Illustration of BHE....

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave...

In all due respect, you KNOW I've always attempted to be nice to PJ and respectful.... only to have him c0ck-off and become insulting and belligerent.

To call me a child when you've even commented on how you respected my 'nice' responses to him is uncalled for.

If you want to call me a child just because I wont take his smart attitude anymore, I'm an embryo.

Spidey,

When you and PJ are respectful, I respect you both; when you are not, I am disappointed. I think both of you are to blame for the frequent flame wars. I agree that PJ can be relentless and even a pain in the arse at times, but you often give him reason to be that way.

I'm looking forward to more respect and meaningful discussion in the future.

Respectfully,
Dave

 

[Rich93]

I'm not always "on PJ's team" ... only when he is reasonable, logical, insightful, and helpful (which he is sometimes).

Dave

Seems to me he's always logical when he talks about the game.

 

[dr_dave]

Seems to me he's always logical when he talks about the game.

Agreed.

Dave

 

[cookie man]

I usually try all of the techniques I discuss, but I usually don't need to try them to know when they will and won't work based on how they are described. I can see PJ's point sometimes: Why should he try something that is obviously flawed as described? Instead, he first tries to get a complete and accurate description to the point where the method shows promise. Then maybe he thinks it would be worth trying it out. I'm not sure this is how he or others think; but if they do, I don't fault them for that. I also like to understand and believe in something before I dedicate time and effort to work with it. Now, with some things, you might need to try it to fully understand the intricacies of when and where it does and doesn't work and why, but I think this is the case with many of the topics we discuss and debate here.

Regards,
Dave

Dave this is all kinda funny. When I met RON V at valley forge last year, and he started talking 90/90 and the rest of the bullshit I felt just like you. Then I started working with it and lo and behold it's not bullshit. It works, CTE works, BHE works, and after many hours of practice I've put them all together and I must say I have a pretty good game now. The even funnier part is after meeting with Ron and learning new things, I spent alot of time at SBE watching the pros and the high stakes gamblers. Since I now knew what to look for it was amazing that some of these players were using techniques I never even heard of in 25 years of playing pool. Sometimes trying new things is a good thing. The problem with PJ is that when someone posts something new, PJ is right there with a negative (at least that is how it seems to me) comment. As a user all we are saying is give (peace) it a chance, don't knock it without trying it. If you don't like what we say, don't say its wrong, and leave it at that. Tell us why or show us why.
P.S. PJ don't pick chosen words out of here and interpret them to your liking.

 

[dr_dave]

... CTE works, BHE works, and after many hours of practice I've put them all together and I must say I have a pretty good game now.

No one could argue with that. Any method can work with practice and successful experience. Sometimes understanding of the types of adjustments needed, and when, can make the methods even more effective. That's why we discuss them.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Jaden]

Dr. Dave.....

I usually try all of the techniques I discuss, but I usually don't need to try them to know when they will and won't work based on how they are described. I can see PJ's point sometimes: Why should he try something that is obviously flawed as described? Instead, he first tries to get a complete and accurate description to the point where the method shows promise. Then maybe he thinks it would be worth trying it out. I'm not sure this is how he or others think; but if they do, I don't fault them for that. I also like to understand and believe in something before I dedicate time and effort to work with it. Now, with some things, you might need to try it to fully understand the intricacies of when and where it does and doesn't work and why, but I think this is the case with many of the topics we discuss and debate here.

Regards,
Dave

There's one problem with this. I consider myself an intelligent guy and I didn't think that BHE would work when first described to me (by Efren Reyes himself), so much so that I didn't even bother to try it for three years. We've got to get past this idea that we know everything and when someone brings up a possibility of making the game easier, we should atleast give it a try.

Where would we be if no one had bothered to try circumnavigating the globe because they KNEW that the earth was flat and that they would fall off????

Jaden

 

[devindra]

No one could argue with that. Any method can work with practice and successful experience. Sometimes understanding of the types of adjustments needed, and when, can make the methods even more effective. That's why we discuss them.

Regards,
Dave

BHE does require adjustments, no doubt about that. I agree with you on this point as do many of us.

CTE does not require adjustments. I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that CTE requires adjustments and you don't even know the correct CTE technique. Maybe you should actually take a lesson from Stan before giving your opinion on the system. When you do take a lesson I will be glad to hear your comments.

 

[dr_dave]

There's one problem with this. I consider myself an intelligent guy and I didn't think that BHE would work when first described to me (by Efren Reyes himself), so much so that I didn't even bother to try it for three years. We've got to get past this idea that we know everything and when someone brings up a possibility of making the game easier, we should atleast give it a try.

When I first learned about BHE, by reading an article by Bob Jewett many years ago, I immediately knew the technique had promise and I began using it. But I also worked hard to understand when it does and doesn't work and how to make adjustments when necessary so I could use and teach the method more effectively.

Where would we be if no one had bothered to try circumnavigating the globe because they KNEW that the earth was flat and that they would fall off????

I personally would prefer quicker, easier, and safer ways to figure out the earth is round rather than putting in all of that effort and time with a long voyage. Scientists knew the earth was round long before the sailors did.

Regards,
Dave

 

[laser2507]

That was a good vid.

I have always come off on my LAST stroke, I never pre-cued to the desired location on the cueball. So I would be center..center..then cue off to my target and follow through.

Lately I have gone back to cueing up using english, ie aim at left or right, this works ok, I can run racks no prob, but still miss alot of inside english shots, I feel BHE could help me here, but my mind is playing games with me, saying "You missed because you used FHE \ BHE"... why is pool so mental!

 

[dr_dave]

CTE does not require adjustments. I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that CTE requires adjustments and you don't even know the correct CTE technique. Maybe you should actually take a lesson from Stan before giving your opinion on the system. When you do take a lesson I will be glad to hear your comments.

I know CTE works for many people, with practice. Nobody needs to convince me of that. We have read many testimonials here.

Honestly, I don't feel the need to take a lesson to learn more. I feel I know enough about it already from numerous phone calls, e-mails, and other communication with Stan, Hal, other instructors, and many system proponents and enthusiasts. Colin, I, and others have also pointed out many positive attributes of systems like CTE, 90-90, ETE, etc. Highlights can be found here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#benefits​

However, I stand by everything I have written on this topic (e.g., in my recent "controversial" articles).

Regards,
Dave

 

[devindra]

I know CTE works for many people, with practice. Nobody needs to convince me of that. We have read many testimonials here.

Honestly, I don't feel the need to take a lesson to learn more. I feel I know enough about it already from numerous phone calls, e-mails, and other communication with Stan, Hal, other instructors, and many system proponents and enthusiasts. Colin, I, and others have also pointed out many positive attributes of systems like CTE, 90-90, ETE, etc. Highlights can be found here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#benefits​

However, I stand by everything I have written on this topic (e.g., in my recent "controversial" articles).

Regards,
Dave

If you think you know enough about CTE then explain to us the CTE technique. Trust me take a lesson from Stan, forget about the emails, Stan can actually explain and confirm that you are using the correct CTE technique in person. All the persons in the link you posted have never taken a lesson from Stan and think they know CTE. Just because you are an instructor doesn't mean you can't take a lesson.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

But I also worked hard to understand when it does and doesn't work and how to make adjustments when necessary so I could use and teach the method more effectively. I personally would prefer quicker, easier, and safer ways to figure out the earth is round rather than putting in all of that effort and time with a long voyage. Scientists knew the earth was round long before the sailors did.

Regards,
Dave

Show me one circumstance when BHE doesn't work.

I'll setup the shot and fire it in.

The math people keep thinking BHE is a system. It's merely a technique.
THAT's why it can be demoed on video just fine. Adjustments, as with any l/r english method are based on intuition. It just requires less intuition...fewer mental gymnastics... to make a harder shot. If it was more intuition and mental gymnastics...... no one would be using the technique. Imagine that?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but has anyone ever said "Just use BHE and the ball automatically goes with the correct initial aim 100% of the time under any conditions?"

Just as the scientists knew the earth was round before the sailors, explain how the scientists know BHE can't be used in certain situations (level-cue shots).

 

[dr_dave]

If you think you know enough about CTE then explain to us the CTE technique. Trust me take a lesson from Stan, forget about the emails, Stan can actually explain and confirm that you are using the correct CTE technique in person. All the persons in the link you posted have never taken a lesson from Stan and think they know CTE. Just because you are an instructor doesn't mean you can't take a lesson.

If I were to try to describe and illustrate the CTE technique, I don't think I would do it justice, and I might offend Stan and/or others. The best description I've seen to date was by av84fun here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE​

That will have to do for know, unless Stan wants to give a better and more complete and detailed description. Even better, it would be nice to see a video that shows how the system works for all of the shots I have illustrated in the past. I can easily create a video of how the methods described to me don't work for all of the shots, but I don't think this would be well received. I'm not saying I know the secrets of how to make CTE work. I suspect the magic is in the exact bridge placement. With practice, one can get good with this. If you place your bridge hand in the exact right spot to make the shot (and your stroke is good), CTE works. If you don't place your bridge hand in the right spot, you will miss the shot (unless you consciously or subconsciously swoop to correct for bad aim).

Regards,
Dave

 

[Jaden]

this is exactly why....

That was a good vid.

I have always come off on my LAST stroke, I never pre-cued to the desired location on the cueball. So I would be center..center..then cue off to my target and follow through.

Lately I have gone back to cueing up using english, ie aim at left or right, this works ok, I can run racks no prob, but still miss alot of inside english shots, I feel BHE could help me here, but my mind is playing games with me, saying "You missed because you used FHE \ BHE"... why is pool so mental!

This is exactly why it is important to be able to isolate parts of your game. How do you know that your starting aim is correct? How do you know that your stroke is true?

The only way to know these things is to have a system and to practice in specific ways that allow you to eliminate certain variables.

That's why I say that it is necessary to be at a certain level of proficiency and more importantly knowledge before you undertake advanced concepts like bhe.

I'll type more when I get back to my computer right now I'm on my blackberry

Jaden

 

[laser2507]

Thanks Jaden for responding.

A little info, I played around 4 years before using BHE, I learned it way back when I was 19 or 20, I used it for 4 years then gave up pool for 2. Since then I play nearly everyday and I am on the tour in UK.

I feel with BHE it "easier" to make certain shots, but FHE is easier for other shots.. I never though about using both, just one method.

My mind gets all negative sometimes becuase I blame BHE, FHE, bridge distance, flat bridge, looped bridge, etc... I have tried everything, I now even mainly use a flat-bridge, becuase when I changed I ran out 10 racks in a row on my home 9 footer, but my another day I am lucky to do 3 in a row! I feel exhausted with options, maybe my worst enemy is me

 

[Jaden]

Yeah....believe me I can empathize with the ten racks and lucky to do three,...

Thanks Jaden for responding.

A little info, I played around 4 years before using BHE, I learned it way back when I was 19 or 20, I used it for 4 years then gave up pool for 2. Since then I play nearly everyday and I am on the tour in UK.

I feel with BHE it "easier" to make certain shots, but FHE is easier for other shots.. I never though about using both, just one method.

My mind gets all negative sometimes becuase I blame BHE, FHE, bridge distance, flat bridge, looped bridge, etc... I have tried everything, I now even mainly use a flat-bridge, becuase when I changed I ran out 10 racks in a row on my home 9 footer, but my another day I am lucky to do 3 in a row! I feel exhausted with options, maybe my worst enemy is me

I think the thing there is concentration and repeatability....

Do you follow a set pre shot routine and use the same method for everything?

I use BHE but for the most part it's bad stroking that causes me to miss.

Try practice stroking for an hour or two a day without hitting any balls. Do that for a week or so and see if that helps you with consistency.

Jaden.

 

[devindra]

If I were to try to describe and illustrate the CTE technique, I don't think I would do it justice, and I might offend Stan and/or others. The best description I've seen to date was by av84fun here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE​

That will have to do for know, unless Stan wants to give a better and more complete and detailed description. Even better, it would be nice to see a video that shows how the system works for all of the shots I have illustrated in the past. I can easily create a video of how the methods described to me don't work for all of the shots, but I don't think this would be well received. I'm not saying I know the secrets of how to make CTE work. I suspect the magic is in the exact bridge placement. With practice, one can get good with this. If you place your bridge hand in the exact right spot to make the shot (and your stroke is good), CTE works. If you don't place your bridge hand in the right spot, you will miss the shot (unless you consciously or subconsciously swoop to correct for bad aim).

Regards,
Dave

All of those descriptions of CTE technique are inaccurate. Therefore you cannot prove that the system requires adjustments and trust me it does not require adjustments. Take a lesson from Stan so he can explain the system to you. I could make a video shooting the shots that you say don't work for the system but as many of you say this would not prove anything.

 

[cookie man]

If I were to try to describe and illustrate the CTE technique, I don't think I would do it justice, and I might offend Stan and/or others. The best description I've seen to date was by av84fun here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE​

That will have to do for know, unless Stan wants to give a better and more complete and detailed description. Even better, it would be nice to see a video that shows how the system works for all of the shots I have illustrated in the past. I can easily create a video of how the methods described to me don't work for all of the shots, but I don't think this would be well received. I'm not saying I know the secrets of how to make CTE work. I suspect the magic is in the exact bridge placement. With practice, one can get good with this. If you place your bridge hand in the exact right spot to make the shot (and your stroke is good), CTE works. If you don't place your bridge hand in the right spot, you will miss the shot (unless you consciously or subconsciously swoop to correct for bad aim).

Regards,
Dave

Post the video,you might be surprised!!!

 

[dr_dave]

All of those descriptions of CTE technique are inaccurate. Therefore you cannot prove that the system requires adjustments and trust me it does not require adjustments.

Every description and demonstrate of CTE I have ever read, seen, or heard is never complete enough to explain how CTE works for a wide range of shots. Have you read my recent Billiards Digest articles (October-December '08 here) dealing with aiming systems? I think they summarize some of the major challenges fairly well.

Take a lesson from Stan so he can explain the system to you.

I do hope to meet Stan one day. I'm sure I will some day. I learn something new from every instructor I meet and work with.

I could make a video shooting the shots that you say don't work for the system but as many of you say this would not prove anything.

I didn't say that. I'm not sure PJ did either. Good shooters can make any shot with any system. That's what some of the videos we have seen prove. Now, if you can explain and show exactly how you aim for a series a closely spaced shots, and we can clearly see on the video the subtle changes that are occurring from one shot to the next, then the video would be useful. Here a the link to the description of the series of shots that would be useful to see:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=1535129&postcount=189​

Regards,
Dave

PS: Could you provide links to the videos you mentioned in previous threads you said you would post? I have not seen any of them yet. You sound like a good shooter, but it would be nice to see how your apply the methods in question.

 

[laser2507]

I will try that for sure.. I can normally tell when I hit the ball bbad, you can sort of feel it before you miss.. if only you could pause time and do it again

I used to play alot faster and freely, like a 100% feel player, but now I have started more concentration on pre-shot, and walking into the shot, I guess what I want is more consistancy, its hard to explain... but when I played feely, I enjoyed the game more when I played well, hated it when I played bad. Now, although slightly slower, I generally feel more within limits, whether bad or good, I think I may be beginning to concentrate more and become a little more repetative... probably didnt explain it well, sorry.