Sharivari on aiming....

There are no less than 33 videos,,,,,,,,,wth are you talking about?
and which one has graphics how the aiming is done ?
Where's the diagram ?
Cookieman said you can use the contact point as reference. Yet, zero video shows you can .
 
you started smokin dope again didn't you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Yeah, but I only quit a half hour ago.

Being good at aiming doesn't necessarily mean understanding how it works - it's such a personal and intuitive thing that detailed information can be more distracting than useful. The important thing is that your method works for you - how you think it works, especially your confidence in it, can affect that.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
and which one has graphics how the aiming is done ?
Where's the diagram ?
Cookieman said you can use the contact point as reference. Yet, zero video shows you can .
I can only surmise you must be referring to the comment I made to thresh a year or two ago about the cte method being explained graphically, and somehow in his childish mindset he immediately got a hard on to see an animated cartoon or something I guess.

It's really as simple as drawing 2 2d lines and 2 spheres on a flat surface, and then putting your vision center in a position to make the shot. Where is that? Any idea? Conventional thinking would say directly down the shot line, but it has to be higher. This point, or vision center, could be represented on the graphic as a simple dot, up in space, at whatever position ones vision center actually is for a given shot. If it can move higher it can move laterally as well. So on a simple straight in shot, a lateral movement of eyes makes a straight in look crooked, or a slight angle look straight in, and the same error can be easily made on any cut shot on the table.

Stan, with Pro One developed a method of placing the vision center in a precise position, but not on the shot line, rather at a slight, repeatable offset, to the shot line, based on direction of cut. So effectively, what Stan did is, he moved the dot. That is basically it. He took the user from placing their vision center at an approximate position above the shot line, and placed it in a predictable, repeatable position, on every shot. He moved the dot, or vision center, to see all shots from the same position.

So where is all the pool terminology describing that, and who else teaches it. There is none, and therefore there had to be terminology to describe the procedure. Acronyms,,,,,,,,

Rather than repeat the processes over and over for arriving at a certain point of how or why to do a specific task he gave that task a name. Most all of his serious students can see that acronym anywhere in the book or a video and know immediately what it does and why and how to use it. When I started learning the terminology it was gruesome, yet once you start learning the actual system it's completely understandable and appreciated. I think he did it on purpose actually.

There is nothing complicated about a graphical explanation of how a shot works. A bullet being shot can be illustrated as simply as a ball following a straight line or as a solid projectile being projected from a solid model of a rifled barrel. I spent 46 years in engineering, the better part of that in solid modeling, drafting, and 5 axis CNC programming in aerospace for the Department of Defense. I can do either, but young thresh hasn't earned the rights to see any of either. If he wants to see videos of CTE he can sign up for Stans channel.

You repeating his calls for cartoons is childish and annoying, btw,,,,,,,,,,,, but I suspect you know that.
 
Last edited:
I can only surmise you must be referring to the comment I made to thresh a year or two ago about the cte method being explained graphically, and somehow in his childish mindset he immediately got a hard on to see an animated cartoon or something I guess.

It's really as simple as drawing 2 2d lines and 2 spheres on a flat surface, and then putting your vision center in a position to make the shot. Where is that? Any idea? Conventional thinking would say directly down the shot line, but it has to be higher. This point, or vision center, could be represented on the graphic as a simple dot, up in space, at whatever position ones vision center actually is for a given shot. If it can move higher it can move laterally as well. So on a simple straight in shot, a lateral movement of eyes makes a straight in look crooked, or a slight angle look straight in, and the same error can be easily made on any cut shot on the table.

Stan, with Pro One developed a method of placing the vision center in a precise position, but not on the shot line, rather at a slight, repeatable offset, to the shot line, based on direction of cut. So effectively, what Stan did is, he moved the dot. That is basically it. He took the user from placing their vision center at an approximate position above the shot line, and placed it in a predictable, repeatable position, on every shot. He moved the dot, or vision center, to see all shots from the same position.

So where is all the pool terminology describing that, and who else teaches it. There is none, and therefore there had to be terminology to describe the procedure. Acronyms,,,,,,,,

Rather than repeat the processes over and over for arriving at a certain point of how or why to do a specific task he gave that task a name. Most all of his serious students can see that acronym anywhere in the book or a video and know immediately what it does and why and how to use it. When I started learning the terminology it was gruesome, yet once you start learning the actual system it's completely understandable and appreciated. I think he did it on purpose actually.

There is nothing complicated about a graphical explanation of how a shot works. A bullet being shot can be illustrated as simply as a ball following a straight line or as a solid projectile being projected from a solid model of a rifled barrel. I spent 46 years in engineering, the better part of that in solid modeling, drafting, and 5 axis CNC programming in aerospace for the Department of Defense. I can do either, but young thresh hasn't earned the rights to see any of either. If he wants to see videos of CTE he can sign up for Stans channel.

You repeating his calls for cartoons is childish and annoying, btw,,,,,,,,,,,, but I suspect you know that.
Dude, quit rambling.
This is exactly what C Colenso said .
Once you ask them how the system is done, they start rambling all over the place.
Worse, they don't even agree with each other.
The system works but there are several interpretations. One dude made videos after videos before he even learned it .

It's simple.
Post a diagram or a video with honest graphics how it's done.
You won't. And nobody will because it will be disproven .
 
What flaw? I didn't see that.
I wasn't talking about my curtain video. I was talking about the one you said you wouldn't watch because I made a snarky comment. It is in a link above.

You made 3 shots, and I noted that you were very careful in placing the balls specifically, and at least 2 of them were even marked on the table.
Yes, I placed the balls exactly how Stan did it in the video I was emulating. He lined the balls up with the diamonds. I was demonstrating that you don't need CTE to do what Stan did.

You proved Stan's theory that feel wasn't needed to make the balls. I wonder how long you practiced the shots before the curtain went up and the camera turned on.
I said in the video I played around with different shots for 10 or 15 minutes. My recollection is I started making the shots very quickly. I did only one video take. It's the first time I ever tried that. Why don't you question how long it took Stan and why didn't he just set the balls up in random spots while on video? It's because you don't hold Stan to any kind of standard. "Stan said it so it must be true."

The biggest thing I remember from those days were the argument about his methods not being objective, but somehow aiming at contact points or ghost balls was. Mr Jewett says ghost ball is incorrect without adjustment, and most all aimed shots at contact points are a certain miss unless the shot was straight in. But if you guess right it's objective. The argument has always been a joke and still is. I just never understood why people who didn't want to use it felt so dedicated to run it down. Why did it matter to them so much?
My video was simply to show new players that the curtain trick was not proof of anything. That's all.
 
Dude, quit rambling.
This is exactly what C Colenso said .
Once you ask them how the system is done, they start rambling all over the place.
Worse, they don't even agree with each other.
The system works but there are several interpretations. One dude made videos after videos before he even learned it .
I vaguely recall that name but no idea what his agenda was. I never defended any method of cte other than the Pro One method. It's the only one I've ever used.
It's simple.
Post a diagram or a video with honest graphics how it's done.
You won't. And nobody will because it will be disproven .
Oh, so I was right, you also want cartoons.
Stan has the graphics you seek on his youtube channel.
 
I can only surmise you must be referring to the comment I made to thresh a year or two ago about the cte method being explained graphically, and somehow in his childish mindset he immediately got a hard on to see an animated cartoon or something I guess.

It's really as simple as drawing 2 2d lines and 2 spheres on a flat surface, and then putting your vision center in a position to make the shot. Where is that? Any idea? Conventional thinking would say directly down the shot line, but it has to be higher. This point, or vision center, could be represented on the graphic as a simple dot, up in space, at whatever position ones vision center actually is for a given shot. If it can move higher it can move laterally as well. So on a simple straight in shot, a lateral movement of eyes makes a straight in look crooked, or a slight angle look straight in, and the same error can be easily made on any cut shot on the table.

Stan, with Pro One developed a method of placing the vision center in a precise position, but not on the shot line, rather at a slight, repeatable offset, to the shot line, based on direction of cut. So effectively, what Stan did is, he moved the dot. That is basically it. He took the user from placing their vision center at an approximate position above the shot line, and placed it in a predictable, repeatable position, on every shot. He moved the dot, or vision center, to see all shots from the same position.

So where is all the pool terminology describing that, and who else teaches it. There is none, and therefore there had to be terminology to describe the procedure. Acronyms,,,,,,,,

Rather than repeat the processes over and over for arriving at a certain point of how or why to do a specific task he gave that task a name. Most all of his serious students can see that acronym anywhere in the book or a video and know immediately what it does and why and how to use it. When I started learning the terminology it was gruesome, yet once you start learning the actual system it's completely understandable and appreciated. I think he did it on purpose actually.

There is nothing complicated about a graphical explanation of how a shot works. A bullet being shot can be illustrated as simply as a ball following a straight line or as a solid projectile being projected from a solid model of a rifled barrel. I spent 46 years in engineering, the better part of that in solid modeling, drafting, and 5 axis CNC programming in aerospace for the Department of Defense. I can do either, but young thresh hasn't earned the rights to see any of either. If he wants to see videos of CTE he can sign up for Stans channel.

You repeating his calls for cartoons is childish and annoying, btw,,,,,,,,,,,, but I suspect you know that.
You made claims, I asked you to follow through on your claims.

Unfortunately, you have only come up with one reason or another why you won't do it.
 
You made claims, I asked you to follow through on your claims.

Unfortunately, you have only come up with one reason or another why you won't do it.
Says there are 33 videos that show the system. You ask for a link, he goes nuts.
I go check one video, stan says the books has the A to Z .
This is an objective system that can probably be diagramed in a few pages .
They haven't and they won't.
2 dvd's , 33 videos and a 6 lbs book .
About a "simple" system.
 
and now, you have to rotate your nose to the inside.... the pros do it .
I don’t understand how something as simple as getting down with cue, elbow, shouider, vision center, and hips all aligned to the shot line can be made any more complicated than this video definitely manages to do, and so fabulously.

My reaction: WTF?
 
I don’t understand how something as simple as getting down with cue, elbow, shouider, vision center, and hips all aligned to the shot line can be made any more complicated than this video definitely manages to do, and so fabulously.

My reaction: WTF?
Welcome to the club. I dub thee a "hater." Congratulations. Your certificate suitable for framing is in the mail.
 
I don’t understand how something as simple as getting down with cue, elbow, shouider, vision center, and hips all aligned to the shot line can be made any more complicated than this video definitely manages to do, and so fabulously.

My reaction: WTF?
It's actually sad
 
Back
Top