whats funny is everyone will try and answer PJ cte questions and yet he dodges any question that expose his lack of knowledge on the topic which is a lot and he has a standard answer for any and all questions "Feel or a fractional system" discussing this with PJ is like dealing with a pre schooler.
Is there a common CTE focus point or final aiming point?
- Thread starter plfrg
- Start date
I'm not sure this is true. I actually like most of your posts pj. I'm somewhat new to the forum but from what I've seen I think most are well thought out and reasoned. By the comments from others there would seem to be some disagreement here... but I don't mind constructive dialog that sometimes gets messy.
Full disclosure: I am not promoting or denegrating CTE. I've never used CTE and really have only read about it. I am only trying to understand more about it. I assume that's what a discussion forum is for.
I will probably say some things that will not sit well with CTE (such as the final adjustment that I make based on feel/experience/table conditions that no aiming method can predict) but I would not discount it as an unusable method.
The reason I asked my original question is that it wasn't clear if CTE was using a final reference to focus on during shot execution. It was clear that CTE was using several concrete and physical references to align to the shot - and I would argue that aligning to the shot plays a very important part of aiming.
The primary final aiming line for CTE users appears to be the same aimline that I am using now with a center ball strike on the CB. Many state that this center CB alignment and the aimline from that position forms the final alignment. What's missing for me is a concrete point to aim at (I cannot use the CB and while the aimline is ok, I don't feel that it's precise enough for me). I already use an aimpoint reference so I think the two (using CTE to validate an aimpoint) may be compatible but won't know until I test it for a while.
Having a organized, consistent, methodical approach to a shot is important. It is a key part of a shot routine. I actually spend far more time refining and ingraining my shot routine than I do researching new aiming systems. The interesting thing is, and I could be wrong here but... CTE may provide some additional process that may fit in with my shot routine. In fact some of the stuff I've read about the process that CTE users use, leads me to believe that CTE may be more beneficial in its contribution toward a shot routine than defining where the reference aimpoint resides which would mean that I can stick with the aimpoint reference that I currently use. I already know exactly where the aimpoint reference should start from, if I can gain a little more confidence in that aimpoint using CTE it can't hurt.
One other thing about whether a method is usable or not. Our minds are very capable of resolving items such as aiming a CB - almost no matter what method you can come up with (within reason). We are not all the same. Some of us are more visual, some are more auditory, and some are kinisthetic (feel) oriented. I am somewhat careful when I assess other aiming systems - even those that I don't use.
I'm not a mind reader so if I see someone successfully making balls I assume thier aiming method is acceptable. I would not necessarily suggest to them to change thier aiming method to improve thier game. I would instead focus on running balls or improving their mental skill set.
pflrg
Patrick Johnson does not have any cte experience other than what he has herd or read like all the rest of the people that do not like it. He could not figure out how to apply the system like any of the people here who talk negatively about it. He can not grasp the system, it just wont compute in his brain!! He is the biggest anti cte guy on the site and just wont let it go and move on, for some sick reason he campaigns against cte it as if he was in politics!
How can someone debate so hard against something they cant actually do,apply,grasp,understand,execute and yet others can and enjoy the selective answers you will get from him lol This is the wall you will be up against, known as Patrick Johnson! good luck :thumbup:
PS: do not discuss cte with Duckie! i will repeat "do not discuss cte with Duckie" lol
Patrick Johnson does not have any cte experience other than what he has herd or read like all the rest of the people that do not like it. He could not figure out how to apply the system like any of the people here who talk negatively about it. He can not grasp the system, it just wont compute in his brain!! He is the biggest anti cte guy on the site and just wont let it go and move on, for some sick reason he campaigns against cte it as if he was in politics!
How can someone debate so hard against something they cant actually do,apply,grasp,understand,execute and yet others can and enjoy the selective answers you will get from him lol This is the wall you will be up against, known as Patrick Johnson! good luck :thumbup:
PS: do not discuss cte with Duckie! i will repeat "do not discuss cte with Duckie" lol
Last edited:
Can you tell when your on or off?
Also does a ball with draw help the cut shot because its bouncing towards the ball or is it the turn of the cb?
Consider this, your answer has NOTHING to do with the question.
Well, consider that you're talking to the CTE Choir.
Because CTE aiming is undefined past the common, simple fractional alignments, it boils down to guessing, fidgeting, trial and error and feel, like any other method. This kind of aiming has been determined by CTE users themselves to be utterly unusable in practice.
pj
chgo
I don't think so. CTE is nice on paper, horrific on the table and gives no better chance of finding the spot than to sight the ghostball from the gitgo.
pj
chgo
Nope. Wrong again. It gives the shooter an objective reference that combined with three easy steps brings the shooter to the right shot line every time. No estimating, no fidgeting, no guessing.
We can do this dance forever Pat. FOREVER.
Actually Hal's aiming methods are horrible on paper and WONDERFUL in practice. AMAZINGLY PRECISE in practice.
Well Pj maybe you should forget about all the stuff here and the next time
you go to the table do some experimenting for yourself.You just might come up with something yourself.
When you say its horrific on the table makes me think you really dont want to understand it.You are far from the truth.At least in my eyes you are. I would help you but im kinda of like a troll i guess.Im honest though.:thumbup:
The "objective reference" you're referring to is common fractional alignments. Beyond that it's "make it up as you go" with cute names like "acquire the visual" and "pivot".
A wise man once said "guessing is not a system".
pj
chgo
Not true. See any fidgeting here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb9e6NuNteE
If so please point it out? Show me where the guessing is happening. Where is the fidget? Where is the trial and error?
This is ANOTHER example of exactly the type of shots you and your buddies claim is not possible with CTE.
So please point out where the fidgeting and guessing is happening here.
From my perspective I am doing the following things:
1. sighting the Center to Edge line and aligning my body to it.
2. stepping in and planting my bridge hand.
3. settling into position with a slight pivot to center ball.
4. shooting the shot.
Every shot is done with the same routine.
The objective reference is the edge of the object ball and the center of the cue ball. Or the edges of both balls. Or the shadow of the ball, or the light reflections, in other words things that actually exist and can be seen by every person who views the layout.
No Patty, it's not make it up as you go, it's a defined method with clear instructions. Those instructions have been refined by those who teach these methods of aiming.
Once again you are not willing to BET on your assertions. I and many others ARE willing to bet on them.
Why don't you propose an experiment to test your assertions? If we can agree on how to set it up I will put in $500 towards the bet kitty. I have proposed dozens of experiments to test my assertions and you have ducked every one of them.
So since you are a man of science you ought to have no problem whatsoever to design an experiment we can both agree on.
or you can duck it again by simply saying "is not" like a four year old.
Fidgeting and guessing isn't any more evident to the onlooker than how to "align your body", "plant your bridge", "settle into position" or "pivot to center ball". All these things are just marketing names to mask CTE's version of fidgeting and guessing.
pj
chgo
Again not true. May I have your permission to post the video of you fidgeting after getting down on the shot?
Marketing?
What do I have to gain by marketing any system? I don't SELL this information. Other than the gratification I get from people who say I helped them to aim more accurately I don't have any reason to "market" any method.
I do it because Hal Houle gave it to me and I am doing what I can to pay it forward.
Those of us who use it have thought it about in just about every way possible. We have listened to you and your buddies and taken your claims to the table and dissected them. And the system wins out every time.
You don't know HOW to use it. Even with instructions you were too stubborn to let go and just follow the instructions to learn it the right way. You watched the DVD and decided it wasn't worth your time and yet you come on here and tell those of us who use it every day we play how it works and what's going through our minds.
And yet you told me in the other thread I can't know what's in your mind. So who are you? Miss Cleo? You think you know what I am doing on the table when you can't even do what I do?
I can use GB and fidget my way to the shot line JUST LIKE YOU DO IT.
There isn't a way to aim that you can tell me about that I can't physically perform. But I can tell you several that you REFUSE to even try.
And so if you refuse to try them how can you seriously claim to know how they work?
Ready, 1. 2. 3......duck duck......
I'm sorry Pat, but when you say "common fractional alignments," you can't be talking about any evolution of Hal Houle's systems.
Granted, when these posts say "CTE," I don't know which system specifically anyone is talking about, so I always go back to Hal Houle who didn't teach common fractional alignments. He taught uncommon ways to use the two main parts of the object ball (center and edge) to align the cueball.
If you continue to talk about fractional aiming, then you're debating against some other kind of aiming, but if the CTE users are talking about offshoots of Hal Houle systems, then "common fractional alignments" aren't part of them .
Freddie
Last edited:
The only clearly defined visual alignments CTE uses are half ball, and edge-to-1/4 & 3/4 (or 1/8). What about these isn't fractional and common?
Surely you're not going to bring up CTE's mystical terms for fidget and guess: "acquire the visual" and "pivot".
Of course, the only way to prove how CTE operates is to have John tasered, which I'm willing to witness in the interest of truth.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Pat, every long term player who has ever heard of common fractional aiming are using 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 at the obect ball and the center of the cueball. Houle systems do not. I think this is where people get frustrated since you seem to be arguing against a totally different system that is limited to 3 aimpoints on the object ball.
The term "half-ball" as commonly used is aiming the center of the cueball to the edge of the object ball. Though this is one aim point in any Houle system, all the others that aim at the edge are not half ball hits since most of them do not involve the center of the cueball. When someone says "aim 1/4 the cueball at the object ball edge and then pivot to the center," there is no half ball aim or hit in that equation. So, the common fraction of 1/2 isn't even used except except when the actual shot happens to be a half ball hit.
Also, when someone says to aim 1/4 of the cueball to center of the object ball, this isn't "common fractional aiming reference" by anyone's definition. This is only a Houlism.
In the Houle systems, there are only centers and edges for the object ball. There is a variety of different cueball aimpoints depending on which system . From what I can see, the discussions of the recent CTE variants stick with that idea.
They are not talking in any way about common fractional references.
Last edited: