body english) a lot but still gets out.

And if you someday decide to really force yourself to stop the steering then by default you MUST correct your aiming. Because the two things coexist and are intertwined.

There is not other way to make the ball than to be on the RIGHT aiming line and stroking straight or to be on the WRONG aiming line and steering the cue ball to the right spot.

Aiming and Execution in Pool Video
 
JB Cases said:
It's your take that the problem doesn't exist.

Say hypothetically you take a person and train them to have a perfect stroke. You do this on a regular table not a pool table. You make a perfect line on the table for them to see their cue action, you do the bottle, you get their bridge formation perfect, you get their stance dead solid. Everything about them looks better than Van Boening's form.

Then you take them to the pool table and turn them loose with ZERO instruction on aiming.

You just toss out 15 balls and tell them to run them off by hitting center cue ball.

How many shots do you think it will take before they run those balls off?
Click to expand...


I never said aiming wasn't important. Or that a person will play well who doesn't know how to aim at all just because they have a super-stroke. What I said was that sufficient aiming is learned way, way earlier in one's game than the perfection of their stroke. Or before they develop a high level, or high quality stroke. I contend that a lot of what is blamed on aiming, should really be blamed on stroke error. I've even conceded like 15 times already in this thread that despite all that, aim error can still exist or creep up here and there.


All that you described applies 100% to aiming as a skill. Whether you choose to use GB, raw trial and error, or any other aiming method the fact is that you have to TRAIN in it until you master it.

As for whether stroke or aiming is more important I think it's a false dichotomy to make it one or the other or even to say one is more important than the other one.

BUT if I HAD to choose only one to learn then it would be the stroke.
Click to expand...


Yes, you're right, it would be a false dichotomy to make it one or the other. Which is why I never said such a thing. It would also be false to state one has greater importance than the other. They are both needed to execute a shot. Without one, the shot misses.

My position, if you would read for once to understand - is that aiming is easier to learn and get decent at; whereas, stroke takes a long time. Think of it like collecting tools on your way to having a full shop. The aiming tool gets acquired earlier on. But the stroke tool takes time to get. The job requires both, but the missing stroke tool is ruining the whole job.


You provided a thought experiment about which is quoted. I reject it, because it is not based on what I said or what I claim. Instead, here is a better thought experiment...


Take an APA SL5, give that person SVB's stroke. Would they or would they not almost instantly go up several levels? I say that because an SL5 has decent aiming. Can aim most shots. Now, for the sake of this thought experiment, I am excluding game-knowledge (position play, routes, strategy). They may miss some shots because of wrong aim. Sure.


Now, take that same APA SL5 ...but instead of having SVB's stroke, they now have Stan Shuffett's ability to determine perfect aim lines. Will they be as good? They'll improve because that mediocre/decent aim will now become near flawless aim. But, that potential will never be realized because their stroke sucks. And yes, APA SL5's have poor stroke. This assumes that CTE even works in the first place. But this is for the sake of argument.



What is the difference in my thought experiment? I assume an intermediate level of aiming knowledge and skill. I don't think there's anyone, short of a complete first day beginner, who doesn't have some aiming ability. Your experiment is extreme for that reason, and not based on what I am claiming.



For the 20th time, what is holding people back the most is stroke. We've all seen those drills that are designed to improve stroke/cuing accuracy, as well as expose flaws. If a player tries those, and is not consistently getting perfect execution or results - why would they successfully execute one of those cut shots in CTE? The margin of error in their cuing and stroke is enough to miss many of these cuts. Am I or am I not right saying that? Most people cannot hit the CB exactly where needed on a consistent basis. Because of that, the CB goes in a direction they don't intent. And thus, shots are missed and positions are botched. More often than not, the intermediate player has a plenty fine line of aim and understanding of where to send the ball.



My advice, those stroke precision tests and drills....if a player isn't scoring very well on those with good consistency....don't worry too much about "aiming systems" yet. Definitely aim, definitely keep learning all aspects of the game. Including aim. But you've got bigger fish to fry!
 
Deleted...............................................................................................................................................................
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top