A diagram would be nice.
CTE and a 2x1 Surface Explored
- Thread starter Dan White
- Start date
Lol, well yeah, lots of extra movement tends to add subjectivity into an otherwise objective task.
Center to edge is an initial alignment. Just as center to center could be an initial alignment.
The contact point has to move.
And what else?
A fundamentally subjective task can become substantially more objective with the addition of objective reference points.
Let's take just one example, a three rail shot. If one is just guessing then that shot is likely to be very inconsistent. If one finds the spot on the wall that is on the three trail track and aims to have the object ball go towards that spot then the shot gets way more consistent. That's an example where the introduction of an objective reference makes it much easier to aim for that particular shot.
And when the shooter is an expert at using a diamond system then the shot gets even easier to aim.
Or will you maintain that using a diamond system is no different than just guessing?
I think Stan has refined the system more than anything. Sure, mistakes have been made and corrected. Language has been improved. The pivots were a way to get you close to the NISL, but now we have language and method to take you straight to one of two NISLs (left or right). Before we had stepping, we used a 1/2 tip offset to get really close, guiding our eyes to the correct NISL, then pivoting to that. What I think would have helped the language (before stepping) is that you are pivoting to a CCB that you can already see, and NOT a CCB you are discovering with the pivot. It's water under the bridge because now you don't even need the pivot, you can slide your bridge and cue into the stepped cueball NISL in one smooth motion.
As for center-to-edge (as in center of CB to edge of OB) being part of every shot, I think that seemed important early on, but that has turned out to be a misnomer. You still always use the CENTER and EDGE of the CB for every perception, but the given perception (15/30/45/60) dictates what aim points to use on the OB. IMHO this is now much better defined with consistent alignments. The old method still gave a consistent shot picture, but now it's even easier to see and use.
For the 45 the SL is 1/2 inch off the OB. Same thing every time. The paper marker is for learning, training wheels. Once you know the shot picture, it's the same over and over. The nice thing about the 45 is you still have two lines on the OB: the AL and the PX line. I use them all the time for 45s. The PX line is a nice addition we didn't have before, now with SL and AL being "parallel". I put that in quotes because it's parallel only on paper for describing, but our eyes see in parallax so they are technically slightly converging.
Last edited:
I do know it can be an addendum to pool; just not a good one. What I think it is, is configuration for a cyber interface. Looks like there will be much more development in that area.
I maintain that "just guessing" doesn't exist except as your insecure need to imagine a way of aiming that yours can be better than.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
So you know absolutely nothing about CTE but speak out against it anyway.
I can buy into the idea that he has found better ways of describing the same thing, but not everything falls into that category. Stan had that 5 shot video where everything was an A perception. Clearly it was wrong and many of us were shouting out loud about that. Stan refused to acknowledge the error. Even Neil told me in a pm that he told Stan he was doing something different and he said Stan got angry with him for suggesting that. I wish I had saved that pm because the usual suspects here call me a liar when I mention it. Well, whaddya know, Stan finally says there was something wrong with what he does in that video and he takes it down without apology. Of course, he finds a way to say the video was wrong but it was still right at the same time.
Getting rid of the CTE aspect of CTE is completely different. It is a major change that coincidentally still puts you on the shot line, and this goes back to my point.
You have made a foregone conclusion that there is a magic, mysterious connection with the table that allows CTE Pro1 to essentially do the aiming for you. Why is it not possible that Stan has gotten this wrong, too? He has changed so many things over the years yet it worked just as well 10 years ago as it does now? I know this because you have all been telling us how great CTE works for so many years. How about, just maybe, that it isn't all this perception, pivot, sweep, parallax stuff and more simply that the player, over time, finds a way to pocket balls using CTE as a pre shot routine?
Stan goes over the "famous 5" corrected in his book.
I'm curious if you have been able to get the system to work with the instructions provided.
Ok, my apologies if this is a little off topic, but this thread seems to be getting the most traffic so I may as well plop it in here...
Part of the discussion is that CTE is an 'objective' aiming system correct...? If that's truly the case, then why does one have to practice with the system to reach success...? If it is honestly objective, then I should be able to set up any shot, find the line using the 'objective' method (that means there's only one correct alignment) pull the trigger and make the shot. No guess work (objective) then no opportunity to miss.
So if we remove mishaps in stroke mechanics from the equation, then the CTE method will produce 100% success on every shot. ...yes/no?
If that's the case, then I'm willing to offer myself up for test. My mechanics are as sound as anyone's, pro or not. ...and yes I realize that sounds pompous but in my and several other's view, it's true.
If I read the CTE instructions and perform the method correctly, I would suspect my potting average to be well over 95% on what most would consider difficult shots.
Does the above sound reasonable...?..., (assuming you believe my claim regarding my mechanics)
Part of the discussion is that CTE is an 'objective' aiming system correct...? If that's truly the case, then why does one have to practice with the system to reach success...? If it is honestly objective, then I should be able to set up any shot, find the line using the 'objective' method (that means there's only one correct alignment) pull the trigger and make the shot. No guess work (objective) then no opportunity to miss.
So if we remove mishaps in stroke mechanics from the equation, then the CTE method will produce 100% success on every shot. ...yes/no?
If that's the case, then I'm willing to offer myself up for test. My mechanics are as sound as anyone's, pro or not. ...and yes I realize that sounds pompous but in my and several other's view, it's true.
If I read the CTE instructions and perform the method correctly, I would suspect my potting average to be well over 95% on what most would consider difficult shots.
Does the above sound reasonable...?..., (assuming you believe my claim regarding my mechanics)
I think this is largely because CTE is different, and even though the instructions are clear, it still takes time to familiarize yourself with what the correct shot picture looks like. Some people can pick up on the basics very quickly, others it may take more time. The "Objective" part of it is the concise and repeatable steps. It's odd and different at first, but becomes very natural with some practice. "Objective" doesn't necessarily mean easy to recognize and execute, as you seem to think. For instance, say you are a fairly newcomer to pool. A center-to-center straight in shot can be seen as "objective", however, learning to line up your cue on that line perfectly (from your own visual acuity) and delivering a straight stroke, consistently and repeatedly, takes practice. CTE is different, and you are a newcomer to CTE perceptions at first go. Old habits of target-aiming may even inhibit your early progress. But practice will bring it all around in short order.
If CTE was simply built upon your existing aiming physics, then I'd agree it would be quick to understand and use. But instead, CTE uses a very different way of sighting CB/OB relationships from what we are familiar with. Therefore, experiencing what these visuals look like (even with the specific instructions) takes some time.
Last edited:
how insightful.
This is what I think 'objective' means:
ob·jec·tive
adjective
1.1.
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
So please don't assume I mean something other than the definitions of the words I use. Forgive me if that seems overly frank. Just saying you shouldn't expect me to stretch the meanings of what I write.
So I'm clueless regarding the CTE method. However if it is 'objective' then it should be easy enough for me to set up a shot, follow the method to find the CB to OB aim line, and shoot. There should be no interpretation what so ever in this practice. I've watched some of John's vids, and he'll go through the motions saying that "this is this amount of a cut", "so I find CTE", "shift to 3" (or something), "walk into the shot and shift my body to the shot line"... etc. I'm paraphrasing so please don't take the quotes literally.
-So finding the center to edge alignment from CB to OB is objective
-Knowing the cut number based on the OB pocket line I would also imagine is objective
-The PSR mechanics are probably up to the user so not objective
-The shift into the shot line is the key to the whole thing it seems, so although it doesn't appear to be, lets call it objective.
So why can't the above be drawn out by one person and followed by another...? If you do your CTE calc and provide me with a path to shoot the CB down, then the OB should drop in the pocket. If that's not the case, then how can it be an 'objective' system...?
I'll share something I discovered at the table the other day, in an effort to dissect how CTE perception works. This is in no way part of the official instructions, so take it with a grain of salt.
You may recall the old "floating finger trick" from grade school:
If not, just hold your arms straight out, index fingers point to each other, and focus past your fingers on the wall across the room. You'll see the illusion of a "floating finger". This is because of our parallax vision from two focal sources (our eyes).
Now, put the CB and OB one diamond apart on the table, and then stand behind the CB, down on the shot like you are going to shoot, such that your face is about one diamond behind the CB. Focus on the OB. What you'll see in your peripheral vision is two cueballs thickly overlapping each other. Again two sources of focus, two objects in our nearer vision to what we have focus on. You can also check this by closing each eye individually and thus seeing each cueball individually.
Armed with that information, now we get into specifics about the AL and SL alignment. Again will stick to the 30 perception. The AL is always aligned to the OB center and the CB edge. I like to start with my head poked way too far out so both AL and SL are clearly off the OB, then slowly move my head back toward the shot until the AL first touches the OB center. Now we know the correct eye is on the AL. Now for the SL. The SL is CB center to OB edge. However, there will technically be two separate cueballs overlapping each other while focused on the OB. So what happens is the SL becomes aligned to the apex of where the two cueballs overlap. That is the perfect "shot picture". Normally you don't even need to think about this, it is what comes naturally though a bit of practice. But it's just a detail I discovered experimenting. Maybe it's step toward unlocking the visual phenomena?
You may recall the old "floating finger trick" from grade school:
If not, just hold your arms straight out, index fingers point to each other, and focus past your fingers on the wall across the room. You'll see the illusion of a "floating finger". This is because of our parallax vision from two focal sources (our eyes).
Now, put the CB and OB one diamond apart on the table, and then stand behind the CB, down on the shot like you are going to shoot, such that your face is about one diamond behind the CB. Focus on the OB. What you'll see in your peripheral vision is two cueballs thickly overlapping each other. Again two sources of focus, two objects in our nearer vision to what we have focus on. You can also check this by closing each eye individually and thus seeing each cueball individually.
Armed with that information, now we get into specifics about the AL and SL alignment. Again will stick to the 30 perception. The AL is always aligned to the OB center and the CB edge. I like to start with my head poked way too far out so both AL and SL are clearly off the OB, then slowly move my head back toward the shot until the AL first touches the OB center. Now we know the correct eye is on the AL. Now for the SL. The SL is CB center to OB edge. However, there will technically be two separate cueballs overlapping each other while focused on the OB. So what happens is the SL becomes aligned to the apex of where the two cueballs overlap. That is the perfect "shot picture". Normally you don't even need to think about this, it is what comes naturally though a bit of practice. But it's just a detail I discovered experimenting. Maybe it's step toward unlocking the visual phenomena?