Hal Houle CTE Explanation from 1997

[JB Cases]

I'll chime in here if you don't mind.

In this case I'd have him shoot straight in shots all day. If he lines up with the back end of his cue too far to the left, he'd cut the ball to the left, and vice versa if he lines up with his cue too far to the right. Eventually he would find the spot where his cue is lined up perfectly, and he would know what it feels like when his arm is in the right spot- and eventually incorporate that into cut shots.

A system that helps you line up perfectly wouldn't hurt there either. Is CTE an aiming system or alignment system? I am very curious about learning it, but can't seem to find much information that really goes into detail.

That would seem to be the logical approach. But as I said 7 out of ten times he get's the feeling right so it's not as if he is helpless. The other 30% he sometimes misses to the right, sometimes to the left.

What if - and again this is in pure hypothetical space - what if you could teach this person a way to aim and suddenly his pocketing percentage on the straight in shots went from 70% to 90-100%? What if instead of having him shoot straight in shots all day you could show him something like this in five minutes and in the five minutes after that he was shooting the shot in the 90% range?

 

[JB Cases]

cuetechasaurus:

You've got the correct solution here. All practice is good as long as the player observes the results of every shot and then adjusts alignment whenever needed. Every time a shot is missed, the subconscious mind registers the result in the memory bank. Same thing happens every time a shot is made. Through doing this for extended periods of time, a huge amount of information is stored as what we call "muscle" memory. Then, whenever we line up on a shot the wrong way, our subconscious mind says, "No, remember what happened the last time you tried to shoot the shot that way?" And then when we adjust to the right alignment the subconscious mind says, "There, that's where you was at whenever you hit this shot correctly." This is what I believe shooting by "feel" is all about.

But, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using an aiming/alignment system to accelerate this whole process. :thumbup:

Roger

Are you a neurologist now? A psychiatrist? How do you know what really goes on in the brain and the subconscious? I think that you don't even know what's going on in your own brain much less anyone else's.

Of course there is nothing wrong with learning a way to do something better.

Do you honestly just regurgitate other people's words without any original thought of your own.

Let's forget about the SUBconscious for a moment and focus on the conscious. The conscious person can shoot ten shots and make his adjustments until he is 'dialed in'. Then he can shoot ten more shots using this dialed in mode and have great success. He has to repeat this process shot for shot for a wide range of the 6 million possible shots on the pool table to get dialed in for all of them.

OR - it's possible that a person can learn a certain method and be 'dialed in' for that same range of shots without having to do the conscious minute-adjustment method.

However, to throw you a bone and ask you a question to see if you really are a student of the game let's see if you can answer this one.

Which famous billiard player was not allowed to use more than one ball for the first two years of his training? This player was only allowed to use one ball and had to be able to shoot to any position on the table from any other position on demand. Tell us who that player was.

 

[Rich93]

Which famous billiard player was not allowed to use more than one ball for the first two years of his training? This player was only allowed to use one ball and had to be able to shoot to any position on the table from any other position on demand. Tell us who that player was.

Walter Lindrum. Do I win a free cue case?

Actually, I think it was just 6 months. This is from Joe Davis' book:

Some time after this overactive life in Western Australia the family departed for Sydney where Walter's father took over the billiard-room at Belfield's Hotel. Here Walter was made to practise for seven or eight hours a day, sometimes being locked in the room, and to write copious notes in a little black book. For the first six months he was given only one ball to play with - six months just to practise striking the ball! Understandably he revolted against this force-feeding and developed a taste for cricket. He would go down to the Sydney cricket ground to do some fielding for the big-name players there, but after he had stopped a few drives from the likes of Macartney, Kelleway, Andrews and Bardsley his father advised him that his rather sturdy figure was designed for a game considerably less strenuous and considerably more important. Walter, broadly speaking, agreed and never looked back. But he enjoyed some success as a school cricketer and maintained a great spectator enthusiasm for the game, becoming the friend of many distinguished players and in later years entertaining visiting English teams at his home.

 

[JB Cases]

Walter Lindrum. Do I win a free cue case?

Actually, I think it was just 6 months. This is from Joe Davis' book:

Some time after this overactive life in Western Australia the family departed for Sydney where Walter's father took over the billiard-room at Belfield's Hotel. Here Walter was made to practise for seven or eight hours a day, sometimes being locked in the room, and to write copious notes in a little black book. For the first six months he was given only one ball to play with - six months just to practise striking the ball! Understandably he revolted against this force-feeding and developed a taste for cricket. He would go down to the Sydney cricket ground to do some fielding for the big-name players there, but after he had stopped a few drives from the likes of Macartney, Kelleway, Andrews and Bardsley his father advised him that his rather sturdy figure was designed for a game considerably less strenuous and considerably more important. Walter, broadly speaking, agreed and never looked back. But he enjoyed some success as a school cricketer and maintained a great spectator enthusiasm for the game, becoming the friend of many distinguished players and in later years entertaining visiting English teams at his home.

Aww man you ruined it - I wanted to see if Roger knew it

I probably got the time wrong as to how long he practiced that way. I got my information from one of my old books that I have long since sold.

 

[Roger Long]

Are you a neurologist now? A psychiatrist? How do you know what really goes on in the brain and the subconscious? I think that you don't even know what's going on in your own brain much less anyone else's.

Of course there is nothing wrong with learning a way to do something better.

Do you honestly just regurgitate other people's words without any original thought of your own.

Let's forget about the SUBconscious for a moment and focus on the conscious. The conscious person can shoot ten shots and make his adjustments until he is 'dialed in'. Then he can shoot ten more shots using this dialed in mode and have great success. He has to repeat this process shot for shot for a wide range of the 6 million possible shots on the pool table to get dialed in for all of them.

OR - it's possible that a person can learn a certain method and be 'dialed in' for that same range of shots without having to do the conscious minute-adjustment method.

However, to throw you a bone and ask you a question to see if you really are a student of the game let's see if you can answer this one.

Which famous billiard player was not allowed to use more than one ball for the first two years of his training? This player was only allowed to use one ball and had to be able to shoot to any position on the table from any other position on demand. Tell us who that player was.

I'm a very serious student of the game, and a very curious one at that. So now you've gotten my curiosity up; what does "dialed in" mean?

Roger

 

[cuetechasaurus]

That would seem to be the logical approach. But as I said 7 out of ten times he get's the feeling right so it's not as if he is helpless. The other 30% he sometimes misses to the right, sometimes to the left.

What if - and again this is in pure hypothetical space - what if you could teach this person a way to aim and suddenly his pocketing percentage on the straight in shots went from 70% to 90-100%? What if instead of having him shoot straight in shots all day you could show him something like this in five minutes and in the five minutes after that he was shooting the shot in the 90% range?

Now you're making me want to learn this system even more. Would someone mind sending me a pm explaining how to use the system in detail? I would really appreciate it.

 

[BRKNRUN]

That would seem to be the logical approach. But as I said 7 out of ten times he get's the feeling right so it's not as if he is helpless. The other 30% he sometimes misses to the right, sometimes to the left.

What if - and again this is in pure hypothetical space - what if you could teach this person a way to aim and suddenly his pocketing percentage on the straight in shots went from 70% to 90-100%? What if instead of having him shoot straight in shots all day you could show him something like this in five minutes and in the five minutes after that he was shooting the shot in the 90% range?

As a past Golf instructor....The bolded would raise a flag for me that his mechanics, routine (or focus) are not consistent.

CTE may very well work in this case, but I would also suggest that many other things including a mechanics adjustment (grip, stance, posture, alignment) could help gain the same imrpovement ratio.

I would suggest that almost any new adjustment (for the better) in this case would also improve the "focus" of the student....which may have also very well been the problem 30% of the time for this student.

 

[freddy the beard]

Professor Lansing Perkins

Aww man you ruined it - I wanted to see if Roger knew it

I probably got the time wrong as to how long he practiced that way. I got my information from one of my old books that I have long since sold.

Actually, Welker Cochrane was taught the same way by Professor Lansing Perkins, one ball for months, then two and finally three.

Beard

 

[JB Cases]

I'm a very serious student of the game, and a very curious one at that. So now you've gotten my curiosity up; what does "dialed in" mean?

Roger

Sorry, I am not qualified to teach you that.

Look around on YouTube and you might find someone who explains it to you.

I have also heard that very serious students of the game go to take lessons from the best instructors. Stan Shuffet happens to be the top instructor of the aiming method you claim to really want to learn.

Let us know how the lesson goes.

 

[sfleinen]

Someone's definition of "fundamentals" is flawed

I tend to disagree (surprised?).

I have given my hypothetical of a player with perfect fundamentals who lines up wrong. Maybe he doesn't do it every shot but say on 30% of his shots. This player approaches the balls as he was taught, gets in the perfect stance, delivers the cue stick perfect through the cue ball at the right speed and misses the shot. 7 out of 10 times he makes the shot - i.e. lines up right to the shot and 3 out of 10 he misses it because his cue stick was slightly off the right line even though it FELT perfect to him.

So what do you tell this player how to fix his aiming problem? Just assume for a moment that EVERYTHING else about his game is perfect. You don't need to correct his stance, stroke, delivery, elbow, hair placement, anything. On paper he looks like the perfect player. Only his pocketing percentages are less than they should be given his perfect fundamentals.

How would you coach this player to fix his aiming and raise his pocketing percentages?

John:

I'm late coming back into this thread, but then again, I have other things going on in my life besides AZB. (Uh-oh, I better not've said that, otherwise Mike H. might take offense! I just post as I'm passing through.)

Cuetechasaurus already provided the answer I was going to provide you, with the straight-in shot practice/analysis. This one is obvious; if the player has perfect form but is still missing shots, let's break it down in easily-diagnosed pieces. I'd separate ball-cutting aim away from the player's form and have him/her shoot straight-in shots. If the person is missing the straight-in shot consistently to one side, it's most likely a shot-line aiming/perception error, perhaps a dominant eye issue. But it could still be a problem in the fundamentals, e.g. a hitch in the stroke as the cue tip strikes the cue ball -- perhaps the heel of the grip hand is striking the cue at that precise time? Perhaps some of the fleshy pads in the palm of the grip hand are "sticking" to the cue and pulling it one way as the cue tip strikes the cue ball? Or perhaps the user is steering the cue, even on a straight-in shot? (This last one is readily obvious to any observer; the former two will need a sharp-eyed observer familiar with good shooting fundamentals to catch.)

If the person is inconsistently missing the shot to either side (i.e. same percentage to the left as to the right), then it's not perception at all -- it's something definitely wrong with that person's fundamentals, and I'd personally have to watch, to see what it is -- could be any number of things.

The fact that you keep saying "...my hypothetical of a player with perfect fundamentals who lines up wrong." John, lining up correctly -- especially on a straight-in shot -- *ARE* fundamentals. Stance, arm placement, stroke, etc. are only other components under the "fundamentals" umbrella. Your "hypothetical" of a player with what you think to be "perfect fundamentals" but who can't shoot down a straight line (remember, this all started out with you describing using CTE on a straight-in or break shot!) is broken. You seem to be conveniently separating the "aim" part (especially aiming down a straight line) as if it's not fundamentals. Your very definition of fundamentals is flawed. To bolster this, you then you say (in another post), "The other 30% he sometimes misses to the right, sometimes to the left." This also tells me you don't know how to diagnose fundamentals/mechanics issues, from aiming.

John, no offense, but I SEVERELY question your knowledge of what constitutes "proper fundamentals." Based on your comments thus far, as well as the videos of you shooting (demonstrating CTE, where it's clear in many shots you are popping up, steering/hooking the cue, etc.), I don't think you do.

Personally, I would NEVER shoot a straight-in shot by aiming at the edge of the object ball, and then [blindly] pivoting inwards towards the center. That, to me, is roughly analogous to someone on the rifle range, aims at the very edge of the paper target, then "pivots" the rifle inwards towards the "center meat" of the target and then pulls the trigger. That, to me, is someone who can't perceive the center of the target correctly from the get-go, or who is uncomfortable shooting dead-center (perhaps fear of not hitting the bulls eye when he/she is aiming directly at it?), and instead substitutes this placebo of swinging the rifle blindly inwards and blasting in the general vicinity of the center of the target.

If you can't perceive center ball correctly, you have deeper fundamental issues than just aiming. In my opinion, you don't go for another aiming technique if you can't "aim" (i.e. a straight line) in the first place.

Understand me now, I'm not trying to be confrontational, argumentative, or pissy. I'm just calling you out on your own arguments -- they have significant flaws.

-Sean

P.S.: One of my favorite drills is to shoot very long straignt-in shots diagonally (corner to corner) on a big table. Place the cue ball near the mouth of one corner pocket, the object ball on the center spot (dead center in the middle of the table between the two side pockets), and shoot that object ball with varying speeds into the opposite corner pocket. I do this with center ball, follow, and draw -- the latter two I follow the cue ball into that same pocket or draw-back into the pocket I shot the cue ball from. That's actually easier than the next thing I try, which is to hit that shot with just pocket speed -- lag that cue ball onto the object ball and still make the shot, with the object ball just rolling and falling over into the pocket. A soft long distance shot will often reveal flaws in your stroke that don't appear in a firmly-struck shot because the power itself in a firmly-struck shot "greases over" or "greases through" any irregularities. Try that, and tell me if you have "perfect fundamentals."

 

[duckie]

Are you a neurologist now? A psychiatrist? How do you know what really goes on in the brain and the subconscious? I think that you don't even know what's going on in your own brain much less anyone else's.

Of course there is nothing wrong with learning a way to do something better.

Do you honestly just regurgitate other people's words without any original thought of your own.

Let's forget about the SUBconscious for a moment and focus on the conscious. The conscious person can shoot ten shots and make his adjustments until he is 'dialed in'. Then he can shoot ten more shots using this dialed in mode and have great success. He has to repeat this process shot for shot for a wide range of the 6 million possible shots on the pool table to get dialed in for all of them.

OR - it's possible that a person can learn a certain method and be 'dialed in' for that same range of shots without having to do the conscious minute-adjustment method.

However, to throw you a bone and ask you a question to see if you really are a student of the game let's see if you can answer this one.

Which famous billiard player was not allowed to use more than one ball for the first two years of his training? This player was only allowed to use one ball and had to be able to shoot to any position on the table from any other position on demand. Tell us who that player was.

You, sir, are a ass. You are meanful, spiteful and need to grow up and act like a man and not a whiny little girl.

 

[JB Cases]

You, sir, are a ass. You are meanful, spiteful and need to grow up and act like a man and not a whiny little girl.

Huh? When you can can write in English then we can converse. Don't you have a ghostball to chase?

 

[JB Cases]

John:

I'm late coming back into this thread, but then again, I have other things going on in my life besides AZB. (Uh-oh, I better not've said that, otherwise Mike H. might take offense! I just post as I'm passing through.)

Cuetechasaurus already provided the answer I was going to provide you, with the straight-in shot practice/analysis. This one is obvious; if the player has perfect form but is still missing shots, let's break it down in easily-diagnosed pieces. I'd separate ball-cutting aim away from the player's form and have him/her shoot straight-in shots. If the person is missing the straight-in shot consistently to one side, it's most likely a shot-line aiming/perception error, perhaps a dominant eye issue. But it could still be a problem in the fundamentals, e.g. a hitch in the stroke as the cue tip strikes the cue ball -- perhaps the heel of the grip hand is striking the cue at that precise time? Perhaps some of the fleshy pads in the palm of the grip hand are "sticking" to the cue and pulling it one way as the cue tip strikes the cue ball? Or perhaps the user is steering the cue, even on a straight-in shot? (This last one is readily obvious to any observer; the former two will need a sharp-eyed observer familiar with good shooting fundamentals to catch.)

If the person is inconsistently missing the shot to either side (i.e. same percentage to the left as to the right), then it's not perception at all -- it's something definitely wrong with that person's fundamentals, and I'd personally have to watch, to see what it is -- could be any number of things.

The fact that you keep saying "...my hypothetical of a player with perfect fundamentals who lines up wrong." John, lining up correctly -- especially on a straight-in shot -- *ARE* fundamentals. Stance, arm placement, stroke, etc. are only other components under the "fundamentals" umbrella. Your "hypothetical" of a player with what you think to be "perfect fundamentals" but who can't shoot down a straight line (remember, this all started out with you describing using CTE on a straight-in or break shot!) is broken. You seem to be conveniently separating the "aim" part (especially aiming down a straight line) as if it's not fundamentals. Your very definition of fundamentals is flawed. To bolster this, you then you say (in another post), "The other 30% he sometimes misses to the right, sometimes to the left." This also tells me you don't know how to diagnose fundamentals/mechanics issues, from aiming.

John, no offense, but I SEVERELY question your knowledge of what constitutes "proper fundamentals." Based on your comments thus far, as well as the videos of you shooting (demonstrating CTE, where it's clear in many shots you are popping up, steering/hooking the cue, etc.), I don't think you do.

Personally, I would NEVER shoot a straight-in shot by aiming at the edge of the object ball, and then [blindly] pivoting inwards towards the center. That, to me, is roughly analogous to someone on the rifle range, aims at the very edge of the paper target, then "pivots" the rifle inwards towards the "center meat" of the target and then pulls the trigger. That, to me, is someone who can't perceive the center of the target correctly from the get-go, or who is uncomfortable shooting dead-center (perhaps fear of not hitting the bulls eye when he/she is aiming directly at it?), and instead substitutes this placebo of swinging the rifle blindly inwards and blasting in the general vicinity of the center of the target.

If you can't perceive center ball correctly, you have deeper fundamental issues than just aiming. In my opinion, you don't go for another aiming technique if you can't "aim" (i.e. a straight line) in the first place.

Understand me now, I'm not trying to be confrontational, argumentative, or pissy. I'm just calling you out on your own arguments -- they have significant flaws.

-Sean

P.S.: One of my favorite drills is to shoot very long straignt-in shots diagonally (corner to corner) on a big table. Place the cue ball near the mouth of one corner pocket, the object ball on the center spot (dead center in the middle of the table between the two side pockets), and shoot that object ball with varying speeds into the opposite corner pocket. I do this with center ball, follow, and draw -- the latter two I follow the cue ball into that same pocket or draw-back into the pocket I shot the cue ball from. That's actually easier than the next thing I try, which is to hit that shot with just pocket speed -- lag that cue ball onto the object ball and still make the shot, with the object ball just rolling and falling over into the pocket. A soft long distance shot will often reveal flaws in your stroke that don't appear in a firmly-struck shot because the power itself in a firmly-struck shot "greases over" or "greases through" any irregularities. Try that, and tell me if you have "perfect fundamentals."

See Sean the basic problem is that you want to twist my hypothetical.

First of all you are making this personal about ME and how I play and what I diagnose from my own game. Mike Page incorrectly described the actions that I take to aim so he doesn't know what I am doing to end up lined up to the head ball. I said that I get better results with CTE and I do. That works for me.

Now, back to the hypothetical player/situation I proposed.

Let's take a REAL player. Steve Davis is a good one. What if I told Steve Davis that I was going to do an experiment and he was going to be your student.

I think we can agree that Steve's stance, stroke, delivery, etc.... are all as good as it gets.

What if I told Steve to line up perfectly 7 times and 3 times just enough off to rattle the ball?

How would you then improve Steve Davis' potting percentage to more than 70%.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you ran him through all of your analysis and you couldn't find one single thing wrong with his form.

So after all that he is still only making 7 out of 10 straight in shots.

What would your conclusion be if you didn't know that he was deliberately lining up just a hair off? What would your instruction to him be?

Is it going to be your final answer that it's impossible for a player to have perfect stroke, stance, delivery and not be able to line up to any shot perfectly all the time?

 

[JB Cases]

Actually, Welker Cochrane was taught the same way by Professor Lansing Perkins, one ball for months, then two and finally three.

Beard

Thanks Beard - Love the GOSPOOL

"it might be too wet for some people but it isn't too wet for the ALL AMERICAN BOY". - Harold Worst - from the Gospool

 

[sfleinen]

The "hypothetical" case is flawed -- especially with straight-in shots

See Sean the basic problem is that you want to twist my hypothetical.

John, please explain to me how I'm twisting your hypothetical? I clearly told you how I'd approach it. I'd start with straight-in shots, and make absolutely sure that the reason the player was missing the shots was not due to some underlying problems with fundamentals. Then, we'd go from there. I thought I made that clear?

First of all you are making this personal about ME and how I play and what I diagnose from my own game.

John, what you actually do has *everything* to do with what you're trying to say. Now, I don't take you as a person who says one thing, but does another. Are you?

If you're preaching all this hypothetical about "perfect form," but what you're seen doing in video doesn't jive with what you're trying to say, what am I supposed to come away with?

Mike Page incorrectly described the actions that I take to aim so he doesn't know what I am doing to end up lined up to the head ball. I said that I get better results with CTE and I do. That works for me.

If you get better results using CTE, that is specific to you, and only you. What Mike was asking you (and it was a question that I recall), is that how can you expect to get better results shooting a straight-in shot by aiming at something that's not dead-center of the object ball? If I recall correctly, it precisely pointed at [what I think] Mike was trying to get at -- and that is, are you *sure* using CTE on straight-in shots was not a placebo to get around something more fundamental, more basic -- i.e. your ability to perceive a straight line through the center of the ball? (Mike, if you're reading this, please chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.) Thus far, the ONLY person who has answered to some reasonable semblance of a plausible answer is "peteypooldude," who responded that he'd rather not alter his pre-shot routine just for one type of shot. This is, at least, plausible. Yours escapes logical reason -- that you can get better results on straight-in shots by *NOT* aiming straight through them!

Now, back to the hypothetical player/situation I proposed.

Let's take a REAL player. Steve Davis is a good one. What if I told Steve Davis that I was going to do an experiment and he was going to be your student.

I think we can agree that Steve's stance, stroke, delivery, etc.... are all as good as it gets.

What if I told Steve to line up perfectly 7 times and 3 times just enough off to rattle the ball?

How would you then improve Steve Davis' potting percentage to more than 70%.

John:

Ok, I'll bite. I'd do what I'd say I'd do -- take him through drills on straight-in shots, to remove any aiming "guestimation". (There is no "guestimation" with straight-in shots.) I'd watch for patterns in how he's missing the shot. I'd look for core issues with:

* his cue delivery (i.e. hooks, hitches, steering, jabbing and stopping, "lasso" stroke [poking at the cue ball and immediately pulling back as if getting ready to deliver the cue twice], etc.)
* any "jarring" motion I see in his body when delivering the cue (means he's off-balance somewhere)
* his stance (feet/knees/hips/elbow/shoulder aligned *on* the shot line)
* perception of center cue ball / center object ball (this one is big -- if you're not aiming center in the first place, you're not going to hit center)
* ...etc.

Now, I highlighted (in bold) something in your text above, which I think is the part you and I disagree on -- that "lining up perfectly" thing. On a straight-in shot (which is the crux of what we're talking about here, remember), lining up perfectly, is just that -- you're dead on the line through the center of the cue ball and through dead center of the object ball. It's just cue delivery, now. If my "student" were to then stroke that shot -- after I looked down his/her cue to make sure he/she were correctly on the line (I may even put a LaserStroke on his her cue to verify the line of aim is correct -- which will "catch" the "intentional just a little bit off" thing), and he/she still missed the shot, can you not see that the problem was an execution problem? That something happened between this perfectly-lined up aim, and the subsequent delivery of the cue? So you're trying to imply that we don't address the root issue of why the cue was not delivered along that perfect line, and instead throw the baby out with the bath water and start with a new aiming system?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you ran him through all of your analysis and you couldn't find one single thing wrong with his form.

So after all that he is still only making 7 out of 10 straight in shots.

What would your conclusion be if you didn't know that he was deliberately lining up just a hair off? What would your instruction to him be?

Let's say I did run him through the paces. Here's what I'd do:

1. Have him pot straight-in shots. And I mean DEAD straight-in shots, to remove any perception of ball-cutting. If he were having problems with potting straight-in shots, I wouldn't move on to step 2. There's a problem here that needs to be addressed here in step 1, because it's core, root, fundamental. There is no guestimation (as pivot-based aiming advocates seem to like calling it that) with aiming straight-in shots vs cut shots. You aim center ball through both the cue ball and the object ball. You then deliver through on that line. If you miss, one of two things happened: a.) the shooter didn't properly perceive center ball in the first place, or b.) the shooter didn't deliver the cue straight through the shot line. Something happened in one of those two places, and I'd then attempt to diagnose where things went awry. I'd use tools like the LaserStroke to find out if it's a straight-line perception problem (which, again, will catch your "intentionally off by a hair" thing), or if somewhere in the cue delivery the cue went off the shot line. Again, there is no moving on to step 2 until we get straight-in shots nailed. I would say at this point, I would want my "student" to be nailing the center of the pocket on those straight-in shots 99% of the time. (Yes, I know and accept the fact that humans are not machines, not perfect, and sometimes the occasional hiccup happens.) But, you can't move on to step 2 if you can't aim center ball properly! (*That* is my point -- no twisting of your hypothetical at all.)

2. Let's say at this point, we're ready for cut-shots. The "student" has proven to me that he can for sure deliver his cue dead-center on the shot line 99% of the time. I'd have him then do cut-shots at known angles that are easy to aim at. For example -- the half-ball hit. I'd line up a series of half-ball hits for him to execute, at various places on the table, to be sure he's focusing on aiming at the edge of the object ball, and that he's following through to have the cue ball hit a true half-ball hit. What I'm looking for here, is "is he trying to steer the cue? Is he being distracted with, oh, say, the nearby rail and the thought of sending the object ball down that rail causes him to, say, steer the cue in the direction of the rail?" (I want to make sure the table itself isn't distracting him.) "Is he having problems with half-ball hits to one side [e.g. the left side]?" This could be a perception problem -- i.e. dominant eye, etc. From there, I'd move on to quarter-ball hits, three-quarter ball hits, two-thirds ball hits, etc.

But for sure, I would NOT throw the baby out with the bath water, and just "ignore" testing his fundamentals just because they "look good."

Is it going to be your final answer that it's impossible for a player to have perfect stroke, stance, delivery and not be able to line up to any shot perfectly all the time?

John, don't get me wrong -- I see what you're trying to get at. You want me to go down the road of visualizing a player who has perfect fundamentals, delivers his cue in a straight line, but somehow occasionally misses shots, therefore "needing" a new aiming system. The problem is that your hypothetical case -- most assuredly with this topic of straight-in shots -- is FLAWED. You can't have someone with "perfect" fundamentals who can't consistently pot straight-in shots ("consistently" meaning a reasonable margin of error -- noone's perfect). You can't have someone with "perfect" fundamentals who can't sight a straight-in shot properly (seeing and cueing-up on center cue ball *IS* a core aspect of proper fundamentals). And, you can't have someone with "perfect" fundamentals who properly sights-up center ball on both the cue ball and object ball, but then misses the shot. (How can that person *then* be stated as having "perfect" fundamentals if he/she can't deliver the cue along that straight line he/she lined-up on? That was assuredly a cue delivery problem, therefore busting the myth this person had "perfect fundamentals" to begin with!) Your case, especially since it's intentionally skewed by you secretly telling Steve Davis to miss 30% of the time, blows up the perfect fundamentals theory, because Steve himself will tell you that the aiming through the center of both balls is a core fundamental in itself.

-Sean

 

[SpiderWebComm]

You have to aim through the center of both balls to make a straight in shot. That doesn't mean you're not doing so pre-pivot. There's nothing wrong with that logic. For me, personally, it's the most logical thing to do. If the offset/pivot put you in the heart of the pocket, why not use it for every shot - straight-ins included?

 

[JB Cases]

John, please explain to me how I'm twisting your hypothetical? I clearly told you how I'd approach it. I'd start with straight-in shots, and make absolutely sure that the reason the player was missing the shots was not due to some underlying problems with fundamentals. Then, we'd go from there. I thought I made that clear?

You are twisting it because your premise ASSUMES that perfect aiming is part of perfect fundamentals. My example does not assume that. You should have been able to see from my example as well as my answer to Cuetechasaur that you can skip ahead to the "go from there" part.

John, what you actually do has *everything* to do with what you're trying to say. Now, I don't take you as a person who says one thing, but does another. Are you?

This is your opinon. I gave you a hypothetical situation. You are projecting it onto me. I would think that you know me well enough by now that if I feel strongly enough about my own abilities then I will intentionally use myself as an example when I feel that I can demonstrate whatever concept we are discussing. Yes, I am a person who says one thing and does another depending on the situation. I may have a completely wrong idea about what I am doing and describe it in detail and then on video it may well be that I am doing something else. However this veiled insult on your part has nothing to do with the question I posed.

If you're preaching all this hypothetical about "perfect form," but what you're seen doing in video doesn't jive with what you're trying to say, what am I supposed to come away with?

Again you are projecting my ability onto the conversation. What you come away with is therefore whatever you make up. Which is why I gave you Steve Davis to help you get out of that space.


If you get better results using CTE, that is specific to you, and only you.

I didn't say anything otherwise nor imply it. Again you are projecting.

What Mike was asking you (and it was a question that I recall), is that how can you expect to get better results shooting a straight-in shot by aiming at something that's not dead-center of the object ball? If I recall correctly, it precisely pointed at [what I think] Mike was trying to get at -- and that is, are you *sure* using CTE on straight-in shots was not a placebo to get around something more fundamental, more basic -- i.e. your ability to perceive a straight line through the center of the ball?

Once again, Mike described a process that I don't do. How do you know that I am not aiming dead center of the OB? Obviously if it's a straight in shot and I make it then I had to be "aiming" at the center of the OB.

And actually Mike was referring to my comment about getting a better hit on the head ball during the break. He asked about a full hit not a straight in shot.

(Mike, if you're reading this, please chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.) Thus far, the ONLY person who has answered to some reasonable semblance of a plausible answer is "peteypooldude," who responded that he'd rather not alter his pre-shot routine just for one type of shot. This is, at least, plausible. Yours escapes logical reason -- that you can get better results on straight-in shots by *NOT* aiming straight through them!

Once again, you are assuming that you know where I am aiming. This is a faulty assumption. The approach to the aiming line is not the final aiming. When the cue is down on the table the aiming is right where it needs to be.

John:

Ok, I'll bite. I'd do what I'd say I'd do -- take him through drills on straight-in shots, to remove any aiming "guestimation". (There is no "guestimation" with straight-in shots.) I'd watch for patterns in how he's missing the shot. I'd look for core issues with:

* his cue delivery (i.e. hooks, hitches, steering, jabbing and stopping, "lasso" stroke [poking at the cue ball and immediately pulling back as if getting ready to deliver the cue twice], etc.)
* any "jarring" motion I see in his body when delivering the cue (means he's off-balance somewhere)
* his stance (feet/knees/hips/elbow/shoulder aligned *on* the shot line)
* perception of center cue ball / center object ball (this one is big -- if you're not aiming center in the first place, you're not going to hit center)
* ...etc.

Now, I highlighted (in bold) something in your text above, which I think is the part you and I disagree on -- that "lining up perfectly" thing. On a straight-in shot (which is the crux of what we're talking about here, remember), lining up perfectly, is just that -- you're dead on the line through the center of the cue ball and through dead center of the object ball. It's just cue delivery, now. If my "student" were to then stroke that shot -- after I looked down his/her cue to make sure he/she were correctly on the line (I may even put a LaserStroke on his her cue to verify the line of aim is correct -- which will "catch" the "intentional just a little bit off" thing), and he/she still missed the shot, can you not see that the problem was an execution problem? That something happened between this perfectly-lined up aim, and the subsequent delivery of the cue? So you're trying to imply that we don't address the root issue of why the cue was not delivered along that perfect line, and instead throw the baby out with the bath water and start with a new aiming system?

Ok so after you did all this analysis and you see that everything is perfect with his form and delivery and 3 of 10 times he is lining up just a hair off how do you fix it?

Let's say I did run him through the paces. Here's what I'd do:

1. Have him pot straight-in shots. And I mean DEAD straight-in shots, to remove any perception of ball-cutting. If he were having problems with potting straight-in shots, I wouldn't move on to step 2. There's a problem here that needs to be addressed here in step 1, because it's core, root, fundamental. There is no guestimation (as pivot-based aiming advocates seem to like calling it that) with aiming straight-in shots vs cut shots. You aim center ball through both the cue ball and the object ball.

And where is center ball on both the cueball and object ball? Are you sure that there is no perceptual differences between humans that maybe causes them to misjudge where center ball is on two spheres in relation to themselves once in a while? Remember how you said you are gifted with a nearly superhuman ability to visualize the ghost ball? Many other people cannot do this. So I think it's safe to say that a lot of people might have trouble doing what comes easily to you.

You then deliver through on that line. If you miss, one of two things happened: a.) the shooter didn't properly perceive center ball in the first place,

As stated above we can agree on this point.

or b.) the shooter didn't deliver the cue straight through the shot line. Something happened in one of those two places, and I'd then attempt to diagnose where things went awry.

And this point was covered in my hypothetical and subsequent answer to Cuetechasaurus.

I'd use tools like the LaserStroke to find out if it's a straight-line perception problem (which, again, will catch your "intentionally off by a hair" thing), or if somewhere in the cue delivery the cue went off the shot line. Again, there is no moving on to step 2 until we get straight-in shots nailed. I would say at this point, I would want my "student" to be nailing the center of the pocket on those straight-in shots 99% of the time. (Yes, I know and accept the fact that humans are not machines, not perfect, and sometimes the occasional hiccup happens.) But, you can't move on to step 2 if you can't aim center ball properly! (*That* is my point -- no twisting of your hypothetical at all.)

So again, let's use your laser stroke gizmo and allow the student to simply line up ten times and each time you turn it on after they are down on the shot to check the alignment. 7 times dead on 3 times off. How do you fix it?

Which brings us all the way BACK to the original question? What if you had a way to show someone how to improve their alignment on the ball to 9 out of ten being dead on? Would you use this method or not? What if you could show this to them in five minutes and see instant improvement without hours of analysis?

 

[JB Cases]

Which brings us all the way BACK to the original question? What if you had a way to show someone how to improve their alignment on the ball to 9 out of ten being dead on? Would you use this method or not? What if you could show this to them in five minutes and see instant improvement without hours of analysis?

2. Let's say at this point, we're ready for cut-shots. The "student" has proven to me that he can for sure deliver his cue dead-center on the shot line 99% of the time. I'd have him then do cut-shots at known angles that are easy to aim at. For example -- the half-ball hit. I'd line up a series of half-ball hits for him to execute, at various places on the table, to be sure he's focusing on aiming at the edge of the object ball, and that he's following through to have the cue ball hit a true half-ball hit. What I'm looking for here, is "is he trying to steer the cue? Is he being distracted with, oh, say, the nearby rail and the thought of sending the object ball down that rail causes him to, say, steer the cue in the direction of the rail?" (I want to make sure the table itself isn't distracting him.) "Is he having problems with half-ball hits to one side [e.g. the left side]?" This could be a perception problem -- i.e. dominant eye, etc. From there, I'd move on to quarter-ball hits, three-quarter ball hits, two-thirds ball hits, etc.

Well this is certainly a detailed and thorough process which I am sure would work to improve anyone. However again, it doesn't fit the problem on the blackboard.

But for sure, I would NOT throw the baby out with the bath water, and just "ignore" testing his fundamentals just because they "look good."

Ok, Again so skip ahead to the post testing phase where you have the verification you need.

John, don't get me wrong -- I see what you're trying to get at.

I can't help but to get you wrong. Instead of imagining what could be and addressing that you are telling what can't be in your opinion. So since my example is apparently so far outside your view of the world it's impossible for you to accept my hypothetical and answer the core question. It's a typical classical/analytical roadblock (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenanace)

You want me to go down the road of visualizing a player who has perfect fundamentals, delivers his cue in a straight line, but somehow occasionally misses shots, therefore "needing" a new aiming system. that your hypothetical case -- most assuredly with this topic of straight-in shots -- is FLAWED.

Well yes I did ask you to go down that road for the sake of discussion. But you are kind of like my puppy who absolutely will not go swimming in the ocean with me despite my constant proof that they ocean is ok to swim in. My daughter on the other hand wades right in gleefully eager to try new things.

You can't have someone with "perfect" fundamentals who can't consistently pot straight-in shots ("consistently" meaning a reasonable margin of error -- noone's perfect). You can't have someone with "perfect" fundamentals who can't sight a straight-in shot properly (seeing and cueing-up on center cue ball *IS* a core aspect of proper fundamentals).

If you say so. Once upon a time the hypothesis was that the Earth was round but there were many scientists who said it "can't" be true.

And, you can't have someone with "perfect" fundamentals who properly sights-up center ball on both the cue ball and object ball, but then misses the shot. (How can that person *then* be stated as having "perfect" fundamentals if he/she can't deliver the cue along that straight line he/she lined-up on?

We aren't talking about that person. I agree that if a person is properly lined up and they miss then the aiming is not at fault. Didn't we cover this several times already?

That was assuredly a cue delivery problem, therefore busting the myth this person had "perfect fundamentals" to begin with!)

Again, if your mind can't accept the problem I posed then you can't answer it.

Your case, especially since it's intentionally skewed by you secretly telling Steve Davis to miss 30% of the time, blows up the perfect fundamentals theory, because Steve himself will tell you that the aiming through the center of both balls is a core fundamental in itself.

He might just say that. Then again he might not. Have you asked him? Isn't it a bit presumptuous to speak for Steve Davis on the subject of aiming? And I don't agree that it blows up my theory because I gave you and example of a person with perfect form and after you ran him through all the tests he still misses 30% of the time - how do you fix that? You have no answer other than to say such a person is impossible to find. So because you refuse to suspend your idea of "perfect" in order to contemplate the problem I posed you will never come to the point of discussing the possible solution.

We have a chicken and egg situtation.

Your contention is that perfect fundamentals includes perfect aiming. Mine is that they are separate. The thing is that I can see your point and agree that one must look to a person's form and delivery. You however cannot accept mine as even possible theoretically so we are at an impasse. I can't expect you to discuss what might be possible when your feet are firmly cemented to your concepts.

Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - Robert M. Pirsig. I might put this on a few people's Christmas lists this year. I think it's time for me to reread it as well.

 

[justadub]

When I first saw a CTE thread a couple of months ago, my head hurt trying to process the geometry.

Now I find that trying to follow this thread is making my head hurt.

Usually my head stops hurting when I stop banging it against the wall. Do you suppose that might work right now?

I jest.

I think. :shrug:

 

[ribdoner]

i don't think ANYONE can explain CTE in bullet point format so that an interested layperson can grasp the concept if they so choose