Perfection takes time.
CTE Video Of The Day #2
- Thread starter SpiderWebComm
- Start date
Perfection takes time.
I've only posted two videos which is what I was referring to as not complicated.
Did you even bother to watch them before posting your comment? If you think there's anything in the first two that are extremely difficult to understand, you're in a heap of trouble for comprehension and understanding.
Best you stay out of all the rest and forget CTE for as long as you live like a few others in here should. It's not something you'll ever be involved with so why bother?
He has always lined up every shot with his cue to the left, then on the final stroke he strikes the cb wherever he intends to strike it. It's not the "manual pivoting" involved with any aiming system. The commentator (Freddie Agnir) points this out on the first rack when Saez is breaking.
This is a side note that has nothing to do with the above but is a FYI that you may not know. I don't know how much pool Fred is playing these days or what he does but he became a dedicated user of CTE a number of years back and a staunch defender of the system. He is also an engineer...not on a train.
When the CCB forum (Billiards Digest) was up and running, there was an epic CTE flame war with probably 100 pages and Fred pretty much single handedly was the pro CTE defender against all onslaughts. Hal Houle was still alive and posted in the thread. Stan wasn't involved with it at the time nor posted.
It was like everything else just as it is here. Two groups clashing with the naysayers who didn't know how to use it nor ever tried to learn it screaming how it couldn't possibly work based on the math and other half assed claims.
Fred knows complex math as much as if not more than all of them. It's not about math. It's ALL about vision and how to see the balls. It takes work whereas everyone wants a quick fix straight out of the box to perform like magic immediately.
Some things never change.
Last edited:
That's a cool side note about Freddie. Glad I wasn't involved with all that bs back then on the CCB forum. I can't imagine spending anymore than about 2.8 years arguing over the same old stuff. I say 2.8 because that's about how many years I spent doing it, which was probably at least 2.5 years too many. Lol
I've communicated with Freddie on exactly how he uses CTE. He learned it from Hal and modified it for his own purposes. I know exactly how Freddie's method works and it makes complete physical sense. However, it makes use of contact points and 7 aim points on each side of the ob to get you close to that aim point.
I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but Freddie said that if you don't have trouble visualizing ghost ball and aiming the cb into space off the side of the ob then you don't need CTE.
Not knocking CTE, just clarifying what Freddie does. It's a horse of a different color.
That's not the way it was when the flame war thread came out. Fred said nothing like that at all. Hal Houle was still alive and posted in there himself. If Fred had posted something like that at the time, Hal would have jumped right in to correct it.
Last edited:
Well go ask him. He gave me a start to finish procedure 1,2,3 and it isn't anything like your version of CTE. He learned from Hal and didn't really even know who Stan was. I don't know if he started out one way and morphed into what he told me, but there's no mystery to what he does. I have a feeling the flame wars early on were a bit different from what they are now.
I've never used his name because I'm sure he doesn't want to be dragged into this. I just had to set the record straight and I'll leave it at that.
Another excellent side note about Freddie. It puts things into proper perspective. I think that's one of the pitfalls that Stan has had to struggle with over the years -- the many personal variations of CTE being used that don't exactly coincide with what Stan is teaching. But that's to be expected. I mean, I've read the system instructions in Hal's letter. There's not much to it, so anybody can take that information and add to it or modify it to make it work for them in whatever manner they can.
Last edited:
Personal variations are done with all aiming systems and I'm sure it's done with Poolology. I know it was done with Joe Tucker's system so there wouldn't be as many contact points to visualize. Sure, CTE also.
But someone else doing what an individual who changes it does might not make it as fool proof and certainly not as beneficial for other players. Change it enough times between multiple individuals and it isn't even the same process or aiming system.
I talked to Robb a few years ago. He didn't admit to using a system but it is very interesting how he pivots.
I'll talk to him when this is all over, he lives close. I wouldn't doubt that he does not use Stan's specific instructions, don't know whether he's ever really learned them.
You right. And there's no way around that, no way to prevent that from happening. But sometimes it can lead to something better I suppose.
Sure others have taken Hal's info and adapted it one way or the other, but Stan totally completed the work.
You have to remember, Hal put out vague information. He gave Stan vague information for the most part. It is Stan who broke that information down, top to bottom, A to Z. Stan dissected it and put it back together. Stan's finished work is a thing of beauty and those interested won't have any issues with the info.
Yeah, it's more than likely done for the same reason another player might address each shot with low right or low left or even straight bottom on the cb, regardless of where they intend to strike it.
We had a great local VNEA hall of fame player years ago (Jack Dunbar), and he cued every shot with low left until the final stroke.
I understand. But Hal's letter wasn't all that vague. It was pretty explicit instructions. Stan added to it and made it something more. Hal was apparently a very generous an open guy that enjoyed coming up with different methods for aiming, and he shared his stuff like an excited kid anxious to show it to others. He enjoyed helping others. I didn't know him, but this is how most people who did know him have described his character. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would've purposely given vague information to Stan. I think Stan wanted to believe there was something more, something beyond the information that Hal had given him. That's a creative mind at work.
It's no different than if I were to show you a trick shot, a simple trick shot that I made up myself, and then from your own mind you add more to it, more than what I intended, more than what I made up myself. In the end you have your own trick shot, far more creative and impressive than what I showed you. Sure, my shot was your starting point, your spark, but you couldn't say I was withholding information from you or being vague when I first showed the shot.
Last edited:
Or it could lead to something worse which makes them stop using it and vilifying it for the rest of their life. (that is after the original creator is totally castrated for the world to see)
Yes and no. From what I saw in the archives of RSB it was different and not so much in the way of flame wars but just attacks.
However, the flame war on CCB was very much the same as now with math, geometry as the basis on the naysayer side. The math part was a moot point that couldn't be answered because there was always a pivot with Hal's version.
That too. But when I said it could lead to something better, I was referring to Stan. I mean, following Hal's instructions, precisely as written, will give the same inconsistent handful of good shots to anyone trying it, exactly as Stan says in one of these videos. Most people would just decide right then and there that it's not all that great. But Stan saw something beneficial with it, and from there on he dug his heels in and set about to make it better.
I believe there are two types of people that look for different ways of doing things, or look to modify an already existing idea or certain way of doing something. One type just wants to make it easier so there's less work or thinking involved, so they more less water things down, and in the end what they are doing is more or less a halfass rendition of the original. The other type actually wants to understand the idea to its fullest in order to improve it, expand it, create, or invent a better way of doing whatever it is they're looking at.
And then you have everyone else -- the people who just want to follow instructions and utilize the tools that other people have ready developed. They don't mind working at it, and they don't have any desire or passion to improve upon or create something better or different. Luckily there are people out there everyday improving the products we use, building upon existing ideas, pushing the limits beyond what most people could ever imagine.
Can you tell I've had too much coffee??!! :grin-square:
Last edited: