CTE aiming.

You are describing another version of CTE...sounds good...if not the bridge, where is the axis/fulcrum...at the hip or stroke hand grip?
Thanks

I guess I'll tackle this one. This is answered more clearly in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij38hYBti4c

It's a little unclear because spidey mentions 3 points...

1. the bridge

2. ...a 2nd point on his cue that he says feels like it's probably close to the joint or maybe the dead center of the cue length.

3. the hip pivot.

----

Re: #1
The emphasis of the video is it is NOT the bridge (which JB cases points out most of us have been wrongly assuming). What causes me some confusion... if it's not the bridge, why's it matter whether my bridge is 10-12 inches or not? He stresses this is the ideal length, but if I pivot from elsewhere (points 2 or 3), the bridge is just along for the ride. It isn't even part of the pivot process and could be any length.

I'm still unclear if there's ever a situation where the bridge is expected to slide on the cloth, or if it typically stays locked in place.

Re: #2
If I were forced to pick one pivot point to use out of this whole video, I suspect the cue joint would be it.

Re: #3:
The pivoting via the hip is also confusing. If you imagine where your hips are, and where the back hand of your grip is... that's almost like the pivot point becomes the very back of the stick. If I turn my hips, the stick comes along from the ride, and is moving the least at the butt and the most at the tip. So I would count this pivot point as more like the the buttcap or back hand.

Summary: the pivot is a small motion, not a giant sweeping arc (which it would be if you pivoted from a typical bridge). The cue joint is more or less the real pivot point. If you can turn your hips to create a pivot around that cue joint, that's ideal because your sighting line stays the same.
 
I guess I'll tackle this one. This is answered more clearly in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij38hYBti4c

It's a little unclear because spidey mentions 3 points...

1. the bridge

2. ...a 2nd point on his cue that he says feels like it's probably close to the joint or maybe the dead center of the cue length.

3. the hip pivot.

----

Re: #1
The emphasis of the video is it is NOT the bridge (which JB cases points out most of us have been wrongly assuming). What causes me some confusion... if it's not the bridge, why's it matter whether my bridge is 10-12 inches or not? He stresses this is the ideal length, but if I pivot from elsewhere (points 2 or 3), the bridge is just along for the ride. It isn't even part of the pivot process and could be any length.

I'm still unclear if there's ever a situation where the bridge is expected to slide on the cloth, or if it typically stays locked in place.

Re: #2
If I were forced to pick one pivot point to use out of this whole video, I suspect the cue joint would be it.

Re: #3:
The pivoting via the hip is also confusing. If you imagine where your hips are, and where the back hand of your grip is... that's almost like the pivot point becomes the very back of the stick. If I turn my hips, the stick comes along from the ride, and is moving the least at the butt and the most at the tip. So I would count this pivot point as more like the the buttcap or back hand.

Summary: the pivot is a small motion, not a giant sweeping arc (which it would be if you pivoted from a typical bridge). The cue joint is more or less the real pivot point. If you can turn your hips to create a pivot around that cue joint, that's ideal because your sighting line stays the same.

The bridge stays locked in place. You need a longer bridge because if you bridge too short, you can't arc flat enough for medium/long-range shots.

In regards to the hip pivot, pretend your upper torso moves in one piece - like a turret of a tank.

Dave

If you check out my blog, check out the pivoting post. BHE is done from the bridge circle, aiming is done from the shot circle -- two pivots, two different arcs.
 
Last edited:
I think Spidey should also do a book with Kevin Trudeau:

"The CTE Cure ... All of the Secrets the Pros Don't Want You to Know"
He should at least start an "instructor training program" pyramid scheme.

Regards,
Dave

Dave,

This was way out of line. Joking or not.
 
You are describing another version of CTE...sounds good...if not the bridge, where is the axis/fulcrum...at the hip or stroke hand grip?
Thanks

Like I said, I really have nothing to offer on CTE at this time. I have just started taking it seriously a few days ago and I don't have time to work on it seriously during the day.

My posts on the subject of CTE a related to my own observations of what I am doing. I don't know that there are really "other versions" of CTE. I do know for a fact that there are many ways to get to the actual shot line which puts the player and cue on the right and only line that is possible to make the ball.

So it's possible that I am not doing CTE properly yet I am still doing something that works because Reference Point Aiming (my term) works in general.

When I am certain that I truly do have a complete understand of CTE as Dave knows it then I will be qualified to advise others about it.

Until then - bug Dave Segal because he has it down more than anyone else on this board.
 
DR dave,you are not on the cte thread to ask questions you are doing nothing but posting one negative comment behind another and posting that same reference to your library over and over,give it a break you are acting like a child,if you have something relevant then fine if not help someone who is asking YOU for help whats your place in this,you say you dont know and the ones other than spidey that do know are not trying to help,some claiming they spent time with Hal and claim they answer all questions but thats not the case evidently ,This is not all I have to say but I am going to leave it alone 4 now .NOT SMILING
If you were to weigh the pile of things hurled at Dr. Dave against those he's offered up, I think you'd have to conclude that 1) a shower is in order, 2) nearly all of it, save a gram or two, smells like whatever they're using on the CTE farm across the way.

This isn't meant as an affront to those seeking serious information. Nor is there any anti-CTE committee out to undermine it. Too many long time posters that aren't on a mission, so to speak, and don't participate in the "more spirited" types of exchanges, have testified that some version of offset-and-pivot has been very beneficial. While this remains somewhat of a mystery as to why, and well worth exploring, it would be the height of arrogance to dismiss that. Some, I imagine, could probably drill a few of us skeptics into the table with their shot-making skills.

The issue (and distraction) that causes all of the fury is the claim that the raw procedure alone, without any embelishments from experience or intuition, and devoid of any reference to the ghostball (or part thereof), will yield the correct aim line. For instance, to quote from SpiderWebcom's (Dave's) earlier post:

"...CTE breaks that by eliminating the need for spacial perception.

I'll keep leading you guys to water. When you eliminate aiming from the shooting process (consciously) and feel isn't involved, interesting things happen within one's pool game."

You don't really need to do any math to sense that this cannot be true, but some of us have...the geometry of a shot is not a mystery. I've been tempted to put up a graph or two showing the relationship beteeen offset and pivot location, and how, say, they depend on cut angle and/or CB-OB separation. But I'm sure that as soon it was posted, the specific offset/pivot method examined would immediately be decried as not representative of the "real procedure." There's a long history of that, which discourages any quantitative discussion. As soon as the beast is put under the microscope, it morphs into something else.

That's the background which provokes a bit of sacarsm every now and then. It may not be our finest moments, but if you haul the scales out...

Jim
 
If you were to weigh the pile of things hurled at Dr. Dave against those he's offered up, I think you'd have to conclude that 1) a shower is in order, 2) nearly all of it, save a gram or two, smells like whatever they're using on the CTE farm across the way.

This isn't meant as an affront to those seeking serious information. Nor is there any anti-CTE committee out to undermine it. Too many long time posters that aren't on a mission, so to speak, and don't participate in the "more spirited" types of exchanges, have testified that some version of offset-and-pivot has been very beneficial. While this remains somewhat of a mystery as to why, and well worth exploring, it would be the height of arrogance to dismiss that. Some, I imagine, could probably drill a few of us skeptics into the table with their shot-making skills.

The issue (and distraction) that causes all of the fury is the claim that the raw procedure alone, without any embelishments from experience or intuition, and devoid of any reference to the ghostball (or part thereof), will yield the correct aim line. For instance, to quote from SpiderWebcom's (Dave's) earlier post:

"...CTE breaks that by eliminating the need for spacial perception.

I'll keep leading you guys to water. When you eliminate aiming from the shooting process (consciously) and feel isn't involved, interesting things happen within one's pool game."

You don't really need to do any math to sense that this cannot be true, but some of us have...the geometry of a shot is not a mystery. I've been tempted to put up a graph or two showing the relationship beteeen offset and pivot location, and how, say, they depend on cut angle and/or CB-OB separation. But I'm sure that as soon it was posted, the specific offset/pivot method examined would immediately be decried as not representative of the "real procedure." There's a long history of that, which discourages any quantitative discussion. As soon as the beast is put under the microscope, it morphs into something else.

That's the background which provokes a bit of sacarsm every now and then. It may not be our finest moments, but if you haul the scales out...

Jim

Jal, I think you, like Dr Dave, are talking wayyyyyyy over Peteypooldude's head. Truely, Dr. Dave's remarks regarding CTE are well defined; and, I believe, your third paragraph fairly embodies the issue.

By the way, Petey, I do hope CTE can improve my game, and I promptly signed up when Spider made his offer, did you?
 
Jal, I think you, like Dr Dave, are talking wayyyyyyy over Peteypooldude's head. Truely, Dr. Dave's remarks regarding CTE are well defined; and, I believe, your third paragraph fairly embodies the issue.

By the way, Petey, I do hope CTE can improve my game, and I promptly signed up when Spider made his offer, did you?

Thats over my head?LMFAO . .And yes I signed up and talked to him by phone,and I contacted Stan.I have got my cte lessons set up.How about you?Truly lol
 
If you were to weigh the pile of things hurled at Dr. Dave against those he's offered up, I think you'd have to conclude that 1) a shower is in order, 2) nearly all of it, save a gram or two, smells like whatever they're using on the CTE farm across the way.

This isn't meant as an affront to those seeking serious information. Nor is there any anti-CTE committee out to undermine it. Too many long time posters that aren't on a mission, so to speak, and don't participate in the "more spirited" types of exchanges, have testified that some version of offset-and-pivot has been very beneficial. While this remains somewhat of a mystery as to why, and well worth exploring, it would be the height of arrogance to dismiss that. Some, I imagine, could probably drill a few of us skeptics into the table with their shot-making skills.

The issue (and distraction) that causes all of the fury is the claim that the raw procedure alone, without any embelishments from experience or intuition, and devoid of any reference to the ghostball (or part thereof), will yield the correct aim line. For instance, to quote from SpiderWebcom's (Dave's) earlier post:

"...CTE breaks that by eliminating the need for spacial perception.

I'll keep leading you guys to water. When you eliminate aiming from the shooting process (consciously) and feel isn't involved, interesting things happen within one's pool game."

You don't really need to do any math to sense that this cannot be true, but some of us have...the geometry of a shot is not a mystery. I've been tempted to put up a graph or two showing the relationship beteeen offset and pivot location, and how, say, they depend on cut angle and/or CB-OB separation. But I'm sure that as soon it was posted, the specific offset/pivot method examined would immediately be decried as not representative of the "real procedure." There's a long history of that, which discourages any quantitative discussion. As soon as the beast is put under the microscope, it morphs into something else.

That's the background which provokes a bit of sacarsm every now and then. It may not be our finest moments, but if you haul the scales out...

Jim

Thank you for your polite response,I dont have any personal issues with Dr Dave and probably should have chose my words differently ,its easy to get caught up in the moment and turn sarcastic.Petey
 
Thank you for your polite response,I dont have any personal issues with Dr Dave and probably should have chose my words differently ,its easy to get caught up in the moment and turn sarcastic.Petey

To your defense, Dr. Dave could have chosen his words more carefully as well yesterday. I've been a little hot headed too.

It's funny how polarized the views are in these aiming threads. Apples and oranges. People see the world in totally different lights-- I know I do based on what I read.
 
DR dave,you are not on the cte thread to ask questions you are doing nothing but posting one negative comment behind another and posting that same reference to your library over and over,give it a break you are acting like a child,if you have something relevant then fine if not help someone who is asking YOU for help whats your place in this,you say you dont know and the ones other than spidey that do know are not trying to help,some claiming they spent time with Hal and claim they answer all questions but thats not the case evidently ,This is not all I have to say but I am going to leave it alone 4 now .NOT SMILING

Dr. Dave is the only person in these threads on CTE who can, and does, actually back up anything he says. He has invested hundreds of hours in research, testing and proving billiards physics, and then documented every bit of it through his book, dvd's, articles, and website. He has also invested a considerable amount of time researching CTE in an effort to make it something that is understandable and useful to the rest of us; but before he can do that, he first must make sure it really exists. So far, he hasn't received any help on that from CTE's proponents. Could that be because they really don't have anything of substance to offer?

I, too, would like to learn the truth about CTE, but I simply don't have the time to study it that thoroughly right now so I'm hoping Dr. Dave will uncover the answers for me here. Please keep up the good work, Dave.

Roger
 
Dr. Dave is the only person in these threads on CTE who can, and does, actually back up anything he says. He has invested hundreds of hours in research, testing and proving billiards physics, and then documented every bit of it through his book, dvd's, articles, and website. He has also invested a considerable amount of time researching CTE in an effort to make it something that is understandable and useful to the rest of us; but before he can do that, he first must make sure it really exists. So far, he hasn't received any help on that from CTE's proponents. Could that be because they really don't have anything of substance to offer?

I, too, would like to learn the truth about CTE, but I simply don't have the time to study it that thoroughly right now so I'm hoping Dr. Dave will uncover the answers for me here. Please keep up the good work, Dave.

Roger

If Dr. Dave put in all that time studying CTE, why doesn't he get it yet? If he's studying CTE, why hasn't he pmed me to sign up for that webinar (where 75% of the $ goes back to Hal)? After all, he isn't sending the entire VEPS to everyone for free. But when it comes to something he doesn't know - he doesn't want to pay to get it.

Did I wake up in the Twilight Zone this morning?

I keep looking for the hidden camera and the Candid Camera / Punk'd crew pop out behind my couch and say, "SURPRIIISE! We're just f-ing with you, Spidey!" ;)
 
Last edited:
If Dr. Dave put in all that time studying CTE, why doesn't he get it yet? If he's studying CTE, why hasn't he pmed me to sign up for that webinar (where 75% of the $ goes back to Hal)? After all, he isn't sending the entire VEPS to everyone for free. But when it comes to something he doesn't know - he doesn't want to pay to get it.

Did I wake up in the Twilight Zone this morning?

I keep looking for the hidden camera and the Candid Camera / Punk'd crew pop out behind my couch and say, "SURPRIIISE! We're just f-ing with you, Spidey!"

Good one, Spidey! Of course you woke up in the Twilight Zone this morning. You've been waking up in the Twilight Zone for a long time. Only now it's called the CTE Zone. :D

Roger

p.s. Hope you noted the smile.
 
Dr. Dave is the only person in these threads on CTE who can, and does, actually back up anything he says. He has invested hundreds of hours in research, testing and proving billiards physics, and then documented every bit of it through his book, dvd's, articles, and website. He has also invested a considerable amount of time researching CTE in an effort to make it something that is understandable and useful to the rest of us; but before he can do that, he first must make sure it really exists. So far, he hasn't received any help on that from CTE's proponents. Could that be because they really don't have anything of substance to offer?

I, too, would like to learn the truth about CTE, but I simply don't have the time to study it that thoroughly right now so I'm hoping Dr. Dave will uncover the answers for me here. Please keep up the good work, Dave.

Roger

With all due respect Roger, and with all due respect to Dr. Dave whom I also respect very much for his work, if he does not have the COMPLETE information on something that works for so many then why not invest the time to go to the source?

All these years Dr. Dave could have gone to see Hal Houle. He could have gone to the source and documented his trip. Hal let Scott Lee videotape the session so there is no reason to think that he wouldn't let Dr. Dave do it.

Frankly I see no point in putting up information about CTE, or any other method of aiming when it is incomplete.

Hal Houle, for reasons of his own has asked those of us who received lessons from him not to publish the details of his systems. Despite that it is EXTREMELY hard to proclaim that you have a great new way to aim but you aren't allowed to describe or diagram it. So despite what Hal has asked some of the system's specifics have made it on the web.

Ok that sucks because incomplete information only makes the situation worse.

But IF Dr. Dave KNOWS that the information is incomplete then don't put it out there. My page would say - "CTE - information incomplete at this time" and that's it.

Then I would hop on a plane and go see the person responsible for bringing CTE to the world. THEN at least Dr. Dave could say that he had really gathered all the possible information on the subject and he could take that firsthand knowledge back to the lab and work on it.

Then he and Dave Segal could have a discussion that is not acrimonious.

I find that comparing CTE and like systems to snake oil as Dr.Dave does to be hitting below the belt. The comments are acidic and not needed.

Both Dr. Dave and Dave Segal are searching for the answers in pool. Dr. Dave finds it with his high speed film and working with Tom Ross and others and Dave Segal finds it in studying under Hal Houle and analyzing what the pros do and even going so far as to ask them.

Other top instructors have chimed in that they teach variations of CTE or CTE-based systems.

Are all of these people deluded and stupid? I mean I could agree that I am deluded and stupid because I am not a certified instructor on any level. I am a B-player on my good days and a low A on my best days and a C-player on most other days. So I can safely say that I know enough of Hal's systems to convince me that they work and am too lazy to invest enough time to find out why.

But when you have people like Randy Goetlicher, Tom Simpson, Stan Shuffet, and Scott Lee saying that it works then maybe it's time to listen and go figure out WHY they say it works. All of these people are pool instruction gurus of the highest order.

Dave Segal isn't. He isn't a certified BCA instructor. He hasn't written a book or made any DVDs. He hasn't won anything. He is just a guy who is totally fascinated by a system that works and tries to explain it to the rest of us as best he can without violating Hal's request.

If I were on the path to becoming the preeminent billiard instructional scholar which I believe Dr. Dave is becoming then I would certainly go to the ends of the Earth seeking out every source of such systems. Especially when such systems generate such fanatical devotees.

And this isn't just belief in homeopathic remedies - it's people who make things happen on the pool table - real tangible shots, the holy grail of pool, making balls go in the hole.

That's my take on it. I wish that Dave and Dave would agree to meet at Hal's house (probably not possible now that Hal has sold his table) or would have agreed years before to do this.

Sadly Hal will probably pass away without Dr. Dave ever having met him and at least getting his information from the source.

However, Dr. Dave can do the next best thing and go see Dave Segal. Wouldn't that be worth it instead of 10 million more words denouncing each other?
 
With all due respect Roger, and with all due respect to Dr. Dave whom I also respect very much for his work, if he does not have the COMPLETE information on something that works for so many then why not invest the time to go to the source?

All these years Dr. Dave could have gone to see Hal Houle. He could have gone to the source and documented his trip. Hal let Scott Lee videotape the session so there is no reason to think that he wouldn't let Dr. Dave do it.

Frankly I see no point in putting up information about CTE, or any other method of aiming when it is incomplete.

Hal Houle, for reasons of his own has asked those of us who received lessons from him not to publish the details of his systems. Despite that it is EXTREMELY hard to proclaim that you have a great new way to aim but you aren't allowed to describe or diagram it. So despite what Hal has asked some of the system's specifics have made it on the web.

Ok that sucks because incomplete information only makes the situation worse.

But IF Dr. Dave KNOWS that the information is incomplete then don't put it out there. My page would say - "CTE - information incomplete at this time" and that's it.

Then I would hop on a plane and go see the person responsible for bringing CTE to the world. THEN at least Dr. Dave could say that he had really gathered all the possible information on the subject and he could take that firsthand knowledge back to the lab and work on it.

Then he and Dave Segal could have a discussion that is not acrimonious.

I find that comparing CTE and like systems to snake oil as Dr.Dave does to be hitting below the belt. The comments are acidic and not needed.

Both Dr. Dave and Dave Segal are searching for the answers in pool. Dr. Dave finds it with his high speed film and working with Tom Ross and others and Dave Segal finds it in studying under Hal Houle and analyzing what the pros do and even going so far as to ask them.

Other top instructors have chimed in that they teach variations of CTE or CTE-based systems.

Are all of these people deluded and stupid? I mean I could agree that I am deluded and stupid because I am not a certified instructor on any level. I am a B-player on my good days and a low A on my best days and a C-player on most other days. So I can safely say that I know enough of Hal's systems to convince me that they work and am too lazy to invest enough time to find out why.

But when you have people like Randy Goetlicher, Tom Simpson, Stan Shuffet, and Scott Lee saying that it works then maybe it's time to listen and go figure out WHY they say it works. All of these people are pool instruction gurus of the highest order.

Dave Segal isn't. He isn't a certified BCA instructor. He hasn't written a book or made any DVDs. He hasn't won anything. He is just a guy who is totally fascinated by a system that works and tries to explain it to the rest of us as best he can without violating Hal's request.

If I were on the path to becoming the preeminent billiard instructional scholar which I believe Dr. Dave is becoming then I would certainly go to the ends of the Earth seeking out every source of such systems. Especially when such systems generate such fanatical devotees.

And this isn't just belief in homeopathic remedies - it's people who make things happen on the pool table - real tangible shots, the holy grail of pool, making balls go in the hole.

That's my take on it. I wish that Dave and Dave would agree to meet at Hal's house (probably not possible now that Hal has sold his table) or would have agreed years before to do this.

Sadly Hal will probably pass away without Dr. Dave ever having met him and at least getting his information from the source.

However, Dr. Dave can do the next best thing and go see Dave Segal. Wouldn't that be worth it instead of 10 million more words denouncing each other?

Well what else could be said, IMHO Nada. Great Post John!
 
I've been fascinated by this thread. I couldn't possibly have anything to add to the discourse, so I haven't commented on it. I just find that I cannot hold my tongue/fingers any longer...

Perhaps this has been addressed at one time or another, but I haven't seen it. Could you folks elaborate on just why this system cannot be discussed, yet it is still being discussed? It all seems a bit of a tease to me, this system which could help many players aim their shots better. It is discussed by many knowledgable folks here, yet not really discussed at all. Why does the person who invented the system not want it discussed, yet it is still being discussed?

Is he in business to sell lessons with this system? I could understand that. Kind of like "the Mother Drills" or "Perfect Aim', right? Yet someone has mentioned the man doesn't even have a table any longer.

Realize I'm not complaining, or trying to derail the thread, as I have no dog in this fight. Much as I would like to, I'm not gonna hop on a plane to go anywhere for lessons, and the lessons aren't gonna come anywhere near me, no matter who is running them (Potential Powerball success not withstanding :D

I really am curious as to the whole back-story about a system that is talked about, yet can't be talked about. I'll go back to lurking.... :p
 
Dr. Dave is the only person in these threads on CTE who can, and does, actually back up anything he says. He has invested hundreds of hours in research, testing and proving billiards physics, and then documented every bit of it through his book, dvd's, articles, and website. He has also invested a considerable amount of time researching CTE in an effort to make it something that is understandable and useful to the rest of us; but before he can do that, he first must make sure it really exists. So far, he hasn't received any help on that from CTE's proponents. Could that be because they really don't have anything of substance to offer?

I, too, would like to learn the truth about CTE, but I simply don't have the time to study it that thoroughly right now so I'm hoping Dr. Dave will uncover the answers for me here. Please keep up the good work, Dave.

Roger

Look Roger,what I said to Dr Dave was not that far off,as a matter of fact you seem to do the same thing and FYI I already play at a high level,but if something comes along that interest me I am going to pursue it,like you said you dont understand it so what is your point?I dont blame spidey for not bearing his soul and furthermore if spidey and Landon are playing with something that dont exist they do pretty well for themselves,must b a he.. of an imagination
 
I've been fascinated by this thread. I couldn't possibly have anything to add to the discourse, so I haven't commented on it. I just find that I cannot hold my tongue/fingers any longer...

Perhaps this has been addressed at one time or another, but I haven't seen it. Could you folks elaborate on just why this system cannot be discussed, yet it is still being discussed? It all seems a bit of a tease to me, this system which could help many players aim their shots better. It is discussed by many knowledgable folks here, yet not really discussed at all. Why does the person who invented the system not want it discussed, yet it is still being discussed?

Is he in business to sell lessons with this system? I could understand that. Kind of like "the Mother Drills" or "Perfect Aim', right? Yet someone has mentioned the man doesn't even have a table any longer.

Realize I'm not complaining, or trying to derail the thread, as I have no dog in this fight. Much as I would like to, I'm not gonna hop on a plane to go anywhere for lessons, and the lessons aren't gonna come anywhere near me, no matter who is running them (Potential Powerball success not withstanding :D

I really am curious as to the whole back-story about a system that is talked about, yet can't be talked about. I'll go back to lurking.... :p

In a nutshell Hal asked us not to divulge the methods online. He has his reasons whatever they are. I did not ask him why I just comply.

I SPECULATE that he does not want someone to take it and publish it in a book and profit off it. I don't know.

But he gave them all away verbally to all of us who were fortunate enough to meet him.

Perhaps he just wanted people to call him and talk to him instead of just reading about the systems online.

In any case anyone who really wanted to know had every opportunity in the past 12 years to contact Hal and get the information firsthand.
 
I've been fascinated by this thread. I couldn't possibly have anything to add to the discourse, so I haven't commented on it. I just find that I cannot hold my tongue/fingers any longer...

Perhaps this has been addressed at one time or another, but I haven't seen it. Could you folks elaborate on just why this system cannot be discussed, yet it is still being discussed? It all seems a bit of a tease to me, this system which could help many players aim their shots better. It is discussed by many knowledgable folks here, yet not really discussed at all. Why does the person who invented the system not want it discussed, yet it is still being discussed?

Is he in business to sell lessons with this system? I could understand that. Kind of like "the Mother Drills" or "Perfect Aim', right? Yet someone has mentioned the man doesn't even have a table any longer.

Realize I'm not complaining, or trying to derail the thread, as I have no dog in this fight. Much as I would like to, I'm not gonna hop on a plane to go anywhere for lessons, and the lessons aren't gonna come anywhere near me, no matter who is running them (Potential Powerball success not withstanding :D

I really am curious as to the whole back-story about a system that is talked about, yet can't be talked about. I'll go back to lurking.... :p

I think part of the problem is.... if I post the mother of all threads about CTE.... Dr. Dave will copy/paste it into his CTE section of his site. When he does, there's nothing I can do about it.
 
Justadub: the reason it can't be discussed is that spidey made a promise to Hal (the creator) not to post it on here. He knows people are curious and he hates to see people knock it, so he has chosen to sort of skirt the promise by offering bits and pieces that (supposedly) can be made into a full picture if you're patient enough.

Hal's not looking to profit on it, his motivations for not wanting it posted aren't spelled out... but it doesn't matter. A promise is a promise.

As to why other non-spidey posters don't explain it fully - they apparently have a different or incomplete understanding of it. Or maybe they also want to respect hal's wishes. Some of them seem like they're honestly trying. That's frustrating in itself to me... I know how to explain things and I love my photoshop. If I had a clear understanding of it I'm pretty sure I could get it down to a couple of dead simple diagrams that a child could follow. Hell, I could do it without diagrams.

petey: Roger's right. Dr. Dave is probably the closest we have to a saint on this forum. He takes flak all the time but almost never ever ever dishes it back. When he does, it apparently stings pretty good.

For him to rag on SWC like that, he had to have his patience exhausted. SWC has admitted himself he's pretty hard on Dr. Dave. You're overlooking dozens of absolutely polite and patient responses to spidey's aggressive tone. When dave keeps asking skeptical questions about CTE, he's not hating on it... he's trying to understand it. People aren't willing or able to answer his questions in a way that makes sense to him, so he's probably become convinced it's bunk.
 
Back
Top