Learn with an aiming system or not

[JoeyInCali]

Yeah that was not CTE. I know what I said and it was true then and is true now. Even now when I get someone in the shop who wants to learn CTE they tend to pick it pretty quickly.

Again why are you going out of your way to be a knocker?

I said that AFTER spending an afternoon with Hal Houle. I took what he showed me, the one system that I retained, and I showed it to all of my friends and most of them were amazed. I was excited about actually learning something new that filled me with desire to want to go to the table and play more and explore it and get better at it.

As a pool player I was overjoyed to be given something that truly made a difference in my game. Something tangible and concrete and OBJECTIVE. And I tested it against other people in my circle of friends to see if it would work for them and it did.

That you don't want people to feel this type of exuberance and excitement about playing pool is something I can't understand. And even now, 14 years later I still feel excited to play pool because of being given the gift of objective aiming. Every time I make a tough clutch shot, every time I make a shot from some sick angle, and every time I run out in a picture perfect cosmo pattern having used an objective aiming system to line me up on each stop shot I get that dopamine hit and think of how lucky I was that Hal took the time to teach me how to aim objectively.

Just because you can't understand CTE doesn't mean other people can't. It's pretty simple for those who put forth a little effort and have an open mind.

That was not CTE?
In the same sentence,
"Even now when I get someone in the shop who wants to learn CTE they tend to pick it pretty quickly."
Hmm, contradict yourself much?
It was true then and true now? Your game went up 3 balls?
You are going to be a top 10?

Simple to those who put forth a little effort and have an open mind?
You keep flip-flopping on this.
It's not simple, but simple.

You knocked DAM and stroking through the stroking line.
And the ghost ball method.
And HAMB. And the advise to someone who admitted he needs better setup and mechanics that he needs to work on those first before learning esoteric aiming systems.

 

[JB Cases]

Sorry bud, that one is light years ahead of any pivot system.
Lee Brett and other snooker instructors pretty much teach the same.
And in fact, that method is fkkn unreal when you really lock the vision and body to go with it. And to take it to another level, you consciously pull the stick to that line. Knowing where the back stroke is makes the stroke even awesome.
Hey, in fact GORDY teaches it. Ooops!
And I bet you have way too much foolish pride and so buried in this argument, that you will never admit, a month on Gordy's template is a lot better than freaking 15 years of trying to make one system work.

Lol, wrong again.

Max Eberle - 738 after how many years?
Lee Brett - 665 - nothing more needs to be said here.
Landon Shuffett - 726 at 22 years old with 151 games in Fargo. Want to bet that if he starts competing in earnest that his rating goes up or down? I bet it goes up by 50 points at least inside of the first two years.

What method? You have no clue what Gordy actually teaches I think. Gordy is a big fan of CTE and similar methods. He is a HUGE proponent of OBJECTIVE aiming and OBJECTIVE alignment and OBJECTIVE PSR. What Gordy teaches and what Max teaches are not the same thing. Gordy teaches an actual aiming system that is OBJECTIVE.

He does not teach that one should do trial and error until one feels right. He teaches that one should use OBJECTIVE PRECISION MARKED TOOLS to be able to visually see the points of failure and thus be able to make clear and CONSISTENT corrections.

He also, like me, thinks that any good aiming system MUST resolve to Ghost Ball and thus his templates are perfect to use to test both the precision of aiming systems AND whether or not the user is doing them correctly.

It would behoove you well not to try and put words into my friend's mouths and then attempt to use them against me.

Max Eberle is my friend. Gordy Vanderveer is my friend. Stan Shuffett is my friend.

All of us have one major thing in common, we LOVE pool and love to see people get better at it. You don't love pool and spend your time knocking anyone who does try hard to help others get better at it if that person is teaching in a way you don't agree with.

I don't understand why you prefer to be a negative knocker instead of a positive promoter. It's a sour way to live in my opinion.

 

[SJDinPHX]

...When I said that nothing worth having is easy to get I didn't really mean it as an absolute. I simply meant to say that just because something isn't "simple to understand" doesn't mean it has no value.

John, your 'double-speak' is getting away from you again!..Pool may be the only game, (sport) where very few things will ever be "simple to understand"!..All top echelon players have dedicated many years to refining their craft!..And they did it by discarding your idea of a 'quick fix' such as CTE or TOI, etc., and concentrating on the important things, like PSR, solid fundamentals and number one, speed control!..You still haven't figured out, that number one cannot be bought, or taught!..Without that, no one can ever reach the top!

PS..As intelligent as you seem to be, it is amazing how little you have learned! :sorry:

 

[JB Cases]

That was not CTE?
In the same sentence,
"Even now when I get someone in the shop who wants to learn CTE they tend to pick it pretty quickly."
Hmm, contradict yourself much?

Simple to those who put forth a little effort and have an open mind?
You keep flip-flopping on this.
It's not simple, but simple.

You knocked DAM and stroking through the stroking line.
And the ghost ball method.
And HAMB. And the advise to someone who admitted he needs better setup and mechanics that he needs to work on those first before learning esoteric aiming systems.

You said it's not simple. I said it doesn't HAVE to be simple to be good. Hal's methods and subsequently CTE as Stan has developed it do require a shift in paradigm. Or to put in in Max's Zen Pool terms it requires one to empty one's cup in order to receive more knowledge.

When one does that then it becomes much easier to understand CTE and start to see the shift in visual perspective.

I didn't knock DAM, I said it's not an aiming system. It's not. Stroking through the stroking line? What does that mean?

I knocked HAMB? Um, no Joey and I said learning an aiming system or three or five or all of them doesn't cut out the requirement to put in a lot of practice, or Hitting a Million Balls as you put it....just that IN MY OPINION hitting those million balls with an OBJECTIVE aiming method will yield far better results and allow players to reach milestones inside that million balls quicker.

Let's put this into language you can maybe understand.

If I wanted to build cues would it be better if just put in a million hours of lathe time with no instruction or if were to apprentice under a good cuemaker?

Would it be easier for me if I had x-rays of dozens of cues from different makers, from low end production to high end customs, so I could study how they built the cues without having to buy them and bandsaw them? Would I have an advantage by having all those x-rays and would they shorten my learning curve towards becoming a master cuemaker over someone with the same goal but no access to that data?

Would I be selfish to keep those x-rays to myself and force hundreds of cuemakers to repeat mistakes through trial and error, perhaps seeing that some of them never actually are able to discover the best way to build a cue despite putting in a lot of hours?

 

[JB Cases]

John, your 'double-speak' is getting away from you again!..Pool may be the only game, (sport) where very few things will ever be "simple to understand"!..All top echelon players have dedicated many years to refining their craft!..And they did it by discarding your idea of a 'quick fix' such as CTE or TOI, etc., and concentrating on the important things, like PSR, solid fundamentals and number one, speed control!..You still haven't figured out, that number one cannot be bought, or taught!..Without that, no one can ever reach the top!

PS..As intelligent as you seem to be, it is amazing how little you have learned! :sorry:

Dammit SJD you're staring to piss me off. I tolerate the fact that you're old and grouchy but I won't let you put words in my mouth.

Never once did I say CTE is a QUICK FIX. That's YOUR characterization of a method that you don't understand and which for you is literally incomprehensible given your entirely "pool peaked in the 70s" mentality.

If you're going to act like a fool then I will treat you like one.

AT NO TIME DID I SAY THAT ANY AIMING SYSTEM BY ITSELF WOULD MAKE A PESON A CHAMPION.

Not once, not ever.

I have said the EXACT OPPOSITE which is that an aiming system is ONE COMPONENT of a person's skill set and that all the skills must be mastered to become a top player. So stop attempting to put words in my mouth and portray me as if I am promoting CTE (or any aiming system) as a quick-fix jump from sucker to champion.

That's YOUR words not mine and not the words of any of us who promote good aiming methods.

 

[JoeyInCali]

You said it's not simple. I said it doesn't HAVE to be simple to be good. Hal's methods and subsequently CTE as Stan has developed it do require a shift in paradigm. Or to put in in Max's Zen Pool terms it requires one to empty one's cup in order to receive more knowledge.

When one does that then it becomes much easier to understand CTE and start to see the shift in visual perspective.

I didn't knock DAM, I said it's not an aiming system. It's not. Stroking through the stroking line? What does that mean?

I knocked HAMB? Um, no Joey and I said learning an aiming system or three or five or all of them doesn't cut out the requirement to put in a lot of practice, or Hitting a Million Balls as you put it....just that IN MY OPINION hitting those million balls with an OBJECTIVE aiming method will yield far better results and allow players to reach milestones inside that million balls quicker.

Let's put this into language you can maybe understand.


If I wanted to build cues would it be better if just put in a million hours of lathe time with no instruction or if were to apprentice under a good cuemaker?

Would it be easier for me if I had x-rays of dozens of cues from different makers, from low end production to high end customs, so I could study how they built the cues without having to buy them and bandsaw them? Would I have an advantage by having all those x-rays and would they shorten my learning curve towards becoming a master cuemaker over someone with the same goal but no access to that data?

Would I be selfish to keep those x-rays to myself and force hundreds of cuemakers to repeat mistakes through trial and error, perhaps seeing that some of them never actually are able to discover the best way to build a cue despite putting in a lot of hours?

Nice comparison.
It's more like this.
" I have a better cue making technique. IT was taught to me and a few people only. With this technique, the cues will hit like no other. After I built 3 cues using that technique, I'm going to a top 10 cue maker in the world."
Then a few years later, someone puts out a video about that cue making technique. This time it's even better. Then another dvd comes out because the first one was so freaking confusing. You couldn't tell where the joint screw was supposed to go.
Oh then, FINALLY a new book is coming out. This will eventually tell the TRUE SECRETS of that technique. It will be 40 pages long.
Meanwhile the first batch of cues built from that technique still hits like fiberglass cues.
And a bunch of cue makers are coming up with great hitting cues by using Home Depot parts.

 

[JB Cases]

Nice comparison.
It's more like this.
" I have a better cue making technique. IT was taught to me and a few people only. With this technique, the cues will hit like no other. After I built 3 cues using that technique, I'm going to a top 10 cue maker in the world."
Then a few years later, someone puts out a video about that cue making technique. This time it's even better. Then another dvd comes out because the first one was so freaking confusing. You couldn't tell where the joint screw was supposed to go.
Oh then, FINALLY a new book is coming out. This will eventually tell the TRUE SECRETS of that technique. It will be 40 pages long.
Meanwhile the first batch of cues built from that technique still hits like fiberglass cues.
And a bunch of cue makers are coming up with great hitting cues by using Home Depot parts.

Nope but nice try.

The cuemaker with the x-rays shares them and after a decade of that information being out there and discussed and dissected and studied by the crowd, with a few of them going even deeper into the analysis of the information, those cuemakers who decided to commit to the best practices derived from the x-rays start making world class cues and those cuemakers who were already world class learn some things that even they hadn't yet discovered and make some tweaks to their cuemaking so that their cues get even better.

The end result is a new cadre of top notch cue makers and a whole level of cuemakers who still need a lot of practice with various aspects of cue making but whom still build solid cues based on the x-ray techniques.

But even though the information is publicly available there are is a small group of self-proclaimed "old school" cuemakers who firmly believe that no one could ever make a good cue by learning the techniques used by other makers and that group tries to knock every cuemaker who promotes the x-ray data as hacks despite the fact that those who purchase the cues made by the x-ray crowd swear by them including some of the most knowledgeable cue collectors on the planet.

That's more like where we are Joey.

 

[SJDinPHX]

Dammit SJD you're staring to piss me off. I tolerate the fact that you're old and grouchy but I won't let you put words in my mouth.

Never once did I say CTE is a QUICK FIX. That's YOUR characterization of a method that you don't understand and which for you is literally incomprehensible given your entirely "pool peaked in the 70s" mentality.

If you're going to act like a fool then I will treat you like one.

AT NO TIME DID I SAY THAT ANY AIMING SYSTEM BY ITSELF WOULD MAKE A PESON A CHAMPION.

Not once, not ever.

I have said the EXACT OPPOSITE which is that an aiming system is ONE COMPONENT of a person's skill set and that all the skills must be mastered to become a top player. So stop attempting to put words in my mouth and portray me as if I am promoting CTE (or any aiming system) as a quick-fix jump from sucker to champion.

That's YOUR words not mine and not the words of any of us who promote good aiming methods.

If you ever made yourself clear, on any given subject, perhaps you would not have to defend yourself, (to me, and the entire forum) every other post!..So you are saying, you have not been an unrelenting supporter of CTE, and its 'unbelievable' benefits?..You could have fooled me, and everyone else!..Do you want me to dig up all the posts that you've made to that effect?..Sorry, but I may not live long enough!

PS..I may be old and grouchy, but I am not blind..(yet) .....Buenos Notches!

 

[JB Cases]

That was not CTE?
In the same sentence,
"Even now when I get someone in the shop who wants to learn CTE they tend to pick it pretty quickly."
Hmm, contradict yourself much?
It was true then and true now? Your game went up 3 balls?
You are going to be a top 10?

Simple to those who put forth a little effort and have an open mind?
You keep flip-flopping on this.
It's not simple, but simple.

You knocked DAM and stroking through the stroking line.
And the ghost ball method.
And HAMB. And the advise to someone who admitted he needs better setup and mechanics that he needs to work on those first before learning esoteric aiming systems.

Joey I kind of admire your tenacity even though you are completely wrong. I admire the fact that you take the time to go back 14 years and try to "trap" me with what I said then.

It's sad that you have to take things out of context and try to conflate disparate situations though. Either you're not intelligent enough to realize your errors or you are deliberately being deceptive.

In 2003 I made a statement that if I had learned the OBJECTIVE way to aim that Hal showed me in 1993 I would be in the top ten in 2003. In 1993 I was playing pool every day for hours every chance I got. But what I really meant was that had I learned it say four years prior when I was diligently practicing every day coupled with my desire to go far in pool then I fully believed I could have improved at a faster rate and spent more time learning the nuance that top players know. Instead I spent a lot of time learning shots by brute force trial and error FEEL based aiming. So maybe saying I would have been in the top ten was hyperbole but the sentiment was clear....I was convinced that I would have been a far stronger player had I had the objective aiming as a foundation to build my game on when I was most interested in building my game.

Bu the time Hal got to me I was actually tapering off and didn't play that often and rarely practiced. Hal's visit actually rekindled the love of learning in pool in that it opened my eyes to another level and put me on the journey to discover as much as I could about pool.

And yes, my game went up 3 balls. I started winning more money matches and tournaments and won a BCA State singles title just after learning Hal's methods. (and mine was worth more than Lou's since we had a lot more tough players in Colorado).

The method I learned from Hal back then was simple. It worked well and was easy to understand PROVIDED it was approached with an open mind. At first I didn't' have an open mind and just wanted to politely get away from Hal. But I decided to humor him and listen and do what he said to do without thinking it was BS. I thought I will just be polite and go through the motions and forget this episode as soon as possible.

But what happened is I started making balls from everywhere and had no idea how I was able to line up so accurately just by doing what he told me to do. Everything about it looked and felt wrong to someone who had consumed Byrne's books and tapes on how to play pool. But the on table results were clear.

Hence my exuberant testimonials from which you deceptively excerpted a few passages in a lame attempt to discredit me as if by doing that you would somehow invalidate the aiming systems that now exist CTE and otherwise through Hal's tireless work and many cross country teaching trips. Unfortunately for you Hal taught far more people than me. And a lot of them are prominent and active instructors who teach Hal's systems daily.

So even if I didn't say another word ever about CTE it's here to stay forever anyway.

 

[JB Cases]

If you ever made yourself clear, on any given subject, perhaps you would not have to defend yourself, (to me, and the entire forum) every other post!..So you are saying, you have not been an unrelenting supporter of CTE, and its 'unbelievable' benefits?..You could have fooled me, and everyone else!..Do you want me to dig up all the posts that you've made to that effect?..Sorry, but I may not live long enough!

PS..I may be old and grouchy, but I am not blind..(yet) .....Buenos Notches!

What "unbelievable benefits"? Please elaborate.

 

[Island Drive]

Looking for some experienced shooters opinions on this. New to pool, been shooting steady for a year now and finally getting better. Want to know if I would make better progress with an aiming system or just stick to learning it by sight and feel. If this topic has been beat to death, my apologies in advance! Thanks for any input.

Sight and feel would be my recommendation. I did learn in the 60's many bad habits. Later on I learned by reading ''some'' books (weren't many in the 60's) but my addiction of play time was always excessive, as I was able to lose myself, from the controlling influences of my dad, much like an artist drawing a painting. But thru those thousands of hours of play, the feel of ball collisions and the speed of the cue ball and object ball colliding, has stuck with me too this day. Analysis paralysis comes to mind when there's too much info out there. There is NO quick fix to getting better than hitting balls, learning from your mistakes, and having a good instructor get you off in the right direction. There are many good instructors and there are many that think they are good, but all they truly enjoy is the easy score. I don't know how many hours you play each week, but nothing in this game comes quickly, it's the land of hard knocks. Few are born with natural skills. Get off the right foot is key, and play/compete and learn from your mistakes.

 

[duckie]

In terms of improving, man hours is the standard needed to be used for how long one has been playing.

Like stating playing a year........well in a year of playing for me, that's around 1,000-1,500 hours. Couple of years, I was over 2,000 hours, but I cut back some since.

How many hours in that year did this guy play?

I doubt this person or any else here spends this amount of time practicing. They want "the system" to do they work, but not them.

 

[Mike81]

In terms of improving, man hours is the standard needed to be used for how long one has been playing.

Like stating playing a year........well in a year of playing for me, that's around 1,000-1,500 hours. Couple of years, I was over 2,000 hours, but I cut back some since.

How many hours in that year did this guy play?

I doubt this person or any else here spends this amount of time practicing. They want "the system" to do they work, but not them.

I would say I practice at least 14 hours a week. It's not a question of how much time I'd like to put in, its how much time I'm able to. I squeeze in any extra second I can. So wanting the system to do the work, as you said, is not the issue,, more like I want my time to be as productive as possible. I'm willing to do the work, I enjoy it

 

[CGM]

I would say I practice at least 14 hours a week. It's not a question of how much time I'd like to put in, its how much time I'm able to. I squeeze in any extra second I can. So wanting the system to do the work, as you said, is not the issue,, more like I want my time to be as productive as possible. I'm willing to do the work, I enjoy it

When you practice, do you run drills or are you playing?

 

[Mike81]

When you practice, do you run drills or are you playing?

I usually do both. Stroke drills, pocketing drills,etc. then shoot a few games of 8 ball

 

[duckie]

That's a good number....not too much, not too little.

I must add that I'm semi retired and have lots of time. A point I did not make was that using man hours gives a realistic time reference for gauging improvement.

Like, Ive been playing years and can't improve where in fact they only play once a week in APA as example........which ain't a lot of playing.

I'm not a fan of setup pattern type of drills. I do single ball drills and then all balls drills.

Single ball drills are used for a variety of reasons. Working on my trouble shots. Working on stroke. Working on spin. Working on banks......and so on.

I use single ball drills to work on a specfic area of my style of play. Every shot has one and only one specfic purpose I focus on.

All ball drills is used to blend all the single ball drills. The balls are either racked then broke open as playing some game, lately 8 ball, or just randoming rolled on the table, depending on the goal of the practice session.

For randomly all balls rolled out, there is a variety of ways to used.

Such as,
Pocket speed only shots
Banks, combos, caroms or a mix of the three only.
No hitting another ball or rail.
Think of safes, look for shots to kick at going one, two rails, hiding the CB.....see how long you can have a safety battle with yourself.

Learn to be creative...to have fun..that is also what practice is about.

 

[Mike81]

Same here, I'll shoot specific shots that give me a hard time or one that I've lost a match because of, maybe 100 or so then switch to another one. I'm always trying to be realistic and consistent. Banks and caroms I do try from time to time but always trying to learn to much at once. So lately I've been sticking to stance, stroke, aiming and then the shot. As it becomes more of a natural thing I will move on to the banks, caroms, etc.

 

[Mike81]

Getting a schmelke today, hopefully that will be the missing piece of the puzzle

 

[Island Drive]

Same here, I'll shoot specific shots that give me a hard time or one that I've lost a match because of, maybe 100 or so then switch to another one. I'm always trying to be realistic and consistent. Banks and caroms I do try from time to time but always trying to learn to much at once. So lately I've been sticking to stance, stroke, aiming and then the shot. As it becomes more of a natural thing I will move on to the banks, caroms, etc.

Varner told another once, he throw the balls out and hit em, when he missed, he'd work on that shot and continue till another miss arose.

 

[CGM]

I usually do both. Stroke drills, pocketing drills,etc. then shoot a few games of 8 ball

I just recently started doing drills and It really feels like Im getting worse. I have been playing like hell in my matches lately. I have put together a few break and runs though which I never did before.