Cool aiming vid............

[BC21]

Please discuss away. What system or way of aiming do you want to talk about? Free discussion, try it.

Let's talk about the snooker video that the op posted a link to, the old guesswork quarters fractional aiming video. I think Stan's quarter aiming lesson (the 5 lines) was better, but it's still old-school guesswork that requires a hell of a lot of trial and error before one gets consistent with it.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Let's talk about the snooker video that the op posted a link to, the old guesswork quarters fractional aiming video. I think Stan's quarter aiming lesson (the 5 lines) was better, but it's still old-school guesswork that requires a hell of a lot of trial and error before one gets consistent with it.

It's a great start I think.
When you start missing on a setup then you can adjust.
This is where those note/ring reinforcers can be really of use.
I have a straight in shot that is setup with ring reinforcers.
8 inches from cue ball and past cue ball plus on 4 diamonds away for the OB dead straight to the corner.
Bridge close to the first ring, follow through should be on the other ring or a little past it.

 

[cookie man]

Please provide one example of any misinterpretation I've made about Stan's teaching. Keep in mind that I post links to Stan's videos any time I describe or comment on the particulars of CTE or Pro1.

In this thread I only mentioned CTE to prove a valid point that applies to ALL aiming methods. Any time a pool player lined up his pool cue on a shot line or a reference line, the player must have the skill/ability to know or feel that the cue is on line. All you have to do to prove this is to give a non-pool player a pool cue, then put your finger on the rail and ask them to aim the cb to hit your finger. You'll recognize immediately that the cue is not lined up properly, but they can't see how they lined up. They have no clue because they haven't developed that skill, that feel of just knowing your grip hand is in line with your bridge and the cb and the target. Placing your back foot on the line helps, but they don't know that either.

Honestly i think ALL CTE discussions should be banned at this point. I'm not going back to prove your misinterpretations. You've already admitted to a few in the past. You've admitted you can't run a rack with CTE, that should be good enough and a sign that you should just leave it alone.

 

[cookie man]

What system? I didn't see it. Recently?

Poolology. I didn't post anything derogatory, just tried to get a discussion going about it since you never ever mention it.
But i tried to get you some publicity.

 

[cookie man]

It's a great start I think.
When you start missing on a setup then you can adjust.
This is where those note/ring reinforcers can be really of use.
I have a straight in shot that is setup with ring reinforcers.
8 inches from cue ball and past cue ball plus on 4 diamonds away for the OB dead straight to the corner.
Bridge close to the first ring, follow through should be on the other ring or a little past it.

Good drill to work with.

 

[nine_ball6970]

Honestly i think ALL CTE discussions should be banned at this point. I'm not going back to prove your misinterpretations. You've already admitted to a few in the past. You've admitted you can't run a rack with CTE, that should be good enough and a sign that you should just leave it alone.

That is a great idea. The Aiming forum pretty well died years ago. There would be basically no contributions unless the same handful of people didn't argue about CTE on a daily basis.

Mostly beating a dead horse at this point. Maybe it would be different if the book is ever released.

Aiming really isn't that complicated. Some people may have problem shots but most shots are missed due to a faulty stroke. Players would rather blame their aim than their stroke.

 

[BC21]

Poolology. I didn't post anything derogatory, just tried to get a discussion going about it since you never ever mention it.
But i tried to get you some publicity.

Why would that have been deleted?

I welcome all questions or comments about Poolology. It's just fractional aiming with a map. With the traditional five lines or quarters system, like in the snooker video the op provided, you must use your best experienced judgment to decide which fractional aim line to use. Lack of experience means poor guesswork, a lot of trial and error. We develop and learn skills through repetition. So with fractional aiming you won't become consistent at pocketing balls until you've repeated enough successful shots that allow your mind to recognize which fractional aim is needed.

If you had someone standing next to you as you're developing your aiming, and for each shot this person would tell you or show you exactly where to aim, your road to consistency, to automatic shot recognition, should be much shorter. By eliminating the guesswork you are able to immediately begin the process of successful repetition. That is the goal of Poolology -- to help players develop a solid data base of cb-ob relationships so they'll automatically know or at least have a more accurate idea of where the cb needs to be in order to pocket the ob. But it's fractional aiming, so if you don't like fractional aiming then it's probably not something you'd be interested in.

 

[BC21]

Honestly i think ALL CTE discussions should be banned at this point. I'm not going back to prove your misinterpretations. You've already admitted to a few in the past. You've admitted you can't run a rack with CTE, that should be good enough and a sign that you should just leave it alone.

Here's the kicker....

Imagine this post in any thread about aiming: "I use a combination of aiming techniques. I use the CTE visuals to help me get my body in a position that allows me to imagine the ghostball more accurately. Then while looking where the ghostball would be, I see which fractional aim line I need to use to make the shot. Sometimes, on certain angles, I use contact points."

You would consider this post a "CTE discussion", when it's really just a discussing aiming in general. No ghostball or contact point user is going to snap back with a derogatory comment demanding that this poster refrain from talking about ghostball or contact points.

Typing "CTE", like I have done 3 times in this post, does not constitute a discussion about CTE. (4 times now, sorry.)

 

[Low500]

It isn't complicated...IF you use the method with the best percentage

Aiming really isn't that complicated. Some people may have problem shots but most shots are missed due to a faulty stroke. Players would rather blame their aim than their stroke.

I agree that, as you say, "aiming isn't that complicated"....IF you can do it in the most efficient, high percentage, way.
I disagree with...."Players would rather blame their aim than their stroke".
You have made a wrong diagnosis based on a false premise. Aiming is quite demanding.
When Shaw misses a shot is it because of his stroke?
When Mosconi missed a shot was it because of his stroke?
When Allison misses a shot is it because of her stroke?
When Woodward misses a shot is it because of his stroke?
When Chang misses a shot is it because of his stroke?
When Efren missed a shot was it because of his stroke?
The answer is "NO" to all of the above. Those strokes are about as good as you can get.
They missed the shot because they aimed at the wrong spot or at it in the wrong way.

 

[BC21]

It's a great start I think.
When you start missing on a setup then you can adjust.
This is where those note/ring reinforcers can be really of use.
I have a straight in shot that is setup with ring reinforcers.
8 inches from cue ball and past cue ball plus on 4 diamonds away for the OB dead straight to the corner.
Bridge close to the first ring, follow through should be on the other ring or a little past it.

Excellent way to practice.

Once you can hit these straight ins 20 or 30 times in row consistently, you can set the reinforcements for a dead 1/2 ball shot, or a 5/8 or 3/8 or 1/4 or 1/8, etc..., then shoot this setup (nowing exactly where to aim) until you can pocket the shot 20 to 30 times in a row. The actual number of times should be slightly out of reach but obtainable with a little work. This is great for developing shot recognition. If you do this on 3 or 4 different cut angles for a few minutes everyday, you'll notice a drastic improvement within a couple of weeks. Your mind will begin to recognize these particular shot angles automatically, and anything in-between these angles becomes obvious, easy to see.

 

[BC21]

That is a great idea. The Aiming forum pretty well died years ago. There would be basically no contributions unless the same handful of people didn't argue about CTE on a daily basis.

Mostly beating a dead horse at this point. Maybe it would be different if the book is ever released.

Aiming really isn't that complicated. Some people may have problem shots but most shots are missed due to a faulty stroke. Players would rather blame their aim than their stroke.

I agree completely, especially about aiming not really being all that complicated. For beginners it's a lot of guesswork. For the rest of us there might be certain shots that give us trouble. It could be stroke related, but could also be because we aren't seeing the shot correctly, not aligning for it correctly because we are aiming it too thin or too thick. If it were 100% stroke related then we'd have trouble on many shots, not just certain shots.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

It isn't complicated...IF you use the method with the best percentage

...for you.

One aiming method vs. another is personal preference. There is no "best".

Grow up and get over it.

pj
chgo

 

[nine_ball6970]

I agree that, as you say, "aiming isn't that complicated"....IF you can do it in the most efficient, high percentage, way.
I disagree with...."Players would rather blame their aim than their stroke".
You have made a wrong diagnosis based on a false premise. Aiming is quite demanding.
When Shaw misses a shot is it because of his stroke?
When Mosconi missed a shot was it because of his stroke?
When Allison misses a shot is it because of her stroke?
When Woodward misses a shot is it because of his stroke?
When Chang misses a shot is it because of his stroke?
When Efren missed a shot was it because of his stroke?
The answer is "NO" to all of the above. Those strokes are about as good as you can get.
They missed the shot because they aimed at the wrong spot or at it in the wrong way.

Those players are all human. They do hit the exact spot on cue ball a much higher percentage of the time than the average person. They do occasionally screw up though. To say they aimed incorrectly is laughable. Something with their stroke due to pressure or they are really trying to force the cue ball. Maybe a lapse in concentration but it just won't be faulty aim.

 

[BC21]

Those players are all human. They do hit the exact spot on cue ball a much higher percentage of the time than the average person. They do occasionally screw up though. To say they aimed incorrectly is laughable. Something with their stroke due to pressure or they are really trying to force the cue ball. Maybe a lapse in concentration but it just won't be faulty aim.

Yep. I doubt any of those players missed a shot due to not knowing where or how to aim, except when they were first learning to play or in the developing stages of becoming a better player. Dealing with pressure, loss of focus, lapse in concentration....these are the culprits. If pro pool players made the money pro golfers make they'd all have a psychological coach like Bob Rotella working with them to help deal with those mental stumbling blocks.

 

[Low500]

Those players are all human. They do hit the exact spot on cue ball a much higher percentage of the time than the average person. They do occasionally screw up though. To say they aimed incorrectly is laughable. Something with their stroke due to pressure or they are really trying to force the cue ball. Maybe a lapse in concentration but it just won't be faulty aim.

Wrong again. (if it is 'laughable' it means you do not know how to aim consistently either). Maybe some instructions from a certified Pro like Scott Lee or Fran Crimini would help you understand.
Anyway............
An esteemed writer and seller of a book on how to "master aiming and never miss another ball" wrote his epic on AIMING. If that was not critical, then why did he not write his book about stroke instead of aiming? I was told that not one word in that book was about stroke? Why not ???
In fact, this writer will say if you miss a shot..."that was a 5/8 ball fractional hit and you aimed it as a 1/2 ball hit or a 1/15 hit or a 3/8 hit".
Listen to what pros have to say..."I hit it too thick and it rattled"..."I overcut that ball and it was a simple half ball hit". This can go on and on...do they ever say "Oh my stroke was faulty"?
I would prefer to listen to what the pros have to say rather than dwell on inconsistencies from some half-baked amateur.
Of course, that is my approach to learning about anything....find the BEST at something and listen to what they have to say. Then do my dead level best to emulate it.
You will do as you choose, I already know that, so further back and forth on this is futile. In all seriousness, one of the certified instructors could really help you out.
Have a happy venture.

 

[JoeyInCali]

That is a great idea. The Aiming forum pretty well died years ago. There would be basically no contributions unless the same handful of people didn't argue about CTE on a daily basis.

Mostly beating a dead horse at this point. Maybe it would be different if the book is ever released.

Aiming really isn't that complicated. Some people may have problem shots but most shots are missed due to a faulty stroke. Players would rather blame their aim than their stroke.

I agree.
When you see a pro miss, often you can see they had a faulty stroke or were not set up right.
It's laughable when someone says this pro is trying to learn this aiming system. They became pros because they shoot in the high .800's to .900's consistently. Why the hell would they need a new aiming system ?

 

[BC21]

.....
Anyway............
An esteemed writer and seller of a book on how to "master aiming and never miss another ball" wrote his epic on AIMING. If that was not critical, then why did he not write his book about stroke instead of aiming? I was told that not one word in that book was about stroke? Why not ???
In fact, this writer will say if you miss a shot..."that was a 5/8 ball fractional hit and you aimed it as a 1/2 ball hit or a 1/15 hit or a 3/8 hit".

.......

Wrong.....(wait for it......wait for it......).........again.

I know you have the book, so this is either proof that you've never read it or proof that you can't read. The book you're talking about contains 478 words on the "Stroke".

You probably didn't read these lines either....

"No system can replace basic fundamentals."

"Aiming systems aren't magic. They will not miraculously turn you into a pro-level player overnight. The road to becoming a great player requires more than just pocketing balls."

 

[cookie man]

I agree.
When you see a pro miss, often you can see they had a faulty stroke or were not set up right.
It's laughable when someone says this pro is trying to learn this aiming system. They became pros because they shoot in the high .800's to .900's consistently. Why the hell would they need a new aiming system ?

You'd have to ask Tyler Styer, Brandon Shuff, Hunter Lombardo and a few others why.
Let me ask you a question, if you learned something new that helped you make a few, just a few more balls on a more consistent basis would it be worth it?

 

[cookie man]

Why would that have been deleted?

.

PJ commented in the thread. It wasn't derogatory so don't really know why it was deleted.

 

[cookie man]

Here's the kicker....

Imagine this post in any thread about aiming: "I use a combination of aiming techniques. I use the CTE visuals to help me get my body in a position that allows me to imagine the ghostball more accurately. Then while looking where the ghostball would be, I see which fractional aim line I need to use to make the shot. Sometimes, on certain angles, I use contact points."

You would consider this post a "CTE discussion", when it's really just a discussing aiming in general. No ghostball or contact point user is going to snap back with a derogatory comment demanding that this poster refrain from talking about ghostball or contact points.

Typing "CTE", like I have done 3 times in this post, does not constitute a discussion about CTE. (4 times now, sorry.)

First off, why use CTE visuals in your description. 9 out of 10 people on here dont know how to use them correctly including you sorry.
Second, you've been around long enough to know that once you type CTE the sarcastic trolls come out of the woodwork to make there little comments.
But let's face it, when is the last time a thread in here has made it past the first page without someone mentioning CTE. It's ridiculous. No new info has been released in a while and won't be until the book is finished.