How beneficial is an aiming system?

[Neil]

Ok, OK, lol, let me see if I have this straight:

Paragraph One: general CTE hater put down.

Paragraph Two: I didn't try hard enough.

Paragraph Three: I didn't commit to it.

Did I get that right, lol.

Lou Figueroa
yer killin' me

I'm not putting you down Lou. I think you know me good enough by now that you would know if I was. There would be no guessing about it at all. Simply stated a fact I observed.
Funny you keep mentioning #2 and 3. Yet, you still don't "hear" it. Or, just don't seem to understand what they actually mean. You try and twist those two little facts into something wrong with us. How many times must you be told that CTE is NOT a magic pill to instant aiming nervana? It takes dedication and effort and commitment. Things that you can not honestly say you gave to it. You stand by your way of aiming. Fine, if it works for you. But, did you learn it in a day or two? Even a month or two? NO. So, the way you now aim, you have to apply all the negatives you apply to CTE ,to it.

 

[JB Cases]

Well, you can go on Facebook and ask the pros yourself if they think reliable aiming methods are important.

Stevie Moore, Phil Burford, Landon Shuffett, Rodney Morris, SVB and well all of them are reachable through Facebook.

Better players than Lou have testified that CTE works. Pros stand behind it. Some pros don't like any aiming systems and some swear by them.

Here is what you should do. Enjoy the game. Do whatever you want to do. Thosexwho teach aiming systems are easy to find. Those who learned them are easy to find.

I often help people with them in person and let them make the choice to either go farther or not.

The one fact you know for sure is that if you don't explore them then you will never know what benefit they might have been for your game. As an APA 6 there is zero chance you can make your game worse by trying out aiming systems in my opinion.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[shinobi]

Try stopping getting stuck on words, and try understanding what is actually being said. As soon as you hear "feel" or "experience" you get closed minded to what is actually being said and get stuck on "see, told you so!".

Here we go again with claims of being "closed minded". How many times do you want to repeat those lame words rather than discussing the actual system?

Which words am I "stuck on"? The words I mentioned about feel and experience are clearly presented in the DVD. They are not misleading or vague.

If you want to say that I am stuck on those words, then what better words would you offer in exchange to describe the process? Are you saying there is no feel or experience component to lining up the shot, placing the bridge hand, how much to pivot?

As to your last paragraph, what a red herring that one is! The guys I know don't use this new system, so I won't give it any merit? Really?? Snooker players don't use, so it must not be that good. Really?

I wouldn't say "Snooker players don't use it, so it must not be that good." New systems can come around anytime, and perhaps improve on what is already the norm.

If CTE really is better for aiming, players in the cue sport requiring the most precise aiming will look at it, and in a hurry. Who wouldn't want an advantage, if there is one to be had? Unless of course you believe 100% of snooker players are closed minded

That's like saying that snooker players don't use pool cues, so a pool cue is the wrong cue to use. Or saying that snooker players don't play on 9' tables, so I won't either.

No, it isn't like saying any of the above things, at all. Nobody is saying those things. You don't present your argument well by resorting to extreme and irrational comparisons. Those points have nothing to do with any aiming system, let alone an opinion of CTE.

 

[naji]

So I'll start with some background on me. I started playing pool about 2.5 years ago at the age of 23 by joining my friends APA team. I had pretty much 0 experience but knew that I would love it as I am very competitive, and love physics and geometry. Bowling and drumming are two other things I excelled at previously, which require a lot of repetitive hand eye coordination type practice so I figured pool would be perfect for me.

Here's where I'm at now. I'm a 6 in the APA and i win about 65-70% of my matches each session. I know that APA skill levels are not the best indicator but it's the only way I can describe my "speed" on the internet in a way that most everyone can relate to. I'm proud of the fact that I've gotten to where I am in a relatively short time but know that I am still a VERY small fish.

I'm wondering now what is the best way to improve further. Obviously its practice practice practice, but what KIND of practice. Some people tell me to just "feel" and others preach aiming systems, and TOI, and all that jazz. One of the best players I've ever seen, Shannon Murphy from cinncinnati, said he pretty much just feels what he's doing. I think this is a little unfair though since he started playing at a VERY young age and has had some extremely good instruction throughout his life.

So far in my progression I've tended to try both. I've watched most of Dr. Dave Billiards videos and they have given me an understanding of what is actually going on from a physics standpoint. I then try and see it for myself on the table and put it in my memory banks. I know about cut induced throw/spin, spin induced throw/spin, rail spin reversal, the limits of a miscue, and so on. But is it worth it to actually THINK about all that when playing? I feel like it's much better to let your subconscious do all that.

So basically at this point in my game would it be beneficial for me to look into an aiming system? I'm afraid of "cluttering" my head with things that are best left to the subconscious. Does anyone have any thoughts?

The truth is you have to have your own table at home, unless you can wait couple more years!

 

[nobcitypool]

The burden of proof is not on me. You are the one selling something

Lou Figueroa

Actually, not true. You are adamant about the system not working but offer zero proof to support your claim. Proof the system works? I offer you professionals Moore, Shuffett and Burford. I offer you many videos by Gerry Williams. I offer you many demo videos by Stan. What proof do you offer? Nothing.

 

[Gerry Williams]

It worked fine for me. Maybe in your case it wasn't the gun but rather the hunter?

Just speculating of course.

Since you would not honor your claim that your DVD would "stand alone," a refund should have immediately been in order for me and all those who were dissatisfied.

But no, you took the dough and ran.

I sold because you would not refund.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Neil]

Here we go again with claims of being "closed minded". How many times do you want to repeat those lame words rather than discussing the actual system?

Which words am I "stuck on"? The words I mentioned about feel and experience are clearly presented in the DVD. They are not misleading or vague.

If you want to say that I am stuck on those words, then what better words would you offer in exchange to describe the process? Are you saying there is no feel or experience component to lining up the shot, placing the bridge hand, how much to pivot?



I wouldn't say "Snooker players don't use it, so it must not be that good." New systems can come around anytime, and perhaps improve on what is already the norm.

If CTE really is better for aiming, players in the cue sport requiring the most precise aiming will look at it, and in a hurry. Who wouldn't want an advantage, if there is one to be had? Unless of course you believe 100% of snooker players are closed minded



No, it isn't like saying any of the above things, at all. Nobody is saying those things. You don't present your argument well by resorting to extreme and irrational comparisons. Those points have nothing to do with any aiming system, let alone an opinion of CTE.

Nice try at spinning it, but no prizes for you.

 

[shinobi]

Nice try at spinning it, but no prizes for you.

I asked if you had any better words to describe the parts of the DVD that specifically said "feel and experience" and this is your reply.

How is that "spin"?

 

[Neil]

I asked if you had any better words to describe the parts of the DVD that specifically said "feel and experience" and this is your reply.

How is that "spin"?

This has all been discussed before. And, you well know that. You are not using Stan's words properly because you only see what you want to see. You miss the forest for the trees. And, I doubt any amount of explaining it to you will open your eyes. So, rather than type it all out again and repeat what I and others have said, if you really want to know, then go back through the other threads on it. I have better things to do than try and help someone that doesn't want any help.

 

[shinobi]

This has all been discussed before. And, you well know that. You are not using Stan's words properly because you only see what you want to see. You miss the forest for the trees. And, I doubt any amount of explaining it to you will open your eyes. So, rather than type it all out again and repeat what I and others have said, if you really want to know, then go back through the other threads on it. I have better things to do than try and help someone that doesn't want any help.

Neil,

I am aware that the whole pro-CTE vs "naysayers" debate has raged on for a long time, and there is probably a lot of sensitivity on both sides. But, I say to you honestly, I've not followed all the details and debates much until quite recently.

When I ask you for clarification on why you say I am stuck on the words "feel and experience", I mean it.

If you are going to tell me I'm misinterpreting the words somehow, and at the same time refuse to tell me what a more correct interpretation would be, then don't call me closed minded. I'm not being dramatic or emotional here. Stick to the facts, please.

 

[nobcitypool]

Since you would not honor your claim that your DVD would "stand alone," a refund should have immediately been in order for me and all those who were dissatisfied.

But no, you took the dough and ran.

I sold because you would not refund.

Lou Figueroa

Lou, it sounds like you may be struggling financially. Even though you seem to like to imply you're well to do, you apparently were worried about a $60 DVD. You also either didn't have the courage or apparently, the funds to put your own money up against John Barton even though you were a huge favorite to win.

Now, you would likely dispute that and ask for me to prove you're struggling financially. The proof I offered in the last statement of the previous paragraph is far more proof than you have ever offered for why CTE/Pro One doesn't work. I wish I could understand why you're so envious of Stan Shuffett. Perhaps it is because he is more known for doing and you're only known for story telling.

Dr. Dave (whom I respect for the work he has done), Bob Jewitt, Patrick Johnson and others have never offered one iota of factual proof or mathematical analysis to support any argument against CTE/Pro One. Does that seem a bit strange given their acknowledged expertise in science and physics?

On the other hand, tune into the video where Landon Shuffett pounds Earl Strickland at Tunica when he was 17 years old using CTE/Pro One. In my best Jack Nicholson voice "You want Proof?" "You can't handle the Proof!"

 

[nobcitypool]

Neil,

I am aware that the whole pro-CTE vs "naysayers" debate has raged on for a long time, and there is probably a lot of sensitivity on both sides. But, I say to you honestly, I've not followed all the details and debates much until quite recently.

When I ask you for clarification on why you say I am stuck on the words "feel and experience", I mean it.

If you are going to tell me I'm misinterpreting the words somehow, and at the same time refuse to tell me what a more correct interpretation would be, then don't call me closed minded. I'm not being dramatic or emotional here. Stick to the facts, please.

Perhaps I'm missing something and if so, I apologize. I believe Stan used the words feel and experience to discuss two parts of the CTE/Pro One. One part was using experience to know which perception (15/30/45/60) to use on a given shot and/or which sweep/pivot to use with a given perception. I believe he also discussed experience and feel with banks. He was explicitly clear that CTE/Pro One takes you to the exact correct geometric angle for the banks but you have to apply feel and experience to adjust a bit due to the affects of cut induced spin on the OB and the facts rails clearly aren't perfectly angle in = angle out.

The debate of "feel and experience" that matters is that of using feel and experience to tweek your alignment once you've gone through the process and are down on the shot. I know of nowhere Stan has ever even implied that any tweeking for regular shots (non banks) should be done. In fact, just the opposite. He has been adamant to trust your perception and to make sure you don't give into any temptation to tweek or steer the cue.

Since you brought this up, can you please advise the exact point in either DVD where Stan said anything about using feel or experience in tweeking or adjusting once you're down on the shot? If he didn't, I guess I'm missing your point.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Neil,

I am aware that the whole pro-CTE vs "naysayers" debate has raged on for a long time, and there is probably a lot of sensitivity on both sides. But, I say to you honestly, I've not followed all the details and debates much until quite recently.

When I ask you for clarification on why you say I am stuck on the words "feel and experience", I mean it.

If you are going to tell me I'm misinterpreting the words somehow, and at the same time refuse to tell me what a more correct interpretation would be, then don't call me closed minded. I'm not being dramatic or emotional here. Stick to the facts, please.

Don't get upset with Neil. It's unfortunate that you receive these type of responses from him and other Pro One users, but it's nobody's fault except the ones that have trolled in the past. It just gets old after awhile trying to figure out who really wants to learn and who doesn't.

Right now, here are the facts, and I may miss a few.

1. Pro One takes time at the table to learn. Some might get it quicker than others, but everyone will have to put in a lot of hours. Of course, this can also be said about anything you're trying to learn with this game.

2. Pro One is NOT a magic bullet. Becoming a better shot maker, and eventually a better player (with practice) can happen. How much better is really up to the user. What you put in is what you get in return.

3. At this time, there is no math or 2D diagrams that can fully explain how Pro One works.

4. There are no gaps in the system. By that I mean, any shot that can be made with ghost ball (or any other method) can also be made with Pro One. That's all the users have requested any naysayers to provide, and so far, only silence.

 

[Neil]

Don't get upset with Neil. It's unfortunate that you receive these type of responses from him and other Pro One users, but it's nobody's fault except the ones that have trolled in the past. It just gets old after awhile trying to figure out who really wants to learn and who doesn't.

Right now, here are the facts, and I may miss a few.

1. Pro One takes time at the table to learn. Some might get it quicker than others, but everyone will have to put in a lot of hours. Of course, this can also be said about anything you're trying to learn with this game.

2. Pro One is NOT a magic bullet. Becoming a better shot maker, and eventually a better player (with practice) can happen. How much better is really up to the user. What you put in is what you get in return.

3. At this time, there is no math or 2D diagrams that can fully explain how Pro One works.

4. There are no gaps in the system. By that I mean, any shot that can be made with ghost ball (or any other method) can also be made with Pro One. That's all the users have requested any naysayers to provide, and so far, only silence.

He said the same thing two weeks ago. http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=4650285#post4650285

 

[shinobi]

Perhaps I'm missing something and if so, I apologize. I believe Stan used the words feel and experience to discuss two parts of the CTE/Pro One. One part was using experience to know which perception (15/30/45/60) to use on a given shot and/or which sweep/pivot to use with a given perception. I believe he also discussed experience and feel with banks. He was explicitly clear that CTE/Pro One takes you to the exact correct geometric angle for the banks but you have to apply feel and experience to adjust a bit due to the affects of cut induced spin on the OB and the facts rails clearly aren't perfectly angle in = angle out.

The debate of "feel and experience" that matters is that of using feel and experience to tweek your alignment once you've gone through the process and are down on the shot. I know of nowhere Stan has ever even implied that any tweeking for regular shots (non banks) should be done. In fact, just the opposite. He has been adamant to trust your perception and to make sure you don't give into any temptation to tweek or steer the cue.

Since you brought this up, can you please advise the exact point in either DVD where Stan said anything about using feel or experience in tweeking or adjusting once you're down on the shot? If he didn't, I guess I'm missing your point.

Sure, I have the first DVD so I can watch it again right now and make some comments.

Chapter 3 - Distinct Visuals For Aiming

3:15 "It's my experience with Center To Edge that allows me to know the exact visuals for this shot"

Written on-screen:
"Experience and recognition skills are key in determining correct OB aim points"


Chapter 4 - The Pivots
1:55 "It's your experience as a player that's going to allow you to know which pivot is correct (and most of the time it's going to be obvious)

Written on screen around 4:40:
"If one pivot direction does not work, the other pivot direction will. Experience is the best teacher!"

If you look at the two example shots in the video (first a right pivot and then a left pivot), both of them are gently cutting the ball into the centre pocket at a similar angle, yet one requires a right pivot, the other a left pivot. The shots are quite similar. There would be no obvious reason to use a right pivot on the first shot, and the left pivot on the second, based on a system (for example, they are both cutting from right to left yet into the same pocket yet the pivot varies). The only way to gauge that would be by feel and experience, or lining up with one way and noticing the aim point is off by instinct. If two shots with practically the same layout require different pivots, and you need to practice a bunch of shots to start learning when to use one pivot or another, it still seems like feel & adjustment, not a pure system. And there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, though many people seem to argue till they are blue in the face that there is no feel to it even though the DVD seems to clearly show otherwise.

 

[nobcitypool]

Thanks for proving my point shinobi. First, you mentioned feel previously but you didn't provide any examples of where Stan said anything about feel. As I stated, the experience Stan mentioned was knowing which visual perception to use for a given shot (15/30/45/60) as well as which pivot may be required.

It is a bit tricky at first especially when you're still clinging to your previous method for aiming. It's a bit tricky due to how the distance between the OB and CB alters perceptions. That's where experience comes in, i.e., knowing whether you need to use a 15 or 30 degree perception, for example, on a given shot. If you can't grasp the difference with this versus using feel to tweek your aim once you're down in your shot, it's no wonder you couldn't grasp the concepts of CTE/Pro One.

Now once again, where did Stan say anything about feel? I'm just quoting your words and asking you to back them up ... with proof. Thus far dude, you haven't been Perry Mason. The quotes below are your words. Seems like you may be a bit confused. You're in good company though, you and Lou can keep spinning the BS and avoiding the challenge to provide any facts.

've written about it in more detail in other threads. The gist of it is, that part of the steps of CTE still involve feel+experience. i

What some people against CTE say is, it's still adding some feel and adjustments when you tweak your sight line, bridge hand, pivot.

 

[shinobi]

I don't mind if you want to challenge me on my words. It's far better than random insults about being closed minded, that's for sure

It wasn't the 15/30 perception that was based on experience, it was the pivot from right to left, or left to right. Watch the video, as I'm curious what you feel about the two example shots which are quite similar, and are certainly the same style or cut, just a little different yet requiring different pivot directions.

 

[Neil]

I don't mind if you want to challenge me on my words. It's far better than random insults about being closed minded, that's for sure

It wasn't the 15/30 perception that was based on experience, it was the pivot from right to left, or left to right. Watch the video, as I'm curious what you feel about the two example shots which are quite similar, and are certainly the same style or cut, just a little different yet requiring different pivot directions.

Random insult? One, it wasn't random, two, it wasn't an insult, it was a fact. You are being close-minded. Shooting pool by "feel" means guessing. There is no "guessing" in CTE once it is learned. While learning it, the same as with learning anything, you use your past experience with it to remember. You practice to gain that experience. You try and equate "experience" as a short-coming of the system, when it is a beneficial necessity.

You act like you are looking for a magic pill. There is none. There are steps to follow. Things to learn. Learning those things gives you experience. The correct steps, the correct pivot, puts one on the correct shot line. How or why you would equate the experience of knowing which pivot to use with total guesswork on a shot is beyond any reasonable explanation of someone really wanting to learn it. But, it fits perfectly with someone not really trying to learn it, but only knock it because it's not the magic pill they were hoping for.

 

[shinobi]

Random insult? One, it wasn't random, two, it wasn't an insult, it was a fact. You are being close-minded. Shooting pool by "feel" means guessing. There is no "guessing" in CTE once it is learned. While learning it, the same as with learning anything, you use your past experience with it to remember. You practice to gain that experience. You try and equate "experience" as a short-coming of the system, when it is a beneficial necessity.

You act like you are looking for a magic pill. There is none. There are steps to follow. Things to learn. Learning those things gives you experience. The correct steps, the correct pivot, puts one on the correct shot line. How or why you would equate the experience of knowing which pivot to use with total guesswork on a shot is beyond any reasonable explanation of someone really wanting to learn it. But, it fits perfectly with someone not really trying to learn it, but only knock it because it's not the magic pill they were hoping for.

I've asked twice now for commentary regarding the example shots on the DVD in the chapter I listed and you are talking about magic pills. Right, then. Thanks for that.

 

[AtLarge]

............