John Barton VS Lou Figueroa
- Thread starter nineballsafety8
- Start date
I had these exact same questions very early on. The only way I got past this was to put in time at the table and go through the motions. Time at the table will reveal that CTE PRO ONE is not a system of angles, it is a system of visuals. The key is understanding that a specific visual, say CTEL-A, is not a concrete angle, or rather not a concrete eye alignment to the CB/OB. The exact alignment of your eyes to the CB/OB depends on how the balls are positioned on the table. This is not something you need to consciously think about, on a conscious level it is all executed the same. However the visual puts your eyes in a position that is always 1/2 tip sweep/pivot from the shot line that connects to the pocket.
If you take those five shots from that video and just line up CTEL-A, from the fixed CB position take note of where the center of the CB passes the OB, you will see it is slightly different for each shot, even though they are all CTEL-A. This is the proof that one visual is not a single eye position for a specific angle. This is how one visual with a 1/2 tip pivot can cover a wide range of shots that connect to a pocket.
I'm referring to this video with five shots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Psy5hOJT0 Stan demonstrates exactly what I'm saying above, how he rotates to the inner-most edge and his orientation is slightly different on each shot, even though all visuals are still objective, and prodecurally the same (CTEL-A left pivot).
Last edited:
It's not that CTE is better than GB. I mean, if both methods allow you to make the shot, then how can one be better than the other?
Now, one can be easier than the other, but really that's just a personal thing. Like taking a piss while standing vs. sitting. Same results.
The issue has always been that those opposed to the system saying it doesn't work, and it's been proven countless times over the years that it does.
Ok makes no sense to you and works are two different things. Just because I don't understand algebra doesn't mean algebra is not valid.
This is the essence of the entire conflict. Lou says CTE is nonsense and some folks think he is some kind of authority because he writes about traveling to pool tournaments and losing to pros. So they believe his knock and parrot his dismissal of cte.
Stan's examples pertain to all shots. Think about it. If you have a method that allows you to figure out the aiming for just about every possible shot to a pocket then how strong would that be?
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
The last grudge match for $3000 drew over 2000 viewers on the free stream.
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
It works if you are willing to put the time in. There is no way I can make these shots without CTE with any confidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8dQGTj5YjY&feature=c4-overview&list=UU8rNnGNPTLwihnszKS4Zg2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t513C8nU0eg&feature=c4-overview&list=UU8rNnGNPTLwihnszKS4Zg2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8dQGTj5YjY&feature=c4-overview&list=UU8rNnGNPTLwihnszKS4Zg2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t513C8nU0eg&feature=c4-overview&list=UU8rNnGNPTLwihnszKS4Zg2g
Well, that's all too obvious.
(Sorry John -- couldn't resist. 
)Actually, a minor correction there. I think you'll admit that the boosters of the aiming systems initially had extravagant claims about how the system performed -- i.e. its pertinence to "all players" regardless of skill or natural perceptive ability, the number of balls that a player's ability would jump, etc. These were in the early days, and I gotta admit, in those early days, the claims were mind-boggling. That has obviously calmed down a lot now, and not only are the claims a lot more believable, but we now have demonstration videos (a la Stan) that show how the system works.
Methinks what happened is that in those initial days, people were jumping all over the marketing claims to call out the "Billy Mays" nature of them, and somehow, over the years, it (the calling out part) morphed into just plain calling out *any* practitioner or enthusiast of aiming systems, telling them they're full of it, etc. It's very unfortunate, and probably was a result of the "one thing leads to another" connect the dots thing, instead of carefully reading what is said and not involve past histories nor let past histories color what is currently being said.
Very strong indeed. And the system (as well as the method to teach it) is continually getting tweaks and new discoveries.
However, it's not for everyone. Those with great 3D/spacial perception may be able to see the shot (and the aim point) just fine, and whether or not the shot is made depends more on fundamentals. Or any variation thereof.
-Sean
I dunno about 2k, but I bet the number of viewers will be surprisingly high.
Well, that's all too obvious.
Actually, a minor correction there. I think you'll admit that the boosters of the aiming systems initially had extravagant claims about how the system performed -- i.e. its pertinence to "all players" regardless of skill or natural perceptive ability, the number of balls that a player's ability would jump, etc. These were in the early days, and I gotta admit, in those early days, the claims were mind-boggling. That has obviously calmed down a lot now, and not only are the claims a lot more believable, but we now have demonstration videos (a la Stan) that show how the system works.
Methinks what happened is that in those initial days, people were jumping all over the marketing claims to call out the "Billy Mays" nature of them, and somehow, over the years, it (the calling out part) morphed into just plain calling out *any* practitioner or enthusiast of aiming systems, telling them they're full of it, etc. It's very unfortunate, and probably was a result of the "one thing leads to another" connect the dots thing, instead of carefully reading what is said and not involve past histories nor let past histories color what is currently being said.
Very strong indeed. And the system (as well as the method to teach it) is continually getting tweaks and new discoveries.
However, it's not for everyone. Those with great 3D/spacial perception may be able to see the shot (and the aim point) just fine, and whether or not the shot is made depends more on fundamentals. Or any variation thereof.
-Sean
I think it is for everyone. Just because you can use one tool well, ghost ball for example, does not mean that another tool might be better or equally as good for you.
I stand by my statement that in my opinion everyone can benefit from learning cte aiming.
As for claims and knocking....the knocking far far far outweighed the claims and the claims have turned out to be true.
But in the end the constant knocking produced a stronger presentation and was the catalyst for the dvd creation as well as the numerous you tube demonstrations.
So in the end instead of killing all discussion of cte the critics forced the proponents to demonstrate it and show results. Results that no critic has yet matched with any other methods.
Also I really disagree about the last sentence. You can have 100% perfect fundamentals and miss if you don't get on the correct shot line. Especially for bank shots. That is the whole point of having a precise aiming method.
Last edited:
Yep. Cubc vs. Omgwtf. Things are deeper than they seem Mark.
Well, we can agree to disagree on the "one size fits all" nature.
As to that last sentence (and your reply to it), NOONE has "100% perfect fundamentals." Not even snooker players -- who are light years ahead of pool players when it comes to studying the form/function of the human body and how to use it to deliver the cue in the straightest possible line that is least affected by hitches, swerving, etc. And, the same counter argument can be offered that you can have the most precise aim in the world (which is a function of an aiming system, afterall), but if your fundamentals are wonky, you aren't going to deliver that cue ball precisely where you want it. Even Stevie Moore says that.
Anyway, you know you can count me an advocate of ANYTHING that helps a pool player play a better game. That is what it's all about, afterall -- learning how to play the game better so that it can be enjoyed more.
-Sean
I plan on giving it a try and I have seen these shots performed before. Just didn't know if that worked if the cue or object ball wasn't placed in the same spots every time. Not a big fan of placing markers on the table to insure I set up the exact same shot every time. What if the shots were set up pretty close each time. Does it still work? I have to DVD's and was kinda confused. I reference CTE/A. When I get behind the cue with my 1/2 tip on the cue. What am I aiming at? Is it A then rotate center.
The system doesn't work because the CB/OB are placed in specific spots, but rather a given visual/sweep is used for a CB/OB/Pocket orientation. That said, moving the CB/OB slightly will very often work with the same visual/sweep. It is not critical that Gerry is replacing to exact spots, he just wants to be consistent for the demo.
Using known CB/OB placements is actually the best way to learn the system, as you eliminate any guesswork which visual/sweep to practice with the shot.
Last edited:
I once made up a saying, "Different strokes for different folks". See what I did there?
Good to know. Don't have a table at home. So it's watch the dvd and try things out later. I will figure it out. There are kicking systems as well. Do people knock them? Not everyone is a natural like some people. How many people do their own home improvement? I mean as a novice. Lot harder when you don't know the tricks of the trade as they say. Even some of the players who say aiming system are b.s. I bet use some form of system in their own game. Maybe it's just called a kicking system. Maybe it was self taught or not.
Indicator of what? What is your problem? It doesn't matter if two people watch or two thousand. Point is Lou and I are going to play and whoever wants to watch can and after a day or two it will be done.
I thought I liked to argue but I think it must take you two hours to get past every mirror in your house.
No not really. I could name 50 things that are THE SAME for all of humanity which improved every human being's life.
See the EASY way out is to simply say whatever works for you. And I could see you hammering nails with a rock and watch you getting them in but taking four minutes a nail and getting them in crooked and at the end you would have the nails in but at what cost?
Or
I could give you a nice hammer and show you how to use it and you could then put the nails in a rate of 10 seconds per nail with all of them driven in perfectly.
Which do you prefer?
I have made several videos where I state and show clearly that the consequence of a poor stroke and a perfect shot line is that you throw the cue ball OFF the shot line.
But it's not a chicken/egg thing.
1. Aiming
2. Execution
In that order.