John Schmidt's and Corey Deuel's comments on aiming systems

[Patrick Johnson]

Roadie:
...CTE is exact enough to allow the shooter to pocket the entire range of possible shots.

Not without substantial "by feel" adjustments.

The amount of "by feel" adjustments are so small and so slight as to be practically nonexistent.

That's the kind of erroneous conclusion you get when you think "experience" = objective evidence.

pj
chgo

 

[Roadie]

In what way?

pj
chgo

I feel that it helps the shooter to find the right alignment to the shot line by forcing them to adopt a position based on the actual physical objects. For myself ghost ball is too much guessing to determine the location of something that cannot be seen. In principle it would work equally as well as long as the shooter can accurately imagine the phantom ball in space consistently. I personally find that using the edge of the object ball connected to the center of the cue ball as my initial reference puts me in the right space to use the rest of the steps to get to the shot line more consistently than using ghost ball. Other people use GB and they have no trouble finding the shot line. For me CTE is superior.

Also I find that when I use GB I have trouble with thin cuts and long shots and shots close to the rail. For some reason I cannot accurately judge the offset when using GB. But when I use CTE my make percentage increases dramatically. So again based on personal experience CTE is superior to GB. I use both though. It depends on the shot and what I think I need to do. Most of the time I use CTE and am on autopilot but sometimes I will back off and double check it with GB. Knowing that GB is the correct geometry it comes in handy as an excellent way to double check the aim. For some reason after finding the line using CTE then seeing the GB becomes much easier.

 

[LAMas]

Roadie,
You are an astute poster. Any thoughts on DD aiming...I like it for it is more parsimonious than CTE.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=273900

 

[Roadie]

Not without substantial "by feel" adjustments.

I have to disagree. Perhaps you can show us some proof of this? A video perhaps? I am more than willing to admit that I am wrong if you can show me something other than your assertion. I would like to see a video demonstration of you or someone else using CTE and making substantial adjustments. If they are substantial then I assume they are easily noticeable?

I have found a video where a CTE user is featured. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HYQjoHjwL4 Would you be so kind as to point out the "substantial" adjustments Mr. Landon Shuffet is making when he shoots. There are plenty of shots from straight in to backward cuts for you to establish examples of how Mr. Shuffet is adjusting. I look forward to seeing the conclusive evidence of your assertions. (to help you can pause the video and right click on it and choose to save the URL at that point for any point in the broadcast.) Thank you in advance for your effort to help us understand the substantial adjustments needed to use CTE. With your analysis we should all come to the proper understanding of the method. Of course everyone else is free to chip-in to help Mr. Johnson with this project. There are 19 games to look through with young Mr. Shuffett making most of the shots.

That's the kind of erroneous conclusion you get when you think "experience" = objective evidence.

pj
chgo

Experience is referential. When you do something that works you tend to do it that way until you find a better way. I suppose you have heard the adage that experiece is the best teacher? Well for sure that's what Mr. Schmidt was trying to say during his rant. So if someone shows you a method and you try it and find it works pretty well then you can use it and see if it holds up over time. If it does then you can claim to be experienced with that technique.

Of course some objective evidence would be nice. For now I and many others will stick with the experience and results-based evidence. while not be as reliable as that which comes from a lab it still counts for a lot especially with a task like making shots in pool.

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

How can you judge the sincerity of the marketing though? I think that certain people can be accused of overzealous exuberance....

On a lighter note , you might all enjoy reading the following humorous posting from SJDinPHX:

xxxx,

I am REALLY starting to worry about you !!!..This appears to be one of your latest "Can't miss, infallable, most intelligently written" infomercials, in recent days..One can only assume, you have adopted "Coach ZZZ's" NEW philosiphy, and thrown all your other 'heroes" under the bus..???

I sincerely hope you have found your "pool nirvana", and it will move you up to the APA 5, that you have worked so hard to attain...Do not give up..I would hate so see, the est. $170,000 you have invested in DVD's, Book's and other worthy [sic] items, that you review (quite boringly) go to waste.

I will certainly be pulling for you, and 'Coach ZZZ', to save pool from the ignorant "million ball naysayer's"...Please carry this thread on, via your 'private aiming system' forum..

El Duck <---Played pretty decent, and is $170,000 ahead of you...​

 

[Roadie]

Roadie,
You are an astute poster. Any thoughts on DD aiming...I like it for it is more parsimonious than CTE.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=273900

I have seen it before and tried it a little. Admittedly not enough to say I am experienced with DD aiming. I found that it is simpler than CTE of course but that it relies on estimation of distance based on a spot that is difficult to pinpoint. The contact "point" is pretty much the problem for me personally. I can imagine the line back through the ball well enough and standing in line with the pocket I think I am pretty good at dividing the ball in half along that line. But when I start to move away from the line I am not always able to hold that point accurately. And since DD relies on finding a distance to double I fail to do that accurately and so for me personally it's not as good as CTE.

The steps to CTE are confusing at first. But once a person gets it then it falls into place and becomes an automatic motion for most shots. I assume that with enough practice DD could be just as automatic. I am sorry to report that I have not put in the table time with it to get to that point.

 

[Roadie]

On a lighter note , you might all enjoy reading the following humorous posting from SJDinPHX:

xxxx,

I am REALLY starting to worry about you !!!..This appears to be one of your latest "Can't miss, infallable, most intelligently written" infomercials, in recent days..One can only assume, you have adopted "Coach ZZZ's" NEW philosiphy, and thrown all your other 'heroes" under the bus..???

I sincerely hope you have found your "pool nirvana", and it will move you up to the APA 5, that you have worked so hard to attain...Do not give up..I would hate so see, the est. $170,000 you have invested in DVD's, Book's and other worthy [sic] items, that you review (quite boringly) go to waste.

I will certainly be pulling for you, and 'Coach ZZZ', to save pool from the ignorant "million ball naysayer's"...Please carry this thread on, via your 'private aiming system' forum..

El Duck <---Played pretty decent, and is $170,000 ahead of you...​

Well all I have to say about that is that bangers pay the bills. Most top pros have at some or other created or been a part of instructional in order to make some money off of their name and knowledge. Were it not for millions of suckers there would have been no players for SJD to be better than.

I read Mr. McMorran's stories with great pleasure. It seems to me that he ran with a lot of good players. It has been my experience in life that professionals and dedicated amateaurs in any field collaborate and help each other to improve. Although people talk about how in the "old days" no one helped you this is simply not true. If you showed any dedication at all then people did help you and as you got better you got better help.

So I certainly believe that Mr. McMorran benefited from the company he kept as much as his own personal dedication to the game.

Nowadays it's possible for players to gain access to information without having the fortune to be in a hotbed of good and competitive players. If you are then even better and certainly more fun.

 

[LAMas]

I have seen it before and tried it a little. Admittedly not enough to say I am experienced with DD aiming. I found that it is simpler than CTE of course but that it relies on estimation of distance based on a spot that is difficult to pinpoint. The contact "point" is pretty much the problem for me personally. I can imagine the line back through the ball well enough and standing in line with the pocket I think I am pretty good at dividing the ball in half along that line. But when I start to move away from the line I am not always able to hold that point accurately. And since DD relies on finding a distance to double I fail to do that accurately and so for me personally it's not as good as CTE.

The steps to CTE are confusing at first. But once a person gets it then it falls into place and becomes an automatic motion for most shots. I assume that with enough practice DD could be just as automatic. I am sorry to report that I have not put in the table time with it to get to that point.

What form of CTE do you subscribe to - CTE Pro1? I didn't buy the DVD so i first heard about the secondary visual alignment from another poster before the DVD came out. I had/have difficulty finding A, B, C and 1/8 with that due to parallax.

As I said, I like DD and fall back to it when I don't get positive results with CTE. With DD I can see the contact point (back of the ball) and the center of the OB. I get down on the shot close to where the DD point is and compare the distance from the contact point on the OB to its center and refine my aim to the DD point.

DD works for me and I don't have to retrieve the prepivot stance and cue placement that correlates with the shot at hand from my memory look up table as with CTE. Also if the pivot angle is large, I have to adjust my stance to the side to get comfortable.

That may just be me.

 

[Roadie]

As long as we are using pro quotes I just noticed this from CJ Wiley on my facebook feed.

"Stan, I appreciate the time we spent together at the Southern Classic and I am impressed with the amount of thought and research you've put in to your systems....I found several of your philosophies useful and it has created a chain reaction in remembering movements I used to do (when competing full time) without any conscious thought ...your understanding of the dominant eye's perception in getting in line with the shot is unparalleled {imho}....we certainly agree that the geometry and physics of pocket billiards ARE PERFECT, it's a matter of unlocking that perfection that appeals to both of us...it may be more of a Journey than a Destination, but you, my friend are on the right path....I look forward to comparing notes again in the near future....best regards in teaching the hidden perfection of pool;-) " - CJ Wiley to Stan Shuffett

And one more.

"Shot-making: To consistently make difficult shots you must have a system that makes all shots seem the same. The way I’ve discovered to do this is to use the cue-ball to aim with and connect that point to either the edge or the center of the object ball. This enables you to be precise where it counts and where you can clearly see. It is much easier to see a particular spot on the cue-ball than it is on the object ball." - CJ Wiley, from his blog on www.cjwiley.com

 

[Roadie]

What form of CTE do you subscribe to - CTE Pro1? I didn't buy the DVD so i first heard about the secondary visual alignment from another poster before the DVD came out. I had/have difficulty finding A, B, C and 1/8 with that due to parallax.

As I said, I like DD and fall back to it when I don't get positive results with CTE. With DD I can see the contact point (back of the ball) and the center of the OB. I get down on the shot close to where the DD point is and compare the distance from the contact point on the OB to its center and refine my aim to the DD point.

DD works for me and I don't have to retrieve the prepivot stance and cue placement that correlates with the shot at hand from my memory look up table as with CTE. Also if the pivot angle is large, I have to adjust my stance to the side to get comfortable.

That may just be me.

I use it as taught by Mr. Shuffett.

 

[LAMas]

C.J. Wiley is well known as a top notch player that also has his aiming system that he offers for sale.

Here is a dicussion of his aiming method that is not CTE. I have the utmost respect for AtLarge's analytical posts here.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=210549&page=3

 

[jbcases-mike]

..............................................................................wrong forum.

 

[SJDinPHX]

Lou,

John and Corey added together know virtually nothing about CTE PRO ONE the system. I am willing to educate John or Corey should they request any training. I'd be happy for them to share the results.

He who laughs himself SILLY first does not always laugh himself SILLY last.

Phil Burford, who uses and teaches CTE PRO ONE won against Corey last night in NY 8-2. Now, go ahead discredit Phil.

At Tunica I spent 2/3 hours with a highly respected U S player. He was thrilled with CTE PRO ONE.

This is only the tip of the iceberg!

CTE PRO ONE lives on and your efforts at discrediting my work WILL fail.

You will see.

Stan Shuffett

Mr. Shuffett, I do not know you, and you probably don't know me.. It is not my intent to try and discredit you (or JoeyA, or John Barton) on yall's obvious support of 'aiming systems'..I am simply, firmly in the HAMB camp, as I have been all my playing life..over 60 years. (I am 78 yrs. old).. I am not too old to learn, but..."old dogs, new tricks, etc" !

I firmly agree with John and Corey in their assessment of aiming systems. I am also quite sure you will admit, you have hit well OVER 2 million balls, and Landon has probably hit over 1 million...You have every right to be proud of Landon's performance (and your own) of late, but how much credit can you actually give to CTE, as opposed to HAMB ?

My main point is, would you or your son, be where you are now, had it not been for your HAMB experience ?.. I will be glad to say I was wrong, if you or Landon, can prove you could have become proficient at a game such as 'one pocket' where the components of 'squirt, swerve, and pinpoint cue ball control' are much more demanding, then 9 or 10 ball ever could be.

I am sure you are an honorable man, and you have convinced yourself, (and your son) that CTE Pro 1, is a valuable learning tool, worthy of teaching and promoting for sale..The only problem I have with this is... NO ONE, including yourself, has been able to adequately "explain" just how it works.
JoeyA, Barton, and MANY others have gone bananas, trying to explain it, and defend it..Usually contradicting each other, repeatedly. Why is that ?..That is how you wound up with your very own "aiming system" forum ! Every thread was a flame war !..Here is as close an explaination as I can find;..

CTE is a mashup of "fractional" and "pivot" systems. It's a fractional system because it teaches you to begin by lining up the CB's edge with various parts of the OB (1/4, 1/2, 3/4) and then adjust from there to the actual shot alignment. It's a pivot system because it then teaches you to make the needed adjustment by shifting your shaft sideways offline and then pivoting back to centerball.<---Therein lies the bulk of the confusion. IMO..

Both fractional and pivot systems teach you to have a consistent starting lineup for each shot, which is valuable...<---Only to an MIT engineer ...The starting lineup is chosen from a handful of options (1/4, 1/2, 3/4) to get you "in the ballpark", and the pivot is supposed to finish the aiming job...The controversy is usually about these questions:...

- Can a pivot really "finish the aiming job" accurately? Does this kind of system really reduce the need for "feel" in aiming? Is it harmful or beneficial to pretend the need for "feel" is eliminated? (NOTE: Not every CTE user believes it eliminates "feel"; but some still do. And plenty more wish it could.)<--ie. Almost EVERYONE with a normal thought process !

Respectfully,

Dick Mc Morran--aka, San Jose Dick, (or SuperDuck)

PS..Note to JoeyA and John B;..I am hoping Mr Shuffett can explain CTE Pro One better than either of you have done...I think you may be doing him a disservice, as every NEW 'aiming system' that surfaces, you guys send in your $$$$ ...trying to elevate yourselves above an APA 3...Make up your mind, willya !. :grin: :grin: :grin:

PSS..Sorry, I just stumbled across this...I will butt out of your 'Private Forum'.....

 

[Hidy Ho]

..............................................................................wrong forum.

Phew .. that was close

 

[lfigueroa]

An aiming system? This is not a delivery system, it is an aligmment method to bring the player to a shot line. From there the player has to apply his skill to the execution of the shot. That's where touch and speed and deflection and swerve come into play. In that sense there is no difference between CTE and Ghost Ball. Ghost Ball at it's most basic is a center ball method of determining a shot line. As players advance in skill they are taught to compensate for throw and spin and deflection and so on. But as far as a mehtod to getting on the centerball shot line I think that the soundness depends on how consistently the shooter can lay the cue down on the right line when deliberately using whatever method he uses. If I said to someone that they should use Ghost ball and do a series of shots and they made 10 of 15 and I said to another person use CTE and they made 13 of 15 and those results stayed pretty much consistent then I would conclude that CTE is the better method.



Well, instead you got a step-by-step instructional that many people have been able to use to learn the method. Many others have needed a little extra help which they received free-of-charge from Mr. Shuffett.

Granted there are people who want to buy a better game in a box without putting in any table time. Those are the people whom good instruction is wasted on. I know people who have paid upwards of $100 an hour to be coached by professionals. A few days after the lessons they are ecstatic about all the things they were shown. A month later they can barely remember most of those things because they thought that the skill would be transferred through demonstration rather than practice. So what? That does not make the information less valid or less valuable because some people aren't willing to spend the time to really learn it.





Understood. But this is not a placebo. It is the actual medicine. A placebo in this sense would be if you gave someone a method that for sure would not work and their brain overcame it and found the shot line anyway. That's not the case here. This is a very simple method that has defined steps.



Sure. Which is one of the big turn-offs when exuberance turns to zealotry. However you can also admit to some persecution as well. We all know that this has been an equal opportunity flame-fest. But I do not think that the average player who has purchased Mr. Shuffet's dvd is indocrinated enough to post a testimonial/review due to zealous fervor. I submit to you that most of them have been fairly simple accounts of how the method has helped them. I do understand that if you feel strongly enough that the methods don't work where you can assume the role of vocal skeptic liek James Randi. However all of the objections to the method have been answered. Mr. Shuffet met you head on and produced a DVD with detailed instructions. So really the emperorer in this situation certainly has clothes on and they are fine indeed. I personally am an atheist who only believes in what can be proven. CTE has been proven to work satisfactorily for me.



Certainly. In fact looking for shortcuts is the very reason innovation happens. Today we have so much extra time that we can spend it frivolously debating the best method of how to aim balls into each other. 100 years ago the common man had to work much harder to provide for his existence with little time for intellectual and leisurely pursuits. As a result science and art were mainly the endeavors of the wealthy. Now anyone can be an artist or a scientist. Looking for shortcuts is hardwired into us. So it's clear that some people will cash in on that desire. However not everything advertised on late-night television is bogus. Sometimes that is the only place a legimately good idea can get exposure.




Well it's interesting that human interaction seems to mirror physics in the sense that force is always met with opposing force to balance out. So the way I see it is that at this point it's really a chicken/egg proposition. Which came first the zealots or the critics? Did the critics create the zealots? Did the zealots invite the critics? I say it's been pretty much even.

And as I said previously, the proof to me, as with science, is in peer review. We have seen many people come and go on this and other forums who had magical systems. They arrive with a huge amount of fanfare touting some magical way to play pool that will revolutionize pool and within weeks they are gone because there method could not withstand close scrutiny by good players. Why then has CTE survived? Well it could very well be that it actually works as opposed to simply being kept alive by fanatics. In my opinion that is the reason, it actually works.

oh, lol, so it’s an "alignment method." (I guess we should all mosey over to the “Alignment Method” forum.)

You’re conceding that this “method” only gets you to center ball and without “touch” and only as players “advance in skill” they must then learn to “compensate for throw spin and deflection and so on.” (I'm going to guess that this will take hitting more than a few balls.) Soooooo, you and I don’t have much more to discuss. Basically, what you’ve described is a sound PSR, which is something I’ve endorsed for years ;-)

Lou Figueroa
alignment method
who knew?

 

[Roadie]

oh, lol, so it’s an "alignment method." (I guess we should all mosey over to the “Alignment Method” forum.)

You’re conceding that this “method” only gets you to center ball and without “touch” and only as players “advance in skill” they must then learn to “compensate for throw spin and deflection and so on.” (I'm going to guess that this will take hitting more than a few balls.) Soooooo, you and I don’t have much more to discuss. Basically, what you’ve described is a sound PSR, which is something I’ve endorsed for years ;-)

Lou Figueroa
alignment method
who knew?

Sure, every aiming method is also an alignment method since it directs the body where to go. When you put the cue down you have be in some sort of comfortable position relative to the tables and the balls in order to have any reasonable chance to make the ball. None of the systems address speed, touch, and stroke. Some of them do address deflection but I am not familiar enough with those to explain them to you.

But no, CTE is not forcing a sound PSR. It forces a definite method of looking at and aligning to the cue ball. It doesn't make the player stand a certain way, doesn't make the player stroke a certain way, doesn't make the player's bridge unmoving, doesn't stop wrist twisting, or shifting feet or any of the dozens of tiny things that can affect where the tip hits the ball.

In fact one side effect of CTE is that it magnifies these errors. Getting to the right shot line makes it extremely easy to send the cue ball off that line. Which is where table time becomes really important to not only be sure that the system becomes ingrained but also to insure that all mechanical errors are worked out.

Essentially we could do a test where you find the exact ghost ball line and mark it with a laser. Then you turn the laser off and walk away. I come up and sight the shot using CTE and lay the cue down pointing at center ball and walk away. You turn the laser back on and if I was right it will split the cue. That's all CTE does for the player.

 

[PGHteacher]

Those who say CTE can't work usually mean it isn't a cure-all. Those who say it does work usually mean it helps them somehow.

It's the "absolutists" on both sides who argue the most - with the least results.

pj
chgo

This is one of the best things ever said.

 

[robsnotes4u]

From CJ on Facebook today

Cj Wiley
"Stan Shuffett , I appreciate the time we spent together at the Southen Classic and I am impressed with the amount of thought and research you've put in to your systems....I found several of your philosophies useful and it has created a chain reaction in remembering movements I used to do (when competing full time) without any conscious thought ...your understanding of the dominant eye's perception in getting in line with the shot is unparalleled {imho}....we certainly agree that the geometry and physics of pocket billiards ARE PERFECT, it's a matter of unlocking that perfection that appeals to both of us...it may be more of a Journey than a Destination, but you, my friend are on the right path....I look forward to comparing notes again in the near future....best regards in teaching the hidden perfection of pool;-)"

Very Interesting.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Roadie:
...CTE is exact enough to allow the shooter to pocket the entire range of possible shots.

Me:
Not without substantial "by feel" adjustments.

roadie:
Perhaps you can show us some proof of this?

All the proof you need is the fact that CTE only clearly defines a handful of aimlines, while simple geometry shows us that many more are needed to make all shots. How do you suppose the shooter fills in all those gaps (the great majority of all shots)?

I would like to see a video demonstration of you or someone else using CTE and making substantial adjustments. If they are substantial then I assume they are easily noticeable?

You're kidding, right? A video can't even show whether or not CTE is being used.

Roadie:
The amount of "by feel" adjustments are so small and so slight as to be practically nonexistent.

Me:
That's the kind of erroneous conclusion you get when you think "experience" = objective evidence.

Roadie:
Of course some objective evidence would be nice. For now I and many others will stick with the experience and results-based evidence. while not be as reliable as that which comes from a lab it still counts for a lot especially with a task like making shots in pool.

Experience tells you that you're making more shots using CTE, and since you weren't so successful trying to use "feel" by itself you jump to the conclusion that the system eliminates feel. It doesn't - as simple geometry makes clear.

pj
chgo

 

[LAMas]

Mr. Shuffett, I do not know you, and you probably don't know me.. It is not my intent to try and discredit you (or JoeyA, or John Barton) on yall's obvious support of 'aiming systems'..I am simply, firmly in the HAMB camp, as I have been all my playing life..over 60 years. (I am 78 yrs. old).. I am not too old to learn, but..."old dogs, new tricks, etc" !

I firmly agree with John and Corey in their assessment of aiming systems. I am also quite sure you will admit, you have hit well OVER 2 million balls, and Landon has probably hit over 1 million...You have every right to be proud of Landon's performance (and your own) of late, but how much credit can you actually give to CTE, as opposed to HAMB ?

My main point is, would you or your son, be where you are now, had it not been for your HAMB experience ?.. I will be glad to say I was wrong, if you or Landon, can prove you could have become proficient at a game such as 'one pocket' where the components of 'squirt, swerve, and pinpoint cue ball control' are much more demanding, then 9 or 10 ball ever could be.

I am sure you are an honorable man, and you have convinced yourself, (and your son) that CTE Pro 1, is a valuable learning tool, worthy of teaching and promoting for sale..The only problem I have with this is... NO ONE, including yourself, has been able to adequately "explain" just how it works.
JoeyA, Barton, and MANY others have gone bananas, trying to explain it, and defend it..Usually contradicting each other, repeatedly. Why is that ?..That is how you wound up with your very own "aiming system" forum ! Every thread was a flame war !..Here is as close an explaination as I can find;..



Respectfully,

Dick Mc Morran--aka, San Jose Dick, (or SuperDuck)

PS..Note to JoeyA and John B;..I am hoping Mr Shuffett can explain CTE Pro One better than either of you have done...I think you may be doing him a disservice, as every NEW 'aiming system' that surfaces, you guys send in your $$$$ ...trying to elevate yourselves above an APA 3...Make up your mind, willya !. :grin: :grin: :grin:

PSS..Sorry, I just stumbled across this...I will butt out of your 'Private Forum'.....

As ex Speaker, Pelosi says, "You have to pass/buy it to know what's in it.":smile:

How will Obomba Care take care of you?