What is the Supposed Phenomena of Center to Edge Aiming?

stan shuffett said:

Great post! It is all over. Time to close up shop!
Stan Shuffett

Click to expand...

If that means you will not be posting any more information about CTE in this place, I think it is a confounded shame. I do understand, however.
CTE is the greatest method for playing the game consistently I have ever seen. Without your postings I would have never known.
I will continue to follow your teachings on your website and on youtube.
Still looking forward to your book.
Regards,
Flash

GoldenFlash said:

If that means you will not be posting any more information about CTE in this place, I think it is a confounded shame. I do understand, however.
CTE is the greatest method for playing the game consistently I have ever seen. Without your postings I would have never known.
I will continue to follow your teachings on your website and on youtube.
Still looking forward to your book.
Regards,
Flash

Click to expand...

I was being facetious! Many post about CTE that most likely do not have 3% of the time I have in for making a life's work out of studying Hal's CTE assertions.

Stan Shuffett

ENGLISH! said:

Dave,

Relatively good players like 8Pack Anthony, Dan, Myself, & others that can make those 5 shots on our own with our method... could not do so when following the prescription objectively.

When using the same visual & the same pivot... objectively... we get the same angle out for all 5 parallel shots & not 5 different outcome angles of approximately 25 degrees or more in difference.

Apparently... the phenomena does not exists for us. I say that sarcastically.

That is why Dan, I & others have asked what is supposed to objectively be different that allows the same visual & the same pivot to yield at least 5 different outcome angles... & evidently each & ALL of the ones in between.

What is the supposed phenomena supposed to be?

All the Best for You & Yours,
Rick

Click to expand...

Been watching these threads for years and you always say there is no "objective" way it can work, or some nonsense close to that. My question would be how can shooting at a pool ball with the intention of making it go to a certain target be anything BUT "OBJECTIVE", as that is the veru meaning of the word, regardless of how one attempts to do it.

I work in a very technical engineering field and am strong in mathematics and have tested the CTE method extensively with some of the best CAD software on the planet and honestly can find holes all over the place regarding how accurate it is mathematically, just isn't always correct, however it's not a mathematical method but rather is heavily dependent on human interaction, or perception for lack of a better word maybe. I'd almost call it 3D aiming, again for lack of a better term.

It's actually a very simple method, for very simple shots. I think Stan has also proven that it can also get increasingly complex when applied to increasingly complex shots.

I am not a full time user of it (Pro One), but I don't hesitate to go to it when I have instinctive doubts about a certain shot. I am however a full time believer in it's capabilities , when perceived correctly.

Renegade_56 said:

Been watching these threads for years and you always say there is no "objective" way it can work, or some nonsense close to that. My question would be how can shooting at a pool ball with the intention of making it go to a certain target be anything BUT "OBJECTIVE", as that is the veru meaning of the word, regardless of how one attempts to do it.

I work in a very technical engineering field and am strong in mathematics and have tested the CTE method extensively with some of the best CAD software on the planet and honestly can find holes all over the place regarding how accurate it is mathematically, just isn't always correct, however it's not a mathematical method but rather is heavily dependent on human interaction, or perception for lack of a better word maybe. I'd almost call it 3D aiming, again for lack of a better term.

It's actually a very simple method, for very simple shots. I think Stan has also proven that it can also get increasingly complex when applied to increasingly complex shots.

I am not a full time user of it (Pro One), but I don't hesitate to go to it when I have instinctive doubts about a certain shot. I am however a full time believer in it's capabilities , when perceived correctly.

Click to expand...

Something that makes me laugh...
Are we people or robots? The ones who think (apparently) that once you master a system, whatever one it is, they will be invincible, can't miss...fountain of youth stuff.

Thing is, you don't see the truly gifted players beating their heads on the wall over systems. Why isn't that?

Well, I don't think there is any substitute for raw talent. look at some of these kids now...13, 14 year old Taiwanese and Chinese kids...wow..you think for a second they are wasting time thinking about anyone's system?
You or I can't beat them. Why not? Because you don't understand someone's system well enough?
Maybe is someone cones up with the *perfect* explanation for every possible combination of possible outcomes and shot angles YOU could then beat them??

Nope. You simply don't have enough talent. Me either. How do you propose teaching talent?

Stan is doing all he can to help a lot of people understand what he believes works. It wouldn't matter if it was anyone else, there will be people picking at them. I don't know why. Jealousy maybe? I don't know.

My last suggestion is that maybe English and Stan settle their debate on the table. Shoot out...sort of....duel to the death( or whatever ).



English, you that talented?

Mr. Wilson said:

Something that makes me laugh...
Are we people or robots? The ones who think (apparently) that once you master a system, whatever one it is, they will be invincible, can't miss...fountain of youth stuff.

Thing is, you don't see the truly gifted players beating their heads on the wall over systems. Why isn't that?

Well, I don't think there is any substitute for raw talent. look at some of these kids now...13, 14 year old Taiwanese and Chinese kids...wow..you think for a second they are wasting time thinking about anyone's system?
You or I can't beat them. Why not? Because you don't understand someone's system well enough?
Maybe is someone cones up with the *perfect* explanation for every possible combination of possible outcomes and shot angles YOU could then beat them??

Nope. You simply don't have enough talent. Me either. How do you propose teaching talent?

Stan is doing all he can to help a lot of people understand what he believes works. It wouldn't matter if it was anyone else, there will be people picking at them. I don't know why. Jealousy maybe? I don't know.

My last suggestion is that maybe English and Stan settle their debate on the table. Shoot out...sort of....duel to the death( or whatever ).



English, you that talented?

Click to expand...

The problem: Pool, because of spheres was NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE OBJECTIVE except for 2 maybe 3 very strictly defined alignments; center to center, center to edge and edge to edge. Hal Houle turned that 3 shot world topsy-turvy with center to edge as a system.
There is a core of folks that will kick and scream all the way to their graves that pool is subjective, just another feel system. If this were a game of UNCLE with FEEL being the issue, all they want is for me to say UNCLE. This is all about twisting my arm till it all but breaks. It's a campaign and AZB is their chosen battleground. Going to a table is not the kind of battleground that they're interested in.

Me saying UNCLE! AIn't gonna happen because aiming can be objective from shot to shot to shot as a center cue ball foundation thanks to Hal Houle,nothing specific to me except the work for bringing it to light.

Stan Shuffett

Cornerman said:

CTE is specific to Stan Shuffet, I believe. Many of us do some level of Hal Houle-based aiming, but it would be incorrect to say what I do is Center-to-Edge aiming, even if it comes up a lot in my aiming.

Maybe that's part of the confusion. But, basically, CTE means center (of cueball) to edge (of object ball) aiming as a (the?) very common object-to-object aim line. It defines the half-ball hit and what old timers refer to as the "Golden Angle."

I suppose if a system is based off of this notion, then a system could be then a CTE system, I suppose. But, CTE is specific to Stan. Hal had twenty-something related systems.


Freddie

Click to expand...

Many of us have studied under Hal Houle.
I required my Master Instructors to visit Hal.

In school we have been teaching SAME AIM (CTE) for 25 years.

Thanks Hal
randyg

stan shuffett said:

Mr. Wilson,
The problem: Pool, because of spheres was NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE OBJECTIVE except for 2 maybe 3 very strictly defined alignments; center to center, center to edge and edge to edge. Hal Houle turned that 3 shot world topsy-turvy with center to edge as a system.
There is a core of folks that will kick and scream all the way to their graves that pool is subjective, just another feel system. If this were a game of UNCLE with FEEL being the issue, all they want is for me to say UNCLE. This is all about twisting my arm till it all but breaks. It's a campaign and AZB is their chosen battleground. Going to a table is not the kind of battleground that they're interested in.

Me saying UNCLE! AIn't gonna happen because aiming can be objective from shot to shot to shot as a center cue ball foundation thanks to Hal Houle,nothing specific to me except the work for bringing it to light.

Stan Shuffett

Click to expand...

Line 5--Where it says pool is objective - change the word pool to CTE...

BUMP.........

I speak of real Center to Edge Aiming!!

Stan Shuffett

Mr. Wilson said:

Something that makes me laugh...
Are we people or robots? The ones who think (apparently) that once you master a system, whatever one it is, they will be invincible, can't miss...fountain of youth stuff.

Thing is, you don't see the truly gifted players beating their heads on the wall over systems. Why isn't that?

Well, I don't think there is any substitute for raw talent. look at some of these kids now...13, 14 year old Taiwanese and Chinese kids...wow..you think for a second they are wasting time thinking about anyone's system?
You or I can't beat them. Why not? Because you don't understand someone's system well enough?
Maybe is someone cones up with the *perfect* explanation for every possible combination of possible outcomes and shot angles YOU could then beat them??

Nope. You simply don't have enough talent. Me either. How do you propose teaching talent?

Stan is doing all he can to help a lot of people understand what he believes works. It wouldn't matter if it was anyone else, there will be people picking at them. I don't know why. Jealousy maybe? I don't know.

My last suggestion is that maybe English and Stan settle their debate on the table. Shoot out...sort of....duel to the death( or whatever ).



English, you that talented?

Click to expand...

You are completely right that there is no substitute for raw talent but i'm sure very few here have that raw talent you are talking about. But i will attest that CTE took me from a just out of the money local tournament player to a consistent top 4 player in those local tournaments. That's a significant change.

ENGLISH! said:

Over 1,000 views in a bit over a single day. Inquiring minds want to know.

Click to expand...

Yep that's why

ENGLISH! said:

No. It is off topic, but not offensive at all. In fact, I think it may be one of you better posts. But... It brings up the question of what Wimpy meant by pivoting to center WITH his bridge. Did he pivot ON his bridge... Or did he pivot at a point somewhere behind his bridge by sliding his bridge... Or was it combination of both?

Interesting... But I do not think that is The referenced "phenomena".

Best Wishes for You & Yours.

Click to expand...

2 plural phenomena
a :* an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition
b :* a temporal or spatiotemporal object of sensory experience as distinguished from a noumenon
c :* a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation

Aiming by intuition or the subconscious cannot be taught and is of little utility. The subconscious is often used to describe how to pocket balls and is not a method to teach how to aim. When all the fundamentals are in concert, and the shooter is "in the zone", "dead punch" and the thought processes are arrived at quickly - but they are all conscious and thought out.

Knowing where to aim results at the center of the illusive ghost ball. How one arrives there can be taught by various methods. Learning a method or methods is better than having to rely on "feel" which is self taught by HAMB.

CTE with an offset tip and pivot is one method of aiming and is a discipline that requires conscious thought to execute each step correctly although this can be executed quickly with practice.

There are other methods that require only a couple of steps like:

DD where you can see the contact point on the OB and can discern the distance between that point and the center of the OB and then one doubles that distance to the out side of that point - aim at that point. This works well when the separation between the OB and the CB are more than 1 diamond.

CP2CP works well at distances less than 1 diamond but requires that the shaft aimed at the center of the CB be parallel to the CP2CP line.

There are other methods that are phenomena that can be taught.

Have fun.

ENGLISH! said:

Thanks, Matt.

But... I do not think any of those are THE referenced phenomena & I do not think you are talking about the same supposed 'system'. I guess the title of the thread is not clear.

May God Bless All the Best for You & Yours,
Rick

Click to expand...

What? Instead of "points 1 through 5 are wrong" kindly explain what specifically I have "wrong".

Thanks.

LAMas said:

There are other methods that require only a couple of steps like:

DD where you can see the contact point on the OB and can discern the distance between that point and the center of the OB and then one doubles that distance to the out side of that point - aim at that point. This works well when the separation between the OB and the CB are more than 1 diamond.

CP2CP works well at distances less than 1 diamond but requires that the shaft aimed at the center of the CB be parallel to the CP2CP line.

There are other methods that are phenomena that can be taught.

Have fun.

Click to expand...

Thanks for defining DD for me. Seen the term and couldn't figure it out. Kinda hoping it involved an instructor called Trixie.

A contact point pivot may be it's first cousin. If you're behind the centers of both balls you copy the contact point from the OB to the opposite side of the CB. Then you use the point mapped to the CB as a pivot location. When you pivot to bring the CP to CCB, it puts you on the shot line. I mentioned this in passing in the other thread.

I only played with the idea for a short while, I was looking for something that didn't have as much subjectivity added to the shot making process. Your posts show you like to 'noodle' with different types of aiming and I thought you may want to spend a little time playing around with this idea. You'll probably have to find the correct bridge distance to make it work. It might be a bit unwieldy when you get past half ball for the pivot point though. It's very similar to pivot triangle method. I thought it may be a version of 'equal and opposite' of something and it looks like DD is the best fit.

Hope the OP doesn't consider this too far off topic. If he does I'll transfer the comments to the other thread.

@ OP Just realized I can't see your comments because you're on my ignore list. Contact Mr. Wilson if you want it removed and have him PM me.

I've been toying with CTE for about 20hrs now, I don't have as much time as I wish to get in practice, and I am nowhere NEAR being an expert. I purchased Stan's DVD vol.2 and I have watched it maybe three or four times. Here is what I have learned that immediately made me more confident. I know how to make the shots, my alignment was off, shots that I was regularly missing was because of alignment. Once I started using CTE the line up fixed my alignment issue, and then I started to pocket balls that I have never made or tried in a game prior. Shots like a cut into the corner pocket, from one ball away, seven diamonds down table. i see the shots better now. CTE connected with my natural talent and instincts, so when I drop down off center and then pivot I can immediately see if I am dialed in or not. Now I can see what I could not see in MY aiming process before, to the point were I realized there was an issue with my hip, went to a Dr and started physical therapy, no my stance is better and my stroke is more fluid. I don't know what kind of phenomenon you are looking for, but my experience with this information has been phenomenal. Oh and FWIW, the two rail and three rail kick info in his DVD is worth the purchase price alone. I used that information to quadruple what I invested in this DVD.
:thumbup:

Vorpal Cue said:

Thanks for defining DD for me. Seen the term and couldn't figure it out. Kinda hoping it involved an instructor called Trixie.

A contact point pivot may be it's first cousin. If you're behind the centers of both balls you copy the contact point from the OB to the opposite side of the CB. Then you use the point mapped to the CB as a pivot location. When you pivot to bring the CP to CCB, it puts you on the shot line. I mentioned this in passing in the other thread.

True. I you aim the cue at the point on the OB to the obverse point on the CB, your cue will be to the side of the center of the CB - this creates an included angle from the point on the OB to the center of the CB and back to the center on the OB. When you pivot the tip to the center of the CB, you create the same angle on the aim line outside of the point on the OB. This essentially doubles the distance like DD aiming.


I only played with the idea for a short while, I was looking for something that didn't have as much subjectivity added to the shot making process. Your posts show you like to 'noodle' with different types of aiming and I thought you may want to spend a little time playing around with this idea. You'll probably have to find the correct bridge distance to make it work. It might be a bit unwieldy when you get past half ball for the pivot point though. It's very similar to pivot triangle method. I thought it may be a version of 'equal and opposite' of something and it looks like DD is the best fit.

Hope the OP doesn't consider this too far off topic. If he does I'll transfer the comments to the other thread.

@ OP Just realized I can't see your comments because you're on my ignore list. Contact Mr. Wilson if you want it removed and have him PM me.

Click to expand...

Yes I know and use what you descrbed - I like it at times.:smile:

Be well

stan shuffett said:

Hal made it very clear to me that if I released what he knew no one would believe it.....This is a major reason that Hal clammed up. I spent 10 years trying figure out what Hal connected with that most all would not believe and that many would attack. I guess after 15 to 20 thousand hours I got lucky and connected too. I know why he clammed up cause I want to do the same thing every other day. Just not enough faith or belief or support for me to trudge on for sharing what he uncovered. However, I am hell-bent on going forward but there is so much discouragement that it makes me sick.

Stan Shuffett

Click to expand...

He told me the same thing but I went to visit him twice anyway. This may be the last time he was out in a pool hall hitting balls before his health starting deteriorating. Hal was a REALLY good man and mentor. About pool and life. I miss him.

Being someone who has been out of the game for 20 years, I'd like someone to explain CTE better then what I've been reading on the internet and what John and Stan have been nice enough to post on you tube. They both cover the pivot well, but how about the actual aiming part? That's where I'm loosing it. John diagrams showed how it should work, but the important part of aiming is not being covered.

The basic concept sounds very interesting, especially to someone who after being away from the game, and is trying to come back after 20 years, but is struggling with over cutting my cut shots due to not seeing the ghost ball like I could when I played 8 hours a day.

Is it as simply as center cue ball to the edge of object ball then pivot a cue tip amount, based on the angle of the cut?

Laars said:

Being someone who has been out of the game for 20 years, I'd like someone to explain CTE better then what I've been reading on the internet and what John and Stan have been nice enough to post on you tube. They both cover the pivot well, but how about the actual aiming part? That's where I'm loosing it. John diagrams showed how it should work, but what important part of aiming is not being covered.

The basic concept sounds very interesting, especially to someone who after being away from the game, and is trying to come back after 20 years, but is struggling with over cutting my cut shots due to not seeing the ghost ball like I could when I played 8 hours a day.

Is it as simply as center cue ball to the edge of object ball then pivot a cue tip amount, based on the angle of the cut?

Click to expand...

If you are truly interested in learning the system, then I only have 3 words for you.

Buy the DVD.

Then you can watch Stan's YouTube videos. Don't bother with John Barton's as they are worthless (no offense, John)

The DVD is $40, but if you can't shell out $40 on something you think will help your game, then you need a new hobby. Whether or not the money spent is a waste is entirely up to you. There are people that have learned and still use the system, and there are others that give up when they realize it's not a magic bullet.

If no one can explain it without requiring a $40 deposit first, the hairs on my neck start to stand up, and I have to question what is going on. Pool has been linked to hustling since it began, and this is starting to smell fishy.

You should be able to explain the complete theory without needing money first. If it them seems to work, most would at that point not even think twice about spending money to learn in greater detail what others have to say, including me. I also shoot 3D archery, and there are many methods of shooting, and judging yardage, yet the top guys are more then happy to tell you how they do it. They have DVDs out too if you want to study it in detail. I have a shelf full of them.

I have no issues in paying $40 for something that is worth it. One has to question why you have to pay for a theory in order to hear the complete theory. The ghost ball method is explained in detail by everyone, and yet I bought the book, " the science of pocket billiards" by Jack Koehler for $30 back in 1990, to read in greater detail on that method. It's on my shelf with all the other pool books, including "Point the way" by the Monk, who I met in the early 90s when he walked into the pool hall where I worked. Grady Mathews and I played pool together for two hours once, discussing his theories while playing, and I have all his lessons on VHS, and plan on buying them on DVD, just to have them.

Someone explain how it's done, if they seem to be on to something, he will have my $40 by tomorrow.