Does CTE Require Perception or Not?

[Dan White]

In 2009, local expert Spiderwebcomm said:

Super, if you aim directly at a spot on the ball and stroke on a straight line, you'll miss the shot. With CTE, there are the following benefits:

- You no long have to calculate cuts
- Perception no longer comes into play
- All shots become the same
- The system "becomes" your game, pre-shot routine, etc
- No matter what the shot, it sends the ball into the hole

You aim the cb center to ob edge (definitive point to definitive point) and then pivot back to center (definitive point). You essentially two-dimensionalize your aiming and remove perception from the equation. No matter how good you are at picking a spot on the ball - perception is what tells you how far off that point you need to REALLY aim in order to pocket that shot. That's why you might play well one day, and like shit the next - it's how well you're perceiving your shots. There is no perceiving anything with CTE--- outside of sighting the original CTEL properly (which takes some practice). I can sight the ctel in 1 sec... so it's a quick thing.

Dave

I'm curious about the evolution of CTE into Stan's Pro1 where "perception" seems to be of paramount importance. Why are two aiming lines now required, or are the two lines not really required and you can continue to pocket all balls at at all angles all the time without Pro1 the way Dave did in 2009?

 

[stan shuffett]

In 2009, local expert Spiderwebcomm said:

Super, if you aim directly at a spot on the ball and stroke on a straight line, you'll miss the shot. With CTE, there are the following benefits:

- You no long have to calculate cuts
- Perception no longer comes into play
- All shots become the same
- The system "becomes" your game, pre-shot routine, etc
- No matter what the shot, it sends the ball into the hole

You aim the cb center to ob edge (definitive point to definitive point) and then pivot back to center (definitive point). You essentially two-dimensionalize your aiming and remove perception from the equation. No matter how good you are at picking a spot on the ball - perception is what tells you how far off that point you need to REALLY aim in order to pocket that shot. That's why you might play well one day, and like shit the next - it's how well you're perceiving your shots. There is no perceiving anything with CTE--- outside of sighting the original CTEL properly (which takes some practice). I can sight the ctel in 1 sec... so it's a quick thing.

Dave

I'm curious about the evolution of CTE into Stan's Pro1 where "perception" seems to be of paramount importance. Why are two aiming lines now required, or are the two lines not really required and you can continue to pocket all balls at at all angles all the time without Pro1 the way Dave did in 2009?

Dave's post is an interesting look back in time. It certainly reflects Hal's instructional practices of SEE center to edge and shoot.

As I recollect, I believe I started teaching Pro One in about 2008. Pro One at that time was all about SEE CTE and then sweep left or right into the shot. Pro One was characterized by bringing the cue from one's natural direction while the eyes would actually go left or right to the shot line.

Before CTE PRO ONE came along. my teaching manuals had evolved into SEE CTE in two different ways....I would say see CTE this way on some shots and stand thicker to view CTE on others......Little did I know at the time but I was instructing my students to use 30s and 15s. Yes, CTE has been an evolution. I have been moving forward with CTE for nearly a decade now.

Dave was using Pro One in 2009. Landon won his first national junior title essentially with his very same instructions but Pro One was absolutely a part of it....

CTE evolved into 2 lines in 2010.....they essentially defined those two "looks" that I was teaching in 2009..

CTE has evolved as evidenced by DVD1 DVD2 and my forthcoming book.....It is over!

Stan Shuffett

 

[Dan White]

Dave's post is an interesting look back in time. It certainly reflects Hal's instructional practices of SEE center to edge and shoot.

As I recollect I believe I started teaching Pro One in about 2008. Pro One at that time was about see CTE and then sweep left or right into the shot. Pro One was characterized by bringing the cue from one's natural direction while the eyes would actually go left or right to the shot line.

Before CTE PRO ONE came along my teaching manuals had evolved into see CTE in two different ways....I would say see CTE this way on some shots and stand thicker to CTE on others......Little did I know at the time but I was instructing my students to use 30s and 15s. Yes, it has been an evolution. I have been moving forward with CTEXfir a nearly a decade now.

Dave was using Pro One in 2009. Landon won his first national junior title with essentially with his very same instructions but Pro One was absolutely a part of it....

Two lines evolved in 2010.....that essentially defined those two "looks" I teaching by at least 09.

CTE has evolved as evidenced by DVD1 DVD2 and my forthcoming book.....It is over!

Stan Shuffett

I appreciate your feedback but it still begs a question. Dave was shooting lights out and never missing if you watch one of his videos from back then. Was he being a bit overzealous at the time? In other words, "if it ain't broke, why fix it?"

 

[stan shuffett]

I appreciate your feedback but it still begs a question. Dave was shooting lights out and never missing if you watch one of his videos from back then. Was he being a bit overzealous at the time? In other words, "if it ain't broke, why fix it?"

CTE worked extremely well for Dave and Landon in 2009. But there were DEMANDS concerning the feel aspects that were inherent in those early descriptions.

I was told once by a prominent figure in the billiard industry to stop teaching CTE if I could NOT explain it in more detail.

Well, that along with other demands that did not set well with me prompted me to "dig in". My 2 DVDs and my forthcoming book are the results of those that told me CTE does not work....and that CTE is just another feel system.

CTE has ALWAYS been around! CTE has ALWAYS worked! And NOW!...CTE has complete detailed explanations.

Many thanks to all of you that have prompted me along with your many concerns.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Patrick Johnson]

In 2009, local expert Spiderwebcomm said:
There is no perceiving anything with CTE--- outside of sighting the original CTEL properly (which takes some practice).

I believe the more complicated "acquiring the visual" (which takes some practice) serves the same purpose now that "sighting the original CTEL properly (which takes some practice)" did back then: combined with the pivot it gives the shooter "cover" to believe there's no "feel" in the aiming process.

I don't believe it's necessary to fool yourself this way to make CTE an effective tool for you - you could just admit to yourself that you're using these steps to "occupy your conscious mind" so that your subconscious "aiming computer" can do its work without conscious interference.

We could learn something from meditators who do this purposely to help attain a "trance state" - being purposeful about distracting the conscious mind could help us find even more effective ways of doing that, maybe speeding up the learning process.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

CTE worked extremely well for Dave and Landon in 2009. But there were DEMANDS concerning the feel aspects that were inherent in those early descriptions.

I was told once by a prominent figure in the billiard industry to stop teaching CTE if I could NOT explain it in more detail.

Well, that along with other demands that did not set well with me prompted me to "dig in". My 2 DVDs and my forthcoming book are the results of those that told me CTE does not work....and that CTE is just another feel system.

CTE has ALWAYS been around! CTE has ALWAYS worked! And NOW!...CTE has complete detailed explanations.

Many thanks to all of you that have prompted me along with your many concerns.

Stan Shuffett

Nice responses, Stan. Very even keeled.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

I believe the more complicated "acquiring the visual" (which takes some practice) serves the same purpose now that "sighting the original CTEL properly (which takes some practice)" did back then: combined with the pivot it gives the shooter "cover" to believe there's no "feel" in the aiming process.

I don't believe it's necessary to fool yourself this way to make CTE an effective tool for you - you could just admit to yourself that you're using these steps to "occupy your conscious mind" so that your subconscious "aiming computer" can do its work without conscious interference.

We could learn something from meditators who do this purposely to help attain a "trance state" - being purposeful about distracting the conscious mind could help us find even more effective ways of doing that, maybe speeding up the learning process.

pj
chgo

Would you say that it might even have a bit of a hypnotic effect?

When hypnotized people believe things that are not true by the suggestion... like... you're a chicken.

They then start acting & making sounds like a chicken.

Best Wishes.

 

[mohrt]

Would you say that it might even have a bit of a hypnotic effect?

When hypnotized people believe things that are not true by the suggestion... like... you're a chicken.

They then start acting & making sounds like a chicken.

Best Wishes.

If my game jumps dramatically by being hypnotized, if I can take a CB/OB orientation and simply go through all the perceptions/pivots and they result in shot connections to pockets, call me Foghorn Leghorn!

I do this routine often enough to know it works. I'll take a specific CB/OB orientation and put down hole reinforcers so I can reset it. Then I try all the perceptions/pivots, and from here I discover which pocket is the result for each. This helps training to recognize the required perception for a pocket when they come up in games. I think this gives the system quite a bit of merit, when I can discover the pocket by shooting the perception, instead of knowing which pocket we want and assume unconscious steering is the reason it works.

Here is an example from a practice session last night. I have a long thin cut to the corner pocket. Looking at the shot I decided a 45 degree perception with outside pivot was the solution to the shot. When I executed, the ball would hit the long rail instead of go to the pocket. I figured I was not executing/stroking it correctly, and I tried again and paid careful attention to every detail. Still, the ball would hit the long rail. Then I realized, the ball was trying to track two rails to the pocket beneath me. Sure enough I hit the shot a little harder and that is right where it tracked to. So then I tried the 45 inside pivot, and the shot connected to the intended pocket.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If my game jumps dramatically by being hypnotized, if I can take a CB/OB orientation and simply go through all the perceptions/pivots and they result in shot connections to pockets, call me Foghorn Leghorn!

Of course. So why resist calling it what it is - or even discussing what it might really be? Real understanding could lead to unforeseen benefits.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

If my game jumps dramatically by being hypnotized, if I can take a CB/OB orientation and simply go through all the perceptions/pivots and they result in shot connections to pockets, call me Foghorn Leghorn!

I do this routine often enough to know it works. I'll take a specific CB/OB orientation and put down hole reinforcers so I can reset it. Then I try all the perceptions/pivots, and from here I discover which pocket is the result for each. This helps training to recognize the required perception for a pocket when they come up in games. I think this gives the system quite a bit of merit, when I can discover the pocket by shooting the perception, instead of knowing which pocket we want and assume unconscious steering is the reason it works.

Here is an example from a practice session last night. I have a long thin cut to the corner pocket. Looking at the shot I decided a 45 degree perception with outside pivot was the solution to the shot. When I executed, the ball would hit the long rail instead of go to the pocket. I figured I was not executing/stroking it correctly, and I tried again and paid careful attention to every detail. Still, the ball would hit the long rail. Then I realized, the ball was trying to track two rails to the pocket beneath me. Sure enough I hit the shot a little harder and that is right where it tracked to. So then I tried the 45 inside pivot, and the shot connected to the intended pocket.

Hi Monty,

Please see Patrick's post above.

I could tell a TOI story, but...

I'll just stop there.

Best Wishes to YOU & All.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Of course. So why resist calling it what it is - or even discussing what it might really be? Real understanding could lead to unforeseen benefits.

pj
chgo

..........:thumbup2:

 

[8pack]

In 2009, local expert Spiderwebcomm said:

Super, if you aim directly at a spot on the ball and stroke on a straight line, you'll miss the shot. With CTE, there are the following benefits:

- You no long have to calculate cuts
- Perception no longer comes into play
- All shots become the same
- The system "becomes" your game, pre-shot routine, etc
- No matter what the shot, it sends the ball into the hole

You aim the cb center to ob edge (definitive point to definitive point) and then pivot back to center (definitive point). You essentially two-dimensionalize your aiming and remove perception from the equation. No matter how good you are at picking a spot on the ball - perception is what tells you how far off that point you need to REALLY aim in order to pocket that shot. That's why you might play well one day, and like shit the next - it's how well you're perceiving your shots. There is no perceiving anything with CTE--- outside of sighting the original CTEL properly (which takes some practice). I can sight the ctel in 1 sec... so it's a quick thing.

Dave

I'm curious about the evolution of CTE into Stan's Pro1 where "perception" seems to be of paramount importance. Why are two aiming lines now required, or are the two lines not really required and you can continue to pocket all balls at at all angles all the time without Pro1 the way Dave did in 2009?

WHAT!:grin:

Did Davie not see this post.
I find it interesting how the cte guys take it among them self to answer for each other.

The truth will set you free.:wink:

 

[mohrt]

Of course. So why resist calling it what it is - or even discussing what it might really be? Real understanding could lead to unforeseen benefits.



pj

chgo

I think I just did at least explain what does. I don't think the benefits are unforeseen. They are quite apparent.

 

[LAMas]

"Why are two aiming lines now required, or are the two lines not really required and you can continue to pocket all balls at at all angles all the time..."
Dan White

Has this question been answered?

 

[stan shuffett]

"Why are two aiming lines now required, or are the two lines not really required and you can continue to pocket all balls at at all angles all the time..."
Dan White

Has this question been answered?

Because I have studied CTE inside and out, I can use 1 line for the whole CTE process or I can use 2 or even 3........It is all about knowledge and how to use it.

Stan Shuffett

 

[8pack]

Because I have studied CTE inside and out, I can use 1 line for the whole CTE process or I can use 2 or even 3........It is all about knowledge and how to use it.

Stan Shuffett

Which one do you do it best with 1..2 or 3?? 1 sounds easier.

 

[measureman]

It requires believing in a false God.
For that you burn in hell for eternity.

I don't often visit the aiming forum
but when i do i make it count
shoot straight my friends

 

[Railbird Hero]

I look forward to the book coming out. I have a lot of different books and DVDs and while I don't own every single one, I do learn from every one I buy or read. Some things take longer to stick, some things are like mini epiphanies.
Either way. I want to say thanks to all the people who discuss this topic/thread without attacking a user of one vs another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ENGLISH!]

I look forward to the book coming out. I have a lot of different books and DVDs and while I don't own every single one, I do learn from every one I buy or read. Some things take longer to stick, some things are like mini epiphanies.
Either way. I want to say thanks to all the people who discuss this topic/thread without attacking a user of one vs another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The personal 'attacks' are what is holding back any real discussion of the matter.

If I say that a car's automatic transmission does not work because of the gears that it is composed of... but instead works because of the 'fluid' that is in it & makes the connections possible...

... some take that as a an insult to their person because they are driving an automatic transmission car & they then respond by making ALL KINDS of personal 'attacks' on EVERYONE that says the gears are not what makes the transmission work, but instead it's the fluid.

Then they say that anyone that has not built or serviced an automatic transmission is not qualified to even comment on what makes it work & not even if they have a complete understanding of hydraulic fluid systems.

They can't seem to personally separate themselves from the driver's seat long enough to pull the plug & see the fluid drain out & then realize that the transmission does NOT work without the fluid.

Hydraulic brakes are the same way.

Mechanical cable systems & hydraulic systems are NOT the same type of system even though they both get the job done by different means & the result may be the same... the systems are not the same.

One is hard wired with cables & the other relies on 'fluid'.

But... you're correct... there should be no need for personal 'attacks' & it really is sad that some resort to them, so much so, that it's nearly impossible to avoid speaking 'their language' at times.

Best Wishes to You & Yours during this Merry Christmas & Holiday Season.

 

[cookie man]

They can't seem to personally separate themselves from the driver's seat long enough to pull the plug & see the fluid drain out & then realize that the transmission does NOT work without the fluid.

This is hilarious considering you are the one saying that you know everything from the drivers seat and have no need for actual instruction or dvd on subject.