Cte
- Thread starter jamesroberts
- Start date
I think everyone should get the DVD, even if they ultimately don't believe in 'the system'. It's got great production values, good examples, and a solid methodology for taking the described shots to the table to be practiced on.
It's a well done DVD, and that gets lost in these debates.
I'm with you whole-heartedly, but Jim comes across sometimes as just trying refute any and all about CTE/Pro-1 and I believe he's smarter than that!! And I don't understand since he hasn't seen the DVD, as far as I'm aware!!
Last edited:
I'm with you.
i see alot of posts asking specific questions about the pro one system, and the posters who ask them getting angry that they aren't getting answers. if you really want those questions answered you can do one of two things imo. you can 1. spend $45 dollars to buy stan's dvd, or 2. spend the money to take a lesson with stan (in which he gives you the dvd). i think a big reason no one gives out a lot of info in these threads is out of respect to stan. pro one is the system he teaches and he charges for it. i don't see a lot people posting the info from joe tucker, or freddy the beard, or the monk on here either. the spf instructors that post on this site aren't giving up to much detailed info either. and all for the same reason, if they give everything away for free, why would anyone pay them for lessons.
i am curently taking lessons with someone else. when i am done digesting all of that info i will be buying stan's dvd and trying to get all i can out of that. i don' know i just think it's not fair to give someone else's info out for nothing. i teach my girlfriend little things here and there, but i don't give up everything my teachers have taught me even to her. if she wants the help she's going to have to take a lesson with some of the people i have studied with or a teacher of her choice.
i am curently taking lessons with someone else. when i am done digesting all of that info i will be buying stan's dvd and trying to get all i can out of that. i don' know i just think it's not fair to give someone else's info out for nothing. i teach my girlfriend little things here and there, but i don't give up everything my teachers have taught me even to her. if she wants the help she's going to have to take a lesson with some of the people i have studied with or a teacher of her choice.
Hahaha. Does your girlfriend know you're holding out on her?:wink:
Very astute reasoning. You are exactly right.
Idk I just kinda hit em like I see em.
I will say that sometimes on a tough shot I will step back and kinda fall into my stance. It helps you have a better overall approach and not be off balanced which sometimes happens to players when they just jump right down.
Have all these CTE experts explain how they would use CTE for this shot. You are going for the 8 ball, CB rail first. Show me how CTE does this.....Post up the video. Do this real world shot, stop talking about how to use it and show how to use it on this shot. Load the pic up and put all the fancy CTE lines on the pic or something...
Talk cheap.....Oh my the way....all the shots I post, I have made afterwards the first time and using my GB method which works on all shots, all the time, simple to learn and use unlike CTE.
Talk cheap.....Oh my the way....all the shots I post, I have made afterwards the first time and using my GB method which works on all shots, all the time, simple to learn and use unlike CTE.
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Had to look it up since I don't know latin. The equivalent would be after watching the Color of Money my game went up two balls.
There is a lot more correlation when a person learns a new technique to aim with and then immediately afterward reports an increase in pocketing ability.
At some point the experience and skill level of those reporting must be taken into account.
For example when I hand a cue to an APA 3 and ask them how it feels and they tell me it's great that doesn't mean as much to me as when I hand a cue to someone like Kelly Fisher or John Schmidt and they say it's great.
I want to see a show of hands, how many of you think honestly that Stan Shuffet, Randy Goetlicher, Tom Simpson and Scott Lee are willing to throw away their careers on a system that is nonsense?
Do any of you think that these men, who have a lifetime of pool experience and multiple national championships would teach something like this if they didn't feel that it is truly worthwhile?
They don't HAVE to teach CTE. Aiming is only one part of their respective businesses. Do you think that Stan would BET his son's career on this if he didn't think it's solid?
When you go to any instructor they don't tell you the math behind GB. They don't put Jal's equation on the whiteboard as "proof" that GB "works".
No, they explain the concept and the motions to USE GB and guide the student from there. They use GB because it's the easiest way to teach a beginner the fundmentals of aiming in pool.
And it's very easy to attribute improvement in ball pocketing to learning GB. I don't think that anyone would dispute that. Why then do people go far out of their way to dispute people's first hand accounts of their own improvement immediately after learning CTE?
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection."
The problem with this is that the players who are claiming improvement, of which I am one, are certainly self aware enough to know what factors are present which they could also attribute to getting better. If the ONLY change in behavior is to use CTE then it's fairly strong evidence that this is the root cause of suddenly getting better when immediate improvement is reported.
And the anecdotal evidence from plenty of strong B and A players on this board as well as from a couple pros and shortstops should be enough for the science "gotta have the math" guys to take a serious look and learn the system in order to dissect it mathematically. But they ALL want to skip the learn-the-system part and instead attack it on a purely intellectual level.
Pool however is not played on an intellectual level. It's played on physical level and on that level CTE is the best way to aim that I have ever tried. I care about two things when ti comes to CTE, one is that I understand it well enough to be confident in using it, and two, that I understand it well enough to teach it and pass it on as Hal Houle gave me his aiming systems for free. I can now do both without a problem.
Knockers can knock if they want to. Sweators can choose sides and go with whoever they believe. There is no yin without the yang. So if a person is convinced enough to try it then they will. If they choose to believe the skeptics and not try it then they won't. The world keeps turning and people keep playing either way.
One thing is certainly held true, nearly everyone who has tried CTE and given it a fair shot has reported success with it. Not one skeptic has come on here and said that they put in even a couple hours with it. I'd happily shut up if I saw any videos of Pat Johnson or any other skeptic following Stan's instructions. Because I truly believe that if they were to do that then they would gain some insight as to why it works that goes beyond their own theories.
Anyway that's really all I have to say about it. Today I ran 15 balls in one pocket for the first time in my life. During that run I had several "hairy" shots and two banks. Using CTE on all shots I made them. Now you can say all you want to that CTE has no cause in my ability to run out the table into one pocket, but I know better and I think I know my own game better than you do.
Had to look it up since I don't know latin. The equivalent would be after watching the Color of Money my game went up two balls.
There is a lot more correlation when a person learns a new technique to aim with and then immediately afterward reports an increase in pocketing ability.
At some point the experience and skill level of those reporting must be taken into account.
For example when I hand a cue to an APA 3 and ask them how it feels and they tell me it's great that doesn't mean as much to me as when I hand a cue to someone like Kelly Fisher or John Schmidt and they say it's great.
I want to see a show of hands, how many of you think honestly that Stan Shuffet, Randy Goetlicher, Tom Simpson and Scott Lee are willing to throw away their careers on a system that is nonsense?
Do any of you think that these men, who have a lifetime of pool experience and multiple national championships would teach something like this if they didn't feel that it is truly worthwhile?
They don't HAVE to teach CTE. Aiming is only one part of their respective businesses. Do you think that Stan would BET his son's career on this if he didn't think it's solid?
When you go to any instructor they don't tell you the math behind GB. They don't put Jal's equation on the whiteboard as "proof" that GB "works".
No, they explain the concept and the motions to USE GB and guide the student from there. They use GB because it's the easiest way to teach a beginner the fundmentals of aiming in pool.
And it's very easy to attribute improvement in ball pocketing to learning GB. I don't think that anyone would dispute that. Why then do people go far out of their way to dispute people's first hand accounts of their own improvement immediately after learning CTE?
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection."
The problem with this is that the players who are claiming improvement, of which I am one, are certainly self aware enough to know what factors are present which they could also attribute to getting better. If the ONLY change in behavior is to use CTE then it's fairly strong evidence that this is the root cause of suddenly getting better when immediate improvement is reported.
And the anecdotal evidence from plenty of strong B and A players on this board as well as from a couple pros and shortstops should be enough for the science "gotta have the math" guys to take a serious look and learn the system in order to dissect it mathematically. But they ALL want to skip the learn-the-system part and instead attack it on a purely intellectual level.
Pool however is not played on an intellectual level. It's played on physical level and on that level CTE is the best way to aim that I have ever tried. I care about two things when ti comes to CTE, one is that I understand it well enough to be confident in using it, and two, that I understand it well enough to teach it and pass it on as Hal Houle gave me his aiming systems for free. I can now do both without a problem.
Knockers can knock if they want to. Sweators can choose sides and go with whoever they believe. There is no yin without the yang. So if a person is convinced enough to try it then they will. If they choose to believe the skeptics and not try it then they won't. The world keeps turning and people keep playing either way.
One thing is certainly held true, nearly everyone who has tried CTE and given it a fair shot has reported success with it. Not one skeptic has come on here and said that they put in even a couple hours with it. I'd happily shut up if I saw any videos of Pat Johnson or any other skeptic following Stan's instructions. Because I truly believe that if they were to do that then they would gain some insight as to why it works that goes beyond their own theories.
Anyway that's really all I have to say about it. Today I ran 15 balls in one pocket for the first time in my life. During that run I had several "hairy" shots and two banks. Using CTE on all shots I made them. Now you can say all you want to that CTE has no cause in my ability to run out the table into one pocket, but I know better and I think I know my own game better than you do.
Do we have a bet or not?
What part of I can use GB at any time it's needed do you not get?
How about you tell us how you would use your precious arrow to make this shot?
I can tell you in two seconds how I do it. SHHHHHH it's a system Jimmy Reid taught me.
But I want to hear how you do it using only GB and your arrow. What do you do print out enough arrows to make a path to the object ball?
Can I get action that Duckie lives up to his self-chosen name and ducks yet again?
You can make that with an adjustment with cte, just like you would make that using Gb with an adjustment. It may be easier to do with gb. But my point is made.
whats the system, I dont know
Just because someone uses CTE doesn't mean they are a slave to it. I wouldn't use any aiming system on that shot. I would go with a kicking system where I double the distance of the OB to the rail.
Attachments
Did you have to tell him? You spoiled the fun. ;-)
James this is the one I learned from Jimmy. With this method you can hit any part of the object ball fairly accurately. I get lots of applause due to my kicking skills based on this method.
thanks Im always learning stuff
Nah, it's all good. Duckie isn't good for any action anyway. My daughter is currently into Dora the Explorer and when they need directions this little map jumps out and sings a song that goes I'm the map I'm the map, the map the map the map.....
So now whenever Duckie posts all I think of is him running around the pool table going I'm the nit I'm the nit, the nit the nit the nit.....