PJ asked how your body movement is objective and puts you on the shot line. You apparently gave the answer above so why do we still need a panel of experts to figure it out? Didn't you just do that?
A video on pivoting systems
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
dquarasr
Registered
I had not seen that content before. It is a very good explanation on why I feel CTE is not for me: too many variables to determine and control. If it works for you, great.I smell a bucket of more argumentsCTE Evaluation and Analysis - Dr. Dave Pool Info
Answers to frequently-asked questions (FAQs) about evaluation and analysis of Center-to-Edge (CTE) aiming systems.billiards.colostate.edu
Thanks for posting the link.
Funny. I don't use it because it makes no sense.
Again you seemingly deliberately misread what I said or you are actually incapable of understanding it.
The intention of my participation in this thread is not to dissect any aiming system and give instructions.
I understand the nature of Pat's questions and your snide comments.
My point about "experts"is that there are some who have studied and mastered the steps with aiming systems and cte in particular and there are others who have spent a lot of time experimenting and gathering data on the actual physics in other aspects of the game. My diminished, but not gone, hope is that these two groups can get together and do controlled experiments with cameras filming those experiments and then they can analyze the results and find common ground as to why the systems are so effective with evidence to back up their conclusions.
Neither you or I are in that group. You're an average player and so am I. The difference between us is that I have spent a lot of time thinking about how and why these methods work and tried out my thoughts on the table. But I also have several businesses and no inclination to go down the road of creating the type of environment needed to collect the data. Additionally I don't have the training and analytical skills needed to express conclusions in a satisfactory manner for the science and engineering crowd.
I would however gladly sponsor such an effort and make myself available to assist in any way that I can. I think it would be productive and allow the aiming system proponents the opportunity to see how well their methods hold up in controlled situations and it would allow the opponents the opportunity to gather data that might shed light on the mechanics of the application of the steps which could help to show why proponents feel strongly that the methods are objective and highly effective.
You are not qualified to add anything to such an effort in my opinion. You and several others are simply contrarian gadflys whose motivation is apparently just to be needling for kicks. It takes very little effort to poke holes in my description of what I think is happening, not because what I think isn't actually happening, but because there is no data to back up what I say nor any data that contradicts what I say.
I have plenty of anecdotal evidence given my activity studying, using and teaching these methods but not the level of expertise or skill needed to collect and analyze in a controlled manner. That's what people at the level of Stan Shuffet and Dr. Dave have in common in my opinion.
People at our level, yours and mine, are super nobodies arguing about topics that we aren't prepared or capable of pursuing to the fullest extent of knowledge that could be gathered. I am just more experienced with these methods than you are. I know they work, I just don't know exactly why. In my opinion you think that aiming systems are gimmick placebos that are a waste of time to learn and the same results can be achieved without them. I disagree.
Your efforts at painting Stan as a charlatan doing parlor tricks to fool the ignorant into paying for "snake oil" are not only ineffective they are simply mean-spirited.
What I do is constructive and exploratory. My goal is to pass on the gift the Hal Houle gave to me. That gift was an introduction to a method of aiming that was unconventional and very effective. I have stated many times that I am not of a cheerleader for objective aiming methods than I am an expert in them.
You and the small handful of knockers are status-quo people who think that the only way to learn to aim is by trial and error through hitting a million balls. You think that all one needs is Bob Byrne's standard book of pool and time and anything else is worthless snake oil. You can have that stance but it is not correct.
Last edited:
Fwiw the variables are overstated and incorrect.
Cte in actual practice is very simple. It is literally a series of visual assignments in three steps that take a few seconds to go from standing to ball address.
But I do agree that the amount of information and misinformation surrounding it is daunting and off-putting.
It is one of those things that a person can get right away or be very confused depending on several factors like how well the teacher is explaining it and how receptive the student is with all the variables that are possible in that context.
I have had people get it right away and I have had people who needed several hours. I have had people not get it for months and they contact me to tell me that something someone said at some forum made it click.
This is why I wish that at the beginning way back in 2000 we could have had the most dedicated among us get together to figure out the best way to describe and teach these methods. But I guess that's not human nature when some methods threaten to upend the "standard" methods easily diagramed in 2d.
I think it is nearly impossible to learn cte on this forum. Not because there aren't people who would have been willing to help you but because of the people who are always willing to discourage you.
Maybe it does. You wouldn't know because you're an average player with a grudge rather than a student of the game who operates in good faith. There are many phenomena that are better shown than described in written form because the written form requires a lot of words to impart the underlying concept.
On the other hand, in practice the methods are a simply series of steps that take a few seconds to objectively apply and the shooter goes easily from standing to shooting on the correct shot line.
When I visited you in Chicago I asked you if you wanted to learn the steps and analyze them with me. You declined so we just played.
I pointed out that you would go down to ball address and literally fidget until you thought the line looked right. And you were effective with that enough to make you a slightly above average player. You and I are about even in skill imo, or we were at that time. So your fidgeting technique worked for you and my use of cte worked for me to aim and we both had whatever bad habits players at our level have to keep us from reaching higher skill levels. Perhaps your fidget aiming was holding you back and causing you to adopt shot lines that were not correct. I can't know that based on that brief time with you. What I do know is that you have seemingly boxed yourself into a corner where you couldn't admit to the effectiveness of the aiming method through having learned and used it. You can't demonstrate in video where the alleged subconscious adjustment happens because you refuse to consider learning the steps and visual alignment. In other words I can fidget in exactly the same way you can. But if I were to call out the cte perception and sweep "key" for a particular shot you wouldn't know what to do with it. A proficient cte user however would be able use that information and apply it to get to the correct shot line without any hesitation or guessing.
Because you refuse to learn. Maybe you're not capable of it. Some people are not wired to understand some things. Your inability to learn the steps and apply them correctly doesn't invalidate the method.
Your attempts to invalidate something you don't understand are kind of silly though.
I've described it in this thread. Thinking a video is needed (or that "adjustments" aren't) demonstrates your lack of understanding.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I did learn how to perform the steps precisely. That's how I know it doesn't work.
What
No, you have not. But I will certainly make a video contrasting the difference between the PJ Fidget method and the objective aiming methods.
By the way when you fidget aim what are the steps You come up to a shot and where are your eyes looking? Where is your body and your foot placement? How do you know that you are on the shot line?
When I come up to a shot I align my eyes to a line that connects the center of the cueball to the object ball. I then chose a secondary line that is connecting the edge of the cueball to one of three positions. I then decide which side to pivot from and then I go from standing to shooting position. At no point in that process did I guess or fidget. At that moment I do not actually KNOW that I am on the correct shot line but I am extremely confident that I am because of having learned the steps to a proficient enough level and seen that the application of those steps leads to the correct shot line. The whole process takes a few seconds most of the time.
It is OBJECTIVE and gives me the first result I need for the task of making the shot.
When you fidget hunting for the line that "looks" right do you think that this is better than simply following an objective method?
Now, you will say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do the same thing and get a different result. We will leave the quantum nature of ever-changing variables out of it and assume that a human shooter can absolutely repeat the same steps for different CB/OB positions. You contend that there MUST be some adjustment made by the shooter that accounts for the "matching" (your term) of the shot angle WITH the center ball shot line required for that shot angle.
And if the shots are diagrammed in a 2d manner with the pool cue expected to be laid on the shot line I will agree with you. My point is that there is SOME variable present that allows for the shooter to complete the same OBJECTIVE steps and end up with their cue on the correct line without any conscious "matching" or "guessing" or "fidgeting" that is unknown for the 3d space in which the shooter is aligning to the cueball/object ball pairing using the objective reference points. When something WORKS then there MUST be a reason that it works.
And that reason COULD be some form of subconscious adjustment but WHERE in the OBJECTIVE process is that happening. That's what you cannot identify. The main point for me and the thousands of others who are successfully using objective aiming is that the process IS OBJECTIVE not subjective.
If you take any given shot and ask a proficient CTE user what the right perception/pivot is then they can tell you and if you know how to use CTE you can use that information to get to the correct shot line without any guessing at all.
But if you use the PJ Fidget Method then you can't tell another person how to aim the shot because the ONLY answer that can be given is feel it until you think it's right.
So, again, you don't know what the word OBJECTIVE means in the context of objective aiming systems. In the context of an aiming system OBJECTIVE means follow these directions without SUBJECTIVE feelings or guessing. It doesn't mean that there is not some place in the steps where the mind subconsciously goes "a smidge less here or little more there". It means that CONSCIOUSLY following the directions leads to a consistent and repeatable result.
When you fidget aim, as you do, then the only matching of the bridge placement is done ONLY through a conscious subjective application of FEELINGS. You literally move around UNTIL it FEELS right. The system aimer applies deliberate steps that use the visible parts of the ball to consciously let the system steps guide them into the correct alignment and subsequently be "matched" to the correct (but invisible) shot line.
Another way to say this is that a CTE user can literally AIM by remote control. All they need is a 2d diagram of the shot and a person who knows the system. Stan Shuffet could tell me the aim for any shot he sees through my body camera and I can strictly apply the perception and end up on the correct shot line. And he only needs a quick view of the shot to do this.
You could not do this for any other person. We could try it and I am confident that Stan aiming by remote control would result in more shots being successfully made in far less time than if you tried to direct the aim by remote control. If we did nothing else other than give the instructor/shooter pair 10 seconds to get into shooting position and verified the shot line with a laser it would be abundantly clear that the system produced an accurate result nearly every time and well within the ten seconds allotted. But you aren't interested in such testing because for you the word OBJECTIVE conjours up images of a 12 inch sex toy aimed right at your butthole IMO and causes you pucker up to the point of absurdity.
You are so stuck on the idea of subconscious adjustment that you have given yourself license to denigrate those who use and favor objective aiming methods for the past 27 years. And there are a handful of equally repugnant humans doing the same thing alongside of you. I wonder if you have any actual joy in your life other than waiting for me to come on here and use the word OBJECTIVE in conjunction with aiming?
No, you have not. But I will certainly make a video contrasting the difference between the PJ Fidget method and the objective aiming methods.
By the way when you fidget aim what are the steps You come up to a shot and where are your eyes looking? Where is your body and your foot placement? How do you know that you are on the shot line?
When I come up to a shot I align my eyes to a line that connects the center of the cueball to the object ball. I then chose a secondary line that is connecting the edge of the cueball to one of three positions. I then decide which side to pivot from and then I go from standing to shooting position. At no point in that process did I guess or fidget. At that moment I do not actually KNOW that I am on the correct shot line but I am extremely confident that I am because of having learned the steps to a proficient enough level and seen that the application of those steps leads to the correct shot line. The whole process takes a few seconds most of the time.
It is OBJECTIVE and gives me the first result I need for the task of making the shot.
When you fidget hunting for the line that "looks" right do you think that this is better than simply following an objective method?
Now, you will say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to do the same thing and get a different result. We will leave the quantum nature of ever-changing variables out of it and assume that a human shooter can absolutely repeat the same steps for different CB/OB positions. You contend that there MUST be some adjustment made by the shooter that accounts for the "matching" (your term) of the shot angle WITH the center ball shot line required for that shot angle.
And if the shots are diagrammed in a 2d manner with the pool cue expected to be laid on the shot line I will agree with you. My point is that there is SOME variable present that allows for the shooter to complete the same OBJECTIVE steps and end up with their cue on the correct line without any conscious "matching" or "guessing" or "fidgeting" that is unknown for the 3d space in which the shooter is aligning to the cueball/object ball pairing using the objective reference points. When something WORKS then there MUST be a reason that it works.
And that reason COULD be some form of subconscious adjustment but WHERE in the OBJECTIVE process is that happening. That's what you cannot identify. The main point for me and the thousands of others who are successfully using objective aiming is that the process IS OBJECTIVE not subjective.
If you take any given shot and ask a proficient CTE user what the right perception/pivot is then they can tell you and if you know how to use CTE you can use that information to get to the correct shot line without any guessing at all.
But if you use the PJ Fidget Method then you can't tell another person how to aim the shot because the ONLY answer that can be given is feel it until you think it's right.
So, again, you don't know what the word OBJECTIVE means in the context of objective aiming systems. In the context of an aiming system OBJECTIVE means follow these directions without SUBJECTIVE feelings or guessing. It doesn't mean that there is not some place in the steps where the mind subconsciously goes "a smidge less here or little more there". It means that CONSCIOUSLY following the directions leads to a consistent and repeatable result.
When you fidget aim, as you do, then the only matching of the bridge placement is done ONLY through a conscious subjective application of FEELINGS. You literally move around UNTIL it FEELS right. The system aimer applies deliberate steps that use the visible parts of the ball to consciously let the system steps guide them into the correct alignment and subsequently be "matched" to the correct (but invisible) shot line.
Another way to say this is that a CTE user can literally AIM by remote control. All they need is a 2d diagram of the shot and a person who knows the system. Stan Shuffet could tell me the aim for any shot he sees through my body camera and I can strictly apply the perception and end up on the correct shot line. And he only needs a quick view of the shot to do this.
You could not do this for any other person. We could try it and I am confident that Stan aiming by remote control would result in more shots being successfully made in far less time than if you tried to direct the aim by remote control. If we did nothing else other than give the instructor/shooter pair 10 seconds to get into shooting position and verified the shot line with a laser it would be abundantly clear that the system produced an accurate result nearly every time and well within the ten seconds allotted. But you aren't interested in such testing because for you the word OBJECTIVE conjours up images of a 12 inch sex toy aimed right at your butthole IMO and causes you pucker up to the point of absurdity.
You are so stuck on the idea of subconscious adjustment that you have given yourself license to denigrate those who use and favor objective aiming methods for the past 27 years. And there are a handful of equally repugnant humans doing the same thing alongside of you. I wonder if you have any actual joy in your life other than waiting for me to come on here and use the word OBJECTIVE in conjunction with aiming?
Oh then show us that you know them. You have a camera. Show us that you know EXACTLY the correct sequence. Then you can show us WHERE the so-called adjustments must be and how those adjustments are arrived at.
How do you KNOW that you are doing the steps correctly? Have you verified it with a proficient CTE user? I think you have not.
"Objective aiming systems" is an expression of your discomfort with how aiming really works.
I don't mind that - have at it. But make unrealistic "objectivity" claims for your favorite system here and they'll likely get pointed out.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
No Pat, Objective Aiming describes the OBJECTIVE nature of using a system with objective instructions. No imagination required to get to the shot line. No feelings, no fidgeting, no guessing. Using a system that relies on connecting objective lines to objective reference points means that the system is OBJECTIVE and not subjective.
The claim IS use the system and it takes you to the shot line. We can describe the steps precisely. We can describe where the eyes should be looking and how that leads the body to a precise position in relation to the cueball. We describe the steps in detail.
By every definition that is objective.
But since you say I am "uncomfortable" with how aiming "really works" why don't you tell us how you think aiming really works? Show us how you intend to help all of us to be comfortable by describing in detail how aiming works.
First of all, let's discuss your attitude. You have been nothing but combative and insulting in almost all of your posts, while both PJ and I have kept our criticism for the method and not the person (I even said "no offense intended"). I would never report you but you could easily go the way of the Dodo bird like the other two guys if you keep it up. I never reported anybody on this and this is not a threat. It's an observation.
As far as my "snide" comment it is nothing of the sort. PJ asked exactly what made your body movement objective and you gave an answer. I don't really understand your answer but it would be worth parsing if you truly were telling us what made your body movement objective. Is it or isn't it the answer?
I gave you two experts who do not believe in CTE and as predicted you found reasons to discount both. Have you considered the idea that debunking CTE is easier than you think and it does not require a congressionally appointed select committee to figure out? If you want to investigate why certain people ignore the science based facts and still believe it works then that is another matter requiring experts on perception and psychology.
I am an engineer (who changed career paths) whose job, in part, was to figure out problems and recommend solutions at a billion dollar facility. Studying CTE is child's play in comparison. Above, you said you don't have the skills to express things to satisfy the science and engineering crowd. As a member of the science and engineering crowd I can confirm that you are right. That does not stop you from telling those of us in the science and engineering crowd that we know nothing. That's where talk of cults and religion comes in. You know the beginner in the pool hall who asks for advice and then argues with everything you tell him? That's you.
Stan is not at the level of Dr. Dave. Stan is a grade school teacher who wouldn't know a controlled experiment if it hit him on the head. His videos are full of holes.
My efforts were focused on shedding some light on the issue. At one time you applauded my videos, at least until they showed that Stan was making errors that contradicted what he was saying.
I spent time on CTE because I thought it was an interesting subject, and Hal was an engaging guy. One of the ways to get a handle on an issue is to review the data that is out there. Some of Stan's videos showed that he wasn't getting the results he thought was getting. In fact, the throw video he did (and I analyzed) put the whole concept in doubt. Of course, instead of spending time chewing on that the CTE Rapid Response Team set out to destroy the messenger.
I don't think anything has changed.
OK. I'm sure we'll all be here waiting.
Aiming systems work by providing objective(ish) "landmarks" (such as ball fractions) that we use to get us close enough to the actual aim alignment so that we can consciously or subconsciously adjust from there to the actual needed alignment. CTE is the only system I'm aware of that claims otherwise.
The reason is that there are simply too many potential aim alignments to be "objectively" defined by any system and not be too complicated to be useful at the table. For instance, an OB on the spot can be pocketed in a nearby 4.5" corner pocket with 25 different, non-overlapping contact patches/alignments, depending on where the CB is. The longest shots can use up to 50 alignments for all CB positions. Can CTE objectively define 25-50 alignments? Color me doubtful.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I agree - spoke with him on the phone once or twice and we both (I think) enjoyed it - maybe because we didn't try to do anything much besides say hello.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Stop being coy. Your first comment to me in this thread was snide and set the tone. I have been DESCRIPTIVE of my journey with aiming systems and the nastiness encountered. If you feel that any of my descriptions apply to you then you might be correct.
Every shot creates a unique body position relative to the shot. Thus when identifying a CTE line the body moves slightly with distance and perspective. As you know the farther away the object ball is the smaller it appears. Thus the CTE line from a 3d perspective standing above the table is not the same as the CTE line ON the table in 2d. The visual connection is between the apparent center of the CB and the apparent edge of the OB as the initial alignment.
You gave two people who are experts in the 2d version of pool instruction. These two are great data collectors for the physics of the interactions between the balls. They are NOT experts in CTE. They have NOT met with CTE experts and had any sort of controlled experiments with the CTE experts. I acknowledge that both of them are very knowledgeable and both of them have a great body of work. But your "appeal to authority" falls flat just as mine does. You are not them and I am not a CTE expert. So both of us are simply choosing to believe one side because it comports with what we think. The major difference is that I have actually gone to CTE experts to learn from and I have actually challenged those CTE experts USING the objections that have been stated. I like Bob Jewett and Dr. Dave but I do not agree with their stance on CTE which comes from a place of ignorance and prejudice in my opinion. I have expressed that to Dr. Dave in person.
So what? Other engineers have said CTE works so I guess you cancel each other out. You have not shown that you know how to use CTE to date and I am inclined to believe you don't know how. I didn't say you know nothing. I said you don't know how to use CTE. If you do then you have been incredibly good at hiding your proficiency.
And to be clear what kind of engineer are you? Chemical or mechanical? It doesn't matter because pool has never been a math-based endeavor. The eyes lead and the first thing one does is aim with the eyes and the body follows the lead of the eyes. The mechanical part is that the arm moves the cue in connection with the eyes. People do not teach pool with math, they teach it with examples. Do this and this happens.
You and I are probably the same skill level. So when it comes to pool you are not any more knowledgeable in general than I am. Your claim that I don't listen to those who are better than me is absolutely false. Just because I don't listen to YOU doesn't mean I don't listen to people who are better than you. While you are "appealing to authority" there are people who use CTE who have greater professional engineering credentials than you ever will. They are building billion-dollar companies while you merely worked for one. And on top of that we have plenty of examples in the world of highly acclaimed scientists in one field who express complete dumbassery in other fields. Just because I can't do the math or use the right terms to explain the phenomena that is clearly present on the PHYSICAL TABLE using the PHYSICAL OBJECTS to satisfy the "science" crowd doesn't mean that the phenomena isn't happening and doesn't work. My "engineering" solutions are responsible for protecting millions of dollars in cues so I think that I am at least qualified to observe what is happening in real life on the table.
Lastly, for an engineer, you are terrible at analysis. The two times you have tried to knock Stan's videos have fallen way short and were easily dismissed.
Stan is above Dr. Dave in pool skill. Stan is an expert in the subject of Center to Edge aiming. You have no idea what Stan's background is beyond the knowledge that he is a retired teacher. Stan has trained champions. You claim the videos are full of holes yet the two times you attempted to criticize the videos I easily rebutted your criticism.
Stan has a Master's degree in education. CTE is a subject that he's educating others on. Stan has also WON a pro tournament and "EDUCATED" his son to be one of the the greatest teen age players in the history of pool. Multiple Mosconi cup team player, and multiple tournament winner Tyler Styer uses CTE and is a certified INSTRUCTOR. What do you know that they don't?
When I thought you were sincere I applauded your willingness to try. But since I now know that you were simply being an insincere troll I find that you were not operating in good faith. You are correct that I engaged with you at first as if you were sincere in figuring out the why behind CTE. As is my habit I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and treat them with respect and collegiality until they prove that they are insincere. You have called Stan a snake-oil salesman among other nasty things and so you deserve the criticism you are getting from me.
The video wasn't a "throw" video. You characterized it as that and made false claims that Stan was steering to achieve the pocketing. I watched your analysis and then watched the original videos frame by frame. When I did that I found that you were wrong and made my response videos. No one asked me to do that. I did it because I found that your claims were simply wrong. Your video and my response videos are all there for anyone to view and decide for themselves which of us is more credible.
Maybe you are not happy that an "engineer" of your claimed caliber was proven wrong by a pool cue casemaker with a high school degree. The fact is that you were wrong then and you are still wrong now. So perhaps the one who needs an attitude check is you.
Last edited:
CTE does not need to define 25 or 50 alignments. It is a center cueball hit method to find the ghost ball shot line for the center of the pocket. That's what it does. Once that line is found then the shooter can adjust to any of the other available lines that will work on either side of that line.
That's the whole point of objective aiming, one doesn't need to look for 25 or 50 discrete ghost ball lines. The shooter can objectively (not ish) use clearly seen parts on the balls combined with defined steps to arrive at the center cueball to center ghost ball shot line. It eliminates the need to look for a single line in a tight group of 25-50 possible lines.
I would however like to see this claim of 25 to 50 non-overlapping contact patches for a spot shot to the corner as a diagram. Surely you have that easily available to post here and show us all how that looks. I am curious what size the contact patch is in your claim. That seems like quite a lot for any shot. Just so we are clear do you mean 25-50 alignments based on 25-50 different cueball positions which each produce a contact patch that does not ever overlap any other contact patch? If so I am not following how this is possible without more clarifying information.
No matter what the CB position is though for the spot shot if it is a makeable shot then there is a CTE perception/pivot combination that will put the shooter on the right line to make the shot.
Didn't you use a Ghostball template in one of your videos after missing a good number of shots in your demo?
How did the template help?