Not CTE Not squirt, Not BHE
- Thread starter bobroberts
- Start date
Perhaps in your post below you would find more acceptance if you added "SOME" Aiming System Advocates, as not ALL state these things.
Couldn't help it
Sorry, dr9ball, but that is a case of back-pedaling, too. The word "SOME" is a straddling-the-fence evasive word. Are you not part of the group "aiming system advocates"? (We're talking pivot-based aiming systems, of course.) If you are, then "aiming system advocates," as a group, includes you. If you have said even *one* of those things (even if you disagree with the rest of the list), it flies in the face of the "noone has ever said..." claim.
Again, I'm not calling "you" out specifically. I am leveraging the opportunity, though, to help all of us pin-point why these threads go south. I mean it constructively, not destructively.
-Sean
Neil what i stated is for me personally i wouldn't want an instructor who was not better then i am. As for a pro or for that matter anybody seeking help that would be their decision on who they go to.
Bob, I used to think the same way and did not want anyone to help me that I might be better than. Something to consider is not confusing someones ability to play with their ability to teach. There are some pros that play awesome, but have very little ability to communicate and teach people. There are however people who don't play like pros, but have enough knowledge and people skills to portray the teaching to. Just my 2 cents.
I understand that. But at my speed you better be better then me
I am not talking world class but he has to be a decent player.
I had an experience years ago with a instructor who wasn't very good at teaching or playing even though he was certified.
Neil:
This is the type of stuff I'm talking about -- the back-pedaling away from certain words that *HAVE* been used, baiting-and-switching with another word that's "safer." Do you not now say that "your" system "will" (pay attention here -- that was the key operative word) make the adopter a "better" player? If you do, this is exactly what I'm trying to bring out. "Better" is not a safer word than "good" or "great." The meaning is the same, and that meaning -- although none of the aiming system advocates will touch it with a ten-foot pole, but they stand by it by implication -- is this: "our system will improve your playing, guaranteed."
Without the benefit of an overseeing instructor, how does one know that the specific problem they have is aiming, and not accurate delivery of the cue? Let's say one tries an aiming system, and "notices" an improvement. How do we know that's not the well-known placebo effect? I know that in the past, when I've "tried" something and noticed I was pocketing balls better, I'd later found out it were merely a placebo effect. I'd found out that "the new technique I was trying" was inadvertently forcing me to pay more attention to a certain part of the shot/cue delivery that I was taking for granted previously.
<chuckles> Nice one, Neil. "Purely conjective statement" (meaning, it's 100% conjecture)... "but it 'could' be true for some" (meaning, although it was previously said it was "pure conjecture," let's flop a leg over the other side of the fence so that we're straddling it, and say "it 'could' be true, for 'some'." Exhibit A of this "careful walking on both sides of the line" that I'm trying to point out.
But it is this "matter of opinion" thing that is at the heart of the controversy.
See? That's what I'm talking about.
Human nature is to reject and step away from any descriptions/classifications we "don't like" the meaning of. Aiming system advocates "don't like" when they're challenged about the sales pitches, so techniques like "hear no evil, see no evil" rejection of previously-stated claims, and baiting-and-switching with different words are used. They *want* to believe that their system is an industry-changing innovation, and make incredible claims. But when challenged about those claims, they don't like being in the position of having to back them up -- they want someone else to do it.
Now I'm not saying this is "unique" to aiming system advocates. This is human nature -- we're all vulnerable to this. We scarf-up the positive, but want to leave the negative behind for someone else to deal with. I'm saying it's wrong -- especially since this has been going on for so long on this particular topic, and is desperately crying out for resolution.
Hopefully, one of the reviewers of the DVD can provide that. If I can, I will. I will, at least, provide a review of the DVD to these boards, in the most objective manner I can provide. (And I think I'm a good candidate for it -- I can see the good and bad in all things.)
-Sean
I understand that. But at my speed you better be better then me
I am not talking world class but he has to be a decent player.
I had an experience years ago with a instructor who wasn't very good at teaching or playing even though he was certified.
I hear ya there! On the flip side I have a friend who has taken lessons from a pro and wanted his money back. Without naming that pro let's just say it goes both ways. It's a good topic of discussion if people don't start flinging mud, hopefully your thread doesn't turn into that.
I understand that. But at my speed you better be better then me
I am not talking world class but he has to be a decent player.
I had an experience years ago with a instructor who wasn't very good at teaching or playing even though he was certified.
Sorry for your bad experience. I have to say though, that although my high school English teacher wasn't a published writer, she did a great job (don't judge her through me, based on my posts here :embarrassed2
...and it seems to me that most coaches, in most sports, aren't necessarily former great players. I think the critical skill is knowing what to look for when you are teaching/coaching, not the ability to do it yourself. I beat most of my martial arts instructors, but couldn't have without their help.
Sorry for your bad experience. I have to say though, that although my high school English teacher wasn't a published writer, she did a great job (don't judge her through me, based on my posts here :embarrassed2
I beat most of my martial arts instructors, but couldn't have without their help.
Good post.
It's all in practice, plan and simple.
You must practice with a purpose, a goal in mind or you are wasting your time. In order to do this requires you to know your true current skill level, what your weakness are and have a clear path to improving.
It seems people forget that no matter what system is used, it is the proper application of the system over and over and over again that really matters and practicing with a purpose is what it takes to do so.
There are no shorts cuts.
I'm starting to wonder if some people have experince what I call "hot and cold shooting". One day your hot, the next day your not. And all they want to know is why this is. They are willing to try any little thing to keep on the hot side. Like LD shafts, gloves, different type of aiming, strokes and so on just looking for what that fix is to keep ya hot.
They keep looking outside of themselves for the fix when all along the fix is inside themselves.
They are looking for the one true master, not knowing it is themselves that is the master. Taken from the film "The Last Dragon".
FWIW
You must practice with a purpose, a goal in mind or you are wasting your time. In order to do this requires you to know your true current skill level, what your weakness are and have a clear path to improving.
It seems people forget that no matter what system is used, it is the proper application of the system over and over and over again that really matters and practicing with a purpose is what it takes to do so.
There are no shorts cuts.
I'm starting to wonder if some people have experince what I call "hot and cold shooting". One day your hot, the next day your not. And all they want to know is why this is. They are willing to try any little thing to keep on the hot side. Like LD shafts, gloves, different type of aiming, strokes and so on just looking for what that fix is to keep ya hot.
They keep looking outside of themselves for the fix when all along the fix is inside themselves.
They are looking for the one true master, not knowing it is themselves that is the master. Taken from the film "The Last Dragon".
FWIW
I experience the hot and cold days but i know for me that when i am cold i am not doing what i should be to be hot. Meaning my mind is usually wandering and i am jumping up on my shot or shooting to quickly. One of my biggest problems is that on easy shots i let up or i am looking for the perfect position for the next 3 shots to come and lose perception off the easy one. Back to the original thread, systems are okay if you have your fundamentals down and practice. If not nothing will help except a qualified instructor, and then if you don't follow what their teaching nothing will work.
I never stated this. Lds are okay if thats what you want so are instructors, systems, gloves etc. but in the end fundamentals and practicing the correct way is what will make you play better. Plus the desire to be better.
lol, i just got the funniest image in my head.
It's hilarious watching people swing and/or lift big weights with terrible, terrible, form
Which makes me wonder if that same concept applies to pool
You're just too funny.
It's not complex at all. Only the discussions make it seem complex. On the table the systems are fairly easy to implement with a little practice.
The one fundamental advantage to aiming, banking and kicking systems IS the following;
They allow you to approach ANY shot the same way. So if you have a cut shot you have never tried before, never practiced then with a system you have a decent shot at making it. This comes up for me every session now. Last night I played one of the best in China some 8 ball and one pocket and I made many "diffcult" shots because of this. It affords me a whole new level of shots which I wouldn't have if I stuck to the Hit a Million Balls method of practice.
Same thing for kicking and banking.
Also last night I was watching one of the best players in Xiamen play. This guy is a fluid runout player. He just runs out every open table he sees. But he came to one shot where he had a close one rail kick to the side pocket and he butchered it with clearly little idea of how to measure the shot.
I showed him the mirror image kicking system and the VERY first time he tried his shot using that system he missed making the ball by a hair.
When Jimmy Reid taught me the mirror system my kicking game went up by three balls at least. Having the system allows me to have a reasonable starting point with ANY one rail kick no matter what it is and from there I can adjust as needed. This is so much more powerful than guessing.
Not that I am looking for applause but I can't tell you the amount of times spectators and my opponents will applaud my kicking and bank shots. But the fact is that I am not doing anything special or talented, I am just applying a system that works.
I spent a LOT of hours at the Miscue lounge practicing bank shots and trying to learn by feel. I can't tell you how much time I spent trying to get consistent with banks and I thought I was pretty good at them by the end of it.
However once I learned a few banking systems I got MUCH better at them.
Now, let's say for example that I spent an hour practicing one type of bank shot. Keep moving the ball a little here, a little there.....adjust a little this way a little that way and try to build muscle memory.
What if you came in ten minutes into that hour session and taught me a system that allowed me to make all those shots I would need an hour to learn by trial-and-error in five minutes? All of the sudden I am not having to guess what the correct line is and now am focused on my delivery. Now I can start experimenting with playing the bank shots with spin. The system you taught me sets me up on the right line to bank any shot and from there I can fine tune my delivery to be able to shoot it with position.
It all comes back to the concept of giving a man a fish or teaching him to fish. Teach a man a system and he can build his game on a solid foundation to the point where the system is practically invisible.
Then you will get applause for making outstanding shots and no one will know "how" you did it.
Has any system proponent ever once on here said that using a system eliminates the need for practice?
No. Not one.
I would bet you any amount of money that you could possibly scrape together that if I put you in a room for a week and told you to practice your bank shots and you had no system whatsoever and I had a system then I'd bet that I could make way more shots than you after that week.
Because in that week while you would be doing trial-and-error learning I would be focusing on advanced banking since I wouldn't be guessing at the starting aiming line.
If we both practiced for 40 hours that week - having both started with no idea how to bank - which of us would be "better" at banking after that week?
How many MORE hours would it take you to reach my level after that?
So let's say for example that after that initial 40 hours I stopped practicing.
How much more would you need to practice to reach my level through your trial-and-error method?