A long comment on "aiming systems" ...

Grilled Cheese said:
Except it's even worse for CTE! Because Dr. Dave proved it doesn't work.
Click to expand...
I don't think that statement is appropriate. On the contrary, I have suggested several ways (4 to be exact) how CTE can be used effectively for a wide range of shots (i.e., any shot at the table). They are described on my CTE evaluation and analysis page.

I have also done my best to clearly document all of the tangible benefits that "aiming systems" like CTE can provide. These effects alone can explain how CTE can help many people improve their aiming.

I am not a "Naysayer." I preferred to be called a "Impartial Observer" (or a "Pragmatic Yeasayer" or a "Yeasaying Realist").

Regards,
Dave
 
Neil said:
dr_dave said:
I don't think that statement is appropriate. On the contrary, I have suggested several ways (4 to be exact) how CTE can be used effectively for a wide range of shots (i.e., any shot at the table). They are described on my CTE evaluation and analysis page.

I have also done my best to clearly document all of the tangible benefits that "aiming systems" like CTE can provide. These effects alone can explain how CTE can help many people improve their aiming.

I am not a "Naysayer." I preferred to be called a "Impartial Observer" (or a "Pragmatic Yeasayer" or a "Yeasaying Realist").
Click to expand...
Yes, you did do those things you mentioned. However, you have also stated in so many words that it does not work as stated for all reasonable angles.
Click to expand...
CTE can be used effectively for a wide range of cut angles; however, if the published procedures are followed exactly, without doing one or more of the four things suggested on my evaluation page based on one's "visual intelligence" and/or "experience-based judgement" and/or "feel" or whatever else you want to call it, there is a large number of shots that will not be pocketed. This is an indisputable fact with any "aiming system" built on a limited number of lines of aim (e.g., CTE, fractional-ball aiming, Hal Houle's 3-angle system, SAM, etc.).

Neil said:
And, you never tried to call Stan to clarify just how and why it does work.
Click to expand...
CTE has been around long before Stan came on the scene, and I have dedicated countless hours, over many, many years, with phone conversations, e-mail exchanges, and online forum discussions with many CTE proponents ... Hal, Spidey, and Stan included. I also very carefully reviewed and worked with Stan's DVD. I also worked with everything Hal and others shared with me over phone conversations and e-mail exchanges. It really bugs me when people imply I "haven't done my homework."

Neil said:
You went on the sayso of the naysayers
Click to expand...
Neil, this is honestly ridiculous. The evaluation and analysis of CTE on my website is the result of my careful contemplation, analysis, and experiences. I worked very hard on these illustrations and explanations and I consider the page to be an objective and impartial evaluation, based on my opinions and understanding alone. Some of the "naysayers" might agree with parts of my analysis, but I certainly didn't create the resource based on anything any naysayer ever wrote or said.

Neil,

I respect your opinion and appreciate all of the contributions you have made to this forum over the years, but I wish you (and others CTE proponents) weren't so antagonistic toward me with this whole CTE thing. I've done my best to try to understand all perspectives on this issue for many, many years. I don't share your enthusiasm for the CTE approach (although, I do see many of the realistic benefits), but I don't appreciate you (and others) implying I haven't done my homework or that I have something against the people who have a vested interests in CTE. That is not the case. I have been a little harsh concerning some of the CTE "marketing" we have seen over the many years, but my opinions and evaluations have always been as objective and impartial as realistically possible. I have also always tried very hard to see all of the positives of all "aiming systems." Like you, if I think some technique or system can be helpful to people, I like to share it with enthusiasm. I am just not as enthusiastic about the CTE approach as you and some others are. But I certainly don't have anything personal against any of these people.

Respectfully,
Dave
 
Thank You Dr. Dave...

dr_dave said:
CTE can be used effectively for a wide range of cut angles; however, if the published procedures are followed exactly, without doing one or more of the four things suggested on my evaluation page based on one's "visual intelligence" and/or "experience-based judgement" and/or "feel" or whatever else you want to call it, there is a large number of shots that will not be pocketed. This is an indisputable fact with any "aiming system" built on a limited number of lines of aim (e.g., CTE, fractional-ball aiming, Hal Houle's 3-angle system, SAM, etc.).

CTE has been around long before Stan came on the scene, and I have dedicated countless hours, over many, many years, with phone conversations, e-mail exchanges, and online forum discussions with many CTE proponents ... Hal, Spidey, and Stan included. I also very carefully reviewed and worked with Stan's DVD. I also worked with everything Hal and others shared with me over phone conversations and e-mail exchanges. It really bugs me when people imply I "haven't done my homework."

Neil, this is honestly ridiculous. The evaluation and analysis of CTE on my website is the result of my careful contemplation, analysis, and experiences. I worked very hard on these illustrations and explanations and I consider the page to be an objective and impartial evaluation, based on my opinions and understanding alone. Some of the "naysayers" might agree with parts of my analysis, but I certainly didn't create the resource based on anything any naysayer ever wrote or said.

Neil,

I respect your opinion and appreciate all of the contributions you have made to this forum over the years, but I wish you (and others CTE proponents) weren't so antagonistic toward me with this whole CTE thing. I've done my best to try to understand all perspectives on this issue for many, many years. I don't share your enthusiasm for the CTE approach (although, I do see many of the realistic benefits), but I don't appreciate you (and others) implying I haven't done my homework or that I have something against the people who have a vested interests in CTE. That is not the case. I have been a little harsh concerning some of the CTE "marketing" we have seen over the many years, but my opinions and evaluations have always been as objective and impartial as realistically possible. I have also always tried very hard to see all of the positives of all "aiming systems." Like you, if I think some technique or system can be helpful to people, I like to share it with enthusiasm. I am just not as enthusiastic about the CTE approach as you and some others are. But I certainly don't have anything personal against any of these people.

Respectfully,
Dave
Click to expand...

Well... I guess THAT, settles THAT !!!...Is it all over now ???....Could somebody please tell me, who WON..:confused
 
Last edited:
dr_dave said:
I don't think that statement is appropriate. On the contrary, I have suggested several ways (4 to be exact) how CTE can be used effectively for a wide range of shots (i.e., any shot at the table). They are described on my CTE evaluation and analysis page.

I have also done my best to clearly document all of the tangible benefits that "aiming systems" like CTE can provide. These effects alone can explain how CTE can help many people improve their aiming.

I am not a "Naysayer." I preferred to be called a "Impartial Observer" (or a "Pragmatic Yeasayer" or a "Yeasaying Realist").

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...


I can't believe Dr. Dave has thrown the rest of the naysayers underneath the CTE bus :-o

Lou Figueroa
 
Neil said:
Wrong again, he did no such thing. The basis he started his premise on was flawed, so he got exactly the results he was looking to get.


At least Lou viewed the DVD so he could at least say he did.(although I seriously doubt he spent more than 15 min. working on it) All you have is talking out your arse. But, keep dragging this thread on. I guess it gives you your 5 min. in the sun. Too bad you got so burned in it though.
Click to expand...


Good grief. I spent *hours/days* with the stupid DVD trying to make it work and finally concluded there were too many missing parts. A friend of mine just tried it and he basically said it was OK for some shots, but said there was no way it was good for all them. It screwed him up so bad he went to the pool hall to just shoot and spend a few hours to, as he put it, get "un-CTE'd."

Now I know your response will be that "hours/days" isn't long enough. But I say baloney. Maybe I could't have gotten it fully deployed in hours/days, but certainly, given how much experience I have on a pool table, if there was anything useful there I could have at least seen the promise of it. But there was none. It was a blind alley for me.

Lou Figueroa
oh, I know
I didn't want it bad enough
lol
 
Neil said:
I'm sure you will dispute this Lou, but I'm quite sure it's because you and others like you simply can't let go of the way you do aim, and actually totally free your mind to try something that seems so alien. I had trouble with that too. But, I believed that others weren't all lying to me, so I knew it had to be me and not the system.

So, I set up an object ball as the ghost ball to a shot, and then totally forgot about making the shot, no aiming whatsoever. I just took the steps provided to me and did those and then looked at where I was lined up on the ghost ball. If I did it right, and the system worked, I should be lined up perfectly on the ghost ball. Took a few tries, but then the light came on and I got it. The hard part was letting go of what I had been doing. Lining up to the ghost ball ensured that the aim was correct. Actually making the ball would require a stroke that my mind had a tendency to change if the shot didn't "look right". So, I couldn't count on making the ball at first. Not until I knew I had confidence in how I was actually lining up.

And, I am surprised that you did spend some time with it.
Click to expand...

Hold it Neil,...Are you saying its NOT over ? ..Well, drat !...What could possibly be left to say ?..Will it be over in another 600 posts ?..I sure hope so...Lou is getting very stressed out. :(
 
Last edited:
With 652 + 1 posts and 11,916 hits, inquiring minds still want to know about CTE.
 
Last edited:
lfigueroa said:
Good grief. I spent *hours/days* with the stupid DVD trying to make it work and finally concluded there were too many missing parts. A friend of mine just tried it and he basically said it was OK for some shots, but said there was no way it was good for all them. It screwed him up so bad he went to the pool hall to just shoot and spend a few hours to, as he put it, get "un-CTE'd."

Now I know your response will be that "hours/days" isn't long enough. But I say baloney. Maybe I could't have gotten it fully deployed in hours/days, but certainly, given how much experience I have on a pool table, if there was anything useful there I could have at least seen the promise of it. But there was none. It was a blind alley for me.

Lou Figueroa
oh, I know
I didn't want it bad enough
lol
Click to expand...

You and PJ wrote your review before you even watched the dvd. You spent hours/days BULLSHIT.
 
Back to aiming systems including CTE.

I am a "double the distance" outward from the center of the OB to the contact point on same aimer. This serves me well for cut angles less than 30 degrees (CTE) - where the aim point/s is/are on the OB. I was looking for a better way to aim at those cut angles greater than 30 degrees where the aim line is off of the edge of the OB and on the felt and so I studied CTE aiming with the cue being parallel offset to points on the OB and pivot back to center.

If I start at the CTE line, and then parallel shift the cue to aim at the center of the OB and pivot back to the center of the CB, I found that I could make thin cuts i,e.,<90 degrees.

I surmised that if I look at the contact point that sends the OB to the pocket/target on the OB and the distance from that point to the edge of the OB, I could parallel shift that distance from the center of the OB toward the relevant edge of the OB and pivot back to the center of the OB, I would arrive at the double distance point (GB?) that is off of the relevant edge of the OB.

So I can now aim all cut angles by referencing points on the OB rather than off of it to aim lines on the felt for angles greater than 30 degrees.

The parallel offset get smaller as the OB appears to get smaller and the included angle to the GB gets smaller as well - so that the CB is not sent at the same angle as when the OB is closer to the CB which could send the CB sailing past the OB without contact.

Some posters here understand the relevance of the smaller appearing OB down table whereas some are stuck in the 2D diagrams as viewed from above where the CB and OB are the same diameter. Those that understand foreshortening, vanishing point and perspective benefit from that visualization and are successful in utilizing/incorporating it in their aiming.

Diagrams requested.

Please focus on "A" for they are the same distance.

CTE_inverse OB 1.jpg

Correction for arrow pointing.
CTE_inverse 1 OB 1.jpg
Just saying.:):thumbup:

Disregard this diagram for the arrows are not pointing correctly.
 

Attachments

  • CTE_inverse 1 OB_2 1.jpg
    CTE_inverse 1 OB_2 1.jpg
    94.5 KB · Views: 219
Last edited:
My god you people are getting ridiculous.

Un****ingbelievable some of the shit posted here!! Settle it on the table already.
 
LAMas said:
Back to aiming systems including CTE.

I am a "double the distance" outward from the center of the OB to the contact point on same aimer. This serves me well for cut angles less than 30 degrees (CTE) - where the aim point/s is/are on the OB. I was looking for a better way to aim at those cut angles greater than 30 degrees where the aim line is off of the edge of the OB and on the felt and so I studied CTE aiming with the cue being parallel offset to points on the OB and pivot back to center.

If I start at the CTE line, and then parallel shift the cue to aim at the center of the OB and pivot back to the center of the CB, I found that I could make thin cuts i,e.,<90 degrees.

I surmised that if I look at the contact point that sends the OB to the pocket/target on the OB and the distance from that point to the edge of the OB, I could parallel shift that distance from the center of the OB toward the relevant edge of the OB and pivot back to the center of the OB, I would arrive at the double distance point (GB?) that is off of the relevant edge of the OB.

So I can now aim all cut angles by referencing points on the OB rather than off of it to aim lines on the felt for angles greater than 30 degrees.

The parallel offset get smaller as the OB appears to get smaller and the included angle to the GB gets smaller as well - so that the CB is not sent at the same angle as when the OB is closer to the CB which could send the CB sailing past the OB without contact.

Some posters here understand the relevance of the smaller appearing OB down table whereas some are stuck in the 2D diagrams as viewed from above where the CB and OB are the same diameter. Those that understand foreshortening, vanishing point and perspective benefit from that visualization and are successful in utilizing/incorporating it in their aiming.

Diagrams available upon request.

Just saying.:):thumbup:
Click to expand...
Could you diagram this? Thanks. :)
 
LAMas said:
Back to aiming systems including CTE.

I am a "double the distance" outward from the center of the OB to the contact point on same aimer. This serves me well for cut angles less than 30 degrees (CTE) - where the aim point/s is/are on the OB. I was looking for a better way to aim at those cut angles greater than 30 degrees where the aim line is off of the edge of the OB and on the felt and so I studied CTE aiming with the cue being parallel offset to points on the OB and pivot back to center.

If I start at the CTE line, and then parallel shift the cue to aim at the center of the OB and pivot back to the center of the CB, I found that I could make thin cuts i,e.,<90 degrees.

I surmised that if I look at the contact point that sends the OB to the pocket/target on the OB and the distance from that point to the edge of the OB, I could parallel shift that distance from the center of the OB toward the relevant edge of the OB and pivot back to the center of the OB, I would arrive at the double distance point (GB?) that is off of the relevant edge of the OB.

So I can now aim all cut angles by referencing points on the OB rather than off of it to aim lines on the felt for angles greater than 30 degrees.

The parallel offset get smaller as the OB appears to get smaller and the included angle to the GB gets smaller as well - so that the CB is not sent at the same angle as when the OB is closer to the CB which could send the CB sailing past the OB without contact.

Some posters here understand the relevance of the smaller appearing OB down table whereas some are stuck in the 2D diagrams as viewed from above where the CB and OB are the same diameter. Those that understand foreshortening, vanishing point and perspective benefit from that visualization and are successful in utilizing/incorporating it in their aiming.

Diagrams available upon request.

Just saying.:):thumbup:
Click to expand...

Requested. :) please and thanks!

Jb@jbideas.com

www.jbcases.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top