Why CTE is silly

[dr_dave]

I mentioned a few times info on my blog was inaccurate... namely the cue wasn't parallel to the CTEL (said that in JB's old CTE thread). That's why I hadn't updated my site in a long time - I was waiting for Stan to release his video and I've been busy working on my document.

Until an "official" video and/or document is released that fully describes the entire system and all of its special cases, threads like this are meaningless, IMO. The CTE "story" keeps changing, and special cases keep being added. I look forward to seeing the final and "official" versions by you and Stan. Only then we will truly have something meaningful and concrete to discuss, IMO.

In regards to definitions, you can't define thick/thin as far as degrees--- they must be defined by where your eyes reside (which side of the CTEL). I would say thick = eyes outside of ctel, thin = inside of ctel.

So the eye position must also be varied with CTE. IMO, CTE is starting to become ridiculously complicated. You need to choose and/or judge alignment, eye position, bridge hand placement, ball distances, effective pivot length, ball centers, ball edges, etc. I hope Stan's video and/or your document can clarify and detail all of these elements. I will certainly be extremely impressed if you guys can. After reading this thread, and other threads like it in the past, it seems like one DVD cannot adequately cover all of the important questions adequately (with procedures, illustrations, and a wide range of examples, with camera angles that clearly show all of the important "subtleties" of the system), but I hope Stan's DVD proves me wrong.

Edit-- let me clarify. The cue can't be parallel with a 1/2 ball offset.

By "can't," I assume you me "shouldn't be." Obvious it "can," and for shots of certain cut angles and ball distances, and with a certain style of pivot, parallel might even be appropriate.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Neil]

So do I, of course - but Spidey doesn't know what you mean. Talking past each other is how "conversation" goes in these threads.

Speaking of which, I had a nice visit with John Barton last night. He had a few hours in Chicago on his way back to China from Florida, so we went to Chris's and talked past each other for two or three hours about CTE while occasionally pretending to play some pool.

John explained in as much detail as he could (over and over) how he goes about making balls with his version of CTE and I explained in as much detail as I could (over and over) how his explanation didn't include any specific instructions about how to shift and pivot. We reached two definite conclusions:

1. we enjoy each other's company
2. we should have played more pool

Nice to see ya, John. Let's not wait 7 more years for the next time.

pj
chgo

I've asked this before, and never have received a response. Why do you and others keep insisting on specific instructions for CTE, and not any other aiming system? You all tout other systems, but give no instructions for whatever you use without using the same words that you knock CTE for using.

I still don't understand the reasoning behind those that want to knock CTE. It seems like all you want to do is bring pool down, not up. You keep saying, "show me the geometry, or it doesn't work, it has feel in it, ect. Name one other system that doesn't. Why aren't you knocking those?? Or, do some of you just like causing confrontations??

 

[Neil]

So the eye position must also be varied with CTE. IMO, CTE is starting to become ridiculously complicated. You need to choose and/or judge alignment, eye position, bridge hand placement, ball distances, effective pivot length, ball centers, ball edges, etc. I hope Stan's video and/or your document can clarify and detail all of these elements. I will certainly be extremely impressed if you guys can. After reading this thread, and other threads like it in the past, it seems like one DVD cannot adequately cover all of the important questions adequately (with procedures, illustrations, and a wide range of examples, with camera angles that clearly show all of the important "subtleties" of the system), but I hope Stan's DVD proves me wrong.

That's only because people keep asking ridiculous questions of it that they don't ask of any other system. Pick any aiming system you want, I'll tear it apart the same way. :wink:

 

[mantis99]

If the balls don't move and you shift and pivot the same way, the CB must hit the same contact point. Does this really need to be explained?

pj
chgo

I apologize. I meant to say the point you are aiming at changes, not the contact point. Of course the contact point has to be the same, or the ball would not go in. When you are aiming CTE on one shot, then change the angle by 5 degrees (random number), if you aim CTE on that shot, you will now be aiming at a different spot on the CB, which happens to allow for the same contact point as the previous shot. That works for a certain range of shots. Once you are out of the range, you now have to pivot left or right depending on the angle.

 

[stan shuffett]

Until an "official" video and/or document is released that fully describes the entire system and all of its special cases, threads like this are meaningless, IMO. The CTE "story" keeps changing, and special cases keep being added. I look forward to seeing the final and "official" versions by you and Stan. Only then we will truly have something meaningful and concrete to discuss, IMO.

So the eye position must also be varied with CTE. IMO, CTE is starting to become ridiculously complicated. You need to choose and/or judge alignment, eye position, bridge hand placement, ball distances, effective pivot length, ball centers, ball edges, etc. I hope Stan's video and/or your document can clarify and detail all of these elements. I will certainly be extremely impressed if you guys can. After reading this thread, and other threads like it in the past, it seems like one DVD cannot adequately cover all of the important questions adequately (with procedures, illustrations, and a wide range of examples, with camera angles that clearly show all of the important "subtleties" of the system), but I hope Stan's DVD proves me wrong.

By "can't," I assume you me "shouldn't be." Obvious it "can," and for shots of certain cut angles and ball distances, and with a certain style of pivot, parallel might even be appropriate.

Regards,
Dave

Dave, Basic CTE and PRO ONE are for the most part visual systems. No camera angle will ever cover all the subleties.

What I can assure you is this: Bascis CTE will be taught in its most pure and exact form. A student can learn CTE as it was originally conceived. It is what it is. Basic CTE has some unatural elements. It's Basic CTE that will serve as a foundation for PRO ONE. PRO ONE is very visual with 2 specific physical movements that can become very natural in a short time.

Expect to study and put in some practice time....visuallly and physically. Expect to make a study of my DVD and what is presented. The DVD can serve as tremendous resource for those that are truly interested in learning Basic CTE and PRO ONE. This system was discovered on a table and must be learned on a table.......The words I will present will never teach anyone the system. It will always be one's experience at the table that creates real learning.


Stan Shuffett

 

[dr_dave]

I've asked this before, and never have received a response. Why do you and others keep insisting on specific instructions for CTE, and not any other aiming system? You all tout other systems, but give no instructions for whatever you use without using the same words that you knock CTE for using.

Many "aiming systems" are described, illustrated, and demonstrated in detail here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html​

Most of these systems are not in question because the descriptions and illustrations are simple and clear, and nobody is making unjustifiable claims about theses systems.

CTE is not the only system that has received scrutiny. Fractional-ball aiming and the 90/90 system have also been debated heavily in the past.

One reasons CTE receives so much scrutiny is that is the least understood, partly because it still has not been defined adequately. Although, two common versions, which have been discounted by CTE proponents recently, are described here. Until we know what CTE really is ... it seems like the story keeps changing ... it can't really be evaluated objectively or even discussed properly.

Another reason CTE receives so much scrutiny is that many outrageous claims have been made about it over the years, even though we don't really know what "it" is (sort of like Clinton in the Monica days :wink. Some example claims can be found in the italicized intro paragraphs here.

Much effort has gone into trying to identify some of the benefits of CTE, but the proponents seems to claim that the system provides much more with little or no need for judgment or feel. Usually, things that sound too good to be true are, or at least that's what my momma always told me.

Regards,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

So is it safe to say that "Patcheye" Henry could never learn CTE?

I think it's safe to say you're lost. If you have 1 eye, you still have depth perception. If you have 1 eye, a car gets smaller as it drives away from you.

I think you're instigating just to keep the argument going.

 

[dr_dave]

Dave, Basic CTE and PRO ONE are for the most part visual systems. No camera angle will ever cover all the subleties.

What I can assure you is this: Bascis CTE will be taught in its most pure and exact form. A student can learn CTE as it was originally conceived. It is what it is. Basic CTE has some unatural elements. It's Basic CTE that will serve as a foundation for PRO ONE. PRO ONE is very visual with 2 specific physical movements that can become very natural in a short time.

Expect to study and put in some practice time....visuallly and physically. Expect to make a study of my DVD and what is presented. The DVD can serve as tremendous resource for those that are truly interested in learning Basic CTE and PRO ONE. This system was discovered on a table and must be learned on a table.......The words I will present will never teach anyone the system. It will always be one's experience at the table that creates real learning.

Thanks Stan.

I think this statement can be applied to any aiming system (i.e., if you replace "CTE" or "Pro One" in your post with "ghost-ball" or any other system name, and get rid of the "unnatural elements" paragraph, your post still applies, IMO). With a consistent pre-shot routine, with or without an "aiming system,"

It will always be one's experience at the table that creates real learning.​

I agree 100%!!!

Regards,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Until an "official" video and/or document is released that fully describes the entire system and all of its special cases, threads like this are meaningless, IMO. The CTE "story" keeps changing, and special cases keep being added. I look forward to seeing the final and "official" versions by you and Stan. Only then we will truly have something meaningful and concrete to discuss, IMO.

So the eye position must also be varied with CTE. IMO, CTE is starting to become ridiculously complicated. You need to choose and/or judge alignment, eye position, bridge hand placement, ball distances, effective pivot length, ball centers, ball edges, etc. I hope Stan's video and/or your document can clarify and detail all of these elements. I will certainly be extremely impressed if you guys can. After reading this thread, and other threads like it in the past, it seems like one DVD cannot adequately cover all of the important questions adequately (with procedures, illustrations, and a wide range of examples, with camera angles that clearly show all of the important "subtleties" of the system), but I hope Stan's DVD proves me wrong.

By "can't," I assume you me "shouldn't be." Obvious it "can," and for shots of certain cut angles and ball distances, and with a certain style of pivot, parallel might even be appropriate.

Regards,
Dave

I mean "can't" as in -- having a static bridge length - unless you get lucky with shot distance. So, yes - you're correct.

 

[mantis99]

Post 3 of 3.

Unfortunately, you are not doing it right from what i read. Follow these intructions and try it once more.

1. the amount of cue tip you adjust depends on your bridge length. Figure it out like this. Line up a straight in shot. Sight the cue ball center (CTE) to the right edge of the OB. Now move your tip approx 1/2 tip to the rights. Get down in your stance and pivot left to the center of the CB. When you look up, if you are in line with the OB, then you 1/2 tip is correct. If not, repeat with more or less tip adjustment until you are straight in with the OB after you pivot. That is the amount of movement to the side you need before your pivot.

2. set up your shot. First look cue ball center to edge. If the ball will go in like that, then you are good to shoot it. Obviously in your example it won't. You will have to now adjust your tip the correct amount to the right, get into your stance, and pivot to the CB center. You should now be able to make the shot.

Given how you were missing, a 1 tip move to the right or left is incorrect for your bridge length.

The example I gave you is for a lesser angle than CTE would make. If it was a greater angle, you would move the tip to the left, then pivot to the center.

I hope this helps. It works very well when you get it, and it is very easy. PM if you have any questions about my description. GIve it another try because it really does work. It also works really well for bank shots.

 

[Neil]

Most of these systems are not in question because the descriptions and illustrations are simple and clear, and nobody is making unjustifiable claims about theses systems.
Not really true Dave. All any of them claim is that the ball will go in the hole. And, if you are thinking of the statement that you don't need to see the pocket once you know if it is thick or thin, others claim the same thing, such as ghost ball, feel, need I go on?
CTE is not the only system that has received scrutiny. Fractional-ball aiming and the 90/90 system have also been debated heavily in the past.
Not like CTE has, where people that use it are called various not so nice names, or that if can't possibly work. Except for 90/90, which as far as I can tell, is a version of CTE.
One reasons CTE receives so much scrutiny is that is the least understood, partly because it still has not been defined adequately. Although, two common version, which have been discounted by CTE proponents recently, are described
Yet, a number of us have been able to understand it enough to be able to use it to our advantage. And, because we can, and others can't, we are essentially called fools.
here. Until we know what CTE really is ... it seems like the story keeps changing ... it can't really be evaluated objectively or even discussed properly.
I'd be willing to bet that if some weren't so antagonisitic about it, the whole thing would have been given long ago, at least as much as can be put into words.
Another reason CTE receives so much scrutiny is that many outrageous claims have been made about it over the years, even though we don't really know what "it" is (sort of like Clinton in the Monica days :wink. Some example claims can be found in the italicized intro paragraphs here.
Those claims are only outrageous to those without an open mind. Same claims have been made for other systems, and the naysayers don't have a problem with that. I make another on that you will find outrageous- put an object ball and the cue ball anywhere feasible for a shot. Let the shooter look at it while standing. THEN block the ob from view. Then have the shooter get down into position, and shoot. Have the blocker raised by someone once the cb is hit so the cb can contact the ob. CTE can make the ball. I know this because I have done it a number of times.
Much effort has gone into trying to identify some of the benefits of CTE, but the proponents seems to claim that the system provides much more with little or no need for judgment or feel. Usually, things that sound too good to be true are, or at least that's what my momma says.
Key word is "usually". That means NOT always.:wink:
Regards,
Dave[/QUOTE]

...........

 

[Dead Crab]

That's only because people keep asking ridiculous questions of it that they don't ask of any other system. Pick any aiming system you want, I'll tear it apart the same way. :wink:

There have been other aiming systems described in these forums. For some of them, there is no ongoing discussion because they have been shown to be geometrically correct, and the limitations and pitfalls have been described.

Examples of these geometrically correct techniques include include equal-opposite, double the distance, and cut angle estimation using a 15" isosceles (or right) triangle.

If you have something additional to add to the critiques of these methods, start a thread on them.

 

[Neil]

There have been other aiming systems described in these forums. For some of them, there is no ongoing discussion because they have been shown to be geometrically correct, and the limitations and pitfalls have been described.

Examples of these geometrically correct techniques include include equal-opposite, double the distance, and cut angle estimation using a 15" isosceles (or right) triangle.

If you have something additional to add to the critiques of these methods, start a thread on them.

Why??? Just to tear them down like you and others want to do with CTE? I'm all for helping others, not holding others back by insisting that something can't work that obviously has helped and worked for many.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Mantis:
When you are aiming CTE on one shot, then change the angle by 5 degrees (random number), if you aim CTE on that shot, you will now be aiming at a different spot on the CB, which happens to allow for the same contact point as the previous shot.

LOL. Do you actually think that was English?

pj <- Martians, I tell ya
chgo

 

[cookie man]

LOL. Do you actually think that was English?

pj <- Martians, I tell ya
chgo

I think it's funny your asking questions considering you stated you know more than anyone about cte, and we know mike page and lou have your back.

 

[Dead Crab]

I think it's safe to say you're lost. If you have 1 eye, you still have depth perception. If you have 1 eye, a car gets smaller as it drives away from you.

I think you're instigating just to keep the argument going.

Not true. Stereopsis requires two eyes. Persons with a single eye rely on adjunct visual cues such as overlap and context to determine where things are in space.

 

[Neil]

Not true. Stereopsis requires two eyes. Persons with a single eye rely on adjunct visual cues such as overlap and context to determine where things are in space.

Which gives them depth perception, so, he was right. :wink:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Neil:
Why do you and others keep insisting on specific instructions for CTE, and not any other aiming system?

Let's compare:

1. Ghost Ball: aim the center of the cue ball 1 1/8" from the object ball's surface along the pocket-to-OB line.

2. Double Overlap: aim the center of the cue ball twice the distance from the object ball's center as the OB contact point.

3. CTE: sight CB center to OB edge, or maybe slightly off that line, or maybe something else depending on the rotating edges; shift your cue sideways parallel with that line, or maybe not quite parallel, or maybe something else; pivot your cue around your bridge, which is maybe or maybe not in a specific place, or maybe "hip pivot" or "air pivot" or "pivot to the shot circle", if you can figure out what any of that means without asking any questions because it's all top secret.

Yeah, why do we keep picking on poor innocent CTE? LOL.

pj <- no speaka da Esperanto
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Which gives them depth perception, so, he was right. :wink:

# eyes has no bearing. If someone has "vision" at all, an object gets smaller as distance increases. *SIGH* If they have 5 eyes, 2 eyes or 1 eye--- if they see - that's a fact.

 

[dr_dave]

See below, with dr_dave in black and Neil in blue

Most of these systems are not in question because the descriptions and illustrations are simple and clear, and nobody is making unjustifiable claims about theses systems.

Not really true Dave. All any of them claim is that the ball will go in the hole.

The ball will go in the hole only if the system is applied as described and/or illustrated, and if the aim is compensated for throw if there is a cut angle and for squirt, swerve, and throw if English is being used.

With the versions of CTE described and illustrated to date, the first part of the last sentence is not true unless the "effective pivot length" is "adjusted" just the right amount to create the cut angle actually needed for each shot.

And, if you are thinking of the statement that you don't need to see the pocket once you know if it is thick or thin, others claim the same thing, such as ghost ball

But with most systems, the pocket location and required OB direction (i.e., the exact amount of cut needed), are taken into consideration during the process of aiming. CTE proponents claim this is not necessary with CTE. Now I agree that you don't need to "see the pocket" after you have come up with an aiming line based on the OB direction you want. BTW, you don't need to "see the pocket" to sense where it is (based on the part of the table you can see), and maybe this partly explains some of the subconscious "adjustments" that might take place with effective use of CTE.

need I go on?

No, but thank you for the offer. :grin-square:

Thanks,
Dave