Good topic, good discussion. Thanks for posting it. I'm guessing that most of the controversy of "aiming systems" revolves around one known as CTE, or counterparts thereof. First of all, no aiming system is going to make up for poor fundamentals. There is no way around that. So given the same basic playing ability for a given player, the only difference between aiming systems is how they approach shot alignment. Some use invisible points, some use invisible balls, some use edges and fractions of balls, etc. That is pretty much it. Any one of these methods of aiming will have its levels of success for any given person, and the amount of effort will vary. No one is forcing an aiming system on anyone, they are there for you to try or not try as you wish. As for vague descriptions, that was true and there was no clear description of the system in its entirety, until a few days ago. There is a post here (from me) that spells out the original CTE system. It's free to read, free to try, no strings attached. It should be pretty clear how it works. So why do you miss shots? It's not the aiming system, it's human error. For me (yes here is your unsubstantiated claim) the objectiveness of centers and edges minimizes the human error part of the equation, especially for the tougher shots. That may not be true for others, I don't have the statistics.
A long comment on "aiming systems" ...
- Thread starter Grilled Cheese
- Start date
Good topic, good discussion. Thanks for posting it. I'm guessing that most of the controversy of "aiming systems" revolves around one known as CTE, or counterparts thereof. First of all, no aiming system is going to make up for poor fundamentals. There is no way around that. So given the same basic playing ability for a given player, the only difference between aiming systems is how they approach shot alignment. Some use invisible points, some use invisible balls, some use edges and fractions of balls, etc. That is pretty much it. Any one of these methods of aiming will have its levels of success for any given person, and the amount of effort will vary. No one is forcing an aiming system on anyone, they are there for you to try or not try as you wish. As for vague descriptions, that was true and there was no clear description of the system in its entirety, until a few days ago. There is a post here (from me) that spells out the original CTE system. It's free to read, free to try, no strings attached. It should be pretty clear how it works. So why do you miss shots? It's not the aiming system, it's human error. For me (yes here is your unsubstantiated claim) the objectiveness of centers and edges minimizes the human error part of the equation, especially for the tougher shots. That may not be true for others, I don't have the statistics.
Post a few videos of how well you shoot?
I call him when he's badgering people and I'm calling you on it too.
Knock the crap off.
What exactly is there to be gained by being on the pro circuit?
Your saying aiming systems are BS, where is your proof?
Dave Stem
Please don't say you read about them and they make no sense.
Well you are trying but the problem is that aiming systems are real and they work. You have written a lot but disproven nothing. You have however been voted president of the naysayer club by unanimous vote. You are undoubtedly their hero now.
www.jbcases.com
Banks
Banned
I used to knock, until I was given the chance to sit back and think about it for six months.
The way I've learned to aim is more or less, the way I see it, a calibration of my hand-eye-ball thing. If I'm practicing cuts and I'm constantly hitting too full, I'll start aiming to hit thinner than looks right. As I get more consistent in the shot, I'm able to get the shot angle down better.
This is what I believe aiming systems and diets are good for. Aiming systems, whether people believe them to be accurate or not, provide a consistent reference point for the shooter and a standard aiming method with which to use. It's like teaching people how to use an open-faced reel.. once they understand what they're doing, it's just a matter of getting it down. You can say it's a short-cut, but I consider it more of the basics.. some people pick things up quickly, some stumble into them and others are good at emulating. Instead, instruction serves to provide a stable base for one to progress, whether it be in the form of a lesson, DVD or visual reference(watching in person). Same for diets.. most people will not be tied down to a certain thing, but it can provide information that the person will continue to use in an effort to improve themselves.
As I kept reading the arguments about aiming systems, a few things stood out among those that agreed with them and those that disagreed with them: fundamentals, acceptance of the shot and stepping into the shot. If a "system" helps you even with these, that's good enough for improvement already.. to me, those are more parts of a method than a system, while the alignment of the shot itself(ie- the pivot) are more the system. Again, if something provides you with an easily repeatable routine, I can only imagine that it could help by giving you a better start and consistent reference.
(I still don't like the idea of forcing it down the throats of others, though.)
I think this is really where any of your good posts completely fails. This isn't a court of law. And this isn't a science project. It's just pool and a pool forum.
There is no burden of proof. There are aiming systems and there is information for sale and information for free. What anyone does with them does not warrant "a burden of proof."
I use an aiming system. If not for Hal Houle, I never would have (most likely). My game improved. By a lot. I give Hal the credit. I used the same information that others have or similar. Take it or leave it. Leaving it would probably cause less stress.
Freddie <~~~ no burden, doesn't need to prove anything
Assumption, that your aiming system was 'proved' ...it was not. Burden of proof is on you. Or as Fred A. is saying, no need to prove. That's fine. Believe in your aiming theory then. To each his own, just as Fred says above.
But don't expect to pass off your theory as fact and expect others to believe it. Some people require proof. If you don't care that they do, that's fine too. But don't get all worked up when others say it's BS. It's bizarre to then concern yourself with the skepticism and disbelief of others when you don't furnish evidence or provide a proof.
This is like a religion. Believe in your aiming superstition/myth/theory/god all you want. You don't have to prove it either. But whining about others who call it BS is strange when you cannot furnish evidence. It implies you EXPECT others to believe, without proof or evidence.
By the way, I believe a God exists. I have no proof. A lot of people say that's BS. I can't hold that against them. Nor get worked up over that. They're in the right for saying that. And for feeling that way. The best I can do is not care what they think. But if I do care what they think, that makes me a preacher, not a teacher.
Very nicely played.
Curses you and your good posts.
Freddie <~~~ believer, but trying to sit silently in the pews
An aiming system user stating that proof doesn't matter, even though it may to some people:
Same aiming system user who claims proof doesn't matter, furnishing us with a testimonial of how an aiming system worked for said user:
Mr. A, you may not need proof for yourself. You may also not need to prove anything to anyone else. The issue here is, other people getting worked up over those who are skeptics (and rightfully so, due to lack of evidence) and do not believe the system to be true, or accurate, or as it claims to be etcetera. Mainly because they want proof that something works. What is so horrible about that? What is so wrong with wanting some evidence? I can provide a couple reasons. Maybe a skeptic doesn't want to waste their time, money, energy, efforts on something that is a scam? Maybe they want to know what makes it work so that they can make an objective comparison and decide which path or system they want to use? Which way to invest their time and take their game?
The term "Naysayer" comes up (JB). That implies many things, and is nothing more than nasty loaded language. How is skepticism in the face of no conclusive evidence being a "naysayer" ...It also implies one holds truth, and others are denying it.
Same aiming system user who claims proof doesn't matter, furnishing us with a testimonial of how an aiming system worked for said user:
Mr. A, you may not need proof for yourself. You may also not need to prove anything to anyone else. The issue here is, other people getting worked up over those who are skeptics (and rightfully so, due to lack of evidence) and do not believe the system to be true, or accurate, or as it claims to be etcetera. Mainly because they want proof that something works. What is so horrible about that? What is so wrong with wanting some evidence? I can provide a couple reasons. Maybe a skeptic doesn't want to waste their time, money, energy, efforts on something that is a scam? Maybe they want to know what makes it work so that they can make an objective comparison and decide which path or system they want to use? Which way to invest their time and take their game?
The term "Naysayer" comes up (JB). That implies many things, and is nothing more than nasty loaded language. How is skepticism in the face of no conclusive evidence being a "naysayer" ...It also implies one holds truth, and others are denying it.
John, please consider your own statement the next time you start challenging folks to produce videos.
Lou Figueroa
This would be a good time for a clarification on your position. Are your questions and posts so that you yourself won't get scammed? Or are your posts intended as a way to prevent others from being scammed?
It reads like the latter, to which I am understandably perplexed. I think readers should find out for themselves, especially given all the incredible (unbelievable and impossible) feedback. What's the worst that can happen? It doesn't work for them?
If it is the former, then again I suggest to leave it and then you're all set.
And believe me, I've got my beef with John and Joey's over-the-top zealotism, too. But, they know it and we can still have drinks together.
Freddie <~~~ wonders why there has to be anti-aiming system threads
Fred, "burden of proof" is not just a legal term, it is also a basic tenet of debate and logic.
We do a lot of the former here. The latter... not so much
Lou Figueroa
Another cool aspect of the way I use ghost ball is with banks. As I have written else where, I have been practicing mutli rails banks. I already have been using the mirror concept for single rail banks.
I found this on line http://www.azbilliards.com/jackkoehler/
Notice how all the lines are direction of travel lines. Kinda falls nicely into what I have been using for single rails so to me this is just an extension of what I already use.
One thing that really has not been talked about is the quality of pocketing the balls. By quality, I am referring to where you are hitting the pocket. The PIITH concept takes on a whole other meaning when changed to put in center pocket.
If your goal is always center pocket, but you make a ball that is not center pocket, something off and you better take notice of why you didn't hit center pocket.
While anywhere in the pocket does win games, and trust me I've won a few this way, but on personal standard level, I missed. This is not the quality of pocketing I want, anywhere in the pocket.
I found this on line http://www.azbilliards.com/jackkoehler/
Notice how all the lines are direction of travel lines. Kinda falls nicely into what I have been using for single rails so to me this is just an extension of what I already use.
One thing that really has not been talked about is the quality of pocketing the balls. By quality, I am referring to where you are hitting the pocket. The PIITH concept takes on a whole other meaning when changed to put in center pocket.
If your goal is always center pocket, but you make a ball that is not center pocket, something off and you better take notice of why you didn't hit center pocket.
While anywhere in the pocket does win games, and trust me I've won a few this way, but on personal standard level, I missed. This is not the quality of pocketing I want, anywhere in the pocket.
Very nicely played.
Curses you and your good posts.
Freddie <~~~ believer, but trying to sit silently in the pews
You would think so, but I can admit and declare what is FAITH based, and what is FACT. I never claimed God to be a fact. I don't pass things off as fact, when I have no proof.
Others should try and do the same thing. Notice, I do not fault them for believing in something unproven. Or even exercising it. It may very well be a giant waste of time. Just as some people say going to church is a waste of time. That's a fair statement, I must concede, even though I sometimes go to church.
The difference is, what is the goal? This is where the metaphor breaks down. Who can measure whatever religious or spiritual benefit there is? In pool, we have objective measures and standards. Either the ball goes, or it doesn't. Either the player wins, or they don't. They either improve or they don't. Simple stuff.
If a player has an aiming system, assume this system is true. They now have a method that provides them with that - isn't aiming now a done deal? Isn't now the focus and effort on stroke?
Would it be fair then to say it's a waste of time being obsessed with aiming systems? Thus, in reality, ALL the aiming system users should be the biggest advocates and proponents of stroke/mechanics. Since, aiming is figured out already if what they claim is true.
Yet, the opposite is true. They actually invalidate themselves. The aiming system people and pushers keep saying that shots are missed because of bad aim. Obviously, this means that their audience or target are those non-users of the system, otherwise they concede their system doesn't work or there is something of greater importance, perhaps the shot is more dependent on something else. What then becomes of the users of the systems? Why do they miss? Why are they not pros? Comes back to stroke.
As you can see, it always goes back to that.
There is proof. Pro-one dvd provides all the proof. I returned your volley now prove what you say about it not working.