I followed the rest of your post, and it falls in line with what I was thinking. However, from your first paragraph (that I cite above), I didn't hear him saying that at all... which is the problem.
Cte
- Thread starter jamesroberts
- Start date
I followed the rest of your post, and it falls in line with what I was thinking. However, from your first paragraph (that I cite above), I didn't hear him saying that at all... which is the problem.
It's OK; you wouldn't be the first by a long shot. And I do give jerkoff answers to those that are jerkoffs themselves.
I think the kind of pre-shot discipline that CTE tries to instill is good for consistency. I think CTE's way of aligning with the shot ("visualizing" the two lines) is too artificial and ambiguous and actually works against accurate alignment, but the general idea of a systematic pre-shot alignment is good.
Some players obviously think CTE is the holy grail of aiming. Some of the same ones thought Hal Houle's "ball fractions" system was the nuts too, and we had the same arguments about how it worked 10-15 years ago (it's a simpler version of CTE). It's all a little cultish and personality worshipping for my tastes, but it's their cult...
pj
chgo
Do you still have any question you would like answered about the system or see anything wrong with the system, swest or anybody?
Last edited:
I think CTE (like all x-angle systems) only defines a few and the rest (most of the ones "involved in making shots") are estimated by the player using feel.*
It seems I understand better than you that the system defines* only one body position for a given "formation" of shooter/CB/OB, and it makes no difference if you move that formation an inch or a table length across the table - so long as it's the same shooter/CB/OB formation (and the same aimpoint), it's the same system-defined body position and cut angle.
It doesn't matter what position your body is in - it will be in that same position for every shot with the same shooter/CB/OB formation and aimpoint.
Unfortunately, I get it only too well. It's the same nonsense argument that has been made since Hal Houle's first x-angle system started showing up in internet discussions 10-15 years ago. The "rotating edges" fantasy was scoffed at back then and it hasn't gained any credibility now with the addition of pivots.
pj
chgo
* In fact I really believe that x-angle systems are all feel, just with an overlaid gridwork to make consistent estimation easier - kinda like those grids to help make drawings.
Patrick - I haven't seen your reasons why you don't think CTE works/doesn't work and why you persistently posting in every CTE thread imaginable. Would you mind explaining why? I'd love to hear why you don't like the system, whether you have actually given it a real go or not.
LOL. This is that Bizarro place, right?
pj
chgo
Back to the thread and my post #371.
The pre-pivot shift of the cue tip to the side of the center of the CB as of late is ½ tip. The secondary aiming points as of late are 1/8, A, B, C and 1/8.
I get that one can start with the CTE line (CTEL) the right eye for cutting the OB to the left and the left eye to sight on the secondary aim point. To resolve both at the same time one should rotate the head to the side away from the pocket.
When this is done, the line from the center of the pupil to the center of the other pupil is put on an angle relative to the cue placement. This angle narrows the distance between the eyes, looking at the shot, so that the right eye can sight the CTEL and the left eye can aim on the secondary aim line.
This then double locks the eyes, head and body into a stance to bring the cue up and on the table with the bridge placed behind the CB, say one foot behind. One then slides the cue tip to the correct offset pre-pivot. One will pivot and stroke the cue between the eyes and under the center of the chin.
Say we are sighting the secondary aim point from the left edge of the CB in line with the center, 1/2, “B” of the OB to achieve a cut angle of ~60 degrees.
At one foot separation between the CB and OB, the offset would be 1.5 cue tip offset.
At a two foot separation between the CB and OB, the offset would be .5 cue tip offset.
At a three foot separation between the CB and OB, the offset would be .2 cue tip offset.
At a four foot separation between the CB and OB, the offset would be .1 cue tip offset.
At a five foot separation between the CB and OB, the offset would be .05 cue tip offset.
Can one remember to do this easily – not.
Just saying.
:thumbup:
The pre-pivot shift of the cue tip to the side of the center of the CB as of late is ½ tip. The secondary aiming points as of late are 1/8, A, B, C and 1/8.
I get that one can start with the CTE line (CTEL) the right eye for cutting the OB to the left and the left eye to sight on the secondary aim point. To resolve both at the same time one should rotate the head to the side away from the pocket.
When this is done, the line from the center of the pupil to the center of the other pupil is put on an angle relative to the cue placement. This angle narrows the distance between the eyes, looking at the shot, so that the right eye can sight the CTEL and the left eye can aim on the secondary aim line.
This then double locks the eyes, head and body into a stance to bring the cue up and on the table with the bridge placed behind the CB, say one foot behind. One then slides the cue tip to the correct offset pre-pivot. One will pivot and stroke the cue between the eyes and under the center of the chin.
Say we are sighting the secondary aim point from the left edge of the CB in line with the center, 1/2, “B” of the OB to achieve a cut angle of ~60 degrees.
At one foot separation between the CB and OB, the offset would be 1.5 cue tip offset.
At a two foot separation between the CB and OB, the offset would be .5 cue tip offset.
At a three foot separation between the CB and OB, the offset would be .2 cue tip offset.
At a four foot separation between the CB and OB, the offset would be .1 cue tip offset.
At a five foot separation between the CB and OB, the offset would be .05 cue tip offset.
Can one remember to do this easily – not.
Just saying.
:thumbup:... Can one remember to do this easily – not.
Just saying.
If I understand what you are saying, it's that the offset from center prior to the pivot would have to vary if the bridge length and cut angle are to remain constant as CB-OB separation varies.
But, Stan's CTE doesn't do that. Instead, it keeps the offset from center constant and varies the bridge length. Yet that doesn't seem to produce a constant cut angle as CB-OB separation varies.
Yes, that is what I'm saying and have diagramed in post #371 in an effort to verify if CTE can be validated by geometry and trig.
I may look into varying the bridge distance behind the CB to see if one can achieve the same cut angle with the 1/2 tip offset pre-pivot. I did this awhile back but not with the recent secondary aim lines.
In practice, perhaps I should mark my shaft with a ruler with one inch increments.
:thumbup:Remember this from Jal?
Q
I showed CTE/Pro One to an up an coming player. He is probably a 5 in the APA. He had trouble making back cuts. I showed him how to use the coordinates and pivot and he was making back cuts consistently well and now swears that it has helped his game.
The naysayers said CTE/Pro One was snake oil and anyone who taught it was a snake oil salesman. They are eating their words now and it tastes like CROW
JoeyA
I showed CTE/Pro One to an up an coming player. He is probably a 5 in the APA. He had trouble making back cuts. I showed him how to use the coordinates and pivot and he was making back cuts consistently well and now swears that it has helped his game.
The naysayers said CTE/Pro One was snake oil and anyone who taught it was a snake oil salesman. They are eating their words now and it tastes like CROW
JoeyA
CTE/Pro One has been paramount in my overall improvement. I've been using Pro One for about a year and a half now and since then my level has improved from a C+ / low B to a solid B, on some occasions flirting with a B+ game. I'm now running out with some consistency and I couldn't be more pleased. I still struggle a little from time to time but I can easily overcome it and quickly return to form. If feel is indeed involved in the CTE/Pro One process, then it's without a doubt the best damn way to feel balls in the hole
I thought I responded to this two or three hours ago, but the system says not. My apologies if it turns out to be a double post.
The cut angle remains the same as CB-OB distance varies only if the CB is moved directly along the CB-GB line (or the contact point to contact point line, which is parallel to it). Once the OB-Pocket line is established, the OB becomes sort of incidental to the shot. It's useful to look at the CB-GB-Pocket triangle, and the Player-GB-Pocket triangle may be of interest, too.
The bridge length and tip offset aren't the only things that can vary. Pay close attention to how Stan says to get the cue/bridge into position early on, and then look at what he says and does in Chapter 13. I think the latter is an example, not a prescription of a certain distance. It's useful to ask questions like "Where's the GB line with respect to the CTEL?", "Where's the bridge point with respect to the CTEL?", "Where must the bridge point be with respect to the GB line?".
And watch Stevie Moore get into position for any of his demos. You can see when he gets his alignment right while upright; then he bends about halfway to shooting position and pauses a long time staring at the shot; then he sort of swoops in very fast to shooting position. It'd be worth a lot to see a high speed, high resolution video of him doing that so you could watch his eyes. I'd bet that once he's aligned they don't change focus point one iota until he's solidly into shooting position.
Which made me think of a slogan for Stan: "Stan Shuffett's CTE/ProOne: What you see is what you get."
This is a great way to get your visuals as the distance grows between the balls. I also like to keep my stick out of the line of sight until I'm dialed in comfortably.
I like this wording, John. Although new users won't understand its meaning at first, it may shorten the learning curve.
A tip for adjustments with Cte... your visuals control your alignment. This control can be initiated before you actually get down on the shot. I alluded to this in a previous post. The visuals can be locked in, but the body is free to move accordingly. Think about it. Science imitating art is not too easy to do. :wink:
Best,
Mike
I think all that blue dye might be getting into your water, Joey. You predicted (in big blue fonts) that Stan's DVD would arrive like stone tablets from the Mount, all the naysayer heretics would instantly be turned to pillars of salt, and all would be revealed in a bolt of big blue revelation. But Stan's DVD has been released for months now and all I hear is more questions and tune-changing by the CTE choir.
"Of course there are adjustments! Who ever said otherwise?" (<- the new "it's exact")
pj
chgo
The Naysayers as a group have quieted down because they have been proven wrong. Even your acidic rhetoric has been dampened.
It's a miracle!
JoeyA
Yes I do and thanks.
I saw that the slope was extreme and dismissed it quickly as impractical. The cut angles on jal's chart are for thick cuts that I use double distance aiming.
I am looking for an easy way to effect thin cuts by using the edge of the CB to aim on spots on the OB without parallel shifting.
As jal's chart shows this is impractical for the bridge distances behind the CB become longer than the cue...even longer than a "hip pivot."
In the chart below, I am stroking approx 1.125 inches from my secondary aim line below the center of my chin (jal mentions this).
The distances are:
1 foot 4.25 inch
2 feet 12.0 inch
3 feet 23.7 inch
4 feet 51.0 inch
Last edited:
I showed CTE/Pro One to an up an coming player. He is probably a 5 in the APA. He had trouble making back cuts. I showed him how to use the coordinates and pivot and he was making back cuts consistently well and now swears that it has helped his game.
The naysayers said CTE/Pro One was snake oil and anyone who taught it was a snake oil salesman. They are eating their words now and it tastes like CROW
JoeyA
I have yet to read any naysayer back down from their stance on CTE. Just because you keep writing it, doesn't make it so.
All that is need to do is read the thread about answering question from the CTE DVD thread to see how unclear the DVD is to alot of people. Maybe that should be a sticky so people can get a honest feeling for how the DVD is or is not being accepted instead of bullshit being spread.
I've never backed down from my statement that CTE is useless because it is too hard to learn, overcomplicated, does not work on all shots, and can not get you into the correct stance for all shots.
I've posted shots to be made and none have, why is that?
Show how to use CTE one handed?
Show how to use CTE behind the back.
Show how to use CTE using a bridge shooting over a ball in front of the CB.
Show a rail first shot.
Ever seen a fancy drawing using CTE in a combo or carom?
Nope, just, as Woody Allen would say, mental masturbation by the CTE proponents as usual.
lol, pockets magically moving, balls levitation and the table physically moving, one handed shots. Whats next are going to ask if cte can be shot through a wall in another room? Get real already and stop this bs, its over!!
Last edited: