quiet eyes
Member
I am sure Stan Shuffet has found some interesting regularities. It might be interesting to try to understand his concepts from an educational standpoint. So kudos for all the work. Having said that, my advice to all people struggling with making balls is to not confuse themselves with systems. This system in particular is both counter-intuitive and over-intellectualized. I still have not understood it after hours of instruction. Regardless, I am amazed about the fixation on an aiming system in general.
In theory, making balls is a simple task. First, we have to cue straight (otherwise you won't be able to diagnose). Secondly, we have to guess the correct line of aim. So given a straight stroke, we have to learn what the correct line is. This learning process is a visual process. We feed our brains with pictures of potting experiments and implicitly learn from the observed results. The learning process by nature is immanent and visual not intellectual or conceptual like in a system.
Also, why do aiming systems not play a role in snooker even though potting is harder in snooker? Advanced players just "see" the shot line which is more exact than doing calculations. This whole body of aiming "science" is a puzzle for players who have learned to see the correct line of aim just by doing it/HAMB (it is in fact much less than a million balls).
The "system" of successful players:
Guess line of aim standing behind the cue ball --- 100 % commit to this line --- go down on this line --- cue straight --- stay down and observe the result
adapt REPEAT adapt REPEAT (all unconsciously)
This is the recipe for learning angles and potting precision in LESS TIME and in a natural way. Why would we need a system based on concepts that is less fine-grained than an intuitive system? Me aiming my key into the keyhole in bad lighting does not require a system as well.
PS: I don't want to troll this CTE post. I just think it will not help players looking to improve their shot making abilities and might even get in their way.
In theory, making balls is a simple task. First, we have to cue straight (otherwise you won't be able to diagnose). Secondly, we have to guess the correct line of aim. So given a straight stroke, we have to learn what the correct line is. This learning process is a visual process. We feed our brains with pictures of potting experiments and implicitly learn from the observed results. The learning process by nature is immanent and visual not intellectual or conceptual like in a system.
Also, why do aiming systems not play a role in snooker even though potting is harder in snooker? Advanced players just "see" the shot line which is more exact than doing calculations. This whole body of aiming "science" is a puzzle for players who have learned to see the correct line of aim just by doing it/HAMB (it is in fact much less than a million balls).
The "system" of successful players:
Guess line of aim standing behind the cue ball --- 100 % commit to this line --- go down on this line --- cue straight --- stay down and observe the result
adapt REPEAT adapt REPEAT (all unconsciously)
This is the recipe for learning angles and potting precision in LESS TIME and in a natural way. Why would we need a system based on concepts that is less fine-grained than an intuitive system? Me aiming my key into the keyhole in bad lighting does not require a system as well.
PS: I don't want to troll this CTE post. I just think it will not help players looking to improve their shot making abilities and might even get in their way.
Last edited: