Our good friend Patrick Johnson is still banned from AZB (until next January I think), but he still lurks and reads. He just sent me the e-mail quoted below in response to requests and statements like the one quoted above. Since he went through the trouble to write it, I told him I would share it with the forum.
To be clear, this is from him and not me. I personally think it is futile attempting to prove or disprove the "geometric correctness" of an "aiming system" like any of the
versions of CTE. As has been proven by countless years of hostile debates, questions and answers like these are usually not helpful.
Regardless of what people think or don't think, these "aiming systems" can be beneficial to some (and maybe even many) people (probably in some part due in part or whole to the
benefits of "aiming systems"). For those people, that is all that really matters.
Regards,
Dave
quote of e-mail from Patrick Johnson (pertaining to Stan's Pro-One version of CTE):
Proof That CTE Is Not “Geometrically Correct”
CTE is not geometrically correct because it’s not geometrically complete. A geometrically complete definition of a shot alignment would define its geometry in a way that would permit no other conclusion.
An example of this is geometrically defining a triangle of a certain size and shape. To do that at least three geometric elements are needed: the length of one side and its two adjoining angles, the lengths of two sides and their shared adjoining angle, or the lengths of all three sides.
CTE’s instructions need four elements defined:
1. the line from CB center to OB edge (the CTE line)
2. the line from CB edge to one of the OB fractions (the “aimpoint” line)
3. a “center CB” line between the CTE and “aimpoint” lines
4. a standard pivot from the “center CB” line to the actual shot line
To be geometrically complete/correct, each of these elements must be defined in a way that can be universally understood and precisely replicated.
The most obvious missing piece in CTE’s geometrical definition (not the only one) is the geometric definition for the “center CB” line (#3). The system says the “center CB” line is to be found “through practice and experience” using the CTE and aimpoint lines in an undefined way. “Practice and experience” are not specific instructions of any kind, much less a precise geometric definition.
Other missing pieces in CTE’s geometrical definition are (#2) choosing the appropriate OB fraction for the “aimpoint line”, which is also learned “through practice and experience”, and (#4) the “standard pivot”, which is not described precisely enough to be replicated by everybody in the same way.
These “geometrically undefined” elements are where it’s assumed that “feel” (aka “learned through practice and experience”) enters the CTE aiming equation.
