I use the edge of the CB or back ball aiming. This new way I started doing isn't so much about the aiming as it is the PSR.
John Schmidt's and Corey Deuel's comments on aiming systems
- Thread starter PoolSharkAllen
- Start date
I use the edge of the CB or back ball aiming. This new way I started doing isn't so much about the aiming as it is the PSR.
Are you sayin that you aim the edge of the CB at the back of the ball contact point? Or are you aiming some overlap of the edge of the CB to the back ov the ball?
That's aiming and not classic PSR.
I was aiming with the overlap. This new way I'm not doing that. I'm just lining up while standing and then when I get down on the shot I pivot my cue over the CB in the same motion. Then I'm lined up, a few warm up strokes, and fire away.
The PSR comes from the fact that in this new method I am doing the same exact thing on every single shot.
I just didn't know if it was actually CTE or not since I remember reading about pivoting.
I recommend that you research CTE on Dr, Dave's website:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html
I can't help but wonder how anyone could think you could play pool (or anything else) at the highest level without a system. Whether we want to realize it or not there is a conscious or unconcious system for all aspects of pocket billiards. That goes for pocketing balls, playing zone position, lining up your eyes correctly relative to the line of the shot, etc.
The main thing with aiming is the way we connect the two balls together BEFORE getting down on the shot. If anyone doesn't think we have a system for that I will tell them they're living in a fantacy land. The thing that people are missing is there's 2 lines when aiming and one is a edge to center line and other is a center to edge. And to understand this you must stop looking at the balls like they're round....they for all intents and purposes are FLAT and one dimensional for the purposes of aiming. I go over a lot of this in my 3rd volume of Ultimate Pool Secrets, but after talking to Stan I realized I was doing something else unconsciously that is more of the foundation of his system. This has done wonders for my understanding of how it works and enabled me to "rembember" exactly how I was doing it in my prime. When playing good (gambling) I would expect to miss about one ball an hour (that I was trying to pocket) , and when I was playing great I would not make one ball every 2 hours. When I played Efren in Seattle for 14 hours I missed 6 balls total (that's my top speed). If anyone thinks I didn't use a system to do that that's fine.....but I'd challenge them to shoot a gun or bow without sights, because that's how they're playing pool if they don't know how to line up ABOVE the ball.
I understand why John said some of the things he did about him not having an aiming system....however, I also don't think he would say the same things to me in private....he has a system, and he also knows if he analyzes it too much without completely understanding it his game will suffer greatly....he's right by the way and I think he chose to say the right thing to keep from "thinking" about his unconscious activity too much. However, I for one have sacrafised my level of play quite a bit to figure this stuff out and when I start playing seriously again I'll be just like John and try to "not think about my game"....that's why it's virtually impossible to teach at a world class level and play at that level at the same time....such is life
CJ Wiley www.cjwiley.com
Thanks for your insight, CJ. We hope you choose to post a lot more. You certainly have a lot of knowledge to share.
Stan, after acquiring the visuals and stepping into the shot (pre-pivot), is the center-line of the cue's shaft directly underneath one's eyes, or more to the point, underneath one's vision center? If you were to drop a plumb bob from one's vision center (or however you would characterize that), would it, ideally, split the shaft in two.
Jim
With such a broad definition of "system", how are we to distinguish between aiming entirely "by feel" without any learned method and a highly structured system like CTE?
pj
chgo
I'm skeptical. I think you need the OB in place to "finalize" your aim.
It could be tested by concealing the OB once you've "established your visuals" (before getting down on the shot).
pj
chgo
Jim,
In CTE PRO ONE the cue ball is the target. It's all about seeing the cue ball clearly, center cue ball. So, one's eyes should be positioned in relation to a shaft so as to perceive the center of cue ball without any distortion. Vision center can be used to describe the positioning of one's eyes in order to perfectly view a cue ball for a CB OB relationship.
Stan
CJ:
I agree with the bolded parts, but with one proviso -- not all of us aim "center to edge." As you know, there's a "system" in snooker called Back-of-Ball aiming, where you treat the balls as if they are flat discs.
Although I am a student of this game and open to all knowledge -- including studying Stan's DVD (just today, in fact, I popped it in and reviewed) -- I can confidently tell you that Back-of-Ball aiming in no way/shape/fashion resembles or uses the same aim lines as CTE or Pro/1.
For example, in back-of-ball aiming, you do *NOT* look at "center to edge." Rather, it's a fractional "eclipsing" system, where the edge of the cue ball "connects" or "cuts through" a fraction of the object ball, and vise-versa with the object ball -- that object ball's edge "connects" or "cuts through" a fraction of the cue ball. The beauty about this system is that the visuals, once the foundation is built, is AUTOMATIC -- you see them, you get down on them, and you shoot directly *at* them. No pivoting.
Back-of-Ball aiming does require "homework" on the part of the student -- that he/she commit to memory some common ball-to-ball angle relationships. I.e.: 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 7/8, and "thin" cuts. This is necessary to have a foundation to build on, as the subconscious mind "knows" the adjustments to these foundational ball-to-ball relationships to "finish" the shot.
I go over a lot of this in my 3rd volume of Ultimate Pool Secrets, but after talking to Stan I realized I was doing something else unconsciously that is more of the foundation of his system. This has done wonders for my understanding of how it works and enabled me to "rembember" exactly how I was doing it in my prime. When playing good (gambling) I would expect to miss about one ball an hour (that I was trying to pocket) , and when I was playing great I would not make one ball every 2 hours. When I played Efren in Seattle for 14 hours I missed 6 balls total (that's my top speed). If anyone thinks I didn't use a system to do that that's fine.....but I'd challenge them to shoot a gun or bow without sights, because that's how they're playing pool if they don't know how to line up ABOVE the ball.
I understand why John said some of the things he did about him not having an aiming system....however, I also don't think he would say the same things to me in private....he has a system, and he also knows if he analyzes it too much without completely understanding it his game will suffer greatly....he's right by the way and I think he chose to say the right thing to keep from "thinking" about his unconscious activity too much. However, I for one have sacrafised my level of play quite a bit to figure this stuff out and when I start playing seriously again I'll be just like John and try to "not think about my game"....that's why it's virtually impossible to teach at a world class level and play at that level at the same time....such is life
I think what you're trying to say, CJ, is that in order to play at the top levels, you *have* to be playing from the subconscious. You *CANNOT* have the conscious mind engaged where you're saying things like "this is a half-ball hit, but because of throw, I have to cut just a hair more." Or, "I have my two aim lines -- CTEL and OBA -- and I'm going to come down and Pro/1-pivot into the shot." Thinking like this is a recipe for disaster -- i.e. programming yourself for a MISS.
I think *all of you* -- naysayers and yeahsayers -- are thinking WRONG. That word -- thinking [about aiming] -- is what's keeping this Hatfield and McCoys feud going. And that's all that "thinking" is good for.
-Sean
Last edited:
You don't know any of that.
My opinion is that the system is bogus. Your opinion is that it rocks and I'm not saying anything about your nose ;-)
And as for how it's working out for me, as much as I play -- it's workin' out real well. Hope you like apples.
Lou Figueroa
I can't help but wonder how anyone could think you could play pool (or anything else) at the highest level without a system. Whether we want to realize it or not there is a conscious or unconcious system for all aspects of pocket billiards. That goes for pocketing balls, playing zone position, lining up your eyes correctly relative to the line of the shot, etc.
The main thing with aiming is the way we connect the two balls together BEFORE getting down on the shot. If anyone doesn't think we have a system for that I will tell them they're living in a fantacy land. The thing that people are missing is there's 2 lines when aiming and one is a edge to center line and other is a center to edge. And to understand this you must stop looking at the balls like they're round....they for all intents and purposes are FLAT and one dimensional for the purposes of aiming. I go over a lot of this in my 3rd volume of Ultimate Pool Secrets, but after talking to Stan I realized I was doing something else unconsciously that is more of the foundation of his system. This has done wonders for my understanding of how it works and enabled me to "rembember" exactly how I was doing it in my prime. When playing good (gambling) I would expect to miss about one ball an hour (that I was trying to pocket) , and when I was playing great I would not make one ball every 2 hours. When I played Efren in Seattle for 14 hours I missed 6 balls total (that's my top speed). If anyone thinks I didn't use a system to do that that's fine.....but I'd challenge them to shoot a gun or bow without sights, because that's how they're playing pool if they don't know how to line up ABOVE the ball.
I understand why John said some of the things he did about him not having an aiming system....however, I also don't think he would say the same things to me in private....he has a system, and he also knows if he analyzes it too much without completely understanding it his game will suffer greatly....he's right by the way and I think he chose to say the right thing to keep from "thinking" about his unconscious activity too much. However, I for one have sacrafised my level of play quite a bit to figure this stuff out and when I start playing seriously again I'll be just like John and try to "not think about my game"....that's why it's virtually impossible to teach at a world class level and play at that level at the same time....such is life
The man said what he said. Now we have guys playing The Amazing Kreskin about what he would or wouldn't say in private, what he really thinks and what he doesn't, lol.
Lou Figueroa
yes, I know
who the "guy" is
Last edited:
Here we go... I guess Lou knows more than CJ Wiley now.
Roadie,
There's not enough evidence to support your insinuation that the aiming system a professional pool player uses is the deciding factor in who wins.
When Landon beat Earl, for example, I can make a pretty good argument that the break game was the deciding factor in determining the match outcome, not the aiming systems they used. Oftentimes, when Landon broke a rack he would make one or two balls on the break. Since Earl's break game was noticeably weaker, he oftentimes failed to make a ball on the break. At this level of competition, the break game was the deciding factor in the outcome not the aiming system.
For the rest of us mere mortals, maybe the lesson to be learned here is that we should all spend more time improving our break game to get that little edge over our opponents.
Last edited:
I agree. But a common denominator is that all these professionals use a systematic method of aiming. You can draw your own conclusions but the one I take away is that their success is enough evidence for me to try to learn their methods of aiming. Almost every great player has said that they emulated other great players while learning. So if a lot of the top players of today say that they use aiming systems then I am going to pay attention to that and try those methods.
What do I have to lose by trying?
Regarding Mr. Shuffett's win over Mr. Strickland I agree with you that there are many factors contributing to it including Mr. Strickland's poor play. But the thing to notice is not how badly Mr. Strickland played but instead how well Mr. Shuffet played. Study his form and technique and if you are any sort of a player who plays competitvely then you will understand the difficulty of many of his run outs and shots. It's how consistently he handled those shots with a fluid and accurate style that is impressive. If he and his father say that the use of CTE/ProOne is a big factor in attaining the type of skill this young man displayed then it's enough for me to try it.
Don't you agree?
Pj, Just as you suggested.
Stan
Stan