CTE PRO ONE Contrast with Quarters System
- Thread starter stan shuffett
- Start date
Nice Information!.. now that's the benefit of having two lines for perception. A single perception accommodates larger angles against Quarts system.
Thanks.
Deleted duplicate post.
I have to criticize this, Stan, but please don't take it as personal criticism...
I agree with your brief summary of "quarters" aiming: a matrix of "reference" angles that can be used to compare with and help estimate actual cut angles. But all you've done to "contrast" CTE with Quarters is assert without any evidence that CTE is "objective" (I assume you mean "doesn't require estimation").
But you never explain what exactly is "more objective" about CTE or how estimating is avoided - instead you simply say that CTE uses a "15-degree perception" for many different non-15-degree shots. You don't seem to understand that "perceiving" one alignment different ways proves its subjectivity, or even that the word "perception" itself means subjective (you might want to think about using another word).
Anyway, thanks for the time you put into this. Sorry we don't communicate better - I'm sure those already using CTE will find some meaning in your video.
pj
chgo
PJ,
At this point, it makes zero difference what I present concerning CTE as you will ALWAYS criticize it. You simply are not able to use real CTE as a system, therefore your experiences are very limited and therein lies the major communication problem. CTE is not something that is going to be conveyed to you.....YOU must acquire real CTE. True knowledge comes from experience. You do not have any real true CTE knowledge to speak of.
What I am showing has been around since man began playing over 200 years ago. I am simply peeling back the onion and exposing more and more about this natural phenomenon that Hal Houle knew existed decades ago.
I am extremely proud to be a part of presenting this almost magical relationship between a CB OB and a 2x1 table.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
PJ,
Well stated.
Stan has put in a devoted amount of time & effort to help others play better & is continuing to do so.
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
That should be another clue that it isn't "objective". Objective and logically consistent things, especially on such a basic topic, can be easily conveyed. For instance, I summarized the quarters aiming method in a sentence, but you haven't fully conveyed the CTE method in years of trying.
I don't think you need the word "almost" in that sentence.
I'm still not trying to be personal, Stan - you seem like a great guy, dedicated to your work and helping others. Please try to see me the same way as I describe my view of this for those who may be interested in another "perception".
pj
chgo
PJ,
In a million years you would NEVER agree to anything that I present concerning CTE.
You are not going to learn real CTE much less use it....and it is just plain old common sense that your knowledge of CTE is based on practically nothing, experience-wise.
What is amazing to me is that you are so adamant about criticizing what you do not know.
Stan Shuffett
Pat, I fully understand where you are coming from. However, once one learns the system well enough to be able to use it confidently, your whole perception of the wording all changes. I know you can't see it now, but Stan is correct in his statements.
I think these arguments may mostly be semantics. By the strictest definition of objective, perhaps cte isn't. While it isn't a perfect analogy by any means, I'd use this example to compare CTE to fractional aiming with respect to objectivity. Consider 3 fuel gages. A perfectly objective gage would be digital. It may read 4.6 gallons to empty. CTE would be an analog gage marked with 360 "tics" between full and empty. Fractional aiming would be a gage with 4 tics where the indicator needle always rests on one of them (0, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4). The needle would stay on 1/2 until the fuel level reaches 1/4. I'd liken the two objective CTE perception points for the 15 and 30 to also getting a reading of xx miles till empty. Perhaps you may argue that CTE isn't perfectly objective so instead of the gage telling me there's 48.7 miles to empty, the resolution is in 5 mile increments.
It's rather fruitless debating this with people who don't understand the perceptions. Once you do "get it", the perceptions are incredibly clear and precise. Stan's video does a great job of illustrating the advantages of CTE imho. For all those shots where the aim line lies somewhere between a perfect fraction, the CTE user doesn't have to guess "a little more, a little less". The CTE user only needs to know which perception to use and which pivot to apply. 95% of the time, with some experience, this is blatantly obvious.
In scientific digital terms, CTE isn't perfectly objective. In analog pool terms, CTE is as objective as it gets. If you don't understand how to obtain the perceptions, it isn't objective, subjective or anything else.
It's rather fruitless debating this with people who don't understand the perceptions. Once you do "get it", the perceptions are incredibly clear and precise. Stan's video does a great job of illustrating the advantages of CTE imho. For all those shots where the aim line lies somewhere between a perfect fraction, the CTE user doesn't have to guess "a little more, a little less". The CTE user only needs to know which perception to use and which pivot to apply. 95% of the time, with some experience, this is blatantly obvious.
In scientific digital terms, CTE isn't perfectly objective. In analog pool terms, CTE is as objective as it gets. If you don't understand how to obtain the perceptions, it isn't objective, subjective or anything else.
I would like to add to my comments about CTE not being perfectly objective by a pure scientific point of view. From a grammatical point of view, it is objective.
Definition of objective:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject
as opposed to the definition of subjective:
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:
a subjective evaluation.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
being the object of perception or thought
That's the definition straight from the dictionary. Seems by definition, CTE is indeed objective. Now I'm sure English will want to pick at that, but who cares. This is the same guy who often touts having 3 years of physics education but recently stated the sweet spot is the center of gravity! LMAO That's quite funny as the sweet spot doesn't have anything to do with the center of gravity.
Definition of objective:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject
as opposed to the definition of subjective:
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:
a subjective evaluation.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
being the object of perception or thought
That's the definition straight from the dictionary. Seems by definition, CTE is indeed objective. Now I'm sure English will want to pick at that, but who cares. This is the same guy who often touts having 3 years of physics education but recently stated the sweet spot is the center of gravity! LMAO That's quite funny as the sweet spot doesn't have anything to do with the center of gravity.
this is a question for stan and you based on your post above
let me start by saying i dont understand cte but am trying to get a better grasp of it
here is my question after watching the video
towards the end of the video (i hope i remember this correctly /i only have watched it once)
stan shows a shot thats not on the 15 degree line
and clearly shows if he hit it as a 15 degree shot it would miss
then he shows how he lines up on the 15 degree line/perception
and then with his pivot he is on the right line and makes the shot
so
is there a different pivot/percption for each certain amount of degrees off 15...(each 5 miles to use nobcitypool analogy)
even though you are coming into the shot on the 15 degree line??
i hope you can understand what im asking???
I did not state that the sweet spot IS the Center of Gravity. But...as you so often do, you twist & distort for your trolling purposes in only your 5th. post back from your ban.
http://www.golfclub-technology.com/center-of-gravity.html
...sometimes the CG is referred to as the “sweet spot” of the wood head-or rather the sweet spot is the position where the CG would PROJECT from inside the head onto the FACE. When impact results in the ball contacting this projected point of the CG on the face with the head traveling parallel to the ground, the head will not rotate in any direction vertically or horizontally about its CG, and the maximum transfer of energy from the club head will occur...
http://www.golfclub-technology.com/center-of-gravity.html
I was going to compliment you for your earlier post but you went off of the facts near the end & in your next post.
Last edited:
this is a question for stan and you based on your post above
let me start by saying i dont understand cte but am trying to get a better grasp of it
here is my question after watching the video
towards the end of the video (i hope i remember this correctly /i only have watched it once)
stan shows a shot thats not on the 15 degree line
and clearly shows if he hit it as a 15 degree shot it would miss
then he shows how he lines up on the 15 degree line/perception
and then with his pivot he is on the right line and makes the shot
so
is there a different pivot/percption for each certain amount of degrees off 15...(each 5 miles to use nobcitypool analogy)
even though you are coming into the shot on the 15 degree line??
i hope you can understand what im asking???
Depending on the relationship of the object ball and cueball, when you use a perception to line up Edge to A (for example), and Center to Edge, each time you will always line up Edge to A, and Center to edge for shots that fit into that category.
But depending on the steepness of the cut, within that category, you can still line up the same points, in the same way, but you will arrive at a different offset depending on the cut.
CTE has 4 perceptions (15,30,45,60 degrees) Within each category of perception, you have options that you need to know how to determine. Those options are if it's a left cut or a right cut, and using a left or right pivot. You can use either a left or right pivot on a left cut. The same is true for a right cut. Pivoting left or right thins or thickens the shot by a preset amount.
The system will put your head and body in the right position, then you merely have to pivot into the correct line. The pivot is always the same and is something you have to practice if you want to use the more natural pro one version. Pro One means that you practice until you can teach your body the exact correct amount to pivot (which is the same each time) so you can do it as you land on the shot. It's a skill you have to learn, that you need to know how to do the same way each time. A manual pivot requires little to no practice.
I find it useful to contrast it with 90/90 aiming. If you line up CB Edge to OB Edge, and put your back foot on that line, if you turn into center ball, it's a different way to make shallow angle cuts. If you want medium you line up your cue facing CB edge to OB center, put your back heel on that line, and pivot to center. I know it's a different system, but I think it's easier to see how lining up a completely straight line, each time on a category of shots can be seen as objective, from a visual stand point. You line up 3 points that you can look at in a straight line. Then the system tells your body how much to pivot, and you will pivot appropriate to the amount the shot requires.
For 90/90 aiming: you line up the visuals, but your body isn't in the right place until you pivot as much as the shot will tell you to pivot.
With CTE Pro One: lining up the visuals will put your body and more importantly your head in the exact position, that you can pivot by the same amount each time.
90/90 allows your body to be start in a similar vantage point each time, and pivot an undetermined amount onto the right line. CTE puts your body at a different vantage point for each specific shot, but allows you to use the exact same pivot to acquire the shot line.
Are we questioning the legitimacy of CTE, or pivot based aiming systems? I think pivot aiming systems all have similar mechanics, and we should focus on understanding a simpler one first. Or you guys can just keep doing this...
Last edited:
thanks for the responce
i need to read it a few more times
but comparison/contrast of cte and 90/90 was helpfull
and you answered my question
if i understand you correctly
that there is an alignment and pivot for the cuts that are in between the "mother" angles
I understand it much better than you like to think - remember I was one of the first to review your original CD. And what else I have (and you apparently don't) is a real true grasp of logic, reason, and the geometry and physics that apply to pool. And I can say unequivocally that the claims you make for CTE's "objectivity" don't stand to reason - so I guess it's "magic" like you say.
Anyway, I've said my piece about this and don't want to engage in another go-nowhere "debate" about these things. Thanks again for the effort to explain.
pj
chgo
Your posting history will absolutely reveal that you were unable to answer basic questions about my DVD1 content after your so-called review. Who would have guessed that? You still do not know the system and you could not demo the system now, years later, if asked to do so.
And then you twist words.....I did not say magic, I qualified my statement with wording indicating less than magic.
Stan Shuffett
Bingo. But try and think of the "mother" angles as categories. An actual 15 degree cut in the category of 15 degree perceptions, is no more important as say a 10 degree cut (which would also be categorized as a 15 degree perception). You wouldn't do anything different in terms of how you follow the steps.
The only difference is the system will offset your body and head position slightly differently for CTE and you pivot in an exact amount.
90/90, a 10 and 15 degree cut will look the same as you line it up, and you wont feel anything until you pivot, and you'll notice that for a 15 you will naturally pivot more than then a 10.
Note: I think the main point to take away from both these aiming systems, is that at no point, are you measuring the contact point on an object ball in relation to the pocket, and trying to aim at that contact point, or ghost ball etc.
Last edited:
Here's your words, seem rather clear if one looks at them "objectively". Keep your compliments, means nothing coming from the likes of you.
Where'd you take those physics classes? LMAO Just to help you out, the true sweet spot is the center of mass. Technically, it is an infinitesimal small spot. Marketers have expanded on that by saying it is the area immediately around the center of mass. How's that for subjective? But you're not even in the ball park, you thought it was the center of gravity. LMAO So the guy who has harped on Stan continuously about objectivity is clearly the chief of subjectivity and misinformation. Irony at its best.