Amen :thumbup:
Why CTE is so controversial
- Thread starter mohrt
- Start date
Amen :thumbup:
DISCLAIMER
THIS IS JUST TO BE FUNNY
I would like to see someone deliver a Qtip through the CB. Just once.
:grin-square::grin-square::grin-square::grin-square::grin-square::grin-square:
DISCLAIMER
THIS IS JUST TO BE FUNNY
I would like to see someone deliver a Qtip through the CB. Just once.
Never mind.
Wow!
Wow!
Last edited:
I don't teach pivot aiming to anyone, and if I did, they would have to have strong fundamentals to start with.
You happy now?
You happy now?
I don't teach pivot aiming to anyone, and if I did, they would have to have strong fundamentals to start with.
You happy now?
If a player has strong fundamentals I don't believe they're going to need (or be interested in) a pivot based aiming system.
Lou Figueroa
Maybe not.
However, Tyler Styer has rock solid fundamentals and uses CTE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4mtzqS-raI
I am not of the same opinion, players are always looking for some edge.
How do you explain strong players using these systems now?
It is just another tool, to have.
How do you explain strong players using these systems now?
It is just another tool, to have.
From the "The American President" (a terrific movie by the way):
Michael J. Fox: ...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through through the desert towards a mirage and when they discover there's no water they'll drink the sand.
Michael Douglas: ...People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.
Lou Figueroa
with apologies to
Aaron Sorkin
A handful of moderately talented players in an ocean of moderately talented players might not be your best argument.
If being really good at our sport was supposed to be easy, they'd be bottling the stuff and selling it on AZB.
This world would probably be a really boring place if everybody could hit it as far as Tiger.
I think a pivot (or air pivot or sweep or whatever) is really more of a visualization method than a move - the better a player is with it the harder it is to see.
pj
chgo
It’s the explanation that lacked clarity early on. The system is the same. Looking back now knowing the system pretty well, I use very defined ball edges and centers (and quarters) and CCB to align to. The alignment are very exacting, not guessing/estimating. To me that’s objective.
Monty,
Since you and others have always mis-applied the word...
Here is what should be a Real Simple Question. Does "IT" require subjective interpretation, analysis, & input... just as ALL Other Methods?
Best Wishes.
Last edited:
Sure, quarters can be more or less "objectively" visualized, and even aligned. That gets you maybe 4-5 angles out of the 30 or so you need. The rest cannot possibly be exactly defined by any usable system, no matter how much it seems like it. Throwing in an automatic "slight overcut for throw" just underscores the absurdity of the claim.
I think "objectivity" in this context really means "proficiency".
pj
chgo
That is a broad question, but I'll try to break it down.
When it comes to executing a specific CTE perception to pocket a ball, to me the execution is quite robotic. That is, I use CBE to a specific place on the OB, combined with CTEL, from there move in to CCB, and then pivot R or L (or sweep) to CCB from full stance. I can explain to someone at a table, step by step, how to execute this process and end up on the shot line if they do everything correctly. At a table it's also to easier to examine and correct issues a newcomer might have. And of course, human error is always a factor.
So no with that out of the way... of course there are the same subjective elements of the game of pool that accompany CTE. For instance, you have to choose the correct perception. With experience this becomes pretty much automatic. However if you do choose an incorrect one, once you are on the shot line its usually obvious that you are going to miss. So then you stand up and start again, probably picking the next perception. So, this is a component of CTE that requires some experience: choosing the perception.
Then there are all the other elements of the game: table cloth speed, humidity, cleanliness of the balls, dead rails, table levelness, how hard/soft to hit a bank, where you want the CB to end up, closeness of the balls, throw/stun effect of certain situations, etc etc etc. All these elements come into play along side aiming. CTE is not a magic bullet to compensate for all of these things I listed. But, I think it is already quite clear, no? It's an aiming system after all. CTE gives you the shot line and gives it to you accurately, depending on your execution fundamentals of course. None of us are perfect, none of us make every shot. The human error element is what makes pool a game.
Now on another topic, the crux of your issue with CTE that you always exemplify with the 5-shot video. You are completely hung up on the perconceived notion that applying a specific perception to a shot CANNOT end in slightly differing physical alignments depending on CB/OB table position. Well I'm here to tell ya something. "perception" does not mean "specific angle" or "specific physical alignment". It doesn't work that way. Now I wish I could explain why our eyes, when using CTE perceptions correctly (!!!) give us slightly different alignments when CB/OB placement change. But IT DOES (OMG NO, CANT BE! SCIENCE!). It's not about science. It's about human perception. How our eyes work given CTE perceptions when we look at these spheres sitting on a rectangular surface.
Here is an example. I can take a shot that is exactly 30 degree shot to the pocket. This is very likely going to be a B-inside perception. Now, I can take these two balls and laterally shift them maybe 3 inches (and assuming still a B-inside) so that now, according to your science, the same B-inside perception will miss the pocket with a 3 inch shift. But that's not what happens. The ball still goes to the center of the pocket. It all starts at ball address. When we use the 30 perception to line up CBE to B, *this physical alignment will slightly, almost inconceivably* differ from the shot 3 inches over. This "phenomena" can also be directly observed by aligning a perception, observing, the moving the balls over slightly, aligning the same perception, observing, and noticing slight differences in physical alignment. I'll also put out there: it is also possible to FORCE yourself to align the same physically every time. But that is not CTE, those are not CTE perceptions. Maybe that is what you are doing all along. *shrug*
So if you are willing to have civil discussion around this, maybe we could. If you are going to continue to press on that this could never work, We CTE users must be guessing, etc. and you are not willing to experience the process for yourself, then we'll just continue to argue the same arguments.
He must be hiding his pivot because he looks like he just lines up the stroking line and strokes through it.
Or he doesn't pivot or visual sweep at all.
Monty,
I asked you a simple question & you convoluted it all up. I was NOT asking about different cloth speed nor lint on the cloth.
I think you know what I was asking. I would have preferred a less disingenuous Yes or No. Perhaps I should have requested such. I thought stating that it was a simple question would have sufficiently implied a simple answer.
We have been forbidden from "debating" this subject & your answer basically amounts to baiting.
You "Believe"... but you are incorrect & it IS science that says so.
PJ's previous post says much, but I do not agree with relating objectivity to proficiency.
Best Wishes.
PS If you truly want a civil discussion then ask Mike to lift his prohibition on debate. I may have to consider posting the analogy that I PMd you.
PPS Your reply seems very out of character for you, Monty.
Last edited:
Monty,
"WHAT" is "IT" that (supposedly) objectively "dictates" TO the shooter...
the different physical positions depending on where the balls are on the table...
when there IS the exact SAME distance between the CB & OB?
I ask because science "dictates" that "THAT" is impossible.
Best Wishes.
"WHAT" is "IT" that (supposedly) objectively "dictates" TO the shooter...
the different physical positions depending on where the balls are on the table...
when there IS the exact SAME distance between the CB & OB?
I ask because science "dictates" that "THAT" is impossible.
Best Wishes.
Last edited:
It's starting to look light the acronym CTE stands for Continuously Talking Esoterically.