John Schmidt's and Corey Deuel's comments on aiming systems

[LAMas]

It's like a riddle.

While standing, I can see the CTE line with my dominant right eye. In order to see the secondary aim line ,that will require that I move my position to a new location to do so. If I use my dominant eye to see this new line, my dominant eye cannot be aligned with the CTE line - physically not possible.

I can leave my right eye focused on the CTE line and bring my left eye into the picture to see the left edge of the CB and move my position until that edge is now aimed at the fractions on the OB (for cuts to the left) but my right eye will not be able to remain on the CTE line.

If I try this for cuts to the right I think that I should use my left eye on the CTE line and bring my right eye into the picture to see the right edge of the CB in order to aim it at the fractions on the OB.

I accept the/your logic that only one eye can also work, but the secondary aim line will pull the one eye away from the original CTE line. Using one eye will work for both cuts to the left and cuts to the right, but again my eye will be drawn away from the CTE line.

So can I conclude that as Hal said, that the CTE line is to get the body into a good starting position to pivot right or left? From the CTE line and position, I can then move away from that line to focus on the secondary aim line and drop down on the shot with the correct stance and effect the 1/2 tip offset to the side of the center of the CB and then pivot back to the center of the CB?

This is like what I call edge of the CB aiming at fractions, but with the 1/2 tip offset and pivot.

If this is acceptable, and applying the moving of the bridge location back from the CB to compensate for the greater separations between the CB and OB, then this can be diagramed and demonstrate that this form of CTE aiming can be geometrically correct.

If not...not.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Roadie]

Of course, the flip side to that is that any child of a professional instructor in any field, will very likely be brought up and trained in the manner of the fathers expertise. If Landon weren't so young, perhaps your point might very well have merit, but it stands to most reasonable folks that a young child would indeed be very, very likely to be working the way dad teaches.

He hasn't much time to develop a style of his own, certainly not to be playing at this level.

Just my .02, worth exactly what you paid for it.

Who ever really develops a style of their own anyway? One thing that has been consistent throughout the TAR podcasts has been that the professionals have often said that they do something just because they saw other successful pros doing it and emulated it.

Landon has been playing for 13 years. That's more than enough time for his style to emerge. I think it would be very difficult to argue with his form and his results so far.

Tiger Woods didn't turn out so bad after being coached by his father, Venus and Serena Williams were caoched by their father. In Russia there is a tennis school where all the students are taught to emulate professionals and this school has produced many champions.

There is a tennis coach who promises to improve your swing in one hour and he does it not by hitting balls but by having you slavishly copy the swing of a professional player. In all walks of life we are told to imitate success. Why then in pool are we told that this is not a good thing?

Also why would Stan Shuffett endanger Landon Shuffett's career by making him use a system that is sketchy? All great athletes are products of their coaches. The coach takes the desire and willingness to work and shapes it as best they can taking the athlete as far as they can. It's often been coaches who have developed new techniques and methods to teach and perform. It's often the coach who recognizes patterns among athletes and figures out how to address them.

Pool could use a lot more coaching along the lines of Stan Shuffet's dedication to his son's career and to the art of teaching pool in general. For another famous example read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lindrum

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The above bold was the road block Patrick Johnson could not get past in his attempt to learn cte/pro1

CTE isn't nearly as complicated as you'd like it to seem - it can be learned in a minute or two if it's described correctly without all the mystical jargon. The "roadblock" for others is the misunderstanding of it by its users and the misinformation they spread as a result.

If these guys would learn a bit of respect, i would really try and help all you guys on here

Yeah, I can't count the number of times somebody has said, "if only champ2107 would help us".

pj
chgo

 

[duckie]

I say it has been 13 years of HAMB and focused training more that CTE that has
helped Landon achieve such a high level of skill. No one runs 130 in 14.1 without alot of table time.

 

[champ2107]

CTE isn't nearly as complicated as you'd like it to seem - it can be learned in a minute or two if it's described correctly without all the mystical jargon. The "roadblock" for others is the misunderstanding of it by its users and the misinformation they spread as a result.


Yeah, I can't count the number of times somebody has said, "if only champ2107 would help us".

pj
chgo

lol ... i have said going back well over a year many many times you guys are over thinking the system lol Your just finally starting to understand it all. Pj you have known for a long time now i have a legit answer to every and any question you have posted about cte

I am sure stan could really dumb down his information on here and expose it to everyone if he wanted, but why should he give out free lessons on here? He has invested time/money and he is an instructor. This is what he does for a living, he teaches pool and you have to pay for his knowledge. I know stan has said many times if you bought the dvd just contact him and he will gladly help anyone out.

I wont affect anyone personally on here negativity for the sake of being an internet hero, i wouldn't do that to you either! So I limit what i will say or make you work hard to figure it out.

Pj think of me anyway you like, you want/need what i have and i neither want/need anything you have

 

[champ2107]

It's like a riddle.

While standing, I can see the CTE line with my dominant right eye. In order to see the secondary aim line ,that will require that I move my position to a new location to do so. If I use my dominant eye to see this new line, my dominant eye cannot be aligned with the CTE line - physically not possible.

I can leave my right eye focused on the CTE line and bring my left eye into the picture to see the left edge of the CB and move my position until that edge is now aimed at the fractions on the OB (for cuts to the left) but my right eye will not be able to remain on the CTE line.

If I try this for cuts to the right I think that I should use my left eye on the CTE line and bring my right eye into the picture to see the right edge of the CB in order to aim it at the fractions on the OB.

I accept the/your logic that only one eye can also work, but the secondary aim line will pull the one eye away from the original CTE line. Using one eye will work for both cuts to the left and cuts to the right, but again my eye will be drawn away from the CTE line.

So can I conclude that as Hal said, that the CTE line is to get the body into a good starting position to pivot right or left? From the CTE line and position, I can then move away from that line to focus on the secondary aim line and drop down on the shot with the correct stance and effect the 1/2 tip offset to the side of the center of the CB and then pivot back to the center of the CB? This is pretty much correct but it can be worded a bit better.

This is like what I call edge of the CB aiming at fractions, but with the 1/2 tip offset and pivot.

If this is acceptable, and applying the moving of the bridge location back from the CB to compensate for the greater separations between the CB and OB, then this can be diagramed and demonstrate that this form of CTE aiming can be geometrically correct.

This system brings you to the same contact point that any other method of aiming would bridge length is not really an issue, eye positioning will compensate for the distances.

If not...not.

Thanks for your help.

lamas forget what Hal said, no disrespect meant. Now try this, use the ctel and the pivots and use feel instead of the aim points until you start understanding cte and then start working in the aim points. This will work and go buy the dvd!! this is all the info i will give you lamas and i don't want to give away some of Stans knowledge on a internet forum ok, im sure you understand this and will do the same

 

[AtLarge]

LAMas -- perhaps you'd benefit from a review of posts 40 through 63 in this thread: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=271935&highlight=head+position

 

[champ2107]

i will now take a step back from this thread and only jump in when i see someone trying to purposely discredit the system or its users

 

[LAMas]

LAMas -- perhaps you'd benefit from a review of posts 40 through 63 in this thread: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=271935&highlight=head+position

Thanks for the reminder.

04-19-2012, 06:23 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lamas, if you are trying to see ob A and cte...DO NOT GET DIRECTLY BEHIND THE CTE LINE AS IF YOU ARE LOOKING PRECISELY AT a 30 degre shot...if you do this you will not be able to accurately see ob A.
See cbe to ob A very clearly then you should be able to see the proper offset for the cte line. Try this with a 2 diamond cb ob separation.
Stan

This confirms that the stance should accomodate the sighting of the CB edge to the appropriate fraction and 1/2 tip offset - I thought so but I don't think that I was fishing with champ 2107...or was I?

LAMas waiting for a rebuttle.:smile:

 

[champ2107]

from what you have said on here, is that you have eye issues along with some others i have noticed lol. I have tried to understand you and have tried too figure out a way around your issues you supposedly say you have :grin: your on your own for now

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Pj you have known for a long time now i have a legit answer to every and any question you have posted about cte

What I've known for a long time is that you're mostly incoherent and completely deluded about yourself.

you want/need what i have

I want/need cognitive disfunction?

pj <- who knew?
chgo

 

[LAMas]

Here is a diagram of a perception of CTE/Pro1.
- diagrammed at 1 foot incremental separations of the CB to the OB.

- Small red circle in the OB is the perspective size with the "C" fraction.

- The thin cut is to the left and the stance accomodates the aiming of the left eye (in my case)at the left edge of the CB aimed at "C", shift and pivot to the center of the CB.

- The cut angle is 70 degrees at 1 foot separation of the CB to the OB and would require moving the bridge up a bit to match the 73 degree cut angle for the other separations.

 

[champ2107]

What I've known for a long time is that you're mostly incoherent and completely deluded about yourself.


I want/need cognitive disfunction?

pj <- who knew?
chgo

knowledge your meaningless tidbits you like to post about on here are good for passing the time when everyone has read everything of value on this site

 

[AtLarge]

Here is a diagram of a perception of CTE/Pro1. ...

Your diagrams show a CTE visual for the right eye. With Stan's CTE (as changed within the past few months), thin cuts to the left using an OB C aim point and thin cuts to the right using an OB A aim point do not use a CTE visual.

 

[LAMas]

Your diagrams show a CTE visual for the right eye. With Stan's CTE (as changed within the past few months), thin cuts to the left using an OB C aim point and thin cuts to the right using an OB A aim point do not use a CTE visual.

I drew this several months ago when I thought that the CTE line was relevant. Just before I posted it I thought that I should delete the right eye cartoon, since only one eye is necessary to sight the cCB to OB C or A etc.

I don't think that there is a rush to update the diagram for the crickets...chirp...chirp.

Thank again for peer reviewing my cartoon.:smile:

 

[SJDinPHX]

SJDinPHX,
Landon learned CTE when he was 12 years old and CTE/PRO ONE has been one of the major reasons for consistency in his game.
What I can tell is that the work is worth it. And I hope that by the time I reach your age I will have hit another million balls. I love this game and my desire is to share what I know to be an extremely superior way of aiming with those that are sincerely interested.

Stan Shuffett

Mr. Shuffett

I definately owe you a response. I thank you for taking the time to address some of my questions..Hope this doesn't get lost in the 400 plus posts these 'Aiming System' threads seem to generate...I repeat, I am not in any way, out to dis-credit your thoughts on CTE, or your teachings. I will never insult your theories, or beliefs, even though I may not agree with them..I do admire your perserverity, and your carefully thought out, and polite responses to your detractors.

All that being said, I guess we shall just have to agree, to disagree..Because I am firmly in the HAMB camp..At the risk of sounding braggadocious, I am so old, (78)..I can no longer play competetivly.. I came up during the 50's 60's 70's...But, I was recently inducted into the One Pocket Hall of Fame, along with Buddy Hall, and Nick Varner. I say that mainly for the benefit of your worthy supporter's, who may think it is a sacrilige, for some 'banger shorstop' to doubt your findings.

I am certainly not saying, that your 'system', may not elevate a novice or beginner, from an APA 2, to an APA 7..if they can absorb it..But I do question whether you, or Landon, would have progressed to your present level. without HAMB.

I really feel, that John Scmidt made an excellent analogy, when he compared a shortstop, (Derek Jeter maybe ?).. fielding a hot grounder, and throwing a perfect strike to 1st base for the out. (instead of throwing it into the stands, like a rookie may have done)... There is NO way to teach that..along with thousands of other analogies in golf, tennis, or any other sport, where hand eye coordination, is at a premium...It is either God given talent, or HAMB, or a combination of both..

Best of luck to you and Landon. in your future endeavors,

Dick Mc Morran

 

[cookie man]

Mr. Shuffett

I definately owe you a response. I thank you for taking the time to address some of my questions..Hope this doesn't get lost in the 400 plus posts these 'Aiming System' threads seem to generate...I repeat, I am not in any way, out to dis-credit your thoughts on CTE, or your teachings. I will never insult your theories, or beliefs, even though I may not agree with them..I do admire your perserverity, and your carefully thought out, and polite responses to your detractors.

All that being said, I guess we shall just have to agree, to disagree..Because I am firmly in the HAMB camp..At the risk of sounding braggadocious, I am so old, (78)..I can no longer play competetivly.. I came up during the 50's 60's 70's...But, I was recently inducted into the One Pocket Hall of Fame, along with Buddy Hall, and Nick Varner. I say that mainly for the benefit of your worthy supporter's, who may think it is a sacrilige, for some 'banger shorstop' to doubt your findings.

I am certainly not saying, that your 'system', may not elevate a novice or beginner, from an APA 2, to an APA 7..if they can absorb it..But I do question whether you, or Landon, would have progressed to your present level. without HAMB.

I really feel, that John Scmidt made an excellent analogy, when he compared a shortstop, (Derek Jeter maybe ?).. fielding a hot grounder, and throwing a perfect strike to 1st base for the out. (instead of throwing it into the stands, like a rookie may have done)... There is NO way to teach that..along with thousands of other analogies in golf, tennis, or any other sport, where hand eye coordination, is at a premium...It is either God given talent, or HAMB, or a combination of both..

Best of luck to you and Landon. in your future endeavors,

Dick Mc Morran

Wow, this is easy to respond too. I don't think anyone thinks they can get to Stan and Landon's level without HAMB. I do think they make a higher percentage of those million balls because of PRO-ONE.
Your shortstop analogy proves another point. A very common rule of thumb in baseball is EYE ON THE BALL. Let the eyes lead and the body follows. As a shortstop you watch the ball, it takes you to your optimum position to field the ball, set your feet and throw to first with a repeatable motion. Same as CTE in pool. It gets your eyes in the proper place, and your body follows. As C J Wiley has said recently and Efren Reyes has always said, you need to be aiming with edges and the center of the balls. Very easy to see and repeat your aiming when you do this.
You mention golf tennis and baseball and say there is no way to teach them given there dependance on hand eye coordination, that sure puts alot of coaches and instructors out of work.
I do admire your long resume of pool related accomplishments, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to HAMB.

 

[CJ Wiley]

At a recent TAR podcast, two US Open champions expressed some interesting viewpoints about aiming. The podcast link can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8KsVm9ePlk&feature=related and the comments on aiming systems goes from 24:15 - 29:15 .

BTW, John Schmidt just won the Predator World 14.1 tournament so perhaps that lends some additional credibility to his comments about aiming systems.

--------------------------------------

Shown below is a partial transcript provided by Lou Figueroa of what John and Corey said, leaving out the occasional comments on LD shafts and Corey’s describing how he teaches:

John Schmidt: Well, don’t get me started on aiming systems. I’ll tell you if...

Maybe they work... but nobody’s telling me the one’s that work. Because if they work, first of all you’re not factoring in swerve and deflection. OK, now what if a guy comes up with a delivery system, that’s different. But, aiming’s adorable -- but you still have to deliver -- so you could aim perfect. If those aiming systems worked, well there would just be like four million people who played like Corey. But it’s year after year and it’s still Corey.

So these aiming systems are overrated, they’re a way to sell videos and books and make people pontificate about their own greatness and believe me if it worked, then they’d be out there winning tournaments, but they’re not.

What Stevie Moore doesn’t get is -- Stevie Moore -- you could put a bag over his head and he’d run out. He’s a great player. So he’s playing great in spite of his aiming system, not because of it. I mean, think about it: he’s already a great player. He could aim at the wall and he’s still going to make the ball. And it’s a way to give him comfort and confidence. He’s kind of like tricked himself into thinking ‘this aiming system works.’

(John sets up to demonstrate a shot.) I just can’t see how I’m going to use english here and I’m going to aim bottom right english. So I’m aiming out here -- it’s going to squirt. Well, what aiming system is going to work for that?! It’s only going to work with center ball. And you know, all these guys with their aiming systems can get like weight from me. And I don’t use an aiming system.

Corey Duel: Yeah the one that he’s talking about I haven’t been able to comprehend it yet. It’s something about pivoting the back foot and... I don’t know.

John Schmidt: My piece of advice, if anybody cares to the viewers at home: forget all the aiming systems. Just like when you throw a baseball to first, you just do it. Right? There’s no aiming, you do it, you feel it. It’s same with pool. You get a mental picture and you do it. Aiming systems are the most ridiculous, overrated thing...The pros scoff at that stuff, they’re like, ‘aiming systems, really?!’...

If they would quit spending so much time on line and learning about aiming systems and go hit more balls they’d become better players. There’s no short cut to it. Sitting on AZ Billiards looking for aiming systems isn’t going to get it. It’s like the golf swing guys. They got a thousand videos. But the guy that goes to the driving range till his hands bleed, that’s the good golfer. You can’t watch it online and go, ‘oh, there’s got to be a system for hitting a four iron two hundred yards on the green.’ It’s the same with pool. We’ve hit a million pool balls -- that’s our system. I mean, you’re not going to get good at anything using a system.

I could be wrong, I don’t know if I’m right. I just think aiming systems are crazy. Deflection and swerve is what makes this game so tough. If there was no such thing as that, you know you just hit whatever english, but this thing goes sideways off of your stick. That’s why the game’s so impossible.
​

It sounds like John has some personal issues with aiming systems... and while I agree with him that it takes MUCH MORE than an aiming system to be a great player I DO NOT think he was talking in a logical mode in this transcript....I mean, really, "you could put a bag over Stevie's head and he will still run out"..???..I'm more than skeptical of that and...."he could aim at the wall and still make the ball"......and "if aiming systems worked there would be like 4 Million people that would play like Corey".....I know this was all said in some kind of hyped up emphatic mode, but in that case I wonder why anything else should be taken seriously? Even the example of throwing a baseball to first is "off base"....throwing a ball (especially on the run) to a unstable target (someone else's glove) is apples to oranges compared to lining up a pool shot!!!

The fact of the matter is EVERYONE has a system for seeing the connection between the cue ball and the object ball to create the desired angle....and this is especially true with spin or deflection involved, the issue is they're simply not aware of what it is.....this sounds strange, but I was one of those players in my teens and early 20's....it wasn't until I was the ESPN World Champion that I diligently set out to discover EXACTLY what I did when I entered what most people call DEAD STROKE ... and in the process my game had some ups and downs because when you bring conscious attention to a subconscious activity something has to give.....and it's usually in the form of suddenly over thinking......it's like walking up or down stairs, you can do it very quickly and very naturally, but let someone ask you to explain "do you breathe in or out on the even or odd stairs?"..."do you roll your ankle or just pick your foot straight up"....and see what happens.....it's like when I tell you "don't think about your breathing now"...or "DO NOT think about the color BLUE or your RiGhT shoulder as you read this" ... I've spent a lot of time around Tiger Wood's recent swing coach (HANK HANEY) here in Dallas and I'll assure you Tiger has a system for golf....every aspect of it and "does he tune this out when playing?"....the answer is YES.....but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a system for aligning to the shot, aiming his club face, positioning his shoulders, arms, legs etc. through the positioning of his feet.....I assure you he does ALL THESE THINGS in a certain, repeatable fashion....in other words he has a system!

Stan showed me parts of his system in Tunica and I agree that it works...I also believe that it's a chore to convince people of this and it's better not to try....in addition, I do agree with John S. about hitting a lot of balls and practicing, but ONLY if your practice is based around a consistent, repeatable pre-shot routine that takes the WHOLE body, vision and mind into consideration.....I just rebuilt my game it's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle at times....I would find one piece that was out of whack and then another one would cause me to not play well....it's like building any structure, it starts with the FOUNDATION and works it's way up....if your body is not in line your eyes,you are not seeing the correct shot perception and you have to move your head to make up for it...this may work at times...especially good times, however, what about under pressure?....when it really counts....what about in the finals of a tournament, or your league or a big gambling match.....that's when it matters and you can see it when Michael Jordan shoots free throws, when Jack Nicholas hits a golf ball, or when Mike Sigel hits a pool ball....they are AIMING in the same position, relative to the line of their shot (or target)....and it's because they have developed a system to do this time after time after time...and this is in fact systematic aiming....... CJ Wiley www.cjwiley.com https://www.facebook.com/CJ.WILEY7

 

[LAMas]

Great post...nailed it.

 

[Roadie]

It sounds like John has some serious issues with aiming systems... and while I agree with him that it takes MUCH MORE than an aiming system to be a great player I DO NOT think he was talking in a logical mode in this transcript....I mean, really, "you could put a bag over Stevie's head and he's still run out"....I'm more than skeptical of that and...."he could aim at the wall and still make the ball"......and "if aiming systems worked there would be like 4 Million people that would play like Corey".....I know this was all said in some kind of hyped up emphatic mode, but in that case I wonder why anything else should be taken as "logical".....

The fact of the matter is EVERYONE has a system for pocketing balls, the issue is they're simply not aware of what it is.....this sounds strange, but I was one of those players in my teens and early 20's....it wasn't until I was the ESPN World Champion that truly set out to discover EXACTLY what I did when I entered what most people call DEAD STROKE ... and in the process my game had some ups and downs because when you bring conscious attention to a subconscious activity something has to give.....and it's usually in the form of suddenly over thinking......it's like walking up or down stairs, you can do it very quickly and very naturally, but let someone ask you to explain "do you breathe in or out on the even or odd stairs?"..."do you roll your ankle or just pick your foot straight up"....and see what happens.....it's like when I tell you "don't think about your breathing now"...or "DO NOT think about the color BLUE or your left shoulder as you read this" ... I've spent a lot of time around Tiger Wood's recent swing coach here in Dallas and I'll assure you Tiger has a system for golf....every aspect of it and "does he tune this out when playing?"....the answer is YES.....but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a system for aligning to the shot, aiming his club face, positioning his shoulders, arms, legs etc. through the positioning of his feet.....I assure you he does ALL THESE THINGS in a certain, repeatable fashion....in other words he has a system!

Stan showed me parts of his system in Tunica and I agree that it works...I also believe that it's a chore to convince people of this and it's better not to try....in addition, I do agree with John S. about hitting a lot of balls and practicing, but ONLY if your practice is based around a consistent, repeatable pre-shot routine that takes the WHOLE body, vision and mind into consideration.....I just rebuilt my game and let me tell you it's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle at times....I would find one piece that was out of whack and then another one would cause me to not play well....it's like building any structure, it starts with the FOUNDATION and works it's way up....if your body is not in line your eyes,you are not seeing the correct shot perception and you have to move your head to make up for it...this may work at times...especially good times, however, what about under pressure?....when it really counts....what about in the finals of a tournament, or your league or a big gambling match.....that's when it matters and you can see it when Michael Jordan shoots free throws, when Ben Hogan hits a golf ball, or when Mike Sigel hits a pool ball....they are ALWAYS in the same position, relative to the line of their shot....and it's because they have developed a system to do this time after time after time...... It was also said "anyone out there with their aiming systems can get weight" ....hmmm, I wonder if that's really true? CJ Wiley www.cjwiley.com https://www.facebook.com/CJ.WILEY7

Thank you again for your insight. It is so helpful to have a qualified champion here to discuss this topic. Mr. Schmidt is currently busy but he does post here from time to time and perhaps he will come in an explain his position with a bit more detail and consideration. As I said earlier I feel that he was ranting more than conversing.

Mr. Wiley this has been a controversial and contentious topic for many years among us amateurs. Some of us have adopted systematic methods of aiming that we hope will lead us into a smooth and effortless address on any shot. With practice some of us have found this to be true. But others contend that such methods cannot possibly work. I feel that Mr. Schmidt was simply indicating that he is tired of hearing about "systems" more than he was saying that they don't work.

If so then I agree with him. I feel that we ought to be able to discuss various methods without coming to blows over it. I have never gotten into an argument in the pool room over HOW to play. When we are standing around the table and talking about different methods we are all excitedly trying them out and discussinng them civilly. Only on this forum does it reach a level which borders on insanity.

So again, thanks for your input. We can speculate on what professional players do and think but it's much better to actually have them tell us what they do and think while interacting with us.