Stan is quite good at throwing out straw man arguments and confusing the issue. Stan is responsible for years of arguments by making claims that he can't possibly back up. Most here would be perfectly fine with CTE if he would stop saying it is 100% objective and that you can achieve multiple outcome angles with one visual alignment.
Until Stan addresses one simple point, anything else he says is meant to distract. Why the throw in this video?
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546
Very entertaining. I'm glad he clarified that there's no mathematical proof/explanation in the book. I just hope the book isn't going to be a rehash of things he's already shown in DVDs and on YouTube, and in words he's already written on AZ, otherwise it won't be very helpful for those that have tried to learn it using those instructions. Well, I suppose the ones that practice it every day for a month or more begin to develop some an understanding of how to make it work. But then again, investing that amount of time in any system should get you hitting the balls pretty well.
Very entertaining. I'm glad he clarified that there's no mathematical proof/explanation in the book. I just hope the book isn't going to be a rehash of things he's already shown in DVDs and on YouTube, and in words he's already written on AZ, otherwise it won't be very helpful for those that have tried to learn it using those instructions. Well, I suppose the ones that practice it every day for a month or more begin to develop some an understanding of how to make it work. But then again, investing that amount of time in any system should get you hitting the balls pretty well.
I was hoping Stan had gone to MIT and got some help from a physics savant and figured out the math. I was really looking forward to doing the 3D spherical geometry and see the underlying phenomenon. Guess we'll never see the : twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was. Bummer, dudes!
I was hoping Stan had gone to MIT and got some help from a physics savant and figured out the math. I was really looking forward to doing the 3D spherical geometry and see the underlying phenomenon. Guess we'll never see the : twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was. Bummer, dudes!
Why would you even buy a how-to book about something that you have no intention of ever doing?
Stan is quite good at throwing out straw man arguments and confusing the issue. Stan is responsible for years of arguments by making claims that he can't possibly back up. Most here would be perfectly fine with CTE if he would stop saying it is 100% objective and that you can achieve multiple outcome angles with one visual alignment.
Until Stan addresses one simple point, anything else he says is meant to distract. Why the throw in this video?
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546
Are you suggesting that if I buy your book, I would have it mastered the same day?
No, but we can all sing a few rounds of Alice’s Restaurant Massacree.
Lou Figueroa
in four-part harmony
of course
Stan is quite good at throwing out straw man arguments and confusing the issue. Stan is responsible for years of arguments by making claims that he can't possibly back up. Most here would be perfectly fine with CTE if he would stop saying it is 100% objective and that you can achieve multiple outcome angles with one visual alignment.
Until Stan addresses one simple point, anything else he says is meant to distract. Why the throw in this video?
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546
Most here are already perfectly fine with CTE. There are 3 posters here that are outspoken against it.
You are missing the point of our argument, again. It is beginning to appear intentional. Is it?
Most here are already perfectly fine with CTE. There are 3 posters here that are outspoken against it.
I hope you aren't including me in the "against" category. :smile:
I'm not against CTE or anyone that is using CTE. I'm against the manner in which it has been incorrectly advertised as 100% objective. I ask a simple question about how a player knows objectively, exactly, which perception to use, exactly where where to place the bridge hand before beginning the pivot or sweep, and instead of getting objective answers I get berated and accused of being part of a 10-yr conspiracy to dismantle CTE.
I hope you aren't including me in the "against" category. :smile:
I'm not against CTE or anyone that is using CTE. I'm against the manner in which it has been incorrectly advertised as 100% objective. I ask a simple question about how a player knows objectively, exactly, which perception to use, exactly where where to place the bridge hand before beginning the pivot or sweep, and instead of getting objective answers I get berated and accused of being part of a 10-yr conspiracy to dismantle CTE.