Well, guess not then...
I'd be surprised if anybody, CTE users or others, can sight shots while standing, hide the OB before getting down, and still make the shots. Maybe I'm just naive...
pj
chgo
John Schmidt's and Corey Deuel's comments on aiming systems
- Thread starter PoolSharkAllen
- Start date
pj
chgo
There is an objective perception in CTE PRO ONE that math cannot explain at this tiime and therein lies the divide, math on one side and perception on the other. Math simply does not have answers for CTE in its purest form.
Stan Shuffett
Again with the "math" stuff. I think it's logic on one side and whatever "objective perception" is on the other.
But I really don't think we're talking about different things, Stan - I think your "objective perception" is what I think of as "learned refinement" (which I call "feel", and is necessary for all kinds of aiming).
pj
chgo
PJ,
According to you, it's logic vs. "whatever". I am certain that your position about "whatever" is not going to hold up. Visual intelligence will rein supreme over math.
Stan
Most people don't have the math, biological and physics skills to accurately explain what happens when trying to describe the complicated natural systems around us. Very few do and many simplifications are made along the way for those that do as close approximations are suitable when talking about systems at the scale of a pool table and collisions involving standard size object balls.
I don't believe "math" is lacking in answers here or more accurately "the sciences".
The above of course has nothing to do with how effective CTE is, but as an engineer, I'd thought I'd point the above out.
Best,
Nick
NickV,
I totally agree with your comments. In post 342 I indicated that Math has yet to explain what is happening with perception concerning CTE. I am hopeful that someday someone will explain the math behind CTE PRO ONE.
I am not aware of anyone that has seriously looked at CTE from a Math/Perception perspective. Perhaps you might choose to undertake that project one day.
Thanks,
Stan Shuffett
You're naive
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to show you the greatest aiming system ever made... all your shots sliced to perfection without shedding a single tear. This is the original, the one-and-only Shot-O-Matic, the world famous aiming system. This is the only aiming system in the world that slices tough cut shots in one stroke, with swerve, throw, squirt and deflection factored in. Isn’t that amazing? Cut a ball without missing. Slice them down the rail so thin they never hit rubber.
The Ronco Shot-O-Matic is the one aiming system you’ll wonder how you ever did without. It slices, it dices, and so much more! Three cutting angles will allow you to cut balls and never miss! Balls sliced perfectly every time, and never missing the pocket! Cut shots, bank shots, carom shots and more! Cut a nine ball without crying and bring new life to your rotation games, one pocket, and eight ball in no time. (But wait, there’s more...)
Lou Figueroa
with apologies
to Ron Popeil
It's not "math vs. whatever", Stan - it's simple logic pointing clearly to the importance of feel in CTE.
You keep trying to put words in my mouth that you think give you a debating edge. If you're confident of your own statements you shouldn't need to misrepresent mine.
pj
chgo
PJ, you clearly referenced logic or math verses whatever "objective perception".
I am not misrepresenting what you wrote.
I am extremely confident of what I say!
Stan Shuffett
I am not misrepresenting what you wrote.
I am extremely confident of what I say!
Stan Shuffett
I'd volunteer to shoot blind OB/pocket shots with pretty much any naysayer in this thread at any public event like the SBE or whatever. I think you guys would get Ron Popeiled-to-death.
You guys are just getting too advanced ... wtf is a gap anyway...looks like I'm going to have to brush up on my azbilliards lingo LoL
You guys are just getting too advanced ... wtf is a gap anyway...looks like I'm going to have to brush up on my azbilliards lingo LoL
If I explained what I thought a "gap" is, it might spoil the fun. So far, we've had posters try to equate gaps with "confusion" or a lack of math in explaining perception. Some think that because there are gaps doesn't mean there are gaps.
Anyways, let's take another look at my earlier comment: "Since CTE-related systems have been argued over extensively for the past 10 years, that's a clear indication that CTE is more complicated than you're making it out to be. It also indicates that there are gaps in CTE that people are trying to better understand. Even in this thread, various posters are raising good points about the nuances of CTE."
What I was trying to say diplomatically was the "gaps in CTE" are the parts of CTE that have not been covered adequately or not explained very well.
Last edited:
Yes you are, Stan - and it's getting to be obvious that you mean to.
Here are the quotes from my posts:
I might believe that when you stop trying to change what I say to something you think you can handle better.
pj
chgo
The number of CB/OB alignments clearly defined by CTE varies depending on which CTE instructions you consider "clear". Stan and some other CTE users (but not all of them) think all of CTE's instructions are clear enough to clearly define a CB/OB alignment for every cut angle that comes up in pool.
I (and others) think that CTE only clearly defines a handful of CB/OB alignments (something like 6 to 10 per cut direction, depending on how you count), far less than the number needed to make every possible cut shot (which is probably 3 or 4 times that amount). The cut angles that CTE does define clearly are more or less evenly spaced across the 90-degree "cut range" per cut direction (left or right) - the undefined cut angles are in the "gaps" between the few clearly defined cut angles.
This disagreement has raged in internet pool forums for at least 15 years that I personally know of, beginning with a guy named Hal Houle who is widely credited with popularizing "fractional" and "pivot" aiming systems like CTE. Hal sometimes joined in the internet arguments about the "gaps" in his systems, but hasn't been heard from publicly for many years.
I think the users who insist these aiming systems are "exact" shoot themselves in the foot by making it seem that the systems must be "exact" to "work" (or maybe to be respectable). I think they should just accept the systems' obvious realistic limits and promote them as the useful aiming guides (and pre-shot routines) they are, even with the gaps.
But what do I know?
pj
chgo
I don't want to burst any bubbles here. I love the aiming threads. :wink:
I just have never been able to overcome the fact that I don't aim where I see! What system will fix this?
Any?
No one has been able to give me an answer that seems to correct this.
And YES, I can shoot a cue ball straight down the middle of the table and have it come back off the rail directly at the cue stick time after time. I have learned to adjust is the best way to describe it.
Head position does not matter. I have done everything but stand on my head. Maybe I will try that next.
Maybe one of these SEE systems or CTE or Pro One, may be the answer because I don't have to aim the cue down table where it will be aligned wrong?
I just have to aim at the cue ball more or less?
I have no clue!
Help!
I just have never been able to overcome the fact that I don't aim where I see! What system will fix this?
Any?
No one has been able to give me an answer that seems to correct this.
And YES, I can shoot a cue ball straight down the middle of the table and have it come back off the rail directly at the cue stick time after time. I have learned to adjust is the best way to describe it.
Head position does not matter. I have done everything but stand on my head. Maybe I will try that next.
Maybe one of these SEE systems or CTE or Pro One, may be the answer because I don't have to aim the cue down table where it will be aligned wrong?
I just have to aim at the cue ball more or less?
I have no clue!
Help!
I don't want to burst any bubbles here. I love the aiming threads. :wink:
I just have never been able to overcome the fact that I don't aim where I see! What system will fix this?
Any?
No one has been able to give me an answer that seems to correct this.
And YES, I can shoot a cue ball straight down the middle of the table and have it come back off the rail directly at the cue stick time after time. I have learned to adjust is the best way to describe it.
Head position does not matter. I have done everything but stand on my head. Maybe I will try that next.
Maybe one of these SEE systems or CTE or Pro One, may be the answer because I don't have to aim the cue down table where it will be aligned wrong?
I just have to aim at the cue ball more or less?
I have no clue!
Help!
Aim the center of the CB at the edge of the OB...you can see that as easy as the center diamond on the head rail as you say above in bold....that's a start.
I think a demonstration where the shooter sights the shot from the standing position, the ball is covered by a box, then the shooter bends down to center cue ball and adrresses it, the box is removed and the shooter then strokes straight through the cueball would be an excellent way to demonstrate the effectiveness of CTE/ProOne or any method of aiming. This test works for Ghost Ball or any other method.
It should be quite easy to do with the help of an assistant. The video can be up on YouTube in a matter of hours for all to see. As we know nothing is more powerful than demonstration.
It should be quite easy to do with the help of an assistant. The video can be up on YouTube in a matter of hours for all to see. As we know nothing is more powerful than demonstration.
So, you are saying that one of these systems may be the answer?
It's about all I have left! ?:sorry: