Perhaps you are right. However at pool there are many who are finding more success with this method than with previous methods.
Who knows why this is? People like David Alciatore and Bob Jewett have suggested that it puts the player in the general area of where the need to be and the mind autocompletes the rest of the adjustment.
Perhaps this is true. It doesn't "feel" that way but the catch-22 is then that you wouldn't know what you are subconsciously doing.
The getting down part happens all at once.
John: as with any newly learned "method" or technique, there's BOUND to be some euphoria about the "virtues" of the system. And even some overblown sales pitches about how "superior" that method/technique is. What's being overlooked here, is the lack of acceptance of the aiming system in question (i.e. pivot-based aiming) in any other cue sport besides pool. There's a hard wrought-iron fence around pool that pivot-based aiming can't seem to climb over (nor is there a "helping hand" extended into the pool environment from outside the wrought iron fence from the more-demanding [precision-wise] pocket-based cue sports like snooker and Russian Pyramid). And there's a reason for that -- the same reason that Bob Jewett closed his post with: pool players completely lack the training and form that you'll find in any decent snooker player. (And yes, there's Russian Pyramid schools that are founded on the same principles as snooker.)
So in pool, any kind of freebie instruction/tip/technique that is lobbed over the fence is BOUND to be gobbled up and embraced by the pool community, irrespective of whether it's round-tabled/discussed/proven to be UNIVERSALLY solid.
I personally forming the theory that "CTE" is an outgrowth of observing what good players seem to do naturally. In the past week I have watched a lot of players at pool, snooker and russian pyramid. Many of them have the same type of motion that is produced when a person uses CTE properly. It's impossible for me to draw a hard conclusion that they are aiming as CTE prescribes but it's undeniable that they are NOT laying their cue down on the line and stepping into the shot. A lot of players get into their stance and they appear to swing their cue in from the side onto the aiming line. I have seen this in some snooker players, some pool players and some pyramid players. So to me the nascent theory is that the natural progression for some world class players seems to be that they come into the aiming line from the side and that CTE was developed to attempt to mechanize this process. As I said this is just my own personal idea on the subject and it may have zero merit whatsoever.
John, now that you're armed with a hammer (i.e. beginning knowledge of CTE), does everything to you look like a nail (i.e. "pivot")? You know, when I started to see you posting videos of snooker players in action, great plays/shots, etc. (e.g. that "147" thread with YouTube videos you posted in the Main forum), I said to myself, "this is very, very cool." Because it seemed to me that, even though you previously said you appreciated the difficulty of snooker, only then did you REALLY appreciate it, because you spent the time scouring for videos and watching them. However, after some recent comments you made -- including the ones shown above about you "hinting" about the existence of a "pivot" in *some* snooker players (and even then probably only in certain shots you saw), I have a feeling I know why you're on a scavenger hunt for snooker videos. I guess you took my friendly challenge (of investigating other more-demanding pocket-based cue sports) very, very seriously, and by god, you're determined to find evidence of pivoting if it kills you.
Either that, or like I said -- everything to you now looks like a nail ("pivot"). So you see a player get down on the shot, and perhaps make an adjustment with a movement that, to you in your CTE exuberance, looks like a "pivot."
Has it occurred to you that some players may have a habit of not stepping into the shot on the precise shot line because of human error? I know I do on occasion, even with my snooker training and form. I'll get behind the shot, *intending* to get right on the shot line right out of the chute, step into the shot and get into my form, and only after I'm viewing the shot with my chin on the cue, do I realize I made an alignment error. I'll then make an adjustment right then-and-there in my shooting stance, because from that vantage point, I was able to see something that I couldn't see from overhead. It's like one of those "aw sh*t -- that doesn't look right -- I'm just a tad off to the right of the line that pockets this ball. Let me make this minor shift in my aim." You viewing me may go "aha! I see you're using CTE -- you just pivoted!" When that's entirely NOT the case at all. I just failed to step 100% correctly onto the shot line, and when I view the ghostball/eclipsing from behind that cue ball, I realize I was just a bit off. Most of the time, I'll just lift up slightly, repositioning my bridge hand, and then place myself back down. Or get up and off the shot completely, and re-settle into a new stance. But yes, *sometimes* if I'm only a very slightly off, I'll adjust a wee bit using a combination of both my bridge and grip hand (which, again, to you looks like a "pivot").
Some of those players that you see "stepping into the shot from the side" -- has it occurred to you that they may be doing this because where they were previously standing, they were viewing the angle to the pocket, and then stepped sideways into the line of the shot and then down, only to make minor corrections afterward? (Bad habit, yes, and certainly not advocated in the science of snooker -- but as always when you're dealing with players of this caliber, sometimes pro players adopt less-than-optimum habits and make them work for them. Or perhaps this player has so ingrained proper technique when down into the shot, that the formal methods of getting into the shot are just pedantic details that a player of this caliber is allowed to skip?)
And yes you are wise to stay out of CTE threads on AZ because they are polarizing.
However if you do wish to monitor the discussion among civil people who are discussing it without ill-intent and without advertising their own website every three posts please feel free to join our group here. This is a moderated group so we can keep the discussion positive and sort out what's useful and accurate.
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/cte-students/
John, to summarize, your group was a good idea, and sequesters those that want to openly discuss CTE in a friendly environment. This is always good. What got CTE in trouble (hence the strengthening polarization in the aiming system threads here on AZB) are the never-ending stream of sales pitches, exaggerated claims ("this is a system that will IMMEDIATELY revolutionize your playing, and your pocketing ability 'will' go up 'x' number of balls", etc.), down-trodding the traditional methods, etc. As you can see, the numbers of people absolutely sick of seeing the aiming system threads is increasing, not decreasing. (Yes, I know there are a few trouble makers out there that are not aiming system devotees but yet are starting new aiming system threads.)
Me personally? I'm getting tired of discussing aiming systems. And, I just don't have the bandwidth for it. What little time I do have to peruse AZB, I try to make it count. I don't know how you do it -- making your presence felt in all corners of AZB, every single thread (it seems), commenting on every little point in those posts you reply to, and multiple times in the same thread -- a reply from you to each person that posted into it. I can't keep up with you. How in the heck do you do it? I wish I had that kind of time to devote to this sport I love. But then again, if I did, I wouldn't be here in AZB -- I'd be on the table, practicing, in tournaments, matching up, etc. For me, AZB is sort of a pacifier until I can get onto a table.
Anyway, that's my $0.02,
-Sean
