As I've always understood it, {from Hal} you don't have to pivot as long as you can see center of the cue ball and the edge of the object ball clearly. The pivot is just to bring it into focus better, at least in the beginning.
CTE aiming.
- Thread starter Geometry
- Start date
As I've always understood it, {from Hal} you don't have to pivot as long as you can see center of the cue ball and the edge of the object ball clearly. The pivot is just to bring it into focus better, at least in the beginning.
C r y p t o a i m o l o g y
Interesting.
If you don't have to pivot once you place the tip of our shaft 1 diameter (13 mm) to the side (right or left), and shoot from there, you will impart English to the CB.
As is described earlier you then need to point the tip of the shaft at dead center of the CB. The question then is, how do you do that without "pivoting" - back to center?
The way I've been doing this is to center the tip on the cue ball and aiming at the edge of the object ball. I stay on the vertical axis most of the time and use little english in rotation games. Hal explained it to me originally placing the cue to the side but I've pretty much stopped doing that but that's just me. Hal explained something about thin cuts that, I have to confess, I don't remember exactly.
Pushout...On the 2 hr video I recorded at Hal's house, he SPECIFICALLY reiterated, over and over, that you MUST have the pivot on every shot. It didn't make a lot of sense to me...however, as I followed his directions, the balls flew into the pockets, regardless of the angle or distance (between CB & OB, or OB and pocket). My major problem was that sometimes I didn't know where the CB was going to end up...but the balls went in nonetheless!
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
That's not just you. When you know where to aim on the OB you don't need to place the cue tip off to the side of the CB.
When the spot that you need to aim at is away (outside) from the edge of the OB as in a thin cut - that's when placing the cue tip to the side toward the OB and then pivot to the center of the CB becomes usefull for that sends the CB away (outside) from the edge of the OB.
If you can learn to aim off of the edge of the OB on thin cuts, you then won't need to place the cue tip to the side of the center of the CB.
Practice
Practice
Practice
If you have a substantive issue with anything I wrote, please clarify. (Note that I didn't say that CTE uses ghostball--that was a part of the point, as Dr. Dave graciously indicated. Thanks Dr. Dave!)
After about a decade of reading posts and watching the occasional video demonstrating one of the systems, I've yet to see anything mentioned which takes into account specific shot geometry. If someone posts a description or video purporting to illustrate a system, and leaves that critical element out, it should behoove them to at least mention that fact, without necessarily revealing the details. To my knowledge, this has never been done. In fact, the whole point of the system(s), as I've seen them described repeatedly, is to be able to ignore that stuff (i.e., the location of the pocket, the sine of the cut angle, or their "embodiment" in form of the ghostball, or part thereof)
Of course, you can always claim that the descriptions and videos are in error. But then we seem to have the peculiar situation where many players apparently use the systems successfully, but can't describe how they do it?
As mentioned, these arguments have been repeated for something like a decade now. For a change of pace, let me ask about a few of your qualifications. Do you know, or can you derive, for instance, an expression for the ghostball angle measured with respect to the CB-OB line of centers? Do you know how to do a perspective projection of 3-D coordinates onto a 2-D image plane? Not that I'm a wiz myself, but I would like to have a feel for what you know. If you're well versed in geometry and can prove any of these systems to be exact (or close enough), that would put things in a different light even if you choose not to reveal the hidden details, which I wouldn't expect. Fair questions?
Jim
Last edited:
There must be something to this system. I'm very positive that there is and I'm trying to go through all the posts of people that are within the inner circle trying to work it out.
The 'sceptics' however would disagree, citing that the distance between the CB and OB has no relationship to the amount/degree of the cut angle. Meaning you could have a 15, 30 or 45 degree cut one, two or three diamonds away.
**** I'm confused!
I don't think it summarises anything. I think its a post filled with his opinions. If somebody knows a system and they say its an exact system geometrically, why would you doubt otherwise.
Because anyone can say anything they want. It doesn't make it true.
There's a stubborn thing called proof.
Suppose its a great system that has never been geometrically defined.
I can say I know CTE-PRO ONE completely. The best aiming method period. No I know nothing about geometry or any of these other things. I have never seen CTE goemetrically proved. There are alot of shots and techniques in pool I have not seen Geometrically proved, they still work and I still use them.Nike has made millions off the saying "JUST DO IT" and that works as a slogan for CTE just fine.
The proof is in the pudding.
That was the way he explained it to me. Sometimes I use it but more often than not lately I haven't and it doesn't seem to change. One of my main problems for years was hitting the cue ball in the center. When I discovered that, at least for me, center ball as I had always thought of it, was an optical allusion, I began to play better. And, I wasn't really convinced until after I learned CTE but I'm not sure how much CTE affected that decision.
Is there any such advocate who will be in Vegas for BCA singles?
I'm not sure I have seen/experienced "PRO ONE" exactly.
So far I've read lots of posts and thought a fair amount about aiming.
I've spent hours talking to Hal both in person and on the telephone.
I spent--about a decade ago-- time with Jim Wyant and Tom Simpson just after Jim took a week's vacation to visit Hal with recording equipment, etc to really nail down Hal's take on aiming stuff.
I spent an afternoon shooting pool with Spiderweb Dave, during which he tried, at the pool table, to explain to me his take on CTE9090EDGE whatever aiming. I also watched carefully for three or four hours what he actually does.
Again I'll be in Vegas May 14-18 with an open mind and time on my hands...
Exactly. And it probably can't be geometrically defined. Here's a post I made a while ago and I think it still applies.
My experience is that the majority of people
cannot make the connection between abstract geometry (such as a
half-ball hit) and what happens while they play pool. It may
be true that cut angle is a continuous function of the fullness
of hit, but most people have neither use for nor understanding of
a concept such as "function of".
For such people, I think it is not helpful to go into any more
detail in a system than is required to draw their attention to
the shot. It is not important what the system is as long as they
believe in it and it sort of gets them into the right ball park.
Their subconscious will do the rest, as it does for all players
who can play a lick, Iron Willie and Virtual Pool excepted.
Ask players what the cut angle is for a half-ball hit and the
majority (or a substantial minority) will say 45 degrees. This
is in spite of their having shot hundreds of half-ball hits and
hundreds of 45-degree cuts but never in the same shot. Many
people need an explanation of what a "right angle" is for the
kiss-line for position play -- people have even built special
fixtures for the pool table to illustrate two perpendicular
lines. Most people are not geometrians.
Aiming is as much psychology as it is physics. Arguing that the
physics of a system is wrong doesn't prevent the psychology from
working, one way or another. On the other hand, it's not clear
to my why people who know a system works for them psychologically
argue it to be valid physically. There's no point.
cannot make the connection between abstract geometry (such as a
half-ball hit) and what happens while they play pool. It may
be true that cut angle is a continuous function of the fullness
of hit, but most people have neither use for nor understanding of
a concept such as "function of".
For such people, I think it is not helpful to go into any more
detail in a system than is required to draw their attention to
the shot. It is not important what the system is as long as they
believe in it and it sort of gets them into the right ball park.
Their subconscious will do the rest, as it does for all players
who can play a lick, Iron Willie and Virtual Pool excepted.
Ask players what the cut angle is for a half-ball hit and the
majority (or a substantial minority) will say 45 degrees. This
is in spite of their having shot hundreds of half-ball hits and
hundreds of 45-degree cuts but never in the same shot. Many
people need an explanation of what a "right angle" is for the
kiss-line for position play -- people have even built special
fixtures for the pool table to illustrate two perpendicular
lines. Most people are not geometrians.
Aiming is as much psychology as it is physics. Arguing that the
physics of a system is wrong doesn't prevent the psychology from
working, one way or another. On the other hand, it's not clear
to my why people who know a system works for them psychologically
argue it to be valid physically. There's no point.
I can geometrically define it. Read the thread again from the beginning. 90% of what you're looking for is there. CTE is a geometric system at its finest. 100% procedural.
Last edited:
I like your points and while you deem some of these systems to be worthwhile psychologically , I like to think that some of the aiming systems are visual systems, not psychological systems nor are they geometric systems that have been proven and that they simply help some of the players to "see" the shot better.
It's nice that you at least offer up the fact that some of these aiming systems work for some people, regardless of their geometry or Houleganism. In no particular order peace, happiness and object balls falling in the pocket; it's what the world needs more of.
JoeyA
Many of the "non-geometrically correct" "aiming systems" are psychological and visual, and many of them help many people. Many possible reasons for this are summarized here:I like your points and while you deem some of these systems to be worthwhile psychologically , I like to think that some of the aiming systems are visual systems, not psychological systems nor are they geometric systems that have been proven and that they simply help some of the players to "see" the shot better.
It's nice that you at least offer up the fact that some of these aiming systems work for some people, regardless of their geometry or Houleganism. In no particular order peace, happiness and object balls falling in the pocket; it's what the world needs more of.
Regards,
Dave
Wow...what great statement Bob! I missed it when you posted this before! I agree with you 100%. The human mind is capable of...who knows what?
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com