Living Legend
Banned
on my cell now and will respond to that atlarge when I get home later.
If pockets were larger, or balls were smaller, or both, then the margin for error in shot making would be greater -- and fewer discrete cut angles would be needed to pocket any and all shots.
If pockets were smaller and balls were larger, CTE still makes all shots. CTE in its purest form is not a discrete system.
One day this will be understood and that day is not that far off.
Stan Shuffett
CJ's Ultimate Aiming System is a discrete system, i.e., it specifies a limited number of cut angles. This is contrasted with a continuous system, such as contact-point-to-contact-point aiming, which works (if you can find or "see" the contact points) directly for any cut angle. Discrete systems involve a certain number of reference cut angles. The player must adjust somehow, whether consciously or unconsciously, when cut angles between the reference points are needed.
An easy example is the fractional-ball aiming systems like "quarters," SAM, or back-of-the-ball aiming. These might specify only three reference cuts (other than straight or cut-the-paint thin): 3/4-ball aim, 1/2-ball aim, and 1/4-ball aim. If performed robotically, the use of just these three cuts would not be enough. The player learns to fill in the gaps. To make a 22-degree cut shot, for example, he might go a little thin on the 3/4-ball aim or a little thick on the 1/2-ball aim.
CJ's method is discrete. It has more reference aims ("themes") than some other methods, but not enough to pocket all shots without adjustments of one type or another. However, in actual use, I imagine CJ didn't even have to think about the reference aims or the adjustments; he was so well trained at using it that he just saw the "connection" needed between the two balls.
But I'll leave it to CJ as to how much he wants to talk about his aiming method.
Me thinks we should put John Schmidt's comments into the proper context. Here's part of what he said:
Maybe they work... but nobody’s telling me the one’s that work. Because if they work, first of all you’re not factoring in swerve and deflection. OK, now what if a guy comes up with a delivery system, that’s different. But, aiming’s adorable -- but you still have to deliver -- so you could aim perfect. If those aiming systems worked, well there would just be like four million people who played like Corey. But it’s year after year and it’s still Corey.
So these aiming systems are overrated, they’re a way to sell videos and books and make people pontificate about their own greatness and believe me if it worked, then they’d be out there winning tournaments, but they’re not.
What Stevie Moore doesn’t get is -- Stevie Moore -- you could put a bag over his head and he’d run out. He’s a great player. So he’s playing great in spite of his aiming system, not because of it. I mean, think about it: he’s already a great player. He could aim at the wall and he’s still going to make the ball. And it’s a way to give him comfort and confidence. He’s kind of like tricked himself into thinking ‘this aiming system works.’
John Schmidt: My piece of advice, if anybody cares to the viewers at home: forget all the aiming systems. Just like when you throw a baseball to first, you just do it. Right? There’s no aiming, you do it, you feel it. It’s same with pool. You get a mental picture and you do it. Aiming systems are the most ridiculous, overrated thing...The pros scoff at that stuff, they’re like, ‘aiming systems, really?!’...
If they would quit spending so much time on line and learning about aiming systems and go hit more balls they’d become better players. There’s no short cut to it. Sitting on AZ Billiards looking for aiming systems isn’t going to get it.
While some folks may disagree with certain aspects of what JS said, there is a lot of truth to some other things that he says. Things like people "spending so much time on line" when they could "go hit more balls, they'd become better players."
i just mentioned that on another thread earlier......charlie and i were just speaking the other day on systems and i think he's one of the best at teaching and explaining systems. Some have problems with him on the table but I'll say this you wont find a teacher or instructor with more heart in trying to help you out the best he can, wonderful instructor.
Everyone creates their own reality when it comes to shooting pool. We all see things differently and have different mechanics that produce different strokes and subsequent effects. So what works for one guy may not very well work for the next. It's important to keep this in mind before drinking the kool-aid.
Lou Figueroa
Yes, I agree Lou. I use 90/90 for almost all shots, and the SEE system for long rail banks. I don't claim these aiming systems are better than others. They are just better for me. Regardless of how you aim, you still have to put in the table time. No shortcuts, except because we are all different, one system makes more sense and we can advance quicker because it fits our particular mechanics or the way we see the shots. I agree, no kool -aid. :grin:
CJ, Thanks for your comments. It's great to see a player of your talent and knowledge helping others. I'm also glad to hear you're working on your game again. Hope to see you at Tunica next year! :grin:
so do you know of any other techniques you care to share with us that we might not know about?
hang on i miss read your post... ok so he is just talking about the amount of variations in a theme. There could be thousands of variations per theme on any sized pocket and/or ball size?
CJ, I am having a specific problem with my grip hand and forearm tension affecting my stroke. After working during the day it is hard for me to keep it running straight. I was hoping maybe you knew a way to combat this . Any help would be appreciated
Thanks
Your PSR and aiming system![]()
Those are in my original series, CJ's Ultimate Pool Secrets. The new series has "The Connection System" and how the "Touch of Inside" creates (in your perspective of Zones) the "Three Part Pocket System", giving a player much more margin for error when they utilize 3 parts of the pocket, rather than the standard 2 (center and one side).
The pre shot routine in the original series is also expanded on by showing how to "begin with the end in mind", creating the body angles and aiming ABOVE the shot, before getting down to play the shot.
I just ordered your "Ultimate Pool Secrets" from your website yeaterday does this include the "Conection System" , "Touch of Inside" & "Three Part Pocket System"?
OK
I have enjoyed reading the posts on the thread of John Smith and C.Deuel
regarding CJ's touch of inside technic!
What really amazes me is how much problems people seem to have with it:
1)This technic is simple! Value is GREAT! It is different concerning most intermediate player's approach as you only have to adjust for the deflection of the cue ball that is a result of the slight touch of insight on the CB in combination with more ACCELERATION in your stroke.
A) no need to adjust for SIT but for deflection of the CB only,
as the amount of SIT is so little you can ignore it
B) the touch of inside English combined with the acceleration takes away the throw effect (Again CIT) on the OB and therefore makes it in fact easier to make the OB!
C) you can create angles for your cue ball path you never dreamed they were possible and can kill the cue ball (speed of CB) better than with any other technic I am aware of!
You can use the same technic with outside English and aiming to overcut it on long distances as the squirt of the Cb will be to the left with right hand side and vice versa -But problem is that the cue ball will really be speeding off more after having touched a rail instead of get slower after having touched a rail with a touch of inside. So playing position using only one rail I highly favor the touch of inside!!! Using multiple rails for position, it works good for a touch of outside too.
Using the same method with applying no English takes away a part of the throw (collision induced throw) too because of the acceleration and therefore makes it easier to pot the OB too. This is good for playing positional shots too! (position using one rail mostly)
That#s by the way how SNOOKER PLAYER manage to shoot so precisely. It works with LD shafts and with standard shafts- it is just a different amount of deflection that you have to adjust for-once got it, it really is easy and will help anyone's game!!!
It seems as if people did not really take their time at the table to try this but posting their thoughts/questions/assumptions on it without having had table time on this topic! Now I seem to understand why players seem to have problems with aiming technics like CTE/Pro1 or mine, the SEE-System...taling about time to get familiar wíth something new at the table and making your own personal needed adjustments...at the table not in front of your laptop...
Adding this tool to my SEE-SYSTEM or CTE-PRO1 or ULTIMATE SYSTEM OF CJ is ****ing strong! Just at the moment I feel like no one can beat me:smile: I know that there still some outside but...they are getting less:wink:
I know that what Cj uses here is not an aiming system and I know his ultimate system approach I just wanted to say: Try this at the table and adjust to your own needs such as stroke etc.!!!!
What seems important for me using his touch of inside technic is to really
accelerate your stroke on your way to the cue ball and stroke with the cue on a plane level (cue as parallel as possible to the table 's surface)
so no pendulum stroke as your hand goes up to your chest at the finish position.
It seems to be more consistant (for me personally) with a stroke where you drop your shoulder (on draw strokes at least if not at all strokes even, which is fine for me) By the way some of the greatest instructors in snooker teach to do so too.
Here is a link to the greatest snooker web site that I happened to find last week with the most of free info I have ever seen!!!:
http://www.pjnolanschampionsacademy.com/
Click at coaching material too!to have a look at all free stuff (pdf booklets for exercises/ drills/mindset/to download too! incl. stance!!!!grip!!!!!stroke!!!!
cue action: http://www.pjnolanschampionsacademy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102&Itemid=119
grip: http://www.pjnolanschampionsacademy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=129&Itemid=129 http://www.pjnolanschampionsacademy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=156&Itemid=130
There is a lot of the stuff that CJ and I tell their/my students to do too such as look last to the OB ball one slow back swing, pause (individual time) and shoot! Best aim check and stroke teacher ever!!!!
Do not look away from the OB while doing this! Taking the booklets you will have material for the next 5 years to work on.
AND WHAT REALLY IS OBVIOUS: SNOOKER PLAYERS SEEM TO PUT QUALITY TIME IN THEIR TRAINING AND THIS TIME IS WELL STRUCTURED LOOK AT THE DRILLS AND FORGET ANYTHING (MOST OF YOU) HAVE DONE TRAINING POOL! THAT'S THE WAY YOU GET BETTER IN POOL TOO!!!
Combining this dedicated training with a modern systematic approach for aiming such as CTE, Cjs ULTIMATE AIMING; or my SEE-SYSTEM
really makes you a great player!!!
BTW, I REMEMBER ME TRAINING 10 hours and more A DAY ON FREE DAYS OR WHEN I WAS STUDDYING :wink:
I MEAN TRAINING POOL ON MY OWN (ALONE) AT THE TABLE!!! Something like this has disappeared in the last 10-20 years it seems to me.
OK this were my 2 cents!
Applause and thanks to CJ for posting here!
EKKES
The single most important thing you can do to improve your aiming is not to memorize some secret system, but to OBSERVE the results of each shot. Are you missing too full or too thin? Tells you what you are actually aiming at. If you shoot the same shot 20 times and your aim is true the misses should be equally distributed between full and thin. Then you know the errors are caused by other factors such as an inconsistent stroke. Even an absolute beginner can make use of this advice. It doesn't matter how far they miss, just which side the ball goes to. (Usually too full for amateurs).so do you know of any other techniques you care to share with us that we might not know about?