Is It CTE or ETC? It Doesn't Matter

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
In the book "Aiming On The Cutting Edge" written by Todd Leveck, (Great, Great book, btw) he highlights a very high number of
different aiming systems and goes into great detail on what to SEE and how to execute them. Some you've heard of...many you've never heard of...but there are still others that are out there and not in the book. The book has 574 pages and is just a wee bit smaller in length and width than "Center Pocket Music" by Stan's 429 pages. I've never heard anyone whine and complain about the size and number of pages in the Leveck book as has been done with the 429 page one by Stan. But then again, everything associated with Hal and Stan gives reason to whine, bitch, moan, and cry even for their existence on Earth from a certain segment of the pool playing population which is minute to begin with and always has been.

Each aiming system has a different way of visualizing the CB/OB orientation to the pocket and using the imagination to see something that's
NOT there to assist linking the CB to the OB to the pocket. An example of this would be contact points or fractions. The only time I've ever seen something showing VISIBLE contact points is the Joe Tucker training balls for the OB and CB. But they aren't allowed to be used in actual play. You have to revert back to IMAGINATION.

Fractions can be and are done very nicely with 2D drawings. Mathematically and geometrically, it makes a lot of sense on paper up to a point which is "real life" when you have to start using the imagination for the fractions in outer space as well as the fact that neither ball has markings on it to use for learning and training purposes. Fractions, like contact points are approximately between 2.5-3mm between each one. This is NOT the easiest thing to be imagining, especially if the eyes and body are a hair off in the alignment process to begin with. You end up with an incorrect link and missing the shot and that's even with a perfect stroke which very few amateurs have to begin with. But before you take the shot, bells, whistles, and horns start going off in the head like a submarine dive horn that creates self-doubt calling for a correction and that is all called FEEL TO THE RESCUE with visual and manual manipulations to CORRECT what looks off. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
So, what can be done to get it right from the start every time?

For some players, their head and eyes can go from side to side or up and down like a lizard to home in on the two imaginary marks on the OB and CB to get that perfect link on the cut angle to pocket the ball regardless of the aiming method.

But there is ONE ASPECT of each of them that is NEVER acknowledged or discussed for each of them when the PERFECT alignment has been achieved and I don't care WHAT the aiming method is. Right before you're ready to pull the cue back for practice strokes and then the real
stroke is...WHERE IS THE EDGE OF THE CB and CENTER of the CB in relation to the OB? CHECK IT OUT...LOOK AT IT.

On a dead straight in shot the CB edges are dead aligned to the OB edges and the center of the CB is dead aligned to the center of the OB.
Most importantly IT'S ALL CLEARLY VISIBLE. NO IMAGINATION.

If you have a minor or medium cut to the left or right after doing ALL of the imagining for the two contact points, fractions, or whatever else before pulling the trigger...look down and make note of where center cueball and cueball edge is in relation to the OB. It will have changed from the straight in shot. But they will be as clear as can be.

If you have a medium cut and major cut to the left or right after doing ALL of the imagining for the two contact points, fractions, or whatever else with head bobbing, fidgeting, adjusting the feet, etc...look at where center cueball and cueball edge is in relation to the OB.

It is there clearly seen and identifiable with its position on the OB for EVERY shot and cut angle.

I never asked Hal how he came up with centers and edges for aiming but the only thing I can think of is he saw it for himself over and over and over again regardless of the aiming system and REVERSE ENGINEERED it to eventually use it alone and get rid of all the other happy horseshit because ALL of them end up with a CENTER and EDGE in clear 3D VISION overlaid and connected to each other the same as a well-aimed on the money system of any other kind. You just don't have to work as hard to get there by imagining one tiny spot on each ball. You just go to the end result of where the center and edge WILL BE.

It isn't VOODO, MAGIC, or anything else. It's ALL right there, a CENTER and an EDGE clearly seen with ANY AND ALL AIMING SYSTEMS! Again, it's clearly visible. NO IMAGINATION! THEY DO HAVE TO BE SEEN AND USED SIMULTANEOUSLY.

He also determined how it can be affected with the stroke when aimed a certain way and adding a NEW shaft orientation to the shot line AKA PIVOT or BACKHAND ENGLISH when done dynamically. But that's for another time and another discussion.
 
Last edited:

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
ROTFLMAO! Since when does a "STICK" have a mind, eyes and physical function of its own?
This has to be one of the stupidest, most moronic posts I've ever seen on this forum since its inception!
It counters all your hype. Most people learn which direction the stick points and go on with learning what the game actually entails. People that delve deeper into the craft develop more concrete references.
I think one _should_ consider the parameters of every shot including the centers and edges but excluding the contact points and substituting cyborg cross visualization is stupid.

Player needs to know what the shot is including the stick position and how to shoot it. Contact points give you a first hand set of shot parameters.
Your method considers the 2 balls in a straight line and makes preset adjustments to the IMAGING method supposedly resulting in the perfect alignment of any shot.

Your way seems to proves over and over that it generates more complexity than is practical to apply to a match.
 

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What the heck did you just say?

randyg
Just shooting at speeder. The stick is in fact what does the shooting. Not the eyes, not the hologram in your head, the stick. IT is what has to set in line. I've always said Stan's way was a Goldberg contraption and aimed at players that need a curriculum to feel any sense of accomplishment.
 

boogieman

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
The book has 574 pages and is just a wee bit smaller in length and width than "Center Pocket Music" by Stan's 429 pages. I've never heard anyone whine and complain about the size and number of pages in the Leveck book as has been done with the 429 page one by Stan. But then again, everything associated with Hal and Stan gives reason to whine, bitch, moan, and cry even for their existence on Earth from a certain segment of the pool playing population which is minute to begin with and always has been.
bait12.jpg


Why would you try to start a fight in your first post?

Now I've never met Hal, I have the CTE book by Stan. It works. So does other systems. CTE does a more thorough job of explaining how to properly sight balls. That is great, head and shoulders above many instructional materials.

Without ever knowing or talking to Hal, I find it very curious that a pool ball is sort of close to the average distance between pupils. It's not exact, but put a CB between your eyes and tell me what you see. We see in stereo, it makes sense to use 2 reference points. Does everyone need them? No, but they are a nice thing to have and help to mitigate sighting errors.

boogieman <<< not a hater, but also not someone who thinks CTE is the only path to pool nirvana. Use what you use, but be aware CTE does have a lot of good stuff going for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
View attachment 650844

Why would you try to start a fight in your first post?
Well, it's usually what war hardened veterans do here. However, it can be interpreted in different ways by different people. It just depends...
Now I've never met Hal,
And you won't because he died. Too bad you didn't have the opportunity because he was a super human being. Most everyone involved in pool loved him. But there were some exceptions.
I have the CTE book by Stan. It works. So does other systems. CTE does a more thorough job of explaining how to properly sight balls. That is great, head and shoulders above many instructional materials.
I agree and nice comments from you. Since you have the CTE book by Stan, go to page1. I wrote it.
Without ever knowing or talking to Hal, I find it very curious that a pool ball is sort of close to the average distance between pupils. It's not exact, but put a CB between your eyes and tell me what you see. We see in stereo, it makes sense to use 2 reference points. Does everyone need them? No, but they are a nice thing to have and help to mitigate sighting errors.
I've used a good number of other aiming systems over the years. Contact points and took multiple lessons in person with Joe Tucker. 90/90 and took a number of lessons with Ron Vitello. Posted a number of videos here of me doing shooting skill tests but eventually took them down. And I took lessons from Hal and Stan in person as well as over the phone.
boogieman <<< not a hater, but also not someone who thinks CTE is the only path to pool nirvana.
T'ain't me either. Fact is, CTE is NOT RIGHT OR GOOD for various individuals for multiple reasons. They should stick to what got them where they are. But at the same time, especially since they don't have a clue where to start with it and learn all the nuances, it probably would be good for them to NOT POST and STFU with negativity and assaults. Would you agree?
Use what you use, but be aware CTE does have a lot of good stuff going for it.
Accurate and nice final sentence.
 
Last edited:

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
It counters all your hype. Most people learn which direction the stick points and go on with learning what the game actually entails. People that delve deeper into the craft develop more concrete references.
I think one _should_ consider the parameters of every shot including the centers and edges but excluding the contact points and substituting cyborg cross visualization is stupid.
I was so locked into CTE/ETC yesterday that I vaguely remembered the incessant claim of yours regarding the STICK. Yes, absolutely the stick is important and can be used to pocket balls very effectively but not necessarily with CTE. AND ALSO NOT THE WAY YOU DO IT WITH CONTACT POINTS! If you want to discuss STUPID, THAT IS IT!!! The CUE set at CCB and aimed from there is NOT going to pocket balls when aimed directly at a CONTACT POINT. The center of the OB striking it is going to MISS the shot unless it's straight in.
Player needs to know what the shot is including the stick position and how to shoot it. Contact points give you a first hand set of shot parameters.
In your warped locked in world to contact points, yes, it does give imaginary parameters. However, Hal Houle (there's that name again) also created a STICK AIMING SYSTEM that had nothing to do with CENTERS and EDGES. It also had absolutely nothing to do with CONTACT POINTS. Yes, there are AIM points, but they are clearly visible on the OB and not imaginary.
Those aim points just happen to be the same ones as CTE. The 15-30-45 and edges of the OB AND COB using center CB and the tip of the STICK to those points. ALL CLEARLY VISIBLE. It can start with a tip offset from the inside of the CB aimed at one of those locations and then pivoted back to center CB...or it can start with the tip of the cue at CCB aimed directly at the 15-30-45 and pivoted to the OUTSIDE. Understanding how the tip offsets work along with the PIVOT is key. PIVOT, PIVOT, PIVOT = new shaft line and orientation to send the CB where it needs to go.

I can already imagine your rigid pea brain starting to go into convulsions trying to figure this out and go on the attack. LOL
Your method considers the 2 balls in a straight line and makes preset adjustments to the IMAGING method supposedly resulting in the perfect alignment of any shot.
Well, that's exactly the way it works and what happens.
Your way seems to proves over and over that it generates more complexity than is practical to apply to a match.
How do you reconcile the fact that pro players are using it...pro instructors are teaching it worldwide...and your butt would get stomped into the ground to make you look like a total fool if going head to head with them or others proficient in it? If you really feel spunky to prove your point, we can easily set it up. Oh, it won't be for funzies though. $$$$$$$$.
Hi, my name is Dave. What's yours, oh Great One who hides in anonymity behind a keyboard and screen?
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Paying attention to where the center and edges of the cb are aligned in reference to the ob is an excellent way to quickly develop good aiming skills.

It doesn’t matter what aiming method you use, the visual references (either from center cb to a specific reference point on the ob, or from the cb edge to a ref point on the ob) help program your mind so that you can begin to recognize shots more quickly and effectively.

I agree with everything in Spider's original post, except for his opinion/insinuation that fractional aiming is guesswork or too reliant on feel. It works no differently than CTE, as far as using visual lines between the cb's center or edge and a specific ref point on the ob.

In the other words, whether someone is using CTE, fractions, contact points, ghostball, etc... paying attention to where the cb center and edges are aligned in ref to the ob is the key to developing aiming skills.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bbb

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Paying attention to where the center and edges of the cb are aligned in reference to the ob is an excellent way to quickly develop good aiming skills.

It doesn’t matter what aiming method you use, the visual references (either from center cb to a specific reference point on the ob, or from the cb edge to a ref point on the ob) help program your mind so that you can begin to recognize shots more quickly and effectively.

I agree with everything in your original post, except for your opinion/insinuation that fractional aiming is guesswork or too reliant on feel. It works no differently than CTE, as far as using visual lines between the cb's center or edge and a specific ref point on the ob.
If used the way it's laid out and created, I think it's fine if one adheres to it and focuses on it. I certainly have. However, I've seen you make posts that say, (this isn't verbatim) "Once you get proficient with it, then you can pretty much go by feel.
My experience is, if it's a good system and works for the player after ingraining it USE IT ALL THE TIME. F**K FEEL! That promotes laziness, carelessness, missing shots, and slumps. USE THE SYSTEM AS LAID OUT ALL THE TIME.
That is where I mainly disagree.
In the other words, whether someone is using CTE, fractions, contact points, ghostball, etc... paying attention to where the cb center and edges are aligned in ref to the ob is the key to developing aiming skills.
The difference between CTE and a complete fractional aiming system is the VISUAL STATIC with so many more fractions close to each other to sift through to get to the right one. CTE aim points are only a few and spaced out widely on the OB.

I do agree with you regarding the mind beginning to recognize shots more quickly and effectively with both fractions and CTE.
But it's far less choices with CTE vs. fractional aiming.

I think you should put more thought into your system using the CB Edge for the "back sight" on the rifle linked up to the contact point on the OB. "front sight". Nothing clearer to the eyes and brain than the pure white EDGE.
I've never seen anyone do it. Do you think it could be done?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bbb

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
The difference between CTE and a complete fractional aiming system is the VISUAL STATIC with so many more fractions to sift through to get to the right one.

I do agree with you regarding the mind beginning to recognize shots more quickly and effectively with both fractions and CTE.
But it's far less choices with CTE vs. fractional aiming.

I think you should put more thought into your system using the CB Edge for the "back sight" on the rifle linked up to the contact point on the OB. "front sight". Nothing clearer to the eyes and brain than the pure white EDGE.
I've never seen anyone do it. Do you think it could be done?

Yes, with fractional aiming using the edge of the cb is a common thing to do for cut shots thinner than about a quarter ball hit. But it's really not needed for cut shots thicker than that.

And there aren't that many "choices" to pick from when determining a fractional aim line. For example, you look at the shot and your mind says aim THERE. Maybe it looks like a 1/2 ball shot (we'll call this aim point 4). If you're not exactly sure it's a perfect 4, but you know it's close, you have two other references to consider. Does it look thicker or thinner than a 4? In other words, is it closer to a 3 or a 5? Or is just a millimeter or two thicker or thinner than a 4?

Every shot falls within a very small window of fractional aiming references, using 1/8 intervals. Then fine tuning the shot to match what looks right can be done by aiming a fraction of a tip left or right of any 1/8 aiming reference, except for shots thinner than a quarter ball hit. But that's where the edge of the cb can be used to sight a reference point on the ob.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220205-112510_ReadEra.jpg
    Screenshot_20220205-112510_ReadEra.jpg
    53.9 KB · Views: 92
  • Screenshot_20220205-112435_ReadEra.jpg
    Screenshot_20220205-112435_ReadEra.jpg
    48 KB · Views: 93

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Yes, with fractional aiming using the edge of the cb is a common thing to do for cut shots thinner than about a quarter ball hit. But it's really not needed for cut shots thicker than that.
Do you address or teach the edge of the cb alignment anywhere in the system instructions? If so, how? (Without divulging so much that they wouldn't want to buy the system.

If it can be used for cut shots thinner than a quarter ball, why couldn't it also be used for cut shots between 1/4 to 1/2 ball.
Or 1/2 ball to 3/4 ball? Or 3/4 ball to edge?
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Do you address or teach the edge of the cb alignment anywhere in the system instructions? If so, how? (Without divulging so much that they wouldn't want to buy the system.

If it can be used for cut shots thinner than a quarter ball, why couldn't it also be used for cut shots between 1/4 to 1/2 ball.
Or 1/2 ball to 3/4 ball? Or 3/4 ball to edge?

In person...yes, I show how using the edge of the cb can help with aiming thin cut shots. I don't believe I mention it in either of my books.

The goal for all players should be to play position well enough to not have to be whizzing in 60 to 80 degree cut shots that often. Of course those are still shots that come up, so players need to practice them and figure out their best method of success. But the vast majority of time when we miss a shot it's not a tough cut or complex shot - it's a relatively easy shot. We either lose focus or take the shot for granted.

And sure the edge of the cb can be used for any cut angle. It's just not needed on shots where a solid ccb-to-ob-reference line can be visualized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
In person...yes, I show how using the edge of the cb can help with aiming thin cut shots. I don't believe I mention it in either of my books.
That's pretty much a given for every aiming system. Sometimes you have to try to skin the fingerprints off the edge of the OB.
The goal for all players should be to play position well enough to not have to be whizzing in 60 to 80 degree cut shots that often.
That's true, but everybody and anybody can screw that up.
Of course those are still shots that come up, so players need to practice them and figure out their best method of success. But the vast majority of time when we miss a shot it's not a tough cut or complex shot - it's a relatively easy shot. We either lose focus or take the shot for granted.
It's not only us missing a shot, but also how an opponent leaves us after he misses or plays a safety.
And sure the edge of the cb can be used for any cut angle. It's just not needed on shots where a solid ccb-to-ob-reference line can be visualized.
But typically, the edge of the CB is NOT used for any and all cut angles with most other systems. The center of the CB is. Whereas with CTE, the edge is used on every shot simultaneously with CCB.
 

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
Put a piece of chalk on the table.

Now roll it down the table.

Oh wait , it doesnt roll.

Why is that?

Why can a ball be rolled down the table but chalk can not?

Hmmm could it be the chalk consists of 6 flat planes and edges where two planes meet and a corner where three planes meet?

Does a ball consist of those?

When you place the tip of your finger on a ball, it touches a point on the surface of the ball. Not a edge.

You can place the tip of your finger on the edge of chalk. The edge where two of the 6 planes meet.
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Put a piece of chalk on the table.

Now roll it down the table.

Oh wait , it doesnt roll.

Why is that?

Why can a ball be rolled down the table but chalk can not?

Hmmm could it be the chalk consists of 6 flat planes and edges where two planes meet and a corner where three planes meet?

Does a ball consist of those?

When you place the tip of your finger on a ball, it touches a point on the surface of the ball. Not a edge.

You can place the tip of your finger on the edge of chalk. The edge where two of the 6 planes meet.
DUCKIE LIVES!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
Top