Yeah, and I'm on the rationalist side for both debates. You're on the rationalist side for only one.
CTE and throw
- Thread starter seanjonsean
- Start date
Big difference being, religion is a belief. Most of the time pushed on you by people you trust (parents). But it's simply a belief or faith. An aiming system is something that shows results. It's like a diet. If I told you, you can lose wieght eating nothing but Subway, you might think... No way, I love subway!!! Now if you're skinny... There is no reason to try it. But a fatty might. And it might just work.
If you go to most large cities you can find religious proponents right on the street corners, like Times Square or the cable car turntable in San Francisco.
As to showing results, religion has been credited with many, many, many "results." Not unlike CTE, some of them harder to believe than others.
Lou Figueroa
None the less, religion is purely a belief or way of life.
Like I said, a diet is a much more accurate comparison. Not only would I see the results, everyone else would as well.
These aren't differences. Religion shows results and aiming systems are beliefs - neither is "just" one or the other. Failure to accept this is at the heart of much of the bickering about both.
pj
chgo
LOL. Whatever you say.
pj
chgo
P.S. There are actually four "sides" to these arguments:
1. System users who believe that systems are "exact" (and God's gift to pool).
2. System users who understand that they aren't "exact" but useful anyway.
3. "Rationalists" who admit systems' usefulness (to some) but dispute their "exactness".
4. "Detractors" who think nothing good can come from systems.
Among those who post about it here:
Most system users are 1s and most non-users are 4s.
2s and 3s are rare.
I'm a 3.
Last edited:
Now you're just being silly and trying to you're hardest to be crazy.
I don't just blindly believe it works.. I tried it, it worked. It kept working. Now I TRUST that it will work since it has worked so many other times. Just like I TRUST that sugar will taste sweet because it always has. Sugar has never let me down, its always sweet.
I don't think you're stupid, I just think you're very ignorant.
If this is how you break it down, I would call myself a 2. My system is very accurate for a lot of shots, but sometimes you gotta add a bit of english to make it work. Especially with banking.
Of course it works for you, or you wouldn't keep using it. That's not what I mean by belief. This misunderstanding stops lots of conversation.
pj
chgo
John, Any chance you going to Mobile this weekend. Lot's of action. Should be a big weekend.
Last edited:
seanjonsean, The answer to your question is probably yes and no. Some pros do use CTE and some use other systems, and some probably use none at all. I have a lot of matches on dvd, and have really broken down and studied a lot of the pros routines, and honestly believe I have figured out how some of these guys play so well. Drop me a pm if you like.
Hey guys.
What's up?
What's up?
Can't make this one. If I ever do I will make sure I get over to Buffalo Billiards too.
Well lets see. Stan teaches 2 to 3 people a week, randy and scott roughly 6 to 8 a week, add in the instructors associated with them for another 6 to 8. Say 16 people a week times 52 = 832 new users a year. Add in the people already using cte and you have more than enough to justify "hundreds of others". Not hard to see the "dolts" posting here.
Your on 2 fouls Lou.
Once upon a time, 832 pool players were taught an aiming system over the course of a year.
209 of them can’t remember the system a month later;
298 of them thought, as soon as they “learned it”: this is too complicated (or the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of);
213 can’t make it work;
102 weren’t paying attention while the system was being taught because they were hitting on the hottie in the class;
Net gain: 10 new aiming system users.
Point being (for the slow ones out there): just because someone is “taught” something does not mean they: buy into it; learn it; retain it; use it; and use it successfully.
Lou Figueroa
209 of them can’t remember the system a month later;
298 of them thought, as soon as they “learned it”: this is too complicated (or the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of);
213 can’t make it work;
102 weren’t paying attention while the system was being taught because they were hitting on the hottie in the class;
Net gain: 10 new aiming system users.
Point being (for the slow ones out there): just because someone is “taught” something does not mean they: buy into it; learn it; retain it; use it; and use it successfully.
Lou Figueroa
Go ahead in stay in the dark ages Lou. It really doesn't matter what you think of it except to you. More and more everyday are using it, including some of the young guns you like to watch.
"More and more..."?!
So, what... did you guys get #11 and #12 for this year, lol?
And I seriously doubt you have *any clue* as to which "young guns" I like to watch play pool.
Lou Figueroa
[...]
More and more everyday are using it, including some of the young guns you like to watch.
Neil:
I don't mean to get in the middle of you and Lou, but what you wrote above is Exhibit A of what I was talking about in post #78, situation/item #1 specifically. This "more and more" stuff -- without quantification or substantiation -- is what prompts situation/item #2 to occur. And the cycle continues, feeding itself.
Just FYI,
-Sean