2x1 (or 1x2) only means the table is exactly twice as long as it is wide. 3.5x7, 4x8, 4.5x9, 5x10, 6x12, etc. So no, you shouldn't have to measure a table since any and all regulations tables should be exact. If there were a table, say 100" long and 47" wide, nothing would line up. ie. trying to use the diamonds for kicks/banks would be completely useless.
Aiming Systems • Techniques • ETC
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
- Status
2x1 (or 1x2) only means the table is exactly twice as long as it is wide. 3.5x7, 4x8, 4.5x9, 5x10, 6x12, etc. So no, you shouldn't have to measure a table since any and all regulations tables should be exact. If there were a table, say 100" long and 47" wide, nothing would line up. ie. trying to use the diamonds for kicks/banks would be completely useless.
The lights
A pretty decent player in this area told me once when he was hitting them fairly good he was actually keying off of the light reflections, which I cant imagine but there you go. I guess what works for one, doesnt work for all.
A pretty decent player in this area told me once when he was hitting them fairly good he was actually keying off of the light reflections, which I cant imagine but there you go. I guess what works for one, doesnt work for all.
Done?
So youre saying that the Naysayers are done. I will say that no one has represented their side of the argument well thats for sure. Im not even sure what the basis for their argument is. I might be one off them but dont know it.
So youre saying that the Naysayers are done. I will say that no one has represented their side of the argument well thats for sure. Im not even sure what the basis for their argument is. I might be one off them but dont know it.
People say certain aiming systems work so I will take their word for it. I just want to know what you think when you miss. What do you blame the miss on? I will gamble most will say mechanics. Chances are most people had poor mechanics and thought an aiming system was the cure. Granted they are taking steps to improve their game and maybe more practice or more focus is why they improve. I don't think it's rocket science to figure out the contact point to make a ball. It's the delivery to the contact point that is usually why most players miss. This is just me thinking here. There are simple drills to check your stroke. Like hitting a straight in shot with center english and making the cue ball stop dead. No spin, no follow and no draw. Until you can do that however many times without messing up. You need to work on your stroke. Challenge yourself to 10 in a row. If you can't do 10 then stop working on any system and work on your stroke. Do drills. Don't have to be til your fingers bleed but there are some good drills. They get you in stroke and make your confident in your shot making.
Last edited:
Actually it is rocket science to figure out the contact point. Because the contact point is invisible on both balls.
It is super easy to draw the contact point on paper. It's easy to get behind the object ball and use your cue to split the object ball. It's easy to project a mental line through the object to the pocket.
What is not easy and the basis for all this discussion is how to position your body so that the cue ball will make contact properly.
Almost all the top pros I know use some kind of aiming system that they feel confident in. This PLUS their solid delivery is what makes them far more consistent than us.
another reason for missing that is often overlooked is trying to do the impossible. When a shooter is trying to make a ball and at the same time make the cue ball get shape in such a way that it requires ultra high precision that precision is often low percentage for even professionals. Yet pros know not to take those shots and amateurs routinely try them.
Most miss because they are human. It's a natural thing we do.
Banks
Banned
The spinners and the huggers have been saying the same things for years. Heck, if it was so awesome, why isn't Stan putting out challenges to the Mosconi Cup members? After all, it's "geometrically connected to the table" and he's been a pro with it for what, decades? I could really care less about all of the nonsensical claims that they like to make - claims that are both impossible to prove or disprove.
The one thing that can be proven, though, is whether or not it is "geometrically" or mathematically sound. So far, not a single piece of data has been provided as evidence to that. Nor will it ever be.
They can knock and cry all they want. They'll never produce evidence and will continue attributing anything positive and nothing negative to their nest-egg/sales-baby. After all, this has been going on for how long and never has that information been provided? You can't dispute math, but you sure can dispute something based on the absence of it(it's a pretty telling sign).
PS - If they want to keep pushing non-facts, maybe I'll just change my sig line to say it isn't so.
You wouldn't have a clue on how to understand the math were it provided to you, so why are you asking? The system is more than proven, I'm sorry you're not intelligent enough to grasp how it works.
Observation
Ive shot a few CTE shots or at least tried going from the explanation I was given that Im sure Ive forgotten by now but.....I really dont understand a statement by Stan that it wont work on a weird size table. Maybe for banks but if youre looking at the pocket you want to put the ball in...I see no reason it wont work. The system keys off of the ball itself why you are standing behind the object ball so there is no real reason for you to miss the hole.....unless you are shooting the outside of the pocket and dont have enough drag to bring the shot online. Not sure about this statement but little does it matter if it works on 2 to 1 tables......makes not a lot of sense to me.
Ive shot a few CTE shots or at least tried going from the explanation I was given that Im sure Ive forgotten by now but.....I really dont understand a statement by Stan that it wont work on a weird size table. Maybe for banks but if youre looking at the pocket you want to put the ball in...I see no reason it wont work. The system keys off of the ball itself why you are standing behind the object ball so there is no real reason for you to miss the hole.....unless you are shooting the outside of the pocket and dont have enough drag to bring the shot online. Not sure about this statement but little does it matter if it works on 2 to 1 tables......makes not a lot of sense to me.
REAL CTE connects with the right angles of a 2x1 table. ( 2 squares )
In CTE the system takes one to aim lines or 90 degree angle locations. ( where the pockets are )
Move a pocket or plug a new one in at a random spot
and the system is NOT all of a sudden going to start locating the fake pockets.
Now with GB CPs and fractions a player could manage any old weird configuration of a table.
Stan Shuffett
Well, on one side you have guys demonstrating that they are able to make a lot of shots. My thought is that if you have some way to demonstrate you can make the same shots another way then you ought to do that.
So far the other side has not done so.
It was just a joke Robin. Everyone is bashing everyone and I figured that no one was listening to me so I had better get with the program.
JoeyA
Here is what I think,
I think that those who like to say that systems are snake oil should be willing to make videos and prove it. James Randi has made a business of disproving snake-oil type claims. He has a one million dollar prize if anyone can prove that the paranormal is real. Go bend a spoon in front of him and win one million dollars.
Those who promote aiming systems have proven at least through demonstration that they can make the shots. Of course you can't ever really know that someone is actually USING the method they claim to but there is no logical reason to doubt them since this can never be a real money maker in the billiard industry any way. It's not like they are preying on the gullible and getting fat off the hopes and fears of their customers.
Just the opposite in fact. They say here is a method that takes a little work to get used to but when you get it then you will likely be much more consistent at choosing the correct line. They demonstrate all sorts of shots, students demonstrate their ability - UNPAID - and the viewers can use that as they please.
So my thought is that if guys like Pat Johnson or others want to say that these methods are no good or that they don't work then show us why not and show us alternatives that do work. Why not take the same shots that are being demonstrated and do them using their methods whatever they might be?
Use Ghost Ball and show us the multi rail banks. Use the Fidget Method and show us running a hundred balls. Put all that up for the world to have in their basket so that people can pick what they want to try.
I think that those who like to say that systems are snake oil should be willing to make videos and prove it. James Randi has made a business of disproving snake-oil type claims. He has a one million dollar prize if anyone can prove that the paranormal is real. Go bend a spoon in front of him and win one million dollars.
Those who promote aiming systems have proven at least through demonstration that they can make the shots. Of course you can't ever really know that someone is actually USING the method they claim to but there is no logical reason to doubt them since this can never be a real money maker in the billiard industry any way. It's not like they are preying on the gullible and getting fat off the hopes and fears of their customers.
Just the opposite in fact. They say here is a method that takes a little work to get used to but when you get it then you will likely be much more consistent at choosing the correct line. They demonstrate all sorts of shots, students demonstrate their ability - UNPAID - and the viewers can use that as they please.
So my thought is that if guys like Pat Johnson or others want to say that these methods are no good or that they don't work then show us why not and show us alternatives that do work. Why not take the same shots that are being demonstrated and do them using their methods whatever they might be?
Use Ghost Ball and show us the multi rail banks. Use the Fidget Method and show us running a hundred balls. Put all that up for the world to have in their basket so that people can pick what they want to try.
Doesnt Mean Anything
John,
I don't think me or anyone else shooting a bunch of shots proves much of anything, including users of CTE. On good days we are all capable of more perfect delivery, stance, stroke etc. It doesn't even seem to be accepted when two challengers meet one from the CTE crowd and another from the Naysayers and they duke it out than any consensus is found.
We all have good days and bad and who knows when that will be. If I were to guess I would say that the Naysayer argument isn't even about whether or not that balls get made or who wins what match, because players from these different camps are certainly never on the same skill level.
Were I to guess and I will here for you I would say that the Naysayer stance has more to do with the fact that there might be some of those Nsayer people at least that would wish they could impart what they know to someone who has resorted to an aiming system to learn to make shots.
I think in a previous post Dr. Dave said that some people will benefit from the use of an aiming system. He didn't say who but I guess that who might be several types of persons who want to learn to make ball better that desire a clear and defined way to do that. So CTE, 90/90, bark at moon, the lights reflection off the balls is a system as far as that goes and doesn't involve the explanation that hasn't been offered from the Naysayer camp. Why is that?
Its because ask a great player how they do what they do? What kind of answer do you get? We all know that possibly until the last several years that was very little. Some of the greatest players we have can't really tell you how they do what they do but they surely do it well.
So the answer may never come from the Naysayer Camp, but in my mind its a sadness that some of us wish that the others could connect with the game in a way that we might have come to understand it, yet we offer no explanation.
I'm absolutely certain that if there were an explanation that the explanation itself would be deemed a system and the Naysayer crowd would likely reject it as well. So the debate goes on and on and on.
So if making shots wont do it and winning matches wont suffice.....What do you think would suffice to enlighten the aiming world? Even if it did, nothing can discount what Stan Shuffett has accomplished. He has done a great thing. That was quiet an undertaking. No thing will replace CTE because CTE is just CTE but its probably not the connection that some people get when they come to the table and simply see exactly what they need to do. To quote a You Tube I saw a long time ago a pool reporter asked Efren how he made his shots and he said....."I just use the edge of the ball to tell me what to do."
While that is a very vague comment he understands it very well. I would hope that we all connect with the game in the same way that someone like Efren does and that wish is not limited to people who are Naysayers. I hope that the users of CTE can accomplish that knowing how to fire shots in with spin and get position and get out and that's what its all about. Nothing more, nothing less.
Pool is about a whole lot more than simply shot making but shot making is the first thing you have to learn to do.
That's just my take on it, I would be guessing here so I cant say anyone else feels like I do but that's the way I see it.
John,
I don't think me or anyone else shooting a bunch of shots proves much of anything, including users of CTE. On good days we are all capable of more perfect delivery, stance, stroke etc. It doesn't even seem to be accepted when two challengers meet one from the CTE crowd and another from the Naysayers and they duke it out than any consensus is found.
We all have good days and bad and who knows when that will be. If I were to guess I would say that the Naysayer argument isn't even about whether or not that balls get made or who wins what match, because players from these different camps are certainly never on the same skill level.
Were I to guess and I will here for you I would say that the Naysayer stance has more to do with the fact that there might be some of those Nsayer people at least that would wish they could impart what they know to someone who has resorted to an aiming system to learn to make shots.
I think in a previous post Dr. Dave said that some people will benefit from the use of an aiming system. He didn't say who but I guess that who might be several types of persons who want to learn to make ball better that desire a clear and defined way to do that. So CTE, 90/90, bark at moon, the lights reflection off the balls is a system as far as that goes and doesn't involve the explanation that hasn't been offered from the Naysayer camp. Why is that?
Its because ask a great player how they do what they do? What kind of answer do you get? We all know that possibly until the last several years that was very little. Some of the greatest players we have can't really tell you how they do what they do but they surely do it well.
So the answer may never come from the Naysayer Camp, but in my mind its a sadness that some of us wish that the others could connect with the game in a way that we might have come to understand it, yet we offer no explanation.
I'm absolutely certain that if there were an explanation that the explanation itself would be deemed a system and the Naysayer crowd would likely reject it as well. So the debate goes on and on and on.
So if making shots wont do it and winning matches wont suffice.....What do you think would suffice to enlighten the aiming world? Even if it did, nothing can discount what Stan Shuffett has accomplished. He has done a great thing. That was quiet an undertaking. No thing will replace CTE because CTE is just CTE but its probably not the connection that some people get when they come to the table and simply see exactly what they need to do. To quote a You Tube I saw a long time ago a pool reporter asked Efren how he made his shots and he said....."I just use the edge of the ball to tell me what to do."
While that is a very vague comment he understands it very well. I would hope that we all connect with the game in the same way that someone like Efren does and that wish is not limited to people who are Naysayers. I hope that the users of CTE can accomplish that knowing how to fire shots in with spin and get position and get out and that's what its all about. Nothing more, nothing less.
Pool is about a whole lot more than simply shot making but shot making is the first thing you have to learn to do.
That's just my take on it, I would be guessing here so I cant say anyone else feels like I do but that's the way I see it.
Got to Love it.
JoeyA,
I love it when someone throws out the bait and all the sharks and fishes jump in. I think you started something here worth talking about actually. No offense taken that's for sure. Grins and Giggles.
It was just a joke Robin. Everyone is bashing everyone and I figured that no one was listening to me so I had better get with the program.
JoeyA
JoeyA,
I love it when someone throws out the bait and all the sharks and fishes jump in. I think you started something here worth talking about actually. No offense taken that's for sure. Grins and Giggles.
Banks
Banned
Thanks for solidifying my decision with your repeated "naysayer" nonsense. The blindly following huggers can wiggle their cues around, shave their heads and do whatever they want. You want to get people to fall for your miracle cures, have a blast.
Last I saw, a certain blind follower that's been trying to push his weight around for years, who is also a devout follower of CTE(and has been for years), has played, slept with, bathed, done laundry for, received chauffer duty from, gambled with(and won, I'm sure), showed just how well this system stuff works recently and you all went silent until you came up with the excuse that it was his execution, not the system. What a joke. Oh, but when he made the occasional shot, it was all because of CTE. Lol. Have fun at the Church of Aim.
I'll give you another reason I don't like these BS claims.. because I don't like the idea of somebody out there thinking that it'll work as claimed, when it obviously does not.
Have a wonderful day.
I think it proves a lot.
If I set up a shot for you and you can't do then either you don't know the method or you don't have the skill.
Assuming you and I are about the same skill level if I walk in and teach you a new bank by telling you a new method to aim it then I have increased your knowledge.
I could simply set up the shot and not teach you how to do it and watch you fail at it.
Or if you and I are sitting at the bar arguing over whether a certain shot can be made and you say it can't then me proving to you that it can is extremely important for both of us and the spectators.
Of course if you are the guy who claims you can make the shot and you don't actually have the ability then of course you don't want to have to go to the table and prove it.
Still Proves Nothing
John,
If you're going around showing people shots and challenging them to do it and they cant, then in your blessed benevolence you teach them how to do that would make you Saint John the Case Maker.
As far as me shooting off my mouth about a pool shot, I have a whole lot better things to do with my time. I play just fine and am happy with my game especially given the time I get to play.
Pool for me is a lot of fun and I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else especially Banks with his over nasty attitude. If you want to provoke me into something well here it is.
I officially think CTE is just a bit more complicated that I have time to devote to it but that's me. Just as JoeyA said...hey don't criticize people for what they do.....I'm not busting your balls for using it, I just hope you love the game as much as I do and have fun. I just want you to connect to the game in a fuller more wholesome way like Lou.
John,
If you're going around showing people shots and challenging them to do it and they cant, then in your blessed benevolence you teach them how to do that would make you Saint John the Case Maker.
As far as me shooting off my mouth about a pool shot, I have a whole lot better things to do with my time. I play just fine and am happy with my game especially given the time I get to play.
Pool for me is a lot of fun and I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else especially Banks with his over nasty attitude. If you want to provoke me into something well here it is.
I officially think CTE is just a bit more complicated that I have time to devote to it but that's me. Just as JoeyA said...hey don't criticize people for what they do.....I'm not busting your balls for using it, I just hope you love the game as much as I do and have fun. I just want you to connect to the game in a fuller more wholesome way like Lou.
Last edited:
- Status