How did Ralph Greenleaf "Aim"?

[Roger Long]

Notice you spending a lot of time in the CTE threads lately
obviously your only interest is............. Who the hell knows
Business must be slow

If you've noticed how much time I've been spending in the CTE threads, then you should know exactly what my interest is. I've stated it very clearly.

And business is booming, thank you very much.

Roger

 

[risky biz]

Well, let's just see what Webster has to say about it:

idiot 1 a retarded person mentally equal or inferior to a child two years old: see MENTAL RETARDATION 2 a very foolish or stupid person

savant a learned person; eminent scholar

So when you put the two together you describe a very stupid person who has learned something despite their own stupidity. Yeah, that's a heck of a compliment alright.

But I really shouldn't doubt your knowledge of genuine insults since you are the current-day king in that department. Hal taught you well.

Roger

It's being incorrectly defined when you separate the term into two different words.

Also, Hal Houle may have thought it was highly complimentary and didn't realize that it's formal definition is that of a very limited compliment. Some people consider it only a reference to a high degree of natural, unschooled talent.

 

[ajrack]

Aiming

It's obvious that he had people in the crowd aim their laser pointers on the best location on the object balls !

 

[AtLarge]

... I seriously doubt that Mr. Greenleaf would have felt complimented by Hal's description of him.

True. But given that it was said more than a half a century after Greenleaf's death, I think we can just view it as a bit of hyperbole to emphasize the point Hal was making. My experience was that Hal makes quite a few statements that should be taken with a grain of salt. But it's fun to talk with him.

 

[champ2107]

what did Hal think of mosconi lol :thumbup:

 

[AtLarge]

what did Hal think of mosconi lol :thumbup:

Said he was a hot head. But that's not news.

 

[JB Cases]

The only thing I'm "hell bent" on is getting at the truth. The whole CTE argument has been, and still is, about marketing. Some "yeasayers" feel like they have discovered pool's greatest secret, and it really rankles them that not everyone agrees with them on that, and so they have been on a campaign to shove their product down the pool-playing world's collective throat. And some "naysayers" resent the sales pitches put out by the CTE pitch men so much that they react like Dagwood Bumstead with the vacuum cleaner salesman.

What I consider really sad, Joey, is that you have been hanging around this forum all along, stirring up the very stuff you accuse me of stirring.

All of this CTE marketing needs to stop.

Roger

Not true. It is not that simple. It is a chicken and egg argument which can have no end.

Everyone is guilty. You, me, and many others have made what should have been a fairly simple discussion into a war where there is almost no common ground. I would bet privately that if the naysayer side would quit posting in aiming theads for one month then there would be way less of them and the ones left would die off quickly.

All that happens when people flame is that it causes MORE people to get interested and want to try out these systems which then creates even more people who post their great experience. And it also invites new flamers who agree with the naysayer stance. Neverending.

But good for ratings.


www.jbcases.com

 

[RunoutJJ]

Im willing to bet the farm if Ralph Greenleaf told you that he shoots with his pants down... Socks pulled up to he's waist and his baseball cap on backwards most would do it

Sorry I would make more of a point but my computer went back a page after a 30 minute rant I typed out so Im gonna make it short and sweet...

Point is does it matter?? Hit a Million balls like every other top player or pro and stop looking for the holy grail to playing exceptional pool...

Sorry im tired of the aiming threads and wanted to take a big dump on a ludicris thread on a guy thats dead.. The answer is he took his method to the grave like a good hustler

 

[Pangit]

Folks:

Be careful in how you classify Greenleaf's stroke. Look closely at his grip hand throughout his stroke, and you'll see why -- a pronounced slip-stroke. The issue with the butt of the cue "swinging inward towards the body" on the backswing is common, because most of the meat of your hand is on the outside of the cue, and during the "slip-and-regrip" phase, it's common that the cue is "bumped" inwards a bit.

But again, back in those days, the slip-stroke was a common and much-desired skill to have. Pat Howey, Willie Mosconi, and Cowboy Jimmy Moore are other examples of past champions with a noticeable slip-stroke (Willie's wasn't as pronounced as Jimmy Moore's, but it's still there on most shots).

-Sean

That was my point..."aiming method", stroke, follow though etc...are all individual things, after you get to the advanced amateur level. It's great to have someone to teach you proper form before you develop bad habit's when you first pick up a cue. Most didn't have that luxury. Pool "DNA" trumps all. It can't be taught. That's the reason they are on TV, and we aren't.

Different heights, stance, head position over the cue...distance between the eyes in ones skull....etc. the variations are endless. Practice is still the best teacher. Don't "worry" about how someone else aims...play your game. That's where you are most comfortable.

 

[cookie man]

The only thing I'm "hell bent" on is getting at the truth. The whole CTE argument has been, and still is, about marketing. Some "yeasayers" feel like they have discovered pool's greatest secret, and it really rankles them that not everyone agrees with them on that, and so they have been on a campaign to shove their product down the pool-playing world's collective throat. And some "naysayers" resent the sales pitches put out by the CTE pitch men so much that they react like Dagwood Bumstead with the vacuum cleaner salesman.

What I consider really sad, Joey, is that you have been hanging around this forum all along, stirring up the very stuff you accuse me of stirring.

All of this CTE marketing needs to stop.

Roger

What exactly are we marketing. Its just discussions on CTE. Where is the sales pitch ? What are we selling?

 

[Cornerman]

The whole CTE argument has been, and still is, about marketing.

All of this CTE marketing needs to stop.

Roger

Roger, I truly respect you. But I have to say that if after all of this that you really (or anyone) believes this CTE argument is all about marketing, then you have completely missed anything anyone has said.

The main argument has always been that the systems as described by the proponents cannot work for all shot as claimed. For you to have this strong argument against the CTE systems as marketing ploys is absurd and quite disturbing. You've gone down a rabbit hole chasing phantoms (or white rabbits).

 

[justadub]

The only thing I'm "hell bent" on is getting at the truth. The whole CTE argument has been, and still is, about marketing. Some "yeasayers" feel like they have discovered pool's greatest secret, and it really rankles them that not everyone agrees with them on that, and so they have been on a campaign to shove their product down the pool-playing world's collective throat. And some "naysayers" resent the sales pitches put out by the CTE pitch men so much that they react like Dagwood Bumstead with the vacuum cleaner salesman.

What I consider really sad, Joey, is that you have been hanging around this forum all along, stirring up the very stuff you accuse me of stirring.

All of this CTE marketing needs to stop.

Roger

So you are indeed on a mission. And that is why you continue to post in these threads, regardless of how the discussion (and this thread has been far more civil than prior versions) is progressing. You feel the need to save people from these awful "CTE marketers."

Please, Roger, protect me. For I know not what I read.

Please. Sheesh.

 

[Mr. Bond]

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Well, let's just see what Webster has to say about it:

idiot 1 a retarded person mentally equal or inferior to a child two years old: see MENTAL RETARDATION 2 a very foolish or stupid person

savant a learned person; eminent scholar

So when you put the two together you describe a very stupid person who has learned something despite their own stupidity. Yeah, that's a heck of a compliment alright.

But I really shouldn't doubt your knowledge of genuine insults since you are the current-day king in that department. Hal taught you well.

Roger

PLANET EARTH TO ROGER:

You're wrong in your assessment of the definition of "idiot savant." Wikipedia it, Google it, do something before you make eye-rolling posts like this. When the two words are combined, they have quite a different definition.

When you're trying to piss turpentine on the fire implying Hal was throwing insults when he was CLEARLY trying to suggest the opposite, it's hard not to knock you. You're either being stupid on purpose or you have no comprehension. I'll give you the benefit and guess you're just being stupid on purpose.

If you want to bet something, we can conference call Hal on the phone and ask him what he meant by what he said (and I haven't spoken to him in a year). Otherwise, stop talking like a non-savant idiot.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

The only thing I'm "hell bent" on is getting at the truth. The whole CTE argument has been, and still is, about marketing. Some "yeasayers" feel like they have discovered pool's greatest secret, and it really rankles them that not everyone agrees with them on that, and so they have been on a campaign to shove their product down the pool-playing world's collective throat. And some "naysayers" resent the sales pitches put out by the CTE pitch men so much that they react like Dagwood Bumstead with the vacuum cleaner salesman.

What I consider really sad, Joey, is that you have been hanging around this forum all along, stirring up the very stuff you accuse me of stirring.

All of this CTE marketing needs to stop.

Roger

Yeah, I guess banging shots center hole is marketing. What needs to stop are hack instructors commenting on topics that are definitely above their comprehension.

 

[Roger Long]

PLANET EARTH TO ROGER:

You're wrong in your assessment of the definition of "idiot savant." Wikipedia it, Google it, do something before you make eye-rolling posts like this. When the two words are combined, they have quite a different definition.

When you're trying to piss turpentine on the fire implying Hal was throwing insults when he was CLEARLY trying to suggest the opposite, it's hard not to knock you. You're either being stupid on purpose or you have no comprehension. I'll give you the benefit and guess you're just being stupid on purpose.

If you want to bet something, we can conference call Hal on the phone and ask him what he meant by what he said (and I haven't spoken to him in a year). Otherwise, stop talking like a non-savant idiot.

I don't need to "Wikipedia" or "Google" anything when I can Webster it.

You can go ahead and try to twist this thing any way you want to, Dave, but Hal wasn't doing anything more than being arrogant and disrespectful when he threw the word "idiot" in there. And you can go ahead and insult me and others here all you want, too, because that is apparently the only thing you know how to do well.

You make a terrible CTE pitch man, Dave. That's very poor marketing.

Roger

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I don't need to "Wikipedia" or "Google" anything when I can Webster it.

You can go ahead and try to twist this thing any way you want to, Dave, but Hal wasn't doing anything more than being arrogant and disrespectful when he threw the word "idiot" in there. And you can go ahead and insult me and others here all you want, too, because that is apparently the only thing you know how to do well.

You make a terrible CTE pitch man, Dave. That's very poor marketing.

Roger

I'm not a pitchman -- I'm a pool player. I'm not selling anything. Your continuance to insist Hal was throwing an insult further proves you simply don't know what you're talking about . Other forum members have told you the same thing -- trying to help you out -- but, you continue to throw your fist in the air like a jerk.

Continue on, continue on...

 

[sfleinen]

I don't need to "Wikipedia" or "Google" anything when I can Webster it.

You can go ahead and try to twist this thing any way you want to, Dave, but Hal wasn't doing anything more than being arrogant and disrespectful when he threw the word "idiot" in there. And you can go ahead and insult me and others here all you want, too, because that is apparently the only thing you know how to do well.

You make a terrible CTE pitch man, Dave. That's very poor marketing.

Roger

Roger:

Unfortunately, you're basing your side on a technicality -- splitting the two words up, taking their individual meanings separately, and then hiding behind the false-innocence facade of "but this is what Webster says!"

Roger, I'll be 46 years old this coming March. Yes, comparatively speaking, I'm a "youngin'." But I'm old enough to remember the old days when "idiot savant" was not a disrespectful term at all. The old days definition was to describe a person with below-average overall intelligence (perhaps even a mental disability) that had one single unusually gifted talent -- playing the piano, calculating/reciting pi to a thousand places, etc. In the old days, this term was [perhaps unfortunately] used colloquially, and applied to normal people with unusually high talent in a certain area. Hal Houle is from those days, and I'm sure -- no, I'm certain -- that he meant this term in the "colloquial" fashion.

These days, "idiot savant" is considered politically incorrect. Today's correct term is "autistic savant" to describe the dictionary-correct aspect of a mentally-challenged person with a single unusually gifted talent. And today, no matter how you slice it, applying "idiot" in any descriptive adjective is considered disrespectful. But remember, Hal is from the old days. Perhaps you adapted to today's political-correctness quicker than Hal, but for you to hold a technicality against him (especially under the guise of "Webster's definition") is, IMHO, bad form.

No disrespect intended, but I had to share my input on this.
-Sean

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Roger:

Unfortunately, you're basing your side on a technicality -- splitting the two words up, taking their individual meanings separately, and then hiding behind the false-innocence facade of "but this is what Webster says!"

Roger, I'll be 46 years old this coming March. Yes, comparatively speaking, I'm a "youngin'." But I'm old enough to remember the old days when "idiot savant" was not a disrespectful term at all. The old days definition was to describe a person with below-average overall intelligence (perhaps even a mental disability) that had one single unusually gifted talent -- playing the piano, calculating/reciting pi to a thousand places, etc. In the old days, this term was [perhaps unfortunately] used colloquially, and applied to normal people with unusually high talent in a certain area. Hal Houle is from those days, and I'm sure -- no, I'm certain -- that he meant this term in the "colloquial" fashion.

These days, "idiot savant" is considered politically incorrect. Today's correct term is "autistic savant" to describe the dictionary-correct aspect of a mentally-challenged person with a single unusually gifted talent. And today, no matter how you slice it, applying "idiot" in any descriptive adjective is considered disrespectful. But remember, Hal is from the old days. Perhaps you adapted to today's political-correctness quicker than Hal, but for you to hold a technicality against him (especially under the guise of "Webster's definition") is, IMHO, bad form.

No disrespect intended, but I had to share my input on this.
-Sean

That was eloquently stated (more so than my previous posts). Let's see if Roger gets it this time or if he's going to continue to act like his mascot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbBLDBohgrY

 

[Roger Long]

Not true. It is not that simple. It is a chicken and egg argument which can have no end.

Everyone is guilty. You, me, and many others have made what should have been a fairly simple discussion into a war where there is almost no common ground. I would bet privately that if the naysayer side would quit posting in aiming theads for one month then there would be way less of them and the ones left would die off quickly.

All that happens when people flame is that it causes MORE people to get interested and want to try out these systems which then creates even more people who post their great experience. And it also invites new flamers who agree with the naysayer stance. Neverending.

But good for ratings.

www.jbcases.com

"But good for ratings." NOW we're getting somewhwere! The whole argument has really been over the way CTE has been marketed in this free advertising space known as the AZB Forums. In the beginning, advocates came on with some pretty strong endorsements for CTE, and "naysayers" came back with some pretty strong rejections. And so the controversy began, and so it continues. So it's like you said, John; it's never ending. No one will ever win. And isn't that reason enough for both sides to just let it go?

Roger