Glad to see that you erased your original post, which was more of the "BUT IT WORKS!!" defense. Now that we know what it is, we can know clearly that it DOESN'T work...
Why CTE is silly
- Thread starter GetMeThere
- Start date
- Status
Glad to see that you erased your original post, which was more of the "BUT IT WORKS!!" defense. Now that we know what it is, we can know clearly that it DOESN'T work...
When Einstein first postulated the theory of relativity, people laughed at him. However, he knew it to be true, and continued to pursue it, until he was eventually able to prove it. The same was true of human flight, and men going into outer space. While pool is not rocket science, the same idea can be applied here.
CTE just works for some people, and while they can not explain it, the results speak for themselves. You are prematurely calling something silly that is yet to be explained because you do not fully understand it. Currently, a very respected instructor (Stan Smith) is working on doing just that. When this thread started, I suggested that it be held off on until Stan's video came out, so some more concrete information would be available for analysis. It seems this thread is just spinning its wheels until then, and I am shocked it is still running. Hal may not be that great at the details of how and why his system works, or what needs to be done in special circumstances, but that does not mean that it doesn't work. I have no problem with someone being a skeptic and desiring an appropriate analysis of why something works, but in certain cases, a little faith may be needed until that comes. I also think it would be a little more classy to approach a man's life work with a little more tact.
Religion is another whole topic, and will never fully be explained until we die. However, many great minds subscribe to it regardless of their lack of concrete proof. Their is simply something in the human soul that desires spirituality (as witnessed by nearly every culture having a spiritual belief system) and simply knows/senses it to be real as part of our soul. Thus, we are willing to bypass the lack of concrete evidence, and take some of it by faith. Also, some simply find it easier to believe that a diety created what we see every day, be it through creation or evolution, than to believe that all we are and see occurred by chance. That is simply human nature. We do not see old unexplained structures and think that some tornado took the pieces for them, lifted them up and they fell into place, we think they were built by a civilization that came before us. In the same way, we look at the complexity of our universe and life system, and find it easier to believe that it was created by intelligent design. I do not say this to create a discussion on religion, nor do I desire a response concerning the issue. I am simply giving reasons why it is not so bad, or unintelligent to have a spiritual belief system.
hahaa no i erased my message because i realized i should prob just argue with my cat. butterscotch has a better understanding of ball pocketing anyways. if you spot butterscotch the cue ball, he'll probably want to play you some equal offense.... and i'm not kidding (as long as i can shoot the break shots for him).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iafmWzbhGjg
this is when he was like 4 months old. he's over 2 now.... you do the math.
what i said in my previous post is the only thing that's silly is that with cte, you shoot the exact same shot over and over and over and over.
Last edited:
man. i don't know what to say to you other than you seem a bit obsessed with disproving CTE and spend a lot of time responding to this thread...
why do you care so much? If CTE helps people shoot better, good for them. If you don't think it works the way they say it does, so what? Why does it matter?
I know...I should just stop reading the thread, but then what am i supposed to do, work?
Anyway, I don't use CTE, but I felt compelled to post because of the frequency of your posts. Relax. Have fun. Use ghost ball or whatever else helps your game.
Jeff
I'm not sure that's a completely accurate characterization--although there were cultural barriers to the bases of special relativity, which had to be broken down to gain conceptual acceptance.
But even if so, does that mean that every crackpot idea put forth should be given equal treatment?
Breakthrough theories at the leading edge of science are in NO WAY comparable to "some guy's" geometric musings. The ideas presented by Hal are SIMPLE, and they are WRONG (or, more fairly, of little consequence).
A position, I can assure you, that Einstein would never take. The idea that a geometric system would be true for some people and not others would APPALL him.
Premature? It's been talked about for over a decade! Many people claim to "know it." An advocate of the system has directly implied that a short write-up posted by others (and a more complete, original version posted by Dr. Dave) is "it." It's here. It's explained. I understand it. It's bunk.
As long as the one doing the analysis comes to the conclusions you want?
This is not the place to discuss religion. I brought it up to answer the questions posed to me about WHY I ardently promoted this thread--part of it is my interest in how other people come to believe certain things are true. I couldn't express that well without giving an example that would be easy to understand. MANY statements by CTE advocates in this thread use the SAME conceptual elements and style of argument as those who defend their religious beliefs. It's uncanny how closely the two positions compare.
btw, ANOTHER part of my interest in the topic of this thread was to see if I COULD prod SOMEBODY into stepping forward and at least giving a hint about "what they've got." Those who have stepped forward have not exposed anything useful beyond the already circulated statements from Hal.
PJ,
Just face it ... you're just not a "believer.":grin-square:
It can be difficult to change the thinking or logic of a true "believer." In fact, it is usually not helpful to even try.
But even if CTE is just a religion, many people find comfort in and benefit from religion, so maybe CTE is a good thing after all. At a minimum, it does provide the same benefits many "aiming systems" provide.
BTW, below is an earlier quote you might think is relevant to John's statement.
from BRKNRUN:
Ok...You know people talk like CTE is some sort of Religion....I did some research and this is what I found out.
One day God called Hal to the top of the mountain and he gave him the first part of his new system of pool aiming laws for his people - The Center To Edge method. (CTE summarized the absolutes of spiritual and moral shot makeing that God intended for his people.)
God continued to give direction to his people through Hal, including the civil and ceremonial laws for controlling their CB. Eventually God called Hal to the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights. During this time he gave him instructions for the tabernacle and the CTE instructions. When God finished speaking to Hal on Mount Ivory Rock, he gave him two tablets of stone inscribed by the very finger of God. They contained the CTE instructions.
Meanwhile, the people of the pool world had become impatient while waiting for Hal to return with the instructions from God. Hal had been gone for so long that the people gave up on him and begged Stan to make them Pro-1 so they could worship. So Stan collected offerings of gold from all the people and made a instruction video in the form of Pro-1. Then they held a festival and bowed down to worship their idol. So quickly they had fallen into the idolatry they were accustomed to in the pool world and disobeyed God's CTE instructions.
When Hal came down from the mountain with the tablets of stone, his anger burned when he saw the people given over to idolatry. He threw down the two tablets, smashing them to pieces at the foot of the mountain.
Now you all know why there is not complete written instructions for CTE.
Are You An Atheist? Very professional post. I have come to the
conclusion that you are a nerd .Get noticed and TRY to be funny. That is what nerds do. Go back to work with GEEK squad and make yourself useful . Instead of trying to bash an old man. What a world .
Actually, I can't disprove CTE--anymore that I can disprove the assertion that boiled pink unicorns make a delicious soup.
I'll repeat: I'm not trying to bash anybody. I'm trying to further investigate an idea--one of interest to everyone on the forum: How to best aim pool shots.
And I'm trying to do it even though many posters see fit, like you, to visit the thread only mis-characterize me and my motives, and to call me names--and not to try to move the discussion forward.
EDIT: Although the quote was from Dr. Dave and BRKNRUN, I take it as aimed at me, too.
Last edited:
I worked for Allis Chalmers in the 70's. Very close tolerance work. We had a inspector who would come by and even if you were within tolerance he was never happy unless you where in the middle even if it was .25-.50 millions of a inch.
The answer I would give him was no two farmers shift the same.
IMHO it's the same for aiming systems. I've talked with some of the elder statesmen where I play and most of them just see it. Can't explain it but they can do it.
Now I know I'm a little fish in a big sea here but to beat a dead horse over a aiming systems seems futile.
Teach what you want or learn what you want but shouldn't we all keep a open mind.
The answer I would give him was no two farmers shift the same.
IMHO it's the same for aiming systems. I've talked with some of the elder statesmen where I play and most of them just see it. Can't explain it but they can do it.
Now I know I'm a little fish in a big sea here but to beat a dead horse over a aiming systems seems futile.
Teach what you want or learn what you want but shouldn't we all keep a open mind.
You mean open to CTE, but closed to "NOT CTE" ??
[QUOTE=GetMeThere;2670292]I'm not sure that's a completely accurate characterization--although there were cultural barriers to the bases of special relativity, which had to be broken down to gain conceptual acceptance.
But even if so, does that mean that every crackpot idea put forth should be given equal treatment?
Certainly not, but if it can show results, it should require further testing before being dismissed. You spout theoretical reasons why it should ot work, but have no proof of it yet.
A position, I can assure you, that Einstein would never take. The idea that a geometric system would be true for some people and not others would APPALL him.
That was not what I meant. I was not saying that it works for some and not others. I was saying that it works for some, even thought they can not explain why it works.
Premature? It's been talked about for over a decade! Many people claim to "know it." An advocate of the system has directly implied that a short write-up posted by others (and a more complete, original version posted by Dr. Dave) is "it." It's here. It's explained. I understand it. It's bunk.
Its only been talked about in secrecy and postulated about from those who do not know how it works. I am calling it premature because the first shred of real possible evidence is ready to come out in Stan's tape, and I think you should have waited for that.
As long as the one doing the analysis comes to the conclusions you want?
Not by any means what I meant. I fully understand that people will disagree with me, and I am ok with that, especially when talking about things such as morals and belief systems. I would find it more frustrating if it were something that could be proven. Your reading my post with your own preconceived bias on this idea.
This is not the place to discuss religion. I brought it up to answer the questions posed to me about WHY I ardently promoted this thread--
Agreed, however, your post casted people of faith in a poor light, and I simply wanted to give reasons why that was not true.
btw, ANOTHER part of my interest in the topic of this thread was to see if I COULD prod SOMEBODY into stepping forward and at least giving a hint about "what they've got." Those who have stepped forward have not exposed anything useful beyond the already circulated statements from Hal. Quote
Hey, I agree with this one. I myself can't stand the shroud of secrecy surrounding CTE. People acclaim it, but will not take simple steps, such as video explanations and demonstrations to prove it.
You are asking someone to explain CTE in a manner he is unable to do. When you look at the gemoetry of pool , there is no reason that the principles of CTE should not work for the majority of shots.
But even if so, does that mean that every crackpot idea put forth should be given equal treatment?
Certainly not, but if it can show results, it should require further testing before being dismissed. You spout theoretical reasons why it should ot work, but have no proof of it yet.
A position, I can assure you, that Einstein would never take. The idea that a geometric system would be true for some people and not others would APPALL him.
That was not what I meant. I was not saying that it works for some and not others. I was saying that it works for some, even thought they can not explain why it works.
Premature? It's been talked about for over a decade! Many people claim to "know it." An advocate of the system has directly implied that a short write-up posted by others (and a more complete, original version posted by Dr. Dave) is "it." It's here. It's explained. I understand it. It's bunk.
Its only been talked about in secrecy and postulated about from those who do not know how it works. I am calling it premature because the first shred of real possible evidence is ready to come out in Stan's tape, and I think you should have waited for that.
As long as the one doing the analysis comes to the conclusions you want?
Not by any means what I meant. I fully understand that people will disagree with me, and I am ok with that, especially when talking about things such as morals and belief systems. I would find it more frustrating if it were something that could be proven. Your reading my post with your own preconceived bias on this idea.
This is not the place to discuss religion. I brought it up to answer the questions posed to me about WHY I ardently promoted this thread--
Agreed, however, your post casted people of faith in a poor light, and I simply wanted to give reasons why that was not true.
btw, ANOTHER part of my interest in the topic of this thread was to see if I COULD prod SOMEBODY into stepping forward and at least giving a hint about "what they've got." Those who have stepped forward have not exposed anything useful beyond the already circulated statements from Hal. Quote
Hey, I agree with this one. I myself can't stand the shroud of secrecy surrounding CTE. People acclaim it, but will not take simple steps, such as video explanations and demonstrations to prove it.
You are asking someone to explain CTE in a manner he is unable to do. When you look at the gemoetry of pool , there is no reason that the principles of CTE should not work for the majority of shots.
AHA! So apparently YOU are able to explain CTE and how it relates to the geometry of pool, and why it should work for the majority of shots.
The floor is yours. Let's have it.
Oh, sorry. You're probably looking for the apple forum. Google pomology.
EDIT: So an hour and a half after you made your post--containing RAGING, obscene language, in size 4, bold type, about APPLES--you erase it all? Not willing to stand up for what you said?
Last edited:
You are actually a different poster than GetMeThere arnt you.
You just started a new username so you can have some fun.
Did you know that i know a system where you can actually see the ghostball! Know this is not the imaginary one ,this is the real one with out a doubt.
I really feel if i could of called the ghost busters in on this one they wouldnt of beleived it either until i showed them.
By the way are you good at bingo?
Last edited:
^ 8pack: Why not make a post relevant to the topic of the thread? For or against.
Interesting selection of shot....It does fall under one of the 3-line aims......but of course it won't go that way....However there is a way to apply part of the 3-line method to make this shot.
For super thin cuts, I use the Shish-ke-bob method...The way I aim it is to aim the inside 1/4 of the CB to the edge of the OB and then "pivot" the cue back to center...What this does is gives me a specific axis on the CB to aim at a specific edge on the OB...The pivot then subtracts the thickness of hit and creates an edge to edge contact that makes it very easy to hit shots super super thin...It does take a bit of trust in the beginning until you get the feel for it.
That is the only time I will use a form of CTE.
Now......shooting the shot you have diagramed is actually aimed the same exact way......you just don't pivot back to center....since you have lined up paralell to the center axis of the CB...it is going to squirt to the right or left depending on which side you lined up on.
NOTE: There is an element of speed control in this shot since it does involve english...however...it still is a measured aim based on the 3-line system...
Here is the bottom line with 3-line or CTE....(or if some of you prefer we can call them Cain and Abel)
I am not a scientist so I don't have the math to back any of this up...but I would question if 3-line or CTE would be math wise correct for all shots.
I actually posted (years ago) about what I thought was a "hole" in the "Houle" 3-line system......and a method for how I proved it.
HOWEVER....the 3-line system puts you so close that when add your own instincts into the shot...(aka feel) the shots go....Since I have no feel or insticts...I came up with a method to show me not only the correct axis line....but if this happened to be one of the shots that needed to be "a hair" inside or a hair outside one of those 3 aim lines.
Can my method be proven "scientifically" correct.....maybe....maybe not...but why would I care if it works for me...
Golf is another sport that has a lot of technique to mastering the game....Ben Hogan was/is a world famous Hall of Fame Golfer....He had a technique that he felt was "key" to a good Golf swing.....Years later.....through video analysis it was determined that he was "not" doing what he thought he was doing........yet....what he thought he was doing produced excellent results.......The bottom line is that was all that really mattered...."The results"
IMO.....Scientist types seem to get caught up in the "If I can't prove it...it can't work" syndrome......I think that is because they are "Thinkers" by nature.....I think for some of them it is mentally impossible to agree that something can work ....if it can't be proven....It is probably a good thing we have them though.....otherwise we would proably still be using horses to get around.
Does 3-line and CTE work...Yes...Can it be proven to work....No.....(sorry scientists)
CTE supporters should just say...."I can't prove it....but Jimmy Crack Corn and I Don't care"
I could make reference to 3-line/CTE and something about an apple...but I will refrain...:wink:
I will correct one thing about 3-line that (IMO) listed in this thread that is a bit "off"....The 3-line aims are "not" based on the edge of the CB....They are based on "center" CB and 1/4 CB.
Center to Edge
Center to 1/4
1/4 to Edge (just outside right/left edge of shaft when it is along the center axis of the CB)
All the aims above are based on the shaft of the cue being along the center axis of the CB.
The (4th Aim) that is never really listed in the description of 3-line is aiming the center of the shaft along the 1/4 of the CB to the edge of the OB and "pivoting" back to center....(which in my mind "mathematically" subtracts the 1/4 of the CB creating a "edge to edge" contact).....sorry...I can't "prove it"....but Jimmy Cra.....:wink:
Last edited:
I, for one, have never questioned if the 3-angle or CTE system or any align-and-pivot system "works." Any system can "work," provided any necessary "instinct" and "feel" are developed through practice with the system.
Also, I think it has been "scientifically proven" how CTE "works." The "proof" is here:
Again, CTE can work, and the reasons for how and why it can work are clearly illustrated and described. Regardless, I don't believe CTE is necessarily any better or worse than any other aiming system, when it comes to actually getting it to "work."
Regards,
Dave
What does the game have to do with pocketing a ball? Please explain.
- Status