Coming Soon... the end of all aiming system calculating.
- Thread starter 3andstop
- Start date
Neil said:
You obviously don't truly understand CTE and how it really works nor the science involved, and are therefore unable to understand the proof that has been repeatedly given on how CTE does not even come close to reliably giving the correct aiming line without aiming compensation from the user based on their experience. This is the catch 22 impasse I mentioned earlier in another post I quoted below so I'm bowing out for now. And I truly do not mean any offense at all, some people just understand science type things better than others, just like some are better salespeople than others, or more artistic or imaginative than others, etc.
"I mean no offense whatsoever by this to anyone, but I think what this argument comes down to, is that because it is science related, some people have the intellect to understand the science involved, and some don't. I certainly don't understand nuclear fission, and not everybody understands the proof of how this is not a physically valid system. For those that lack the capability of understanding the science, it is an obstacle that cannot be overcome. You can't prove it to them because they don't have the capability of understandng the proof, just like I wouldn't understand the proof about how "x" theory on nuclear fission won't work."
First of all, you are the one who stated my opinion is misinformed yet I haven't seen anything to refute it . The way I see it, the onus is on you. However, I don't appear to have made my point so I'll try this. Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTtZqAnxyxo
If a person used some kind of aiming system to calculate where to hit the ball each time, tell me how this player could make these 36 shots in less than 6 minutes with perfect precision to score the maximum possible points in that frame. You don't need to know anything about snooker to appreciate the shooting.
Here's me making a shot. I stand behind it and pick the spot on the object ball I need to hit. I place my body with correct alignment behind the shot. When I'm bent over, there is already a straight line from the butt to the tip of the cue through the cueball to the correct spot on the object ball. I don't use any system, ghost or otherwise. It's all one smooth process from address to practice stroke to completed shot. If I had to stop and calculate what the system tells me each time, it would take me so completely out of my game I would immediately suffer from paralysis by analysis. Too many details like using the side of my cue to aim when using side would just throw me off. If you can't understand this I suggest you hire a sports psychologist because I'm not a coach and that's the best I can do to explain.
I use cte with fractional and it works for me. I know that cte or half ball is a 30 degree shot and that is my reference point and from there I can judge 1/4 or 3/4 ball. I play enough that I line up correct 90+ % of the time but when I feel a shot may not be right I will step back and evaluate it. I play a pretty fast pace and do this quickly, knowing how both these systems work and their limitations is the key. You must put time on the table and keep your stroke straight before these will ever help. Before I utilized a systematic way to find an angle I played a B speed, now I am an A player (weaker A player but improving quickly). CTE may not be a proven system but It works on an array of shots that some people may be weak on and making shots that are normally missed gives you more confidence. Now, for me there is no hard shot on the table, I have a method to address any angle anywhere with 100% more confidence, it has definitely helped and would not count CTE out as being useless.
Neil said:
All I see is that when someone refuses to consider even the possibility that they subconsciously adjust their aim (and there is no reason to have that position because they can't know for sure that they dont--that's why it's called subconscious), then they are left with no other choice but to insist and believe that it is a physically valid system. At that point their mind is then closed to all the evidence to the contrary no matter what it is. To truly look at CTE objectively, you have to consider that subconscious aiming correction is a possibility, and you truly have no reason to not consider it a possibility.
No hard feelings in any case. What everyone should really do, as has been suggested by someone before, is to hold off on the CTE discussions until Stan's DVD comes out, as he is considered to be THE authority on CTE by ALL the CTE'ers. It has been claimed that his DVD addresses all the holes that the "naysayers" have exposed in the system, and some of the "naysayers" are sure to scrutinize it, and it will either still have holes, or it won't (if Stan can't fill in the holes nobody can according to all the CTE'ers). Either way somebody is going to be eating crow and then hopefully everyone can consider it settled once and for all. Best to you.
Neil, I'll give my opinion on that. I think with a reference point (edge) you make more accurate adjustments more of the time. If you start throwing darts just at the bullseye the group just gets tighter and you get better at hitting your mark playing the rest of the board. Maybe that was a good analogy.
Not to continue an argument, but some food for thought.
To answer your question we don't know for sure why the system works for you as you describe but suspect a few things that are very likely and would love to get to the bottom of it and find out for sure what factors are involved and how much impact each one has. The best way to get those answers are from the CTE users themselves who are willing to do some really unbiased, objective soul searching as to what all else the system may be helping with aside from an approximate aim line. Some theories that are very reasonable are that because you believe in the system you don't have the same "shot anxiety" and are more mentally confident in the shot and also stroke the shot more confidently (and we all know how important confidence is in pool), or because you have more focus on the object ball, a hyperfocus if you will (and we also know how important focusing on the object ball is), or it may result in more concentration in general instead of just being on "auto pilot," or a simple placebo affect, or any number of other things that could be going on. I think Dr. Dave has a list of suspected possibilities on his site. Why don't you have a look at them and see if you think that CTE could be helping in any of these other areas.
Heck, part of the success of using the system may be that when you start with an aim line that is incorrect, and your mind subconsciously identifies that it is incorrect and then calculates a new correct one, that may give you more confidence in the shot which results in a higher success rate. First having to overcome some wrong information could possibly be a part of the key to why it works. Perhaps there is less indicisiveness or second guessing because of the fact that you had to "overrule" previous aiming information and are in a sense more committed and confident in your aiming calculation than if you had done it from scratch with no system and didn't have to overrule something else.
I think you ARE doing it all the time even though you don't realize it. You know where the contact point is on the object ball for ANY shot in pool, as does anyone that shoots above D speed. There is NO shot that you don't know where to contact the object ball, so subconscious adjustment cannot be ruled out. What you also have to consider is that we miss shots all the time (even routine ones) because of shot anxiety especially if it was a difficult shot, or we just weren't focused on the object ball like we should have been, or we jumped up slightly, or lost our concentration, or stroked tentatively, or for any number of other reasons.Neil said:
To answer your question we don't know for sure why the system works for you as you describe but suspect a few things that are very likely and would love to get to the bottom of it and find out for sure what factors are involved and how much impact each one has. The best way to get those answers are from the CTE users themselves who are willing to do some really unbiased, objective soul searching as to what all else the system may be helping with aside from an approximate aim line. Some theories that are very reasonable are that because you believe in the system you don't have the same "shot anxiety" and are more mentally confident in the shot and also stroke the shot more confidently (and we all know how important confidence is in pool), or because you have more focus on the object ball, a hyperfocus if you will (and we also know how important focusing on the object ball is), or it may result in more concentration in general instead of just being on "auto pilot," or a simple placebo affect, or any number of other things that could be going on. I think Dr. Dave has a list of suspected possibilities on his site. Why don't you have a look at them and see if you think that CTE could be helping in any of these other areas.
We are all on the same page with this one, even all the "naysayers." And in fact, that is our whole point, let's concentrate on figuring out why it works (which will be based in science but probably a science to do with the mind), because we have definitively ruled out one of the ways that it doesn't work, which is as a perfect aim line determiner (and we have, even though some may not understand the science behind the debunking of that part of the system).Neil said:
I think what you are describing as seeing the shot different or better while using the system, is actually the subconscious aiming calculation adjustments that your mind has made from the one that the system gave you that wasn't quite right.Neil said:
Heck, part of the success of using the system may be that when you start with an aim line that is incorrect, and your mind subconsciously identifies that it is incorrect and then calculates a new correct one, that may give you more confidence in the shot which results in a higher success rate. First having to overcome some wrong information could possibly be a part of the key to why it works. Perhaps there is less indicisiveness or second guessing because of the fact that you had to "overrule" previous aiming information and are in a sense more committed and confident in your aiming calculation than if you had done it from scratch with no system and didn't have to overrule something else.
Well I sure can't explain it but I'm certain it can be explained. Now whether or not I'm capable of comprehending the explanation is another issue, and goes back to that catch 22 I mentioned earlier. I may not end up believing the explanation, simply because I'm incapable of understanding it.Neil said:
Last edited:
I'm going to continue running out with CTE/Pro One, something I can actually see.
Not a good example. Because anyone can go to the table and easily disprove such a claim. Why can't you disprove CTE on the pool table?
So that's one, now the second part of your question is what if telling them to hit high worked better than telling them to hit low? Well then in that case there would be a bunch of people out there aiming high and hitting low and getting monster draw. The key phrase is "works better".
I used to have to tell people to shoot the jump shot by trying to hit the cloth. I wanted them to try to go through the ball and drill the tip into the cloth.
Was I stupid to tell people that while teaching them to jump?
No I wasn't because I already knew from my own experience that 99% of the time they wouldn't touch the cloth no matter how they hit the cueball. How did I know this? I filmed myself doing jump shots and studied the dynamics so that I could understand what was happening as opposed to what I thought might be happening.
This is me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3MXuziheWM
I don't have any problem with you wanting to make sure people have the right information. I just think that you should get the right information first before you start in with invalid, delusional, snake oil salesmen, etc...
You complain that no one has given you the correct steps to do CTE. Maybe not, maybe so. But the point is that you don't know. If you knew then you could go to the table with a video camera and say clearly, this is step one, two and three, and then proceed to show your proof of where the system doesn't work if you can prove it.
So you telling someone that a system doesn't work when you don't know the steps to implement it is not "misinformation"?
Which would be fine if you can show which part of it is a mind trick. But for you to be able to do that then you would have know "it" first.
Like what? What sorts of things are you referring to that "it" is said to be doing that "it" isn't?
Define what it is that CTE users say it does that it doesn't. And then prove them wrong on the table.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
Jsut because a person uses a particular method to aim does not mean that they cannot have it so ingrained that it's indistinguishable from not using any particular method at all.
Torbjorn Blohmdahl when interviewed was asked about systems in 3 cushion and he said that all beginning players learn systems and eventually it just becomes natural.
I don't even need to go to your link to know you are talking about Ronnie O'Sullivan.
How can he make 36 balls in six minutes with such precision? Lots of practice, mental toughness and great rhythm as well as having a set in stone aiming method that he has turned into a natural approach.
No one who is in the zone looks mechanical and stiff. Whatever thing they do before shooting is natural and fluid.
I guarantee you that when I get flowing the last thing on your mind is how I am aiming.
Just got my new table all set up and did a few shots using the Mullen Method.
Pretty SPORTY!..........
I set up some cuts that I would estimate were about 85 degrees and sliced them all in pretty as you please using the Mullen Method. And I did it with center ball, left and right spin as well.
Thank you to the original poster for the video. Much appreciated.
I would highly suggest that people give this a try.
Pretty SPORTY!..........
I set up some cuts that I would estimate were about 85 degrees and sliced them all in pretty as you please using the Mullen Method. And I did it with center ball, left and right spin as well.
Thank you to the original poster for the video. Much appreciated.
I would highly suggest that people give this a try.
I really think this is a good system for beginners to get excited about pool with.
I think it really falls apart when the cuts get too thin though. I have spent hours using this system and without making adjustments the thin cuts don't go. But if the beginner understands that and can find a different system for thin cuts then it could be the best system ever to get someone who cant make a ball excited about pool. It's really easy to explain and works on a bunch of shots.
Bravo!
I think it really falls apart when the cuts get too thin though. I have spent hours using this system and without making adjustments the thin cuts don't go. But if the beginner understands that and can find a different system for thin cuts then it could be the best system ever to get someone who cant make a ball excited about pool. It's really easy to explain and works on a bunch of shots.
Bravo!
IMO it can be problematic on thin cuts for the same reason I find GB to be a problem. Finding and holding onto a contact point when it's at a sharp angle away from you is physically challenging. At least it is to me.
However I would think that there is an adjustment that can be made which would allow this method to be used consistently.
I wonder if this is what SVB was talking about when he said he uses his ferrule to aim?
I actually read about this system in one of the cte threads about three months ago and it got no attention whatsoever because the guy just threw it out there so casually.
He basically just said how he uses the edge of his ferrule to aim at the contact point just as simple as that and I tried it and was impressed. As soon as I read the original post in this thread I figured it must be this. I have an adorable thai girlfriend who I want to teach and this might be very useful.
on really thin cuts ghost ball is very unreliable imo. I have always lined up the edge of the cue ball with the edge of the object ball and it's a piece of cake. If the cut is only 70 degrees then I aim a couple millimeters further in from the edge of the cue ball and aim that line at the edge of the object ball.
BTW I just ran my first 4 pack on a nine footer using "memory of what a good shot picture looks like" on about 95 percent of my shots. Systems for the other 5%
He basically just said how he uses the edge of his ferrule to aim at the contact point just as simple as that and I tried it and was impressed. As soon as I read the original post in this thread I figured it must be this. I have an adorable thai girlfriend who I want to teach and this might be very useful.
on really thin cuts ghost ball is very unreliable imo. I have always lined up the edge of the cue ball with the edge of the object ball and it's a piece of cake. If the cut is only 70 degrees then I aim a couple millimeters further in from the edge of the cue ball and aim that line at the edge of the object ball.
BTW I just ran my first 4 pack on a nine footer using "memory of what a good shot picture looks like" on about 95 percent of my shots. Systems for the other 5%
Didn't think you could, after all what exactly do you know about how CTE works?