Why CTE is silly

[GetMeThere]

OK, here are my CTE claims. And you can be disrespectful to me cuz
I BS on here all the time
1. I don't look at the pocket
2. It improved my ball pocketing dramatically
3. I don't look for contact points
5. I gained at least 2 balls
7. It has improved my break, because I am hitting the ball exactly square,
cb usually does not hit a rail after the break unless kicked by another ball
8. Has dramatically improved my banking
This is all true
9. It is an exact aiming system
10. Improves and forces a solid pre-shot routine

To me that seems to say that CTE is helping to hit the ball where you WANT to hit the ball--instead of TELLING YOU where to hit the ball in order to make it go into the pocket.

If that is correct then I'm COMPLETELY SATISFIED that I've misunderstood what CTE is and what it is meant to accomplish for the player (hehehe, but I don't think I have, unfortunately).

Just to be clear, the GB system does something DIFFERENT: It tells you WHERE to try to hit the OB with the CB, but tells you NOTHING about HOW to accomplish that (except to try to hit the CB to a straight line to where the GB would be).

 

[GetMeThere]

CTE/PRO ONE is a SYSTEM........in every way!


Time will bear it out. I have no doubt.


Stan

OK. I should have given more detail.

I want to know if CTE is a system which provides the ability to correctly hit the OB with the CB in order to pocket the ball--if the player himself doesn't previously KNOW where to hit the OB with the CB to pocket the ball.

Surely you realize that a raw beginner might look at a shot and think "I'm have to hit that OB somewhere on the left side in order to make it in the pocket. I only wish I knew exactly WHERE I have to try hit it"

Does or does not CTE systematically provide the information "WHERE" the beginner should hit the ball? (As ghost ball theoretically does--not counting corrections necessary for friction).

 

[peteypooldude]

To me that seems to say that CTE is helping to hit the ball where you WANT to hit the ball--instead of TELLING YOU where to hit the ball in order to make it go into the pocket.

If that is correct then I'm COMPLETELY SATISFIED that I've misunderstood what CTE is and what it is meant to accomplish for the player (hehehe, but I don't think I have, unfortunately).

Just to be clear, the GB system does something DIFFERENT: It tells you WHERE to try to hit the OB with the CB, but tells you NOTHING about HOW to accomplish that (except to try to hit the CB to a straight line to where the GB would be).

It puts your body in the correct position to execute the shot. Post pivot. You are in line with the shot. Only reason to look at the pocket is to see if it will pass obstructing balls.

 

[stan shuffett]

To me this is more CTE sidestepping.

This thread isn't about aiming. This thread is about CTE, which is called an AIMING SYSTEM.

Comments about "perception" and the visual aspects of aiming, in place of geometric discussion, look like a multi-step slither away from a system and toward some vague, mystical-sounding religious theory of an aiming--not something systematic.

I'd say a straight-in shot if very objective.

In CTE/PRO ONE, the visual offset is the same for every CTE shot just as though it were a straight-in. Therefore, the physical movement to center cue ball for any shot is like that of a straight-in. Very repeatable and extremely refinable system because of objectivity.

I'd say CTE/PRO ONE is highly objective. There is no other system that has so much objectivity and exactness.

Stan

 

[stan shuffett]

OK. I should have given more detail.

Does or does not CTE systematically provide the information "WHERE" the beginner should hit the ball? (As ghost ball theoretically does--not counting corrections necessary for friction).

Absolutely........center cue ball.

Stan

 

[GetMeThere]

It puts your body in the correct position to execute the shot. Post pivot. You are in line with the shot. Only reason to look at the pocket is to see if it will pass obstructing balls.

Right. I've heard it said that way.

The question is whether it does that for someone who doesn't previously KNOW how to make the shot?

Here's a question that may clarify things: Can the phrase "It puts your body in the correct position to execute the shot" be substituted with the phrase "it puts the cue on the exact line necessary to make the shot" ?

If so, then I would certainly call that a "system" for pocketing balls....

but then I would have to question how that system could possibly arrive at its "shot position" without information about the angle that the OB would have to travel at the pocket. I would claim that the "system" (whatever it is) does not have the information that is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to align the cue to hit the CB, to hit the OB, so that the OB would go into the pocket.

 

[peteypooldude]

Most seasoned players know how hard it is to build a solid pre-shot
routine that is repeatable. That is just a bonus of the system

 

[GetMeThere]

Absolutely........center cue ball.

Stan

So, IOW, you're saying that after all the alignments and pivots involved in Pro-one are completed, the stick itself is pointed in such a way that a straight stroke into "center cue ball" will cause the OB to go into the pocket?

 

[peteypooldude]

Right. I've heard it said that way.

The question is whether it does that for someone who doesn't previously KNOW how to make the shot?

Here's a question that may clarify things: Can the phrase "It puts your body in the correct position to execute the shot" be substituted with the phrase "it puts the cue on the exact line necessary to make the shot" ?

If so, then I would certainly call that a "system" for pocketing balls....

but then I would have to question how that system could possibly arrive at its "shot position" without information about the angle that the OB would have to travel at the pocket. I would claim that the "system" (whatever it is) does not have the information that is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to align the cue to hit the CB, to hit the OB, so that the OB would go into the pocket.

The answer is yes and yes .,But if they dont know how to make the shot
then I would have to assume they do not possess a straight stroke

 

[duckie]

duckie -- is that comment about a half-ball hit an attempt at humor? If not, WOW.

Now, about ghost ball. You're over-stating the case for it. You seem to feel that the only truly valid aiming method is to visualize a ghost ball and shoot at it. sfleinen has described extremely well how he does that. But not all of us have his ability to see that ghost properly.

Sure, to make the shot, we need to send the cue ball to the ghost ball position. But lots of us do that, using all sorts of different techniques, without any explicit reference to the ghost ball itself.[/INDENT]

Nope, its's a fact. See I deal in facts, things that are real. You see what appears to be a 1/2 ball hit , but in fact it is not. And what if it is 13/16 ball hit?

I'm overstating my case for ghost ball............You are so full of shit. It seems more that the CTE user seem to believe if they say something long enough it will become true. Those are the one overstating.

I can tell you haven't played for very long and play 9 ball as 'the game of all games". Anyone that still has to use a system are still in the beginners stages. And that stage is a very long one.

Because you are lacking visualization skills you will only go so far. Thats a fact Jack.

Pool is all about visualiztion and the only way to get that is 10,000 hours of hitting a million balls.

Gee how is my stance and support for GB any different than the CTE (Insert nice word for CTE users here cause the one I want to use is not) do?

At least, I can back up everything I say. Like GB can be used on any shot. ANY SHOT. It appears that to use CTE, you must be able to hit the OB directly with the CB.

Well show me how to use CTE for a any shot where you can not hit the OB directly, like a rail first shot, kick shot, combo and carom. I want pictures, drawings. Oh and as asked, what about when you play a safety and not trying to pocket a ball?

Well guess what, with GB this can be done.

Also there is no need for a DVD and 5 hours of instructons. to understand GB. I mean good grief. Making a ball is not rocket science, but if it makes you feel better to think this go ahead.

Oh one more thing GB is not about putting the center of the CB at a point in space. It is about rolling the cue over a spot on the table that will make the OB go center pocket. And the Arrow helps trains yourself to do this.

I don't think the CTE DVD can be used a real world training device like the arrow.

And yes, times I will speak as other against CTE becasue there are people that are real serious about there playing and I don't want them the read this CTE BS and think thats the way to go in the long run.

In the long run, CTE is a very weak system. I mean, show me using CTE with a bridge. I can set up the shot where you have to use a bridge and can't get any of your feet into a proper stance.

Play some 14.1 with some top players and have the CB get buired in the middle of a almost full rack. Can't place the bridge hand at a optimum spot, no way to get in a the standard stance(oh you didn't now there is not just one stance but a variety you may have to shoot from), and haven't a makeable ball. CTE goes out the window.

Oh and just for you home position stroke guys(I didn't forget about yall), in the above situation, you have to be jacked up, shooting down toward the table, so the home position would be through the table.

The only thing that works in these situtation is 10,000 of practice using GB.
Plan and simple, just the facts.

FWIW

 

[stan shuffett]

Right. I've heard it said that way.

Here's a question that may clarify things: Can the phrase "It puts your body in the correct position to execute the shot" be substituted with the phrase "it puts the cue on the exact line necessary to make the shot" ?

If so, then I would certainly call that a "system" for pocketing balls....

.

Yes, But to put my yes in proper perspective, it depends on one's visual/motor skills. Some students adapt to the system in one day, others can take many weeks. There is a learning curve......and that is true for any system.

Stan


But the answer to your question is Yes.

 

[stan shuffett]

So, IOW, you're saying that after all the alignments and pivots involved in Pro-one are completed, the stick itself is pointed in such a way that a straight stroke into "center cue ball" will cause the OB to go into the pocket?

Yes, that is true or I would not be doing a DVD.

Stan

 

[GetMeThere]

The answer is yes and yes .,But if they dont know how to make the shot
then I would have to assume they do not possess a straight stroke

OK, if it does that then it would certainly qualify as a "system" for precisely pocketing balls.

However, that takes us back to the beginning (for me): One CANNOT devise a system that sets up an exact "solution" for the pocketing of a ball, without including precise information about the relative positions of CB, OB, and pocket.

If CTE doesn't incorporate PRECISE information about the relative position of OB and pocket then it cannot precisely come up with an alignment that causes the OB to go INTO the pocket. That is simply geometric fact.

And that does, I'm afraid, go back to the central challenge the naysayers have made about CTE: There's no way to produce an objective "shot setup" for making a ball in a pocket by making only alignments, pivots, etc., that involve ONLY the OB and the CB (and perhaps including approximate information about where the pocket is, like somewhere near 15, 30, or 45, or more degrees). It's mathematically impossible.

How do you address that fact? Do you claim my "math" is "just wrong?"

 

[Cornerman]

If that is correct then I'm COMPLETELY SATISFIED that I've misunderstood what CTE is and what it is meant to accomplish for the player (hehehe, but I don't think I have, unfortunately).

Just to be clear, the GB system does something DIFFERENT: It tells you WHERE to try to hit the OB with the CB, but tells you NOTHING about HOW to accomplish that (except to try to hit the CB to a straight line to where the GB would be).

I think these two paragraphs might be all that's necessary to give someone satisfaction (yeah, right).

Working on the second paragraph, you're correct in that the Ghost Ball system is about where to hit the OB with the CB. And you're further correct that it tells you nothing how to accomplish this. Nor does it tell you whether you've chosen the correct Ghost Ball (most players have no idea that they're aiming at the wrong Ghost Ball). Nor does it tell you what to do if you're using english. Until Backhand English was more accepted (again, thanks to Hal Houle and nobody else, regardless of how much praise people want to give others that came after him), there wasn't a clear way to systemize how to use english with the Ghost Ball other than experience and the thick/thin game.

The ball-to-ball systems (which should include CTE and many others) are more concerned with finding two points on the ballls (not in somewhere in space) using a system and firing away. If the object ball happens to go into a pocket, you've got the right two points for that shot, if it doesn't, then (per the advocates) there will be two points that will make that ball go into the pocket. Anectodally, there is empirical evidence that going through the systems, people are easily finding the two points and balls go into the pocket. THat's why they're so gung ho about the systems: they've seen improvement. Theorizing shouldn't take that away.

That in a nutshell is it. Maybe if we just call them "pocketing systems," then we never talk about geometry. Let's face it, because of optics, parallax, perspective, and simple inability to see in 3D for some shots, the Ghost Ball can be impossible for some people for certain shots. Using a 2 point pocketing system that helps people see a shot differently and increases ones percentages will obviously be welcomed by a ton of people. It's not about geometery and never has been, regardless of what the opposition says.

Fred

 

[peteypooldude]

Nothing against Joe Tucker, But HIS aiming system is WAY more
complicated IMHO than CTE. Anyone here tried that? It works by
numbers on the cb and ob

 

[GetMeThere]

Yes, that is true or I would not be doing a DVD.

Stan

OK. Thanks for being fully forthcoming.

Now here's the pinch: In order to accomplish that, it's mathematically necessary to (directly or indirectly) incorporate in the process (somewhere) the EXACT relative positions of CB, OB, and POCKET. It can't be done using exact relative positions of CB and OB, plus only very a "approximate" position for the pocket (like, 15, 30, or 45 degrees off the CB-OB line, for example).

As it stands now, I've been given the impression that CTE/Pro-one does NOT require EXACT information about the relative positions of OB and pocket (like it's angle off the CB-OB line).

I (and others) claim (well, I can say "I" claim--it's my idea that others AT LEAST "imply") that it's a mathematical impossibility to produce a setup to pocket a ball that doesn't utilize information about the exact angle (or relative positions) of the OB and pocket.

Would you say that my claim is wrong, and that it is possible to align a cuestick exactly to pocket a ball, without inputing exact information (for that particular shot) about where the pocket is in relation to the OB and CB?

 

[stan shuffett]

OK, if it does that then it would certainly qualify as a "system" for precisely pocketing balls.

However, that takes us back to the beginning (for me): One CANNOT devise a system that sets up an exact "solution" for the pocketing of a ball, without including precise information about the relative positions of CB, OB, and pocket.

If CTE doesn't incorporate PRECISE information about the relative position of OB and pocket then it cannot precisely come up with an alignment that causes the OB to go INTO the pocket. That is simply geometric fact.

And that does, I'm afraid, go back to the central challenge the naysayers have made about CTE: There's no way to produce an objective "shot setup" for making a ball in a pocket by making only alignments, pivots, etc., that involve ONLY the OB and the CB (and perhaps including approximate information about where the pocket is, like somewhere near 15, 30, or 45, or more degrees). It's mathematically impossible.

How do you address that fact? Do you claim my "math" is "just wrong?"

The pockets come into play. I have never indicated they do not. I can watch a player from the stands and tell you the visuals and pivots for most all shots.

Let's say I viewed an accustats 9-ball game of your choosing. I could give you the visuals and the pivots for most all pocketed shots over a 5 game period. You can learn and do the same.

Set up 9 balls (all balls dotted for replacement) on a table and I will view the shots from a window and tell you the visuals and pivots for the shots and then we can shoot them.

I appreciate you kind tone,

Stan

 

[peteypooldude]

OK, if it does that then it would certainly qualify as a "system" for precisely pocketing balls.

However, that takes us back to the beginning (for me): One CANNOT devise a system that sets up an exact "solution" for the pocketing of a ball, without including precise information about the relative positions of CB, OB, and pocket.

If CTE doesn't incorporate PRECISE information about the relative position of OB and pocket then it cannot precisely come up with an alignment that causes the OB to go INTO the pocket. That is simply geometric fact.

And that does, I'm afraid, go back to the central challenge the naysayers have made about CTE: There's no way to produce an objective "shot setup" for making a ball in a pocket by making only alignments, pivots, etc., that involve ONLY the OB and the CB (and perhaps including approximate information about where the pocket is, like somewhere near 15, 30, or 45, or more degrees). It's mathematically impossible.

How do you address that fact? Do you claim my "math" is "just wrong?"

I can not argue your math, It is over my head. I don't know WHY it works
only that it does.

 

[Cornerman]

Nothing against Joe Tucker, But HIS aiming system is WAY more
complicated IMHO than CTE. Anyone here tried that? It works by
numbers on the cb and ob

It (Joe Tucker's aiming by the numbers) is complex, but it should satisfy the geometry crowd. Maybe if Joe still reads these boards he can jump in the mix.

This may be completely a poor analogy, but I compare these Houle-offshoot systems to learning music. You can learn to read music which could take years or you can read tableture and chords, which some would call a shortcut that falls short of being a master musician. However, the guy who learned tablature can play today and make money at it if he so chose. It would get him far enough and if he worked at it, could make him a super musical legend.

Because in the end, what's important? Being able to play better and have fun today with improvement ? Or studying what is classically correct and traditional but (potentially) being bogged down with eyes on the greater gain long into the future?

Fred

 

[LAMas]

Not unless your shift is not really parallel.

pj
chgo

Thanks, but....
I’ll bite.

Riddle me this:
Take a piece of paper and put it over the spot on a 9 foot table and place a cylindrical laser pointer on it pointed at an OB touching the center of the opposite head rail.

With the pointer over the spot, get down like your aiming a shot with your eyes at, say, an arms length behind the pointer. Make a mark behind the pointer, turn the pointer on and aim it at one edge of the OB.

While still down, roll the pointer until the laser is now pointing at the center of the OB and make another mark behind the new location that you have rolled the pointer to.

Now place a CB on top of the second mark an notice that the first mark isn’t right under the first mark, but is instead between the Center of the CB and the outer edge of the CB.

Now you know that if you roll a cylinder, that the axis of the pointer is always parallel to the first axis and that the axis of the pointer at the second mark is parallel to the axis at the first mark.

I contend that the shift is parallel but affected by foreshortening - making the OB appear smaller than the CB and causing the smaller distance/s.

Thanks for your time…wasted.:smile: