Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?
- Thread starter SamLambert
- Start date
When I started playing this game 59 years ago... it was all by feel.. , cause there weren't any aiming systems or at least that anyone would tell you about.
When I came back after a 20 year gap... there was info everywhere, so I started beefing up my feel with knowledge & incorporating it into my game (I play it all, except Billiards).
I use systems for banking & kicking, works great for me.
I just wish I was younger, so I had the stamina to play in all day or multi-day tournaments.
When I came back after a 20 year gap... there was info everywhere, so I started beefing up my feel with knowledge & incorporating it into my game (I play it all, except Billiards).
I use systems for banking & kicking, works great for me.
I just wish I was younger, so I had the stamina to play in all day or multi-day tournaments.
The pivot is only which direction that the shooter comes into the shot from. You haven't understood what you were told as to how a player gets to the point of pivoting.
This video was so informative that Stan pretty much teaches the whole thing in it.
For any student of CTE the video makes perfect sense.
That's why Stan makes them. They are not intended to spoon feed those who want magic bullets.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Dan,
You, as a growing number of others do, now understand one of the issues that then leads to the other issue.
How do you feel about individuals being pulled into trying it with assertions that are not (objectively) explained?
Best 2 Ya.
Whatever you did with Hal doesn't matter at this point in aiming.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Well, that is how you acquire visual intelligence using any method, isn't it? Though hundreds of hours of focused practice?
No one said this is a turnkey method, you still have to get it burned into your subconscious if you ever hope to use this method in actual play. Ghost ball or any other method will also require the same diligence over a long period of time. There are no shortcuts to achieving excellence.
I think it's folly to try to approach these ideas using an analytical approach. There is no mathematical explanation that will help you see the correct visuals/ You will have to earn that through hard work on the table itself. Trying and failing at some shots while on the phone with someone explaining them to you is hardly proof that the system itself is a failure. If your intellect convinces you that it is bogus, your results will be a self-fulfilling prophesy. You must have faith that it will work, or you will surely find ways make it not work.
FWIW that video you linked to tended more toward clarification of the method for me than it did toward obfuscation, enough so that I am willing to give the method another go in the near future. Funny how our minds all work differently.
And yet none of them (including Stan) can describe it intelligibly.
pj <- go figure
chgo
You're sending Dan the videos I am sure.
Problem is that you can't even appreciate the level of objectivity Stan demonstrated in this video. You don't get it and never will.
I don't care if Dan ever learns CTE but to have you and others turning him into a poison weapon stopping people from trying is horrible on your part.
Makes you and them horrid human beings in my opinion.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Good Morning John.
Do you not see where a sort of magic bullet is inferred by the assertion that it is a totally objective 'system'?
That's part of the issue. That is sort of what is known as the 'bait & switch'.
I, like Dan, am not saying that Stan has done any such thing intentionally. Like Dan, I think Stan is sincere. It's just that he made a rather large 'mistake' making that assertion.
Take that assertion away & I truly think most, if not all, of the hub bub goes away or at least is reduced significantly.
But... that may not be what some actually want.
Best Wishes.
PS Do you know if Mr. Wilson is still a moderator here?
I will meet you in an Indy poolroom and describe the visuals to a few PLAYERS at a table.
I put up a thousand and you put up what your CTE contribution value is for this site! $ZERO
THE FEW THAT I SHOW IT TO VOTES TO SEE WHIO GETS THE THOUSAND.
Stan Shuffett
Well, you finally admit that you are just looking for a magic bullet, and you don't understand objectivity so you thought this was it for you. Surprise, surprise, there are no magic bullets.
Oh, the large mistake wasn't on Stan's wording, it was on your interpretation of the wording.
None of that grandstanding is needed, Stan. Just invite people (CTE users and non-users) to view your videos on YouTube and paraphrase what you say here - then take a poll to see how many readers think it intelligibly answers the questions that have been swirling around CTE for years.
No bets or drama necessary, but feel free to send me money if it makes things more real for you.
pj
chgo
John,
You are WRONG again.
I've sent Dan no videos, but I have mentioned the 5 & 3 shot perception videos here & I am fairly sure that I have not even mentioned the video to which Dan is now referring.
But what if I did? Are there now videos that individuals should not view?
I think you just insulted Dan by implying that He can be lead like a sheep & does not have a mind of his own & is not his own man.
You mix objectivity with insight & that is part of the issue. Some do not understand how language is being misused & especially the words objective & objectivity.
No one is stopping anyone from trying CTE. But... I will state it again.
Any individual that wants to buy & try CTE should certainly do so but should know that the assertion that it is a totally objective 'system' has neither been proven nor dis-proven.
Is calling someone 'a horrid human being' an ad hominem attack after their debating skill has failed to convince an impartial individual.
Like Dan, I would not mind being proven wrong if CTE can be shown to TRULY be a totally objective 'system' & if that were possible & did happen, I would probably be one of the first to get on it right after that happens, if it ever does, which I don't see happening.
Best Wishes.
PS I thought Mr. Wilson was the determining factor governing whether or not you would ever return to AZB.
Last edited:
yes. No one in the aiming system "camp" as far as I know has ever said that table time isn't a requirement.
It's HOW you spend your time that is key.
BEFORE I was introduced to aiming systems ON THE TABLE I was a person who thought that I had zero need of them. I just didn't pay attention to the arguments and didn't actively try to stop anyone from trying them either. Just wasn't part of my landscape when it came to pool.
When I was introduced to aiming systems ON THE TABLE I was blown away. I had a physical experience on the pool table that changed my outlook on aiming. I thought I had aiming all locked up and need zero help at all. But it turns out that the aiming system I was taught first worked really well.
So BEFORE I learned to use a system to aim I was the kind of person that set up a shot and would play it every which way dozens of times to "figure it out". By figure it out I mean not only how to aim it with center ball but also with all spins around the clock.
After I learned to aim using a system I quickly saw that just about every shot had an aiming centerball "key" that could be applied and thus I had the perfect baseline to start from. Now adding spin became much easier, whether to use backhand english (another gift from Hal) or shifted english (get up and go into the shot with spin applied).
So practice time got way way way better since all I had to do was learn the aiming "keys" visuals/sweeps/pivot combinations that worked for each type of shot. No longer did it take dozens of tries to figure out a shot and once figured out it was owned and all shots like it. So I was free to focus on a lot of other aspects of the game like touch and feel and feathering balls and safety play and kicking and banking systems etc...this combined made me a better player.
The bottom line for me is whether this knowledge has a practical application or not. The answer was amazingly YES.
Dr. Dave has a video where he demonstrates that making the cue ball go into the rail at about 45 degrees will result in a center table path EVERY time. I didn't need to plot out this on a piece of paper in order to go to the table and try it out. I did and it works and I use it constantly and consistently now. I show it to other players and no one questions the math or asks why it works, they just SEE CLEARLY that it does. I demonstrate it first and then teach them how to do it afterward.
That's how it is with aiming systems, especially CTE. Demonstrate, teach and then it's up to the student to either develop their skill or to abandon it. But the "math", the physchology, the physics, don't matter at all not one little bit.
Simple logic says that no aiming system can be totally "objective" - that's "proof" until real evidence to the contrary is presented. None has been presented for CTE or any other aiming system. NOTE: "Is too!" isn't proof (or even evidence).
pj
chgo
My apologies then. You're right it doesn't matter. Dan writes it as if someone sent him some incriminating information.
Since you brought up five shot videos and the like I mistakenly assumed you were the PM antagonist in this situation. My apologies.
I was the determining factor of whether to return to AZB or not. My presence on AZB is between myself and the OWNERS of this forum, Mike Howerton and Jerry Forsyth.
And yes, I stand by my statement just as you attacked a dead Hal Houle. Hal Houle endured brutal vicious verbal attacks from Pat Johnson and Lou Figueroa on the unmoderated RSB group. IF in fact Hal played with them on the phone it's unfortunate but not entirely unjustified.
What IS unjustified is actively waging a campaign to STOP folks from trying new ways to play pool.
You do it passive/aggressively even if you don't see it.
They do it DELIBERATELY and OPENLY.
That's wrong and a horrid way to be as a human in my opinion. If anyone did this in the pool room (where they don't DARE to interfere) I would give them an earful at the least about staying out of my business. No what ACTUALLY happens in the pool room and at shows whenever I start demonstrating CTE on the table is a small crowd gathers and we all have a GREAT discussion on aiming in pool where everyone gets into it and we all learn.
Ok, to what percentage is CTE objective and subjective according to your experience USING CTE?
As a CTE user, and I assume you could demonstrate it's use on the table, how much of the shot is objective and how much is subjective.
For me it's 99% objective in my experience. I leave 1% out just like the birth control pill is 99% effective.
John,
I would agree, except when one makes an assertion about an aiming method's nature that is not accurate & it is that inaccurate assertion that would make the method different from ALL other methods.
That said, the rest of what you say certainly is applicable.
Best Wishes, even if you truly think that I am a horrid human being.
If I don't care to learn about astrophysics then the terms used in an astrophysics lecture won't be intelligible to me.
Same thing here. Those who don't care to learn the meaningful terms in CTE won't have much of a clue what they mean in a demonstration or an instructional video.
The sad part is that all of these terms have been defined dozens of times but they are buried under mountains of crap by you and a few others.
If I were the moderator I would allow Stan Shuffett to have his own forum where he can speak to his students without interference. Then the terms can be defined and left in a clean space where they are easily found and referenced.