Some gems found in an old snooker book (aiming, etc.)

[AtLarge]

... I mean essentially when you continue to try and discredit aiming systems you are calling those who stand behind them liars. ...

Not necessarily. To me, a liar is someone who gives false information and knows it is false. Sometimes people believe what they are saying, but it is inaccurate.

 

[Mikjary]

Joe Davis, one of the most accurate ball pocketers in the history of cue sports, vs ______ selling DVDs on a bogus aiming system.

It is not even close.

Lou Figueroa

CTE is ca-ca.

Lou Figueroa

lol, how do you get all the CTErs to rush to one place?

"You just contact the mayor's office. He has a special signal he shines in the sky; it's in the shape of a giant turd."

Lou Figueroa
with apologies
to Hit Girl

Guess that Cialis is working for ya', huh? Been a while?

Best,
Mike

 

[JB Cases]

Not necessarily. To me, a liar is someone who gives false information and knows it is false. Sometimes people believe what they are saying, but it is inaccurate.

That is right but those who teach these systems have proven that they work, specifically speaking of CTE in particular. Maybe not to your satisfaction but to the satisfaction of many others.

But Lou has called Stan Shuffet a con-artist and a charlatan either directly or by implication many times. He has said that Stan is deliberately misleading his students with the information on the first DVD in order to sell them lessons.

My point is that I could be mislead being that I am an amateur player. I could be fooled into thinking that a system is wonderful when it's not. I don't think so but it's possible. But who should be most cognizant of whether something works or not if not professional players when presented with a way to do anything on a pool table?

So when Stevie Moore says this works why should we assume that he is either delusional or lying? Why can't we assume that he is fully coherent and able to make a professional judgement of the method he is using?

Where I am fascinated is when professionals appear to espouse Lou's position then they are credible and sensible but when they don't then they are either deluded or dishonest. Very convenient.

 

[JB Cases]

If you know anyone who has the ability to read with comprehension, you
might ask them to explain the following:

Steve mastered with iron will and dedication the approach of Joe Davis.

I understand you are personally immune to reality, so it is unlikely to
penetrate.

FWIW - I have owned a copy of 'Complete Snooker" for decades, so not
much in need of your insights since you quite obviously did'nt grasp that
material either...

Dale(who is off to do his reading drills)

Again, Steve teaches fractional aiming. So perhaps he followed Joe Davis' precepts but on the video Steve Davis OPTED to teach a fractional overlap method for figuring the shot line. He does NOT say it like Joe is quoted here.

But I will try to interpret your line above which I assume is not Steve talking about himself but instead someone else talking about Steve.

To me it reads, Steve Davis learned using Joe Davis' methods. Great. now does that mean that Steve CONTINUED to use Joe Davis' methods or did MAYBE Steve Davis find his own methods that work for him? Does it mean that Steve TEACHES strictly by Joe Davis' methods or does he perhaps have a few methods that he teaches that are not exactly as Joe taught them?

Unless Joe Davis teaches a fractional overlap method and teaches about dominant eyes I would say that Steve Davis does in fact differ a little.

Not having Joe's books I wouldn't know. You tell us.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Rick, I doubt that what you thought was happening was what was actually happening.

With normal balls and shafts, squirt angles to the side are small -- say about 3 degrees or less, depending on the particular shaft and the amount of tip offset from center. I have no reason to think that squirt angles would be any larger in the vertical direction.

So I think it is unlikely that one could jump over any major portion of an object ball purely from vertical squirt. If you were accomplishing any such jump, I imagine it resulted from the CB "riding" up on the tip/ferrule to some extent. I am unable to achieve much of any such CB jump with a relatively level cue without hearing the unmistakeable sound of the CB hitting the ferrule.

Sir,

I hear you loud & clear...but I only heard that unmistakeable sound on the occasions where I did miscue. You are also correct that I am not exactly sure of how it was accomplished.

Perhaps a combinaton of effects. I probably had quite a bit of elbow drop in the stroke which may have resulted in some scoop lift effect if the cue rocked on the bridge. I did not mean to attribute the whole thing to CB 'squirt'. However my bridge hand remained on the table & no audible miscue or a feel of one occured. Now I was using a stiff conical shaped cue with a soft tip.

Like I said, I quess it belongs in 'Rick's Believe It or Not. All I know is I jumped the balls. Maybe in slow mo review they would have actually been dis-allowed. Take a close look at the 'fouette' vid. Does the ball graze the cue?

Thanks for the oppportunity to add to the disclaimer.

Regards,

 

[8pack]

I happened to look through a book, kind of snooker instructional. Mind you, it's ca. 1950, and I was amazed by several very up-to-date statements from the author. I felt I should share at least some of them and highlighted the most interesting parts (though all the extracts I put here are worth reading).

Look what he says about approach to aiming. That sounds much what the majority of modern top pros give in reply to a question of late, how do you aim. Speaking of aiming systems, yes, they might help, but the real deal is what they say, and it is no different than 60+ years ago. Experiment and memory, trial and error.

View attachment 275186

View attachment 275187

Also the description of throw and swerve is very accurate.

View attachment 275188

I didn't know jump shots were allowed in snooker not very long ago. Interesting that the author's point of view in regard with jumps is exactly the same the majority of pool players feel now.
View attachment 275189

He says there should be a rule that would make jump shots in snooker illegal. Well, they have such a rule now. No wonder, as soon as you take a look at the way they used to make such shots. I would be feeling cheated right away. Being raised as a pool player I always imagined, when reading about "jumps not allowed" in snooker rules, the same jump shot we utilize in pool. But the way it was legal to play for them, it's actually a foul straight away, so it's funny it took them time to make jumping in such a fashion (and every other) illegal.
View attachment 275190

Good stuff here.



Thanks.

 

[8pack]

You can't say CTE doesn't give you the edge.

Yes he can,he doesnt use it.:smile:
What ever you do well gives "YOU" the edge not someone else.


Anthony

 

[mista335]

Yes he can,he doesnt use it.:smile:
What ever you do well gives "YOU" the edge not someone else.


Anthony

You can't shoot with CTE without having the edge.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Going back to the original post, can't we agree that dead stroke/in fine form you just shoot, and then work your aim system/connection system more consciously when in practice or working to get toward dead stroke?

In other words, Joe Davis was sharing his daily routine of not needing to review an aim system consciously...

In other news, he also wrote to stretch flat between one's shoulder blades and stretch the left arm as far and straight as possible--not always the best advice IMO for pool and billiards.