CTE ... the complete story
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
PJ sets the bait. Questions my manhood, not gonna work though. Point,Pivot,Shoot, SCORES. What aren't you getting?
Etc
Not a typo. I call it Edge To Center. Stan and I have only met once and we had a great conversation. It turned out that we had done our homework which revealed the same basic concept with quality results.
It is funny how combining millions of years in experience amongst all pool players (through its history), that something right there in front of our faces is so difficult to see. Then we dare to share and all **** breaks loose.
When shooting a given shot there is so much going on in the brain, CTE, or as I tagged it, ETC works. period. Think of it not as a secret but rather a treasure.
I do agree that the spoken word is not the way to learn this system. You have to "See" it to believe it.
Not a typo. I call it Edge To Center. Stan and I have only met once and we had a great conversation. It turned out that we had done our homework which revealed the same basic concept with quality results.
It is funny how combining millions of years in experience amongst all pool players (through its history), that something right there in front of our faces is so difficult to see. Then we dare to share and all **** breaks loose.
When shooting a given shot there is so much going on in the brain, CTE, or as I tagged it, ETC works. period. Think of it not as a secret but rather a treasure.
I do agree that the spoken word is not the way to learn this system. You have to "See" it to believe it.
The problem being, that not all of us see the same.
Even our left and right eyes don't see the same.
Can you describe what it is that you see (not how you got there) that makes the light bulb light up? Yes, that's it, I'm dead on!
If you play on a table with bad shadows can you still always see it?
Is it harder to see on dark cloth?
Do reflections get in your way?
Do you see it as well at an 8' distance, as you do at 1'?
Can you do it eyes closed?
The sense that you know anything about this.
pj
chgo
What would that prove? Still doesn't change my thoughts. You'd probably win. I don't rate myself very high in that field either.
Just puttin' things in perspective
Thanks, "Doc" ;-)
Lou Figueroa
recently, on NPR...
Last edited:
Feeling somewhat baited, into a lengthy debate, I chose to offer simple answers to your questions.
Dead Crab...Of course you can...as long as you have an accurate, repeatable stroke. BTW, you can shoot any shot, with any 'aiming system', with your eyes closed...as long as you already have...an accurate, repeatable stroke. Otherwise, nothing will be consistent...and that includes CTE, Perfect Aim, "spot on the wall", reflections off the lights, or anything else. Now...that said, are there those folks out there who can pocket simply by feel, even with eccentricities in their process? Certainly. Are they few and far between? Yep...especially higher level ability players.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
My view is that no matter what you call it - CTE, ETC, ETE, THC, or ADHD - if it works for you, it works, No explaining is necessary.
But if you say it will work for somebody else, then a whole lot of explaining is necessary. If you can't write/say how and why it works in principle, then just don't write/say it will work for somebody else. It is that simple.
TxSkin
But if you say it will work for somebody else, then a whole lot of explaining is necessary. If you can't write/say how and why it works in principle, then just don't write/say it will work for somebody else. It is that simple.
TxSkin
Dr. Dave I really don't know why this works. It doesn't make sense. I still have many questions as well. For instance if you're supposed to pivot to center then what happens if I need a little english? The pivot has to be the adjustment but if you don't make the FULL adjustment, then what? I really don't play enough pool to do the work.
Whenever I show somebody this I tell them that its going to look all wrong. You're not gonna want to shoot, its just not right. Everyone that gets down and thinks about it misses. If they just follow the instruction without doubt and without thinking the ball drops. Given they find CTE.
I've found that you can apply a bit of outside, backhand-english, after reaching the center with little problem on most shots. If I'm feeling rather lazy I will employ this method when bridging off of the rail, since you often don't have the requisite bridge length to properly and most easily employ the technique. I play billiards often, and I prefer an upright stance in both games; and using CTE allows me to feel confident in making the ball, which ultimately allows me to concentrate fully on my stroke. Also, my suspicion is that with a low-deflection shaft you may be able to use an equal amount of inside-english without any compensation.
The two biggest mysteries in teaching the technique are how to find the edge and how to pivot. I didn't clearly state my idea in my first post, but I do believe that beginners can find the edge easier if they continue to use whatever visualization method they had previously been comfortable with. If you can visualize the ghost ball, then you should be able to find the edge with ease. Spider is quite correct in pointing out that you really should not manually pivot when you are down on the shot. My "pivot" (I don't really believe it is actually a pivot any longer, nor is it necessary) has evolved to sliding from the outside edge to the center of the cue ball, in the proper range of bridge length, then bringing the tip near as I can to the cue, then warm up my stroke, ultimately firing the ball in.
Someone asked earlier in the thread if this only works on big-pocketed table. If you use the technique correctly, then the ball will split the pocket. I don't think CTE is a panacea, however it comes very close. Experiment with it, make note of the shots you miss and try to determine what variables are different on those shots and all of the others that you make with the technique.
i have long since had a question about aiming systems that nobody has ever answered.... that is, if they work, why can't you make a thin, length of the table cut when very close to the object ball every time? shooting strait isn't a problem, lining up the system isn't a problem (you are close to the ball). if you think you're aiming system works, why can't you make this every time?
This "will" work for me? Luuuuuuucy, you have some 'splainin' to do!
Exactly -- TxSkin nails it in the bolded paragraph above. I recently had an offline discussion with a CTE booster who'll go unnamed, who, after hearing about my credentials on a pool table, basically said to me, "Sean, just imagine your game after you invest the proper amount of time learning CTE. At your level, a ball, or even half a ball, is HUGE. Stop trying to aim at something you can't see [meaning, ghostball]. You don't need to get wound up in the specifics of 'why' CTE works -- just the 'fact' that it does work, and extract the enjoyment from what your game would be like with it -- almost insane."
While very encouraging, this pitch completely throws the baby out with the bath water. That "baby" is that I consider myself blessed with very good 3D spacial perception and visualization. From the moment I first picked up a cue in the mid-1970s, I saw that ghost ball clear as a bell. I have no problems aiming at that ghostball, because -- perhaps it's an uncommon gift -- I "see" that ghostball, right there at the contact point. I don't have the issue of "aiming at something I don't see" -- because that categorization doesn't apply to me. Asking me to discard this ability and replace it with something that "cannot be explained" is taking a big step back -- or, perhaps more appropriately, is a HUGE leap of faith.
So telling someone that so-and-so system "will" work for him/her and his/her game will go up "x" amount of balls (with the "wagging finger proviso" that he/she has to invest the "proper" amount of time focusing exclusively on the system), is a giant leap in itself, sales-pitch-wise. It completely circular-files whatever abilities or gifts the person currently has with the method he/she is currently using, to get that person "subscribed" to the system being pitched. Sometimes "fanaticism" borders on the "fanatical," if that makes any sense.
So-and-so system is supposed to do what to my game? "Luuuuuuuucy, you have some 'splainin' to doooo!"
-Sean
Exactly -- TxSkin nails it in the bolded paragraph above. I recently had an offline discussion with a CTE booster who'll go unnamed, who, after hearing about my credentials on a pool table, basically said to me, "Sean, just imagine your game after you invest the proper amount of time learning CTE. At your level, a ball, or even half a ball, is HUGE. Stop trying to aim at something you can't see [meaning, ghostball]. You don't need to get wound up in the specifics of 'why' CTE works -- just the 'fact' that it does work, and extract the enjoyment from what your game would be like with it -- almost insane."
While very encouraging, this pitch completely throws the baby out with the bath water. That "baby" is that I consider myself blessed with very good 3D spacial perception and visualization. From the moment I first picked up a cue in the mid-1970s, I saw that ghost ball clear as a bell. I have no problems aiming at that ghostball, because -- perhaps it's an uncommon gift -- I "see" that ghostball, right there at the contact point. I don't have the issue of "aiming at something I don't see" -- because that categorization doesn't apply to me. Asking me to discard this ability and replace it with something that "cannot be explained" is taking a big step back -- or, perhaps more appropriately, is a HUGE leap of faith.
So telling someone that so-and-so system "will" work for him/her and his/her game will go up "x" amount of balls (with the "wagging finger proviso" that he/she has to invest the "proper" amount of time focusing exclusively on the system), is a giant leap in itself, sales-pitch-wise. It completely circular-files whatever abilities or gifts the person currently has with the method he/she is currently using, to get that person "subscribed" to the system being pitched. Sometimes "fanaticism" borders on the "fanatical," if that makes any sense.
So-and-so system is supposed to do what to my game? "Luuuuuuuucy, you have some 'splainin' to doooo!"
-Sean
OK, here is the reason:
Let's say you have a really thin cut, say 80 degrees. Since it is a long cut, you will miss it if you cut it outside of the range of 79-81 degrees.
The correct aim point range will be 56.099 to 56.446 mm from the center of the object ball.
This means you have to successfully hit within about 0.17mm of the target aim point to make the shot. Nobody aims that well consistently.
In contrast, consider a shot where the "make it" range is a cut of 9-11 degrees. Here, the acceptable aim point range is 8.94mm - 10.9mm off of the OB center. So, you have about 1 mm error tolerance in either direction. This 10 degree cut shot allows about 6 times more error than the 80 degree cut shot.
This is why banks are often better deals than thin cuts.
An article that discusses how the angle increases the difficulty of a shot (which is to say, decreases the allowed error), is at: http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1994-04.pdf
The article includes a simple graphical way to see how much the cut angle increases the difficulty over a straight-in shot of the same length.
Dr. Dave also discusses this on his site.
As for the permitted error in degrees, it's useful to remember that an inch in the length of your cue stick is one degree almost exactly. On a tight table, the corner pocket is effectively 2 inches wide, so a shot from mid-table allows only +- 1 degree error.
FYI, my resources on this topic can be found here:
Regards,
Dave
I voted a resounding YES !!! (on the sticky vote above)..because...
I also believe, some sort of "sanity" test, should be required before you are allowed to start an "aiming thread". Unless, of course you just fiendishly enjoy, 500 post flaming threads)...(are you listening JB ????
)
I also believe, some sort of "sanity" test, should be required before you are allowed to start an "aiming thread". Unless, of course you just fiendishly enjoy, 500 post flaming threads)...(are you listening JB ????
)
Last edited:
I voted a resounding YES !!! (on the sticky vote above)..because...
I also believe, some sort of "sanity" test, should be required before you are allowed to start an "aiming thread". Unless, of course you just fiendishly enjoy, 500 post flaming threads)...(are you listening JB ????
You don't like them, so you bump one from last year????? And, you are questioning OUR sanity???? Ooooo......kayyyyyy..........
Last edited: