Mike,
As I said I get a nice solid hit and a better break using the CTE method to aim my break shot. That turned out to be a nice by product of adopting this method. Not everyone's results may be the same.
Your characterization of the process does not describe what I do. If you want to learn just what I do then I highly suggest that you find someone who can show it to you. There is no estimation involved - my bridge hand goes in the same place every time relative to the shot.
You're right that conceptually a straight shot (100% full ball collision) is the one which would seem to be the easiest to line up and execute.
How do you line up a straight shot? You tell me first how you do it and then I will tell you one method of how I do it. Not CTE.
Clearly once a person is in line then it's all about execution. But my question to you is how do you KNOW that you are dead in line on the straight shot before you pull the trigger?
John:
I don't want to step between you and Mike, but I did want to address this last question. The root/core answer is FUNDAMENTALS.
I'll elaborate, but first I'll commend you on not making the same mistake that Hal did when expressing this. You question, "how does one know one is dead in-line to the shot," which is a very valid question with a simple and oft-overlooked answer (fundamentals). You didn't ask it as Hal did, which was, "how do you know it's a straight-in shot, and not a 3-degree cut," -- a very stupid/condescending question from someone that obviously underestimates his students' ability to get behind the shot and readily recognize a straight-in from a slight cut.
Getting back to elaborating, it is true that pool players, with their lack of regimented fundamentals, are most VULNERABLE to not knowing if they are truly dead in-line with the shot. There are as many different pool stances / arm positions / grips / lining-up the head and eyes / etc. as there are positions for the sun in the sky. There's a reason why we're seeing things like pivot-based aiming, "Perfect Aim" (which is really only about head/eye alignment), etc., and we're not seeing even a brief mention of those things in other more regimented / more precise pocket-based cue sports like snooker, Pyramid, et al. It's because there's a void in pool that these things fill.
You saw the responses that a question about CTE got on the snooker forum. I was talking to a really strong snooker player the other day, and I asked him about pivot-based aiming (he'd not heard of it, so I had to explain to him the basic tenets of the technique). He responded with an analogy, which up until that point, I hadn't thought of, but it made perfect sense. He said that pivot-based aiming, to him, sounded like using the lane markers in bowling. Beginners use the lane markers because these are much closer and easier to aim at than the stack of pins 19 meters away. Advanced players, with their advanced fundamentals, eschew the lane markers and instead are able to aim directly at the stack of pins using the boards, and they aim for a spot on the boards much farther away, close to the stack, that they want the ball to travel over with a certain spin, to hit a certain spot on the stack between the head pin and the second row (the strike "sweet spot" as we all know).
Advanced players are able to do this, because the subconscious muscle memory is able to help them deliver the ball accurately, and no brain CPU cycles need be wasted on this endeavor. Just speed and spin.
In pool, the analogy is that the CTEL is the lane marker. The idea is that it's much easier to aim at this, then to try to aim at the ghost ball positioned at the correct spot next to the object ball in line to pocket that object ball in a pocket an even further distance away. Delivery, here, is the main problem for every pool player. Delivering that cue accurately. Unfortunately, there's probably a good sum of players that may have adopted pivot-based aiming to address a problem that wasn't an aiming problem to begin with. A lot of players underestimate their natural ability to perceive the shot, and may've [mistakenly] discarded their natural ability to adopt an aiming system that doesn't require you to perceive
anything -- just point, [blindly] pivot a certain arbitrary amount, and shoot. Just believe in the system, and you'll have success. The unfortunate thing is, the problem probably wasn't aiming all along -- it was a cue delivery (or even head/eye alignment) problem, that would be better long-term addressed with focused attention on fundamentals. It's much analogous to turning up the volume on the car stereo to mask noises heard in the engine. It makes the driving experience more pleasant, but is certainly not good for the car, and the car is going to break down, sooner or later.
Anyway, that's my thoughts wrapped around that interesting analogy relayed to me by a really good snooker player.
Thoughts, anyone?
-Sean
