So anyone can run over 100 huh

[sfleinen]

John:

Unfortunately, you are the one playing word games, because, as Exhibit A, you have this tendency to "laser in" on certain sentences, and completely ignoring the text couching that very sentence around it. In each of the posts you quote below, instead of getting the general gist of the ENTIRE post, you "laser in" on a single sentence or two, and it's like the text before and after that sentence somehow doesn't matter to you.

So please, stop projecting with the word games accusation, ok?

Yes, Duke met the challenge admirably -- but with a caveat, and that he was already a good straight pool player. So part of his play -- whether that be aiming, or the pattern-recognition / -solving, is second nature.

How in the world am I supporting duckie or Allen? I'm scratching my head on that one. My challenge is very simple, and is targeted to prove a single point -- that it's very difficult to maintain conscious focus on the intricacies of aiming over an extended run, where the run itself isn't broken up by a wildcard break shot. How in the world is that "supporting" duckie or allen?

Also, I agree with you, in that you seem not to "get it" when having been run-off the OnePocket.org forum for foisting aiming system commercials upon a forum that is way, w-a-y past that in terms of point-purpose subject matter. And yes, the 14.1 forum is the same way. The fact that you don't "get it" is not their problem. Aiming conversation has had to be placed into its own forum because of the "out-of-handedeness" that some of the boosters of the systems used exercise. It's ok to be excited about improvement. It's just the Vince Order stuff that's gotta go.

I don't mean this to be malicious. But I am strong about this point. And again, to end-run any attempts at globbing me into the naysayer camp -- it's not that I don't support systems. My thing is that one has to get past the aiming thing at some point in his/her pool playing "career."

Ok?
-Sean

You said you wanted to see people consciously AIMING and running a lot of balls. THEN you said just 29 referring to Shaun's challenge. Well, the long run with conscious attention and calling out of the aiming has been met admirably.

Please don't play word games. Just don't. Duckie is COMPLETELY wrong here and you know it and you are supporting him and Allen.

The POINT is that people are reporting improvement and SHOWING it.

Duckie can't handle it and it's DAMN shame that DTL has to even say that he won't mention "aiming" when talking about his run in the 14.1 section.

I was run off the one pocket board because I excitedly tried to talk about how better aiming helped my one pocket game.

I don't get it. I don't understand the flat out opposition to someone saying that they learned to aim better and them giving that credit for improving.

It's like it's pathological in some people that they have to find EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE reason for improvement than aiming. So what if a person was already a good straight pool player?

When an already good straight pool player shows improvement then you can assume that he already knows the patterns, already has a decent stroke and that IF they tell you it's because of the aiming then it's because of the aiming. In fact when a good straight pool player says I broke my own personal best three times in the last couple weeks all over 100 then that should be an even STRONGER testimonial than seeing a rotation player run 30 balls.

Edit: You have me thinking that I can't remember anything.

So here is what you said: Relevant part bolded and red.

1. "Additionally, what would be truly interesting -- and to me, the "acid test" -- would be someone posting a high run in 14.1. The highest run I've seen by a known pivot-based aiming user, is Landon Shuffett's 140-ball run last year (or was it the year before? Can't recall...).

Don't get me wrong -- pocketing balls is pocketing balls regardless of the aiming system used -- but I do think aiming system aficionados spend entirely too much time thinking about this.

Straight pool is about getting into a rhythm, where you DON'T THINK ABOUT AIMING, and instead focus on patterns as you pick the balls off the table. The way I see most aiming system aficionados here, it's like every shot involves the conscious mind -- "thought" is placed into aiming -- rather than let the subconscious take that task and do what it does best: repeat/playback a repetitive task.

While you can get away with that in short-rack rotation -- "think" about aiming on every shot, and then "reset" yourself with the breakshot for each rack -- if you do that in straight pool (i.e. "think" about aiming) you set yourself up for a MISS. If not now, then on the next shot. Or the next. Or, you fubar your patterns because you used the wrong part of your brain to do this repetitive task. Straight pool's long term shot-making longevity will GET YOU if you are not forcing that aiming into the background.

I'm probably going to catch flack for this, but I do think there are certain parts of the game, certain skills, where you need to take the harnesses off and just flap your wings and FLY.

-Sean "

And 2. "Ok, for *this* one, I'll bite. I'll stick my neck out, and say you have it backwards. Shooting a shot in pool, fundamentals and aiming included, is a repeatable task. Do you think about aiming when throwing a baseball? I would venture to say you don't. You just throw the ball -- your subconscious takes care of the aim part.

Put it another way. For *how long* can you think about everything? For how long can you have your conscious mind engaged in the minutiae of shooting pool? A couple/three racks, or maybe even a set of 9-ball? Sure. But 50/60/70...100 balls in straight pool? I Don't Think So(TM). At some point, you are going to HAVE to relegate all those repeatable things into your subconscious. Do you really think the very best players that compete in the World 14.1 championships are "thinking" about the aim on every single ball, during the course of a 100-ball run? Do you think Oliver Ortmann "thought" his way through aiming every ball in his two 100-and-out and another 150-and-out in the World Championships a couple years ago?

Like I said, you can probably get away with "thinking your aim" through every single shot in a couple/three racks or even a set of 9-ball. Your mind gets to "reset" and rest during every breakshot, and I can see why you'd adopt the stance of "but what's so hard about that?". But try that during, say, a 50-ball run in straight pool. Try keeping your conscious mind engaged in all that minutiae of aiming on every single shot.

If you can do that, you're a better man than I."

3. "From the talk I see on these threads -- other than the instructional threads, of course -- it's like everyone's thinking about all the steps on every shot. And to THEM, I offer the challenge of trying that while running 50 or more balls in straight pool. Heck, dispense with the 50 -- with the way everyone talks on here, it's like misses once an hour are the norm -- let's see a 70/80 ball run (I won't be unfair and throw triple digits out there, because that can't be expected from folks who don't normally play 14.1 -- and even experienced 14.1 players don't run those kind of numbers regularly either). This will prove the endurance and longevity aspect, and drive home the point of aiming needing to be a subconscious activity.

I'm not trying to be unfair, but rather trying to demonstrate a point -- by offering self-demonstration.

-Sean "

AND finally:

4. "I would ask you, how do your runs usually end? Do they typically end with a miss? Or because of a botched pattern where you fubar'ed your position on your keyball and breakball? Or because of lady luck -- i.e. you made your breakshot, but you had no shot afterwards?

This actually touches upon a root principle I've been trying to convey -- that straight pool "ain't" all about shot-making "because you can shoot at any ball you want." Those that think this way, I CHALLENGE to do a run of 28 -- just two racks. In fact, Shaun Wilkie offers the same challenge:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3-9YVwUv-_k#t=25m15s

The point is, you're one of the ones to get it -- it's ain't about shot-making, nor is it one of those things where "if you miss, it's because you didn't execute your aiming system correctly."

For the last sentence I disagree. It's certainly about the shot making. Don't make the shot you don't get to keep shooting. And part of making shots IS getting position for the next shot so that is a given. Runs end because people either put themselves into an impossible position OR they miss a makeable shot.

With a good aiming method the number of misses is reduced which results in higher runs for ALL level of players whether they know 14.1 patterns or not.

 

[JB Cases]

No Sean, I didn't make a commercial about aiming systems. I was giving MY experience of how one method helped me when playing $80 a game one hole and GIVING weight to a better player than myself (better nine ball player) This posting was done the day after I had played a long session and broken even. In particular I wanted to relay how it helped me to get out of one game where I needed 12 and he needed 1.

But people there attacked and said no aiming system would help a person play one pocket.

Anyway, you got your long runs that you said would be the acid test. Acid test passed.

Now I guess you need to see some guys like me calling out the aiming and running 30 balls?

Also I am not putting you IN the naysayer camp. Only that your point of getting past aiming is a bit silly in a forum section dedicated to aiming. The whole entire point of this section is for those us who are interested in aiming to discuss it. Not to be lectured to about how we need to get past it or that our learning of certain methods isn't responsible for our jumps in skill.

Which is why I point out to you that when you do these things you give Duckie and Allen ammunition to continue to make remarks designed to inflame. I feel you are better than that.

 

[BeiberLvr]

John:

Unfortunately, you are the one playing word games, because, as Exhibit A, you have this tendency to "laser in" on certain sentences, and completely ignoring the text couching that very sentence around it. In each of the posts you quote below, instead of getting the general gist of the ENTIRE post, you "laser in" on a single sentence or two, and it's like the text before and after that sentence somehow doesn't matter to you.

So please, stop projecting with the word games accusation, ok?

Yes, Duke met the challenge admirably -- but with a caveat, and that he was already a good straight pool player. So part of his play -- whether that be aiming, or the pattern-recognition / -solving, is second nature.

How in the world am I supporting duckie or Allen? I'm scratching my head on that one. My challenge is very simple, and is targeted to prove a single point -- that it's very difficult to maintain conscious focus on the intricacies of aiming over an extended run, where the run itself isn't broken up by a wildcard break shot. How in the world is that "supporting" duckie or allen?

Also, I agree with you, in that you seem not to "get it" when having been run-off the OnePocket.org forum for foisting aiming system commercials upon a forum that is way, w-a-y past that in terms of point-purpose subject matter. And yes, the 14.1 forum is the same way. The fact that you don't "get it" is not their problem. Aiming conversation has had to be placed into its own forum because of the "out-of-handedeness" that some of the boosters of the systems used exercise. It's ok to be excited about improvement. It's just the Vince Order stuff that's gotta go.

I don't mean this to be malicious. But I am strong about this point. And again, to end-run any attempts at globbing me into the naysayer camp -- it's not that I don't support systems. My thing is that one has to get past the aiming thing at some point in his/her pool playing "career."

Ok?
-Sean

Except, like I already pointed out, your challenge will have a hard time being met by someone that mostly plays a game like 9ball. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are consciously thinking about their aim.

 

[nobcitypool]

Sean, I know very little about 14.1 other than having watched a number of videos. I hear what you're saying about focusing on aiming but the fact is, you're always aiming. From what I've seen, for someone to be successful in 14.1, they have to be very adept at pattern play and CB control such that the vast majority of the shots would be considered relatively easy. Not a lot of moving the ball up and down the table or table length difficult cut shots, therefore, the vast majority of the aiming is mostly subconscious. No doubt, if someone relatively inexperienced with Pro One or CTE were to try to utilize it on every shot in 14.1, they'd be mentally exhausted very early on.

What you may be missing is, someone at Stan's level of Pro One is using it as subconsciously as you or any other competent player is using whatever you use to aim. I'm sure you watched Stan's video of his 105 ball run. If you didn't know what to look for, one wouldn't suspect he was using Pro One. From what I can tell with Pro One, once you are competent enough with it to reliably use it in competition, the visuals come rather spontaneously and everything flows such that the player is completely in rhythm. The pauses would be when a shot exists that requires some thought to what the correct visual will be. This would be no different than a competent 14.1 player (or any other for that matter) pausing to consider the components necessary to make a tougher shot and move the CB where desired.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Yes.
Put 101 balls in a bucket then run with it.
:grin-square:

 

[stan shuffett]

I think aiming with CTE PRO ONE is much easier than any orher method I have ever used during my entire playing career. Why?

1. I shoot every single shot with a precise objective alignment. I did this for my 105 and just moments ago for an 80 ball run. I can not remember the last shot I shot without an appropriate alignment.

2. Center cue ball is my target. I do not tweak to the object ball. I merely tweak to center cue ball. Every shot to me is based on sweeping to CCB.

3. I come with shots when necessary better than I ever did in the past.

4. CTE PRO ONE, after one goes through the learning curve, is just repetition.
There is nothing to think about once you learn the system. You line up based upon thousands of reps that always continue to accumulate. Then you move to center cue ball based upon thousands of reps that always continue to build. Every shot is based on the same visual offset.

5. This is all about visual and physical intelligence working in an optimal manner. There is no need for language and math to be a part of the system during play. CTE PRO ONE is conducive to shutting down the conscious thinking that used to get the best of me during fractional aiming or whatever. I do not question myself. I see and shoot. And when I miss or make a mistake with CTE PRO ONE, I generally know why it occurred. So, I objectively know what to work on during practice.

Stan Shuffett

 

[sfleinen]

No Sean, I didn't make a commercial about aiming systems. I was giving MY experience of how one method helped me when playing $80 a game one hole and GIVING weight to a better player than myself (better nine ball player) This posting was done the day after I had played a long session and broken even. In particular I wanted to relay how it helped me to get out of one game where I needed 12 and he needed 1.

But people there attacked and said no aiming system would help a person play one pocket.

Anyway, you got your long runs that you said would be the acid test. Acid test passed.

Now I guess you need to see some guys like me calling out the aiming and running 30 balls?

Also I am not putting you IN the naysayer camp. Only that your point of getting past aiming is a bit silly in a forum section dedicated to aiming. The whole entire point of this section is for those us who are interested in aiming to discuss it. Not to be lectured to about how we need to get past it or that our learning of certain methods isn't responsible for our jumps in skill.

Which is why I point out to you that when you do these things you give Duckie and Allen ammunition to continue to make remarks designed to inflame. I feel you are better than that.

John:

Some parts of this post are fair. You are right, this is a discussion forum, and all facets of the topic -- aiming -- are being discussed here. You may think my point about "at some point one has to get past this stuff" is unfair in a discussion forum about aiming, but then again, this itself is a discussion point, is it not? (This is possibly a rhetorical question.)

I don't think my acid test was met, and here's why. It was solved via "hired gun" or "heavy hitters," who have either a.) long ago committed their aiming system to subconscious (Stan himself refers to this as "images"), or else was already an accomplished straight pool player. You *know* I was targeting my test towards the average "connoisseur" of aiming systems that visits here. Anyway, I won't belabor that point, because I'm in Houston at the moment, on a break, and I wanted to get a quick reply out to you.

Again, your post was for the most part fair. You may not agree with me "injecting" straight pool into a forum dedicated to aiming discussion, but believe me, I'm not trying to "duckie-ize" this discussion. I had my reason to help prove a point -- a discussion point, if you will. I do think it's a fair point.

And to address BeiberLvr, the number (29) is low enough where it's achievable by non-straight pool players. But it's high enough to stress that "front-loading" of stuff in your mind not related to solving the pattern in front of you.

Have to go, but I'll check in later.
-Sean

 

[nobcitypool]

I don't think my acid test was met, and here's why. It was solved via "hired gun" or "heavy hitters," who have either a.) long ago committed their aiming system to subconscious (Stan himself refers to this as "images"), or else was already an accomplished straight pool player. You *know* I was targeting my test towards the average "connoisseur" of aiming systems that visits here. Anyway, I won't belabor that point, because I'm in Houston at the moment, on a break, and I wanted to get a quick reply out to you.

Again, your post was for the most part fair. You may not agree with me "injecting" straight pool into a forum dedicated to aiming discussion, but believe me, I'm not trying to "duckie-ize" this discussion. I had my reason to help prove a point -- a discussion point, if you will. I do think it's a fair point.

And to address BeiberLvr, the number (29) is low enough where it's achievable by non-straight pool players. But it's high enough to stress that "front-loading" of stuff in your mind not related to solving the pattern in front of you.

Have to go, but I'll check in later.
-Sean

Sean, not to be argumentative but I believe your argument is in fact targeted towards heavy hitters. Stan and his Son Landon fit into your category of "long ago" having committed Pro One to their subconscious. However, DTL apparently has only been utilizing Pro One for a relatively brief period of time.

If you're referring to, as you put it "non straight" pool players with a number thrown out there of 29, that kind of defeats your point as well. I think it is reasonable to believe one could focus on aiming 29 times without that focus causing them undo stress.

To be fair to your side of it, were someone like me to attempt to use Pro One as my aiming system for straight pool, assuming my skill at recognizing the most efficient straight pool patterns and my CB control were at the same level as an accomplished straight pool player, it would not be feasible. Pro One is not automatic to me in the least yet, I have to take a rather robotic approach. Were I to use Pro One in straight pool, I would only use it on those few shots where my "feel" or aim wasn't on automatic cruise control. Otherwise, it might take me 5 hours to run 100 balls. :grin: If you straight pool enthusiasts would just allow me a "mulligan" and let me place my break ball and CB where I need it to be for each rack, I might be able to take a serious run at 40 to 50 balls ... on a good day. LOL Sean, when my frustration about other aspects of my pool game evaporates, I'll consider taking on straight pool so I can pull out the remainder of my hair.

 

[sfleinen]

Sean, not to be argumentative

Nah, I'm not taking it to be argumentative at all. Remember, I'm here for the discussion points. Unfortunately, I do have to be very careful here, because tempers can flare up at a moments notice, even on seemingly innocuous items, because things are "read into" here as being an attack on someone's baby, or that I'm supplying arms to the anti-aiming-systems Taliban. That's definitely not my intent.

but I believe your argument is in fact targeted towards heavy hitters. Stan and his Son Landon fit into your category of "long ago" having committed Pro One to their subconscious. However, DTL apparently has only been utilizing Pro One for a relatively brief period of time.

Ah, grasshoppa, let's look at that. In Stan's and Landon's case, the aiming system has been dissolved into their subconscious, so focus can be placed on to solving the patterns there before them. In Duke's case, he's an established straight pool player (and I can say this with confidence, because I've watched his patterns), so he can "bleed off" some of that brain power to enumerating the visuals he's using. In each case -- whether that be the aiming system or the pattern-solving -- one of those two was an automatic thing. Duke's recognition of standard straight pool patterns was automatic, so he was able to "repurpose" some of his upstairs computer to the learning/commitment/enumeration of the aiming.

If you're referring to, as you put it "non straight" pool players with a number thrown out there of 29, that kind of defeats your point as well. I think it is reasonable to believe one could focus on aiming 29 times without that focus causing them undo stress.

Prove it. And I mean that in a playful, friendly, but pointed manner. The non-straight-poolers will have their hands full with properly solving the patterns to 1.) break up any clusters, 2.) solve trouble balls, 3.) keep the run going (no safeties), 4.) end up with a workable break ball, 5.) pocket that break ball (without scratching and without tying-up that cue ball where there's no subsequent shot) and break up the rack to continue. And let me guess -- without your aiming system being on auto-pilot -- you're going to engage your conscious mind on every single shot?

Summary: I respectfully disagree. And this was proven to me by a long-gone straight pool legend when I tapped him for advice. He took one look at me, and told me that I needed to "stop thinking" about something that should be committed to rote. He said the job of solving the pattern and taking the balls off the table in the most efficient way was complex enough, and this is where my focus should be. Only then, after I took the advice, did I finally start to make progress and bust some decent numbers that I'd never thought I could penetrate.

To be fair to your side of it, were someone like me to attempt to use Pro One as my aiming system for straight pool, assuming my skill at recognizing the most efficient straight pool patterns and my CB control were at the same level as an accomplished straight pool player, it would not be feasible. Pro One is not automatic to me in the least yet, I have to take a rather robotic approach. Were I to use Pro One in straight pool, I would only use it on those few shots where my "feel" or aim wasn't on automatic cruise control. Otherwise, it might take me 5 hours to run 100 balls. :grin: If you straight pool enthusiasts would just allow me a "mulligan" and let me place my break ball and CB where I need it to be for each rack, I might be able to take a serious run at 40 to 50 balls ... on a good day. LOL Sean, when my frustration about other aspects of my pool game evaporates, I'll consider taking on straight pool so I can pull out the remainder of my hair.

I understand your point, and your reluctance. But the "fear of missing" is draining you needlessly. Maybe I'm a strange bird, but after a while of playing, I think one learns to recognize shots that come up frequently -- I mean the angles. Perhaps this stems back to my personal aiming system, which is to memorize -- commit to muscle memory -- some common ball-to-ball relationships, like 1/8-ball, 1/4-ball, 1/3-ball, 1/2-ball, 2/3-ball, 3/4-ball, 7/8-ball, and thin cuts; and use these as "foundation" shots that you tweak according to what's in front of you on the table. (I discussed this aiming system a while ago here, and it appeared to have been received well.) The point being, I instantly recognize these ball-to-ball relationships and there's no thinking -- I try to be on auto-pilot for all but the tough shots, and my focus is instead placed on solving the pattern and cue ball control. It doesn't matter what the aiming system is -- the goal is to commit it, and have it dissolve into your subconscious -- "auto-pilot," if you will.

By all means, in order to learn a system, one must use a rather robotic approach. That is, afterall, how you learn the particulars of the system and ingrain it. But there comes a time when you need to take the training wheels off and stop doing that. (I know I'm going to catch some flack for that comment, but again, this is a discussion point, and I think it's pertinent to the topic of aiming and integrating it into your playing arsenal.) That time may vary from person to person, and it may have to be triggered by just getting a table to yourself one day for a couple hours, throw caution to the wind, and just try to get down and effortlessly stroke balls into the pockets. Force yourself if you have to. Trust yourself. You'll miss, sure, but after a while of doing this, you'll find you're thinking less and less about the semantics of aiming, and more on the sensation of visualizing the ball being pocketed, and of the ball actually doing what you visualized. You'll then find yourself hyper-aware of the rest of the table and the interactions of that cue ball with it. At least that's the goal -- to enter the zone, where pocketing the ball is a "done deal," and your thoughts are focused on better things than a checklist of aiming.

Hope this helps,
-Sean

 

[JB Cases]

John:

Some parts of this post are fair. You are right, this is a discussion forum, and all facets of the topic -- aiming -- are being discussed here. You may think my point about "at some point one has to get past this stuff" is unfair in a discussion forum about aiming, but then again, this itself is a discussion point, is it not? (This is possibly a rhetorical question.)

I don't think my acid test was met, and here's why. It was solved via "hired gun" or "heavy hitters," who have either a.) long ago committed their aiming system to subconscious (Stan himself refers to this as "images"), or else was already an accomplished straight pool player. You *know* I was targeting my test towards the average "connoisseur" of aiming systems that visits here. Anyway, I won't belabor that point, because I'm in Houston at the moment, on a break, and I wanted to get a quick reply out to you.

Again, your post was for the most part fair. You may not agree with me "injecting" straight pool into a forum dedicated to aiming discussion, but believe me, I'm not trying to "duckie-ize" this discussion. I had my reason to help prove a point -- a discussion point, if you will. I do think it's a fair point.

And to address BeiberLvr, the number (29) is low enough where it's achievable by non-straight pool players. But it's high enough to stress that "front-loading" of stuff in your mind not related to solving the pattern in front of you.

Have to go, but I'll check in later.
-Sean

You specifically ASKED for long runs (who but good players are going to make those runs?) where the shooter is consciously thinking about aiming.

Well when a guy is announcing his aiming on each and every shot then he is consciously thinking about aiming.

That is exactly the acid test you wanted, the one you said is practically impossible, that you said if anyone could do then they are a better man than you, and the one that has been passed easily.

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

I don't care what game you want to use. In pool AIMING applies to every game and the bottom line is that people who can aim well have better performances than people who can't aim well regardless of method used.

If that proper aiming is then coupled with good fundamentals then performance increases even more as has been shown by the long runs you asked for.

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

Lastly to your point that people need to "get over" aiming. You made that comment in a thread that I posted about a world class player and former US Open Champion telling the world proudly about his excellent performance against the ghost and giving some credit for it to his learning of the CTE method, taught to him by Stevie Moore.

So my counterpoint to you is if a top level pro such as Rodney thinks that even late in his career it's worth it to focus on aiming who are you to say that people need to "get over it"?

Perhaps it is exactly the opposite.

Perhaps people need to get on it until such time as it TRULY is a deep seated part of the game. Perhaps the LACK of focus on aiming has been part of the problem why some people plateau and don't ever think about that part of their game. They assume that they already know how to aim and are aiming right. Perhaps more people should CALL OUT their aiming during practice and assure themselves that this is in fact how they want to address the ball.

 

[sfleinen]

[...redundant "he said, she said" deletia...]

John, once again, I'm not going to get into a "he said, she said" point-by-point tête-à-tête with you. You opportunistically laser-in on single sentences, instead of absorbing the gist of the entire message, so I won't answer this again. Feel free to get the last word in on this point, if it makes you feel better. I'm getting off this merry-go-round.

So my counterpoint to you is if a top level pro such as Rodney thinks that even late in his career it's worth it to focus on aiming who are you to say that people need to "get over it"?

Perhaps it is exactly the opposite.

Perhaps people need to get on it until such time as it TRULY is a deep seated part of the game. Perhaps the LACK of focus on aiming has been part of the problem why some people plateau and don't ever think about that part of their game. They assume that they already know how to aim and are aiming right. Perhaps more people should CALL OUT their aiming during practice and assure themselves that this is in fact how they want to address the ball.

Now this -- finally -- is something you bring to this particular table that's of interest. This is a good point. Perhaps you're right -- maybe certain players really do need to take another look at their game, their aiming in particular, and rewrite their style book on it. Maybe they need to look at different systems, experiment with them, select one that speaks to him/her, and then commit-commit-commit until it is truly a deep seated part of their game. This is a REALLY good point, and something to chew on.

-Sean

 

[JB Cases]

John, once again, I'm not going to get into a "he said, she said" point-by-point tête-à-tête with you. You opportunistically laser-in on single sentences, instead of absorbing the gist of the entire message, so I won't answer this again. Feel free to get the last word in on this point, if it makes you feel better. I'm getting off this merry-go-round.

Oh, I got the gist alright and I highlighted what I felt are the most important lines. You will recall, or you can scroll up to see, that I quoted the ENTIRE passages so that everyone can see the context and get the "gist" as well. I am thinking you might be a little unfamiliar with how conversation over the written word works. We not only discuss the GIST we discuss particular comments as well.

Now this -- finally -- is something you bring to this particular table that's of interest. This is a good point. Perhaps you're right -- maybe certain players really do need to take another look at their game, their aiming in particular, and rewrite their style book on it. Maybe they need to look at different systems, experiment with them, select one that speaks to him/her, and then commit-commit-commit until it is truly a deep seated part of their game. This is a REALLY good point, and something to chew on.

-Sean

Finally?

It's the central point I have made all along in just about every post I have made on the subject of aiming for ten years.

Well, if you FINALLY think the point is valid then great.

 

[sfleinen]

[...yawn-at-gratuitous-and-expected-insult, you know, leopards can't change their spots thing, and deletia...]

Finally?

It's the central point I have made all along in just about every post I have made on the subject of aiming for ten years.

Well, if you FINALLY think the point is valid then great.

I meant about your point concerning certain players reaching a plateau, perhaps needing to reevaluate, and then recommitting a new system, silly. I only disagree with the notion of keeping aiming in the forefront of your conscious at all times. My point is you have to let that go once you get the system "down."

-Sean

 

[JB Cases]

I meant about your point concerning certain players reaching a plateau, perhaps needing to reevaluate, and then recommitting a new system, silly. I only disagree with the notion of keeping aiming in the forefront of your aiming at all times. My point is you have to let that go once you get the system "down."

-Sean

Sean,

WHO has said that players need to keep aiming in the "forefront" all the time?

What person said that?

Oh, you said it. As a red-herring implication that this is what those who teach and advocated aiming systems promote.

But the FACT is that no one has said this. What all of them say is practice with it until it becomes second nature.

And you put out a challenge saying it would not be possible to have long runs with aiming in the forefront. But that challenge was met and proven wrong. Several times.

 

[sfleinen]

Sean,

WHO has said that players need to keep aiming in the "forefront" all the time?

What person said that?

Oh, you said it.

That's right, I did. And I say that based on what I see here in the forums.

As a red-herring implication that this is what those who teach and advocated aiming systems promote.

WRONG. This is *YOU* projecting what you think is the reason why I would say this, based on your context and predisposition to do so -- meaning, your renowned battles with other folks.

I openly acknowledge that Stan says that he gets the system to where it's merely a system of "images" that he sees, where just the image itself tells him where the ball's going to to. I never said instructors teach or promote keeping aiming in the forefront at all times. Maybe I might believe aiming system advocates like YOU might think this, but certainly not the instructors.

But the FACT is that no one has said this. What all of them say is practice with it until it becomes second nature.

Really? Well, if no one has said this, I must've uncovered an unspoken belief, because it certainly generated a lot of traffic from folks here in this thread, that believe quite the opposite -- that aiming "should" be in the forefront at all times on every shot!

And you put out a challenge saying it would not be possible to have long runs with aiming in the forefront. But that challenge was met and proven wrong. Several times.

Again, I respectfully disagree, and I already outlined why.

-Sean

 

[Gerry Williams]

Guys - couldn't agree more that the aiming needs to be on a subconscious level to advance.

I started with Pro One in November - I made the decision to go all in and I was ranked semi-pro here locally before I started. Nov and Dec I had flashes of success but overall I was playing worse than I did before - even told Stan I had to quit it.

Now - 4 months later it is 80% out of my mind, I see the shots and I automatically know what I am going to do. It is still getting better for me each day but I agree - when it was conscious and I was thinking aim, visual etc I would miss more often.

It is a process.

I am off to whip the 10 ball ghost

 

[BeiberLvr]

Guys - couldn't agree more that the aiming needs to be on a subconscious level to advance.

I started with Pro One in November - I made the decision to go all in and I was ranked semi-pro here locally before I started. Nov and Dec I had flashes of success but overall I was playing worse than I did before - even told Stan I had to quit it.

Now - 4 months later it is 80% out of my mind, I see the shots and I automatically know what I am going to do. It is still getting better for me each day but I agree - when it was conscious and I was thinking aim, visual etc I would miss more often.

It is a process.

I am off to whip the 10 ball ghost

Yep, and I made some huge progress with this tonight.

I still take the time to check my visuals, although on the majority of shots, that process is very quick. The pivot/sweep part has become completely natural though, where I no longer think about how I'm moving into CCB. It just happens.

Good stuff.

 

[MahnaMahna]

Reading Gerry's posts makes me want to buy the DVD. Stan, hire this guy ASAP and see if you can get some of your other vocal proponents on here to STFU. Your DVDs will be flying off the shelves.

 

[JB Cases]

Reading Gerry's posts makes me want to buy the DVD. Stan, hire this guy ASAP and see if you can get some of your other vocal proponents on here to STFU. Your DVDs will be flying off the shelves.

They fly off the shelves any way.

Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2

 

[stan shuffett]

Reading Gerry's posts makes me want to buy the DVD. Stan, hire this guy ASAP and see if you can get some of your other vocal proponents on here to STFU. Your DVDs will be flying off the shelves.

Most importantly, I have met Gerry and he is a terrific person! It is a bonus that he plays well and is quite studious with CTE PRO ONE. His comprehension of the system is outstanding and yes when he speaks out, it's a good idea to listen.

I am thankful that many, many students are speaking out, and with a descriptive language that is fantastic. I appreciate this very much.

Stan Shuffett