Try setting up the shots with a ghost ball in place. Ghost ball should be placed to give a slight overcut. Then, reverse engineer the shot. Get down lined up to the ghost ball, then stand up and find your visuals. (allow for the reverse pivot also)
Fear of Feel
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
Try setting up the shots with a ghost ball in place. Ghost ball should be placed to give a slight overcut. Then, reverse engineer the shot. Get down lined up to the ghost ball, then stand up and find your visuals. (allow for the reverse pivot also)
Anyone have a red logo cue ball? If so place it on the table with the logo on the right side at the equator. Now place another (this can be any ball, but use it as the CB) a few feet away in such a way that the CTE line only just shows the red logo on the OB. Now stand behind the CTE line and notice how much you can see. Move the ball you're using as the CB 6" to the left leaving the red logo ball alone. Now stand behind the CTE line and observe if you can see the red logo. Try it and see for yourselves of the perceived edge of a ball changes as the cue ball moves to different positions. 
:thumbup2: :thumbup2: :thumbup2:
Hi Ron,
That's because you're applying & implementing the system objectively & keeping out any subjective input as you were basically led to believe that the method worked. It doesn't work totally objectively for all shots. It needs subjective interpretation for the shots in between the objective ones.
But I gather that you've already figured this out for yourself. But reading Sloopy's post above might help to solidify it for you.
Is it better that fractional aining without pivots? I'd tend to say that it can certainly can be for some.
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
Ron does not need your words to tell him what he is doing....you are simply using him to continue your platform against CTE.
I FOR ONE WILL BE GLAD WHEN THE MODERATORS RECOGNIZE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS THREAD......and in this forum as well. My guess is that your life in aiming threads is on borrowed time.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
Anyone have a red logo cue ball? If so place it on the table with the logo on the right side at the equator. Now place another (this can be any ball, but use it as the CB) a few feet away in such a way that the CTE line only just shows the red logo on the OB. Now stand behind the CTE line and notice how much you can see. Move the ball you're using as the CB 6" to the left leaving the red logo ball alone. Now stand behind the CTE line and observe if you can see the red logo. Try it and see for yourselves of the perceived edge of a ball changes as the cue ball moves to different positions.
High Pidge,
I'm not looking to get into any brew ha ha, but what point are you addressing with this?
Obviously as one rotates around a sphere the perpendicular cross section changes. How is that relative to looking at 5 parallel shots & supposedly seeing the same reference points differently or seeing different reference points that are called the same designation.
The 2 balls relationship to one another is exactly the same as they always are. It is the markers & getting on the line between the different marker relationships of the balls that i supposed to put one on the shot line for the angle required.
If one moves instead of the moving the ball the two lines that fix the CB is lost. One is no longer in a spot where one can see the two lines simultaneously.
Sloppy stated it rather well. You can not have your cake & eat it too. If you move off from seeing the two lines simultaneously you are then seeing them from a different perspective & will yes have a different perception of them but that perception is no longer objective but has become subjective as the defining guidelines that 'made' them 'objective' have been lost. There is nothing objective to tell one how far to go to get the line that will pocket the ball. It has become subjective based on one's individual subjective interpretation. You have no longer been led by objectivity of seeing the reference points in a particular relationship.
If their is something that Stan has been holding back that makes it totally objective, I'm all ears & with an open mind.
Sorry for the rant.
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
Last edited:
And just what is happening? Please just don't makes a accusatory statement without stating what is happening for one to be accused of doing.
The only things happening is you making statements that are full of holes.
CTE connects to the table cause of 1x2.....right......still no math
CTE is the only system that connects to the pocket with geometry...sure ok....if it connects geometrically to the pocket...it can be drawn.
CTE is a professional level aiming system.....what system isn't.....Babe Cranfield teaches the spot on the table in his books......kinda like contact patch.....and he has a device to use in practice.....the Arrow.
CTE will become the standard for playing pool......only in your mind.
You create the drama as well as the other CTE users that just can't understand that stating that a system works yet can not explain why it works is just not logical.
I think all aiming systems require subjective input and find people making big outrageous claims about the objectiveness of their favorite aiming system very annoying. All the different methods have fans that make big claims.
I use different aiming references and visualizations depending on the shot. Ghost ball, contact point, fractions, overlaps, contact patch, roll lines, imaginary rails, etc.. Full hits, slight cuts, medium cuts, super thin, back cut, on the rail, combinations, caroms.
I doubt I will adopt CTE for all my aiming, but it is possible I will add it to my "toolbox".
Last edited:
I've learned the lesson that any communication with you that is not in agreement with you only results in an increase in your vitriol.
I sincerely hope you have a good day.
Are you now saying that it is not?
Mr Shuffet he's speaking the truth and probably helping others at the same time.
All along I've told you people you have gaps in your system, you guys call it rotating,shifting...whats the difference, your still moving to a new location to create the right aimline for the pocket. You get red a$$ every time someone questions you when you've actually caused most of the confusion yourself. I imagine a lot of people here owe some apologies and you for one owe some. Sorry!
Anthony
I SPEAK THE TRUTH! Sorry you can not handle it.......
And trust me I am making every effort to convince myself to permanently leave AZ.
Stan Shuffett
:thumbup2: :thumbup2: :thumbup2:
But you're not moving the CB. It remains the same distance from the OB (in the 5-shot example), the CTE line remains at the same angle to the center-to-center line and so do each and every one of the CB edge-to-aimpoint lines. They're all the exact same CB/OB relationships.
So how is a new cut angle for the shot visualized from the exact same starting reference lines? No CB or body movement, no "shifting" or "rotating" changes them - they're fixed relationships of the CB and OB themselves.
I say this without any animosity, but as a "friendly adversary": you guys clearly have difficulty with spatial visualization and don't understand this "rotating edges" rationalization yourselves.
By the way, do you remember that the first use of "rotating edges" was to explain filling the gaps in Hal Houle's "3-angles" system (a non-pivot fractions system)? It was floated as the more-plausible-sounding rationalization after "pocket slop margin of error" (the original rationalization) was shown to be clearly implausible.
pj <- here comes "3D vs. 2D" again
chgo
The statement stands as was.......honestly! I am growing weary of the nonsense that occurs here.....and no longer wish to deal with haters like you that have zero intentions of learning CTE....I am not needed here any longer and I am better off joining those that have been run off of AZ.....I have projects that are better suited for my time than dealing with someone like you.
Stan Shuffett
Hi Ron,
That is exactly what one of the best players in my area has done with it.
When I asked him about CTE & whether or not it was objective for all the shots, he almost yelled, 'Oh no, it has holes'. He confirm my own findings.
He then went on to say that all systems have holes & that is why you need to use 2 or maybe 3 different methods.
He basically uses CTE as a check for certain shots that he's not sure about with his main method. He said that sometimes CTE will show him that his main method is correct because it does not match up to CTE & other times it will show him that it is correct because it does match up with CTE. He said that he can do it that way because he is familiar with where the holes are.
Everyone is different & will use tools differently. I too use many methods depending on the shot at hand.
Some are okay using multiple methods & some only want to use one method.
It's to each their own as it should be.
If you don't mind me asking, what enticed you to look into CTE?
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
Mr Shuffet he's speaking the truth and probably helping others at the same time.
All along I've told you people you have gaps in your system, you guys call it rotating,shifting...whats the difference, your still moving to a new location to create the right aimline for the pocket. You get red a$$ every time someone questions you when you've actually caused most of the confusion yourself. I imagine a lot of people here owe some apologies and you for one owe some. Sorry!
Anthony
Thanks Anthony.
Did you clear up some PM space?
I no longer 'need' to PM you but you might still want to clear some space.
Thanks again & Best to Ya,
Rick