Center To Edge - CTE - Outside the Box - Part 2

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Here is a list of the most common Aiming Systems using Vertical Thinking to link the CB to the OB to the target Pocket: Ghost Ball Aiming; Rail Road Aiming; Chain Ball Aiming; Square Ball Aiming; Arrow Aiming; Sectional Aiming; Four Equal Sections (Quarters); Three Equal Sections (Thirds); Math/Geometric Aiming; Equal and Opposite Aiming; Double the Distance Aiming; Isosceles Triangle Aiming; Light Reflection Aiming; Ball Reflection Aiming; Ball Shadow Aiming; Rail Shadow Aiming; Invisible Spot Aiming. Fractional Aiming. (More can be added)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of the above aiming methods. Some work quite well for many players and others don't. Whatever method is attempted cannot be expected to work immediately as if a magic wand was waved over your head and the Holy Grail is achieved. ALL NEW SYSTEMS TAKE WORK AND TIME TO KICK IN.

CTE is an aiming method that utilizes LATERAL THINKING, thinking FAR OUTSIDE the Box to the point of ILLOGICAL THINKING to link up two balls with one of them going straight to the center of a pocket on a 2:1 pool table. Those who rely on vertical thinking to pocket balls incorporating ghost balls, contact points, fractions, math and geometry, guessing, feel, etc. will have a difficult time accepting CTE in the beginning and possibly ever as evidenced by the backlash, attacks, and hatred for the system and those who have found it extremely beneficial.
There's a lot of relearning how to visualize the edge of the CB to A, B, C as well as center CB to Edge. Takes time.

Flame wars have been epic with people being banned from forums over the last decade and a half which all starts from aligning the cue ball EDGE to a part of the object ball labeled as A, B, C, or 15, 30, 45 instead of a tiny spot on the entire 2 1/4 inch FAT face of the cue ball linked to a minute spot on the entire FAT face of the object ball to be pocketed.

Hal thought so far out of the box with Lateral Thinking that he had around 30 different aiming systems utilizing the tip of the cue to aim at limited targets on the object ball along with pivoting the tip of the cue to secondary CB/OB targets as the final move (Shishkebab) OR the edge of the CB to the 15-30-45 (A-B-C). (NO PIVOTING IN PRO ONE)

This concept was completely unheard of or practiced with any other aiming system in existence since the beginning of pocket billiards.

Those who learned and practiced it were overjoyed and praised it. Those who didn't even want to learn it due to their own belief system regarding the tried and true methods of vertical thinking as well as math/geometry/physics as their guides did nothing but trash and belittle every facet of CTE and all of the users praising it.

The same individuals who jumped all over Hal and users in 1997 are some of the same ones doing it today on this forum or anywhere they can attract an audience. Their number as a group has always ranged from five to ten vocal attackers at any one time with names and faces coming and going but the same 3 - 5 have stuck together like the strongest epoxy on the planet.

It's a very sad and bewildering phenomenon especially for well educated men to waste their lives and others in closed minded assaults and hatred of a pool aiming system and those who have a similar love for the game of pool that are willing to go "outside the box" to get better and enjoy the game more.

In addition to Hal Houle being attacked and his work ridiculed by the anti-CTE saviors for the rest of mankind, the most vilified person in the history of pool is the person so intrigued by Hal's thinking and creations that he wanted to finally solve the riddle, and has, is Stan Shuffett. Those who have learned CTE and become successful with it also get their share of ridicule, belittlement, harassment, which lead into flame wars.

It hasn't been by everyone, but by a handful of individuals starting back in 1997 who attacked Hal Houle on RSB.
The first one was Pat Johnson and immediately following was Lou Figueora. Dan White has become a staunch ally to their cause along with Joey Bautista. Here we are 23 years later and all that needs to be done is go to the Aiming Forum in AZB and you'll find them along with a band of new and old "Merry Men" who come and go and think it's cool to jump on the bandwagon at any given time.
The current crop consists of nameless trolls calling themselves Straightline, Canwin, JC, and a couple more who know all there is to know.

23 YEARS of hatred and negative behavior! What a waste of life and time. Why? They can't get away from Vertical Thinking which is the tried and true same stuff from about 150 years ago. If it doesn't have contact points, ghost balls, fractions to link up and aim at between both balls along with math, physics, geometry, 2D drawings, arrows, and all forces of nature, it HAS to be BULLSHIT!

And most importantly, their overblown egos of blasting it for 23 years won't allow them to say, "Well I'll be damn...son of a bitch...this really does work as they say it does." NOPE, not gonna happen! They're like some Japanese soldiers roaming around in the jungle for many decades after WWII thinking the war hasn't ended and they're still fighting it. SAME HERE. CTE is doing well and spreading like never before.

Might be interesting to see what is eventually on their headstones for eternity.
"HE DEDICATED HIS LIFE TRYING TO SAVE THE WORLD OF POOL FROM THE DESTRUCTIVE CTE - HE FAILED"
 
...snippedy doo dah...
The other version of this "history" is that Hal's (and later Stan's) systems made unrealistic claims about their "unique way of working" that were rightfully questioned and never clearly answered. The heat that has grown around the topic has come mostly (like this example) from CTE's "defenders", insulted that their "answers" aren't taken seriously.

For me there's never been any real controversy about whether Hal's or Stan's systems are useful for those who use them - of course they are, like any system can be with enough practice. It's always been about their claims of "unique objectivity", and their outrage when the supposed evidence of those claims ("watch Stan make shots!") is questioned.

pj
chgo
 
The other version of this "history" is that Hal's (and later Stan's) systems made unrealistic claims about their "unique way of working" that were rightfully questioned and never clearly answered. The heat that has grown around the topic has come mostly (like this example) from CTE's "defenders", insulted that their "answers" aren't taken seriously.

For me there's never been any real controversy about whether Hal's or Stan's systems are useful for those who use them - of course they are, like any system can be with enough practice. It's always been about their claims of "unique objectivity", and their outrage when the supposed evidence of those claims ("watch Stan make shots!") is questioned.

pj
chgo
I know you're too cheap or broke to buy the book, but how about taking any one of the Truth Series Videos (free) and duplicating what Stan is doing with the visuals and explanations in your own video. No crappy 2D illustrations either. YOU live and in the flesh at the table. Prove that you understand how it's done. If you miss the shot, then explain why it's flawed. Don't let that camera shyness get in your way again as it has for 23 years. Lets see the real Pat Johnson at work and in the flesh.
 
I know you're too cheap or broke to buy the book
I wouldn't want the book if it was free - I've seen all I need to in brief previews of a few videos.
, but how about taking any one of the Truth Series Videos (free) and duplicating what Stan is doing with the visuals and explanations in your own video. No crappy 2D illustrations either. YOU live and in the flesh at the table. Prove that you understand how it's done. If you miss the shot, then explain why it's flawed. Don't let that camera shyness get in your way again as it has for 23 years. Lets see the real Pat Johnson at work and in the flesh.
The fact that you think a video can demonstrate anything like this shows (yet again) that you don't understand how aiming works. Being successful with it isn't the same as understanding it.

pj
chgo
 
I know you're too cheap or broke to buy the book, but how about taking any one of the Truth Series Videos (free) and duplicating what Stan is doing with the visuals and explanations in your own video. No crappy 2D illustrations either. YOU live and in the flesh at the table. Prove that you understand how it's done. If you miss the shot, then explain why it's flawed. Don't let that camera shyness get in your way again as it has for 23 years. Lets see the real Pat Johnson at work and in the flesh.
I don't think he will ever do that, SpiderMan.
He shoots as bad as I do and doesn't want anyone to see it and laugh at him. (just like me). :)
 
I have always thought it was cute that they called an atheist a religious zealot for simply describing what he experienced ON THE POOL TABLE.
 
I wouldn't want the book if it was free - I've seen all I need to in brief previews of a few videos.

Right. You wrote the book over 23 years as far as why it can't possibly work in between lizard head bobbing to aim a shot.
The fact that you think a video can demonstrate anything like this shows (yet again) that you don't understand how aiming works. Being successful with it isn't the same as understanding it.

pj
chgo

Right again. The only way one can be successful with aiming is multiple ad nauseum 2D drawings that you produce. That makes much more sense. :rolleyes:🤪
 
The other version of this "history" is that Hal's (and later Stan's) systems made unrealistic claims about their "unique way of working" that were rightfully questioned and never clearly answered. The heat that has grown around the topic has come mostly (like this example) from CTE's "defenders", insulted that their "answers" aren't taken seriously.

For me there's never been any real controversy about whether Hal's or Stan's systems are useful for those who use them - of course they are, like any system can be with enough practice. It's always been about their claims of "unique objectivity", and their outrage when the supposed evidence of those claims ("watch Stan make shots!") is questioned.

pj
chgo
What isn't objective? What isn't unique to CTE? I have never seen any other aiming method described in any modern instructional material published before Hal came on the scene that was close to what Hal put out. If you have some references to such I would like to see it.
 
What isn't objective?
The only truly objective parts of any aiming method/system is the few physical "references" it uses (if any). The most common of these (and a central part of CTE) is fractional ball overlaps.

The important part of aiming - using these references to find the final aim line for each different shot - is done entirely non-objectively - i.e., the method/system doesn't clearly specify each shot's solution.
What isn't unique to CTE?
Any supposed "greater objectivity" than other methods/systems.
I have never seen any other aiming method described in any modern instructional material published before Hal came on the scene that was close to what Hal put out.
It also hasn't been imitated since. You probably think this means it's better.

pj
chgo
 
The only truly objective parts of any aiming method/system is the few physical "references" it uses (if any). The most common of these (and a central part of CTE) is fractional ball overlaps.

The important part of aiming - using these references to find the final aim line for each different shot - is done entirely non-objectively - i.e., the method/system doesn't clearly specify each shot's solution.

Any supposed "greater objectivity" than other methods/systems.

It also hasn't been imitated since. You probably think this means it's better.

pj
chgo

OK, THAT was funny.

Lou Figueroa
 
The only truly objective parts of any aiming method/system is the few physical "references" it uses (if any). The most common of these (and a central part of CTE) is fractional ball overlaps.

The important part of aiming - using these references to find the final aim line for each different shot - is done entirely non-objectively - i.e., the method/system doesn't clearly specify each shot's solution.

Any supposed "greater objectivity" than other methods/systems.

It also hasn't been imitated since. You probably think this means it's better.

pj
chgo
You're wrong but have no idea why you are wrong.

In the intervening 20 years a lot of new material is out.

Along with a lot of new objective systems.
 
Spider, Low, JB: why do you guys keep responding to the trolls? It's a little nuts to keep putting wood in this fire. Meet us over on FB and let it go... Anyone who has ever even once tried to post something approaching a constructive question, observation or instruction about these 3 letters has been flamed to the end of the earth. Why keep doing it? There's now a vetted group of people who actually want to learn and share. The bullies and trolls have been filtered out. It's quite refreshing.
 
Spider, Low, JB: why do you guys keep responding to the trolls? It's a little nuts to keep putting wood in this fire. Meet us over on FB and let it go... Anyone who has ever even once tried to post something approaching a constructive question, observation or instruction about these 3 letters has been flamed to the end of the earth. Why keep doing it? There's now a vetted group of people who actually want to learn and share. The bullies and trolls have been filtered out. It's quite refreshing.
You're spot on with that, my man.(y)(y)(y)
 
Back
Top