Aiming Systems • Techniques • ETC

[JoeyInCali]

Bought all of what? Material on aiming methods?

I don't know, the way I see it if you bought everything that is available on aiming you wouldn't spend $200.

Academics spend thousands, tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars increasing their knowledge. Those who are dedicated to personal improvement spend whatever it takes to improve themselves.

What have you spent learning to make cues? How much time have you put in? What did your mentor spend?

If someone were to come on here and say it's bullshit to x-ray cues to see how they are made, no one needs to do that, anyone can figure out how to join wood properly with practice you might disagree.

I don't know what you might say but I think I would say that having x-rays of how dozens of cue from various makers would be a wealth of information and a definite asset to a cue maker. It would be a head-start for any aspiring cue maker to have that information I would think.

What do you think? Are all those X-rays useless bullshit or did Kerry's time spent gathering this data have any tangible benefit?

Buy all the laser gadgets, private lessons on aiming, books , dvd's and vhs.
It'd be a lot more than $200.

If you want to compare it with cues, you're comparing physical object to a system. Not even close. If someone were to start making case, I'd tell him buy different cases and dissect them.

More than a decade ago , you swore by HH's system. Iirc you said then with that knowledge you'd be a pro player after a few years.
From watching your match with Lou, I don't think you even used it on most shots. I think you went to visualization aiming where you just imagine the line and collision. I could be wrong but I couldn't see any pivot in most of what I saw.
That doesn't discredit CTE of course.

 

[Poolplaya9]

There are a number of smart ones that know real CTE works as described

NOBODY who is really smart knows that it works (at least the way that it is claimed that it works). There may be some people that "know" it works who you believe to be smart, but rest assured they do not have an exceptional IQ regardless of your perception of their intelligence.

 

[dr_dave]

Here's a snooker aiming video that might help some with their aiming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKoMZrg1MAg

I personally consider the topic of that video visual alignment, not aiming. That video is involved with finding one's personal vision center (AKA in some circles, confusingly, as one's "dominant eye" position).

As I point out in my series of BD articles dealing with visual alignment and aiming,the following three fundamental skills are all important aspects of shot execution:

aiming: determining the line of the cue necessary to send the cue ball (CB) to the desired ghost-ball (GB) position to cut the object ball (OB) the required amount for the shot.

alignment: how you position your body and head to best enable you to place and stroke the cue along the desired line.

sighting: eye alignment and line of focus used to best visualize and achieve the desired aiming line.

For illustrations and more info, see:

“Aim, Align, Sight - Part I: Introduction and Ghost Ball Systems” (BD, June, 2011).
“Aim, Align, Sight - Part II: Visual Alignment” (BD, July, 2011).
“Aim, Align, Sight - Part III: Sighting” (BD, August, 2011).

It is also important to have a purposeful pre-shot routine that helps create consistency and accuracy with each of the aim/align/sight elements. Some "aiming systems" seem to be more like "pre-shot routines" to me, and not true "aiming" systems. Maybe that's the main reason some of them can be effective for people.

FYI to those interested, many reasons why "aiming systems" can be benefitial to some people are described on the aiming system benefits resource page.

Regards,
Dave

 

[JB Cases]

Buy all the laser gadgets, private lessons on aiming, books , dvd's and vhs.
It'd be a lot more than $200.

If you want to compare it with cues, you're comparing physical object to a system. Not even close. If someone were to start making case, I'd tell him buy different cases and dissect them.

More than a decade ago , you swore by HH's system. Iirc you said then with that knowledge you'd be a pro player after a few years.
From watching your match with Lou, I don't think you even used it on most shots. I think you went to visualization aiming where you just imagine the line and collision. I could be wrong but I couldn't see any pivot in most of what I saw.
That doesn't discredit CTE of course.

Oh BS. Seriously. Why WHY WHY do you persist in outright lying? I never said I would be a pro player in a few years using ANY system. Please don't lie Joey. Don't twist words or put words in my mouth that even come close to saying that I ever claimed that any system would make me or anyone into a professional player without all the hard work that goes along with becoming a pro player.

You are wrong. I used CTE on every shot and the reason you don't SEE a pivot is because you persist in believing that the pivot is a mechanical motion with a fixed pivot point that MUST be clearly defined and seen to be valid.

So just avoid the question Joey. As you normally do.

The fact of is that the more study one puts in the more knowledge they will have and then what they do with that knowledge is up to them. You benefit from Kerry's extensive study of how cues were constructed but you completely disregard any study of of perception in pool. How convenient.

Oh but guess what, like Joey said, you don't need to have dozens of x-rays to build good cues, many cue makers manage to do just that without it. Some case makers manage to make great cases WITHOUT having dissected a bunch of cases. Just that HAVING that information gives a person more knowledge to work with. That's the whole point of the thread.

No you don't NEED any extra help to excel at whatever you want to do. There is usually more than one way to reach the goal in just about any task. But it's sure nice when there are plenty of methods out there to pick from. Wonderful when SOMEONE else spent the time and energy to figure those methods out so that you can benefit from them in whatever way that you can.

 

[cookie man]

It's like a infomercial where at the end they say the results seen here are not typical
So yes with a few there are results most don't experience ,, So a guy like
Stevie with above average talent and at some point a lot of dedication ,, it's not surprising to see good results ,,, a average player won't get as much as we have seen first hand



1

Is this an opinion of a non user? because i'm a former average player that has seen excellent results from learning Pro-One

 

[cookie man]

NOBODY who is really smart knows that it works (at least the way that it is claimed that it works). There may be some people that "know" it works who you believe to be smart, but rest assured they do not have an exceptional IQ regardless of your perception of their intelligence.

And your exceptional IQ tells you what?

 

[JoeyInCali]

Oh BS. Seriously. Why WHY WHY do you persist in outright lying? I never said I would be a pro player in a few years using ANY system. Please don't lie Joey. Don't twist words or put words in my mouth that even come close to saying that I ever claimed that any system would make me or anyone into a professional player without all the hard work that goes along with becoming a pro player.

You are wrong. I used CTE on every shot and the reason you don't SEE a pivot is because you persist in believing that the pivot is a mechanical motion with a fixed pivot point that MUST be clearly defined and seen to be valid.

So just avoid the question Joey. As you normally do.

The fact of is that the more study one puts in the more knowledge they will have and then what they do with that knowledge is up to them. You benefit from Kerry's extensive study of how cues were constructed but you completely disregard any study of of perception in pool. How convenient.

Oh but guess what, like Joey said, you don't need to have dozens of x-rays to build good cues, many cue makers manage to do just that without it. Some case makers manage to make great cases WITHOUT having dissected a bunch of cases. Just that HAVING that information gives a person more knowledge to work with. That's the whole point of the thread.

No you don't NEED any extra help to excel at whatever you want to do. There is usually more than one way to reach the goal in just about any task. But it's sure nice when there are plenty of methods out there to pick from. Wonderful when SOMEONE else spent the time and energy to figure those methods out so that you can benefit from them in whatever way that you can.

[…] I am not saying that this system turns people into champions but I
know that in my case if I had this information ten years ago then I would be
in the top ten right now.
[…]

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=304560

I didn't avoid the question . One is a physical object and one is a system .

 

[Banks]

There are plenty of beliefs that people have in this world that can't necessarily be proven. On the other hand there's never been any proof that CTE is not geometrically correct.
Can you back up your assumption it's not?

I'm not the one making a claim. Have you never taken a science or math class? You're asking me to prove Zeus isn't real. He made a claim that it is math-based. Where is the math? That's right, it doesn't exist. As for your other statement that you were once an average player.. sure, so was every pro, too. I was once an average math student, too.

How many years have these claims been made with absolutely no real proof? Better yet, do you think these claims, in particular the geometry one, would hold up in court? The judge wouldn't be asking for proof that they're wrong, he'd be asking if they're correct. Just ask Trudeau.

Bump that post.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Some case makers manage to make great cases WITHOUT having dissected a bunch of cases. Just that HAVING that information gives a person more knowledge to work with.

If the "more information" is bad information then it may not always be a good thing, particularly if you don't have good information to compare it against (and the intellect to discern which is which). If you are trying to learn how to build cases to use your example, then only having a bunch of cheap low quality cases to dissect may do more harm than good.

 

[stan shuffett]

NOBODY who is really smart knows that it works (at least the way that it is claimed that it works). There may be some people that "know" it works who you believe to be smart, but rest assured they do not have an exceptional IQ regardless of your perception of their intelligence.

Lol again,

I have a significant list of students consisting of educators, doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants and many more that are in total agreement that CTE PRO ONE works as described.

Stan Shuffett

 

[JB Cases]

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=304560

I didn't avoid the question . One is a physical object and one is a system .

So what did I say? I said FOR ME that a system PLUS ten years of work would have made me a top ten player. I firmly believe that if players do learn this far earlier then they do have an advantage

You did avoid the question. The question was what BENEFIT is the knowledge you inherited from Kerry to your cue building?

That knowledge of how cues are made should be be of some benefit so what is is worth to you, would it have value to your competitors?

Similarly the study of how to perceive shots should have some value. Just about anything that people undertake to study leads to improvements in method and technique.

Building a cue is a physical task. Shooting pool is a physical task. Both are defined by the physical result, either a good cue that doesn't fall apart OR clearing the table consistently. Both have many aspects to master in order to be able to perform them successfully.

Both have many ways to approach them.

 

[CJ Wiley]

I'm certainly no expert on CTE, however, I'm certain Stan is

Is this an opinion of a non user? because i'm a former average player that has seen excellent results from learning Pro-One

When Stan showed me the CTE PRO I system in Tunica I was able to make every shot he set up. This system does what I've often described, PRO 1 effectively relates the cue ball to the object ball to create any angle..... I'm certainly no expert on PRO 1, however, I'm certain Stan is and from what I've heard (and experienced) he teaches very well.

I believe the geometry of a pool table is perfect because it's two squares put together (which, in effect produces every other angle) - the cue ball / object balls align to these angles because they are perfect spheres.....for some reason our subconscious minds are geared to relate to perfect geometric figures.

When we understand this process through a system like CTE PRO I we can effectively (and subconsciously) download a "pool playing program" (like downloading a computer program, but through a natural mental process). This program works as long as we can see, AND align to the center or edge of the object ball OR cue ball (whichever is prefered). This can be done with the TIP, the FERRULE (or, of course, the cue ball).

Thanks for introducing this to the general "pool playing" public, Stan, I'm not sure where this information originated, but you certainly have explained it better than anyone I've been exposed to.

 

[stan shuffett]

I'm not the one making a claim. Have you never taken a science or math class? You're asking me to prove Zeus isn't real. He made a claim that it is math-based. Where is the math? That's right, it doesn't exist. As for your other statement that you were once an average player.. sure, so was every pro, too. I was once an average math student, too.

How many years have these claims been made with absolutely no real proof? Better yet, do you think these claims, in particular the geometry one, would hold up in court? The judge wouldn't be asking for proof that they're wrong, he'd be asking if they're correct. Just ask Trudeau.

Bump that post.

I have produced more than enough evidence that CTE PRO ONE works ONLY for the pockets of a 2x1 table.

There will be a table manufacturer one day to step up and build an off dimension table.
So, you think it just works on any ol set up.

I have $25ooo that says a panel of judges will really like what I can explain and demonstrate on 2x 1 verses a gaffed up off dimension table only good for GB CP and fractions.

Stan Shuffett

 

[JoeyInCali]

So what did I say? I said FOR ME that a system PLUS ten years of work would have made me a top ten player. I firmly believe that if players do learn this far earlier then they do have an advantage

You did avoid the question. The question was what BENEFIT is the knowledge you inherited from Kerry to your cue building?

That knowledge of how cues are made should be be of some benefit so what is is worth to you, would it have value to your competitors?

Similarly the study of how to perceive shots should have some value. Just about anything that people undertake to study leads to improvements in method and technique.

Building a cue is a physical task. Shooting pool is a physical task. Both are defined by the physical result, either a good cue that doesn't fall apart OR clearing the table consistently. Both have many aspects to master in order to be able to perform them successfully.

Both have many ways to approach them.

You called me outright lying after vaguely recalling that .
Now, you're rewording it what you said .
Since you have the gall in you to call me "outright lying", I'll return the favor.
I think you're outright lying .

Your silly argument comparing cue making knowledge to AIMING systems is downright silly. Worse, you disagreed with yourself when I compared it to case making .

Another day, another 100 pages of argument for you.
I'm out.

 

[JB Cases]

If the "more information" is bad information then it may not always be a good thing, particularly if you don't have good information to compare it against (and the intellect to discern which is which). If you are trying to learn how to build cases to use your example, then only having a bunch of cheap low quality cases to dissect may do more harm than good.

Only if you don't learn FROM those examples. Information by itself isn't much unless you know how to do something with it. Test it, try it, build on it.

If you build those cases with no thought as to WHY certain things were done then you end up no better.

If you read a book on pool and it tells you to use GB then that's all you will ever know unless you happen to either develop other methods or someone introduces you to other methods. Once you have those methods you can certain compare them to what you already know and test them against the task which is to make the shots.

Testing against reality is the way we all advance in our knowledge. It's really that simple. We do things and if they work we keep doing them until we find a better way if we are motivated enough to implement that way.

Now of course there are things in the world that people simply take on faith. They may live their lives in full belief that something works when it in fact does not. However that also has a consequence IF the belief meets reality. Such as believing that homeopathic remedies can cure cancer. If you don't have cancer then holding that belief really doesn't matter. If you have cancer then holding that belief, as Steve Jobs did when he thought that his holistic methods would cure his cancer, can be fatal. Tested against the reality of cancer Steve's belief led to his death for a condition that he probably could have been saved from by adopting another stance.

In pool it's far less serious. You have a table full of balls and the task is to shoot them in the holes. You have to decide how you want to do that and if you chose a good method you will be successful more often. Not much beyond that. Try what you want and keep what works. - the Tao of Bruce Lee

 

[one stroke]

Is this an opinion of a non user? because i'm a former average player that has seen excellent results from learning Pro-One

Like I said results not typical ,,, what do you consider average and what do you consider excellent results ,,

I tried some of his stuff I saw on you tube ,,
personally other than my eyes not what they used to be I never thought aiming was ever one of my problems ,,

1

 

[Poolplaya9]

Lol again,

I have a significant list of students consisting of educators, doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants and many more that are in total agreement that CTE PRO ONE works as described.

Stan Shuffett

And none of them have exceptional IQ's. It doesn't take an exceptional IQ to be any of those things, it just takes some work. I'm talking genius level vicinity. But even with say engineers or physicists (those that have actual strong math/science backgrounds), I'd bet 95+% of them that have actually given careful consideration to any CTE based aiming system, including yours, would say that they do not and cannot work as claimed (meaning they do not find the correct aiming line without user adjustments based on prior playing experience). And 100% of the genius level ones would say the same.

There is no beginner pool player, with no prior aiming experience, who can take yours or any other aiming system and do anything other than shoot balls into the rails over and over, even if they have a perfectly straight stroke. And they can't because they don't yet have the aiming experience to correct for the inaccuracies of those systems.

 

[one stroke]

When Stan showed me the CTE PRO I system in Tunica I was able to make every shot he set up. This system does what I've often described, PRO 1 effectively relates the cue ball to the object ball to create any angle..... I'm certainly no expert on PRO 1, however, I'm certain Stan is and from what I've heard (and experienced) he teaches very well.

I believe the geometry of a pool table is perfect because it's two squares put together (which, in effect produces every other angle) - the cue ball / object balls align to these angles because they are perfect spheres.....for some reason our subconscious minds are geared to relate to perfect geometric figures.

When we understand this process through a system like CTE PRO I we can effectively (and subconsciously) download a "pool playing program" (like downloading a computer program, but through a natural mental process). This program works as long as we can see, AND align to the center or edge of the object ball OR cue ball (whichever is prefered). This can be done with the TIP, the FERRULE (or, of course, the cue ball).

Thanks for introducing this to the general "pool playing" public, Stan, I'm not sure where this information originated, but you certainly have explained it better than anyone I've been exposed to.

So your saying you could not make the shots without CTE Pro 1

1

 

[JB Cases]

You called me outright lying after vaguely recalling that .
Now, you're rewording it what you said .
Since you have the gall in you to call me "outright lying", I'll return the favor.
I think you're outright lying .

Your silly argument comparing cue making knowledge to AIMING systems is downright silly. Worse, you disagreed with yourself when I compared it to case making .

Another day, another 100 pages of argument for you.
I'm out.

You did lie. You didn't say you vaguely recalled me saying anything. You said I said I would be a pro player in a few years AFTER learning Hal's system and that is NOT what I said at all.

So you completely twisted what I actually said into something that you wish I had said to attempt prove me wrong by the fact that I am not a pro player.

I didn't disagree with myself. How incredibly dense and blinded by hate can you be?

I said that you don't NEED to dissect cases to become a good case maker. But IF you do then you will have a knowledge base to start from that may be beneficial to you. In other words learning many methods can only serve to increase your knowledge, both of what works well and what does not.

You keep skipping the direct question about Kerry's x-rays. I asked you directly if you think they are beneficial to your cue making or not. This will be the third time you don't answer the question.

 

[CJ Wiley]

I actually said the following, and guess it's up to you to see how it aligns to Stan

So your saying you could not make the shots without CTE Pro 1

1

What led you to believe that? I actually said the following, and guess it's up to you to see how it aligns to Stan's teachings......the same thing can be accomplished in more than one way, this is true in most aspects of life. 'The Game {of Life} is the Teacher'

Whatever "aiming system" a player chooses, the out come is to relate the cue ball to the object ball in such a manner that it creates an angle. On every shot we are "creating angles," not shooting at a target (like with a pistol or bow). The final target is the pocket, yet the primary target is the cue ball---->there's one other component, that keeps us from "aiming" like a rifle, pistol, bow, or dart ----> the object ball, which complicates things.

Since we are "creating angles," and not necessarily "aiming," the part of the mind that processes creativity is in the subconscious mind. The conscious mind will tell you there's some "secret" to shooting at the target-----> this is a lie, and our own minds will lie to keep us from changing (our own perspective).

Creating any angle we need to play the game of pocket billiards at the highest level is available to each and every one of us. All we need is a common reference point to start from, without a "base" angle (I use "full ball," and "half ball") there's little hope our subconscious can create any other angle consistently.

It's like finding directions to anyplace on earth, we must FIRST know for sure where we are starting out from---->this is true in pool and creating angles, we MUST set up (align) to the cue ball/object ball consistently to make every shot time, after time, after time.