Why CTE is silly

[Shawn Armstrong]

Still real hot to make that bet? What kind of money we talking?

http://www.bebobpublishing.com/feeney.htm

Buy the first video. After you've watched it, draw up some diagrams between classes, or during your next sitdown at Starbucks, and see if your 4-5" pocket width still holds up.

I'm done with you. Pool isn't played on graph paper or on Adode software. Go get some balls and hit some.

 

[GetMeThere]

This thread makes no sense. Most people are losing sight of what's important--- and that's winning and becoming a more powerful player. Some people in this thread are so smart -- they're retarded. There isn't one person who can tell a 41 degree angle from a 43 degree angle and so forth.

People talk about the precision of this and that - yet, they can't see to that precision anyways.

If I was just starting to learn how to play pool and read this thread, I'd quit. No one needs to know advanced math to play pool.... let me repeat that..> NO ONE. Basic geometry concepts are important, but that's it. Pool is all visual - there's no "math" when playing. Never has, never will.

For every "knock" that one of these so called idiot savants (many without the savant part) throw at CTE -- I can throw 10 back at hitting spots on balls, ghostballs, etc.

In the end, we all see differently, think differently and execute differently. If a technique helps someone run out--- that's a GOOD thing. Some of these pinheads want you to think if you can't figure out the trig behind any one shot, you can't play pool. It's retarded. All that matters is....."Did the ball drop?"

Crapping on a technique that HELPS people is hurting pool and making themselves look silly, not the system they're knocking.

A funny post to make from somebody who claims to be writing a 100+ page, 3D accurate treatise on the geometry of exactly how and why CTE works.

I have to ask you the same embarrassing question I asked you last night (you know, the one that sent you off finding funny pictures you could put my name on to pretend they were me): How do you suppose it is that a fairly large group of obviously intelligent and educated posters** have come to express significant doubts about the substance of CTE?

That fact, put against the inability (for FIFTEEN YEARS) of CTE advocates to say anything MEANINGFUL about the substance of CTE has to.......at least raise some doubts in the mind of anyone who's even a little bit thoughtful....

Now, I'll be the FIRST to say that authority alone doesn't make an argument. But can you even offer some NOTION of how or why a bunch of such guys could be SO WRONG for SO LONG about this topic--which they have no clear financial or reputation reason to be biased against?

**At least several of whom seem to have actual mechanical engineering knowledge, and one whom is a friggin' PROFESSOR of mechanical engineering at a substantial, state-sponsered university!

 

[GetMeThere]

http://www.bebobpublishing.com/feeney.htm

Buy the first video. After you've watched it, draw up some diagrams between classes, or during your next sitdown at Starbucks, and see if your 4-5" pocket width still holds up.

I'm done with you. Pool isn't played on graph paper or on Adode software. Go get some balls and hit some.

I've already said I'm going to minimize interaction with the "under 80 crowd." So this will be my last response on this: Watch those videos a few more times, and READ what I wrote regarding them....and maybe it'll come to you...

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

GetMeThere, could you let us know what aiming system you use, your high BnR counts in 8-ball, 9-ball and 14.1, and where you got your mathematics or physics degree from?

 

[GetMeThere]

Well, given that you've had to weather a firestorm of folks who took what you said personally

I suggest we limit our discussion to the youtube videos that another poster has linked to, and my responses to those videos. Those videos give examples of OB paths that would EASILY be within the error ranges I gave in my first post. If you can't see that, then we can't progress with the discussion.

And oh, by the way? That shot that you say "no pro would attempt" -- that 8-foot 80-degree cut shot? Here again, you seem to be making an "assumption" -- presumably 9-ball or whatever. That shot, depending on table layout, of course, is taken on by One Pocket players all the time. You'll see Efren and Alex (Pagulayan) slicing and dicing shots like this all the time, again, depending on table layout. You leave a shot like that for a good One Pocket player to his/her pocket (assuming there's not a "juicier" shot on the table), and you watch how fast they take it.

I parenthetically added that they wouldn't take the shot unless it was a "2-way" shot, e.g., that they would be safe if they missed. I don't think a lot of 1pocket players would make such an attempt if a miss would leave their opponents with an easy out.

 

[GetMeThere]

Unfortunately, inasmuch as I'd like to, I can't do that.

Then refer to the examples given below, and to my responses. By my visual estimation, both those examples (apparently EASILY) fall within the error ranges I refer to in my first post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VGfvaeQJx0

Check out 4:30 in the clip. 4-5" wide?

Yup. I'd say that's an EXCELLENT example of the 4-5 inch width of a "rail pocket." It's easy to extend out the edge of Bustamante's 5 ball on the line he originally shot it--it would end up at about where the rail wood starts. From that to the opposite point looks very much like about a pocket width to me--about 4-5 inches. Maybe LESS, actually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexIkGA61As&NR=144 seconds in. The ball hits in front of the first diamond. Again, 4-5"?

Yup. That one too. It looks even LESS than 4-5". The edge of the 1 ball, along the line it was traveling, was almost exactly at the inside edge of the "rail wood." At the level of the pocket, the distance of the rail wood to the opposing point would be 4-5 inches or less. This one is a particularly easy example because it's all overhead: Make a line between slightly to the left of the left dot on the bottom rail (where the 1 ball came off of), extend it to the point where it hit the rail, and then, by imagination, extend THAT to the pocket--as though the rail didn't exist. You can see that, when the 1 ball would have gotten to where the pocket is, that it's left edge would have been about exactly at the edge where the rubber rail ends and the wood of the table begins. If you then measure out from that point, to the opposite pocket point, yeah, that's about a pocket width, 4-5 inches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexIkGA61As&NR=1

6:34 - more 4-5" pockets.

That one too. A good example. Simply extend an imaginary line through the left edge of the OB THROUGH the rail, until it gets to the pocket. You can see that, if the rail wasn't in the way, the left edge of the ball would have hit at about where the wood of the rail starts (when it's "straight across" from the opposite pocket point). That's about a 4-5 inch window--making the error ranges I gave in my first post accurate.

 

[JB Cases]

A funny post to make from somebody who claims to be writing a 100+ page, 3D accurate treatise on the geometry of exactly how and why CTE works.

I have to ask you the same embarrassing question I asked you last night (you know, the one that sent you off finding funny pictures you could put my name on to pretend they were me): How do you suppose it is that a fairly large group of obviously intelligent and educated posters** have come to express significant doubts about the substance of CTE?

Because they don't know how to do it and are analyzing it with incomplete data. Define fairly large please? 4, 10, 20??? AZ has roughly 10,000 members and by Bob Jewett's estimates maybe 100,000 lurkers (or was that RSB?)

That fact, put against the inability (for FIFTEEN YEARS) of CTE advocates to say anything MEANINGFUL about the substance of CTE has to.......at least raise some doubts in the mind of anyone who's even a little bit thoughtful....

CTE has not around for 15 years. Please get your facts right. Sure it can raise doubts. Again though not one single detractor has ever had a qualified lesson with any CTE expert. Mike Page had some sort of contact with Dave Segal but I think that it was not a lesson.

Now, I'll be the FIRST to say that authority alone doesn't make an argument. But can you even offer some NOTION of how or why a bunch of such guys could be SO WRONG for SO LONG about this topic--which they have no clear financial or reputation reason to be biased against?

A few of these folks do have some reputation on the line. But it's mostly ego. They have made up their minds that CTE cannot work and thus they will not get with the top CTE teachers to work it out.

**At least several of whom seem to have actual mechanical engineering knowledge, and one whom is a friggin' PROFESSOR of mechanical engineering at a substantial, state-sponsered university!

To which there are many on the other side who are also intelligent, degreed, and have actual mechanical knowledge. Fred Agnir is also a mechanical engineer who builds multi-million dollar machines.

Many scientists believe in God and many priests believe in evolution. Your post makes no sense if it's intended to somehow say that because x-number of people think one way then the way they think MUST be right.

At one time in recent history the educated people all agreed that high voltage electroshock was the proper treatment for mental illness. Now no one thinks that.

Doubts are fine. But with incomplete data conclusions are silly.

 

[peteypooldude]

GMT, You are to smart to play pool
I am guessing an APA 2 or 3 skill level.
People like you never can stop thinking and turn loose and play
Go make yourself useful and create a cure for cancer.
You have wasted a lot of time on AZ trying to disprove and save the
world from the CTE epidemic .
I hope you thought that picture was hilarious .
Me and my wife both were in tears LOL
Petey

 

[GetMeThere]

Because they don't know how to do it and are analyzing it with incomplete data.

JB,

Just to let you know: I'm categorizing you as a member of the "under 80" crowd.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

A funny post to make from somebody who claims to be writing a 100+ page, 3D accurate treatise on the geometry of exactly how and why CTE works.

I have to ask you the same embarrassing question I asked you last night (you know, the one that sent you off finding funny pictures you could put my name on to pretend they were me): How do you suppose it is that a fairly large group of obviously intelligent and educated posters** have come to express significant doubts about the substance of CTE?

That fact, put against the inability (for FIFTEEN YEARS) of CTE advocates to say anything MEANINGFUL about the substance of CTE has to.......at least raise some doubts in the mind of anyone who's even a little bit thoughtful....

Now, I'll be the FIRST to say that authority alone doesn't make an argument. But can you even offer some NOTION of how or why a bunch of such guys could be SO WRONG for SO LONG about this topic--which they have no clear financial or reputation reason to be biased against?

**At least several of whom seem to have actual mechanical engineering knowledge, and one whom is a friggin' PROFESSOR of mechanical engineering at a substantial, state-sponsered university!

As someone who has been studying the mechanics of CTE for years, I'm the FIRST to admit that none of it matters outside of the never-ending discussion on azb. I put together my document as a supplement / study guide for someone wanting to learn the "why" behind the execution. Some, however, don't give a shit. Some people just wanna run out and play pool (I understand).

As a player, I never think about pivot arcs, bridge length, etc. I just make the ball. You're so into debating that you can't smell what The Rock is cooking, catch my drift? You constantly repeat the graph on the first page of your post--- and the post justifies why one would need CTE ---- because you can't see a hair-width from 8' away. So, if a player can't hit a HAIR from 8' away with ghostball but CAN with CTE, it's a good thing. Calling them or the system silly makes you look silly.

Again, stop with the professor crap. This ISN'T an engineering problem or class. Being a professor doesn't make you right, ever. I can go on and on about Department of Defense contracts that I won at a young age, or giving countless speeches at universities across the U.S. (Columbia, UPenn, etc), closing trade deals with China, etc... none of that means shit to a tree. My college professor wanted me to teach a group of programming students because she couldn't reach them (she was an idiot, imo). So, being a teacher doesn't make you smart.

The LACK of understanding is because of people like you who are more interested in being an internet tough guy and being confrontational than being nice enough to make people want to collaborate. People who know something (like myself) don't want to collaborate because you're more interested in dissecting posts than you are at asking questions and researching. That's why this thread keeps going.... it's one big argument over NOTHING.

Getmethere - want to bet that you can't aim at a hair width accurately? Of course you don't. This thread is pointless outside of being your little podium for instigation.

 

[GetMeThere]

Again, stop with the professor crap. This ISN'T an engineering problem or class. Being a professor doesn't make you right, ever. I can go on and on about Department of Defense contracts that I won at a young age, or giving countless speeches at universities across the U.S. (Columbia, UPenn, etc), closing trade deals with China, etc... none of that means shit to a tree. My college professor wanted me to teach a group of programming students because she couldn't reach them (she was an idiot, imo). So, being a teacher doesn't make you smart.

Sorry Dave. Allusions to your "intelligence" don't fly with me. If you can't see that how billiard balls and billiard tables behave is wholly within the domain of mechanical engineering, or that some shot may require a "hair's breadth" of accuracy of HIT--no matter what aiming method you use--then...allusions otherwise about you being a hot shot programmer are unimportant to me.

I'm suspect of ANYONE'S intelligence, if that person can't almost instantly see that you can't POCKET balls if you give no import to where the pockets ARE.

Dave, there is no way to determine relatively where a pocket is by staring, ruminating, calculating, or CTEating two random balls, randomly placed on the table.

Anyone who thinks otherwise could benefit GREATLY by stepping back and giving some consideration to their cognitive abilities--and perhaps seeking some testing in that regard.

 

[GetMeThere]

At one time in recent history the educated people all agreed that high voltage electroshock was the proper treatment for mental illness.

Oops. I missed that one before my earlier response.

I do have to admit I appreciate your efforts to bring your own experiences into your posts.

 

[Neil]

Sorry Dave. Allusions to your "intelligence" don't fly with me. If you can't see that how billiard balls and billiard tables behave is wholly within the domain of mechanical engineering, or that some shot may require a "hair's breadth" of accuracy of HIT--no matter what aiming method you use--then...allusions otherwise about you being a hot shot programmer are unimportant to me.

I'm suspect of ANYONE'S intelligence, if that person can't almost instantly see that you can't POCKET balls if you give no import to where the pockets ARE.

Dave, there is no way to determine relatively where a pocket is by staring, ruminating, calculating, or CTEating two random balls, randomly placed on the table.

Anyone who thinks otherwise could benefit GREATLY by stepping back and giving some consideration to their cognitive abilities--and perhaps seeking some testing in that regard.

Looks like there just might be two DVD's coming out! One, from Stan on how to use CTE. The other from some movie studio. It wouldn't surprise me if some movie studio didn't jump on the chance for free props to do a re-make of "The Birds" when they see all the crows around your house. Because, after Stan's DVD come out, you are going to be eating a LOT of crow!

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Dave, there is no way to determine relatively where a pocket is by staring, ruminating, calculating, or CTEating two random balls, randomly placed on the table.

Wanna bet?

In fact, hide the pocket completely and just tell me the direction of the cut (I'd say within 70 degrees) and I can name that tune in a fewer number of shots than you by 2:1 margin. Maybe I'm a Wile E. Coyote Super Genius.

Let's do this at the SBE. Whaddya say? You can even wear one of those disguises so you don't blow your cover.....

 

[Patrick Johnson]

John:
I have described it to you. What I have not done is instruct you. Even if I had wanted to instruct you I could not because I am not qualified to do so.

You're not qualified to do either. Your "descriptions" are gibberish. It's about time somebody told you.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

On shots that hit the rail before getting to the pocket, if you extend the LINE on which the OB was traveling out to the pocket area, and then measure ACROSS to the other pocket point, I doubt very much that you will discover instances of 7" spans**. IMO the spans you will discover will be roughly about the size of a "full" pocket-- 4-5 inches. I think you're not considering where the confusion arises: when you have a shot down the rail, much LESS than a full pocket is actually presenting itself--giving the illusion that the pocket can be "widened" when the rail is hit. It IS widened from the perspective of an already severely NARROWED hole that is available down the rail--but it isn't markedly widened from the full pocket width of 4-5 inches.

FYI, I have some good illustrations dealing with this topic in the articles listed here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/pocket.html#size​

A corner pocket can "look" significantly larger with slow shots at shallow angles to a rail (especially on a "bar box"), but not 7".

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Dave:
Some of these pinheads want you to think if you can't figure out the trig behind any one shot, you can't play pool.

What you're trying to say is that you don't understand "these pinheads" and you're frustrated by your impotence so you attack in the only way you know:

video shootouts!!

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

I think I have already done this on my CTE resource page. Have you read the complete document recently? I revised and improved it over the last few days.

I most certainly look forward to studying Stan's DVD and Spidey's tome when they come out. Honestly, I don't think I will learn any new information from these sources; although, I hope I do.

I think the descriptions and illustrations for "how and why CTE works" on my CTE resource page still apply to Pro-One, SAME-AIM, or any other variation of CTE. If they don't, I will be sure to update the information as I learn more.

... you are SUPPOSED to be a scholar and a teacher and the BEST you can do regarding CTE is to take what everyone says which you know is not all on the same page and not all correct and put it all up on your "CTE Page"?

John,

The two versions of CTE on my resource page are quoted from eezbank's past video (which I thought was quite good) and Spidey's blog (which is also excellent). However, all of the illustrations, articles, and analysis are from me, except where indicated otherwise. I think this is clear in how the resource page is presented. FYI, I have removed all reference to the description and videos you posted. I now agree with you that they probably weren't appropriate or helpful.

Beneath all of my illustrations and analysis, I do have supplemental quotes from other people, but I think these are just there to provide alternative perspectives and interpretations for some of the material I present. When I read an informative post concerning CTE, I like to record it because it is practically impossible to find it again in the future unless I document it. Maybe this is the stuff of which you disapprove.

... I am student of CTE and have said many times that I am not qualified to teach it. Yet you put my words on your page and link to my videos for what purpose?

Again, I have removed all quotes from and links to stuff from you.

Other people have asked you to remove your excerpts of their comments and you refuse to do so.

Several people have asked me to remove the entire resource page. That is just ridiculous. I have offered several times for people to let me know what is inaccurate about the versions provided by eezbank and Spidey. I would be happy to make corrections or replace the descriptions with updated versions. In fact, eezbank did provide a clarification, which I posted. I also recently spoke with Spidey and made some changes as a result of the discussion. I also offered to Spidey to make other corrections or changes he might think are appropriate for the version I quoted from his blog.

I know you don't appreciate the amount of research, time, and effort that went into creating my CTE and other FAQ resource pages, but I know many people appreciate them. They are even helpful to me at times, when I need to quickly find information and resources.

Regards,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

What you're trying to say is that you don't understand "these pinheads" and you're frustrated by your impotence so you attack in the only way you know:

video shootouts!!

pj
chgo

That's like telling Michael Jordan that it's impossible to make a basket with his eyes closed and saying you must know the basket location, velocity, shot arc, and everything else to with 1% tolerance or you'd brick the shot. He finally gets frustrated and starts popping them in from everywhere with his eyes closed. Impotence? No. Ignorance? Def--- but not on my side.

 

[GetMeThere]

Dave, there is no way to determine relatively where a pocket is by staring, ruminating, calculating, or CTEating two random balls, randomly placed on the table.

Wanna bet?

WHOA!! You had me HOT there for a second. I was gonna tell you I could come up with a VERY substantial amount of money (like a live-the-rest-of-your-life-without-income amount) at almost a moment's notice for that kind of bet!!

Then...

In fact, hide the pocket completely and just tell me the direction of the cut (I'd say within 70 degrees) and I can name that tune in a fewer number of shots than you by 2:1 margin. Maybe I'm a Wile E. Coyote Super Genius.

Let's do this at the SBE.

I saw it was just another "IT WORKS!, I'll SHOW YOU!" example.