How did you pot the first one ? Do you think it's only one angle you could pot from with cte? If so what is that angle?
Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?
- Thread starter SamLambert
- Start date
How did you pot the first one ? Do you think it's only one angle you could pot from with cte? If so what is that angle?
Cte worked fine in the match against you. I fell apart emotionally and so my execution wasn't all there.
In fact it's very clear from the video I made many great shots because of using CTE to aim with. Where I messed up was not being calm and thus my fundamentals went to shit. Also I was making bad choices throughout the match.
Which only goes to prove that a good aiming method helps tremendously even the rest of your game has gone to shit.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
I thought you wanted me to prove anybody could make those 5 shots without using CTE so I posted this:
https://youtu.be/VevvGAxOqNM
Apparently I misunderstood what you were saying. Let's forget that. I have a question that gets more to the heart of my confusion. Bear in mind I realize I don't know Stan's system but I have spent some time (at the expense of actually putting in some table time) gleaning what I could through Youtube videos and scanning other threads. I'm sure somewhere in the morass my question is answered, but I cannot find it. Help me out.
Oh, the other thing I should throw out there is that I am not here to knock anything, just to learn. If I am wrong I would be delighted to be corrected. However, that is a two way street. I would appreciate any time you could give to help me, but I need to know that if I have insights that question your set beliefs that you will acknowledge that and not just change the subject, or accuse me of trolling. I'm not here to waste my time, and that's what it will be if honest, probing questions are answered by "well you have to just try it." I can see how all these threads get so crazy, so I'm going to try and make the questions below my last focus of discussion, and then if I can't get a better understanding then I'll probably just drop it. That or order Stan's DVD's, assuming he has answers there.
OK, so here goes...
English put me on to this video:
https://youtu.be/bAKAP8iR3Lw?t=6m10s
I started the video part way though, which I'll come back to. First, some background to confirm whether I understand what he's saying: Stan says that there are two lines to consider -- one is the CB edge to A on the OB, and the other is the CB center to OB edge. Stan's point is that the shooter will not line up strictly behind the edge to A line or the center to edge line. Instead, he will move somewhere in between those to a spot where it looks like the shooter can see both the edge to A and the center to edge without moving his head. When he finds this sweet spot, or let's say compromise position, Stan says the cue ball has "fixed edges". I think I get that part. Then he says to do a half tip sweep into the shot, which I don't understand because I don't know the whole system. From reading other threads I understand the difference between a manual pivot and a sweep. The sweep is just a shortcut and is less mechanical feeling. I don't understand what cueing your bridge up offset a 1/2 tip does for you. But, I'll accept that this is an important part of the system.
Stan also confirms what you are saying, that this is a completely objective system. He is truly amazed that something like this can really be objective, but due to the dimensions of the table, it is. (This is a separate idea from the act of fixing the edges of the cue ball. That could be considered a little subjective, but is part of the learning curve in using the CTE system).
OK, assuming I am not making any mistakes so far, here's the real question in this post. In looking at the video where I start it, Stan has just demonstrated locking in the cue ball (or "fixing the edges") with the thicker shot (green ball) and is now moving to demonstrate the same thing on the yellow ball. For the life of me I don't understand why the cue ball is not locked in the exact same way as with the green ball. Stan must be taking into account the position of the corner pocket. How does he connect his procedure to the location of the pocket? At 6:30 Stan says he just "doesn't have that center to edge perception." WHY NOT?
OK, so John, or somebody PLEASE make me a believer by showing me how to understand why Stan can't fix the edges of the cue ball just like he did with the green ball.
Thanks.
Last edited:
Doesn't matter. You're all ears anyway.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Cookie Man - please see my last post above. I think this gets to the heart of the matter.
Thanks.
Post the link and your username there. Before I do you have send the $10.
Paypal@jbideas.com
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
And why not? Afraid of what you might hear?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Both links are to your video.
Oops. Thanks - fixed.
Own every shot means that CTE user who learns the key to a particular shot will forever know how to aim that shot.
Again aim does not equal make.
But aiming right helps to get more consistent as a player.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
People say it's helping them; who are we to question?
Ignoring the overwrought mumbo jumbo (I know, I know), at heart it's a fractional system that emphasizes choreographed pre-shot visualization and alignment. I think those things might be beneficial even with (maybe because of?) the baloney wrapper.
pj
chgo
Locksmith!!!
Call me a locksmith, call me a digger......... You make the bet right and I'll pull the trigger...... :thumbup:
John,
That's the same as saying that once one learns a 1/4 ball hit shot they own all 1/4 ball hit shots.
I thought CTE was suppose to even take one to a slight over cut to counter CIT so that the OB goes CENTER POCKET. That's an amazing connection to not only the 2:1 ratio table but to the laws of physics.
Now you say they just know the proper CTE visual for the shot but that will not get them to consistently pocket the ball.
Just how bad of a stroke do these CTE users have? It's a center CB tip hit & does not involve squirt & swerve.
Then what good is it over fractional when one owns a 1/4 ball hit?
Best Wishes.
Dan, I don't believe I have ever said "just try it" to you.
I will send you a video where I will explain this video to you from my perspective.
It's better than me writing a bunch more words.
Well if one learns what any overlap is and where it works then they would indeed OWN that perception for life. A good example is the half ball hit from the kitchen that is the 100% correct aim for the spot shot.
My friend, who is a very good one pocket player, aims by feel, always had trouble with the spot shot. Danny Smith showed him the aim from the kitchen with ball in hand and as a result now my friend - the feel player - lines up perfectly using an OBJECTIVE method - and he nails the spot shot or buries it in the corner pocket every time he shoots it now. Every time, not some of the time. Every time.
I know it as well but my stroke isn't that great so I sometimes hit this too thin EVEN THOUGH I am lined up dead perfect. I had assumed that he must have known it but incredibly no one ever showed him that way to aim a spot shot until Danny did.
The point of CTE is that it's a set of master keys for almost all shots. Once you figure out which "key" works for a shot then you own it. Figuring it out doesn't require 100 trial and error attempts to form a shot picture. Instead it takes less than five if that and then from that point on the right key is known. And that same key will work for most similar shots with no illusions.
Nothing defies physics. The player is using the objects in front of him and picking up the actual lines that exist and then coming into the shooting position from wherever the method's instructions have placed him. So all he can do is take that shot line and take the shot. The more capable the shooter the more often the shot will be made because the shot line is correct if the method was correctly applied.
This can be easily tested and in fact I have just thought of a test that will require more video production capability than I have but I believe I can prove that CTE use takes the shooter to the proper GB position every time. Thanks for the conversation to spur this idea.
Knockers are great for getting people to think. We had a lively flat earth discussion happening on FB. Saying the earth is flat gets people thinking about HOW they "know" it is round. I now know more about why the earth is round than I ever learned in school and I know why what I learned in school is true. The same applies here.
I use CTE and depend on it and if someone had a gun to my head and put up a shot I had to make or die then I would use CTE to line it up. I don't particularly care how you feel about it BUT I respect your right to question anything and it does get me thinking about finding the answers more for myself than for you.
CTE does take you to a slight overcut, which is where you would be if you used GB properly. Slight in this context means incredibly tiny amount. It doesn't take much to counter CIT.
OK, I withdraw that comment. I didn't mean to come off negatively, but I've been reading the other CTE threads which are basically flame wars.
You may be familiar with the saying, "If you can't explain it so that your grandmother would understand, then you don't know it well enough." Stan has been working at CTE for well over 20 years. I would hope that somebody can explain what appears to be an enormous leap at that point in the video with not even a whisper of explanation. Maybe it is because this specific video was about perception and not the rest of what makes CTE work.
I'm looking forward to your video. Thanks!
John,
I'll await your 'proof' but I'm 62 & I won't be here forever. You will not be able to prove anything about whether or not subjectivity is in play with a video.
Best Wishes & Good Night.
PS It's not about proving anything to me. It's about telling the facts of matters to any & all potential buyers that would invest time in it. As I said before, time is a precious commodity when you're in your mid to late 50s.
Let's define what we mean by objective before we continue.
Objective in aiming, to me, refers to reducing estimation considerably by the use of physical objects as references.
Subjective is estimating the shot line with none or very little reference using physical objects.
Objective reasoning is done using as many factual points as possible without personal bias or emotion. Objective aiming is done using as many measuring/reference points as possible to reduce uncertainty as much as possible.
Ghost ball aiming for example is only objective in that you use the object ball to imagine a phantom cueball that is to be lined up to and replaced by the actual cue ball. Obviously the imagination part is highly subjective since it involves creating a fully formed imaginary ball and mentally placing it correctly.
Back of the Ball/Contact Point aiming gets better because it forms a relationship between the pocket and the ball by splitting the ball in half and giving the shooter an idea of where the object ball should be contacted to send it down the pocket line. But this method with one line of reference from the pocket to the ball doesn't really help the shooter to accurately aim the cue ball to the object ball with total confidence. But it is better than pure guessing. While the object ball can be mentally split actually identifying a "point" on a small sphere is what's actually nearly impossible to do accurately. We can get the generally area fairly consistently though.
So from there we go to a shaft method where the sides of the shaft are used aimed at the contact point. This allows for another line of reference for the shooter to use. It works pretty good for a range of shots.
Then we move on to Shane's method of using portions of the shaft as Shane does and aiming at the edge of the object ball. I understand that you don't think a shaft can be mentally divided into portions but I assure you that a human is fully capable of doing this and the more they do the better they are at it. I agree that the first time a person tries Shane's method they might not be great at it. But with practice they certainly learn to pretty accurately use the portions of the shaft to the edge of the object ball.
From there we get into ball to ball methods - 90/90, CTE/ProOne, and SEE System are some examples. These methods rely exclusively on being able to mentally divide the balls and align one's body to concrete "lines" connecting the balls. This method of perception for playing pool is a new frontier as Stan put it. Hal pioneered it even though he said that similar methods were used as far back as the forties. But he really spent a lot of table time figuring out many ways to aim. So given that these methods are not conventional of course the force the shooter to adopt a new paradigm in how to "aim" in pool. Once a person commits to it then they are open to really learning to see the lines and understand the motions involved. Again, as with everything, the more they study and practice the better they get at it. Ball to Ball aiming though provides the most objective way to aim because the shooter is forming a conscious relationship between the two actual balls.
In fact Aiming By The Numbers, Joe Tucker's take on the Equal/Opposite method of aiming (the easy to diagram geometrically correct method that shows that an equal portion of the object ball must meet it's opposite portion of the cueball for a perfect hit on the correct contact point.) use a special set of balls which are numbered so that the shooter can learn to recognize shots by the number. So then the result is that with practice a person learns to understand that this shot is a number 4 for example.
Some instructors teach another Ball to Ball method called S.A.M. which also uses shot numbers to teach players to perceptually see the right ball to ball alignment.
All this is to say that we should never underestimate the power of the human to train himself to get very precise when he has the right framework to do it in. After all we know for sure that it's possible with no formal system at all. One can through brute force learn to see the shots as they really are. Systems take out the need to do that and let players focus on more than aiming because the aiming is set once they learn and master a good dependable method.
And Shane's is certainly not bad, based both on my own experience with it and of course Shane's results. A player could do far worse than to try and copy everything Shane does. So if a top player says that they do something and it works then I will give it a try. I already tried the shoot till my fingers bleed method and I got to a pretty decent level while also working full time.