It matters because it would then constitute a false claim. If a player is led to believe CTE will find the shot line for him and he doesn't need to spend hours at the table developing a feel for the shot line, he's going to take that short cut and plop down his money. But what if CTE really depended on that same feel for the shot line? Is that fair to the consumer?
This isn't specifically what is claimed at all. CTE still takes time to learn and master. I will go to say, after spending a decade with the system, that you can reach a level of aiming mastery much quicker than with traditional ROTE aiming. If I were to guess, you can do in < 100,000 shots what would take you 1,000,000 with traditional aiming, and also acquire a higher ball pocketing % and also easier to maintain. So CTE requires less effort for more gain. But not a magic bullet that takes no effort.
Just because you keep saying OBJECTIVE does not make it so.
There is a difference between touting how great your product is through advertising, as in "the greatest case the world has yet seen" versus concrete claims such as "only works on a 2x1 table," "is objective," "negates throw," "does not require the shooter to recognize the shot line to the pocket" and so on.
I have some ideas with mohrt that might shed more light on what is really happening. I just need a little time and effort to get there. We'll see.
There is a lot of slight in these words
You could probably re-word "only works on a 2x1 table" to "only works FOR ALL SHOTS on a table where the pockets form perfect squares." The CTE 15/30/45/60 alignments happen to lead to shot lines for pockets at 90 degree angles. Can you make CTE work on a non 2x1 table, like 2.118? I'd suspect NOT for all shots using the 15/30/45/60 alignments. You'd have to come up with something not CTE. That said, our eyes still see the basic perception principles on any surface, as Stan demonstrates on a kitchen counter top. They just won't necessarily lead to pockets.
As for "is objective", well that's a loaded statement around here
When Stan says CTE is objective, he is implying that you don't estimate the shot line, instead you put your eyes at an offset to see the perfect AL and SL, then step the cueball to see the exact shot line. That can be construed as "objective", as there is only one place for each step that is perfect and ends at the exact shot line. Hal discovered that our perception of two spheres on a 2x1 (see above) table leads us to shot lines with this process. PJ likes to argue that the "choice of perfect perception" is the feel element here. But in reality, there is no choice. The perfect alignment is consistent and repeatable. IMHO far more reliable and maintainable than estimating the shot line through trial and error. Especially on banks and shots where the pocket is far out of our peripheral vision.
As for negating throw, the built-in overcut aids in minimizing CIT for a large majority of shots. You still need to know how to handle CIT to a certain degree, along with speed, spin, table conditions, etc. I don't concern myself about CIT too much, IMHO it's largely overstated. That said, the built-in overcut is not a magical cure for any and all CIT.
As for recognizing the shot line to the pocket, that knowledge is 100% required to choose the correct perception and pivot. Not necessary for execution.