Cte

Just curious Lou, since you have stated that you refuse to even try it, how do you KNOW that there is a fudge factor?? How do you KNOW that it isn't precise?? Because someone else that didn't try it told you so?? Because you didn't get an explanation of how it works that you could understand? Or, like Pat, because you finally got the math to prove it does work precisely, but didn't understand it so you dismissed it???

As far as all the pivoting, did you ever bother to notice that it is only a half tip of pivot that you use? If that throws your stroke way off, what in the world happens to your stroke when you have to put english on the ball???


I watched the movie ;-)
#####
I tried watching the DVD with an open mind. But frankly, very quickly, the DVD became painful to watch. There is a thimbleful of basic info, followed by endless loops of shot demonstrations, often repeated a second time, and a couple of break and runs, all edited without a miss.

Here’s the good stuff: Stan teaches you a PSR. He tells you to offset your body, establish contact with the cue with your bridge hand and slide into the shot in a consistent manner. Good solid stuff, no doubt, but hardly news worthy. (Having just watched the video of his 183 ball run at the DCC, it is surprisingly similar to Darren Appleton’s PSR.) He even goes into a suggested shot routine (eye movement and warm up strokes) which was also some good stuff.

And I think that’s why some folks find success with the systems outlined on the DVD: they are adding some consistency to their pre-shot and shot routines. That, and what all this edges and centers stuff does is: *it forces you* to look -- and I mean *really look* -- at the cue ball and object ball. It is something tyros and advanced players can benefit from. So, all of that taken together is probably worth some serious improvement to a wide range of players. But that’s about it.

The bad part is that there is movement of the cue after you’re down. Or even with the air/body pivots, alignments that may or may not benefit you as an individual player. IOW, they may work for Stan, Landon, and Stevie, but not necessarily for many others. (I think that actually, for the camera, they could make it work shooting between their legs :-) This is most evident where Stan demonstrates the changing position of the V of his bridge hand and you sit there and wonder: how on God’s good green Simonis covered Earth does he think that is going to equally apply to all the pool players in pooldom.

And, in all probably, that little pivot is going to mess with your cue delivery. If you don’t believe me take a close look at the *huge* sideways movement of his cue, hand, forearm, elbow, and bicep when Stan demonstrates for the use of BHE. None of that is good for a good consistent repeatable and accurate stroke that won’t break down under the heat.

The systems themselves reminded me, by and large, of some of the 3C systems I’ve seen diagrammed over the years. You know: the ones where you put all kinds of numbers on the diamonds and corners, check the path/line the balls are on, do some rudimentary math, and viola! You can’t miss the shot. Of course that only works under perfect conditions and after you’ve done some major experimentation.

And so you have a DVD that contains a modicum of basic system info -- which I think Dr. Dave has done an excellent job of summarizing -- and then an endless loop of Stan, Landon, and Stevie, shooting shot after shot demonstrating how, if you make the right choices, you will not miss and the system will work for you.

The chapter on banks is… problematic. Banks are fired in by all participants, after you are told the right formula for various positions on the grid, but without any insight into how those formulas were arrived at for the appropriate aim point on the rail. And, of course, according to the DVD, the system works flawlessly not only for banks, but jump shots, break shots, caroms, and paper thin cuts (with an adjustment and a surprising amount of small print that basically explains how you’re on your own on these shots.) I was surprised it wasn’t claimed that it was perfect for masse shots too :-)

And so, bottom line: the systems can and will be whatever the player wants them to be.

Sometimes the pivot is obvious; sometimes not; sometimes the body turns, sometimes it does not; bridge length -- pick one; amount of pivot -- till it looks right; back hand English can be used with gay abandon, to a point, if you pivot just so; and, according to the DVD, of course you can use the systems for everything from the lag shot to five ball combo kick banks (just kidding on that last one, but just barely).

IOW, if you work with it long enough you can make it work, but only because you’ve played with it so long that you eventually make all the necessary intuitive adjustments for any kind of success. Oh yes, and it seems that if you get outside the realm of a minimal use of English, to “get the cue ball off the object ball,” you are, once again, on your own. There is a very quick screen that does come up to mention (almost in passing), that English can be important for positional play. Who knew?

If you think the DVD is going to provide you with a definitive proof that these systems are scientifically and/or geometrically precise -- you can lose that thought right now, it’s not there. If you think you’re going to learn some aiming system that is going to make you a successful player in short order, forget that too -- to make these puppies work you are going to have to study, memorize, experiment, and put in loooooong hours (you’ll probably need to make a phone call or two, and probably sign up for a lesson or three). And you need to realize that all that system induced movement before and after you get into shooting position could send you down a path -- which depending on your devotion to the system -- from which you may never emerge and could possibly (probably) keep you from ever being as good a pool player as you might otherwise be.

Which brings me to this: overall, there is a part of me that wants to say that, perhaps, there is some (much) key info kept purposely fuzzy, because there is *no way* you could put this out in the marketplace and expect people -- that had no prior knowledge and understanding of the system -- to succeed. If you want “to believe” after watching this DVD you are almost compelled to contact Stan, because IMO, it certainly does not stand alone as advertised.

One last thing: I have no doubt that Stan really and truly believes in what he’s teaching. IOW, I do believe his work on these systems is a sincere effort to further pool knowledge and help the players watching it. But, I think he’s gone too far down the aiming system Rabbit Hole and perhaps can no longer see that his systems are highly inexact, or at least presented in an inexact manner on the DVD, and for many a dead end, or worse, a problem inducing course of endeavor.

For me, in all honesty, if Mosconi hisself came back from the grave and told me this was the greatest thing since sliced bread I’d tell him to go back and take a nap. This one is not a keeper, for me, and if anyone wants to buy a lightly used copy for $30, shipping included, please PM me for a PayPal address.
#####

As to the pivoting, we already talked about all that in another thread. Catch up.

Lou Figueroa
 
Is this all you can come up with, Professor? Did you miss your nap, again? :boring: I'd enjoy reading about something with a little more substance after 10+ years of debate.

Does this 'feel' start in the feet with your stance or is it purely tactile? Wait, I know, as your chalking the cue, the vibrations from the swipes stimulate nerve endings in the palm of your shooting hand. Purely sensory. Clever! Or is it possibly that 'feel' is safely dismissive and a one size fits all description that can't possibly be wrong when the system is catalogued?

As a system user and being feeble minded because of it, I really would like to know EXACTly what this 'feel' is! While you think about it, I'll go back to using my visuals and pocketing balls. That seems to be a more productive path of research for us zombies. :withstupid:

Best,
Bizarro Mike

Very, very well said!! Tap, Tap
 
The irony of all this is the guy that Lou Figueroa sold the dvd too is the guy thats soon going to answer the unknown parts of the system lol
 
Last edited:
:shakehead::shakehead::shakehead: Like you said, you are so set in your misconceived opinion that even if Mosconi said it was the best thing ever, you wouldn't listen.

But, just to point out a few things- you talk about how much he pivoted with BHE. Well, duh, that's what BHE english does! And, it's not part of CTE, just another way to apply english. The way you probably do it, the cb gets knocked way off course and you have to allow for it to curve back in at just the right time. Either way, you have to allow for something. Just a personal preference on which one you use.

Preshot routine- yes, it does force you to have one, which is a great thing to lead to consistency as you stated.

Accuracy- you can knock it all you want to, but when the only thing you are looking at is the visuals of CTE and either alignment point A,B, or C, and the cb, then how could you POSSSIBLY be aiming by feel when you aren't even looking at the point on the ob that you need to make contact with?? A point always overlooked and dismissed by those against it. If pool aiming really was that simple, that you never had to look at the contact point but your subconscious would have you make it, then no one would ever miss by mis-aiming. So, the visuals and pivot HAVE to be putting you in the right spot to make the ball.


I have also said I would pay more attention to what Stephen Hawking had to say about colliding spheres than Mosconi :-)

And about the pivot, go look for the thread where all that was discussed. In brief, I'll restate my issues with it (again) from watching what was supposed to be the definitive work on the subject:

"Sometimes the pivot is obvious; sometimes not; sometimes the body turns, sometimes it does not; bridge length -- pick one; amount of pivot -- till it looks right; back hand English can be used with gay abandon, to a point, if you pivot just so..."

So as I have also said, there is *lots* of fudge in the system and plenty of room to guesstimate.

Lou Figueroa
 
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?
Champ, can you use CTE/Pro1 when shooting a combination? The target in this case wouldn't be the center of a pocket but center (EDIT: doesn't have to be the center) of another OB. Can CTE still apply in this scenario?
 
Last edited:
Champ, can you use CTE/Pro1 when shooting a combination? The target in this case wouldn't be the center of a pocket but center of another OB. Can CTE still apply in this scenario?

yes you can, I actually made a combination bank corner 3 weeks ago and had three people go WOW! after it dropped. Im sure there was a little luck involved, but i did do it.
 
Last edited:
Neil:
...how could you POSSSIBLY be aiming by feel when you aren't even looking at the point on the ob that you need to make contact with??
The reverse of this question makes just as much sense (i.e., none): how could you possibly not be aiming by feel if you aren't looking at the OB contact point?

A point always overlooked and dismissed by those against it.
You mean "those against" illogical nonsense, right?

If pool aiming really was that simple, that you never had to look at the contact point but your subconscious would have you make it, then no one would ever miss by mis-aiming. So, the visuals and pivot HAVE to be putting you in the right spot to make the ball.
So aiming by feel must be 100% successful or it doesn't exist, and therefore CTE must be "exact"? Dude, your logic is nonexistent.

pj
chgo
 
jsp said:
Champ, can you use CTE/Pro1 when shooting a combination? The target in this case wouldn't be the center of a pocket but center of another OB. Can CTE still apply in this scenario?
yes you can, I actually made a combination bank corner 3 weeks ago and had three people go WOW! after it dropped. Im sure there was a little luck involved, but i did do it.
Then would slightly moving the second ball of the combination (the one you're attempting to pocket) be just as silly as moving the pocket (in a non-combination shot)? Exact same dilemma. You have the exact same alignments, but your target has moved.
 
yes you can, I actually made a combination bank corner 3 weeks ago and had three people go WOW! after it dropped. Im sure there was a little luck involved, but i did do it.

Explain your aiming process, don't just say "Yeah I did".

I can explain how to aim every shot I post using GB cause thats is how I made them.

I did system testing for years and poked wholes in systems that suspossedly had no holes. I can find a weakness in anything and with CTE thats not very hard work.

Systems are no good if they do not work in all possible conditions that can be encountered. Cte does not do this. They have to work at the limits and not just under idea conditions. Cte does not do this.

If a system fails to give you a total understanding of what happens when a moving, spinning sphere hits a non spinning, non moving sphere, it's no good.
 
I'd enjoy reading about something with a little more substance after 10+ years of debate.
I'd enjoy hearing a new explanation about how x-angle systems work without feel. Got one?

As a system user and being feeble minded because of it, I really would like to know EXACTly what this 'feel' is!
If you don't know what feel is, why are you arguing against it?

pj
chgo
 
ThePoliteSniper:
I'd like to know what aiming by "using visuals" means exactly. Isn't that what we mean by "feel"?
Yes, it is. "Visual intelligence" is also another term for "feel".

Neil:
As much as has been stated already, as much as you have posted in CTE threads, and you are asking this question??
Yes. Because "as much as has been stated already" didn't define it.

Line up the center of the cb to the edge of the ob. That is a visual.
Yes, that's one visual. And "line up the edge of the cb with an aimpoint" is another visual. But the question wasn't "what's one visual?" or even "what are both visuals?". The question was: what does aiming by "using visuals" mean? (Sorry I can't ask that in whatever your first language is.)

Feel is making an educated guess
Yes, it is.

not using known parameters such as contact to contact point aiming method, or center to edge in CTE and 90/90.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can use "known parameters" and feel. In fact, that's how just about everybody aims.

Ghost ball would be a feel system, as you have no parameters to go by, but have to judge or guess where the ghost ball is.
CTE is a feel system because you have to judge or guess how to "use the visuals". Unless you're going to explain that now...

pj
chgo
 
As much as has been stated already, as much as you have posted in CTE threads, and you are asking this question??

Line up the center of the cb to the edge of the ob. That is a visual. The only ones that say that is feel are the ones that can't accept that there is no feel to it.Feel is making an educated guess, not using known parameters such as contact to contact point aiming method, or center to edge in CTE and 90/90. Ghost ball would be a feel system, as you have no parameters to go by, but have to judge or guess where the ghost ball is.


Using the edge of the cue ball to line up the A, B or C coordinate or the 1/8 ball is another visual. This and CTE are things that you can SEE. That makes them visuals.

Ghost ball as an aiming method, sure does seem like there is a whole lot of "guessing" going on. Can't see no stinkin' ghost ball. :D

JoeyA
 
Back
Top