John Barton VS Lou Figueroa
- Thread starter nineballsafety8
- Start date
Really? Well you should clean up then or is that excuses I hear?
You are already a system user so it should be no problem for you right?
Do you own Stan's dvds?
Thing is John you knock people just because they don't show you proof.
Not everyone has access to showing you proof.
Can I do whats in them 2 video's??? Maybe Better then Stan....heck he didn't even finish the 2 rail shot in one of the video's from what I remember.
I own the first one.
I don't knock them I say prove what you say.
Stan did it. Those of us who support cte have gone on record on video to prove what we say. We have taken on every challenge presented and put the results on video.
So is it too much to ask that those who knock cte are then asked to show us that they are able to duplicate the results we already got?
All my life I have operated on the put up or shut up principle. If you can't do it then you shouldn't knock it.
You're disqualified from the challenge though. The reason is that you hold the knowledge in your hands to duplicate Stan's shots and you are a system shooter. Whether you will actually bring yourself to learn the knowledge presented is up to you. And whether your pride will allow you to admit you were wrong if you learn it is also up to you.
I would say though that if you can duplicate Stan's videos without using CTE and get the same results then you should. Go ahead and prove that some other method is equally as good and share that one with us.
Noone ever said this- an i am the leat person who would say that- i m pretty sure that i m more like *pain in the ass* for most of my students, because i m very rigid and stubborn if its about strong fundamentals.
But you need both- (strong fundamentals and a good percepterion/aiming).
As soon as you start to build the stance, the aiming comes into the ring. If you re not able to *build the stance around the cue* so that you can see the shot perfectly in a repeatable manner, you re lost.
I don t say cte based systems are the holy gral- everyone is individual. But i like the system, i like the idea. And i love to learn sth new.
P.S. Stan said this more than one time- he was already a pretty strong player before he switched to cte/pro 1. but it gave him a *final* kick. why? bc he believes in hit- and is 100% confident with it.
TheThaiger
Banned
So, they were great players BEFORE they got specific help on aiming, correct? They became great players WITHOUT an aiming system - agreed?
When someone goes from APPALLING to FANTASTIC, I'll listen, especially if they can do it without radically overhauling their stroke in the process. There may be opportunities in the near future for this to be demonstrated, who knows. It would be great to see someone who previously had dreadful mechanics become a pool god after a few months of solely concentrating on his aim.
You think the land that has produced more world class cueists than the rest of the world combined is unable to prioritise what is important and what is not?
Sorry, but that's specifically what you said. You said, aiming THEN execution, in that order. See post #260.
This is a fallacy that needs correcting.
As he didn't, not 'all' instruction covers aiming. But maybe it plain slipped his mind? There was a Q&A session at the end - not one of the students asked about how to aim - did they forget too?
Do please try to understand this, John. Aiming is given MINUSCULE priority in English pool/snooker circles. Ironic given the level of accuracy those games demand? If you don't believe me, start a thread on thesnookerforum and ask for opinions. I think I may have done when I was banned, and received about 3 replies IIRC. People just don't see it as important here. It is a free world and you are free to believe what you want, but please do not mislead people into thinking aiming is more important than stroke, because that is offensive to decent players everywhere.
TheThaiger
Banned
Are you dense? No one said aiming is MORE important than anything else. We said it is as important because without proper aiming there is inconsistent shot making.
And aiming and stroking are intertwined BUT you cannot say that everyone with a perfect stroke is also always aiming correctly. That is your claim and it's simply not true.
You think the land that has produced more world class cueists than the rest of the world combined is unable to prioritise what is important and what is not?
All I know is that you claim aiming is never talked in snooker about YET there are plenty of YouTube videos where aiming IS taught and discussed, at length. And even if you were right that it's not the first thing that comes to mind when discussing snooker instruction that does not mean it's not important nor cannot be improved upon. The status quo is not always the best way just because you believe it is. Google Fosbury flop.
How so? Aiming is the very first thing any player in any game at any level does. They sight the shot and THEN get down to shoot it. No one gets down without having oriented themselves using whatever method they prefer.
So for all disciplines AIMING then EXECUTION. Works the same for firing squads too. You know the famous Ready....Aim....Fire sequence?
Perhaps they did. Perhaps they, like many, take aiming for granted. Many people here do as well. They shouldn't. Again though you don't know the level of the students in Potts' class. Maybe they were already advanced to some degree and figured they had the aiming down and needed more work on form and strategy. Maybe they all have the aiming down. You don't know and are picking out one example to suit yourself and apply to all British cueists. But despite your claims one finds a lot of instruction on aiming taught by Brits, including world champions.
I never said it's MORE important than stroke. Please quote me if I have said that.
In fact I said CLEARLY that aiming properly WITHOUT a good stroke is bad. I have said dozens of times that when you are on the perfect shot line and you have a bad stroke then it's easy to steer the cue ball off the shot line.
But again, a perfect stroke with wrong aim equals a missed shot. So again aiming properly is the first task in any shot. If you program a robot stroking machine you have to AIM it in the right direction, either manually or add a lot of visual hardware so that it can aim itself. Aiming is first then execution.
You can argue all day about which one is TAUGHT first but the fact is that when the game is played it is ALWAYS - aiming then stroking. Aim----->Get Down------>Stroke---->Shoot in that order and no other for almost everyone.
Now there are some people who do jump down to the shooting position and then fiddle with their stance and bridge hand position - essentially trying to aim from the shooting position - generally those people are very very inconsistent and most instructors will correct them to sight from the standing position and then go to a solid shooting position.
No I didn't. Please don't twist what I say and respond to your own conjecture.
I said the sequence of events is aiming then execution.
That's it.
You can take a person and teach them perfect stroking on the kitchen table with a blindfold on and then when you take them to the table you will have to teach them how to aim so that they can aim first then shoot.
You can't get around that.
You can also teach a person to aim correctly and then if they have a bad stroke they will be inconsistent. However a person with perfect form who is inconsistent is probably not aiming right. THAT is the whole basis of all this discussion.
TheThaiger
Banned
To me, this is very specific, and cannot be 'twisted'. You are stating that knowledge of where to hit the OB is more important than knowledge of how to hit the CB. This is factually incorrect. You can argue until the cows come home but it is plain wrong. Let's take it to extremes: can you pot the OB if you cannot even hit the CB? No hitty CB goody, no hitty OB goody.
Furthermore, this thread has been moved to the aiming forum because it pertains to aiming, which is a subject given prominence by you. The very premise of your grudge match against Lou is based on, er, aiming. The last 7/8 pages have been about aiming.
These words cannot be twisted.
ps Why don't you test your 'kitchen table' theory? You have a kitchen and a pool table in your factory, right? Why don't you find two of your staff who have never played before, teach one how to hold a cue and have a smooth stroke, and the other how to visualise potting balls, then take them both to the pool table and see who pots the most balls.
Spend a month on each, one doing nothing but looking at CTE or whatever it is, and the other doing nothing but practicing cueing.
Tell us all who wins. You like challenges, demonstrations and 'evidence' - so give it a go.
I didn't say MORE important. I said that the ORDER of events is ALWAYS aim-shoot.
That's how it is. Your eyes acquire the target your body reacts. You hand a pure beginner a cue and say make this ball they first LOOK at the shot before getting down to shoot it. Some look for a while and others jump right into the shooting position but everyone LOOKS before they shoot. Ever heard of look before you leap...even timeless wisdom through platitudes agrees with me.
They can be and they were by you.
I don't need to because I already tested it. I had a guy who was interested in playing and not at all interested in practicing. He got to where he could pocket shots halfway decently. But he had zero clue how to kick.
One day spurred on by these discussions I took one of my workers who was an awful player and taught her how to kick balls using an aiming system for kicks. I made sure she could shoot the ball along a straight line. Then I took the guy and had a contest.
She killed him on kick shots. It was not even close and everyone had a great time laughing at him flailing while she measured the shot using the system and was able to hit the ball with incredible consistently after only ten minutes of instruction on how to use the system. Then I taught him the system and he could easily hit the same kick shots as well.
We have already done all the demos. Maybe it's time you show us something instead of tapping your keyboard...... start off by duplicating Stan's videos. You should be able to find a cueist with superior form easily enough - prove to us that this person can equal or exceed Stan's performance using whatever aiming method they use.
You can surely find a camera and a pool table, or if you want to really give it to us then have it done on a snooker table using the same shots Stan did.
First you prove your side. We proved ours.
Wrong as usual, but I'll be nice and spell it out for you.
Take any of your snooker heroes with their perfect strokes. Do you know what happens when they align themselves to the shot incorrectly. They miss. It's as simple as that, and it doesn't matter in the slightest how great their stroke was for that given shot.
Now, take someone like John Barton. We can all agree that he is far from being a great player. He can make shots on a fairly consistent basis, though, and do you know why?
I'll give you a hint, it's not because of his stroke.
TheThaiger
Banned
Certainly agree with that.
TheThaiger
Banned
Lol.
That's nothing remotely like my suggestion, which is somewhat more pertinent than teaching someone to kick.
What, specifically are you offering here? Didn't you offer Lou $100k if he could replicate whatever it was Stan did? Are you offering me the same? How would you pay? DO you have $100k languishing in your bank account?
Spell out the precise terms of your offer and I'll consider it.
Lol.
It's exactly the same as your suggestion. Knowledge of how to aim trumped stroking skill. She was the worse player yet she was able to make more hits than he was UNTIL he learned what she knew.
I am offering you nothing. You are a non-entity. If you can prove something then prove it. You can't so you won't.
All you are is a snooker snob who gets his jollies by trolling a pool forum. You probably don't even play any game and if you do it's probably not even at my level. If you were to even try to duplicate Stan's videos you'd first have to find someone much better than you I think to even have a tiny bit of a chance.
We can bet on it though. You have one week to duplicate Stan's videos on the same equipment or tougher equipment. The forum can be the judge. We can bet $1000 on it. I bet you cannot do it in one week. I will give you $100 for doing the video of the attempts. Of course we all know you won't take the bet so my $1000 and my $100 is safe.
I know what I know because I have experienced it first hand. You have not so all your blather is based on nothing more than your theory. I have played snooker in England and studied with snooker players. If I wanted to adopt the snooker stance I could easily do it. Any time I feel like improving my stroke I can do it. But I also know what CTE/ProOne can do for my game and you do not. There is nothing in pool or snooker that you have done that I have not also experienced but there is something I have done that you have not. So we are not on equal playing fields here. I have knowledge that you do not have.
Anyone who experiences this on the pool table cannot help but to be impressed. They my suppress that admiration in order to avoid having to admit that they were wrong but the facts are the facts in a live pocketing test. The results are what they are and if you want to say that you or your player can equal or beat those results then simply prove it.
.
Want me to prove but I'm disqualified. Don't sound like fun. Thanks for saving me the headache of trying.
You're welcome. You probably can't do it anyway because if you could you would have done it already long before this discussion.
But you have the tools to do it if you cared to use them.
I'm one of those guys that spends hours doing the same shot. I do it till I understand it. Your smart not to bet me. You would lose.
Please. You have failed to understand the whole point of Stan's lessons. The point is that with CTE/ProOne you don't HAVE to spend HOURS understanding shots. ProONe is the KEY to unlocking shots so that you don't need to spend hours picking the lock.
Instead you have a master key.
How many hours do you think you will need to "understand" each of the shots Stan does in his videos? The whole point, which was proven to me and my good friend Andi Satter (a very good player from Germany) at Stan's house two weeks ago, is that ProOne is TRULY the key to figuring out the right shot line for almost any possible shot.
There is NO WAY I could casually make six DIFFERENT two rail zig-zag shots from six different positions in a row without learning CTE. I didn't have to spend hours learning each of those shots, I learned a METHOD to figure them out and thus could make shots that I never ever tried before.
And yes, each shot has a little speed/spin component to it but the baseline aim is so close that the speed/spin element is easy to figure out within a few shots, not hours, but MINUTES.
Even the most difficult shots from weird positions that seem nearly impossible are mastered in less than ten minutes.
Yes, you MIGHT be able to duplicate Stan's videos but how long would it take you to do it? How many hundreds of hours would you need to get there? I am currently traveling and don't have the time or equipment to set up my camera to make videos or I would have already tried to duplicate Stan's videos. I am sure that I can do it or get very close in a few hours of trying. Simply because I have the keys to unlock the aiming on each shot and the only adjusting is minor amounts of speed and spin.
Now, if you knew what I know, what Stan teaches, you would probably be able to duplicate the videos faster than me. I think you are a better player than me. I admire your skill and have said so a dozen times haven't I?
But you are dead wrong in your opposition to Stan. I don't know why but if you were to open your mind to what he is teaching then I am certain you would be even better than you currently are.
TheThaiger
Banned
Perhaps I didn't make my suggestion clear enough. I think it would be an interesting experiment to take two non players and take a month to teach one nothing but aiming technique, and the other nothing but how to handle a cue, then compare how they get on when they get to the table.
You can be as scientifically rigorous as you please. It would make a great YouTube project for you, and prove which theory is correct conclusively.
Do you not feel it would be interesting and prove the debate one way or the other? At the end of the month one would have expert knowledge of aiming and the other would have the semblance of a decent stroke. By your reckoning, the aiming guinea pig is a lock.
I believe Stan did his on a Diamond. There is only one diamond in the UK as far as I know and that is Daz's in Barnsley. So that's out. Snooker is impossible, so how about English pool? Tiny pockets there, much more difficult than a Diamond.
IIRC you threw out this as a challenge to anyone, with you rewarding them with $1000 for doing it. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought this wasn't a bet. But now you're giving me just a week to do it, and I've got to bet? I've never used a system in my life, had never heard of them until joining this board, don't even know the diamond system. And you're proposing just a week to do this?
It'll take me longer than a week to get round to buying some curtains.
So, I'm a non-entity, a super super super nobody, I don't play, I'm not at your level but you're changing the terms of the original deal, just for little old me?
Awww. --Flattered--.