CTE and Throw, Further Thoughts

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Stan recently made a video on how CTE handles throw with soft vs hard hits. Since he has sworn off AZ, at least for now, mohrt posted up the video, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFrpI-5rKbM&t=6s

I thought this video was an important breakthrough for those of us interested in the nuts and bolts of CTE Pro1 by Stan Shuffett. The question has been asked for years about how CTE is able to put balls into center pocket even at different speeds where throw changes. There has never been an actual answer provided. It has always been along the lines of "CTE provides an overcut which puts the ball in center pocket." Yeah, but what happens when you hit soft vs hard? It can't go center pocket both times, can it? "CTE is a visual system that overcuts the ball. If you had been using CTE for several months you would understand." Then followed by some insults.

Anyway, not to dwell on the negative. For those who want to understand how CTE Pro1 works from a more technical level, the video above is almost like the rosetta stone. It reveals that the inventor of the method does not put the ball into center pocket at varying speeds. In fact, he seems to be completely unaware that throw is affecting his shot. My follow up video covers this, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zjQoNfXcck&feature=youtu.be

So what do we learn from this video? For one, it says that for a given shot, the player using CTE MUST adjust his shot depending on the speed required. It seems clear to me that this should be added to the instructional materials. How many times do we see new CTE Pro1 users posting that it works sometimes and not others? This could be one reason why.

The video also shows us that CTE is not an objective aiming system as advertised so boldly. If we took the object ball in Stan's video and moved it near the rail, and moved the cue ball so it was at the same angle, it would be virtually impossible to pocket the ball at slow and hard speed with the exact same CTE "ETA" perception. It would require an aiming adjustment based on experience and feel to be able to pocket both shots.

My main interest in CTE has been to try and figure out how Stan is able to pocket balls at different angles with the same perception, ever since ENGLISH! put me on to the first video below. Stan calls it the "mystery" that "was not supposed to be." For those of you not up to speed, this is shown here and here:

https://youtu.be/-1Psy5hOJT0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIFI6K_nNhE

We still do not have proof of what is really happening during the stroke (as we cannot get inside the player's head to really know), and unfortunately CTE supporters do not provide any helpful information (saying "it's been explained to you a dozen times already" does not count as advancing our understanding).

Even so, I think the "throw" video that Stan just provided gives us a working hypothesis. If Stan can shoot two identical shots from just over two diamonds away, and not be aware that the object ball is throwing a full inch apart, then it is entirely plausible that he is also making adjustments that he is not aware of in order to pocket balls at different angles with the same perception (the "mystery" shot). To me, this is the crux of the CTE debates and outright fights for the last 20 years, and I think this current discussion puts a new light on what might be really happening.

To put it another way, let's review "Occam's Razor," the simpler explanation is probably better. Let's consider two competing explanations:

1. In CTE Pro1 balls can be pocketed from various angles with THE SAME PERCEPTION (ie, CTE/ETA) because the 2x1 dimension of the table, and the location of the pockets at the intersection of right angles, CAUSES a mysterious phenomenon where the object ball goes automatically to the pocket without ANY subjective decisions from the shooter.

or

2. CTE Pro1 instructions get the shooter in the general vicinity of pocketing the ball, and it is left up to the shooter to subconsciously make small adjustments to pocket the ball through rote practice.

Which is the simpler explanation? Does it work for some reason that even Stan has been unable to explain for 10 years, or does it work because the shooter is tweaking the aim either during setup or during the stroke? We know that Stan tweaked his shot in the most recent video because when he hits the shot softly it goes center pocket. In ALL of his other videos he hits the ball hard and it goes center pocket. Throw will not allow this to happen unless an aiming adjustment is made, so Stan HAD TO aim differently from his norm when shooting softly (the soft shot could possibly throw the exact same amount as Stan's normal warp speed stun shot, but someone would have to demonstrate that for me to buy it). Because of this evidence, and not solely Occam's razor, I lean heavily on option 2. (There are numerous other bits of circumstantial evidence that option 2 is correct. For example, it takes many CTE users months to become proficient at which time they say something just "clicks" and they make more balls. What is happening is that they are learning the fine adjustments, or tweaks. But, that is probably a story for a different post.)

I realize this may come across as an "attack" post but it is anything but that. It is an attempt to resolve a 20 year dispute with actual data provided by Stan and make future discussion more productive and useful for new players trying to improve. I'm not saying that some players don't benefit from CTE and report that they play better. I'm saying that it is not an objective system and there are no "mysteries" that "were not supposed to be."

I know there will be attacks on this post and attempts to have it, or me, banned, but given those caveats I hope this will get some people thinking and sharing their constructive ideas in this thread so others can benefit. Much of what I wrote in this post is what others have been talking about for a long time, but we had no solid evidence other than logic to make our point. Stan's new video gives us concrete evidence to help end the debate.
 

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
I’ll give my own experience. First off, when I shoot with CTE, I’m not making adjustments. I’ll be more specific. When on a 30 perception, I align the aim line and CTEL exactly on the OB center and OB edge. When I pivot or sweep, it is exactly to CCB, nothing else. No fidget, no 2nd guess, exactly as the visual gives.

As for throw. We should know that throw is a variable. The closer to a half ball hit, the more throw induced. Stun, speed, spin, all are added variables. As for the overcut, I think this is a red herring. I nearly never think about throw. The pockets are twice the width of the ball. You have room for all these variables. Of course there are nuances the shooter deals with, always. CTE gives you the angle. You have to execute the rest of the shot with experience. Maybe Stan can be more specific about the overcut. I don’t think about it. I use CTE in a very precise manner, always.
 

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well I can't believe my eyes. Dan finally cracked the case.

Congrats Daniel. What are you going to do now with all your free time?
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I’ll give my own experience. First off, when I shoot with CTE, I’m not making adjustments. I’ll be more specific. When on a 30 perception, I align the aim line and CTEL exactly on the OB center and OB edge. When I pivot or sweep, it is exactly to CCB, nothing else. No fidget, no 2nd guess, exactly as the visual gives.

As for throw. We should know that throw is a variable. The closer to a half ball hit, the more throw induced. Stun, speed, spin, all are added variables. As for the overcut, I think this is a red herring. I nearly never think about throw. The pockets are twice the width of the ball. You have room for all these variables. Of course there are nuances the shooter deals with, always. CTE gives you the angle. You have to execute the rest of the shot with experience. Maybe Stan can be more specific about the overcut. I don’t think about it. I use CTE in a very precise manner, always.

Video doesn't lie, mohrt. Let me explain in my own experience. Years ago when I lined up a long shot I could see the shaft in my peripheral vision. I would have sworn 100% that that shaft was right on the shot line. I would get feedback from an instructor here and there that I was not lined up right. I recall my father telling me to move the back of the cue more toward my body...more...more...more. OK perfect! I thought he was on drugs. The shaft looked completely off the shot line, yet it was right on it. Another example...Shooting a short cut shot I found a tendency to point the tip of the cue toward the ob even though I was trying to stroke straight through to the 1/2 ball hit. I was 1000% sure I had the stroke perfect all the way but when I looked at the video, I was still moving the tip sideways.

With that in mind, I hope you would consider that when you say you are absolutely, definitely doing something a certain way, you may not actually be doing so.

Your comments about throw and the width of the pocket fly in the face of everything Stan has always said about hitting the center of the pocket. "CTE is a center pocket system" etc. What you are describing is a slop aiming system, one that relies on play in the pocket to work. Stan vehemently denied that and made another video as proof. Honestly, that video was mind-bending.

So while I appreciate the civil tone you always bring to this forum, I would like to suggest that your comment that Stan might need to clarify something as simple as throw with CTE after 10 years tells us something.

Let me ask you this: Use CTE and cut a shot in to center pocket slowly. Now shoot the same shot firm and send it to center pocket as well. How do you do that while using CTE?
 

Neil

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
blah, blah, blah, I can't get CTE to work because i spend all my pool time typing on here to discredit it, blah,blah, blah, Stan doesn't know what he is talking about after spending decades of research, blah,blah, blah, listen to me Dan White the expert on pool, blah, blah, blah, I have CTE all figured out even though I can't describe how to do the basics, blah, blah, blah......
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I don't believe Dan is saying it doesn't work. He's saying it doesn't work as advertised. Having watched all of Stan's youtube clips, there are three obvious things that pop out to me:

1). Stan makes excellent videos.

2). He's a great player. (even before CTE)

3). He shoots almost every example with a stun shot, and common pool knowledge dictates that a stun shot can throw an OB up to 4 or 5 degrees depending on angle. That tells me when he says the system provides a slight overcut it really provides a major overcut. I mean, if you can stun a ball that's 6 feet out from the pocket and hit center hole as described, the exact same shot without stunning the ball would not hit the pocket.


If you are using CTE and not stunning balls the way Stan does in his instructional videos, you are not doing exactly what he is doing. There is a 2 to 3 degree adjustment difference in your perceptions/sweeps/CCB solutions, etc... That's not saying it doesn't work for you, but it does mean that you're making it work in accordance with your own experience, your individual touch. And what's so bad about that? Nothing. But for some reason the mere suggestion that feel or player subjectivity is involved is like starting a war.
 
Last edited:

sixpack

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Nah now you should get back to work and tell us why what I’ve done for a decade doesn’t work either lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Speaking of that...we need to talk about what you're doing. I spent about 15 hours one week trying to get it based on your thread here and I just couldn't quite see what you are talking about. I could see the little notch in the shadows you're talking about but I didn't know what to do with it. I did learn some cool aim reference points using shadows to make shots that I really used to struggle with though. :)
 

sixpack

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't believe Dan is saying it doesn't work. He's saying it doesn't work as advertised. Having watched all of Stan's youtube clips, there are three obvious things that pop out to me:

1). Stan makes excellent videos.

2). He's a great player. (even before CTE)

3). He shoots almost every example with a stun shot, and common pool knowledge dictates that a stun shot can throw an OB up to 4 or 5 degrees depending on angle. That tells me when he says the system provides a slight overcut it really provides a major overcut. I mean, if you can stun a ball that's 6 feet out from the pocket and hit center hole as described, the exact same shot without stunning the ball would not hit the pocket.


If you are using CTE and not stunning balls the way Stan does in his instructional videos, you are not doing exactly what he is doing. There is a 2 to 3 degree adjustment difference in your perceptions/sweeps/CCB solutions, etc... That's not saying it doesn't work for you, but it does mean that you're making it work in accordance with your own experience, your individual touch. And what's so bad about that? Nothing. But for some reason the mere suggestion that feel or player subjectivity is involved is like starting a war.

I think this is a red herring. It's an interesting aspect of pool and aiming but it really doesn't seem to apply to CTE. I shoot hard, soft, draw, follow, inside English, outside English and it really just goes in unless I really hammer it or get extreme with the English. Then I do have to adjust. Or hit it so soft with English that the English overpowers it. Again, I probably know far less than half of CTE but I what I do know throw doesn't really concern me and it doesn't make me miss shots when I use CTE.

Also, like TOI, the harder you hit the more throw and if you're not hitting center CB the more deflection and less swerve. At some aim point those errors cancel out. Maybe CTE is the right combination of off center hit on the CB and slightly full aim point on the OB so that happens.

This probably isn't the right place to bring this up but I recently have come to believe that the concept of "straightness" in pool is a false idol. I think it keeps many good players from being great players.

I already acknowledge that I could be making subconscious adjustments so no need to point that out. :)
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I think this is a red herring. It's an interesting aspect of pool and aiming but it really doesn't seem to apply to CTE. I shoot hard, soft, draw, follow, inside English, outside English and it really just goes in unless I really hammer it or get extreme with the English. Then I do have to adjust. Or hit it so soft with English that the English overpowers it. Again, I probably know far less than half of CTE but I what I do know throw doesn't really concern me and it doesn't make me miss shots when I use CTE.

Also, like TOI, the harder you hit the more throw and if you're not hitting center CB the more deflection and less swerve. At some aim point those errors cancel out. Maybe CTE is the right combination of off center hit on the CB and slightly full aim point on the OB so that happens.

This probably isn't the right place to bring this up but I recently have come to believe that the concept of "straightness" in pool is a false idol. I think it keeps many good players from being great players.

I already acknowledge that I could be making subconscious adjustments so no need to point that out. :)

That is odd, that throw doesn't seem to affect the shot when you use CTE. I believe Mohrt said something similar to this. But maybe it's not so odd......

A perception is the brain's interpretation of what your senses are picking up. This interpretation is based on all of the input your brain is receiving from each sense, not just visual, and not just the traditional 5 senses, but also proprioception (always knowing exactly where your body parts are, like arms/legs and feet/hands, etc... )

We can both look at what Stan is calling a visual "perception", but it's really a visual perspective. The brain receives the visual images that create this perspective, then combines the visuals with memory recognition and the sense of feel and awareness (based on our body position), and it creates a unique perception of what is going on. My perception will differ slighty from yours due to visual differences and our individual sense of awareness and memory (shot recognition).

So I offer this possible explanation of CTE, which appears objective in it's basic steps, but happens to be subjective in the manner of brain function: Your brain automatically makes the adjustments needed in order to make your CTE "perceptions" (visual perspectives) work for you. This means you are doing your own thing, Mohrt is doing his own thing, and Stan is doing his own thing, but you all follow the same basic steps to make it happen. It's your uniquely created perception of these steps that allow it to work on an individual basis. This would also explain why there is a learning curve for developing consistency with the "perceptions" -- it's more than just seeing a certain perspective and then stepping in and firing away. It's a much more involved process where your brain is using the shot perspectives combined with individual knowledge/experience (based on your own sense of feel/awareness and memory) to bring it all together into an aim that looks and feels right to you.
 
Last edited:

paultex

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
That is odd, that throw doesn't seem to affect the shot when you use CTE. I believe Mohrt said something similar to this. But maybe it's not so odd......

A perception is the brain's interpretation of what your senses are picking up. This interpretation is based on all of the input your brain is receiving from each sense, not just visual, and not just the traditional 5 senses, but also proprioception (always knowing exactly where your body parts are, like arms/legs and feet/hands, etc... )

We can both look at what Stan is calling a visual "perception", but it's really a visual perspective. The brain receives the visual images that create this perspective, then combines the visuals with memory recognition and the sense of feel and awareness (based on our body position), and it creates a unique perception of what is going on. My perception will differ slighty from yours due to visual differences and our individual sense of awareness and memory (shot recognition).

So I offer this possible explanation of CTE, which appears objective in it's basic steps, but happens to be subjective in the manner of brain function: Your brain automatically makes the adjustments needed in order to make your CTE "perceptions" (visual perspectives) work for you. This means you are doing your own thing, Mohrt is doing his own thing, and Stan is doing his own thing, but you all follow the same basic steps to make it happen. It's your uniquely created perception of these steps that allow it to work on an individual basis. This would also explain why there is a learning curve for developing consistency with the "perceptions" -- it's more than just seeing a certain perspective and then stepping in and firing away. It's a much more involved process where your brain is using the shot perspectives combined with individual knowledge/experience (based on your own sense of feel/awareness and memory) to bring it all together into an aim that looks and feels right to you.

I really don't understand why the proponents would argue with most of what you or Dan is saying. On the one other video, the infamous 5 shot layout, where the last shot seems impossible for edge to A to cut the ball to the upper left pocket, I myself was able to skew my delivery alignment to actually over cut the shot while retaining the perception as described.

I was wrong when I surmised you need both eyes to pick up both lines of perception. I figured the power in the method, gave the brain a better understanding of the shot angle, based on more complete programming from the visual cameras known as your eyes.

I still stand by the power in that concept though, because its a fact that the more information of reality your brain can get, the better the outcome IF......applied in the delivery. This is why it's always a good idea to incorporate looking at a shot angle from the shooter perspective and from the other side of the pocket or angle perspective and if done enough, which I admit I do not do enough but I should or will, more than likely file into the mental data bank, where you don't have to walk around the table so much.

This is why and there's no probably's about it, the great nick varner when under pressure in big matches, does a lot of that, but in the pool hall against me and the like, does not do it near as much and basically never misses. But even so, he gets as much info as possible when he feels he really needs it to win and is a good example of aproach and method, that goes a long way in discussions of feel vs system etc etc.

I wrote a recent thesis on why we aim the way we do and is it necessary. The fact remains, there's one very big reason most of us do it a certain way that is very common. The reason is obvious and I'll leave it at that.

3 things must happen in order to achieve a desired outcome in a shot situation. Perception, offset, delivery. The offset portion of the equation is the most ambiguous and demanding. Perception is the starting point of method. If those two things are in complete organization, the delivery portion just about takes care of itself. But that is just one example of a sequence. One can flip the importance of one portion of the equation to make perception less important, but it comes around to offset being the most important factor once again and the most demanding.

Brian, you or anyone else is more than welcome to take a stab at the question of why we aim the way we do. In other words, you see most if not all players align themselves a very common way at address in the sense that the feet and head and so forth are in a particular perameter of opportunity known as a window. Outside of that window, would be something like shooting behind your back with one hand. Most players shoot with 2 hands obviously and not on one foot in general etc etc. Like I said, the ultimate reason is obvious and a moot point but the question is very important to start a basis of fact because pool and the accepted norms are all over the map and in fact mostly wrong unless everyone shoots identical and THAT is safe to say NO WAY IN HELL is it identical.

If Dan really wanted to go further in establishing facts of contention, it would be easy if he could get more video data. Take 5 known CTE users that are doing it "correctly", whatever the hell that means from my personal point of view, and use the video program of angle data etc etc and simply let the rest speak for itself because video and program analysis doesn't lie. These 5 players should be within a very tight window of shaft angle vs shot angle.

Is this a witch hunt from myself? Fk no, I just want to know facts. I got my own reasons for that because there's no doubt pool itself has got so many misconceptions, it's virtually impossible to pick or understand what is really possible and what is the correct path. The wrong path and you're fkd and to fix it is what has given me nothing but mind bending grief.

A guy the other day said "if it works".........well, I quickly reminded him about the statement in the form of conjecture about what exactly "works" means.

You brian, said, if the ball goes in the pocket, that's all that counts. Do you still stand by that? Because I think that is the most rediculous statement I've ever heard in pool, and over shadows any contentions or opinions made by Mr Shuffett.

Let's all get our fk'ing facts straight for pool itself. The fact is, there are definite facts and perception is the voodoo aspect of the facts that get argued too much. Does stun and speed and spin effect a shot differently? This should be obvious but the reality is a very interesting topic that I don't think has been quite settled and certainly not accepted and it shouldn't be at this point in time because even the die hard pencil pushers don't have the facts straight from the human side of the equation when it comes to connection with the game.

Y'all have a nice day now, yuh hear? Stan, get your ass back on dat mop sir and keep doing what you're doing and everyone else too. The arguments are stupid but it serves a purpose for now. Eventually someone will win and then the next new guy or old dog can make a better decision, because I know I didn't have that opportunity 30 years ago.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I really don't understand why the proponents would argue with most of what you or Dan is saying.

I usually don't understand most of what you are saying, but your overall point is correct. The proponents like CTE because they like Stan and if Stan says this and that then that's all they need to know. It is like a cult of personality.

This forum, in its best form, is like peer review. Somebody puts out an aiming system and people all over the world can try it, ask questions, pick it apart, etc. and if everybody is contributing in good will, there will be a good conclusion drawn about that aiming system.

We can do all sorts of video experiments, but the fact is that we already have enough evidence to conclude that CTE Pro1 absolutely is not an objective aiming system and does not work as advertised. That is not to say that people don't benefit from using CTE in one way or another. Practically everybody who uses CTE has their own version of it. It's like no two CTE users are the same. It's kind of easy to understand why. When the rubber hits the road, judgment is required to pocket balls, and that is an individual process.
 

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
No matter what system one uses, he or she will still have to have to visualize the two balls colliding, the throw and the squirt.
People can deny this all day they want, I ain't buying it .
One person showed videos of him using some system . He was making balls.
Then it turns out he was using that system all wrong or he really had no idea how to use the system.
So, how was he pocketing balls in his videos?
Exactly, vision memory.
 

paultex

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I usually don't understand most of what you are saying, but your overall point is correct. The proponents like CTE because they like Stan and if Stan says this and that then that's all they need to know. It is like a cult of personality.

This forum, in its best form, is like peer review. Somebody puts out an aiming system and people all over the world can try it, ask questions, pick it apart, etc. and if everybody is contributing in good will, there will be a good conclusion drawn about that aiming system.

We can do all sorts of video experiments, but the fact is that we already have enough evidence to conclude that CTE Pro1 absolutely is not an objective aiming system and does not work as advertised. That is not to say that people don't benefit from using CTE in one way or another. Practically everybody who uses CTE has their own version of it. It's like no two CTE users are the same. It's kind of easy to understand why. When the rubber hits the road, judgment is required to pocket balls, and that is an individual process.

And im sort of glad you don't understand most of what i say because pool itself is hard to understand and it isn't quite understood just yet. I don't want to know anything about what is supposedly understood because I know and you know and others know that the accepted facts is dogmatic.

I shall send orcollo back on a slow boat to the islands with not even lint in his pockets to prove my contentions or die trying. Stan needs to give everyone at derby city the 5 ball and bust them all to ultimately prove his points. Other than that, you always have haters and believers. Somewhere in the middle of all this chaos is the truth. That's all that really matters and it's important because pool has been kicked around like a whore for too long.

So, my question is this and im always sincere, for i am a student first, player second. QUESTION:

When Stan says "objective", does this mean in the sense that it can be explained by known perameters that can be pointed out? If so, then I venture he is correct but I don't exactly know if that is his contention and I don't even know if my question itself is concise to be honest. A ghost ball is in fact invisible but "A" or B and C does have a target spot, subjective in perception but objective in establishing a line, but that's one aspect of the overall claim of CTE pro1. Stan also offers foot and eye positions etc etc, those can be constants and therefore explained.

So with that being said, given some examples I just listed, is it objective and do you think that's what he means? Stan can answer as well but I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion because I think it's fair to say you and mr Shuffett are the two rightful bulls who elected to battle hard and prove each other wrong.

I say with your last video analysis, you are certainly in the lead but I never want to say who is ultimately right because pool is more than just tangible fact. There is voodoo in it as well.

Thanks.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
When Stan says "objective", does this mean in the sense that it can be explained by known perameters that can be pointed out? If so, then I venture he is correct but I don't exactly know if that is his contention and I don't even know if my question itself is concise to be honest. A ghost ball is in fact invisible but "A" or B and C does have a target spot, subjective in perception but objective in establishing a line, but that's one aspect of the overall claim of CTE pro1. Stan also offers foot and eye positions etc etc, those can be constants and therefore explained.

So with that being said, given some examples I just listed, is it objective and do you think that's what he means? Stan can answer as well but I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion because I think it's fair to say you and mr Shuffett are the two rightful bulls who elected to battle hard and prove each other wrong.

I say with your last video analysis, you are certainly in the lead but I never want to say who is ultimately right because pool is more than just tangible fact. There is voodoo in it as well.

Thanks.

Stan is very clear in what he means by objective. He says that if you follow the steps as indicated in CTE Pro1, and practice seeing the two lines at the same time, and pivot exactly as described, then the ball will go in the pocket. There is NO adjustment, feel, tweaking of any sort due to throw or anything else. Stan's claim is as bold as you can imagine. He claims to have the ONLY 100% objective aiming system there is. It is a great selling point, but you can't just say things like that without proof. If you have none, somebody will eventually come around and provide their own proof one way or the other.

The contention of "skeptics" over the years is that this is not possible. To date there has never been any evidence that it is true. Most lately, Stan avoids the issue by saying it will be explained in his new book. Well, we'll see. In the meantime, he provided proof through his own video on throw. His video was intended to prove that the speed of the shot didn't matter. As you can see, the video proves just the opposite, and in so doing ends the notion that the method is 100% objective. In reality, you don't need a video, just use your common sense, but some people won't listen to logic. They don't pay attention to videos either, apparently.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Paultex, I believe we all aim in a similar fashion, except CTE users and maybe instinctual players. With most forms of aiming we have two focal perspectives lined toward an aim point, two distinct and simple 2-dimensional images that get sent to our brains. Then our brain processes the images and creates one centrally-focused picture, making it possible to visualize one line to the aim point. This requires a known aiming solution in the beginning of the process. I say it doesn't apply to CTE because there is no known aiming solution until the very END of the aiming process.
 

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
Video doesn't lie, mohrt. Let me explain in my own experience. Years ago when I lined up a long shot I could see the shaft in my peripheral vision. I would have sworn 100% that that shaft was right on the shot line. I would get feedback from an instructor here and there that I was not lined up right. I recall my father telling me to move the back of the cue more toward my body...more...more...more. OK perfect! I thought he was on drugs. The shaft looked completely off the shot line, yet it was right on it. Another example...Shooting a short cut shot I found a tendency to point the tip of the cue toward the ob even though I was trying to stroke straight through to the 1/2 ball hit. I was 1000% sure I had the stroke perfect all the way but when I looked at the video, I was still moving the tip sideways.

With that in mind, I hope you would consider that when you say you are absolutely, definitely doing something a certain way, you may not actually be doing so.

Your comments about throw and the width of the pocket fly in the face of everything Stan has always said about hitting the center of the pocket. "CTE is a center pocket system" etc. What you are describing is a slop aiming system, one that relies on play in the pocket to work. Stan vehemently denied that and made another video as proof. Honestly, that video was mind-bending.

So while I appreciate the civil tone you always bring to this forum, I would like to suggest that your comment that Stan might need to clarify something as simple as throw with CTE after 10 years tells us something.

Let me ask you this: Use CTE and cut a shot in to center pocket slowly. Now shoot the same shot firm and send it to center pocket as well. How do you do that while using CTE?

It looks like Stan may have replied by video, see my other post "CTE Trumps CIT".

As for your story about not hitting the ball where you intended or not, I totally understand that humans are not robots. Although I may not be consciously adjusting things shot to shot, a bad stroke or nuance may very well make me miss the pocket or otherwise off center. However regarding the CTE system, it does not rely on me making adjustments. I think the video Stan posted is pretty good, by "center pocket" we are referring to a center pocket acceptable by a professional shooter to reliably pocket balls. None of us can shoot perfectly center pocket every shot, we are not robots. See Stans post, shooting the same perception at different speeds into a 3 1/2 pocket. An acceptable "center" by professional standards.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
,................
 
Last edited:
Top