What is your PSR?
- Thread starter Ralph Kramden
- Start date
Ok. Thanks.
You are welcome! I am glad that you are on record declaring that there are no adjustments to CCB Poolology. I don't know the ins and outs of your system but it seems that you get no challenges. Congrats on that!
I believe AT LARGE is an exception to the rule in that the player determines the fractional shot line for Poolology and then tweaks. I can assure you that Pat Johnson will assert that your system MUST have a figet or two or three unless he confers with Dan and then issues you a free pass. CTE is their sole target!
PJ is after CTE just like Dan and Lou. They'll do or say anything to discredit CTE. They could give a rats ass about fractions because they know the underpinnings of fractions. Fractions are no threat to their mindset.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
Last edited:
I have no idea what you're blathering about. Poolology has nothing to do with you or your system.
Lou Figueroa
Nothing but props! Poolology is surviving here as a no feel no guesswork system in the midst of the two biggest anti-aimers on AZ. I am proud of you and Dan for not challenging Poolology as a no feel system. I am doing nothing more than stating the state of affairs for how amazingly well no guess aiming has advanced on this forum.
I would bet my life if I had brought Brian's exact system in as another no feel arsenal in my repertoire you and your main cohort would have jumped all over it. PJ would call it light work!
You opened this can of worms with your lol.
Stan Shuffett
If you are capable of any level of honest assessment and go back and look at the posts made on this subject you will see that *many* people came out in support of Poolology and gave it favorable reviews as a simple and accurate aiming system.
You just appear to be incapable of acknowledging that there are other systems worthy of appreciation and consider any compliment towards Poolology a slight against you.
Lou Figueroa
Good spin, Lou. It's easy to tell that you made a portion of your living doing just that, spinning.
The whole controversy of aiming for the past 20 years plus on this and other forums has been centered around feel vs no feel. Brian has declared POOLOLOGY as a no-feel system. Once again, I think it's great that you and Dan as known aiming haters are comfortably endorsing an aiming system that purports to operate at the no-feel level. Your endorsement of his no-feel system is a tremendous step forward in this forum.
Times are great for aiming systems!!
Lou, if Poolology were mine the best you would say about it would be that's it's simple and accurate but tweaks and adjustments are required.
If I'd say the same about CTE, the subject of CTE would be closed.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
I say again: *lots* of folks here, via their independent assessment, came to the conclusion that Poolology was an aiming system worthy of endorsement.
Here's what I said and I stand by it.
#####
Poolology is a nifty little aiming system that is easy to deploy and will provide an accurate aiming resource for those wanting a formulaic approach to aiming pool shots.
To be honest, I found starting in with the alignment illustrations — with their accompanying zones and values — a bit daunting. But then, I am not a math guy and was lucky to escape Father Jacob’s basic high school algebra class by the thinest of margins. However, after I got over my trepidation, even I, as number impaired as they come, was able to take this system to the pool table and make it work. It doesn’t hurt that a majority of shots on a pool table fall within just one of Poolology’s zones, making the necessary calculations pretty easy.
In addition to laying out a very nice aiming system, I’d also like to commend Brian on an enviable writing style. Communicating well about pool may appear easy but is anything but easy. In Poolology Mr. Crist smoothly navigates through the presentation of his thoughts on pool and provides the reader with a coherent, readily understandable explanation of his system.
Will I use it? No. After 40 plus years of shooting pool I see the shots and angles as well as I’m ever going to see them. It’s too late in my game for Poolology. But for younger guys looking for a sound foundation for aiming — this would be the way to go.
#####
Please note: there was no mention of you or your system.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
Super! But elaborate a little bit more about whether the system passes as an objective no-feel system. In other words.....no adjustments, no tweaking........and Im not talking about using the whole pocket as a target. Does it take into account CIT and produce solid center pocket shots with center cue ball?
Stan Shuffett
I'm too new here to know the ugly history of CTE bashing. I've only commented on my own CTE experience and the experiences of a couple of my friends. But maybe they were as impatient as I was, not giving it enough time to figure out.
I sure am on record saying Poolology is a method requiring no guesswork or personal/individual tweaking. It's a point and shoot system. Regarding AtLarge's review/comments on the book: He is correct that when the CB and OB are closer together (8 inches or so) the shot must be cut a fraction thinner, but it's not a personal tweak or guess. The book explains exactly how much of a fractional adjustment is needed. The system covers 99% of the table surface for all cut shots as thin as a 1/8 hit. Beyond that, I specifically state that a player must practice thinner cuts and develop their his/her feel for them. The system loses accuracy on about 1% of the table surface. In these known locations, certain shots need to be hit a fraction thinner or thicker, but still no guessing or tweaking because the book explains exactly how much of a fraction to adjust. Anyway, all of this info is openly stated throughout the book.
Oh, and Pat Johnson has a copy of Poolology. He provided some great feedback/suggestions, and concluded that the system is a useful enhancement to traditional fractional ball aiming.
I really hope your CTE book clears up the years of misinformation and mystery. Anything that gets more people playing better pool is good for the game.
Last edited:
I could care less about useful aiming systems. There are dozens of them. My work has been solely for the following: Is CTE an objective aiming system? Do the CTE perceptions yield a describable center cue ball?
My years of work, or misinfo as you like to call it, has been to unravel a 20 plus year CTE mystery that has created intrigue around the globe. I wasn't perfect with my work from day 1 nor was I perfect years later. But what I have done is stayed with it so that perception for the very first time can be defined and objectively aligned to. I am happy to have solved CTE even if it did take a decade or more.
Good on PJ......but he fell short in describing your pool work as a phenomena that contains no feel or adjustment for aiming. Yours is a useful system....no doubt.
Oh! And PJ once shared on AZ that I would have a real winner if I'd say that CTE gets you real close and then you tweak. PJ has already filed you away in the feel file. I'd like to see you pchallenge him on that. I mean really show him where's there is no adjustment with your system. You gotta gonafter and him show him that you should not be categorized as such.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
No need to be cynical. The "misinformation" I was referring to is the many many different versions of CTE that can be found all over youtube.
And Pat Johnson did not publicly say anything about my book. His comments were to me personally via email. So he wasn't pandering or taking sides. He was giving a fair look at the material. I don't get overly defensive when my work is fairly critiqued. In fact, I welcome it because it allows me the opportunity to amend, clarify, or correct issues that people may be having.
I have a feeling your anti-CTE people would've been more accepting if years ago there was no mystery to it. If it had been explainable and open to honest criticism. You say your book will clear it all up, and I hope it does.
I misread your tone on misinfo. Sorry! It's true about the various versions. I never set out to have a version. I set out with but one goal: and that was to solve what the heck CTE really is. It's just so happens that CTE does have mystery to it but that won't be for too much longer in the scheme of things. Cte will be cleared up.....Will folks take to it like a duck to water. NOPE! Why? It's odd and very different at first....in the way that ones vision is used. On the flip side, those that do take to it will learn that the game is played with only 2-4 major perceptions that have a known CCB. And no one has to buy my book to get the low down cause Im telling the whole world for nothing online. Why? Because I named my last video THE FINAL CHAPTER and I was wrong. There's more. It's not fair if I don't update for free. I think if folks like my online update they'll love my book.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
Mr. Shuffett, in my opinion, an exciting thing I like about your CTE is it allows a player to become "robotic" in their game. Consistency...over and over and over and over. And I like that. (Jimmy Reid used to say "No time for negative")
The mind doesn't have to be cluttered with thoughts of "am I cutting this too thin"...."this rail is dead I think"..."only just a little English on this one, you know you saw Mizerak miscue on this same shot"..."man, I hate this shot angle"...."I don't like this new tip, I'm going to miss this cut I just know it"....or any of that stuff.
The eyes see and the body follows (your quote)...over and over and over. 15-30-45-60...that's all it takes. Only think about force and speed.
I wish I had never seen that old book by Willie Mosconi and his darn fool fraction system that, of course, does not allow for throw/cling....in fact he never even mentions it. Maybe that was because at his exhibitions he demanded 5 inch pockets and waxed balls (according to Grady Matthews' book). But, I digress.
Let the heathen rage.....you just keep right on keeping on. There are many, many, more people out there who will lap this method up once it's completed.
You know, pool players as a whole, seem to forget just how big this world really is. They haven't travelled enough, they haven't met enough different cultures, to realize that what is 'normal' in Boston would be considered insane in another part of the world. They carelessly get the idea that the world rotates around their center of activity and thought. I've seen a couple on here even post, to the effect, "I 've been shooting the same way for 35 years...it's too late for me to change now....even if it works, I'm not going to do it."
Those are the type who "don't want cell phones because they heard it causes cancer and I'll just use a phone booth". (have they tried to FIND one these days)
I've shown the little I know about the 15-30-45-60 to a few guys and steered them in your direction for the real teaching and they're all over it on the YouTube.....just loving it. There's more support out there than you may realize.
These are YOUNG fellas too...not old hard bitten stubborn varmints who're "still looking for a phone booth".:wink:
Stay happy
:thumbup:
!
This is the second or third time you have misrepresented Mosconi's work. I believe you have "seen" his little red book, but it's obvious you have never READ it. Mosconi never taught fractional aiming. His book has no "fraction system" in it. He taught 100% contact point aiming and that's what's in his little red book. He included the standard 1/4 fractional overlaps diagram to give a player an idea of what the CB to OB should like when the contact point is hit. But not one word in his material instructs a player to aim for ANY fractional hit.
I'm sure your only reason for continuing this Mosconi fraction falsehood is to, as Stan would say, take a "swipe" at my work. That's fine, a little childish, but fine. I wish Mosconi's book did have some sort of fractional aiming system in it, then players could have a comparison for Poolology. But nowhere in my book do I instruct to aim for contact points. It's all about fractional aim points, which is not comparable to Mosconi's book.
To keep on thread topic, your "wait 5 seconds" or more to allow older brains to process vision....that's great advice, a true gem.
This is the second or third time you have misrepresented Mosconi's work. I believe you have "seen" his little red book, but it's obvious you have never READ it. Mosconi never taught fractional aiming. His book has no "fraction system" in it. He taught 100% contact point aiming and that's what's in his little red book. He included the standard 1/4 fractional overlaps diagram to give a player an idea of what the CB to OB should like when the contact point is hit. But not one word in his material instructs a player to aim for ANY fractional hit.
I'm sure your only reason for continuing this Mosconi fraction falsehood is to, as Stan would say, take a "swipe" at my work. That's fine, a little childish, but fine. I wish Mosconi's book did have some sort of fractional aiming system in it, then players could have a comparison for Poolology. But nowhere in my book do I instruct to aim for contact points. It's all about fractional aim points, which is not comparable to Mosconi's book.
To keep on thread topic, your "wait 5 seconds" or more to allow older brains to process vision....that's great advice, a true gem.
Last edited:
Hey Ed! How'r things? Nice to see you back!
I'm sandbagging on Lou. I'm gonna record back to back 100's and sent it to Lou. Well, er, that's that idea anyway. lol
Stan, I'm not sure whether you are simply baiting people to try and get them into an argument so they get banned, or if you really don't understand the idea behind Poolology even though it has been gone over numerous times. If it doesn't make sense to you on Youtube, then get an online copy of Poolology for $10 and read it. You will understand the concept right away. The method is 100% objective in that it provides the fraction needed to pocket the ball. What does require feel is learning to hit the ob at the fraction needed. For instance, what does a 5/8 hit look like? Alternatively, you can choose to hit the cb at the 3/4 spot (easier to identify) but then, by feel, hit just a shade thinner than that. So call it objective or subjective or whatever you want. The point is that the system tells you the fraction that will pocket the ball. The rest is up to you. Once the player gets a good feel for what the shots look like, he will no longer need Poolology and will just see the shots.
As to your other point, I am NOT after CTE to discredit it. I'd be perfectly happy if you book explained how it really worked. Personally, I don't think it works how you say it does. I don't believe there is a "mystery" as you put it on Youtube that will be solved by the book. But, again, I'd be happy to be proven wrong and hope it really is solved in your book. I don't go to bed at night cursing CTE and hoping I win a battle on AZ Billiards. I have absolutely no vested interest in it one way or the other.
I have worked with fractions extensively and there is no way that tweaking for final aim can be eliminated. Also, fractions do not take into account the negative effects of cut induced throw.
Stan Shuffett
Great post. Thanks.
I'm in my 70's. Took a 10 year break from pool. Started back 7 years ago and quickly realized I couldn't pocket balls and play position like I did in the past. In the past I was probably down on the shot maybe 3 seconds or less before pulling the trigger.
After reading your post I did a bunch of research on the Internet, sure enough processing time increases with age.
Then I went to YouTube and paid attention to how long SVB, Dennis Orcollo and Alex P. stayed down on the shot before pulling the trigger. SVB and Dennis stayed down on the shot for approx. 5 seconds before pulling the trigger. Alex stayed down approx. 3 seconds before pulling the trigger.
I have incorporated this time extension into my PSR. I'm finding that adding this time (5 seconds) allows for my brain to coordinate the correct muscles in my arm and hand for a better feel of the shot.
I would have never thought of this issue in a million years. Thanks
John
