Well that escalated quickly! As a chiropractor this debate on aiming systems is hilarious to me because I hear similar debates on chiropractic. Apparently, like with aiming systems, it seems like you are a "believer" or "non believer" with chiropractic. In the end, does it really matter how someone gets better or how you decide to aim the CB to the OB? Really as long as the OB drops, or the patient gets better what difference does it make? Can't wait to watch the 1P, hope the stream doesn't explode from all of the viewers! Haha
Who ya got: JB Cases or Lou?
- Thread starter drv4
- Start date
Here it is in a nutshell.
Aiming systems exist. Those who teach them should be allowed to teach them unmolested. Those who want to discuss them should be allowed to discuss them unmolested. That way everyone who wants to can try them and discuss them in peace and they can either continue with deeper study or drop them. Their choice.
But people like Lou have run active campaigns to jump into aiming threads and knock the methods, knock the users, and knock the teachers. This was done to attempt to dissuade people from trying the methods.
That's the problem and what led to so many arguments.
If I am trying to show you how to use a hammer and some nitwit keeps interrupting telling you that the hammer doesn't work and you shouldn't be wasting your time then I am going to get irritated. He doesn't have a better hammer, you are already familiar with the tools he does have and would like to try something else. But still despite the fact that he has not even used the new hammer he still persists in getting in the middle of our discussion to knock the tool we are discussing.
That's the root of all this. It's not something where these nitwits can simply be ignored.
Anyway, it doesn't matter because the information is out there and only those who are blind or who just want to stir the pot can deny the evidence at this point.
Such as Lou calling CTE a bunch of worthless BS a few weeks ago.
He may not like it, may think Stan Shuffett is a con-artist, may think that those who use CTE are self-delusional, but the method is certainly not worthless when all one has to do is watch the demonstrations to see how easily shots are made. Any tool that helps players become better is not worthless nor is it BS. So if he isn't trying to stir the pot then why even make that statement?
People can use all the systems they want for all I care, but this comparison doesn't work.
Instead, let's look at it like this. You are trying to show me a way of using a hammer. To some outsiders it seems overly complex, based on fuzzy logic and essentially redundant; to others it makes sense. Meanwhile, some people are charging money for DVDs and lessons on this new way to use a hammer. The nitwit in your example is standing next to them shouting, "For god's sake, it's a hammer. Just lift it up and hit the bloody nail!"
Not saying who is in the right and who is in the wrong, but my analogy seems closer than yours
.
Mr. Figueroa my comment about stirring the shit pot wasn't directly directed towards you.
Sorry you took it that way.
I'm just saying CTE arguing has been going on for what seems like forever.
I would think theirs nothing left to argue about.
You either use it & believe in it or you don't.
Sorry you took it that way.
I'm just saying CTE arguing has been going on for what seems like forever.
I would think theirs nothing left to argue about.
You either use it & believe in it or you don't.
People can use all the systems they want for all I care, but this comparison doesn't work.
Instead, let's look at it like this. You are trying to show me a way of using a hammer. To some outsiders it seems overly complex, based on fuzzy logic and essentially redundant; to others it makes sense. Meanwhile, some people are charging money for DVDs and lessons on this new way to use a hammer. The nitwit in your example is standing next to them shouting, "For god's sake, it's a hammer. Just lift it up and hit the bloody nail!"
Not saying who is in the right and who is in the wrong, but my analogy seems closer than yours
Wrong. Its not the same hammer. You are speaking of the TASK. Driving the nail is the goal.
If I have a better way and my own audience who wants to try my way then nitwits should stat out of it.
You want to drive nails your way and use the tools you have then fine go to your own space and do that. But don't be pissed when people say oh we know that way and we would like to try this other way.
Don't interject yourself into the conversation to disrupt it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Or. You don't use it and might be interested and are dissuaded by someone like Lou eloquently telling you it is no good and will destroy your game.
Not a question of belief. I don't believe in Cte. I simply know it works because I use it all the time.
That's like saying you either use hammers and believe in them or not.
You can't be a person who does not believe in a hammer's performance as a tool to drive nails. You can argue as to which hammed is better but to claim one of them is not even a hammer is ridiculous.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
I'm telling ya. Barton does remind me of the Phillip Seymour Hoffman character in that movie 'The Master' which was based on Ron Hubbard and his Scientology crap. Lou's review and opinion of this system was fair and eloquent. I don't see how anyone can say otherwise. I thought he must have blasted it much harder by the way Barton had lied about him. All this time since their one pocket match has been scheduled, I had only given my opinion on who I thought would win. But now I'm really pulling hard for Iceberg Lou to take it down. Just beat him Lou.
Ever see a newbie swing a hammer v someone that has done it for years? There is a noticeable difference in performance even using the same hammer and nail size. What's the difference?
My stang has outstanding brakes. I can use those brakes to the max and a very effective left foot braker, my wife cannot? Same car, same brakes? What's the difference?
What really gets me is the implied benefit to using one method over another when there is no proof one method is better than another.
I use ghost ball cause it works in every situation for me. Does it prove it's better than another method, nope, just that I can use ghost ball very effectively cause of practice, repetition, which is the answer to the two questions above.
In racing motorcycles, I learned its not the bike, but the rider. Same implies to everything in life as well as pool.
To imply that a person only shoots good because of the system used is misleading a person down a path to no where. It's the person practice, persons skill, not what system is used.
My stang has outstanding brakes. I can use those brakes to the max and a very effective left foot braker, my wife cannot? Same car, same brakes? What's the difference?
What really gets me is the implied benefit to using one method over another when there is no proof one method is better than another.
I use ghost ball cause it works in every situation for me. Does it prove it's better than another method, nope, just that I can use ghost ball very effectively cause of practice, repetition, which is the answer to the two questions above.
In racing motorcycles, I learned its not the bike, but the rider. Same implies to everything in life as well as pool.
To imply that a person only shoots good because of the system used is misleading a person down a path to no where. It's the person practice, persons skill, not what system is used.
................
Last edited:
I agree , Lou's review was no differnt than a resturant or movie review would be,, his analysis and I agree that u can't help to get better since it's putting you in better position to pocket balls if you did not have that before, but that could also come from several other means of practice
I could take just about any lower level player and show them a few things and they would walk away thinking they have found the fountain of youth ,,
1
..........
Last edited:
It was eloquent but not fair in the least.
How would you know what's fair if you don't even know the material?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Wrong. It is precisely this zeal (root word of zealot) where outsiders looking in can readily see this is a religious argument.
It's a lot like what's going on now between Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and the religious fundamentalists who belief the Earth was the result of "Intelligent Design" and is therefore only 6,000 years old. I'm not saying one side or the other is "just like" that/those comparisons, but rather, I'm referring to the "die by the sword" zeal these folks are displaying.
Sorry you disagree and think the comparison is demeaning, but like I said, you can't see it because you are too close / too embedded in it -- up to your eyeballs.
-Sean
This deserves reposting, it's an aiming sytem tailor made to your needs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q4jEPmHFa8
The most amazing thing to me is that it doesn't just work for side pocket shots! It works for corner pocket shots too!
Hilarious. Never seen that before.
You know it works for you. You do not know if it will work for others. Some it will, some it won't. I think we both can agree it's not a "user friendly" system. And who knows, one day I might give it another whirl
Just like you can't learn the "pro" style of just seeing the shot and letting it fly with a perfect stroke. I once asked Buddy Hall where he aims, and he just said "at the ball" LOL. He just instincitively knows where to hit every cut shot because he's seen it so many times it has become second nature, and he is not thinking about it.
No difference than me using a caluclator to add and muliply while my genius nephew at Stanford does it all in his head.....and still does it faster than me
I feel like a nimrod when I hang out with him... I gotta stop doing that !!!
Yeah, I thought Mr. Figueroas review was pretty much spot on. I too bought the first CTE/Pro One DVD and I have to say: Of all the aiming systems I have tried, this is the only one I could not get to work. The entire video I felt like something must me missing. I've tried aiming by the numbers (which was good), TOI (I had some problems, but did ok with it) and the See System which was the most promising of all and might make my next pool project. I like to learn new stuff, and think of myself as someone with an open mind, but I failed to get anything out of this DVD. That may not be proof of anything, but at least it shows that Mr. Figueroa was not the lone ranger in this.
I didn't find anything particularly offensive in Lous review, and if this kind of post can generate so much hatred, it is hard to compare it to anything other than religious fundamentalism. I never understood the people standing in the public square, their eyes glowing with religious zeal, shouting menacing gibberish at passers by, and now these kinds of people have invaded the forum, preaching pool hell and damnation to all that do not see the light. Can't we all just get along, please? Must everyone who disagree with these people gamble for their life savings or make videos every time they try to make an argument? What's the point anyway, any non-aiming system video is instantly dismissed as fake.
The point is you tried it. At the table. Lou did not.
And many others also didn't "get it to work" but with support from other users they did get it. We have said all along the this is not a magic bullet.
I don't remember what you did or did not do to get it to work but did you ask for help?
I myself was lazy and didn't bother to ingest it fully thinking that what I did with the version I was using was sufficiently precise. It wasn't until Stan came out with the banking videos that I snapped to the fact that I was missing another level of precision.
That's when I took it back out. Printed the reference shots and started working through them.
There is a learning curve here. Material that must be studied with real focus to get it. Its not a view once OK got it type of thing for most people.
I can fully understand that someone can look at the video and have their eyes glaze over.
But there is a HUGE difference between saying I could not get it to work for me and it does not work.
That's the point.
Lou says it does not work.
Wrong again. As software guy you surely understand when a programming error is made and the program does work as opposed to the user error when the user is not pushing the right buttons in a functioning application.
If you had a person swearing that a functioning app did not work when you knew it does then you would defend your app religiously if neccesary.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
You know it works for you. You do not know if it will work for others. Some it will, some it won't. I think we both can agree it's not a "user friendly" system. And who knows, one day I might give it another whirl
Just like you can't learn the "pro" style of just seeing the shot and letting it fly with a perfect stroke. I once asked Buddy Hall where he aims, and he just said "at the ball" LOL. He just instincitively knows where to hit every cut shot because he's seen it so many times it has become second nature, and he is not thinking about it.
No difference than me using a caluclator to add and muliply while my genius nephew at Stanford does it all in his head.....and still does it faster than me
I know it works EVEN IF it didn't work for me. I am not as accurate as Stan is for example simply because I have not studied it enough and have not practiced it enough. So even if I can't do four railers as accurately as Stan I know that using his method works to do four railers. Just like I know that a Bunjee Jump Cue WILL WORK for every person on the planet who is willing to learn the proper stroke technique. The cue is inert and lays there waiting for someone to use it properly. It works when used properly and does not work when not used properly.
Now, if you aren't willing to learn it, not willing to practice it then it definitely will NOT work for you. Clearly it's a lead a horse to water but can't make him drink proposition.
The debate is not whether you will use the tool or not, the bone of contention for me is the people like Lou who say it DOES NOT WORK. And he goes further to say that not only does it not work but trying it may hold you back as a player.
Sorry but that is simply not true. At all.
CTE is a tool that every player who is physically capable can use to make more shots. It is a not a belief system. It's a set of instructions that leads to a physical body placement that then allows the cue to be placed on the shot line for almost every possible shot.
Sure there are people who can calculate faster than a calculator, so what? That doesn't invalidate the calculator as a tool. And you know what happens in math competitions where competitors have to calculate without a calculator? The judges USE a calculator to verify the results.
Buddy's answer to you was flippant and 100% true. Using CTE I aim at the ball as well. Only now I do it in a way that is more precise than "just seeing it". And with time I won't need to think of the key or aiming formula and will just automatically see it as well.
That wasn't "wrong again" -- you just agreed with me (and ChicagoRJ, for that matter). This is not a software application where it runs on a device -- a computer -- that follows instructions precisely, based on choices that the human operator makes.
And we're getting a little pedantic here with the analogies. We're talking about how an inexact machine -- the human body -- can "perceive" a pool shot properly and execute it. Perception is the key operative word here -- everyone perceives things differently based on strengths he/she has, such as 3D spacial perception, imagination, lines/edges, what-have-you. Everyone is different in this regard.
Just because you think CTE/Pro-1 is the squirrel's nuts, doesn't mean others do. And before you reply with the "but how do you know unless you try it?" broccoli-serving-on-the-kid's-plate notion, please know that I have the DVD (had it since its inception) and have gone over it several times. I do agree that this first DVD is not complete, but I won't bash it, because I know sometimes "thoroughly documenting" something is a skill all in and of itself. (That's why the job of "technical writers" exists in the first place -- not many folks have that ability.) I will be ordering the second DVD soon, because I want to fill in those gaps, in the role of being a consummate cueing arts student.
-Sean