Why CTE is silly

Status
Not open for further replies.
Roger Long said:
I think it should be noted that Ghost Ball, or any other aiming method, could be inserted where this says "Center-to-Edge," and the quote would be just as true.

Roger
Click to expand...

Roger, A ghost ball is invisible. There is nothing objective about a ghost ball.

Hal had more information than "Just see CTE and whack it!" I thought that I had made that clear in my post.

CTE is superior to Ghost Ball because CTE has exact visuals and precise physical movements that take the shooter to a proper aim.

It's plain and simple, I guess with ghost ball and not with CTE.

Stan
 
GetMeThere said:
I agree. But the issue here is much simpler and more objective: Does CTE ACTUALLY produce an aiming solution for shots? There, the question isn't about human performance, but about simple geometry. And the question DESERVES an answer--which has NOT been forthcoming throughout all the years of bickering.

After a point, it really does become necessary to ask WHY.



I personally would enjoy nothing more than seeing that happen. Such a story resonates STRONGLY with me personally.

But it won't happen by obfuscation and slippery argument. If the guy had something, it should be possible to lay it out and see what's good about it.

Others here, much more experienced than I with this very long argument--and with pool and pool instruction in general--report having been UNABLE to see the gem in Hal's work after giving it an open hearing.

How about if we start with a SIMPLE observation and assertion: I have found explicit statements in Hal's work (and no contradiction from recent interpreters) that knowing where the pocket is has NO VALUE WHATSOEVER to coming up with a pocketing solution; that it's only necessary to deal with the CB and OB. That seems ridiculous to me on it's face.

Can you offer, first, confirmation that knowing where the pocket is has no importance in CTE (barring the simple need to know whether to hit the OB to the left or the right), and second, an explanation of how one can calculate where to hit an OB to send it to the pocket, if the relative positions of OB and pocket are unknown?**

**I'm aware you have a DVD coming that, hopefully, would answer those questions. But answering them here wouldn't give away the whole can of beans. If you WERE to answer then convincingly right now, right here, I think there's a good chance that your DVD sales might actually SOAR in response--and you would find that nothing would be given away so that people wouldn't feel the need to purchase.

Heck, if you can explain here how balls are pocketed without needing to know where the pocket is, I'll but TWO!
Click to expand...

Getmethere, It is important to know where the pocket is located on a table. I do not think that I have ever made that statement and if I did I was wrong. Having said that, I can pocket balls without much conscious awareness if any concerning the pocket.

I have been in a fast-forward mode for the past few months to bring this information to the public. I do apologize if it seems that I am not moving forward quickly enough. Putting together a DVD production is quite a process and it's my first one. All in all, I think that I am doing very well with my timeline.

Stan
 
lfigueroa said:
FWIW, I've been reading the groups for a lonnnng time and I don't believe GMT is a previously banned agent. His style is too distinctive. He does, however, remind me a little bit of a poster that frequented RSB many moons ago, but he ain't him either.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

I guess he reminds me of Tony M. or John W. Or a combination. The logic of Matthews and the relentlessness of Walkup. The relentlessness makes the uncompromising logic easy for me to just take a pass. The combination might be new, but the arguments are not. IMO, GMT adds nothing to the (tiring but in fruitful) discussions we've had over the years, as much as might believe he's saying something we've never heard before.

Fred
 
stan shuffett said:
Roger, A ghost ball is invisible. There is nothing objective about a ghost ball.

Hal had more information than "Just see CTE and whack it!" I thought that I had made that clear in my post.

CTE is superior to Ghost Ball because CTE has exact visuals and precise physical movements that take the shooter to a proper aim.

It's plain and simple, I guess with ghost ball and not with CTE.

Stan
Click to expand...

Actually Stan, and with all due respect, ghost ball aiming can be and has been utilized by many top professionals (past and present) , many with outstanding results. I'd be willing to bet that if you polled the top 100 players in the world, a good percentage of them would say they learned aiming by using the "ghost ball" method and now shoot (through countless hours of practice) by feel. A ghost ball CAN be visuallized by some. My brain has the ability to see it and I'm quite sure that I am not the only player on this planet to be able to do that. Any, and I mean ANY aiming system depends on the ability to see an angle, or a line, or even a ball that is not physically there. Your brain can either figure it out or it can't.

Maniac
 
stan shuffett said:
Getmethere, It is important to know where the pocket is located on a table. I do not think that I have ever made that statement and if I did I was wrong.
Click to expand...

That strikes me as somewhat avoiding the DIRECT question:

So I'm gong to press you: Is the precise position of the pocket relative to the OB a DEFINITIVE PART of the Pro one/CTE aiming process? Is a line drawn from pocket to OB part of the CTE method of lines, centers, edges, and pivots?

If it is not (and I'll repeat, the information that is out there suggests it isn't), then it's the duty of SOME CTE advocate to explain, geometrically, how CTE could then be used to send balls to said pocket...
 
Maniac said:
Actually Stan, and with all due respect, ghost ball aiming can be and has been utilized by many top professionals (past and present) , many with outstanding results. I'd be willing to bet that if you polled the top 100 players in the world, a good percentage of them would say they learned aiming by using the "ghost ball" method and now shoot (through countless hours of practice) by feel. A ghost ball CAN be visuallized by some. My brain has the ability to see it and I'm quite sure that I am not the only player on this planet to be able to do that. Any, and I mean ANY aiming system depends on the ability to see an angle, or a line, or even a ball that is not physically there. Your brain can either figure it out or it can't.

Maniac
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with the fact that many pros are actually using ghost ball. A professional player's aim is refined over time through repetition. A perception develops......No doubt that along the way many pros have used ghost ball and the quarters to some degree and other aiming systems as well but it ultimately becomes perception and that perception has for the most part has been difficult to explain.

Hal's system is perception based.....and a player does not have to wait years to get it.

Stan
 
Last edited:
stan shuffett said:
Roger, A ghost ball is invisible. There is nothing objective about a ghost ball.

Hal had more information than "Just see CTE and whack it!" I thought that I had made that clear in my post.

CTE is superior to Ghost Ball because CTE has exact visuals and precise physical movements that take the shooter to a proper aim.

It's plain and simple, I guess with ghost ball and not with CTE.

Stan
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even attempt to argue that with you, Stan. What you say about CTE's "exact visuals and precise physical movements" may be entirely correct.

But my point was this: Whether you can visually see alignment points or just "see" them in your mind, and whether you consciously or subconsciously align your body parts; "if the ball went in then you did it right." The particular name you put on your method doesn't change anything.

Hal exaggerated the simplicity of his own system with statements like that, and I believe that is where all this strife started.

Roger
 
stan shuffett said:
Roger, A ghost ball is invisible. There is nothing objective about a ghost ball.

Hal had more information than "Just see CTE and whack it!" I thought that I had made that clear in my post.

CTE is superior to Ghost Ball because CTE has exact visuals and precise physical movements that take the shooter to a proper aim.

It's plain and simple, I guess with ghost ball and not with CTE.

Stan
Click to expand...

Stan:

I'm trying to stay out of this thread, because I like to take the high road when it comes to intelligent discussion -- respect for the individual, but if I have an issue with an IDEA or WHAT IS SAID, I won't hesitate to call it out for the purposes of discussion/elaboration. I hadn't liked where this thread was going, hence why I stayed out of it.

Concerning the two things I've bolded in your post above, I want to point out a few very important things:

1. Pool, as you've inferred, is partly a game of visualization, and most assuredly of execution. The word "visualization" itself, in the visualization part, is key. Part of the visualization includes the sighting and aiming of a shot. This includes the ghostball itself, for those that use (and are successful) with this technique.

2. I'm an Open-level player, and ever since I first picked up a cue as a child, I was able to "see" that ghostball clear as day. John Barton likes to use the term "savant" when it comes to my described ability to see the ghostball. In fact, I offer a challenge to you (and others, who would like to take it up as well) if we meet in person: you and I can stand table side, face-to-face, my eyes looking into yours (and vice-versa) -- our gaze "locked." I can subsequently, without moving my eyes, place the tip of my cue in the center of the ghostball position behind the object ball, with that ghostball's center lined up to pocket that object ball, plus or minus a degree -- all without moving my eyes, and all using my peripheral vision. I'll then carefully lay the butt of the cue down on the table, to keep the tip of the cue position on that ghostball center. You can stay focused on my eyes, to make sure my eyes don't move, and then after I lay the butt of the cue down on the table, we can then both break our gaze and walk over to the shot to check my work. I'm very, very rarely significantly "off" such that shooting the cue ball onto that spot does not pocket the object ball.

Am I gifted with this ability? Or have I worked long and hard to acquire this ability? That's hard to say. I like to think I worked to get this ability. For sure, my ability to "perceive" comes from the years of sketching and drawing I did (some even submitted to comic books like D.C. and Marvel back in the day -- not sketched copies of someone else's work, but original stuff drawn straight out of thin air). That also was a practiced skill -- it got better and better with time and practice. And that's the beauty of the human mind -- the ability to perceive things that, in reality, are not there. Accordingly, the shot line (to pocket an object ball) is "not there," but you "see" it, don't you?

I think the problem with all the skepticism surrounding any pivot aiming system is the lack of trust people have for their subconscious mind (a massive storehouse of "execution" knowledge), as well as to the focused dedication to practice in "seeing" all aspects of the shot -- including that ghostball. People want a placebo, or something that they can [mis]place their trust in or divert their attention to. Pool is best played when one is "in the zone," running purely on the subconscious mind's fuel. When you see a player like a Ronnie O'Sullivan, an Earl Strickland (when he's focused to play, and not on the things going around him) or a Tony Drago running around the table, pocketing balls effortlessly, it's not only enjoyable to the people watching, but to the player him/herself. Playing pool (and especially more accurate games like snooker, ball-pocketing-precision-wise) are not played well when the player is trying to force him/herself to use the conscious/analytical mind "all the time."

I have a motto I like to use to describe what's happening when I'm in the zone: "See ghostball, shoot ghostball squarely in the face, right between the eyes." Something like those whack-a-mole games, except I'm shooting the mole in the face, not whacking him on top of the head.

Also, another thought -- while many folks have a problem visualizing something that's not there (i.e. the ghostball), others may not be able to see the "center" of something. Stan, I'm sure as an instructor, you've run across quite a few students who continually hit the cue ball off-center, or who continue to miss certain cut shots the very same way, every time (i.e. they overcut it everytime, or they undercut it everytime). These are perception errors -- they're not seeing the "center" of the object properly. These are visual errors that *can* be diagnosed and worked out of someone's game. But in many instances -- as well-written about here in this thread -- some will think it's better to just aim at something they *can* easily see, which are the edges of the ball, and merely pivot a certain amount to get them into "center." In rifle shooting, this is roughly analogous to someone who can't see the fatal (points-scoring) center heart-shot on a human silhouette rifle target. So what he/she does instead, is to aim at the very edge of the human silhouette's shoulder, pivot inwards "x" amount (to artificially [blindly?] place him/her in the heart-shot area), and pull the trigger.

Is this "bad"? No. If folks reading my post come away with one thing, the one thing that I want them to come away with is that I believe you do what you have to do to get that fatal (or points-scoring) center heart-shot. If you can't perceive the center of something, or if you find it's easier to aim at the edge of something, that *is* what you have to do to get the job done.

What I do think is bad, is over-analyzing, or "paralysis through analysis." You should be able to get yourself to the point where you can just step into/onto the shot line, get down, and execute the shot. Aiming is NOT something you should have to think about, nor is it something you should even be considering when you're already down on the shot. You should already *be* there. If you have to "think" about aiming, you've already missed the shot -- if not the one you're currently down on, then a subsequent one.

I hope this is helpful,
-Sean
 
Last edited:
GetMeThere said:
...the one thing you've swallowed, hook, line, and sinker is the "phenomenon" of people being helped by CTE in spite of itself/themselves.

...

The proof for such a CTE "epiphenomenon" is essentially non-existent, as far as I can tell. Yet you and Dr. Dave seem to feel it's the ONE THING which must be acknowledged without question about CTE.
Click to expand...
So your theory is that the players who have used CTE over the years and reported that it has helped them are all deluded, and you know better because you've read about it on AzB for a few weeks (but still don't seem to know that it's not the 3-angle system)?

Have you hoodwinked yourselves?
Click to expand...
I haven't hoodwinked myself to believe that I know better than everybody else what they have and haven't experienced.

pj
chgo
 
sfleinen said:
Stan:

I'm trying to stay out of this thread, because I like to take the high road when it comes to intelligent discussion -- respect for the individual, but if I have an issue with an IDEA or WHAT IS SAID, I won't hesitate to call it out for the purposes of discussion/elaboration. I hadn't liked where this thread was going, hence why I stayed out of it.

Concerning the two things I've bolded in your post above, I want to point out a few very important things:

1. Pool, as you've inferred, is partly a game of visualization, and most assuredly of execution. The word "visualization" itself, in the visualization part, is key. Part of the visualization includes the sighting and aiming of a shot. This includes the ghostball itself, for those that use (and are successful) with this technique.

2. I'm an Open-level player, and ever since I first picked up a cue as a child, I was able to "see" that ghostball clear as day. John Barton likes to use the term "savant" when it comes to my described ability to see the ghostball. In fact, I offer a challenge to you (and others, who would like to take it up as well) if we meet in person: you and I can stand table side, face-to-face, my eyes looking into yours (and vice-versa) -- our gaze "locked." I can subsequently, without moving my eyes, place the tip of my cue in the center of the ghostball position behind the cue ball, with that ghostball's center lined up to pocket an object ball, plus or minus a degree -- all without moving my eyes, and all using my peripheral vision. I'll then carefully lay the butt of the cue down on the table, to keep the tip of the cue position on that ghostball center. You can stay focused on my eyes, to make sure my eyes don't move, and then after I lay the butt of the cue down on the table, we can then both break our gaze and walk over to the shot to check my work. I'm very, very rarely significantly "off" such that shooting the cue ball onto that spot does not pocket the object ball.

Am I gifted with this ability? Or have I worked long and hard to acquire this ability? That's hard to say. I like to think I worked to get this ability. For sure, my ability to "perceive" comes from the years of sketching and drawing I did (some even submitted to comic books like D.C. and Marvel back in the day -- not sketched copies of someone else's work, but original stuff drawn straight out of thin air). That also was a practiced skill -- it got better and better with time and practice. And that's the beauty of the human mind -- the ability to perceive things that, in reality, are not there. Accordingly, the shot line (to pocket an object ball) is "not there," but you "see" it, don't you?

I think the problem with all the skepticism surrounding any pivot aiming system is the lack of trust people have for their subconscious mind (a massive storehouse of "execution" knowledge), as well as to the focused dedication to practice in "seeing" all aspects of the shot -- including that ghostball. People want a placebo, or something that they can [mis]place their trust in or divert their attention to. Pool is best played when one is "in the zone," running purely on the subconscious mind's fuel. When you see a player like a Ronnie O'Sullivan, an Earl Strickland (when he's focused to play, and not on the things going around him) or a Tony Drago running around the table, pocketing balls effortlessly, it's not only enjoyable to the people watching, but to the player him/herself. Playing pool (and especially more accurate games like snooker, ball-pocketing-precision-wise) are not played well when the player is trying to force him/herself to use the conscious/analytical mind "all the time."

I have a motto I like to use to describe what's happening when I'm in the zone: "See ghostball, shoot ghostball squarely in the face, right between the eyes." Something like those whack-a-mole games, except I'm shooting the mole in the face, not whacking him on top of the head.

Also, another thought -- while many folks have a problem visualizing something that's not there (i.e. the ghostball), others may not be able to see the "center" of something. Stan, I'm sure as an instructor, you've run across quite a few students who continually hit the cue ball off-center, or who continue to miss certain cut shots the very same way, every time (i.e. they overcut it everytime, or they undercut it everytime). These are perception errors -- they're not seeing the "center" of the object properly. These are visual errors that *can* be diagnosed and worked out of someone's game. But in many instances -- as well-written about here in this thread -- some will think it's better to just aim at something they *can* easily see, which are the edges of the ball, and merely pivot a certain amount to get them into "center." In rifle shooting, this is roughly analogous to someone who can't see the fatal (points-scoring) center heart-shot on a human silhouette rifle target. So what he/she does instead, is to aim at the very edge of the human silhouette's shoulder, pivot inwards "x" amount (to artificially [blindly?] place him/her in the heart-shot area), and pull the trigger.

Is this "bad"? No. If folks reading my post come away with one thing, the one thing that I want them to come away with is that I believe you do what you have to do to get that fatal (or points-scoring) center heart-shot. If you can't perceive the center of something, or if you find it's easier to aim at the edge of something, that *is* what you have to do to get the job done.

What I do think is bad, is over-analyzing, or "paralysis through analysis." You should be able to get yourself to the point where you can just step into/onto the shot line, get down, and execute the shot. Aiming is NOT something you should have to think about, nor is it something you should even be considering when you're already down on the shot. You should already *be* there. If you have to "think" about aiming, you've already missed the shot -- if not the one you're currently down on, then a subsequent one.

I hope this is helpful,
-Sean
Click to expand...

Absolutely an excellent post! Your visual intelligence is serving you quite well.

Ultimately CTE accomplishes the same thing, a perception, an objective perception that is as effortless as your ghost ball snapshot.
The pivot becomes a natural physical extention of perception. Pivoting in PRO ONE is as natural as most any pro player's movement to center cue ball. In Basic CTE that's another story. Pivoting is manual. I present Basic CTE in the 1st ten chapters of my DVD and that is my Foundation for PRO ONE that occurs in the subsequent chapters.

Stan
 
Patrick Johnson said:
So your theory is that the players who have used CTE over the years and reported that it has helped them are all deluded, and you know better because you've read about it on AzB for a few weeks (but still don't seem to know that it's not the 3-angle system)?
Click to expand...

I don't have a theory, because I'm not sure there's an important and consistent phenomenon that needs theorizing. You are sure. What's your evidence (other than anecdote)?

In my fuller explication (which you apparently refuse to read), I made two points I think are relevant: 1) How do we know that "a few" people making claims on a forum are representative of the larger group--that we haven't heard from (especially on such a subjective matter). 2) What about those with an OPPOSITE experience? In fact, many people who may have felt badly about an experience with CTE could be RELUCTANT to say much--for many reasons. They might need to DENY it. They might feel stupid for not "getting it" when others "have." They might not want to challenge authority. They might not want to criticize instructors who have otherwise been "nice" to them. They might have a TERRIBLE guilt about wasting money on instruction, that could have been better spent on practice.

So far, the only thing that's relatively certain and easy to know is that CTE LACKS a meaningful geometric basis for it's claims. So the ONE THING we know is a BIG ONE in the con column. Anything in the pro column appears speculative, at best, to my eye.

Patrick Johnson said:
I haven't hoodwinked myself to believe that I know better than everybody else what they have and haven't experienced.
Click to expand...

What I "know," based on a lot of experience and work, is that actual facts are often NOT AS EASY TO COME BY as many seem ready to assume; especially facts regarding human experience and subjective assessment of performance.

I linked before (in, I think, the "backstroke pause" thread of late) to an article about current, state-of-the-art medical research, which has recently been well characterized (and accepted by the medical community) as...lacking in objectivity. IOW, many people whose ENTIRE, HARD-EARNED CAREERS are involved with doing everything possible to get accurate answers about the EFFECTS OF THINGS ON PEOPLE, lately have had to admit significant shortcomings in their very APPROACH to information, and what "facts" are and how they can be acquired.

The article (and it picks up steam--the best parts are as you near the end, IMO) is well worth reading to get an overview of the cognitive problems of knowing "facts" about people's experiences. Here's a link.
 
Last edited:
stan shuffett said:
dr_dave said:
FYI, there was an article in on the topic in the July, 1995 issue of Pool and Billiards magazine. Ghost-ball does seem to a common visualization tool for some pros.
Click to expand...
I'd say very, very few are ACTUALLY using ghost ball. I'd say that most pros cannot explain exactly what they are using.
Click to expand...
I think "just seeing the angle" and "aiming by feel" are really forms of "ghost ball." In that case, most (if not all) of the pros use "ghost ball." I think very few (if any) actually use align-and-pivot systems like CTE or 90/90. I still haven't seen the details of Pro-One, so I can't comment on that yet (until I see your DVD, which I look forward to).

Regards,
Dave
 
sfleinen said:
I'm trying to stay out of this thread, because I like to take the high road...
Click to expand...

A great post, that supports the idea that the ghost ball (the geometrically most direct way of aiming) plus mindful practice is a clear, pure path to improved shot making.

I especially like your reference to Earl and Ronnie--who are often the target of criticism: What I want in MY head regarding shot making is what they have in THEIRS. They are obviously the strongest "natural" players (another one, IMO, is Rodney Morris).

I also agree wholeheartedly (and which fundamentally underlies my purpose in this thread): Pool is about training the mind; and it's NOT about finding a "technique panacea." "Systems" are not a substitute for careful, mindful practice.
 
dr_dave said:
FYI, there was an article in on the topic in the July, 1995 issue of Pool and Billiards magazine. Ghost-ball does seem to a common visualization tool for some pros.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

I get tired of that article. The best players interviewed say they aim by feel or a "spot on the ball." Geez, Rempe says he shoots straight at the contact point (good luck with that one, folks).

I mean come on folks... you guys even READING this article closely??

Nesli O'Hare says, "Efren taught her that there are only 3 kinds of hits to the OB (hmmm, sounds familiar);" yet, when they interviewed Efren, he acted like he no-speaka-no-english and said he spins the cb and aims straight at the contact point. I'm not a sucker, so I'll say that's horseshit.

Someone is lying, and I don't think it's the lady.

Anyways - keep using that article as a reference so we further confuse ourselves. Keep shooting straight at contact points.... just like EFREN. sigggggggggggh :(

Dave
 
Last edited:
stan shuffett said:
I'd say very, very few are ACTUALLY using ghost ball. I'd say that most pros cannot explain exactly what they are using.

Stan
Click to expand...

There's a statement I can heartily agree with!

I personally believe that ghost ball is probably the method that most beginners pick up on the quickest, but after a while they are not visualizing any ghost balls at all - they are just shooting pool.

I also believe that CTE is probably no different from ghost ball, in that respect.

Roger
 
I haven't really followed any of the CTE threads nor have I tried to understand the basis of CTE. I've only read the the last few posts on this thread but just wanted to express my experience with taking lessons from Stan this week. I have played the game for several years and decided to visit Stan on my way back from playing in the US Open. I'm an amateur player and had the opportunity to go to the Open and decided to play. It's the first time that I've been to the Open and it was a great experience.

I took Stan's foundation course which covered a lot of information. It provided myself with much needed feedback from an experienced instructor. Time will tell if or how much my game will improve but I think it was worth the investment of time and money. I decided to learn the Pro One aiming system with an open mind and to apply it through out the lesson to make sure that I understood the concepts. I learned to play basically via trial and error. If I had to name a system that I used then it would probably be the ghost ball method. But basically, I would get down to the shot and "know" where to aim based from experience. I've always been a pretty good shot maker and that's one of the reasons I never really was interested in learning CTE or other aiming methods.

During the lesson, Stan showed me the basic CTE method with the pivot and his own Pro One that had a different way of pivoting. I listened and gained a pretty good grasp of CTE and Pro One. In my unbiased view, CTE and Pro One has merit. Using the visual points and pivots will put the player in the right position to make the shot. I strictly used the CTE/Pro One aiming system throughout out the 2 day lessons. The aiming system seems to work. There are a few issues such as when cuts become very thin and that the aiming system seems to take some cognitive thinking when lining up the shot. Stan was still thinking about aiming when he was shooting. Adjustments can be made to compensate for thin cuts and English. Just learning the system, I haven't really had a chance to use it or incorporate it in my game.

My review of CTE/Pro One is this. The system has merit. It is repeatable and does put the player in a position to make shots. Is it the Holy Grail of aiming? I'm not ready to give it that title either. I see it as another tool in my arsenal of playing better. Stan strictly uses Pro One in his game and advocates it's use 100% of the time in aiming. It will take time and some experience before I make that leap but I do see some immediate practical application to my game. There are certain shots that I don't "see" very well from experience and using Pro One in those instances can give me another tool to see the shot in a different perspective.

I highly advise anyone seeking instruction to visit Stan. I enjoyed learning from him and will use many of his suggestions in improving my game.

Darryl
 
Last edited:
Roger Long said:
There's a statement I can heartily agree with!

I personally believe that ghost ball is probably the method that most beginners pick up on the quickest, but after a while they are not visualizing any ghost balls at all - they are just shooting pool.

I also believe that CTE is probably no different from ghost ball, in that respect.

Roger
Click to expand...

At the heart of CTE is an objective perception that occurs for all CTE shots. That perception is KEY and is never abandoned. It is natural and efffortless once learned through repetition. That visual alignment happens for every CTE shot, allowing the shooter to have a constant visual perspective from which to use one of 2 moves to center cue ball.

To abandon this objective perception would diminish the effectiveness of CTE altogether.

Stan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top