What I Suspect Limits Many in Learning CTE/Pro One

nobcitypool

nobcitypool

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
One thing I've clearly picked up from my lessons with Stevie Moore. You need solid fundamentals in set up, alignment and stroke for CTE/Pro One to work as it is capable of working. You need to be able to execute precise movements, into the CB, after you achieve your visuals.

I've put in a lot of time working on Pro One. I've certainly gotten frustrated. It's clear to me I was frustrated at the wrong thing. Stevie and I worked quite a bit on Pro One this past weekend. He told me he believes I have a solid understanding of Pro One and I believe I even have a reasonable handle on when the different visuals should be applied (different cut angles). It's my set up, alignment and stroke that were the primary culprits in causing misses.

I made significant progress between my first lesson and yesterday. I'm anxious to incorporate the fine tuning Stevie showed me yesterday in our lesson in the next few months of practice. Just some seemingly small modifications that really made me much more comfortable and relaxed and also simplified the whole process of utilizing Pro One more effectively.

Now that I understand it better, I can see how Pro One isn't that complicated. BTW, I'm not saying it is simple either. Stevie has completely rebuilt his game to incorporate Pro One. I firmly believe the pool world is going to see the results of this in the next few years when Stevie competes in tournaments.

Anyway, for those who may be struggling a bit with Pro One, you may want to have someone look at your setup, alignment and stroke. Those may be the root cause problem in struggles you may be having with CTE/Pro One.
 
Thanks for posting this.

My stroke and alignment need to be greatly improved and consistent prior to moving onto CTE/PRO1, TOI, SEE, 90/90, etc.
 
This applies to any aiming visualization method.

If you can't get the cb to go where you want consistently, there is not a aiming method that's gonna work for you.

And the only way to get that consistency is by HAMB.
 
duckie said:
This applies to any aiming visualization method.

If you can't get the cb to go where you want consistently, there is not a aiming method that's gonna work for you.

And the only way to get that consistency is by HAMB.
Click to expand...

Hey you almost understand it now.

Pro One + HAMB = improvement
 
duckie said:
This applies to any aiming visualization method.

If you can't get the cb to go where you want consistently, there is not a aiming method that's gonna work for you.

And the only way to get that consistency is by HAMB.
Click to expand...

Thanks Duckie, but I saw a video of you shooting. I think I'll stick to Stevie for my instruction for the time being. If you'll hold your breath waiting on my call, I'll get to you as soon as I can.
 
In my honest opinon, I believe that CTE Pro One "MAY" be a good system, BUT until it is broken down into understandable language and concepts that ANYONE can understand easily it will not be taken seriously by many, many pool players.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that systems have their place in pool, and that they can take the guess work out of pool in many situations.

But I have listened to them explain this system or at least talk about it, and it makes no sense to me at all.

Have you ever had a intellectual try and explain something in simple terms to a laymen? They always seem to want to use BIG words or words, concepts, and examples that are not going to be easily understood. Is it ego that causes them to do this? I don't know? Maybe it's their educational background?

Please if your gonna teach something as simple as aiming make sure it's easy to understand. If you cannot explain in a VERY simple way, without confusion, then something is not right. Anything that is truth, can be explained simply, if it is pure truth.
 
pletho said:
In my honest opinon, I believe that CTE Pro One "MAY" be a good system, BUT until it is broken down into understandable language and concepts that ANYONE can understand easily it will not be taken seriously by many, many pool players.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that systems have their place in pool, and that they can take the guess work out of pool in many situations.

But I have listened to them explain this system or at least talk about it, and it makes no sense to me at all.

Have you ever had a intellectual try and explain something in simple terms to a laymen? They always seem to want to use BIG words or words, concepts, and examples that are not going to be easily understood. Is it ego that causes them to do this? I don't know? Maybe it's their educational background?

Please if your gonna teach something as simple as aiming make sure it's easy to understand. If you cannot explain in a VERY simple way, without confusion, then something is not right. Anything that is truth, can be explained simply, if it is pure truth.
Click to expand...

All you have to get are the correct "visuals".
 
duckie said:
This applies to any aiming visualization method.

If you can't get the cb to go where you want consistently, there is not a aiming method that's gonna work for you.

And the only way to get that consistency is by HAMB.
Click to expand...

I think this is better stated another way.

If you can't get your BODY to go where you want it to consistently then you will have hard time applying any method consistently.

What good is HAMB if you are consistently wrong?

Hitting a million balls doesn't improve your stance. It doesn't really improve your aiming because you go wrong wrong wrong - right right right then move to another shot and it's wrong wrong wrong, right, wrong, right, wrong wrong, right, for EVERY shot which still doesn't really tell you what's really right only that you adjusted INTO right for that session. But come game time you're still not sure if it's right or wrong only that you don't get a second chance to adjust.

HAMB can reinforce bad habits if you learn to succeed while using those bad habits. At some point, usually at a critical time, those bad habits you burned into your form cause a miss.
 
pletho said:
In my honest opinon, I believe that CTE Pro One "MAY" be a good system, BUT until it is broken down into understandable language and concepts that ANYONE can understand easily it will not be taken seriously by many, many pool players.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that systems have their place in pool, and that they can take the guess work out of pool in many situations.

But I have listened to them explain this system or at least talk about it, and it makes no sense to me at all.

Have you ever had a intellectual try and explain something in simple terms to a laymen? They always seem to want to use BIG words or words, concepts, and examples that are not going to be easily understood. Is it ego that causes them to do this? I don't know? Maybe it's their educational background?

Please if your gonna teach something as simple as aiming make sure it's easy to understand. If you cannot explain in a VERY simple way, without confusion, then something is not right. Anything that is truth, can be explained simply, if it is pure truth.
Click to expand...

Look at the object ball from behind the cue ball, find the center of the cb and the edge of the object ball. Move your eyes to the next aim point that works for the angle, go down into your shooting stance and bring your cue to center ball at the same time. Shoot.

That's what the system is in simple and easy terms.

Sure anything can be explained simply but the simple explanation doesn't always make it where you can be an expert in it.

Nuclear fusion? Bunch of teeny things come together making a lot of heat. Can you become a physicist with that information? No, you will need to study a lot more and work on the comprehension until you understand the underlying foundation.

I mean really all CTE is at it's core is aligning yourself to the balls using two lines instead of one. Find the two lines which automatically positions your body when you have them and from there you simply bend down and shoot. That's it.

Where are the two lines you ask? One is always the edge of the object ball to the center of the cue ball and the other is in one of three places. Except for very thin cuts when there is only one line. Simple choices really. For any given shot outside of thin cuts you only have three choices and once you practice for a while you automatically see the right choice for any shot you encounter.

Even when you practice it's clearly obvious that at least one of the choices is absolutely not going to work so that leaves two. Those two have a slight overlap where either one will work but for the most part you easily begin to see which choice works for what angles and when you do it's pretty much cake from there. But you have to put in the table time to become really comfy with it. Not a magic bullet by any means even if it starts to feel like magic when you are consistently putting shots down that gave you fits before.
 
JB Cases said:
I mean really all CTE is at it's core is aligning yourself to the balls using two lines instead of one. Find the two lines which automatically positions your body when you have them and from there you simply bend down and shoot. That's it.
Click to expand...

Yes!

I think the most difficult aspect of CTE for some is in letting go of how they think CTE should be or how they want it to be.

Stan Shuffett
 
Agree - in my opinion, CTE, Pro1, SEE, etc. could be classified as alignment systems instead of aiming systems. They get your eyes and body in the right place where all you need to do is get down over the cue ball and shoot. Yet it's also a paradigm shift from normal aiming, and that's where the description part of it can be difficult.

The steps and alignments are easy when broken down, but trying to teach someone how to get there and what adjustments are needed for distance or speed, etc. is just easier when taught in person, mostly because other alignment, stroke, and visual issues can be addressed at the same time. I can tell you all day long where to look and what to do, but if your eyes aren't looking where you think, or your stroke is crooked, or your initial alignment or move to the ball is incorrect, you aren't going to have much success.

I took a lesson recently and was sort of being steered away from relying on the systems so much. Actually several top players in the area have told me I play too well to be dependent on such a conscious approach, and instead should be allowing my subconscious to participate more and just feel the connection between the balls based on my experience and shoot.

Yet the more we worked together, he saw how strong my pocketing was, and how quickly I was able to pick up my alignment and get down on the shot, and instead sort of worked WITH what I was doing and just tweaked my starting positions a little so that I was coming down into the shots in a more direct manner. Initial results have been great, certainly need more practice to confirm, but some very minor changes in my visualization stance and step in to the shot have made the systems even stronger for me. And I still try to "feel" the shots a bit more, especially when spin or a lot of touch is required for the shot at hand.


I played in a mixed doubles tourney this weekend with a woman who I'm friends with but is not a strong player. Good raw shot maker though. We finished third behind Thorsten and his female pro partner/girlfriend and a top local male and female team. I consistently was making tough shots all day and recovering position with ease, since my partner couldn't really draw or use side spin effectively to move the ball around the table. She did her job, and just made balls, and I played position for both of us effectively. Even several of the pros who saw us play remarked that you could tell she had all the confidence in me that if I just could see the ball I would take care of business. I think I missed one or two of those tougher or longer shots all day, and was using a new shaft and cue that I was just trying out.

Could I play before my work with systems, and make tough shots, etc.? Sure. But now, I KNOW that I'm aligned correctly, I KNOW that the ball will go in, and the only way it doesn't is if I fiddle with my setup before I'm settled or make a bad stroke. Which goes back to Mark's original comment above. The systems become quite intuitive with some work, and coupled with good fundamentals and a solid preshot routine it's amazing what you can accomplish.
Scott
 
Last edited:
nobcitypool said:
One thing I've clearly picked up from my lessons with Stevie Moore. You need solid fundamentals in set up, alignment and stroke for CTE/Pro One to work as it is capable of working. You need to be able to execute precise movements, into the CB, after you achieve your visuals.

I've put in a lot of time working on Pro One. I've certainly gotten frustrated. It's clear to me I was frustrated at the wrong thing. Stevie and I worked quite a bit on Pro One this past weekend. He told me he believes I have a solid understanding of Pro One and I believe I even have a reasonable handle on when the different visuals should be applied (different cut angles). It's my set up, alignment and stroke that were the primary culprits in causing misses.

I made significant progress between my first lesson and yesterday. I'm anxious to incorporate the fine tuning Stevie showed me yesterday in our lesson in the next few months of practice. Just some seemingly small modifications that really made me much more comfortable and relaxed and also simplified the whole process of utilizing Pro One more effectively.

Now that I understand it better, I can see how Pro One isn't that complicated. BTW, I'm not saying it is simple either. Stevie has completely rebuilt his game to incorporate Pro One. I firmly believe the pool world is going to see the results of this in the next few years when Stevie competes in tournaments.

Anyway, for those who may be struggling a bit with Pro One, you may want to have someone look at your setup, alignment and stroke. Those may be the root cause problem in struggles you may be having with CTE/Pro One.
Click to expand...

Wrong post... Stan
 
Last edited:
duckie said:
This applies to any aiming visualization method.

If you can't get the cb to go where you want consistently, there is not a aiming method that's gonna work for you.

And the only way to get that consistency is by HAMB.
Click to expand...

If you hit a million balls wrong you are going to hit the millionth +1 wrong as well.
 
scottjen26 said:
Agree - in my opinion, CTE, Pro1, SEE, etc. could be classified as alignment systems instead of aiming systems. They get your eyes and body in the right place where all you need to do is get down over the cue ball and shoot. Yet it's also a paradigm shift from normal aiming, and that's where the description part of it can be difficult.

The steps and alignments are easy when broken down, but trying to teach someone how to get there and what adjustments are needed for distance or speed, etc. is just easier when taught in person, mostly because other alignment, stroke, and visual issues can be addressed at the same time. I can tell you all day long where to look and what to do, but if your eyes aren't looking where you think, or your stroke is crooked, or your initial alignment or move to the ball is incorrect, you aren't going to have much success.

I took a lesson recently and was sort of being steered away from relying on the systems so much. Actually several top players in the area have told me I play too well to be dependent on such a conscious approach, and instead should be allowing my subconscious to participate more and just feel the connection between the balls based on my experience and shoot.

Yet the more we worked together, he saw how strong my pocketing was, and how quickly I was able to pick up my alignment and get down on the shot, and instead sort of worked WITH what I was doing and just tweaked my starting positions a little so that I was coming down into the shots in a more direct manner. Initial results have been great, certainly need more practice to confirm, but some very minor changes in my visualization stance and step in to the shot have made the systems even stronger for me. And I still try to "feel" the shots a bit more, especially when spin or a lot of touch is required for the shot at hand.


I played in a mixed doubles tourney this weekend with a woman who I'm friends with but is not a strong player. Good raw shot maker though. We finished third behind Thorsten and his female pro partner/girlfriend and a top local male and female team. I consistently was making tough shots all day and recovering position with ease, since my partner couldn't really draw or use side spin effectively to move the ball around the table. She did her job, and just made balls, and I played position for both of us effectively. Even several of the pros who saw us play remarked that you could tell she had all the confidence in me that if I just could see the ball I would take care of business. I think I missed one or two of those tougher or longer shots all day, and was using a new shaft and cue that I was just trying out.

Could I play before my work with systems, and make tough shots, etc.? Sure. But now, I KNOW that I'm aligned correctly, I KNOW that the ball will go in, and the only way it doesn't is if I fiddle with my setup before I'm settled or make a bad stroke. Which goes back to Mark's original comment above. The systems become quite intuitive with some work, and coupled with good fundamentals and a solid preshot routine it's amazing what you can accomplish.
Scott
Click to expand...

Hi Scott,
CTE PRO ONE is much more than alignment. DVD 2 will bear that out quite well.
Stan Shuffett
 
With CTE/Pro 1 there are two variables for me to adjust. Visuals and stroke - if I start to miss I check them both and fix one or both.

When I was a HAMB shooter and started missing I drove myself nuts trying to figure out why. Was one of my feet in the wrong position? Both feet? Maybe if I shift the heel of my right foot to the right or left? Did I change my bridge and not realize it? Maybe my bridge is too short? or too long? on and on... many, many variables to think about.

Now I have two choices.
 
pletho said:
...
But I have listened to them explain this system or at least talk about it, and it makes no sense to me at all.
Click to expand...
As the quip goes, if it begins to make sense, then you should start to worry.

If you've committed some heinous act and are seeking self-administered justice, you could read through the long history of debates on this topic. In the end, you'd probably come to the conclusion that no one that's had, say, high-school geometry or better and bothered to apply it, would agree that the system yields correct aim lines on its own. Not that math is required. One of the most tenacious critics of the system, Patrick Johnson (now suspended), attacked this claim on mainly logical grounds.

That's not to say that there aren't any potential benefits of using it, and possibly more than the critics have given it credit for. The idea of lining up ones eyes and body in a consistent way for some span of cut angles can only be good, imo. But from that point on, you're going to have to rely on more traditional aiming "methods" to get the job done (i.e., feel/judgement/estimation - whatever you want to call it). These "methods" are all ghostball-based in that you have to visualize things that haven't yet happened. No one, to my awareness at least, has invented a practical way of getting around that. Claims that CTE is a replacement for traditional aiming are, to put it bluntly, nonsense.

Jim
 
Jal said:
As the quip goes, if it begins to make sense, then you should start to worry.

If you've committed some heinous act and are seeking self-administered justice, you could read through the long history of debates on this topic. In the end, you'd probably come to the conclusion that no one that's had, say, high-school geometry or better and bothered to apply it, would agree that the system yields correct aim lines on its own. Not that math is required. One of the most tenacious critics of the system, Patrick Johnson (now suspended), attacked this claim on mainly logical grounds.

That's not to say that there aren't any potential benefits of using it, and possibly more than the critics have given it credit for. The idea of lining up ones eyes and body in a consistent way for some span of cut angles can only be good, imo. But from that point on, you're going to have to rely on more traditional aiming "methods" to get the job done (i.e., feel/judgement/estimation - whatever you want to call it). These "methods" are all ghostball-based in that you have to visualize things that haven't yet happened. No one, to my awareness at least, has invented a practical way of getting around that. Claims that CTE is a replacement for traditional aiming are, to put it bluntly, nonsense.

Jim
Click to expand...

Nonsense, hardly, and one day you may see. More and more will see and understand once the info on DVD2 is out...

Stan Shuffett
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top