My Thread… Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE

[JB Cases]

John,

As I've said in another post, You've been making the best effort here as of late & have brought out some good points.

That said, you have a propensity to make extremely definitive statements that are simply not true like the one that I put in blue.

That says that one NEVER misses when using CTE.

Where you NOT using CTE when you played Lou?

You also use premises that are basically inapplicable to the issue & then make a conclusion as though it is applicable to the issue.

I understand why you do such things. I just thought they should be pointed out for more general recognition.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

As discussed here a million times.....aiming and execution are two separate tasks.

Aiming is what you do before you shoot. Shooting is what you do AFTER you aim.

Yes, I was using CTE when I played Lou. So it can be clearly seen that lousy fundamentals will destroy a perfectly aimed shot. On the other hand I was able to make a lot of "tough" shots during that match which were taken on precisely because CTE gave me a way to aim them that I could trust. Before learning CTE I wouldn't have even attempted them out of pure aiming fear.

When I say the perfect shot line every time I am referring to experienced CTE users who have enough experience to know that proper use of the method does indeed resolve to the right shot line every time.

In the assumption that this is indeed the case, and I am confident that it is, one would either need to conclude that the method is objective OR that it leads the subconscious mind to force the body to adopt the perfect shot line BECAUSE the shooter is making no conscious adjustment other than what the instructions tell him to do.

That was the whole point of Stan's 'five shot - same visual' video. He only does what the system tells him to do and even against his own conscious mind's objection accepts that the five shots all use the same solution.

In other words as an experienced CTE user Stan would not go to Edge to A as the first choice for the fifth shot UNTIL after he tries it and realizes that anything else doesn't work for that shot. I honestly don't how it could get any more objective than that when aiming in pool without the aid of external devices.

 

[JB Cases]

I think a better idea for CTE advocates is to not make any posts AT ALL in a thread that ENGLISH starts. Let him talk to himself and other anti-CTE posters since they're each in the same group of keyboard cowboys who have never grasped the concept or spent any time on table working on it. I don't think many want to be associated with him to begin with. ENGLISH has enough imaginary personalities roaming around in his brain to keep him occupied for the rest of his life.

And the best part is he CAN'T POST in a thread started by anyone else regarding CTE or he'll get BANNED!

They will NEVER run out of things to say, NEVER. Pat Johnson and Lou Figueroa have proven it to be the case going on 19 straight years, much of which is recycled garbage that's been posted thousands of times exactly the same way or with some minor mutations here and there.

The fact that so many intelligent individuals who are CTE advocates got sucked into his BLACK HOLE of doom thread, including myself, makes me think we aren't so bright after all.

I won't be posting in this thread or ANY that he starts ever again. SCREW HIM and the LUNACY produced as a result of, well, LUNACY.

The best thing that could happen is for Mr. Wilson or Mike to ban him for no other reason than to Save Him from Himself as a humanitarian gesture to be able to get on with a normal life with his wife.

That's not a bad idea but it does allow him and others to have a soapbox from which to make assertions that are not true or not proven.

I can't give up the playground that way. It's not fair to everyone that has studied this method and not fair to Hal Houle who put so much of his life into trying to help players aim better and subsequently play better.

If they claim there are holes then they ought to be able to show them. If they claim CTE is not objective then they ought to be able to show it on the table.

Until then, as long as I feel like it I will challenge them until one of us dies. Where we have the advantage though is that we are willing to get on the table and discuss it ON THE TABLE on video. And that video is what wins the day IMO.

 

[Dan White]

Yes, I was using CTE when I played Lou. So it can be clearly seen that lousy fundamentals will destroy a perfectly aimed shot. On the other hand I was able to make a lot of "tough" shots during that match which were taken on precisely because CTE gave me a way to aim them that I could trust. Before learning CTE I wouldn't have even attempted them out of pure aiming fear.

John - can you post a diagram of a shot you are afraid to try without CTE?

 

[JB Cases]

John - can you post a diagram of a shot you are afraid to try without CTE?

Here are examples of shots that I used to be terribly inconsistent with. Now with CTE they go more often and when I miss it's ususally within a few inches and not by diamonds. ASSUMING that I am shooting with a halfway decent stroke that is. Shooting like a donkey with rubber band arms anything can happen.

I diagrammed these quickly. The GB and paths are not dead on perfect. Just intended to be quick sketches.

 

[JB Cases]

......................

 

[cookie man]

If they claim there are holes then they ought to be able to show them. If they claim CTE is not objective then they ought to be able to show it on the table.

U.

360 posts into this thread and not one iota of proof on there claims. They can't even post one hole and most in there camp have already admitted to it's objectivity as described. Most of course except one.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I can't sleep and thought of a situation that illustrates how a CTE user gets to the shot line - sort of.

On Thursday in league my opponent was on the 8 ball but only had a scratch shot or some kind of a bank. So he calls a timeout and his teammate comes over and uses a diamond system to figure out the aim for a 3 railer. He tells the guy where to aim and how to hit it. The shooter nails it, high fives all around.

But the shooter had no clue if he was right or wrong. He followed the instructions and since his teammate put him on the right line and he could hit the ball straight it went in three rails.

That's how CTE users are for a lot of shots until they have practiced enough to trust that the line is right.

Many times we follow the instructions - OBJECTIVELY - and take the line we land on with no conscious thought of adjusting in any way from that line. We then focus on the execution just as my opponent did for his three-railer.

I don't think anyone would argue that banking and kicking systems aren't MOSTLY objective when it comes to the aiming. The subjective part I guess would be to know how a table is playing, long, short, slow, fast, etc and adjust for that if needed.

CTE is successfully used for banking. So would one really say that a CTE user who can consistently pocket multi-rail banks like a diamond system can as well is not using an objective system. I mean very consistent results have to point to a higher degree of objectivity in my opinion.

If this was Algebra then both side of the equation have to balance. Going backwards from the pocketed ball through the approach to the table one could simply observe CTE users vs. feel players and see the systematic approach vs. a guessing approach and I feel that the results for the CTE group over a wide range of shots would show a significantly higher success rate.

And that's just for pocketing.

If we were to include near misses to account for execution errors, say if the ball rattles of hits within an inch of the pocket then the success rate would be even higher for the system aimers.

One would expect this result to be true for proficient diamond system users when it comes to banking balls because the diamond systems are mathematically correct on paper. This is accepted that system users do better than feel players.

So when a CTE user has comparable or even higher successful scores over diamond system users then why can't we conclude that CTE aiming must be mostly objective.

John,

To summarize if I may...

Players that use any form of method are more consistent than those players that just guess.

I agree with you that when a shot fits the visual & the ball pockets it was the true shot line & one COULD say that that shot was pocketed through the use of an objective visual to get to the proper line. Please note the word COULD & understand that it is not universal to every situation.


BUT...when a shot does not fit the objective visual & would NOT pocket the ball through the objective use of implementing that visual & the ball still pockets...

then the shooter in some way has cheated the system, so to speak, by adding in their own subjective perception of what was needed for the shot... they 'fudged' the 'system' (or the method).

That 'fudging' may have been to get slightly off of the line of the visual, or to modify the pivot, or to steer the cue.

I think you are quite aware of where the issue lays & it's in the questions that I asked you earlier in this thread that you've said you do not know the answers but will work on trying to figure them out.

To say that something is definitively something & not know the how or why it could be such is, shall we say, disingenuous to a discussion on the topic.

That's the thing, CTEers express their belief with no 'proof' of their belief. Hence the reference to religion by some.

The premise of how CTE would work is intriguing and when it works based off of that premise or method, it is impressive.

But, as has been pointed out by a number of individuals, there are not enough outcome angles possible from the objective visuals to cover all of the needed angles to actually play the game completely successfully.

That is what some have called 'holes' in the supposed system.

So... from your point of view that all shots can be made using the 'system', how can you be correct?

The answer is that the 'hole' shots are made through the interjection of subjective perception (quite most probably subconsciously) in the analysis & subsequent execution of the shot. So... you would then be incorrect to say that the CTE method is 'an objective aiming system'.

I have a couple of times suggested that it might be referred to as a hybrid method that may highly assist one's subjective analyzation & ultimate execution through the use of a visually objective means involving converging visual lines, but that is not as easy or catchy & enticing as 'an objective aiming system', but it is more accurate.

One of the problems when 'discussing' this difference of determination regarding whether or not it is 'an objective aiming system' or of a subjective nature is when some employ different uses of the word 'objective' to suit their intentions & possibly agenda.

If I employ my subjective intuition regarding a shot while using my abilities of spacial & 'visual intelligence' to pocket a shot & have never even ever heard of CTE & the shot pockets then I arrived at the true line for the shot... or said another way, I arrived at the (objectively) true line for the shot.

BUT... I did not use an objective system to do so, or said another way, I did NOT use an objective system to get to the objective (true) line for the shot.

I used a subjective means to arrive at the objective (true) line of the shot.

I think you are on a very good trail toward perhaps properly defining what CTE is & what it's value might or can be for certain individuals if not 'all'.

But, if the 'to the death' cling to the description of 'an objective aiming system' is maintained then the trail will not be a smooth one & you may never arrive at what should be the real true desired destination.

If there is not enough leather to cover a case can you cover the case by just looking at it with a different perception. If you fill in the gaps where there is NOT enough leather by using vinyl, is the case a true leather case. Does 50.0001% of leather qualify one to call it a leather case?

I know this is not an applicable analogy per say, but I am just trying to make a point. Leather & vinyl are hard solid materials while objectivity & subjectivity are of an abstract nature. Hence, they would require different forms of examination to determine their realities. Video can not be used as proof even if it might make some suggestions. The reality of any such suggestions lies in the logical non science bending analysis of them.

I hope this might get us closer to at least a partial agreement of some understanding, but some how I doubt it.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

He is going to have the soapbox regardless of others engaging him or not, he spends practically every waking hour monitoring this site and posting.Who can keep up with that?

Besides, I think the silent majority, know him for what he is.

That's not a bad idea but it does allow him and others to have a soapbox from which to make assertions that are not true or not proven.

I can't give up the playground that way. It's not fair to everyone that has studied this method and not fair to Hal Houle who put so much of his life into trying to help players aim better and subsequently play better.

If they claim there are holes then they ought to be able to show them. If they claim CTE is not objective then they ought to be able to show it on the table.

Until then, as long as I feel like it I will challenge them until one of us dies. Where we have the advantage though is that we are willing to get on the table and discuss it ON THE TABLE on video. And that video is what wins the day IMO.

 

[JB Cases]

John,

To summarize if I may...

Players that use any form of method are more consistent than those players that just guess.

I agree with you that when a shot fits the visual & the ball pockets it was the true shot line & one COULD say that that shot was pocketed through the use of an objective visual to get to the proper line. Please note the word COULD & understand that it is not universal to every situation.


BUT...when a shot does not fit the objective visual & would NOT pocket the ball through the objective use of implementing that visual & the ball still pockets...

then the shooter in some way has cheated the system, so to speak, by adding in their own subjective perception of what was needed for the shot... they 'fudged' the 'system' (or the method).

That 'fudging' may have been to get slightly off of the line of the visual, or to modify the pivot, or to steer the cue.

I think you are quite aware of where the issue lays & it's in the questions that I asked you earlier in this thread that you've said you do not know the answers but will work on trying to figure them out.

To say that something is something & not know the how or why it could be such is, shall we say, disingenuous to a discussion on the topic.

That's the thing, CTEers express their belief with no 'proof' of their belief. Hence the reference to religion by some.

The premise of how CTE would work is intriguing and when it works based off of that premise or method, it is impressive.

But, as has been pointed out by a number of individuals, there are not enough outcome angles possible from the objective visuals to cover all of the needed angles to actually play the game completely successfully.

That is what some have called 'holes' in the supposed system.

So... from your point of view that all shots can be made using the 'system', how can you be correct?

The answer is that the 'hole' shots are made through the interjection of subjective perception (quite most probably subconsciously) in the analysis & subsequent execution of the shot. So... you would then be incorrect to say that the CTE method is 'an objective aiming system'.

I have a couple of times suggested that it might be referred to as a hybrid method that may highly assist one's subjective analyzation & ultimate execution through the use of a visually objective means involving converging visual lines, but that is not as easy or catchy & enticing as 'an objective aiming system', but it is more accurate.

One of the problems when 'discussing' this difference of determination regarding whether or not it is 'an objective aiming system' or of a subjective nature is when some employ different uses of the word 'objective' to suit their intentions & possibly agenda.

If I employ my subjective intuition regarding a shot while using my abilities of spacial & 'visual intelligence' to pocket a shot & have never even ever heard of CTE & the shot pockets then I arrived at the true line for the shot... or said another way, I arrived at the (objectively) true line for the shot.

BUT... I did not use an objective system to do so, or said another way, I did NOT use an objective system to get to the objective (true) line for the shot.

I used a subjective means to arrive at the objective (true) line of the shot.

I think you are on a very good trail toward perhaps properly defining what CTE is & what it's value might or can be for certain individuals if not 'all'.

But, if the 'to the death' cling to the description of 'an objective aiming system' is maintained then the trail will not be a smooth one & you may never arrive at what should be the real true desired destination.

If there is not enough leather to cover a case can you cover the case by just looking at it with a different perception. If you fill in the gaps where there is NOT enough leather by using vinyl, is the case a true leather case. Does 50.0001% of leather qualify one to call it a leather case?

I know this is not an applicable analogy per say, but I am just trying to make a point. Leather & vinyl are hard solid materials while objectivity & subjectivity are of an abstract nature. Hence, they would require different forms of examination to determine their realities. Video can not be used as proof even if it might make some suggestions. The reality of any such suggestions lies in the logical non science bending analysis of them.

I hope this might get us closer to at least a partial agreement of some understanding, but some how I doubt it.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

Then you all OUGHT to be able to diagram shots that don't fit the visual in your opinion.

This is the crux of it all for this thread.

You claim a "fudge" factor but are unable to show it. You claim that CTE provides a limited number of cut angles but CTE in fact provides NO cut angles.

Cut angles exist regardless of how the shooter approaches the shot.

Each shot is a single task and has zero relationship to any other shot.

So therefore the shooter walks up to the shot where it lays and figures it out based on what they see in front of them.

One shot can be a 52 degree shot and the next can be a 48 degree shot and neither of those shots has any connection to the other. Each one is a puzzle to be solved and one of the CTE perceptions will work for each shot and it's for the shooter to choose which one that is.

Your premise that CTE should "define" all cut angles is where the problem lies I think. The starting point is the cueball. Wherever it is is what the shooter has to deal with and the cueball is where the system use begins and ends. That's what you're not getting I think.

This is all easy to figure out. Just set up a laser that when turned on projects a line down the mapped out shot line. Take CTE users and instruct them to get into shooting position. IF their cue tracks on the shot line more often than feel shooters you have your answer. And this includes any so called "hole shots" that your could assert don't fit in CTE's visuals. If indeed there are such shots and CTE users are getting on the shot line consistently with no conscious fudging then you would have to conclude that it's some very objective fudge.

 

[JB Cases]

Here you go guys.

http://pool.bz/CueTable.php

Diagram the shots that you are certain don't work in CTE and one of us will provide you with the solutions that work for them.

(Duckie, we already know you will post combinations and kick shots - don't bother. Instead of CTE I use various methods to measure them. Because as I told you, I and every CTE user still has the capability to use every other method of aiming, including a straight up guess if we want to)

This tool doesn't work in Chrome. But you can paste the links if you know how to use it or just do screenshots.

Mohrt also has a tool but the cuetable has lines that can be placed.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I can't sleep and thought of a situation that illustrates how a CTE user gets to the shot line - sort of.

On Thursday in league my opponent was on the 8 ball but only had a scratch shot or some kind of a bank. So he calls a timeout and his teammate comes over and uses a diamond system to figure out the aim for a 3 railer. He tells the guy where to aim and how to hit it. The shooter nails it, high fives all around.

But the shooter had no clue if he was right or wrong. He followed the instructions and since his teammate put him on the right line and he could hit the ball straight it went in three rails.

That's how CTE users are for a lot of shots until they have practiced enough to trust that the line is right.

Many times we follow the instructions - OBJECTIVELY - and take the line we land on with no conscious thought of adjusting in any way from that line. We then focus on the execution just as my opponent did for his three-railer.

I don't think anyone would argue that banking and kicking systems aren't MOSTLY objective when it comes to the aiming. The subjective part I guess would be to know how a table is playing, long, short, slow, fast, etc and adjust for that if needed.

CTE is successfully used for banking. So would one really say that a CTE user who can consistently pocket multi-rail banks like a diamond system can as well is not using an objective system. I mean very consistent results have to point to a higher degree of objectivity in my opinion.

If this was Algebra then both side of the equation have to balance. Going backwards from the pocketed ball through the approach to the table one could simply observe CTE users vs. feel players and see the systematic approach vs. a guessing approach and I feel that the results for the CTE group over a wide range of shots would show a significantly higher success rate.

And that's just for pocketing.

If we were to include near misses to account for execution errors, say if the ball rattles of hits within an inch of the pocket then the success rate would be even higher for the system aimers.

One would expect this result to be true for proficient diamond system users when it comes to banking balls because the diamond systems are mathematically correct on paper. This is accepted that system users do better than feel players.

So when a CTE user has comparable or even higher successful scores over diamond system users then why can't we conclude that CTE aiming must be mostly objective.

John,

To summarize if I may...

Players that use any form of method are more consistent than those players that just guess.

I agree with you that when a shot fits the visual & the ball pockets it was the true shot line & one COULD say that that shot was pocketed through the use of an objective visual to get to the proper line. Please note the word COULD & understand that it is not universal to every situation.


BUT...when a shot does not fit the objective visual & would NOT pocket the ball through the objective use of implementing that visual & the ball still pockets...

then the shooter in some way has cheated the system, so to speak, by adding in their own subjective perception of what was needed for the shot... they 'fudged'.

That 'fudging' may have been to get slightly off of the line of visual, or to modify the pivot, or to steer the cue.

I think you are quite aware of where the issue lays & it's in the questions that I ask you earlier in this thread that you've said you do not know the answers but will work on trying to figure them out.

To say that something is something & not know the how or why it could be such is, shall we say, disingenuous to a discussion on the topic.

That's the thing, CTEers express their belief with no 'proof' of their belief.

The premise of how CTE would work is intriguing and when it works based off of that premise or method, it is impressive.

But as has been pointed out by a number of individuals, there are not enough outcome angles possible from the objective visuals to cover all of the needed angles to actually play the game completely successfully.

That is what some have called 'holes' in the supposed system.

So... from your point of view that all shost can be made using the 'system', how can you be correct?

The answer is that the 'hole' shots are made through the interjection of subjective perception in the analysis & subsequent execution of the shot. So... you would then be incorrect to say that the CTE method is 'an objective aiming system'.

One of the problems when 'discussing' this difference of determination regarding whether or not it is an objective aiming system or of a subjective nature is when some employ different uses of the word 'objective'.

If I employ my subjective intuition regarding a shot while using my abilities of spacial & 'visual intelligence' to pocket a shot & have never even ever heard of CTE & the shot pockets then I arrived at the true line for the shot... or said another way, I arrived at the (objectively) true line for the shot.

BUT... I did not use an objective system to do so, or said another way, I did NOT use an objective system to get to the objective (true) line for the shot.

I used a subjective means to arrive at the true (objective) line of the shot.

I think you are on a very good trail toward perhaps properly defining what CTE is & what it's value might or can be for certain individuals if not 'all'.

But, if the 'to the death' cling to the description of 'an objective aiming system' is maintained then the trail will not be a smooth one & you may never arrive at what should be the real true desired destination.

If there is not enough leather to cover a case can you cover the case by just looking at it with a different perception. If you fill in the gaps where there is NOT enough leather by using vinyl, is the case a leather case. If a case is 50.001% leather & 49.999% vinyl, does that qualify to define & call it a leather case

I know this is not an applicable analogy, per say, but I am just trying to make a point. Leather & vinyl are hard solid materials while objectivity & subjectivity are of an abstract nature. Hence, they would require different forms of examination to determine their realities.

I hope this might get us closer to at least a partial agreement of some understanding, but some how I doubt it.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

 

[HawaiianEye]

He is going to have the soapbox regardless of others engaging him or not, he spends practically every waking hour monitoring this site and posting.Who can keep up with that?

Besides, I think the silent majority, know him for what he is.

This I will agree with.

I have nothing against anybody on here and will listen to almost every viewpoint, but he is OBSESSED.

If I were learning pool as a beginner, his posts would drive me away from reading anything on here. He disrupts things and gets TOO involved and doesn't know when to let things go...like several others on here.

I can name about 5 or 6 people here (off the top of my head) who have the same bad habit.

There is NO system that is 100% objective that has humans involved.

 

[ENGLISH!]

CTE advocates.

Please try to debate with zero name calling. Think about it. Give them nothing to grab onto that deflects from the topic and eventually they run out of things to say that haven't been refuted.

We know who hasn't bothered to go to the table.

On table results bear out what we know to be true. So stick with that and don't get personal. Trust me on this as one who has more experience getting "personal" than any of you. Stick to the topic and be clinical about it and the weight of experience will be apparent to any readers still on the fence who are hanging out here.

This seems to be what might be a rather telling post.

Or at least it should be to any neutral fence sitter regarding the 'dispute'.

And the word clinical should have been put in single quotes as that is far from what has been done in the past.

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[ENGLISH!]

CTE doesn't PRODUCE cut angles. It solves for them.

Nit picking of words for what purpose.

If it does not 'produce' cut angles through it's implementation, how does any ball ever get pocketed by utilizing it?

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[JB Cases]

This I will agree with.

I have nothing against anybody on here and will listen to almost every viewpoint, but he is OBSESSED.

If I were learning pool as a beginner, his posts would drive me away from reading anything on here. He disrupts things and gets TOO involved and doesn't know when to let things go...like several others on here.

I can name about 5 or 6 people here (off the top of my head) who have the same bad habit.

There is NO system that is 100% objective that has humans involved.

Guilty.

Rick and Pat Johnson are of the opinion that no objectivity in aiming exists.

I think you know that this is not true. Even your favorite method CP2CP you called it I think is more objective than simply guessing. In fact anything other than guessing is objective to some degree.

 

[ENGLISH!]

By the way, detailed instructions are given for lots of things and despite them people end up with different results. Our brains and biases have a way of skipping steps without even realizing it. And sometimes we deliberately skip steps thinking we are smarter than the people who wrote the instructions.

I seriously doubt that anyone is intellectually talking about IF one skips a step.

I think ALL of the intelligent discussion has been in regards to the fact that there are not enough specifically designed or defined 'steps' for objective implementation...

& that the process of objectivity is lost at the point of 'move until you see the proper perception for the shot' with no objective definition of what that proper perception is for any specific shot.

That is PJ's & Poolplaya9's, & others' point... & I agree.

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Guilty.

Rick and Pat Johnson are of the opinion that no objectivity in aiming exists.

I think you know that this is not true. Even your favorite method CP2CP you called it I think is more objective than simply guessing. In fact anything other than guessing is objective to some degree.

If what they think were true, you might as well play the game blindfolded.

 

[JB Cases]

Not picking of words for what purpose.

If it does not 'produce' cut angles through it's implementation, how does any ball ever get pocketed by utilizing it?

Best Wishes to ALL.

The cut angle, which is actually unknown to the shooter and which does not matter, nevertheless exists.

No one goes by cut angles except in very very limited situations, and even then they really don't. A true half ball hit is what, 30 degrees? and of course a straight in is zero degrees.

I never hear players using cut angles to aim shots. I have never heard an instructor tell a student "here is how you make a 17 degree shot".

So cut angles truly don't matter because they are not identified when shooting at all. No one looks at a shot and thinks, this is a 37 degree cut so therefore I have to do x-y-z.

No, instead people see a shot and they use any method they know of that they like to decide on a shot line to put the cue on. CTE for example is one such method.

A CTE user simply steps up to the shot and uses the visual that works give them a shot line with zero regard for the actual cut angle.

As Hal once said, "how do you know a shot is straight in and not 2 degrees?" In other words, using the system takes all that cut angle worry out of the aiming process. And to be clear, when I say cut angle worry I am speaking of the "severity" of shots faced not actual cut angles. Obviously we all know what shots appear tough and which cause trepidation in the shooter.

CTE provides a rock solid solution in the form of a resolve to a shot line that turns out to be correct all of the time. This allows the shooter to get down with 100% trust that the aim is right regardless of cut angle. And that leads to better delivery and more shots made even for people with bad stroking techniques.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Again, totally false post by someone who doesn't know or have experience with CTE.
Common sense and decency say that someone should be well versed in argument before making false accusations.

You are very much like another member & seem to also not have a very good grasp of differentiating what is meant by nor how to use much of the english language appropriately.

 

[JB Cases]

I seriously doubt that anyone is intellectually talking about IF one skips a step.

I think ALL of the intelligent discussion has been in regards to the fact that there are not enough specifically designed or defined 'steps' for objective implementation...

& that the process of objectivity is lost at the point of 'move until you see the proper perception for the shot' with no objective definition of what that proper perception is for any specific shot.

That is PJ's & Poolplaya9's, & others' point... & I agree.

Best Wishes to ALL.

Proper perception is that which works as opposed to perceptions that don't. Since you don't actually know what a CTE perception looks like in my opinion based on your writings so far you don't know what the steps actually do nor what part a perception plays in the process.

No, Rick, no one says that you must stand 4" offset to the cueball for x-perception and 3.3" for y-perception.

But once players learn how THEY see the CTE line - i.e. for me it might be a 2" offset and for someone else it's a 2.2" offset then that body placement works EVERY TIME.

That's where individual body types and visual acuity and even dominant eye plays a part.