John, I think you are wrong and inappropriate here. Please show me where this is "on record." I certainly don't believe or agree with these statements, and I certainly hope I have never written something so insulting. If I have ever used words like this, I will be happy to offer a sincere apology.
This opening paragraph and subsequent language in one of your articles conveys the exact sentiment that you consider the claims made by CTE proponents to be inaccurate and fraudulent. And I am certain that I can find comments from you on AZ which convey the same sentiments.
You said;
"I have recently developed an amazing new aiming system called DAM (“Dave’s Aiming Method”) that will revolutionize pool playing around the world. DAM is the best and most complete aiming system that has ever been devised. The DAM system will radically improve the shot-making abilities of those who spend the time to learn it. DAM will eventually become the "aiming standard" and will significantly accelerate your learning curve. There are those who will eventually learn the system, and there are those who will not and be beaten by those who do. I make almost every shot with this system ... I rarely miss. Isn't that proof of how good it is? Don't you want to be as good as me? If you want to master the DAM system, you must visit me in person and pay outrageous sums of money to learn all of the required
intricacies. If you don't believe me or if you doubt the validity of my system, you will be persecuted and ridiculed by all of my followers. "
Although you disclaimed this by saying that you were being facetious your meaning is quite clear.
I am absolutely sure that the CTE proponents strongly believe in what they are teaching, and I also know that some people can use CTE quite effectively. Even if I am skeptical of some of the "claims" sometimes made by CTE proponents, I will never accuse them of being frauds. That is a strong (almost criminal) accusation. However, I will continue to disagree and question things when I think something is unclear or inappropriate.
As will I. I think you almost have a duty to spend some serious time figuring out the exact nuts and bolts of CTE rather than ridiculing as you did above.
First of all Hal Houle has never ever charged anyone to learn from him. Never. So for you to write your piece as if he does is just wrong. Dave also does not charge.
Stan charges but he has never made any such claim as you attribute to aiming system proponents.
As for persecution and ridicule - I believe that the people who have been persecuted and ridiculed the most here are the people who learned from Hal and are enthusiastic about what they learned. Lou Figuoera was a huge and talented master of the ridicule or "houligans" back in the RSB days. Your paragraph above is another form of that persecution and ridicule. You could just as easily written your article disagreeing with what you call point and pivot systems without setting the tone that you did.
I didn't make the connection. I remember your name from my early communications with Sterling. I've also talked to Sterling recently about having them also carry VEPS. I hope they do, because I think they could do well with it.
I appreciate that you still value my instructional products despite our "disagreements" online.
Of course which is why I can't understand your tone here. To me as a seeker of knowledge I would think you would be going directly to the source or as close to it as you can get to figure out everything that they know about it before claiming it can't work. You might be right that CTE and similar systems require adjustments, but until you can implement CTE yourself how do you really KNOW it?
You have videos which show that the actual path off the rail is much different than what was the conventional wisdom regarding how balls rebound from the cushion. Before your video there have been dozens of books which tell people the wrong thing. So I can't really understand why you aren't leading the charge to put CTE on video and figure out why it works, what adjustments, if any, are needed and how much adjusting has to happen and how to calculate it consciously. It may well turn out that the amount of adjustment is so slight when using CTE that it's imperceptible to the person using it. Wouldn't you like to be able to show this in detail rather than assuming it to be true?
I don't get it. You and Dave should be trading emails and figuring this stuff out together.
Hal Houle is an old man who for whatever reason got obsessed with aiming systems. He didn't bother to diagram them - he just figured them out on the table or got them from Greenleaf, or whatever. The point is that they exist. So forget about whatever Hal says about how great they are and whether all the pros are using them and focus purely on the systems themselves.
If your passion is to become a full time pool scholar then it's incumbent that you are working with other scholars in the field rather than against them. You, Dave Segal, and Stan Shuffet - along with the rest of us can only benefit from such collaboration. Animosity and facetiousness only causes further divisiveness.
