I never try to view the CTEL and the secondary reference line at the same time. I always find the CTEL first, then make the slight adjustment to the secondary line. There is no looking "around" the CTEL for me. Therefore, I only see and use two possible CTEL lines for any CB/OB position. This is how I use Stans system too, although I don't think he teaches it this way. I think with Stans system the lines are very close anyways, but the secondary line is the important one to have locked in. Starting at CTEL helps avoid perception errors. Just to note, 90/90 is pretty much the 1/2 ball hybrid system without the CTEL.
Scott, I think you would have to agree that all the info you need is right there on Stan's DVD. Agreed, it is not an "in your face" presentation. It is a clear, concise explanation of how to use the system.
When one does that, then they are much more likely to "get it" quickly. Once you "get it", then you can clearly see that Stan provided everything needed and no extra fluff. Yes, he didn't scream out certain steps or add bells or chimes to certain parts to make sure you listened to what he said. He simply provided the material. He left it up to each individual to listen. Those that weren't willing to listen, had a harder time understanding, or never have understood.
Please guys, for once let's try to focus on the topic at hand. We are 25 pages in and still making some progress, usually the thread is complete derailed by now. PJ is being quite civil and seems like he's trying to understand some things more fully, but the same 5 - 6 people keep jumping in here and just sniping and taking up space. Would be interesting to get all of the offenders in a room and hash things out in person instead of everyone hiding behind their keyboards and bashing away...
Like I said, it's not whether anyone can beat anyone. Having said that, I posted that I would be in New Orleans two weeks ago. I was in The Big Easy for five days. I played at Joey's home room two days. And nary a peep from Joey. I was told why by the locals, but regardless, quite obviously Joey isn't interested in playing me, so all this is moot.
a rotation game
Why shouldn't he say something like that - is educated speculation about CTE taboo? I don't see anything in Dave's comments that could be taken as an attack. He has a lot to contribute to an open discussion about systems like CTE.cookie man:dr_dave:
This doesn't seem to be the case with the CTE approach, where the vision center might be shifted before and after bridge-hand placement, and maybe during the pivot, to create different perspectives and perceptions.
Are you guessing. If you are your wrong and why would you even say something like that.
That's how you see yourself doing it. An "outsider's" perspective might reveal something new and useful - give it a chance.CTE is a visual system done while standing up no different than any other technique in that regards.
This might be a difference for CTE users, but not necessarily for everybody. Lots of people find other techniques better for themselves. Insisting CTE is "the best" is no better than insisting it "doesn't work" - unless your purpose is to stop conversation and argue.The difference is in how easy and repeatable it is to do. And its effectiveness in pocketing the ball.
I am not guessing. I wrote it that way because it seems like "CTE" means very different things to different people. Based on the most common versions of CTE (including Stan's version), it seems like some (if not many) users would shift their head/eye alignment slightly during the focus change from the CTE line to the OB reference line. It also seems likely that most people would shift their body (hips) and head slightly during any "mechanical pivot" (after bridge-hand placement) to arrive at center ball, especially with the larger-pivot versions.Are you guessing. If you are your wrong and why would you even say something like that. CTE is a visual system done while standing up no different than any other technique in that regards. The difference is in how easy and repeatable it is to do. And its effectiveness in pocketing the ball.The "sight picture" depends on where your "vision center" is. How you perceive the CTE line and the OB reference lines can also depend on where your "vision center" is. But the real key is where you actually place your bridge hand on the table. Regardless of whether you pivot or not, or how much you pivot, you need to place the bridge hand in the right place so the cue (in the final position) will be aligned to send the CB to the necessary ghost-ball position to create the contact point and cut angle needed for a particular shot.
IMO, after all of the CTE steps, it is important that your "vision center" be aligned along the line of the shot so you can visualize if the bridge position and cue alignment you have created (after the aiming alignments, bridge-hand placement, and pivot) looks right for the "shot picture" you have in mind. I personally don't like moving my "vision center" at all during my pre-shot routine. I like keeping my "vision center" perfectly aligned with my desired shot line while actually aiming, while placing my bridge hand and aligning my cue, and while making sure my final "sight picture" looks good in my stance (in the "set" position) before committing to the final stroke. This doesn't seem to be the case with the CTE approach, where the vision center might be shifted before and after bridge-hand placement, and maybe during the pivot, to create different perspectives and perceptions.
I'm quoting this because I think Joey has a valid point here. You have Joey on Ignore, but you don't hesitate to "lob a stinky one" over the fence and then, by virtue of his membership in your Ignore list, "not be there" for the retaliatory reply.
Look, I'm not a fan, either, of: Joey's blue ink; school-marm-with-1950s-glasses admonishment of peoples/behaviors he doesn't agree with; usage of the divisive "yeahsayers" and "naysayers" terms (terms *he* coined to cement the fence that various folks now find themselves looking over); and outright marketing on the forums under the guise of "helping one's pool game." I get it, all of it. (And sorry for the editorializing, Joey, but you know I call 'em as I see 'em, and none of this is news to you, either.)
But in this, he has a valid point. The purpose of Ignore is just that -- to make like someone doesn't exist. I think continuing to needle him while you have him on Ignore is bad form.
Thank you for being a noncombatant in this particular thread and I apologize if my post appeared to be an attempt to incite you into any arguments.... I knee jerked to what I perceived as a trolling attack and an attempt to turn this thread into a flame fest like the others that came before it by SJwhatever.....
I'll make an attempt to actually meet you if you make it to Tunica... It was on my todo list at Derby but I spent that week running around like my hair was on fire and my ASS was catching LOL.......
Why shouldn't he say something like that - is educated speculation about CTE taboo? I don't see anything in Dave's comments that could be taken as an attack. He has a lot to contribute to an open discussion about systems like CTE.
That's how you see yourself doing it. An "outsider's" perspective might reveal something new and useful - give it a chance.
This might be a difference for CTE users, but not necessarily for everybody. Lots of people find other techniques better for themselves. Insisting CTE is "the best" is no better than insisting it "doesn't work" - unless your purpose is to stop conversation and argue.
Sure, Sean. You quoted him, so I could see it -- it’s like you want to incite. But since you quoted him, I will address his “valid" points directly to him. I’d appreciate it if you stayed out of the middle in the future.
I have no purpose here except to try to help people get a better understanding of things concerning cte.
So any more questions or topics of discussion to get us back on track?
I just want to see this get back on track. I've still got about 4 months on my wait to see how CTE works for somebody.
People seem to still be a little confused(or maybe that's me?) about the different ways in which CTE/Pro1 is performed. There was some mention(maybe only by PJ? I can't remember) about people moving either eyes, head or whatnot.
Perhaps this should be broken down from start to finish? Is a perception of a line close enough? Is there something more mathematical to it that isn't immediately recognized?
Just tossing things out there to get this constructive dialogue moving once more.
As with pool, so be it with this topic.. play well, fair and have fun. :thumbup:
On topic, yea, that's not going to happen... I'm sure when I check at work on Monday we'll be on page 35 or 40 and there might be a few good responses I'll have to look for in between all the crap...
For me, I know CTE has helped my game, ball pocketing specifically. I could never have played like I do now with so few hours a week and just have confidence over shots. The old me was always feeling my way into a shot, and without constant play I would lose that feel. Sure, maybe I'm using some feel with CTE as well, I'm open minded on that point since I can't prove it mathematically, but it feels more precise and discrete, and it's that feeling that gets me to the correct aim line every time and gives me the confidence to make the shot.