Why CTE is silly

[Neil]

Not to throw gasoline on the fire, but...... I do have a personal experience with the aiming system in question on this thread.

Keep in mind that I am totally neutral on my position of CTE.

I took an instructional class taught by one of the very instructors that has been mentioned in a few of the posts on this thread. I will NOT mention a name. On the last day of class, the majority of the lesson was on aiming by using a system. It wasn't referred to as CTE, but Hal Houle's name was mentioned at some point during the lesson. Anyway, in the act of trying to show the students the six different places on the object ball (one being a full-ball hit and another two being a thin cut shot and an extremely thin cut shot, basically leaving three spots on the object ball to make the rest of all shots, once the angle of the shot is discerned. So, in the process of showing the class how the system works, this instructor was MISSING more balls than he made. Shots that I was thinking to myself "Hell, I could make that shot a high percentage of the time". He didn't stay on the table long as he (IMO) seemed to be frustrated at his inability to give a convincing demonstration of a system that we had payed big bucks to have taught to us. He turned it over to the class to work on the system. Of the eight or so students in the class, I never heard one positive comment on the system. I myself didn't like it. I figured I might calculate the angle wrong, therefore mistaking which "number" shot to take. So, it all boiled down to making some kind of JUDGEMENT. I quickly surmised that I would just stick to what my brain has learned over the 35+ years (at the time) of pocketing balls and just trust my instincts. Whatever aiming "system" my brain learned on its own over the years works great for pocketing balls. If I can keep the wobble in my stroke down to a minimum, I am a decent shotmaker. All in all, I think a smooth, straight, repeatable stroke is far and away more important a shotmaking tool than any aiming system out there.

These things being said, I still believe that any aiming system out there CAN and DOES help certain players. They aren't for everybody, but do have a place in the pool world. Obviously it wasn't for me, but you can't overlook the fact that there are people on this forum that swear that it has improved their game. It's hard to argue with that, regardless if they cannot tell you HOW it works.

Maniac

I don't know what instructor you had, and don't really care. However, I would like to point out something to you. And, point it out to all the instructors too. I know I have caught myself doing it in the past.

Sometimes, when showing a student HOW to do something, like line up for a shot, we will go ahead and shoot it. OUR focus is on doing the technique right to show you, not on pocketing the ball. So, many times, the ball will not be pocketed. We are not concerned with the fine tuning parts that you can't see, just with the parts that you can see, so you get an idea of what we are talking about.

Now, I agree, to many that may very well look like the 'system ' doesn't work. And, as instructors, we should go ahead and do the 'fine tuning' and make the ball, to prove the point. That would avoid students thinking that it doesn't work.

Just so others on here know, CTE and it's variations DO work. I have taught a variation of it for a while now. I have had new students pick a shot that was very difficult for them to make. One tried it 6 times in a row and never made it. I then described what I wanted him to do, and had him get in the right place to make the shot. I then blocked his vision of the ob, had him bend down and do as I described and just shoot. He made the ball on the first try.

So, I don't care if this stuff works on paper or not, I'm not at the table with notes or calculators or anything else but my cue stick. If it works, it works, period. I don't know how a lot of things work, or why, but I still use them every single day. (Such as this computer. I have a general idea, but I'm not about to diagram how one works!)

 

[AtLarge]

I think we are temporally close to having something new to discuss regarding the pivot aiming methods:

• Stan Shuffett's DVD on CTE and Pro-One;
• Dave Segal's written document (how is this coming Dave?);
• Ron Vitello's video on his 90/90 aiming system.

Until one or more of those is available, I wish threads like this didn't exist -- because they are a waste of time, yet I can't resist reading them. The OP presented an interesting table showing the degree of precision needed to pocket shots. Unfortunately, he tried to couple that with criticism of the CTE method without knowing much about it. The expected ensued. I am eager to view and read the forthcoming new information.

Sidenotes:

• JB Cases -- You win a prize (of as little value as anyone can devise) for predicting that GetMeThere would post again in this thread after saying he would not.
• Maniac -- the system you described that was presented to you in a class (with the teacher missing lots of shots) was a fractional-ball aiming system. That is not CTE.

 

[GetMeThere]

I think we are temporally close to having something new to discuss regarding the pivot aiming methods:

• Stan Shuffett's DVD on CTE and Pro-One;
• Dave Segal's written document (how is this coming Dave?);
• Ron Vitello's video on his 90/90 aiming system.

Until one or more of those is available, I wish threads like this didn't exist -- because they are a waste of time, yet I can't resist reading them.

The contradiction there is the implication that it should be necessary to wait MANY YEARS after a system is supposedly "taught and works" before the "videoed or written 'proof'" becomes available--and it's not supposed to be discussed in the interim.

Doesn't that many year interim alone tell the whole story?

Haven't the intervening many threads over the years, in one way or another, been addressing that very fact?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Maniac:
The instructor missed most of the shots.

Neil:
My student made one shot, so the system does work.

Please. Neither of these examples means anything.

pj
chgo

 

[Neil]

Please. Neither of these examples means anything.

pj
chgo

To you, no. To myself, my students, and a lot of others, yes, it does. I'm trying to decide who will be the first to say the same thing you did when the 'proof' is revealed, you, or getmetherebecauseIrefusetogetmyselfthere.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Neither of these examples means anything.

pj
chgo

Neil:
To you, no. To myself, my students, and a lot of others, yes, it does.

According to you Maniac's example of several missed shots means nothing while your example of one made shot means a lot. I don't expect you to see the obvious bias in your "logic" (logic isn't your strong suit), but other readers will.

pj
chgo

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

I don't know what instructor you had, and don't really care. However, I would like to point out something to you. And, point it out to all the instructors too. I know I have caught myself doing it in the past.

Sometimes, when showing a student HOW to do something, like line up for a shot, we will go ahead and shoot it. OUR focus is on doing the technique right to show you, not on pocketing the ball. So, many times, the ball will not be pocketed. We are not concerned with the fine tuning parts that you can't see, just with the parts that you can see, so you get an idea of what we are talking about.

Now, I agree, to many that may very well look like the 'system ' doesn't work. And, as instructors, we should go ahead and do the 'fine tuning' and make the ball, to prove the point. That would avoid students thinking that it doesn't work.

Just so others on here know, CTE and it's variations DO work. I have taught a variation of it for a while now. I have had new students pick a shot that was very difficult for them to make. One tried it 6 times in a row and never made it. I then described what I wanted him to do, and had him get in the right place to make the shot. I then blocked his vision of the ob, had him bend down and do as I described and just shoot. He made the ball on the first try.

So, I don't care if this stuff works on paper or not, I'm not at the table with notes or calculators or anything else but my cue stick. If it works, it works, period. I don't know how a lot of things work, or why, but I still use them every single day. (Such as this computer. I have a general idea, but I'm not about to diagram how one works!)

This all reminds me of the pitcher from Bull Durham. Nuke LaLooch, the up and coming minor league pitcher, was being prepped for the big league. In order to get him to stop thinking and start pitching, he wore women's garters under his uniform, and was breathing through his eyelids like the lava lizard from the Gallapagos islands. All those tricks worked for him - until the day he realized they were just tricks, and that the subconscious mind was what was at work.

I have no doubt that these systems "work" for new players, because the "spin around three times and shoot at the spot on the wall" system is better than no system at all.

I learned CTE directly from Hal. I was one of the lucky ones from RSB that he called personally to teach the system to. He makes sense. He taught me 4 different systems over the phone, one being CTE. Do I still use it? No. I learned a different system - Chin's Equal/Opposite method. It works great, and can be mathematically explained and replicated. There is even a book written on it, and Jimmy Reid teaches it. You can even use a pivot if you'd like. I think the CTE users want to say anyone using a pivot is using CTE. I pivot, and I'm not using CTE.

 

[Karen Barton]

You

have got

to be

kidding me.


Lou Figueroa

Wrong account - will repost using mine. Karen's login is automatic on Opera.

 

[JB Cases]

You

have got

to be

kidding me.


Lou Figueroa

NO really. Go look it up. You won't find me in any of those Hal Houle threads BEFORE the time Hal visited Denver and requested Bob Johnson to call me and see if I'd come down.

I am SURE that you remember that shortly after that visit I put up a post about the visit and my exuberance over what Hal imparted and that when you and others came down on me with your "trust the force" and "tin hats" and "Houligan" comments.

At that point in my life I didn't care at all about aiming and the few times I did peek into one of those threads it all seemed like an alien language.

When Bob asked me to meet Hal I literally said Hal who? I was thinking that it was Hal Mix the guy who reportedly coached Varner and others.

I had to take five minutes and quickly scan a couple RSB threads to acquaint myself with who I was going to see.

 

[mikepage]

[...]

Is it possible for me to learn molecular biology from the "internet"? So if I spent a year reading all I can find about molecular biology would I then be qualified to call myself a molecular biologist?

Actually, you CAN learn molecular biology on the internet. The amount of very high quality information in scientific areas presented clearly and accurately is staggering.

Just a couple years ago I was teaching advanced graduate-level courses in quantum mechanics and in statistical mechanics. When I went to the internet to see if I could find a few examples involving some advanced topics, I was amazed to find thorough, clear, up-to-date descriptions of every topic I was teaching.

While there is value to the human interaction, I don't think there's anything I was teaching in chemical physice/physical chemistry that can't be learned on the internet.

Or is molecular biology just silly and worthless BS because I can't learn it from reading on the internet?

I can't think of a technical subject that's not explained pretty clearly on the internet. Look at Dr. Dave's stuff. Absolutely free, absolutely amazing information. So far any system or subject that I have found of value is explained clearly on the internet.

That's just the way it is with technical stuff. It's the new world order!

If it's technical and it's of value, it will be available for free.

If someone claims they have something technical and of value and the explanation is unclear, incomplete, vague, or unavailable, be wary... Be very wary.

imo of course

 

[genomachino]

The eyes will get there using CTE.......

To you, no. To myself, my students, and a lot of others, yes, it does. I'm trying to decide who will be the first to say the same thing you did when the 'proof' is revealed, you, or getmetherebecauseIrefusetogetmyselfthere.

Many players that get down to aim never get the eyes in the correct position to shoot the shot. When using CTE a player will cross this perfect spot where the shot will really look good for them. There is not really the same position or exact spot for everyone because the difference in our eye dominances.

If the player can recogize this spot when they cross over it and stop then half the battle is won. Fortuantely most of us can naturally unless there is something wrong with our eyes. And sometimes maybe we need to learn when we need to stop.

But just getting to this spot will not make you aim the shot perfect. As with Stan and myself there are so many different things that go along with Pro one and perfect aim that make the aiming process complete.

All of these other things that help us aim are taught by all the great teachers all over the country. And they are very neccesary to complete a players ability to aim a shot.

No matter what a player is doing to make their aim the best it can be, in order to put the fine tuning on it you need to put in some hard work and you need to keep doing it.

Have you ever heard of the story about William Tell shooting an apple off his sons head. He was forced to do it by a king or someone else.

I wonder if William Tell practiced shooting the bow every day or only shot once a week and just got lucky when he shot the apple off his sons head?

Have a great day geno...............

 

[JB Cases]

Actually, you CAN learn molecular biology on the internet. The amount of very high quality information in scientific areas presented clearly and accurately is staggering.

Just a couple years ago I was teaching advanced graduate-level courses in quantum mechanics and in statistical mechanics. When I went to the internet to see if I could find a few examples involving some advanced topics, I was amazed to find thorough, clear, up-to-date descriptions of every topic I was teaching.

While there is value to the human interaction, I don't think there's anything I was teaching in chemical physice/physical chemistry that can't be learned on the internet.

So you would then say that one need not go to Berkley or any other university to study this? Lab work not required?

I can't think of a technical subject that's not explained pretty clearly on the internet. Look at Dr. Dave's stuff. Absolutely free, absolutely amazing information. So far any system or subject that I have found of value is explained clearly on the internet.

That's just the way it is with technical stuff. It's the new world order!

If it's technical and it's of value, it will be available for free.

Perhaps. However when you can show me the plans for a Stealth Bomber posted on the net then I will believe you. Plenty of qualified discussion on the avionics and radar diffusing properties and the science behind the plane but you will find no schematics, no plans, no instructions on HOW to build one.

If someone claims they have something technical and of value and the explanation is unclear, incomplete, vague, or unavailable, be wary... Be very wary.

imo of course

Duly noted. Those "aiming systems" are dangerous things after all.

Geez Louise we are talking about someone's concept made available to try. If you like it great if you don't then you don't.

You put up some excellent stuff too about pivot points and deflection and overspin (or lack therof).

My question to you is how in the world did people ever play without knowing the pivot point of their cue?

How did all those great players even make a ball with those horrible wildly deflecting cues?

What I don't understand is for all the brain power between you and Dave Alciatore and Bob Jewett, that you couldn't get Hal on a pool table with a video camera and work it out. If he is wrong then he's wrong and in the past decade surely with just a tiny bit of effort you all could have arranged a way for at least two of you and Hal to be in the same place at the same time for the purpose of having a meeting of the minds on the subject.

That would have been better than this constant bickering and sniping and would have cleared up a lot of the mystery.

 

[lfigueroa]

NO really. Go look it up. You won't find me in any of those Hal Houle threads BEFORE the time Hal visited Denver and requested Bob Johnson to call me and see if I'd come down.

I am SURE that you remember that shortly after that visit I put up a post about the visit and my exuberance over what Hal imparted and that when you and others came down on me with your "trust the force" and "tin hats" and "Houligan" comments.

At that point in my life I didn't care at all about aiming and the few times I did peek into one of those threads it all seemed like an alien language.

When Bob asked me to meet Hal I literally said Hal who? I was thinking that it was Hal Mix the guy who reportedly coached Varner and others.

I had to take five minutes and quickly scan a couple RSB threads to acquaint myself with who I was going to see.

OK, sorry. I wasn't sure of the date of your anointment and exactly when you went to the Dark Side.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JB Cases]

One small correction as well regarding Dave's stuff. While he does in fact have an awesome collection of information that is available for free he does also have a lot of stuff which is not free contained in the Video Encyclopedia of Pool Shots.

Pre-internet there was no "free" version of Ghost Ball available anywhere. You had to buy a book or take it on loan from a library which bought it in order to learn the Ghost Ball aiming system. Once in a while a description of the Ghost Ball system would be printed in a magazine which might be free to whomever had access to the magazine without paying for it but someone did pay for it.

And this easily explained and diagrammed system has spawned a wide assortement of devices to "help" people "see" the "ghost" ball.

At the end of the day a simple explanation of Ghost Ball is not enough. It must be supplemented with instruction on throw, cling, skid, deflection, swerve, humidity level, etc... of which Dr. Dave's website is in fact a treasure trove on these subjects.

SOMEHOW, when a Hal Houle system user uses the system as described to them they are able to then get down on the ball on the correct line. So somehow they received enough clear communication to achieve this.

Whether you think that this SHOULD be made available on the net or not is irrelevant.

What you could have done any time in the past ten years is have a conversation with Hal Houle and recorded it and transcribed it verbatim and then dissected it on the table.

So the lack of a description that satsifies you is as much your fault as anyone else's. As a scholar it's your job to track these things down and explore them.

Also in my opinion only.

For the record Mike I absolutely THANK YOU for the stuff you put up on YouTube. Only on this point about Hal's systems do we disagree. I think you are a huge asset to pool.

 

[JB Cases]

OK, sorry. I wasn't sure of the date of your anointment and exactly when you went to the Dark Side.

Lou Figueroa

Yo mean when I was brought into the light don't you?

 

[Neil]

According to you Maniac's example of several missed shots means nothing while your example of one made shot means a lot. I don't expect you to see the obviously bias in your "logic" (logic isn't your strong suit), but other readers will.

pj
chgo

That's because you are so biased that you can't even read something for what it is. The missed shots were due to showing form, not aiming. The made shot was showing aiming. Sorry you can't see the difference.

 

[Neil]

This all reminds me of the pitcher from Bull Durham. Nuke LaLooch, the up and coming minor league pitcher, was being prepped for the big league. In order to get him to stop thinking and start pitching, he wore women's garters under his uniform, and was breathing through his eyelids like the lava lizard from the Gallapagos islands. All those tricks worked for him - until the day he realized they were just tricks, and that the subconscious mind was what was at work.

I have no doubt that these systems "work" for new players, because the "spin around three times and shoot at the spot on the wall" system is better than no system at all.

I learned CTE directly from Hal. I was one of the lucky ones from RSB that he called personally to teach the system to. He makes sense. He taught me 4 different systems over the phone, one being CTE. Do I still use it? No. I learned a different system - Chin's Equal/Opposite method. It works great, and can be mathematically explained and replicated. There is even a book written on it, and Jimmy Reid teaches it. You can even use a pivot if you'd like. I think the CTE users want to say anyone using a pivot is using CTE. I pivot, and I'm not using CTE.

There are many good systems out there. I used to use Chins'/Reids' system all the time. now I mainly use it on close shots.

 

[Maniac]

The missed shots were due to showing form, not aiming.

Were you there that day ? I don't remember you being in the class. How can you comment like you did in the above quote on something that you were not a witness to? The instructor had spent the entire previous day showing/teaching form. The next day (the part I posted about) was commited to nothing but an aiming system which the instructor himself failed to demonstrate effectively, thus casting doubts on the usefulness of it to those PRESENT in the class.

Once again Neil, let me state that I am neither for nor against ANY aiming system that someone may wish to use. I simply stated in my previous post what I experienced that day in class and how it had a profoundly negative effect on those in class. I was there. I know what I saw. I saw an instructor struggling to make balls to prove that the system he was trying to teach was credible. He failed to "win over" his class that particular day. I understand how easy it is to miss shots when trying to show someone a particular shot/technique, but THAT day, he failed to make an impact on his students. That's all I was saying.

As far a someone missing six shots in a row, changing methods, then making the FIRST ball attempted afterward, this is NOT concrete evidence of anything other than a person making one shot. If it was told that the person made the next TEN shots in a row, then we'd have something to hang our hats on!!! Like we say down here in Texas, "Even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then" :thumbup:.

Maniac (uses the "feel" system)

 

[mikepage]

[...]
You put up some excellent stuff too about pivot points and deflection and overspin (or lack therof).

My question to you is how in the world did people ever play without knowing the pivot point of their cue?

I suppose I should ignore questions like this. What is your point in asking it?

What I don't understand is for all the brain power between you and Dave Alciatore and Bob Jewett, that you couldn't get Hal on a pool table with a video camera and work it out.

By the time you were looking up threads on RSB to learn who Hal was, I had been involved in a lot of discussion about aiming and had already twice talked to Hal Houle in person around a pool table. In fact one time he, Bob Jewett, and I were together at Family Billiards in San Francisco. You and some others seem to think anybody who doesn't embrace your enthusiasm must be not trying or unwilling to consider something new.

That would have been better than this constant bickering and sniping and would have cleared up a lot of the mystery.

Ah, the mystery ...

The truth is

...

............................there is no spoon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm8kTIj_0M

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Neil:
The missed shots were due to showing form, not aiming. The made shot was showing aiming.

LOL. I don't remember anybody who uses CTE being particularly logical. The two seem to be mutually exclusive.

pj
chgo