Aim thread thought

Rackattach · Nov 4, 2017

I think the reason many people get concerned or question CTE is they somehow think it's classified as an "aiming system"

An "aiming system" is typically a "hard" or "precise" set of factual methodology

CTE - In my opinion is a "visual Alignment system" that's designed as a "way to play" to "SEE" the shot and NOT at all an aiming system

I think people need to understand that CTE is a way to align your vision center to a precise and repeatable location for a given shot.

The "Poolology" system, "ghostball" and other "hard fractional" systems are "Aiming systems"

Yes, I have read all of the above, understand and even use some of it daily.

I just feel like the "classification" is not correct and forgive me if I'm Way the frig off but I think that's the core of the issue.

Neil · Nov 4, 2017

An aiming system gives one the steps to follow to get to the shot line. CTE does that in spades. All aiming systems are visual.

paultex · Nov 4, 2017

Neil said:
An aiming system gives one the steps to follow to get to the shot line. CTE does that in spades. All aiming systems are visual.

I agree, therefore everything is a method. But what Stan says is CTE pro1 is a method of truth to the reality of sphere to sphere collision. It's a 3 dimensional game, therefore a 3 dimensional type method is needed and since there is a geometric connection in thirds, representing right angles of 15,30, and 45, there is a connection to those truths that his method finds or acts as a truer starting or reference point based on instructions of how to manipulate the connection from the human element.

I believe Stan because he's adamant about it and is very disciplined in system orientation. The proof to me is his recent fraction video. There are certain shot positions where the table skews your alignment and you lose the overlap visually and that's where many put a band aid on it, but Stan stays very disciplined in aproach and shifts his vision to retain the overlap because that's the point......its a fractional system.

As soon as a player puts a band aid on a system, then that person is not truly operating it correctly and cannot be considered expert in the system itself. This gives Mr Shuffett the right to be a authority on such matters and if he says it has gaps, IT HAS GAPS. It's simply not a complete system, therefore flawed and Stan imo is right to criticize it and dump it since he has a more complete offer.

I understand his point. I understand the other side's point as well and since there is inherent physics and human element, the main point is pool and it's difficulty is a very involved endeavor that is 100% quantifiable but unreasonably so in which its a mile long in factors when considering all the possibilities.

BC21 · Nov 5, 2017

paultex said:
I agree, therefore everything is a method. But what Stan says is CTE pro1 is a method of truth to the reality of sphere to sphere collision. It's a 3 dimensional game, therefore a 3 dimensional type method is needed and since there is a geometric connection in thirds, representing right angles of 15,30, and 45, there is a connection to those truths that his method finds or acts as a truer starting or reference point based on instructions of how to manipulate the connection from the human element.

I believe Stan because he's adamant about it and is very disciplined in system orientation. The proof to me is his recent fraction video. There are certain shot positions where the table skews your alignment and you lose the overlap visually and that's where many put a band aid on it, but Stan stays very disciplined in aproach and shifts his vision to retain the overlap because that's the point......its a fractional system.

As soon as a player puts a band aid on a system, then that person is not truly operating it correctly and cannot be considered expert in the system itself. This gives Mr Shuffett the right to be a authority on such matters and if he says it has gaps, IT HAS GAPS. It's simply not a complete system, therefore flawed and Stan imo is right to criticize it and dump it since he has a more complete offer.

I understand his point. I understand the other side's point as well and since there is inherent physics and human element, the main point is pool and it's difficulty is a very involved endeavor that is 100% quantifiable but unreasonably so in which its a mile long in factors when considering all the possibilities.

Can you explain what parts of the sphere are actually used in CTE? In getting the visuals, are the A B C and edge points located on the upper or lower portion of the sphere? When addressing CCB, is that CCB focal point located on the upper or lower portion of the sphere?

cookie man · Nov 5, 2017

BC21 said:
Can you explain what parts of the sphere are actually used in CTE? In getting the visuals, are the A B C and edge points located on the upper or lower portion of the sphere? When addressing CCB, is that CCB focal point located on the upper or lower portion of the sphere?

After 2 months of constantly asking questions you don't even know this much, or are you just baiting

BC21 · Nov 5, 2017

cookie man said:
After 2 months of constantly asking questions you don't even know this much, or are you just baiting

I'm just curious. I hear this whole "aiming with spheres" terminology, yet I don't see it. So I'd like to know if there is a part of the ob sphere, other than the equator, that is used for aiming, and not just with CTE, but with any aiming method. If there is some great benefit or mystery to sphere aiming, rather than just aiming at spots on circles (the equators of the balls), I would like to be enlightened.

Every single aiming reference in almost every aiming method, excluding GB and shadow aiming, utilizes the most outer surface of the balls, the equator.....a circle. So with all this talk of aiming with spheres, I'd like a good example of exactly what it means. As I've said many times, and Stan has admitted to in a post not long ago, CTE or fractions or any aiming method (except shadows) can be performed on hockey pucks or non-spherical objects. This prompts me to question the whole concept of mysterious sphere aiming. What does it mean?

paultex · Nov 5, 2017

BC21 said:
Can you explain what parts of the sphere are actually used in CTE? In getting the visuals, are the A B C and edge points located on the upper or lower portion of the sphere? When addressing CCB, is that CCB focal point located on the upper or lower portion of the sphere?

I see your point because Stan in one of his videos, while perceiving the visual, stated about "standing tall".

So I guess it's relative to height, therefore, im not sure what would change in the edges if you are standing in the suggested or ideal position.

In other words, should the height relationship of the two spheres, ideally be a half ball higher in while picking up the edge to A etc?

So obviously you don't stand so close or tall that you can't line up the edges but the edge diameters don't change and neither does the visual line, so with peripheral vision, I assume a person could judge correctly over time, the correct visual even if standing too tall or close to the cb

Good question.

LAMas · Nov 12, 2017

BC21 said:
I'm just curious. I hear this whole "aiming with spheres" terminology, yet I don't see it. So I'd like to know if there is a part of the ob sphere, other than the equator, that is used for aiming, and not just with CTE, but with any aiming method. If there is some great benefit or mystery to sphere aiming, rather than just aiming at spots on circles (the equators of the balls), I would like to be enlightened.

Every single aiming reference in almost every aiming method, excluding GB and shadow aiming, utilizes the most outer surface of the balls, the equator.....a circle. So with all this talk of aiming with spheres, I'd like a good example of exactly what it means. As I've said many times, and Stan has admitted to in a post not long ago, CTE or fractions or any aiming method (except shadows) can be performed on hockey pucks or non-spherical objects. This prompts me to question the whole concept of mysterious sphere aiming. What does it mean?

I see vertical lines from the contact points about the sphere's equator to start aiming - doubling the distance or CP2CP.

BC21 · Nov 12, 2017

LAMas said:
I see vertical lines from the contact points about the sphere's equator to start aiming - doubling the distance or CP2CP.

View attachment 475643

Yes.....exactly how I see it, vertical slices that stem from the equator of the OB. Any circular object would work as far as aiming goes.

greyghost · Nov 15, 2017

paultex said:
I see your point because Stan in one of his videos, while perceiving the visual, stated about "standing tall".

So I guess it's relative to height, therefore, im not sure what would change in the edges if you are standing in the suggested or ideal position.

In other words, should the height relationship of the two spheres, ideally be a half ball higher in while picking up the edge to A etc?

So obviously you don't stand so close or tall that you can't line up the edges but the edge diameters don't change and neither does the visual line, so with peripheral vision, I assume a person could judge correctly over time, the correct visual even if standing too tall or close to the cb

Good question.

The perceived shadow exiting the ball changes.....it rises up as your head does and vice versa. I mentioned this here many years ago when first explaining my shadow method

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aim thread thought

Rackattach

Banned

Neil

AzB Silver Member

paultex

AzB Silver Member

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

cookie man

AzB Silver Member

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

paultex

AzB Silver Member

LAMas

AzB Silver Member

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

greyghost

Coast to Coast