Best tip for aiming...

Banks said:
A bit jealous? I've had the same f/t job since before I started playing about 9 1/2 years ago. No real lessons, beat up Valleys in a bar, none of the system stuff. I find it strange that people give so much credit to these things when they have nothing to back it up. I first made it to a 9 about 5 years into playing or so. All by learning on my own. I don't need a gimmick, nor do I need to BS people about how to play.
I'm not judging your self worth by playing pool, because that's just stupid. What I am doing is judging your way of holding aloft CTE as some sort of holy grail. I asked for the mathematical proof that CTE "ties into the geometry of the table" and all you could do was make excuses. Then I see you making these posts asking others for proof and taking the exact opposite stance, when you dodged the exact same question yourself. You're improving no faster than anybody else I've met that puts in any time. Actually, I'd think maybe spending so much time not actually focusing on your own game may even be slowing you down.
I could care less how much $$ somebody's got in their bank account, because it comes and goes. What stays, mostly, is their integrity.. or their lack thereof in this case.
Click to expand...
Drawing diagrams on paper doesn't mean too much when you're stretched out for that long one and you're 'guessing' about is it too thin or too thick, do I need top, low, reverse, "I saw Strickland do such and such", "Billy Johnson scratched with this same shot", "Grady said"...etc. etc. etc. (with the mind so cluttered like that, it's a wonder the ball even comes close to going in the hole)
That 'mathematical proof' you're looking for is the balls going into the pockets under some very trying conditions.....blockaded from pocket view by a curtain, those long ones when opponent has left you wedged in that pocket jammed tight against the rail for the money ball shot and they're all jeering at you and calling you a dog.
That's just two...and that's all I need to see.
So.....you end up dogging the shot anyway?
Well, too bad so sad.....at least you had a solid, provable, and REPEATABLE starting place.
As Hopkins used to say........"You dogged it for the gelt?....go get more money and try again"
 
Last edited:
GoldenFlash said:
Drawing diagrams on paper doesn't mean too much when you're stretched out for that long one and you're 'guessing' about is it too thin or too thick, do I need top, low, reverse, "I saw Strickland do such and such", "Billy Johnson scratched with this same shot", "Grady said"...etc. etc. etc. (with the mind so cluttered like that, it's a wonder the ball even comes close to going in the hole)
That 'mathematical proof' you're looking for is the balls going into the pockets under some very trying conditions.....blockaded from pocket view by a curtain, those long ones when opponent has left you wedged in that pocket jammed tight against the rail for the money ball shot and they're all jeering at you and calling you a dog.
That's just two...and that's all I need to see.
So.....you end up dogging the shot anyway?
Well, too bad so sad.....at least you had a solid, provable, and REPEATABLE starting place.
As Hopkins used to say........"You dogged it for the gelt?....go get more money and try again"
Click to expand...

Because somebody makes balls, the method is true? Well, I guess HAMB is best then. Thanks for clearing that up.

Seriously, though.. when somebody makes claims like that and can't back them up with evidence, it's called being full of it.
 
usakr said:
Why did Steve Moore start using CTE?
Click to expand...
I do not know.
But since I am just guessing, I'd say it's because he found a process/procedure that would give him a higher percentage in selecting the correct aiming spot to make the shot.
And then be able to arrive at that spot over and over and over again....for hours, with smoke in his eyes, suffering exhaustion, withstanding taunts from the rail, noise from the backers, or maybe the "Strickland mouth" from some opponents.
No guesswork....just get the perceptions, pivot into them, and pull the trigger.
Any ball missed after that procedure can be analyzed quite easily as to the "why did I miss that one".
I watched Wimpy doing something like this against Danny Jones wayyy back in 1957. Wimpy had a line drawn on his ferrule with a ball point pen and he lined up with that line on a chosen spot on the cueball...always appearing to be putting some kind of English on the shot and then at the last few strokes he shifted the line back to center ball and drilled the shot.
I watched him show the idea, after the contest, to Danny as well as to Joe Cosgrove. I was only 18, but I still remember some of all that.
Billy Johnson lined up the same way with a pivot, but had no line on the ferrule...he just got down and did it.
 
Last edited:
I started using CTE because of the first time I saw the edge to an aim point I knew my eyes had never seen such clarity in a shot. My whole life playing pool had always been a struggle you see. Looking for contact points, GB, feel. I plateaued. I didn't think I could play any better until the day I saw centers and edges. Changed my whole game. I knew it was a game changer for me. This was the thing holding me back. I didn't have to worry with aiming. It's all in the stroke now. Never again will I cloud my judgement of aiming with such inconsistencies from GB or CP. Thing is I worked at it because I wanted to and I know it's taken me to another level and continues to refine.
 
BLADE said:
I started using CTE because of the first time I saw the edge to an aim point I knew my eyes had never seen such clarity in a shot. My whole life playing pool had always been a struggle you see. Looking for contact points, GB, feel. I plateaued. I didn't think I could play any better until the day I saw centers and edges. Changed my whole game. I knew it was a game changer for me. This was the thing holding me back. I didn't have to worry with aiming. It's all in the stroke now. Never again will I cloud my judgement of aiming with such inconsistencies from GB or CP. Thing is I worked at it because I wanted to and I know it's taken me to another level and continues to refine.
Click to expand...
Nice. When did you start using CTE? And was it challenging to adjust to a new way of playing pool.
 
usakr said:
Nice. When did you start using CTE? And was it challenging to adjust to a new way of playing pool.
Click to expand...
Learning to see the perceptions will drive you bat crazy at first.
Even using his video, it still looks goofy as hell. Shuffet should have had the camera BEHIND him more...then a learner could see the perceptions, the pivots...from the cockpit side. Looking at him straight ahead while he shoots is not all that effective...too slow and too much grasping.
It's like it gets into your brain incrementally and you find yourself saying..."oh hell that wasn't so hard..why didn't I understand that".
Hook it up with C.J.Wiley's TOI method and you're going to have some people running for cover.
These processes merely limit the number of choices (guesses) you have at the table in locating that "spot" to pull the trigger on. You kinda' have to proceed on blind faith until you start seeing some results and progress.
If, you have a dog stroke, don't understand about collision induced throw, or are all whacked on how to play...then it's another story entirely. No aiming system or method is going to help much until the other stuff is taken care of.
 
I will order it today and hopefully have it by weeks end so I can start work on it this weekend. Chances of that happening this week are slim being it is already Wednesday.

I will also commit to actually putting in at least 20 hours to actually doing it after watching the lessons. Hopefully, 3-4 hours at a time. That should be enough time to get a good foundation to what is being taught.
 
Skippy27 said:
I will order it today and hopefully have it by weeks end so I can start work on it this weekend. Chances of that happening this week are slim being it is already Wednesday.

I will also commit to actually putting in at least 20 hours to actually doing it after watching the lessons. Hopefully, 3-4 hours at a time. That should be enough time to get a good foundation to what is being taught.
Click to expand...

Unless you are already a high level pool player with a straight stroke, you're wasting your time by thinking 20 hours will gain you any reasonable proficiency with the system.
 
nobcitypool said:
Unless you are already a high level pool player with a straight stroke, you're wasting your time by thinking 20 hours will gain you any reasonable proficiency with the system.
Click to expand...

He said get a good foundation on what's going on...not become an expert like yourself.

BTW...how long does it take to understand it totally?
 
I will let you know 8pack and thanks for clarifying that to nob for me. I see he is already trying to put conditions on why the system may not work for me.

My main objective is to see "officially" how you are suppose to aim, bridge and then pivot/sweep so I can do my mathematical analysis of it as physics and geometry are not going to change no matter how the shot is perceived. You are either going to hit the spot on the ball within the allowable margin of error to make the ball travel toward the allowable pocket acceptance or you are not.

If your pivot or sweep brings you to that line then the shot will be made every time with a good stroke, as it would with any other "aiming system" (my entire point). I am validating that this system is as mathematically sound as they claim it to be which eliminates a lot of the guess work (user perception) in the making of a shot. I say it doesn't, they say it does. I want to validate this for myself.

I have only shot a few thousand balls but I have a pretty good perception of a shot in that I can look at it and immediately see my line and where I have to hit it and make it a lot more than not. Based on that perception I can use my past experiences to decide how to approach my aim to make my shot (known points on the OB with slight modifications, ghost ball or parallel shift contact points). If this system is mathematically sound and provides a better and more consistent way for all that I am for it and will gladly come here and admit the error of my ways. However, if it is not mathematically correct and still requires you to do a lot of perceiving then it is absolutely no better than simply using the HAMB system.
 
Funny. Have fun, it should be obvious to anyone reading your posts you are mostly clueless but enjoy your 20 hours. Perhaps the dog won't eat the homework this time and we can see your mathematical analysis.
 
Skippy27 said:
I will let you know 8pack and thanks for clarifying that to nob for me. I see he is already trying to put conditions on why the system may not work for me.

It's fun to try different approaches to the game. Nothing wrong with listening to different views on what your learning. There are different approaches to aiming,one will be a more right look for the eyes and one you need to learn the right look for the eyes.A center rolling cb and and off center cb hit.. Good Luck ,:smile:

My main objective is to see "officially" how you are suppose to aim, bridge and then pivot/sweep so I can do my mathematical analysis of it as physics and geometry are not going to change no matter how the shot is perceived. You are either going to hit the spot on the ball within the allowable margin of error to make the ball travel toward the allowable pocket acceptance or you are not.

.

If your pivot or sweep brings you to that line then the shot will be made every time with a good stroke, as it would with any other "aiming system" (my entire point). I am validating that this system is as mathematically sound as they claim it to be which eliminates a lot of the guess work (user perception) in the making of a shot. I say it doesn't, they say it does. I want to validate this for myself.

I have only shot a few thousand balls but I have a pretty good perception of a shot in that I can look at it and immediately see my line and where I have to hit it and make it a lot more than not. Based on that perception I can use my past experiences to decide how to approach my aim to make my shot (known points on the OB with slight modifications, ghost ball or parallel shift contact points). If this system is mathematically sound and provides a better and more consistent way for all that I am for it and will gladly come here and admit the error of my ways. However, if it is not mathematically correct and still requires you to do a lot of perceiving then it is absolutely no better than simply using the HAMB system.
Click to expand...

...........................................................................................................
 
Last edited:
I won a 1200 tournament awhile back using Pro1... not offering that up for proof of anything just stating it works wonders for me. I am never going back to the way I played for the first 30 years.
Aim the way you like... use a system... don't use a system... aim by feel... don't aim at all... who really gives a rats ass. Lets just play some pool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top