OK, I've watched the video. Here's my gut reaction:
WTF?
Stan's system,, in my view, introduces so many complications!
- Stepping (wth is it, anyway?)
- Pivoting
- Disguised (wth?) pivoting
- It took an entire year for him to realize that the 30 degree shot doesn't work for all shots? I know that intuitively.
Click to expand...
Wow. Just wow. The vitriol in your post is palpably evident. Why so much hate?
As a 66 year old C- player, what do you know about "degrees" and how did it become intuitive at this point?
It's simple geometry. The angle to the pocket supports only a very small variation to pocket a ball in the left, center, or right portions of the opening. Yes, intuitively know that you cannot expect to adjust, pivot, or whatever the hell else you want to call it, once you go beyond a certain point. I can simply look at a shot and know that I can't "get there from here" using 30 degrees as starting point to pocket a 45- to 60-degree angle cut. Can't you?
- Sight line vs aim line (this one I sorta get; sight line, I assume is the line from the CB to the OB to the ghost ball position; aim line is the line from the OB to the pocket. At least I think that's what it is.)
You would be totally wrong on both the assumption and the "think".
Well, thanks so much for pointing out how wrong I am without offering an explanation. Mighty kind of you.
- Pros sweep into shots (Pro 1)? I've never noticed pro players sweeping in. Most of the best of the best come down straight on the alignment line.
Again, as a C- player do you even know what to look for. You must watch a lot of pro pool players live or on video as well as having the sharp eye what to look for or think you're looking for.
Again, you could have informed me but you chose not to. Thanks again.
- Half ball pivot (wth is that?)
- It's not center to edge - it's stepped center. Huh?
Everything I've read, heard, watched, and experienced says that as much as possible it is important to remove variables from execution of a shot. Why aim at A, B, or C, then have to adjust after down on the shot? Why not come down on the shot where the cue is already aligned?
What is it exactly that's being aimed at A, B, or C?
Is this a test?
(OK, I do understand BHE for side spin, but even that is optional if one knows how to adjust the aiming point to account for deflection and swerve.)
As a C- player, you're already adjusting and accounting for deflection and swerve? Where did you learn that and who taught you? This sounds exactly like a Pat Johnson thought process which he adds to every shot taken.
Huh? I told you I am analytical. I have grey matter. I tend to be drawn to technical endeavors. I have mostly succeeded with a fair amount of proficiency at most things I've tried, including bowling (my best was a 245-259-300 = 804 series county championship, during a season where I averaged around 210 (no, it's not even close to pro but it's certainly better than the average Joe), autocross (2nd place at a national-level Pro Solo event), track driving (I've instructed at about 120 HPDE track days), and professionally (early in my career when I was programming I have a unique distinction of having written or modified over 1,000 programs WITHOUT THERE EVER BEING A BUG REPORTED AGAINST ANYTHING I INSTALLED IN PRODUCTION, and later did pretty well as a certified Project Management Professional (PMP) as recognized by the international Project Management Institute).
And what the hell does PJ have to do with this?
The complexity of these "building blocks" is, to mine eyes and sensibility, overwhelmingly unnecessary.
Like I said, it's NOT for you. Say Adios, Sayonara, or Happy Trails to You, along with a wave of the hand bye-bye.
Oh, you don't have to push me to the door. I thought this excursion was a way to get past this crap show and have a civil conversation where I could honestly post my observations, but no, it turned into yet another attack rather than a helpful response.
Line it up. Get down. Shoot it. Missed? Figure out whether it was your aim or stroke delivery problem. After developing a reliable stroke, missing is because of misalignment, aiming poorly, or not accounting for gearing and/or side spin deflection and swerve.
Who and where did you learn THIS from? Sounds exactly like a Pat Johnson, Dr. Dave, or Bob Jewett claim.
And what is wrong with Dr. Dave, and Bob Jewett? (I won't mention PJ because I already know how you feel about him.)
Keep hitting balls until you know how to adjust for your various angles of shots, speeds, your particular cue, and CB behavior you want with side spin. It doesn't have to be complicated.
Then this is exactly what you need to do.
Indeed. We agree!
I cannot imagine that getting down via sweeping, then pivoting arm in or arm out can be conducive to consistently accurate stroke delivery. This whole concept is contrary to everything I've understood to be strong foundational tenets of building a pool game.
Then this isn't for you.
Agreed again.
DISCLAIMER: I am a student of the game: I'm 66 years old, consider myself analytical, and I played when I was younger (18-20). I sucked then. I bought a table in my 30s and played very casually and rarely in my 30s, 40s, and 50s, and have only recently in the last couple of years gotten serious about the game. I still suck, but I'm slowly getting better. I'm currently a C-. It's been about 18 months and I'm just now developing a fairly reliable stroke. Up until the last few months, aiming systems didn't matter because I couldn't deliver the CB properly. But now, with a better stroke recently, I see my progress accelerating. Now I can more reliably predict and account for gearing, alignment, shot line, aim line, etc. I don't see how adding variables back into my stroke delivery can help my game. They can only hurt stroke delivery.
At your age and stage of development, this is NOT for you. If you really want to get on a fast track for development and improvement, take some in person lessons from a certified instructor who can develop your stroke for consistency beyond were you are. To train your brain for aiming the standard way purchase the Joe Tucker contact point training balls and aiming system.
I have taken lessons. In fact, I scheduled one for this afternoon to help with pattern play and CB positioning choices.
I got nothing from this video to convince me that CTE would be useful to me. Sorry to CTE proponents, but that's what I got from the building blocks video. (Script says author of this post needs to duck after posting reply.)
Script says author needs to reveal who he REALLY IS because this isn't coming from some 66 year old fart just taking up the game with the way these points are phrased, analyzed, and claimed as a wrong way to play the game.
I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS A WRONG WAY TO PLAY THE GAME. I merely said that based on that video, my observations are that it's not for me.
I knew this was going to be the end result as soon as you made your original "Oh so sincere questions of desire to learn" post.
I don't know if I believe your story above or it's a crock of shit just like all the other crock of shit posters that come in here for the attack on CTE. What you posted is far too detailed and piece by piece picked apart on things a C- player wouldn't even have the knowledge to analyze and you did this in a very short period of time.
Who the hell do you think you are? YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME. I didn't attack CTE. I was referred to a video and asked to review it, which I did honestly.
And here's what I said up front and it especially applies now: #4: "Say screw it...looks like too much work"
That's IT! End of story. It's not for you. Watch what the stock market does all day today instead.
But if you ARE sincere, get involved with the Joe Tucker training method of contact points. Stay away from CTE as well as this section of the forum. It will do you no positive good.
At this point, I don't think there's any advice I would take from you, so yes, ba-bye.
We now return you to your previously-scheduled crap show. I'm out. No more Aiming Conversation / CTE diving for me. Have a wonderful time arguing with everything and everyone.