How did Ralph Greenleaf "Aim"?

[Bambu]

I tend to avoid "aiming" threads like the plague yet here I find myself, just having read this entire one.

Keeping with my tradition, I will not comment specifically on aiming but, rather, I would like to comment on another aspect.

The general direction these aiming threads tend to take is a steep downward spiral, civility all but lost.

There are a number of guys who have posted on this thread for whom I have a lot of respect. I am disappointed, however, to see so many unconstructive (and occasionally insulting/meanspirited) comments coming from them. For whatever reasons aiming has become an extremely emotional topic.

Like him or not - agree with him or not, Dr. Dave strikes me as always being very respectful to everyone when sharing his opinions. And unless I have missed something egregious coming from him, I believe he deserves the same in return.

This is an interesting subject to many and without a doubt there will be plenty more aiming threads to come. It would be nice to think that going forward, before hitting the send button, that the "yeasayers" and the "naysayers" could all make a genuine effort toward making their points in a more respectful way.

Best,
Brian kc

They hate dave because he tears up cte, plain and simple. Maybe if he separated some of the funny cte stuff into a humorous section, system guys wouldnt feel so disrespected. As for the linking he does, I see nothing wrong with it. Sometimes its helpful, especially to newer readers.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I guess people see what they want to see! I see Ralph compensating for extreme english...not pivoting! Ralph uses the same method of aiming that he teaches others...ghostball! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPDUnTKJ-5s

Who said Ralph was pivoting or using CTE? I know I didn't. I presented another connection to Ralph who 100% did. That leaves the possibility it also came from Hal (or not). We'll never know.

I've watched that video a LOT. NOBODY (you or me included) can definitively say what Ralph is truly doing (ghostball, pivoting or otherwise) based on that video alone.

Who knows --- and truthfully --- it doesn't matter. Jimmy Moore did and Hal did and Fez did. That's all that's known as fact. Hal is the only known source for this stuff. Based on that, that's all that can be assumed since the other three guys are no longer living.

 

[champ2107]

................................

 

[sfleinen]

I am in it to win it.

For me the day aiming systems (the kind that cause arguments) became truly valid was the day I realized that top instructors whom I respect highly and whose business it is to teach pool had started to teach these methods.

I realized that they didn't have to. They all have plenty of students who have plenty of other problems to work on to keep them busy.

There is NO REASON for them to teach these non-standard systems UNLESS there is major benefit to it from their perspective as instructors.

The last thing an instructor want is to send a student away with anything that hurts their game. And any aiming method which does that is going to be damaging to their reputation as an instructor.

So when people who have built solid businesses decided to teach these methods then it's valid for me and we won. It's not just one old man and his ideas and many of the people he has touched who are mostly average players touting the systems. People used the term Houlite and Houligan to be derisive back in the RSB days. And I can see where a nobody like me talking about a great "new" way to aim would rankle some people's ire, especially if they feel they earned their skill "the hard way".

But when top instructors teach it then it means something else. It means that they have evaluated it and found it worth imparting to students who are giving them money for instruction. When a merchant brings in a new product then there is a certain amount of trust between the merchant and the customer who shops his store that he has vetted that product to an acceptable degree. Doesn't always happen that way in the larger world but in the tiny world of pool I tend to feel that when TOP instructors choose to teach aiming systems then they most certainly have looked at them from every angle and figured out how best to teach them.

That is all the proof I need.

Actually John, it BEHOOVES those instructors to teach alternative aiming systems for "course marketability" reasons. As an instructor, you want your course to be packed to the gills with useful information, so that a student walks way with that "Wow!" feeling. If even ONE COMPONENT of that course rings bells with your student, there is a "for that one thing alone, it was money well spent" feeling on the part of the student.

"Pool school" is just that -- teaching anything and everything having to do with improving a student's pool game. It's not just stroke and fundamentals (although these *are* the foundation that everything else is built on -- a weak foundation is a weak pool game, no matter how strong the student can "aim").

It's not so much an endorsement of "this aiming system is important!" as it is making sure the course is chock full of well-rounded information, offering lots of components such that any student that walks through the door has at least something to latch onto, besides the core fundamentals.

I know when I do trade show presentations on information security, I pack it chock full of information from all sides of the fence -- white hat, black hat, and gray hat. Even though I know that some folks walking through the door may be die-hard hackers and phreakers (black hat), information security professionals (white hat), or information security consultants like myself (gray hat). The idea is that *anyone* that walks through my door, gets a chance to walk away with something completely new, besides the well-taught and well-worn information security basics.

I hope this helps,
-Sean

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

They hate dave because he tears up cte, plain and simple. Maybe if he separated some of the funny cte stuff into a humorous section, system guys wouldnt feel so disrespected. As for the linking he does, I see nothing wrong with it. Sometimes its helpful, especially to newer readers.

Well, again, I don't want to become part of the aiming debate but where I'm coming from is that I feel like everyone is entitled to their opinions and to share them as long as it's being done respectfully.

I admit I haven't read all previous aiming threads but from what I have seen, Dr. Dave has always been civil in this debate. People may not agree with what he's saying, and that's certainly their right, but I don't think it's fair for there to be a mob mentality with all of the piling on and low brow insults, etc.

Why not debate this topic in a civil way? It's okay to respectfully disagree.

On his site there is a treasure trove of information on the physics of shotmaking, much of which is demonstrated on video. I very much appreciate the time and effort he has made along with people like Bob Jewett in trying to help us to understand why things happen with pool balls the way they do.

So, while Dr. Dave may be completely wrong on the whole CTE (Pro 1?) aiming issue (I honestly don't know), it's not as if he's new to the game and trying to impose his uninformed opinions on everyone.

I try to, and certainly have learned a lot from coming on az and reading. But when the tone turns ugly, not only is it offputting to me, but in addition it causes the people who have sunk to the level of hurling personal insults to lose credibility.

Debate the topic - not whether someone who doesn't agree with your position is an idiot, fool, or jerk.

Best,
Brian kc

 

[Bambu]

That is not correct, he had an advantage earlier on when the system came out and nobody really understood the system and its hidden qualities and he just took advantage of the unknown and the math of the system.

Now the advantage is on my side because i understand everything about the system other than the math of it. I would like Dr Dave to post up any issues he has with cte/pro1 now, I notice now he is very careful with his post regarding cte and I would love for him to post any limitations or any issues he has with system on here now! or if someone wants to go to his site and cut and paste them here and we could discuss them.

Regarding cte, daves site says the distance between the balls effects the cut angle. There are charts there to show the changes.

 

[JoeyA]

Actually John, it BEHOOVES those instructors to teach alternative aiming systems for "course marketability" reasons. As an instructor, you want your course to be packed to the gills with useful information, so that a student walks way with that "Wow!" feeling. If even ONE COMPONENT of that course rings bells with your student, there is a "for that one thing alone, it was money well spent" feeling on the part of the student.

"Pool school" is just that -- teaching anything and everything having to do with improving a student's pool game. It's not just stroke and fundamentals (although these *are* the foundation that everything else is built on -- a weak foundation is a weak pool game, no matter how strong the student can "aim").

It's not so much an endorsement of "this aiming system is important!" as it is making sure the course is chock full of well-rounded information, offering lots of components such that any student that walks through the door has at least something to latch onto, besides the core fundamentals.

I know when I do trade show presentations on information security, I pack it chock full of information from all sides of the fence -- white hat, black hat, and gray hat. Even though I know that some folks walking through the door may be die-hard hackers and phreakers (black hat), information security professionals (white hat), or information security consultants like myself (gray hat). The idea is that *anyone* that walks through my door, gets a chance to walk away with something completely new, besides the well-taught and well-worn information security basics.

I hope this helps,
-Sean

I agree with you Sean. Teaching alternative aiming systems is good for marketing but it is also good for the varying types of students that an instructor might receive.

Also, a highly talented cueing instructor would be remiss if he or she didn't share "THE METHOD" that they personally use to aim, regardless of what other people use.

For me though, an instructor should be able to demonstrate the techniques with proficiency that they teach. I know that you are not an instructor by trade, but I wouldn't mind taking a pool lesson from you on the snooker style of playing that you have adapted for yourself. I know from your writing that you are highly skilled at pool and it would be fun to learn how you aim, stand, stroke etc.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Regarding cte, daves site says the distance between the balls effects the cut angle. There are charts there to show the changes.

As the CB/OB distance increases (let's say a shot that's parallel to the long rail), the CTEL becomes more vertical (less angle). As it decreases, the angle becomes more acute (more angle).

That, of course, changes one's alignment / visual.

Short distances (within a diamond, for example) can turn a thick shot into a thin shot because the angle from their centers and the CTEL increases.

I hope to someday run into Dr. Dave and have him explain CTE to me at a table. I have a hunch his technique is as strong as his draw shot.

If I were Dr. Dave and striving to be THE AUTHORITY on everything pool, I'd setup a lesson with Stan (who'd prob help him for free) and get to the bottom of it. Go deep undercover, Dave. Get out into the field and leave the forum behind for once. You might learn something.

When I legitimately wanted to learn something... I go to the source and get it. I can't hack Lou at all, but at least when he wants to learn something -- the guy goes to the source (Ray Martin, Dallas West, etc). Dr. Dave does his field research on his computer instead of the field. Can't argue that -- he never visited Stan, Hal or RonV.

 

[dr_dave]

I hope to someday run into Dr. Dave and have him explain CTE to me at a table.

I would be happy to. Let me know when you want to schedule a lesson. :grin:

If I were Dr. Dave and striving to be THE AUTHORITY on everything pool, I'd setup a lesson with Stan (who'd prob help him for free) and get to the bottom of it. Go deep undercover, Dave. Get out into the field and leave the forum behind for once. You might learn something.

Honestly, I don't feel a need to put any additional time and effort into CTE for now. I have already dedicated way too much time and effort over many, many years. If I feel a need to pursue things further in the future, I probably would consider spending some time with Stan.

Dr. Dave does his field research on his computer instead of the field.

Spidey, you are correct that I "don't get out much." Unfortunately my professional and personal commitments don't allow me much free time for travel. However, over the years, I have spent time with and learned from some of the best out there: Jerry Briesath, Randy Goettlicher, Tom Ross, and Bob Jewett. I have also had frequent communication with (and I have learned much from) many other top instructors, a few pros, several top regional players, and other instructional authors. And I have also worked with (and learned from) many excellent students over a wide range of playing ability.

I'm sorry you have so much of an issue with me, but I know this has been the case ever since I first challenged some of the CTE "marketing claims" many years ago. I've tried my best to be respectful and consider all side of the debate, but I know the emotions run deep.

I still hope to meet and get to know you better some day ... I'm sure we would get along much better in person.

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[Roger Long]

No, it's not. Unlike the naysayers, most of us aren't in this to win. Winning and losing has nothing to do with it for us. It's about sharing something that works, and helping others. THAT is what it is about. Unfortunately, each time there are jerks that have to pop up and derail everything, or just flat out start threads just to start a flame war so they can get some attention. When that happens, those that want to help end up spending most of their time dealing with the jerks on here, and the info that would have been given no longer is given. Quite frankly, I am quite shocked that you, as an instructor, have taken the attitude you have towards different aiming methods.

I'm sorry that I have confused you, Neil, but I don't feel that I have an attitude "towards different aiming systems; " I feel that I have an attitude against the attitude that treats aiming as the most important aspect of playing pool, and especially against the attitude that one method of aiming is so far superior to others that no one should ever question or speak negatively about it.

I understand how you feel about wanting to share something that works, but don't you think that there are some knowledgeable "naysayers" on here that also feel they are "helping" those newcomers that would ultimately reject CTE even after checking it out for themselves?

Here's what I'm talking about: From time to time I have people come to me, after reading a little on these boards, and ask me what I know about CTE. My answer is; I know very little about it, but here, I've got a video (Stan's) that explains it very well, and I'll let you check it out for yourself. They then ask, how long is it? I tell them it's about 45 minutes, and they then say, no thanks, maybe later. But not one of them has ever come back and taken me up on my offer. That's rejection. It may be a very close-minded attitude, but what can I do about? I can't ram it down their throats just because I know it could help their games if they would only give it a decent try.

I also have beginner students that just can't naturally "see" the correct line of aim (however, many do), so I have to present them with various available "systems" to let them choose which one they like. Whenever I explain that there is one system (CTE) that will automatically put them on the correct line every time if they are willing to put in the time and effort necessary to learn it; they say, no thanks, and quickly choose the method that looks easiest to them. Again, that's more rejection for CTE, but what am I supposed to do about it?

Just because there are people who will ultimately reject CTE, and just because there other like-minded people who will "help" them reach that conclusion sooner; doesn't mean that all of those people are stupid. It also doesn't mean they are "jerks." I do agree with you, however, that whenever two or more CTE practitioners are enjoying a discussion together, the non-believers should stay out of it. But then, I don't think we should want to push for full censorship, either, do you?

I hope this comes across in the respectful manner it was intended because I do respect you, Neil.

Roger

 

[Ratta]

Hm,

usualy i tried to get me out of these *cte vs "traditional"(or how ever you may call it) systems.
I think there would be several who COULD teach a cte-system, 90/90 or whatever- but imo there are perhaps some guys who are seriously about their abilities. You have to trust 100 % in the system you are usiing and in the system you are teaching.
I m spending now time for about 2-3 months especially just on cte/pro1 and 90/90. Unfortunatley i haven t got the time like i would have wanted- just one sentence from Randy was kind of an eye-opener to me, so that i gave it another try. Since then i was able to work on some shots/angles to receive reproducable results.
But to be honest. I would never allow myself to teach it! I now have a few shots, that i can shoot with 90/90 really exactly- so i m using those for kind of double-checking.
from another system i pulled out something, just to walk into it in a different way bc it helped me to feel better.
So just *these few shots* were the time worth, that i spend on it. Perhaps i m using the old ways for too long time-but i don t think that i would be able to use a cte-based system as *the only one*.

I m still looking forward the day, where i could discuss with a knowledged guy at a table about pro1/90-90 or whatever. And then maybe i learn somethin more. Til then i m good with my traditional systems which i learnt-and at least made them work for me.

To be open minded and respectful would be the key for many here- on both sides.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I'm sorry that I have confused you, Neil, but I don't feel that I have an attitude "towards different aiming systems; " I feel that I have an attitude against the attitude that treats aiming as the most important aspect of playing pool, and especially against the attitude that one method of aiming is so far superior to others that no one should ever question or speak negatively about it.

I understand how you feel about wanting to share something that works, but don't you think that there are some knowledgeable "naysayers" on here that also feel they are "helping" those newcomers that would ultimately reject CTE even after checking it out for themselves?

Here's what I'm talking about: From time to time I have people come to me, after reading a little on these boards, and ask me what I know about CTE. My answer is; I know very little about it, but here, I've got a video (Stan's) that explains it very well, and I'll let you check it out for yourself. They then ask, how long is it? I tell them it's about 45 minutes, and they then say, no thanks, maybe later. But not one of them has ever come back and taken me up on my offer. That's rejection. It may be a very close-minded attitude, but what can I do about? I can't ram it down their throats just because I know it could help their games if they would only give it a decent try.

I also have beginner students that just can't naturally "see" the correct line of aim (however, many do), so I have to present them with various available "systems" to let them choose which one they like. Whenever I explain that there is one system (CTE) that will automatically put them on the correct line every time if they are willing to put in the time and effort necessary to learn it; they say, no thanks, and quickly choose the method that looks easiest to them. Again, that's more rejection for CTE, but what am I supposed to do about it?

Just because there are people who will ultimately reject CTE, and just because there other like-minded people who will "help" them reach that conclusion sooner; doesn't mean that all of those people are stupid. It also doesn't mean they are "jerks." I do agree with you, however, that whenever two or more CTE practitioners are enjoying a discussion together, the non-believers should stay out of it. But then, I don't think we should want to push for full censorship, either, do you?

I hope this comes across in the respectful manner it was intended because I do respect you, Neil.

Roger

It all comes from you. When someone goes to an instructor who thinks CTE is "all marketing" and when you present CTE--- they're ho-hum about it. That's how things work, Roggie.

I sometimes wonder what it is you're really talking about. You're totally on record as saying CTE is nothing but marketing and then you describe how your students don't wanna learn it and reject it.

Ain't that somethin'? Go figure, Rog.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I would be happy to. Let me know when you want to schedule a lesson. :grin:

Honestly, I don't feel a need to put any additional time and effort into CTE for now. I have already dedicated way too much time and effort over many, many years. If I feel a need to pursue things further in the future, I probably would consider spending some time with Stan.

Spidey, you are correct that I "don't get out much." Unfortunately my professional and personal commitments don't allow me much free time for travel. However, over the years, I have spent time with and learned from some of the best out there: Jerry Briesath, Randy Goettlicher, Tom Ross, and Bob Jewett. I have also had frequent communication (and I have learned much from) many other top instructors, a few pros, several top regional players, and other instructional authors. And I have also worked with (and learned from) many excellent students over a wide range of playing ability.

I'm sorry you have so much of an issue with me, but I know this has been the case ever since I first challenged some of the CTE "marketing claims" many years ago. I've tried my best to be respectful and consider all side of the debate, but I know the emotions run deep.

I still hope to meet and get to know you better some day ... I'm sure we would get along much better in person.

Catch you later,
Dave

My only issue with you is that you don't know enough to make your conclusions, yet you do. There's more to these systems, obviously, than what you diagram. Otherwise, we'd all miss 80% of all shots at the table and this topic would have been dead 15 years ago.

I'd be the biggest CTE knocker on earth, like your pal Louie.

Unless I was just joking, I've never made a CTE claim that wasn't true and I've always backed up what I said. It is what it is.

 

[champ2107]

.........................................

 

[champ2107]

..................................

 

[dr_dave]

My only issue with you is that you don't know enough

Are you still working on that massive CTE document you used to talk about all of the time? Do you plan to publish it, either on the Internet or as a printed book? Obviously, a thorough document explaining and illustrating not only how CTE is applied at the table, but also how and why it works for a wide range of shots, could go a long way to quieting these "debates" that have gone on for so many years. Since you know so much about CTE, you might be the best person to publish such a document or book.

I look forward to seeing it some day. Let us know if you still plan to release it.

Regards,
Dave

 

[cfrandy]

Who said Ralph was pivoting or using CTE? I know I didn't. I presented another connection to Ralph who 100% did. That leaves the possibility it also came from Hal (or not). We'll never know.

I've watched that video a LOT. NOBODY (you or me included) can definitively say what Ralph is truly doing (ghostball, pivoting or otherwise) based on that video alone.

Who knows --- and truthfully --- it doesn't matter. Jimmy Moore did and Hal did and Fez did. That's all that's known as fact. Hal is the only known source for this stuff. Based on that, that's all that can be assumed since the other three guys are no longer living.

Ok, I will give you that...you can't tell what method of aiming he is doing in the video you posted! However, there is NO doubt what method of aiming he teaches in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPDUnTKJ-5s! Seems to me to be a little strange he would not practice what he teaches!

Frankly I do not know of a single truly great HOF that used anything other than GB or a variation of it...they were no less great!

Spend too much time learning to aim and you'll spend less time learning the game. Hmmmm who said words to that effect?

 

[Bambu]

Thanks champ but I'm not really a physics guy. I would try to understand it if the physics gurus accepted whatever new info about cte has come about.

 

[dr_dave]

Are you still working on that massive CTE document you used to talk about all of the time? Do you plan to publish it, either on the Internet or as a printed book? Obviously, a thorough document explaining and illustrating not only how CTE is applied at the table, but also how and why it works for a wide range of shots, could go a long way to quieting these "debates" that have gone on for so many years. Since you know so much about CTE, you might be the best person to publish such a document or book.

I look forward to seeing it some day. Let us know if you still plan to release it.

Spidey,

What's the latest with your "CTE tome?" Do you still plan to complete it? I'm sure many people would be interested in seeing in, me included.

Regards,
Dave

 

[champ2107]

...............................