PDA

View Full Version : Aiming System



av84fun
09-03-2008, 10:22 PM
The following appeared on another forum and is quite interesting. There was a graphic attached but I have no clue how to include it so what follows is the text.

While billed as new, it seems to me that it is essentially the age-old "equal/opposites" system taught for years by many instructors including the great Jimmy Reid. Jimmy uses equal but opposite distances in inches or fractions of inches but others have used clock face positions to define those distances.

Personally, I find using anything but the top center of the CB as an aiming reference to be problematic. Using a portion of the ball off to one side or the other would be like a rifle sight positioned to one side or the other of the barrel...IMHO.

But I just thought I'd post the system here because it is interesting.

Regards,
Jim

Ok here is one that I have been working on...

Look down on the object ball and picture a clock face on the ball. On the very bottom (contact point for a straight in shot) is 6 o'clock. Determine which path you want the object ball to go. Then figure the opposite time.. example... if you want the ball to go in a 1 o'clock path then the opposite time would be eleven. Now get behind the cueball and line it up so that where the arcs of the cueball and object ball intersect is equal to the opposite time you determined before... the picture explains what i mean...Attached Images

av84fun
09-04-2008, 09:36 PM
Speaking of aiming systems, the Pro One method based in part on the "center-to-edge" method but very substantially modified and improved upon by noted instructor Stan Shuffett is the best method I have encountered in my lifetime.

It is really more of a "shooting system" than merely an aimin system because its use puts the entire body in ideal alignment.

Only a VERY few people are now fully trained in Pro One. I am one of them but of vastly greater importance, the others include Stan's 14 year old son Landon and Stevie Moore who has been winning events left and right lately...including his domination of Chris Bartram in a 10 Ball race to 100 for $20k that just concluded today with a final score of 100-66.

In another forum, a pack of so-called and in some cases self-appointed "experts" flamed the system which is hysterical since not a single one of the naysayers even know how Pro One works!!!

Well, while they lube their slide rules and jockey their graphics programs...Stevie DRILLED one of the top road players in the country!!

And so it goes.

(-:

Jim

Rich R.
09-05-2008, 06:31 AM
Is it possible to explain this system on this forum? Some of us would be very interested. I assure you I have neither a slide rule nor a graphics program and wouldn't know how to use them if I did. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

DeadCrab
09-05-2008, 07:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is it possible to explain this system on this forum? Some of us would be very interested. I assure you I have neither a slide rule nor a graphics program and wouldn't know how to use them if I did. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif </div></div>

And heeeeeeeeeere we go!

Stay away from the brown acid, man.

Rich R.
09-05-2008, 05:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeadCrab</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is it possible to explain this system on this forum? Some of us would be very interested. I assure you I have neither a slide rule nor a graphics program and wouldn't know how to use them if I did. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif </div></div>

And heeeeeeeeeere we go!

Stay away from the brown acid, man. </div></div>

Just because the brown acid is available doesn't mean you have to swallow it. It is still nice to know that it is available and maybe you could just take half a tab.

DeadCrab
09-05-2008, 07:19 PM
I was there on that "other forum" thing, as were several other regulars on this forum, which is why I am a bit suprised that the subject is being raised again here. If you are so motivated, you won't have any trouble finding the referenced discussion.

Hopefully, it will have a better outcome if it moves forward herein.

You can cut to the chase by calling Hal Houle, if you are so inclined. He is apparently able to explain things over the phone that don't come across real well in internet text. If that discussion catches your interest, you should contact Stan Shuffett for lessons.

Discussion of said method on the internet has had remarkably poor yield.

av84fun
09-05-2008, 07:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is it possible to explain this system on this forum? Some of us would be very interested. I assure you I have neither a slide rule nor a graphics program and wouldn't know how to use them if I did. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif </div></div>

Actually, I can't get into it Rich, due to a confidentiality agreement I have with Stan.

While its inspiration was hal houle's "center to edge" system, Pro One is a highly modified version of the CTE system and in fact, I wouldn't even refer to Pro One as an "aiming system" but rather an alignment and aiming method.

I honestly don't think the method can be taught in writing...just like a great stroke cannot be.

Pro One is highly visual in nature and so is the advanced version of CTE that involves an "air pivot" (think Django) and most people have no clue what he is doing when he is doing it.

In time, Stan will train other pros and instructors and the "genie will get out of the bottle."

Finally...and I don't know if Stan would agree with this or not...but I don't think Pro One is a method for beginners or even C players. You have to be a decent shot maker to start with and then when guided to the right alignment and cue angle...you just KNOW it's correct.

Compare that to the tough shot that you figure you may or may not make. It's just a whole differnet mindset to be almost SHOCKED when you miss.

But as someone else commented, talking about CTE has produced HIGHLY different results from student to student to the point that it gets rapped as some sort of cult cure or voodoo...and it IS NOT.

It is a highly effective system on a large number of shots. But it does have its limitations and it is those limitations that Stan has LABORIOUSLY experimented with in creating the Pro One METHOD.

Regards,
Jim

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
09-05-2008, 08:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeadCrab</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I was there on that "other forum" thing, as were several other regulars on this forum, which is why I am a bit suprised that the subject is being raised again here. If you are so motivated, you won't have any trouble finding the referenced discussion.

Hopefully, it will have a better outcome if it moves forward herein.

You can cut to the chase by calling Hal Houle, if you are so inclined. He is apparently able to explain things over the phone that don't come across real well in internet text. If that discussion catches your interest, you should contact Stan Shuffett for lessons.

Discussion of said method on the internet has had remarkably poor yield.

</div></div>

You have seriously mixed subjects. The OP had to do with a version of the "equal/opposites system." I only posted in here because there were so many on the other forum who thought it was rather novel and so I thought some here might find it interesting.

Then there is Hal Houle's CTE system. He has had VERY mixed results in explaining it on the phone and many of the more confused students posted THEIR version of the system and then A tells B who tells C and before long, what shows up in the threads has nothing to do with the actual system.

Surfing the threads re: CTE is therefore a complete and utter waste of time.

Then there is Pro One. It evolved from CTE but some think that man evolved from the Ape (probably having studied us pool players)and there is about as much relationship between Pro One and CTE as the ape and man.

Regards,
Jim

Rich R.
09-06-2008, 07:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeadCrab</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I was there on that "other forum" thing, as were several other regulars on this forum, which is why I am a bit suprised that the subject is being raised again here. If you are so motivated, you won't have any trouble finding the referenced discussion.

Hopefully, it will have a better outcome if it moves forward herein.

You can cut to the chase by calling Hal Houle, if you are so inclined. He is apparently able to explain things over the phone that don't come across real well in internet text. If that discussion catches your interest, you should contact Stan Shuffett for lessons.

Discussion of said method on the internet has had remarkably poor yield.

</div></div>
Frankly, I have been fed up with that "other forum" and I rarely spend more than a few minutes there. Any useful thread is soon bastardized to the point that no one knows what is true and what is not. If you don't mind, I won't be going there for any information.

As for Hal, he is older but I must be just as crotchety as him. As much as Hal insists on instructing via the phone, I am more opposed to using the phone. Actually, I am a visual learner and a phone conversation wouldn't do it for me.
After sending me a PM to initiate a personal contact, Hal's account didn't accept PM's in return. After a number of tries, I just gave up trying to contact him.
From the little I know about his systems, I find them interesting and I would like to learn more about them. However, I'm not to go crazy over it.

Rich R.
09-06-2008, 07:04 AM
Thanks anyway Jim. I understand why you wouldn't want to put this information on the forum.

If I ever find myself in the same area as Stan, maybe I'll take a lesson and see what the system is about. I'm not sure this old dog can learn new tricks, but I am curious.

av84fun
09-06-2008, 08:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks anyway Jim. I understand why you wouldn't want to put this information on the forum.

If I ever find myself in the same area as Stan, maybe I'll take a lesson and see what the system is about. I'm not sure this old dog can learn new tricks, but I am curious. </div></div>

Rich, I have been asked by several forum members here and elsewhere, to try to shed some light on the Center-to-Edge system.

I have had mixed results for just the reasons you cite. But if you wish, I can compile the PMs/e-mails and get them to you.

As I noted CTE has some limitations...all of which I address. But when it is ON (which is MUCH of the time)...it is deadly and also works well on 1 rail banks to the extent of at least doubling my own bank success ratio.

Regards,
Jim

Rich R.
09-06-2008, 01:34 PM
Thanks Jim, but I wouldn't want you to betray any type of confidentiality agreement you have with Stan.

At my age, I don't expect to become any type of world champ. My interest is purely curiosity. I do have some knowledge of the SAM system, developed by Randy G. and his pool school, which is also somewhat based on Hal's systems. I don't know how Stan's system differs, but I'm good with that.

av84fun
09-06-2008, 11:26 PM
Right...I would not betray any confidences with Stan or anyone else.

Center-to-Edge is WAY in the public domain...althoutg the commentary on it is so convoluted as to be almost unrecognizable.

Stan's Pro One is a significant departure from...although based on CTE. But since Stan didn't invent CTE, I am free to talk about it.

I think it is fair to say that Stan isn't even teaching CTE in its original form anymore and is just going straight into Pro One.

My personal feeling is that for the average player, starting out with CTE has some advantages. I think that "getting" CTE makes the transition to Pro One that much easier.

But Stan is far better qualified to make such a decision than I am. Certainly though, understanding CTE will absolutely NOT hurt the prospective Pro One student...and in my own personal opinion, might well help.

Regards,
Jim

Stan Shuffett
09-07-2008, 10:35 AM
If Landon were starting all over today as a beginning player I would not hesitate to teach him PRO ONE. I would see no reason to wait. PRO ONE is a CTE system that is not complicated. PRO ONE represents the highest level one can attain in CTE aiming.
Stan

Qtec
09-07-2008, 11:30 AM
OMG.....ANOTHER secret aiming system?



With the GB method there is only ONE aiming point,only ONE target, what could be simpler than that?

Qtec

av84fun
09-07-2008, 11:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stan Shuffett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Landon were starting all over today as a beginning player I would not hesitate to teach him PRO ONE. I would see no reason to wait. PRO ONE is a CTE system that is not complicated. PRO ONE represents the highest level one can attain in CTE aiming.
Stan </div></div>

Thanks for clarifying that Stan. Since I started out in CTE Level 1 and 2 it's hard for me to know what it would be like to start with Pro One.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
09-07-2008, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OMG.....ANOTHER secret aiming system?



With the GB method there is only ONE aiming point,only ONE target, what could be simpler than that?

Qtec

</div></div>

I won't get into any debates over aiming systems. Been there done that. If GB works for you to the extent that you shotmaking percentage is "open speed" or better, then GREAT. You shouldn't let wild horses drag you away from it.

But having said that,
1. The GB is a fictitious object. The shooter has to "place" it mentally and do so over and over again as he/she looks down the line of aim...then gets behind the cb...then falls on the shot...the cycles the eye pattern back and forth between CB and OB.

Human beings have widely varying abilities so succeed with such visualizations.

2. You must pick the correct place for the GB. A large majority of discussions I've read and diagrams I've seen, depict the GB on the line of centers to the center of the pocket.

For a large majority of cut shots where the OB is not fairly close to the pocket, the geometric line of centers will not work due to CIT.

3. The above dicussion assumes a center ball hit. Some GB players use the geometric CP and correct for cit with outside english. That is effective for shot making but limits the shooter's position options to the cushion rebound angle determined by the use of outside english and cancels out an entire other world of position routes than could be achieved with center ball or inside english.

I now quite a few championship players and not one of them uses the GB method as an aiming baseline except to teach beginning to intermediate students.

But let me say again...I PROMISE I'm not being argumentative or disrespecting your use of the GB method. It may well work for many, many people who have more "visualization" capabilities than others may have.

One thing I can say about Pro One is that it utilizes actual objects...not fictitious objects as reference points and therefore, is fundamentally superior to most aiming systems that rely on visualizing fictitious objects such as clock faces, CPs and GBs.

Regards,
Jim

wolfdancer
09-07-2008, 06:02 PM
"One thing I can say about Pro One is that it utilizes actual objects...not fictitious objects as reference points and therefore, is fundamentally superior to most aiming systems that rely on visualizing fictitious objects such as clock faces,..."

You mean like this one? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

" Look down on the object ball and picture a clock face on the ball. On the very bottom (contact point for a straight in shot) is 6 o'clock. Determine which path you want the object ball to go. Then figure the opposite time.. example... if you want the ball to go in a 1 o'clock path then the opposite time would be eleven" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
I'm not knocking the system, since I can only guess at it from the roots(Hal) that you mentioned. And since Landon is a great player, I assume that Stan is also a great teacher.
I wouldn't go knocking the guys with their "slide rules" though, since everybody has their own aiming method, or way of sighting the shot.
I was going to question why only you and so few others use this...from your post I figured one must have to be a very advanced player, to understand the method....but I see that Stan has posted and stated that is not the case.
We're all looking for that better ball pocketing method, so I hope Stan will market the system, and make it so that even a dummy like me,(what don't understand a stun shot) can understand it.

Rich R.
09-07-2008, 07:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We're all looking for that better ball pocketing method, so I hope Stan will market the system, and make it so that even a dummy like me,(what don't understand a stun shot) can understand it. </div></div>

I would buy the video. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

av84fun
09-07-2008, 10:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"One thing I can say about Pro One is that it utilizes actual objects...not fictitious objects as reference points and therefore, is fundamentally superior to most aiming systems that rely on visualizing fictitious objects such as clock faces,..."

You mean like this one? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

" Look down on the object ball and picture a clock face on the ball. On the very bottom (contact point for a straight in shot) is 6 o'clock. Determine which path you want the object ball to go. Then figure the opposite time.. example... if you want the ball to go in a 1 o'clock path then the opposite time would be eleven" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cool.gif
I'm not knocking the system, since I can only guess at it from the roots(Hal) that you mentioned. And since Landon is a great player, I assume that Stan is also a great teacher.
I wouldn't go knocking the guys with their "slide rules" though, since everybody has their own aiming method, or way of sighting the shot.
I was going to question why only you and so few others use this...from your post I figured one must have to be a very advanced player, to understand the method....but I see that Stan has posted and stated that is not the case.
We're all looking for that better ball pocketing method, so I hope Stan will market the system, and make it so that even a dummy like me,(what don't understand a stun shot) can understand it.
</div></div>

I appreciate your gentlemanly comments. Often posts on aiming systems deteriorate pretty rapidly.

Any clock position other than 12 & 6 o'clock are "fictitious" (even 12 & 6 are but are rather easily identified). But 1 o'clock and the other times must be estimated but I agree are "fairly" obvious.

But I suggest that 1:15 is not particularly obvious and is subject to sufficient error to cause a miss.

In CTE the only objects are the dead center of the CB and the physical edge of the CB which are actual "objects"...and there are only two of them in the entire system.

As far as the few number of people being trained on Pro One at this time...the final refinements were only completed within the last month or so.

I have no clue whether better players could more easily understand the method vs. average players. I have only been a student of the method not a teacher of it so I just have no basis for an opinion.

But one thing is for sure. The better the player, the more immediately they will SEE FOR THEMSELVES the benefits of the method.

That is true because the better player will KNOW that the method has produced the correct aim...because they will SEE it and say..."Yes, that is dead in." And here's the difference IMHO.

It is one thing to set up for a tough shot in the belief that you stand a very good chance of making it and it a whole other world to fall on the same tough shot that you would be SHOCKED if you missed.

As the old saying goes..."Pool is mostly mental and the rest is in your head."

I just don't think that the extra degree of confidence in potting the shot can be overestimated. If the aiming part is relatively automatic, then your brain can be freed up for such other critical variables as CB speed and direction.

I am now in NYC having played in the Tony Robles Predator Tour charity event and I was demonstrating the rudiments of CTE...not Pro One...to a world champion.

I set up a shot with the CB at the lower left corner of the rack outline and an OB half way between there and the right side pocket with the target being the upper right CORNER pocket...assuming the side was blocked.

I asked her to predict a shot success ratio for that shot and she said "60-70% tops."

Using CTE...not Pro One, I potted 5 of 6. Shooting the same shot over and over may paint a too optimistic picture but still, I blew the hell out of even 70%.

Just for the few who may not realize it, Stan is a career educator...not just in pool but in the public school system. And he has converted his own son...with rather specatcular results to this method.

I can't imagine are greater degree of credibility than that!

Anyone who is really serious about improving their game can expect MEASURABLE improvement in less than a single day with Stan. His fees are his business not mine but IMHO they are fantastically cheap relative to the benefits to be gained in a day or less that will last a lifetime.

It is simply a no-brainer.

Finally, I didn't intend to hijack my own thread that was OP'd re: another aiming system. But Pro One is NOT an "aiming system" but rather a "shooting method" that addresses total body alignment and aiming.

Disclaimer..........All thoughts I post about Pro One are my own personal impressions. Reasonable people can perceive the same things from different perspectives.

The REAL authority on Pro One is Stan Shuffett....not me...by a LONG shot. (pun intended!)

(-:

Regards,
Jim

Regards,
Jim

wolfdancer
09-08-2008, 03:08 AM
If that shot has the OB and CB on the diagonal between opposite corner pockets,it's one of the most difficult in pool...but the aim is straight on, center to center. I'd say that getting into the right alignment on that would be the key...AND you have stated pro one gets you into that good alignment where you feel you can't miss....if that is true, there definitely will be players seeking out Stan.
On my 9 ft table, , I'd expect to make no more then 4 out of 10 on avg. with some dedicated practice, I might get that up to 5.... I also have 4" corner pockets....(my vanity and expectations exceeded my eyesight and aim)
Five of six is "world class"
Some years ago, Marvin Chen wrote an entire book on his equal/opposites aiming system...I think they have come a long way
since then. I hope Hal Houle gets the recognition that he deserves for his work on devising aiming systems....seems like all the popular ones today evolved from his ideas.

Stan Shuffett
09-08-2008, 05:10 AM
PRO ONE is a natural progession of CTE. Hal presented me the concepts that enabled me to take the system to the ultimate level. Hal was with me every step of the way. Yes, the system has evolved into a new level. Hal knows exactly how the Pros use the system and he guided me to that understanding. Hal was in agreement that I give the system a name. Bottom line..Hal Houle is a genious. I give him credit in every way. Within 15 minutes after Landon won the nationals he was on the phone thanking Hal.
Stan Shuffett

Rich R.
09-08-2008, 06:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stan Shuffett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PRO ONE is a natural progession of CTE. Hal presented me the concepts that enabled me to take the system to the ultimate level. Hal was with me every step of the way. Yes, the system has evolved into a new level. Hal knows exactly how the Pros use the system and he guided me to that understanding. Hal was in agreement that I give the system a name. Bottom line..Hal Houle is a genious. I give him credit in every way. Within 15 minutes after Landon won the nationals he was on the phone thanking Hal.
Stan Shuffett
</div></div>
Stan, how long does it take you to teach this method?
In other words, can it be taught in one lesson, of an hour or two, or does it take multiple lessons?

What is your rate for lessons?
If you would prefer to PM this answer, I understand.

Will you be at the Open next month and will you be available for lessons at that time, if we can work something out?

I think others may be interested in answers to these questions, however, if you would prefer to PM answers to any or all of these questions, please feel free. I think others would understand.

Stan Shuffett
09-08-2008, 07:49 AM
One 5 hour lesson is all it takes to learn PRO ONE. The most popular option is to embedd PRO ONE within my 2 day Foundation Course. I spent untold hours over a 2 year period thinking that CTE was a 1000 piece puzzle. When it finally came together it was a simple 4 varible system. You can learn in a few hours what it took me 2 years and plus to discover. Actually, my journey to learn CTE began over 6 years ago.

This is the system that many pros use. In a short time you can be aiming the same way.

My rates are listed on justcueit.com.

I am typically scheduled about 2 months ahead. Usually I can work a 1 day lesson in within a month.

Landon is unable to attend the OPEN because of school. Hopefully we can make it next year.

BigRigTom
09-08-2008, 08:15 AM
Great web site Stan. If it is ok with you I would like to link to that site from my forum "The BAT-Forum"...let me know if you have anything special you would like added there.
Meanwhile...

It appears to me (from the photos on your site) that you are left eye dominate even though you are right handed...is that correct?
If so, what are you views on the dominant eye aspect of any aiming system?

av84fun
09-08-2008, 08:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>If that shot has the OB and CB on the diagonal between opposite corner pockets,it's one of the most difficult in pool..</span>.but the aim is straight on, center to center. I'd say that getting into the right alignment on that would be the key...AND you have stated pro one gets you into that good alignment where you feel you can't miss....if that is true, there definitely will be players seeking out Stan.
On my 9 ft table, , I'd expect to make no more then 4 out of 10 on avg. with some dedicated practice, I might get that up to 5.... I also have 4" corner pockets....(my vanity and expectations exceeded my eyesight and aim)
Five of six is "world class"
Some years ago, Marvin Chen wrote an entire book on his equal/opposites aiming system...I think they have come a long way
since then. I hope Hal Houle gets the recognition that he deserves for his work on devising aiming systems....seems like all the popular ones today evolved from his ideas. </div></div>

No, that's not the shot. Imagine a line drawn around the 15 ball rack. You are standing at the foot end of the table. Place the CB at the lower left corner of the rack outline.

Place the OB at the intersection of the 1st short rail diamond and the 3rd long rail diamond toward the right side pocket...i.e. straight in to the side pocket. I said half way between the CB and the right side pocket but setting it up on cue table I see that it was more than half way.

But the cut is to the upper right corner pocket...i.e. a cut to the left. When I demonstrated the shot, I just rolled the OB out at random to create a rather sporty cut angle. That is not a particular shot I practice.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
09-08-2008, 09:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>If that shot has the OB and CB on the diagonal between opposite corner pockets,it's one of the most difficult in pool..</span>.but the aim is straight on, center to center. I'd say that getting into the right alignment on that would be the key...AND you have stated pro one gets you into that good alignment where you feel you can't miss....if that is true, there definitely will be players seeking out Stan.
On my 9 ft table, , I'd expect to make no more then 4 out of 10 on avg. with some dedicated practice, I might get that up to 5.... I also have 4" corner pockets....(my vanity and expectations exceeded my eyesight and aim)
Five of six is "world class"
Some years ago, Marvin Chen wrote an entire book on his equal/opposites aiming system...I think they have come a long way
since then. I hope Hal Houle gets the recognition that he deserves for his work on devising aiming systems....seems like all the popular ones today evolved from his ideas. </div></div>

Since you mention that shot, here is a drill that is a great stroke tester. It's one of my favorite drills...maybe because I invented it AFAIK! (-:

Place the CB on the head string on a diagonal line between opposite corner pockets.

Place an OB on that diagonal line so that you have a straight in shot with 3 diamond cb/ob separation...i.e. 1 diamond below the side pocket.

Here is the series of shots.

1. Follow. Scratching the CB is perfect.
2. Stun run through. The CB shoul travel between 1 and 1.5 diamonds after impact.
3. Drag draw. The CB must start out with back spin travel at least 1 ball width past the OB or it's just a botched stop shot.
4. Stop shot. A dead stop with ZERO cb rotation is perfect. (in fact, I shoot that shot as a seperate drill scoring 3 pts for stopping the cb and 5 pts if it stops with zero rotation which proves you struck the cb dead on the vertical center).
5. Medium draw with 1.5-2 diamonds of draw.
6. Hard draw with at least 4 diamonds of draw. Scratching the CB is perfect.

Any shot I miss, I must shoot until I succeed 5 in a row (they don't have to be perfect).

I continue the drill until I have done 2 sets in a row without a miss.

I end EVERY practice session with this drill.

As you will note from the nature of the drill, it tests for precise cueing on the exact vertical center and for a true stroke.

The drag draw is the most demanding...for me.

Regards,
Jim

wolfdancer
09-08-2008, 02:11 PM
You're definitely way more dedicated to the sport then I am.
Sounds like a good practice routine.
But this reminds me...I have the "Pro Skill Drills...54 practice session drills" and I haven't tried them for awhile.

wolfdancer
09-08-2008, 02:23 PM
Stan, it's great that you acknowledge Hal contributions, and better still that your young man called Hal and thanked him.
Hal has me on his ignore list right now, but I have met him, and while I didn't get his system down completely...what I did take away from that meeting has helped my game.
Good luck on getting your method....out to the public.
I'd definitely be a customer!!!

Deeman3
09-08-2008, 03:30 PM
I liked Hal as well but could not understand what he was telling me on the phone. However, I am often accused of being a little thick between the ears.

av84fun
09-08-2008, 06:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I liked Hal as well but could not understand what he was telling me on the phone. However, I am often accused of being a little thick between the ears. </div></div>

No disrespect intended but I had a conversation with him as well and didn't have a CLUE what he was getting at.

It was only when I heard that Stan was deeply involved that I couldn't resist contacting him to book time for his Foundation and Instructor courses.

Pro One was not even entirely finished at that point so I went back for a tune up and update and am very glad I did.

Regards,
Jim

PS: Let me congratulate the members here. If this thread was on TOF (the other forum) by now there would be at least 80 posts. The majority of them would range in comments from Hal is a nutcase...to aiming systems can't work...to grossly inaccurate descriptions of the sytem...to comments like You're not doing what you think you are doing...to comments about your IQ being in single digits...to suggestions of questionable parentage!!!

I am SO glad not to be a poster there anymore.

The few...the proud...the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>BANNED!!!!!!!!!</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>(-: </span>

wolfdancer
09-08-2008, 07:27 PM
most threads on aiming systems in the past have not held up well. I thought this to be the most civil one to date.
It's only human nature though to " mildly object " when someone seemingly states that they have a superior aiming method then everybody else is using.
Banned from AZB....can you ever live it down?

av84fun
09-08-2008, 11:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">most threads on aiming systems in the past have not held up well. I thought this to be the most civil one to date.
It's only human nature though to " mildly object " when someone seemingly states that they have a superior aiming method then everybody else is using.
Banned from AZB....can you ever live it down? </div></div>

Oh...I intentionally engineered it...announced my intentions to do so and went out with a BANG! (-:

I wear it as a badge of honor...with mild regret over not dialoging with about 20 people TOTAL who A) know what they are talking about and B) do so with some reasonable evidence of having been brought up in civilization.

There is PLENTY that I don't know and I am far from perfect from any point of view. My failing on AZ was an inability to ignore sheer arrogance and the GROSSLY uneven, unfair and biased enforcement of the rules by forum mods.

So, I asked to be banned and insulted the mod...with GOOD cause and my request was granted.

Free at last...free at last!!!!

(-:

But in response to your comment, "mild objection" is a RARITY on AZ. Mostly, if someone posts something novel he is set upon like a pack of wolves...OFTEN including utter rejection of suggestions in the most insulting of terms...so insulting that if such comments were made in most pool halls the risk of serious physical activity would be nearly certain.

But emboldened by anonymity...they quite cowardly spout off in the most insulting terms. I mean they can't ALL be 6'4", 240lbs.

WHEW...I feel much better now!

(-:

Jim

Rich R.
09-09-2008, 06:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stan Shuffett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One 5 hour lesson is all it takes to learn PRO ONE. The most popular option is to embedd PRO ONE within my 2 day Foundation Course. I spent untold hours over a 2 year period thinking that CTE was a 1000 piece puzzle. When it finally came together it was a simple 4 varible system. You can learn in a few hours what it took me 2 years and plus to discover. Actually, my journey to learn CTE began over 6 years ago.

This is the system that many pros use. In a short time you can be aiming the same way.

My rates are listed on justcueit.com.

I am typically scheduled about 2 months ahead. Usually I can work a 1 day lesson in within a month.

Landon is unable to attend the OPEN because of school. Hopefully we can make it next year.

</div></div>
Thanks for the response Stan.
Unfortunately, a trip to your area is not in my plans at this time. Maybe we can get together in the future some time.

Rich R.
09-09-2008, 07:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PS: Let me congratulate the members here. If this thread was on TOF (the other forum) by now there would be at least 80 posts. The majority of them would range in comments from Hal is a nutcase...to aiming systems can't work...to grossly inaccurate descriptions of the sytem...to comments like You're not doing what you think you are doing...to comments about your IQ being in single digits...to suggestions of questionable parentage!!!</div></div>

Jim, please don't equate this forum with that other forum.
No forum is perfect, including this one, but this forum has always been more civil than that other forum. I only hope it stays that way.

I think that other forum includes a lot of kids, or adults who like to act like kids. Most of them know everything, so they only attack those who bring in new information. A key board is a wonderful thing to hide behind.

av84fun
09-09-2008, 09:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=Deeman3]PS: Let me congratulate the members here. If this thread was on TOF (the other forum) by now there would be at least 80 posts. The majority of them would range in comments from Hal is a nutcase...to aiming systems can't work...to grossly inaccurate descriptions of the sytem...to comments like You're not doing what you think you are doing...to comments about your IQ being in single digits...to suggestions of questionable parentage!!!</div></div>


Rich, I didn't equate this forum with the other. My presence here is proof of that! (-:

Regards,
Jim
Jim, please don't equate this forum with that other forum.
No forum is perfect, including this one, but this forum has always been more civil than that other forum. I only hope it stays that way.

I think that other forum includes a lot of kids, or adults who like to act like kids. Most of them know everything, so they only attack those who bring in new information. A key board is a wonderful thing to hide behind.
</div></div>

wolfdancer
09-09-2008, 05:33 PM
I think maybe Stan might want to rename the aiming system. I googled pro one and among the many other things that go by that name...
Pro One (http://www.vintagesynth.com/audio/pro1.mp3)
Didn't they play that at the RNC when introducing Bush?

av84fun
09-09-2008, 09:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think maybe Stan might want to rename the aiming system. I googled pro one and among the many other things that go by that name...
Pro One (http://www.vintagesynth.com/audio/pro1.mp3)
Didn't they play that at the RNC when introducing Bush? </div></div>

I couldn't find anything that was pool-related in which case there would be no issue. There is even a McDonalds Bike Center in Chicago and appears to have no relationship to the burger people.

(-:

Jim

Chopstick
09-11-2008, 10:21 PM
Just wondering, do you use the Pro One system to line up your airplane? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Hal showed me the CTE system a couple of years ago. While it is valid I found that it difficult to implement. I had considered refining the process but it sounds like Stan has already done it. I'll give him a call.

av84fun
09-12-2008, 12:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just wondering, do you use the Pro One system to line up your airplane? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Hal showed me the CTE system a couple of years ago. While it is valid I found that it difficult to implement. I had considered refining the process but it sounds like Stan has already done it. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>I'll give him a call.</span> </div></div>
\
Great! You'll be very glad you did

Regards,
Jim

Artemus
09-12-2008, 06:17 AM
Here's something maybe you can explain since you've had so many "wonderful" conversations with the most knowledgeable man in the history of pool, Pat "Mr. Mensa" Johnson. He recently stated this:

"The CTE line isn't all there is to "CTE" aiming, unless you're saying every shot is a 30-degree cut. Give us a clear formulaic description (steps any of us can duplicate simply from your description) of how you get from CTE (halfball aim) to, say, a 20-degree cut and I might agree you're not doing it by feel."

He continually asks for a 'CLEAR FORMULAIC DESCRIPTION (steps any of us can duplicate simply from your description) or how something is NOT GEOMETRICALLY CORRECT. Yet, he now espouses 'FEEL' as the only way to aim and the way he plays. He didn't use to play like this, when he was the ruling King for over a decade on RSB he used Ghost Ball and aimed 100% accurately into space to the EXACT CENTER of a ball which didn't even exist. Now THAT'S talent to be able to make everything with no reference points to focus on and aim at.

Since you've been the closest to how his mind works :D, can you help explain how one can give a 'Clear Formulaic Description (steps any of us can duplicate simply from description) or geometrical correctness of how "FEEL" works and is easily transferable from one player to the next? Is the FEEL of all players exactly the same as every other player? Is the set up and sight line also exactly the same? Do ALL pool players have a perfectly straight robotic stroke to hit a 'FEEL' spot within
1/2 mm or even 1 mm? Does 'FEEL' really mean 'GUESS'? Can feel aiming be taught easily to a beginner or hack player that never got any training or lessons?

av84fun
09-12-2008, 11:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Here's something maybe you can explain since you've had so many "wonderful" conversations with the most knowledgeable man in the history of pool, Pat "Mr. Mensa" Johnson. </span> He recently stated this:

"The CTE line isn't all there is to "CTE" aiming, unless you're saying every shot is a 30-degree cut. Give us a clear formulaic description (steps any of us can duplicate simply from your description) of how you get from CTE (halfball aim) to, say, a 20-degree cut and I might agree you're not doing it by feel."

He continually asks for a 'CLEAR FORMULAIC DESCRIPTION (steps any of us can duplicate simply from your description) or how something is NOT GEOMETRICALLY CORRECT. Yet, he now espouses 'FEEL' as the only way to aim and the way he plays. He didn't use to play like this, when he was the ruling King for over a decade on RSB he used Ghost Ball and aimed 100% accurately into space to the EXACT CENTER of a ball which didn't even exist. Now THAT'S talent to be able to make everything with no reference points to focus on and aim at.

Since you've been the closest to how his mind works :D, can you help explain how one can give a 'Clear Formulaic Description (steps any of us can duplicate simply from description) or geometrical correctness of how "FEEL" works and is easily transferable from one player to the next? Is the FEEL of all players exactly the same as every other player? Is the set up and sight line also exactly the same? Do ALL pool players have a perfectly straight robotic stroke to hit a 'FEEL' spot within
1/2 mm or even 1 mm? Does 'FEEL' really mean 'GUESS'? Can feel aiming be taught easily to a beginner or hack player that never got any training or lessons? </div></div>

First, not all posters here know Patrick Johnson or my history of exchanges with him so let me start by pointing out out that your "wonderful converstaion" comment was highly sarcastic.

In fact, I haven't had any "wonderful conversations" with him but rather mostly argumentative...on both sides.

Secondly, PJ does not understand the CTE aiming method and INSISTS that it always produces a half ball hit....which is utterly incorrect.

I have recently exchanged e-mails with Dr. Dave and I think I have come up with a rather graphic means of describing the core fundamental of CTE aiming.

He said he will try out my suggestion soon so I am going to withhold any comments on that aiming method until he does and we've had a chance to discuss his findings.

As for "feel" you are correct that it cannot be taught. In fact, it is problematic to even define to everyone's satisfaction.

I know that JoeW will disagree but with respect, I don't think that the subconscious mind (which many refer to as "feel") plays much of a role in shooting pool...at least not the aiming part.

Rather, IMHO, I think that aiming is a HIGHLY conscious act...series of acts actually. In fact, top players aim at SOMETHING. How they decide what to aim at varies. Some use specific systems while others simply look at the cut angle and aim accordingly. But even THAT is a "system." It is not
"instinctive" or "intuitive" by definition.

But let all who read this thread know that Patrick Johnson does not understand even the basic rudiments of the CTE system even though I and others have explained them. And yet he demands that the system doesn't work without conscious or subconscious adjustments.

He is wrong.

Regards,
Jim

skin
09-12-2008, 11:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Here's something maybe you can explain since you've had so many "wonderful" conversations with the most knowledgeable man in the history of pool, Pat "Mr. Mensa" Johnson. </span> He recently stated this:

"The CTE line isn't all there is to "CTE" aiming, unless you're saying every shot is a 30-degree cut. Give us a clear formulaic description (steps any of us can duplicate simply from your description) of how you get from CTE (halfball aim) to, say, a 20-degree cut and I might agree you're not doing it by feel."

He continually asks for a 'CLEAR FORMULAIC DESCRIPTION (steps any of us can duplicate simply from your description) or how something is NOT GEOMETRICALLY CORRECT. Yet, he now espouses 'FEEL' as the only way to aim and the way he plays. He didn't use to play like this, when he was the ruling King for over a decade on RSB he used Ghost Ball and aimed 100% accurately into space to the EXACT CENTER of a ball which didn't even exist. Now THAT'S talent to be able to make everything with no reference points to focus on and aim at.

Since you've been the closest to how his mind works :D, can you help explain how one can give a 'Clear Formulaic Description (steps any of us can duplicate simply from description) or geometrical correctness of how "FEEL" works and is easily transferable from one player to the next? Is the FEEL of all players exactly the same as every other player? Is the set up and sight line also exactly the same? Do ALL pool players have a perfectly straight robotic stroke to hit a 'FEEL' spot within
1/2 mm or even 1 mm? Does 'FEEL' really mean 'GUESS'? Can feel aiming be taught easily to a beginner or hack player that never got any training or lessons? </div></div>

First, not all posters here know Patrick Johnson or my history of exchanges with him so let me start by pointing out out that your "wonderful converstaion" comment was highly sarcastic.

In fact, I haven't had any "wonderful conversations" with him but rather mostly argumentative...on both sides.

Secondly, PJ does not understand the CTE aiming method and INSISTS that it always produces a half ball hit....which is utterly incorrect.

I have recently exchanged e-mails with Dr. Dave and I think I have come up with a rather graphic means of describing the core fundamental of CTE aiming.

He said he will try out my suggestion soon so I am going to withhold any comments on that aiming method until he does and we've had a chance to discuss his findings.

As for "feel" you are correct that it cannot be taught. In fact, it is problematic to even define to everyone's satisfaction.

I know that JoeW will disagree but with respect, I don't think that the subconscious mind (which many refer to as "feel") plays much of a role in shooting pool...at least not the aiming part.

Rather, IMHO, I think that aiming is a HIGHLY conscious act...series of acts actually. In fact, top players aim at SOMETHING. How they decide what to aim at varies. Some use specific systems while others simply look at the cut angle and aim accordingly. But even THAT is a "system." It is not
"instinctive" or "intuitive" by definition.

But let all who read this thread know that Patrick Johnson does not understand even the basic rudiments of the CTE system even though I and others have explained them. And yet he demands that the system doesn't work without conscious or subconscious adjustments.

He is wrong.

Regards,
Jim

</div></div>

Jim, I think you have an interesting topic going here, particularly when going from formalized aiming systems to "feel".

At least in my playing, I have found formalized aiming systems to be mostly a distraction. If a guy can see (which is partly feel in my experience) where to hit the ob correctly, his main problem to deal with is execution. Eye-hand coordination, in other words.

The subconscious element is probably wrongly named. I think it is just standard neurologicl feedback that happens very rapidly without obvious conscious thought, and goes something like this. Your eye spots the ob ball and the target for it to hit, then scans rapidly back and forth across the ob for the right contact point. The brain settles on the corect one by predicting the outcomes of hitting those various points. This cerebral computation happens so rapidly the brain translates it into a kind of yes-no "feeling" for efficieny. The same thing goes on all day long for us, like for example when we insert a key into a lock, grab a pencil, or type on the keyboard. It is not subconscious thought, it is just normal feedback in operation.

Admittedly, that doesn't address the question of how to know where to hit the ob in the first place, and I can see the value in using an aiming system early on for that. But at some point, it sems to me, the brain has to take over from exeprience and not need it anymore, or at least not often. Else, how would we be able to explain that we can slip a key into a lock much better now than when we were first learning how, without an "aiming system" for doing it?

av84fun
09-12-2008, 12:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skin</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Here's something maybe you can explain since you've had so many "wonderful" conversations with the most knowledgeable man in the history of pool, Pat "Mr. Mensa" Johnson. </span> He recently stated this:

"The CTE line isn't all there is to "CTE" aiming, unless you're saying every shot is a 30-degree cut. Give us a clear formulaic description (steps any of us can duplicate simply from your description) of how you get from CTE (halfball aim) to, say, a 20-degree cut and I might agree you're not doing it by feel."

He continually asks for a 'CLEAR FORMULAIC DESCRIPTION (steps any of us can duplicate simply from your description) or how something is NOT GEOMETRICALLY CORRECT. Yet, he now espouses 'FEEL' as the only way to aim and the way he plays. He didn't use to play like this, when he was the ruling King for over a decade on RSB he used Ghost Ball and aimed 100% accurately into space to the EXACT CENTER of a ball which didn't even exist. Now THAT'S talent to be able to make everything with no reference points to focus on and aim at.

Since you've been the closest to how his mind works :D, can you help explain how one can give a 'Clear Formulaic Description (steps any of us can duplicate simply from description) or geometrical correctness of how "FEEL" works and is easily transferable from one player to the next? Is the FEEL of all players exactly the same as every other player? Is the set up and sight line also exactly the same? Do ALL pool players have a perfectly straight robotic stroke to hit a 'FEEL' spot within
1/2 mm or even 1 mm? Does 'FEEL' really mean 'GUESS'? Can feel aiming be taught easily to a beginner or hack player that never got any training or lessons? </div></div>

First, not all posters here know Patrick Johnson or my history of exchanges with him so let me start by pointing out out that your "wonderful converstaion" comment was highly sarcastic.

In fact, I haven't had any "wonderful conversations" with him but rather mostly argumentative...on both sides.

Secondly, PJ does not understand the CTE aiming method and INSISTS that it always produces a half ball hit....which is utterly incorrect.

I have recently exchanged e-mails with Dr. Dave and I think I have come up with a rather graphic means of describing the core fundamental of CTE aiming.

He said he will try out my suggestion soon so I am going to withhold any comments on that aiming method until he does and we've had a chance to discuss his findings.

As for "feel" you are correct that it cannot be taught. In fact, it is problematic to even define to everyone's satisfaction.

I know that JoeW will disagree but with respect, I don't think that the subconscious mind (which many refer to as "feel") plays much of a role in shooting pool...at least not the aiming part.

Rather, IMHO, I think that aiming is a HIGHLY conscious act...series of acts actually. In fact, top players aim at SOMETHING. How they decide what to aim at varies. Some use specific systems while others simply look at the cut angle and aim accordingly. But even THAT is a "system." It is not
"instinctive" or "intuitive" by definition.

But let all who read this thread know that Patrick Johnson does not understand even the basic rudiments of the CTE system even though I and others have explained them. And yet he demands that the system doesn't work without conscious or subconscious adjustments.

He is wrong.

Regards,
Jim

</div></div>

Jim, I think you have an interesting topic going here, particularly when going from formalized aiming systems to "feel".

At least in my playing, I have found formalized aiming systems to be mostly a distraction. If a guy can see (which is partly feel in my experience) where to hit the ob correctly, his main problem to deal with is execution. Eye-to-hand coordination, in other words.

The subconscious element is probably wrongly named. I think it is just standard neurologicl feedback that happens very rapidly without obvious conscious thought, and goes something like this. Your eye spots the ob ball and the target for it to hit, then scans rapidly back and forth across the ob for the right contact point. The brain settles on the corect one by predicting the outcomes of hitting those various points. This cerebral computation happens so rapidly the brain translates it into a kind of yes-no "feeling" for efficieny. The same thing goes on all day long for us, like for example when we insert a key into a lock, grab a pencil, or type on the keyboard. It is not subconscious thought, it is just normal feedback in operation.

Admittedly, that doesn't address the question of how to know where to hit the ob in the first place, and I can see the value in using an aiming system early on for that. But at some point, it sems to me, the brain has to take over from exeprience and not need it anymore, or at least not often. Else, how would we be able to explain that we can slip a key into a lock much better now than when we were first learning how, without an "aiming system" for doing it?

</div></div>

I don't suggest that each inch of arm travel toward the lock and the intricate hand movements necessary to insert the key into the lock are all a result of conscious thought.

What I am saying is that there is a conscious decision to unlock the door...an intentional look at the lock and an intentional movement of the arm/hand to accomplish that task.

You referred to the act of scanning the OB looking for the correct contact point (assuming the shooter aims in relation to contact points...some do and some don't).

Those people who I know that aim via contact points make a VERY conscious and deliberate effort to A) determine the correct contact point and B) to keep that point fixed in their mind's eye.

But once over the shot with the line of aim decided upon by whatever means...the shooter is very, very consciously aiming at SOMETHING! It may be a ghost ball, it may be an OB fraction, it may by a clock face number, it many bo a contact point, it may be some specific spot on the OB that the tip is pointing to.

I've said this many times but have never had anyone take me up on it.

Find me the best "feel player" in the world. I will play that player for a large sum of money...race to 11...if the player agrees to close his eyes before executing the final shooting stroke.

If the player is a true feel player and is not aiming at anything specifically, then he/she should have no problem with that bet.

(-:

I do concede that a great many players of less than "open" level skills may just "feel" how to aim and shoot away. But approaching the game in that fashion IMHO, is one of the reasons why such players are not highly advanced.

But let me hasten to add that there are many player who used specific aiming systems...some really good ones like CTE...who are not championship players either.

That is true for many reasons...the most important of which is that the ability to pocket extremely difficult shots is a skill that is a DISTANT second to playing great shape which avoids having to make heroic shots in the first place.

I'll conclude by saying that one of the main reasons why players doubt certain aiming systems is not due to flaws in the system but flaws in the player's stroke.
(-:

Jim

Jim

Artemus
09-12-2008, 12:36 PM
Skin, you said the following: "Your eye spots the ob ball and the target for it to hit, then scans rapidly back and forth across the ob for the right contact point."

That is a conscious thought. It is also the START of an AIMING SYSTEM, CONTACT POINT AIMING SYSTEM.

"The brain settles on the corect one by predicting the outcomes of hitting those various points. This cerebral computation happens so rapidly the brain translates it into a kind of yes-no "feeling" for efficieny."

You can call it FEELING, GUESSWORK, ESTIMATION, LOOKS LIKE RIGHT 'THERE', or whatever you desire, but it's still a reference point to AIM AT, either with your CUE TIP, CUE SHAFT, THE CB, or A PART OF THE CB THAT'S EQUAL AND OPPOSITE, because you certainly CANNOT hit the OB with the CENTER OF the CB unless it's a STRAIGHT IN SHOT.

"Admittedly, that doesn't address the question of how to know where to hit the ob in the first place,

Sure it does. If you're looking AT THE POCKET and then LOOKING BACK TO THE OB, in a matter of milliseconds you're drawing an imaginary line straight back from the pocket THROUGH the OB on the side which must be struck. Again, a CONTACT POINT AIMING SYSTEM.

"and I can see the value in using an aiming system early on for that. But at some point, it sems to me, the brain has to take over from exeprience and not need it anymore, or at least not often."

Based on your post of HOW YOU DO IT, you're using a CONTACT POINT AIMING SYSTEM EVERY TIME YOU SET UP TO SHOOT. The fact that you don't give it much thought is a moot point. You still DO IT. That having been said, whether it's CTE, fractional, equal and opposite, overlaying balls, or anything else, they all work with the same speed and rapidity to a seasoned player and you don't give it much thought. There are just some better than others that take the GUESSWORK out of the 1-4 millimeters that a contact point aiming system needs to finally home in on the "feel" or "estimate" part at the end.

skin
09-12-2008, 02:19 PM
Jim & Artemus:

I don't know who in their right mind would claim they don't aim at anything when shooting. Or that they don't follow some conscious thought to decide to shoot. My point is that when folks call it subconscious thought or intuition it is because the computation is so rapid that the brain expresses it as a "feeling" of certainty or uncertainty, a process which is mistaken for subconscious thought and intution. This light-speed computation expressed as a feeling is very common in how we operate as humans. Some folks even use their "feelings" deliberately to bypass laborious analysis in order to be quicker on their feet. European nobility used to be trained that way. It is an efficiency issue, imo.

Jim, as far as shooting the last stroke with eyes closed goes, there are many more variables involved in being successful than just getting the aiming point right. In fact, we used to horse around in practice games doing just that as a competition for who had the straightest stroke.

Artemus, the ability to resolve 1-4 mm at distance is an absolute requirement to removing "guesswork" from the estimate, as you say. A lot of folks aren't able to do that over every distance on the table, so how could an aiming system based on homing into that 1-4 mm help them? It would be smaller than their least margin of error. I think what you'll find is that very good shooters also have very acute eyesight and the best players probably have well better than 20/20.

Not interested in an argument nor trying to be argumentative here. I've got no dog in the hunt. I think that the language folks use when talking about aiming systems sometimes gets in the way of understanding what is meant, is all.

-skin

Artemus
09-12-2008, 04:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jim & Artemus:

I don't know who in their right mind would claim they don't aim at anything when shooting. Or that they don't follow some conscious thought to decide to shoot.

Skin, there are a number of people on the forums that have claimed they don't aim at anything when shooting. They just, "KNOW" as if a superior power takes over and guides them. I also think there are many people on pool forums who are NOT in their right mind. But here's the kicker, if they're aiming at SOMETHING, then they have to be using an 'aiming system' OF SOME KIND. There's a name and category for ALL of them. Most who use them don't know what they are or what they're called.

My point is that when folks call it subconscious thought or intuition it is because the computation is so rapid that the brain expresses it as a "feeling" of certainty or uncertainty, a process which is mistaken for subconscious thought and intution.

The point I was making in the previous post is that even with YOU, it's CONSCIOUS. You STATED that you see the 1. POCKET;
2. you see the OB; 3. you see the CONTACT POINT. What's subconscious about that process? It isn't a feeling. IT'S VISUAL and processed by the brain to then set the CB, cue, and your body up in relationship to what you just saw.

Artemus, the ability to resolve 1-4 mm at distance is an absolute requirement to removing "guesswork" from the estimate, as you say. A lot of folks aren't able to do that over every distance on the table, so how could an aiming system based on homing into that 1-4 mm help them? It would be smaller than their least margin of error.

If they are "contact point" aimers in addition to parallel english shooters it probably wouldn't help very much at all. NOR would contact point aiming work with backhand and no adjustment from the true contact point. That's why CTE or other variations with PIVOT allow you to aim and shoot with english and not worry about contact points and distance as much as doing it by contact point or ghost ball alone. I know that might not make any sense at all to you, but when you uderstand where Hal, Stan, and others are coming from when they teach and YOU know how to do what they're talking about, that's just the way it is.

I think what you'll find is that very good shooters also have very acute eyesight and the best players probably have well better than 20/20.

I agree with that.

I think that the language folks use when talking about aiming systems sometimes gets in the way of understanding what is meant, is all.

-skin </div></div>

That's probably true, but it's also the case when folks talk about "FEEL". It's very ambiguous, open to interpretation, and often used out of context. It's terribly vague and misused.

skin
09-12-2008, 06:55 PM
Artemus, I guess I accept that I am using an aiming system. You make a persuasive argument.

I never was trained in any aiming system, just developed the best way for me over the years. I line up dead center cb to the contact point and then adjust with the front hand, back hand, or reset the feet if I am way off, depending on the shot. I usually don't conclude I have missed because I have aimed wrongly.

Anyway, maybe I should study the systems in an organized way and try them out. Could be I am wrong about why I miss. Got any material you can refer me to for a start? Thanks in advance.

-skin

av84fun
09-12-2008, 07:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jim & Artemus:

I don't know who in their right mind would claim they don't aim at anything when shooting. Or that they don't follow some conscious thought to decide to shoot. My point is that when folks call it subconscious thought or intuition it is because the computation is so rapid that the brain expresses it as a "feeling" of certainty or uncertainty, a process which is mistaken for subconscious thought and intution. This light-speed computation expressed as a feeling is very common in how we operate as humans. Some folks even use their "feelings" deliberately to bypass laborious analysis in order to be quicker on their feet. European nobility used to be trained that way. It is an efficiency issue, imo.

Jim, as far as shooting the last stroke with eyes closed goes, there are many more variables involved in being successful than just getting the aiming point right. In fact, we used to horse around in practice games doing just that as a competition for who had the straightest stroke.

Artemus, the ability to resolve 1-4 mm at distance is an absolute requirement to removing "guesswork" from the estimate, as you say. A lot of folks aren't able to do that over every distance on the table, so how could an aiming system based on homing into that 1-4 mm help them? It would be smaller than their least margin of error. I think what you'll find is that very good shooters also have very acute eyesight and the best players probably have well better than 20/20.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Not interested in an argument nor trying to be argumentative here.</span> I've got no dog in the hunt. I think that the language folks use when talking about aiming systems sometimes gets in the way of understanding what is meant, is all.

-skin </div></div>

The thoughtfulness of your comments make that very clear. Good discussion.

Re: resolving fictitious points (like contact points) one of the major downfalls of such techniques is the disupted (by me) ability to first find the correct CP and then to KEEP that EXACT CP fixed in the minds eye and to repeatedly find it when the eye focus is drawn off the OB as is the case when a consistent eye pattern is used.

Some people are better able to visualize than others and IMHO the gift of a high level of visualization is a common trait in sports champions of all kinds.

The rest of us let the dog out way too often!

Regards,
Jim

skin
09-12-2008, 08:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Re: resolving fictitious points (like contact points) one of the major downfalls of such techniques is the disupted (by me) ability to first find the correct CP and then to KEEP that EXACT CP fixed in the minds eye and to repeatedly find it when the eye focus is drawn off the OB as is the case when a consistent eye pattern is used.

Some people are better able to visualize than others and IMHO the gift of a high level of visualization is a common trait in sports champions of all kinds.

The rest of us let the dog out way too often!

Regards,
Jim </div></div>

Jim, with me the contact point is found and used first as the focal point for stepping into the shot and aligning. It has to be re-found from the down stance, which if aligned correctly, is easy. Then it is just a matter of letting the computations go on until I get the hit (feeling) "yes". Then I adjust with the computations until I get another hit "yes". Stop there on the cb, one more prestroke and stop, then draw back and fire.

It sounds like it takes a lot of time, but as you know when you are in stroke, it all goes on quickly once you're down if you're not way off on the line when you set.

It is all too quick for "conscious" analysis.

I suspect that the cycling speed of the brain on this is what is responsible for the rhythm of dead stroke. Some have a faster speed and others have a slower speed. But when the natural speed is interfered with too much, and I think there is some give in it, you either can't get into dead stroke or you fall out of it.

Lots of assumptions here, Jim, I know. It's just my suspicion based on experience. What do you think?

av84fun
09-12-2008, 11:42 PM
[quote=skin]<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Re: resolving fictitious points (like contact points) one of the major downfalls of such techniques is the disupted (by me) ability to first find the correct CP and then to KEEP that EXACT CP fixed in the minds eye and to repeatedly find it when the eye focus is drawn off the OB as is the case when a consistent eye pattern is used.

Some people are better able to visualize than others and IMHO the gift of a high level of visualization is a common trait in sports champions of all kinds.

The rest of us let the dog out way too often!

Regards,
Jim </div></div>

Jim, with me the contact point is found and used first as the focal point for stepping into the shot and aligning. It has to be re-found from the down stance, which if aligned correctly, is easy. Then it is just a matter of letting the computations go on until I get the hit (feeling) "yes". Then I adjust with the computations until I get another hit "yes". Stop there on the cb, one more prestroke and stop, then draw back and fire.

It sounds like it takes a lot of time, but as you know when you are in stroke, it all goes on quickly once you're down if you're not way off on the line when you set.

It is all too quick for "conscious" analysis.

I suspect that the cycling speed of the brain on this is what is responsible for the rhythm of dead stroke. Some have a faster speed and others have a slower speed. But when the natural speed is interfered with too much, and I think there is some give in it, you either can't get into dead stroke or you fall out of it.

Lots of assumptions here, Jim, I know. It's just my suspicion based on experience. What do you think? [/quote


Bottom line, any technique one uses must be measured in comparison to actual results. To be attractive for consideration, any given technique must be KNOWN to be used by numerous championship players.

I say numerous because certain champions have quirky techniques that most people would be foolish to copy...like Django's beautiful but loopy stroke...Hopkin's 1 inch backstroke, McCready's side arm delivery etc.

Then there are players like Allison, Ralf, Schmidt, Archer and many, many others who have rather "classic" techniques.

Those are the people I prefer to attempt to copy because I have a reasonable chance of doing so.

I am always curious about how other players approach the game but I never experiment with techniques except those given to me by top instructors and/or championship players.

Long story slightly longer, there may well be top players who adjust once they fall on the shot. I certainly have not spoken to all great players!!

But I have been trained by and am close friends with quite a few and to a man...and woman...they don't "adjust" after falling on the shot. When down, if they don't think they have the right line of aim, they get up and start over.

Regards,
Jim

Artemus
09-13-2008, 06:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Artemus, I guess I accept that I am using an aiming system. You make a persuasive argument.
-skin </div></div>

My persuasive argument was only as good as your open mind, and I'm glad you have one since points like I or others made to you have often fallen on deaf ears and is like speaking to a brick wall.

It all comes together when anybody arrives at the same conclusion you did which is:<span style="color: #FF0000"> "I don't know who in their right mind would claim they don't aim at anything when shooting. Or that they don't follow some conscious thought to decide to shoot." </span>

GOOD PLAYERS ALWAYS AIM AT SOMETHING! You HAVE to. BANGERS JUST BANG AND SLAM AND DON'T KNOW WHAT TO AIM AT! IF THERE IS AIM OF SOME KIND, THERE'S A NAME FOR IT AND IT FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF A SYSTEM OR METHOD.

There's probably more feel and touch that occurs from one shot to another to make the CB do exactly what is needed than anything else, but when it comes to aiming, FEEL is out of the picture and has no place unless a player is 3/4 blind and can't SEE or visualize what to specifically look at. The proper word should be visually ESTIMATING or GUESSING the correct spot, not FEELING.

skin
09-13-2008, 07:27 AM
Jim, what I mean by adjustment during the last prestrokes is the adjustment for spin (follow, draw, or side)in the front or back hand after I am sure the stroke line is grooved. I think what I do is pretty standard. I just worked it out as I was learning to play.

Artemus
09-13-2008, 07:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
First, not all posters here know Patrick Johnson or my history of exchanges with him so let me start by pointing out out that your "wonderful converstaion" comment was highly sarcastic.

A lot more posters than you may ever realize know Patrick Johnson because they visit ALL the pool forums and those that have been around since the inception of RSB 12 years ago (which was the biggest and only forum at one time) know him to be the "Know-it-all KING of pool and how to play the game. And yes, my comment was highly sarcastic and I LMAO as I typed it.

Secondly, PJ does not understand the CTE aiming method and INSISTS that it always produces a half ball hit....which is utterly incorrect.

Of course he doesn't understand it because he has no inkling of how the tip offset is done along with the pivot and aim points. He's clueless and Hal would NEVER give him answers to the system if he was on his death bed. He'd rather see PJ burning in hell with the puzzle still torturing his pathetic soul for eternity.

I have recently exchanged e-mails with Dr. Dave and I think I have come up with a rather graphic means of describing the core fundamental of CTE aiming.

I don't know if that was a good idea or a bad idea. Only time will tell. I think Dave and PJ are now bosom buddies and come from the same camp along with a few other Ph.D.'s that are hell bent on playing the role of James Randi on anything they can't explain in some complex formula or 2D geometrics.

As for "feel" you are correct that it cannot be taught. In fact, it is problematic to even define to everyone's satisfaction.

I know that JoeW will disagree but with respect, I don't think that the subconscious mind (which many refer to as "feel") plays much of a role in shooting pool...at least not the aiming part.

I'm in 100% agreement about the aiming! It DOES play a major role in stroking, CB position, speed, english, and how the CB will react after striking the CB or rail based on how you struck it. Fact is, FEEL is EVERYTHING. Refer to Fran's post:
http://www.billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=285829#Post285829

Rather, IMHO, I think that aiming is a HIGHLY conscious act...series of acts actually. In fact, top players aim at SOMETHING. How they decide what to aim at varies. Some use specific systems while others simply look at the cut angle and aim accordingly. But even THAT is a "system." It is not
"instinctive" or "intuitive" by definition.

100% agreement again!

But let all who read this thread know that Patrick Johnson does not understand even the basic rudiments of the CTE system even though I and others have explained them. And yet he demands that the system doesn't work without conscious or subconscious adjustments.

He is wrong.

Yes, he IS WRONG! But the sad and sick part is that he told Stan Shuffet that HE WAS WRONG right on the forum! He's also implied "wrong" and corrected JOHN SCHMIDT about spin from an OB1 shaft, as if John is a beginner and doesn't know what he's talking about.

Regards,
Jim
</div></div>

This is why STAN SHUFFET (I hope you're reading) should NEVER, NEVER, in a million years try to PROVE something to Pat Johnson and give him a lesson! He could care less about improving as a player. His entire life is centered around being the megalomaniac pool forum guru who dispenses the "right and only" way to play and debunk anything else that doesn't fit and then making a poster look like a FOOL in his inimitable way to elevate his position and status that much more for his adoring fans. He did the same thing with Scott Lee after a lesson and didn't even want to LEARN S.A.M., yet continues to discredit it. Nor did he follow up and practice ANYTHING that Scott taught but come back later to ARGUE with Scott and attempt to belittle him. Then one of his Ph.D. cronies or nuthanger sycophant always jumps in to defend the lunatic. I've said it before and I'll WARN any and ALL instructors about working with him, IT IS THE KISS OF DEATH!!

dr_dave
09-13-2008, 08:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have recently exchanged e-mails with Dr. Dave and I think I have come up with a rather graphic means of describing the core fundamental of CTE aiming.</div></div>I don't know if that was a good idea or a bad idea. Only time will tell. I think Dave and PJ are now bosom buddies and come from the same camp along with a few other Ph.D.'s that are hell bent on playing the role of James Randi on anything they can't explain in some complex formula or 2D geometrics.</div></div>I'm sorry you feel that way. I have tried to maintain an open mind and respectful tone during the entire CTE debate. I have also tried very hard to get some simple answers to some simple questions (mostly in the AZB debates). Unfortunately, the answers I have gotten have still not been satisfactory to me; although, av84fun has provided much more info and insight into CTE than any other source. I thank him for that.

FYI, after a very frustrating and long exchange on AZB, here are my summarizing remarks (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=1411937&postcount=68).

Regards,
Dave

Artemus
09-13-2008, 08:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have recently exchanged e-mails with Dr. Dave and I think I have come up with a rather graphic means of describing the core fundamental of CTE aiming.</div></div>I don't know if that was a good idea or a bad idea. Only time will tell. I think Dave and PJ are now bosom buddies and come from the same camp along with a few other Ph.D.'s that are hell bent on playing the role of James Randi on anything they can't explain in some complex formula or 2D geometrics.</div></div>I'm sorry you feel that way. I have tried to maintain an open mind and respectful tone during the entire CTE debate. I have also tried very hard to get some simple answers to some simple questions (mostly in the AZB debates). Unfortunately, the answers I have gotten have still not been satisfactory to me; although, av84fun has provided much more info and insight into CTE than any other source. I thank him for that.

FYI, after a very frustrating and long exhange on AZB, here are my summarizing remarks (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=1411937&postcount=68).

Regards,
Dave </div></div>

LMAO! Well your PS at the end certainly doesn't lend itself to an open mind. You might as well have been sticking your middle finger up in the air to anyone and everyone that DOES teach and know about CTE or other ways of doing it as you MOCKED what they do with your BOGUS creation.

For YOUR INFORMATION, you have ALWAYS posted the INCORRECT Aiming System for Hal on YOUR SITE as if it's what he actually teaches and the only system. Hal DID and DOES teach a fractional AIMING POINT, but it's NOT an AIMING SYSTEM and it DOES NOT mean the CB strikes it there for any and all shots to go in. Do yourself and everybody else a favor and DELETE from your site because it IS ERRONEOUS and if Hal ever did put it in writing (which he NEVER does with his systems) it was to screw with some heads. And he DEFINITELY has done that! YOURS included. LOL

dr_dave
09-13-2008, 09:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have tried to maintain an open mind and respectful tone during the entire CTE debate. I have also tried very hard to get some simple answers to some simple questions (mostly in the AZB debates). Unfortunately, the answers I have gotten have still not been satisfactory to me; although, av84fun has provided much more info and insight into CTE than any other source. I thank him for that.

FYI, after a very frustrating and long exchange on AZB, here are my summarizing remarks (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=1411937&postcount=68).</div></div>LMAO! Well your PS at the end certainly doesn't lend itself to an open mind. You might as well have been sticking your middle finger up in the air to anyone and everyone that DOES teach and know about CTE or other ways of doing it as you MOCKED what they do with your BOGUS creation.</div></div>I admit I was a little sarcastic, but try to understand my level of frustration after my many attempts over the years (especially recently) to try to get simple answers to simple questions.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For YOUR INFORMATION, you have ALWAYS posted the INCORRECT Aiming System for Hal on YOUR SITE as if it's what he actually teaches and the only system. Hal DID and DOES teach a fractional AIMING POINT, but it's NOT an AIMING SYSTEM and it DOES NOT mean the CB strikes it there for any and all shots to go in. Do yourself and everybody else a favor and DELETE from your site because it IS ERRONEOUS and if Hal ever did put it in writing (which he NEVER does with his systems) it was to screw with some heads. And he DEFINITELY has done that! YOURS included. LOL </div></div>The Hal 4-lines-of-aim stuff I posted many years ago was based on phone conversations I had with him back then. I know he has other systems (e.g., CTE). When I get some time this week, I will remove Hal's name from my postings.

Regards,
Dave

JoeW
09-13-2008, 10:00 AM
At this time I think that UnknownPro (posted on AZB) has the best experiential method to learn what feel is all about. His idea is to aim while standing up and watch the CP as one bends over. Take one practice stroke and then shoot. This one stroke practice method clearly leads to the conclusion that when little conscious thought is involved in the stroke, the stroke and ball pocketing clearly improves after several attempts. Is this feel, aiming, or simply a stroking method? Is it under conscious, subconscious, and or neurological control?

This is a very difficult discussion because of the terms we use. In the sciences we usually try to agree on the definition of a term so that we are on the same page, so to speak. When it comes to aiming many players have different definitions and then interpret someone else’s remarks in the context of their own definition. This leads to straw man arguments in which people are talking past each other to make a point not intended by the original poster. Personally, I avoid such discussions.

In this context I too try to use the weakly defined terms that others use to further the discussion. However, it makes for very sloppy discourse and much acrimony. It would be better if we could all come to commonly accepted definitions. However, unless the group involved has accepted the general rules for logical discourse it is not possible. To get to some resolution with people from many different backgrounds and many different ways to approach the acquisition and use of knowledge we are left with our somewhat sloppy uniquely American way which includes much shouting and acrimonious debate. Bear with all of us as emotions and logic are intertwined. We (as a people) have been successful with our own unique method for learning.

In our current state of ignorance we use poorly defined terms to communicate something. The word feel is one of these terms. Some want to take the term literally, some have an expanded idea. In my opinion most weakly defined but useful ideas have some substance to them that can be better defined and reduced to the types of information that can be passed on to others. Even this statement is disagreed with by some people.

While we use the term feel there is some real process underlying this term that can be elucidated. There are of course people who think that this cannot be done. The history of civilization shows that while we have not gotten to the absolute essence of many issues, the attempts have been useful.

In my thinking knowledge is, or should be, public. I strongly object to secret systems. The written word can be copyrighted. Ideas are free for all to use. That too has been our way for many years. One cannot copyright a formula though some people attempt to keep it secret. Discussions about systems that cannot be discussed are of no use whatsoever to me and I ignore them completely. If it is someone’s secret then don’t tell people.

With regard to the interaction between the conscious and subconscious processes I think there is a very real interaction here. By example one of the ways to track with this idea is to consider walking which is usually under subconscious control. Early in life we had to learn to use a pre-wired system to walk on two feet. The system was built to walk erect but much learning was required to master the technique. This learning was performed by a rude level of conscious effort. The results of the learning were turned over to an automated neurological process we name (but do not understand all that well) the subconscious. This means that we can walk without self reflective thought (one definition of consciousness). While the process has been thoroughly absorbed into the subconscious we can assume voluntary control when we say such things as “don’t step on that crack.” It is also interesting to note that we can assume less willful control and merely direct the system without telling the system how to do it: “Go there quickly.” Over time we learn to coordinate the walking system with the throwing system and we have a basketball player or a pool player – take your choice.
With aiming systems I think we are trying to determine the better and best ways to integrate several cognitive systems to produce the best results. We will get there just keep in mind that we are working wth many people who have many different ideas and many ways of expressing them.

Max Ermine said, “Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are a vexation to the spirit.” Here on this forum we try to do that and that makes for a pleasant place to read and learn.”

dr_dave
09-13-2008, 10:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my thinking knowledge is, or should be, public. I strongly object to secret systems. The written word can be copyrighted. Ideas are free for all to use. That too has been our way for many years. One cannot copyright a formula though some people attempt to keep it secret. Discussions about systems that cannot be discussed are of no use whatsoever to me and I ignore them completely. If it is someone’s secret then don’t tell people.
...
Max Ermine says, “Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are a vexation to the spirit.” Here on this forum we try to do that and that makes for a pleasant place to read and learn.”</div></div>Amen!!!

Artemus
09-13-2008, 10:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I admit I was a little sarcastic,

I can't blast you for being honest and laying it out there

but try to understand my level of frustration after my many attempts over the years (especially recently) to try to get simple answers to simple questions.

Dave, understand this; NOBODY OWES you any answers. Everybody on forums just wants to sit back and get freebies. SpiderWC told you what to do which is do as he did. GO to all the teachers that KNOW how to do it throughout the country and PAY THEM. Work at the table as they teach and you'll have the answers to your questions.

The Hal 4-lines-of-aim stuff I posted many years ago was based on phone conversations I had with him back then. I know he has other systems (e.g., CTE). When I get some time this week, I will remove Hal's name from my postings.

Regards,
Dave </div></div>

That would be a great gesture on your part to remove it. As I said, Hal messes with HEADS. You may have spoken to him, but he told you what he wanted to tell you and it was NOT the gospel in it's entirety. He left out a few KEY points, to say the least. (LOL and shaking my head at good 'ol Hal. What a character)

Artemus
09-13-2008, 10:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In my thinking knowledge is, or should be, public. I strongly object to secret systems. The written word can be copyrighted. Ideas are free for all to use. That too has been our way for many years. One cannot copyright a formula though some people attempt to keep it secret. Discussions about systems that cannot be discussed are of no use whatsoever to me and I ignore them completely. If it is someone’s secret then don’t tell people.
</div></div>

Joe, I think you should turn these words above into a speech. Get a bullhorn and go to every Kentucky Fried Chicken location in the country and give this speech. Then travel to the headquarters of Coca Cola and give the same speech. After you've worn yourself out and get hungry, go to some 4 and 5 star restaurants where the chefs create some of their most delicious, scrumptious meals with their secret recipes and give the same speech.

When you finally get your answers, please send the Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe to me because I LOVE their chicken and send some of the meal recipes from the chefs. Oh, throw in Popeye's crispy chicken if you would also along with Outback's bloomin' onions secret.

dr_dave
09-13-2008, 10:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In my thinking knowledge is, or should be, public. I strongly object to secret systems. The written word can be copyrighted. Ideas are free for all to use. That too has been our way for many years. One cannot copyright a formula though some people attempt to keep it secret. Discussions about systems that cannot be discussed are of no use whatsoever to me and I ignore them completely. If it is someone’s secret then don’t tell people.
</div></div>

Joe, I think you should turn these words above into a speech. Get a bullhorn and go to every Kentucky Fried Chicken location in the country and give this speech. Then travel to the headquarters of Coca Cola and give the same speech. After you've worn yourself out and get hungry, go to some 4 and 5 star restaurants where the chefs create some of their most delicious, scrumptious meals with their secret recipes and give the same speech.

When you finally get your answers, please send the Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe to me because I LOVE their chicken and send some of the meal recipes from the chefs. Oh, throw in Popeye's crispy chicken if you would also along with Outback's bloomin' onions secret. </div></div>Come to think about it, maybe I will protect the secrets of my infamous DAM system and not reveal the intricacies to the world. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Regards,
Dave

Artemus
09-13-2008, 11:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come to think about it, maybe I will protect the secrets of my infamous DAM system and not reveal the intricacies to the world. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
Regards,
Dave </div></div>

DAM YOU!!

av84fun
09-13-2008, 12:40 PM
deleted............

av84fun
09-13-2008, 12:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In my thinking knowledge is, or should be, public. I strongly object to secret systems. The written word can be copyrighted. Ideas are free for all to use. That too has been our way for many years. One cannot copyright a formula though some people attempt to keep it secret. Discussions about systems that cannot be discussed are of no use whatsoever to me and I ignore them completely. If it is someone’s secret then don’t tell people.
</div></div>

Joe, I think you should turn these words above into a speech. Get a bullhorn and go to every Kentucky Fried Chicken location in the country and give this speech. Then travel to the headquarters of Coca Cola and give the same speech. After you've worn yourself out and get hungry, go to some 4 and 5 star restaurants where the chefs create some of their most delicious, scrumptious meals with their secret recipes and give the same speech.

When you finally get your answers, please send the Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe to me because I LOVE their chicken and send some of the meal recipes from the chefs. Oh, throw in Popeye's crispy chicken if you would also along with Outback's bloomin' onions secret. </div></div>Come to think about it, maybe I will protect the secrets of my infamous DAM system and not reveal the intricacies to the world. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Regards,
Dave </div></div>

Dave, you have been exceptionally generous is sharing your considerable pool-related knowledge for free. I am a devoted Dr. Dave groupie.

But you don't share it ALL sir. (-:

You DO have a book for sale...The Illustrated Principles Of Pools And Billiards (which I ordered yesterday) and until you publish an on-line version of the book for FREE, you ought not accuse others of "protecting their secrets."

I'm just suggesting that fair is fari.

Regards,
Jim

dr_dave
09-13-2008, 01:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave, first thanks for complimenting my EFFORTS to provide you with insights into CTE. But since you made your AZ remarks a matter of record here, I must fill in the blanks.

............deleted............ </div></div>Jim,

FYI, for the record, I have posted an apology on AZB. Here it is:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave on AZB</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SpiderWebComm-Dave, Stan, Hal, and other CTE/Pro-One supporters (including the people I have communicated with recently via PM and e-mail). I sincerely apologize if I have offended any of you with my snide and tactless remarks. My frustration was no excuse for my childish postings making fun of CTE. I can see how people might consider the posts disrespectful. I have heard lots of good things about Stan, and he seems like a really nice guy on the phone, so I especially do not want to be disrespectful to him. I sincerely hope I get to spend time with him in person in the future so he can try to explain CTE and Pro-One to me in detail and show me how they really work.

Again, I am sorry if I offended anyone. That certainly wasn't my intention.

Respectfully,
Dave (feeling a little guilty)</div></div>

DeadCrab
09-13-2008, 01:18 PM
*******************************
**********************************************
You DO have a book for sale...The Illustrated Principles Of Pools And Billiards (which I ordered yesterday) and until you publish an on-line version of the book for FREE, you ought not accuse others of "protecting their secrets."

I'm just suggesting that fair is fari.

Regards,
Jim
***************************************

I got news for you.

Not only does he pretty much give away his book for free, he gives a lot more info away for free as well.

In this case, fair is much more than fair.

dr_dave
09-13-2008, 01:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come to think about it, maybe I will protect the secrets of my infamous DAM system and not reveal the intricacies to the world. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif</div></div>Dave, you have been exceptionally generous is sharing your considerable pool-related knowledge for free. I am a devoted Dr. Dave groupie.</div></div>Thank you for the kind words.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But you don't share it ALL sir. (-:

You DO have a book for sale...The Illustrated Principles Of Pools And Billiards (which I ordered yesterday) and until you publish an on-line version of the book for FREE, you ought not accuse others of "protecting their secrets."

I'm just suggesting that fair is fari.</div></div>I don't consider anything in my book a secret (and practically all of the book information can be found in other forms for free on my website), but I get your point.

Regards,
Dave

DeadCrab
09-13-2008, 01:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave, first thanks for complimenting my EFFORTS to provide you with insights into CTE. But since you made your AZ remarks a matter of record here, I must fill in the blanks.

............deleted............ </div></div>Jim,

FYI, for the record, I have posted an apology on AZB. Here it is:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave on AZB</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SpiderWebComm-Dave, Stan, Hal, and other CTE/Pro-One supporters (including the people I have communicated with recently via PM and e-mail). I sincerely apologize if I have offended any of you with my snide and tactless remarks. My frustration was no excuse for my childish postings making fun of CTE. I can see how people might consider the posts disrespectful. I have heard lots of good things about Stan, and he seems like a really nice guy on the phone, so I especially do not want to be disrespectful to him. I sincerely hope I get to spend time with him in person in the future so he can try to explain CTE and Pro-One to me in detail and show me how they really work.

Again, I am sorry if I offended anyone. That certainly wasn't my intention.

Respectfully,
Dave (feeling a little guilty)</div></div></div></div>


Suggest you get your guilt threshold actuator adjusted or replaced. It is kicking in way too low.

dr_dave
09-13-2008, 01:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeadCrab</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, I am sorry if I offended anyone. That certainly wasn't my intention.

Respectfully,
Dave (feeling a little guilty)</div></div>Suggest you get your guilt threshold actuator adjusted or replaced. It is kicking in way too low.</div></div>But you haven't read some of the not-so-flattering private e-mails I've gotten today from CTE/Pro-One supporters.

Thank you for the support, though.

Regards,
Dave

av84fun
09-13-2008, 01:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeadCrab</div><div class="ubbcode-body">*******************************
**********************************************
You DO have a book for sale...The Illustrated Principles Of Pools And Billiards (which I ordered yesterday) and until you publish an on-line version of the book for FREE, you ought not accuse others of "protecting their secrets."

I'm just suggesting that fair is fari.

Regards,
Jim
***************************************

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I got news for you.</span>

Not only does he pretty much give away his book for free, he gives a lot more info away for free as well.

In this case, fair is much more than fair.
</div></div>

No, you have no news for me. Had you read my post more carefully, you would have seen that I praised Dave for providing as much as he does for free.

And while I agree that his book is <u>very</u> reasonably priced, it is certainly not free.

Finally, there are few posters on this or other forums who have praised Dave as often as I have.

Enough said.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
09-13-2008, 01:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave, first thanks for complimenting my EFFORTS to provide you with insights into CTE. But since you made your AZ remarks a matter of record here, I must fill in the blanks.

............deleted............ </div></div>Jim,

FYI, for the record, I have posted an apology on AZB. Here it is:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave on AZB</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SpiderWebComm-Dave, Stan, Hal, and other CTE/Pro-One supporters (including the people I have communicated with recently via PM and e-mail). I sincerely apologize if I have offended any of you with my snide and tactless remarks. My frustration was no excuse for my childish postings making fun of CTE. I can see how people might consider the posts disrespectful. I have heard lots of good things about Stan, and he seems like a really nice guy on the phone, so I especially do not want to be disrespectful to him. I sincerely hope I get to spend time with him in person in the future so he can try to explain CTE and Pro-One to me in detail and show me how they really work.

Again, I am sorry if I offended anyone. That certainly wasn't my intention.

Respectfully,
Dave (feeling a little guilty)</div></div> </div></div>

For the record back at ya...I think that the tone of your posts as long as I've been around the forums is RARELY other than very polite and businesslike. My own lapses into rather pointed remarks are far more frequent than your own.

You are one of the GOOD guys!

Back to the topic...any suggestion that I have made that you would be enlightened by personal, hands on, demonstration of CTE from experts on the subject would alter your views on the matter IMHO.

The ONLY question of yours that has me stumped is the parallel shift question, where the CTE line appears to remain constant but the cut angle increases. You have me DANCING on that one but there IS an explanation.

Regards,
Jim

Regards,
Jim

dr_dave
09-13-2008, 01:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The ONLY question of yours that has me stumped is the parallel shift question, where the CTE line appears to remain constant but the cut angle increases. You have me DANCING on that one but there IS an explanation.

Regards,
Jim

Regards,
Jim </div></div>Now I understand. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

Is the explanation to follow?

Thanks,
Dave

wolfdancer
09-13-2008, 02:07 PM
Isn't the real subject matter of this thread...trichoptilosis.

av84fun
09-13-2008, 02:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The ONLY question of yours that has me stumped is the parallel shift question, where the CTE line appears to remain constant but the cut angle increases. You have me DANCING on that one but there IS an explanation.

Regards,
Jim

Regards,
Jim </div></div>Now I understand. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

Is the explanation to follow?

Thanks,
Dave </div></div>

Check your e-mail!

(-:

JoeW
09-13-2008, 04:54 PM
Seems that people do not understand the difference between copyright and trade secrets. Last time I checked Dave's book is available for free from the library along with many other texts.

Trade secrets are not so secret, try RC Cola among others. My comment was about knowledge and the acquistion and sharing of same. I think that some people take an old idea, enhance it to some moderate degree, and then pass it off as original and propriatary. Obviously people can do this. I simply have little respect for such approaches that have not been, or are not willing to be, subjected to public review.

I can and do respect propriatry rights, as I am sure everyone else does. I see little need for it in most instances.

Over time I have learned that a good idea needs to be shared with the public. The public has a way of helping to revise the idea and make it better.

I also do not join secret socities, religious groups or other belief systems where a guru "knows" the way. For some people a religious approach is appealing. It requires less thought as one simply believes. Personally, I would advise anyone to closely review any approach that asks for your money to learn knowledge that cannot be passed on to others.

av84fun
09-13-2008, 05:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems that people do not understand the difference between copyright and trade secrets. Last time I checked Dave's book is available for free from the library along with many other texts.

Trade secrets are not so secret, try RC Cola among others. My comment was about knowledge and the acquistion and sharing of same. I think that some people take an old idea, enhance it to some moderate degree, and then pass it off as original and propriatary. Obviously people can do this. I simply have little respect for such approaches that have not been, or are not willing to be, subjected to public review.

I can and do respect propriatry rights, as I am sure everyone else does. I see little need for it in most instances.

Over time I have learned that a good idea needs to be shared with the public. The public has a way of helping to revise the idea and make it better.

I also do not join secret socities, religious groups or other belief systems where a guru "knows" the way. For some people a religious approach is appealing. It requires less thought as one simply believes. Personally, I would advise anyone to closely review any approach that asks for your money to learn knowledge that cannot be passed on to others.

</div></div>

Joe, first, I doubt whether Dave provided copies of his book to libraries in America for free. But even if he did, your tax money and mine is what pays for the construction and operation of most of our public libraries. So, you don't get the books for free under any circumstance.

With respect to proprietary rights, the annuls of our justice system are loaded with examples of the protection of proprietary knowledge.

You cite RC cola but I don't know what incident you are referring to. RC tastes NOTHING like Coke and the "reverse engineering" of recipies has long been know to fail to exactly duplicate end products.

Chefs know that the order in which ingredients are added...or cooked or simmered can have a radical impact on taste/texture etc. but the GCMC machine doesn't know anything about that.

No free enterprise system can possibly exist without the protection of proprietary rights and as we all know, true Communism has failed everywhere it has been attempted in the modern world.

Of course, some free sharing of information such as open source code in SOME software applications is beneficial to the owner. But that is generally true only when there are multiple applications hang off the same application....like Windows.

But there a TONS of software applications where the source code is a very closely guarded secret which, if not the case, would send many companies into bankruptcy.


Regards,
Jim

Artemus
09-13-2008, 06:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

FYI, for the record, I have posted an apology on AZB. Here it is:

[quote=dr_dave on AZB]SpiderWebComm-Dave, Stan, Hal, and other CTE/Pro-One supporters (including the people I have communicated with recently via PM and e-mail). I sincerely apologize if I have offended any of you with my snide and tactless remarks. My frustration was no excuse for my childish postings making fun of CTE. I can see how people might consider the posts disrespectful. I have heard lots of good things about Stan, and he seems like a really nice guy on the phone, so I especially do not want to be disrespectful to him. I sincerely hope I get to spend time with him in person in the future so he can try to explain CTE and Pro-One to me in detail and show me how they really work.

Again, I am sorry if I offended anyone. That certainly wasn't my intention.

Respectfully,
Dave (feeling a little guilty)</div></div>

That was gentlemanly of you to make the post, I hope your HEART was in it as opposed to just performing the politically correct thing to do and not stepping on toes so you'll continue to be looked at as a 'good guy.'

Do you want answers to your questions about CTE? Here are the answers: SpiderWC has in essence dropped his underwear for EVERYONE to see what he has hanging. He's bared it ALL with video snips of him actually shooting at the table on YouTube and ripping balls in from EVERYWHERE with no effort and showing how CTE works. (not explaining or teaching it, just proving by example)

Stan Shuffet has trained Landon in how to use CTE and he blew the field away to win the Junior Nationals. Landon has also BEATEN some top pro players in UPA events as well as one on one matchups. Immediately after winning the Junior Nationals, Landon was placing a call to Hal Houle and THANKING him for the CTE system that allowed him to play as well as he did to WIN.

On the other hand, as I stated earlier about the megalomaniac Pat Johnson, nothing changes as evidenced by this latest thread on CTE at AZ. http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=113056 In additon to PJ, you also have Bob Jewett,Ph.D. as one of the PJ staunch supporters also chiming in and blasting it. My saying this might be extremely hard for you to swallow since you and Jewett just did a joint filming project and you're part of the physics cult and the in-gang which bonds together. But, lets see how sincere your apology is, where do you stand on this issue when it comes to the CTE system and the guys who teach it and your GOOD PALS Pat Johnson and Bob Jewett?

Pat Johnson is basically a zero hack player. He took up the game late in life, he absolutely will NOT gamble for any significant money at all and never has, he's NEVER entered any type of tournaments or competition, and he couldn't even carry the cue case of a good shortstop at Chris's in Chicago.

Last but not least, he would NEVER expose himself as SpiderWC did by making videos on YouTube because he'd immediately be seen as the hack fraud he really is in life. This would end his career as the KING of internet pool forums forever. The ONLY thing he has going for him is the skill to debate and articulate in a very intellectual manner which unhinges a good number of posters that don't have THAT particular skill.

It's really a sad state of affairs in pool forums and has gone on far too long.
He's blown out MANY a PRO PLAYER on RSB as well as good road players and shortstops that can truly play the game but got sick and tired of his verbal horsecrap!

So Dave, there's your answers. With Stan, Landon, SpiderWC, Hal, RonV, and all that have make giant leaps as a result of what they teach. You can accept what they have to offer or continue to a part of the non-players jerkoff sqaud that can WRITE with the best of them and put everything down. What's your choice?

Rich R.
09-13-2008, 07:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Trade secrets are not so secret, try RC Cola among others. My comment was about knowledge and the acquistion and sharing of same. I think that some people take an old idea, enhance it to some moderate degree, and then pass it off as original and propriatary. Obviously people can do this. I simply have little respect for such approaches that have not been, or are not willing to be, subjected to public review.
</div></div>

Joe, when it comes to protecting pool knowledge, I don't agree with it, but I do understand it. It is really a throw back to days gone by.
When I was a kid, learning to play the game, the better players rarely, if ever, passed on any knowledge. When they did, it was only to good friends or people that they took a liking to. At that time, you learned to play by watching the better players and then trying out what you saw. Protecting pool knowledge is almost a tradition.

Of course, this is a different time, with many books and videos. It is difficult to protect any knowledge for too long.

DeadCrab
09-13-2008, 07:27 PM
Remember what I said in the 4th post of this thread?

I stand by it.

JoeW
09-13-2008, 08:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeadCrab</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Remember what I said in the 4th post of this thread?
I stand by it.
</div></div>

I went back and read your post. You got that right. It is a shame but little by little we do learn from each other. Ya just have to wade through the vitrol and learn to ignore the chaf.

I see what you mean Rich and I think you are right. None-the-less old dogs can learn new tricks. Heck I am 65 next month and still learning. With a little luck players too can learn to change their perspective a little. In the sciences we know that revolutions take place when the old guys die off.

av84fun
09-14-2008, 12:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeadCrab</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Remember what I said in the 4th post of this thread?

I stand by it.

</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>You mean this?

And heeeeeeeeeere we go!

Stay away from the brown acid, man. </span>

Actually, for the most part, I think the discussion has been pretty civil and informative.

Relatively popular too.

Let's have more of these.

(-:

av84fun
09-14-2008, 12:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeadCrab</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Remember what I said in the 4th post of this thread?
I stand by it.
</div></div>

I went back and read your post. You got that right. It is a shame but little by little we do learn from each other. Ya just have to wade through the vitrol and learn to ignore the chaf.

I see what you mean Rich and I think you are right. None-the-less old dogs can learn new tricks. Heck I am 65 next month and still learning. With a little luck players too can learn to change their perspective a little. In the sciences we know that revolutions take place when the old guys die off. </div></div>

You guys must not spend too much time over at AZ. That forum makes this one look like a love fest!

(-:

Artemus does tend to...ummm....speak his mind but he has the right idea...in general...about Patrick.

He has NO IDEA what the CTE system is and proved that by a RECENT post in which he stated that it ALWAYS produces a half ball hit.

That is blatantly wrong as I and others have pointed out to him. Whether any observer thinks the system works across a broad range of cut angles or not, they system DOES NOT confine itself to half ball hits...period.

But Patrick speaks disrespectfully about the system anyway. He is on record as not beleiving in ANY system and thinks everything in pool is accomplished by "feel".

Well, if you want to start a row...just start a thread, the purpose of which is to define what feel even means.

JoeW tried it on AZ and it is well over 100 posts deep with little common ground having been reached.

Anyway, while I am on record with Artemus that he might be well advised to tone down the rhetoric somewhat, Johnson is a very frustrating man.

Here is an example. Spiderwebcomm is a STRONG PLAYER who has posted youtube videos to prove it.

He is a recent student of CTE and Pro One and states that it has elevated his game from "good to great."

Conversely, reports from reliable sources including an FAMOUS instructor are that Johnson can't make 6 balls consistently.

Spidey has elected not to post details about CTE because he KNOWS what a pissing contest it would start. But here is an exhange between Spidey and PJ....

Spiderwebcomm

"Quote:
I can explain it rationally and with great detail, I just choose not to.

PJ

Yeah, sure.

It's OK though - I'm not really looking for an explanation of CTE; <span style="color: #FF0000">I'm pretty sure I understand it well enough for my purpose. </span>I'm just using your inability to describe it (which you call unwillingness) to illustrate that it's feel-based like all "approximation" systems - trying to help others learn something about what these systems really are before they decide to go to The Mount and pay The Prophet.

Regards,
Jim

So, he ridicules Spidey with "Yeah sure." when Spidey simply declined to get into a row.

Then he says he knows what he needs to know about the system when in fact, within the prior week or so he asserted that CTE always produces a half ball hit....which is just WRONG as has been explained to him REPEATEDLY.

That sort of thing is immensely frustrating but typical of PJ.

I have no dog in the hunt. I have nothing to sell. I just try to contribute what I can, when I can and here is the deal. The basic CTE system works...at least for people who have taken the trouble to actually become informed about the REAL system...not a pile of mostly wrong and often misleading posts that have almost ruined the "image" of the system.

Pro One has evolved from CTE due to a HUGE amount of time devoted to "upgrading" CTE by Stan Shuffett.

Pro One is the best and most complete aiming system (that also contributes to correct body alignment) that has ever been devised.

It will RADICALLY improve the shotmaking abilities of those who spend the time to learn it.

Pro One will eventually become the "aiming standard" and will significantly accelerate the learning curve vs. those who adopt the "million ball" strategy.

There are those who will eventually learn the system and there are those who will be beaten by those who do.

Finally, PJ chastised Spidey for not publishing his explanation of the CTE system. But I challenged PJ to himself post an explanation of the system he believes does not work...but he refused to do so. Talk about hypocracy!!!

Well, I offer a friendly challenge to anyone here who thinks that CTE (not Pro One....CTE) does not work. If that is your opinion...fine. Just post a detailed description of how the system is supposed to be implemented.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
09-14-2008, 02:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In my thinking knowledge is, or should be, public. I strongly object to secret systems. The written word can be copyrighted. Ideas are free for all to use. That too has been our way for many years. One cannot copyright a formula though some people attempt to keep it secret. Discussions about systems that cannot be discussed are of no use whatsoever to me and I ignore them completely. If it is someone’s secret then don’t tell people.
</div></div>

Joe, I think you should turn these words above into a speech. Get a bullhorn and go to every Kentucky Fried Chicken location in the country and give this speech. Then travel to the headquarters of Coca Cola and give the same speech. After you've worn yourself out and get hungry, go to some 4 and 5 star restaurants where the chefs create some of their most delicious, scrumptious meals with their secret recipes and give the same speech.

When you finally get your answers, please send the Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe to me because I LOVE their chicken and send some of the meal recipes from the chefs. Oh, throw in Popeye's crispy chicken if you would also along with Outback's bloomin' onions secret. </div></div><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Come to think about it, maybe I will protect the secrets of my infamous DAM system and not reveal the intricacies to the world. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Regards,
Dave </div></div>

OK...here is how you have described DAM...

"DAM ("Dave's Aiming Method"):The basics of the system are: you visualize the required "angle of the shot" and required line of aim,

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #000099">What is the required line of aim for a given cut angle?</span></span>

you then align your cue and vision with the line of aim as you drop into your stance, you then follow all of the recommended stroke "best practices," you maintain "quiet eyes" both at the "set" aiming position (checking the CB tip contact point and your aiming line) and when focusing on your OB target during the final forward stroke.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #000099">What is your OB target?

How do you decide what it is?

How do you keep reacquiring such a tiny target when you have moved your body and have repeatedly cycled your gaze from the OB to the CB and back again?</span></span>

If you are a good shooter and you maintain focus and don't do anything wrong during the entire DAM process, it works.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

Regards,
Jim

Artemus
09-14-2008, 05:59 AM
Hey AV84fun, you wanna see how the muddled mind of Pat Johnson worked almost a decade ago regarding his aiming process? No wonder he couldn't play a lick and still can't! Have a good laugh!! (I see "cylinders,tubes, and Jedi "SWORDS"...LMAO) There we go, the PJ "CYLINDER,TUBE,JEDI SWORD AIMING SYSTEM".

Patrick Johnson View profile
More options May 21 1999, 3:00 am

Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: Patrick Johnson &lt;pjm...@concentric.net&gt;
Date: 1999/05/21
Subject: Re: Ghost Ball Trainer
I agree it's a visualization thing, and that means it's very difficult
to be sure what different people mean. For instance, I would say I
never use the ghost ball method, and that I always aim
contact-point-to-contact-point. But when I think of the ghost ball
method, I think of aiming the center of the cue ball at the center of
the ghost ball. Someone else might say it means visualizing the ghost
ball touching the object ball (another way of visualizing the object
ball contact point). It depends on what you have in mind when aiming,
which is not often described in detail. Sometimes the words we use (or
don't use) get in the way of communicating exactly what we mean, like
when we use names for aiming methods rather than descriptions.

Just for fun, here's how I visualize aiming a simple cut shot with no
spin (after I'm down in stance and basically lined up): I usually see
the cue ball as a kind of cylinder or tube extending forward to the
object ball, with its diameter diminishing as the distance increases (as
it would appear to if there really was a cylinder there). When aligning
my stick for the shot, I see this tube as kind of a thick Jedi sword
laser beam that moves left and right with my stick until it lines up
perfectly on the object ball. So you might say I use a "ghost tube"
method, but I do consciously look at the object ball contact point and
try to line up the (estimated) cue ball contact point with it. So is
this a "straight shot" or a "cut shot?" I don't know. Is it a "contact
point" or a "ghost ball/tube" method? Search me.


There's lots more that I "visualize" in addition to strictly aiming,
including how I think the stroke will feel (and the feel of hitting the
cue ball), the "drag" the surface cloth will have on the cue ball, the
physical impact of the cue ball and object ball (even the sound it will
make), the curving path of the cue ball after impact, etc., etc. All
this takes a microsecond, and doesn't mean that I'm spending lots of
time "calculating" the shot... it's more like my "intuition" for the
shot just includes lots of conscious physical specifics. I work on
increasing the amount of this conscious detail that I can handle without
it becoming a distraction, because I feel it improves my game, and my
learning curve, tremendously (with all respect to the pure "feel"
shooters).


Pat Johnson
Chicago

Artemus
09-14-2008, 06:51 AM
AV84fun, here's Pat Johnson's "LIZARD AIMING SYSTEM". ROTFLMFAO!!
What a moron! And this guy has the "brass balls" to discredit a bona fide aiming system used by pros and WINNERS at the highest level, what a JOKE! I think he eventually realized what a total imbecile he was with his posts and now states that aiming is ALL FEEL since nobody can really challenge what can't be explained, demonstrated, transferred, or even defined.


Patrick Johnson View profile
More options Sep 12 2000, 3:29 pm

Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: Patrick Johnson &lt;REMOV...@21stcentury.net&gt;
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:32:45 -0500
Local: Tues, Sep 12 2000 3:32 pm

We've talked about this a few times. I prefer to sight down the
contact point-to-contact point line, but that puts my head in
different positions over the stick depending on the shot and can be
physically difficult for cue ball contact points "outside" the stick,
so I adjust it for comfort and consistency. I also like to move my
head back and forth to sight down more than one of the available
lines, including cue ball path, just for cross reference (I might look
a little like a lizard doing this). I like to know that my stick is
pointing where I want it to, but "sight down the stick" doesn't work
by itself for me.

Pat Johnson
Chicago

dr_dave
09-14-2008, 08:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">here is how you have described DAM...

"DAM ("Dave's Aiming Method"):The basics of the system are: you visualize the required "angle of the shot" and required line of aim,

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #000099">What is the required line of aim for a given cut angle?</span></span>

you then align your cue and vision with the line of aim as you drop into your stance, you then follow all of the recommended stroke "best practices," you maintain "quiet eyes" both at the "set" aiming position (checking the CB tip contact point and your aiming line) and when focusing on your OB target during the final forward stroke.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #000099">What is your OB target?

How do you decide what it is?

How do you keep reacquiring such a tiny target when you have moved your body and have repeatedly cycled your gaze from the OB to the CB and back again?</span></span>

If you are a good shooter and you maintain focus and don't do anything wrong during the entire DAM process, it works.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

Regards,
Jim </div></div>DAM is the best and most complete aiming system (that also contributes to correct body alignment) that has ever been devised.

It will RADICALLY improve the shotmaking abilities of those who spend the time to learn it.

DAM will eventually become the "aiming standard" and will significantly accelerate the learning curve vs. those who adopt the "million ball" strategy.

There are those who will eventually learn the system and there are those who will be beaten by those who do.

Well, I offer a friendly challenge to anyone here who thinks that DAM does not work. If that is your opinion...fine. Just post a detailed description of how the system is supposed to be implemented.

Sound familiar? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Honestly, I think more pros use DAM than CTE; although, I like the premise of CTE of focusing on and aligning with the most visually clear aiming line reference available (the 1/2-ball hit center-to-edge line).

Regards,
Dave

Artemus
09-14-2008, 09:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">DAM is the best and most complete aiming system (that also contributes to correct body alignment) that has ever been devised.

It will RADICALLY improve the shotmaking abilities of those who spend the time to learn it.

DAM will eventually become the "aiming standard" and will significantly accelerate the learning curve vs. those who adopt the "million ball" strategy.

There are those who will eventually learn the system and there are those who will be beaten by those who do.

Well, I offer a friendly challenge to anyone here who thinks that DAM does not work. If that is your opinion...fine. Just post a detailed description of how the system is supposed to be implemented.

Sound familiar? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Honestly, I think more pros use DAM than CTE

Regards,
Dave
</div></div>

Why do I suddenly smell the scent of an insincere apology regarding CTE over at AZ? Oh, I know! It's that middle finger of Dave sticking straight up in the air again as he furiously waves it up and down and side to side! Yep,'ol Dave is one of the "nice" "good" guys alright.

av84fun
09-14-2008, 01:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">here is how you have described DAM...

"DAM ("Dave's Aiming Method"):The basics of the system are: you visualize the required "angle of the shot" and required line of aim,

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #000099">What is the required line of aim for a given cut angle?</span></span>

you then align your cue and vision with the line of aim as you drop into your stance, you then follow all of the recommended stroke "best practices," you maintain "quiet eyes" both at the "set" aiming position (checking the CB tip contact point and your aiming line) and when focusing on your OB target during the final forward stroke.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #000099">What is your OB target?

How do you decide what it is?

How do you keep reacquiring such a tiny target when you have moved your body and have repeatedly cycled your gaze from the OB to the CB and back again?</span></span>

If you are a good shooter and you maintain focus and don't do anything wrong during the entire DAM process, it works.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

Regards,
Jim </div></div>DAM is the best and most complete aiming system (that also contributes to correct body alignment) that has ever been devised.

It will RADICALLY improve the shotmaking abilities of those who spend the time to learn it.

DAM will eventually become the "aiming standard" and will significantly accelerate the learning curve vs. those who adopt the "million ball" strategy.

There are those who will eventually learn the system and there are those who will be beaten by those who do.

Well, I offer a friendly challenge to anyone here who thinks that DAM does not work. If that is your opinion...fine. Just post a detailed description of how the system is supposed to be implemented.

Sound familiar? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Honestly, I think more pros use DAM than CTE; although, I like the premise of CTE of focusing on and aligning with the most visually clear aiming line reference available (the 1/2-ball hit center-to-edge line).

Regards,
Dave
</div></div>

OK...I asked specific questions Dave...but got a smartass response.

To the contrary, you asked publicaly for a detailed description of how CTE works. As you know, in a lengthy exchange of e-mails, I responded to your request at a great expense of time and effort on my part.

As you know, you refused to respond with a point by point challenge of any portion of my description. You never said anything like..."Your point #2 is wrong because...."

I should also point out that you were on record as suggesting the CTE is a "fractional aiming system" when, in fact, it is no such thing.

Possibly having had it pointed out to you that CTE is not at all what you thought it was, you became antagonistic toward the system itself. Who knows?

But certainly, having asked for an explanation, you never offered any reasoned analysis of why you think the system, as described, is flawed.

With genuine respect, I have to say that it was poor form IMHO for you to ask for a description but hold to your skepticism about its viability without ever once explaining why.

As for DAM, possibly you are just being sarcastic and there is no such system. But I took you at your word and asked genuine questions about it.

So, is DAM genuine or just a parody? If a parody, your time would be much better spent learning a method that is being proven in real life to work brilliantly, than to parody that system.

"Honestly, I think more pros use DAM than CTE; "

What percentage of all pros use CTE to your personal knowledge?

What is your source of information on what aiming technique all pros use? (You must have such information for you to have made the above-quoted comment)

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
09-14-2008, 01:36 PM
artemus....Fortunately, PJ does not post here. It is probably wise that we do not stir his ghost by commenting further.

(-:

Jim

Artemus
09-14-2008, 02:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
OK...I asked specific questions Dave...but got a smartass response.

To the contrary, you asked publicaly for a detailed description of how CTE works. As you know, in a lengthy exchange of e-mails, I responded to your request at a great expense of time and effort on my part.

As you know, you refused to respond with a point by point challenge of any portion of my description. You never said anything like..."Your point #2 is wrong because...."

I should also point out that you were on record as suggesting the CTE is a "fractional aiming system" when, in fact, it is no such thing.

Possibly having had it pointed out to you that CTE is not at all what you thought it was, you became antagonistic toward the system itself. Who knows?

But certainly, having asked for an explanation, you never offered any reasoned analysis of why you think the system, as described, is flawed.

With genuine respect, I have to say that it was poor form IMHO for you to ask for a description but hold to your skepticism about its viability without ever once explaining why.

As for DAM, possibly you are just being sarcastic and there is no such system. But I took you at your word and asked genuine questions about it.

So, is DAM genuine or just a parody? If a parody, your time would be much better spent learning a method that is being proven in real life to work brilliantly, than to parody that system.

"Honestly, I think more pros use DAM than CTE; "

What percentage of all pros use CTE to your personal knowledge?

What is your source of information on what aiming technique all pros use? (You must have such information for you to have made the above-quoted comment)

Regards,
Jim </div></div>

Uhhhhh, do you remember this post from ME TO YOU a few pages back?

YOU: "I have recently exchanged e-mails with Dr. Dave and I think I have come up with a rather graphic means of describing the core fundamental of CTE aiming."

ME: "I don't know if that was a good idea or a bad idea. Only time will tell. I think Dave and PJ are now bosom buddies and come from the same camp along with a few other Ph.D.'s that are hell bent on playing the role of James Randi on anything they can't explain in some complex formula or 2D geometrics."

What can I say, when you're right,you're right, and I got it RIGHT!

Ya know Jim, when you hang around forums for a long enough period of time you can just FEEL the DEFLECTION coming from some little SQUIRTS without even AIMING to DRAW them out. You can just INTUITIVELY SENSE a weasel that will eventually give you the SHAFT sooner or later. It's when you feel like kicking BUTT.
Don't RAIL about it, I knew it was going to ROLL in eventually.
Here's another TIP, do not share any more info about CTE because it's gonna make you SCRATCH your head in disbelief as they continue to BREAK your BALLS.

Artemus
09-14-2008, 02:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">artemus....Fortunately, PJ does not post here. It is probably wise that we do not stir his ghost by commenting further.

(-:

Jim </div></div>

Whether he does or doesn't matters not to me. One of his sycophants has probably already alerted him and he's READ it here. It should have been a pleasant walk for him down memory lane. LMAO

av84fun
09-14-2008, 03:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
OK...I asked specific questions Dave...but got a smartass response.

To the contrary, you asked publicaly for a detailed description of how CTE works. As you know, in a lengthy exchange of e-mails, I responded to your request at a great expense of time and effort on my part.

As you know, you refused to respond with a point by point challenge of any portion of my description. You never said anything like..."Your point #2 is wrong because...."

I should also point out that you were on record as suggesting the CTE is a "fractional aiming system" when, in fact, it is no such thing.

Possibly having had it pointed out to you that CTE is not at all what you thought it was, you became antagonistic toward the system itself. Who knows?

But certainly, having asked for an explanation, you never offered any reasoned analysis of why you think the system, as described, is flawed.

With genuine respect, I have to say that it was poor form IMHO for you to ask for a description but hold to your skepticism about its viability without ever once explaining why.

As for DAM, possibly you are just being sarcastic and there is no such system. But I took you at your word and asked genuine questions about it.

So, is DAM genuine or just a parody? If a parody, your time would be much better spent learning a method that is being proven in real life to work brilliantly, than to parody that system.

"Honestly, I think more pros use DAM than CTE; "

What percentage of all pros use CTE to your personal knowledge?

What is your source of information on what aiming technique all pros use? (You must have such information for you to have made the above-quoted comment)

Regards,
Jim </div></div>

Uhhhhh, do you remember this post from ME TO YOU a few pages back?

YOU: "I have recently exchanged e-mails with Dr. Dave and I think I have come up with a rather graphic means of describing the core fundamental of CTE aiming."

ME: "I don't know if that was a good idea or a bad idea. Only time will tell. I think Dave and PJ are now bosom buddies and come from the same camp along with a few other Ph.D.'s that are hell bent on playing the role of James Randi on anything they can't explain in some complex formula or 2D geometrics."

What can I say, when you're right,you're right, and I got it RIGHT!

Ya know Jim, when you hang around forums for a long enough period of time you can just FEEL the DEFLECTION coming from some little SQUIRTS without even AIMING to DRAW them out. You can just INTUITIVELY SENSE a weasel that will eventually give you the SHAFT sooner or later. It's when you feel like kicking BUTT.
Don't RAIL about it, I knew it was going to ROLL in eventually.
Here's another TIP, do not share any more info about CTE because it's gonna make you SCRATCH your head in disbelief as they continue to BREAK your BALLS. </div></div>

Very funny play on words. While I am admittedly disappointed in the outcome of my rather one-way exchange of information with Dave re: CTE, it is nevertheless true that he has contributed a rather massive amount of great, and sometimes "myth busting" information on pool.

And with a FEW notable lapses, his demeanor on the forums has been mostly informative, and reasonably polite.

He is not perfect on that last score and neither is anyone else so we all live in a glass house regarding our politeness...or lack thereof.

I must admit that you correctly predicted Dave's closed-mindedness (IMHO...and as supported by our e-mail exchanges) and I find that quite surprising.


Being a scientist, he is supposed to have an inquiring mind and a passion for proving or disproving theories. But he offered neither in his exchanges with me...only questions which, when answered, he would neither agree with or refute.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>But I am NOT casting stones. I think he is one of the more valuavble resources on the forums.</span>

Jim

Artemus
09-14-2008, 05:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I must admit that you correctly predicted Dave's closed-mindedness (IMHO...and as supported by our e-mail exchanges) and I find that quite surprising.

Being a scientist, he is supposed to have an inquiring mind and a passion for proving or disproving theories. But he offered neither in his exchanges with me...only questions which, when answered, he would neither agree with or refute.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>But I am NOT casting stones. I think he is one of the more valuavble resources on the forums.</span>

Jim </div></div>

I'm not surprised by ANY of his actions or I wouldn't have said what I did initially about where he was headed with the whole thing regarding CTE and his cronies. I KNEW it was coming, there was no question in my mind.

He may come back on to address you and do a Michael Jackson moonwalk for damage control and save face for future postings since he is writing for BD, but whatever is said will be just as shallow as the apology on AZ. It's what is commonly known as, "he's full of ca-ca"."

I am quite stunned at your open minded forgiving nature to the entire episode. I won't leak it out to anyone, I promise, but you really might BE the forum nice guy beneath all of that projected hardened exterior. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

av84fun
09-14-2008, 06:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I must admit that you correctly predicted Dave's closed-mindedness (IMHO...and as supported by our e-mail exchanges) and I find that quite surprising.

Being a scientist, he is supposed to have an inquiring mind and a passion for proving or disproving theories. But he offered neither in his exchanges with me...only questions which, when answered, he would neither agree with or refute.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>But I am NOT casting stones. I think he is one of the more valuavble resources on the forums.</span>

Jim </div></div>

I'm not surprised by ANY of his actions or I wouldn't have said what I did initially about where he was headed with the whole thing regarding CTE and his cronies. I KNEW it was coming, there was no question in my mind.

He may come back on to address you and do a Michael Jackson moonwalk for damage control and save face for future postings since he is writing for BD, but whatever is said will be just as shallow as the apology on AZ. It's what is commonly known as, "he's full of ca-ca"."

I am quite stunned at your open minded forgiving nature to the entire episode. I won't leak it out to anyone, I promise, but you really might BE the forum nice guy beneath all of that projected hardened exterior. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif





</div></div>

Thanks for the compliment! But I don't TRY to be anything...I just am who I am and call 'em like I see 'em...even with friends...and actually especially with friends.

Most of my friends tell me that they can predict exactly how I will react in any given circumstance. I'm not sure I like being all that predictable but I think at the end of the day, my friends are my friends because they know they can trust me...they know that what they see is what they get...and yes, I guess they take comfort in not being worried about how I might react in a given situation....because they already know!!

(-:

Jim

Rich R.
09-14-2008, 09:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You guys must not spend too much time over at AZ. That forum makes this one look like a love fest! </div></div>

That is why I spend very little time there. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

dr_dave
09-14-2008, 10:49 PM
Jim (av84fun),

I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I appreciate all of your time and effort, and I have read all of your messages and the many hundreds of posts over the last several months on both AZB and CCB (mostly AZB) related to CTE. I know I haven't responded to all of your comments and questions, but many of them didn't address what I think is the main issue. I still don't have a clue how CTE provides a different line of aim for various cut angles for a fixed CB/OB relationship. I have decided to not spend any more time on this until I see a reasonably clear and simple description of how the system works, or until I have the opportunity to spend time with Stan. I have far too many things on my "list of things to do" that are far more important to me and my time. Again, I am sorry if that disappoints you. I hope you will respect my decision to give this to rest.

Thank you,
Dave

av84fun
09-14-2008, 11:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jim (av84fun),

I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I appreciate all of your time and effort, and I have read all of your messages and the many hundreds of posts over the last several months on both AZB and CCB (mostly AZB) related to CTE. I know I haven't responded to all of your comments and questions, but many of them didn't address what I think is the main issue.

<span style="color: #000099"> </span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Well Dave, as a teacher, you know that acquiring knowledge is building block process. That is why we all started out with Algebra 1 and not Algebra 3.

You complained that my description of the system...which ran to several paragraphs...was too long. But let me point out that your articles on throw alone were published in TWELVE PARTS and ran to over FIFTY PAGES...or thereabouts.</span>


I still don't have a clue how CTE provides a different line of aim for various cut angles for a fixed CB/OB relationships.

<span style="color: #000099"> </span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>I assume you are referring to how the line of aim changes when the CB and OB are shifted onto a parallel line.

As you know Dave, I explained that to you and even went to the trouble of confirmibng my response to you will VERY careful measurments including the use of a laser leveler beam.

I explained to you that when the balls are shifted to the parallel line, the shooter does not move as great a distance as the balls have moved and therefore, the VISIBLE CENTER of the CB has CHANGED. Since the shooter shoots through the VISIBLE CENTER and since that place has changed relative to the parallel line on which the new shot resides, it is CLEAR that the line of aim has also changed and equally clear that...therefore....a differenct cut angle is achieved.

In our e-mail exchanges, you did not dispute my explanation of what we began to call the "parallel shift dilemma."

Therefore, why you have "no clue" is a mystery to me but if you wish to refute my above explanation, I invite you to do so here.

If you will not, then it is clear that you simply don't WANT to understand the method...for whatever reason...and that is absolutely FINE with me. Truly it is.

But if you just don't WANT to "get it" then I think in fairness to those who understand the system and KNOW that it works...within its stated paramenters...you should stop, in effect, defaming the system and therefore, its advocates by stating that you just have no clue how it can work in spite of a laborious effort to understand it.

You certainly did not make a laborious effort with me and in fact, elected not to refute a single aspect of my explanations. </span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>I have decided to not spend any more time on this until I see a reasonably clear and simple description of how the system works,</span> or until I have the opportunity to spend time with Stan. I have far too many things on my "list of things to do" that are far more important to me and my time. Again, I am sorry if that disappoints you. I hope you will respect my decision to give this to rest.

Thank you,
Dave </div></div>

Dave, with all due respect, your above comment smacks to me of a man who is just biased against any systematic aiming method and who therefore, simply refuses to study the matter in reasonable depth.

As suggested above, your own articles on squirt and swerve alone run to scores of pages!

Those factors are no more or less complicated than aiming a center ball shot so you are the pot calling the kettle black when you demand that a "simple explanation" be given or none at all.

Sorry my explanations were not clear to you. Since you are obviously a very bright man and since I have demonstrated this method VERY successfully to students who may not have completed high school, the only conclusion I can draw is that you simply don't WANT the method to work.

PJ on the other forum has the same attitude. He was "outed" for declining a FREE consultation with one of THE best "aiming instructors" on the planet...Ron Vitello...by stating that he doesn't believe in systems!!!!

In any event...yes, let's you and I let this matter die. I KNOW it works as intended and Stan's Pro One works even better (more broadly).

I have no vested interest in any system or anything else related to pool so, respectfully, I could really care less whether you get it or you don't.

I was merely responding to YOUR REQUEST that a cogent description of the system be provided to you. You may not think my guidance on that matter was clear but that puts you in a minority of one.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
09-15-2008, 01:27 AM
PS to Dave...

I shouldn't even lurk at "the other forum" because it makes me mad half the time but you complimented bluepepper over there for his series of diagrams that were nonsensical in terms of CTE aiming.

The diagrams stood for the proposition that when the orientation of the balls change, the line of aim has to change. Well DUH is all I can say to that. Why you would compliment such sophistry is beyond me.

Cornerman reached essentially the same conclusion as I when he wrote.

I'm asking because it seems you are trying to disprove something that any true proponent of any of Hal's system wouldn't say.

Then Bob Jewett asked bluepepper to explain the CTE system. Here is the exchange.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Jewett
I stand corrected on your intent in this thread. Are you able to describe the system for the rest of us?


Sure.
Eyes are to remain aligned to view the outside edge of the OB from directly over the top center of the CB. There are 2 pivots. One corresponds to thin cuts and the other to thick cuts.

For thin cuts, place the bridge hand and cue "anywhere" to the inside of this center-to-edge line before pivoting the cue tip to find the (new) CB center. Shoot.
For thick cuts, place the bridge hand and cue "anywhere" to the outside of this center-to-edge line before pivoting the cue tip to find the (new) CB center. Shoot.

That's it.

The problem I see is the "anywhere" instruction. It makes a huge difference where. It also makes a huge difference from shot to shot. So the "where" that works for one shot isn't the "where" that works for another. And the point about which you pivot, your bridge distance, is nearly as important.

Well, if bluepepper ever actually spoke with Hal, one of them was drunk because his description has very little to do with the CTE system.

A child of 7 could understand that if you place the bridge hand ANYWHERE and then pivot back to center ball, you will achieve a different line of aim for every place you put your bridge hand.

bluepepper is obviously "anti-CTE" and sadly, isn't above posting what he knows or SHOULD know are complete falsehoods.

The body of posts on this subject over the years is INUNDATED with such nonsense and yet, Dave, you say you read hundreds of them...which was your first mistake.

You say you "spoke with" Stan and Hal but what was the CONTENT of those discussions?

Did you actually submit to what amounted to a thorough "phone lesson" on CTE from either Stan or Hal?

If so, please share with us a detailed commentary on their descriptions of the system.

Bob elsewhere stated that no detailed description of the system is "in print."

But that isn't correct because you have mine Dave and I copied Bob on essentially the same discussion.

And so far, I have not received any reasoned disputation of the contents of my descriptions from either of you.

I will just conclude by expressing my astonishment over the "religious zeal" manifested regarding this subject...from both the pro and con camps.

I have no religious zeal on this subject. In all honesty, I could CARE LESS whether anyone uses the system. Requests for descriptions were issued by both you and Bob and out of respect for you both, I provided them.

I did so in an effort to be helpful to you both...not to help myself in any conceivable manner.

And I didn't get a fair shake response from you Dave...you never said..."No Jimmy, you have that part wrong because...."

And so far, I have received no comments in reply from Bob whatsoever.

I realize that no good deed goes unpunished but I wasn't aware that they are also ignored.

But Bob is on record that bridge hand placement is one of the most important factors in aiming. No truer words have ever been spoken.

Above, I stated the truth...which is that if you move your bridge hand and pivot back to center you will MISS unless you adopt the correct placement in the first place.

Therefore, for anyone who feels that CTE is such a mystery...bordering on voodoo...just re-read the above. THERE IS A CORRECT BRIDGE HAND PLACEMENT FOR EVERY GIVEN CENTER BALL SHOT!

What remains to be determined is whether CTE and/or Pro One guides the shooter to that correct bridge hand placement.

In fact they do and I both encourage and defy anyone to A) post the actual rules of CTE (Pro One not being generally available at this time) and B) refute their accuracy.

Dave, let's start with you since you imply that you learned CTE from either Stan or Hal. (And if you didn't learn it from them, why did you mention your phone conversations with them?? And why on earth would you have pored over "hundreds of posts" from the Cuckoo's Nest when you could have been given details on the system FROM THE SOURCE in less than 30 minutes??? Very curious)


Anyone??????????????????????????



Regards,
Jim

Artemus
09-15-2008, 06:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jim (av84fun),

I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I appreciate all of your time and effort, and I have read all of your messages and the many hundreds of posts over the last several months on both AZB and CCB (mostly AZB) related to CTE. I know I haven't responded to all of your comments and questions, but many of them didn't address what I think is the main issue. I still don't have a clue how CTE provides a different line of aim for various cut angles for a fixed CB/OB relationship. I have decided to not spend any more time on this until I see a reasonably clear and simple description of how the system works, or until I have the opportunity to spend time with Stan. I have far too many things on my "list of things to do" that are far more important to me and my time. Again, I am sorry if that disappoints you. I hope you will respect my decision to give this to rest.

Thank you,
Dave </div></div>

Let's go through my earlier posts ONE MORE TIME regarding the GOOGAN Ph.D. Dave Alciatore.

Am I psychic? No, not really. Do I have good FEEL and INTUITION?
Yes, but it's more like street smarts or forum smarts to ferret out a <span style="color: #FF0000">GOOGAN WEASEL</span> regarding their true motivations and allegiance.

MY EARLIER POSTS: "I don't know if that was a good idea or a bad idea. Only time will tell. I think Dave and PJ are now bosom buddies and come from the same camp along with a few other Ph.D.'s that are hell bent on playing the role of James Randi on anything they can't explain in some complex formula or 2D geometrics.

I'm not surprised by ANY of his actions or I wouldn't have said what I did initially about where he was headed with the whole thing regarding CTE and his cronies. I KNEW it was coming, there was no question in my mind.

<span style="color: #FF0000">He may come back on to address you and do a Michael Jackson moonwalk for damage control and save face for future postings since he is writing for BD, but whatever is said will be just as shallow as the apology on AZ. It's what is commonly known as, "HE'S FULL OF CA-CA </span>

ALCIATORE, YOU'RE A DISAPPOINTMENT AND A DISGRACE TO THIS FORUM AND HOW YOU'VE HANDLED EVERYTHING WITH AV84FUN AND POSTINGS ON AZ REGARDING THE CTE TEACHINGS BY STAN SHUFFET, HALH, RONV, RANDYG, SCOTTL. YOUR ENTIRE MOTIVATION IS TO DISCREDIT AND FIND FAULT WITH SOMETHING YOU KNOW LITTLE OR NOTHING ABOUT. Yes, as Jim stated you provide other good information here to help the masses. BUT THIS ISSUE AND THE CONTINUATION OF IT IN THE FUTURE WITH YOUR DIRECTION AND THE DIRECTION OF YOUR CRONIES IS ABSOLUTELY REPULSIVE.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> STAN BETTER NEVER SHOW THIS TO YOU AND WASTE HIS TIME AS HAL HAS NEVER SHOWN IT TO YOU AND OTHERS WHOM HE KNEW TO BE A WASTE OF TIME!!!! </span>

av84fun
09-15-2008, 08:26 AM
Artemus...I certainly have issues with Dave's posture on the CTE matter but I try to win debates not lose them. Resorting to personal attacks and insults is a sure way to lose a debate even though you might have the winning argument on the merits.

I don't know what past issues you have had with Dave. I can only draw conclusions from things I know about.

From that point of view, David has been a source of a wealth of GREAT information on a broad array of important matters related to pool.

In many cases, he was no more able to provide brief and simple explanations for lots of things and therefore was clearly off base in requiring brief and simple explanations of CTE. So I do think he is dropping the ball by not becoming the first noted author on pool-related matters to understand...and then quite necessarily, become an advocate of CTE aiming.

But he has picked up and run with a very large number of balls and so...from my own perspective...he does not deserve to be lashed out at with name-calling.

As I stated, I call 'em like I see 'em and in this matter, it is my opinion that in attempting to hurt Dave, you only hurt yourself.

My request to you, is that you stand down on this one.

Regards,
Jim

skin
09-15-2008, 09:10 AM
I think this thread has gone nuts and needs to be closed to further postings. It has become very discomfitting to read.

skin

Artemus
09-15-2008, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

As I stated, I call 'em like I see 'em and in this matter, it is my opinion that in attempting to hurt Dave, you only hurt yourself.

Regards,
Jim </div></div>

I call'em like I see 'em also and I just did, and he got everything that he had coming to him and was deserved. I can't hurt myself because I'M OUTTA HERE. It's just the same old crap month after month with the same cast of characters from over 10 years ago.

I only hope YOU learned a vital lesson, which is DO NOT attempt to educate certain individuals that are part of a close knit group and have been inseperable for a decade who only work to discredit and destroy what they can't describe or put in writing, especially when it comes to CTE or ANY AIMING SYSTEM.

The individuals are: DAVID ALCIATORE, Ph.D.; BOB JEWETT, Ph.D.;
MIKE PAGE, Ph.D.; RON SHEPHERD, Ph.D. (or his aliases); and last but not least, the NUMBER 1 most DESPICIBLE self serving poster on any pool forum, PAT JOHNSON (not a Ph.D). Any information that you give to the first four will be forwarded to the last name on this list and it helps NO ONE!

That's it. <span style="color: #FF0000"> GONE!!! </span>

Mason King
09-15-2008, 10:32 AM
OK everybody. Go back to your corners, pick up your stuff, go have a nice filling dinner and just relax for a day.

Speaking as the managing editor of BD, I want to make clear that this forum is for civil discussion and debate only. It doesn't matter how much you think you are right — even if your views are absolutely correct by any measure. What's important is that everyone has a chance to discuss his or her views in a safe and friendly manner. We're not going to tolerate mean-spirited discussions. So cut it out.

This isn't a room for "calling it like you see it," if that means you're attacking someone or even just describing them in an unfriendly way. You don't have that right here.

Thanks for being understanding, and for being able to keep your emotions out of your posts.

dr_dave
09-15-2008, 10:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...The Hal 4-lines-of-aim stuff I posted many years ago was based on phone conversations I had with him back then. I know he has other systems (e.g., CTE). When I get some time this week, I will remove Hal's name from my postings.</div></div>
That would be a great gesture on your part to remove it. ...</div></div>FYI, this is done. Hal's name no longer appears in any of my postings or documents on my website.

Dave

Rich R.
09-15-2008, 11:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mason King</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK everybody. Go back to your corners, pick up your stuff, go have a nice filling dinner and just relax for a day.

Speaking as the managing editor of BD, I want to make clear that this forum is for civil discussion and debate only. It doesn't matter how much you think you are right — even if your views are absolutely correct by any measure. What's important is that everyone has a chance to discuss his or her views in a safe and friendly manner. We're not going to tolerate mean-spirited discussions. So cut it out.

This isn't a room for "calling it like you see it," if that means you're attacking someone or even just describing them in an unfriendly way. You don't have that right here.

Thanks for being understanding, and for being able to keep your emotions out of your posts. </div></div>

Thank you for not allowing this forum to follow that other forum down the drain.

av84fun
09-15-2008, 12:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...The Hal 4-lines-of-aim stuff I posted many years ago was based on phone conversations I had with him back then. I know he has other systems (e.g., CTE). When I get some time this week, I will remove Hal's name from my postings.</div></div>
That would be a great gesture on your part to remove it. ...</div></div>FYI, this is done. Hal's name no longer appears in any of my postings or documents on my website.

Dave </div></div>

Huh?? There were very few objectionable remarks in this thread...although there were some whoppers! But none of them were posted by Hal.

Why send HIM into "exile"????

Regards,
Jim

BigRigTom
09-15-2008, 12:09 PM
After over a hundred responses and over 2300 views we all still miss shots! Not real sure how that is possible but.....my conclusion is:
Aiming systems obviously have a limited value based on their actual applications.

dr_dave
09-15-2008, 01:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...The Hal 4-lines-of-aim stuff I posted many years ago was based on phone conversations I had with him back then. I know he has other systems (e.g., CTE). When I get some time this week, I will remove Hal's name from my postings.</div></div>
That would be a great gesture on your part to remove it. ...</div></div>FYI, this is done. Hal's name no longer appears in any of my postings or documents on my website.</div></div>
Huh?? There were very few objectionable remarks in this thread...although there were some whoppers! But none of them were posted by Hal.

Why send HIM into "exile"????

Regards,
Jim </div></div>There were claims recently and in the past that I was misrepresenting how Hal's system actually work, so now I just use generic names for the systems I describe (e.g., "common fractional-ball aiming"), whether or not they are endorsed by specific individuals or not, and don't mention any names. That way nobody can accuse me of misrepresentation.

Regards,
Dave

av84fun
09-15-2008, 02:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BigRigTom</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After over a hundred responses and over 2300 views we all still miss shots! Not real sure how that is possible but.....my conclusion is:
Aiming systems obviously have a limited value based on their actual applications. </div></div>

You are certainly correct. IMHO aiming deserves a DISTANT second place to shape-related skills. If you can park the CB on a dime, you don't need advanced shot-making skills.

But just because no single pool-related skill can make a champion out of any players, pool skill is acquired incrementally based on acquiring advanced skills in a broad array of individual skills.

In no particular order, those skills include CB direction and speed control, route knowledge, shot-making, banking, safety play and escapes which rely on kicking, stroke mechanics, the use of english etc.

So, just because few methods of acquiring advanced skills in the above (and others I didn't include) are perfect does not mean that they should be ignored or dimissed as "voodoo" just because they don't work 100% of the time.

I use 3 different aiming methods because no 1 of them is "on" for 100% of the shots I face.

The important thing is the know the limitations of a given method and the more clear those limitations are, the better the system is.

Ghost Ball aiming, for example, has a fatal and unavoidable flaw for people whose vision/brain functions do not allow them to A) determine the correct Ghost Ball position and B)...the killer...to KEEP that fictitous object correctly in the mind's eye throughout the shooting process.

Some people CAN repeatedly place the Ghost Ball in the correct place while others think they can but miss enough to prove that they cannot.

I don't mean to get into a debate about GB aiming or any other method.

My point is to agree with you that shot-making skills and therefore aiming systems are often overrated in importance and that systems that work brilliantly within their own boundaries...like CTE...ought not to be dismissed or defamed just becasue they don't work in 100% of the cases.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
09-15-2008, 02:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Artemus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...The Hal 4-lines-of-aim stuff I posted many years ago was based on phone conversations I had with him back then. I know he has other systems (e.g., CTE). When I get some time this week, I will remove Hal's name from my postings.</div></div>
That would be a great gesture on your part to remove it. ...</div></div>FYI, this is done. Hal's name no longer appears in any of my postings or documents on my website.</div></div>
Huh?? There were very few objectionable remarks in this thread...although there were some whoppers! But none of them were posted by Hal.

Why send HIM into "exile"????

Regards,
Jim </div></div>There were claims recently and in the past that I was misrepresenting how Hal's system actually work, so now I just use generic names for the systems I describe (e.g., "common fractional-ball aiming"), whether or not they are endorsed by specific individuals or not, and don't mention any names. That way nobody can accuse me of misrepresentation.

Regards,
Dave </div></div>

I wasn't aware that you had ever described how CTE worked...in order to misrepresent it. You have expressed confusion/skepticism about whether it works or not...which is fine and healthy... but that is not misrepresentation.

Can you point me to any of your writings in which you describe the CTE system?

THANKS!

Jim

dr_dave
09-15-2008, 02:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you point me to any of your writings in which you describe the CTE system?

THANKS!

Jim </div></div>I am not aware of any writings where I refer to CTE, other than in my glossary (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/glossary.pdf). When I understand how and why CTE and Pro-One work, I will write something, but not before then.

Dave

av84fun
09-15-2008, 04:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you point me to any of your writings in which you describe the CTE system?

THANKS!

Jim </div></div>I am not aware of any writings where I refer to CTE, other than in my glossary (http://billiards.colostate.edu/resources/glossary.pdf). When I understand how and why CTE and Pro-One work, I will write something, but not before then.

Dave </div></div>

That's what I thought which is why I couldn't understand how you could have been accused of misrepresenting CTE such that you felt tne need to remove Hal's name from your posts and web materials.

But it is not important that I understand!! (-:

Just curious.

Thanks,
Jim