Pro One: Is CTE really that necessary?

Dilbert

Dilbert

Registered
Most of the time I find myself skipping CTE and went straight ahead in lining my body/visual to the 2nd referencel line after figuring out the cut angle, w/c is odd because I can still pot balls.

Sooo this is how I go about it

1. I align myself dead straight to a full ball hit to determine the cut angle
2. Skipping the CTE. I then look for the A,B,C,1/8 reference line and shift my body/visual to that line basing on the cut angle
3. I decide w/c visual sweep to use
4. I drop,stroke,shoot and BOOM the ball goes in.

I'm just wondering what I'm doing right here since it doesnt go by with the CTE fundamentals.
 
Dilbert said:
Most of the time I find myself skipping CTE and went straight ahead in lining my body/visual to the 2nd referencel line after figuring out the cut angle, w/c is odd because I can still pot balls.

Sooo this is how I go about it

1. I align myself dead straight to a full ball hit to determine the cut angle
2. Skipping the CTE. I then look for the A,B,C,1/8 reference line and shift my body/visual to that line basing on the cut angle
3. I decide w/c visual sweep to use
4. I drop,stroke,shoot and BOOM the ball goes in.

I'm just wondering what I'm doing right here since it doesnt go by with the CTE fundamentals.
Click to expand...

Yes, a CTE perception is necessary with the OB Aimpoints.

You can not use the system accurately for CTE by directly using the aim line or the CTE line.

It is ok to get directly behind the 1 line visuals.

Stan Shuffett
 
I will defer to Stan on this one, but I think what you are saying is you are ignoring an active CTE perception and just aligning offset to the A/B/C aim points.

That can work, as long as you are "accidentally" also in the correct position to perceive CTE. Stan focuses on both lines in order to dial things in very accurately, and ignoring one line or the other will work sometimes (IMO) but can lead to inconsistencies since you can be just slightly off in your initial alignment.

I went through this same thing but did the opposite and focused more on the CTE line on normal cuts since the A/C points weren't objective and I figured I would get close enough with just CTE perception. And that's what I got - close enough. Some days were better than others, would miss random shots, blamed it on my sweep or stroke. After refocusing on my aim, things came together quite nicely.

That being said, if it works for you, great! Just be aware if things change that you might need to return to having a stronger perception of both lines, and doing so after ignoring one of them for a while will require some refocusing on your part in your routine.
Scott
 
scottjen26 said:
I will defer to Stan on this one, but I think what you are saying is you are ignoring an active CTE perception and just aligning offset to the A/B/C aim points.

That can work, as long as you are "accidentally" also in the correct position to perceive CTE. Stan focuses on both lines in order to dial things in very accurately, and ignoring one line or the other will work sometimes (IMO) but can lead to inconsistencies since you can be just slightly off in your initial alignment.

I went through this same thing but did the opposite and focused more on the CTE line on normal cuts since the A/C points weren't objective and I figured I would get close enough with just CTE perception. And that's what I got - close enough. Some days were better than others, would miss random shots, blamed it on my sweep or stroke. After refocusing on my aim, things came together quite nicely.

That being said, if it works for you, great! Just be aware if things change that you might need to return to having a stronger perception of both lines, and doing so after ignoring one of them for a while will require some refocusing on your part in your routine.
Scott
Click to expand...

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
This. Very well stated Scott.
 
scottjen26 said:
I will defer to Stan on this one, but I think what you are saying is you are ignoring an active CTE perception and just aligning offset to the A/B/C aim points.

That can work, as long as you are "accidentally" also in the correct position to perceive CTE. Stan focuses on both lines in order to dial things in very accurately, and ignoring one line or the other will work sometimes (IMO) but can lead to inconsistencies since you can be just slightly off in your initial alignment.

I went through this same thing but did the opposite and focused more on the CTE line on normal cuts since the A/C points weren't objective and I figured I would get close enough with just CTE perception. And that's what I got - close enough. Some days were better than others, would miss random shots, blamed it on my sweep or stroke. After refocusing on my aim, things came together quite nicely.

That being said, if it works for you, great! Just be aware if things change that you might need to return to having a stronger perception of both lines, and doing so after ignoring one of them for a while will require some refocusing on your part in your routine.
Scott
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying. It was the other way around for me. When I first started, I also see to it that I align my body with the CTEL through my dominant eye but encountered problems with it, mostly with stance. IMO, if you attempt to compensate for the 2nd reference line after aligning yourself with the CTEL first, this would result to an awkward and uncomfortable stance once you pivot in. That's why I find it more comfortable to line myself up with the secondary line.

After considering what you've said,yesterday I had enough time to practice for 5 hours and realized that 2-line perception is really needed for consistency for the reason that you can only pivot/sweep STRICTLY within those lines. Going over to the outside from the CTEL will result to a thicker hit and vice versa - please correct me if I'm wrong

As stan mentioned, its ok to get behind the 2nd reference line. Does this make the secondary line essentially the primary as this is the line that indicates the cut angle with the CTEL regulating where you can pivot?
 
Dilbert said:
I see what you're saying. It was the other way around for me. When I first started, I also see to it that I align my body with the CTEL through my dominant eye but encountered problems with it, mostly with stance. IMO, if you attempt to compensate for the 2nd reference line after aligning yourself with the CTEL first, this would result to an awkward and uncomfortable stance once you pivot in. That's why I find it more comfortable to line myself up with the secondary line.

After considering what you've said,yesterday I had enough time to practice for 5 hours and realized that 2-line perception is really needed for consistency for the reason that you can only pivot/sweep STRICTLY within those lines. Going over to the outside from the CTEL will result to a thicker hit and vice versa - please correct me if I'm wrong

As stan mentioned, its ok to get behind the 2nd reference line. Does this make the secondary line essentially the primary as this is the line that indicates the cut angle with the CTEL regulating where you can pivot?
Click to expand...

If you visually place your strongest focal point directly behind the aim line, the system will not work for the 2 line CTE alignments.

The same is true if you were to get directly behind the physical CTE line.

Stan Shuffett
 
Sorry stan I was quite confused with visually placing my strongest focal point directly behind the aim line
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top