Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?
- Thread starter SamLambert
- Start date
not on the CTE aimed shots.
IMO, you should care very much what guys like English/Rick think. From a marketing perspective alone, you will find that you will get the most good press from former skeptics. Convert them, and you really will have a world-wide phenomenon. JB said he was initially a skeptic and didn't believe it, but look at him now.
Sure, I can agree that the it was slightly pulled in during the warm up strokes.
I think perhaps you are not understanding my point here.
All decent players know how to throw the cue ball to make an object ball veer from a line that does not go to a pocket into a line that does.
I.e. we can use swerve to actually send the cueball to a DIFFERENT contact point than what the perfectly straight cue stroke would send the cue ball to.
BUT
When a player's stroke is slightly off the dead nuts perfect shot line it doesn't mean that the player is TRYING to gear the object ball in NOR does it mean that the object ball would not have gone in with a 100% straight stroke.
You identified a tiny amount of "wobble" in Stan's backstroke which did not translate into steering or "re-aiming" on the forward stroke.
This is deliberately aiming wrong and making the ball anyway by using body english, swoop, gearing, whatever you want to call it -----> https://youtu.be/TKCDjPgtCwE?t=297
This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNrpN3V15fY clearly shows that one CAN make a shot with BHE even at different bridge distances. BHE is also hitting the cue ball with the cue crossing the centerball hit line.
Here is CTE aiming with side spin back when I didn't use CTE as Stan teaches it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpt_9z4tNz0
Please don't put words in my mouth and get the story straight before using my name.
I said I didn't PAY ATTENTION to aiming systems because I thought I didn't need them.
I never said I was skeptical of them.
Hal invited me with zero inquiry on my part to learn what he had to teach and at first I was not interested because I felt he had nothing to teach that I needed. I just used the invitation to get out of work for the day.
But when I decided to listen to him and at least try to follow his directions I was blown away by the results, ON THE TABLE.
I did not spend years telling this man that his methods can't possibly work. Because he decided to invite me to the pool room I walked in with no negative bias. So ALL of my cheerleading is because of RESULTS ON THE TABLE that I have personally experienced.
John,
Would you be so kind as to tell me why you would not be able to beat, say Gerry, in a shot shooting contest?
Thanks.
................. ?
Sure, discipline. Gerry has put hundreds of hours of practice in to master CTE aiming and be sure he has a great stroke and touch to match it.
I am lazy and practice very little. When I do I get bored easily and look for someone to play rather than bear down on the things I need to work on.
That's why I don't challenge people to shot making contests but I have no problem backing Stan.
Dan when you don't use the quote function and respond inline it makes it very hard to respond to your comments.
But the short answer is NO, Stan was not steering the shot on the first CTE aimed shot nor any subsequent shot on that video regardless of what you think you are seeing.
Complicating an easy point and shoot game? Trying to get away from a kook? Sorry if I paraphrased you incorrectly on a post you made over 1500 posts ago, but sounds an awful lot to me like you were skeptical of aiming systems before you were convinced by Hal to try it. What's the big deal, anyway?
Well hundreds of hours is far below the 10 yrs Stan has put in trying to perfect the system
I wonder how much better he would be aiming contact point given the same amout of practice ,,
Oh and Stroud is still waiting
1
OK I understand. I think I'm nearing the end of my interest in this discussion anyway. I'll try the multi quote function or whatever it is called next time.
Regarding the stroke, I've already demonstrated that the cue is straightened out 0.04 seconds AFTER the cue ball has been hit. I never said he steered it (I don't think I did). Anyway, the point is not that he steered, it is that he changed the angle of attack, so to speak. The cue goes forward straight, it just doesn't go in the direction he intended when he got down on the shot and took that practice stroke. There's not much else I can do to convince you of what the video shows. Also, you keep saying he is right online, and then start talking all about pivot points and Colin and making the shot anyway. You can't argue that is isn't shooting offline but then say if he is shooting offline then it doesn't matter anyway.
I think we are at an impasse if we can't even agree on what we are looking at. At least we tried!
https://youtu.be/KUHfPkCipqE?t=2540
Just watched this video last night of a match between Bustamante and Stevie Moore .
Stevie Moore sure bends/crouches often before laying the cue .
The first pro I saw do this often was when I saw Johnny Archer back in the early 90's.
I'm taking a wild guess, he's looking at the contact point or the hit needed to pocket the balls.
Just watched this video last night of a match between Bustamante and Stevie Moore .
Stevie Moore sure bends/crouches often before laying the cue .
The first pro I saw do this often was when I saw Johnny Archer back in the early 90's.
I'm taking a wild guess, he's looking at the contact point or the hit needed to pocket the balls.
Just what exactly is your point then for all the stroke analysis?
What conclusion are you you drawing from the first CTE shot where you show a little wobble in the stroke?
How do you know what Stan intended? I mean I see the wobble in the stroke on the backswing but in a frame by frame viewing the cue comes through the cueball dead straight. You claim that it doesn't and Stan straightens it out .004th of a second after contact. Don't you think that after the ball is hit anything that happens in .004 of a second is an involuntary reaction?
So, I did another screen cast and magnified the screen 500%. I suggest you watch it on a big screen if you can. It's uploading. When you watch it frame by frame it's clear that there is no movement that matters to the shot at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpt_9z4tNz0
Attachments
Last edited:
Yes you paraphrased me incorrectly in that you didn't paraphrase me at all. Hal did sound like a kook to me AT FIRST. And yes, I thought, as many still think (incorrectly in my opinion) that pool was an easy point and shoot game. I saw no need for me to complicate it with any other methods.
I have said dozens of times - and iirc in the post you reference - that I didn't BOTHER with even opening the threads about aiming systems before meeting Hal. I mean I knew they existed because I saw them going all the time. I peeked in once probably and immediately closed it having no interest at all.
So far from being a skeptic, I was worse than that because I was apathetic about them. A skeptic at least has a negative opinion and it willing to explain why.
But I went in with zero bias.
The big deal is that the vast majority of the tiny amount of critics simply DO NOT have table time with CTE, either at all or not enough to qualify them to criticize it.
My point is that if you want to truly knock CTE and discredit Stan Shuffett then you buy the DVD and you study it and you learn the system inside out and THEN you make your own videos explaining the so-called holes, or subconscious corrections, adjustments etc...
THEN we have a real debate. But for now all you have is conjecture. Even you haven't proven anything yet other than catching Stan shooting a shot he mistakenly thought is a 30 degree shot and treating it as if it really was because he used some silly aim trainer device to measure it up and the thing said 30 degrees. You caught him unwittingly steering that one shot that wasn't aimed using CTE. And when he aimed the same shot using CTE he was dead perfect on the shot line and stroked it as close to straight as can be done according to slow motion frame-by-frame observation.
Do you find it hard to push string through a straw? I find it easy because I have various methods to accomplish that task.
John,
To what purpose would one develop multiple methods to push string through a straw.
But... I think PJ meant without any assistance & aid from any device.
It's these type of games that make these threads so long, tedious, & basically wind up as mostly useless except for the fact that thousands get to read them & make their own determinations as to which side of the 'argument' has more credibility, given all of the inappropriate analogies, etc. etc. etc.
Best Wishes.