Some Rational, Reasonable, Truthfully Logical, Cognitive Thought Regarding CTE

[JB Cases]

Could it be like walking a tightrope?? I mean, the instructions can certainly be objective, but the walker must first develop excellent balance in order to perform well. And that part is subjective.

I think it is more like this; if the tightrope instructor says, do these five steps and the student is then able to find the right balance then for the student the instructions led them to the balance that they need. However if the student is unfamiliar with some of the terms in the instructions then maybe they need to work on understanding those terms to be able to follow the instructions.

I always come back to the Fosbury Flop. This was a new technique for doing the high jump and was roundly ridiculed. However after Dick Fosbury broke all of the records and won all the medals the rest of the high-jumpers started to use his method and achieve similar results.

Long before we had the technological ability to understand the biomechanics in detail someone created a technique that improved the performance of the whole field.

Fosbury might have given a completely wrong answer as to the mechanics underlying the technique but the practical effect was that he was outperforming his competitors. Did it matter that he was not entirely clear why that technique worked better? I don't think so.

He discovered a way to objectively and consistently perform a measured task that could be and was duplicated by others. In the interim the technique has been studied and improved on.

My point will always be today from a user's perspective, which is my perspective, if you tell me to do steps one, two and three and by completing these steps I get to the shot line then I don't need to know why it works.

If those instructions triggered something in my brain that allows it to consistently get me to the shot line without any extra conscious consideration then great. I liken it to the technique of looking two car lengths ahead. Doing that consistently provides the information that I need to pilot the car effectively. Had I not learned it then I would likely still be able to drive but perhaps not as consistently well. So if the task is not to get into an accident then that simple visual technique works pretty well to help the user stay out of accidents.

Here is something I have to date not seen a single cte critic be willing to participate in. A shot making study where participants are taught various aiming systems and their body actions and eye patterns are recorded from several angles. The table is fully gridded out and the same is done around the table.

This would provide us with a way to track the body movements in relation to the table and ball positions. I am pretty confident that such a series of testing would lead to a far greater understanding of aiming overall as relates to pool in particular.

Far cheaper to be a critic and just mock and knock though. That's free entertainment as speculation presented as fact costs the speaker nothing.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...the instructions can certainly be objective

I think the most a system can do truly objectively without getting too cumbersome is to define a handful of reference alignment(s).

I don't know why some system users want to diminish the important part their own skill plays in the aiming process. Just because it's subconscious doesn't mean it isn't a personal achievement.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

I think the most a system can do truly objectively without getting too cumbersome is to define a handful of reference alignment(s).

I don't know why some system users want to diminish the important part their own skill plays in the aiming process. Just because it's subconscious doesn't mean it isn't a personal achievement.

pj
chgo

well it does mean that it isn't a personal achievement if you give credit to the subconscious when 99.9% of the process from visual analysis of the table layout to ball address is a series of very conscious choices. Learning a system properly is a conscious act. Employing it is a conscious act.

I don't think that system users are diminishing their own skill. Just that if I give a non-system user, say a 550 fargo rated player a comprehensive shotmaking test and record their score and then I teach them an aiming system and have them take the test again and they score significantly higher why should I attribute the higher score to the subconscious?

I mean telling someone that what they are doing cannot work but somehow their subconscious is making it work is confusing and not really helpful. You all think I don't listen to you but I do. It was that thinking about Colin's assessment about aiming systems getting the user close that led me to the discovery of exit line distances. I don't know what that knowledge means for how the system works but I do think that it is important to know that when using CTE the distance between the CTE line vector as it exits the back of the cueball and the shot line vector are less than .5mm apart at the very most and mostly a lot closer than that. So maybe the perception references make those lines even tighter to the point that the shot line vector "appears" because there isn't anything left.

The thing that I always come back to is that when I do manual pivoting I am NOT picking out a shot line. There is never a line where I say that's it before putting my hand on the table. I put my hand down with the cue pointing at the edge and pivot to center and that's the line. So for me as the user this isn't guessing. Once I am at the point where I am going to have to put my hand down my body has been moved into whatever position it is in based on the perception chosen and the next step is to put the bridge hand down. For me there is literally NEVER a single moment where I say wait that's not right. I just put the bridge hand down and pivot to center and the shot line is right.

Sure it baffles me as to why this would work. But it's too mechanical of a connection to ascribe it to "subconscious adjustment". I feel like that is the easy way out to describe it. My brain can't pick out the right shot line for reverse cuts by feel. It can't because I have tried and tried. I have tried without templates and with ghost ball templates and the results are inconsistent. But when I use CTE it's right there. To the point that I push the limits trying really stupid-loooking cut shots just to see what happens. So what is happening that the same brain can't pick out the shot consistently even with a template to aim at but with CTE it can. I would love to know because it pisses me off to have a tool that I don't fully understand even when it is objectively great and useful.

I don't know if Stan is right or wrong on some of his claims as to how CTE works. I know he has been creating terms and using terms to explain it and maybe he is on the right track and maybe not but the end results are valid. What has bugged me is your refusal and the refusal of others to even think about looking for any other answer than subconscious adjustment. I told you ten years ago that I thought we could accomplish a lot if we all got together on a table but you rebuffed that idea.

Has all of this argument been productive for you? It hasn't been for me and has made me feel really bitter towards people I used to like. You know that we were cool with each other and you know I never went out of my way to bash you. I made a video where I shot balls into the side and mentioned your name as a reference to show you that the steps were all the same from the user's perspective and I wasn't negative about it at all. You complained to YouTube unfairly and they took it down although there was literally NOTHING there that was in any way attacking you at all. I spent about an hour doing that video as part of our ongoing discussion and you just trashed that work. When you do that how do you expect that I would take it? From my side I am trying to work together to figure it out and from your side only negativity and bashing.

Well, I hope for a better future on this topic.

 

[boogieman]

I don't think that system users are diminishing their own skill. Just that if I give a non-system user, say a 550 fargo rated player a comprehensive shotmaking test and record their score and then I teach them an aiming system and have them take the test again and they score significantly higher why should I attribute the higher score to the subconscious?

Not the point you were making, but I imagine a test like this. Take 5 complete beginners. Teach them all a proper stroke and nothing else (lol).Teach 3 of them a different aiming system, tell one to do drills and teach one nothing. Check their fargo rating after 6 months of dedication to their method. The problem is, you have to do this with many people for a good sample size. You also need to throw out the super high players and super low players as they could be attributed to natural talent or lack there of. An experiment like this could teach us a lot, but good luck getting it done with a decent sample size.

 

[boogieman]

My brain can't pick out the right shot line for reverse cuts by feel. It can't because I have tried and tried. I have tried without templates and with ghost ball templates and the results are inconsistent. But when I use CTE it's right there. To the point that I push the limits trying really stupid-loooking cut shots just to see what happens. So what is happening that the same brain can't pick out the shot consistently even with a template to aim at but with CTE it can. I would love to know because it pisses me off to have a tool that I don't fully understand even when it is objectively great and useful.

Well, I'll say this. When you do these back cuts, they sure are easier if you poke your head out, right? I can't comment on the aim "points" and how they differ from what I do, but if you are looking at the shot correctly with relation to eye dominance, it goes. If I were to summarize what I think CTE is doing is giving you a way to arrange your eyes to see the shot correctly. With pivots and aim "points" all it's doing is aligning the way human eyes work to the one true shot line. Pivots aren't about making the CB go where you want, it's about getting your stick straight in the correct line to shoot the shot correctly. This can all be done without pivots, it can be done by simply having your eyes in the right place and understanding where to hit the OB. CTE basically has a "formula" for getting your stick on the correct line. You still must estimate angles. Estimation is not objective unless you break out the protractor or angle finder. It's a skill that can be learned by most.

How do you know how far to sweep your pivot? Does it have to do with bridge length? I propose CTE is an exacting PSR routine that gets you on the shot line. The sweep is where you actually aim correctly to make the shot. It's not fidgeting or anything, but your sweep is the point where you actually "aim," the rest is just a reference to get you damn close so aiming is in a much finer range. You know when your sweep is right because you've given yourself a correct shot picture with the added step of "looking at it" right through poking your head out.

The shot line with CTE isn't exactly what everyone else gets when they pick it with other aiming systems or lack there of, but it's consistent, which is a huge advantage. You have to sweep in a known direction, where I might have to waggle back and forth a tiny bit if I came down wrong.

 

[The_JV]

I mean telling someone that what they are doing cannot work but somehow their subconscious is making it work is confusing and not really helpful.

This is what I glean from your YouTube videos on Ghost Ball not working.

It does exactly what every other system does. Get ya real close... It can't account for everything, but I have yet to see someone claim that it does.

 

[The_JV]

The shot line with CTE isn't exactly what everyone else gets when they pick it with other aiming systems or lack there of, but it's consistent, which is a huge advantage. You have to sweep in a known direction, where I might have to waggle back and forth a tiny bit if I came down wrong.

...and there you go. Mystery solved.

None of all the other crap really matters as long as you're performing the address of the CB in a consistent / known manner so the required adjustments become second nature.

I know Ghost Ball, will fail once I reach a cut point wherein CIT will take the OB off the potting line. That reality doesn't matter, because I don't count on it (GB location) to pot the ball. Just gets me close enough so I can apply my personal brand of compensation.

 

[JB Cases]

This is what I glean from your YouTube videos on Ghost Ball not working.

It does exactly what every other system does. Get ya real close... It can't account for everything, but I have yet to see someone claim that it does.

I didn't say ghost ball CANNOT work. I say it does work but that it is unlikely to be consistently good shot to shot to shot to shot. Ghost ball doesn't get you real close a lot of the time and that is the point.

 

[JB Cases]

Well, I'll say this. When you do these back cuts, they sure are easier if you poke your head out, right? I can't comment on the aim "points" and how they differ from what I do, but if you are looking at the shot correctly with relation to eye dominance, it goes. If I were to summarize what I think CTE is doing is giving you a way to arrange your eyes to see the shot correctly. With pivots and aim "points" all it's doing is aligning the way human eyes work to the one true shot line. Pivots aren't about making the CB go where you want, it's about getting your stick straight in the correct line to shoot the shot correctly. This can all be done without pivots, it can be done by simply having your eyes in the right place and understanding where to hit the OB. CTE basically has a "formula" for getting your stick on the correct line. You still must estimate angles. Estimation is not objective unless you break out the protractor or angle finder. It's a skill that can be learned by most.

How do you know how far to sweep your pivot? Does it have to do with bridge length? I propose CTE is an exacting PSR routine that gets you on the shot line. The sweep is where you actually aim correctly to make the shot. It's not fidgeting or anything, but your sweep is the point where you actually "aim," the rest is just a reference to get you damn close so aiming is in a much finer range. You know when your sweep is right because you've given yourself a correct shot picture with the added step of "looking at it" right through poking your head out.

The shot line with CTE isn't exactly what everyone else gets when they pick it with other aiming systems or lack there of, but it's consistent, which is a huge advantage. You have to sweep in a known direction, where I might have to waggle back and forth a tiny bit if I came down wrong.

Yes, if I turn my nose towards the inside of the cut and step from the inside to center then the line I am looking at starting at center cueball is the shot line. I can't explain it but it's there and it works. I don't waggle looking to adjust aim when I am down. I do all my "wiggling and waggling" insofar as the motion I do when sighting the shot when I am standing up to make sure I have the perception right.

I don't estimate angles - EVER. I don't. I don't think in angles and don't care whether a shot is 32.4 degrees or 38.7 degrees. I did a video on this and screwed it up naturally because I am somehow directionally dyslexic and say left when I mean right often.

 

[JB Cases]

Not the point you were making, but I imagine a test like this. Take 5 complete beginners. Teach them all a proper stroke and nothing else (lol).Teach 3 of them a different aiming system, tell one to do drills and teach one nothing. Check their fargo rating after 6 months of dedication to their method. The problem is, you have to do this with many people for a good sample size. You also need to throw out the super high players and super low players as they could be attributed to natural talent or lack there of. An experiment like this could teach us a lot, but good luck getting it done with a decent sample size.

This is the kind of thing I am thinking of. I don't want to be thought of as some cult-indoctrinated person who is pushing something that is useless and harmful to people's games. I want for the best minds in pool to take this seriously and find the common ground.

 

[boogieman]

Yes, if I turn my nose towards the inside of the cut and step from the inside to center then the line I am looking at starting at center cueball is the shot line. I can't explain it but it's there and it works. I don't waggle looking to adjust aim when I am down. I do all my "wiggling and waggling" insofar as the motion I do when sighting the shot when I am standing up to make sure I have the perception right.

I wondered if this was the case. I've not really used it, but CTE doesn't negate the sighting while standing, it gives you a formula to follow, which is good. It's discipline. I figured you didn't waggle because if you sight the ball correctly you don't really have to, it's done standing up while sighting. When you're down, you know that if you're having to make more than minute adjustments, it's time to stand up because you don't have the shot picture/aim/sight on the ball.

I don't estimate angles - EVER. I don't. I don't think in angles and don't care whether a shot is 32.4 degrees or 38.7 degrees. I did a video on this and screwed it up naturally because I am somehow directionally dyslexic and say left when I mean right often.

I'll check the video out here in a bit, thanks for the link. No problem about the left/right, I know how it is, trying to shoot and explain, sometimes stuff gets a bit messy, but it happens to most, I've even seen pros teaching that had to put correction text over the video. It happens, no biggie.

 

[LAMas]

I think it is more like this; if the tightrope instructor says, do these five steps and the student is then able to find the right balance then for the student the instructions led them to the balance that they need. However if the student is unfamiliar with some of the terms in the instructions then maybe they need to work on understanding those terms to be able to follow the instructions.

I always come back to the Fosbury Flop. This was a new technique for doing the high jump and was roundly ridiculed. However after Dick Fosbury broke all of the records and won all the medals the rest of the high-jumpers started to use his method and achieve similar results.

Long before we had the technological ability to understand the biomechanics in detail someone created a technique that improved the performance of the whole field.

Fosbury might have given a completely wrong answer as to the mechanics underlying the technique but the practical effect was that he was outperforming his competitors. Did it matter that he was not entirely clear why that technique worked better? I don't think so.

He discovered a way to objectively and consistently perform a measured task that could be and was duplicated by others. In the interim the technique has been studied and improved on.

My point will always be today from a user's perspective, which is my perspective, if you tell me to do steps one, two and three and by completing these steps I get to the shot line then I don't need to know why it works.

If those instructions triggered something in my brain that allows it to consistently get me to the shot line without any extra conscious consideration then great. I liken it to the technique of looking two car lengths ahead. Doing that consistently provides the information that I need to pilot the car effectively. Had I not learned it then I would likely still be able to drive but perhaps not as consistently well. So if the task is not to get into an accident then that simple visual technique works pretty well to help the user stay out of accidents.

Here is something I have to date not seen a single cte critic be willing to participate in. A shot making study where participants are taught various aiming systems and their body actions and eye patterns are recorded from several angles. The table is fully gridded out and the same is done around the table.

This would provide us with a way to track the body movements in relation to the table and ball positions. I am pretty confident that such a series of testing would lead to a far greater understanding of aiming overall as relates to pool in particular.

Far cheaper to be a critic and just mock and knock though. That's free entertainment as speculation presented as fact costs the speaker nothing.

Plenty of Youtube demos to study...there are body shifting going on.

 

[LAMas]

Fire is from the gods! The sun revolves around the earth. You lose a part of your soul when you sneeze.

Sometimes there are phenomena which are mysterious and the effect is ascribed to the "gods" which are later dissected and figured out.

The assumption that you make is that it cannot work and the question that should be asked is HOW does it work and let's figure that out. Let's isolate every step and figure it out but instead the critics would rather do "thought experiements" rather than actual experiments.

From a practical perspective the CTE users are doing quite well making balls and enjoying pool. They have zero need to help the critics understand the underlying mechanics. In fact there is an incentive to encourage the criticism so that the numbers of players adopting CTE is less than it might otherwise be. But the opposite actually occurs and people come to CTE through the criticism and end up trying it and liking it and not worrying about whatever the critics have to say.

I do not know why the shot line appears so consistently when the balls are moved in parallel. In my gut I feel that there is a mechanical reason but that that reason has to do with perception and what Stan calls gearing. But the phenomena is clearly provable from player to player so somewhere in there there is a common denominator that is consistent. The easiest answer is that it is some sort of subconscious "adjustment" but adjustment FROM what?

The shot line is not visible. There are only three shots where the shot line and the aim lines are perfectly parallel. The straight-in and the half-ball hit and the edge-to-edge shots. In those cases the shot line is derived easily because of the ability to connect the objects. However ONLY the straight-in shot connects to the pocket along the same line.

So then aiming by using imaginary balls is an endeavor that requires imagination and estimation. When someone creates a way to look at the cueball and the object ball and derive a shot line that works consistently through a consistent step-by-step objective process then that process has great value. So you can take great offense at the word objective but for the user that is exactly what it is. And how exactly it works mechanically is truly less important than it works. Figuring out exactly how it works would be certainly be awesome and would bridge whatever this divide is but knowing that it does work should be a source of both satisfaction for those who use it and a source of curiosity for those who like to explore the underpinnings of things. In no way should a great system that works be a source of animosity for anyone who claims to love pool and wants to see pool grow.

Use only one eye to aim.

Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines. Due to foreshortening, nearby objects show a larger parallax than farther objects when observed from different positions, so parallax can be used to determine distances.

 

[JB Cases]

The shot line with CTE isn't exactly what everyone else gets when they pick it with other aiming systems or lack there of, but it's consistent, which is a huge advantage. You have to sweep in a known direction, where I might have to waggle back and forth a tiny bit if I came down wrong.

Just for clarification the shot line is the line that the cueball must travel to contact the object ball to send the object ball down the pocket line. The shot line exists independently of the shooter's ability to find it.

I think of it like this: Let's imagine that I had a virtual pool type of layout on my monitor and I and overhead projector that could project the shot line from cueball to ghost ball center on demand for any shot. Well with that I could see the shot line on my monitor but the shooter couldn't see any line unless I turned it on.

Now I would have many players explain how they aim and then test them. By having them put their cue down at ball address we could project the shot line and see if their cue overlaps it. If not are they close enough to still make the shot. We could see that by making the other lines visible. It would be easy I think to devise a small tracker or code that the computer could pick up to determine the exact cue location line.

In essence though the shot line is the line that is the same regardless of the method the player uses to aim. If an aiming method is valid and the user is proficient then a user will get to the shot line correctly and consistently.

 

[JB Cases]

Plenty of Youtube demos to study...there are body shifting going on.

ok, list some with timestamps.

 

[JoeyInCali]

You're overlooking the well known fact that CTE is from another dimension and was never supposed to be.

pj
chgo

It works better if you use a ghost ball template then claim cte takes you to the center of the ghost ball .

 

[LAMas]

It takes imagination to see the GB aim point. Try putting the tip of the cue in it, then sight down the cue to the rail and imagine a point there to aim at if that's easier.

 

[JB Cases]

It works better if you use a ghost ball template then claim cte takes you to the center of the ghost ball .

If you want to BET HIGH that CTE takes me to the ghost ball we can set up a test in LA at the pool room of your choosing done live with impartial judges. I am talking $20,000 and above plus the loser pays ALL additional expenses to set this up. Otherwise stop insinuating that I am lying about it in my videos where I have used a GB template to illustrate that I get to the GB line when using CTE.

Either you be cool and let people discuss this freaking aiming system in peace or put your money where your mouth is.

 

[The_JV]

I didn't say ghost ball CANNOT work. I say it does work but that it is unlikely to be consistently good shot to shot to shot to shot. Ghost ball doesn't get you real close a lot of the time and that is the point.

If that's he case for you then you're application of ghost ball methodology is wrong.

I also didn't say that you claim ghost ball doesn't work, but you have a comparison video between GB and CTE in which you somehow start missing the OB when using a GB template (whatever that is). Can't recall if you state in that video that it doesn't work, but the message is sure implied.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Or you could be hyping a system that AUTOMATICALLY takes you to the shot line , then keep missing with it by a lot .
Then say, you don't know why you are missing .
Then pull out a ghost ball template and while directly looking at the template, claim the pivot takes you to the center of the ghost ball template . But, it didn't while you were missing often before without the template .
How magical is that ?
Then claim the ghost ball does not work .