Typical weasel move by no heart, no guts, no game Pat Johnson. But man, can that guy pretend like he has it all.
The Simplest Aiming Systems to Visualize and Use
- Thread starter SpiderWebComm
- Start date
You don't really believe that everyone but I who talked to Hal had success, do you? That's like saying everybody who bought Stan's DVD's had success.
OK, fine, but if I aimed every shot as a simple half ball hit I would make just as many, no?
No, no, no! You're seeing both at the same time and you're ON both at the same time. They aren't imaginary parallel lines that you'll be seeing. What you SHOULD see is the EDGE of the CB at the dead center of the OB and EDGE of the OB at the CENTER of the CB. Or the Center of the CB at the EDGE of the OB. Move your head over your cue possibly to the side of it or wherever it needs to be to see BOTH of those overlaps simultaneously. If you see one the way it should be but can't get the other one, it's because you and your EYES aren't yet in the correct place. The shot will be missed when it could have been made.
No you would NOT! BOTH visuals simultaneously are the key. But again, any cut might be better off by aiming edge at the 15 or 45 as opposed to the center. Right now it doesn't matter and I don't care. You gotta learn to see both visuals simultaneously. This won't happen in one rack of balls or one session either. I'd say 3 hrs. a day for a week and it'll be 2nd nature. If you can't do that many hours daily, fine. It'll take about 21 hours of focused learning to get it.
It might or could be made with just a half ball hit but need a pivot one way or the other. You are no skilled pivot user to know how much or which way yet.
If you don't want to put the time and hours into it, hey, do as you wish.
Cookie will probably answer but I'm going to jump in and give my thoughts so you'll have 2 answers.
No, everyone who talked to Hal did not have success. Some that he talked to were just better players to begin with and it was easy to understand and execute. Additionally, Hal was very alert and astute regarding those who were fascinated with what he was teaching and those who weren't either through skepticism or no desire to learn.
When Hal saw the positive "spark", he went out of his way to take it further and further. Otherwise, he didn't want to waste his time. One thing he did have was a great sense of humor. He was always laughing and having a great time passing this on and seeing success.
me to get new info and then twisting it in some way to try making it look worthless, it's OVER. I'll know immediately.
Yeah, I don't blame you for having a question mark. Something went haywire with my computer for about 15 minutes and I ended up with a double post and a part chopped off. I also had a "wtf is this moment" when it happened and couldn't clear it.
Here it is:
If you want to try "playing"me to get new info and then twisting it in some way to try making it look worthless, it's OVER. I'll know immediately.
Anybody else with a real interest, do what I presented to Dan. If not, no problem.
You are correct, I assumed you knew the process because you keep saying you do, so I never actually told you how to do that.
You are drastically incorrect that "the proper CTE technique" does not put you on the shot line. It absolutely does.
Only if you are unsure about the perception and/or sweep/pivot direction.
There is nothing wrong with looking at the eventual shot line solution to the object ball to see if it looks correct to the contact point. In fact if you are unsure about the shot, you should use some method to double check if you have one. What I do not do, is tweak my aim after I approach the shot.
I know that if I did the correct perception and sweep for the shot the ball has a very good chance of pocketing. If I glance at contact point and it looks incorrect I start over with the other logical solution.
All that said, if you know for sure the correct perception and sweep, you certainly DO NOT have to know when the shot looks right.
Stans book has 1000 or more known shots with exact ball positions and defined solutions to make them. I have not shot all of them but so far I never found one that was incorrect. They are not there for you to memorize a process, they are there for you to learn to recognize solutions visually and quickly.
Only because it does.
No, actually it is not. In fact, there have been several others that did a pretty good job of it as well that I have used in the past. Edge to edge and 90/90 come to mind. But CTE certainly does that.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
I was just giving you an experiment to help you see the shot in CTE fashion. You know your current method, CTE will be quite different but you've played enough pool to know if it will go or not. What I was describing was definitely not CTE but just a way to help see what's going on, a way to get your feet wet.
This is very telling.
It's no wonder CTE doesn't work for you, and would be a very good guide for anyone else who doesn't want it to work.
I agree. It absolutely does.
I've never considered using a contact point, fraction, GB or other method when going through the CTE visual process whether good or bad, but everything else in this post I agree with. It is fact.
I do know the process, or the instructions, but nobody in this century has explained how it puts you on the shot line. They dance around it like you just did.
When someone is not being a wise guy to me I return in kind. I'll give it a shot and see what happens. I'm going to do exactly what you say and will not try to fudge results to my benefit. Whatever happens, happens. I have to say upfront I'm not inclined to spend the number of hours you are talking about, but I'm willing to start the process and see what happens.
Then so does every other aiming method.
This is what others like me object to - not that CTE "doesn't work", but that it doesn't magically do what no other system or method can do - i.e., clearly and "mechanically" (without feel/estimation) define every CB/OB alignment for every possible cut angle in a way that's usable at the table. There are simply too many of them to do that practically. That's obvious without the need to "try" anything.
pj
chgo
I never use it either for the purpose of aiming the shot. My point is that if you are confident you know a ghost ball position or contact point for a given shot, but choose to use CTE, even though sometimes you get shots that are 1 of possibly 2 perceptions and/or sweeps, then do the process you feel is correct to get to the NISL, but before shooting, glance at the object ball and where you are aiming to insure you used the correct process, or more importantly, to show you when you did not. I never use GB or aim point to aim, but they are certainly useable to tell you if your aim is drastically off.
You DO NOT know the actual working version to be able to put it to use on the table. If you did, you'd be dancing around for joy that IT does find the shot line for you after the balls go in. It's something you have to discover for yourself in action. Not on paper or in your imagination. Once you do, they you can try figuring out how it does that.
Point of clarification: Offset from what? If I'm not aiming to pocket the ball then what is the offset? When I find the spot where I see both lines at the same time then does my cue go underneath my eyes pointing at ccb where it normally would for a shot or is that nosing? Where does the cue go when I get down? This is the kind of thing I asked Hal and he said forget about that.
With that mindset, it's exactly why you've been wasting the last 25 years bad mouthing it. I hope you continue, and it festers on your soul for eternity. And if you don't believe in eternity, then at least the last thought on your mind as you take your last breath.
OK, fine. I'll reserve further judgment and play along. It would be nice to get it to work because then I could describe it to PJ and Lou, lol.