Hal Houles CTE in detail
- Thread starter mohrt
- Start date
It seems to me that involving the word "feel" when discussing CTE seems to bring the worst out in everyone. If the word "feel" brings arguments that add nothing to the bottom line of the discussion, why even go there?
This is the bottom line: By aiming with CTE, the results gained by the effort put in far exceed anything I got from shooting at invisible points and invisible balls. Aiming by using objective references (centers and edges) is what I believe is the nerve center of the system. Whether "feel" is involved in one way or another is irrelevant.
Last edited:
lol I knew that one was comingjudging by his video, he is no where near figured out how to do the half ball pivot. He has to "feel" his way around to find the pocket. With enough practice the pivot becomes subconscious. Then for the conscious mind it is just a matter of execution: line up, slide in, pivot, shoot. Is there feel involved? What is feel? I don't really care to examine, define or argue it. What I know is for the effort put in, you get extremely accurate ball pocketing. The hurdle is, learning the pivot.
Monte:
To be fair to champ, that's a snooker table -- a full-size (12-footer) according to champ's previous measurements. And he's doing most of those shots on only the bottom half of the table (never ventures past the center-spot), which illustrates how important execution is, over aiming, on this size of table. I'm sure if champ were doing those shots on a barbox, he'd be nailing most (if not all) of them. Most of us can do aiming system demonstration videos all day long on a barbox pretty convincingly, but get to this size table, and that's where the rubber meets the road, as champ found out.
And btw, you keep bringing up "feel" when countering. My aiming is actually grounded on a system (or more properly termed, "method") -- called Back-of-Ball aiming. It's taught in snooker, and actually is designed to meld into the background (subconscious) very easily, because it's so intuitive and straight-forward. I don't "think" about aiming, I just do. Call that "feel"? Maybe.
-Sean
You're probably right but.....the whole "feel" issue has had people like me screaming at the screen for quite some time now. Hearing champ's point of view on this has been quite refreshing for me.
My whole take on the feel thing is - I think there are certain types of players that have a hard time letting go of their conscious aiming techniques. I think CTE forces players to let go - so to speak. In other words, you do this....you do this....and the rest takes care of itself. In the past, these guys for whatever reason struggled with this part. Using ghost ball (or double the distance, or fractional aiming, or whatever) I'm guessing the thought process was something like this - there's the spot I need to hit.....it should be right about there.....wait.....no.....it's over a little more......wait......no it's over there a little more......oh shoot I don't see it at all now.....oh well....just shoot.
There are an infinite number of cut angles. There is not a system in the world that can account for all the different angles. So whatever system we use all it can do is get us in the right ball park, then we all have to rely on our feel (gained from experience) to make the fine adjustments necessary.
I agree we don't need another thread ruined by this subject so I won't say another word about it. I'm all for anybody using any system that makes them play better pool and enjoy the game more. That's really what it's all about.
Point taken. Another point to make, he is talking the whole time while shooting, which is just a big distraction of focus too. Instructional videos are hard to do, and so is teaching and making balls
There is a post on my blog with Spidey running 49 balls off using CTE 1/2 ball pivot for every shot, I believe it is on a 9 foot table. The system works given you have the fundamentals to back it up.As for back of the ball aiming, I have a question: is there a difference between this and what is referred to as ghost ball aiming? I watched a video on back of ball aiming and from what I understood, it was the same thing.
To me, visual intelligence is a mix of shot identification and shot recall. Shot identification brings you into the right line of the shot. You've seen this shot before, your subconscious mind picks that up and reinforces you on your execution. Is that feel? More importantly, does it matter?
Apologies for discussing an aiming system other than this thread's title
Monte:
To answer your question (bolded above), there is a difference, yes, but Back-of-ball is the logical extension of ghostball (called "dummy ball" in snooker circles -- same thing). In ghostball, you try to get the cue ball to "fill" a void that would be the cue ball's location at contact with the object ball to pocket that object ball. (This simplified description is, obviously, sans adjustments for throw, spin, etc.)
In Back-of-ball aiming, you are locating the absolute back of the ball (in-line with the pocket), flattening it to 2D (vs. 3D as is the case with ghostball), and only viewing the object ball sphere as a 2D circle, shooting the cue ball into it to "push" that 2D circle towards the pocket. You are, in essence, eclipsing the object ball by a certain amount with the cue ball, which is also fractional aiming. I guess it's a combination of ghostball (i.e. locating that contact point on the object ball that the ghostball would hit), with fractional aiming (i.e. eclipsing).
This video explains it best:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kLjSlHr38dc
(Note in snooker circles that a straight-in shot's line of aim is called "full ball" -- reflecting the "back of ball" methodology.)
Hope this helps!
-Sean
Point taken. Another point to make, he is talking the whole time while shooting, which is just a big distraction of focus too. Instructional videos are hard to do, and so is teaching and making balls
As for back of the ball aiming, I have a question: is there a difference between this and what is referred to as ghost ball aiming? I watched a video on back of ball aiming and from what I understood, it was the same thing.
Monte:
To answer your question (bolded above), there is a difference, yes, but Back-of-ball is the logical extension of ghostball (called "dummy ball" in snooker circles -- same thing). In ghostball, you try to get the cue ball to "fill" a void that would be the cue ball's location at contact with the object ball to pocket that object ball. (This simplified description is, obviously, sans adjustments for throw, spin, etc.)
In Back-of-ball aiming, you are locating the absolute back of the ball (in-line with the pocket), flattening it to 2D (vs. 3D as is the case with ghostball), and only viewing the object ball sphere as a 2D circle, shooting the cue ball into it to "push" that 2D circle towards the pocket. You are, in essence, eclipsing the object ball by a certain amount with the cue ball, which is also fractional aiming. I guess it's a combination of ghostball (i.e. locating that contact point on the object ball that the ghostball would hit), with fractional aiming (i.e. eclipsing).
This video explains it best:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kLjSlHr38dc
(Note in snooker circles that a straight-in shot's line of aim is called "full ball" -- reflecting the "back of ball" methodology.)
Hope this helps!
-Sean
TheThaiger
Banned
I think you had it right earlier, when you intimated this is largely a pool obsession.
Our snooker commentators only really use three terms when assessing how a player will make the shot - full ball, half ball and quarter ball. They'll occasionally reference the ghost ball, but it's rare and is used as an example of how to explain to a beginner the concept of potting balls.
This debate is amazingly complex to all of us from a snooker or english pool background. I simply don't understand a word of it, yet miss most through 1. hitting the cue ball badly, 2. choking, 3. lack of concentration.
Aiming is a big fat non issue.
Shots to the Right
Morht, if possible could you make another video showing shots to the right.
I'm really looking at trying to see where your putting your bridge hand. And I'd like to see how the left side pivot is lined up when cutting to the right.
Thanks.......................
Morht, if possible could you make another video showing shots to the right.
I'm really looking at trying to see where your putting your bridge hand. And I'd like to see how the left side pivot is lined up when cutting to the right.
Thanks.......................
There are an infinite number of positions the CB and OB can be on the table if measured in the smallest amounts possible, however there is a FINITE number of cut angles within those positions which a ball can either be made or not made. Those cut angles are a hair off from
0 degrees (which would be straight in) to 90 degrees (more realistically 87 or 88 degrees). They don't have to be measured in 1/4 or 1/2 degrees because there is a decent margin for error based on the size of the pocket which is twice as large as the OB (or sometimes more than that).
In other words, if you wanted to measure angles alone there would be about 88. But since there is a margin for error, Joe Tucker's contact point aiming system has 9 contact points which will make those 88 degree angled shots into the pocket.
I haven't sweated degrees forever. I've long been tired of aiming threads (as many others have as well); however, pivoting to center ball from an offset (from CTEL) position makes a HUGE range of shots with zero adjustment. There isn't a traditional cut shot (that isn't some berserk cut or super close shot) that can't be made with a standard CTE procedure. I think Dr. Dave said some shots can't be made----- post one that won't and let's go from there.
Anyways, pool isn't an infinite game (or anywhere close to such) when it comes to ball pocketing alone (and that's the subject of these aiming threads). Ball pocketing is very, very finite. Those who think ball pocketing is infinite could spend their entire lives not improving because they think it can't be structured... but it can (and is).
Dave
True, one does not need to be able to cut a ball at an infinite number of angles to pocket all shots. Pocket slop helps substantially. But you are still underestimating what is needed, Dave. Joe Tucker's system is a discrete system, i.e., it is not continuous. It is an approximation system and, if performed robotically, would not pocket all shots.
Dr. Dave's website has a table from Patrick Johnson that shows how many cut angles are needed to make all shots up to 45 degrees for various distances from OB to pocket for various sized pockets. It's more than you seem to think. Take a look: http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#limited
My point is aiming isn't infinite and I mentioned Joe's system just as an example.
I can make nearly any cut shot with the same cte procedure. It is what it is.
Good luck w/ the thread, though. I have no desire to debate the issue further.
Yes I'll do that when I get a chance. Right cuts don't work any different, you line up and slide in as usual. One snafu I had when working this system out concerning right cuts: I am strong left eye dominant, so I need to use my left eye to line things up. Since the secondary reference line is on the right, I need to stand back from the shot a bit more to see it with my left eye correctly.
The video explains the concept of Back of Ball aiming. Thanks.
Last edited:
Shhh, your going to upset the evangelists.
No trolling please, let's stay on topic. thanks.