Why CTE is silly

Status
Not open for further replies.
dr_dave said:
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
Click to expand...

Dave, CTE is not complicated! Initially, it can seem that way, though.

Most students do not want to go backward before they go forward but when developing new skills whether visual or physical there is a learning curve. The entire CTE system to include PRO ONE can be learned in a few days up to a few weeks. The process becomes very natural within a few months.

I can think of no greater skill to possess than to be able to see the balls as they should be seen for center pocketing over and over and over.

Well, a perfectly straight stroke is one heck of a skill to have as well.

Hal figured out what to see at ball address......for all shots to be pocketed. That is what makes the system so visual. The movement to center cue ball following one's correct visual is very natural.

Stan
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
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
Click to expand...
Excellent summary. I think you are missing some elements in the CTE descriptioin (e.g., eye alignment), but you are close ... I think. :confused:

I can see why Spidey's document might need to be as long as he has reported. A tome of information is still missing. I will honestly be extremely impressed if Stan can do it in one DVD, but I also honestly hope that he can.

Regards,
Dave
 
Last edited:
cookie man said:
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.
Click to expand...
Judging by the fact that you never post anything meaningful about CTE, you apparently know nothing about it. So your opinion about others' grasp of it is pretty much irrelevant.

pj
chgo
 
dr_dave said:
A tomb of information is still missing. I will honestly be extremely impressed if Stan can do it in one DVD, but I also honestly hope that he can.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Hmmm. We're 1242 postings into this silly CTE thread and all we've learned so far is that "a tomb of information is still missing." :grin:

Wouldn't it make more sense for everyone to wait for Stan's DVD to come out and then argue the merits of whether CTE works or not? :rolleyes:
 
Neil said:
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.
Click to expand...

Neil,

I do like you and your posts, but in all due respect, your statement is a good example of one of those types that rile CTE skeptics. The word "many" (as in, 'have been helped') has been used a lot, and yet, few of the "many" have ever come forth to testify in CTE's defense. (And after ten years of debates, anything less than 100 would probably not be considered many.)

I just thought that needed to be pointed out.

Roger
 
SpiderWebComm said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can believe what you want.
But you have repeatedly talked about how aiming is a 3 dimensional process and how cuetable doesn't apply to real life because it is 2d.

What you are referring to as "depth" is really, relative size, and is one of the monocular cues that can aid a one eyed person with judging depth, but isn't depth perception per se.

Just because you can determine what is near or far on a tv set, doesn't change the fact that the screen is flat.

A person with one eye, will never have the depth perception that true stereoscopic vision allows.
 
Roger:
The word "many" (as in, 'have been helped') has been used a lot, and yet, few of the "many" have ever come forth to testify in CTE's defense. (And after ten years of debates, anything less than 100 would probably not be considered many.)
Click to expand...
I don't think we need to hear from 100 or more to conclude that CTE has useful features. In addition to the testimonials we have, it just makes simple sense. We can easily imagine, for instance, how some of CTE's features can help develop consistency in setup and visualization even though it isn't a mechanical step-by-mechanical step guide to an aiming solution.

pj
chgo
 
Neil said:
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.
Click to expand...

Neil, I am a lot friendlier to the concept of CTE than many, because I would like to incorporate a systematic "feel" based approach into my game, and I'm hoping that CTE might be just that.

You might want to take note, that many of those who are perceived as being CTE's greatest critics on this forum, are actually "feel" based aimers.

Speaking for myself, being dependent on an exact (or nearly so) aiming system is a lot like being married to someone who is always right.

Where the problem arises, are the claims that CTE provides an exact solution to the aiming problem. This has never been substantiated. Furthermore, the stated instructions for CTE, as have appeared in this forum, simply do not work.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't think we need to hear from 100 or more to conclude that CTE has useful features. In addition to the testimonials we have, it just makes simple sense. We can easily imagine, for instance, how some of CTE's features can help develop consistency in setup and visualization even though it isn't a mechanical step-by-mechanical step guide to an aiming solution.
Click to expand...
Agreed. CTE does offer benefits to some people, as does any consistent pre-shot routine and/or "aiming system."

Regards,
Dave
 
cookie man said:
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.
Click to expand...


I am pretty much done with these aiming threads..."Its Silly"

One thing I will point out....since you brought his name up....Mike Page has some very good free videos online that clearly cover various pool skills....He has proven himself as a guy that has very good technical knowledge of the game and also has very clear concise presentation skills...and that is only on video...I can only imagine he would be just as good an instructor in person....Based on that background information...I would tend to believe Mike Page....and If MP has Patrick's back...hmmmmm guess what street I am going down.

BTW...if after 1200 posts you have not figured out that Patrick does know a thing or two about CTE and other aiming systems....you are really naive.
 
PoolSharkAllen said:
Hmmm. We're 1242 postings into this silly CTE thread and all we've learned so far is that "a tomb of information is still missing."
Click to expand...
I meant "tome;" but if this debate ever ends and this thread (and all of its animosity) ever gets buried where it belongs, then I guess all the missing info will be then be in a tomb. :grin-square:

Regards,
Dave
 
SpiderWebComm said:
You never sight along the CTEL, unless it's a true exact 1/2 ball hit.
Click to expand...

How do you know it's supposed to be an exact half-ball hit?

You and Hal have recommended using CTE with a pivot on straight shots because "how do you know it's straight?"

With CTE you only judge whether a shot is thick or thin (or maybe thinner, too). You don't look at a contact point or a ghost ball.

How do you know it's a half-ball hit?
 
AtLarge said:
How do you know it's supposed to be an exact half-ball hit?

You and Hal have recommended using CTE with a pivot on straight shots because "how do you know it's straight?"

With CTE you only judge whether a shot is thick or thin (or maybe thinner, too). You don't look at a contact point or a ghost ball.

How do you know it's a half-ball hit?
Click to expand...

You don't. I don't think anyone on here can (forget that peace sign waste of time). I can setup 15 balls on the table with one being a true 1/2 ball hit and no one on here can pick it out. My point was if it WERE a true half-ball hit and after you pivot-- you'd then be looking down it.

If anyone on here thinks they can pick out a 1/2 ball hit with a peace sign, come track me down at the SBE. I'll bet $20/guess until you quit.
 
cookie man said:
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.
Click to expand...

BRKNRUN said:
One thing I will point out....since you brought his name up....Mike Page has some very good free videos online that clearly cover various pool skills....He has proven himself as a guy that has very good technical knowledge of the game and also has very clear concise presentation skills...and that is only on video...I can only imagine he would be just as good an instructor in person....Based on that background information...I would tend to believe Mike Page....and If MP has Patrick's back...hmmmmm guess what street I am going down.
Click to expand...


So. What am I, chopped liver?

Lou Figueroa
the side dish, again
(sigh)
 
SpiderWebComm said:
You don't. I don't think anyone on here can (forget that peace sign waste of time). I can setup 15 balls on the table with one being a true 1/2 ball hit and no one on here can pick it out. My point was if it WERE a true half-ball hit and after you pivot-- you'd then be looking down it.

If anyone on here thinks they can pick out a 1/2 ball hit with a peace sign, come track me down at the SBE. I'll bet $20/guess until you quit.
Click to expand...
Spidey,

I won't be at the SBE, but I think I would take your bet, depending on how close to the 30-degree cut angle you expect me to detect. I think I can do it fairly well within about 1 degree. I'm sure I could also teach you how to do this if you wanted. I don't like to spoon feed you, but all you need (including the quote from Billy_Bob) is described and demonstrated here:

I would think that my peace-sign technique could identify a 1/2-ball hit more accurately than a CTE edge-identification/alignment/bridge-placement/pivot-to-center technique. The peace-sign method only requires one step, and no significant judgment (if you use Billy_Bob's trick). The CTE approach requires many steps, many of which require judgment.

Regards,
Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top