Ooooo, this one just cries out for the, "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" response. But I won't do that.
Oh, wait...
J/K,
-Sean
John Barton VS Lou Figueroa
- Thread starter nineballsafety8
- Start date
Ooooo, this one just cries out for the, "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" response. But I won't do that.
Oh, wait...
J/K,
-Sean
That pretty much sums up 15 years of fighting over aiming.
One side put it as you did. The other side puts it:
1. Stroke (execution)
2. Everything else (aiming included).
Okay folks....that's it....the war is over. There is nothing more to talk about.:grin:
Last edited:
Something like that. I guess an extreme way of putting is is that you can teach a blind person to stroke perfectly but you can't teach them to aim.
Ooooo, this one just cries out for the, "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" response. But I won't do that.
Oh, wait...
J/K,
-Sean
I figured that this would be the response. In this case however I firmly believe that the CTE hammer handles just about every type of nail.
Here is an interesting story from the tournament this past weekend. There is a very good 17 year old playing. Everyone in the event is speaking about him. Kid's a natural, a beast etc...
Yesterday his father comes over to me and says he has seen my videos and would I give him some instruction/clarification on CTE. I say sure and demonstrate what I know. The father says that he developed an aiming method that his son uses but that he wanted to understand CTE and possibly switch to that.
In other words this man was willing to keep an open mind and explore tools that might be better. Now there is of course the danger of becoming a tool-junkie who has a lot of hammers and no idea how to really use any of them properly.
That's for each person to decide and where the "do what works for you" cliche' comes in. Also the different strokes for different folks mentality comes out of keeping an OPEN mind, a mind that is inquisitive and willing to at least concede that there are many ways to get to the same goal.
This is what Hal Houle woke me up to. I was so convinced that aiming was not a thing to be concerned about once you could run a rack that I thought whatever he had to teach was useless. I was wrong. Really wrong.
Turns out aiming is incredibly important and more important the better you get. Turns out that aiming wrong, just a little bit has bad consequences. It's part of why people get out of line when playing. They aim wrong, have to compensate to make the ball and then play poor shape because of being aimed wrong. They effectively cut off many position routes or make those routes more difficult to get to by aiming wrong.
But aiming right opens up the plethora of possibilities. Now the mind is free to focus on execution and what is and is not possible.
Turns out there are now and always have been many ways to aim OTHER THAN Ghost Ball. This is not new information. But there has not been a method that is as objective and precise as CTE/ProOne in my opinion. For someone who has a (near) perfect stroke using CTE/ProOne is probably going to jump their game regardless of what level they currently play at. But there are many other ways to aim which also work well and the more objective they are the better they work.
For a guy like me with a less than perfect stroke, having a great way to aim has pulled my ass out of the fire many times. Just knowing that I am aimed right has allowed me to do the best I can with my stroke and this allows me to make a lot of shots I might otherwise miss because of the uncertainty factor.
So sure, with this hammer everything IS a nail and I nail more shots than ever before, especially banks now. Stan's banking videos on YouTube is what finally sealed the deal all the way for me. I am sorry but until someone proves otherwise I don't see any method being as precise as CTE/ProOne in providing the aiming key for shots and banks that CTE/ProOne gives to me.
There might be some equally good method out there but so far no one can prove it. And I will bet SUPER HIGH that IF someone does manage to duplicate Stan's videos then it will be a system user, either CTE/ProOne or some other system. It WILL not be a feel player or a ghost ball user.
Now Sean I know you have said that you "see" a fully formed ghost ball that you can shoot straight into. Ok, how does this work on banks? One, two, three and four rail banks? How do you use that phantom ball for those shots? You see to me it's not a matter of your ability to see the ghost ball better than me that is special. It's the fact that I don't need to see the GB as well as you in order to be able to perform more shots than you. In other words you can see the GB better but you still have to "place" it visually and I don't need to.
I have a key that unlocks almost every shot on the table and gives me at least a 50% shot to make them. On some shots that key gives me about a 90-100% shot and on some shots that are tricky it's at least 50%. I will be happy to go head to head with any GB user who is my speed playing HORSE on the pool table because I know I now have a much bigger range of makeable shots than the feel/GB user.
John, first, let me thank you for sharing that.
You don't have to sell me on aiming systems. I have my own, you'll remember, which -- though your vinyl-playing needle seems to be "stuck" on ghost ball and repeats it with a click over and over -- doesn't rely upon seeing a fully-formed ghost ball. Rather, my method is melded from back-of-ball and fractional aiming. My method is based on memorization of easily-recognized fractional ball overlaps, or "eclipsing" as I like to call it:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=3630574#post3630574
(You might remember that thread, and the rope I let out for Tim/TheThaiger to hang himself the first time.
)It requires work, sure. Lots of practice to commit to memory how each fractional "click" (each incremental increase in cueball-over-object ball overlap) sends the object ball to the next angle in the lookup table. Once that lookup table is memorized, though, I can see these relationships on the table instantly, and, like CTE/Pro-1 visuals, I zoom in right on them as I bend down into my shooting stance. The nice thing about this, is it's NOT CONNECTED TO A POCKET. If I "want" to connect the visual to a pocket (as is usually done when wanting to pocket an object ball), I put the pocket in the visual picture, of course. But, if I want a bank, I just visualize the bank angle (to include any CIT or spin I want to apply), and <click!> the fractional overlap / "eclipse" visual appears for me instantly.
Another nice thing is that this system is not connected to the dimensions of the table. It's purely ball-to-ball cut angles, tied to a "reference angle lookup table" that is memorized. I don't care what "shape" the table is; I just see the angle and the amount of "eclipsing" I need to do with the cue ball over the object ball to send the object ball down that angle.
I liken this system to multiplication tables that you had to memorize in elementary school. It was a lot of work (and it sucked, as most kids will attest to), but once done and committed to memory, you can "see" and spiel these results off at a moment's notice. Except in my case, the table goes backwards -- I see the angle to the pocket (as I'm standing upright), and then I see the amount of fractional eclipse I need to send the object ball down that path. Once I see that amount of fractional eclipse, I don't need the pocket in my field of view anymore.
Would I be able to reproduce Stan's results of being able to pocket balls while the pocket itself is concealed behind a curtain? Probably not -- I *do* need to see where the pocket is while I'm standing upright. But once I have that fire control solution locked in (i.e. the amount of fractional eclipse I need between cue ball and object ball), and I've dropped into my stance, sure, drop the curtain, and I can shoot the shot. This is roughly analogous to turning my head and looking away, which I do in lone practice sometimes to make sure my stroke is true.
Anyway, I'm not into doing exact replications / match-ups of someone else's aiming props (e.g. curtains). Because in real life, those things don't exist. What I am about -- as you know from my preference for 14.1 -- is pocketing consistency. Whatever it takes to give you that, I'm all for.
-Sean
Banks
Banned
Then you wouldn't be the same speed then, would you?
No we could be. For example I might be able to make more shots but not be as consistent running out. This we could be the same speed when considering results but still have different strengths.
John, first, let me thank you for sharing that.
You don't have to sell me on aiming systems. I have my own, you'll remember, which -- though your vinyl-playing needle seems to be "stuck" on ghost ball and repeats it with a click over and over -- doesn't rely upon seeing a fully-formed ghost ball. Rather, my method is melded from back-of-ball and fractional aiming. My method is based on memorization of easily-recognized fractional ball overlaps, or "eclipsing" as I like to call it:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=3630574#post3630574
(You might remember that thread, and the rope I let out for Tim/TheThaiger to hang himself the first time.
It requires work, sure. Lots of practice to commit to memory how each fractional "click" (each incremental increase in cueball-over-object ball overlap) sends the object ball to the next angle in the lookup table. Once that lookup table is memorized, though, I can see these relationships on the table instantly, and, like CTE/Pro-1 visuals, I zoom in right on them as I bend down into my shooting stance. The nice thing about this, is it's NOT CONNECTED TO A POCKET. If I "want" to connect the visual to a pocket (as is usually done when wanting to pocket an object ball), I put the pocket in the visual picture, of course. But, if I want a bank, I just visualize the bank angle (to include any CIT or spin I want to apply), and <click!> the fractional overlap / "eclipse" visual appears for me instantly.
Another nice thing is that this system is not connected to the dimensions of the table. It's purely ball-to-ball cut angles, tied to a "reference angle lookup table" that is memorized. I don't care what "shape" the table is; I just see the angle and the amount of "eclipsing" I need to do with the cue ball over the object ball to send the object ball down that angle.
I liken this system to multiplication tables that you had to memorize in elementary school. It was a lot of work (and it sucked, as most kids will attest to), but once done and committed to memory, you can "see" and spiel these results off at a moment's notice. Except in my case, the table goes backwards -- I see the angle to the pocket (as I'm standing upright), and then I see the amount of fractional eclipse I need to send the object ball down that path. Once I see that amount of fractional eclipse, I don't need the pocket in my field of view anymore.
Would I be able to reproduce Stan's results of being able to pocket balls while the pocket itself is concealed behind a curtain? Probably not -- I *do* need to see where the pocket is while I'm standing upright. But once I have that fire control solution locked in (i.e. the amount of fractional eclipse I need between cue ball and object ball), and I've dropped into my stance, sure, drop the curtain, and I can shoot the shot. This is roughly analogous to turning my head and looking away, which I do in lone practice sometimes to make sure my stroke is true.
Anyway, I'm not into doing exact replications / match-ups of someone else's aiming props (e.g. curtains). Because in real life, those things don't exist. What I am about -- as you know from my preference for 14.1 -- is pocketing consistency. Whatever it takes to give you that, I'm all for.
-Sean
Well, you don't have to do curtain shots. There are videos of a single setup with the object ball going into six pockets. No tricks.
I mean if we are honest this is the most objective measure possible. Two people try the same shots and have the exact same starting point and the exact same goal.
We can say that running a hundred is a benchmark but we both know that running 100 could be easy or hard depending on how the balls spread. So your 100 might be way easier than my 50 or vice versa. I would agree that the ability to run 100 is a benchmark of skill.
But things like Stan's demonstrations, Colin's shot making test, etc are repeatable tasks which are easily measurable.
So to me unless someone is able to equal the results they can't really say that they are as good. That's the bottom line for me. Knowing what Stan knows I can now get much closer to duplicating his results. If someone were to do it using another method then I would have zero problem saying that method is as good.
Yes John, many of us have seen your videos. :barf:This could be where much of your negative flak is coming from !...
Just a hint, leave the videos to Stan, (or ANYONE with a 'stroke')... You are only muddying the water, by stumbling around, and embarrassing yourself like a rank beginner !..Learn to play the game, otherwise you are destroying all the concepts Stan has worked so hard to put forth !....He must be a very tolerant man, to allow YOU to promote his theories !..If I were him, I would be threatening legal action if you even mentioned CTE Pro1, in your amatuerish [sic] presentations !..
SJD...Worlds Greatest Pool Critic
Last edited:
Yes John, many of us have seen your videos. :barf:This could be where much of your negative flak is coming from !...
Just a hint, leave the videos to Stan, (or ANYONE with a 'stroke')... You are only muddying the water, by stumbling around, and embarrassing yourself like a rank beginner !..Learn to play the game, otherwise you are destroying all the concepts Stan has worked so hard to put forth !....He must be a very tolerant man, to allow YOU to promote his theories !..If I were him, I would be threatening legal action if you even mentioned CTE Pro1, in your amatuerish [sic] presentations !..
SJD...Worlds Greatest Pool Critic
That's why I am clear to say to everyone that they should get professional instruction.
However, many have thanked me for turning them on to CTE. Every event I go to people seek me out for help with CTE.
In contrast the only video of Lou shows him dogging it.
Frankly I don't care what your problem is. You can't stop the tide.
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
TheThaiger
Banned
I'd be amazed if there are still 20 after the first rack.
TheThaiger
Banned
One side flat-out cannot play. Why do people that just cannot play get so much airtime? I don't get it.
Are there F1 messageboards full of people advising drivers to plough straight into the nearest wall, or football sites with hoards of posters advising players to hoof it into row Z?
People that don't know any better need protecting from this. This is systemic problem.
TheThaiger
Banned
Chicken? :smile:
Have you seen this series of instructional videos from Gareth Potts, would I'd rate as pretty much the best player on the planet.
He's no instructor, and it's not always pretty to watch, but perhaps you can tell me how much time he spends talking about aiming? And perhaps you can tell me how many of his students ask about aiming? I can save you a lot of time if you don't want to watch - it's absolutely none, and a complete non-issue to everyone who has learnt how to play.
Can you imagine that? An 8 part instruction by one of the world's greatest players and aiming is not mentioned - get this - AT ALL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnAH4GH2BU0
Guess who I'M going to listen to?
Well maybe he should have done a 9 part instruction. Pretty stupid not to tell players how to aim. Ever watch new players hitting cut shot straight into the rail. That's because the don't know how to aim. Wow what a beautiful fluent stroke. Shame he doesn't know how to AIM.
Sorry John, it boggles the mind, how wrong you can be !...Even at my advanced age, and not having hit a ball for several years, (easily verifiable)...I could walk up to a table, any table,..and set up ANY bank... and bet ANY amount, ($$$$ wise) that I will make the shot more often then you will, with your 'infalable' system.
When are you going to stop your idiotic, irrational claims, and accept reality ? (my guess is never)
Last edited:
Yeah add no aiming system with high deflection shafts. New players without the natural talent everyone seems to have, should have no problems mastering the art of pool. Call it a system or just your theory of how to aim. Doesn't matter. Seems many think everyone is equal when they start playing pool and if they can shoot like the best they need to practice 8 hours a day and figure it out themselves. Even for the majority of players who shoot at a descent level. There is sooooo much we don't know about pool. TOI gets made fun of then there are many supporters. Even pro's use it. Some weren't smart enough to figure out that of course you don't use it on every shot. Aiming systems get made fun of. Turns out some pro's use one variation or another. Low deflection shafts get made fun of. Turns out lots of pro's use them. Seems many want to emulate SVB and if he doesn't do this or use that. It must be stupid because he is one of the best players in the world. Well what about the other top players right behind him?
You would lose that bet.
If we just simply set up a line of shots that were all 2 balls distance apart and did zig zag two rail banks down the line I would beat you. If we did two rails out of the corners I would beat you. If we did three railers from anywhere I would beat you. If we did four railers I would beat you.
On any table. As a matter of fact I might go play the golf game and use CTE on that. I think it's the nuts not to have to guess at the shot line any more for those banks.
Of course you have to learn how to handle the cue at first - but for every shot taken no matter who is shooting, no matter their level the first thing done is AIMING.
It's like driving a car, first you learn all the controls then you learn how to aim and from then on it's AIMING the car first, i.e. sighting where you want the car to go THEN putting the car there.
One side can't play????
So you're saying Stan can't play? Gerry can't play? Duke can't play? Landon can't play? Stevie can't play? Phil can't play?
Can you even play? You're some super anon NOBODY - and by that I mean SUPER SUPER SUPER nobody who likely can't even hold a cue. If your criteria for discussing how to play pool among amateurs is playing ability you have shown us exactly ZERO.
At this point the ONLY ones who have stepped up to show any ability at all have been the proponents of CTE/ProOne. No single opponent has stepped up to duplicate Stan's videos and show that they to can make the same shots with the same consistency.
NONE OF YOU. Not one, not ever. Not you, not Lou, not Duckie, not Satori, not Pat Johnson, NONE of you. I mean this is really simple.
The table doesn't lie. Put the balls in the same positions and make a video doing the same shots. If this were a trick shot forum then the challenge would be to duplicate the trick shot and if I could do it and you couldn't then it would be clear that I am better than you. Stan sets up normal shots that come up all the time in game situations.
So show us what you can do. Make all the shots and look straight into the camera and say "see, no system needed, all natural feel baby, take that Barton".
Oh but it's too hard for you to set up a camera, oh you don't have the time, oh you don't want your picture on the internet, oh you have to clean your toenails today......
That's what I thought.
Sounds like a challenge.