Hal Houles CTE in detail
- Thread starter mohrt
- Start date
Well it's good to disagree, and I agree to disagree, and I won't call you any names
Pro One is an execellent system, I learned CTE with it and I can execute it just fine. I like the 1/2 ball pivot simply because I can pivot from the same side for every shot. My opinion is that both systems work equally well. Others may not agree, and that's cool with me.
All offset and pivot (to center) systems are the same thing. There are variables that can change from player to player. Overall, you're talking about the same core system.
Stan's PRO1 DVD is the best educational reference to date. Ron's 90/90 has much of the same information, but taught in a different way (by Ron, in person).
To say me, Petey and Mohrt are the only 3 who use "this system" isn't correct. "This system" has been around forever (way longer than I've been alive).
One can either offset friction by changing alignments (ala Pro1 / Hal's quarters) or by reducing the alignments and using english to compensate (shishkebob is a good example of this). Obviously staying on center axis is the most objective and easiest, but not required.
While doing so, the pivot offset is really a red herring. Hal told us the pivot offset doesn't matter --- and it doesn't. Given, the larger the offset the more things can go wrong if you don't know what you're doing; however, that doesn't mean it's a "different system."
Most of the players who use this get their eyes set properly and bring their cue into center ball from the side (Pro1 air pivot). That technique doesn't make it "another system" either.
This argument is petty and ignorant by those professing deep knowledge in the subject. It's ironic, really, because if you guys were so smart with this stuff you wouldn't even be bickering on the shit you're bickering about. Let that sink in a bit and think it over --- and try to keep it civil.
I like detailed discussion, and disagreements are just part of it. Everyone is entitled to their interpretation. I'm glad you take an interest, I think the pool world needs more people with open minds.
Champ I am very civil with most people,but when you tell me things like.......
Well I guess Stan educated your ass,and making smart a$$ comments
it pisses me off just like any other human being.I was trying to give the OP
some feedback on the Half Ball pivot method and you started telling me I did not know what I was talking about and making smart a$$ comment after smart comment until I just exploded. FWIW I apologized to a couple people for my outburst but I was def provoked. That type of discussion goes no where. I am putting you on ignore not because I am still mad but because I know your style and I cant deal with it. I am not calling you names so
I would appreciate the same courtesy.
Last edited:
Wow...
As a somewhat recent student of CTE/Pro1, I wish I didn't have to constantly wade through 20 - 40 posts to get 1 piece of useful information or valid discussion. Is it really that impossible to stay on topic?
Look, I agree with Spidey - 90/90, CTE, Pro1, even the SEE system, reflection methods, fractional, etc. - they are all somewhat related, with the first 3 being much more so. They all attempt to get you to the proper aim by breaking down the aiming process into segments and a repeatable process and use some sort of visualization and/or adjustments from there that somehow works. Geometry, visual intelligence, whatever.
I think it would be useful, if even from an academic standpoint, to know how people use CTE and it's derivitives. Just because one person shoots better than the other doesn't necessarily mean their version of the system is better. Before I even learned CTE I'm sure I could hold my own against most people on here, top pros excepted of course. But since learning it, has my pure ball pocketing percentage increased even more? Most definitely.
Since I'm a recent convert, I pretty much stick to the core CTE/Pro1 version, but I do something different for thick cuts that I've found works better for me, and have also experimented after discussions with Stan on using the 1/2 tip or Pro1 pivots but coming from the same side on every shot (which works by the way). I think having those types of discussions, instead of all of the in-fighting and out-fighting going on, would be most useful to me and others who have either recently started using this or are interested in using it.
Scott
As a somewhat recent student of CTE/Pro1, I wish I didn't have to constantly wade through 20 - 40 posts to get 1 piece of useful information or valid discussion. Is it really that impossible to stay on topic?
Look, I agree with Spidey - 90/90, CTE, Pro1, even the SEE system, reflection methods, fractional, etc. - they are all somewhat related, with the first 3 being much more so. They all attempt to get you to the proper aim by breaking down the aiming process into segments and a repeatable process and use some sort of visualization and/or adjustments from there that somehow works. Geometry, visual intelligence, whatever.
I think it would be useful, if even from an academic standpoint, to know how people use CTE and it's derivitives. Just because one person shoots better than the other doesn't necessarily mean their version of the system is better. Before I even learned CTE I'm sure I could hold my own against most people on here, top pros excepted of course. But since learning it, has my pure ball pocketing percentage increased even more? Most definitely.
Since I'm a recent convert, I pretty much stick to the core CTE/Pro1 version, but I do something different for thick cuts that I've found works better for me, and have also experimented after discussions with Stan on using the 1/2 tip or Pro1 pivots but coming from the same side on every shot (which works by the way). I think having those types of discussions, instead of all of the in-fighting and out-fighting going on, would be most useful to me and others who have either recently started using this or are interested in using it.
Scott
Just some notes after watching JB's video. I'm NOT knocking or anything. JB's a great guy. I just found myself writing notes while watching -- here they are:
This video could have been called a 90/90 video too. Same thing. Same thing as 90/90, 90/center, 90/reverse90.
Based on JB's video, I think he's misunderstanding the usage of the secondary line. It's not, "OK I see the CTEL and I also see the secondary line." The purpose of the secondary line is to get the perfect eye placement and eye offset from the CTEL. I think people lose this critical point. JB's eye placement seems random on every shot.
There's no feel where the bridge hand placement is to be. There's a definitive point for each player depending on the bridge length (for more than a 1/2 tip pivot). For a 1/2 tip pivot, it's your bridge length, just offset 1/2 tip from center. Jim Scott coined a term "bridgehand spot" -- and he's right. There's one spot per any given offset. The smaller the offset (1/2 tip), obviously the "spot" turns into a "range."
Pivoting isn't guessing and doesn't need to be played with. 1/2 tip pivots are as objective as it gets (works for all functional bridge lengths). 1/2 ball pivots are less objective, but still objective if someone knows how to arc right. The 1/2 ball pivot requires a longer bridge length as well.
JB says CTE/ETE...body between the two lines...and step in. That's not right. The secondary line dictates the CTEL offset. So if you offset (away) from the CTEL and opposite the secondary line--- your eyes can't be between the lines.
At 28:00, his reason for missing had nothing to do with the pivot. His eye placement / visual can't be right based on his instructions. The reason he's missing the thinner shots is because his eye placement is random. It probably doesn't seem random to him (and I'm NOT knocking), I'm just saying his approach to get to the 1/8 is different every time (I can see it in the video).
This system is all about perfection. Aiming systems don't mean you can be less perfect in setup. It merely gives you objective points in order to define a perfect process. If he's not using the 1/2 tip pivot, you MUST be perfect in your arc--- his seems more random. Truthfully, most don't want to learn "arcing" correctly--- so the 1/2 tip is perfect (because it's repeatable) or air pivoting is as well. NO MATTER what technique you use, you MUST be PERFECT in your alignments, eye position and "coming into center" --- whatever that means (air pivot, 1/2 tip, 1/2 ball or anything in the middle).
If you follow these instructions and have the same cut angles but much longer distances--- balls start missing without perfection. Trust me.
---------
Eye offsets from the CTEL are important -- and they must be perfect.
Because I use a 1/2 ball pivot, I'm creative with my pivot arcs depending on shots/angles and how I want to offset friction. Stan focused his entire DVD on a static, objective pivot (which creates more than thick, thin, super thin alignments). You need 7/8, A, B and 1/8 on the thin side.
Alignments shift due to CB/OB distance as well (for shots within a diamond).
I think Mohrt's blog is great and many will find it useful. For those who are just starting with CTE, Stan's DVD is prob the best place to begin. Only when that's understood, should anyone venture into the variables that surround the system. The VISUALS aspect must be totally mastered. If you don't master the "visuals concept" --- you can't be perfect in your setup. If you're not perfect in your setup, you'll miss and not know why.
I hope that makes sense.
This video could have been called a 90/90 video too. Same thing. Same thing as 90/90, 90/center, 90/reverse90.
Based on JB's video, I think he's misunderstanding the usage of the secondary line. It's not, "OK I see the CTEL and I also see the secondary line." The purpose of the secondary line is to get the perfect eye placement and eye offset from the CTEL. I think people lose this critical point. JB's eye placement seems random on every shot.
There's no feel where the bridge hand placement is to be. There's a definitive point for each player depending on the bridge length (for more than a 1/2 tip pivot). For a 1/2 tip pivot, it's your bridge length, just offset 1/2 tip from center. Jim Scott coined a term "bridgehand spot" -- and he's right. There's one spot per any given offset. The smaller the offset (1/2 tip), obviously the "spot" turns into a "range."
Pivoting isn't guessing and doesn't need to be played with. 1/2 tip pivots are as objective as it gets (works for all functional bridge lengths). 1/2 ball pivots are less objective, but still objective if someone knows how to arc right. The 1/2 ball pivot requires a longer bridge length as well.
JB says CTE/ETE...body between the two lines...and step in. That's not right. The secondary line dictates the CTEL offset. So if you offset (away) from the CTEL and opposite the secondary line--- your eyes can't be between the lines.
At 28:00, his reason for missing had nothing to do with the pivot. His eye placement / visual can't be right based on his instructions. The reason he's missing the thinner shots is because his eye placement is random. It probably doesn't seem random to him (and I'm NOT knocking), I'm just saying his approach to get to the 1/8 is different every time (I can see it in the video).
This system is all about perfection. Aiming systems don't mean you can be less perfect in setup. It merely gives you objective points in order to define a perfect process. If he's not using the 1/2 tip pivot, you MUST be perfect in your arc--- his seems more random. Truthfully, most don't want to learn "arcing" correctly--- so the 1/2 tip is perfect (because it's repeatable) or air pivoting is as well. NO MATTER what technique you use, you MUST be PERFECT in your alignments, eye position and "coming into center" --- whatever that means (air pivot, 1/2 tip, 1/2 ball or anything in the middle).
If you follow these instructions and have the same cut angles but much longer distances--- balls start missing without perfection. Trust me.
---------
Eye offsets from the CTEL are important -- and they must be perfect.
Because I use a 1/2 ball pivot, I'm creative with my pivot arcs depending on shots/angles and how I want to offset friction. Stan focused his entire DVD on a static, objective pivot (which creates more than thick, thin, super thin alignments). You need 7/8, A, B and 1/8 on the thin side.
Alignments shift due to CB/OB distance as well (for shots within a diamond).
I think Mohrt's blog is great and many will find it useful. For those who are just starting with CTE, Stan's DVD is prob the best place to begin. Only when that's understood, should anyone venture into the variables that surround the system. The VISUALS aspect must be totally mastered. If you don't master the "visuals concept" --- you can't be perfect in your setup. If you're not perfect in your setup, you'll miss and not know why.
I hope that makes sense.
Last edited:
I added this paragraph to the blog post, I think it is an important note.
A note on this system: the 1/2 ball pivot is probably not well suited for CTE beginners. It is an advanced technique. For those wanting to dip their toes into the CTE waters, I would highly recommend Stan Shuffett’s CTE/Pro One DVD. Stan has refined CTE, making the whole system more objective, and (IMHO) easier to use. That is where I learned CTE, and I still use it. Only after you get comfortable there would I venture into these advanced techniques. 1/2 ball pivots do not work better or worse than other systems, it is just another way of executing the same core system that is CTE.
A note on this system: the 1/2 ball pivot is probably not well suited for CTE beginners. It is an advanced technique. For those wanting to dip their toes into the CTE waters, I would highly recommend Stan Shuffett’s CTE/Pro One DVD. Stan has refined CTE, making the whole system more objective, and (IMHO) easier to use. That is where I learned CTE, and I still use it. Only after you get comfortable there would I venture into these advanced techniques. 1/2 ball pivots do not work better or worse than other systems, it is just another way of executing the same core system that is CTE.
Very well said
Ok, now help me out---please. I go thru the steps and then pivot. Now what do I aim at???
If everything is done exactly right, after the pivot and stopping at center cue ball you should be aiming down the shot line. Start with shorter shots to get the hang of it.
But we haven't even taken into consideration where the pocket is? If the pocket was moved 6 inches and the aiming is the same: I would miss. Every time I use this system the object ball hits in the same place but it is 6 inches from the pocket.
What am I doing wrong?
What am I doing wrong?
Have you tried it? This is a common question and without going down that rabbit hole, I will say that the visuals are different. Watch my video on the web page, the first and second shots are different angles but use the same approach. Also if you move the pocket 6 inches you might need to change the secondary reference line, unless the OB is far enough away from the pocket.
Last edited:
Please read my post #99 in this thread. It answers your question.
Thank you for post 99