Coming Soon... the end of all aiming system calculating.

[Poolplaya9]

The other thing I always say is without that true stroke, nothing is gonna work. But with that said, it makes all these other extravagant systems almost laughable to me.

What is laughable is that some people still hold onto the belief that the earth is flat, even when science allows us to prove that it is round beyond any and all doubt, just because "it sure looks flat to me when I look out on the horizon." What is also laughable is that some people still hold onto the belief that systems like this as well as all the CTE variants are physically sound systems, even when science allows us to prove that they are not beyond any and all doubt, just because "well I make balls when I do it so it must be physically sound."

No, a proper aim for all shots is not accomplished with Mr. Mullen's method.

You got that right, and it is beyond obvious if anyone takes two seconds to really think about what is actually happening when you aim the left or right side of the shaft at the contact point on the object ball for different cut angle shots.

So, while it does work, it doesn't work just on it's own.

Yes, it requires user aiming adjustments (just like CTE) which can easily be done subconsciously.

See, here is the same problem that some are having with CTE. If you do it on paper, it will not work. And, it depends on the shooter also...In other words, it works, just don't look for the math behind it, you won't find it.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. It doesn't work on paper, just like CTE, because it is not a physically sound system. In spite of not being physically valid, just like with CTE, it "works" because your mind makes subconscious aiming adjustments based on experience, because it removes shot anxiety and makes you stroke more confidently because of your belief in the system, and because with the system you are concentrating more and are more focused on the object ball than you normally would have been.

You're right, it can't work, except it does.

Ding, ding, ding, another winner. Just like with CTE, everybody KNOWS it can't physically work, but since they still see positive benefits from using it, they would rather lie to themselves and claim that it must somehow be physically valid instead of just embracing the truth that it "works" for other reasons and just being happy enough with their improvement no matter what the reason. It's the old "the earth sure looks flat, so it must be flat and I'm not going to let anybody tell me otherwise," mentality. "But I can see it with my own eyes, it's flat!!" "But I make balls when I do it, it's physically valid!!"

 

[skeptic]

Maybe I misundertand the video. To me it claims to use line B, line up the stick with contact point. The correct shot is (somewhere near) line A, with the cue aimed at empty space.

I did try it on some short thin cuts, and no surprise, I missed every time. I can see how conceptually it might work for a range of shots, it gives a specific aim point and is probably "close enough" to pocket the ball. For that alone it may have value (haven't tried it enough to form an opinion), but I firmly believe it is not usable in all cases as it has been described.

I will give you a big thanks for sharing though. If I find I can use it for moderate angle shots it can prove valuable, and I'm always open to new ideas.

 

[JoeW]

Thanks for the link. It is an interesting approach to try.

 

[BRKNRUN]

There were a couple of things unclear to me.

If you align the edge of the tip to the OB contact point, and have the center of the tip at the center of the CB, then the aim point is always half of the tip diameter from the contact point. This won't sink many balls.

How would this work for a 30 degree cut, where the aim point is at the OB edge, and the contact point 14 mm off of the aim line ... which is wider than the tip is?

I think what happens is the edge creates just enough offset to make the ball.

If you were to aim center cue to the contact point it hits the ball to thick...but if (with the cue in the center of the CB) if you aim the left or right edge at the contact point that little thickness means you are actually aiming center cue just to the right or just to the left of the "contact pont"

That is why it is so important to use the correct (side) of the shaft.

 

[AtLarge]

Let me take another try at convincing some of you that the Mullen Method is not sound for all shots.

Place a ball somewhere on the table. Let's use the center spot since that leaves a lot of room around the ball. Now freeze a second ball to the first ball, with the line of centers pointing directly into a corner pocket. Think of the first ball as the object ball (OB) and the second ball as the ghost ball (GB), i.e., the spot or location through which the cue ball (CB) needs to pass to pocket the OB. (Ignore collision-induced throw.)

Now take the CB and place it in a multitude of spots on an arc a foot or two behind the two frozen balls -- a straight-in shot, thick cuts, thin cuts, very thin cuts. For each spot in which you place the CB, aim your stick straight on the line of centers of the CB and GB (no need to actually shoot at this point). This is the line of aim you would need with the cue stick to pocket the OB, assuming that our physical GB was removed and that you just made a simple center-ball hit on the CB (no english).

Now, for each of those CB locations, with the cue stick aligned as we just described, physically observe whether the edge of the cue stick is pointing straight at the contact point between the OB and the GB. You will find that, for many locations, it is not. In fact, for very thin hits it's not even anywhere near where the edge of the stick is pointing (unless your cue stick is nearly as wide as a ball!).

Q.E.D., with just simple observation, no math.

 

[JB Cases]

Perhaps, but it did do me good on the inside. I’m just getting nauseated by all these ridiculous systems that require a doctorate in physics and mathematics. Systems that require pages of explanation with diagrams of imaginary intersecting spheres with snap lines and magic wands.

I shake my head at threads with hundreds and hundreds of replies with as many different questions of confusion over these elaborate incarnations, so much so that I spent over an hour searching my house for this CD clip just to say "HERE, LOOK, RELAX", it ain't that complicated.

WTF are these people trying to do to new players? Make their head's explode? So, it was in that spirit that I went through the trouble to post this. I do feel better.



But ….. that’s just me. :thumbup:

You missed the point. The systems under discussion do not require a doctorate in physics or engineering to USE.

This system of Dave's (if it even originated with him) relies on Ghost Ball to find the contact point. So it's awesome if you are good at picking the proper contact point and holding on to it but it fails if you aren't good at picking the contact point.

The issue with CTE is that people with doctorate's are demanding technical "proof" that it works without even trying it for themselves. The same thing happened with this system 11 years ago on RSB and with many of the same participants having the same stance.

Meanwhile players are out there using this and other 'non-standard' systems to play better pool. By non-standard I mean anything other than textbook "ghost ball".

The nauseating thing about the CTE discussions is how often people's experience is simply discounted and they are called self-delusional by the people who have never even tried to use CTE. And then on top of that the instructors who teach CTE are called quacks and snake-oil salesmen by these same people.

That's why the discussions end up so heated and long.

 

[mosconiac]

Thanks for posting up the vid, Dave. Good luck keeping this thread on topic though. As we've seen already, the CTE-zealots ain't gonna allow someone to talk about their aiming technique without being made aware of CTE's superiority.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Let me take another try at convincing some of you that the Mullen Method is not sound for all shots.

Place a ball somewhere on the table. Let's use the center spot since that leaves a lot of room around the ball. Now freeze a second ball to the first ball, with the line of centers pointing directly into a corner pocket. Think of the first ball as the object ball (OB) and the second ball as the ghost ball (GB), i.e., the spot or location through which the cue ball (CB) needs to pass to pocket the OB. (Ignore collision-induced throw.)

Now take the CB and place it in a multitude of spots on an arc a foot or two behind the two frozen balls -- a straight-in shot, thick cuts, thin cuts, very thin cuts. For each spot in which you place the CB, aim your stick straight on the line of centers of the CB and GB (no need to actually shoot at this point). This is the line of aim you would need with the cue stick to pocket the OB, assuming that our physical GB was removed and that you just made a simple center-ball hit on the CB (no english).

Now, for each of those CB locations, with the cue stick aligned as we just described, physically observe whether the edge of the cue stick is pointing straight at the contact point between the OB and the GB. You will find that, for many locations, it is not. In fact, for very thin hits it's not even anywhere near where the edge of the stick is pointing (unless your cue stick is nearly as wide as a ball!).

Q.E.D., with just simple observation, no math.

Well you have used one way of conclusively proving that this system is not physically valid and cannot and does not work as claimed, but just as all the CTE users have done after it has been proven in multiple ways that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for CTE to physically work as claimed, you are still going to get many holding onto the same invalid claims here. They are still going to say "but I make balls with it, it has to be physically valid." The earth is going to be flat because it sure seems to be flat to them, and you just aren't going to convince them otherwise with all the conclusive proof in the world.

Another way to know this system doesn't work is that different diameter shafts would result in the object ball being contacted in different places by the cue ball for the exact same shot. If you had a cut shot to the left, and lined up the left side of a 7mm snooker shaft with the contact point on the object ball, and hit center ball on the cue ball, then the cue ball is going to hit the object ball in one particular place, we will call it "x". But if you took the same exact shot and hit it the same exact way with a 13mm shaft, you are going to get a contact point on the object ball that is in a much different spot than "x" which of course causes the object ball to go in a substantially different direction. The edge of the 13mm shaft is 3mm further to the left than it is for a 7mm shaft and it will similarly change where the cue ball makes contact on the object ball.

And then when you use different englishes with no adjustments, as he claims you can do, every different english puts the edge of the cue some place else and when you aim that edge of the cue at the same contact point on the object ball it will result in hits on the object ball in different places for each english used.

 

[Poolplaya9]

The nauseating thing about the CTE discussions is how often people's experience is simply discounted and they are called self-delusional...

What's nauseating about the CTE discussions is that people still want to insist that the earth is flat, because based on their experience it sure seems flat to them, even though they have been shown conclusive and absolute proof that it is not flat. "But but but, CTE has got to be physically valid because I make balls with it." "But, but, but, the earth has got to be flat because it sure seems flat to me." Some people simply have no use for truth and facts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

[AtLarge]

... Another way to know this system doesn't work is that different diameter shafts would result in the object ball being contacted in different places by the cue ball for the exact same shot. ...

And then when you use different englishes with no adjustments, ...

You are correct about different sized shafts. I didn't discuss that because pool shafts are normally within a fairly small range of sizes and pocket slop could still allow some shots to "go" using the Mullen Method with various sized shafts.

As to the effects of english, if Mr. Mullen was using back-hand english with his cue bridged at its natural pivot point, then for many shots english might not have much of an effect on the results (no squirt but possibly some throw and swerve). I couldn't really tell how Mr. Mullen was applying his english.

I also wish we could keep mention of CTE out of this thread. I do appreciate the analogy you are invoking, but the Mullen Method is wholly different from CTE -- no mysterious, undefined offsets and pivots. The Mullen Method is very straightforward. Unfortunately, if followed precisely without further "adjustments," it won't work for lots of shots. And its simplicity may act like flypaper to some players who don't think about it clearly.

 

[cookie man]

What is laughable is that some people still hold onto the belief that the earth is flat, even when science allows us to prove that it is round beyond any and all doubt, just because "it sure looks flat to me when I look out on the horizon." What is also laughable is that some people still hold onto the belief that systems like this as well as all the CTE variants are physically sound systems, even when science allows us to prove that they are not beyond any and all doubt, just because "well I make balls when I do it so it must be physically sound."

D

Care to share that science.

 

[Bill812]

My take for what it's worth...

I think this "system" is a good one b/c it works for me, I have been doing this all my life, but never tried to figure out why it worked for me, what it was called, or if anyone else does the same thing as me, it just worked. I never even realized I was doing it this way until recently (in the last year +) since I joined a league and started playing regularly and taking my game seriously, that's when I tried to figure out what I did whenever I took a shot. And yes, there are many shots where adjustments have to be made to this system in order to go.
I'm sure every player that has at least moderate success making balls has some method of consistently contacting the OB to make shots, and in reality, there are only so many methods possible. The variable to all the so-called "systems" has to be how straight & consistent your stroke is, along with how that can change with power shots, English, Masse', Jump shots, bridging over other balls, rail shots, etc. The fact remains that people are not machines and will not set up the exact same way every time for every shot due to location of the CB, distractions, mental toughness or other reasons. It's just good to know there are other people out there doing the same thing as you are and it works for them.

 

[Neil]

...................

 

[duckie]

Yes, it is very nauseating. But, what you fail to see, is that YOU are the 'flat earther". We, (system users), have come up with a non-conventional way of doing things, and you and your kind always want to say "It can't work, it can't work". And, by failing to even try something different, you fail to get whole new worlds opened up to you. Ones that we are relishing in, and surpassing those that think the only right way to play is pure ghost ball and feel.

Are the faults with this system? Sure there are. Does it work on paper? No. Who cares, we aren't writing a book about it, we are using it. In reality, with different perceptions of what we actually see, it does work a lot of the time. Therefore, it becomes another tool we can use. You go ahead and build your house with just a hammer. We will use whatever tools we can get our hands on. And, while you are laboring away, we will be having enjoyment in our work.

Now, what really is the nauseating part, is when someone finds something that actually helps them, and someone else, like you, has to come along and call them names and tell them that they are delusional and shouldn't be doing whatever actually helps them. They have never tried it, don't understand it, but they feel qualified to tell others that it is actually hurting their game.

You remind me of the way we are taught to steer in driving school, at 10 and 2 with your hands. Yet, almost everyone soon realizes that there are easier and better ways to accomplish the same thing, steering, and soon drop the traditional way it is taught. Why do they drop it? Because they found a way that works for them.

And those same folks don't have a snow ball chance in hell when shit goes wrong when driving.

I've done some high performance drivng and 10 and 2 is critical. Proper hand placement on the wheel is key in going fast.

Same as using accurate aming system such as GB, to achieve high level of play in ALL pool game and on ALL shots and not on just certain shots in certain games.

CTE is just too limiting to be useful in the long run. The DVD sole purpose is to make money.

 

[ceebee]

People are going to be people, some will open up & try something new.. others will balk.

I saw a phrase once that describes people's attitudes about something new or different..

A Pool Player convinced against his will, has the same opinion still..

 

[Neil]

...................

 

[JB Cases]

What's nauseating about the CTE discussions is that people still want to insist that the earth is flat, because based on their experience it sure seems flat to them, even though they have been shown conclusive and absolute proof that it is not flat. "But but but, CTE has got to be physically valid because I make balls with it." "But, but, but, the earth has got to be flat because it sure seems flat to me." Some people simply have no use for truth and facts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

That argument cuts both ways. The people who want to say that CTE is invalid have also not proven that it doesn't work. They assert either that it cannot possibly work or that if it does then not as CTE users think it does.

Obviously there is something in between because there are too many people teaching it and learning it, i.e. making balls.

I have use for truth and facts. I have yet to see a single video from a CTE opponent that lays out the "truth and facts" about how CTE can't work?

Why not?

Well for one thing none of them can even explain the steps to do CTE. That would be a start.

Yet you have seen plenty of videos from CTE users explaining what they are doing.

You can hang on to your belief that CTE is invalid or that any other "system/method" is invalid. Fred Agnir is a mechanical engineer who builds multimillion dollar machines for a living. Is he stupid? Delusional? A flat-earther?

There are plenty of people like Fred, intelligent, well educated, and working in science fields who know CTE works. How exactly and what part is system and what part is "feel"? No one knows or no one is telling yet.

But it's a little presumptuous to say that those who use CTE or teach it are the equivalent of people who still believe in a flat Earth.

As I said earlier I was shown a similar method to this stick aiming by a road player. With it my ball pocketing went way up, to the point where I was slamming balls into the pockets with such authority from everywhere that my friend told me to not do that in pool rooms or I would scare away the action.

I played pool for 20+ years prior to that day and had devoured books by Byrne and others. No one had ever shown me anything like it. And my friend wouldn't have shown me as all I wanted were one pocket lessons. But when I lined up on the break he asked me what I was aiming at and I said the first ball thin, second ball thick, inside english. He said, no, you're not and we went into aiming and he showed me what he does and it was like night and day.

No Ghost Ball. At least none per se. Just all lines.

So you can say whatever you want and draw out a million diagrams. And honestly if I had never met Hal and my road player friend then I'd agree with you. If it can't be diagrammed EASILY to coincide with GB then it must not be valid. I would be carrying that torch.

But personal experience trumps diagrams in my opinion. In as far as pool goes.

 

[JB Cases]

Just once on AZB I would like to see an opponent of anything say these words;

"I have the exact instructions and they are these;

I have taken these exact instructions to the table and this is my experience."

Preferably on video. That would be great. I love watching Mythbusters. I think that is one of the best educational and entertaining shows ever made.

You will never see an episode of Mythbusters where they try to bust a myth by just talking about it. They define the premise and figure out how to structure the tests in order to prove or disprove the myth in a fair way.

Pretty simple really. With all the brain power on this forum stacked up against CTE and now the against the Mullen system why can't they all get togehter behind the scenes and agree on the best way to test the systems and have one guy do the videos?

Mike Page does good videos, Dr. Dave has access to camera gear.....surely one of those guys can put this all to rest fairly easily????

Am I wrong here?

 

[sfleinen]

Yes, it is very nauseating. But, what you fail to see, is that YOU are the 'flat earther". We, (system users), have come up with a non-conventional way of doing things, and you and your kind always want to say "It can't work, it can't work". And, by failing to even try something different, you fail to get whole new worlds opened up to you. Ones that we are relishing in, and surpassing those that think the only right way to play is pure ghost ball and feel.

Are the faults with this system? Sure there are. Does it work on paper? No. Who cares, we aren't writing a book about it, we are using it. In reality, with different perceptions of what we actually see, it does work a lot of the time. Therefore, it becomes another tool we can use. You go ahead and build your house with just a hammer. We will use whatever tools we can get our hands on. And, while you are laboring away, we will be having enjoyment in our work.

Now, what really is the nauseating part, is when someone finds something that actually helps them, and someone else, like you, has to come along and call them names and tell them that they are delusional and shouldn't be doing whatever actually helps them. They have never tried it, don't understand it, but they feel qualified to tell others that it is actually hurting their game.

Neil:

Good post. I never like where these threads go, for this very reason. It's one thing to agree/disagree with an idea, it's quite another to get into name-calling or otherwise attacks on the *person* instead of the idea. (And yes, calling someone delusional is an attack on the person, not the idea.)

I believe if you find something that helps your game, all the more power to you. I support you. But on the flip-side of the coin, don't you DARE tell me that my way of doing things is wrong, especially if I can outplay you. (I'm using the royal "you" here, Neil -- not you personally.) Don't tell me I'll go up "x" number of balls in ability if I throw away what I'm doing, and blindly adopt this new way. You (the royal "you") will get the "kill the wabbit" treatment from me if you do.

You remind me of the way we are taught to steer in driving school, at 10 and 2 with your hands. Yet, almost everyone soon realizes that there are easier and better ways to accomplish the same thing, steering, and soon drop the traditional way it is taught. Why do they drop it? Because they found a way that works for them.

Kind of off-topic, but actually, Neil, with today's cars, if you position your hands at 10:00 and 2:00 on the steering wheel, you *WILL* get your forearms broken in an accident when the steering wheel airbag deploys. This happened to a colleague of mine at work -- he got both his forearms broken, his wrists sprained, and the base joint on both his thumbs broken rather nastily when he broadsided someone that ran a red light at the cross-street in front of him. They don't teach "10 and 2" in driving schools anymore. I hear they teach 4:30 and 7:30 on the steering wheel -- the same place where they're placing cut-outs on the steering wheel, with conveniently-placed buttons for your thumbs to press the horn.

But I get your point. We adapt in our own little way to make it more comfortable for us.

-Sean

 

[Underclocked]

I showed and explained this simple method to at least 6 players last night. There was no way on earth it could come close to working for one of the players as he positions his head considerably to the right of the cue (??). Beats me how that guy normally aims but he does shoot modestly well at times.

Two of the players I explained this two both looked at me like I was nuts (which is correct but unrelated) when I was telling them. These two guys are VERY good bar table players, easily holding the highest handicap in any league play they might enter. They both came back after trying several shots using the "system" and said "it works" with a confused look on their faces. The other players I told of this also thought it might be helpful in their games after trying it for a few shots.

This "system" is not new to me and I realized after viewing the video that I used something similar in the past to check my "normal" aim. It is something I had used without much conscious thought about the process involved. After 15 years of being absent from the game, I had forgotten about using that method as a check. Trying it again last night, using it both as a check and as the primary aiming method my conclusion is also that it works quite well. I can't say that it works for every shot on the table but it certainly works well enough to be at least a good check on whatever aiming method you normally use (and in most cases as a primary aiming system).

There is no ghost ball involved. The contact point on the object ball is just that - a fixed point. The line made down the edge of the cue is just a line and that line must go straight to the contact point.

Don't over-think this little "system" - just give it an honest try and see if it doesn't work at least most of the time for you.

ps: I split first/second with one of the two better players I had explained this to before the tournament. I don't know if he was using it or not during the tournament, but I was trying to use it throughout. As the outcome of the tournament was not out of the ordinary, I can't say if there was any effect of the system based on the outcome.