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

[pdcue]

So you say. Many others who play much better than you say otherwise. So who is right?

No big deal there are those who believe the moon landing didn't happen either and still others still living in the 50s who think blacks are an inferior race.

What I do find interesting is that you made the statement that if Willie Mosconi were to come back from the grave and declare that CTE is the greatest way to aim ever then you would tell Willie he is wrong and that he should go back to being dead.

So to me you are ONLY looking for pros who agree with you and if they don't then they are "wrong" in your eyes.

That's a pretty close-minded approach to the whole thing.

I bet that if Joe Davis and Stan Shuffett had been able to spend some time together then Joe would have probably endorsed CTE. To my knowledge there isn't one professional player that has spent time with Stan that has not publicly said it's the real deal.

But thanks for the continuing attempts to denigrate the method and it's teachers. Any time you do it it just allows the conversation to continue and the proof is in the results. So far I think that CTE users have posted longer runs in 14.1 than you have ever made with your zillion years of HAMB. That's gotta hurt a little when they attribute their improved performance to a method you can't understand.

Lastly, on the subject of experts who say things that turn out differently than they thought. A nobel prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, said of the internet in 1995 that by 2005 the impact of it on the economy would be no greater than the fax machine. And we all know how that turned out.

Just because Joe Davis imparted his idea of how to play in 1950 does not mean that in the 60 years since no one else has figured out anything new about how to approach the game. I think if Joe were to see your game he would tell you to stop trying to hold other people back and go work on your own skills, which are still severely lacking.

Well, since we've devolved to vicarious Simian chest pounding AGAIN...
a bit of objective consideration and search will reveal that roughly
EVERY pro Snooker player from 1952 to 2013 embraces totally the
philospphy and methodology of Joe Davis.

None have been caught giving a toss to fractional aimming.

Rumor has it some of these guys are well above average at potting.

Dale

 

[JB Cases]

Well, since we've devolved to vicarious Simian chest pounding AGAIN...
a bit of objective consideration and search will reveal that roughly
EVERY pro Snooker player from 1952 to 2013 embraces totally the
philospphy and methodology of Joe Davis.

None have been caught giving a toss to fractional aimming.

Rumor has it some of these guys are well above average at potting.

Dale

Except you forgot the Ginger Wizard. I won't bore you with providing you a link to the YouTube videos where he teaches the fractional overlap method of aiming. He has a few titles to his name as well.

You act as though I am here to discredit Joe Davis. Not at all. Just that what he teaches which is certainly fine for succeeding at snooker is not the only way that people teach and not the only way to approach the game.

Furthermore, since we are on the subject of who thinks what, you should research the other Davis mentioned above and see what he has to say about pool and pool players. It's far different than what the snooker snobs on this forum constantly say about pool and pool players.

Again I'd provide you with the links but I am a bit weary of doing your work for you.

Hint: they can be found on my youtube channel.

 

[Luther Blissett]

Note: It is not possible to travel to the moon.

 

[pablocruz]

Don't let him bother you Stan, he can't run a rack with "ball in hand," we both know every accomplished player uses a "connection system" in some way, shape or form.

Haha!! Lou, still stuck in 1960!!

 

[Foolio]

You may or may not believe this. But back in the day I shot quite a few jump shots in that manner when either the rule did not exist in APA or they were not enforcing it.

Now, I did not scoop the ball & you could not discern any miscue when I shot this type of shot.

Keep in mind cue ball squirt/deflection. It works in the verticle direction as well. I never shot any when the balls were rather close, but getting enough 'squirt' to clear a ball far enough away or a part of ball was reasonable.

Naturally, when people saw me doing it, they started trying to do it & that's when the miscues & scoops started happening & the rule was either put in place or started being enforced.

Now, I'm not saying I did not miscue on occassion but very very many times I would say the shot was legal except for the specific rule.

I guess that's Rick's believe it or not.

With all due respect, LOL!

Call me a fool but I don't believe it. First off, it is really hard to believe that the force of this thing you call "vertical cue ball squirt" is so powerful that it can overcome gravity and become airborn. If it has that much squirt, imagine how much you must compensate to apply side spin!

Let's say that by hitting the cue ball with the tip at the lowest point, which is adjacent to the cloth, you can jump full ball. Then it would result that hitting the cue ball halfway from the point touching the cloth to the center would produce enough "vertical squirt" to jump a half ball, but this is what we call a draw shot 1 to 1.5 tips below center, and we know this doesn't happen when we draw our rock. Or at least I think.

I do believe the only way to jump the way you are describing is to miscue, and by miscue I mean the cue ball comes in contact with the ferrule and/or the shaft.

Second, it is hard to believe that you started the enforcement of the no scoop jump shot rule. I mean to be the one who is responisble for a rule that is a world standard, man you must be somebody! And to think that none of the people that saw you had the talent you had to jump full ball with squirt.

I could be mistaken in my thoughts, maybe you are. Maybe someone who's been playing longer than 46 years can tell us.

Alex.......not an instructor, physicist, or even an A player. But I've been playing for 5 whole years.

 

[SakuJack]

No big deal there are those who believe the moon landing didn't happen either and still others still living in the 50s who think blacks are an inferior race.

For those who may have missed it, John Barton just compared disliking aiming systems to racism. Christ.

 

[JB Cases]

For those who may have missed it, John Barton just compared disliking aiming systems to racism. Christ.

That's right, because it's essentially the same thing. A misinformed and misguided belief. You see back in the 50s there were scientists who said that black people are a genetically inferior race of people. Many otherwise smart people believed this nonsense because it came from authority. And in fact who would have been able to prove otherwise except other scientists?

If your side can continue to defame good honest men like Stan then I can compare your stance to the racists who tried to use science as a basis for their racism.

The point is that you can appeal to authority but it goes both ways.

It's not about disliking aiming systems, it's about the constant attempts to discredit them. I don't like doing drills but I am not about to say that they are not helpful. I am not going to quote Shane Van Boeing and say well Shane says he doesn't do them and look at him, therefore drills must not be good. What I would do is say well I don't like drills but obviously they work really well for some folks like Niel Feijen while others like SVB don't seem to need them.

I mean essentially when you continue to try and discredit aiming systems you are calling those who stand behind them liars. So if you do that then be prepared to have your actions compared to racism or any other equally silly stance. In Joe Davis' time people also though smoking tobacco was healthy and that lobotomies were the cure for bad behavior.

Guess what, NO OTHER major sport is trained for using 50 year old methods. None of them. Even in snooker they use modern methods to train, youtube is full of proof of that.

Does Joe mention anything about eye dominance? Steve Davis does. Again YouTube is your friend.

 

[predator]

...I bet that if Joe Davis and Stan Shuffett had been able to spend some time together then Joe would have probably endorsed CTE. To my knowledge there isn't one professional player that has spent time with Stan that has not publicly said it's the real deal...

Wow, I'm impressed by how much confidence you have in this aiming system. That's fine I guess.

All of this to me sounds like a coach who focuses primarily on American pool but does have very well worked out aiming system could potentially work with not only top level pool players, but with top level snooker players as well and even further improve their potting ability. If that were true, then it would surely mean that snooker methods of coaching and their top coaches aren't very good at all...outdated at the very least. How believable is that I ask?

But then again, maybe I took what you wrote out of context and too literally as well, completely missing the point. If that's the case, could you elaborate just a little more on this part, because I truly don't understand?
Cheers.

 

[West Point 1987]

Why does everyone keep talking past each other?

Player A looks at the three ball and declares it to be red. Player B looks at the same three ball and agrees, yes, it's indeed red. Player A then magically is able to borrow Player B's eyes (for the sake of argument)...and for some strange reason, the three ball is now green. How is that possible? Both players agree that the three ball is red...but looking through Player B's eyes, red is green, yellow is blue, etc. As long as what Player A calls a color red stays red to him in comparison to all the other colors, the fact that it looks different to different players is irrelevant. It's the same in relation to everything else. When you try to describe what red is to a blind person, that's where you see that describing individual perception is almost impossible...the same is true for describing how one lines up a shot.

The thing is we all perceive reality (in the case of pool, the alignment and "site picture" we look at to deliver the CB to the precise point required to put the OB where we want) in our own individual way. We think we can describe it to someone else so that they see it the same way...we may infact agree we're seeing the same thing (or not), but if I were to borrow your eyes/stance/address I might see something completely different. But in the end it gets the CB to the same place. Call it "instinct", "feel", "connection", whatever, it doesn't really matter. We're all seeing the same thing, but how we individually perceive it makes it tough to describe it to each other. Thus, the endless arguments over systems.

 

[JB Cases]

Wow, I'm impressed by how much confidence you have in this aiming system. That's fine I guess.

All of this to me sounds like a coach who focuses primarily on American pool but does have very well worked out aiming system could potentially work with not only top level pool players, but with top level snooker players as well and even further improve their potting ability. If that were true, then it would surely mean that snooker methods of coaching and their top coaches aren't very good at all...outdated at the very least. How believable is that I ask?

But then again, maybe I took what you wrote out of context and too literally as well, completely missing the point. If that's the case, could you elaborate just a little more on this part, because I truly don't understand?
Cheers.

Do you think that snooker players are the best that they could ever be? If you do then of course the present methods of training are enough and nothing more would ever be needed or wanted.

My point is that it's entirely possible to imagine that someone could develop a method of approaching the shot that brings them into focus with the shot line that is much better than the trial/error/memory method. I don't discount that possibility and others do.

In many other sports new methods have been sometimes ridiculed only to be vindicated by the record smashing performances of those who adopted them and other times the advantage to the new methods was so clear that all the top athletes immediately adopted them.

Only pool seems to be held back by those who think that we have somehow reached the upper limit of what's possible on the table. They feel that the only way to train and learn is similar to what Joe Davis espoused 60 years ago or what Willie Mosconi said in his book 60 years ago.

Others of us feel otherwise. We feel that players can be better through newer methods of training. We don't think that pool players are as good as they can be and we don't think the only way to get good is by brute force. I personally feel that anyone who does think that way is kind of like the person in the late 1890's who reportedly said that the patent office should be closed because in his opinion everything that can be invented has been invented. And that guy was the head of the patent office.

Now, for the comment that I firmly believe that Joe Davis would see the merit in CTE if he and Stan were able to discuss it over the table, I say this for two reasons, one is that I have not yet seen a single professional player say that CTE is not any good AFTER they have spent time with Stan or Stevie working on it. And two I have run CTE by at least one well known pool coach in China who trains champions and he has said it's solid.

 

[freddy the beard]

For those who are wondering, the author of the book is Joe Davis. He was the UK/world champion at both English billiards and snooker. There are many authors who still have not caught up to what Joe was saying.

Bob, is that the first Joe Davis book? I would say no. I used to have his first offering - which I personally rank as one of the top instructional books ever; it had a red cover?- but as I recall, his 2nd offering wasnt quite up to the first. It has been so long ago I have forgotten why I made such a judgement.

Beard

 

[peteypooldude]

CTE is ca-ca.

Lou Figueroa

There's probably a lot in this world you don't understand .
Your just a troll

 

[BeiberLvr]

CTE is ca-ca.

Lou Figueroa

Willie Mosconi is overrated.

 

[lfigueroa]

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

 

[Pathetic Shark]

For those who may have missed it, John Barton just compared disliking aiming systems to racism. Christ.

A man like that could have a lot of fun in NPR.

 

[Pathetic Shark]

If your side can continue to defame good honest men like Stan then I can compare your stance to the racists who tried to use science as a basis for their racism.

And who can argue with that? No, really - who?

 

[mista335]

CTE is ca-ca.

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

 

[pdcue]

Except you forgot the Ginger Wizard. I won't bore you with providing you a link to the YouTube videos where he teaches the fractional overlap method of aiming. He has a few titles to his name as well.

You act as though I am here to discredit Joe Davis. Not at all. Just that what he teaches which is certainly fine for succeeding at snooker is not the only way that people teach and not the only way to approach the game.

Furthermore, since we are on the subject of who thinks what, you should research the other Davis mentioned above and see what he has to say about pool and pool players. It's far different than what the snooker snobs on this forum constantly say about pool and pool players.

Again I'd provide you with the links but I am a bit weary of doing your work for you.

Hint: they can be found on my youtube channel.

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)

 

[pdcue]

Bob, is that the first Joe Davis book? I would say no. I used to have his first offering - which I personally rank as one of the top instructional books ever; it had a red cover?- but as I recall, his 2nd offering wasnt quite up to the first. It has been so long ago I have forgotten why I made such a judgement.

Beard

Hey Fred, I'm not Bob, but I was lucky enough to score a copy of
"Complete Snooker" back in the pre-boom days. It is the combined
3 (I believe) books he wrote.

Have you seen his explaination of "compactness" in the stance?
Not to be missed.

He also recomends that ths cue should rub against the inside of the
knot in your necktie as you stroke. I needed to modify that one

Dale

 

[AtLarge]

... Keep in mind cue ball squirt/deflection. It works in the verticle direction as well. I never shot any when the balls were rather close, but getting enough 'squirt' to clear a ball far enough away or a part of ball was reasonable. ...

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.