[Post #2 of 2]
I’ve studied virtually all of the aiming systems out there including all forms of CTE, including simple Hal 3-angle, ProOne, Stan's old and new video series, the new book etc. Also including fractional aiming, poology, TOI, Joe Tucker's stuff, etc. I use CTE myself extensively, and over time have ended up at a blended version of CTE and CJ’s TOI stuff. My conclusion is that any structured way to visualize the balls will produce huge gains for most folks and that these methods can enhance (or better utilize) our natural proprioceptive processes thru all the visualization/aiming, PSR, stance, drop-in, & stroking sub processes of playing pool. I also believe centers & edges of the balls are definitely the best tools out of all these systems.
Another part missing from the CTE world IMO is a fundamental understanding of how our vision works. Our visual/cognitive processing system is entirely “concentric”; we naturally view & align to the centers and edges of things, our highest ocular acuity is our center vision. The edges of our eyeballs (peripheral vision) is highly tuned for contrast (edges). So IMO any system that uses center/edge ball visual references & techniques is more harmonized from the get-go with our natural visual & proprioceptive sensory systems. Much more so than say, trying to to visualize contact points, ghostballs, many discreet parallel aimpoints etc. This is not a slam on those systems, they clearly work also!
There is nothing wrong with needing the why/how as part of learning. Most analytical/engineering type folks process information this way, others have no need and learn just fine by simply digesting high level concepts & don't find the how/why background interesting or useful. Both are fine, why is that itself a contentious topic? I've found from all walks of life, when someone gets upset when questioned why/how - it really means they really don't know or understand the topic itself deep enough themselves to explain it. There is also nothing wrong with this - neither instructor nor student are required to know the how/why of something - in order to use and teach it effectively.
However, being able to articulate the how/why - and ability to break down complex topics efficiently - is usually a sign that someone is a true expert/master in the field, and they will usually be able to reach a much broader audience, more effectively. Or they will just say "I don't know" with no ego trip, but most pro level instructors are not humble enough to do this, which gives way to "instructoritis"... which is really just another form of confirmation bias.
Finally, some comments regarding CTE's relationship to fractional aiming. The vocal CTE proponents seem to ardently believe that these subjects are unrelated. For me, that distinction is just blatantly silly. CTE’s primary 3 angles/visuals are obviously simply a direct derivative of the relationships of imaginary lines using edges & centers of the balls - when using the basic 1/4 ball fractions. The following well known 1/4b diagram (courtesy of Dr. Dave) shows CTE's primary A/B/C aimpoints clear as day (red arrows are my addition to the diagram, to illustrate the point).
For me and I think others, the primary issue with learning CTE - is the concept of pivoting. I only soaked in "formal" CTE world for 3 months, but from what I can tell, pivoting is where CTE has really struggled & had to "evolve" over time; manual tip offsets, visual sweeps, left/right pivots to thin/thicken, also many blogs, articles etc from other CTE heads that got into shot circle concepts, also the close relationship with 90/90 etc... Latest iteration now uses a nebulous self-defined concept of invisible “ticks” on the CB and corresponding head offsets… (WTF?). I finally figured out pivoting, but it was frustrating and I had a very rough time teaching it to my daughter, and never was really satisfied with how mainstream CTE pivoting.
Over time, I found all of the pivoting stuff I be suboptimal & really not necessary. For me the TOI approach to visualization/alignment using CTC/CTE references and stance alignment to aim both eyes & my feet and to come down directly into the shotline as a function of fractional tip offsets that are seen & executed directly at the CB - to be a much more accurate & consistent system and this approach has been much easier to convey efficiently and informally to a few friends & kids. To be fair, CJ's materials on these topics was also a bit confusing and it took me non trivial time/effort to grok them. These are not fighting words, it's just my own honest experience.
IMO, 1/8b fractions are a very simple enhancement to basic 1/4b/CTE visuals, and offers much more granularity with very little additional complexity or aim points. It's also quite useful to realize that 1 full tip (1/2”) also equals 1/4b, and 1/2 of a tip (1/4”) also roughly corresponds to 1/8 of a ball. Awareness of these facts enables visualizations of these fractions while allowing very minor sub angles to created very accurately with very little actual offset - by directly pivoting at the CB, or as one comes down directly on the shotline.
Essentially very fine angular adjustments are seen as fractions of a tip, vs fractions of the ball, and make the OB visuals even simpler than Houlian/Stan style A/B/C visuals. I also believe this approach is more aligned with our natural vision & proprioceptive systems, and easier to ingrain into one's subconscious over time. This gets into more of what CJ teaches in TOI world, by using only CTC & CTE as our primary visual references. For me CTE, fractional, shaft aiming & TOI worlds integrate beautifully but I can’t succinctly describe that in a few paragraphs.
The point is that I believe these systems all have very common DNA and overlapping elements (pun intended) - any/all can be used in different ways to great success. Isn’t this self evident from the many pros & non pros that use all of them to play high level pool? I think the only folks that don’t see this (or do but won’t admit it) are the guys with some vested interest in marketing their solution as THE best one
Some side notes, if folks want to compare 1/4b fractions (CTE aimpoints) to 1/8b or TOI aiming type offsets. Obviously, we're only dealing with 1/2 of the total aimpoints for any single 0-90 degree cut shot. So, in theory when looking at any pool shot, with CTE & 1/4b, you have a total of 5 primary visualization “lines” to choose from; center/full-ball, 3/4b, 1/2b, 1/4b and ETE.
Actually with CTE this isn't true, as they add in an extra one for 60+ degree cuts (which is actually an 1/8b fraction anyway), so really there is a pool of 6 clear distinct hard objective visual lines between the CB & OB in CTE. 1/8b fractions share these same exact lines, the only thing that is theoretically "extra" with 1/8 fractions is adding 3 more - 7/8, 5/8, and 3/8. In practice, this is not actully true. 7/8 is so minor a shift from full ball/CTC, its a super easy to visualize at any distance. 5/8 is real, and used a lot, 3/8 covers the angles between 1/4 (2/8) and 1/2b hit, but the 3D distortion of the ball this close to its edge, renders this fraction virtually indistinguishable from 1/2b view, and so 3/8 can just be ignored; ie a slightly “thickened” 1/2b/CTE visual does the trick).
So, really the only major practical difference is the new 7/8 and 5/8 fractions - these are in realm of thick 0-15 degree cuts, are very easy to see, and the increased granularity resolves much of the thick/thin pivoting gymnastics associated with using a single visual reference to cover a wider range of angles like CTE does. Also, more importantly, when using CJ's visualization method to make the 1/8b angles at the face of CB with very minor inside tip offsets - one is only ever looking at the center or edge of the OB, so really there are only 3 fractions ever really effectively created on the CB.
So, while the system seems more complex than CTE's aimpoints - in reality its a reduction in complexity and puts much more of our visual focus on the CB, while only ever looking at the center/edge of the OB. I personally add CTE's inside edge ref lines to my TOI style CTC/CTE refs, but these are only during PSR and used as secondary refs. In my mind the blend of both, is an enhancement & simplification for both systems.
In practice, my CTE/TOI aiming process goes something like this in PSR: 1) choose CTC or CTE (thick or thin cut), 2) choose one of three choices; 1/4, 1/2, or 1 inside tip offset from the initial chosen CTC or CTE alignment. 3) Come into this line, shoot. This means I’m only ever really hitting the CB using the same 3 core shots from a CB cueing perspective - they are just juxtaposed against either the center or edge of the OB (obviously spin adjustments not withstanding). Over time, it becomes a very efficient smooth analog process applied to just the basic 2 CTC or CTE visuals. I think this is why CJ’s materials used to teach 8 discreet angles, and later stuff seems to focus on the minor offsets from CTC/CTE. But, this is all my own interpretation of his system, not sure if he’s on board with my views or not.
I think none of the above will make any sense unless one has spent considerable time on the table with these systems, ie aiming nerds. But, this is the aiming forum, yes?
Very long rants(s), sorry. Probably a huge waste of my Fri afternoon, but I did try to answer the OP’s question(s) in good faith, & foster non combative discussion on the topic at hand. If nothing else, hopefully this provides at least some sort of balanced view point for folks that might be interested & willing to explore CTE concepts but are put off by all the weirdness, mystery & conflict.
Peace & love
