Score one for the Houligans...

JAW725 said:
Is it true that CJ Wiley also used the Center to Edge system or something very close? He said that there are parts to aiming that top players don't always talk about :)

C2E = The Answer ;)

J.W.
Click to expand...

Without going into too much detail cuz he sells the method on his instructional tapes CJ breaks the cue ball down into a few sections and aims one of those sections at either the center or the edge of the object ball based on the angle of the shot. This is the info he came out with and I assume the info he was mad about people stealing, but thats just a guess and I have no idea if CJ was taught that method or created it himself.
 
**********
I realize that this post does not explain the method in a way that would make it useful to the uninitiated player and I won't even try because all such attempts get bogged down badly.
***************************

Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of this method, it amazes me that it can apparently be taught over the phone by the spoken word, but cannot be adequately described in print, video, or by geometrical proof.

I know of no other tenent that can make this claim.
 
ScottW said:
I'll say that due to that system, my game is quite a bit better than it was beforehand. But, I still have many troubles that have nothing to do with that aiming system of Hal's - mostly to do with focus, patience, etc. which still goof me up.
Click to expand...

You and me both man. Concentration is my enemy, especially considering how much I actually play, which isn't much.
 
Better chalk a few more up....

Bustamante said today that as far as he knows, all the Filipinos use "center-to-edge." He learned it years ago when he saw people pivoting and used it ever since....balls just go in the hole he says.

Ask him next time you see him.

So, unless you don't think the Filipinos are the best... maybe you should study this a little more.

Dave

P.S. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. :)
 
The pivot systems work. No argument here. But why? No one seems to want to find out. Too many pivoters say that when they miss a shot it was because of bad execution. What if it's not? I know you guys who use the system don't care how it works, but that may be the reason for the arguments. No one is proving why it works. There's nothing magical going on here. I've said it before that I happen to think it works because it gets you close enough for your feel to begin the adjustments that need to take place in order to make the shots. But prove me wrong. I want to know. To begin, share everything you know about the systems and everything you personally do with them.

I do believe that some pros use it, but what I'd suggest is that they pivot only to begin the feel process.

So how do we prove that the systems work on their own if we don't take measurements or set up a pivoting arm with a laser pointer or something similar?

This argument will go on forever until that kind of thing is done.
 
bluepepper said:
The pivot systems work. No argument here. But why? No one seems to want to find out. Too many pivoters say that when they miss a shot it was because of bad execution. What if it's not? I know you guys who use the system don't care how it works, but that may be the reason for the arguments. No one is proving why it works. There's nothing magical going on here. I've said it before that I happen to think it works because it gets you close enough for your feel to begin the adjustments that need to take place in order to make the shots. But prove me wrong. I want to know. To begin, share everything you know about the systems and everything you personally do with them.

I do believe that some pros use it, but what I'd suggest is that they pivot only to begin the feel process.

So how do we prove that the systems work on their own if we don't take measurements or set up a pivoting arm with a laser pointer or something similar?
This argument will go on forever until that kind of thing is done.
Click to expand...


Or you just point to Francisco and say ..."see it works"

I don't think you try to prove it is the issue... No matter what you prove..."sombody" will come up with something to dis-prove it.

Heck there are people that can dis-prove an orange actually tastes like an orange......I mean really...how do you know it tastes like an orange...perhaps it really tastes like an apple...they just named it wrong....or perhaps what you tast that you call an orange actually tastes like an apple "to me"???

The problem is (for life in general) is it is much easier to poke holes in something and call it wrong than it is to actually "prove" something....for reference, refer to the OJ Simpson debac.......errrrr....I mean ....trail..:wink:
 
Ken, I do think this is easy to prove or disprove. Maybe I'll just build a pivoting arm with a laser and make a video. Maybe someone can help me to come up with a foolproof way of testing this.
But for now it would only be based on the Houle pivots or the Ron Vitello pivots. I don't know the Shuffett method and no one's willing to share.
 
Hal must have gone to the Philippines and taught them all!

Seriously though, no one can take credit for "inventing" a system. These aiming systems are merely noticing a relationship between the balls (and the pockets) and using that relationship as a basis for aiming. No one created, or invented, the relationship. It was there all along. Many people may have noticed the same relationships throughout the history of this game, so it becomes difficult for any one person to even claim to have "discovered" a particular relationship on which to base an aiming system.

That's a bit off topic, I know, but I somewhat cringe every time I hear of some aiming system being "invented", or "created", by any one individual. I guess they could take credit for naming the system. In that case, yeah, I guess it could be accurately claimed that so-and-so created the "xyz system". :)
 
I've been reading things here from some posters I highly respect.

Haven't learned a thing. :boring2: :D
 
JoeyA said:
Scott, you mirror a lot of what I have experienced myself. You have trolled me into a response. I laughed out loud when reading your "main thing" a & b items.

Stan Shuffett's Pro One Aiming System is more of a layered "shooting" system. While it is an aiming system, it is much more than that and it is evolutionary as you can go from learning how to know what shots should look like and how to align, you and your cue so that the shot may be easily made to something that I call "structured instinct" which is the aiming system in the hands of a high level player like Stevie Moore or Landon Shuffett and as others have mentioned, Francisco Bustamante and Dennis Orcullo.

The Pro One Aiming System will help beginning and intermediate players immediately. Some of these players may never advance much farther even after learning the system while others will stay on the path of learning and adapting. Advanced players may have to take an act of faith for it to help them. :D :smile: :D

The Pro One Aiming System has helped my game and given me additional confidence and if you need "numbers" to explain a portion of the system that can pass the Mensa Physics test: I can resolutely say that I have the best alignment I have ever had.

What I like about Stan and Landon is that they can put their teaching where their mouth is. I can tell you from personal experience that both Stan and Landon Shuffet CAN PLAY. :smile:

I have quit trying to explain the system to others as I am apparently not competent enough to do so. I too have been met with resistance when attempting to share what I have learned.

It doesn't matter to me whether it is a scientific fact that you cannot accelerate your cue stick through the cue ball or not. The mere ambition to do so will help your game and that is enough for me. The fact that this learning system has acquired overt hostile criticism on a regular basis is plenty of excuse for me not to bother showing it to anyone. That's why I jokingly say, "Let the ignorance remain". :yeah:

Furthermore, I don't think this is simply an aiming system. I'm not trying to coin another term for me it is more of a shooting system in my opinion.

We all can aim pretty darn well. The problem is getting the cue ball to go where we are aiming and secondly, getting the cue ball to go where we want after making the correct contact on the object ball.

I don't particularly like to criticize anyone's efforts to share or improve and have learned long ago: Different strokes for different folks.

JoeyA
Click to expand...


Tap, tap, tap! I love shooting systems.

The key after all is to get the cue ball and the object ball to behave in such a way as to a): pot the ball, and b): get the proper shape on the next ball.

Great post, Joey!

Flex
 
GREAT post!

JoeyA said:
Scott, you mirror a lot of what I have experienced myself. You have trolled me into a response. I laughed out loud when reading your "main thing" a & b items.

Stan Shuffett's Pro One Aiming System is more of a layered "shooting" system. While it is an aiming system, it is much more than that and it is evolutionary as you can go from learning how to know what shots should look like and how to align, you and your cue so that the shot may be easily made to something that I call "structured instinct" which is the aiming system in the hands of a high level player like Stevie Moore or Landon Shuffett and as others have mentioned, Francisco Bustamante and Dennis Orcullo.

The Pro One Aiming System will help beginning and intermediate players immediately. Some of these players may never advance much farther even after learning the system while others will stay on the path of learning and adapting. Advanced players may have to take an act of faith for it to help them. :D :smile: :D

The Pro One Aiming System has helped my game and given me additional confidence and if you need "numbers" to explain a portion of the system that can pass the Mensa Physics test: I can resolutely say that I have the best alignment I have ever had.

What I like about Stan and Landon is that they can put their teaching where their mouth is. I can tell you from personal experience that both Stan and Landon Shuffet CAN PLAY. :smile:

I have quit trying to explain the system to others as I am apparently not competent enough to do so. I too have been met with resistance when attempting to share what I have learned.

It doesn't matter to me whether it is a scientific fact that you cannot accelerate your cue stick through the cue ball or not. The mere ambition to do so will help your game and that is enough for me. The fact that this learning system has acquired overt hostile criticism on a regular basis is plenty of excuse for me not to bother showing it to anyone. That's why I jokingly say, "Let the ignorance remain". :yeah:

Furthermore, I don't think this is simply an aiming system. I'm not trying to coin another term for me it is more of a shooting system in my opinion.

We all can aim pretty darn well. The problem is getting the cue ball to go where we are aiming and secondly, getting the cue ball to go where we want after making the correct contact on the object ball.

I don't particularly like to criticize anyone's efforts to share or improve and have learned long ago: Different strokes for different folks.

JoeyA
Click to expand...
 
bluepepper said:
The pivot systems work. No argument here. But why? No one seems to want to find out. Too many pivoters say that when they miss a shot it was because of bad execution. What if it's not? I know you guys who use the system don't care how it works, but that may be the reason for the arguments. No one is proving why it works. There's nothing magical going on here. I've said it before that I happen to think it works because it gets you close enough for your feel to begin the adjustments that need to take place in order to make the shots. But prove me wrong. I want to know. To begin, share everything you know about the systems and everything you personally do with them.

I do believe that some pros use it, but what I'd suggest is that they pivot only to begin the feel process.

So how do we prove that the systems work on their own if we don't take measurements or set up a pivoting arm with a laser pointer or something similar?

This argument will go on forever until that kind of thing is done.
Click to expand...

Thinking about this, and trying to implement it over time, I agree that it works just fine for many shots. How do I know that? Well, I just do. Sorry, I know that isn't convincing.

Now, here's my perspective on shooting a shot where you know the cue ball is going to squirt, and swerve, and you've already figured out how you're going to shoot it.

Since the shot is being made with english, that's a given for this explanation, your mind takes all sort of things into consideration, even if you don't realize exactly what they are. And when the time comes to stroke the shot, you stroke it the right way for the cue ball to do whatever it does: squirt, swerve, hit the object ball a certain way so that it throws just right, whatever. You commit to the shot, and stroke it.... the cue ball goes down table and squirts and swerves and contacts the cue ball with just the right "I don't know what" and it pots the ball, and continues on it's merry way to the point or area on the table you intended.

What's all this?

It's a combination of your applied pool knowledge combined with your feel and a specific version of your stroke, with all it's flaws and imperfections, to achieve your objective.

An old hustler once said to someone: "You're a pool player. That was a pool stroke. You looked at the shot, you walked over and looked at it and the angle, you came back and stroked the ball... it went in...." That fellow was obviously on to something...

Flex
 
Excellent thoughts Flex. What I like SO much about Pro One...among many things...is this.

In its base form i.e. center ball cueing, we're not adjusting for sqwerve or throw. How many times have we faced a TOUGH shot but one that had natural shape for the next ball?

Or the "key ball" in a pattern which, if you make it, the rest of the run is child's play.

Or how about a TOUGH leave on the 9 where shape isn't even an issue?

How many racks and matches have we lost because we just flat MISSED one of those types of shots? A LOT is the answer in my case.

Sure we have to learn how to adjust when side, high and low must be used and there is no purely systematic way to go about those shots...that I know of.

But I sure as hell would rather make adjustments from a KNOWN correct line of center ball aim than to guess about that line of aim and then guess about how to adjust from it. (-:

Regards,
Jim


Flex said:
Thinking about this, and trying to implement it over time, I agree that it works just fine for many shots. How do I know that? Well, I just do. Sorry, I know that isn't convincing.

Now, here's my perspective on shooting a shot where you know the cue ball is going to squirt, and swerve, and you've already figured out how you're going to shoot it.

Since the shot is being made with english, that's a given for this explanation, your mind takes all sort of things into consideration, even if you don't realize exactly what they are. And when the time comes to stroke the shot, you stroke it the right way for the cue ball to do whatever it does: squirt, swerve, hit the object ball a certain way so that it throws just right, whatever. You commit to the shot, and stroke it.... the cue ball goes down table and squirts and swerves and contacts the cue ball with just the right "I don't know what" and it pots the ball, and continues on it's merry way to the point or area on the table you intended.

What's all this?

It's a combination of your applied pool knowledge combined with your feel and a specific version of your stroke, with all it's flaws and imperfections, to achieve your objective.

An old hustler once said to someone: "You're a pool player. That was a pool stroke. You looked at the shot, you walked over and looked at it and the angle, you came back and stroked the ball... it went in...." That fellow was obviously on to something...

Flex
Click to expand...
 
av84fun said:
But I sure as hell would rather make adjustments from a KNOWN correct line of center ball aim than to guess about that line of aim and then guess about how to adjust from it. (-:

Regards,
Jim
Click to expand...


I agree completely.

When I have the luxury of a shot like that, here's what like to I do.

I look at the shot, see the point of contact, plan the shot with about a tip of follow, and roll the cue ball to the right spot to pot the ball...

And I sure hope it goes in..........................

I make my maximum effort to pot the frickin' 9 ball, or 8 ball, or whatever ball...................

Flex

P.S.

If I am in any way uncertain that the ball will pot, I'll do my level best to shoot the ball so that the cue ball will come back and end up frozen on the short rail..............


Sir: FEEL IS KING!!!
 
Flex said:
I agree completely.

When I have the luxury of a shot like that, here's what like to I do.

I look at the shot, see the point of contact, plan the shot with about a tip of follow, and roll the cue ball to the right spot to pot the ball...

And I sure hope it goes in..........................

I make my maximum effort to pot the frickin' 9 ball, or 8 ball, or whatever ball...................

Flex

P.S.

If I am in any way uncertain that the ball will pot, I'll do my level best to shoot the ball so that the cue ball will come back and end up frozen on the short rail..............
Sir: FEEL IS KING!!!
Click to expand...

That is SUCH a pro move! What I and I am sure many others don't give nearly enough attention to is planning the leaves on the tougher shots so that we get shape but also a hook or a tough leave if we miss.

When I play against top speed players, they never leave me BEANS when they miss and of course, we all know that hustlers shoot off and leave the sucker tough all the time.

I watched one pal, who will remain nameless, go an average of 4 or 5 innings per rack with the sucker, finally winning 10-8 but the guy had NO CHANCE. It was a thing of beauty and I had to go away from the table a couple of times to laugh out loud when he would "dog" a shot and leave the mark locked up...and apologize all to hell for being so LUCKY!

To this day, the mark is probably still bitc hing about the lucky hay seed in Nashville who emptied his wallet!

(-:

Jim
 
BRKNRUN said:
Or you just point to Francisco and say ..."see it works"

I don't think you try to prove it is the issue... No matter what you prove..."sombody" will come up with something to dis-prove it.

Heck there are people that can dis-prove an orange actually tastes like an orange......I mean really...how do you know it tastes like an orange...perhaps it really tastes like an apple...they just named it wrong....or perhaps what you tast that you call an orange actually tastes like an apple "to me"???

The problem is (for life in general) is it is much easier to poke holes in something and call it wrong than it is to actually "prove" something....for reference, refer to the OJ Simpson debac.......errrrr....I mean ....trial..:wink:
Click to expand...

It all depends upon the definition of "is". :smilewinkgrin:
JoeyA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top