Did The JB vs Lou Match Settle The Great Aiming Debate Once & For All?

[Neil]

But, see, that's just what the [take your pick of religious authorities] said when I told him I didn't believe in [take your pick of miraculous religious events]...

And, anyway, how can I "rest assured" of anything? That's the whole point of approaching this with an open mind. If I "rest assured that it's me", that doesn't sound like an open mind...



I intend to begin my video documentation by demonstrating my own level of mastery of the fundamentals...

I say that, because unless you are an elite player, you will have stroke issues. Which means that even though you did line up perfectly, you will still miss some shots because of your stroke.

Sometimes I will miss a shot in practice, and then set it back up and miss it again, and again. Then, I go back to manual CTE and am very careful on my stroke. Yep, the ball drops right in. The previous misses weren't the system, they were me.

 

[bwally]

These are the exact reasons I wanted to try CTE and in a short time my pocketing of these shots has improved greatly.

Good luck, keep an open mind, remember the results may not be immediate and will take some table time. But once everything falls into place I am pretty sure you will find this is the best way to aim..

Cheers!

So, like I mentioned yesterday, last night was league play.

I played pretty well, especially after I got into the PSR groove, and started staying down on my shots.

But I still missed a couple of shots that I should never miss. One, I know why I missed (stretching, instead of using the rest), but the other was a 3/4 table cut back into a blind pocket, which I overcut... again...

There are 2 or 3 classes of shots that I am tired of missing; or, rather, I am tired of not KNOWING that I'm on the right line. The blind pocket cut is one, for example, which I am focusing on in this post.

I am keen to fix this. And I am willing to take extraordinary measures at this point, since practicing the shot hundreds of times hasn't brought me any feeling of confidence.

So the DVD is on the way, and I'll work through it to see if it offers me something to fix this problem. I focus on this shot because it is, of all shots that I miss for whatever reasons, it is the one I miss because I am not aimed correctly. There are no complicating factors with this one, it is all about the aim.

I'll say up front that my expectation is that I will begin to work through the material, and will get to a certain point, and the rug will get pulled from under me, and I'll be left with, "Say Whaaaat??" But I am going to make a supreme effort to suspend skepticism until it overwhelms me.

Yeah, I know, you're going to come back and chide me (well, you won't 'chide', you'll be insulting, degrading, and rageful) about my attitude, but I'm sorry, it's the best I can do... we'll see how it goes.

- s.west

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

... in the case of CTE, I don't mean "too good to be true" in the sense that it's being touted as the magic bullet that will guarantee I make every shot; rather, that there can be a prescription for arriving at the shot line by using the kind of easy-to-see markers that have been described. So, yes, I am skeptical.

I am reminded of what my organic chemistry professor once said to me:

"Lewis structures are too good to be true, molecular orbital theory is too true to be good."

What he meant by this is that although MO theory better described the actual nature of chemical bonds, Lewis structures were a much clearer way to express and communicate these bonds on paper, even though they could not be "proven" to be real. I can almost guarantee that any time there are two organic chemists discussing bonds, one of them will be drawing Lewis structures and "pushing electrons" around on paper, even though neither of them believe they are a using real-life model.

This may seem to be a stretch to apply to pool, but I have found it applies to many things in life, which is why the saying stuck with me all these years. CTE/Pro One may not be mathematically provable, but that doesn't mean it can't be an extremely useful and objective way to aim a shot. OTOH a system that encompassed every conceivable shot on a pool table might be able to be proven to do so, but it would certainly be "too true to be good" in my estimation.

 

[Mirza]

After buying the first DVD I tried for about a week of solid intensive practise to make CTE work, but I couldnt. I had difficulty finding the visuals and maintaining them when going down into the shot. It is very difficult to do this for me and it involves a lot of concentration to do. I don't know how you guys just fall into the shot? I am used to the snooker system where you imagine the shot line and put your foot on that line along with the v of your bridge and your visions center. Am I supposed to find the visuals and then imagine a line on the table to lay my bridgehand on or on the side of? This may be a stupid question to you, but I don't understand how you can maintain the visuals all the way down on the shot. I usually lose sight of them when I am bending down? It is easy to keep track of one line, but damned difficult with 2! It is easy to see the visuals from 1 1/2 cue lengths away, but keeping them locked all the way while bending down is very hard for me. Then there was the bridgehand, I struggled a lot with where to put it.

I tried to follow the instructions to the letter, but somewhere something must be wrong. Here is what I do: I stand slightly angled to the shot and decide what my visuals and sweep are. Then I try to go into position maintaining sight of the visuals at all times (hard) and place my bridgehand (even harder) but I try to put the tip 1/2 tip off center. Then I sweep 1/2 tip to center cue ball and shoot the ball into the rail! I usually slightly overcut the ball when using the logical visual and sweep. If I try the other sweep I undercut the shot.What could be the cause of this?

Hey friend!

Well of course its hard what you described because its impossible, you can't sweep (rotate left or right) AND keep the visuals.

After you aquire your visuals you forget about them and just concentrate on the CB and its center.

From there you move with your vision straight in towards it and with the tip of the cue 1/2 left or right of the vertical axis of the CB and then pivot the cue to center, or instead of manual pivotin you sweep.

So no, you don't and can't keep the visuals while going into the stance.

All the best!

 

[nobcitypool]

Anybody that took some basic high school drafting or even did simple perspectives in art class can begin to comprehend, and accept, why you get different perceptions in cte/pro one. Remember drawing railroad tracks on paper going away from you? Even though the tracks obviously remain the same width, they appear to narrow as they move away from you. As the distance between the cb and ob increases, the size of the ob begins to look smaller.

This is easy to see immediately with cte/pro one. Set up straight in shots from corner pocket to corner pocket diagonally. Put the cb 2 diamonds from the short rail. Start by putting the ob one diamond from the cb and then increase by one diamond for each shot. When one diamond apart, etc or etc, cte seems a lot apart. But when the distance is at 5 diamond apart, your perception only requires a very slight move to see. At first glance, your logical side asks "how can this possibly work?" I wish I could mathematically explain it but after over a year of using it, I now simply know it works flawlessly. The key has to lie in that you move to ccb in my opinion.

There was a question about checking it and if it doesn't look right, get up and start over. Most players with even minimal experience have an idea of how the shot should look. If when you go down to shoot and it doesn't look right, that tells you the wrong perception may have been used or you didn't come into the shot correctly. I think that is why, when you first start learning the system you need to use the hole reinforcers and set up a number of proposition shots. That will help you begin to pick up what you're doing wrong. At least with me, if I start missing when I'm practicing, it is always because I got lazy and quit focusing on ccb or I get lazy with my cue alignment.

Here's a practice tip. Don't be reluctant to use the ghost ball. Set up your shot and then place the ghost ball. Get your perception and move into your shot. You should be lined up now on the gb EXCEPT you should be over cutting by the slightest amount. If you have some question in your mind of the correct perception or pivot, set up the gb. This can be very helpful on thin cuts. I often struggle with 45 degree perceptions as to whether it is an inside or outside pivot. Using the gb has really helped me with those. There are also some shots, in certain areas of the table where my non dominant eye wants to conflict with my dominant eye. Using the gb as a learning tool has helped with those as well.

 

[swest]

I am reminded of what my organic chemistry professor once said to me:

"Lewis structures are too good to be true, molecular orbital theory is too true to be good."

What he meant by this is that although MO theory better described the actual nature of chemical bonds, Lewis structures were a much clearer way to express and communicate these bonds on paper, even though they could not be "proven" to be real. I can almost guarantee that any time there are two organic chemists discussing bonds, one of them will be drawing Lewis structures and "pushing electrons" around on paper, even though neither of them believe they are a using real-life model.

This may seem to be a stretch to apply to pool, but I have found it applies to many things in life, which is why the saying stuck with me all these years. CTE/Pro One may not be mathematically provable, but that doesn't mean it can't be an extremely useful and objective way to aim a shot. OTOH a system that encompassed every conceivable shot on a pool table might be able to be proven to do so, but it would certainly be "too true to be good" in my estimation.

Your point, as far as it applies, is taken. Of course, Lewis structures are just a shorthand to allow for communication about a more complex reality by taking advantage of observable patterns of behavior of valence electrons. In that sense, Lewis structures don't require 'proof'. They're entirely man-made.

But remember, one of my requirements for the 'system' (as is probably coming out in my posts) is that I am expecting an understandable, and reproducible prescription for arriving on a shot line. I intend to rigorously apply that prescription. If the system admits to this, and I can both reliably reproduce the expected results, and then extend it to new situations, then, no I won't require complete understanding of it to use it. (But, I would at that point, try to work backwards and endeavor to understand or derive its theoretical basis.) So, in that sense, like any good scientist, I'm just going to be trying to reproduce previous experimental results based on the prescription provided by the theory (as presented on the DVD).

My skepticism is that this prescription exists.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

I say that, because unless you are an elite player, you will have stroke issues. Which means that even though you did line up perfectly, you will still miss some shots because of your stroke.

Sometimes I will miss a shot in practice, and then set it back up and miss it again, and again. Then, I go back to manual CTE and am very careful on my stroke. Yep, the ball drops right in. The previous misses weren't the system, they were me.

OK, this leads me to ask about the necessity of learning the manual pivot first. Can you just go straight to Pro One and skip the pivoting? I really don't see how you can play the game well if you are constantly worrying about the correct bridge length for the shot. Plus, the idea of swaying my ass one way or another to pivot just seems so wrong to me.

 

[Neil]

OK, this leads me to ask about the necessity of learning the manual pivot first. Can you just go straight to Pro One and skip the pivoting? I really don't see how you can play the game well if you are constantly worrying about the correct bridge length for the shot. Plus, the idea of swaying my ass one way or another to pivot just seems so wrong to me.

As Stan has stated a few times, one should not really try and play using the manual pivot. It puts too much conscious thought into it and isn't conducive to playing real well. But, you should practice with the manual pivot until you get it reinforced into your subconscious on what you are actually doing. You might be able to learn it right from pro 1, but I think it might be more difficult to learn it that way.

As to the moving of the hip, you are only moving it a small amount, not a large amount like in 90/90.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

As Stan has stated a few times, one should not really try and play using the manual pivot. It puts too much conscious thought into it and isn't conducive to playing real well. But, you should practice with the manual pivot until you get it reinforced into your subconscious on what you are actually doing. You might be able to learn it right from pro 1, but I think it might be more difficult to learn it that way.

As to the moving of the hip, you are only moving it a small amount, not a large amount like in 90/90.

Yeah, it was playing around with 90/90 that got me turned off on the pivoting.

OK... I'm in this thing as an experiment along with Mr. West. I'm gonna go order the new DVD right now. I will give it as much serious attention as I can, and I will seek help here on AZB from those who know and use the system well. I'm such a hot and cold player that it should be pretty obvious to me if it works. I'll give it three months, and if I fail to see any improvement at all I'll just assume it ain't for me. Hopefully it will at least improve my consistency.

 

[swest]

I say that, because unless you are an elite player, you will have stroke issues. Which means that even though you did line up perfectly, you will still miss some shots because of your stroke.

Sometimes I will miss a shot in practice, and then set it back up and miss it again, and again. Then, I go back to manual CTE and am very careful on my stroke. Yep, the ball drops right in. The previous misses weren't the system, they were me.

I just realized I never responded to this.

Yes, I understand the point you are making here. And, yes, I know of shots where I was, without a doubt, lined up correctly, and, by letting my conscious, controlling mind sneak in and mess with things, I missed. All because my stroke went haywire as a consequence of my conscious mind saying, "No! Do it THIS way."

 

[lfigueroa]

Did JB use an aiming system ?
Did Lou not use an aiming system ?
From what I saw, I think they both used the same system.
They visualized the two balls colliding.

hmmmmmmmmmmm, no.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Neil]

hmmmmmmmmmmm, no.

Lou Figueroa

If I remember correctly, Lou uses the "feel" system. When it feels right, stroke it in. John used the modified CTE system- align with the CTE system, then whack at it.

Sorry John, but I am chiding you into working on your stroke. If you ever spend some time on it, you would be a pretty good player.

 

[lfigueroa]

If I remember correctly, Lou uses the "feel" system. When it feels right, stroke it in. John used the modified CTE system- align with the CTE system, then whack at it.

Sorry John, but I am chiding you into working on your stroke. If you ever spend some time on it, you would be a pretty good player.

You know, actually this isn't quite right either. What I do is just look at the shot and *when it looks right* I shoot. That's it.

It's kinda hard to explain.

The thing is that the quality and my confidence level in "the view" is entirely dependent upon my PSR. When my PSR sets me up right, my confidence level in my view sky rockets -- I get down on a shot and *I know* I'm going to make the ball. I'd even take it a step further to say that when everything is right with the world, I can see or visualize the entire shot -- replete with the path the CB will take -- unfold before I pull the trigger.

Lou Figueroa

 

[cardiac kid]

You know, actually this isn't quite right either. What I do is just look at the shot and *when it looks right* I shoot. That's it.

It's kinda hard to explain.

The thing is that the quality and my confidence level in "the view" is entirely dependent upon my PSR. When my PSR sets me up right, my confidence level in my view sky rockets -- I get down on a shot and *I know* I'm going to make the ball. I'd even take it a step further to say that when everything is right with the world, I can see or visualize the entire shot -- replete with the path the CB will take -- unfold before I pull the trigger.

Lou Figueroa

Lou,

Never realized it but your routine is pretty much what I do. My flaw is infrequently allowing my eyes to shift to the path of the cue ball instead of staying on the object ball. Guess I'll have to admit I use a "system" after all !

Lyn

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou,

Never realized it but your routine is pretty much what I do. My flaw is infrequently allowing my eyes to shift to the path of the cue ball instead of staying on the object ball. Guess I'll have to admit I use a "system" after all !

Lyn

Yes, Lyn, but what we're talking about is a *setup system* as opposed to an aiming system. By using a good setup system, the aiming part is almost organic, or perhaps a happy byproduct, of the success or failure of how well we setup. You just see it.

Coincidentally, attention to the PSR is perhaps one of the reasons aiming system proponents experience improvement. They're just paying more attention to how they're setting up and/or looking at precise points on the balls than they might have before.

BTW, something I learned long ago that one of the key components to this is to setup, not looking at the CB or OB, but rather at the entire shot. What happens then is that your wetware gets enough data about CB, OB, pocket, rails, other balls, and desired position to put your body into the right position for the shot. YMMV.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Gerry Williams]

I agree with you that systematic approach can result in an improved PSR. I definitely am more attentive to the task at hand since I switched to Pro One.

Gerry

Yes, Lyn, but what we're talking about is a *setup system* as opposed to an aiming system. By using a good setup system, the aiming part is almost organic, or perhaps a happy byproduct, of the success or failure of how well we setup. You just see it.

Coincidentally, attention to the PSR is perhaps one of the reasons aiming system proponents experience improvement. They're just paying more attention to how they're setting up and/or looking at precise points on the balls than they might have before.

BTW, something I learned long ago that one of the key components to this is to setup, not looking at the CB or OB, but rather at the entire shot. What happens then is that your wetware gets enough data about CB, OB, pocket, rails, other balls, and desired position to put your body into the right position for the shot. YMMV.

Lou Figueroa

 

[cardiac kid]

Lou,

As I've stated in other posts, I can not explain how I aim as opposed to my pre-shot routine. Was specifically talking about my "PSR". I've played over 55 years. I just know where to aim. Perhaps I'm using an aiming system without realizing it. Then of course I would have to sue for copywrite infringement as I've used my system for more years than any current instructor :thumbup: . Of all the current instructors, my guess is only Scott Lee has watched me play at length. His input would be appreciated. Think you and me have a lot of pool in common. Appreciate your comments even when we do not agree.

Lyn .

 

[TATE]

You guys do know that with all this talk of more matches someone is going to have to give TATE CPR, don't you?

Lou Figueroa

Never mind - I'm done with trading insults.

 

[CJ Wiley]

"get into the zone" where you can start to really enjoy the game

Let's face it we all use systems every day in every way. Even walking up and down stairs requires a system, although it's done subconsciously so we don't "real eyes" we're using one.

Driving a car takes a system, and again it's done subconsciously after someone's experienced (this does take some driving time) and after awhile it seems natural. Playing music and communication takes an advanced system as well.

After reading and writing becomes "second nature" it doesn't seem like we are still using a "system," however, we certainly are......it's just done subconsciously.

"Aiming" is the same scenario, it's done at the highest level subconsciously. The only thing we can do consciously is set up consistently between the cue ball and object ball. I show this system in detail on my 1997 series of videos 'Ultimate Pool Secrets' - this system shows how to line up CENTER/CENTER or CENTER/EDGE to make ANY ANGLED SHOT.

The other key component to subconscious aiming is feet position (the foundation of the shot) and also at the highest levels we actually "aim" with out feet (because the feet position dictates the position of the upper body's angles).

TOI is not an aiming system, it's an overall playing system that combines a consistent cue ball target with a consistent alignment and utilized a consistent shot speed .... this, at the highest level produces a sensation that ALL shots are practically the same......again, using Center/Center (cue ball to object ball) or Center/Edge (cue ball to object ball).

This makes the game simple enough to start using your subconscious more and "get into the zone" where you can start to really enjoy the game (although your opponent might not think it's as much fun) 'Your Game Will Be Their Teacher'

I think not.

There will always be the possibility of finding players who do use a 'system' that can beat Lou and, conversely, there are lots of players using no official 'system' that can win against John.

The same can be said of Geno and Bartram who finally matched up not too long ago. With a little humor it became "one man, a van, and an aiming system vs "one man, no aiming system". :grin: btw, Chris, the 'no system' guy in that match, hit practically every shot with *w-a-y* outside. What's up with that?

IMHO, pretty much all of us use some sort of an aiming system, whether we're 'throwing' balls in with a little sidespin or even something as simple as eyeballing and maybe laying our sticks down on the table to aid in measuring the ghost ball angle we need, these are systems we employ to help pot balls.

I'm not sure if the more sophisticated aiming systems like CTE, TOI, or whatever, are any better than H.A.M.B. (hitting a million balls), I think that's a decision we can all make for ourselves. If you want to explore one of these and you think it might save you some time or make your game better, then I say more power to you. :thumbup:

And if you find success with it, even more power to you.

The one thing about this topic that I am certain of, is this:

It's not one size fits all, never was and never will be.

Therefore, I don't believe we should defend and debate it like it's a religion. What you like and believe may not be the same as me.

Pool is our passion and it's supposed to be fun, right?

Then live and let live.

And enjoy the journey.

best,
brian kc

 

[duckie]

T0i inside is as big a gimmick as CTE.

So, are aiming systems open or closed types of systems?