A long comment on "aiming systems" ...
- Thread starter Grilled Cheese
- Start date
I doubt that anyone stresses the importance of stroke any more than I do.
Pool is a visual system and I am thrilled that I can give students objective visuals to use at their ball address. why not be repeatable with what you see. Yeah, it takes a little work, a few weeks or few months to develop visual skills that become really special.
Last edited:
My focus on the game is to make the ball. If I make the ball, then I am still on the table. If I KNOW the shot, then I will put anything I want on the cue ball.
If I dont know the shot, then I will hit with a center ball and try to use the speed to get where I want or at least to see the next ball.
So making a ball is the single most important thing in my game. If I make the ball, my opponent isn't shooting and if I see the next ball then I move on.
I am trying to increase my bank of the shots that I KNOW. Once I know the shot I can put anything on the cue ball so I become a better player.
Especially on the long shots where object ball is far from the pocket and the cue ball, Collision induced throw is huge. So even though I had a laser light on every shot and I kept my stroke straight, I would still miss the shot because of Collision induced throw.
These are the shots that people are looking for that miracle anyway in my opinion. Otherwise everyone makes the short shots.
If I dont know the shot, then I will hit with a center ball and try to use the speed to get where I want or at least to see the next ball.
So making a ball is the single most important thing in my game. If I make the ball, my opponent isn't shooting and if I see the next ball then I move on.
I am trying to increase my bank of the shots that I KNOW. Once I know the shot I can put anything on the cue ball so I become a better player.
Especially on the long shots where object ball is far from the pocket and the cue ball, Collision induced throw is huge. So even though I had a laser light on every shot and I kept my stroke straight, I would still miss the shot because of Collision induced throw.
These are the shots that people are looking for that miracle anyway in my opinion. Otherwise everyone makes the short shots.
Shane is just one pro, he is not most pros!
Than why did he spend an entire chapter presenting pivoting as an integral part of CTE? This is what I don't like about his DVD. When does someone make an instructional DVD and then says...well ignore this part of the DVD. It doesn't make sense and leads to confusion!
Covering the OB with 3/4, 1/2, or 1/4 of the cueball edge is no less visual and a lot less complicated than visualizing multiple lines and pivoting after one has gone down on the shot! It is also a method I can teach in minutes rather than months!
You did NOT answer the question! "Why did he spend an entire chapter presenting pivoting as an integral part of CTE" if it is "NOT part of one's game". Please just answer the question! Was it to confuse people?
It is best practice to not ignore my lessons on pivoting as they contribute to an overall understanding of what is occuring in CTE.
The bottom line is this: Just see the correct visuals and shoot.
Most students want more than that. Not once in my DVD did I indicate that CTE PRO ONE is a quick study. It takes desire to really bump up your visual and physical intelligence. All of us are used to being quite good with our typical intelligence that is centered around language and math. But that is not what we are starving for when it comes to pool....what we need to play well are visual and physical skills and they must be developed
CTE PRO ONE fosters that need.
yes, I can teach quarters in 5 minutes and send a student on their way guessing at angles the rest of their playing days.
I choose to give something objective, something that allows one's visual intelligence to start sorting the zillion shots on the surface of a table into a few visuals and 2 physical movements.
The movements are what many, many of the pros are doing.
So, you are going teach them to see an angle that can't be accurately judged and have them to move straight into that line.....not me. That's supreme guess work.
Last edited:
So you are now going to resort to JB's tactics and make this a personal attack?
I've played pool for over 50 years and know the fundamentals like the back of my hand! IMO when to focus too much on aiming, as one must do in CTE you LOSE focus on the other fundamentals! Most new comers to this game will not spend "months" to learn a new system of aiming. Nor will I, since the system I use now has served me well for over 50 years! I will continue to teach the system that most pros use!
I am glad you pointed that out. It does seem that he was not keen in really learning my system. I take phone calls and emails quite frequently.
He did not bother to contact me either, nor was it required.
Experience is the best teacher and not everyone wants to gain the few initial experiences that it takes to get started.
Stan, the visual I teach is no less visual than then visual you teach...it's simply a lot less complicated and easier to grasp! There are NO lines drawn on the table...they still must be drawn in the eyes and mind of the shooter! Making it LESS complicated will make it EASIER for the student to see!
BTW, "learning the angles', comes from practice and cannot be replaced by some miracle aiming system!
Last edited:
The quarters is a workable system, but extremely limited. I used to use it and teach it. I played very well with the quarters at times but I finally got tired of much of the guess-work associated with that system.
I'm no newcomer, but I'm glad I took the time to learn Pro-One! There's really only one aim line and it puts me there everytime! It removes depth perception from aiming and eliminates the need to see a contact point! The dynamics force the shooter to place the bridgehand in the one correct position!!
Pivoting has historical implications that go back for decades. It was discovered by Hal Houle that a CB OB relationship could be reduced to 2 fixed edges on a CB for pocketing an OB, but not without a slight rotation to center cue ball.
The strict pivoting is unnatural for game use but important for concept development. I made it clear in my DVD that you would not play this way. I strongly indicated that any student would move on to PRO ONE, the natural way of shooting.
MY DVD is a study and not a 1 time view.....I suspect that any interested learner can understand my material in just a few short weeks with a proper motivation. Not much time at all.....in the overall time scheme of a pool player.
Grilled Cheese said:
Grilled Cheese said:
Grilled Cheese said:
I quoted myself above to hopefully get this back on track (again). I removed JB's comments, because he is now in hysterical mode and even admitted that he is combative and, given that he has not answered a single question of mine (because they unravel his position) he has essentially disengaged from the discussion and is in "fight" mode. He has run away from all the points, the questions and the meat of the discussion. He dodges them all. He has surrendered, and just wants to sling mud. I'm not interested in that. I seek CONTENT. I'm not going to get sucked into his mission to trash this thread, although he mostly succeeded.
Therefore, I hope to proceed without him, being that a lot of good questions are being lost (wasted).
MOVING on....
I think that the claims that it takes a lot of time to learn an aiming system, a lot of time to work on it, and much more is an excuse for the fact that the player is:
1. Having to use FEEL to adjust to what the line of aim is,
2. Coping with the fact that their stroke is not perfect or highly precise.
What are CTE users doing when they are spending their months of hard work learning that system? They are learning to "see" and "feel" the shot, just like NON-SYSTEM users do, and they are also coping with stroke flaws like most everyone else. Working through that to LEARN the complete physical game.
****
Another excuse or claim is that the system cannot be described on paper. This is perhaps the most ludicrous of statements ever.
FACTS:
We live in the world.
This world is physical, tangible.
The objects in it are real, and we exist in 3D space (X, Y, Z).
Even perspective (things looking larger up close, and smaller further away) can be accounted for and diagrammed on paper. If they couldn't, no artist or architect would have been able produce any work!
Given the above facts, it MUST be possible to diagram, precisely and without any vagueness, how the aiming system achieves the correct line of aim. PERIOD. We do not live in some some universe where physical properties do not matter. The tables, the balls, the cue, the shooter can all be measured and accounted for.
It must be possible, to take 3D software, like what FORENSICS teams might use, to fully diagram in 3D what is happening and HOW the system achieves the alleged, the correct line of aim. These programs do account for perspective. Not only that, but they can account for field of view or angle of view. Meaning, if you have only 150 degree view and say 20/30 vision, we could see what that shooter sees. Yes, these software suits can do that. They use these to prove what someone could or couldn't have seen past obstacles. To recreate trajectories of projectiles. To prove if something could or could not have been in a particular place at a particular time.
You see, we can be 3rd party observers of the stance, stroke, line of aim - and at the SAME TIME, it is possible to OVERLAY what the shooter sees in the same 3D space viewed from a 3rd party position. In other words, we can see the real line of aim as it exists, and the "shooter's line of aim" as from their view. And see what the difference is. Then, apply the system and see if the corrections and procedure achieves the objective of finding the correct line of aim.
This can be done. Maybe someday it will be done by someone who can do the above.
All that said, the notion that this aiming system cannot be put to words or diagram is pure BULLSHIT in the most extreme form.
****
Finally, to address the third part of the above quotes....there is the issue of aiming being a life-long learning process. Does this not contradict everything many of the aiming taliban are saying?
What is it? Is it a short cut, or is it not? What the hell good is something as a short cut and concrete, definitive procedure for achieving a goal, if it takes years to master it and use it? And even to maintain it!
That alone contradicts everything about it.
Consider this comparison: The mirror system for short/shallow kicks. How long does it take to learn? Not long. Most can learn it after an explanation or two. It can be implemented after that and put to good use. It provides spot you need to hit the rail at. No questions about that.
THAT is a system. That right there saves time. That is a short cut. It eliminates years of "feel" in figuring out and "sensing" where to hit the rail in order to cut the ball into the corner pocket on a kick. You don't have to rely on years of experience, and visual memory.
Logic of the aiming taliban: "I use this system so I don't have to hit a million balls, but I've been working on it for years, and it is a life long quest" ...
If it is a real system, it should be able to provide the correct line of aim, not require years of practice or understanding to do so, and once it does that - aiming is DONE.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Why, if an aiming system gives you the correct line of aim, do you still have to struggle to aim? Either you have the line of aim, or you do not. It is one or the other. There is no middle ground. If the correct line of aim is being presented to you, via actual, easy to see lines based on REAL references (ball edges, centers etcetera), then aiming is DONE. FINISHED. You've got it.
But that is not what any of the aimers can admit. They contradict themselves. If they cannot "see" that, given what they claim that aiming system does ..then think about that for a moment. Here, the line is literally handed to them - yet they still can't see it? What the hell?
I propose that the reason they have to "keep at it" for so long, is because they are NOT learning the aiming system, they are learning to "feel" and "adjust" just like non-system users. But doing so, while thinking they are utilizing an aiming system.
I prefer to simplify. If there's no way around "feel" and learning to see the shot and judge, then I'll do THAT alone. Not convoluted it with a bizarre procedure that just adds complexity.
I know, in that satire, there have been people who said exactly those things. That's what makes it so funny, and crazy at the same time. Furthermore, I also stated I have nothing against aiming systems. I wrote a post saying how I would love for CTE to do what it claims to do. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't it be great for a geometrically sound aiming system to come forth, that utilizes more definitive lines of reference such as ball edges and centers and produces the correct line of aim for pocketing the ball?
I think so. That would be awesome. It would be the holy grail of aiming.
But there are consequences to that. If that is achieved, then aiming is done. It is conquered. Follow the procedure, get the line of aim. Why do people struggle with it then? Even the biggest supporters and believers are constantly qualifying their statements by saying they work long and hard on it, and the skeptics don't want to put the "time in" ...
The proponents of CTE make claims, that if true, means that they ought to be done with the search for a line of aim, and now be onto perfecting their stroke. In effect, if CTE is what they say it is, CTE doesn't expand the study of aim and cause people to delve into a regimen of practicing it. It does the complete opposite. If it works, it brings an END to having to work on aiming. Thus, those people are now free and unburdened to work on other things, like stroke or mental game.
That's what I tried to get across to a certain somebody, but being that this logic tears apart their position, it just gets ignored.
Oh well...
What CTE users need is not geometry or mathematics, nor logic. What they need are psychologists. Psychologists to help them cope with the realities that Santa Clause isn't real, nor the Tooth Fairy. It is obvious that there is a strong, strong emotional attachment to CTE by system users. I described a likely reason why. Because of that euphoria and great pleasure derived from success or at least perceived success.
There is such a thing as non-chemical addiction. Habitual addiction. This has been documented as part of the placebo effect. If someone thinks something is helping them, they will fight tooth and nail for it. Regardless of whether it has real benefits or not. They will even argue that the false benefits tricks them into REAL benefits. This is lying to one's self, but some even say they don't care, only results on the table matter.
This has been said in the CTE threads in round-about ways, and even overtly in the "Custom Cue Mythology" thread.
Trying to have a factual, logical, and civilized dialogue with superstitious addicts who appeal to the irrational is obviously very difficult. Perhaps futile.