People who give up on using ghost ball just aren't trying hard enough to use it. They just give up instead of trying to understand it and put in time using. I bet if people were to spend time with someone who understands ghost ball would benetifit from such a meeting.
John Schmidt's and Corey Deuel's comments on aiming systems
- Thread starter PoolSharkAllen
- Start date
Do you honestly believe that? Do you really think people who reach the level of A player and above don't understand ghost ball?
If you meet a player who completely destroys you in every game and that player says that they use CTE will you tell him that he really shouldn't have given up on ghost ball???????
It seems as if you are trying to be faceitous just to be annoying. Is this your twist on us saying that people need to spend time on CTE and not give up? That they would benefit from personal instruction from someone who knows CTE? I suppose that it is.
Why does it have to be one or the other with you? What if someone decides to master both and keep the method that they like the best? Is there some rule that declares a person must only know and use one technique?
Is it completely outside your realm of understanding that there might be another way to look at a shot that works as well or possibly better than ghost ball? Ghost ball is simply a method someone invented somewhere along the line to illustrate aiming. It's not the only way to aim. In the 400 years of so since billiards was invented we have come a long way on many fronts about understand how to play the game. Many new techniques have been discovered alongside a plethora of equipment advances that all work for the modern game.
I fail to understand why you try so very hard to hold people back. Just let people try what they want to try without actively discouraging them. I would bet that 99% of B players and above understand ghost ball perfectly well. Let's turn it around. You have been at this for several years with your arrow ghost ball trainer. By now you should be an excellent player.
Can we see you doing say a 50 ball run or perhaps running three racks of nine ball? That's about what a decent B low A can do. Would you please show us this on video so that we can see your ghost ball mastery? Perhaps you could explain it as you are doing it and be helpful to the viewers who you think don't understand the ghost ball method? Could we look forward to this?
duckie:
You never fail to amaze us with your hogheadedness. This is on par with some of the most inane things you have ever posted -- and I say this as someone that uses a method/variation of ghostball!
You're like a pitbull with tetanus. Helplessly lockjawed and unable to let go.
-Sean
Thanks I have not been sure of either spelling. As much as it pains me to have to I will go back and correct them all.
All successful aiming is ghostball based. Through endless repetition, needless to say, many have come to believe that pivot systems are legitimate alternatives to ghostball. Logic/geometry says otherwise.
While there are likely very real benefits to doing an initial alignment in a careful and consistent manner, you might be right in that practicing, say, discrete fractional hits (e.g., 7/8, 3/4, 5/8. 1/2, 3/8, etc.) might very well generate more bang for the buck. (Of course, there's no reason you can't do both.)
Jim
Last edited:
I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth.
I ask you again: what other aiming system incorporates pivot?
Lou Figueroa
Mr. Shuffet adequately answered the question of how much contact Mr. Deuel has had with CTE/ProOne. But to answer your question, 90/90 involves a pivot as well.
If you want to read more into Mr. Deuel's comment then go ahead. We are at opposite ends of the spectrum and even if Mr. Deuel had clearly said he is opposed to aiming systems, which he did not, it wouldn't matter.
The way I see it you have stated your case, done your review, and that's that. All that's left is to regurgitate it occassionaly and when you do the predictable response will happen which is to counter it with the positive reviews. Then whomever cares will read as much as they want and decide to either try it or not. Either way Mr. Shuffett will continue to teach it, Landon Shuffett will continue to play world class pool using it as will Phil Burford and Stevie Moore among others.
Some day Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Deuel will meet with Mr. Shuffett and when that happens there will be new statements from them concerning the methods Mr. Shuffett teaches for us to talk about. This has been a good thread so far with good participation and information. I will continue to add any positive testimonials and reviews that I can find and I would encourage you and whomever else wants to to add the negative ones. That allows the readers to make up their own minds after reading what those who actually have had contact with the CTE method think about it.
Shishkebob
90/90
Lamas parallel and pivot
SEE
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
Glad to hear that...That way JoeyA can say..."I already know that part." Just curious Joey, have you thrown
Mr. Shuffet under the bus yet ?..Last we spoke, your NEW hero was Phil Bufford..
..Dammit, I just can't keep up. :grin:
Well, I had one exception in mind even as I wrote that, but it's highly doubtful anyone uses it. That would involve simply memorizing the correct aim line relative to, say, the line of centers between the two balls, given some desired OB direction relative to the same line of centers. But then there's a different relative aim line not only for each cut angle, but for every separation distance. If you wanted to severely handicap yourself, that would be the way to go.
Can you describe any legitimate method, that is, one that can stand on its own two legs, that doesn't use some part of the ghostball?
Jim
CTE has no basis in ghost ball. It can be and is used with zero need to look at ghost ball positions or ghost ball contact points.
Hal Houle's Quarters method also has zero use of ghost ball. And Hal has several other aiming methods that have no use of ghost ball whatsoever.
While ghost ball can be used to have a sort of double check for CTE it is completely unneccesary to successfully pocket balls using CTE exclusively.
The SEE system does not use ghost ball at all. Nor does the light reflection method.
Well legitimacy is the sticking point now isn't it? From a physioligcal and pyshchological perpsective if some one reports that they are looking at the target in a certain way and basing their body position on what they perceive then you really don't have much choice but to accept their word for it since you can't actually prove or disprove what they are reporting.
The ghost ball method works fine on paper. And it works well enough in the hands of someone with good spatial cognizance. But in the end it relies heavily on estimation and feel. Very heavily. Using the ghost ball method is subject to wide variance in perception and is influenced by otpical illusions related to perception.
The CTE method relies on making a more concrete visual connection between the cueball and the object ball. This causes the shooter to adopt a very narrow approach to the cueball and also a consistent one. This is part of the reason that a player who goes to CTE is often confronted with shots where their formerly ghost-ball using brain is telling them that the line given by the CTE method is wrong. And most often if the player ignores that signal and shoots along the line given by CTE it turns out to be correct. Which indicates that the shooter's perception of what the correct shot line is using ghost ball is flawed. Most likely because of some perceptual problem that the shooter is unaware of.
It is easier however to use the balls one can see. Visually most people can divide a sphere into two equal halves. Most people can see the edge of the sphere clearly enough from their vantage point. So it's not that difficult a task to find a space behind the cue ball that is in line with the center of the cue ball and the edge of the object ball. This simple exercise can be repeated with accuracy by most people. So finding this line and using it to orient the body is a task that is much easier than finding the center of an invisible object to line up to.
Using my earlier example of a laser to double scheck this I am certain that the results of taking normal people off the street would bear out that those people would be much more accurate placing their torso in a position that the CTE line splits them down the middle than they would placing their torso on the GB center line. I might actually attempt to do this experiment with a laser level mounted on a tripod. And of course the more experience that a player has the better they will be able to align themselves to the GB center line but I still firmly believe that even as the skill level increases the use of the CTE line will result in a higher degree of accuracy in initial alignment.
Now, wht are the equations and diagrams that would legitimize this approach for you? I don't know. As I was researching the testimonials I came across something I beleive you created which was the math behind ghost ball. To me it was gibberish and I assume that it was correct. Someone else made the point that no one teaches the GB method using the math. They simply explain the concept of replacing an imaginary ball with the cueball and move on to how to adjust the imaginary ball for throw, cling, spin, deflection, swerve, squirt and gravity.....in other words it's simply a way to have the shooter use his vision and imagination to pick a line to lay the cue down on.
If the shooter's vision is good and his imagination is clear then he can visualize and hold a nearly perfect sphere and use the GB method accurately. If not well then........struggles happen.
Which is why some shooters tend to have better success with methods like CTE or 90/90 which depend on phyical objects and very little imagination to "see" the line.
Lets do another thought experiment.
If I ask a person to stand in the corner and put their nose in it they can do that easily. If I ask them to stand five feet away but at a perfect 45 degrees to the corner with their nose in line they will not be able to do this consistently. If I then place a round wastebasket at 45 degrees to the corner and ask them to stand behind the wastebasket and face the corner with the nose splitting the basket and in line with the corner then they will, I believe, be able to to do this much more consistently. The premise is that the more objects a person has to use as guidance the better that person can orient themselves.
There is a physical reason CTE works that is beyond simply saying it's subconscious adjustment and feel. There has to be because it's so cosistent. Which is obvious because if it were not then there wouldn't be this much debate over it. Notice that there is not debate over the light reflection methods or the shadow methods or the cue stick methods? I personally believe that this is because those methods are not nearly as consistent as CTE is. CTE users know the value of what they are doing and how it works in their game. They don't know the math but they know it works just like any player who is able to use ghost ball knows that it works without needing the math.
So no, if you need the math to consider any method other than Ghost Ball legimate then at the moment there isn't any that I know of and frankly I wouldn't know if it were right even if I saw the math. From a practical task-result perspective though the use of CTE gets the job done consistently so to me that is legitimate.
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. When Landon was 10 and 11 years old I can remember him saying how he missed with the quarters system because his guesses were wrong. At the time I began teaching Landon CTE, I was unsure if it was the right thing to do or not. Within a span of 7 months Landon’s cries of guess work had diminished to practically none. I was satisfied that he was on the right track. Since that time Landon has won 5 national junior titles. Obviously, Landon has put the time in but I can tell you beyond any shadow of doubt that Landon lines up objectively and aims consistently with CTE PRO ONE and has been using a CTE alignment since the age of 12. Think about that, for the last 6 years Landon has aligned himself in a consistent and objective manner to the cue ball/ object ball relation before him. There is no doubt that he is a significantly superior player because of this. And you know what, it keeps getting easier every day for him because of his continual visual growth and the objectivity associated with CTE PRO ONE.
I can say the same thing for myself. I have been lining up/aiming using CTE or CTE PRO ONE for 7 to 8 years now. I never lasted a week with GB and come to think of it, I had one great day with contact points 35 years ago because of an old set of balls that was full of cracks. I may have sustained a month at one time with the quarters. Once I started with CTE I could never go back to looking at nothing. Last year, leading into my high finish at the 2011 US Open, I did extremely well in 6 or 7 very challenging tournaments and that was after a 4 year layoff from competition. Again, no doubt, CTE PRO ONE was the impetus that ultimately propelled me to do well. And yes, I fully understand that If I should repeat those events this year it could be a completely different story. But I will tell you this, I would see the balls as well as I did last year and even better because I am constantly working off of objectivity. There’s nothing like it.
Landon is a well-rounded player. He ran his first 100 at age 14. I remember his first 100 and then his next run of 130. One of the first things he said to me was that he had to come with some shots and that CTE saved his runs. Landon banks well, too. I am not concerned about Landon’s skills at 9 ball and 10 ball as compared to 1-pocket. The most difficult game of all, IMO, is 15 ball rotation.Landon plays a lot of 15 ball rotation. Landon plays the 13 and 14 ball ghost races to 30 as routine. Besides that, Landon does just fine at 1 pocket. I intentionally held Landon back from 1 pocket at an early age because learning 0ne hole too early can have negative effects on ones stroke.
As far as your desire for a CTE PRO ONE explanation, do you own my DVD? Also, WORDS do not teach. EXPERIENCE with the objectivity of CTE PRO ONE is the best teacher. There are not any words that I could share with you at this time, explanation-wise, that would satisfy you. Have you worked to try and develop some experiences with CTE? As you know, pool is an extremely visual game. The explanation for CTE will be found in the area of visual intelligence, more specifically, perception. CTE PRO ONE is ultimately about objective perception. The reason many aspiring learners have difficulty with my system is because they are not used to using their eyes in the way that CTE PRO ONE requires them to. It’s all about 2 lines verses one. Most students are comfortable with 1 line but throw that extra line in and it’s different, even odd at first but soon anyone with determination can learn to handle 2 line perceptions. 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
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. When Landon was 10 and 11 years old I can remember him saying how he missed with the quarters system because his guesses were wrong. At the time I began teaching Landon CTE, I was unsure if it was the right thing to do or not. Within a span of 7 months Landon’s cries of guess work had diminished to practically none. I was satisfied that he was on the right track. Since that time Landon has won 5 national junior titles. Obviously, Landon has put the time in but I can tell you beyond any shadow of doubt that Landon lines up objectively and aims consistently with CTE PRO ONE and has been using a CTE alignment since the age of 12. Think about that, for the last 6 years Landon has aligned himself in a consistent and objective manner to the cue ball/ object ball relation before him. There is no doubt that he is a significantly superior player because of this. And you know what, it keeps getting easier every day for him because of his continual visual growth and the objectivity associated with CTE PRO ONE.
I can say the same thing for myself. I have been lining up/aiming using CTE or CTE PRO ONE for 7 to 8 years now. I never lasted a week with GB and come to think of it, I had one great day with contact points 35 years ago because of an old set of balls that was full of cracks. I may have sustained a month at one time with the quarters. Once I started with CTE I could never go back to looking at nothing. Last year, leading into my high finish at the 2011 US Open, I did extremely well in 6 or 7 very challenging tournaments and that was after a 4 year layoff from competition. Again, no doubt, CTE PRO ONE was the impetus that ultimately propelled me to do well. And yes, I fully understand that If I should repeat those events this year it could be a completely different story. But I will tell you this, I would see the balls as well as I did last year and even better because I am constantly working off of objectivity. There’s nothing like it.
Landon is a well-rounded player. He ran his first 100 at age 14. I remember his first 100 and then his next run of 130. One of the first things he said to me was that he had to come with some shots and that CTE saved his runs. Landon banks well, too. I am not concerned about Landon’s skills at 9 ball and 10 ball as compared to 1-pocket. The most difficult game of all, IMO, is 15 ball rotation.Landon plays a lot of 15 ball rotation. Landon plays the 13 and 14 ball ghost races to 30 as routine. Besides that, Landon does just fine at 1 pocket. I intentionally held Landon back from 1 pocket at an early age because learning 0ne hole too early can have negative effects on ones stroke.
As far as your desire for a CTE PRO ONE explanation, do you own my DVD? Also, WORDS do not teach. EXPERIENCE with the objectivity of CTE PRO ONE is the best teacher. There are not any words that I could share with you at this time, explanation-wise, that would satisfy you. Have you worked to try and develop some experiences with CTE? As you know, pool is an extremely visual game. The explanation for CTE will be found in the area of visual intelligence, more specifically, perception. CTE PRO ONE is ultimately about objective perception. The reason many aspiring learners have difficulty with my system is because they are not used to using their eyes in the way that CTE PRO ONE requires them to. It’s all about 2 lines verses one. Most students are comfortable with 1 line but throw that extra line in and it’s different, even odd at first but soon anyone with determination can learn to handle 2 line perceptions. 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
Last edited:
And that lack of any reference to the ghostball is part of the problem with these systems (aside from trying to generate too many cut angles from too few alignments). They lack a physical theory behind them while attempting to provide an aim line with a purely geometric based procedure (I don't know about the SEE system). The "physical theory" is simplicity itself: make contact opposite the pocket (more or less).
In another thread, a poster wondered if there's a way to calculate the fractional overlap given the positions of the balls and pocket. There is of course, and better, another one gives you the spot on the cushion in which to direct your aim. Unfortunately (or fortunately), you'd have to be really, really quick with the arithmetic to do it in a reasonable amount of time. The point is, though, in order to arrive at those formulas, you start with the physical theory (ghostball position) and then proceed from that. If you just tossed geometric theorems at it without that theory, hoping against hope they'll eventually yield the prize, you'd likely be at it for a very long time. But that's essentially how these pivot systems came to be, except they're a tad short on the geometric theorems too. Without a proper starting point, they jump right into it, make a great speculative leap, and hope for the best. The result: ghostball must wend its way through the psyche of the shooter, battered and rejected at each step of the way, only to shower glory on the very systems which deny it. I don't know, but that doesn't seem right.
Jim