"Aiming Systems" are Junk, DO the Work!
- Thread starter Bobkitty
- Start date
I think I've watched this clip 2 or 3 times over the last few months. Brandon seems like a really great guy, and he has a great attitude about aiming systems in general. His CTE comments seemed a little off and commercial-like, but still a good interview for the benefit of aiming systems.
And what happened to Rodney Morris's endorsement of cte ?
Somebody handed him one of your pool cues to try out and he's never been the same since regardless of CTE or any other aiming system. He couldn't make a ball and still can't.
the
You don't know Brandon very well if you think he's posturing for commercial purposes concerning CTE. He's one of the strongest students that I've worked with. He is incorporating CTE into his game. He has no reason to misrepresent CTE about anything.
Stan Shuffett
You don't know Brandon very well if you think he's posturing for commercial purposes concerning CTE. He's one of the strongest students that I've worked with. He is incorporating CTE into his game. He has no reason to misrepresent CTE about anything.
Stan Shuffett
I just felt his comments were not too convincing. John B parades this clip as a pro endorsement of CTE, but Brandon clearly states that he only uses it sometime, like the way I use my own system -- on occasion and as a jump start to get me back in stroke. From what I've gathered, CTE pro one users are not part-time/occasional users. They use it full-time, every shot.
Perhaps you should tell Brandon to his face that you think that he is not sincere with his comments. This is one reason that I have to be careful about releasing names of who I work with. I have had positive communications with 7 known pros within the last week, several that have already visited on more than one occasion.
Pro One.... When Phil Burford first learned Pro One he did it in a gradual manner over many months. He went on to win multiple GB9 events as a full time PRO ONE user.
Brandon is following the same pattern. Brandon will resume his training with me for a multiple day session in the not so distant future. He's impressed enough with CTE that he's wants my full scope of knowledge.
Stan Shuffett
I am in no way questioning his sincerity. I'm simply stating the obvious from watching the clip. John posted a link to this clip months ago, insinuating that Brandon uses CTE pro one.
It was obvious, listening to Brandon, that he is not a dedicated CTE player. For one thing, he says it's the only aiming system that rang true for him, that "made all the sense with all the math, or whatever you call it". What math? What is he talking about?
He describes an 8ft cut shot, saying, "if you can get behind the balls and use the cue ball to a aim at a specific point on the object ball, it doesn't matter what the distance is." That is not CTE.
Later on he says, "With pro one, they have uh...what is it?.... a visual sweep, the visual sweep concept, and then the vi...and then the....the pivot." He doesn't sound very familiar with CTE terminology, and who is "they" when he they have a visual sweep? CTE users? Why didn't he say "we" instead of "they"? Then right after this he mentions pivots and says it really depends on the player's skill level whether or not they use pivots or sweeps. Then he says he uses sweeps. Naturally, being at a pro skill level he'd have to pick the sweep concept because it's more professional looking.
He goes on to say that he doesn't use CTE all the time. He's on and off of it, like I am with fractional aiming.
I have no doubt he is being very sincere in describing his experience so far with CTE. And you may be right -- some day he might be a full-time user. I'd say if he's winning, playing great, he'll keep doing whatever he feels is helping him play so well.
Brandon was honest with his comments. He has used CTE to a degree for a few years now. It is what it is! He currently uses CTE and he desires to fully incorporate it into his game. He's seen enough and knows enough to want to rid himself of 1 line guessing, which is the wrong way to align for aiming.
It does not surprise me that you'd go with the "glass half empty" crap about Brandon.
He will likely respond when we get together.
Stan Shuffett
Like I said, he seems very sincere. I have no doubts about his fine honesty or character. And I don't see the glass half empty.... I see it half full. You say he has used CTE to a degree for a few years now. This video was posted on YouTube this year. Based on the video, I'd say he hasn't yet made the decision to fill the glass on up. He could've lied and said he uses CTE pro one 100% of the time. But he didn't, and I respect his honesty.
Brandon has publicly credited CTE off and on since 2013.
I feel as though he may want to respond.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
There's nothing in need of a response. I really don't see what else he could say at this moment that would be an different than John Barton's video. Once Brandon fills the glass on up and becomes a 100% CTE Pro One dependent player, John can do another interview. As well as Brandon plays, even before CTE lessons, I can't imagine how difficult it would be to change or convert from his natural feel to a set system, but eventually he may go that route. One thing is certain: He is a great player with an excellent attitude toward aiming.
SET SYSTEM is very misleading in that the phrasing connotates something rigid or strict.
Why might Brandom totally reprogram? Because CTE is easier to implement than feel plus it's more accurate.
I feel sure that he'll want to respond. We'll see.
Stan Shuffett
Yeah...."set system" was probably not the best wording. But I couldn't think of any other words to reflect a no-feel system. I wasn't trying to be misleading. I was placing the system in it's non-feel category. Using the word "set" is much more accurate and polite than using "robotic" or "mechanical", because it is a set system -- meaning you do the exact same set of steps for each shot, no feel involved.
Even the word STEPS is misleading ...It's see and align as in easier than feel. CTE is what feel aspires to be.
Stan Shuffett
Couldn't the "see" part (the process of locating the correct position to get the correct visuals) be considered a step in at least a two-step process? The next step, once the perception is found, would be the pivot or sweep to CCB.
Like with fractions, there are a couple of steps that one must do until their brain begins to automatically do it. Step one: determine the aim point. Step two: send the cb to the aim point.
Last edited:
The problem with fractions is that some do go but some do not go. Therefore, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, with fractions, you must enter in to the world of tweeners. Guess-work!
Apples and oranges compared to CTE.
Dan knows it. Lou knows it. AtLarge knows it. Spider knows it. Bob J. Knows it. Dr. Dave knows it. And too many others to list. We have been down this road and I am through with the discussion. It's ridiculous.
Stan Shuffett
Well, no answer on Rodney Morris endorsing cte before.
Wasn't Darren Appleton endorsing the SEE System one time too.
When US Open winners start endorsing aiming systems they've never heard of before they won their major titles, the endorsement is kinda doubtful.
It's kinda like Allsion Fisher and Jeanette Lee endorsing some expensive laser gizmo.
I love it when CTE is always the subject. Personally, I'm flattered.
About Rodney.
During the BONUS BALL SEASON many of the players around would hang out and also practice together at times.
Stevie Moore invited Rodney to take look at PRO ONE. Rodney did for a short time in order to grasp the basics. His initial comment was, " Its like stealing!" Shortly after Ridney played the 13 ball ghost using sweeps and handily won. He publically praised the system. He did Stevie a good turn by looking at it. Rodney had nothing negative to say but all positive.
For Rodney to continue with CTE it would have required a reprogramming of his visual game and that was never a part of his real intentions. Having said that, guess what....Rodney was already sweeping into his shots and still does.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
Every single cut shot, when the CB strikes the OB anywhere other than 100% full, is a fractional hit. That's just a fact. So, actually, fractions can define every shot. I doubt AtLarge or Bob J or Dr Dave would disagree with that basic fact.
Aiming one millimeter thinner or thicker creates a +/- 1-degree change in shot angle. It's about a 64th fractional aim difference. This precise amount of fine tuning is not difficult and usually not needed. When the ob is within 2 ft of the pocket, using the nearest 1/8 aim point will work. As the ball gets farther out and the margin of error shrinks, a more precise fractional aim is needed. But it's not guesswork.
The shot might fall somewhere between a 5/8 and a 1/2 ball aim. If it's dead between the two then you know to aim dead between the two aim points, which would be aiming 1/16 thinner or thicker. You wouldn't be thinking in terms of 16th aim points -- you'd simply be using common visual sense. If the shot is closer to a 5/8 aim than it is a 1/2 aim, then you'll be aiming slighty thinner than a 5/8 instead of dead in the middle of the 5/8 and the 1/2. You'll be aiming between that middle point and the 5/8 aim point. That would be a 1/32 thinner than a 5/8 aim. And as I've said, it's not a complicated math solution. It's a simple visual comparison between known aim points.
Last edited: