CTE automatically corrects stroke issues

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
OK, sounds like a semantic difference to me - I think you're doing stuff in there that adds up to what I call aiming. I do things very much like that (no formal aiming routine), but just more aware of the parts that I consider "aiming related".

Like most things in pool, which is best probably depends on the player.

pj
chgo

Of course he is aiming. Pretty sure I have video of his entire process from start to finish to examine. Can't say for sure but I seem to remember a few times where he checks the aiming, gets down, gets up checks again, gets down and so on. What Lou wants to do here is relegate "aiming" to "something that happens automagically" when a person has "spent a long time" developing a set of body motions that one consistently does before taking the shot. In other words, another way of saying that aiming is just a by-product of developing a straight stroke.
And I’m certain John will see it exactly the same way, lol.

Lou Figueroa
With one major exception. I think that there are objective aiming systems available now which give the user a much higher degree of confidence in the aiming and which are not at all incompatible with all of the textbook pre-shot routine steps that are considered the pinnacle of pool fundamentals. Thus while a good pre-shot routine with no special emphasis on consciously and objectively aiming can certainly "work" for a person satisfactorily there is no evidence that this works better than a person with an equally good pre-shot routine AND who uses an objective aiming system that resolves to the shot line consistently.

While you can certainly state "aiming happens" without describing any useful mechanism of how it happens other than the circular "by using a solid pre-shot routine the proper selection of the shot line just happens", this doesn't really help any other person to aim better. It is in fact similar to when I say that a proficient cte user gets the correct result. The key word is proficient. So a player with a proficient PSR is likely to experience more successful outcomes than one without a proficient PSR due to the effort, years I think you said, expended to have a proficient PSR.

With CTE and other aiming systems the singular focus is on isolating the aiming process. This allows the user to master several techniques and to make adjustments and tweaks based on the objectivity and consistency with confidence in the shot line chosen. With that shot line they can employ their fundamentals in the form of the formal and deliberate pre-shot routine. All the same body motions that you would make after getting into shooting position, with the same stroke structure are possible for an aiming system user. And the teaching of aiming systems uses step-by-step instructions with some extra skill building training the eyes to focus on objective relational lines between the cueball and object ball, and by training the brain to accurately subdivide the cueball into halves and the object ball into quarters for some of the aiming systems. Others require the user to establish positions in zones for the purpose of doing simple math to uncover the amount of fractional overlap that corresponds to the correct shot line as seen from the shooter's perspective behind the cueball. Because these systems can be taught the same way anywhere on earth they become a sort of aiming language for those who know them.

So with a person whose "aiming" is wrapped into the PSR with perhaps simple self-conversations like a little thinner/thicker guiding the aim they can't really look at a diagrammed shot and tell another person EXACTLY how to aim it. But an aiming system user can look at a diagramed shot and give an answer that contains a "solution" that another user of the same system can apply without even bothering to double check it and that solution is likely to be correct.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Does your PSR then always put you on the right shot line? If you miss then why do you miss? Bad PSR?

Are you that stupid? That myopic? That helpless?

I miss because:
I am human and not a robot;
I miss because I misjudge the amount of spin needed to be applied;
I miss because I hit the shot too hard or perhaps too soft;
I miss because the room/cloth is humid;
i miss because I didn't fully understand the physics of the shot;
And on and on.

Pool is as much art as it is science. And guess what? Your treasured Pro1 has all the same issues and more.

Lou Figueroa
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thus while a good pre-shot routine with no special emphasis on consciously and objectively aiming can certainly "work" for a person satisfactorily there is no evidence that this works better than a person with an equally good pre-shot routine AND who uses an objective aiming system that resolves to the shot line consistently.
Obviously you are talking about CTE. You might consider to stop saying this until you have done your table experiments to see if it is actually true. Science and logic says it is not but I'm always open to being convinced otherwise.
 

8pack

They call me 2 county !
Silver Member
Are you that stupid? That myopic? That helpless?

I miss because:
I am human and not a robot;
I miss because I misjudge the amount of spin needed to be applied;
I miss because I hit the shot too hard or perhaps too soft;
I miss because the room/cloth is humid;
i miss because I didn't fully understand the physics of the shot;
And on and on.

Pool is as much art as it is science. And guess what? Your treasured Pro1 has all the same issues and more.

Lou Figueroa
Nice post and very true.

I hit that to hard...to slow is my excuse usually.lol
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Obviously you are talking about CTE. You might consider to stop saying this until you have done your table experiments to see if it is actually true. Science and logic says it is not but I'm always open to being convinced otherwise.
I am speaking of any system that resolves to the shot line.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Are you that stupid? That myopic? That helpless?

I miss because:
I am human and not a robot;
I miss because I misjudge the amount of spin needed to be applied;
I miss because I hit the shot too hard or perhaps too soft;
I miss because the room/cloth is humid;
i miss because I didn't fully understand the physics of the shot;
And on and on.

Pool is as much art as it is science. And guess what? Your treasured Pro1 has all the same issues and more.

Lou Figueroa
Ok, so you guess and sometimes you make shots and sometimes you don't.

Because, you're a human. So when other humans miss less than you are they more accurate humans? And if those other humans are using systematic aiming is it possible that the aiming method they use contributes to the higher degree of accuracy?
 

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I’ve asked you several times for details and don’t remember you posting any
Why would you remember anything other than P1? The reason I'm on AZ is more or less Chen's (I think his name is Chen - Joey in Cali I believe, knows who) Center Point Roll diagramming on Cue Table. Other members cited the method in a "how do you aim" thread which I can't find. Suffice it to say that CG is common if not exactly widely accepted knowledge. AFAIC, the only reason for other approaches are they are easier to obfuscate and ration.
 

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
No it does not. You will not find one diagram anywhere that uses the term contact geometry which instructs a human how to apply "contact geometry" for the task of aiming.

You're literally like a child who keeps interrupting the adults with your new favorite term that has nothing to do with the topic.

We keep indulging you because we are polite when really you just need to be ignored. You and duckie are probably the same person.

Duckie trolls with his "no such thing as a half-ball hit" nonsense and yours is this "contact geometry" nonsense.

The entire volume of your posts sprinkling that bs is worthless to the topic.

Nothing I have said was ever "wrecked" by anything you have said so nothing to salvage. Even Pat Johnson makes more sense than you and he is never going to understand Center to Edge aiming.
Man give it up already. You're a phony. Made and done. I coined the CG reference because it's less text than equal angle opposites, contact point roll/aiming, reciprocal sections/tangents - all essentially geometric ways to socket the cue ball.
 

boogieman

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
While you can certainly state "aiming happens" without describing any useful mechanism of how it happens other than the circular "by using a solid pre-shot routine the proper selection of the shot line just happens", this doesn't really help any other person to aim better. It is in fact similar to when I say that a proficient cte user gets the correct result. The key word is proficient. So a player with a proficient PSR is likely to experience more successful outcomes than one without a proficient PSR due to the effort, years I think you said, expended to have a proficient PSR.
I've tried many aiming systems in the past, always looking for something that works the best. Personally, anecdotally, I've found what works best for me is to see the tracks/physical space the OB has to roll to go into the pocket/target while standing. It's part of my PSR. I keep my eyes on that spot/area of OB as I walk back behind the CB. It's not really a spot, but I keep the visual reference in my sight as I walk back. The act of walking back with this visual in lock lets my mind extrapolate the hit needed. As you walk the visuals obviously change, similar to the effect gearing has on the balls. Think of it as a 3D scan. Now that I've been grinding a good PSR into my routine, I've also found that I come down exactly where I need to be. No shaft wobble from misalignment, just dead straight stroke. If the practice strokes waver, I know I'm not in the correct position and do the Dr. Dave stance dance shuffle. If it's still not straight I get back up and re-do the process. The key is to keep the visual lock from standing, if your eyes are seeing the target, pre-geared, keep your eyes where they need to be and the body will be correct with practice. The eyes lead, the body follows. Your eyes are what see the target (no matter what target you're going for), unless your eyes stay perfect on the target, your stance will suffer somewhat.

If you've ever seen videos of chicken's heads stabilizing while they are moved around this will make sense. I keep the shot picture stabilized while I walk back to the shot. Imagine a piece of cracked corn on the OB and how a chicken would follow it as you move them back behind the CB. That chicken is in the proper orientation to peck that corn up in one bite at all times.

This works very well. You know that CTE aims while standing, it's similar to that but without the OB references. I now sometimes take two visual references, an edge and center of CB and get the NISL, only it's not on an ABC reference, but where I know I need to hit it when the spheres collide. I've found that that's really all that is needed for aiming as long as your stroke is true. If I'm applying english I will also pivot in a way that negates deflection. When I pivot I do re-align my vision with a "head poke" or just getting my PVC in the correct spot when needed.

So I guess in ten thousand words I've managed to say, see the shot, shoot the shot. There's nothing novel about my approach though, any successful shot, no matter what system will give the same result. Having your PSR dialed in and letting the eyes lead and your feet follow as you get into stance will instantly tell you if you're misaligned. It shows up in any waver in your shaft. So in essence you could say any aiming system will straighten your stroke as long as you incorporate a good PSR. You can't have a straight stroke unless you have a target to be straight with.

I'm in no way knocking CTE but my only issue is the ABC stuff. It works and you can make all shots with those references, but to me it feels limiting. It feels limiting, yet if one were to practice those hits only, you can make it work well. In a game with a million different shots needed, it only makes sense that it takes time to become proficient, no matter what system.

 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Obviously you are talking about CTE. You might consider to stop saying this until you have done your table experiments to see if it is actually true. Science and logic says it is not but I'm always open to being convinced otherwise.

A real world experiment a few years ago proved a PSR approach is better that a CTE approach : - )

Lou Figueroa
Ok, so you guess and sometimes you make shots and sometimes you don't.

Because, you're a human. So when other humans miss less than you are they more accurate humans? And if those other humans are using systematic aiming is it possible that the aiming method they use contributes to the higher degree of accuracy?

When others miss less its because they execute better and perhaps spent more time playing.

i'm just a recreational player. If I had spent my life just playing pool I would miss less. And an aiming system does not provide you with the repeatable mechanics you need to excel at pool.

If you were to put a micro-dot on the CB placed exactly where your Pro1 dictates, there is absolutely nothing about that micro-dot that is going to get all your body parts in the right places, and cause those body parts to generate the right movements, to make the OB and control the CB with precision.

Lou Figueroa
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Nobody in the history of pool has ever said "resolves the shot line" before Stan so we know what you are talking about.
Just because a person coined a term doesn't mean it can't be used elsewhere. You have stated as a matter of fact that poolology gives the shot solution, which means gives the shot line. Which is another way of saying resolves to the correct shot line by following instructions.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Just because a person coined a term doesn't mean it can't be used elsewhere. You have stated as a matter of fact that poolology gives the shot solution, which means gives the shot line. Which is another way of saying resolves to the correct shot line by following instructions.
It is the only system proven to provide the shot line so far, except maybe also the Joe Tucker number system.
 

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
It is the only system proven to provide the shot line so far, except maybe also the Joe Tucker number system.
poolology gives you the center cue ball to where to aim line to make the shot.
tuckers numbers give you where on the curvature of the cue ball has to hit on the proper place on the curvature of the object ball to make the shot.
i do not use CTE nor pretend to completely understand CTE so i will make no other comments
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
A real world experiment a few years ago proved a PSR approach is better that a CTE approach : - )

Lou Figueroa
Yes that experiment clearly highlighted that bad fundamentals are able to destroy good aiming. All other things being equal the number of opportunities generated by a person who aims accurately but is inconsistent with the execution will not be available when a person both aims correctly and executes correctly.

When others miss less its because they execute better and perhaps spent more time playing.

i'm just a recreational player. If I had spent my life just playing pool I would miss less. And an aiming system does not provide you with the repeatable mechanics you need to excel at pool.
True, aiming is not what hits the ball. Aiming only gets the player in a position to hit the ball along a line that should make the ball if the ball is struck properly. First you aim, then you shoot.

An aiming system can however be a great tool to compliment solid fundamentals. Such as when a player struggles to break 150 and after learning an aiming system they break 200 and credit the aiming system with the improvement.

If you were to put a micro-dot on the CB placed exactly where your Pro1 dictates, there is absolutely nothing about that micro-dot that is going to get all your body parts in the right places, and cause those body parts to generate the right movements, to make the OB and control the CB with precision.

Lou Figueroa
Right, a single dot by itself is not sufficient. The process in a good aiming system isn't focused on a single dot, it is used to get the body aligned to a shot line that runs through that dot. Whether the shooter can deliver the cue straight through that "dot" on the line belongs to fundamentals. HOWEVER, If I person has a straight stroke but they are constantly unable to aim correctly, even slightly off, then they are likely to develop stroke issues trying to reconcile the results of stroking straight and missing. They learn to "gear/throw" the ball in even if just a little "helper english" done subconsciously.


It is the only system proven to provide the shot line so far, except maybe also the Joe Tucker number system.
Well I wouldn't say "proven" but I would say that you claim it is so therefore my statement stands as likely to be true as I stated it.
 
Last edited:

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Nobody in the history of pool has ever said "resolves the shot line" before Stan so we know what you are talking about.
Also what does resolve to the shot mean? Doesn't ghost ball "resolve to the shot line" if one says that they used ghost ball and they adopted a line that goes to GB center and it is correct?

Why is it so hard to understand that if a person is told to do four steps and take the line given and when they do the line is correct then THOSE steps are what gave them a usable shot line. EVEN IF in some part of that the subconscious automagically forced the person to do something physical that the user is COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF the FACT is that the process CONSCIOUSLY followed is what PRODUCED the shot line.

So if it COMPLETELY ACCURATE to say that the system resolved to the shot line. Since we are talking about LITERAL perceptual choices with clear definitions and a step by step guide to learning to correctly align to those perceptions coupled with directions on how to move the head to use the eyes in a particular way and to do all of this CONSCIOUSLY and DELIBERATELY at the end of that process the user adopts a line and when that line is correct then it IS the method that did it.

Whether or not you agree with the process the fact is that "resolves to the shot line" is merely a way of describing the successful usage of a method to get to the shot line.
 

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
279 posts so far
this thread is ALMOST as good as AS THE WORLD TURNS was....... 😂 😂
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Obviously you are talking about CTE. You might consider to stop saying this until you have done your table experiments to see if it is actually true. Science and logic says it is not but I'm always open to being convinced otherwise.

A real world experiment a few years ago proved a PSR approach is better that a CTE approach : - )

Lou Figueroa
Ok, so you guess and sometimes you make shots and sometimes you don't.

Because, you're a human. So when other humans miss less than you are they more accurate humans? And if those other humans are using systematic aiming is it possible that the aiming method they use contributes to the higher degree of accuracy?

When others miss less its because they execute better and perhaps spent more time playing.

i'm just a recreational player. If I had spent my life just playing pool I would miss less. And an aiming system does not provide you with the repeatable mechanics you need to excel at pool.

If you were to put a micro-dot on the CB placed exactly where your Pro1 dictates, there is absolutely nothing about that micro-dot that is going to get all your body parts in the right places, and cause those body parts to generate the right movements, to make the OB and control the CB with precision.

Lou Figueroa
Yes that experiment clearly highlighted that bad fundamentals are able to destroy good aiming. All other things being equal the number of opportunities generated by a person who aims accurately but is inconsistent with the execution will not be available when a person both aims correctly and executes correctly.


True, aiming is not what hits the ball. Aiming only gets the player in a position to hit the ball along a line that should make the ball if the ball is struck properly. First you aim, then you shoot.

An aiming system can however be a great tool to compliment solid fundamentals. Such as when a player struggles to break 150 and after learning an aiming system they break 200 and credit the aiming system with the improvement.


Right, a single dot by itself is not sufficient. The process in a good aiming system isn't focused on a single dot, it is used to get the body aligned to a shot line that runs through that dot. Whether the shooter can deliver the cue straight through that "dot" on the line belongs to fundamentals. HOWEVER, If I person has a straight stroke but they are constantly unable to aim correctly, even slightly off, then they are likely to develop stroke issues trying to reconcile the results of stroking straight and missing. They learn to "gear/throw" the ball in even if just a little "helper english" done subconsciously.



Well I wouldn't say "proven" but I would say that you claim it is so therefore my statement stands as likely to be true as a stated it.

No, aiming doesn't get a player in a position, much less all the body parts, and certainly does not produce an accurate and repeatable stroke.

And when an aiming system, like Pro1, needs 6lbs of exposition to be explained and understood, that is basically 6lbs of toxic sludge between a player's ears.

Lou Figueroa
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
A real world experiment a few years ago proved a PSR approach is better that a CTE approach : - )

Lou Figueroa


When others miss less its because they execute better and perhaps spent more time playing.

i'm just a recreational player. If I had spent my life just playing pool I would miss less. And an aiming system does not provide you with the repeatable mechanics you need to excel at pool.

If you were to put a micro-dot on the CB placed exactly where your Pro1 dictates, there is absolutely nothing about that micro-dot that is going to get all your body parts in the right places, and cause those body parts to generate the right movements, to make the OB and control the CB with precision.

Lou Figueroa


No, aiming doesn't get a player in a position, much less all the body parts, and certainly does not produce an accurate and repeatable stroke.

And when an aiming system, like Pro1, needs 6lbs of exposition to be explained and understood, that is basically 6lbs of toxic sludge between a player's ears.

Lou Figueroa
Yes it does get the body into position. That's the whole point of aiming. The aiming directs where the cue gets put down. There is a finite amount of space where the cue can go to have any chance of sending the cue ball towards the object ball and making the object ball go where the shooter expects it to go. Whether the aiming is accurate and whether the shooter can execute accurately are separate actions but are also intertwined. Inaccurate aiming can force a player to compensate with the result being a stroke that adds unwanted spin to achieve the goal. A bad stroke can send the cueball off the correct shot line.

Just because you can't understand something doesn't make it invalid.

You're a slighty above average player in a sea of slightly above average players. You have your beliefs just like everyone else.

There are many players around your age with similar levels of experience and skill who don't believe as you do when it comes to how to play pool.

You stated what "works" for you but you are unwilling to allow others to have their beliefs about what works for them. You ran 150 and someone else who uses cte ran 200 so clearly whatever they are doing works better for them than whatever you are doing works for you.

So what if someone produced two DVDs and large book on one aiming system? How pathetic is it to spend any portion of your day putting down that effort and putting down those who use that information.

Very pathetic in my opinion.

Here is another recreational player who uses CTE. Tell me when you break 200.


What was your issue here? Aiming? PSR? Lack of knowledge?


Walk us through this miss at 5:37 was it a bad part?


How about this one?

Bad PSR? I mean your stroke was nice and smooth and straight. So was it bad aiming? Wait, you don't aim and you say a perfect PSR includes perfect aiming. Help us out here.


Now this one seems a touch trickier than the others but it kind of feels like you didn't spend a lot of time looking at it. Is this the autopilot mode that comes with an excellent PSR that you talk about?


Continued.....
 
Last edited:
Top