How Fractional Aiming Systems Help

stan shuffett said:
Pj, you are the one that asked for the explanations of those 3 Dr. Dave shots. I did not ask.
Click to expand...
You asked Dave for shots to explain; I posted the shots that Dave already had on his website:

Originally Posted by stan shuffett
Dr. Dave, can you give me 5 shots where my cte pro one shooting system breaks down as a complete shooting system as taught on my DVD?
Click to expand...
Me:
Why not use the 3 shots Dave posted on his website long ago? Here they are with his question about them (hope you don't mind the cut-and-paste, Dave):
Click to expand...

If Dave posts five other shots (as you requested), will you decline to explain them if they're on your DVD?

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
It's not my question; I just posted shots in response to Stan's request. But I think your post contains the only answer we're likely to get: "you will need to make finely tuned adjustments with your visual skills".

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

DVD at 1:22:20, look it up. A hint: these three shots with CTE/PRO1 require three different starting alignments, which indicates that Dr Dave's statement about all three falling into the same category of alignment is incorrect.
 
dr_dave said:
I applaud you for this.

Some example claims can be found by reading between the lines (or just by reading the actual lines) in the DAM marketing paragraphs.

IMO, my objective evaluation and analysis of the CTE approach addresses many of the claims fairly well. And my benefits of aiming systems resource page suggests many reasons why the CTE approach can still help some people learn how to aim.

I don't feel I need to add anything beyond what those pages already provide, unless some new information and/or insight emerges.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...


now i was wondering if you can just post what these claims are that you dont agree with, instead of me having to go read between the lines,etc? just a simple post with the issues you have is all i ask?
 
JoeyA said:
dr_dave said:
In ghost-ball based systems (e.g., classic ghost-ball, contact-point-to-contact-point or parallel-lines system, double-the-distance or double-the-overlap aiming method, etc.), one must be able to visualize a line going through the necessary ghost-ball position (accounting for throw if necessary). This step requires perception and judgement (AKA "feel"). However, if the ghost-ball center is visualized accurately, then the required line of aim is known precisely.

With the CTE approach (e.g., Stan's version of CTE), even if you choose the most appropriate cut type for a shot (i.e., pick the appropriate OB alignment point and pre-pivot cue tip position), judgement and perception is still required to "obtain the visuals" and place the bridge hand in the right place. Judgement is also required to determine what bridge length to use for a given shot. And for a chosen cut type and bridge length, assuming a "fixed bridge" pivot is used, the result of the process will create a certain cut angle which will depend on the distance between the CB and OB, and this cut angle might not be appropriate for the shot at hand. In other words, the procedure does not necessary produce the correct line of aim for every shot. The person must learn to make it work at the table through judgement, practice, and experience. Now, as many of us have pointed out, this doesn't mean that the CTE approach and the pre-shot routine it fosters can't be helpful to people. It most certainly can be helpful.

Now, I know that Pro-One is very different, and is based more on experience and intuition, without applying the prescribed mechanical steps individually, but it is still built upon the same concept.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
Click to expand...
You're very welcome.

JoeyA said:
Then if this is your description of "feel", then not just every aiming system, but every shot in the world that has ever been attempted is made on feel.

...

So with this definition of "feel" I can conclude that every shot in the world requires "feel".
Click to expand...
... most definitely, and some shots and some "systems" require more "feel" than others.

For example, if you are hitting a cut shot with English, you must have lots of "feel" to be able to adjust for squirt, swerve, and throw and have a good understanding or "feel" for all of the effects involved with squirt, swerve, and throw.

As another example, if you hitting a kick or bank shot, maybe using a popular kick and bank system, and don't know when and how to adjust for all of the kick and bank effects, you won't be very successful.

Knowing where the CB will go and having good speed control also require lot's of judgement and feel.

"Feel" is critical in pool.

Regards,
Dave
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't think it matters whether we call it a system, a method, a technique or whatever - there's no "bright line" distinction between these terms. What matters is how it functions compared with other ways and how those differences make aiming easier or harder for individual players.

Ghost ball is one of several ways to visualize the exact final aim for any shot. These rely on the shooter's ability to accurately visualize the position of the OB contact point and one or two other spatial relationships. They include simple contact point-to-contact point aiming, ghost ball, double-the-distance, parallel lines and maybe others I'm forgetting. I think of these as the "exact" methods.

The rest are ways to visualize a "starting point" relatively near the final aim for any shot, from which the shooter estimates the final aim (sometimes with the help of additional system steps). These rely on the shooter's ability to choose the closest starting point from a short menu of "system alignments" and then refine his aim from there using judgment gained from experience. I think of these as the "approximate" methods.

"Exact" and "approximate" have become loaded terms in AzB aiming discussions, but I don't use them to suggest that one is better or worse than the other. "Exact" methods have the advantage of focusing directly on the final aim, but require visualization abilities not shared by everybody. "Approximate" methods offer easy-to-visualize "starting points", but leave estimating the final aim to the shooter. Both kinds require different skills and offer different advantages/disadvantages that are weighed differently by different shooters. Neither kind (nor any individual way within a kind) is inherently "best" at its job for everybody.
Click to expand...
Excellent post. One of the best in the whole thread, IMO.

Good job,
Dave
 
mohrt said:
DVD at 1:22:20, look it up. A hint: these three shots with CTE/PRO1 require three different starting alignments, which indicates that Dr Dave's statement about all three falling into the same category of alignment is incorrect.
Click to expand...
So Stan volunteers to explain shots, he gets shots to explain, and the forum gets tapdancing from Stan, "you'll need to fine tune" from champ, and "look at the DVD" from you. And you wonder why there's so much skepticism about CTE?

Is there a straight answer in the house? Never mind, we already know the answer to that.

pj
chgo
 
Pj, do not try to put the ball in my court. I was specific with what I requested from Dr. Dave and I would think that it could be a huge step forward AZ folks that are interested but you want to change the topic because Anyone here on AZ can now learn that you did not view my DVD Properly before your reviews stan.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
So Stan volunteers to explain shots, he gets shots to explain, and the forum gets tapdancing from Stan, "you'll need to fine tune" from champ, and "look at the DVD" from you. And you wonder why there's so much skepticism about CTE?

Is there a straight answer in the house? Never mind, we already know the answer to that.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

come on man ????????????????????????????????????? your are one incredible person lol what exactly is the answer your looking for? Stan has shown how to make those three shots on his dvd? you say you have the dvd?
 
Last edited:
Pj, you are muddying the waters and you know it.
I hope everyone will go back and read the last couple of pages where this started. Stop trying to twist out of this.
My explanations on my dvd are correct and will not change. It is a shame that you decided to skip parts of my DVD. You already had your mind made Up and this is evidence of that fact. You did a review without out proper study.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
So Stan volunteers to explain shots, he gets shots to explain, and the forum gets tapdancing from Stan, "you'll need to fine tune" from champ, and "look at the DVD" from you. And you wonder why there's so much skepticism about CTE?

Is there a straight answer in the house? Never mind, we already know the answer to that.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I don't speak for Stan, he is right here to answer questions about CTE/Pro1. I thought you have the DVD (since you did a review), so I'd point out exactly where to find it.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
It'd be great to shell out money to watch your hack technique with aiming systems. Sure, count me in.

What will the result of your DVD sales on the forum?

Will Lou say it's too difficult to understand and want his money back?

Will you give Lou, Pat Johnson, and all other "naysayers" a free DVD for being so loyal with all of your caustic remarks regarding CTE/PRO1 or
90/90?

Will Pat Johnson reveal that DAM is nothing more than PSR with no real benefit to aiming?

Will Lou suddenly change his tune and praise aiming systems as well as adopt one that prevents him from ramming balls into the rail?

Will this help Patrick from fidgeting and bobbing his head up and down like a lizard?
Click to expand...
All of my stuff has received good reviews from many respected people. Here are some examples:
BTW, for the record, none of these reviews were solicited, nor did they involve any sort of payment or endorsement agreement.

Do you really think any future work I put out will be as bad as you seem to imply? I guess you have the right to think that if you want to.

I always welcome reviews (positive or negative) for any of my work. I also welcome any open and civil discussion or debate concerning any concepts on any of my DVDs. It helps me make future work even better.

Regards,
Dave
 
champ2107 said:
come on man ????????????????????????????????????? your are one incredible person lol what exactly is the answer your looking for?
Click to expand...
One more time:

Stan asked Dave for shots to explain. I stepped in and posted shots from Dave's website (with Dave's question about them attached), so Stan could explain them. Instead of using those shots for his offered explanation, Stan took off on a tangent about whether or not I had really "studied" his DVD.

Stepping in was my mistake. 'Scuse me while I scrape this off my shoe.

pj
chgo
 
I'll bite.....what I would do.

Assuming that my bridge hand is on the near rail. Going from A to B to C, I would aquire the visual that moves my bridge a bit to the left to increase the cut angle.:thumbup:

CTE TO CCB-Model.jpg
 
LAMas said:
I'll bite.....what I would do.

Assuming that my bridge hand is on the near rail. Going from A to B to C, I would aquire the visual that moves my bridge a bit to the left to increase the cut angle.:thumbup:
Click to expand...
Well, sure. That's what we all do. We just don't call it "acquiring the visual" (or we might have to pay royalties).

pj
chgo
 
Pj, Dr Dave has the DVD TOO. I doubt that Dr Dave studied those shots. I have seen no indication of that from him.
The fact remains, YOU DID NOT KNOW THOSE HERALDED 3 shots were on my DVD with solutions.
That says something to me.
Why wouldn't you just admitt that instead of trying to get around that fact.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
One more time:

Stan asked Dave for shots to explain. I stepped in and posted shots from Dave's website (with Dave's question about them attached), so Stan could explain them. Instead of using those shots for his offered explanation, Stan took off on a tangent about whether or not I had really "studied" his DVD.

Stepping in was my mistake. 'Scuse me while I scrape this off my shoe.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

my opinion is Stan is bothered by the fact you have brought up something that was an issue before the dvd came out and stan answered that issue on the dvd. Stan also seems bothered by the fact you reviewed his product without at least watching the entire dvd. i could go on but i wont.

you have opened a lot of eyes in this exchange PJ and if you notice Dr dave hasn't stepped up for you either since he posted in the middle of it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top