Why CTE is silly

Status
Not open for further replies.
stan shuffett said:
Duckie,


I do not see a patch so I have no reference for a straight line. The line has to be to something that is objective for my satisfaction.

My details about aiming will be on my DVD. I am moving forward as quickly as possible.

You do make many good points in your post.

Stan
Click to expand...



Stan while I don't subscribe to all the aiming techniques that are filling the net these days, I can say this you are a voice of reason in a very dark subject. You are always very polite, very professional, and after reading your posts I don't ever feel like I have been mugged by a used car salesman. While I do not and never will see the value of these threads which always turn into a gang rape you are the light that brightens things up and makes it all readable.

Thanks for your thoughts on this subject I wish others could find their center and follow your approach, I also believe that you also believe what you are saying and not just trying to sell your products and I wish you all the luck in the world with the sale of these products.

Take care Stan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Siz
SpiderWebComm said:
I mean come on folks... you guys even READING this article closely??

...Efren, he acted like he no-speaka-no-english and said he spins the cb and aims straight at the contact point. I'm not a sucker, so I'll say that's horseshit.

Someone is lying, and I don't think it's the lady.

Anyways - keep using that article as a reference so we further confuse ourselves. Keep shooting straight at contact points.... just like EFREN. sigggggggggggh :(

Dave
Click to expand...
You seem to have confused yourself. Here's the complete quote from Efren in that article, in which he says he aims directly at the contact point when spin (squirt) adjustment requires it:

Efren Reyes, ranked #5 and winner of
last month's Sands Regency title, further
explains. "When you put a lot of english on
the cue ball you adjust a little bit, often
aiming exactly at the contact point of an
object ball. So it very much depends on my
next shot how I will aim."

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
The phenomenon is players saying that CTE helps them aim better.
Click to expand...

Well, I would call that a REPORT(s). Whether they DO aim better might be a phenomenon--and whether their better aim is actually due to CTE is a further refinement of the phenomenon. One has to question: if CTE doesn't actually PRODUCE proper aiming solutions, well....you'd have to be very careful producing data that says they actually do aim better, nonetheless. It would be a gutsy conclusion to draw, and if you wanted to sell it to someone critical, you'd need very clear and strong evidence.

You'd have to be willing to prove 1) They really DO aim better, 2) They actually IGNORE the aiming solutions CTE provides, 3) and somehow through that, they actually aim better THAN if they didn't contort themselves through that multistep dissonance.

That would be a tough conclusion to draw and defend.


Patrick Johnson said:
What's your contrary evidence (other than nothing)?

More to the point, what's the point of denying the possibility (other than chain jerking)?
Click to expand...

One doesn't need contrary evidence to deny someone else's assertion if the other person's assertion comes with no evidence itself. Do I have to prove to you that there ISN'T a china teacup on the moon, if you assert there is? No. I can justifiably just reject your assertion if you've provided no evidence.

So, I don't deny the possibility. I QUESTION the entire source of this "well, geez, it DOES seem to work for a lot of people, so SOMETHING must be happening." I really don't see evidence for that, other than people continually repeating it. And, as I said, it would be a mighty tough one to actually DEMONSTRATE. One might want to start by trying to model HOW it could happen. The "it psychologically releases their innate feel abilities" seems a bit facile, to me.

In many ways the entire thing sounds like a "just so" story, to fulfill certain needs generated by the controversy.

Whereas, it's pretty easy to believe that maybe just a small collection of people who like to post on forums are deluded about what CTE has done for them.

Finally, let's not forget that surely you AGREE with me that happy CTE users are deluded: They THINK CTE tells them where to aim but, according to what I can make out about your theory, what CTE actually does is "psychologically release them" to aim by "feel." That's a delusion.

So, you and I are agreeing--for at least the vocal user/defenders--that some delusion is involved. You say they're deluded about HOW CTE works for them, I'm saying they might be deluded about IF CTE works for them at all.

There are just COUNTLESS examples of people being deluded about all SORTS of things having effects on them. It's one of the most common human experiences. The "default" position has to be: since CTE doesn't supply accurate aiming solutions, people who say that it improves their aim are in error.
 
Last edited:
cookie man said:
Sean this was a very good post and as A CTE pro one user myself I would like to address a few things. You talk about being in the zone and it is a beautiful thing. When I am I smile cause I am seeing the CTEL line, going down to center ball and smacking the mole in the same place as you, and I bet it feels just as natural as it does for you.
Your next paragraph talks about visualazation problems, which I feel alot of them for me have been corrected. I just feel like with cte, i have basically the same thing to look at all the time, seems to have removed most of those problems. I feel I am making more problem(tough) shots because I can repeat the CTE process and concentrate on hitting center q-ball.
Your "paralysis through analysis" is really where PRO-ONE has come into its full value. When properly used your doing the same thing over and over, no analyzing.
I think people in general hear pivoting, and CTEL, and effective pivot point, and think CTE is too much of a hassle. These are things you have to learn but the finished product results in you looking very normal playing pool, you just come to the proper aim line in a repeatable and consistent way. I just feel that with the CTEL you have the same thing to look at all the time, it really can't get any easier than that.
Click to expand...

cookie:

Thanks for the kind words about my post. It seems as if everyone agrees on the same thing -- simplicity. You mention when being in the zone, you can sight the CTEL, get down on center ball (not sure what that means -- center ball on the cue ball, post-pivot?), and smack the mole in the face -- presumably in the same spot, which for me, is dead-smack center where the ghostball is.

I think where you and I differ, is that I arrive at the fire control solution in one or two less steps. (I'm an ex-Navy guy -- excuse the gun/missile ballistics terminology -- old habits die hard.) I see the ghostball, and I aim right at it, dead center. You have to sight the CTEL first, and then do your pivot (whether in the air or on the table).

I'm not sure if you caught this in my original post:

sfleinen said:
[...]
In rifle shooting, this is roughly analogous to someone who can't see the fatal (points-scoring) center heart-shot on a human silhouette rifle target. So what he/she does instead, is to aim at the very edge of the human silhouette's shoulder, pivot inwards "x" amount (to artificially [blindly?] place him/her in the heart-shot area), and pull the trigger.
[...]
Click to expand...

Now I'm not saying "you can't" or "you don't have the ability," but I am saying, is that I don't need as many steps to arrive at the same fire control solution.

Is it natural ability? Is it a honed ability based on previous "creative" type abilities (e.g. perceptive abilities honed through drawing/sketching)? I don't know. It *has* very nearly crystallized over the years with practice, I can tell you that. I can now not only see the ghostball as part of my PSR (pre-shot routine) when I'm standing over the shot, about to get into my stance, but I can also see the ghostball out of my peripheral vision now. (That was mentioned in my challenge in the previous post.)

Everything, including visual abilities, increase and hone with practice. There are no shortcuts, no matter what anyone tells you. If you practice "it" enough, you will become better at "it," assuming you do everything leading up to "it" the same (i.e. pre-shot routine, head/eye placement, etc.).

Where my hackles get up, is when I get these snake oil sales pitches from "aiming system of the day du-jour" (to include pivot-based aiming systems) where someone will say to me things like these:

* "Sean, with your ability to visualize so clearly something that does not really exist, if you'd learn CTE, your ability will go up "x" number of balls -- you'd be Bustamante speed!" (I got this one a while ago from a well-known pivot-based aiming advocate, and this one, up until recently, was my "Exhibit A" of the snake oil sales pitch.)

* "Sean, if you know what I know about pivot-based aiming, you'd be ranked number 1!" (I got this one only recently in a PM, and is now probably going to be my new poster child snake oil sales pitch.)

Now I'll never name names, but these are the examples of things that will get me involved in a CTE discussion. When I see these snake oil sales pitches, I go into the Elmer Fudd "kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit!" stance with my double-barreled shotgun.

If something works for you, great -- that's the name of the game, after all: pocket those balls and get position. I fully believe CTE works for people, if not for the reasons they claim (i.e. it may actually be disguising/BandAiding something wrong in their PSR, head/eye placement, shot line visualization, etc.). But when an aiming system gets foisted upon me or others with these snake oil claims (samples shown above), that's when I'll jump into the fray. And that's where a lot of the perceived skeptics jump in, as well.

Anyway, if I'm ever down your way, I'd like a friendly game of straight pool, if you're ever so inclined. We'll have to make it a race to 150 or 200 though, because I'm already in the 120s for my high run of the year (in June). Not sure how that stacks up for a full-time working man, but hey, I'm pretty proud of it. ;)

Keep shooting 'em straight,
-Sean
 
Patrick Johnson said:
You seem to have confused yourself. Here's the complete quote from Efren in that article, in which he says he aims directly at the contact point when spin (squirt) adjustment requires it:

Efren Reyes, ranked #5 and winner of
last month's Sands Regency title, further
explains. "When you put a lot of english on
the cue ball you adjust a little bit, often
aiming exactly at the contact point of an
object ball. So it very much depends on my
next shot how I will aim."

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Still is opposite of what he told Nesli.
 
Am just wondering.
If you can't imagine where the cueball has to be upon impact, how do you know where the cueball is going after contact?
The tangent line is also invisible, can it be visualized ?
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
I figured you'd say that. Not ready to deal with the way he aims...aiming at the contact point? Nesli isn't anywhere near advanced enough as a pro to figure that one out. Efren could have said "I just see the shot" like some other pros did. Instead, he said he aimed "exactly" at the CP.

I do understand what you're saying though.... for lesser players. When a pro asks another pro how they aim and they get into OB quarter targets and then a reporter gets "exactly at the CP" --- even you see a breakdown, right? Efren gave bad info to someone -- that's my point.
Click to expand...


Well yeah, I am ready to deal with the way Efren aims, having played him a few years back in the US Open and taking two games off him in a race to four (1pocket). So, to tell you the truth I got a *real* good look at how Efren shoots and aims -- up close and personal front row seat for two and a half hours. And my personal take is that Efren is seeing the balls in a way the vast majority of us cannot. You can throw it all out the window: ghost ball, CTE, and the rest. He's on a different level and if anyone thinks he's accomplishing what he does with three different hits, they should check themselves into rehab :-)

Lou Figueroa
 
JoeyInCali said:
Am just wondering.
If you can't imagine where the cueball has to be upon impact, how do you know where the cueball is going after contact?
The tangent line is also invisible, can it be visualized ?
Click to expand...


I can imagine where the cue ball might need to be upon contact but that does not make it correct.

About the tangent line: I do not use the tangent line for assessing where the cue ball is going. The tangent line is the line between the cue ball and object ball at contact. That line does not tell me anything that's very helpful. I prefer to look at the stun line which is at the core of the cue ball and that line is a far more accurate assessment of cue ball travel after OB contact.

Stan
 
manwon said:
Stan while I don't subscribe to all the aiming techniques that are filling the net these days, I can say this you are a voice of reason in a very dark subject. You are always very polite, very professional, and after reading your posts I don't ever feel like I have been mugged by a used car salesman. While I do not and never will see the value of these threads which always turn into a gang rape you are the light that brightens things up and makes it all readable.

Thanks for your thoughts on this subject I wish others could find their center and follow your approach, I also believe that you also believe what you are saying and not just trying to sell your products and I wish you all the luck in the world with the sale of these products.

Take care Stan.
Click to expand...

manwon, You are very welcome. I appreciate your comments very much.

Stan
 
stan shuffett said:
About the tangent line: I do not use the tangent line for assessing where the cue ball is going. The tangent line is the line between the cue ball and object ball at contact. That line does not tell me anything that's very helpful. I prefer to look at the stun line which is at the core of the cue ball and that line is a far more accurate assessment of cue ball travel after OB contact.

Stan
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's parallel to, and 1 1/8" over from, the tangent line.
 
GetMeThere said:
stan shuffett said:
About the tangent line: I do not use the tangent line for assessing where the cue ball is going. The tangent line is the line between the cue ball and object ball at contact. That line does not tell me anything that's very helpful. I prefer to look at the stun line which is at the core of the cue ball and that line is a far more accurate assessment of cue ball travel after OB contact.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's parallel to, and 1 1/8" over from, the tangent line.
Click to expand...
Actually, the most standard definition of "tangent line" (based on the majority of mainstream published books, articles, and videos) is the line tangent to the CB path, through the center of the CB. I agree with Stan that the line tangent to the edge of the ball (between the CB and OB) is not very useful. BTW, I think "tangent line" and "stun line" are used interchangeably in most pool "circles."

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
Actually, the most standard definition of "tangent line" (based on the majority of mainstream published books, articles, and videos) is the line tangent to the CB path, through the center of the CB. I agree with Stan that the line tangent to the edge of the ball (between the CB and OB) is not very useful. BTW, I think "tangent line" and "stun line" are used interchangeably in most pool "circles."

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

OK.
STAN'S tangent line is parallel to, and 1 1/8" from STAN'S stun line--that's the way I read his description "The tangent line is the line between the cue ball and object ball at contact."

The only line that could be "between" the CB and OB, that is a "tangent" to one of the spheres (and that could be relevant to pool), would be the one tangent to BOTH of them (at the equator, i.e., "at contact"), which would be the one that is parallel to, and 1 1/8" from, the stun line.

Is that correct? Is that what you're talking about?
 
GetMeThere said:
dr_dave said:
dr_dave View Post
Actually, the most standard definition of "tangent line" (based on the majority of mainstream published books, articles, and videos) is the line tangent to the CB path, through the center of the CB. I agree with Stan that the line tangent to the edge of the ball (between the CB and OB) is not very useful. BTW, I think "tangent line" and "stun line" are used interchangeably in most pool "circles."
Click to expand...
OK.
STAN'S tangent line is parallel to, and 1 1/8" from STAN'S stun line--that's the way I read his description "The tangent line is the line between the cue ball and object ball at contact."

The only line that could be "between" the CB and OB, that is a "tangent" to one of the spheres (and that could be relevant to pool), would be the one tangent to BOTH of them (at the equator, i.e., "at contact"), which would be the one that is parallel to, and 1 1/8" from, the stun line.

Is that correct? Is that what you're talking about?
Click to expand...
That's correct. The only line tangent to both the CB and OB at impact is the line tangent to the equators at the point of contact. However, this is not what is generally referred to as the "tangent line." The generally accepted "tangent line" goes through the center of the CB and is tangent to the CB's path immediately after impact. This can also be referred to as the "stun line" or the "90-degree-rule direction." With a stun shot (AKA "a stop shot at an angle"), the CB persists along the "tangent line."

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
That's correct. The only line tangent to both the CB and OB at impact is the line tangent to the equators at the point of contact. However, this is not what is generally referred to as the "tangent line." The generally accepted "tangent line" goes through the center of the CB and is tangent to the CB's path immediately after impact. This can also be referred to as the "stun line" or the "90-degree-rule direction." With a stun shot (AKA "a stop shot at an angle"), the CB persists along the "tangent line."
Click to expand...

I just wanted to be sure.

So you're correcting Stan then, for using improper terminology.
 
GetMeThere said:
So you're correcting Stan then, for using improper terminology.
Click to expand...
Feel free to think whatever you want to think, but please don't continue to share with us every single thought you have, especially the negative ones. Honestly, it is getting a little tiresome. I hope you realize that, based on all of the "feedback" you have received from numerous people (and "Mr. Wilson").

Again, I hope you can become a better "citizen" of AZB over time.
 
dr_dave said:
Feel free to think whatever you want to think, but please don't continue to share with us every single thought you have, especially the negative ones. Honestly, it is getting a little tiresome. I hope you realize that, based on all of the "feedback" you have received from numerous people (and "Mr. Wilson").

Again, I hope you can become a better "citizen" of AZB over time.
Click to expand...

I see. I've been "sharing thoughts."

But you weren't "sharing thoughts" when you (at least seemed) to wish to correct my terminology? At that point, I was left to wonder whether you would have felt moved to "share thoughts" to correct Stan's terminology--or only mine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top