CTE and a 2x1 Surface Explored

Patrick Johnson said:
Not really - it's painfully obvious. Prove me wrong - define "objective" as it applies to aiming.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
As it pertains to CTE, the "objective" matter is that steps are clear, concise, discreet, repeatable. Not left to interpretation. One's ability to accurately execute these steps are not a component of objectiveness. That is a matter of familiarity and eye/muscle coordination. See my center-to-center comparison.
 
mohrt said:
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?
Click to expand...
Forgive me.... AL = 'aim line', SL = 'shot line'....?
 
The_JV said:
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...?
Click to expand...
Yes, thank you for the dictionary definition. So see my "A CTE shot you can try". Tell me what part of those steps is left up to interpretation.
 
mohrt said:
As it pertains to CTE, the "objective" matter is that steps are clear, concise, discreet, repeatable. Not left to interpretation. One's ability to accurately execute these steps are not a component of objectiveness. That is a matter of familiarity and eye/muscle coordination. See my center-to-center comparison.
Click to expand...
So my HAMB method has provided me with a rock solid PSR that remains consistent and provides me with a concise/discreet, and very much repeatable process. Does that mean it's also an objective aiming system...? On a basic cut shot with no other variables in the mix, there is no interpretation to how I need to strike the OB with the CB to pot the OB.
 
mohrt said:
Yes, thank you for the dictionary definition. So see my "A CTE shot you can try". Tell me what part of those steps is left up to interpretation.
Click to expand...
Ok I will... ...and appologies if the dictionary definition was met poorly. I thought it hypocritical to claim to have a handle on objectiveness but post my "interpretation" of the wording of its definition...lol
 
The_JV said:
So my HAMB method has provided me with a rock solid PSR that remains consistent and provides me with a concise/discreet, and very much repeatable process. Does that mean it's also an objective aiming system...? On a basic cut shot with no other variables in the mix, there is no interpretation to how I need to strike the OB with the CB to pot the OB.
Click to expand...
Aside from your estimation of the contact point to pocket the ball, I'd say its pretty objective from there.
 
mohrt said:
Aside from your estimation of the contact point to pocket the ball, I'd say its pretty objective from there.
Click to expand...
There is no estimation... The results of two spheres striking with one another at varying angles isn't guess work.
 
The_JV said:
There is no estimation... The results of two spheres striking with one another at varying angles isn't guess work.
Click to expand...
Ah ok. Then by your definition, if you can identify the contact point perfectly with no guess work, I'd call that objective. Does that work on banks too?
 
mohrt said:
Yes, thank you for the dictionary definition. So see my "A CTE shot you can try". Tell me what part of those steps is left up to interpretation.
Click to expand...
I'd comment but as you requested in that thread, I should not because I haven't tried the shot.

I wasn't surprised that Pat's question in the second post was ignored. That was literally the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw the shot grid, and read that the potting line doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
mohrt said:
Ah ok. Then by your definition, if you can identify the contact point perfectly with no guess work, I'd call that objective. Does that work on banks too?
Click to expand...
Contact point...?..., certainly. Aim is an entirely different matter. Lots of variables in the mix that can potentially cause a miss.

I'm not a bank player. Way more often than not, I opt to avoid banks. Too many equipment based unknowns too bother with. Usually better options if a bank is in the mix. That said, I'd wager I'm >80% of the ones I do attempt. Albeit a small number.
 
mohrt said:
As it pertains to CTE, the "objective" matter is that steps are clear, concise, discreet, repeatable. Not left to interpretation.
Click to expand...
20+ years and videos later you still maintain CTE's steps are clear, concise, discreet, repeatable and not left to interpretation?

Dude, that horse is dead and buried.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
20+ years and videos later you still maintain CTE's steps are clear, concise, discreet, repeatable and not left to interpretation?

Dude, that horse is dead and buried.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
The whole shift your head till your eyes are lined up to imaginary lines thing has me thinking this isn't really all that objective.

Kinda like the instructions to blur your vision until you see the ship in the background of some weird looking picture.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
20+ years and videos later you still maintain CTE's steps are clear, concise, discreet, repeatable and not left to interpretation?

Dude, that horse is dead and buried.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
The_JV said:
I'd comment but as you requested in that thread, I should not because I haven't tried the shot.

I wasn't surprised that Pat's question in the second post was ignored. That was literally the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw the shot grid, and read that the potting line doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
ok, so give it a go?
 
The_JV said:
I'd comment but as you requested in that thread, I should not because I haven't tried the shot.

I wasn't surprised that Pat's question in the second post was ignored. That was literally the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw the shot grid, and read that the potting line doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
That is correct. The shot line isn't something you aim at. CCB is your target. The pocket is used only to identify the proper perception.
 
mohrt said:
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.
Click to expand...
I can't get it to work by the instruction you gave. Pointing the face toward the pocket is a big issue for me. How much? There are varying degrees that you can offset your face. You or someone said you just have to do it until it works and then you know you have it right. That, IMO, is basically HAMB. If you have to back out the parameters of the aiming system by pocketing the balls and then figure out how you did that then it is not a system. I also cannot see a "new" ccb when looking at the edge of the cb. I find there to be a significant amount of leeway in each of these steps.
 
The_JV said:
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)
Click to expand...
Join the club! Here's a control test for you. Learn the A shots for Poolology. Should take 5 minutes to read. Try it on the table. Worked first time I tried it. No months of practice (HAMB) until it "clicked."
 
mohrt said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why was Low500 taking home all the cash, as he put it, a week after he learned CTE?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top