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

[Celtic]

Phil Burford, who uses and teaches CTE PRO ONE won against Corey last night in NY 8-2. Now, go ahead discredit Phil.

Like John said, Stevie Moore shoots good despite CTE, not because of it. Burford is in the same boat.

It is actually a little amazing that you take so much credit in Burford and Moore's success.

Do you truly feel that if it was not for you and your system that they would not be the successful players they are today competing at the pro level?

Without Stan Shuffet where do you feel Burford and Moore are today?

 

[stan shuffett]

Celtic,
I worked with Phil for 1.5 years. He absolutely uses CTE PRO ONE and PHIL will tell you that he does not feel as though he guesses with aiming after our work together. His PRS has vastly improved!! Plus much more.
I taught Phil KENTUCKY BANKS for a period of months. Ask him about his bank game. I spents a couple of months teaching Phil one-pocket. Phil's kicking has also greatly improved!!
Perhaps you could ask Daryll Peach or Mark Gray about their obsevations concerning Phil's progress after his time spent with me.
Thanks for asking!
Stan Shuffett

 

[duckie]

"XXX did not become a great player on their own, some else else made that happen......."

This is all I'm getting from any discussion about any system or instructor.

Guess the person has very little to do with their success in their pool playing.

 

[LAMas]

"XXX did not become a great player on their own, some else else made that happen......."

This is all I'm getting from any discussion about any system or instructor.

Guess the person has very little to do with their success in their pool playing.

Touche...green for you.

 

[stan shuffett]

Duckie,

I teach and coach. Phil did ALL of the work and I have never indicated otherwise.
Stan Shuffett

 

[SpiderWebComm]

A post of mine from April 2011:


Can you show that CTE defines 25 cut angles per cut direction? If you could that would mean it works without adjustments for shots up to 35 inches from a 4.5" pocket, but not for a longer distance or a smaller pocket.

I think CTE defines less than 10 cut angles per cut direction. In other words, at least 60% of all shots lie between the system's defined aim alignments for this example shot.

pj
chgo

If I posted a video showing all cut angles you'd say it didn't prove anything. Stop asking rhetorical questions!

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[8pack]

A post of mine from April 2011:


Can you show that CTE defines 25 cut angles per cut direction? If you could that would mean it works without adjustments for shots up to 35 inches from a 4.5" pocket, but not for a longer distance or a smaller pocket.

I think CTE defines less than 10 cut angles per cut direction. In other words, at least 60% of all shots lie between the system's defined aim alignments for this example shot.

pj
chgo

Are you telling me there's 25 cut angles from 0 to 90?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If I posted a video showing all cut angles...

It might temporarily satisfy your craving, but like every video you've posted, it would prove nothing.

Anyway, all cut angles defined by CTE can be easily described in about 10 seconds with nothing but your keyboard. X number of starting alignments (A, B, C, 1/8?) times 2 possible pivots each. How hard is that?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Are you telling me there's 25 cut angles from 0 to 90?

For a spot shot into a 4.5" corner pocket, yes.

That means that if your system only defines 10 separate cut angles (and you don't add any "by feel" adjustment), you can only make that shot from less than half the positions the cue ball could be.

This is the same thing that has been said about these systems for at least 15 years of these "debates".

pj
chgo

 

[8pack]

For a spot shot into a 4.5" corner pocket, yes.

That means that if your system only defines 10 separate cut angles (and you don't add any "by feel" adjustment), you can only make that shot from less than half the positions the cue ball could be.

This is the same thing that has been said about these systems for at least 15 years of these "debates".

pj
chgo

PJ your probably rite .
I like 10 better though.

 

[lfigueroa]

Sure, every aiming method is also an alignment method since it directs the body where to go. When you put the cue down you have be in some sort of comfortable position relative to the tables and the balls in order to have any reasonable chance to make the ball. None of the systems address speed, touch, and stroke. Some of them do address deflection but I am not familiar enough with those to explain them to you.

But no, CTE is not forcing a sound PSR. It forces a definite method of looking at and aligning to the cue ball. It doesn't make the player stand a certain way, doesn't make the player stroke a certain way, doesn't make the player's bridge unmoving, doesn't stop wrist twisting, or shifting feet or any of the dozens of tiny things that can affect where the tip hits the ball.

In fact one side effect of CTE is that it magnifies these errors. Getting to the right shot line makes it extremely easy to send the cue ball off that line. Which is where table time becomes really important to not only be sure that the system becomes ingrained but also to insure that all mechanical errors are worked out.

Essentially we could do a test where you find the exact ghost ball line and mark it with a laser. Then you turn the laser off and walk away. I come up and sight the shot using CTE and lay the cue down pointing at center ball and walk away. You turn the laser back on and if I was right it will split the cue. That's all CTE does for the player.

You say it "forces a definitive method of looking at and aligning to the cue ball."

What happens if I step first with my right foot, or the left instead? What happens if I tilt my head? What happens if I get my head lower on the ball? What happens if I stand more upright? What happens if I’m shooting with my cue off to one side of my head ala Shannon Daulton? What happens if the cue is under both eyes ala Buddy Hall?

Every player has his own reality when it comes to pool. What you see and how you see it at a pool table is most probably unlike what the next guy is seeing. So I call baloney. CTE doesn't force a definitive method of looking at and aligning to the cue ball, given just the few variables I mentioned.

Lou Figueroa

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

After 132 postings so far in this thread, let's summarize what we've learned so far: Arguing over aiming systems is like arguing about politics and religion. A lot gets said but no one's opinion really changes.

That's just this one thread. Now let's summarize what we've learned so far about arguing over CTE-type systems for the past 10 years, with dozens of threads and thousands of postings made analyzing these systems in every which way: Once again, arguing over aiming systems is like arguing about politics and religion. A lot gets said but no one's opinion really changes.

Does anyone see a pattern here? :wink:

 

[LAMas]

You say it "forces a definitive method of looking at and aligning to the cue ball."

What happens if I step first with my right foot, or the left instead? What happens if I tilt my head? What happens if I get my head lower on the ball? What happens if I stand more upright? What happens if I’m shooting with my cue off to one side of my head ala Shannon Daulton? What happens if the cue is under both eyes ala Buddy Hall?

Every player has his own reality when it comes to pool. What you see and how you see it at a pool table is most probably unlike what the next guy is seeing. So I call baloney. CTE doesn't force a definitive method of looking at and aligning to the cue ball, given just the few variables I mentioned.

Lou Figueroa

You missed the Keath the Ether McCready who uses a side stroke...quite well.:smile:

 

[Roadie]

A post of mine from April 2011:


Can you show that CTE defines 25 cut angles per cut direction? If you could that would mean it works without adjustments for shots up to 35 inches from a 4.5" pocket, but not for a longer distance or a smaller pocket.

I think CTE defines less than 10 cut angles per cut direction. In other words, at least 60% of all shots lie between the system's defined aim alignments for this example shot.

pj
chgo

Thank you. I will tackle this diagram when I have time later.

 

[Roadie]

After 132 postings so far in this thread, let's summarize what we've learned so far: Arguing over aiming systems is like arguing about politics and religion. A lot gets said but no one's opinion really changes.

That's just this one thread. Now let's summarize what we've learned so far about arguing over CTE-type systems for the past 10 years, with dozens of threads and thousands of postings made analyzing these systems in every which way: Once again, arguing over aiming systems is like arguing about politics and religion. A lot gets said but no one's opinion really changes.

Does anyone see a pattern here? :wink:

Actually people's opinions do get changed. Mine is an example of that. I considered CTE and aiming systems to be nonsense. Now after reading the arguments over the years and seeing the acceptance by top level instructors I chose to learn it and find that it works as advertised. The audience is much larger than the vocal participation.

 

[Roadie]

You say it "forces a definitive method of looking at and aligning to the cue ball."

What happens if I step first with my right foot, or the left instead? What happens if I tilt my head? What happens if I get my head lower on the ball? What happens if I stand more upright? What happens if I’m shooting with my cue off to one side of my head ala Shannon Daulton? What happens if the cue is under both eyes ala Buddy Hall?

Every player has his own reality when it comes to pool. What you see and how you see it at a pool table is most probably unlike what the next guy is seeing. So I call baloney. CTE doesn't force a definitive method of looking at and aligning to the cue ball, given just the few variables I mentioned.

Lou Figueroa

What happens is that if you lay your cue down on the correct shot line and have proper execution you will make the shot. Of course you have to synch your visual and physical alignment so that you can do this consistently. For me CTE works to bring all this into focus. For you it might be something else.

The only reality that every player has is that the balls don't move and the playing field is static. No matter who you are you have the same task and the ways to perform that task are farily limited. You absolutely cannot be outside of a very narrow range of space and make the shot consistently. It's impossible. So regardless of how differently you think each player in the world approaches a shot the reality is that there are way more similiarities than differences.

For proof you can simply go to YouTube and watch thousands of videos of players from C-level to pro-level. Study their approaches and make notes of all the different ways you find to get into the shot.

 

[Roadie]

Like John said, Stevie Moore shoots good despite CTE, not because of it. Burford is in the same boat.

It is actually a little amazing that you take so much credit in Burford and Moore's success.

Do you truly feel that if it was not for you and your system that they would not be the successful players they are today competing at the pro level?

Without Stan Shuffet where do you feel Burford and Moore are today?

Not allowing for the coach to have any credit for the student's success is not only crass and rude but it's also factually false. In all sports coaches play a vital role in shaping the athletes under their care. When a good athlete finds an expert coach then the athlete generall blossoms under that tutelage. This is well documented across sports and other endeavors.

 

[Roadie]

"XXX did not become a great player on their own, some else else made that happen......."

This is all I'm getting from any discussion about any system or instructor.

Guess the person has very little to do with their success in their pool playing.

Where would you be without the Babe Cranfield? You push Mr. Cranfield's method of instruction and his device upon us with almost every post.

You also pick out articles that support your position. Why do you appeal to authority when it suits you? Why did you not simply learn completely on your own without reading any instructional material whatsoever?

Why do you offer your advice if you are not trying to be a part of someone else's development? I suppose if someone came on here and thanked you for helping them to understand Ghost Ball clearly you would not feel happy about having helped someone else improve?

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

Actually people's opinions do get changed. Mine is an example of that. I considered CTE and aiming systems to be nonsense. Now after reading the arguments over the years and seeing the acceptance by top level instructors I chose to learn it and find that it works as advertised. The audience is much larger than the vocal participation.

No doubt some people's views do get changed but for the most part, the observation that arguing over aiming systems is like arguing over politics or religion still holds true.

As a example, almost nothing you say will cause pj to change his mind and vice versa...so why not just amicably agree to disagree and move on?

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Sorry I have to ask, you started this thread, what made you think the end results would be anything different?

Isn't that the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and expecting different results?

I will say that I have been impressed with the postings made by Roadie in this thread.

No doubt some people's views do get changed but for the most part, the observation that arguing over aiming systems is like arguing over politics or religion still holds true.

As a example, almost nothing you say will cause pj to change his mind and vice versa...so why not just amicably agree to disagree and move on?