Naysayers vs. Yeasayers

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeyA

JoeyA

Efren's Mini-Tourn BACKER
Silver Member
I've been trying to wrap my mind around these two groups for some time now and still don't have it nailed down completely but a few things have come to the surface. I'm not trying to castigate anyone but just trying to give others who wonder WTH is going on in this forum with all this naysaying and yeasaying business.

Naysayers have been given the name because of their opinions about aiming systems and their negative comments about some very fine instructors and their mean-spirited comments about people who use aiming systems.

Yeasayers are bunch of goody-two shoes who have never done a thing wrong except express how they have improved their level of play by using an aiming system. :p OK, I'm just kidding. Some of the yeasayers have done a fair share of catching up to the naysayers in the mean-spirited comments as well.

Nevertheless, what I think is that the naysayers have learned how to aim, "almost" instinctively for the most part and it is an EASY thing for them to do. It is also a natural way to aim and a proficient way to aim. This type of aiming comes over a period of many years for most players and some players somehow just never see the perfect sight picture for every shot and those people are stuck in a revolving door, making the same mistakes in aiming over and over.

Some of these people who have trouble "seeing" a perfect sight picture on every shot have tried an aiming system or two and found that some of the aiming systems on the market have helped them with their aiming. These people are so happy that some of their aiming problems have been resolved, they want to share their success with other people who might be having the same trouble. When the naysayers see this, they come unglued because they want to believe that everyone should be using the HAMB aiming system which of course, stands for Hit A Million Balls. The unfortunate problem is that some people can hit a million balls and they will still fail to see a perfect sight picture.

Some of the newer aiming systems have added methods of stance and alignment to the equation of aiming and this has resulted in some positive results for some of us. There are varying degrees of improvements for each of the people who have tried to learn an aiming system or two and that's just the way the world works.

The debate continues to this day about the controversial aiming system called CTE/Pro1, taught by Stan Shuffett and it wll probably never end. Some people think CTE as taught by Hal Houle is the exact same thing as CTE/Pro1 and it is NOT. Nevertheless, more and more information gets put out there and people become more and more confused and exasperated with the information and misinformation, the hating and so on.

The naysayers don't want to lose the battle over the worthlessness of aiming systems but a flood of people continue to pour in testaments that validate the benfit of using aiming systems to develop a better sight picture of the shot. It is unfortunately a LOSING BATTLE but the naysayers will fight until their fingers can no longer type. They will spin stories now that their they just don't like aiming systems because of the way they are marketed here in the forum. Or, they will spin stories about how aiming systems will hurt your game in the long run and make you a cripple. Or they will poo-pooh lesser players' came because they have excelled at hitting a million balls in an attempt to make themselves feel better about their supposed superiority. There is even a couple of naysayers who just try to antagonize aiming system users because they can't play pool any more but they can sure trap some of those guys with their words because they can still type.

The yeasayers have adapted to the attacks and have responded with their own propaganda and style of defense and it isn't always nice either.
I've been on both sides of the fence and try to keep an open mind about everything but it isn't always easy. The truth is that hitting a million balls and practicing hard is a great way to improve your pool game but NO AIMING SYSTEM is going to make the sky fall in spite of what Chicken Little says.

Some of the naysayers want mathematical proof that this aiming system is a perfect aiming system. The truth is that aiming systems are morphing into something more than just aiming. Instructors have reasoned that some people have trouble developing this sight picture and have evolved aiming systems to the point where they help the student develop a perfect sight picture. Whether it can be proved by math or not, is immaterial at least to me. The bottom line for an aiming system, at least for me, is if it can help me to improve my pool game. The academics can wail all they want about how this isn't an aiming system or this isn't a mathematical proven aiming system. I don't really care about that. What I do care about is the mean-spirited comments that continue to be spouted by a few. The list continues to narrow as moderators have taken their toll on the perpetrators and I'm sure more will leave our midst in the days, weeks, months and years to come.

Nevertheless, aiming systems appear to have taken a real foot hold in America and beyond. While some of the newer aiming systems may not be everyone's cup of tea, some are enjoying their new found improvements and others will follow.

Hopefully, we will be able to see a new wave of tolerance and better attitudes by both the naysayers and the yeasayers and the pool world will reap the benfits of both parties.
 
JoeyA said:
I've been trying to wrap my mind around these two groups for some time now and still don't have it nailed down completely but a few things have come to the surface. I'm not trying to castigate anyone but just trying to give others who wonder WTH is going on in this forum with all this naysaying and yeasaying business.

Naysayers have been given the name because of their opinions about aiming systems and their negative comments about some very fine instructors and their mean-spirited comments about people who use aiming systems.

Yeasayers are bunch of goody-two shoes who have never done a thing wrong except express how they have improved their level of play by using an aiming system. :p OK, I'm just kidding. Some of the yeasayers have done a fair share of catching up to the naysayers in the mean-spirited comments as well.

Nevertheless, what I think is that the naysayers have learned how to aim, "almost" instinctively for the most part and it is an EASY thing for them to do. It is also a natural way to aim and a proficient way to aim. This type of aiming comes over a period of many years for most players and some players somehow just never see the perfect sight picture for every shot and those people are stuck in a revolving door, making the same mistakes in aiming over and over.

Some of these people who have trouble "seeing" a perfect sight picture on every shot have tried an aiming system or two and found that some of the aiming systems on the market have helped them with their aiming. These people are so happy that some of their aiming problems have been resolved, they want to share their success with other people who might be having the same trouble. When the naysayers see this, they come unglued because they want to believe that everyone should be using the HAMB aiming system which of course, stands for Hit A Million Balls. The unfortunate problem is that some people can hit a million balls and they will still fail to see a perfect sight picture.

Some of the newer aiming systems have added methods of stance and alignment to the equation of aiming and this has resulted in some positive results for some of us. There are varying degrees of improvements for each of the people who have tried to learn an aiming system or two and that's just the way the world works.

The debate continues to this day about the controversial aiming system called CTE/Pro1, taught by Stan Shuffett and it wll probably never end. Some people think CTE as taught by Hal Houle is the exact same thing as CTE/Pro1 and it is NOT. Nevertheless, more and more information gets put out there and people become more and more confused and exasperated with the information and misinformation, the hating and so on.

The naysayers don't want to lose the battle over the worthlessness of aiming systems but a flood of people continue to pour in testaments that validate the benfit of using aiming systems to develop a better sight picture of the shot. It is unfortunately a LOSING BATTLE but the naysayers will fight until their fingers can no longer type. They will spin stories now that their they just don't like aiming systems because of the way they are marketed here in the forum. Or, they will spin stories about how aiming systems will hurt your game in the long run and make you a cripple. Or they will poo-pooh lesser players' came because they have excelled at hitting a million balls in an attempt to make themselves feel better about their supposed superiority. There is even a couple of naysayers who just try to antagonize aiming system users because they can't play pool any more but they can sure trap some of those guys with their words because they can still type.

The yeasayers have adapted to the attacks and have responded with their own propaganda and style of defense and it isn't always nice either.
I've been on both sides of the fence and try to keep an open mind about everything but it isn't always easy. The truth is that hitting a million balls and practicing hard is a great way to improve your pool game but NO AIMING SYSTEM is going to make the sky fall in spite of what Chicken Little says.

Some of the naysayers want mathematical proof that this aiming system is a perfect aiming system. The truth is that aiming systems are morphing into something more than just aiming. Instructors have reasoned that some people have trouble developing this sight picture and have evolved aiming systems to the point where they help the student develop a perfect sight picture. Whether it can be proved by math or not, is immaterial at least to me. The bottom line for an aiming system, at least for me, is if it can help me to improve my pool game. The academics can wail all they want about how this isn't an aiming system or this isn't a mathematical proven aiming system. I don't really care about that. What I do care about is the mean-spirited comments that continue to be spouted by a few. The list continues to narrow as moderators have taken their toll on the perpetrators and I'm sure more will leave our midst in the days, weeks, months and years to come.

Nevertheless, aiming systems appear to have taken a real foot hold in America and beyond. While some of the newer aiming systems may not be everyone's cup of tea, some are enjoying their new found improvements and others will follow.

Hopefully, we will be able to see a new wave of tolerance and better attitudes by both the naysayers and the yeasayers and the pool world will reap the benfits of both parties.
Click to expand...

Joey i have a question here for you,after reading so many threads on aiming and diagrams that have been shown and which there has been a lot of good information and i might add some really confusing information.
Can you see why so many people are against aiming methods.
Some of the information in the threads i feel are what is causing this whole stir.(some of it is just wrong)On both sides.Would you agree?
 
I think the difference is much simpler. The difference is that some people want proof, others are fine with less.


Less means a lot of things. It can be improvement in their game as you mentioned, but that could be from a number of factors. It could be trust in authority. It could be confidence. Improvement doesn't necessarily mean it was or is the system that is doing it based on what the system claims it does.


I have no vested interest or agenda in seeing "aiming systems" fail or be trashed. I'm not here to trash them. In fact, I would prefer that they prevail. I too would like a system to fall back on, when I can't see the shot those few rare times.


I think the OP is a bit biased in that respect, in the negative portrayal of those who simply take an academic or scientific approach to clarifying and defining things. There are some people who do want to bash. Shame on them.


I personally do not think that the failure or invalidation of an aiming system, particularly one that is strongly associated with a particular instructor, hurts the credibility or the quality of that instructor. Such an instructor is still a fine instructor who teaches a wide array of skills. It is unreasonable to fault someone for TRYING to innovate and explore ways in which to improve players and students. I believe their intent is sincere and genuine. However, not all aiming system sellers out there are sincere or genuine.


As a result, there are people on both sides that just want to tear down others. I don't like these people on either side. I'm looking for information and truth. To expand knowledge on pool. Not to be a winner of some debate. Winning and losing means nothing. It is the struggle that finds truth.


I would rather lose the aiming system debate, because that would mean we would all be blessed with a system that works and that is a benefit to pool and to our games. What I cannot do, or won't do - is simply give up and accept what others say, just because they say it. That's the intro line to this post. Some people want proof. What is so bad about that?


To make this whole thing about anything other than those who want proof, vs those ok with their experiences is what leads to all the conflict. To me, that's all this is about.
 
The root issue, as I see it

Joey:

That was a great write-up, and, although clearly "yaysayer cheerleading" in certain parts, definitely cuts to the chase about what's going on with the cycle of aiming system topics doing a death spiral into the ground.

You mention that some aiming systems include requirements on stance, alignment, head/eye placement, etc. and that "this one facet alone has helped students" (not that you said these words directly; just paraphrasing).

I think this also helps clarify why certain topics of technique in the pool world get so much press. I'm going to catch holy hell for this, but I'm going to put it out there, because I firmly believe it. And that is this: the issue is that pool instruction, in spite of the excellent work that such luminary instructors like Jerry Briesath, Randy Goettlicher, Stan Shuffett, Scott Lee, et al. have done, is still nowhere near the "science" -- structured science -- that other cue sports (e.g. snooker) or other sports in general have. Pool has traditionally been a, "walk up to the table, and play the game the best you can with what you know" in bars and pool halls.

It's traditionally been like -- if I may be permitted to use an analogy from my childhood growing up in New York -- learning to play stick-ball with a friction-taped broomstick and an old tennis ball (or one of those "pinky balls") in NY streets. You get up there, and you just "do it." Nobody teaches you, and you get to see and experience the techniques ("hacks") from the players around you. You learn by doing. If you find this activity really resonates with you (most NY boys do), then you graduate to baseball, and if you do well there, you enter a league system, with a *very* structured approach to the science of the game, that tears you down, and builds your skills back up properly. This is what pool DOESN'T have.

Like I said, Jerry/Randy/Stan/Scott/et al. have done a wonderful job cobbling together proven techniques and assembling a structured syllabus for their schools. But there are *still* many stones left unturned, and to this day, there's still nowhere near the time-tested, time-filtered structure offered by other cue sports or other sports in general. Nor is there the respect for pool as with other sports. Pool is still, unfortunately, a "hack's" game in the eyes of the public. Compare this to snooker, which is a sport enjoyed by many countries, and inspite of the fact that certain bars and clubs may have snooker tables, it's a respected game with a history of structured schooling and practice. Watch any player in a UK bar playing snooker (even "funsie" games), and you'll see the very same form and rigid fundamentals, regardless of that player's particular skill. Everyone approaching a snooker table *knows* the fundamentals required to play. Compare that to pool, where you have what I like to refer to as "Baskin and Robbins" fundamentals -- i.e. "pick any of 31 different flavors -- which one's your favorite? You can even create your own flavor!"

What does this have to do with this thread? The answer is that we're seeing a lot of new "discoveries" offered out of nowhere in the pool world, designed to fill any of a LOT of missing voids. A good example of a "niche product that fills a hole" is that "new" head/eye alignment technique (which is not new at all -- it's taught in the primer levels of the aforementioned mature cue sports) that the vendor is calling "perfect aim." It helps patch one of the many missing holes in the art/science of our unfortunately-viewed-by-the-public-as-a-hack-sport of pool. And because these are new products, they are often touted as the cat's meow -- the best thing since sliced bread -- because they address something that is MISSING from the approach to learning how to play pool.

Unfortunately, both sides of the fence are latching onto the SAME THING, but in a different way. One side latches onto it in the best-thing-since-sliced-bread manner; the other side latches onto it as a "sorry, that's not taught in pool schools and therefore is not a valid approach so knock it off with the best-thing-since-sliced-bread" aspect.

This is NOT an easy problem to fix. The only way to fix it, is to have pool embraced by the public as more than a "hack" sport -- to gain the respect of the public that pool is more than playing stick-ball in the streets. It's a legitimate sport, and deserves the kind of structured teaching and focus in learning it as, say, snooker, or any other sport.

Thoughts?
-Sean
 
I will say that as someone who is neither nay nor yay, I appreciate how the tone has become much more civil since Mr. Wilsons "suggestion" a few days ago.

As a relative newbie trying to soak in anything and everything about pool, I follow most of these threads. It really is nice to see a more civil attitude, at least these last few days. A lot can be gained from a debate, but not so much from an argument.
 
My thoughts are that there should be an annual BCA instructors conference in the USA and part of that conference should be to establish standards of instruction and to discuss "new" methods touted by whomever, be they private citizens, pro-players, free or commericial. The BCA instructors should evaluate these things and decide to give them a stamp of approval, set them for further review, or classify them as worthless.

THEN everyone touting x-method would know that at some point the BCA instructors would review it and it had better be authentic or it would get the thumbs down, which is to say the kiss of death.

But now we have proponents and opponents USING BCA master instructors as weapons to prove their sides. Well so and so teaches it then it must be ok, well so and so doesn't teach it so it must not be any good........

Once people dig in and invest a lot of words into their view then it becomes very tough to get them to come to middle ground or even to convince them to step over the line.

That's just human nature.
 
JB Cases said:
My thoughts are that there should be an annual BCA instructors conference in the USA and part of that conference should be to establish standards of instruction and to discuss "new" methods touted by whomever, be they private citizens, pro-players, free or commericial. The BCA instructors should evaluate these things and decide to give them a stamp of approval, set them for further review, or classify them as worthless.

THEN everyone touting x-method would know that at some point the BCA instructors would review it and it had better be authentic or it would get the thumbs down, which is to say the kiss of death.

But now we have proponents and opponents USING BCA master instructors as weapons to prove their sides. Well so and so teaches it then it must be ok, well so and so doesn't teach it so it must not be any good........

Once people dig in and invest a lot of words into their view then it becomes very tough to get them to come to middle ground or even to convince them to step over the line.

That's just human nature.
Click to expand...

That's a great suggestion.
I'm gonna guess, if these collective minds get together and really talk this out, I think they will come to the conclusion that keeping the game simple will serve them better .
A straight line is the simplest way to getting to a point .
 
JoeyInCali said:
That's a great suggestion.
I'm gonna guess, if these collective minds get together and really talk this out, I think they will come to the conclusion that keeping the game simple will serve them better .
A straight line is the simplest way to getting to a point .
Click to expand...

Joey, unfortunately I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on this point (bolded above). This is an example of latching onto a "side" and not letting go. I don't think the BCA should consider "details" like this, but rather, big picture -- what are methods proven to work?

For example, the snooker stance is not the most comfortable stance (by any means). But yet it is the most accurate. The "debate" of whether a stance should include calisthenics to get used to it vs. it should be comfortable right from the get-go fell by the wayside long ago. It's a non-issue. So "holding onto" these old arguments does no good.

The picture is much bigger than just aiming methods to fill a void. The picture is lack of structure in our "hack" sport, and coming up with a structure with no voids -- something that the BCA and other national pool committees/authorities can address, if they all get together and address it to come up with at least a backbone structure that can be added onto later.

Hope this helps,
-Sean
 
JB Cases said:
My thoughts are that there should be an annual BCA instructors conference in the USA and part of that conference should be to establish standards of instruction and to discuss "new" methods touted by whomever, be they private citizens, pro-players, free or commericial. The BCA instructors should evaluate these things and decide to give them a stamp of approval, set them for further review, or classify them as worthless.
Click to expand...
This is a great idea.
 
8pack said:
Joey i have a question here for you,after reading so many threads on aiming and diagrams that have been shown and which there has been a lot of good information and i might add some really confusing information.
Can you see why so many people are against aiming methods.
Some of the information in the threads i feel are what is causing this whole stir.(some of it is just wrong)On both sides.Would you agree?
Click to expand...

8pack,
There aren't that many people against aiming methods but the few are very vocal. A few have painted themselves into a corner suggesting that CTE/Pro1, CTE, and Perfect Aim are garbage and they have to keep denigrating anything to do with them or they will look like the fool themselves. It is tough for some people to admit that they were wrong. That's my short perspective on your first question.

The second question is, YES. I agree with you.
 
Grilled Cheese said:
I think the difference is much simpler. The difference is that some people want proof, others are fine with less.


Less means a lot of things. It can be improvement in their game as you mentioned, but that could be from a number of factors. It could be trust in authority. It could be confidence. Improvement doesn't necessarily mean it was or is the system that is doing it based on what the system claims it does.


I have no vested interest or agenda in seeing "aiming systems" fail or be trashed. I'm not here to trash them. In fact, I would prefer that they prevail. I too would like a system to fall back on, when I can't see the shot those few rare times.


I think the OP is a bit biased in that respect, in the negative portrayal of those who simply take an academic or scientific approach to clarifying and defining things. There are some people who do want to bash. Shame on them.

I personally do not think that the failure or invalidation of an aiming system, particularly one that is strongly associated with a particular instructor, hurts the credibility or the quality of that instructor. Such an instructor is still a fine instructor who teaches a wide array of skills. It is unreasonable to fault someone for TRYING to innovate and explore ways in which to improve players and students. I believe their intent is sincere and genuine. However, not all aiming system sellers out there are sincere or genuine.


As a result, there are people on both sides that just want to tear down others. I don't like these people on either side. I'm looking for information and truth. To expand knowledge on pool. Not to be a winner of some debate. Winning and losing means nothing. It is the struggle that finds truth.


I would rather lose the aiming system debate, because that would mean we would all be blessed with a system that works and that is a benefit to pool and to our games. What I cannot do, or won't do - is simply give up and accept what others say, just because they say it. That's the intro line to this post. Some people want proof. What is so bad about that?


To make this whole thing about anything other than those who want proof, vs those ok with their experiences is what leads to all the conflict. To me, that's all this is about.
Click to expand...

Then you have lost the aiming system debate because others have improved their pool game. You apparently believe the yeasayers are lying. LOL.............
 
sfleinen said:
Joey:

That was a great write-up, and, although clearly "yaysayer cheerleading" in certain parts, definitely cuts to the chase about what's going on with the cycle of aiming system topics doing a death spiral into the ground.

You mention that some aiming systems include requirements on stance, alignment, head/eye placement, etc. and that "this one facet alone has helped students" (not that you said these words directly; just paraphrasing).

I think this also helps clarify why certain topics of technique in the pool world get so much press. I'm going to catch holy hell for this, but I'm going to put it out there, because I firmly believe it. And that is this: the issue is that pool instruction, in spite of the excellent work that such luminary instructors like Jerry Briesath, Randy Goettlicher, Stan Shuffett, Scott Lee, et al. have done, is still nowhere near the "science" -- structured science -- that other cue sports (e.g. snooker) or other sports in general have. Pool has traditionally been a, "walk up to the table, and play the game the best you can with what you know" in bars and pool halls.

It's traditionally been like -- if I may be permitted to use an analogy from my childhood growing up in New York -- learning to play stick-ball with a friction-taped broomstick and an old tennis ball (or one of those "pinky balls") in NY streets. You get up there, and you just "do it." Nobody teaches you, and you get to see and experience the techniques ("hacks") from the players around you. You learn by doing. If you find this activity really resonates with you (most NY boys do), then you graduate to baseball, and if you do well there, you enter a league system, with a *very* structured approach to the science of the game, that tears you down, and builds your skills back up properly. This is what pool DOESN'T have.

Like I said, Jerry/Randy/Stan/Scott/et al. have done a wonderful job cobbling together proven techniques and assembling a structured syllabus for their schools. But there are *still* many stones left unturned, and to this day, there's still nowhere near the time-tested, time-filtered structure offered by other cue sports or other sports in general. Nor is there the respect for pool as with other sports. Pool is still, unfortunately, a "hack's" game in the eyes of the public. Compare this to snooker, which is a sport enjoyed by many countries, and inspite of the fact that certain bars and clubs may have snooker tables, it's a respected game with a history of structured schooling and practice. Watch any player in a UK bar playing snooker (even "funsie" games), and you'll see the very same form and rigid fundamentals, regardless of that player's particular skill. Everyone approaching a snooker table *knows* the fundamentals required to play. Compare that to pool, where you have what I like to refer to as "Baskin and Robbins" fundamentals -- i.e. "pick any of 31 different flavors -- which one's your favorite? You can even create your own flavor!"

What does this have to do with this thread? The answer is that we're seeing a lot of new "discoveries" offered out of nowhere in the pool world, designed to fill any of a LOT of missing voids. A good example of a "niche product that fills a hole" is that "new" head/eye alignment technique (which is not new at all -- it's taught in the primer levels of the aforementioned mature cue sports) that the vendor is calling "perfect aim." It helps patch one of the many missing holes in the art/science of our unfortunately-viewed-by-the-public-as-a-hack-sport of pool. And because these are new products, they are often touted as the cat's meow -- the best thing since sliced bread -- because they address something that is MISSING from the approach to learning how to play pool.

Unfortunately, both sides of the fence are latching onto the SAME THING, but in a different way. One side latches onto it in the best-thing-since-sliced-bread manner; the other side latches onto it as a "sorry, that's not taught in pool schools and therefore is not a valid approach so knock it off with the best-thing-since-sliced-bread" aspect.

This is NOT an easy problem to fix. The only way to fix it, is to have pool embraced by the public as more than a "hack" sport -- to gain the respect of the public that pool is more than playing stick-ball in the streets. It's a legitimate sport, and deserves the kind of structured teaching and focus in learning it as, say, snooker, or any other sport.

Thoughts?
-Sean
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, our sport doesn't have the funding to put Stan shuffett into one of those research projects where they hook the player up to equipment designed to watch the movements of their eyes and body like they have done for basketball and such. Maybe and maybe only then can the "proof" that a FEW are so want to have.

Until the proof is provided, I suggest the naysayers give the ridiculing a rest, give the people and instructors who teach aiming system A LOT MORE RESPECT than they currently give them in this forum. At the very least, the forum will move toward a more peaceful fraternity and perhaps less banning will take place as well.

A few of the naysayers have switched gears and are saying that aiming systems work. (Too many people say they do for the naysayers to deny it). A few of the naysayers have slacked up on their mean-spirited comments. Some have stopped altogether. THE LATTER IS a good step in the right direction.

I agree with you a lot about many things and always look forward to reading your rather long-winded replies. :D:D:D j/k. You make a lot of sense and explain yourself very well.
 
Grilled Cheese said:
I think the difference is much simpler. The difference is that some people want proof, others are fine with less.

The difference is that some naysayers go by the guise of wanting proof. When given enough proof for any reasonable person, they demand more proof.Why do YOU demand proof of aiming systems that you do not require of anything else? You have stated that you won't even try it until you have the proof you demand. Yet, you try many other things on the table without ANY proof of them working.
So, the issue isn't proof at all. It's nothing more than being contrary.
Less means a lot of things. It can be improvement in their game as you mentioned, but that could be from a number of factors. It could be trust in authority. It could be confidence. Improvement doesn't necessarily mean it was or is the system that is doing it based on what the system claims it does.

If that were true, it would not have lasting effects, which it does have.
I have no vested interest or agenda in seeing "aiming systems" fail or be trashed. I'm not here to trash them. In fact, I would prefer that they prevail. I too would like a system to fall back on, when I can't see the shot those few rare times.
Prove what you say is true. I say that because you are the one that wants proof for everything on aiming, prove what you say about wishing they did work being true. You can't, because you have stated the opposite many times over. Your actions have proven otherwise. So, you are really doing nothing more than flat out lying here to try and make yourself look better and try and gain some credibility. None of us here are that stupid.

I think the OP is a bit biased in that respect, in the negative portrayal of those who simply take an academic or scientific approach to clarifying and defining things. There are some people who do want to bash. Shame on them.

Yes, shame on you.
I personally do not think that the failure or invalidation of an aiming system, particularly one that is strongly associated with a particular instructor, hurts the credibility or the quality of that instructor. Such an instructor is still a fine instructor who teaches a wide array of skills. It is unreasonable to fault someone for TRYING to innovate and explore ways in which to improve players and students. I believe their intent is sincere and genuine. However, not all aiming system sellers out there are sincere or genuine.
Baloney. You yourself have called anyone that uses or sells the systems a number of names.

As a result, there are people on both sides that just want to tear down others. I don't like these people on either side. I'm looking for information and truth. To expand knowledge on pool. Not to be a winner of some debate. Winning and losing means nothing. It is the struggle that finds truth.
Not buying your B.S. for a second, neither is anyone else. You are not looking for any knowledge. If you were, even a little, you would have tried it out on a table. In your owns words, you haven't, and won't until you have proof that it works.

I would rather lose the aiming system debate, because that would mean we would all be blessed with a system that works and that is a benefit to pool and to our games. What I cannot do, or won't do - is simply give up and accept what others say, just because they say it. That's the intro line to this post. Some people want proof. What is so bad about that?
Nothing, as long as it is reasonable. Why do you demand proof of aiming systems that you do not require of any other aspect of the game? Why will you bowl or play golf or any other sport without demanding proof on paper and in diagrams with all the math of how to do it before you even try it?

To make this whole thing about anything other than those who want proof, vs those ok with their experiences is what leads to all the conflict. To me, that's all this is about.
Click to expand...

Nice try on the sales pitch, but that is all it is. Your past post prove there is no truth in what you have stated here. For years you have been using english without any knowledge or proof of how to use it. Yet, for aiming systems you demand all the math and diagrams before you will use it. That is not the sign of someone wanting knowledge, or willing to better themselves. That is the sign of someone doing nothing but wanting controversy and attention. Your post is an epic fail.
 
duckie said:
Hmmmm, too bad you don't practice what you preach.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=3447457#post3447457
Click to expand...

I think Joey made a centered comment and called out what was happening.

So some guy resurrects an ancient thread just to start an argument (trolling), Joey calls it for what it is and then you think Joey's in the wrong????!?!??

You seem like the type of guy I def try to avoid in the pool room. The nitty trouble-making type.
 
"....Some of these people who have trouble "seeing" a perfect sight picture on every shot ...."

Some folks also have a high degree of spacial comprehension and others don't - there are tests for this ability and there may be a correlation as to why some see the ghost ball and others that don't need something else to improve their pocketing and banking skill.
 
How about we ALL go on aiming system vacation for a month? All of you who are guilty know who you are. So on the honor system and on Valentines Day how about at least for 30 days you just quit talking about it on here? Spend the time at the table honing your arguments for when the month is up.

I am in. Are you?
 
JB Cases said:
How about we ALL go on aiming system vacation for a month? All of you who are guilty know who you are. So on the honor system and on Valentines Day how about at least for 30 days you just quit talking about it on here? Spend the time at the table honing your arguments for when the month is up.

I am in. Are you?
Click to expand...

Sounds like a plan to me. I overheard a couple of masters talking last night about Pro1 at league, which surprised the hell outta me. The jist of it was that they didn't really use it stringently any more, but found that once you got it down it made the 'feel' shots much easier with a standard reference. But this whole issue has been beaten to death. Most of these "conciliatory" threads start off with nothing but backhanded remarks, so it's just a bunch of caca being thrown back and forth.

I just like pool. :thumbup:
 
How about a sub-forum just for aiming system threads?

Lord knows there are more than enough aiming system threads to fill up a subforum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top