A long comment on "aiming systems" ...

justadub said:
Sean, the moment I finished posting, I knew I'd be "stepping into it" with you on this issue
:D

I don't plan on detailing this thread, further away from where it's already gone. We've had this go-round before, and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The relevant point to the discussion at hand would be this: exactly who is benefiting from all of this accursed "cte marketing"? Up until last year, there wasn't a commercial product specifically aimed (heh heh) at cte use. I don't recall anyone spamming the boards trying to sell cte lessons, even though the SPF guys mention they teach a version of it.

From my experience, the bulk of the cte discussion has been from people who aren't making a nickle from it. Stan hasn't exactly run roughshod over the forum, has he?

So explain to me how the relentless cte discussions here have to be considered "marketing"?

(For the record, Sean, I believe you and I would get along famously in person. I would love to have a drink and shoot some pool with you someday. Well, ok, I'd have a drink and rack for a while....but you get the idea!)
Click to expand...

JAD (short for "justadub"? :) ):

I was mainly cueing in on (no apologies for the pun ;) ) your statement of, "Some folks here seem to have a problem when certain individuals promote their products here, while others, like Dave, don't seem to attract the same venom." Not at CTE in particular. I was mainly focused in on your hint / proposal / innuendo that "things are unfair." Please don't misunderstand me on that point.

I think *all* of the aiming system proponents have one thing in mind above all else -- to help their pool brethren without any requirement of compensation or hidden agendas. That is a very admirable trait. (Like I said, there is one aiming guy who was very different in that regard, but I've already expressed myself fully there.)

But to answer your question as to how the CTE discussions can be (or have been) considered "marketing," I need only to engage your wayback machine a couple years or three, to the kind of statements proposed as to "why" to learn these systems over other more-proven methods of improving one's pool game (e.g. fundamentals, stroke, formal instruction, etc.). Back in those days, there *have* been engagments of specious marketing. It doesn't matter if the product is free or a commercial product -- if you are pushing it, you are marketing, plain and simple. It's the very definition of marketing.

These days though? I don't think the aiming system guys are marketing at all. In fact, I think some valuable lessons were learned about those initial days, and instead, they're trying to have a normal forum discussion about the topic, without those that remember those initial days jumping in, pointing fingers, and crying "marketing foul." Would you agree?

Thoughts?
-Sean

P.S.: I agree on the "getting along famously" thing. Will you be at SBE? I have some scheduling difficulties at the moment -- not sure if I'll able to attend the whole four days / compete in the Open 10-ball event -- but if not, I will at least be there on the weekend.
 
Sean, you're probably right, about the sins of the past being revisited lately.

And no, I doubt I will be at SBE, as much as I would love to go. A couple of guys here were talking about maybe getting a group together to go, and split expenses. I dunno if thats still a go, or if I could get away. Some day... Sigh
 
sfleinen said:
JAD (short for "justadub"? :) ):

I was mainly cueing in on (no apologies for the pun ;) ) your statement of, "Some folks here seem to have a problem when certain individuals promote their products here, while others, like Dave, don't seem to attract the same venom." Not at CTE in particular. I was mainly focused in on your hint / proposal / innuendo that "things are unfair." Please don't misunderstand me on that point.

I think *all* of the aiming system proponents have one thing in mind above all else -- to help their pool brethren without any requirement of compensation or hidden agendas. That is a very admirable trait. (Like I said, there is one aiming guy who was very different in that regard, but I've already expressed myself fully there.)

But to answer your question as to how the CTE discussions can be (or have been) considered "marketing," I need only to engage your wayback machine a couple years or three, to the kind of statements proposed as to "why" to learn these systems over other more-proven methods of improving one's pool game (e.g. fundamentals, stroke, formal instruction, etc.). Back in those days, there *have* been engagments of specious marketing. It doesn't matter if the product is free or a commercial product -- if you are pushing it, you are marketing, plain and simple. It's the very definition of marketing.

These days though? I don't think the aiming system guys are marketing at all. In fact, I think some valuable lessons were learned about those initial days, and instead, they're trying to have a normal forum discussion about the topic, without those that remember those initial days jumping in, pointing fingers, and crying "marketing foul." Would you agree?

Thoughts?
-Sean

P.S.: I agree on the "getting along famously" thing. Will you be at SBE? I have some scheduling difficulties at the moment -- not sure if I'll able to attend the whole four days / compete in the Open 10-ball event -- but if not, I will at least be there on the weekend.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with your one example :) He has delivered more free phone lessons to members here than any other intructors combined. He has clocked his time as much as anyone else.

Dave
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I respectfully disagree with your one example :) He has delivered more free phone lessons to members here than any other intructors combined. He has clocked his time as much as anyone else.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave:

That's LATELY -- within the last 6 months, which is a fraction of his overall time here on AZB. Sure, one shouldn't be "forever condemned" for past faux pas (and I offer kudos to him for changing his ways), but the past majority-of-his-time here was indeed the specious marketing I mentioned, and was the example I was getting at.

Anyway, it was just a point to counter justadub's proposal of "unfairness" when it comes to allowance to market commercial products without being poo-pooed.

-Sean
 
scottjen26 said:
That's a great drill, and I admire that you shot it over 5 - 10 times, most people either just move on or shoot it once and move on. Taking the time and focus to do it at least 3 - 5 times will ingrain it in your memory so you can hopefully avoid the same mistake later.

Once you can do 3 balls "perfectly" 15 or 16 out of 20, then you add another ball and keep working until you can do the same with 4 balls etc. Doing this with 6 balls 80% of the time, "perfectly" at least, is challenging, and if anyone can do 7 that's very strong.

This is harder than most people think - I've challenged a lot of players who though it would be easy with 4 balls, they didn't even get close their first time trying it. I've been at 6 balls for quite some time, although I don't do this like I used to, should probably get back to it. Never could seem to get 15 out of 20 consistently, usually in the 12 - 14 range. But I'm very strict with it - if I anticipate my shot and end up with a too long of a shot, or too sharp of a cut, or a bank, or even end up with a good shot but not on the side of the ball I was planning for, I don't count it. You just have to be honest with yourself as to what type of shot would be reasonable given your level of skill. Damn consistency...

Scott
Click to expand...

Yeah, someone posted it a few weeks ago, can't remember where I saw it... to try to run 50 perfect racks this way. I'm nowhere near 50 out of 50 though.

I have been doing races to 10 with 4 and 5 balls for a few years as part of my practice time, but yesterday was the first time I stopped to reshot missed shots 5 to 10 times. I really want to focus on my weaknesses, and I think a good way to find them is to pay note to the missed shots.
 
champ2107 said:
Yep he is all right, sounds like an old school teacher that is fundamentally based which is cool, and I am sure he has helped thousands of pool players. I like how he talks about aiming systems and has acknowledge that also. I personally would like an instructor like that but one that also can show me more advanced, fresh ideas and that is willing to gain more knowledge so he can be the best instructor he can be and pass it on to his students...but that is just me.
Click to expand...

So I guess you won't mind if he says to YOU too about CTE, "some people get hung up on aiming systems and never progress beyond that point."
 
cfrandy said:
So I guess you won't mind if he says to YOU too about CTE, "some people get hung up on aiming systems and never progress beyond that point."
Click to expand...

And the operative word is SOME.

"Some" people get hung up on things and never get past them while others master it an move on.

SOME people are completely hung up on being negative and contrary and they never get past it. SOME people are entrenched in a certain ways to play which the THINK are "traditional" even though they themselves aren't successful players and even though those methods are not really traditional.

Some people just enjoy being jerks it seems. Takes all kinds to make a world. Would be boring if it was all lovey dovey all the time. I find it refreshing that SOME of you offer yourselves up so willingly to be my verbal punching bag. A little more study and a little more table time would get you past it but hey if you want to stay ignorant and stubborn then thanks for being there for me to vent on you. It's very appreciated.

It is awfully funny that SOME people dismiss it when a system advocate uses a top instructor who teaches aiming systems as their example of validity and then those SAME people want to use a top instructor who doesn't teach the disputed aiming systems as their example of invalidity.

Chicken meet Egg.
 
JB Cases said:
It is awfully funny that SOME people dismiss it when a system advocate uses a top instructor who teaches aiming systems as their example of validity and then those SAME people want to use a top instructor who doesn't teach the disputed aiming systems as their example of invalidity.

Chicken meet Egg.
Click to expand...


Don't feel good about your fallacious use of the "appeal to authority" because others may indulge in the same error. Two wrongs, don't make a right.
 
No one has really addressed the weaknesses I pointed out.

There were no proofs offered in rebuttal.

So, suck eggs.

I'm at Edgies in Milpitas , table 20......come lets play.
 
LAMas said:
Diagrams requested.

Please focus on "A" for they are the same distance.

View attachment 213467
Click to expand...




Those are excellent diagrams. But they are lacking in information. For one, they do not account for the pocket. How is the line of aim found using CTE when the pocket is in a different place? The CB to OB relationship may be the same, but the position on the table demands a different contact point. This goes back to the 3-balls problem described and illustrated on Dr. Dave's site.


The other issue is that this diagram still does not illustrate a concrete definitive way by which to pivot. That is still left up to feel or judgement.


I do thank you for this diagram. One of the best ones I've seen. It does show how a CTE system can get a person on the line aim, but with two big problems - it gets them on the line for one given position only, and there's still no account or definition for the pivot. A system that gives the line of aim for a very, very limited and narrow range of shots isn't very useful. Especially one with the complexity and procedure of CTE. It's just not worth it.
 
JB Cases said:
I think you gave Bolo Ocho/Grilled Cheese some major props in this thread though (not entirely sure about that). Since you claim to only want experts what are his credentials such that you praise him?
Click to expand...
Since you asked. :rolleyes:

"Grilled Cheese, Thank you for pointing out via your very logical arguments that the real trolls of this thread are the aiming systems mafia."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top