Pj, you are welcome to contact me and schedule a visit or I may just send you a video at some point.
Stan
Stan
John Schmidt's and Corey Deuel's comments on aiming systems
- Thread starter PoolSharkAllen
- Start date
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 lifeCJ Wiley www.cjwiley.com
CJ my friend ...
)hats off- as usual your comments are just impressive and so easy to understand. I would kill to have your writing abilities, so that i would be able to write down the words like you do.
Agree 105 % on every single word.
still kneeing down ^^
lg from overseas,
Ingo
in my prime. When playing good (gambling) I would expect to miss about one ball an hour, 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).....such is life
Thank you Mr. Wiley for dropping in every once in a while.
When you played your top speed it was a thing of beauty...
Let me take a whack at trying to bridge the gap between what pj sees as a need to "finalize" the aim after the CTE mechanics are performed versus Stan's notion that everything is done objectively and without subsequent feel adjustment(s).
Sixteen months ago, after the DVD was released and after a lot of discussion among many of us, Stan revealed that what converts his manual CTE from a discrete method (limited number of cut angles for a given CB-OB distance) to a continuous method (one with enough cut angles to pocket all shots) is different eye positions for the same set of visuals. That is, the CTEL and the secondary alignment line (aiming line) can be viewed from different eye positions to achieve multiple cut angles from that same set of visuals.
So if one identifies the correct set of visuals to use for a particular shot, and then also knows precisely where to place the eyes to view those visuals (the two lines), then the remaining mechanical steps of CTE can be performed exactly as prescribed with no further adjustment or "feel" needed.
To Stan, that knowledge of where to place the eyes has been gained by an enormous amount of work with CTE. He mentioned in an earlier post that he has spent thousands of hours at it so far and that he is still learning about it. So, to Stan, that experience-based knowledge of where to place the eyes has essentially become objective rather than "by feel." Once he identifies the pocket and the appearance of the cut angle needed for the shot, he knows which set of visuals to use and where to place his eyes to view those visuals. Given that, the cue ball "target" then becomes a fixed disk, and the CTE steps can be completed by rote with no further adjustments by feel or otherwise.
To Stan, then, it's all experience/knowledge based and objective. To people less skilled in the method, the rub is in gaining that knowledge to be able to place the eyes correctly.
Stan, if I have misstated anything here, please let me know.
"Different eye positions for the same visual" is a given - it's why I've said all along that "acquiring the visual" is a euphemism for "fine tuning by feel".
I'm being more specific here and saying that even after choosing the "visual" (by feel) that works for the shot, you have to fine tune it more (by more feel) after you're down on the shot.
pj
chgo
Yes, I know that's what you are saying. But it's not what expert users of the method think they are doing, and my post was intended to help you see why.
I appreciate that my friend. I just can't help but want to clear up some of the confusion about "aiming systems". The fact of the matter is there's many ways to aim one ball at another, just like there's many ways to aim a basketball at a hoop....and aim a golf ball at a target...and aim a football at a wide receiver...etc. And like John S. said if it was just a matter of a magical "aiming system" everyone would be able to play like any top pro.
So with this being said "What is the main issue with why the aiming system controversy seems to be such a paradox?" The main reason, in my opinion is there are two aiming LINES, one is done visually (Aiming System) and the other is done with the body (kinesthetically)" in something I will refer to as the ( ALIGNMENT SYSTEM).
The visual one is the easiest because anyone with reasonably good eyesight can connect a point of the cue ball to a point on the object ball that is correct...that means you can aim the edge, the "ghostball", the center, a quarter, an eighth...at the object ball (or like I recommend using the cue ball for your exact contact point)....on and on.
I was told one time that there were like 47 aiming systems and I wouldn't doubt it. You see the visual aiming is not the problem with why some players don't improve and find the true connection to the line of the shot. It's because they've been told that the main thing is SEEING the line of the shot when the most important thing is they feel it through a Systematic Alignment Routine.
If you look at how golf is taught you will see what I'm talking about. The line of the eyes/ball/target are ALWAYS DIFFERENT from the line created by the body. I learned how this works in detail working with Hank Haney (Tiger Wood's swing coach for 5 years) and did it with outstanding results. Then, when I left the game for a number of years it left me so recently I've had to go to great efforts to learn EXACTLY how it's done (so I can teach other's to do it). You see my friends, the key to great shot making and consistant ball pocketing is great alignment, NOT great eye sight.
If you want to see an example of how this is taught in golf (even though there's several key differences) you can check it out at http://www.free-online-golf-tips.com/golf-alignment.html
I hope this is "food for thought" with those of you that want to get on the "fast track" in improving as quickly as you would like. You see I'm not reinventing the wheel, I'm just teaching what all other sports emphasize...just applying it to pocket billiards amplified by the teaching systems I learned in golf, tennis and martial arts.
The SYSTEMATIC ALIGNMENT ROUTINE is going to be included in my next DVD 'CJ's Advanced Pool Secrets'....however, I may speed up the process if there's enough interest and get it out right away (on line).
CJ Wiley www.cjwiley.com
I appreciate the thought, but I don't see what you're trying to clarify for me. I believe Stan said CTE makes it possible to position the eyes for a shot - while standing - so accurately that the OB can be hidden from view before getting down on the shot. You say this is because there are multiple possible eye positions for any single "visual, which I've always presumed. Do I understand what you want me to?
pj
chgo
I can't come to you, Stan, but if you ever make a video of you doing the blind shot test I described, I'd be very interested in seeing it (and very impressed).
pj
chgo
for sure there is interest in your alignment routine!!!
Hey CJ,
For sure there is more than enough interest in your alignment routine - please get in online asap lol
Your Ultimate Pool Secrets DVd was one of the best I've seen so far, so looking forward to the advanced version as well!!!
mristea
I appreciate that my friend. I just can't help but want to clear up some of the confusion about "aiming systems". The fact of the matter is there's many ways to aim one ball at another, just like there's many ways to aim a basketball at a hoop....and aim a golf ball at a target...and aim a football at a wide receiver...etc. And like John S. said if it was just a matter of a magical "aiming system" everyone would be able to play like any top pro.
So with this being said "What is the main issue with why the aiming system controversy seems to be such a paradox?" The main reason, in my opinion is there are two aiming LINES, one is done visually (Aiming System) and the other is done with the body (kinesthetically)" in something I will refer to as the ( ALIGNMENT SYSTEM).
The visual one is the easiest because anyone with reasonably good eyesight can connect a point of the cue ball to a point on the object ball that is correct...that means you can aim the edge, the "ghostball", the center, a quarter, an eighth...at the object ball (or like I recommend using the cue ball for your exact contact point)....on and on.
I was told one time that there were like 47 aiming systems and I wouldn't doubt it. You see the visual aiming is not the problem with why some players don't improve and find the true connection to the line of the shot. It's because they've been told that the main thing is SEEING the line of the shot when the most important thing is they feel it through a Systematic Alignment Routine.
If you look at how golf is taught you will see what I'm talking about. The line of the eyes/ball/target are ALWAYS DIFFERENT from the line created by the body. I learned how this works in detail working with Hank Haney (Tiger Wood's swing coach for 5 years) and did it with outstanding results. Then, when I left the game for a number of years it left me so recently I've had to go to great efforts to learn EXACTLY how it's done (so I can teach other's to do it). You see my friends, the key to great shot making and consistant ball pocketing is great alignment, NOT great eye sight.
If you want to see an example of how this is taught in golf (even though there's several key differences) you can check it out at http://www.free-online-golf-tips.com/golf-alignment.html
I hope this is "food for thought" with those of you that want to get on the "fast track" in improving as quickly as you would like. You see I'm not reinventing the wheel, I'm just teaching what all other sports emphasize...just applying it to pocket billiards amplified by the teaching systems I learned in golf, tennis and martial arts.
The SYSTEMATIC ALIGNMENT ROUTINE is going to be included in my next DVD 'CJ's Advanced Pool Secrets'....however, I may speed up the process if there's enough interest and get it out right away (on line).
CJ Wiley www.cjwiley.com
Hey CJ,
For sure there is more than enough interest in your alignment routine - please get in online asap lol
Your Ultimate Pool Secrets DVd was one of the best I've seen so far, so looking forward to the advanced version as well!!!
mristea
PJ, Visuals are objective, only one objective visual for each CB OB positioning.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
I can agree with the fact that CTE PRO ONE is based on knowledge, objectivity and then there is a learning curve involved with its application.
A major Key, though, is that the visuals are objective from shot to shot.
Essentially, the visuals in their lowest common denominator engage one's eyes in perceiving ticks: one cue ball edge or tick, one OB aimpoint or tick, one CB center or tick and one OB edge or tick.This task is very objective but the visual refinement is an on-going process. Learning to see one tick locks in another tick and so on......The whole process gets easier day by day and it never stops.
Yes, you are correct in that no one does this overnight and by experience one is continually dialing into the exactness that is offered by CTE PRO ONE.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
My bad use of CTE terminology, Stan. I meant there are multiple visuals for each alignment of CB edge-to-OB A/B/C.
pj
chgo
Since CTE-related systems have been argued over extensively for the past 10 years, that's a clear indication that CTE is more complicated than you're making it out to be. It also indicates that there are gaps in CTE that people are trying to better understand. Even in this thread, various posters are raising good points about the nuances of CTE.
This type of discussion enriches the dialogue so it's unfortunate that you think that people who disagree with your view points are polluting the CTE threads.
Last edited:
I think the confusion and the gaps are the same thing - the confusion is about the convoluted jargon used to "explain" the gaps. If the gaps are simply accepted as gaps, then CTE is simple (and still effective).
ph
chgo
Gaps equal a lack of math in explaining perception. Math is inadequate when matched up with what is occurring visually in CTE PRO ONE. So, just because you want to proclaim that gaps exist does not actually mean that there are gaps.....
Stan Shuffett
What's with all the references to "math", Stan? The gaps in CTE are revealed by simple logic, not by "math". It's simply obvious that CTE's detailed steps only define a handful of specific CB/OB alignments and the majority of shots on the pool table fall between them.
I agree that "perception" is how the player fills in the gaps, but it's the player that does that, not CTE. Perception is necessary in every kind of aiming.
And just because you want to proclaim that gaps don't exist does not actually mean that there are no gaps.
Anyway, I'm not "just proclaiming" there are gaps. Logic says so - at least until you can clearly describe how CTE works after identifying the A/B/C aimpoint without falling back on undefined jargon like "acquire the visual", "visual intelligence" and "perception", all of which sound to me like euphemisms for "do this part by feel".
pj
chgo
BOILERPLATE DISCLAIMER: The existence of "gaps" in CTE's systematic aiming solutions doesn't mean CTE doesn't "work". But unnecessary denial of the gaps makes discussion of CTE more difficult and contentious.
Last edited:
Of course, you can't see the cut angle unless you can picture the ghostball, by definition of "cut angle.'' If you can see the ghostball, one could try simply sending the cueball toward it.
What you can see with a minimum of manufactured imagery is the angle between the line of centers of the CB-OB and the desired object ball direction. I'll use Dr. Dave's term of "impact angle." For a given impact impact angle then, the CB has to be driven at some angle with respect to the CB-OB line of centers. Call this the "approach angle." The approach angle changes not only with impact angle but with CB-OB separation distance. It can only be determined by adding the physical theory of ghostball (i.e., an equal sized sphere making contact opposite the pocket).
In order to generate the correct approach angles, given what AtLarge is saying, you'll have to have one set of eye positions memorized for the span of impact angles covered by one of Stan's visual(A,B,C)/tip offset setups for one particular CB-OB separation, another set of eye positions for the same span of impact angles at some other CB-OB separation, and so on. It's hard to see how the term 'objective,' in Stan's sense of that word, has any applicability left in it. If you could directly construct the eye position from the impact angle and separation distance, that would be a different matter. But you can't, not without injecting ghostball into it.
Frankly, I can't see why anyone would want to try to absorb all of that, excepting as they were seduced by the large print representations of it.
Jim
Last edited:
Perhaps not so if your experience is sufficient. For example, with old-fashioned fractional-ball aiming, one learns what happens with a half-ball aim, a quarter-ball aim, and a three-quarter-ball aim. Then he learns to go a little thick or a little thin on one of those for the angles in between. He need not ever make reference to a ghostball or a contact point. Now, CTE is more complicated, because the cut angles also vary with CB-OB separation. But is it beyond the realm of possibility for experience to teach the CTE user how to put his eyes in just the right place so that he can then use the mechanical steps of CTE and pocket the ball?
And I think that is an entirely logical viewpoint for many people. Personally, I always question something when it involves an indirect method when a more direct method is available. And I think more direct aiming methods are available for pocketing pool balls. But some people prefer pistachio ice cream to vanilla.
Only if you accept that CTE can be used successfully without fine tuning by feel once one is down on the shot.
And I'm not saying that all CTE users possess that degree of experience/knowledge. Some people in the past have gone into rapture and cheerleader mode with little real knowledge of, or experience with, CTE.