Rodeny Morris Beats the 13 ball Ghost usng CTE

Here you SakuJack - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=LDiO5SS3RnI#t=264s

How can you see a player shooting the shots that Mizerak does here and conclude that if he had been able to take the game seriously and with proper coaching that he woudn't have a chance to crack the top 100?

And this was done at a time when The Miz was winding down his pool career.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn7K1MlCgkQ - post match interview. Mass makes Class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgWLYxeua2A&list=UUr-uKUSDMGNutDmtcUlbZ8w&index=1 - LISTEN TO THE COMMENTARY

Not a comparison but a good Steve Davis interview with his insights on form and coaching and opportunities - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOdd_wBQDA
 
Last edited:
Gin Baby!

Do you as an amateur player know more than Steve Davis does?

Listen to EXACTLY what he says in this interview about pool from here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9pOdd_wBQDA#t=316s

Particularly what he says HERE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9pOdd_wBQDA#t=431s

Thaiger, sorry you aren't here to respond to this, feel free to email me to jb@jbideas.com if you would like to respond.

---------------------------------------------------------

"If he'd have grown up in the UK he'd have been a snooker champion" - Steve Davis speaking about Efren Reyes.
 
JB Cases said:
...

Back of Ball without ghost ball.
Line to contact point without ghost ball
Contact Point to Contact Point.
Fractional Aiming taught by Steve Davis.

...

And again, welcome back.
Click to expand...

I don't want to get into any lengthy discussions. But I will give a short response.

Back of Ball without ghost ball.
Never heard of it before sfleinen mentioned it. I watched the video and I think it's unnecessary.

Line to contact point without ghost ball
Same.

Contact Point to Contact Point.
It's like ghostball. I used that in practice when I was a beginner, to learn the angles. I still use it today on tricky shots or when under pressure. Doesn't compensate for throw though.

Fractional Aiming taught by Steve Davis.
Overlapping cueball and objectball is the method of visualizing the shot. I do it, and I bet most players do it that way. But it doesn't tell you where to aim.

Yes there are aiming systems being taught in snooker. But nothing outrageous like pivot systems or that shadow system from ekkes (sorry I forgot the name), and there isn't put as much emphasis on aiming, more on technique.
I think aiming is a complex matter with many variables involved that can't be simplified into one little system, even the almighty ghostball. At the same time it is also much easier than this forum suggests. The human brain is very good at calculating the ball's paths after it has been fed with enough information to learn from. But when the stroke is not straight (including warm up strokes) the initial cueballpath is uncertain and it becomes tougher or even impossible to calculate the resulting path of the objectball. If a player has the same stroke flaws consistently on every shot, the brain can even learn to compensate for these flaws and better predict the path of the cueball. But stroke flaws aren't always the same. It would be much easier with a perfectly straight stroke.

Steve Davis is a great man, btw.

e: One more thing.
Snooker is snooker and pool is pool. But in both games you have to strike a cueball with a cue to put other balls into pockets. Like Steve Davis said it.
 
Last edited:
ThePoliteSniper said:
I don't want to get into any lengthy discussions. But I will give a short response.

Back of Ball without ghost ball.
Never heard of it before sfleinen mentioned it. I watched the video and I think it's unnecessary.

Line to contact point without ghost ball
Same.

Contact Point to Contact Point.
It's like ghostball. I used that in practice when I was a beginner, to learn the angles. I still use it today on tricky shots or when under pressure. Doesn't compensate for throw though.

Fractional Aiming taught by Steve Davis.
Overlapping cueball and objectball is the method of visualizing the shot. I do it, and I bet most players do it that way. But it doesn't tell you where to aim.

Yes there are aiming systems being taught in snooker. But nothing outrageous like pivot systems or that shadow system from ekkes (sorry I forgot the name), and there isn't put as much emphasis on aiming, more on technique.
I think aiming is a complex matter with many variables involved that can't be simplified into one little system, even the almighty ghostball. At the same time it is also much easier than this forum suggests. The human brain is very good at calculating the ball's paths after it has been fed with enough information to learn from. But when the stroke is not straight (including warm up strokes) the initial cueballpath is uncertain and it becomes tougher or even impossible to calculate the resulting path of the objectball. If a player has the same stroke flaws consistently on every shot, the brain can even learn to compensate for these flaws and better predict the path of the cueball. But stroke flaws aren't always the same. It would be much easier with a perfectly straight stroke.

Steve Davis is a great man, btw.

e: One more thing.
Snooker is snooker and pool is pool. But in both games you have to strike a cueball with a cue to put other balls into pockets. Like Steve Davis said it.
Click to expand...

The ultimate point is that as Steve said it's all about making balls over and over. This is the exact same thing that we have said for the past decade. What does it matter HOW a player does it if they can do it consistently?

This video here shows that even snooker players have had many different styles and still got the job done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TCQz40-mxI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kkOaWmdipg4#t=589s

Barry Hearn said it best though, he said that when Steve Davis came along no one was paying the practice price. And he is right, if you put in the time you then the investment pays off.

I know you think aiming can't be codified but you're wrong. It has been.
 
I know I am OCD when it comes to backing up my points but here is a nice analysis that agrees with me as to why pool players don't take up snooker.

http://snookerhq.com/2012/11/16/fins-fables-snooker-in-the-new-world/

John Mars if you are reading this, back Shane and spend whatever it takes to ship him off to London and work with the best coaches. After all SakuJack is right, the pie is pretty tasty at the very top. Might take a few years but it sure would be a good investment if Shane snapped off some pro snooker events.
 
Phil Burford

Phil Burford, a CTE PRO ONE instructor and player from England, is playing Ralf NOW in the finals of a GB9 event as I was just informed.
That match may be streamed as they typically are.

Phil grew up playing snooker and then switched to pool. Phil has been using CTE PRO ONE for 2 years and with great success.

Good luck, Phil!

Stan Shuffett
 
Congrats to Phil Burford

106 players GB9
Down 10-8 to Ralf
Phil's wins 11-10
CTE PRO ONE is alive and well in Europe!

Stan Shuffett
 
stan shuffett said:
106 players GB9
Down 10-8 to Ralf
Phil's wins 11-10
CTE PRO ONE is alive and well in Europe!

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

For those that didn't see the match it will probably be available later. But here are the key things.

#1 at 6-6 I came into the match and Phil got a little short on an 8 and had to stretch to get to it. He hung it up. Ralf went out to a 9-6 lead from there. Then it got to 10-8. Phil had to come with a tough out to get to 10:9. Then he came again with a tough opening shot to get to the three and played it safe - Ralf barely missed a tough two rail kick and Phil ran out. Then Phil broke and ran a tough rack to win on the hill.

The fact of it is that Phil is able to pocket balls consistently and confidently that would trip a lot of players up. I challenge anyone to really analyze Phil's play with other top players and you can see a difference. It's not that Phil is superior it's that he can afford to take positions and shot choices that other players shy away from because those angles are just tough enough to make them try harder to get better position. This to me is an advantage when, as a player, you feel that you don't have to get perfect and you are not bothered by off angle shots. Those shots don't scare you because you know exactly what the aim without a moment's hesitation. This is all in my opinion of course but it's my take on it.
 
JB Cases said:
The fact of it is that Phil is able to pocket balls consistently and confidently that would trip a lot of players up. I challenge anyone to really analyze Phil's play with other top players and you can see a difference. It's not that Phil is superior it's that he can afford to take positions and shot choices that other players shy away from because those angles are just tough enough to make them try harder to get better position. This to me is an advantage when, as a player, you feel that you don't have to get perfect and you are not bothered by off angle shots. Those shots don't scare you because you know exactly what the aim without a moment's hesitation. This is all in my opinion of course but it's my take on it.
Click to expand...

Are you implying he won because of his aiming system? Absurd.
 
SakuJack said:
Are you implying he won because of his aiming system? Absurd.
Click to expand...

I am stating that I think his aiming system is a big part of why he is playing at a world class level and yes a big part of why he won.

He states that himself if you ask him.

No comment on the Steve Davis interview I dug up just for you earlier?
 
JB Cases said:
I am stating that I think his aiming system is a big part of why he is playing at a world class level and yes a big part of why he won.

He states that himself if you ask him.
Click to expand...

Player who uses / earns money from going lessons in aiming system says said system is a big part of his game. Wow. Big surprise there.

Burford would be a top player regardless of what aiming system he uses.

JB Cases said:
No comment on the Steve Davis interview I dug up just for you earlier?
Click to expand...

Nope. What did he say in it?

I spend little time on here as it is, and have neither the time nor the inclination to click through the fifty or so pointless links you spent way too much time digging up.
 
SakuJack said:
Player who uses / earns money from going lessons in aiming system says said system is a big part of his game. Wow. Big surprise there.

Burford would be a top player regardless of what aiming system he uses.
Click to expand...

Would he be? How do you know this? The point is that HE credits learning ProOne for taking him to the next level. And the reason he teaches it now is because he knows it works.

Nope. What did he say in it?

I spend little time on here as it is, and have neither the time nor the inclination to click through the fifty or so pointless links you spent way too much time digging up.
Click to expand...

Guess you will need to go look. Each link has a point. If you don't get it then that's not my problem. You probably shouldn't play games you don't have time or inclination to finish. I enjoyed the research and came across many interesting videos.

The gist of it is that Steve Davis does not agree with you. But then I guess you know more about high level pocket billiards games than Steve Davis does.
 
SakuJack said:
Burford would be a top player regardless of what aiming system he uses.
Click to expand...

Even though I do support Cte/Pro1, I do sort of agree with you. Phil would be a great player regardless, however, there's no doubt that it has improved his game.

What people (both sides) fail to realize is that there are really only two major improvements one will see Pro One (at least from my perspective as a user).

1. Shotmaking.
2. Confidence.

Everything else comes with hard work and dedication, but shotmaking and confidence are in fact two large parts of the puzzle.

I do believe that CTE fans need to be careful when "bragging" about a user doing well in a tournament. When they do that, it makes it just as easy for the naysayers to be dismissive when a user doesn't do well.
 
BeiberLvr said:
Even though I do support Cte/Pro1, I do sort of agree with you. Phil would be a great player regardless, however, there's no doubt that it has improved his game.

What people (both sides) fail to realize is that there are really only two major improvements one will see Pro One (at least from my perspective as a user).

1. Shotmaking.
2. Confidence.

Everything else comes with hard work and dedication, but shotmaking and confidence are in fact two large parts of the puzzle.

I do believe that CTE fans need to be careful when "bragging" about a user doing well in a tournament. When they do that, it makes it just as easy for the naysayers to be dismissive when a user doesn't do well.
Click to expand...

Clearly. But one other benefit comes with using CTE. Position play. When you know that you are on the right aiming line then it's easier to see the tangent and where you need to go. You can thus play position more precisely when you need to.

As for "using" performances you're right. But this is what naysayers have asked for. They said show us system users who have done well.

Landon Shuffet
Darren Appleton
Shane Van Boening
Phil Burford
Stevie Moore
Stan Shuffett

And now Rodney Morris is really happy with CTE/ProOne as a way to aim.

We all know that an aiming system alone is not the reason for a win or a loss. Lots of things need to come together. But the point is to show that world class players now openly admit to using aiming systems and openly give those methods some partial credit for their success.

We give naysayers all the evidence they ask for and more to prove our side of things. They give nothing but more hate. We don't try AT ALL to stop anyone from trying whatever methods are out there. In fact we encourage it.

Shane Van Boeing said the most important advice he could give to an amateur is to find a player they like and emulate them. So if one of those players happens to be someone who uses aiming systems then the amateur might as well try it out.

We don't need to be careful at all. We need to me more proactive with showing how great the methods are that we use. Nothing we advocate is harmful to anyone's game.
 
leafs07 said:
Some of the older naysayers have learned to not post about cte and there are some pretty popular and well known members on here.
Click to expand...

Because it's pointless. It's like trying to convince creationists that evolution is a fact.

I watched the TAR podcast with Mike and Shane. When Mike was asked how he aims, he first said it's all feel. But, err, wait... there is this DVD, right. You gotta buy the DVD!
- Aiming systems in a nutshell.

Why am I even here, again? I don't want to attack anyone personally. Do what you think is best. Have fun with aiming systems. Spread the word. Love the game. Be polite. Peace. Auf Wiedersehen. :lovies:
 
ThePoliteSniper said:
Because it's pointless. It's like trying to convince creationists that evolution is a fact.
Click to expand...

Yeah, not quite. If anything it's the exact opposite. You are like climate-change deniers who won't accept the facts despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I watched the TAR podcast with Mike and Shane. When Mike was asked how he aims, he first said it's all feel. But, err, wait... there is this DVD, right. You gotta buy the DVD!
- Aiming systems in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

Then Mike goes on to say he uses the Double the Distance method.

Why am I even here, again? I don't want to attack anyone personally. Do what you think is best. Have fun with aiming systems. Spread the word. Love the game. Be polite. Peace. Auf Wiedersehen. :lovies:
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why is this a big deal to you? You seem to think it's all about selling DVDs and you could not be more wrong. Hal Houle traveled the country giving away his systems and instruction for free. All in service of trying to help people play better pool. You guys act like CTE is just some gimmick made up to sell videos. But you forget that Stan Shuffett bet his son's career on CTE long before he made any videos. Why would he send his son into battle against the world's best using a way to aim that doesn't work?

All this is about teaching people methods that actually change the way they look at the game. Methods that literally make players better and which give them more enjoyment while playing.

Tschuss.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top