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

[PoolSharkAllen]

If I said to someone that they should use Ghost ball and do a series of shots and they made 10 of 15 and I said to another person use CTE and they made 13 of 15 and those results stayed pretty much consistent then I would conclude that CTE is the better method.

In the hypothetical test you cite above, your conclusion based upon the hypothetical results of just two people would not be considered scientifically valid.

To my knowledge, there has been no objective testing of aiming systems in a controlled test study. Instead of evaluating the results of one person aiming with ghost ball and another person aiming with CTE or any other aiming system, we need a much larger sample size (like 20-40 people or more) for the conclusions to have any legitimacy.

There are also other variables to consider in a test study of this nature, such as the skill level of the participants.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

duckie:
Any system that relies on being to hit the OB directly has limitations.

Duh. Why do you (and others) think this statement of the obvious is a criticism? No method (even HAMB) is limitless.

pj
chgo

 

[BilliardsAbout]

In the hypothetical test you cite above, your conclusion based upon the hypothetical results of just two people would not be considered scientifically valid.

To my knowledge, there has been no objective testing of aiming systems in a controlled test study. Instead of evaluating the results of one person aiming with ghost ball and another person aiming with CTE or any other aiming system, we need a much larger sample size (like 20-40 people or more) for the conclusions to have any legitimacy.

There are also other variables to consider in a test study of this nature, such as the skill level of the participants.

1. Interesting, I posted an article on the tendency of beginners and intermediates to overcut balls (when using ghost ball) and the remedy.

My statistical sample is much larger than 20-40 students. I'd love to hear everyone's comments, whether agreeing or disagreeing and why:


Fixing The Most Common Type Of Intermediate Miss

2. As for the talk about the pros who say aim systems don't work, most any player who has only ever cut by instinct only would benefit from a variety of systems, from explaining where the line-of-centers and contact point are to systemic reasoning re: CIT and compensating for CIT, etc.

Aim systems present enhanced opportunities for beginning players, and more advanced players don't need them consciously as often, true. But telling beginners to just shoot and practice and throwing aim systems out the window for everyone is inefficient.

 

[Ratta]

To paraphrase the old adage: Arguing about aiming systems is like arguing over religion or politics. No ones' opinion really changes.

There's been a lot of interesting comments in this thread about what John Schmidt and Corey Deuel think about aiming systems. It seems to me that people may be trying too hard to use the comments of these two US Open champions to buttress their own particular beliefs about aiming systems.

Personally, I think JS and CD are being too harsh in their criticisms of aiming systems. Even with the limitations that aiming systems may have, most people probably could benefit from learning an aiming system, to develop the confidence and the skills needed to aim and pocket balls.

I don t think they had been too harsh- John just said that he thinks that *they re overrated*.
Often enough i said for myself, that i am really more someone who likes to earn knowledge-and i also tend to explain things to students (maybe sometimes too much). But at least you "just" have to understand some variables-whatever they may be-and then you need to invest tons of table-time. Then try and error. That s it.
And i am sure John meant it the same way. Knowledge is power- the rest is table time

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Personally I would like to see the human factor totally eliminated, using an automation that is programmed (or setup) to mimic the ball address and pivot exactly as required for each shot. Likewise it could be setup for any other aiming system you desired to study.

I had seen a link on this site some time ago showing some researchers that developed a system that could pot balls using lasers and a computer.

Alas since there is no money in pool, I don't think this is really on many researchers radar. It sure would be cool to see though.

In the hypothetical test you cite above, your conclusion based upon the hypothetical results of just two people would not be considered scientifically valid.

To my knowledge, there has been no objective testing of aiming systems in a controlled test study. Instead of evaluating the results of one person aiming with ghost ball and another person aiming with CTE or any other aiming system, we need a much larger sample size (like 20-40 people or more) for the conclusions to have any legitimacy.

There are also other variables to consider in a test study of this nature, such as the skill level of the participants.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Personally I would like to see the human factor totally eliminated, using an automation that is programmed (or setup) to mimic the ball address and pivot exactly as required for each shot. Likewise it could be setup for any other aiming system you desired to study.

This has been done repeatedly with geometry and drawings for existing systems like CTE. No robot needed.

For that matter, no geometric drawings needed. Anybody with a facility for spacial visualization and a rational mind knows pretty much instantly how accurate an aiming system can possibly be by itself (without human "guidance").

pj
chgo

 

[Roadie]

i would only have one question. i didnt care for systems or whatsoever, but had a look at youtube to "know" what is ment by CTE. ok so far i know its a system for propper alignement using the CB and the OB.

my question is: how does the system adept to playing conditions? the contact point remains the same, but the cloth for example plays a huge role in our game/sport.

example: last year our cloth was renewed. shots with follow spin changed completely, the CB seemed to "push" the ob and you had to play it fuller than the correct "aiming line" would suppose.
after some months the cloth played as usual and the aiming line went "back" to the "theoretical" correct position.

thanks for the answer (honestly )

The aiming is done as a baseline for the shot and the adjustment is made for conditions. An experienced player knows what adjustments to make and they are done almost automatically.

I play on all types of tables and clothes. In China there are many types of cloth from really slick to nappy and the aiming method works on all tables and all cloths. It works on toy tables. It works for coins on a piece of paper.

All you have to do is hit a rack of balls or so to figure out how the table is rolling and you're set.

 

[Roadie]

In the hypothetical test you cite above, your conclusion based upon the hypothetical results of just two people would not be considered scientifically valid.

To my knowledge, there has been no objective testing of aiming systems in a controlled test study. Instead of evaluating the results of one person aiming with ghost ball and another person aiming with CTE or any other aiming system, we need a much larger sample size (like 20-40 people or more) for the conclusions to have any legitimacy.

There are also other variables to consider in a test study of this nature, such as the skill level of the participants.

Perhaps not but it would certainly be better than the random testimonials we have now. Any controlled experiement would provide data that is likely to have some use.

 

[AtLarge]

........................

 

[Roadie]

Your reasoning in the highlighted section is false because of one factor-the person. You can not take the person out of the equation as you did in order to say one system is better than another. Remember a aiming system is not a delivery system. The how you get the CB there is more about than how you determine where to put the CB. And this is where table time comes in and not the system used.

Perfromance testing is done all the time in other sports to test out different techniques. I assume that they must be getting some sort of useful information from the imperfect human test subjects.

And as for using shots to prove one system is better than another, there are shot's that CTE, as well as double the distance, fractional, can not work on whereas there are no shots that ghost ball can not be used on therefore ghost ball is the better system.

If you feel that way then stick with it. I happen to feel that GB is not as good as CTE. You can use a pair of pliers for a broad range of tasks as well but that doesn't mean it is the best tool for each of those applications. Given the choice of pliers or a hammer to drive a nail most people and all carpenters will take the hammer.

What is funny is anytime that any discouraging words are spoken about CTE, there is such a effort to prove the validity of the system. If it is so good and so strong, then there is no need for defending it.

In time that will be true. Some things take time to get to a point of general acceptance without opposition. Remember that famously the CEO of IBM once said that personal computers were toys and would never be more than that? There are thousands of similar stories where the status quo was challenged by something different and the challenger was brutally disparaged. But through perserverance and championing by those who saw the merit those new ideas did win out. That seems to be the stage here in my opinion.

It isn't the system used, its the amount of time using the system that matters.

That is also a valid point.

JS and CD comments are just that comments. Take em or leave em, but some just can't seem to accept the ole agree to disagree idea.

Why can't they be discussed? That is the purpose of a forum isn't it?

It is more beneficial to pick one way, whatever way suits your fancy, stick with it, put in table time using it then trying this system or that system or that cue, or that shaft or that tip. Doing this you will never go far. You will never develop a high level of feel. And feel is at the heart of the game.

Perhaps reading about the history of the high jump would help you to see things from my perpsective, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_jump

Think beyond cut shots when it comes to systems and you will find most have limitations. The world of shot making in pool goes beyond just cut shots. Any system that relies on being to hit the OB directly has limitations.

Please refer to the tool/toolbox analogy above. The right tool for one job isn't always the right tool for another one. Here is a good example of an experienced CTE user making a perfect two-rail kick - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1HYQjoHjwL4#t=651s

You can take a lesson from him and learn how he did it.

So, what do you do for those non cuts shots. Say a simple rail first shot. Do you learn another system for those and another one for banks and another and another for caroms and another for two-three rails shots? How many systems is need to make all the different types of shots that can happen in pool.

Yes, in fact there are well known systems for kick shots and bank shots. And also CTE covers them as well. I refer you to Tom Rossmann, Jimmy Reid, and David Matlock among others who use systems to bank and kick.

Ghost ball works on all shots. Why, because it doesn't rely on being able to hit the OB directly. It works for one rail kicks, it works for rail first shots, it works for caroms.

Ok. And in my opinion and experience there are other tools which work better on those shots than GB. Thing is that if you have a toolbox that is well stocked and you know how to use all those tools then you can choose the right one. If all you have is a pair of pliers then you can certainly get a lot done but not always as easily as if you had the right tool for the job.

The real problem is the thinking that I highlighted, that one system is better than another when there is no proof as such. If you want to take achievements as proof, than I'll stick with Ghost Ball as used by Babe Cranfield. One Hall of Famer tops 4 instructors.

Well since we don't have conclusive studies and since Mr. Cranfield is not here to debate it and since all we have left of him is a basic instruction book I will go with the living instructors, among them several national champions and professional players, who have studied the game intensely for the past 30ish years or more. Beyond that I will defer to players like Darren Appleton who endorses the SEE Sytem of aiming as he is a double world champion, double US Open winner, winner of the DCC straight pool, recently 3rd in the 14.1 World Championships and a future Hall of Famer.

As they say you are only as good as your last performance. Right now the non-GB system aimers are doing pretty well. And since we are all forced to play the modern games on modern equipment I prefer to use state of the art methods used by modern players.

If all that fails me then I can always go back to Ghost Ball.

 

[Roadie]

Some of us also have reason.

And throughout history many reasonable people have been proven wrong by those dismissed as "crazies".

"Experience" misleads many to believe that CTE does eliminate feel. As Lou pointed out, SpiderWebb went so far as to threaten for a year or more that he would publish the "math" to prove it - all because his "experience" of making more shots with CTE convinced him the system is "exact".

The silly idea that a fractional system could be "exact" was the original bone of contention many years ago when some of the same system wonks argued endlessly that Hal Houle's "Three Angle" system (CTE's precursor) was "exact" for every possible shot because of pocket slop.

pj
chgo

If the target is larger than the ball and a point is scored for putting the ball through the target then exactness is relative to the goal.

But let's not split hairs.

Your contention is that CTE is not exact and doesn't eliminate feel?

Ok. I am not sure who you would like to hear this from but I will grant you those those two things. CTE does not eliminate feel and is not exact.

Now, for everyone else I urge you to try it if it interests you because you might find that it helps you with your accuracy as it has helped many others. If not you have spent a little time to find it doesn't work for you.

The light bulb was worked on since around 1850, it took until 1879 to get a commercially usable product made. Many thousands of attempts were done. So now you get the benefit of all that work and all the work that continues in lighting. The same applies to CTE in my opinion. It was created by a passionate man who was a bit over the top in his claims but in the end others have taken the actual material and refined it into something that works well.

We are or should be beyond debating the exactness or the degree of feel involved and should be well into the application phase. With Mr. Shuffett's DVD and other information out there I think that this is what's happening. The choice however is yours, dear player. You can do what you have always done or try something else. Chances are if you are reading this you are either already a satisfied CTE user or you are someone who is not happy with their game and looking for something else to try. Or you are one of the few who have taken on the mission to attempt to stop people from trying new methods. In any event the information is out there to choose and the choice is no one but yours.

 

[Roadie]

Roadie -- your post #48 is well done. Perhaps I shouldn't have posted Hal's stuff again; I just thought you might not have seen it in the past and might be entertained by reading it. But most of us who have been interested in CTE have been beyond that sort of talk for a long time. As I have said several times, Stan Shuffett deserves enormous credit for enhancing Hal's CTE and making it into something usable for a lot of people.

I think that it was perfectly fine to link to those quotes. In the aggregate I would be upset and ready to fight over those claims as well. I can see where Mr. Houle didn't exactly make it easy for his students to express their support for the methods without ridicule. As with marketing it's not always about the product so much as it's about how it's presented. Good products are sometimes killed by poor marketing.

The debate now is much less contentious. Especially since the topic was moved to it's own section. I have gleaned a lot of useful information from this section which would have certainly been buried under a mountain of rubble had those threads been in the main forum. That's partially because the law was laid down concerning personal feuding and partially because people have started to participate who have their experiences and questions and a lot to offer on the subject.

I personally applaud you for gathering the quotes and keeping the conversation grounded.

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

Perhaps not but it would certainly be better than the random testimonials we have now.

Those "random testimonials" on aiming systems are similar to the consumer reviews for many products that we buy. Oftentimes, before I buy something I want to read about what other people think of the product. I want to know about the positives as well as the negatives before making a decision to buy it.

In addition, I would much rather read random testimonials about aiming systems that are a sincere evaluation of the product then read the insincere marketing testimonials that frequently litter the forums.

 

[champ2107]

 

[Roadie]

Those "random testimonials" on aiming systems are similar to the consumer reviews for many products that we buy. Oftentimes, before I buy something I want to read about what other people think of the product. I want to know about the positives as well as the negatives before making a decision to buy it.

In addition, I would much rather read random testimonials about aiming systems that are a sincere evaluation of the product then read the insincere marketing testimonials that frequently litter the forums.

My apologies for not making myself clear. I meant that the random testimonials we now have on the CTE method and particulalry on Mr. Shuffett's DVD are on average very positive but that any type of controlled experiment which provides useful data would be even better.

How can you judge the sincerity of the marketing though? I think that certain people can be accused of overzealous exuberance when promoting the methods, not people who actually sell the knowledge by the way, but I have not detected any insincerity. I see people who truly believe that they have learned something that is very good and want to share that.

Perhaps you can link to what you feel is an insincere testimonial and we can evaluate that as a group.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Roadie:
Experience is all we have in this situation.

Me:
Some of us also have reason.

Roadie:
...throughout history many reasonable people have been proven wrong by those dismissed as "crazies".

And many more were right and the crazies truly crazy.

The fact remains that "experience" is not our only tool for evaluating aiming systems - in fact it's a poor indicator of how success is achieved.

Me:
"Experience" misleads many to believe that CTE does eliminate feel. As Lou pointed out, SpiderWebb went so far as to threaten for a year or more that he would publish the "math" to prove it - all because his "experience" of making more shots with CTE convinced him the system is "exact".

The silly idea that a fractional system could be "exact" was the original bone of contention many years ago when some of the same system wonks argued endlessly that Hal Houle's "Three Angle" system (CTE's precursor) was "exact" for every possible shot because of pocket slop.

Roadie:
If the target is larger than the ball and a point is scored for putting the ball through the target then exactness is relative to the goal.

But let's not split hairs.

Your contention is that CTE is not exact and doesn't eliminate feel?

By all means, let's split hairs.

No fractional, pivot or fractional/pivot system is "exact" enough to pocket more than a small fraction of shots without "by feel" adjustments made by the shooter, even when playing on a table with VERY generous pockets.

Roadie:
Ok. I am not sure who you would like to hear this from but I will grant you those those two things. CTE does not eliminate feel and is not exact.

Thanks, but I wasn't debating the point - I was giving you information that isn't in question.

We are or should be beyond debating the exactness or the degree of feel involved and should be well into the application phase.

There was never any real debate - there were (and are) those who understand the obvious and those who don't.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Roadie:
I happen to feel that GB is not as good as CTE.

In what way?

pj
chgo

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

How can you judge the sincerity of the marketing though? I think that certain people can be accused of overzealous exuberance when promoting the methods, not people who actually sell the knowledge by the way, but I have not detected any insincerity. I see people who truly believe that they have learned something that is very good and want to share that.

Perhaps you can link to what you feel is an insincere testimonial and we can evaluate that as a group.

"Overzealous exuberance" would probably be a better way to describe some of the marketing testimonials I've seen.

 

[Roadie]

And many more were right and the crazies truly crazy.

The fact remains that "experience" is not our only tool for evaluating aiming systems - in fact it's a poor indicator of how success is achieved.

In your opinion. However in the opinion of others results do matter as an indicator of successful application of technique. Esepecially where the only change was a change in technique.

By all means, let's split hairs.

No fractional, pivot or fractional/pivot system is "exact" enough to pocket more than a small fraction of shots without "by feel" adjustments made by the shooter, even when playing on a table with VERY generous pockets.

And the counter statement is that CTE is exact enough to allow the shooter to pocket the entire range of possible shots. The amount of "by feel" adjustments are so small and so slight as to be practically nonexistent. And this method works well on tight pockets as well as on loose ones.

Thanks, but I wasn't debating the point - I was giving you information that isn't in question.

Apparently it has been in question or there wouldn't be any argument over it. From what I see the actual question should be how much feel is present and I do not believe you can answer that.

There was never any real debate - there were (and are) those who understand the obvious and those who don't.

Yes well it's obvious that this topic has a lot of interest and that Mr. Shuffet's DVD has found acceptance with plenty of satisfied students and been peer reviewed by quialified instructors. So while the general population might not be on your level of understanding the obvious they are certainly able to get benefit from the lessons.

At the end that is what matters more I think. Can the method be used practically and experience says yes. Results say yes. Perhaps those things don't matter to you but they matter to people who are trying to achieve a task. Technique matters even if the underlying physics are not understood. I would say that most carpenters don't understand the physics of a hammer but they darn sure know the difference in a good hammer vs. a poor one and also the difference in good technique and poor technique.

 

[champ2107]

"Overzealous exuberance" would probably be a better way to describe some of the marketing testimonials I've seen.

all that stuff happen a long time ago and is not worth rehashing, we are so past that silly marketing issue! We all know a lot of claims were made out of spite or from inexperienced guys, I have said this a year or two ago.