Aiming Voodoo Video

JoeyA said:
So you are saying that Ron's aiming system pivot point is the rear hand, correct? This would mean that for the most part you would have to move your bridge hand minutely, correct even if it only meant "leaning" your bridge hand?//

BTW, thanks for the attaboy, relax post. :D
Click to expand...

I have always thought that a Pivot Point is where the shaft of the cue meets the bridge hand, and then your back hand makes the adjustment - I think im wrong based on the below quote??. When setting up these shots demonstrated in Cleary's vid tonight when I was playing some, I felt very awkward in my set up and didnt make many shots. Now, I went back to Pro1 (I live in the UK and have been shown CTE by a friend who had coaching from Stan) and have recently picked it up full time now the season is over until March, I cant wait to get the DVD to learn fully, but I feel I have explored a lot with this system in the past few days and its feeling really good!

AtLarge said:
Not necessarily. The pivot point is the point on the stick that does not move when the cue is pivoted.

Examples:
-- For back-hand english (with any aiming method), the tip initially points at cue-ball center, then the back hand moves left or right and the cue pivots around the bridge to place the cue tip right or left of cue-ball center. The pivot point is the bridge.

-- For front-hand english, the tip initially points at cue-ball center, then the front hand moves left or right and the cue pivots around the rear hand to place the cue tip left or right of cue-ball center. The pivot point is the rear hand.

-- For mechanical, on the table, CTE aiming, Dave Segal has shown us that he deforms the bridge hand slightly when the cue is pivoted to create an effective pivot point that is well behind the bridge hand. I believe Dave has said that he senses the pivot point as approximately at the stick's joint.

-- For Cleary's version of Ron's 90/90 aiming, Cleary is saying and demonstrating a pivot point that is at his back hand. That is, he keeps the back hand in place and pivots the rest of the cue left or right to bring the cue tip to cue-ball center by moving the bridge hand.​
Click to expand...
 
Exactly how does Dave's post ridicule anybody, John?
pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Joey:
Here you are in this thread suggesting that John and I are the trouble makers.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting it; I'm saying it. John's unwarranted attack here is just his latest example. His insane ramblings about "winning" in multiple other recent posts are more examples. Your unwarranted meltdown and lashing out at everybody in your own thread is your own recent example. Nobody among the "naysayers", as you've branded your "enemies", has ever acted so poorly as both of you in the past few days. You're a pair of emotionally overboard divas allowed to act out your tantrums under the prejudicial protection of the moderator here.

But you two prima donnas don't bother me personally as much as it might sound like here. You and your aiming system nonsense are just emblematic of what bores me about AzB lately and makes me care less about being "moderated" than about speaking my mind.

pj
chgo
 
Monkey-Boy said:
I have always thought that a Pivot Point is where the shaft of the cue meets the bridge hand, and then your back hand makes the adjustment - I think I'm wrong based on the below quote??. When setting up these shots demonstrated in Cleary's vid tonight when I was playing some, I felt very awkward in my set up and didn't make many shots. Now, I went back to Pro1 (I live in the UK and have been shown CTE by a friend who had coaching from Stan) and have recently picked it up full time now the season is over until March, I cant wait to get the DVD to learn fully, but I feel I have explored a lot with this system in the past few days and its feeling really good!
Click to expand...


Perhaps now you understand my "test" from before.

I completely understand that hardly anyone will have a pivot point of 1". I did not think anyone would use a 57" pivot point...but someone is.

For the test...I used the 1" pivot point for exaggeration so that when people try the different length pivots, it will be obvious that they get different end results in alignment.

It seems that there is no one true pivot point to base from....

Is it 8"?
Is it 12"?
Is it 25"?
Is it 29" ?
Is it 57"?

These are all seemingly used and exampled distances for a pivot point.

If you use different pivot points with the same method...you get different end results...That is what I was trying to example with a test of 1" pivot vs 29" pivot....It becomes very obvious (at least to me) that the method will not work with a 1" pivot point....It also does not work (at least to me) with a 58" pivot point.

That tells.......since ALL the pivot points can't be correct...there must be some individual compensation going on....at least for some of the players.

Now we have a "morphing" of the bridge comment to accommodate for a pivot point that is behind the bridge hand.....This is contradictory to everything I have ever been taught about the bridge hand for pool....I have always been told and am a firm believer that the bridge hand must be a "rock"...very stable and never waiver.....a morphing bridge is (to me) not stable or "rock like"

I don't see Francisco's bridge moving around...sure his back hand is all over the place...but the bridge hand from what I can see (just like all the Philippine players) seems very stable....perhaps I am wrong on this.

How much is the bridge hand supposed to "morph"?? ...different hands will "morph" differently....some more some less....how is this "morphing" ....or sliding...consistent or exact?

Please note...I am not trying to say that CTE does not work...but it is hard to keep up with the changing processes.....It almost makes me feel like I am playing bar room 8-ball in an unknown room...and the guy I am playing keeps changing the rules....:)

Does the DVD establish a standard pivot point length? Does the DVD advocate "morphing" of the bridge hand?
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I'm not suggesting it; I'm saying it. John's unwarranted attack here is just his latest example. His insane ramblings about "winning" in multiple other recent posts are more examples. Your unwarranted meltdown and lashing out at everybody in your own thread is your own recent example. Nobody among the "naysayers", as you've branded your "enemies", has ever acted so poorly as both of you in the past few days. You're a pair of emotionally overboard divas allowed to act out your tantrums under the prejudicial protection of the moderator here.

But you two prima donnas don't bother me personally as much as it might sound like here. You and your aiming system nonsense are just emblematic of what bores me about AzB lately and makes me care less about being "moderated" than about speaking my mind.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

You see, there you go again Patrick: But you really don't see yourself as others do, do you? "overboard divas" and then you get a response from me that says you are and have always been the real drama queen and it goes round and round. You see Patrick, you can't just run around insulting people whenever you feel like it. It doesn't work that way in the real world and it doesn't even work that way on this forum.

Candidly, since you are so bored with the nonsense of aiming systems, why don't you take a hiatus before the moderators force another one on you. Your creative genius appears to be just plain wore out and you obviously are in need of a nap.

JoeyA
 
BRKNRUN said:
Perhaps now you understand my "test" from before.

I completely understand that hardly anyone will have a pivot point of 1". I did not think anyone would use a 57" pivot point...but someone is.

For the test...I used the 1" pivot point for exaggeration so that when people try the different length pivots, it will be obvious that they get different end results in alignment.

It seems that there is no one true pivot point to base from....

Is it 8"?
Is it 12"?
Is it 25"?
Is it 29" ?
Is it 57"?

These are all seemingly used and exampled distances for a pivot point.

If you use different pivot points with the same method...you get different end results...That is what I was trying to example with a test of 1" pivot vs 29" pivot....It becomes very obvious (at least to me) that the method will not work with a 1" pivot point....It also does not work (at least to me) with a 58" pivot point.

That tells.......since ALL the pivot points can't be correct...there must be some individual compensation going on....at least for some of the players.

Now we have a "morphing" of the bridge comment to accommodate for a pivot point that is behind the bridge hand.....This is contradictory to everything I have ever been taught about the bridge hand for pool....I have always been told and am a firm believer that the bridge hand must be a "rock"...very stable and never waiver.....a morphing bridge is (to me) not stable or "rock like"

I don't see Francisco's bridge moving around...sure his back hand is all over the place...but the bridge hand from what I can see (just like all the Philippine players) seems very stable....perhaps I am wrong on this.

How much is the bridge hand supposed to "morph"?? ...different hands will "morph" differently....some more some less....how is this "morphing" ....or sliding...consistent or exact?

Please note...I am not trying to say that CTE does not work...but it is hard to keep up with the changing processes.....It almost makes me feel like I am playing bar room 8-ball in an unknown room...and the guy I am playing keeps changing the rules....:)

Does the DVD establish a standard pivot point length? Does the DVD advocate "morphing" of the bridge hand?
Click to expand...

Ken,
The other person hasn't seen Stan Shuffett's DVD on CTE/Pro One. All of your questions will be answered as soon as the DVD becomes available which I thought someone said would be January.

Stan Shuffett's CTE/Pro One has a finite set of guidelines and the rules do not change.

I've heard from some others about CTE and I've heard from Hal Houle about CTE and what Stan teaches and what is in his video appears to be similar to what others have tried to explain, it is in fact different than what I originally was taught. Stan is very specific about CTE/Pro One and his video hopefully will satisfy many of the people who want to learn how to use it.

Pro One and I'm not speaking for Stan or anyone else, but for me Pro One is more of a "natural" way of using CTE.

Hopefully our friends overseas won't be divulging any of Stan's "Secrets", at least not until the video becomes available to the public.
 
BRKNRUN said:
Perhaps now you understand my "test" from before.

I completely understand that hardly anyone will have a pivot point of 1". I did not think anyone would use a 57" pivot point...but someone is.

For the test...I used the 1" pivot point for exaggeration so that when people try the different length pivots, it will be obvious that they get different end results in alignment.

It seems that there is no one true pivot point to base from....

Is it 8"?
Is it 12"?
Is it 25"?
Is it 29" ?
Is it 57"?

These are all seemingly used and exampled distances for a pivot point.

If you use different pivot points with the same method...you get different end results...That is what I was trying to example with a test of 1" pivot vs 29" pivot....It becomes very obvious (at least to me) that the method will not work with a 1" pivot point....It also does not work (at least to me) with a 58" pivot point.

That tells.......since ALL the pivot points can't be correct...there must be some individual compensation going on....at least for some of the players.

Now we have a "morphing" of the bridge comment to accommodate for a pivot point that is behind the bridge hand.....This is contradictory to everything I have ever been taught about the bridge hand for pool....I have always been told and am a firm believer that the bridge hand must be a "rock"...very stable and never waiver.....a morphing bridge is (to me) not stable or "rock like"

I don't see Francisco's bridge moving around...sure his back hand is all over the place...but the bridge hand from what I can see (just like all the Philippine players) seems very stable....perhaps I am wrong on this.

How much is the bridge hand supposed to "morph"?? ...different hands will "morph" differently....some more some less....how is this "morphing" ....or sliding...consistent or exact?

Please note...I am not trying to say that CTE does not work...but it is hard to keep up with the changing processes.....It almost makes me feel like I am playing bar room 8-ball in an unknown room...and the guy I am playing keeps changing the rules....:)

Does the DVD establish a standard pivot point length? Does the DVD advocate "morphing" of the bridge hand?
Click to expand...

It seems to me everyone is using a different form of pivot aiming system, this is why everyone is having trouble understanding how it works. Cleary right now has a pretty clear "how too" version out on video that people should try an learn and we can all be on the same page.

For me i am interested in only his edge to center angle shots because im good wth my thick an thin shots.
 
There is no set pivot point. Even if there were it would about the same as using Ghost Ball's GB Center, in effect impossible to nail down every time. This is where the "feel" comes into the system.

But it feels BETTER than using GB in my experience.

Using this system I can make balls that border on the unbelievable.

As an example you know the shots where the pocket is partially blocked? So you have a very tight window to make the shot.

The other night I am playing on a table with 4 1/8th inch pockets and I get a shot like that and I use CTE to line up on it and nail it. There was an audible gasp from the onloookers who could all see how difficult that shot was on that table.

I don't use any pivot point that is a standard distance from the cueball. I just kind of see it as I am going down on the shot. Once I see the shot line then I can move my bridge hand closer to or farther away from the cueball as needed. Sometimes the placement of the balls dictates where your bridge hand MUST be. In that case I "air pivot" into the shot to get the shot line and put my bridge hand down on that line where it's most comfortable for the shot.

The hardest thing about these systems is the pivot - no doubt about it. What is it, where is it done?

Hopefully Stan's video clears this up on the CTE front and hopefully Ron Vitello can make a video soon that explains it on his end.

For me I feel like I am using CTE pretty good right now and it's definitely keeping me competitive with people who play for hours and hours every day. CTE is helping me to focus more on my stroke and technique and less on my aiming. In the other thread I posted about how it's helping my one pocket game.

But if I try to teach someone else then of course I come up against the inevitable questions about "the pivot".

Well anyway I am sure that soon these questions will be answered.
 
JoeyA said:
Hopefully our friends overseas won't be divulging any of Stan's "Secrets", at least not until the video becomes available to the public.
Click to expand...

If this is aimed at me Joey, I can assure I wont be showing people the system as I havent seen the DVD and dont know it fully. It would be wrong for me to pass information on that Im not 100% sure on :)

I'll be purchasing Stan's DVD as soon as it is released, and I will learn it.

The Secret is Safe with me pal :p;):thumbup:
 
Patrick Johnson said:
So in pivot "systems" The Pivot is performed by feel. That sounds eerily familiar.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I see you started your own cte thread yesterday, How's that working out for you. Nobody feeling it? If I get time tonight I'll be first in your thread, I promise.
 
Let me clarify about the "feel" of the pivot. It's not guessing. It's more along the lines of finding the right type of pivot that works for you and sticking with that.

That's where FOR ME the trial and error comes into play. It's working the system and figuring out that x-distance works for me and sticking with that.

So to put this into perspective say I practiced a certain shot until I found the right pivot point then I moved around that shot with that pivot point and found that the pivot point I figured out worked for all of them.

Then comes game time and I am faced with a shot that I have never practiced or shot before.

What I do is then use the exact same pivot point that I found works for me on the shots I know and guess what, it goes.

That's the "incredible" shot category I am always going off about. When I play now I am able to make shots that I just wouldn't even consider trying when I was using ghost ball or "pure feel" as my aiming method.

You can't even really know this feeling until you learn the system and experience it for yourself.

The other night I taught someone the system and immediately he started making shots where he KNEW right away what I am talking about.

This is his exact words to me, "when I go to tournaments it often takes me a while to warm up using ghost ball. Because of that I often lose my first match because I am not yet comfortable. I think that this system will be better for me to get warmed up much faster."

Now, whether that actually turns out to be true or not for him it's just an example of how a person feels more confident about the shotmaking by using the system.

I wish it was as easy as saying that the pivot point is always X-distance away from the cueball and that the bridge hand is always x-distance away at X-spot. It's not but it's not as hard as it sounds either once you start learning it.

The opponents of this system really want to paint it as just another form of guessing the aiming line by citing the ambiguity of the pivot. It is my contention though that if those opponents were to learn the system then they would be able to constructively figure out the pivot's parameters and would then see why proponents speak of the system as exact.

Because for me personally when I use it then I am doing exactly the same thing each shot. Align to the edge of the object ball, bring my cue in aligned to the edge of the cue ball while I pivot into center cueball, put my bridge hand down and shoot.

Even if my pivot distance isn't 100% in the same spot for each shot the consistency of the steps gives me the feeling that I am doing the exact same thing each time. Most importantly I am not wondering if I am right and I am not fiddling and readjusting while down on the ball.

When I visited with Pat Johnson I noticed that he moves often when he is already down on the cueball. When I pointed this out he denied it but then a little while later he agreed and stated that he had never really noticed it before.

I asked him what he does to aim and he said he uses feel. He just sees it. And that's fine except that with the fidgeting and fine tuning when he gets down on the cueball it's clear that he doesn't quite just see it. It takes some more adjustment to get to the final aiming line.

For myself I just use CTE and the same three steps for each shot and whatever the line is that's what I go with. No adjustment, no getting back up off the shot, just get down on the aiming line and focus on my delivery. I am not guessing what pivot point to use and thus guessing what the aiming line is. No, I am using the pivot point that feels most comfortable to me based on my practice and that's what I go with.

Now here is the kicker. Sometimes my brain will be screaming that I am wrong and I will try to steer the cue ball to the line my brain says is right and I will miss the ball. This is because I spent most of my playing years where I was playing A LOT playing by ghost ball and feel. So even now my brain is wired to look at shots that way. I find that if I am able to ignore my brain screaming "wrong" and just focus on shooting straight through the cueball on the line that CTE gives me then the object ball goes in clean and sweet.

I need to "hit a million balls" using CTE to break me of the habit of seeing the shots with GB and "feel" first. Actually using CTE I think that I could get away with just a couple hundred thousand in order for the the CTE line to become the "natural feel" when aiming.

As it is right now I am playing great for my skill level.
 
How to Win Friends and Influence People



Thanks for a short list of insult words. In the order presented. And you don't have a problem?

unwarranted
insane
meltdown
lashing out
branded
emotionally
overboard
divas
tantrums
prejudicial
prima donnas

Talk about How to Win Friends and Influence People.





Patrick Johnson said:
I'm not suggesting it; I'm saying it. John's unwarranted attack here is just his latest example. His insane ramblings about "winning" in multiple other recent posts are more examples. Your unwarranted meltdown and lashing out at everybody in your own thread is your own recent example. Nobody among the "naysayers", as you've branded your "enemies", has ever acted so poorly as both of you in the past few days. You're a pair of emotionally overboard divas allowed to act out your tantrums under the prejudicial protection of the moderator here.

But you two prima donnas don't bother me personally as much as it might sound like here. You and your aiming system nonsense are just emblematic of what bores me about AzB lately and makes me care less about being "moderated" than about speaking my mind.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
 
Slide Rule said:


Thanks for a short list of insult words. In the order presented. And you don't have a problem?

unwarranted
insane
meltdown
lashing out
branded
emotionally
overboard
divas
tantrums
prejudicial
prima donnas

Talk about How to Win Friends and Influence People.
Click to expand...

Maybe now he'll see himself as others see him.:shakehead:
 
JB Cases said:
Let me clarify about the "feel" of the pivot. It's not guessing. It's more along the lines of finding the right type of pivot that works for you and sticking with that.

That's where FOR ME the trial and error comes into play. It's working the system and figuring out that x-distance works for me and sticking with that.

So to put this into perspective say I practiced a certain shot until I found the right pivot point then I moved around that shot with that pivot point and found that the pivot point I figured out worked for all of them.

Then comes game time and I am faced with a shot that I have never practiced or shot before.

What I do is then use the exact same pivot point that I found works for me on the shots I know and guess what, it goes.

That's the "incredible" shot category I am always going off about. When I play now I am able to make shots that I just wouldn't even consider trying when I was using ghost ball or "pure feel" as my aiming method.

You can't even really know this feeling until you learn the system and experience it for yourself.

The other night I taught someone the system and immediately he started making shots where he KNEW right away what I am talking about.

This is his exact words to me, "when I go to tournaments it often takes me a while to warm up using ghost ball. Because of that I often lose my first match because I am not yet comfortable. I think that this system will be better for me to get warmed up much faster."

Now, whether that actually turns out to be true or not for him it's just an example of how a person feels more confident about the shotmaking by using the system.

I wish it was as easy as saying that the pivot point is always X-distance away from the cueball and that the bridge hand is always x-distance away at X-spot. It's not but it's not as hard as it sounds either once you start learning it.

The opponents of this system really want to paint it as just another form of guessing the aiming line by citing the ambiguity of the pivot. It is my contention though that if those opponents were to learn the system then they would be able to constructively figure out the pivot's parameters and would then see why proponents speak of the system as exact.

Because for me personally when I use it then I am doing exactly the same thing each shot. Align to the edge of the object ball, bring my cue in aligned to the edge of the cue ball while I pivot into center cueball, put my bridge hand down and shoot.

Even if my pivot distance isn't 100% in the same spot for each shot the consistency of the steps gives me the feeling that I am doing the exact same thing each time. Most importantly I am not wondering if I am right and I am not fiddling and readjusting while down on the ball.

When I visited with Pat Johnson I noticed that he moves often when he is already down on the cueball. When I pointed this out he denied it but then a little while later he agreed and stated that he had never really noticed it before.

I asked him what he does to aim and he said he uses feel. He just sees it. And that's fine except that with the fidgeting and fine tuning when he gets down on the cueball it's clear that he doesn't quite just see it. It takes some more adjustment to get to the final aiming line.

For myself I just use CTE and the same three steps for each shot and whatever the line is that's what I go with. No adjustment, no getting back up off the shot, just get down on the aiming line and focus on my delivery. I am not guessing what pivot point to use and thus guessing what the aiming line is. No, I am using the pivot point that feels most comfortable to me based on my practice and that's what I go with.

Now here is the kicker. Sometimes my brain will be screaming that I am wrong and I will try to steer the cue ball to the line my brain says is right and I will miss the ball. This is because I spent most of my playing years where I was playing A LOT playing by ghost ball and feel. So even now my brain is wired to look at shots that way. I find that if I am able to ignore my brain screaming "wrong" and just focus on shooting straight through the cueball on the line that CTE gives me then the object ball goes in clean and sweet.

I need to "hit a million balls" using CTE to break me of the habit of seeing the shots with GB and "feel" first. Actually using CTE I think that I could get away with just a couple hundred thousand in order for the the CTE line to become the "natural feel" when aiming.

As it is right now I am playing great for my skill level.
Click to expand...

circlef.jpg


Just pretend your cue extends to the OB plane and pivot along the arc (as if your eyes were the center of the circle and the OB were the edge of the circle). This isn't feel, imo. That's why RonV's hip pivot is so powerful because it creates a larger circle by forcing the center of the circle away from the OB plane. For 1/2 ball pivots, I think a hip pivot is req'd unless you can pivot from your shoulder like Bustamante. With each practice stroke, he moves a little closer to center. If you do that, you can maintain the arc with just your arm. Otherwise, if you just move your back arm in 1 movement, you risk pivoting from the bridge (which is the wrong arc to center ball).

If you pivot a smaller distance, you can pivot your back hand because the short distance forces a flat arc. Regardless, you always have to be mindful of the OB plane. You'll soon find out the pivot has no feel involved, imo.

If you look at the pic above, when you move your tip along that arc - the pivot point works itself out.

Who the hell knows where the pivot point is and who cares. As a player, you're NEVER mindful of pivot points unless it has to do with BHE.
 
JB Cases said:
Let me clarify about the "feel" of the pivot. It's not guessing. It's more along the lines of finding the right type of pivot that works for you and sticking with that.

That's where FOR ME the trial and error comes into play. It's working the system and figuring out that x-distance works for me and sticking with that.

So to put this into perspective say I practiced a certain shot until I found the right pivot point then I moved around that shot with that pivot point and found that the pivot point I figured out worked for all of them.

Then comes game time and I am faced with a shot that I have never practiced or shot before.

What I do is then use the exact same pivot point that I found works for me on the shots I know and guess what, it goes.

That's the "incredible" shot category I am always going off about. When I play now I am able to make shots that I just wouldn't even consider trying when I was using ghost ball or "pure feel" as my aiming method.

You can't even really know this feeling until you learn the system and experience it for yourself.

The other night I taught someone the system and immediately he started making shots where he KNEW right away what I am talking about.

This is his exact words to me, "when I go to tournaments it often takes me a while to warm up using ghost ball. Because of that I often lose my first match because I am not yet comfortable. I think that this system will be better for me to get warmed up much faster."

Now, whether that actually turns out to be true or not for him it's just an example of how a person feels more confident about the shotmaking by using the system.

I wish it was as easy as saying that the pivot point is always X-distance away from the cueball and that the bridge hand is always x-distance away at X-spot. It's not but it's not as hard as it sounds either once you start learning it.

The opponents of this system really want to paint it as just another form of guessing the aiming line by citing the ambiguity of the pivot. It is my contention though that if those opponents were to learn the system then they would be able to constructively figure out the pivot's parameters and would then see why proponents speak of the system as exact.

Because for me personally when I use it then I am doing exactly the same thing each shot. Align to the edge of the object ball, bring my cue in aligned to the edge of the cue ball while I pivot into center cueball, put my bridge hand down and shoot.

Even if my pivot distance isn't 100% in the same spot for each shot the consistency of the steps gives me the feeling that I am doing the exact same thing each time. Most importantly I am not wondering if I am right and I am not fiddling and readjusting while down on the ball.

When I visited with Pat Johnson I noticed that he moves often when he is already down on the cueball. When I pointed this out he denied it but then a little while later he agreed and stated that he had never really noticed it before.

I asked him what he does to aim and he said he uses feel. He just sees it. And that's fine except that with the fidgeting and fine tuning when he gets down on the cueball it's clear that he doesn't quite just see it. It takes some more adjustment to get to the final aiming line.

For myself I just use CTE and the same three steps for each shot and whatever the line is that's what I go with. No adjustment, no getting back up off the shot, just get down on the aiming line and focus on my delivery. I am not guessing what pivot point to use and thus guessing what the aiming line is. No, I am using the pivot point that feels most comfortable to me based on my practice and that's what I go with.

Now here is the kicker. Sometimes my brain will be screaming that I am wrong and I will try to steer the cue ball to the line my brain says is right and I will miss the ball. This is because I spent most of my playing years where I was playing A LOT playing by ghost ball and feel. So even now my brain is wired to look at shots that way. I find that if I am able to ignore my brain screaming "wrong" and just focus on shooting straight through the cueball on the line that CTE gives me then the object ball goes in clean and sweet.

I need to "hit a million balls" using CTE to break me of the habit of seeing the shots with GB and "feel" first. Actually using CTE I think that I could get away with just a couple hundred thousand in order for the the CTE line to become the "natural feel" when aiming.

As it is right now I am playing great for my skill level.
Click to expand...

John,
You're one of the few AZB players that I have played against. It has been a long time since we first met in person. You didn't have a bad game back then, nor did I.

The reason for me posting is to corroborate some of your statements.

The incredible shot making category is something special and I do know what you are talking about. When a person uses CTE/Pro One the way that Stan Shuffett teaches it, there are some shots that are very difficult to make; shots like back cuts where it is difficult to see the ghost ball or to imagine the contact point to contact point. When using CTE/Pro One, IF you do the correct things the ball splits the pocket. Shots that go on this side of the pocket or that side of the pocket or once in a while in the pocket, can now fall directly into the center of the pocket, providing you do the same correct thing over and over. That being said, I realize that if you do the correct alignment, aiming and stroking for ghost ball you will also make the shot but I guess what I am trying to say is that sometimes it seems that it is FAR easier to do the same thing over and over using Stan Shuffett's CTE/Pro One.

I'm still learning and experimenting with CTE/ProOne however just yesterday I went back to just aiming and shooting to see if my recent loss at a local tournament had anything to do with CTE/Pro One. My conclusions is that didn't have much to do with my poor outting.

The confidence you talk about when using CTE/Pro One is pretty incredible. I too have experienced this as well. I've heard other proponents making statements that are bordering on hyperbole, but when you experience it for yourself, you begin to understand some of the euphoria. I'm not sure what gives you the confidence, other than easier pocketing of the balls. For me, it has a lot to do with pivoting to the center of the cue ball and my ability to focus better along with the knowledge that I seem to be aiming better. Last night I tried finding the center of the cue ball aiming in my old contact point to contact point way and I seemed to have some good confidence with aiming that way as well. I think that some of that fidgeting that many players do when they get down on the shot hurts their shot making because sometimes they guess wrong and sometimes they guess right about what looks right. You bring up another interesting point about how shots look when using CTE/Pro One. Sometimes the more difficult shots don't look right but when the balls split the pocket you wonder what the hell you have been looking at all of these years. Anyway, to say that CTE/Pro One is controversial is an understatement.

I think Stan's video on CTE/Pro One will be a benchmark and put a lot of the garbage that is out there right now to bed once and for all.

I also believe that his video will bring new controversial discussion to the table but the bottom line, in my opinion, is that there will be a lot of people making more shots using CTE/Pro One. If they want to learn how to get shape they will need to take Stan's Foundation Course like the professionals and other wannabees like me. :D :D

Anyway, I'm impressed in your new way of communicating and it's doing wonders for the forum. Thanks for bringing this subject up. We agree on a lot of points about CTE/Pro One.

CTE/Pro One does seem to increase one's accuracy in making balls.

You can adjust for throw, swerve, squirt and shape when using CTE/Pro One. As with any aiming system these adjustments are minute.

I'm glad to see Hal Houle and Stan Shuffett getting their day in the sun.:thumbup:


JoeyA
 
JoeyA said:
Maybe now he'll see himself as others see him.:shakehead:
Click to expand...

Anyone that does name calling using the words Nazi and Gestopo to refer to the so called Naysayers has no room to talk. Oh and lest not forget the large font which is eqaul to yelling in the real world.

You guys just can't stand the heat, can't prove one thing, and act as if you are the Kings of AZ Billiards when I reality all you guys are trying to be are big fish in a little pond.


Oh, by the way, this so called aiming is nothing more then hocus pocus. It not real, it totally relies on feel and yet you guys seem to think it is a system. There are no systems in pool. Only concepts on how to do things.

All the true skill comes from hours of practice.

I can show shot after shot where this so called system doesn't work. Plus if you try to learn mutliple systems to match all the difference type of shots there are in pool, you'll never truely improve or you'll get tried and frustrated as one system has already mentioned.

GB is the only system that works for all shots. Why? because you do not need to use the OB in any form for getting in your stance. Funny thing, you watch player.....they all pivot in some form to get into a stance. So does that make them all pivot users. No, The pivot is something that comes just from playing and is nothing really special or new.

Show using this system on a rail first shot, a kick, a carom, and not show just a couple a easy cuts shots and then make the asseration that this will will on all shots. Prove it. Show the above shots using this system.

It can't be done that's why. It's unreal the limited imagination system user have when it comes to creative shot making.

Oh show using this system with a bridge since this system works on all shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top