. So long as using something is not directly detrimental to a persons life and well being, I believe it should be left to peoples common sense to protect them. You will make errors, and if the products are of a harmless type, you will learn from your mistakes. Of course I've bought almost every aiming system ever created, so I took the expensive course on the matter, lol:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GeF7A05zQ8I don't see what's so important about arguing about CTE being objective or not. It's clear to me that most people who claim that it is, has no real idea what the word entails, or are using the word in an ad-hoc definition of their own designs. It's marketing, and clique politics. Nothing more, nothing less. These are pool players and instructors, not scientists. No actual scientist would claim a system as a "center pocket system" without tons of disclaimers and explanations, because balls act differently with different speeds and spins (yes even on the vertical axis), not to mention balls being different etc.
On the matter of objectivity, I think a truely objective system could be made, on paper at least. The easiest would be a stick aiming system. Such and such a number of tips (size defined obviosly) away from center will produce x amount of angle at a standard speed and spin under standard conditions (which would be a PIA to define). Then you could have a table with compensations etc. You would also need to make a system to measure the angle to the pocket of course, which would be more of a challenge. Nobody would actually use such a system, though, because you'd either be looking up data in a book or having to memorize at least 75 different tip alignments (according to PJ). Then there's the matter of the compensations. Someone would have to invent a measurement system as well. The problem as well would be that the implementation would be subjective (obviously in the strictest sense), but also in a more general sense. We are not perfect machines, and we will not always be able to accurately aim the stick at a target outside of the ball, for instance. You might be bette at certain aims than at others etc.
Good systems are simple. A few standard alignments, and the subconscious fills out the blanks. Most good systems are of this type. It appears CTE is like this as well, from the videos Dan White posted. I could clearly see Stan Shuffet steering, as could anyone else with their eyes open. I believe this is what makes good shotmakers. When they are wrong, their subconscious make the correct adjustments with good timing and they end up making the ball anyway.
We've all experienced shooting a shot and feeling the arm swoop. Sometimes it works and at other times it fails in almost comical fashion. As we get better the fails become fewer and fewer, because we align more or less correctly for the most part. You will probably not even feel the corrections. Still you will have unwanted spin on the ball every now and then, even if you play decently.
Also it's weird how angry people get over this issue. Pool is supposed to be fun. When I watched this commercial in the 90's my first reaction was amusement, then pity for the people who needed the product and then both believed that it worked and that using it would be a good idea
I don't see what's so important about arguing about CTE being objective or not. It's clear to me that most people who claim that it is, has no real idea what the word entails, or are using the word in an ad-hoc definition of their own designs. It's marketing, and clique politics. Nothing more, nothing less. These are pool players and instructors, not scientists. No actual scientist would claim a system as a "center pocket system" without tons of disclaimers and explanations, because balls act differently with different speeds and spins (yes even on the vertical axis), not to mention balls being different etc.
On the matter of objectivity, I think a truely objective system could be made, on paper at least. The easiest would be a stick aiming system. Such and such a number of tips (size defined obviosly) away from center will produce x amount of angle at a standard speed and spin under standard conditions (which would be a PIA to define). Then you could have a table with compensations etc. You would also need to make a system to measure the angle to the pocket of course, which would be more of a challenge. Nobody would actually use such a system, though, because you'd either be looking up data in a book or having to memorize at least 75 different tip alignments (according to PJ). Then there's the matter of the compensations. Someone would have to invent a measurement system as well. The problem as well would be that the implementation would be subjective (obviously in the strictest sense), but also in a more general sense. We are not perfect machines, and we will not always be able to accurately aim the stick at a target outside of the ball, for instance. You might be bette at certain aims than at others etc.
Good systems are simple. A few standard alignments, and the subconscious fills out the blanks. Most good systems are of this type. It appears CTE is like this as well, from the videos Dan White posted. I could clearly see Stan Shuffet steering, as could anyone else with their eyes open. I believe this is what makes good shotmakers. When they are wrong, their subconscious make the correct adjustments with good timing and they end up making the ball anyway.
We've all experienced shooting a shot and feeling the arm swoop. Sometimes it works and at other times it fails in almost comical fashion. As we get better the fails become fewer and fewer, because we align more or less correctly for the most part. You will probably not even feel the corrections. Still you will have unwanted spin on the ball every now and then, even if you play decently.
Also it's weird how angry people get over this issue. Pool is supposed to be fun. When I watched this commercial in the 90's my first reaction was amusement, then pity for the people who needed the product and then both believed that it worked and that using it would be a good idea