Aiming Systems • Techniques • ETC

[JB Cases]

John,
If you're going around showing people shots and challenging them to do it and they cant, then in your blessed benevolence you teach them how to do that would make you Saint John the Case Maker.

As far as me shooting off my mouth about a pool shot, I have a whole lot better things to do with my time. I play just fine and am happy with my game especially given the time I get to play.

Pool for me is a lot of fun and I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else especially Banks with his over nasty attitude. If you want to provoke me into something well here it is.

I officially think CTE is just a bit more complicated that I have time to devote to it but that's me. Just as JoeyA said...hey don't criticize people for what they do.....I'm not busting your balls for using it, I just hope you love the game as much as I do and have fun. I just want you to connect to the game in a fuller more wholesome way like Lou.

What are you upset about? You missed the point.

I am pretty sure I love the game as much and maybe more than you do. But what does that have to do with the point of proving yourself if you're going to be a be a knocker?

I didn't direct anything at you personally. Not a thing.

Just said that if you say something isn't possible and yet someone else demonstrates it then perhaps you might want to reconsider that stance if you can't provide an equally compelling display of ability.

Those who promote aiming systems have done a lot to demonstrate them convincingly so the scale is nowhere close to equal.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

Thanks for solidifying my decision with your repeated "naysayer" nonsense. The blindly following huggers can wiggle their cues around, shave their heads and do whatever they want. You want to get people to fall for your miracle cures, have a blast.

Last I saw, a certain blind follower that's been trying to push his weight around for years, who is also a devout follower of CTE(and has been for years), has played, slept with, bathed, done laundry for, received chauffer duty from, gambled with(and won, I'm sure), showed just how well this system stuff works recently and you all went silent until you came up with the excuse that it was his execution, not the system. What a joke. Oh, but when he made the occasional shot, it was all because of CTE. Lol. Have fun at the Church of Aim.

I'll give you another reason I don't like these BS claims.. because I don't like the idea of somebody out there thinking that it'll work as claimed, when it obviously does not.

Have a wonderful day.

It was execution. Nothing was any different than what I and others said a zillion times. AIMING does not make the shot. Shooting straight does. By aiming gets you to the shot line.

I dogged the shooting not the aiming.

Will your hero play some who can shoot and aim? Not a chance in hell.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

Thanks for solidifying my decision with your repeated "naysayer" nonsense. The blindly following huggers can wiggle their cues around, shave their heads and do whatever they want. You want to get people to fall for your miracle cures, have a blast.

Last I saw, a certain blind follower that's been trying to push his weight around for years, who is also a devout follower of CTE(and has been for years), has played, slept with, bathed, done laundry for, received chauffer duty from, gambled with(and won, I'm sure), showed just how well this system stuff works recently and you all went silent until you came up with the excuse that it was his execution, not the system. What a joke. Oh, but when he made the occasional shot, it was all because of CTE. Lol. Have fun at the Church of Aim.

I'll give you another reason I don't like these BS claims.. because I don't like the idea of somebody out there thinking that it'll work as claimed, when it obviously does not.

Have a wonderful day.

Still waiting on your offer to play some. I can be at your pool hall in a month or so. Now that you can see that I can't play at all you should wipe the floor with me.

Beyond that can you please post any claim about any of the systems and perhaps CTE specifically as relates to how it works which has not been demonstrated?

What claim "obviously does not" work?

This is my point, Stan and others have demonstrated a lot of ability and you have yet to post anything that matches that ability using whatever non-system method of aiming you think is all that's needed.

Your moniker is Banks. Hopefully we can assume that means you love banks. So why don't you make a video and teach people how to bank as well as Stan if you think Stan's method is BS and doesn't work.

Stan set the template for you so go ahead and prove that you can do what he does as good or better than he can and explain how you got there. Alongside it you can try to debunk the method Stan is using and show that CTE/ProOne does not work as claimed.

Or, is it possible that you can't get there? Possible that you can't do the shots Stan demonstrates with the same level of consistency? If not then how will you be able to tell the viewers that your way is better than his way?

The whole point of demonstration is to teach what the demonstrator feels is a better way.

If it's snake oil then it should be easily debunked by a competent person. If not you then who?

Stop talking and start demonstrating....fight back with actions!

Show us that you can make those banks from anywhere WITHOUT diamonds like Stan does. We all know the diamond systems and those work great. How about we cover up the diamonds and put curtains across the table and then you show us that you can make ten cross sides in a row?

No? Then how about you step back and stop knocking and let those who wish to mess around with various methods do so in peace?

And PM me what you want to do so we can have a friendly session in Portland. Drinks are on me.

 

[cookie man]

The spinners and the huggers have been saying the same things for years. Heck, if it was so awesome, why isn't Stan putting out challenges to the Mosconi Cup members? After all, it's "geometrically connected to the table" and he's been a pro with it for what, decades? I could really care less about all of the nonsensical claims that they like to make - claims that are both impossible to prove or disprove.

The one thing that can be proven, though, is whether or not it is "geometrically" or mathematically sound. So far, not a single piece of data has been provided as evidence to that. Nor will it ever be.

They can knock and cry all they want. They'll never produce evidence and will continue attributing anything positive and nothing negative to their nest-egg/sales-baby. After all, this has been going on for how long and never has that information been provided? You can't dispute math, but you sure can dispute something based on the absence of it(it's a pretty telling sign).

PS - If they want to keep pushing non-facts, maybe I'll just change my sig line to say it isn't so.

Some mosconi cup contenders are using CTE.

 

[336Robin]

No I got it.

What are you upset about? You missed the point.

I am pretty sure I love the game as much and maybe more than you do. But what does that have to do with the point of proving yourself if you're going to be a be a knocker?

I didn't direct anything at you personally. Not a thing.

Just said that if you say something isn't possible and yet someone else demonstrates it then perhaps you might want to reconsider that stance if you can't provide an equally compelling display of ability.

Those who promote aiming systems have done a lot to demonstrate them convincingly so the scale is nowhere close to equal.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Well as far as upset, I guess I was taken aback by Banks blast of the entire universe including myself. I think it would be hard to discern anything else from his comments except he is just an angry hater of me, you and everything.

I haven't said anything isn't possible. In fact I think I conveyed positive comments about CTE and Stan's accomplishments and for once I think I am starting to understand what Stan is talking about when his system wont find pockets if you move them. I find that interesting sure enough and have witnessed a friend of mine shoot Banks using CTE.

He just sucks at explaining anything. No sense can be made at all of what he is trying to say and he wont diagram anything he always says hey let me show you something and Im like...what now?

He makes some of a particular type of Banks, that find the half way point of some angles, that I do find difficult to do at times. The lines get blurred when he makes 2 or 3 banks then misses 5 in a row trying to figure out what he's doing wrong.

When I say that CTE isn't my cup of tea. What I explicitly mean is this. I cant deal with over complication. I don't mean that in an ugly way. As much as I love the game I cant play Chess. Its not that I cant play, I can, but I have a long dormant seizure disorder and something about stacking up several moves deep gets to me and starts me having myoclonic jerks. I don't enjoy that. So things I reason out myself are easier for me to deal with. I'm capable of some pretty intricate thought as I am able to process it. I probably see too deep into things at first glance and cant get past it sometimes until I understand what the hell is going on, but its rough on me sometimes processing things especially if someone who sucks at explanation is doing the explaining.

I am intrigued by the ability of CTE to find these angles.

I will at some point work with that for the purposes of Banking. Its proven to me that the system is finding those 90 degree angles. For making shots to pockets I have no problems I can identify. I know how to see the shot line very well. I Bank pretty good too.

As far as me getting into a shooting contest with anyone I don't think I have anything to prove. I can make about any shot I need to in a game situation and I miss shots like anyone else. I'm just not into that showy type of thing as a challenge. Its not important to me to be able to say my system is better than yours. Not one iota.

I believe there is something to be learned from CTE and when I have time to devote to it I will study the ability to bank with it very slowly so I can reason out why I am doing what I am doing.

I make shots well enough that I don't think I need CTE for that. Its not that I put myself above anyone else, its that I know how I do what I do and being that I can reason that equation out just fine. I am using more spin these days and when you start applying that, then if you knew what you were doing with Center Ball before now you have to learn all the shots over again with spin.

Banking now that I would love to learn with CTE for finding those 90 degree angles but once I did, I would see the point on the rail I needed to play to and I would drop CTE in order to manipulate the contact point on the rail the way I needed to or simply pot the shot knowing that this system is finding the spot for me. That part of CTE I find interesting enough that I might risk at little discomfort learning it but I find it a little pricey and as good as I bank already, I'm pretty happy with my abilities to solve banks. So there you go. Its a market situation for me. When it becomes important that I need what there is to gain I will pay the mans price.

For now I'm just trying to finish my last 6 months working for the man. Then its all about me, so maybe then.

 

[RiverCity]

And PM me what you want to do so we can have a friendly session in Portland. Drinks are on me.

Let me know when youre coming to town, Ill dust off the cues.... :grin:
Chuck

 

[JoeyA]

Well as far as upset, I guess I was taken aback by Banks blast of the entire universe including myself. I think it would be hard to discern anything else from his comments except he is just an angry hater of me, you and everything.

I haven't said anything isn't possible. In fact I think I conveyed positive comments about CTE and Stan's accomplishments and for once I think I am starting to understand what Stan is talking about when his system wont find pockets if you move them. I find that interesting sure enough and have witnessed a friend of mine shoot Banks using CTE.

He just sucks at explaining anything. No sense can be made at all of what he is trying to say and he wont diagram anything he always says hey let me show you something and Im like...what now?

He makes some of a particular type of Banks, that find the half way point of some angles, that I do find difficult to do at times. The lines get blurred when he makes 2 or 3 banks then misses 5 in a row trying to figure out what he's doing wrong.

When I say that CTE isn't my cup of tea. What I explicitly mean is this. I cant deal with over complication. I don't mean that in an ugly way. As much as I love the game I cant play Chess. Its not that I cant play, I can, but I have a long dormant seizure disorder and something about stacking up several moves deep gets to me and starts me having myoclonic jerks. I don't enjoy that. So things I reason out myself are easier for me to deal with. I'm capable of some pretty intricate thought as I am able to process it. I probably see too deep into things at first glance and cant get past it sometimes until I understand what the hell is going on, but its rough on me sometimes processing things especially if someone who sucks at explanation is doing the explaining.

I am intrigued by the ability of CTE to find these angles.

I will at some point work with that for the purposes of Banking. Its proven to me that the system is finding those 90 degree angles. For making shots to pockets I have no problems I can identify. I know how to see the shot line very well. I Bank pretty good too.

As far as me getting into a shooting contest with anyone I don't think I have anything to prove. I can make about any shot I need to in a game situation and I miss shots like anyone else. I'm just not into that showy type of thing as a challenge. Its not important to me to be able to say my system is better than yours. Not one iota.

I believe there is something to be learned from CTE and when I have time to devote to it I will study the ability to bank with it very slowly so I can reason out why I am doing what I am doing.

I make shots well enough that I don't think I need CTE for that. Its not that I put myself above anyone else, its that I know how I do what I do and being that I can reason that equation out just fine. I am using more spin these days and when you start applying that, then if you knew what you were doing with Center Ball before now you have to learn all the shots over again with spin.

Banking now that I would love to learn with CTE for finding those 90 degree angles but once I did, I would see the point on the rail I needed to play to and I would drop CTE in order to manipulate the contact point on the rail the way I needed to or simply pot the shot knowing that this system is finding the spot for me. That part of CTE I find interesting enough that I might risk at little discomfort learning it but I find it a little pricey and as good as I bank already, I'm pretty happy with my abilities to solve banks. So there you go. Its a market situation for me. When it becomes important that I need what there is to gain I will pay the mans price.

For now I'm just trying to finish my last 6 months working for the man. Then its all about me, so maybe then.

Robin,

Like your post!

I think that people who understand CTE/Pro1 really well, miss balls just like everyone else that uses some other system/method for aiming/shooting.

I have shot the same bank shot over and over, using no system except for instinct, missing the shot, missing the shot, making the shot. Then I have used CTE/Pro 1, banking the same shot, making the shot, missing the shot, missing the shot.

Missing shots perplexes me but the more I know about this game, the more I realize that it is complex and precise, more precise and complex than most of us are willing to admit. A twinge in a muscle here or there, a decelerating stroke, a head movement, poor alignment, poor eye patterns, a distraction at just the right moment and any of those things can help you miss the shot. It's very difficult to know why you miss the shots. Not having confidence in your self or your method of shooting/aiming is plenty reason for missing the shot as well. But you already know that.

I don't have any problem with people saying that CTE/Pro1 doesn't work for themselves or even that it is too complicated for them, but to say that it is snake oil is simply the response of people who are either ignorant or spiteful, take your pick or both.

Like so many other methods that help people to improve their pool games, there is far too much evidence to the contrary. It works very well just as does anything that corrects problems in your game.

But as I had mentioned previously, the real reason for this thread has nothing to do with CTE/Pro1 and everything to do with giving up on hounding people for what they teach or at least taking a break from it.

If "we" are really "smarter about pool" than CJ Wiley or Stan Shuffett, Hal Houle, Gene Albrecht or any other innovators/teachers of pool, shouldn't we be able to figure out why they are able to play so well in spite of their faulty teachings? To be so arrogant and say that their systems/teachings are faulty, presumes far too much even for our self-inflated narcissistic selves.

Perhaps there are better ways to teach aiming/shooting/visualizing the shot line. Maybe some of the critics can do a better job? Let's see them create videos that actually help people play better pool.

In summary, it is my belief that everyone that truly loves the game, should be trying to help people play better pool. If one person finds biorhythms or hypnosis to help them win a tournament, who are we to weep and wail about how silly that is, simply because we don't think it works for us?

Sure, everyone is entitled to an opinion but when so many people report that their game has improved because of (insert aiming system here); after stating your opinion, aren't you really beating your head against a brick wall by arguing ad infinitum/ad nauseam?


JoeyA

 

[BasementDweller]

When it comes to CTE the point of contention has always been, and will always be the claim that two similar but not identical shots can be pocketed using the exact same steps with NO SUBCONCIOUS ADJUSTMENT. That's the crux of the battle between the two camps. The reluctance by most all CTE users to allow for any subconscious adjustment has lead to years of arguing back and forth.

For me, this is the area I can't get past. If someone posts a diagram of two shots that are slightly different and asks how the CTE user goes about making them they will always come back with the same response -- they use the exact same process for each. Then the CTE user goes on the offensive and requires the skeptic to prove that the CTE user doesn't shoot these two different shots in exactly the same fashion. This is when I always look back at the diagrammed shots and think to myself, "Does someone really need to prove that these two obviously different shots require slightly different approaches?" This is when I always walk away from the conversation puzzled by the reluctance of the CTE user to admit that the shooter must do something different on these two shots.

That was sort of the thing that constanstly happened in the 2000-2013 time frame. Fast forward to the present time and this subconscious adjustment had been replaced with "Finding the Visuals Through Experience." (Hopefully that’s not trademarked).

So basically, what it all boils down to is subconscious adjustment = finding the visuals. Had everyone just said that at the beginning we could have all been talking about chalk and low deflection shafts this whole time.

 

[JoeyInCali]

So basically, what it all boils down to is subconscious adjustment = finding the visuals. Had everyone just said that at the beginning we could have all been talking about chalk and low deflection shafts this whole time.

That.
Does the cue ball travel on a straight line all the time ?
Do balls cling the same way before midnight and after midnight ?
Play in the desert and you might notice you're hitting the ball too fat after midnight.
Do you allow for cueball squirt the same amount on slow and hard shots ?
If someone claims he's not visualizing the two balls colliding or the imaginary line to the object, I say he's lying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDkP6iaP3MY
That video is golden.

 

[mohrt]

When it comes to CTE the point of contention has always been, and will always be the claim that two similar but not identical shots can be pocketed using the exact same steps with NO SUBCONCIOUS ADJUSTMENT. That's the crux of the battle between the two camps. The reluctance by most all CTE users to allow for any subconscious adjustment has lead to years of arguing back and forth.

For me, this is the area I can't get past. If someone posts a diagram of two shots that are slightly different and asks how the CTE user goes about making them they will always come back with the same response -- they use the exact same process for each. Then the CTE user goes on the offensive and requires the skeptic to prove that the CTE user doesn't shoot these two different shots in exactly the same fashion. This is when I always look back at the diagrammed shots and think to myself, "Does someone really need to prove that these two obviously different shots require slightly different approaches?" This is when I always walk away from the conversation puzzled by the reluctance of the CTE user to admit that the shooter must do something different on these two shots.

That was sort of the thing that constantly happened in the 2000-2013 time frame. Fast forward to the present time and this subconscious adjustment had been replaced with "Finding the Visuals Through Experience." (Hopefully that’s not trademarked).

So basically, what it all boils down to is subconscious adjustment = finding the visuals. Had everyone just said that at the beginning we could have all been talking about chalk and low deflection shafts this whole time.

The argument is correct, but the assumption (IMHO) is not correct. So the argument is, how can two similar but not identical shots be pocketed using the exact same steps? The assumption is subconscious adjustment.

The precise answer is our change in perception on the 2x1 table surface is ultimately what makes the difference. Our eyes see the CB/OB sitting on a table surface in front of us, contained inside of two squares with perfect 90 degree angles and pockets at the corners. When we align our strongest VISUAL alignment for the given shot, our perception gives us a unique PHYSICAL alignment. This is the ever so slight difference that leads us to a connection to the pocket. Now you could argue that this change in perception is "subconscious adjustment", but that will likely be taken very wrong, because VISUALLY there is no adjustment whatsoever. But the reality is that each and every unique perception gives us a unique PHYSICAL alignment. We don't really need to think about this, because with a little work at the table this becomes automatic. All you need to do is observe the results and see that it does work. Exactly why it works it not yet put into mathematical terms, but it is teachable and demonstrate-able.

Of course we are assuming your stroke is reasonably consistent. No one will get reliable results with any aiming system without a good stroke to back it up.

 

[JoeyInCali]

......................................

 

[stan shuffett]

The argument is correct, but the assumption (IMHO) is not correct. So the argument is, how can two similar but not identical shots be pocketed using the exact same steps? The assumption is subconscious adjustment.

The precise answer is our change in perception on the 2x1 table surface is ultimately what makes the difference. Our eyes see the CB/OB sitting on a table surface in front of us, contained inside of two squares with perfect 90 degree angles and pockets at the corners. When we align our strongest VISUAL alignment for the given shot, our perception gives us a unique PHYSICAL alignment. This is the ever so slight difference that leads us to a connection to the pocket. Now you could argue that this change in perception is "subconscious adjustment", but that will likely be taken very wrong, because VISUALLY there is no adjustment whatsoever. But the reality is that each and every unique perception gives us a unique PHYSICAL alignment. We don't really need to think about this, because with a little work at the table this becomes automatic. All you need to do is observe the results and see that it does work. Exactly why it works it not yet put into mathematical terms, but it is teachable and demonstrate-able.

Of course we are assuming your stroke is reasonably consistent. No one will get reliable results with any aiming system without a good stroke to back it up.

Perfectly stated! Exactly right!

Thanks, Monte, for such a well-constructed, thought out post. Much appreciated!

Stan Shuffett

 

[BasementDweller]

The argument is correct, but the assumption (IMHO) is not correct. So the argument is, how can two similar but not identical shots be pocketed using the exact same steps? The assumption is subconscious adjustment.

The precise answer is our change in perception on the 2x1 table surface is ultimately what makes the difference. Our eyes see the CB/OB sitting on a table surface in front of us, contained inside of two squares with perfect 90 degree angles and pockets at the corners. When we align our strongest VISUAL alignment for the given shot, our perception gives us a unique PHYSICAL alignment. This is the ever so slight difference that leads us to a connection to the pocket. Now you could argue that this change in perception is "subconscious adjustment", but that will likely be taken very wrong, because VISUALLY there is no adjustment whatsoever. But the reality is that each and every unique perception gives us a unique PHYSICAL alignment. We don't really need to think about this, because with a little work at the table this becomes automatic. All you need to do is observe the results and see that it does work. Exactly why it works it not yet put into mathematical terms, but it is teachable and demonstrate-able.

Of course we are assuming your stroke is reasonably consistent. No one will get reliable results with any aiming system without a good stroke to back it up.

That was probably the best explanation of that I have ever read so thanks for that.

So are you saying that each shot has a unique "perception"?

 

[Neil]

Robin,

Like your post!

I think that people who understand CTE/Pro1 really well, miss balls just like everyone else that uses some other system/method for aiming/shooting.

I have shot the same bank shot over and over, using no system except for instinct, missing the shot, missing the shot, making the shot. Then I have used CTE/Pro 1, banking the same shot, making the shot, missing the shot, missing the shot.

Missing shots perplexes me but the more I know about this game, the more I realize that it is complex and precise, more precise and complex than most of us are willing to admit. A twinge in a muscle here or there, a decelerating stroke, a head movement, poor alignment, poor eye patterns, a distraction at just the right moment and any of those things can help you miss the shot. It's very difficult to know why you miss the shots. Not having confidence in your self or your method of shooting/aiming is plenty reason for missing the shot as well. But you already know that.

I don't have any problem with people saying that CTE/Pro1 doesn't work for themselves or even that it is too complicated for them, but to say that it is snake oil is simply the response of people who are either ignorant or spiteful, take your pick or both.

Like so many other methods that help people to improve their pool games, there is far too much evidence to the contrary. It works very well just as does anything that corrects problems in your game.

But as I had mentioned previously, the real reason for this thread has nothing to do with CTE/Pro1 and everything to do with giving up on hounding people for what they teach or at least taking a break from it.

If "we" are really "smarter about pool" than CJ Wiley or Stan Shuffett, Hal Houle, Gene Albrecht or any other innovators/teachers of pool, shouldn't we be able to figure out why they are able to play so well in spite of their faulty teachings? To be so arrogant and say that their systems/teachings are faulty, presumes far too much even for our self-inflated narcissistic selves.

Perhaps there are better ways to teach aiming/shooting/visualizing the shot line. Maybe some of the critics can do a better job? Let's see them create videos that actually help people play better pool.

In summary, it is my belief that everyone that truly loves the game, should be trying to help people play better pool. If one person finds biorhythms or hypnosis to help them win a tournament, who are we to weep and wail about how silly that is, simply because we don't think it works for us?

Sure, everyone is entitled to an opinion but when so many people report that their game has improved because of (insert aiming system here); after stating your opinion, aren't you really beating your head against a brick wall by arguing ad infinitum/ad nauseam?


JoeyA

Maybe some day you will learn enough to not call those that know what they are talking about arrogant narcissists. Yes, there are those on here that knock without proper knowledge. Then, there are those that knock with proper knowledge. Hopefully you will someday learn enough about the game to know the difference.

As to the CTE questions, those have been answered quite well numerous times on here by several people. Can't help it if some on here keep missing those posts everytime they are posted.

As to explaining how one can play so well and teach so poorly, that also has been explained in detail many times on here. Guess you missed all of those posts too.

As to what CJ is selling, it is based on fact, and 90% fluff garbage. That has been detailed on here numerous times also. But, just because at one time he played great, you and others want to equate that to everything he says is the gospel about pool. Even though he constantly contradicts himself on what he is doing. And most of what he says doesn't even remotely relate to reality of what is actually happening. That is one easy way to tell when someone is selling you nonsense- when they can't keep their story straight, but always are changing it.

It's also been explained numerous times why some see improvement when trying something new. And, what that actually means. Many see improvement just using a different cue or tip. But, does that mean that changing your cue or your tip is the key to improvement? Of course not. You see, the difference here is, some actually want FACTUAL information presented because they want to see others have a long lasting improvement. Not have the factual get lost in all the B.S. But, yes, there are those that blast every system without even trying them or knowing what they are even talking about.

What guys like you have done is make those posting real info not want to post anymore, and give free reign to those spreading myths and bullcrap. People don't have enough time to even practice properly, let alone read a bunch of crap that won't help them in the long run and then waste what precious practice time they do have learning something that will hold them back. You want to know what systems most likely work? Like JB said, simply look up all the "tests" on here, and see what the top scorers use.

Like I said to you earlier, guys like you simply don't want the truth. You just want to rub elbows with someone that once played great, hoping some of it will rub off on you instead of doing your due diligence in learning and training in the things that actually will help. Guys like you are why I erased over 9,000 posts on here, and why I don't bother posting much info anymore. You have shown that you don't want or care about the truth of what it takes to play really well, you just want to be in someone else's shadow. What a sad way to live. If you can even call that living. Enjoy what you guys have made of the forums. They aren't much good for anything anymore unless one really takes a lot of time and really digs into them.

 

[mohrt]

That was probably the best explanation of that I have ever read so thanks for that.

So are you saying that each shot has a unique "perception"?

Yes. Every possible CB/OB orientation has a unique perception for each possible visual (CTEL + A/B/C). Each perception has its own unique physical alignment. That is how the same visuals can cover a range of shots. You don't have to think about this consciously, because you (visually) apply the same steps. The eyes lead, the body follows.

 

[BeiberLvr]

The eyes lead, the body follows.

I think this is one of the toughest things for new users to grasp. Most of us, before venturing into CTE/Pro One, already brought the cue in from left to right (if right handed). Pretty much everyone holds the cue at address with both hands, and we tend to lead into our stance with our bridge hand.

Doing that as opposed to letting the eyes lead will not always produce the most consistent results.

A simple trick is to hold the cue only with your grip hand. Now you can sweep with your eyes, and let your empty bridge hand slide into place with the cue following behind.

If that's tough to imagine for anyone I can try to record a video tomorrow.

 

[mohrt]

I think this is one of the toughest things for new users to grasp. Most of us, before venturing into CTE/Pro One, already brought the cue in from left to right (if right handed). Pretty much everyone holds the cue at address with both hands, and we tend to lead into our stance with our bridge hand.

Doing that as opposed to letting the eyes lead will not always produce the most consistent results.

A simple trick is to hold the cue only with your grip hand. Now you can sweep with your eyes, and let your empty bridge hand slide into place with the cue following behind.

If that's tough to imagine for anyone I can try to record a video tomorrow.

The CTE PSR is quite different from what I used to do. I used to lay my cue on the table on the shot line (as well as I could see it), then move my hands/body/head into that position. Now with CTE I use my eyes to find the shot line, and move my cue (from the side) onto that line. Completely different, and takes a bit to adjust to!

 

[JoeyA]

Maybe some day you will learn enough to not call those that know what they are talking about arrogant narcissists. Yes, there are those on here that knock without proper knowledge. Then, there are those that knock with proper knowledge. Hopefully you will someday learn enough about the game to know the difference.

As to the CTE questions, those have been answered quite well numerous times on here by several people. Can't help it if some on here keep missing those posts everytime they are posted.

As to explaining how one can play so well and teach so poorly, that also has been explained in detail many times on here. Guess you missed all of those posts too.

As to what CJ is selling, it is based on fact, and 90% fluff garbage. That has been detailed on here numerous times also. But, just because at one time he played great, you and others want to equate that to everything he says is the gospel about pool. Even though he constantly contradicts himself on what he is doing. And most of what he says doesn't even remotely relate to reality of what is actually happening. That is one easy way to tell when someone is selling you nonsense- when they can't keep their story straight, but always are changing it.

It's also been explained numerous times why some see improvement when trying something new. And, what that actually means. Many see improvement just using a different cue or tip. But, does that mean that changing your cue or your tip is the key to improvement? Of course not. You see, the difference here is, some actually want FACTUAL information presented because they want to see others have a long lasting improvement. Not have the factual get lost in all the B.S. But, yes, there are those that blast every system without even trying them or knowing what they are even talking about.

What guys like you have done is make those posting real info not want to post anymore, and give free reign to those spreading myths and bullcrap. People don't have enough time to even practice properly, let alone read a bunch of crap that won't help them in the long run and then waste what precious practice time they do have learning something that will hold them back. You want to know what systems most likely work? Like JB said, simply look up all the "tests" on here, and see what the top scorers use.

Like I said to you earlier, guys like you simply don't want the truth. You just want to rub elbows with someone that once played great, hoping some of it will rub off on you instead of doing your due diligence in learning and training in the things that actually will help. Guys like you are why I erased over 9,000 posts on here, and why I don't bother posting much info anymore. You have shown that you don't want or care about the truth of what it takes to play really well, you just want to be in someone else's shadow. What a sad way to live. If you can even call that living. Enjoy what you guys have made of the forums. They aren't much good for anything anymore unless one really takes a lot of time and really digs into them.

No need to be defensive Neil. You aren't an arrogant narcissist and have never been one. In fact, many of your posts are very informative and accurate.

Don't go away. Keep contributing to the forum. I know you have a problem with CJ and if I got started off on the same foot with him as you did, I might have a problem with him as well.

JoeyA

 

[nobcitypool]

The CTE PSR is quite different from what I used to do. I used to lay my cue on the table on the shot line (as well as I could see it), then move my hands/body/head into that position. Now with CTE I use my eyes to find the shot line, and move my cue (from the side) onto that line. Completely different, and takes a bit to adjust to!

Mohrt, that's very similar to what I used to do. The key here is I used to adjust to the cue, now my cue adjusts to me. Stevie Moore must have told me twenty times to quit pointing my cue and get it out of the way so I could see my visual. I still have to be careful about moving my cue and setting my bridge hand to early before I've completed my sweep.

 

[8pack]

When it comes to CTE the point of contention has always been, and will always be the claim that two similar but not identical shots can be pocketed using the exact same steps with NO SUBCONCIOUS ADJUSTMENT. That's the crux of the battle between the two camps. The reluctance by most all CTE users to allow for any subconscious adjustment has lead to years of arguing back and forth.

For me, this is the area I can't get past. If someone posts a diagram of two shots that are slightly different and asks how the CTE user goes about making them they will always come back with the same response -- they use the exact same process for each. Then the CTE user goes on the offensive and requires the skeptic to prove that the CTE user doesn't shoot these two different shots in exactly the same fashion. This is when I always look back at the diagrammed shots and think to myself, "Does someone really need to prove that these two obviously different shots require slightly different approaches?" This is when I always walk away from the conversation puzzled by the reluctance of the CTE user to admit that the shooter must do something different on these two shots.

That was sort of the thing that constanstly happened in the 2000-2013 time frame. Fast forward to the present time and this subconscious adjustment had been replaced with "Finding the Visuals Through Experience." (Hopefully that’s not trademarked).

So basically, what it all boils down to is subconscious adjustment = finding the visuals. Had everyone just said that at the beginning we could have all been talking about chalk and low deflection shafts this whole time.

Truth!

A shot may be dead on...then you move the same set balls(cutting to the same pocket) in one direction it goes from A to a B keep moving then C.Ex..Shots not a A Wont cut enough,so move to a B visual looks more rite.The process of going to the other visual (which is easily seen after practicing)is actually bypassing the gaps in between them. Try this for yourself...find a shot which is dead on (with A,,B..or C)....Then move the balls slightly over making it a thinner cut. Now do the same as your dead on shot..should fall short.Now try your best to line up in between the A..B..C.see what happens.

I know the table...I can create the same routine with pretty good results.
They create a different perception or what ever it is they do..only one way..learning set shots. This isn't a bad thing but what happens during real play.I guess it comes down to doing the routine and letting the mind take over.(not a bad Ideal)
The only exactness you have is on you ,the shooter.

We Have A.....B.....C....and they have created 2 different perceptions for each one of them(that's is the the truth) one of the biggest argument's about the system. (Making the same set of balls to the same pocket with more of an angle for each.)

See for yourself ...shoot in between the gaps..let me know what happens.