CTE: The Nuts and Bolts Counterpoints

[mohrt]

Here is my own crude interpretation of CTE vs Ghost-ball (from an aiming aspect.) Nothing factual here, just how I perceive the general difference. This is my interpretation, nothing factual. Take it for what it is worth.

[edit] thinking further, a more accurate graph would have CTE below the Ghost-Ball curve at first, but quickly cross it and go up. CTE requires more up-front effort, but the ability quickly rises after the initial learning stage.

As I add effort, movement goes to the right. If practicing is stopped or slowed, movement is stopped or goes to the left.

Examples:

Putting in 100% effort (HAMB++), results the same proficiency, either method.

Putting in a 75% effort with CTE, I would still have a very high level of ability, whereas with ghost-ball user I may never attain that same level of ability without a substantial boost in effort.

If I stop or slow up practicing, I will fall quicker with ghost-ball and struggle harder to get back to where I was.

Ghost-ball works, absolutely. But it's not the same for me.

 

[scottjen26]

Obviously the GB method shows the correct theoretical location that the CB needs to arrive at in order to pocket the OB, ignoring effects like throw, CIT, etc. And it's easy to diagram and "teach" in books and videos which is why I remember seeing it over and over back in the 80's and 90's when I read pretty much every book I could get my hands on.

It's not that it doesn't work, per se, it's just that I doubt many people can actually vividly imagine that ball as a target on every shot, or imagine some point 1 1/8" away from the contact point, etc. I believe most good players, just as in other sports, start out learning to aim using various methods, or simply trial and error, and may eventually even experiment with other techniques or systems, but it comes down to repetition, fine tuning, and building that eye/brain connection so that our own little personal super computers just see the shot and know what is needed to make the shot.

With time and practice it all just happens, our body aligns properly, our bridge hand magically lands right where we need it exactly the distance away from the ball required, our eyes bounce to our target instantly, we laser in a bit more if needed and shoot. Techniques like fractional ball aiming, BOB, Pro1, SEE, etc. seek to guide us to that true line of aim in more subjective ways, but we still need to estimate the contact points or lines properly, judge distances, account for squirt/curve/cling, calculate the speed needed for position, etc. to be successful and that just requires a lot of time on the table and repetition to build the muscle memory and visual database needed. Systems can shorten this time and/or improve confidence for many players.

I just talked with Thorsten and another top shortstop this week about this very thing. While playing I saw Thorsten stop and look down the line at a ball to the pocket on a cut shot, and I asked him what he was looking at. Surprised a bit by his answer - not the ghost ball, not the contact point, just visualizing the ball and the path to the pocket in order to give his eyes and brain more information, so when he went back into his alignment position he would have more visual information and would be able to feel the shot and the angle better. The other top player and I had a similar experience during a match, and we talked after and he was familiar with Pro1 and other methods and said while they are very helpful to align to the shot you still don't want to lose that basic eye/hand/brain connection to the shot so that you can tweak things as needed or have that sense that something you did might have caused you to arrive at the wrong position.

Made sense to me, and in my next practice session I focused a bit more on the object ball connection. I know that's counter to some of Stan's recent posts, but for me I realized I had become too CB focused and dependent, and perhaps because of improper or too quick alignment, bad pivot/move to the ball, etc., I was just blindly shooting shots and missing a few more shots than usual lately. Allowing my eyes to go back to working back and forth a bit more and feeling whether the shot was right or wrong made a huge difference already. I still use and trust the system to align my body and get down on my initial line, but I allow my eyes to take in a bit more information as necessary and try not to be so mechanical in my approach, especially when needing to alter speed/spin. I'll see if next week I continue to see improvements with this approach.

Scott

 

[sfleinen]

Here is my own crude interpretation of CTE vs Ghost-ball (from an aiming aspect.) Nothing factual here, just how I perceive the general difference.

Make a note, if you stop or slow up practicing it is possible to begin to move back to the left. So the point is, your ability improves quicker and is easier to maintain given the same effort.

Examples:

Someone that puts in 100% effort (HAMB++), they will get to the same proficiency of a pro with either method.

Someone that puts in a 75% effort with CTE, they will still have a very high level of ability, whereas a ghost-ball user may never attain that same level of ability without a substantial boost in effort.

If you stop or slow up practicing, you will fall quicker with ghost-ball and struggle harder to get back to where you were.

Ghost-ball works, absolutely. But it's not the same.

Monte:

No offense, as I think you already know my thoughts on the contribution you make to the pool world, but the above is an example of "efforted anti-marketing." If you've been here for any amount of time, you know what I'm referring to -- the arguments, bannings, and ultimately "back of the bus" segregation of the entire topic of aiming into its own subforum away from the general populace. Not that I'm saying YOU are guilty of this, but rather taking the opportunity to point a finger at an "Exhibit A" root cause example.

I realize that when one discovers a new approach that, after years of wrestling with an older / more traditional approach, it's human nature to point at the older / more traditional approach, and say, "that right there is FLAWED -- I wrestled with that sh*t for years and couldn't get it to work, but this new approach didn't take me long to far exceed anything I've ever done with that old method!" And then later, point the finger at the older / more traditional approach, and say, "this is true for *other people* as well, not just me." That's what you're doing above with that hand-drawn histogram -- presumably sketched in a hurry "to get it out there." Efforted anti-marketing.

The fact is, unless you've been the proctor for a bake-off where absolutely pristine-new pool players (who've never played the game before), taken from many different backgrounds and environments -- were split into different groups and each group taught a different way of aiming and the results compared after a period of time -- you have no way of knowing that your hurried "data" has any truth to it. Opinion? Perhaps. But any semblance of truth backed by real-world analysis? NO.

And yes, I know "where I am" (i.e. the Aiming Conversation subforum) -- where efforted anti-marketing like this can run rampant. But I take you to be a scientific, thoughtful, intelligent, and conscientious guy.

The fact is, many instructors and pro players teach ghostball or ghostball-derivative aiming. Joey_in_Cali mentioned Parica. Tony Robles and Steve Lipsky in NY are two others, that I've personally witnessed teaching and using ghostball techniques. I laugh at the notion of "teach vs. use are two different things" because this is also an example of "efforted anti-marketing."

I hope you understand what I'm saying.

Respectfully,
-Sean

 

[mohrt]

Monte:

No offense, as I think you already know my thoughts on the contribution you make to the pool world, but the above is an example of "efforted anti-marketing." If you've been here for any amount of time, you know what I'm referring to -- the arguments, bannings, and ultimately "back of the bus" segregation of the entire topic of aiming into its own subforum away from the general populace. Not that I'm saying YOU are guilty of this, but rather taking the opportunity to point a finger at an "Exhibit A" root cause example.

I realize that when one discovers a new approach that, after years of wrestling with an older / more traditional approach, it's human nature to point at the older / more traditional approach, and say, "that right there is FLAWED -- I wrestled with that sh*t for years and couldn't get it to work, but this new approach didn't take me long to far exceed anything I've ever done with that old method!" And then later, point the finger at the older / more traditional approach, and say, "this is true for *other people* as well, not just me." That's what you're doing above with that hand-drawn histogram -- presumably sketched in a hurry "to get it out there." Efforted anti-marketing.

The fact is, unless you've been the proctor for a bake-off where absolutely pristine-new pool players (who've never played the game before), taken from many different backgrounds and environments -- were split into different groups and each group taught a different way of aiming and the results compared after a period of time -- you have no way of knowing that your hurried "data" has any truth to it. Opinion? Perhaps. But any semblance of truth backed by real-world analysis? NO.

And yes, I know "where I am" (i.e. the Aiming Conversation subforum) -- where efforted anti-marketing like this can run rampant. But I take you to be a scientific, thoughtful, intelligent, and conscientious guy.

The fact is, many instructors and pro players teach ghostball or ghostball-derivative aiming. Joey_in_Cali mentioned Parica. Tony Robles and Steve Lipsky in NY are two others, that I've personally witnessed teaching and using ghostball techniques. I laugh at the notion of "teach vs. use are two different things" because this is also an example of "efforted anti-marketing."

I hope you understand what I'm saying.

Respectfully,
-Sean

I don't disagree with you Sean, and maybe I need to restate my first sentence on that post:

Here is my own crude interpretation of CTE vs Ghost-ball (from an aiming aspect.) Nothing factual here, just how I perceive the general difference.

So, it is what it is. My own perception of the differences. This is based from my own experience with both methods. There is no guarantee that it will work the same for someone else, and I'm certainly not qualified to claim that it would. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with learning or teaching ghost-ball. It will always be taught, it is by far the simplest of aiming systems.

Never did I say "this is true for *other people* as well, not just me." Read my first sentence again.

Almost any kind of help, method, etc. posted AZB could apply the same argument, could it not?

 

[mohrt]

Sean I have taken your words to consideration and re-worded the post a bit to be very specific that it is my interpretation, and not meant to work the same for anyone. I cannot claim that. That said, if I were a betting man (and I am, I've played the WSOP main event), I'd bet that anyone who gave it serious effort would see similar results. Some things are only clear after they are hind sight.

 

[sfleinen]

Sean I have taken your words to consideration and re-worded the post a bit to be very specific that it is my interpretation, and not meant to work the same for anyone.

Monte:

Please understand I just call 'em as I see 'em, based on the general "feeling" or "hunch" I get when reading it, no matter the exact words used. It's not productive to get into a "but Sean, didn't you see these words I used?" thing -- it's more a "general hunch" thing after reading the entire post, not focusing on certain words or sentences. Don't take it personally; it's just a response to your post, to help counter the same feeling that others may get when reading your post as well.

We're cool.

EDIT:

Sean I have taken your words to consideration and re-worded the post a bit to be very specific that it is my interpretation, and not meant to work the same for anyone. I cannot claim that. That said, if I were a betting man (and I am, I've played the WSOP main event), I'd bet that anyone who gave it serious effort would see similar results. Some things are only clear after they are hind sight.

Now, I'm laughing, because of your edits to your post, and now I think my "hunch" was correct.

-Sean

 

[mohrt]

Monte:

Please understand I just call 'em as I see 'em, based on the general "feeling" or "hunch" I get when reading it, no matter the exact words used. It's not productive to get into a "but Sean, didn't you see these words I used?" thing -- it's more a "general hunch" thing after reading the entire post, not focusing on certain words or sentences. Don't take it personally; it's just a response to your post, to help counter the same feeling that others may get when reading your post as well.

We're cool.

-Sean

Absolutely understood, and every day is a learning experience for me. This is one of em.

 

[mohrt]

Now, I'm laughing, because of your edits to your post, and now I think my "hunch" was correct.

-Sean

Ha, well like you I call em as I see em. I'm not on an agenda, I just say what is on my mind. Sometimes the brutal honesty can be too much.

 

[sfleinen]

Ha, well like you I call em as I see em. I'm not on an agenda, I just say what is on my mind. Sometimes the brutal honesty can be too much.

Actually, if you can see me now, I'm chuckling in a good-natured way. Honest.

Trust me, we're cool.

-Sean

 

[stan shuffett]

Made sense to me, and in my next practice session I focused a bit more on the object ball connection. I know that's counter to some of Stan's recent posts, but for me I realized I had become too CB focused and dependent, and perhaps because of improper or too quick alignment, bad pivot/move to the ball, etc., I was just blindly shooting shots and missing a few more shots than usual lately. Allowing my eyes to go back to working back and forth a bit more and feeling whether the shot was right or wrong made a huge difference already. I still use and trust the system to align my body and get down on my initial line, but I allow my eyes to take in a bit more information as necessary and try not to be so mechanical in my approach, especially when needing to alter speed/spin. I'll see if next week I continue to see improvements with this approach.

Scott

Scott,

For sure, The OB is a must during ball address and also in full stance.

Yes, PRO ONE, consisting of objective visuals and a rotation, takes me to CCB. I always go to CCB first and then verify that I am good to go by looking at the OB. Distortions are quite possible and I typically just trust CCB without any adjustments.

I can make a lot of balls by never peering at the OB but in reality there must be a check with the OB when in full stance to eliminate obvious errors when they occur.

CTE PRO ONE is self-refining in this manner. Over time the tweaks or any adjustments become less in number. It's because of objectivity.

Stan Shuffett

 

[mohrt]

Actually, if you can see me now, I'm chuckling in a good-natured way. Honest.

Trust me, we're cool.

-Sean

You and I need some beer and straight pool. :thumbup:

 

[sfleinen]

You and I need some beer and straight pool. :thumbup:

And a barbox with its side opened up so no coinage is needed. This is to, you know, make sure you're in a comfortable playing environment.

All funnin' aside, I'd welcome that. I have a royal blast playing straight pool on a barbox -- drinking pitchers the entire time.

-Sean <-- wonders if places in the midwest serve Guinness by the pitcher...

 

[mohrt]

Now I'm laughing. Yes we have Guinness on tap and (drumroll) 9 footers !!

 

[JB Cases]

tap tap tap Sean.
If ghost ball doesn't work, I guess the tangent line reference is pointless too.
Nobody would be able to consistently place that line 1 1/8 from contact point.

Promote CTE as much as you want but world champions have used the ghost ball for ages. Discounting it ain't going to make any other system better.

Here is another way to look at it. The more accurately you can align to the shot line, that line being the ACTUAL line to make the ball without steering the cue ball, the more you can then see the tangent lines. Your cue is pointing down a line that you are sure is right and from that line all other lines flow.

With GB you go backwards from the pocket to the object ball and back to the shooter. Anyone can establish the line to the pocket fairly easily. You can see where that line emanates from the back of the ball and see the tangent off that. But what breaks down is the ability to then accurately determine the line from the cue ball to the object ball.

With CTE you go forwards from the CB to the OB and if you like to the pocket. Once the connection is made all the lines are clear. Once the line from the CB to OB is clear then the tangent line is clear.

For me personally this has meant that I can now play position with a much higher degree of accuracy and confidence. I can go into the corners with zero fear of scratching. CTE users don't ignore tangent lines, they use them more effectively in my opinion.

As for what World Champions used you can't know that unless they specifically said it. Just because a book with Mosconi's name on it has a particular system in doesn't mean he actually used that. With basic instruction books in pool and other fields the old practice was to use to use a staff writer to write and have the pro sign-off on it so that the pro's name would sell the books..

Unfortunately we don't have any in-depth interviews with Greenleaf and Mosconi where they discuss their technique. But in the present which is where we live we have living players to ask.

And it really doesn't even matter what Mosconi did, he played with different cues, on different tables, different cloth. You don't build cues to 1957 specs so why do you expect players to play pool using the techniques from 1957?

 

[JB Cases]

Obviously the GB method shows the correct theoretical location that the CB needs to arrive at in order to pocket the OB, ignoring effects like throw, CIT, etc. And it's easy to diagram and "teach" in books and videos which is why I remember seeing it over and over back in the 80's and 90's when I read pretty much every book I could get my hands on.

It's not that it doesn't work, per se, it's just that I doubt many people can actually vividly imagine that ball as a target on every shot, or imagine some point 1 1/8" away from the contact point, etc. I believe most good players, just as in other sports, start out learning to aim using various methods, or simply trial and error, and may eventually even experiment with other techniques or systems, but it comes down to repetition, fine tuning, and building that eye/brain connection so that our own little personal super computers just see the shot and know what is needed to make the shot.

With time and practice it all just happens, our body aligns properly, our bridge hand magically lands right where we need it exactly the distance away from the ball required, our eyes bounce to our target instantly, we laser in a bit more if needed and shoot. Techniques like fractional ball aiming, BOB, Pro1, SEE, etc. seek to guide us to that true line of aim in more subjective ways, but we still need to estimate the contact points or lines properly, judge distances, account for squirt/curve/cling, calculate the speed needed for position, etc. to be successful and that just requires a lot of time on the table and repetition to build the muscle memory and visual database needed. Systems can shorten this time and/or improve confidence for many players.

I just talked with Thorsten and another top shortstop this week about this very thing. While playing I saw Thorsten stop and look down the line at a ball to the pocket on a cut shot, and I asked him what he was looking at. Surprised a bit by his answer - not the ghost ball, not the contact point, just visualizing the ball and the path to the pocket in order to give his eyes and brain more information, so when he went back into his alignment position he would have more visual information and would be able to feel the shot and the angle better. The other top player and I had a similar experience during a match, and we talked after and he was familiar with Pro1 and other methods and said while they are very helpful to align to the shot you still don't want to lose that basic eye/hand/brain connection to the shot so that you can tweak things as needed or have that sense that something you did might have caused you to arrive at the wrong position.

Made sense to me, and in my next practice session I focused a bit more on the object ball connection. I know that's counter to some of Stan's recent posts, but for me I realized I had become too CB focused and dependent, and perhaps because of improper or too quick alignment, bad pivot/move to the ball, etc., I was just blindly shooting shots and missing a few more shots than usual lately. Allowing my eyes to go back to working back and forth a bit more and feeling whether the shot was right or wrong made a huge difference already. I still use and trust the system to align my body and get down on my initial line, but I allow my eyes to take in a bit more information as necessary and try not to be so mechanical in my approach, especially when needing to alter speed/spin. I'll see if next week I continue to see improvements with this approach.

Scott

I agree with this. The more objective information a player has the more he can make the right connection to the task.

 

[JB Cases]

For me, the video was frozen from about 36:26 on, while the audio continued to the end. You might want to check that.

Darn. 5 hour upload. :-(

I will reupload it. Thanks.

 

[robsnotes4u]

Guiness by the pitcher

And a barbox with its side opened up so no coinage is needed. This is to, you know, make sure you're in a comfortable playing environment.

All funnin' aside, I'd welcome that. I have a royal blast playing straight pool on a barbox -- drinking pitchers the entire time.

-Sean <-- wonders if places in the midwest serve Guinness by the pitcher...

Sure you can get that at Fargo Billiards