What I Suspect Limits Many in Learning CTE/Pro One
- Thread starter nobcitypool
- Start date
It seems apparent you haven't watched the DVD. Why are you commenting so much on CTE/Pro One when you obviously know very, very little about it?
Yes he did but you didn't answer mine. I'm amazed by the number of people who comment extensively and even argue about the system yet haven't even glimpsed at the DVD or had a lesson.
How do you explain the top players for the last 100 years learning from the hamb method? When learing how to play there is no wrong way as long as your hitting balls. Sure, having someone teach you good fundamentals to start is a headstart, but I would bet every top player started out just banking balls.
John, are you now saying its impossible to be a top player by feel? I know you know better. Like I've stated before, every top player in the last 100 years learned through the htmb method and the next 100 will also.
Where do these arguments come from? Of course you can reach a high level proficiency with enough practice no matter what method you use. That has never been the argument. The best way to aim a rifle is (arguably) by using the sites, but I'll bet I can get pretty damn good shooting from the hip with millions of practice shots.
Yup. How do quick draw artists aim?
Would you agree that the top players are the exception, not the rule?
Would you agree that the vast majority of people never reach their true potential?
Would you agree that the vast majority are trying to get better, not be champions, and have little time available to do so?
Would you agree that a systematic approach to learning something is faster than a hit and miss approach?
No one is saying a person can't achieve a top level by "feel". Obviously, they can. What some are saying is that it is faster to use a systematic approach than just learning by trial and error. Why is it that even world champions are extolling the virtues of some aiming systems AFTER they achieved their world title, and saying that it has enabled them to improve beyond what those years of trial and error have garnered them?
Very untrue. Do you not consider Stevie Moore to be a top 100 player? As I am writing this, there is another Professional Player from the Mosconi Cup Team that is learning CTE/Pro One from Stan at his house in Kentucky. You stating it before and again doesn't make it correct as your statement is obviously incorrect.
CJ Wiley is not only saying he uses a system, he has sold lots of copies of his DVD to people wanting to learn it. Are you calling him and every one who says they are using it successfully liars and/or idiots?
No matter what method you use to aim you are going to have to hit a ton of balls to get yourself to a place where it's automatic.
The issue is that aiming systems have been characterized as shortcuts to championship pool BY aiming system opponents. This is simply not true. What an aiming system is, even ghost ball, is a guide to how to find the shot line. It IS a shortcut for that task.
Take two absolute beginners and set up five shots. Now one beginner you explain the ghost ball concept and the other one you don't explain anything. I would bet that the one who got GB instruction makes the five shots first. Now the other one might end up being the better player but not in the first couple hours.
Also you don't know how the top 100 players learned to play. You don't have any clue what each of them had for instruction or how they practiced, what methods they tried, what systems they use or don't use other than what they have explicitly said they do or don't do.
In my conversations with top players I found out that many of them think quite deeply about the mechanics of pool and how to make consistent connections to the balls.
Sorry for the exceedingly slow response. The following sums it up pretty well I think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_classic_laws_of_thought#Aristotle
The first one, "Law of Identity," is probably the most straightforwardly relevant. Substituting for A: the proper alignment for a 15-degree cut angle is the proper alignment for a 15-degree cut angle and not the proper alignment for any other cut angle. Descriptions of CTE not only deny this, but far worse, thereby reject any possible rational discussion of it. While the latter may be convenient for those who want to believe, it's turned the forum into a venue for propositions that the famous physicist Wolfgang Pauli would have probably characterized as "not even wrong."
Jim
REAL CTE is in another dimension, a completely different plane than that of any other traditional method of aiming. This will become abundantly clear on DVD2 not just for the ones that use it but also for those that will just remotely empty their cup and look at what was never supposed to be.
As I have said over and over, visual/perceptual intelligence is superior to math when it comes to playing the game. Our eyes are not just some simple window for us to view from....there's an intelligence behind that window that unlocked how to play pool and did NOT use any math in doing so.
REAL CTE thrills many but for others, REAL CTE will and does upset their applecart. This will not change any time soon but over time it will smooth out.
There IS going to be a shakeup. Our game that was once so math oriented ain't gonna be that way as much any more. WHY? because the real way to play pool can now be described clearly by language in visual and physical terms. This is something that math can't do yet and likely it will be a long time before that happens, if ever. ( I still like math, though, don't get me wrong. I just have reason to want to see VISUAL INTELLIGENCE get the superior credit that it deserves.)
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
The difference is in the journey. There is only one objective route to the shot line.....
When I drive to a place that I have never been to, I enjoy the precise directions from my GPS. It would get old to go to places not knowing exactly how to get there. It can be done but why do it any other way when you can have a GPS or a connect the dots roadmap.
Stan Shuffett
Is CTE as parsimonious as GPS?
I have not made a study of GPS but GPS has changed the way we reach our destinations just as CTE PRO ONE will change how players reach their shot lines. Angles essentially mean zip in CTE.
Concerning PARSIMONIOUS and GPS, simply take the letters for GPS and then add an A after the G and now you have GAPS. Yes, there are holes in GPS but you will find NO GAPS in CTE.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
CTE/Pro1 is more parsimonious than Hal's CTE...kudos for that. It relies
on visuals like camera guided bombs, but when there is fog, rain or smoke etc., it is not effective.
GPS is exact and doesn't rely on foggy visuals or memory. Your car GPS is ersatz compared to the military version. We are products of our experience...some better than others...whatever works for you is good.
Enhanced Paveway II "One target, one bomb in any weather".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRRXK7QnxaU
on visuals like camera guided bombs, but when there is fog, rain or smoke etc., it is not effective.
GPS is exact and doesn't rely on foggy visuals or memory. Your car GPS is ersatz compared to the military version. We are products of our experience...some better than others...whatever works for you is good.
Enhanced Paveway II "One target, one bomb in any weather".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRRXK7QnxaU
Last edited:
You simply do not, can not or will not understand CTE.
The primary reason is that real CTE is of another dimension of which you are unfamiliar with and have certainly never experienced.
CTE is real. Get used to it.
As i said before CTE is beyond what you and your engineering team can unravel at this time.
Stan Shuffett
It sounds like a Religion.
No, it is a reality that you deny. You are so locked in on wanting pool to be like you think it must be that there can be no other way.
You will not bother me by your lack of understanding. This is what leads you into your attacks of calling it a religion or something like that.
I care not what you think about CTE PRO ONE. As a purported serious student of CTE PRO ONE, you do not even possess my work but yet you refer to it as a religion. Go ahead if that makes you feel better. If I were going to study and make such ridiculous comments about another's work I'd at least learn it and work it inside and out....something YOU have not done.
Stan Shuffett