After all this time you still don't understand that word. "Objective" means no personal interpretation - everybody sees the same thing.
I said FROM THE USER'S perspective the process IS objective. As in there are instructions for each step of the process and I follow them WITHOUT guessing. Thus if I am wrong then I am wrong THE SAME WAY every time. Then if I try a different CTE perception, they are OBJECTIVELY described and there are ONLY four per cut direction, I follow the process THE SAME WAY and if the result is correct then it's correct EVERY TIME.
Not so sure what your issue is here. If you set up a cut shot that was an EXACT half ball hit which is a known overlap that is OBJECTIVELY clear and I line up on it and the cue IS NOT on the shot line what went wrong? You say everyone sees the same thing but in fact we know that even with the clearest of instructions, even with a shot line drawn out, even with a ghost ball template to use people don't always line up correctly. I am not talking about execution. I am talking about VISION.
When the OB Stroke Trainer came out, the device that beeps at you when your stroke is not straight, my employee Matt could stroke without it ever going off. We set up a straight in shot and tested it. Mine went off frequently (no surprise with my stroke). Either I missed the shot but the stroked straight OR I made the shot and the thing beeped at me. The issue we discovered is that I was lining up to what I thought was center to center, stroking to the center and hitting the center and getting the beep. Matt said I wasn't at center to center. I said yes I am. We set up the camera to catch the cueball and the cue and recorded in slow motion. Turns out that despite me thinking that I was putting the cue down on the centerline I was actually slightly off. So I had to reorient and be sure that I wasn't shifting my vision as I came down into shooting position and that solved it and reduced the beeps I was getting. So IN FACT I had two issues, I WAS NOT SEEING center to center from the standing position and the shooting position the same way AND my stroke is inconsistent. But because I was convinced that I was addressing the shot at center cueball to center object ball I was actually slightly off and that was causing me to either stroke straight and miss or to stroke NOT STRAIGHT and make it. That would be my brain subconsciously directing me to steer when shooting.
We fixed it by having me lined up all four edges instead of just center to center. So with TWO OBJECTIVE lines to use I was able to correct the alignment for straight-in shots. Thus the process became MORE OBJECTIVE for me. Matt could get it done with one line and I needed two.
Yeah, I'm gunna give you the point on this one
Lol, nope. Pat is WRONG here because he fails to understand the usage of OBJECTIVE in the process. It doesn't mean that the users all see differently. In a new process, especially one that is counter to "conventional" methods, one user might see what the instructions are asking for right away and another might need more time to work on picking up the reference lines.
But in the end when BOTH users are clear that they can pick up the OBJECTIVE reference lines correctly then both of them do so and follow the rest of the process objectively and both end up on the same shot line. So for example I could set up a shot and say to the other user something 30-Inside Right Sweep and that other user would know EXACTLY how to proceed from standing to shooting position to end up exactly on the shot line. Conversely, they could do the same for me. And this is exactly how it works between CTE users.
Any subjectivity such as the amount of head turning at one step in the process IS NOT consequential BECAUSE the users quickly figure out where the sweet spot is so to speak and no one needs to speak of the head-turning part of the process in terms of degrees/inches etc....
Pat wants to make this out to be as if that means the user is BIASED. No, the user is inexperienced. With EXPERIENCE they pick up the objective reference lines easily and move to the next step and pick up the next reference lines easily and move to the next step etc....
The whole thing FOR ME is a matter of accuracy and comfort. I KNOW that I am both more accurate and more comfortable and confident in the shot line I adopt when I use Center to Edge aiming. Patrick thinks that CTE should produce ERROR FREE results because those who use CTE dare to use the word OBJECTIVE.
Inability to follow directions does not mean that the directions are not OBJECTIVELY correct. Following the directions but being inexperienced only means that the user needs to practice until they can follow the directions objectively the same way every time. NO ONE - NO PERSON ON THIS PLANET has ever stated that CTE Aiming is an instant upgrade (that's for you Joey) to error-free aiming.
But it is an OBJECTIVE method with OBJECTIVE REFERENCES and OBJECTIVE INSTRUCTIONS. When those instructions are followed OBJECTIVELY with practice the user LEARNS to trust the results without second guessing and FIDGETING LIKE PAT DOES IT.
Pat's aiming instruction is literally fidget til you get it. THAT is subjective. A user trying to aim like Pat would take longer to get to a settled shooting position and is likely to be less consistently on the actual shot line than an experienced CTE user.
I will BET SUPER EFFING HIGH, 10k or MORE that if we design an experiment where beginners are taught to stroke straight and one group is taught GB aiming and another group is taught CTE aiming and another group is not taught any aiming that the CTE group will outperform the other two groups in a series of shotmaking tests. I could be wrong but I am willing to bet on it. Pat is not because being wrong on a pool forum costs nothing. He could care less if he convinces you to not use CTE or jacks with your brain enough that you never bear down to learn it correctly. Your skill level and goals in pool are meaningless to him AS LONG AS he gets to troll on this subject. He doesn't give two shits if you never improve your aiming acuity beyond whatever you can get to with fidget aiming.
And that is my VERY BIASED OPINION based on 20 years of dealing with this guy. He wants to nitpick even when there are no nits to pick. He is completely uninterested in actually testing CTE and being part of figuring it out or possibly making it better. All he cares about is TROLLING the topic.