Is CTE the "Frctional Ball" system with a fancy new name??

B

bigskyblue

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I learned to aim, using the fractional ball system.

From what I've seen on youtube and read on Dr. Dave's website, CTE appears to be basically a very unique overlay of "Fraction Ball Aiming".

The A,B,C contact points of CTE aiming equate to (1/4 ball), (1/2 ball) and (3/4 ball) shots in "Fraction Ball Aiming".

"A rose is a rose, by any other name".
 
bigskyblue said:
I learned to aim, using the fractional ball system.

From what I've seen on youtube and read on Dr. Dave's website, CTE appears to be basically a very unique overlay of "Fraction Ball Aiming".

The A,B,C contact points of CTE aiming equate to (1/4 ball), (1/2 ball) and (3/4 ball) shots in "Fraction Ball Aiming".

"A rose is a rose, by any other name".
Click to expand...

The only place you will get the correct information on CTE is from Stan's video. It is completely different from fractional aiming. A, B, and C are simply reference points to obtain your visual alignment. You are not aiming at 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 of the object ball. It is worth learning correctly because once you do it makes the game much easier as far as ball pocketing is concerned.
 
bigskyblue said:
I learned to aim, using the fractional ball system.

From what I've seen on youtube and read on Dr. Dave's website, CTE appears to be basically a very unique overlay of "Fraction Ball Aiming".

The A,B,C contact points of CTE aiming equate to (1/4 ball), (1/2 ball) and (3/4 ball) shots in "Fraction Ball Aiming".

"A rose is a rose, by any other name".
Click to expand...

Thank you for bringing this up. I am glad to address your concern.

CTE is a million miles from being a fraction system.

I have not shot a fraction shot in years. And I will quote Hal Houle as saying that he "never shot a fraction shot in his life."

Fractional systems deal with angles, angles and more angles that can't be seen. Simply, 98% guesswork.

The quarters system would have a player determine or guess at an angle for a given shot during ball address and alignment. From there the player must move directly in toward the guessed line. (No pivots, no sweeps, just straight in and search for the line again when in full stance. CTE WOULD HAVE ZIP TO DO WITH THAT KIND OF ELEMENTARY SHOOTING....

Fractional systems typically use CCB for aiming while CTE uses 2 CB edges for aiming.

Fractional systems have no geometric connection to pockets while CTE takes the player to the actual shot line with an over cut to boot.

I could go on but why use a weak fractional system when CTE takes you to the shot line for all shots.

Sure, the quarters are used as Aimpoints for CTE PRO ONE but it stops there. Fractional systems use a weak single line while Real CTE uses 2 lines that yield a unique perception that represents a first step in connecting to pockets. A rotation to CCB completes the work of CTE. IN CTE PRO ONE THERE IS ONLY ONE SHOT!!

***This would' be a $$$. debate I'd sign up for in heartbeat.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
bigskyblue said:
I learned to aim, using the fractional ball system.

From what I've seen on youtube and read on Dr. Dave's website, CTE appears to be basically a very unique overlay of "Fraction Ball Aiming".

The A,B,C contact points of CTE aiming equate to (1/4 ball), (1/2 ball) and (3/4 ball) shots in "Fraction Ball Aiming".

"A rose is a rose, by any other name".
Click to expand...
Whatever aiming method you employ now, you're still going to need with CTE. It isn't an aiming system but a means of being careful with the placement of your head and body before the aiming actually begins.

Jim
 
Jal said:
Whatever aiming method you employ now, you're still going to need with CTE. It isn't an aiming system but a means of being careful with the placement of your head and body before the aiming actually begins.

Jim
Click to expand...

The difference is:

In CTE I do not have to guess where to put my eyes.

Stan Shuffett
 
LAMas said:
If one's stance, bridge and the tip of the cue is in the correct position, one should make the shot with his eyes closed..
Click to expand...

And this is the whole point of any aiming method. All methods of aiming are tools to put the shooter in the ONE position that works for the shot they face.

It's pointless to argue about whether a method works or which one is better because the table does not lie to you. Assuming that your stroke is laser straight which most people's are not, then yes being in that ONE spot where the cue lays on the shot line would allow the shooter to make the ball eyes closed.

But the method to get there can vary from person to person and some methods are much more comfortable and consistent to others.

Now, ask yourself this, if you are all lined up and you are NOT able to make the shot eyes closed then why did you miss?
 
Jal said:
Whatever aiming method you employ now, you're still going to need with CTE. It isn't an aiming system but a means of being careful with the placement of your head and body before the aiming actually begins.

Jim
Click to expand...

Wrong.

CTE is an aiming system. You follow the directions and end up pointing at the cue ball. It's a closed system with a beginning and an end. If you formerly used ghost ball, fractional overlap, pure feel, whatever......you will normally NOT use it when using CTE. Not at any step.

However you could certainly imagine a ghost ball or look for a contact point or use the numbers after you are pointing at the cue ball if you wanted to sort of double check but I have found it to be completely unnecessary to do this.

The real test to me for CTE comes with shots that I have ever attempted previously, in practice or in games. By following CTE's prescription I have made many of them on the first attempt in game situations, to the applause of the spectators.

And on shots that were formerly very low percentage now become much higher percentage to make. If you're any kind of a decent player you see this almost immediately to some degree even if you don't quite get it.

Pool is a stationary activity with very little physical motion. We are not required to run to the table spin three times and shoot within a fraction of a second. Instead we are allowed to take plenty of time to size up the target and lay the instrument on the shot line. But the target is very very very small. And to be successful you have to do this over and over and over and over hitting that tiny target precisely.

Could you throw a ball and hit that tiny target nine times in a row? Could you do it 90 times in a row? Could you shoot an arrow and hit that tiny target? We are having to hit actually TWO tiny targets, one is the cue ball and the other is the object ball. That's what makes this game so tough and aiming so important.

And any method that aligns you to the target properly so that you can drop consistently in on the invisible shot line is an aiming "system" whether you think so or not.
 
bigskyblue said:
I learned to aim, using the fractional ball system.

From what I've seen on youtube and read on Dr. Dave's website, CTE appears to be basically a very unique overlay of "Fraction Ball Aiming".

The A,B,C contact points of CTE aiming equate to (1/4 ball), (1/2 ball) and (3/4 ball) shots in "Fraction Ball Aiming".

"A rose is a rose, by any other name".
Click to expand...

Fractional aiming is where you overlap two balls and come in directly to the center of the cueball on the overlapping corridor. This is very different than CTE. In CTE you don't overlap the two balls you only use the edges as objective starting points for orientation. With your body then in position you come in and swing to the shot line.

I would say though that where the two methods do share similarities is that as Steve Davis said all shots except very thin cuts can be classified into 1/4 1/2 3/4 overlaps with just a smidgen of adjustment in between. So if you are pretty good at overlapping ( I am not) then you can quickly identify the thickness of cut and adjust if needed. This is still some guesswork but is certainly more objective than purely guessing.

CTE on the other hand is a pretty rigid prescription where the right visuals are there for every possible shot and when you know them then it's really hard to be on the wrong shot line. In fact what I have found is that being on the right shot line tends to amplify stroke errors because now any deviation in the hit will throw the ball OUT of the pocket.
 
Fractional aiming gets you in the ballpark but there are fractions in between that must be adjusted for or you will miss many shots.

CTE uses fractions combined with a secondary line of aim slide into the perfect position to pocket the ball, no adjustments required.

To say both methods use fractions therefore both are fractional aiming is like saying 2nd grade math and college algebra both use fractions so they must be the same thing.
 
Last edited:
JB Cases said:
And this is the whole point of any aiming method. All methods of aiming are tools to put the shooter in the ONE position that works for the shot they face.

It's pointless to argue about whether a method works or which one is better because the table does not lie to you. Assuming that your stroke is laser straight which most people's are not, then yes being in that ONE spot where the cue lays on the shot line would allow the shooter to make the ball eyes closed.

But the method to get there can vary from person to person and some methods are much more comfortable and consistent to others.

Now, ask yourself this, if you are all lined up and you are NOT able to make the shot eyes closed then why did you miss?
Click to expand...

Great post and fair and balanced.

The shot goes in, but the shape may not be optimum with the eyes wide shut.:smile:
 
The secondary aim line is a powerful tool.

Aim the edge of the CB at the same edge of the OB and you get a straight in shot or center of the CB to the center of the OB.

Aim the edge of the CB at the opposite edge of the OB and you get a 90 degree cut angle or aim the center of the CB at 1/2 OB off/outside of the edge of the OB.

Aim the edge of the CB at the center of the OB and you get a 30 degree cut angle or aim the center of the CB at the edge of the OB. Left edge to cut left and right edge to cut to the right...with a bit of outside English, top or draw to compensate for CIT. Use a center CB hit and get ~26 degrees...for those that can relate to cut angles in terms of degrees.

Aim closer to the center or edge of the OB for a thicker hit/cut, and away from the center or edge of the OB thinner hit/cut.

A quarter ball hit is ~14 degrees is also useful and the same adjustments can/should be applied.

One day, there will be an app where one can place the pocket/target, OB and CB in the exact location for the shot at hand on the table and it will show you where to aim adjusting for CIT and English for the infinite possibilities..
 
stan shuffett said:
Thank you for bringing this up. I am glad to address your concern.

CTE is a million miles from being a fraction system.

I have not shot a fraction shot in years. And I will quote Hal Houle as saying that he "never shot a fraction shot in his life."

Fractional systems deal with angles, angles and more angles that can't be seen. Simply, 98% guesswork.

The quarters system would have a player determine or guess at an angle for a given shot during ball address and alignment. From there the player must move directly in toward the guessed line. (No pivots, no sweeps, just straight in and search for the line again when in full stance. CTE WOULD HAVE ZIP TO DO WITH THAT KIND OF ELEMENTARY SHOOTING....

Fractional systems typically use CCB for aiming while CTE uses 2 CB edges for aiming.

Fractional systems have no geometric connection to pockets while CTE takes the player to the actual shot line with an over cut to boot.

I could go on but why use a weak fractional system when CTE takes you to the shot line for all shots.

Sure, the quarters are used as Aimpoints for CTE PRO ONE but it stops there. Fractional systems use a weak single line while Real CTE uses 2 lines that yield a unique perception that represents a first step in connecting to pockets. A rotation to CCB completes the work of CTE. IN CTE PRO ONE THERE IS ONLY ONE SHOT!!

***This would' be a $$$. debate I'd sign up for in heartbeat.

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

Stan, I believe in CTE and am working on it and looking forward to your new DVD. However, if Hal said he never shot a fractional shot he was stretching the truth because in the early 90's he was living in Garden Grove, Calif, before moving to Burlingame, and taught several of us the fractional system one Saturday at Yankee Doodles in Long Beach, Calif. He also frequented Hard Times in Bellflower, Calif. He told me at that time he was working on another system that would top everything. He had endless stories of his early pool days including many of Ralph Greenleaf. After Hal had moved to Penn. JoeyInCali (Bautista) and I called him and he tried to explain CTE to us over the phone. The phone lesson was unsuccessful. But even for Hal before CTE there was fractional.
 
GaryB said:
Stan, I believe in CTE and am working on it and looking forward to your new DVD. However, if Hal said he never shot a fractional shot he was stretching the truth because in the early 90's he was living in Garden Grove, Calif, before moving to Burlingame, and taught several of us the fractional system one Saturday at Yankee Doodles in Long Beach, Calif. He also frequented Hard Times in Bellflower, Calif. He told me at that time he was working on another system that would top everything. He had endless stories of his early pool days including many of Ralph Greenleaf. After Hal had moved to Penn. JoeyInCali (Bautista) and I called him and he tried to explain CTE to us over the phone. The phone lesson was unsuccessful. But even for Hal before CTE there was fractional.
Click to expand...

What do you mean when you say fractional system? I think we probably learned the same one from Hal and it wasn't the overlap method that the OP means.

The one I learned was to divide the object ball into fourths and use on the two quarter lines and on the cue ball you use only the edges and the center.

For a cut to the right you use the center and right edge of the CB and visually align it to the two quarter lines on the OB.

This method is simply a perception not a hard physical overlap. Is that what you learned or similar?
 
GaryB said:
Stan, I believe in CTE and am working on it and looking forward to your new DVD. However, if Hal said he never shot a fractional shot he was stretching the truth because in the early 90's he was living in Garden Grove, Calif, before moving to Burlingame, and taught several of us the fractional system one Saturday at Yankee Doodles in Long Beach, Calif. He also frequented Hard Times in Bellflower, Calif. He told me at that time he was working on another system that would top everything. He had endless stories of his early pool days including many of Ralph Greenleaf. After Hal had moved to Penn. JoeyInCali (Bautista) and I called him and he tried to explain CTE to us over the phone. The phone lesson was unsuccessful. But even for Hal before CTE there was fractional.
Click to expand...

That is what Hal clearly said and I am fully aware of your experience with Hal. Hal often described some of his work with fractional terms but that in no way meant he was shooting actual fractional shots. Hal had a great dislike for fractional shooting.

Hal's CTE work goes back for decades. Hal played his cards very close to his vest. Hal was good at keeping certain info to himself and he had his reasons.

Hal could easily discuss fractions with a student and do something else. I know this for a fact.

Bottom line, Hal had little respect for fractional systems.

DVD2 will shed light on this subject matter.

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