CTE automatically corrects stroke issues

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You already asked me that and I already answered it .
But I’ll tell you why you are wrong in your assumption. First looking at the contact point is a comfort thing. Second knowing where the contact point is helps to pick out the proper perception lines along with the proper sweep direction.
 

JoeyInCali

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
But I’ll tell you why you are wrong in your assumption. First looking at the contact point is a comfort thing. Second knowing where the contact point is helps to pick out the proper perception lines along with the proper sweep direction.
Ok, where in the two DVD can I find that?
And you are disagreeing with Hal and Stan.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Ok, where in the two DVD can I find that?
And you are disagreeing with Hal and Stan.
It’s not in the dvd and I am not disagreeing with anyone but you. I gave a logical explanation for why a CTE user would look at the contact point from my personal experience. All you have is an assumption.
 

JoeyInCali

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It’s not in the dvd and I am not disagreeing with anyone but you. I gave a logical explanation for why a CTE user would look at the contact point from my personal experience. All you have is an assumption.
Yes, you are disagreeing with Hal and Stan. You really need to watch more videos.
Two dvd's and it was not even discussed. You gotta thank the knockers for bringing it up.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yes, you are disagreeing with Hal and Stan. You really need to watch more videos.
I am not disagreeing with either of them. I agree it’s not part of the teachings of CTE but knowing where the contact points are is a useful tool to use with CTE for the reasons I stated above.
 

JoeyInCali

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I am not disagreeing with either of them. I agree it’s not part of the teachings of CTE but knowing where the contact points are is a useful tool to use with CTE for the reasons I stated above.
Yes, you are .
That is until the next service pack.
If you use the contact point as reference or tool, it would make explaining the whole process a lot easier .
Then again, if you use the contact point as reference, the opposite of that contact point on the ob is where you line up the cue ball.
Why bother with ABC's and all these eye tricks and pivoting?
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yes, you are .
That is until the next service pack.
If you use the contact point as reference or tool, it would make explaining the whole process a lot easier .
Then again, if you use the contact point as reference, the opposite of that contact point on the ob is where you line up the cue ball.
Why bother with ABC's and all these eye tricks and pivoting?
Again no I’m not.
You use the abc’s because that makes your aiming exact. Don’t know much about eye tricks and I no longer do a manual pivot.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Yawn.
Let's say someone started claiming equal opposite parts is an easy to learn system.
Wait for the dvd . Then .....
Then one shill will claim it straightens your stroke .
Ya think people won't be all over that one ?

SEES system quit . You think peeps weren't all over that one ?

Look at the thread title . Then peeps started arguing over stroke vs aiming system on this thread .
Well, I brought up Tor's real-life lessons and videos .
Once the students' strokes were somewhat fixed , they had no need for aiming systems .

And why do you go nasty over CTE ?
YOU DON'T OWN IT . Hal was not your uncle .

You can't thank me and attack me at the same time . Just thank me .
You're welcome .
I have just done a search and don't see the level of attacks that you and others are perpetrating against CTE and Stan.

However if you want the latest information on Ekkes' aiming methods you can find it here,

 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Well, in that case, equal opposite parts is the king .
Geometrically correct and cannot be proven to be wrong .
And the easiest one to "gear".

Invisible contact point?
The pros using it must have some special lens or something .
Yeah if you can get whatever success you want from some other method then use that.

Which point on this sphere is the contact point?

We can do a little experiment, I won't ask you to bet because I know you won't anyway. You won't even do this experiment but I will outline it anyway.

I will setup a bunch of shots. Using a laser inside of box I will put it right on the spot which would be the ghost ball contact point as determined by lining it up through the pocket.

Using a second laser that is not on we will tape an part of a shaft to it which is directly over the center of the beam.

Your task is to position the laser/shaft pointing directly at the contact point from behind the cue ball. When you have it positioned we turn the laser on and note where it is illuminating the object ball.

Then we turn on the laser in the box and see if the two beams meet at the contact point. If yours is not exact we will put up a ghost ball at the place that your beam hits the ball and determine if it would still work to make the ball or not.

How accurate do you think you would be in this test.

Then we can run the test using CTE and see whether the line chosen is in line with the ghost ball.

I am going to guess that you would struggle to have a 50% success rate of identifying and holding the contact point accurately.

And a good cte user will have a success rate much higher than that in my opinion. I want to say that it will be 90% or better on average.

Contact point aiming is just feel. If you choose to use equal/overlap then it's enhanced feel. We can run it again where you use equal overlap and test against the ghost ball center.

I am positive that any proficient user of objective aiming methods will score much higher than you will using contact point estimation.

Don't worry though Joey, coming soon will be a whole bunch of new videos that illustrates these assertions in a friendly, well-edited format.

You have inspired me to invest in a much better way to promote center to edge aiming and all of your criticisms and assertions will be addressed. I just won't be naming you though. No need for the viewers to know your name as it is not material to the content.

When you are long gone this content will be introducing pool players to Center to Edge aiming and helping them to improve their aiming accuracy.

Again thank you for taking time to provide the motivation.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Again, YOU CALLED THEM LIARS. I didn't .
Then you also said I'm too childish to call them outright liars .
Quit goading me to call them liars so you can go running to them .

CTE does not involve contact points .
I see a player walk up to the money ball or a ball that needs backwards cut to the side pocket and he bends over and checks the contact point , I assume he's not using CTE on that shot .

Then you call them liars.
You stated that they are not using CTE. Ergo, they are lying. You are just not honest enough to say it because you know that you can't wiggle out when you do.

I have addressed every claim you have made and debunked them.

If you want to prove your claims I will be at California Billiards next week helping a player with his CTE questions.

You are welcome to join us as long as you behave and are not disruptive. I am a big believer in taking things to the table and working them out.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Apparently this is another benefit of CTE. If you don't hit the CB properly the system doesn't work.
I was wondering--seeing as I'm having a hard time figuring out CTE--does anyone know of a different aiming system that also corrects stroke issues.
I have a bad habit of twisting my wrist on some shots so one that corrects that would be helpful.
And actually Stan didn't say that CTE "automatically corrects stroke issues". He said CTE straightens out the shot. Which is itself kind of odd but he did a video demonstrating the effect.

Stan has been extremely clear that a straight stroke and solid fundamentals are a prerequisite to get the most benefit from cte aiming.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear.

Whats next ... cte will keep you from Playing bad pool when you're drunk. 🙂
Maybe you should think about things people say more deeply.

Yeah, CTE helps to not play bad pool when you're drunk. Having multiple objective references makes the aiming work whether you are drunk or sober.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Contact point aiming is just feel. If you choose to use equal/overlap then it's enhanced feel. We can run it again where you use equal overlap and test against the ghost ball center.

I am positive that any proficient user of objective aiming methods will score much higher than you will using contact point estimation.
You seriously have no idea how aiming works.

pj
chgo
 

sparkle84

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
To John Barton.....
John, in post #80 you stated that: "Nick Varner told me that he never missed a ball because of his stroke and only missed because he aimed wrong. He said this to me at the Fox and Hound in downtown Charlotte in 2008 at a party that was thrown in conjunction with the BCA expo as we were conversing about aiming in pool."
I believe that happened 100% just as you say.
I have had similar conversations with Nick and he absolutely believes in the power of precision aiming. And Nick Varner is no pool room bum. As you know, he is college educated, a gentleman, well read, well spoken and a credit to the game.
Some psychopathic loser around here, however, will believe one of the following:
#1 John Barton is lying
or
#2 Nick Varner is lying
or
#3 John Barton and Nick Varner BOTH are lying
My point being that it doesn't matter WHAT kind of evidence is presented to the psychopathic losers, they will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, resign themselves to admitting they have been wrong all these years concerning the CTE Aiming system and the work of Stan Shuffett. You will never get them to think open mindedly.
For them, there will always be something "incorrect" about videos, statements, books, when it comes to that topic.
Let it go, John....let it go....let it go.
Forget about the losers and continue to add to the Positive Testimonials thread that Mr. Howerton has given us. There ARE visitors and members in this wonderful billiards site who do not listen to or pay attention to the losers here.
What you're doing is just like "pissing into the wind and letting it blow back in your face". (no offense meant)

Kindest Regards,
Lowenstein
View attachment 611721
Nick Varner is one of the greatest to ever play this game. That being said, if anyone believes he never missed a ball due to a poor stroke then that person is dumb as a stump. No, actually they're even dumber than that.
 

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
And actually Stan didn't say that CTE "automatically corrects stroke issues". He said CTE straightens out the shot. Which is itself kind of odd but he did a video demonstrating the effect.

Stan has been extremely clear that a straight stroke and solid fundamentals are a prerequisite to get the most benefit from cte aiming.
John Barton:
I am one of those who said CTE automatically corrects stroke issues.
The reason is because if the player doesn't work diligently using some disciplined rehearsal method of stroke training, the CTE Aiming System will not work effectively. The player will be FORCED to correct the stroke issues by the mere presence of the system or he will give up and try to buy something else (wasting his money) that he feels is "now the magic method I've been looking for".
So, in order for it to work effectively, the player must correct stroke errors. Therefore the efficient use of CTE is the root cause behind the efforts for the stroke to be automatically corrected. I cannot say the same for other aiming methods...especially the one I dumped called "just see the shot and shoot it", which is patently absurd and totally unscientific.
I will go so far as to say that Poolology (which is a very good aiming method) automatically corrects stroke errors as well, because if the player has a fouled up stroke, the Poolology method won't be effective either. Therefore, in that case one can reasonably say that Poolology use, is the root cause behind the efforts for the stroke to be automatically corrected...since it is also a scientific way to aim and can be proven to be such.
The Ghosty Ball method, (based on visual superstition) cannot be proven to be scientific at all....it is merely a guessing game and a simple way for Pros to dodge tipping off how to REALLY aim to those who do not deserve to know.
As to why certain pathological losers cannot grasp the simplicity of all that, I am at a loss to say.

Kindest regards,(y)
Lowenstein
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
To John Barton.....
John, in post #80 you stated that: "Nick Varner told me that he never missed a ball because of his stroke and only missed because he aimed wrong. He said this to me at the Fox and Hound in downtown Charlotte in 2008 at a party that was thrown in conjunction with the BCA expo as we were conversing about aiming in pool."
I believe that happened 100% just as you say.
I have had similar conversations with Nick and he absolutely believes in the power of precision aiming. And Nick Varner is no pool room bum. As you know, he is college educated, a gentleman, well read, well spoken and a credit to the game.
Some psychopathic loser around here, however, will believe one of the following:
#1 John Barton is lying
or
#2 Nick Varner is lying
or
#3 John Barton and Nick Varner BOTH are lying

Kindest Regards,
Lowenstein
View attachment 611721
I'll go with #4 "Pete Lowenstein" is lying, (and about more than just his name).
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
John Barton:
I am one of those who said CTE automatically corrects stroke issues.
The reason is because if the player doesn't work diligently using some disciplined rehearsal method of stroke training, the CTE Aiming System will not work effectively. The player will be FORCED to correct the stroke issues by the mere presence of the system or he will give up and try to buy something else (wasting his money) that he feels is "now the magic method I've been looking for".
So, in order for it to work effectively, the player must correct stroke errors. Therefore the efficient use of CTE is the root cause behind the efforts for the stroke to be automatically corrected. I cannot say the same for other aiming methods...especially the one I dumped called "just see the shot and shoot it", which is patently absurd and totally unscientific.
I will go so far as to say that Poolology (which is a very good aiming method) automatically corrects stroke errors as well, because if the player has a fouled up stroke, the Poolology method won't be effective either. Therefore, in that case one can reasonably say that Poolology use, is the root cause behind the efforts for the stroke to be automatically corrected...since it is also a scientific way to aim and can be proven to be such.
The Ghosty Ball method, (based on visual superstition) cannot be proven to be scientific at all....it is merely a guessing game and a simple way for Pros to dodge tipping off how to REALLY aim to those who do not deserve to know.
As to why certain pathological losers cannot grasp the simplicity of all that, I am at a loss to say.

Kindest regards,(y)
Lowenstein
This is stupid, sorry.

You say CTE straightens out your stroke because if you don't have a good stroke it won't work.
You say Poolology straightens out your stroke because if you don't have a good stroke it won't work.
You say ghost ball straightens out your stroke because if you don't have a good stroke it won't work.

Oh, you didn't say the last one? Why not? If you use a ghost ball trainer you have a spot to aim at and train yourself. If you don't have a straight stroke it won't work.
 
Top