Mosconi on aiming .

[JB Cases]

If absolutely nothing else jumps off the pages of that book it is how brutally honest McGoorty was about his life, other players, and himself. Who knows how Hoppe might have answered if a perspective buyer of his book went up to him and asked, "Mr. Hoppe, do you use the systems in your book?"

Certainly we've all heard the stories of a world champion player bad mouthing the cue they've endorsed for years, to a bleacher full of fans. And if you believe that every celebrity who endorses a product actually uses it, you are living in la-la land, to put it politely.

Anyways, I'm good with it

Lou Figueroa

You know I know better than that. But again what you call "brutal honesty" could very well be just that person's personal spin on their own life. We have had plenty of memoirs that were riveting and fascinating and horrifying tales of brutally frank depictions of people's live that turned out to be fabrications.

So if you choose to believe everything you read then you are also in la la land. Why don't you remind everyone what your job in the Air Force was? Tell us you told the truth all the time on behalf of your employer?

McGoorty said Fats couldn't play a lick. Freddy B. says Fats could play pretty good. Freddie is alive and probably reading this, you want to debate him on this?

 

[Neil]

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

 

[Roger Long]

I received a PM a couple of days ago from a gentleman who was lamenting the childish behavior that ultimately destroys all threads on aiming. I replied to him with the following post, and now I think it might be appropriate to share that reply with the rest of you here.

Roger


Re: aiming systems

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

I'm with you in the respect that the people in those aiming threads do not act like adults; but that includes ALL of them...not just the ones who are opposed to aiming systems.

I have never met John Barton, but I have spoken with him on the phone and he impresses me as a sincere man who really loves pool and really does want to help other people with their games. Problem is, he is too proud and sensitive to criticism and takes comments like "APA 3" and "suckers" and interprets them as "assholes" and "idiots" and then claims in the forums that he was actually called those names by his detractors. That is not an adult or professional attitude and does little to actually promote pool.

As for San Jose Dick (SJDPHX), I have known him personally for many years and I can tell you that he, too, is a very sincere man who loves pool. Problem there is that he is also stubbornly proud and fails to realize that there are some players who really can be helped by aiming systems and that he should just stay quiet and let them spend their money on whatever they like.

I wish all of those aiming thread combatants would grow up and act in a more professional manner.

Good talking with you, _____. Keep up the good work.

Roger

 

[Neil]

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

 

[lfigueroa]

You know I know better than that. But again what you call "brutal honesty" could very well be just that person's personal spin on their own life. We have had plenty of memoirs that were riveting and fascinating and horrifying tales of brutally frank depictions of people's live that turned out to be fabrications.

So if you choose to believe everything you read then you are also in la la land. Why don't you remind everyone what your job in the Air Force was? Tell us you told the truth all the time on behalf of your employer?

McGoorty said Fats couldn't play a lick. Freddy B. says Fats could play pretty good. Freddie is alive and probably reading this, you want to debate him on this?

We all make personal judgements about what we read and whom we choose to believe. That very principle (which many fail to recognize) is at work here every day. We decide on a person's credibility and the value of what they say, based not only on the letter of what they say, but how they say it and their body of opinion over time. Some folks here come out a little better on that score than others ;-)

As to my role as an USAF spokesmodel, I will tell you this: I never once lied from the podium, or in a telephone call or personal conversation with a reporter or citizen. In fact, any "Action Officer" (which is what we were called) caught lying by senior staff was immediately out the door. Personally, I was well known amongst the Washington Press Corp for my "brutal" honesty, up to taking on a sitting Congressman in a trade paper, identifying one of his comments as "Baloney." Took a lot of heat, but didn't get fired. Turns out I was telling the truth.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JB Cases]

Well said John.

This is why I asked Bob the question. I had a feeling this was going to be the answer and I think I have a good idea why they don't do as you propose. I'm guessing this would cause quite a bit of dissention and it could lead to a split - the likes of which we haven't seen since the Reformation:shocked2:

Understood. But ask yourself this question. Why would some of the country's top master instructors take on and teach a method that they don't sincerely believe in?

These are people who actually make their income from teaching pool. Not guys who have day jobs and teach pool part time. They have a lot to lose by teaching something that's "bogus". Reason being that they only get more business by turning out satisfied students.

Now, these guys all had great businesses teaching pool long before they started teaching "controversial" aiming systems along with the rest of the subjects they cover. They cover fundamentals and basics and and drills and all that. So why would they risk their reputations by promoting something that does not work?

It doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't pay the "Australian Oyster" to teach me how to drop a cue ball in the ocean. Everything about that guy is slimy.

But Tom Simpson? Randy Goetlicher? Stan Shuffet? Scott Lee? These are some of the nicest, honest and sincere people you ever want to meet. They love pool as much as anyone on the planet. So to me that's when I started to say to myself that it's not just me having brainwashed myself into believing that Hal's systems work. It's people who play WAY better than me and who have their livelihoods and reps at stake who took this on and decided it's worth teaching formally that convinced me.

 

[Bob Callahan]

I believe in aiming systems. Even bogus ones. Because I believe in the human ability to adjust. I think every aiming system gives people a focus that they don't normally have, and that they make unconscious adjustments to make those systems work. Some systems are better than others, but the real important thing about them is faith. The reason these discussions get so heated is because no one wants you messing with their faith. Pool is too difficult in the physics sense to fully understand. Like it or not, we all really play on an unconscious level.

I believe in lots of unpopular things. I told a guy to elevate his cue a couple of degrees to get more draw. It worked. Was it physics? Maybe not. Maybe it was biomechanical. Studies of the biomechanics of pool don't exist. Maybe it was psychological, again something which is poorly understood in pool. The thing is, he believed me, and it worked.

I believe some people get more action on the ball with a wrist flip. Physics? Maybe...maybe it's a double pendulum thing. It sure works in baseball:

The wrist is a very important lever in the pitching motion. In fact, Norihisa Fujii from the University of Tsukuba concluded after a 2002 study that wrist flexion and strength are major contributors for increasing throwing velocity.

In addition, many pitching coaches have incorporated a “wrist flick” during their throwing warm up progression. The Lexington Clinic reported that the wrist accounted for 10% of the force applied to the baseball during the pitching delivery.

From: http://www.thecompletepitcher.com/pitching_velocity.htm

I also think that same article has some helpful ideas for folks who want to improve their power for the 9-ball break.

I'm not sure having pros endorse a product makes that product true. I'm not sure pros actually understand what they are doing any more than the rest of us poor slobs do.

 

[BasementDweller]

I received a PM a couple of days ago from a gentleman who was lamenting the childish behavior that ultimately destroys all threads on aiming. I replied to him with the following post, and now I think it might be appropriate to share that reply with the rest of you here.

Roger


Re: aiming systems

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

I'm with you in the respect that the people in those aiming threads do not act like adults; but that includes ALL of them...not just the ones who are opposed to aiming systems.

I have never met John Barton, but I have spoken with him on the phone and he impresses me as a sincere man who really loves pool and really does want to help other people with their games. Problem is, he is too proud and sensitive to criticism and takes comments like "APA 3" and "suckers" and interprets them as "assholes" and "idiots" and then claims in the forums that he was actually called those names by his detractors. That is not an adult or professional attitude and does little to actually promote pool.

As for San Jose Dick (SJDPHX), I have known him personally for many years and I can tell you that he, too, is a very sincere man who loves pool. Problem there is that he is also stubbornly proud and fails to realize that there are some players who really can be helped by aiming systems and that he should just stay quiet and let them spend their money on whatever they like.

I wish all of those aiming thread combatants would grow up and act in a more professional manner.

Good talking with you, _____. Keep up the good work.

Roger

I don't know...maybe I'm all alone yet again...but I don't mind the back and forth. I think it can be a bit childish if not girly (oh no I'm gonna get) to complain about their little tussles. We sort of get the benefit of watching a train wreck without the loss of lives AND if you are capable of chewing up the meat while spitting out the bones you might even learn something from time to time. I don’t quite understand why they always have to resort to name calling but I don’t get all wet when I try to wade through it so what do I care?

I've noticed if you throw in a little name calling the threads go on much longer. So, in that spirit I say - "Stop whining you pansy!"

 

[JB Cases]

We all make personal judgements about what we read and whom we choose to believe. That very principle (which many fail to recognize) is at work here every day. We decide on a person's credibility and the value of what they say, based not only on the letter of what they say, but how they say it and their body of opinion over time. Some folks here come out a little better on that score than others ;-)

As to my role as an USAF spokesmodel, I will tell you this: I never once lied from the podium, or in a telephone call or personal conversation with a reporter or citizen. In fact, any "Action Officer" (which is what we were called) caught lying by senior staff was immediately out the door. Personally, I was well known amongst the Washington Press Corp for my "brutal" honesty, up to taking on a sitting Congressman in a trade paper, identifying one of his comments as "Baloney." Took a lot of heat, but didn't get fired. Turns out I was telling the truth.

Lou Figueroa

Everyone has fans and detractors Lou. No matter how you think you are perceived there are always those who can't stand you and those who love you.

And while I certainly believe that you never deliberately lied I am fully confident that you sometimes did not answer all questions put to you with full disclosure either. My point was that your job was to put the right type of spin on the answers to be credible (and truthful) while only revealing that which the government wanted the people to know and not necessarily what the "people" asked you to reveal.

You are a very clever writer and your writing here shows that you clearly know how to spin any topic in the direction you think it should go. Only thing is that other people are clever as well and spin it back in the direction they think it should go.

For example your somewhat snide "doomed to failure" comment. What is the purpose of that? You can't prove it, many people have come on here and testified that they successfully uses aiming systems and certainly are not failing. So why bother with nonsense like that if not to simply be negative for negativity's sake?

 

[JB Cases]

Personally, I was well known amongst the Washington Press Corp for my "brutal" honesty, up to taking on a sitting Congressman in a trade paper, identifying one of his comments as "Baloney." Took a lot of heat, but didn't get fired. Turns out I was telling the truth.

Lou Figueroa

Which is an example of speaking from the position of knowledge and experience trumps the position of speculation and ignorance.

So why do you constantly harass those with the most experience and knowledge on these aiming topics when you yourself have openly admitted that you don't even bother with them?

The only you have tried as far as I know is the Pro One which I would bet you didn't even give an hour of table time to. For ten years you have been knocking them and their supporters.

In this scenario Lou you are acting like the the Congressman. In my opinion.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Sometimes aiming systems hinder people who get too attached to them.TRUE STATEMENT

Dooming them to failure.TRUE STATEMENT

Lou Figueroa

I wonder how doomed Stan, Landon, Stevie, C.J. or Darren, would be if they played you? They all rely on their aiming systems quite heavily.COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT STATEMENT

Please take note of the key word, "sometimes"

Come on dude. Why cherry pick in a situation that is clearly not talking about any of these guys you listed?
You know as well as i do that there are tons of pool players, who will never benefit from a system, who have a system for this, and a system for that, who never ever progress. Who are the first to bust out whatever system they need for each shot, and then fire it into the rail.

You've seen them, i've seen them, everyone has.

Face the facts.
There are plenty of people out there who use systems who gain NOTHING from them who will continue to play at their current speed for the rest of their pool life.
Just because you want to highlight the people who benefit from systems, doesn't change that.
If you are going to focus on the top performing system guys, your also going to have to focus on the rest of the system population that are 2nd tier guys, or just flat out suck.

Nice try though.

 

[JB Cases]

Please take note of the key word, "sometimes"

Come on dude. Why cherry pick in a situation that is clearly not talking about any of these guys you listed?
You know as well as i do that there are tons of pool players, who will never benefit from a system, who have a system for this, and a system for that, who never ever progress. Who are the first to bust out whatever system they need for each shot, and then fire it into the rail.

You've seen them, i've seen them, everyone has.

Face the facts.
There are plenty of people out there who use systems who gain NOTHING from them who will continue to play at their current speed for the rest of their pool life.
Just because you want to highlight the people who benefit from systems, doesn't change that.
If you are going to focus on the top performing system guys, your also going to have to focus on the rest of the system population that are 2nd tier guys, or just flat out suck.

Nice try though.

They don't all flat out suck though. There are lots of solid A players who use aiming systems.

That's like saying college sucks because most people don't excel in it. The classes are all the same yet some people rock it and others skate through and some just barely graduate. But at the end they all have the same piece of paper and only how they perform in the real world tells the tale of who benefited and who didn't.

Neither Lou nor you has any freaking idea how many people have benefited from learning something other than ghost ball.

But here is the kicker. Anyone is FREE to abandon any method they learned and do something else. Someone can try out the xyz method and after a few weeks decide it's not for them and move on. It's not the end of the world.

I mean seriously if someone came on here and said that they discovered that putting a can of Cherry Coke on the rail refracted the light jsut right to send beams of light directly onto the perfect contact point then 10 people would go to the table and try it and would come back and say it's nonsense if it is. 5 people would say it can't work at all for whatever reason without trying. 3 people would claim you don't need it in the first place.

The point is that if the Cherry Coke system sucked then people who tried it would say that and it would die off.

And honestly who really cares if bangers want to do what bangers do? Let people try out whatever they want without degrading them. Let people try to sell whatever they want without knocking them unless you are going to actually try it out. Once you do that then knock away if you can spell out why clearly.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Please take note of the key word, "sometimes"

Come on dude. Why cherry pick in a situation that is clearly not talking about any of these guys you listed?
You know as well as i do that there are tons of pool players, who will never benefit from a system, who have a system for this, and a system for that, who never ever progress. Who are the first to bust out whatever system they need for each shot, and then fire it into the rail.

You've seen them, i've seen them, everyone has.

Face the facts.
There are plenty of people out there who use systems who gain NOTHING from them who will continue to play at their current speed for the rest of their pool life.
Just because you want to highlight the people who benefit from systems, doesn't change that.
If you are going to focus on the top performing system guys, your also going to have to focus on the rest of the system population that are 2nd tier guys, or just flat out suck.

Nice try though.

Lou used that as a reference to Stan's dvd review where he said Stan was purposely dooming students to failure. YOU didnt read it in its intended context.



Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Long]

I don't know...maybe I'm all alone yet again...but I don't mind the back and forth. I think it can be a bit childish if not girly (oh no I'm gonna get) to complain about their little tussles. We sort of get the benefit of watching a train wreck without the loss of lives AND if you are capable of chewing up the meat while spitting out the bones you might even learn something from time to time. I don’t quite understand why they always have to resort to name calling but I don’t get all wet when I try to wade through it so what do I care?

I've noticed if you throw in a little name calling the threads go on much longer. So, in that spirit I say - "Stop whining you pansy!"

Thank you for that, BD, but my personal situation is one that cannot afford to have threads go on for long periods of time without something positive being accomplished. I don't read these forums for their entertainment value, I read them to actually learn something. This thread started out as a discussion on Mosconi teaching how to aim, and then quickly turned into another CTE bashing melee (and Dick, as much as I love and respect you, that really is your fault). At least, that's the way I perceive things here; this thread is just a continuation of the long-standing controversy of whether or not CTE has lived up to the claims of its original inventor. It's really not about aiming systems in general; it's about one side or the other proving they were "right" about CTE from the very beginning, some 15 years ago.

Unfortunately, I don't think this battle will ever end. :frown:

Roger

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

I received a PM a couple of days ago from a gentleman who was lamenting the childish behavior that ultimately destroys all threads on aiming. I replied to him with the following post, and now I think it might be appropriate to share that reply with the rest of you here.

Roger


Re: aiming systems

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

I'm with you in the respect that the people in those aiming threads do not act like adults; but that includes ALL of them...not just the ones who are opposed to aiming systems.

I have never met John Barton, but I have spoken with him on the phone and he impresses me as a sincere man who really loves pool and really does want to help other people with their games. Problem is, he is too proud and sensitive to criticism and takes comments like "APA 3" and "suckers" and interprets them as "assholes" and "idiots" and then claims in the forums that he was actually called those names by his detractors. That is not an adult or professional attitude and does little to actually promote pool.

As for San Jose Dick (SJDPHX), I have known him personally for many years and I can tell you that he, too, is a very sincere man who loves pool. Problem there is that he is also stubbornly proud and fails to realize that there are some players who really can be helped by aiming systems and that he should just stay quiet and let them spend their money on whatever they like.

I wish all of those aiming thread combatants would grow up and act in a more professional manner.

Good talking with you, _____. Keep up the good work.

Roger

IMO, the underlying problem is that many of these threads are poorly moderated. As a result, certain posters frequently get away with insulting people, name-calling and hijacking threads, among other things.

Some of these threads actually start out very promising with an interesting topic. Unfortunately, it can take just one poster on this forum with OCD or ADD, to ruin the forum for everyone. Invariably, the thread will become a train wreck that needs to be closed or even deleted.

It's worth emphasizing that this forum really could use more moderating so that everyone stays on their best behavior.

 

[Bob Jewett]

This wouldn't have been a 3C book, would it?

Lou Figueroa

I don't think the instructor's program has endorsed anything to do with 3C. No, it was book about how to practice pool, as Roger mentions above.

 

[OuToFsTrOkE]

...?

I'm surprised that Willie would put out misleading information as he did on those straight in shots where he said english was throwing the object ball off and making it miss. He wasn't shooting the ball straight on, even though he said he was. On the second shot, where he said, "I hit that too good, " the ball went in the pocket because that was the only shot where he actually did hit it almost straight on. But on the other two, his cue is angled off to the right, which shifted the contact point to the right causing the ball to be cut to the left, thus missing the pocket. For evidence of this, just look at how his cue ball comes off to the right side of the object ball each time.

Roger

Seriously, u can't use Mosconi and Misleading in the same sentence. The way he words himself might be misleading...... go do 525, then say what u want.

 

[BasementDweller]

Thank you for that, BD, but my personal situation is one that cannot afford to have threads go on for long periods of time without something positive being accomplished. I don't read these forums for their entertainment value, I read them to actually learn something. This thread started out as a discussion on Mosconi teaching how to aim, and then quickly turned into another CTE bashing melee (and Dick, as much as I love and respect you, that really is your fault). At least, that's the way I perceive things here; this thread is just a continuation of the long-standing controversy of whether or not CTE has lived up to the claims of its original inventor. It's really not about aiming systems in general; it's about one side or the other proving they were "right" about CTE from the very beginning, some 15 years ago.

Unfortunately, I don't think this battle will ever end. :frown:

Roger

Of course you're right Roger and I'm wrong. I sometimes get caught up in the back and forth and I actually view it as a train wreck of sorts and it helps get me through my day. When this happens, we do end up losing in the long run since the actual worthwhile content gets lost in the shuffle, or should I say -- it gets lost in the scuffle.

So, I take it all back - you're not a pansy:thumbup:

 

[SUPERSTAR]

They don't all flat out suck though. There are lots of solid A players who use aiming systems.
I never said that they all flat out sucked.
But if someone is going to talk about people who are doomed to failure, it's safe to say that we aren't talking about elite players who obviously, get past all that.It has absolutely nothing to do with people that play good with systems.

Neither Lou nor you has any freaking idea how many people have benefited from learning something other than ghost ball. And you do? You are the authority on all statistics about aiming? Please...
Seriously? I've been around pool a long time. There are tons of people who use all sorts of systems. Please show me where i claim that i know how many people have or have not benefited from them? Show me where i make that claim.

And honestly who really cares if bangers want to do what bangers do? Let people try out whatever they want without degrading them. Let people try to sell whatever they want without knocking them unless you are going to actually try it out. Once you do that then knock away if you can spell out why clearly.
And just how am i degrading them? How is pointing out that there are also people who use systems, who do NOT benefit from them, degrading? Unless you never get out to the pool hall, there are people who learn systems to help their game, who basically become "trapped" by those systems. Never venturing out from system parameters, never trusting their own instincts. People who are SO dependent on systems, that they effectively stunt their pool growth. How is pointing that out degrading, especially when it's true?
Did i happen to say that ALL system users fall into this category? No, i didn't.
Did i say that bangers should never ever use systems to learn? No, i didn't.
And for the umpteenth time, i have tried out several systems. To someone that already plays the game, there is nothing especially spectacular about any that i tried. There was no "OMG, THIS IS AMAZING!!!" moment. There was no aiming epiphany. Some work ok, some are MEH, but seriously, none was the be all to end all of aiming. At least to me. But that is MY opinion.
As such, i will criticize systems however i wish.

But if you look closely, you will see that the only thing i have knocked in this thread, is the "lights reflected" system, cause lets face it, that's just a big load a crap right there and deserves to be made fun of.
If mentioning that aiming at the spot on the ball that takes the object ball to the hole is genius, that's cause it's the way i play. Does that constitute knocking?
Please show me where i blatantly knocked a system in this thread aside from reflected lights.

I have pointed out that people like to cherry pick and automatically refer to their go to guys, that use systems and play well. As if that is somehow a testament to the systems validity or some form of a guarantee, when they NEVER mention all the "bangers" as you put it, that try out systems and practice for years and years, who never benefit from them whatsoever. No, those players never get mentioned cause they are of no use.

Don't see why it has to be so complicated.
For every person that benefits from a system, there are people who don't and never will. That's the point. That's not knocking any system or the people that have been helped by one, but it IS the truth.

Some people will play superb pool with systems, some will manage to do it alone with just instinct, and yet others, no matter how long they try, systems or not, will never get it, regardless of how many times you show them or explain it to them. They will never progress. They will never ever play this game well.

 

[lfigueroa]

Nice try Lou. But, nothing but a red herring there. There's a few key differences that you either seem to be ignoring, or want us to ignore.
1. Hoppe didn't say he used the system. In fact, he said he didn't use it.
2.Darren said he does use the system with his name on it.
3. Hoppe admitted the system in "his" book works. Albeit with a perfect stroke.
4. So what if Hoppe didn't use a system. Many don't. Does that make the value of a system any less? Of course not!
5. You mention that the greats could get 4 out of 2 by doing such and such. What's your point? That they were already so good they didn't need to learn a system? DUH! What has that got to do with the average Joe trying to get better?

Hoppe put it in his book, "Billiards as it Should be Played. How much more of an endorsement do you need?

Lou Figueroa