Like someone told me awhile back, you should learn how to use the multiple quote function because it is cumbersome to reply when you write in blue inside the post you are responding to.
Since this is the last time I'm going to reply, I'll quickly do it this way and that's it. If you decide to reply back, it's up to you but it will go unanswered.
My advice is don't waste your time and efforts.
But you are effectively saying that. When you challenge people to prove they can shoot pool accurately you are saying that if they can't, then their opinion is worth less. In some cases that is true, but I think everybody in this discussion has more than enough experience with poking balls with sticks to understand the issues involved.
If everybody in the discussion has more than enough experience poking balls they shouldn't be chickensh!t like some are to make videos and claim videos prove nothing. BULLSH!T!! It has little to do with shooting accurately since there are other reasons to do it. One would be to demonstrate what they're doing or how they understand a particular system to work and DESCRIBE what they're doing which may in fact be incorrect to what is being taught. They could then be corrected immediately by those who know and none of this crap would continue forever.
What you and I did was an accuracy test developed by Colin Colenso and proved the accuracy factor with the systems we use and how skilled we have become with them, that's all. The reason why you and I took it on shows another commonality which was my motivation and yours. We both saw it as a CHALLENGE and just wanted to give it a whirl to see what the results would be. I think you and I had the best results by only missing one shot. I don't recall a perfect score. It was what it was. I'm, still reminded of how lousy I play any time I go to Allen Hopkins' house and get completely wasted by him. Big difference between a decent amateur and top pro even though he's no longer in his prime. It's like light years.
If somebody demonstrates what they understand about CTE as they verbalize the visuals as to how they're setting up and aligning, the best thing to come out of it is they MISS BALLS which gives us the info we need to correct it. It'll jump right out. The more they MISS the BETTER because their opinion and understanding of the system is more than likely off. There's help on the way instead of the knocking and bickering that it's worthless. The worse part is they never get on the table for starters and attempt to learn it from ADD ON YOUTUBE VIDEOS. However the WORST part is to use the excuse that the system ISN'T LOGICAL so why waste time even getting on the table. Then it's DEBATED or supposed to be debated from that.
Hal developed the 3 Line (angle) aiming system which was immediately pounced on and maligned by the RSB geniuses, and STILL IS. Yet I could take YOU who is a good shooter using one of his other systems instead of CTE, work with you on the phone telling you what to look at, how to set up and pivot, and within 30 minutes you'd have more than enough knowledge and know how to make it work for every cut angle on the table. You wouldn't be as successful with the high percentage of shots made in Colin's test using your own system, but if you worked with it for a few weeks I'd be willing to bet it would be pretty damn close. It still isn't as accurate as CTE taught now by Stan but you would know where Hal was coming from and it does work. I'd also be willing to guess when we were done you wouldn't be able to dissect why it worked exactly the way it does even though balls went in from everywhere. But you could knock yourself out trying if you wanted to devote the time.
You shouldn't let this stuff get you so upset.
Life is too short and time is too precious and should be used elsewhere. Since joining AZ I've spent far too much time on this same subject and I will NEVER do it for two decades on a daily basis like Pat Johnson. I'm fairly young and a number of guys I know have already died. I can't imagine the last 10 minutes of my life wondering what I could have or should have done instead of wasting it on a garbage aiming section of a pool forum with people who only want to argue and disparage a system or those who teach and use it. NOPE, ain't gonna happen!
The problem is that you are dealing with a lot of analytical minded people who want concrete answers to simple questions.
Those analytical minds ARE the problem and exactly what impedes their progress. It's like someone never getting on an airplane until they have a complete understanding of the aerodynamics of a plane and flight as well as the training of the pilot for all of the controls to fly it.
When the answer is something like you just have to do it until your mind sees the perception, or something vague like that it becomes unsatisfying for everybody.
Or you just have to keep doing it AS INSTRUCTED and if you never make many balls THEN you ask for help as far as what you might be doing wrong.
Thank you. My opinion is that aiming is the easier part and that achieving a good alignment of the cue on that aim line is 90% of the task. I always used ghost ball, but after so many years I don't really even use that.
Is it really ghost ball or foreseeing both balls colliding at their contact points as well as where the edge of the CB is at impact on the OB? That's the way I used to aim for years and it was more of the latter.
I just know where it needs to be hit to make the ball. The brain is orders of magnitude more powerful than the fastest supercomputer networks we have today. If you can stroke straight your brain will relatively quickly learn from its mistakes if you give it a chance.
Stroking straight can never be downplayed. It IS what delivers the ball to it's destination regardless of the aiming system.
My accuracy in pocketing and cue ball control went up when I finally learned how to straighten out my stroke. It only took two years to figure out! Not so much talent but determination.
If CTE helped you get to the high level you play at today, then that's great. In my opinion you and I probably pocket balls the same way. I have my own preshot routine and you have yours, which involves a pivoting of the cue and other body motions before you get down to executing the shot. I think we both "just know" when it looks right and we execute the shot. All the preshot stuff, again in my opinion, is not meaningful.
I'd say that's close but not exactly as far as how it looks being the determining factor to pull the trigger if trying to link CB to OB to POCKET angles. It is for almost all other systems but not CTE. The concern for contact point of the two balls and angle to the pocket isn't there which is one helluva hurdle for most to get out of their minds when first starting to learn CTE or the brick wall to even trying it because it isn't logical or whatever the hell other excuse can be cited.
Sheri Stauch at Billiards Digest did an interview in the 90's (google it) on how the pro's aim. She interviewed them and published their answers. The short of it is that they "just know" because they've played a long time.
I've seen that article many times and in the end they do know. Some use specific aiming systems, some said they use nothing, and some either can't or aren't willing to want to get into it to end the conversation.
If Stan's new book clears everything up as to what a player has to do to make it work then great! I could say a lot more about that and why I got into this discussion after so long, but that's a different subject.
My guess is the same individuals who harass him now and have for years will go through his book with a fine tooth comb picking out words here and there to continue the harangue. It probably will clear everything up but not allowed to by those with agendas. They'll be like Bill Clinton wanting to know what the definition of "IS" IS.
I have Joe's book, Racking Secrets. It's a really unique book with some cool tricks about 9 ball racks. Highly recommended.
