Another interesting thought.... This thread isn't about the validity of CTE, but systems in general versus non-system experience (HAMB).
Correct, when I try to answer in that context then it must be with the caveat, as Bob Jewett illustrated with the bad frozen rail instruction from Mosconi's book (which is the same advice I read or was taught by someone long ago), then it must be stated that all systems are not equal in either application or accuracy. And when I mention that CTE is accurate in my experience it is not meant to turn your thread into an advertisement or argument for or about CTE but instead merely to illustrate that in the context of your question if one is armed with an accurate system then one has the edge over the non-system player IF both players have a similar level of experience/table time.
Some people do indeed have exceptional eyesight and coordination. I played a guy on my table who is somewhere between 650-610ish. We talked about systems and he stated that he doesn't use any and just sees it. He cut balls at crazy angles as good as anyone I have ever seen.
My first wife somehow had an exceptional break. I mean a pro-level break. To the point that a few times good local players made games where she was their designated breaker. She had zero idea why her break was so good. Neither did anyone else around us. Just one of those people whose timing or whatever was somehow naturally dialed in.
There is a guy who is one of if not the best marksman with a slingshot in the world. When asked how he got so good he said he didn't know but since he was a boy he could just hit what he intended to hit. These people are exceptional, meaning they the are the exceptions to the normal. Conversely there are many who literally can't hit the center of a wall within ten feet if they are ten feet from the wall. This is to be expected in race of beings that is so diverse genetically and psychologically. While we are all "human" it is really clear that there are traits among individuals that can put them above or below the average performance for any task.
There is literally no one-size-fits-all approach to anything. Especially a task like "American-style" pocket billiards (pool) which by its nature encompasses all the skills that one needs for all other disciplines. That doesn't mean that a pool player will ever truly be as good at billiards as a dedicated billiard player, or that a pool player would ever be as good at snooker as a dedicated snooker player. What it does mean however is that to be a successful pool player one MUST learn enough from those disciplines to have a well rounded game.
Systems are just tools. Really that's it. They are tools like chalk is a tool. Like a bridge is a tool. They are tools like a low-deflection/radially consistent shaft is a tool. Diamonds on the rails are tools. Even the spots on a measle ball are tools. So are the edges and centers of the balls.
When we aim a straight in shot we are often told to aim the cue ball into the pocket as a way to not focus on the object ball. That's a direct objective instruction to use the available reference in order to maintain a straight line. When Dr. Dave figures out that a ball going into a rail at 45 degrees means that it takes a path past the table center that is not on a scratch line then everyone who learns and implements that is immediately a better player because they have just learned a simple constant that was not obvious but which works reliably for complex position play. Of course a reasonably experienced player can learn to avoid the scratches and "know" the object ball paths through repetitive practice. But imagine what a relief it is for a player who is plagued by these two and three rail scratches who has not yet done the requisite amount of practice to develop the right feel to avoid them if that player learns to measure the path through a simple method?
Using your example of going into an important match would you rather that you did or did not know this truly reliable way to plot the cueball path before you went into the match?
Answers to frequently-asked questions about the 45° rule for getting position to and through the center of the table.
billiards.colostate.edu
Does knowing this rule/principle/method/system that mean that the shooter will never scratch again when using it? Of course not because knowing that something works and doing it consistently are not the same. Here we come to the axiom that an amateur practices until the get it right and a pro practices until they can't get it wrong.
But let's then think about that in reference to the 45 degree rule here.
Say that you have two players of similar skill whom you know are both feel players who got to their skill levels without anything beyond the basic instruction most people get when they start. You set up say 20 different shots where people commonly scratch off two or three rails.
You tell these players to shoot these shots and get position at places that are to the left and right of the pocket and within a diamond of the pocket. Let them both shoot them with no other instruction and ten shots per setup. Record the results. Then one of them is taught the 45 degree rule and gets an hour to practice it. The other gets an hour to practice however they want to in preparation for test #2.
Both players are then retested in an hour.
It is my belief that the player who learned the 45 degree rule will scratch less and get to the desired position zone more often than the player who just practiced by feel. And the more that the player who learned the 45 degree rule uses it going forward the stronger they will become at quickly seeing the 45 degree path and adjusting off of it as needed using spin and speed to change the route.
I can tell you that this one principle drastically changed my game for the better. It made it so that pretty much all apprehension about heading towards corners when sending the cueball around the table is gone. It boosted my understanding of cueball paths and allowed me then to expand my useable range of position play considerably. Like many players I had spent time playing with a piece of paper to indicate where I wanted the cueball to go to and doing HAMB repetitive practice to develop my feel for the shots. But after learning the 45 degree rule I was able then to actually measure the route objectively and focus much more on the speed of the shot with full confidence that I was not going to scratch and was not going to screw up position because I was over/under compensating in the attempt to avoid the scratch.
I used to believe ONLY in HAMB. LIke I would read about kicking and banking systems and just take a half-hearted interest in them at best and I did learn the basics enough to see that they worked but didn't really think that they were needed. I really thought that they were not needed if a player had a functioning brain. What possible need could there be when everything was right there in front of your eyes? Jeez if you can't figure out the direction of travel easily then maybe take up a different hobby....... I read McGoorty and his claim that Hoppe said that the systems work but only if one uses them perfectly - which I read as a way of saying that systems were a crutch.
Then Hal Houle changed my perspective on that forever. With ONE shot. I won't go into detail on the story I have told dozens of times but the very short version is that he asked me to set up a shot I had trouble with and within a few minutes I was nailing that shot easily. From that day my perspectives on systems changed and I saw them not as crutches but as tools. Professionals in every field have tool boxes filled with professional tools. Some of these tools are common to the profession and some are modified to work better and some are fully new inventions that the professional just made for themselves to get specific tasks done easier and reliably.
And to that, and in conclusion, I will give you an example from the last two years of renovations on my house. While trying to figure out the circuits in my house we went though and were turning breakers on and off and talking through the phone to map them. This involved two people and somehow didn't result in an accurate map. The electrician came in and had a tool that they could put on the breaker and it sent a tone that only activated when a matching receiver was on the same line (or something like that). Within 30 minutes they had accurately mapped the lines in the same house that myself and my friend hadn't been able to do over a period of more than an hour. The electrician didn't do anything different in terms of someone being at the breaker and someone inside the house. But because they had the right tools and knew how to use them they were more accurate in less time and reaped the reward for that, $175 an hour. In the amount of time I spent trying to achieve the same result - "by feel" - I could have sold several cases and easily paid for the electrician.