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

[Jal]

im curious as to what you strongly disagree with Stan about on cte stuff?

Essentially, that the correct aim line can generally be obtained from the prescribed setups without memorizing either a large set of pivot locations, or head positions which skew your view of the relevant landmarks (something like the latter has been suggested by AtLarge and, I think, Dave Segal). In other words, you have to vary something in order to generate the full set of required cut angles. But Stan's DVD, as far as I can remember, and the bulk of the descriptions given over the years by the advocates, do not address this. Since they successfully pocket balls, how can one avoid the conclusion that they're augmenting CTE with traditional methods of aiming (i.e., ghostball based)? But the whole point of CTE is to eliminate reliance on the "non-objective" features used with traditional aiming. Thus, it would seem that CTE fails to realize its main goal.

On the other hand, you could memorize all those pivot or head positions(?), but then the cure seems more challenging than the disease. You need different ones not only for different cut angles, but for the same cut angle at different CB-OB distances.

Not to put words in his mouth, but I don't think I'm saying anything Patrick hasn't said ten-thousand times over (and Dr. Dave...).

The counter argument typically is "try it, you'll like it." But glossing over the problems just doesn't do it for some of us.

Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Jim:
...it would seem that CTE fails to realize its main goal.

I think CTE simply misstates (mistakes?) its own goal. It's useful to many, but not exactly in the way it presents itself. This could be a fundamental misunderstanding of its own limitations or conscious marketing to its target demographic (I think you know which I believe).

I think it would reach an even wider audience as a realistically limited-but-useful "pre-shot alignment" system (without all the gee whiz jargon), but what do I know?

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

The phrase too smart for your own good comes to mind. When Hal first showed up in Denver I thought he was a kook. I knew how to aim and didn't need any weird methods. But luckily for me personally I did suspend my skepticism long enough to absorb what he was asking me to do and put it into practice. The real world results were that within minutes I was pocketing balls better than I ever had before.

The whole thing comes down to two basic camps of people. Those who try these things and keep them if they work and those who want to know the math and physics before trying them.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter. To play pool well you have to put little balls into little holes over and over and over. I like the way I was taught to do it in the same way that I like a tool that works well or that I like a software program that works well, which is to say I don't have to know how it was made only that it works and helps me to do what I want to do.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JB Cases:
The whole thing comes down to two basic camps of people. Those who try these things and keep them if they work and those who want to know the math and physics before trying them.

Those who must try everything to know what works for themselves and those who can see what works for themselves without that.



pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Those who must try everything to know what works for themselves and those who can see what works for themselves without that.



pj
chgo

And those who want to prevent those who like to try various methods from trying them by imposing their own methods upon them. Life is not entirely a cerebral exercise. Sometimes you just have to follow directions without overthinking it.

 

[CJ Wiley]

Some people are happy figuring out ther dimensions of the stairs

The whole thing comes down to two basic camps of people. Those who try these things and keep them if they work and those who want to know the math and physics before trying them.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter. To play pool well you have to put little balls into little holes over and over and over. I like the way I was taught to do it in the same way that I like a tool that works well or that I like a software program that works well, which is to say I don't have to know how it was made only that it works and helps me to do what I want to do.[/QUOTE]

Some people are happy figuring out their dimensions of the stairs :wink:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

And those who want to prevent those who like to try various methods from trying them by imposing their own methods upon them.

Not to worry, John - I don't think your efforts to prevent people from trying critical thinking has caused much harm yet.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Not to worry, John - I don't think your efforts to prevent people from trying critical thinking has caused much harm yet.

pj
chgo

While you were treating aiming systems as thought exercises others have been busy trying them out, dissecting them and learning how to teach them. I have never asked anyone to not be critical. In my business I invite criticism and comparison of my products.

What I do reject in my business is unfair criticism that stems from opinion and conjecture with no experience to back it up.

As I have said many times over you and your fellow critics have been the single most influential reason why aiming systems are where they are today. Your incessant criticism has led to many of us working hard to understand these methods and how best to apply them. Which in turn has led to videos and professional endorsements of the methods.

So again I say thanks for all that and please keep it up. The more you criticize the more it drives the other side to explore it deeper. And although you and others have repeatedly said that you don't need or want to explore these methods in the physical realm because you are already convinced that they don't pass the the math test the fact remains that these methods are helping people to improve their play. And even if those who teach these methods cannot provide you with equations and diagrams to convince you of the value and validity the efforts you sparked are paying huge dividends for those instructors and their students.

I sincerely believe in balance as the ultimate arbiter in nature. A system out of balance is destructive. So too would be a pool world where only one method was taught with no critical objection. Through objection the methods get inspected, dissected and tried by many. Without objection there is no improvement. Objection and critique are the competitive drivers that force either improvement or obliteration. In this case it's improvement.

 

[cookie man]

Essentially, that the correct aim line can generally be obtained from the prescribed setups without memorizing either a large set of pivot locations, or head positions which skew your view of the relevant landmarks (something like the latter has been suggested by AtLarge and, I think, Dave Segal). In other words, you have to vary something in order to generate the full set of required cut angles. But Stan's DVD, as far as I can remember, and the bulk of the descriptions given over the years by the advocates, do not address this. Since they successfully pocket balls, how can one avoid the conclusion that they're augmenting CTE with traditional methods of aiming (i.e., ghostball based)? But the whole point of CTE is to eliminate reliance on the "non-objective" features used with traditional aiming. Thus, it would seem that CTE fails to realize its main goal.

On the other hand, you could memorize all those pivot or head positions(?), but then the cure seems more challenging than the disease. You need different ones not only for different cut angles, but for the same cut angle at different CB-OB distances.

Not to put words in his mouth, but I don't think I'm saying anything Patrick hasn't said ten-thousand times over (and Dr. Dave...).

The counter argument typically is "try it, you'll like it." But glossing over the problems just doesn't do it for some of us.

Jim

Yours is an opinion by a non user. As an experienced user I just play pool. I never think about pivots, different bridge lengths or varying anything.

 

[cookie man]

I think CTE simply misstates (mistakes?) its own goal. It's useful to many, but not exactly in the way it presents itself. This could be a fundamental misunderstanding of its own limitations or conscious marketing to its target demographic (I think you know which I believe).

I think it would reach an even wider audience as a realistically limited-but-useful "pre-shot alignment" system (without all the gee whiz jargon), but what do I know?

pj
chgo

Not much about Pro-one.

 

[cookie man]

Those who must try everything to know what works for themselves and those who can see what works for themselves without that.



pj
chgo

This is classic Pj. It must be nice to see everything that works without even trying it. Do you ever just throw balls on the table and try new things ? I'm betting your same old same old, no improvement for the last thirty years.

 

[robsnotes4u]

Two words: Placebo effect.

If you think it works for you your conscious mind will find away, right or wrong, to justify that it works.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[BeiberLvr]

Two words: Placebo effect.

If you think it works for you your conscious mind will find away, right or wrong, to justify that it works.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

what?

things work on the pool table because they work. not because we convince ourselves that they work.

 

[iusedtoberich]

what?

things work on the pool table because they work. not because we convince ourselves that they work.

HA! The game of pool is not immune to the magic pill...

 

[Living Legend]

Essentially, that the correct aim line can generally be obtained from the prescribed setups without memorizing either a large set of pivot locations, or head positions which skew your view of the relevant landmarks (something like the latter has been suggested by AtLarge and, I think, Dave Segal). In other words, you have to vary something in order to generate the full set of required cut angles. But Stan's DVD, as far as I can remember, and the bulk of the descriptions given over the years by the advocates, do not address this. Since they successfully pocket balls, how can one avoid the conclusion that they're augmenting CTE with traditional methods of aiming (i.e., ghostball based)? But the whole point of CTE is to eliminate reliance on the "non-objective" features used with traditional aiming. Thus, it would seem that CTE fails to realize its main goal.

On the other hand, you could memorize all those pivot or head positions(?), but then the cure seems more challenging than the disease. You need different ones not only for different cut angles, but for the same cut angle at different CB-OB distances.

Not to put words in his mouth, but I don't think I'm saying anything Patrick hasn't said ten-thousand times over (and Dr. Dave...).

The counter argument typically is "try it, you'll like it." But glossing over the problems just doesn't do it for some of us.

Jim

I will say this, you do not understand the "one thing" that makes all cte systems work and until you understand that, cte systems wont make sense to you and i am not willing to put that info on here I will also say that most all cte users dont even understand what makes cte systems work

 

[Patrick Johnson]

This is classic Pj.

And this is classic cookie man: personal, not topical.

pj
chgo

 

[Jal]

...You're saying exactly what I have always said about "swiping": that it's equivalent to hitting the CB from a slightly different angle with a straight stroke. Twisting the wrist during the stroke seems like another way of doing the same thing.

This is an example of how "science" (actually just paying attention to details) can help your game - if this technique can be duplicated with a straight stroke at a slightly different angle, maybe spending time learning a more difficult and less reliable "trick" can be avoided.

Amen.

Unless swiping somehow changes the maximum coefficient of friction between the tip and ball, as you say and have said many times, all it does is turn a simple procedure into an adventure. I, at least, can't see why it would alter the coefficient.

Jim

 

[Jal]

Yours is an opinion by a non user. As an experienced user I just play pool.

True, but I would have chosen another word than "opinion." (Basic geometry isn't at the frontiers of science.)

I never think about pivots, different bridge lengths or varying anything.

Yes, ghostball solves many problems.

Jim

 

[AtLarge]

Yours is an opinion by a non user. As an experienced user I just play pool. I never think about pivots, different bridge lengths or varying anything.

cookie -- You seem to be a strong advocate for CTE or Pro-One. Do you play demonstrably better now than you did before you learned your current aiming method? If you think you do, would other people who have known you for a long time agree? And if so, did you devote as much time and effort to pool before you learned your current aiming method as you have since learning it?

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

I will say this, you do not understand the "one thing" that makes all cte systems work and until you understand that, cte systems wont make sense to you and i am not willing to put that info on here I will also say that most all cte users dont even understand what makes cte systems work

So what's the "one thing" that makes all cte systems work? And "if most cte users dont even understand what makes cte systems work" then how are they even able to use CTE?

Why aren't you willing to put that information on here? We're here to learn from each other, aren't we?