PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions

jwpretd said:
In my opinion, the absolute reliance on that first sentence, and the concomitant denial of the validity of the second, is at the root of the acrimony surrounding this subject. Suppose I report results similar to those you posted and someone responds saying, "The actions you claim you took cannot possibly, of themselves, have produced the results you claim."

The person making that statement has said that:

1. I misreported or omitted at least some part of my actions, either inadvertently or deliberately.

and/or

2. I misreported the results I achieved, either inadvertently or deliberately.

Therefore, that person is saying that I'm either stupid or a liar (or possibly both). Even if I didn't overtly analyze the person's statement in the way I just outlined, I might well feel that I've been rather grossly insulted for doing nothing more than saying (rather joyously, as JoeyA points out) "Hey! Lookit, ma! I did this and the ball fell in the hole!"

That's been going on for many years.
Click to expand...
jwpretd, what if I told you that I invented a fractional aiming system that only involved two hits...a half ball hit and a quarter ball hit. I claim that I can make any shot on the table simply by choosing one of those two hits. I also claim it's a center pocket system, "exact", and geometrically perfect. I also have my own testimonial evidence that the system "works", because I have shot numerous videos of myself shooting balls with the system. I even have videos of my students pocketing balls with the system, showing that it works.

Remember, only two shots...a half ball hit and a quarter ball hit...for EVERY conceivable shot.

Now, how exactly would you go about determining whether my claims are true? Do you think they are true? Can they possibly be true, despite all my "data"?
 
jwpretd said:
In my opinion, the absolute reliance on that first sentence, and the concomitant denial of the validity of the second, is at the root of the acrimony surrounding this subject. Suppose I report results similar to those you posted and someone responds saying, "The actions you claim you took cannot possibly, of themselves, have produced the results you claim."

The person making that statement has said that:

1. I misreported or omitted at least some part of my actions, either inadvertently or deliberately.

and/or

2. I misreported the results I achieved, either inadvertently or deliberately.

Therefore, that person is saying that I'm either stupid or a liar (or possibly both). Even if I didn't overtly analyze the person's statement in the way I just outlined, I might well feel that I've been rather grossly insulted for doing nothing more than saying (rather joyously, as JoeyA points out) "Hey! Lookit, ma! I did this and the ball fell in the hole!"

That's been going on for many years.
Click to expand...
And?

Seems to me the first thing to do would be to address whether or not the first statement is true. Have you tried that?

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Sure you have. Stan has added pivoting (even AIR pivoting) to help you pretend there's no feel. Isn't that progress?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I've never said I don't use feel. Feel is a huge part of the game. Feel is what let's me know if I'm going to make the shot or miss it. I don't think feel is a bad thing.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Sure you have. Stan has added pivoting (even AIR pivoting) to help you pretend there's no feel. Isn't that progress?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I'm arguing that you make generalizations such as this trying to put all system users in one box. I'm arguing that you said I'm pretending there isn't feel when I never said that.

If you're going to try the wordsmith game with me please put forth a little more effort.
 
champ2107 said:
Sometimes you will have to make a slight visual adjustment and we have been using the term "visual intelligence" and not feel.
Click to expand...
You may have answered this previously, but how exactly do you know that "a slight visual adjustment" is necessary?
 
jsp said:
You may have answered this previously, but how exactly do you know that "a slight visual adjustment" is necessary?
Click to expand...

My experience as a pool player will help tell me i may need a slight adjustment on a shot. I can make balls without seeing the pockets but there positions are tattooed on my brain, so i really cant take a shot without knowing where the pocket is. yea or ney on this answer JSP?
 
champ2107 said:
My experience as a pool player will help tell me i may need a slight adjustment on a shot. I can make balls without seeing the pockets but there positions are tattooed on my brain, so i really cant take a shot without knowing where the pocket is. yea or ney on this answer JSP?
Click to expand...
Of course. You have to know where the pocket is in order to shoot at the pocket. That's what we've been saying all along.
 
jsp said:
Of course. You have to know where the pocket is in order to shoot at the pocket. That's what we've been saying all along.
Click to expand...

There aint nobody telling us anything we don't know already :) Listen until you learn the system and how to use it you will not totally understand what i/we mean or how i/we see things and whether you believe this or not its the truth. This is what the so called "naysayers" dont understand. The "naysayers" are debating from a position in which they are ignorant and dragging this on and on and just repeating the same stuff because they cant go any further in the discussion.

we have you stuck on the pockets, Pj stuck on feel and then you guys bring in the word "exact" after we all get tired of discussing the first two and then we end up back on the first two again after getting tired of discussing "exact "lol.
 
Last edited:
champ2107 said:
There aint nobody telling us anything we don't know already :) Listen until you learn the system and how to use it you will not totally understand what i/we mean or how i/we see things and whether you believe this or not its the truth. This is what the so called "naysayers" dont understand. The "naysayers" are debating from a position in which they are ignorant and dragging this on and on and just repeating the same stuff because they cant go any further in the discussion.

we have you stuck on the pockets, Pj stuck on feel and then you guys bring in the word "exact" after we all get tired of discussing the first two and then we end up back on the first two again after getting tired of discussing "exact "lol.
Click to expand...
What you don't understand is that you actually agree with us.

You have already conceded that you need to know the location of the pocket in order to shoot at it. That is something many have claimed is false.

And you already said that given the location of the pocket, slight adjustments may be necessary. It has also been claimed by others that any such adjustments are not needed because the system will line you up to the GB every single time.

So you actually agree with us. But yet you continue to argue against us. I'm not sure why.
 
jsp said:
What you don't understand is that you actually agree with us.

You have already conceded that you need to know the location of the pocket in order to shoot at it. That is something many have claimed is false.

And you already said that given the location of the pocket, slight adjustments may be necessary. It has also been claimed by others that any such adjustments are not needed because the system will line you up to the GB every single time.

So you actually agree with us. But yet you continue to argue against us. I'm not sure why.
Click to expand...

I will say this, knowing where the pocket is and location is an advantage but not a necessity for all shots. This is no big deal like you keep making it out to be and this just shows the strength of the system that on a lot of shots you do not need exact pocket location and thats whats makes this system so strong. You ok with that?
 
jsp said:
What you don't understand is that you actually agree with us.

You have already conceded that you need to know the location of the pocket in order to shoot at it. That is something many have claimed is false.

And you already said that given the location of the pocket, slight adjustments may be necessary. It has also been claimed by others that any such adjustments are not needed because the system will line you up to the GB every single time.

So you actually agree with us. But yet you continue to argue against us. I'm not sure why.
Click to expand...

Champ and a whole lot of others agree with you if you say that CTE/Pro One is the CAT'S MEOW. :p
 
This cte/pro1 banking system is strong it caused me to lose a game of 8 ball last night for the second time in couple weeks on a tricky shot! lol here is a tip, control your speed because if you pick the the wrong shot selection or have a tight shot, you may end up banking a ball in a uncalled pocket lol
 
Last edited:
jsp said:
Now, how exactly would you go about determining whether my claims are true? Do you think they are true? Can they possibly be true, despite all my "data"?
Click to expand...

Well, you've shown yourself in the past to be an intelligent and intellectually honest person, so I'd afford you the same consideration I feel is due to anyone else. You didn't mention anything about methodology. Absent a methodology, I'd probably just shrug, think "Well, too bad he didn't tell us how it's done.", open another Anchor Steam, and go about something more interesting. Assuming there is one, I'd attempt to test it as best I could. I would carefully study the DVDs you mentioned to see if I could determine how, in spite of the seeming impossibility of your claim, the balls went in the pockets. If my tests failed, and I couldn't find the reason in the DVDs or the writings of yourself and your students, then I'd present my questions to you directly; which, obviously, you could answer in any way that you pleased, or not at all. If, after what I felt to be a thorough attempt to understand your system, I didn't achieve the results you did, then I'd go do something else. I might (or might not) post something that said roughly "I really tried to learn this - took lessons from jsp and everything. I don't get the results he and others claim, so perhaps this system isn't for everyone."

What I sincerely hope I would not do is publicly deride you, or your adherents who make similar claims, and certainly not without having made a thorough good faith effort to understand what was really going on.

As for your second question, I would agree that on the surface it doesn't look like your system should work. However, as you claim it does work, see my first paragraph above.

Regarding the third question, I may be misreading it as I don't understand it. The word "despite" doesn't seem to me to fit there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top