Likely to is a qualifier that indicates opinion. Uncertainly. One projects a confidence level based on prior knowledge. That's mine.
CTE automatically corrects stroke issues
- Thread starter sparkle84
- Start date
For the exact same reason that you just called me an asshole. Irrelevancy.
Yes it does define an aiming "situation". Just like "on your six" means behind you in tactical-speak.
Just like "corrected ghostball" means gb shifted to account for throw and deflection means to those who use gb and we're taught that term to explain that action.
Likely to be indicates an opinion of what a future outcome might be. It is by nature unsubstantiated because substantion would mean that the prediction changes in confidence level to very likely to be even up to will be based on past outcomes for the same experiment.
There is often a huge gap between is and might be. And sometimes the gap isn't that much.
I can't find any instruction where it is said that pro1 requires adding spin. Can you please show us where that is?
Baseless. You asked for a diagram which you then deemed irrelevant. You have yet to demonstrate that you even qualify to expound on any type of billiards whatsoever. Asshole is the lesser alternative to retard, also apparently appropriate.
Same thing that happens when you mark the wrong place on a ruler, bad input bad output, you miss.
I find that the two line process makes it hard to misjudge initial perception.
It's like saying well what if the shot is a half ball hit and you are at 7/16th but think you're at half ball. You know the shot is a half ball hit so you work on your vision until you know exactly what a half ball hit looks like to you. Then you have a constant reference that allows you start being accurate with connecting the objective references, center and edge to the subjective references quarter-lines, in an objective process.
The shooter goes from I think it's there to I know it's there. Confidence in the choice is the key here.
As Grady Matthews used to say, "I have never been beaten by a player who thought he could play, only by the ones who knew they could play".
If the ball goes in then CTE worked. If the ball does not go in then you did something wrong.
The diagram of a transparent sphere as depicted by an oval at the equator isn't helpful to aiming in pool and certainly not in finding the correct shot line.
You go on and on about "contact geometry" without defining it and say all those with aiming systems are idiots if they can't see that all one needs is to understand contact geometry.
An aiming system is telling people how to aim using specific instructions. That's the definition of a system, closed loop specificity.
If you want to start a thread about contact geometry and aiming then do so. You can even knock cte and any other system there. But here is your fundamental problem, if you aren't offering an acceptable alternative to improving aiming accuracy by brute force rote trial and error without formality then your words are unlikely to generate much interest.
If only aiming is the factor and the stroke is unquestionably straight then yes.
That's the definition of a precise tool. Use it right and the correct results appear. Same as ghost ball.
How then can you tell the difference? Ghost ball is imagination based on a line running through the pocket and the object ball.
CTE is a visual connection of lines running between the cue ball and object ball.
I guess you find a way to test the shot making success rates in some sort of consistent testing of participants using those methods.
But even before that you can listen to what the users are saying to decide whether or not it's even worth it to mess with such systems.
Duh. You asked for the diagram. It's obvious you only wish to dismiss contact geometry for the Shuffett babble you've learned the words to. Besides you brought CG up as well. I'm only here because of that ridiculous clickbait title. Pseudo intellectual professional students seems to be the intended target.
Last edited:
Are you saying with pro1 you don't need spin.?
If you play and no spin is ever required, maybe take up something else.
Yep...bizarre.
It's possible to miss judge and I bet you do it all the time.
Even when one miss judges you create a angle. Like you said bad output but yet a angle is created
So it's also to possible to missjudge the lineup and create good output...the right angle to the pocket.
You could cut pro1s a..b..c into a..b..c..d..e...f if you wanted to, create more angles do you agree?
I absolutely agree that finer divisions, different input creates different output. I am not of the opinion that cte is the only way to aim accurately. I feel though that when it comes to CTE that it should be possible to use other divisions if one trains themselves to accurately and consistently pickup those visuals then that would bring them even tighter to the shot line.
My point all of these years has always been how do we make the aiming process as objective as possible?
I have said that aiming is an activity that has a spectrum from purely subjective to highly objective. Every person aiming is somewhere on that spectrum.
If we take kicking as an example then we know that there are systems that work exactly as long as the initial entry angle is correctly identified. We assume for the sake of discussion that the shooter has the needed fundamentals to execute once aimed. At the purely subjective end is just guessing. The next level is educated (by trial and error) guessing. The next is memorization of shot pictures and estimated adjustment. The next are simple references such as angle in equals angle out and it graduates to specific instructions on how to plot positions to get as close to the exact correct starting line as possible using the sensors and calculating ability we possess. To that end we have training devices such as the Kamui stickers that subdivide the diamond markers.
We would call the diamond systems objective because they are applied without bias. The starting position can be misidentified just like the starting position in an equation can be misidentified. Once the user figures out how to correctly identify the starting position the results are what the system says they will be.
And you know this to be true for aiming systems covering direct pocketing as well.
No it's normal. Consistency comes from being able to correctly identify the shot line. We have covered this a zillion times already. Yes it is absolutely possible to unintentionally pick the incorrect shot line and yet still make the ball. It is possible to intentionally pick the correct shot line and miss.
The question isn't whether a person can misjudge and make/miss. The question is what methods lead to measurably more consistency in shot making. If one is using center ball then it is very very unlikely that they will be making shots consistently clean if they are constantly using the incorrect starting input.
However if they are able to use the correct starting input then the result is likely to be more pocketing. And the system is the catalyst for that result.
It is my experience that when I choose the wrong input then the output is wrong as well but is the same each time.
As opposed to when I try to play by pure feel and the output is highly variable.
No, I am saying that center to edge aiming is a center ball system. It gives a base line for a center ball hit.
If one wants to use spin then one can adjust off of the baseline using feel or whatever calculation method one might have that one is confident in.
The way you wrote it indicated that you were claiming one must use spin to make the shot line derived through the cte method work.
All shots that go directly to a pocket which are aimed correctly using CTE pro one can be made without sidespin.
No, I am happy to learn about "contact geometry" and how it applies to aiming. To date you have not provided any definition of what you call contact geometry nor given any instruction on how it would used to aim.
So start your thread and explain it in detail. If what you describe is easier than the various methods out there and works as well or better then it will become a popular method of aiming.
You don't like cte so supplant it with something better.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
I'm not really arguing ghost ball or whatever, but if you take aim from ball to pocket, with your personal vision center and walk over to the shot, it's not really imagination. The key is to keep your head facing the shot. Think of those videos showing how a chicken's head stabilizes when they move them back and forth and up and down. If you can keep your vision locked and on an even keel and "poke" your head out, you're already doing several crucial steps to CTE.
Think of a kernel of corn on the OB and do like a chicken would, focus on that kernel. If you've spent time working on your stance, you should drop down damn near perfectly on the shot line. You might need a tiny bit of "poke" at that point and sometimes maybe a bit of Dr. Dave's stance dance shuffle, but it's damn near perfectly lined up.
I also keep my cue to the side (like near my belly button) and swing it over only after I'm 100% confident I'm coming down on the shot line. I think keeping your cue to the side keeps you from "polluting" your vision/aim on the ball. I think the CTE book talks about this, my memory is foggy but I think someone told Stan or his son to not bet on anyone that brings the cue in from the side. Basically once you get onto it, you should be able to get your body in a perfect stance without using your cue as a pointer for aiming (or not, aim how it works for you). But you know this, you take your aim while standing, the eyes lead and the body follows.
Excuse me? Did you ask to be spoon fed? I and indeed most pool players are already on something better. If you wish to learn CG, learn it.