Did The JB vs Lou Match Settle The Great Aiming Debate Once & For All?
- Thread starter Kickin' Chicken
- Start date
I don't think that I will be outing myself to declaim that I, for one, am of the opinion that it is not the job of the doubters to prove the negative, but rather for the proponents to prove the positive. After all, was I not the PJ 'yes man' (God rest his soul) in times past?
That the positive wants of proof is, in this case, a certainty since the 'system' makes extraordinary claims. And the claims are extraordinary, else what would recommend it over other, less remarkable 'systems'?
Now, I am not of the opinion, as are some among the dissenters, that the system must be exposed as fraudulent. Let others make up their own mind on the matter is my position. I can only speak, in that regard, for myself. However, I have been waiting, for the last couple of years, for the promised mathematics that would validate the system. But now, as I have recently read in this forum, I find it is the belief of the system's author is that the system is quite beyond the capacity for mathematics to adequately describe, and that we should not expect any formal proof to be soon, or ever, revealed.
That is unfortunate. For me it is simply not possible to suspend my skepticism even to make an attempt at learning something when there is no describable, and understandable, theoretical basis for it. In that case, it is my natural inclination to resist, and rebel: I cannot help it.
By virtue of this condition, you would rightly expect that I miss out on a great deal: Nutritional supplements, acupuncture, chiropractic, astrology, religion, Bigfoot, etc. Ahh, well, I have learned to accept being on the outside of so many things.
So, what's my point? Just this: I am not alone in my need of a sound theoretical basis for something which requires the devotion of considerable time and energy for results that can be achieved by means that do not demand such a suspension of skepticism. So, if this system is going to change the world as we know it, then it would seem to me that concessions for the likes of me will be required, and some attempt made to, yes, prove that it is valid.
I am confident that, in very short order, I will have half a dozen of you telling me that I, and others of my ilk, are unnecessary to the success of the coming revolution, and that we will be ground beneath your feet and discarded as the chaff that we are.
Well, bring it on.
That the positive wants of proof is, in this case, a certainty since the 'system' makes extraordinary claims. And the claims are extraordinary, else what would recommend it over other, less remarkable 'systems'?
Now, I am not of the opinion, as are some among the dissenters, that the system must be exposed as fraudulent. Let others make up their own mind on the matter is my position. I can only speak, in that regard, for myself. However, I have been waiting, for the last couple of years, for the promised mathematics that would validate the system. But now, as I have recently read in this forum, I find it is the belief of the system's author is that the system is quite beyond the capacity for mathematics to adequately describe, and that we should not expect any formal proof to be soon, or ever, revealed.
That is unfortunate. For me it is simply not possible to suspend my skepticism even to make an attempt at learning something when there is no describable, and understandable, theoretical basis for it. In that case, it is my natural inclination to resist, and rebel: I cannot help it.
By virtue of this condition, you would rightly expect that I miss out on a great deal: Nutritional supplements, acupuncture, chiropractic, astrology, religion, Bigfoot, etc. Ahh, well, I have learned to accept being on the outside of so many things.
So, what's my point? Just this: I am not alone in my need of a sound theoretical basis for something which requires the devotion of considerable time and energy for results that can be achieved by means that do not demand such a suspension of skepticism. So, if this system is going to change the world as we know it, then it would seem to me that concessions for the likes of me will be required, and some attempt made to, yes, prove that it is valid.
I am confident that, in very short order, I will have half a dozen of you telling me that I, and others of my ilk, are unnecessary to the success of the coming revolution, and that we will be ground beneath your feet and discarded as the chaff that we are.
Well, bring it on.
It's not anybody's job to prove anything. There is no need for mathematical analysis, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You're rather pompous to think that you making such statements as you did in that post will sway someone one way or the other. Perhaps you can show everyone where the rule is located stating aiming systems can only be validated by mathematical analysis. Please show us where the feel system or HAMB has been mathematically validated.
Rather pathetic and inept post on your part.
Rather pathetic and inept post on your part.
and he would have if you accepted his raise when offered. He was being led to believe you wouldn't even show up, so of course he invested his money elsewhere.
The claim is that it can be used to pocket any make-able shot on a regulation table.
How is that any more extraordinary than claiming if you just hit a million balls you'll miss less?
I accused both groups of being self righteous. This thread is absolute proof of it, otherwise the thread wouldn't exist.
People tend to read with their own bias. Read my post again. I mention that both groups look down at the other group because they don't share beliefs. I could care less what aiming system someone uses. I can't use CTE. Not because it doesn't work. It's because I was born with a visual impairment where one of my eyes is nearly blind. The problem - doing any sort of sweep or rotation changes my visual acuity, depending on which way I need to rotate. It's why I favour cutting balls to the left instead of the right.
Now, do I speak down about how others use it? No. Because I'm not them. They may possess a different visual ability, and they can "see" the points and the rotations. I can't, due to being near sighted in one eye, and farsighted in another. So I had to rely on that computer called my brain to learn how to aim. Most shots I shoot (or shot, seeing as I haven't played in a year) just started to look right, and that's how I aimed. If need be, I'd sight the contact point, and do the equal/opposite aiming method, as it gave me two fixed points that I could "chin lock", then get down on that line and shoot.
Is my system right? For me, it's the only one I can count on when I need to "aim". Otherwise, I just shoot pool. And the balls somehow go in. Do I think CTE or Pro1 works? It must, to have so many people seeing results. It just isn't for me, and no one can make it work for me, because of my vision. You can say "I can make it work for you". You can't. The medical profession can't fix my eye. No lens can make it work. No surgery can fix it. So, if I can't see properly, how will a visual aiming system ever work for me?
CTE users don't think non-users are idiots. They just get frustrated when people come in here and claim the system is bogus without a leg to stand on. This often leads to outright flame wars that can get ridiculous from both parties.
The system has been proven to work with countless videos and reams of information here. The math behind it is a 3D visual proof, something that is not (yet) on paper, nor would it even be useful if it were. You don't need a mathematical proof, just take it to the table and give it an honest try. It's not hard, it's just different.
The system has been proven to work with countless videos and reams of information here. The math behind it is a 3D visual proof, something that is not (yet) on paper, nor would it even be useful if it were. You don't need a mathematical proof, just take it to the table and give it an honest try. It's not hard, it's just different.
Well, as Nob said, you have no mathematical proof for what ever way you now aim, so I call B.S. on your whole premise. Bottom line is, as long as you keep coming up with excuses that it won't work, or you won't use it until math. proof is given, you will never attain any benefits from it. That's your loss, not ours.
We (really Stan, but also the users of it) gave you something that would benefit you. If you don't want it, don't use it. It's that simple.
Your math excuse is just that. An excuse. You know full well by now that the math is above what man can now do. And, even if man could figure out the math to it, it would be so far above your head that it would be meaningless anyways. Just like there is no math to the "feel" system that so many use.
All you are doing in your post is trying to give YOURSELF an excuse for not being willing to work enough to learn something that you really believe is worth learning. If you didn't believe that, there would be no reason at all for you to make the post you did. You feel left out because you don't have the inner fortitude to work hard enough to gain from it, so to make yourself feel better about that, you attempt to discredit that which you are not willing to work to gain. By discrediting it, you feel better about not having it.
What you are trying to discredit does have "proof" for it. Sure, one can claim that Stan is trying to make a large profit off it. Yet we all know that breaking even on costs would be nice, a small profit would be great. But, Stan isn't the only one touting it, is he? You also have a number of people saying it works as described. Some of them are freely giving of their precious time to help others learn it. They have nothing to gain by doing so. In fact, it cost them to do so. So why would they be helping others if it did not work as claimed? They freely give of their time to help others to better themselves. And, in return, they get lambasted by people like you that have no real desire to learn, but want instant gratification.
I didn't learn it right away either. I couldn't even learn 90/90 right away, and it is the simplest aiming system out there. But, instead of saying that the teachers of it were liars and scammers, I simply looked at the evidence of them using it. I worked it for a while, then put it on the shelf. After a while, I admitted that my aiming was lacking in certain areas, and revisited it. This time, I went in with the attitude that it DOES work, and I was fully capable of learning it myself. The second day, it clicked. Now I can say that it is one of the best things that have happened for my game CTE was the same way, but took a little longer.
Here's a HUGE statement that has been stated a number of times about those two systems, I will repeat it once again-
TO LEARN IT, FIRST EMPTY YOUR CUP OF WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW! Then, follow the directions and observe what happens. Quit trying to pocket balls, and observe where the directions lead you.
Shawn, I get what you are saying. However, you asked a question, so I will answer it. You ask how a visual aiming system can ever work for you. Well, what you apparently don't even realize, is that when you were playing, you were using a visual system. You were lining up your shots using your eyes.
While typing this, I took a break and went downstairs to try something. I shot off a rack of 9 ball using one eye and CTE/Pro 1. Surprise, surprise, it still worked. Had to squint, and couldn't see the balls right because I wear prescription glasses, but it still worked. Then, I thought I'd try a rack without my glasses even on. Been a while since I have tried playing without them, I wear them all the time now.
I couldn't make out any numbers on the balls. There were no sharp edges to the balls, only rough fade outs and blurs. In fact, I was shocked at what I actually saw and had to stop because I was laughing. I'll be darned if the balls didn't look like they all had flat tires! It was like the bottom of the balls wasn't there at all! Really weird looking. But, you know what happened? Using CTE/Pro 1, I actually ran off a rack!
Now, I know how to use the system, so I just had to go through the motions of what I knew to do. I will say that for someone like you to learn the system, would most likely take longer than it would take someone with normal eyesight. But, there is no doubt that it could be learned, and be of great benefit to you.
You say you favor cutting balls to the left. Believe it or not, you would be surprised how many have the same problem! As long as you can attain some consistency in cutting to the left, you could learn to aim using a pivot system if you really wanted to. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that it just might actually be an easier way for YOU to aim with your eyesight what it is. You don't have to see well enough to see actual contact points.
This is what I was saying shortly after the match. I know that John felt he could win but damn, playing a guy who only plays one pocket when you're a newbie, for 10K? And here I thought the purpose of barking and setting up a game is to get the other guy out of his comfort zone, not smack dab in the middle of it.
Not sure if there is a video or not. I am not on either side of the fence. I guess if I had to pick a side I would say CTE has value. Otherwise a lot of people would be lying for no other reason than to lie. So if someone wants people to understand the value of CTE PRO ONE. Maybe they could stop calling it an aiming system and maybe call if a banking system. From my understand it gives a player several bank options when a shot isnt available. When you label it as an aiming system I could see why advanced players would ignore it. However they ignore the fact that less skilled players need more than natural ability. So if there isn't a video out there. Maybe someone could post a video of either 8 or 9 ball banks. Break and bank out from there using whatever system you like. Do not set up any shots. Do not place any markers on the table. Just play banks. Just an idea.
CTE works for direct pocket shots the same as it works for banks, as it connects to the pockets with right angles all the same. One could argue that you don't "need" CTE for simple straight shots, but after you get comfortable with it you don't see shots any other way.
As for bank videos, here are a couple:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7-lt-RV-nE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71ZbmUWs3G0
I stand corrected, you are correct. I think what is frustrating for CTE users is that they seem to have to be consistently "on the defensive" about the system. Always having to provide proof that the system works as advertised. All this when there is PLENTY of evidence on video that it does work.
If someone doesn't understand it or tried it and can't make it work that's fine, just admit so (as you have). If you don't understand and want to make it work there are people willing to help. I have to admit that I was a nay-sayer myself but never came on this forum and bashed the system or the users of it.
CTE is a tool for pocketing balls, there are other tools out there as well. If they work well for you all the more power too you. I don't think most of us CTE users would call you an idiot for doing so.
Good shooting..
If someone doesn't understand it or tried it and can't make it work that's fine, just admit so (as you have). If you don't understand and want to make it work there are people willing to help. I have to admit that I was a nay-sayer myself but never came on this forum and bashed the system or the users of it.
CTE is a tool for pocketing balls, there are other tools out there as well. If they work well for you all the more power too you. I don't think most of us CTE users would call you an idiot for doing so.
Good shooting..
Just to prove my point here is a quote a few min ago from a thread in the Main Forum.
"Love Ronnies little lesson at the end, pick up the cue like this get down like this put your and ere and knock it in the ole , that ought to have all the system and aiming zealots with their CTE BHE TOI FRH OCD and STD twitching like bunnies lol".
"Love Ronnies little lesson at the end, pick up the cue like this get down like this put your and ere and knock it in the ole , that ought to have all the system and aiming zealots with their CTE BHE TOI FRH OCD and STD twitching like bunnies lol".
I'm not up to half a dozen yet, but I'm sure I don't have long to wait.
Since nobcitypool didn't bother to even make the appearance of responding to anything I said, I'll take on Neil briefly, and make a small defense.
Of course I do.
Yes, that is correct. And, I think I alluded to both those points in my post. I can't help it. I wish I could.
I don't believe that assertion. There is just no way that the 'system', if valid, can not be described mathematically (sorry for the double negative).
I don't think I discredited anything or anyone, unless you believe that not having a demonstrable, theoretical basis is a discredit to something. And, I certainly believe that Stan has the right to make money in any way that he chooses. Plus, look at all the free videos that he has produced. I don't question his means or motives at all.
Nowhere in my post did I say anything about 'liars and scammers'.
Yes. I get that. But, alas, for me it is not possible. And that was really the only point of my post, to say that, for me, it is not possible to proceed without a theoretical basis.
Why beat me up about it?
Since nobcitypool didn't bother to even make the appearance of responding to anything I said, I'll take on Neil briefly, and make a small defense.
Of course I do.
Yes, that is correct. And, I think I alluded to both those points in my post. I can't help it. I wish I could.
I don't believe that assertion. There is just no way that the 'system', if valid, can not be described mathematically (sorry for the double negative).
I don't think I discredited anything or anyone, unless you believe that not having a demonstrable, theoretical basis is a discredit to something. And, I certainly believe that Stan has the right to make money in any way that he chooses. Plus, look at all the free videos that he has produced. I don't question his means or motives at all.
Nowhere in my post did I say anything about 'liars and scammers'.
Yes. I get that. But, alas, for me it is not possible. And that was really the only point of my post, to say that, for me, it is not possible to proceed without a theoretical basis.
Why beat me up about it?
I fully understand the skepticism. But which system out there has this theoretical basis you are referring too? Ghost Ball, contact points, HAMB? In essence all systems are the same, we just use different points of reference. We train our eyes to objectively look for certain things and move into the shot. No protractors needed... 
Good shooting..
"Yes. I get that. But, alas, for me it is not possible. And that was really the only point of my post, to say that, for me, it is not possible to proceed without a theoretical basis."
Good shooting..
"Yes. I get that. But, alas, for me it is not possible. And that was really the only point of my post, to say that, for me, it is not possible to proceed without a theoretical basis."
Nice sidestepping. Now, where is the mathematical proof of how you now aim? You must have it, or you wouldn't be using the aiming method you now use. So, it should be no problem for you to show it to us.
Translation: I couldn't respond intelligently to nobcity's post so I'll just spin some BS out there to discredit him. Same approach as you take to attempting to discredit CTE/Pro One.
Do you drive a car? Do you ever fly in an airplane? Before you rode in a car or flew in an airplane, did you review all the math, Bernoulli's Principle, etc. to the extent you could design each one yourself? Or perhaps, did you use common sense (perhaps a term you're unfamiliar with), observe they worked and simply got in trusting what your eyes had told you, that being these two modes of transportation just worked?
Do you ram your hand up a cow's butt before you order a steak dinner?
I find all this crap rather hysterical coming from a Trekkie. You are a fan of fantasy land yet you keep throwing out all the "show me the math" stuff for CTE/Pro One. You do that despite the overwhelming abundance of visual evidence available. Perhaps this all says something about you and your intentions troll boy.
Once again, you state you can show the math for your aiming system, well quit flapping your gums and make that happen dude. I asked for your mathematical analysis for HAMB and feel aiming (which is what many professionals say they use). You didn't provide a thing. I understand why that is as well. You're no more than just another Troll.