PRO ONE for Dummies, using *GASP* a diagram.

[Colin Colenso]

Can you please specify what is wrong with the diagram? I personally like the diagram (I've seen only the last version). Can you please elaborate what is wrong in the diagram? How would you draw it better? Just curious.

I don't think anyone thinks that the actual diagram is wrong, or at least pretty close, it's my interpretation of it regarding the methodology of Pro One.

I'm basically saying that there is an alternative way to achieve the same thing that CTE/ Pro One does.... visualize a line that is a little thick and slide into a thinner position on final address. Of course, staring at the edges and points during the visualization phase as a guide to the thick visual.

 

[rubell]

...
I'm basically saying that there is an alternative way to achieve the same thing that CTE/ Pro One does.... visualize a line that is a little thick and slide into a thinner position on final address. Of course, staring at the edges and points during the visualization phase as a guide to the thick visual.

Interesting. Some time ago I tried similar to what you are saying but I've "thickered" most of the shot making reverse to what you propose. That way worked for some distances but for others did not. The result was sketchy. Does sliding into a thinner position work for you?

 

[Colin Colenso]

The system only works on a regulation 2x1 table. So yes, if you were to alter the shape of the table, it would not work.

But that doesn't prove anything.

Think about it some more! It was a 2x1 table. I'd like to know how some of the unused back portion falling off destroys a system that doesn't include the back of the table as a variable.

The simple answer is that the player is using the ball positions and pocket position as a variable when they create the visual, and I highly suspect they do it again as they sweep. Though it is possible to get the visual well enough that a repeatable sweep can take you to the pot line.

i.e. The system puts you in the ball park, the looking at the table and compensation takes you to the plate. Something that has long been denied.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Interesting. Some time ago I tried similar to what you are saying but I've "thickered" most of the shot making reverse to what you propose. That way worked for some distances but for others did not. The result was sketchy. Does sliding into a thinner position work for you?

Sometimes I slide straight in, but a lot of the time I slide, or turn my bridge to the thinner angle until it looks right.

Note that TOI is another method of aiming fuller via aligning with a touch of inside english. If you cue straight, the squirt makes the shot thinner, if you go back to center ball with the hit, it also gives you a thinner hit.

You probably know that most beginners aim thick. They often learn to swoop to make their shots. It seems to be a common human trait, hence systems that take us thinner can help many people find the correct line without swooping or making conscious adjustments.

{edit}.. Just wanted to add, that the reason swooping is problematic is that its effect varies considerably with distance and speed. A system that finds a way to aim better with a straight stroke, allows a player to develop a consistency at various distances and speeds.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

This is for the head scratchers, trying to get some concept of what is going on with all this CTE and PRO ONE stuff. No doubt some in the faith will poo poo such a simple explanation as it doesn't involve any magical geometry.

The shot below is for a fullish left cut, where upon Edge to A, or Edge to 3/4 OB left side is used in conjunction with the CTE line to establish the mysterious visual... which by magical coincidence happens to be pretty close to where most players align on cut shots, which is a little too full, in the proximity of the contact point.

The sweep, rotation, pivot follows, which established a thinner cut line... hmmm, just like TOI.

A bit of practice and you'll be pre-aligning like a CTE master in no time. :thumbup:

This is just my opinion...assuming we're still free to have one around here. I share in the interest of both learning and helping others to make sense of some of the 'hard to understand & believe' claims made by CTE'ers.

Before I begin, I hope you and your family had a good Christmas.

Lots to discuss in your post and consecutive posts, but it's nearing 3am EST so I don't have the energy. A few bullet points to mull over:

- You're incorrect in your assertion that CTE/Pro1 is merely aiming thick and then pivoting to a thinner position in a TOI-like sense. There is definite geometry built into this system - Stan's new DVD clearly points this out. You really need to check that out -- you will NOT be disappointed with your purchase.

- You're also incorrect in stating that shooting blind shots (assuming the setup is truly blind) are easy or that the rails give you enough data for an experienced player to make all the shots they want. Of course, they'll make some... but nowhere near what a CTE player would make. This is an easy test--- take 5 top players from each category and measure the average deviation from center pocket between the groups. The non-CTE players are "drawing dead" and that's a fact. I know this bullet point will certainly rile a bunch of posters who will clearly take offense to it. However, "it is what it is." Fact is: truly blind shots shot traditionally are EXTREMELY tough...even if the rails are there. CTE players won't make them all either (human error in execution), but their average deviation will 100% be less.

- Your initial diagram is also incorrect, so count me as the first to point that out. There's a good reason why Stan calls these overlaps "perceptions" and not overlaps -- the two are not congruent. You're failing to figure that the OB appears visually smaller and that the CB will shrink on it's way to the OB (visual illusion-wise).... centered at the core - not the edge. Therefore, depending on the distance, the same "perception" will yield different actual overlaps. Perspective illusions (which is visual reality) are center-based, not edge-based, which is why roads and railroad tracks converge at the center, with each side converging at the same degree, at the same angle. You have the same converging perspective in pool, just at a much smaller scale -- but it's still there -- and it's the core factor that makes CTE work. Therefore, to hit your true "A" overlap, the visual CB edge must be to the left of A in order to offset the perspective illusion.

The math behind CTE (Hal is probably an alien), figures the perspective illusion between two spheres and with a pivot brings you to a right angle on a perfect rectangle (which two balls touching are also a perfect rectangle). It's not hocus pocus nor is it smoke and mirrors. Once again, "it is what it is."

I think unless discussions focus on the above, it's all a waste of time -- just like the previous 10 years have been in discussing the "whys" of this amazing system. There are loads of incorrect assumptions which mainly stem from 2D diagrams that don't take into account the visual ball size discrepancies and the convergence illusion that is the core reality of everyone's vision.

^^^^ Just like old times, eh?

I may or may not chirp beyond this just because I've sworn to never get into another aiming debate again because I don't have the energy and all it does is breed bad feelings. If there's one guy who can map out the actual proof, it's you because you're a genius with this stuff. However, the math and geometry to do so is FAR beyond your original post --- so your comment that "anyone with basic geometry can see that...." --- that's totally incorrect. Don't forget the convergence -- the table is a visual trapezoid, not a rectangle.

Anyone who thinks pool is a 2D game played with balls that are the same size on a perfectly rectangled playing surface is SORELY mistaken to the nth degree.

Let us know what you come up with as I'm sure it'll be fascinating.

G'nite all-

 

[Colin Colenso]

Hi Dave,

Merry Christmas to you and family too Nice to see you chirping in too.

I'll insert my comments in blue between your statements below. Not looking for a thread war of course, just to keep skepticism alive. :grin:

Before I begin, I hope you and your family had a good Christmas.

Lots to discuss in your post and consecutive posts, but it's nearing 3am EST so I don't have the energy. A few bullet points to mull over:

- You're incorrect in your assertion that CTE/Pro1 is merely aiming thick and then pivoting to a thinner position in a TOI-like sense. There is definite geometry built into this system - Stan's new DVD clearly points this out. You really need to check that out -- you will NOT be disappointed with your purchase.

Tricky to answer... I agree that CTE/Pro1 is not performed that way, but that is basically what happens. I'm curious about what is in the DVD that hasn't been covered in his dozens of videos on youtube or in the many discussions I've read here and via chatting with the CTE enthusiasts over the years.

- You're also incorrect in stating that shooting blind shots (assuming the setup is truly blind) are easy or that the rails give you enough data for an experienced player to make all the shots they want. Of course, they'll make some... but nowhere near what a CTE player would make. This is an easy test--- take 5 top players from each category and measure the average deviation from center pocket between the groups. The non-CTE players are "drawing dead" and that's a fact. I know this bullet point will certainly rile a bunch of posters who will clearly take offense to it. However, "it is what it is." Fact is: truly blind shots shot traditionally are EXTREMELY tough...even if the rails are there. CTE players won't make them all either (human error in execution), but their average deviation will 100% be less.
I probably wouldn't take a bet, if such a challenge could be set up, mainly because the most accurate potters, who are the best snooker players, are unfamiliar with the larger balls and because most straight aiming systems are used to making visual reference to the pocket. But, on many harder shots, the pocket is essentially blind, and experienced players can play these with a high degree of accuracy. It would take some practice for most traditional aimers to aim shots without making their habitual visual references. 30 mins ago I was playing some 1/2 ball cuts from 8 feet away. I didn't look at the pocket.. it's impractical to do so, but I can hit within a pocket width every time.... A challenge would be interesting!!!

- Your initial diagram is also incorrect, so count me as the first to point that out. There's a good reason why Stan calls these overlaps "perceptions" and not overlaps -- the two are not congruent. You're failing to figure that the OB appears visually smaller and that the CB will shrink on it's way to the OB (visual illusion-wise).... centered at the core - not the edge. Therefore, depending on the distance, the same "perception" will yield different actual overlaps. Perspective illusions (which is visual reality) are center-based, not edge-based, which is why roads and railroad tracks converge at the center, with each side converging at the same degree, at the same angle. You have the same converging perspective in pool, just at a much smaller scale -- but it's still there -- and it's the core factor that makes CTE work. Therefore, to hit your true "A" overlap, the visual CB edge must be to the left of A in order to offset the perspective illusion.

I understand your contention. The diagram is limited because it can say nothing about how the visual is created, nor does it take into account distance related illusions / perceptions.

I can understand that perception related to vanishing point effects could influence the perceived visual. But that doesn't account for the change in perceptions that take place when balls vary across the horizontal plane. e.g. Set OB balls across the center of the table, with a corresponding CB for each a couple of feet below. All balls will appear the same size, but somehow the visuals change. There is variation at some points, seemingly random from 15 to 30 to 45... and small shifts change one from a single to a double. That has not been explained in any way that makes sense to me.

The math behind CTE (Hal is probably an alien), figures the perspective illusion between two spheres and with a pivot brings you to a right angle on a perfect rectangle (which two balls touching are also a perfect rectangle). It's not hocus pocus nor is it smoke and mirrors. Once again, "it is what it is."

I think unless discussions focus on the above, it's all a waste of time -- just like the previous 10 years have been in discussing the "whys" of this amazing system. There are loads of incorrect assumptions which mainly stem from 2D diagrams that don't take into account the visual ball size discrepancies and the convergence illusion that is the core reality of everyone's vision.

^^^^ Just like old times, eh?

Yeap, LOL. Well, I'm convinced that anything can be explained if it is understood well enough, and diagrams can be of use to certain extents. Stan has been working in that direction with his terminology and explanations to a degree I think. An interesting test/challenge would be for you and I to recruit 5 bangers and measure their before and after results using your, or Stan's methods and mine for 5 weeks, with before and after data. I think Pfizer will sponsor the trial

I may or may not chirp beyond this just because I've sworn to never get into another aiming debate again because I don't have the energy and all it does is breed bad feelings. If there's one guy who can map out the actual proof, it's you because you're a genius with this stuff. However, the math and geometry to do so is FAR beyond your original post --- so your comment that "anyone with basic geometry can see that...." --- that's totally incorrect. Don't forget the convergence -- the table is a visual trapezoid, not a rectangle.

Anyone who thinks pool is a 2D game played with balls that are the same size on a perfectly rectangled playing surface is SORELY mistaken to the nth degree.

Let us know what you come up with as I'm sure it'll be fascinating.

G'nite all-

I might have a go at diagramming the vanishing point effect someday. The diagram I put here is not meant to explain CTE/Pro1, but to provide a simplistic summary, that may help some get their first grasp of how it works and to help some wonderers / skeptics get a different perspective of the process.

Night mate

 

[Neil]

Colin, allowing for lack of visual perspective in your diagram, the edge to A and center to edge lines are fine. Your green line is way off. Which throws the whole system out of whack for you.

Once you have your A, B, or C line and center to edge line, or whatever you needed for the shot, without moving your head, you should be able to see that if you shot right down that line, you would either hit the ball to thick or to thin. That deduction determines what you need to do next. Now, once you have decided that, you forget the ob and just look at the cb.

Now, looking at the cb you can see the vertical center line of it. If you had determined that you would have hit the ob too thick, then you need an inside sweep. That means that you start from the inside and then sweep outward. You do this this way- you have your eyes on ccb, now, all you have to do is shift your eyes to the inside of the cb one half tip. You focus on that spot on the cb.

While getting down, you are placing your bridge hand on the line you determined to be 1/2 tip to the inside of ccb, and at the same time, you are sweeping your eyes to ccb and pivoting or sweeping your body around your bridge hand to align you to ccb. Now you are down, and dead on the shot line.

edit: One other thing, you said you don't like pivoting while you are down. Well, first off, you don't have to. You can pivot while geting down. Second, do you realize that unless you are using parallel english, everytime you put english on the cb you are actually pivoting to do so?

 

[nobcitypool]

So Colin, you've never seen neither DVD and your experience with CTE/Pro One is limited to what you've read here and seen on a few free videos? Does that about sum it up? Yet you somehow have developed the expertise to draw your own diagrams and argue your "perception" of CTE in great detail. Stan has spent thousands and thousands of hours studying, testing and understanding CTE/Pro One. You've managed to put it all together in a few hours. You must be a freaking genius.

 

[ps611846]

I hope I get my dvd2 copy as soon as possible. What I do to make it work is establish the visuals, get the fixed cb image and rotate to the left or bend to the right. I place my bridge arm and hand in a different way for left and right rotations. The two movements are the same for any cb - ob distance but I have to adjust my footwork 2 times as distance indreases to make my rotations work according to cb-ob distance. I don't know if that is the way to do it. That's why I have ordered dvd2.

P.s too bad "Primo" is not here to discuss. When I was talking about footwork on July 2013, he was laughing at me. ..........ing troll.................

 

[nobcitypool]

I hope I get my dvd2 copy as soon as possible. What I do to make it work is establish the visuals, get the fixed cb image and rotate to the left or bend to the right. I place my bridge arm and hand in a different way for left and right rotations. The two movements are the same for any cb - ob distance but I have to adjust my footwork 2 times as distance indreases to make my rotations work according to cb-ob distance. I don't know if that is the way to do it. That's why I have ordered dvd2.

P.s too bad "Primo" is not here to discuss. When I was talking about footwork on July 2013, he was laughing at me. ..........ing troll.................

Not being an experienced high level player, perhaps the biggest challenge I had with Pro One was alignment and footwork. I have found that if I'm struggling to get the visual to look right, invariably it is because my alignment is incorrect. Get the alignment correct and the visual just pops right in place, at least it sure seems that way. I also adopted Stan's method of looking for the visual slightly bent down at the waist. Seems to make the footwork come together particularly if I'm sweeping my eyes to the left (I'm right handed).

Gerry, if you read this, how about making a short video where you show your footwork while calling out the shots, perceptions and sweeps? Or anyone else for that matter.

 

[ps611846]

Stan says that the game is visual and physical. So, I am sure there are different ways to get the visuals and perform the rotations. Maybe for some guys footwork is not so important. I am sure it is important for me. And I don't have to bend at the waist to establish the visuals and I think I perceive them pretty well.

You see my friend! Everybody is different !!! If I am not wrong, Landon doesn't bend to get the visuals. Stan and Stevie do bend at the waist. I think it is personal and you have to try and see what works.

I was very happy when I watched Stan's youtube video where he discussed on footwork !!!

I want my dvd 2 copy !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[nobcitypool]

Nowhere did I say you have to bend over to get your visuals. I can get the visuals standing straight up or bent way down. I personally find that getting my visuals while slightly bent at the waist makes the footwork transition easier. That's for me. YMMV. Not trying to argue with you or attempt to tell you, or anyone else, how it must be done. Just offering a suggestion. Use it or ignore it as you please.

 

[ps611846]

I never said that you were trying to argue with me !!! And I give credit to what you post !!!

Panagiotis

 

[mohrt]

That's ok, no offense taken. I don't expect to convert everyone. I think it's a touch under $75 including shipping. The cost doesn't bother me, it's the impossibility of crucial claims already proposed that does.

Without the system making any reference to the pocket position, relative to the OB, other than + or - several degrees, to establish 15, 30 or 45 to edge lines, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who understands geometry that the balls themselves can't find the visual line that takes you to a pocket.

Imagine a CB and OB on a table, tell the shooter the shot is between 5 and 15 degrees to the pocket. Now put up a curtain between ball and pocket so none of the rails can be seen past the curtain... yep, they do that, and so can I using any aiming method... here is the kicker which will prove that the system doesn't work as stated.

Remove the rails on the part of the table seen, then cut that part of the table into a random shape, so that the direction and position of the table cannot be established. Nothing has changed that should affect the visual as the visuals claim not to take any of the rails or table position into account. Now try to use CTE or PRO ONE to make the shot.... good luck.

Fact is that the curtain trick is a circus sideshow. An experienced player knows where the line to a pocket is by seeing the ball's position relative to rails. Take away those visual references and you're left with a guessing game.

You probably know that the position of the CB and OB on the surface of the 2x1 table define the visual for the given shot, correct? That means every CB/OB relationship on the table (for a given target pocket) has a unique visual perspective. To obtain the visual, you must be able to determine the CB/OB position on the table. So yes of course it is imperative that the shooter can see the entire table on the shooting side of the curtain.

Say you put the CB/OB on the table and line up a simple 15 degree perception for a left cut to the corner pocket. Now, move the CB/OB one inch to the right. It may very well be that same setup (CTEL/A with left sweep for example) is used, however the head position for the shot is (technically) slightly different, even though you went through the same procedure. (lightbulb?) This is because the visual perception for the shot is unique, and although you visually SEE the same thing (CTEL/A), your eyes actually line up on the CB/OB in a unique perspective. This is how the same visual can result in an infinite number of angles (within a specific scope.)

Now say you were able to place yourself in the middle of the table with CB/OB and a curtain completely enveloped you from seeing any rails or pockets. Now it would not be possible to line up on pockets this way. You must see enough of the table to determine the orientation of the CB/OB on the table surface to find the visual perception.

There are no angles to line up on, CTE is about visual perception. No smoke and mirrors and yes, the system works as described. You just have to digest the concepts and more importantly, give it time at the table to experience it. I will agree it is not an easy concept to convey on paper. We are all programmed from books and studies (for the entire last century) to use angles and geometry and physics when it comes to aiming in pool. Although CTE involves some of the concepts we already know, more importantly, it embraces the visual perceptions of spheres on a rectangular surface in a three dimensional view. This is how we has humans perceive every single shot anyways. So instead of mapping 2D diagrams to a 3D world, instead it just takes what the 3D world already gives us an builds upon them. :thumbup:

 

[rubell]

You probably know that the position of the CB and OB on the surface of the 2x1 table define the visual for the given shot, correct? That means every CB/OB relationship on the table (for a given target pocket) has a unique visual perspective. To obtain the visual, you must be able to determine the CB/OB position on the table. So yes of course it is imperative that the shooter can see the entire table on the shooting side of the curtain.

It would be interesting to make an experiment with all rails hidden and shooting, for example ETA. I tried some experiments and completely ignored the table in my mind, concentrated on CB-OB only, and with outside sweep produced a straight shot regardless of balls position. When I looked at the balls on table and saw all rails, it was not the case anymore. I produced different angles. I wonder what others experience.

I personally find CTE Pro One extremely strong for banking. Probably the best from what I tried before. Making one long rail banking is almost no brainer for me and I even do not have to do any calculations or adjustments. The balls just go to a desired pocket and when I miss I blame my stroke consistency because when I redo the shot, the ball gets pocketed.

 

[Colin Colenso]

You probably know that the position of the CB and OB on the surface of the 2x1 table define the visual for the given shot, correct? That means every CB/OB relationship on the table (for a given target pocket) has a unique visual perspective. To obtain the visual, you must be able to determine the CB/OB position on the table. So yes of course it is imperative that the shooter can see the entire table on the shooting side of the curtain.

Say you put the CB/OB on the table and line up a simple 15 degree perception for a left cut to the corner pocket. Now, move the CB/OB one inch to the right. It may very well be that same setup (CTEL/A with left sweep for example) is used, however the head position for the shot is (technically) slightly different, even though you went through the same procedure. (lightbulb?) This is because the visual perception for the shot is unique, and although you visually SEE the same thing (CTEL/A), your eyes actually line up on the CB/OB in a unique perspective. This is how the same visual can result in an infinite number of angles (within a specific scope.)

Now say you were able to place yourself in the middle of the table with CB/OB and a curtain completely enveloped you from seeing any rails or pockets. Now it would not be possible to line up on pockets this way. You must see enough of the table to determine the orientation of the CB/OB on the table surface to find the visual perception.

There are no angles to line up on, CTE is about visual perception. No smoke and mirrors and yes, the system works as described. You just have to digest the concepts and more importantly, give it time at the table to experience it. I will agree it is not an easy concept to convey on paper. We are all programmed from books and studies (for the entire last century) to use angles and geometry and physics when it comes to aiming in pool. Although CTE involves some of the concepts we already know, more importantly, it embraces the visual perceptions of spheres on a rectangular surface in a three dimensional view. This is how we has humans perceive every single shot anyways. So instead of mapping 2D diagrams to a 3D world, instead it just takes what the 3D world already gives us an builds upon them. :thumbup:

Hi Mohrt,
I really appreciate your detailed description. This is how I understood it already but your explanation of including the base of the table in the visual is very interesting.

The big mystery for me is identifying the visual. Perhaps I'm too left or right brained.

I've tried the method of stepping back from the 1/2 tip pivot to be in the correct visual line, but I don't see anything that makes any sense relative to the CTE and Edge to A.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, allowing for lack of visual perspective in your diagram, the edge to A and center to edge lines are fine. Your green line is way off. Which throws the whole system out of whack for you.

Once you have your A, B, or C line and center to edge line, or whatever you needed for the shot, without moving your head, you should be able to see that if you shot right down that line, you would either hit the ball to thick or to thin. That deduction determines what you need to do next. Now, once you have decided that, you forget the ob and just look at the cb.

Now, looking at the cb you can see the vertical center line of it. If you had determined that you would have hit the ob too thick, then you need an inside sweep. That means that you start from the inside and then sweep outward. You do this this way- you have your eyes on ccb, now, all you have to do is shift your eyes to the inside of the cb one half tip. You focus on that spot on the cb.

While getting down, you are placing your bridge hand on the line you determined to be 1/2 tip to the inside of ccb, and at the same time, you are sweeping your eyes to ccb and pivoting or sweeping your body around your bridge hand to align you to ccb. Now you are down, and dead on the shot line.

edit: One other thing, you said you don't like pivoting while you are down. Well, first off, you don't have to. You can pivot while geting down. Second, do you realize that unless you are using parallel english, everytime you put english on the cb you are actually pivoting to do so?

Please describe where the green visual line should be if you think my diagram is way off. Of course, the visual and how it is derived is a mystery to all but those who can see it... as it the amount of sweep left or right. It has been said to be based on experience. I can actually do this, but for me it is entirely feel based, it's not systematic.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Colin... it's a waste of time to discuss unless you study the DVDs. You're way behind. If this were feel based, the forum would be flooded with that perspective. Instead of playing the contrarian and having people explain it, study the DVD and then ask Stan or post based on what you learned.

This is the old path to nowhere.

Sent from my Galaxy S4

 

[Colin Colenso]

So Colin, you've never seen neither DVD and your experience with CTE/Pro One is limited to what you've read here and seen on a few free videos? Does that about sum it up? Yet you somehow have developed the expertise to draw your own diagrams and argue your "perception" of CTE in great detail. Stan has spent thousands and thousands of hours studying, testing and understanding CTE/Pro One. You've managed to put it all together in a few hours. You must be a freaking genius.

Thanks You'll see some of my contributions to discussions on aiming and CTE here: http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE

These were from 4 or 5 years ago. I haven't been active on these forums for quite a while, but I've spent many hundreds of hours of both consideration and testing of CTE stuff.

I've watched the evolution of CTE since it began on these forums, as step by step claims were dismantled until the method up and took to the air once it was proved that the pivot was intuitive. I've seen the reference points played with until we now have ABC. It's been a tortuous path of development, so pardon me if I don't fork out my hard earned cash on every new 'finally we've got it' explanation.. coz if history is any guide, the cocktail of hogwash and snake oil will taint the recipe.

The system may be the best method of aiming ever devised, but whilst the proponents keep denying the role of feel ( once admitted by Stan as experience, in the link I provided ), I'll continue to be critical of their explanations. Especially the 2x1, 90 = 45 + 30 + 15 weirdness, which is about as scientific as astrology.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Thanks You'll see some of my contributions to discussions on aiming and CTE here: http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE

These were from 4 or 5 years ago. I haven't been active on these forums for quite a while, but I've spent many hundreds of hours of both consideration and testing of CTE stuff.

I've watched the evolution of CTE since it began on these forums, as step by step claims were dismantled until the method up and took to the air once it was proved that the pivot was intuitive. I've seen the reference points played with until we now have ABC. It's been a tortuous path of development, so pardon me if I don't fork out my hard earned cash on every new 'finally we've got it' explanation.. coz if history is any guide, the cocktail of hogwash and snake oil will taint the recipe.

The system may be the best method of aiming ever devised, but whilst the proponents keep denying the role of feel ( once admitted by Stan as experience, in the link I provided ), I'll continue to be critical of their explanations. Especially the 2x1, 90 = 45 + 30 + 15 weirdness, which is about as scientific as astrology.

So why would anyone entertain your posts when you can't fork out a few bucks for an education? If it's snake oil to you... then it'll be snake oil to you at the end of this thread as well. So why waste your time and the time of others who are here to learn and improve?

What's "weird" is the video you last posted of yourself doing your own potting test was sub par, yet those who learned this "snake oil" horse-fvcked the test into the ground.

Make a real honest attempt and do so with an open mind or....don't. The days of disproving CTE are long past...far too many players have jumped on the snake oil wagon and are claiming super results.

Maybe there should be a sub forum within the aiming forum where you and the 4 or 5 other guys who never get stuff can knock it while the rest of the world gets better.

Bloody hell...buy the DVD and practice the info for a few weeks and report back. Make a real effort!

Sent from my Galaxy S4