Karl, three alignments, thick-thin-thinner. The qball and ob are always in different places so there are many angles however the 3 alignments will cover these many angles.
Why CTE is silly
- Thread starter GetMeThere
- Start date
- Status
Karl, three alignments, thick-thin-thinner. The qball and ob are always in different places so there are many angles however the 3 alignments will cover these many angles.
I'm not "You Guys," and if you think there's something important that I missed, the polite thing is to point me to it.
Hey cookie:
No offense, but your answer above is Exhibit A of your continued "contributions" -- if you want to call them that -- to any CTE thread asking for the system to be explained or explored. At least Dave S. (Spidey) tries to explain it when he can, when he sees the opportunity to, and has offered videos in the past describing what he's doing. Do you know what I see relative to your "contributions" to these threads? Just one-liners, either zings against the post you're responding to (amazing how we'll see you come out of nowhere to protect Hal or CTE once a very pointed post challenges either), or else a couple cheerleading sentences describing how well CTE works for you (and not *HOW* it works, nor *HOW* you use it). It seems the only time we hear from you, is when the logic behind CTE, or Hal's legacy, is challenged. And even then, it's only a sentence or two, serving as an icepick in the eye of not only the original poster, but of the reader as well.
How about some meat to those posts? As that old burger chain TV commercial used to say, "Where's the beef?"
Respectfully,
-Sean
P.S. Now I'm not condoning zings to Hal. But I do approve of challenging a system, especially one that has yet (until Stan's DVD comes out) show a CTE-type system explored and explained in detail, without all the snake oil sales pitches and without the "it just works -- stop asking questions, sit down, and enjoy the movie" shushing-type comments. I believe it works, but I am very interested in knowing the mechanics/geometry behind it. So far, only Dave S. and Stan seem willing to do this.
That's what passes for "answers" about CTE, Karl. And, for God's sake, don't be so "closed minded" as to ask for an interpretation of that circular gobbledygook without first proving your worthiness by traveling to California for a four-day CTE lesson or Spidey will have to challenge you to a shootout.
Welcome to "getting somewhere" with the CTE crowd.
LOL.
pj
chgo
Mike-
Let me just bounce this off of you regarding CTE:
I already have an aiming method that is probably as exact as is feasible within the rules of pool. But, I find it limiting because it is difficult to keep a smooth rhythm to my game and I find myself using it on shots that I should be able to make without computation. And frankly, it can be mentally fatiguing to use. I'm lucky if I play over an hour a week, so hitting a million balls is not an option.
So, my interest in CTE is not for finding the exact aiming point, but is an effort to find a way to improve my feel for the game, and to make my game more consistent when moving from table to table.
I have noticed a phenomenon where if you start the sighting process along an aim line that you know is too wide, and gradually visually sweep in along tighter potential aim lines there is (at least sometimes) a "recognition" response when you find the right aim line. sort of a mental: No, no, no, no, yes! when the right aim line is found, that turns to "no" again if you continue your sweep past the correct aim line. My theory is that this is what the pivoting process really is.
Personally, this is how I think the best players aim: they have the ability to quickly consider the possibilities and recognize the correct choice of aim line from among many. So what if CTE isn't really about three angles or exact geometry, but is really a method of systematically approaching a shot and training yourself to recognize that elusive visual cue that confirms that you are "on the line" for that shot. Is that bad?
Of course not. What's "bad" is suggesting something reasonable like that and waking the CTE Ninja Doubletalk Defense Force who attack your objectivity and proclaim CTE's "exactness" (which shall remain undefined for all eternity, Praise Hal).
The problem isn't with CTE's potential usefulness (as has been said endlessly), it's with trying to have a reasonable conversation about it without all the defensiveness.
pj
chgo
With all due respect, the answers given vary depending on which poster we hear from.
From what I have recently garnered from RECENT posts, CTE now uses 3 alignments, 75-80 angles with slight adjustments made for each angle. The pocket is ony used for a reference to what the cut angle is.
Geez, with all these variables, it sounds a whole lot like any other aiming method, except for the pivoting, which I personally found bothersome (not cutting it down, it just wasn't for me). I have always subscribed to the K.I.S.S. method (Keep It Simple, Stupid). This CTE method just seems to be a little more complicated than aiming needs to be. Like I said in an earlier post, after many hours at playing and practicing the game of pool, knowing where to hit the OB and seeing where to shoot the CB on a line to make it hit the OB in the desired location just comes naturally to me now. If I do my part to get down, stroke properly, and stay down and finish, I have no problem at all with any shot the table presents (I'm talking about makeable shots of high to medium percentage. Everyone misses low percentage shots, but everyone also makes low percentage shots on occasion).
Execution of ANY shot is still the key!!!
Like I've said before, I'm not knocking CTE, Pro-One, or any other aiming method out there. Whatever works for any individual and gives him/her confidence in making balls is what that person SHOULD use. I just wish people would quit ramming their prefered method down everybody elses throat as if theirs is the ONLY way to do it. When you really get down to it, there's not an ounce of difference in any of them.
I must admit though that these threads do bring out some good (and healthy) debates. Lots of good info to be read on this thread in particular.
And.........I'm only giving my opinions just as I do in any other post I make. Don't rip me for my opinions, I don't rip you for yours. What you THINK is only good for YOU and any other like-minded persons. It doesn't make you right.
Maniac
Last edited:
Tap, tap, tap.
Maniac (and trust me, I'm on NOBODY'S side in this dogfight!!!)
DC,
This is a different Mike replying to your post. :wink: I've shot for many years using feel, ghostball, etc. I learned Stan's Pro One and tried to incorporate it into my game. After an adjustment period I realized I could now find the aiming line on shots I previously had problems making. What an advantage! But what about my "feel" game? Was I supposed to throw it away and completely go with Cte? After all, I didn't need a new aiming system to pocket balls I could make 99.9% of the time.
My game was already at a level where if I didn't break and run out on an average table I was not doing something right. That "something" was usually mixing dominant eyes (different thread) and not lining up correctly on the shot. This is where I realized Pro One/Cte had another use, especially for the experienced feel shooters that were playing at an advanced level. Old dogs and new tricks is not popular with players that don't want to scrap years of playing experience for the latest aiming craze.
Using Cte as a training tool hasn't really been discussed. The idea of using it to improve the mental routines we use to approach each shot has. The level of focus and concentration improves, but what about the added benefit of seeing the correct angle/setup? You can pull the trigger after you pivot to this alignment or you can pause for a second or two and really look at it and try to burn it into the memory banks. I actually stop and do a system check when I have the aiming line. It tells me immediately if it feels right or not. If it doesn't, why? If it doesn't feel right I will shoot it anyway. If the ball goes in I reset the shot and look at it again. I see where my aiming problems are and catalogue the shot angles for future reference.
I now use Cte to supplement my aiming and double check my alignment instead of completely switching over to it. I've found my shotmaking has improved which allows me to think more about position play. On the bad days when you feel like you're playing 9 ball on a billiard table, I switch completely over to Cte. I just pay attention to my alignment and setup for each shot. After a period of time I can usually get back on track and get in my rhythm once again. Cte is not silly to me.
Best,
Mike
Thanks. That is a useful and reasonable perspective.
Good post! I now use it on each and every shot, I like the consistency factor. Now, where it has been mentioned many times in this thread that you don't even have to look at the ob once you determine thick or thin, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't look at the ob!
Once I get on the right aim line, I forget about it. Why waste focus on something already done?? I then focus on my speed and position. I know the ball is going to drop, so, the rest is now my focus. Picture it in your head exactly what is going to happen, then let "feel" take over to shoot the shot.Doing that, you also are seeing exactly where you did hit the ob for future reference. Such as not wanting to pocket the ball, but shoot it somewhere else.
I don't think anyone here is saying DON'T look at the ob once you determine thick or thin, just that you don't HAVE to. Just like any other aiming system, once you are on the right line, you can turn your head away and still make the ball. That doesn't mean that you should do that, just that you can.
For the billionth time - someone explain why shooting at a blind ob/pocket isn't a meaningful test? One where the player can't compensate, subconsciously adjust (as all of you repeat in your posts over and over), etc.
If "shooting prowess" is the answer to making balls --- don't the detractors have shooting prowess?
If you have someone like Mike Page (who has shooting prowess) shoots at a blind ob and pocket and video tapes how many out of 15 is made, someone like Lou (who I think won a world 14.1 qualifier) does the same, someone like Sean (I'll pick on Sean because he's a 140+ ball runner and ghost ball savant) does the same, and someone like me (who has never won a thing in his life) does the same---- how can the players CHEAT the test? Where would prowess come into play? You make the ball or you don't based on the initial alignment.
Some say tests like that are meaningless, but I think they say that because if they can't see the OB/pocket--- they have ZERO chance in making the ball--- so, well, that's a meaningless test.
For me, that's as meaningful as ANY aiming test has ever been in the history of the pool. It's EXTREMELY difficult, no margin for error is allowed, no adjusting can occur --- it's what all these detractors always wanted.
So, if someone holds a poster board in front of the CB so you can't see ANYTHING (OB/POCKET/REST OF TABLE), please explain in detail how an "approximation system" like CTE could help the shooter make anything? If someone TRULY relied on an approximation system, he/she wouldnt make more than 2 out of 15 (and those would be luck).
It's a shame the usual know-it-alls in this thread refuse to participate in a REAL test like that and post some videos. The problem is... if they do.... that would likely end these CTE threads forever and ever.
So, in short.... someone explain why shooting at a blind ob AND pocket is a bad aiming test:
- How could it be cheated?
- If it only proves playing prowess, shouldn't ALL the great players here do well on it?
- Wouldn't it remove the chance of sub-conscious / subtle adjustments?
If "shooting prowess" is the answer to making balls --- don't the detractors have shooting prowess?
If you have someone like Mike Page (who has shooting prowess) shoots at a blind ob and pocket and video tapes how many out of 15 is made, someone like Lou (who I think won a world 14.1 qualifier) does the same, someone like Sean (I'll pick on Sean because he's a 140+ ball runner and ghost ball savant) does the same, and someone like me (who has never won a thing in his life) does the same---- how can the players CHEAT the test? Where would prowess come into play? You make the ball or you don't based on the initial alignment.
Some say tests like that are meaningless, but I think they say that because if they can't see the OB/pocket--- they have ZERO chance in making the ball--- so, well, that's a meaningless test.
For me, that's as meaningful as ANY aiming test has ever been in the history of the pool. It's EXTREMELY difficult, no margin for error is allowed, no adjusting can occur --- it's what all these detractors always wanted.
So, if someone holds a poster board in front of the CB so you can't see ANYTHING (OB/POCKET/REST OF TABLE), please explain in detail how an "approximation system" like CTE could help the shooter make anything? If someone TRULY relied on an approximation system, he/she wouldnt make more than 2 out of 15 (and those would be luck).
It's a shame the usual know-it-alls in this thread refuse to participate in a REAL test like that and post some videos. The problem is... if they do.... that would likely end these CTE threads forever and ever.
So, in short.... someone explain why shooting at a blind ob AND pocket is a bad aiming test:
- How could it be cheated?
- If it only proves playing prowess, shouldn't ALL the great players here do well on it?
- Wouldn't it remove the chance of sub-conscious / subtle adjustments?
I guess that all depends on how you look at it.Cookieman was actually right. But, it seems like "the opposition" is looking for a 16oz. of steak for their meat, and the "proponents" are saying that 16oz. is there. It's just cut up and mixed in with a stew of other stuff so you have to look for it. :wink: You are getting a lot of meat, you just aren't seeing it.
If you just HAVE to have the steak, be a little patient and get the DVD, the whole steak will be there, and some of the rest of the cow too!
Oh yeah, in case you missed it, that home run was ruled a foul.
Mike, can you give some detail about how CTE helps you check your alignment? Do you mean sighting the center-to-edge (half ball) alignment serves as a "precision starting point" from which you then aim the shot in your own way, or do you mean something more?
pj
chgo
You don't know the difference between a test and a contest. Try taking your ego out of the equation.
pj
chgo
Oh yeah, in case you missed it, that home run was ruled a foul.
He wouldn't have been allowed to run the bases if it had been ruled a foul.
Lou Figueroa
You're lost. Contest has nothing to do with it. Mathematical accuracy does.
I'm not going to spoon feed you the answer.
Lou Figueroa
damn
that felt
pretty good
Prove it by doing a test (not one of your showoff videos) without insisting on anybody else doing it. I posted (at your invitation) how to set up a real test and you dodged it with the usual "show me yours first". It's all about your ego.
pj
chgo
- Status