How beneficial is an aiming system?

[Banks]

What's actually funny and sad at the same time, is that I believe you actually think you are standing on a solid base with that statement. Care to show me the math behind ghost-ball, back-of-the-ball aiming, or any of a couple of dozen other aiming systems? How about the math behind what ever way you aim?

What? You can't show it? You must be a charlatan and huckster then.

Those of you that constantly claim "show me the math" wouldn't even understand it if you saw it. Truth is, you have to claim some nonsense to validate your reasons for not using something that inwardly you really believe might be of great benefit to you.

Ghost ball? You can't be serious. If you are, this "conversation" will necessitate your absence. Ghost ball is about finding the tangent at which the ball goes into the pocket and putting the CB there. It is up to the individual to perceive the correct spot based on the fullness of hit. I said above that I don't make claims about how I aim. CTE, on the other hand, is marketed based on claims.

Not my fault you can't back up your own claims.

 

[Banks]

Because when someone with no motive shares their honest experience yet still questioned anyways it comes across as either you are lying or you have no idea what you are doing.

For me I am only trying explain what I have seen over the past few weeks with CTE. Hard to blame someone for being excited about consistently making shots that used to give me fits prior to CTE.

No its not something I can put down in a mathematical thesis. All I have is my word.

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk

Another one that doesn't get it.

Stan and a few others have made claims that it's scientifically sound. As above, he claims it connects to table geometry. If he can make the claims, he can back them up.. or can he?

 

[Neil]

That's how all shooting goes. So, you're saying CTE is the same then, not better?

Depends on what you mean by "better". CTE will put you on the correct shot line to make the ball. Other methods of aiming will do the same. So, since they all pocket balls, one can say that they all have the same end result. However, while CTE puts one on the correct shot line every time to center pocket of some pocket, other aiming systems, not saying all other systems, do not automatically put one on the correct shot line every time. Many methods of aiming require a lot of guesswork on the part of the user. So, in that regard, one can say CTE is a better way to aim.

 

[TheThaiger]

Why do you use the word suspect? Why can't you accept that a person knows themselves well enough to see their own improvement and knows the reasons for it?

If intuitive players were able to be as good as Gerry is then why aren't any of them above him on your exams? And you are certainly not an intuitive player at this point.

You're the only one above him and your table is ridiculously easy compared to his. The only other person higher than both of you is Ekkes who is a diehard system user and instructor.

The fact is that on average system users are more accurate. Period. That is a provable fact.

So stop being so wishy-washy. You put up the test and system users are the best ones at it. Acknowledge it.

Why are one or two short stop level players continually referenced when it comes to this debate?

I just don't get it. There are thousands of cueists of Gerry's ability (or better) in the UK, and NOT ONE uses an aiming system.

Just say the word and I'll link that video on how Potts aims again for you, John.

 

[JB Cases]

Who said you had anything to hide?

I've been playing for 9 years. No real lessons. Equipment, maybe $500 or so. I bought a barbox once, but it was so bad I didn't use it. I just drink and play primarily on bar tables. I've been on here since a year after I started playing and joined APA. Just about my entire pool history can be found on AZB. Locally, I'd be a high A or low master. I've played with a handful of people here on the board. I'm ok, not great but not horrible.

When I sit here at work at read about these cure-all claims, I just ask for proof. Nobody can give any solid proof. After 20 years of playing and having a table at home, you play really well? No kidding. Of course, Barton was all about CTE even 4 years or so ago when I first noticed this aiming topic. I guess that means my method of "just playing" is better than CTE? If I wanted to make such a claim, I'd think I would need some kind of solid evidence. From the sounds of it here, though, that wouldn't seem to be the case. Maybe I should add it to my sig line that what I do is better than CTE? After all, I don't need scientific proof.

What cure all claims?

Can we see some proof of your claimed ability?

You like banking right? How about a video of you banking?

Of course we wouldn't know its actually you but I think most of us would accept it at face value.

CTE does work as described. Until you learn it properly you can't possibly know that.

I think you are probably not anywhere close to an A player but you could be. Do you play better than Gerry? Better than Stan? Better than Landon?

Better than Joey?

Do you think Gerry is stupid? Are you smarter than he is? Do you think Gerry is not in touch with his body and mind enough to be able to consciously assess his own ability and improvement?

I assume you think you have that ability and I would assume you do so I am curious as to why it appears you think other people don't.

 

[JB Cases]

Ghost ball? You can't be serious. If you are, this "conversation" will necessitate your absence. Ghost ball is about finding the tangent at which the ball goes into the pocket and putting the CB there. It is up to the individual to perceive the correct spot based on the fullness of hit. I said above that I don't make claims about how I aim. CTE, on the other hand, is marketed based on claims.

Not my fault you can't back up your own claims.

We can back up the claims.

What claims do you think have not been backed up?

 

[bwally]

Another one that doesn't get it.

Stan and a few others have made claims that it's scientifically sound. As above, he claims it connects to table geometry. If he can make the claims, he can back them up.. or can he?

I don't speak for others. Again I tried using CTE a few weeks ago, I can tell u I pocket balls better now than I did then. That's all the proof I need.

And I do get "it". What I don't get (and don't really care too) is you.

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk

 

[dr_dave]

Dave, I'm trying to remember.. professor of physics, is it?

I'm a mechanical engineering professor in my "day job."

Since you've taken the time to study and critique CTE and have such a background.. have you taken the time to figure out any kind of mathematical formula that may prove that CTE does indeed connect to table geometry to make every shot?

If you interpret CTE literally and precisely, based solely on geometric steps, CTE might seem incomplete (based on some of the explanations and illustrations on the CTE resource page). However, CTE is not just an "aiming system," it is also a pre-shot routine that can helps one consistently align properly and really focus on the geometry of the shot. This can greatly improve visualization and perception during the actual aiming process. Again, "aiming systems" like the different versions of CTE can be very effective for some people due to the many benefits they potentially offer (even if they can't be proven to be "silver-bullet solutions" through geometric or "scientific" arguments).

Regards,
Dave

 

[Neil]

Ghost ball? You can't be serious. If you are, this "conversation" will necessitate your absence. Ghost ball is about finding the tangent at which the ball goes into the pocket and putting the CB there. It is up to the individual to perceive the correct spot based on the fullness of hit. I said above that I don't make claims about how I aim. CTE, on the other hand, is marketed based on claims.

Not my fault you can't back up your own claims.

I didn't think you could do it. In fact, I knew you couldn't do it. Show me the math on how you see exactly where the ghost ball is supposed to be? You guys claim we can't accurately see where 1/4 ball is on the ball, I KNOW you can't place a ghost ball correctly from a distance.

The only even remotely possible claim about math is Stan stating that the system is geometrically correct on a 2:1 table. Which means, the ball will go into some pocket when using the system. Not necessarily the pocket you want. (allowing for rail changes to the balls path if rails are used)

You claim ghost ball is so accurate mathematically that all you have to do is put the ghost ball on the tangent line. I call B.S. on it. Show me how you mathematically put a ghost ball on the tangent line accurately from a distance. You can't.

Me claiming that requirement of you is no different than you claiming it from CTE users. Both are useless, nitpicky, ridiculous statements that have no real bearing on anything.

 

[stan shuffett]

I would like to see a couple of tables designed in this manner.

1. 3 x 8 footer with 6 pockets
2. 4 x 8. Footer with all pockets shifted by 6 inches one direction or the other.

REAL CTE WILL NOT WORK ON THE ABOVE TABLES!

Real CTE only works on 2x1 tables.

I am willing to train some B PLAYERS TO PROS that have no dog in the hunt.

Then I will bet real high that the system does NOT transfer to the gaffed up tables.

I am willing to let the the training decide. REAL CTE TAKES the player to shot line aims that connect with right angles.

Sooner or later all this type testing will occur.
What will be the excuse then when CTE clears that hurdle.

I can show this on a typical 2x1 already. It is already on YouTube.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Banks]

I don't speak for others. Again I tried using CTE a few weeks ago, I can tell u I pocket balls better now than I did then. That's all the proof I need.

And I do get "it". What I don't get (and don't really care too) is you.

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk

Somebody made a claim, I questioned it. No need to get defensive. You don't get it and that's okay. I can try a different stick and pocket balls better for a short time. It doesn't mean the stick is better or that changing cues every other week is better.

I'm a mechanical engineering professor in my "day job."

If you interpret CTE literally and precisely, based solely on geometric steps, CTE might seem incomplete (based on some of the explanations and illustrations on the CTE resource page). However, CTE is not just an "aiming system," it is also a pre-shot routine that can helps one consistently align properly and really focus on the geometry of the shot. This can greatly improve visualization and perception during the actual aiming process. Again, "aiming systems" like the different versions of CTE can be very effective for some people due to the many benefits they potentially offer (even if they can't be proven to be "silver-bullet solutions" through geometric or "scientific" arguments).

Regards,
Dave

I've never questioned the PSR. A PSR is good and in the past I have said as much. What I question, as I've said, are claims such as "connects to table geometry". Nobody can back up those claims and they get mad about it.

...

Either way, I'm done here. There is no scientific evidence to back up the claims.

 

[JB Cases]

Why are one or two short stop level players continually referenced when it comes to this debate?

I just don't get it. There are thousands of cueists of Gerry's ability (or better) in the UK, and NOT ONE uses an aiming system.

Just say the word and I'll link that video on how Potts aims again for you, John.

Because they are on record telling you how they aim. Of course there are thousands of people on the world who are also good players. You don't have the slightest idea how they aim. You can make an assumption but you don't know.

You also don't know if they couldn't be even better by the adoption of other methods. You simply don't.

Your like a guy holding people back from stepping through a door which might contain a free million on the other side. Stepping through the door could have either zero benefit or some benefit but by god you're not going to let anyone through unless you're sure the million is there waiting.

Your argument is that millions of people get along fine without an extra million so no need for anyone to bothered trying for an extra million.

Strange because going for it costs pretty much nothing. A few bucks and some time.

I mean its not like you already stepped through the door and know that there is no money there. No you are adamantly opposed to going through and will use a lot of effort to stop anyone else from going through.

Strange stance to take in life but if that is what makes you feel good, attempring to prevent others to explore......OK I guess. Other than being annoying you're good for providing more talking points and keeping the conversation going.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[Johnnyt]

Why are one or two short stop level players continually referenced when it comes to this debate?

I just don't get it. There are thousands of cueists of Gerry's ability (or better) in the UK, and NOT ONE uses an aiming system.

Just say the word and I'll link that video on how Potts aims again for you, John.

I'd like a link to the video of how Potts aims if you would be so kind. Johnnyt

 

[Neil]

Why are one or two short stop level players continually referenced when it comes to this debate?

I just don't get it. There are thousands of cueists of Gerry's ability (or better) in the UK, and NOT ONE uses an aiming system.

Just say the word and I'll link that video on how Potts aims again for you, John.

Actually, they all do. They just don't know what it is. If someone doesn't use some kind of system to aim, they won't hit anything repeatedly. Maybe you should look up the word "system". And, how does many not using something equate to the validity of it? Most people on the planet have never seen the ocean except in videos. Does that mean the ocean isn't real? Or that others are just claiming there actually is an ocean? Your
"argument" has no merit. Just another red-herring to had to resort to fall back on.

 

[Banks]

I didn't think you could do it. In fact, I knew you couldn't do it. Show me the math on how you see exactly where the ghost ball is supposed to be? You guys claim we can't accurately see where 1/4 ball is on the ball, I KNOW you can't place a ghost ball correctly from a distance.

The only even remotely possible claim about math is Stan stating that the system is geometrically correct on a 2:1 table. Which means, the ball will go into some pocket when using the system. Not necessarily the pocket you want. (allowing for rail changes to the balls path if rails are used)

You claim ghost ball is so accurate mathematically that all you have to do is put the ghost ball on the tangent line. I call B.S. on it. Show me how you mathematically put a ghost ball on the tangent line accurately from a distance. You can't.

Me claiming that requirement of you is no different than you claiming it from CTE users. Both are useless, nitpicky, ridiculous statements that have no real bearing on anything.

I didn't make the claims, your master did. I already said I don't try to explain how I aim. Don't get mad because you get called on your claims. :sad: You can have your marketing forum back again.

 

[JB Cases]

I didn't make the claims, your master did. I already said I don't try to explain how I aim. Don't get mad because you get called on your claims. :sad: You can have your marketing forum back again.

What claims. Could you list them please?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[TheThaiger]

Other than being annoying you're good for providing more talking points and keeping the conversation going.

Lol.

.......

 

[Neil]

I didn't make the claims, your master did. I already said I don't try to explain how I aim. Don't get mad because you get called on your claims. :sad: You can have your marketing forum back again.

Didn't think you could back up any of your claims. And, when cornered, you run. That's fine too, though. Less distractions for those that truly want to improve their game.

 

[stan shuffett]

I would like to see a couple of tables designed in this manner.

1. 3 x 8 footer with 6 pockets
2. 4 x 8. Footer with all pockets shifted by 6 inches one direction or the other.

REAL CTE WILL NOT WORK ON THE ABOVE TABLES!

Real CTE only works on 2x1 tables.

I am willing to train some B PLAYERS TO PROS that have no dog in the hunt.

Then I will bet real high that the system does NOT transfer to the gaffed up tables.

I am willing to let the the training decide. REAL CTE TAKES the player to shot line aims that connect with right angles.

Sooner or later all this type testing will occur.
What will be the excuse then when CTE clears that hurdle.

I can show this on a typical 2x1 already. It is already on YouTube.

Stan Shuffett

Bump!

Stan Shuffett

 

[Roger Long]

I don't use CTE. That's not because I have a better way of aiming; it's because I have never worked with CTE long enough to learn how to use it. I'm not sure I could learn it even if I did put in the time. With me, it might take some hands-on training from an instructor like Stan or Stevie. Or maybe even Dave Segal. Even then, I may not learn it. Maybe I just don't have the type of mental make-up that CTE takes. If that were the case, it wouldn't be CTE's fault, it would be mine.

At any rate, what I want to say here is that I do not believe Stan and Stevie are running any sort of scam. I know they both sincerely believe in their product. I've never met Stan, but I can tell that he is an honest and sincere man. I have met Stevie, and I believe him to be just as honest and sincere. They both love pool. They are both trying to promote pool. They do not have any grand scheme to get rich at the expense of poor, gullible pool players.

How do I know this? Well, it's not the kind of thing that can be explained. I have no real proof. It's just a feeling. It's intuitive. Call it faith, if you like.

Now I know that what I just said will have no effect toward ending the long-standing debate over CTE, but then I don't expect it to. That's because all of you here don't really want it to ever end. Do you.

Roger