That is funny right there :rotflmao::rotflmao:
Why CTE is silly
- Thread starter GetMeThere
- Start date
- Status
That is funny right there :rotflmao::rotflmao:
1.There is no parallel shift,
2.
3. CTE has nothing to do with CBIT
4. Some do,but thick or thin has no effect on my set up
5. As far as which side the pocket you play, CTE is a center pocket system
it is up to the player to make that allowance
Petey
You put this out there then try to do damage control in later posts, typical for the people in your camp. The thing Is someone in your camp should have called you out on this post, instead they've just made a few more ignorant comments, but that's ok. Now we know for sure your camp has an INTEGRITY issue, that speaks volumes to me.You must be kidding, right?
There is much more going on during those 10,000 hours and while hitting those million balls than just establishing proper perception. You are learning (hopefully) about your mechanics, fundamentals, PSR, stroke, and how to blend speed and throw and swerve and squirt.
So you can't say it's a trade off and your approach "beats the heck" out of putting in the time and doing the reps. It's these kinds of claims that I have a problem with -- they reek of the late-night TV come on:
Buy the DVD! Learn the system that is the most talked about aiming system "in the world!" Make all the shots, all the time! It's the can't miss system you've heard so much about and been waiting for -- but that *they* don't want you to know about! It's the painless approach to pool! Forget about practicing for 10,000 hours -- in weeks or even days, you'll be able to make any shot! Cut thousands of hours off your practice time! Just $44.99!
Lou Figueroa
and if you call
in the next 10 minutes
we'll include FREE shipping
With a different cut angle comes a different edge on the OB that the CTEL comes in contact with.
I don't see anything at all wrong with it. The last paragraph is obviously meant as a joking satire of what a late-night ad might sound like--I don't in any way read into it the implication that's what Stan is actually SAYING to sell the DVD (or that Lou is trying to imply that).
But I do think the general principle of the post is IMPORTANTLY valid: There's no way to avoid the hard work required to play at your best--and it's misleading to think that any "gimmick" can substitute for that required work.
It's generally my opinion that the idea that "one technique" or "correction of form" will make big improvements in one's game is...a delusion--that many people in MANY endeavors suffer from. The key element in ANY human mastery is PRACTICE. Interestingly, it always seems there's a CONNECTION in this regard: people want an easy fix so they don't HAVE to practice so much...and, of course, those who don't WANT to practice so much really don't love the game....and only those who love the game are going to get really good at it, anyway....
How would you explain this relative to these three shots:
The CB-OB distance and CTEL (OB to CB, or CB to OB) are the exact same for all three shots, both in the 2D illustration and in 3D perspective. The only thing different is the amount of cut required. The CTE information I've heard and seen so far doesn't provide guidance on how to deal with this, other than: It takes "visual intelligence" and "experience at the table" to develop a sense for how to adjust the "effective pivot length". That's fine, but if there is something more specific than this, I think it would be interesting and useful to describe and discuss it in a calm, logical, and objective way.
Regards,
Dave
Sorry, but sighting from the CB's center you can see only one OB edge - in other words, there's only one center-to-edge line ("CTEL"). If you move your eyes off the CTEL, then you can see "another OB edge", but then you should call it an "eyes-to-edge" line because it's no longer the center-to-edge line.
And if you move your eyes off the CTE line, you then have to explain how the system tells you how far off the line to move your eyes, and how you use this new "eyes-to-edge" line - or you haven't explained anything.
"There's a new OB edge" doesn't add anything to the discussion but more confusion.
A couple of things wrong with this:
1. The "CB center you address" is determined by where you place your bridge, not where you place your eyes. But let's ignore that detail for now.
2. Even if you can come up with a sensible way to move your eyes exactly the right amount for the correct "eyes-to-new-edge" line, you still have to use this information the same way that you'd use the original CTE line - to shift-and-pivot to the aim line. So all you've done with this latest bit of tapdancing is to kick that can a little farther down the road.
If that's what you consider an answer...
pj <- complicateder and complicateder...
chgo
Last edited:
How would you explain this relative to these three shots:
The CB-OB distance and CTEL (OB to CB, or CB to OB) are the exact same for all three shots, both in the 2D illustration and in 3D perspective. The only thing different is the amount of cut required. The CTE information I've heard and seen so far doesn't provide guidance on how to deal with this, other than: It takes "visual intelligence" and "experience at the table" to develop a sense for how to adjust the "effective pivot length". That's fine, but if there is something more specific than this, I think it would be interesting and useful to describe and discuss it in a calm, logical, and objective way.
Regards,
Dave
This has been answered 100000x times (which is why I ignored it on the 100001x). The CTEL line remains the same; however, the distance your eyes are off this line varies for each shot. Changes the CB center you address as well as the OB edge you see.
CTE is a misnomer-- should be CTOME (center to outermost edge). Your eye position redefines the CB/OB overlap. Stan's video covers this example well.
Last edited:
Now we know for sure you think of this discussion in terms of "camps". That speaks volumes to me.
pj <- "them"
chgo
Forget camps - Lou was out of line.... hence the warning from Wilson. I'm surprised you'd even support that post of his.
I didn't - but I'm not surprised you incorrectly claim I did. It's what you do. Bet we'll be hearing that claim for years too.
pj
chgo
Sorry. I was using it to address Cookie Man's post, which didn't sound right to me.This has been answered 100000x times (which is why I ignored it on the 100001x).How would you explain this relative to these three shots:
The CB-OB distance and CTEL (OB to CB, or CB to OB) are the exact same for all three shots, both in the 2D illustration and in 3D perspective. The only thing different is the amount of cut required. The CTE information I've heard and seen so far doesn't provide guidance on how to deal with this, other than: It takes "visual intelligence" and "experience at the table" to develop a sense for how to adjust the "effective pivot length". That's fine, but if there is something more specific than this, I think it would be interesting and useful to describe and discuss it in a calm, logical, and objective way.
This is the missing piece of information in most descriptions of CTE I have seen and heard so far. However, this information is of little use unless there is some guidance as to how much to shift the eyes based on the amount of cut needed, because the only thing changing in the example is the amount of cut needed on each shot. Now, the guidance could just be: practice with the system enough to develop a sense for how this changes with the amount of cut needed.
The other important thing to know is whether or not you should change your "effective pivot length" in addition to changing your eye alignment for different shots. It would also be nice to have guidance on how and how much to do this. Again the answer could be: practice with the system enough to develop a sense for how you should change the "effective pivot length" for different ball distances and cut amounts.
Agreed.
I look forward to seeing what procedures and/or guidance he offers to help someone learn to judge and be consistent with both eye alignment and pivot for a wide range of shots with different ball distances and amounts of cut.
Thanks,
Dave
Last edited:
GMT,
While you don't see anything wrong with it, there is a lot wrong with the post Lou wrote imo.
Making fun of another man's hard work is not funny. Maybe it is to you but to many of us, it's not.
You, Lou and a few others have tried to poison CTE from the very beginning with every one of your posts. I don't object to constructive discussion concerning the plusses or minuses of CTE or pattern play. That's all good stuff. Mean-spirited needless, needling has no place in this forum.
Stan would be the FIRST person who would tell any student or fellow posters that CTE Pro One is only a small portion of what top level pool is all about and that regular, quality practice in all areas of pool is what is necessary to achieve a high level of play. But you, Lou and everyone else already knows that.
It just so happens that if a person has trouble aiming as MANY people do, CTE/Pro One may be one of the best tools to start with. Trying to ridicule and discourage people from using it or trying it is doing a disservice to the pool community.
It's my opinion that every top player winds up in the same place as where CTE/Pro One attempts to put the shooter.
I have a lot to learn about CTE/Pro One but the few things I know is that it is an entirely different method of aiming and there may be a lot more to this than any of us imagine.
Perhaps Stan's video will do just that.
This particular forum isn't Saturday Night Live and all of the comedians could do well with going to NPR to practice their stand-up routine.
Poking fun at another man's livelihood in this forum is in the poorest taste, imo and it's not all right.
JoeyA
I'd rather think in terms of camps then have no integrity.
Are you sure you want to say that everybody in the "camp" has no integrity?
pj
chgo
The only person that really has a say about it is Stan. Everyone else is just stirring shit up.
If someone can not see the humor in that and that it was tolally meant in fun better stop playing pool.
Pool is about fun, about kidding, joking at times and not to be taken so damn serious.
Good Grief
If pointing out the obvious to people is damage control, then I'm guilty.
Lou Figueroa
It was Mr. Wilson's *opinion* that I was out of line. I disagreed with him, as I believe others occasionally do.
But because it's Mr. Wilson's "house" I said I would try and follow his rules.
Lou Figueroa
I think that when you believe something being touted as a help to the pool community, could actually harm aspiring players, it's incumbent upon you to speak out if you have any conscious. That's especially true when absurd claims are made for a particular system, aiming or otherwise. As others here have put it better; wasting your time on things that are incorrect and unreliable is counter productive to your progress as a pool player. The game is tough enough. You should instead spend your time working on techniques and deliberate practice that will bear fruit and not the hocus pocus.
Pool is about creating an alignment that produces your best stroke. And when you do all these air and hip and head pivots for the sole purpose of perceiving the balls in a certain way, you are potentially, and most likely, crippling your pool stroke.
A pool stroke, for those of us who are not naturals, is a delicate and precious thing. Many of us spend hundreds and thousand of hour trying to nail down that magical alignment of feet, hips, torso, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, and head that somehow give us the setup that will make the cue ball go where we want it to go and do what we want it to do. It is, for many if not most of us, an elusive frustrating chase.
Sure: go ahead and do all those pivots and convince yourself that it's a short cut -- a magical system. If you stick with it, chances are that it will keep you you from ever being the best pool player you can be. IMO, if you believe that, or have other reasons to doubt the benefits of a system, you need to speak out.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
- Status