Recently I received a private message telling me that the sender can prove CTE does not work. After conversation with a person I highly respect on this topic I am starting this thread for those who contend it does not work.
Instead of another war of words how about showing some physical demonstrations?
Video yourself at the pool table explaining what you understand CTE to be.
Show where you think it does not work and demonstrate that.
Then we can discuss the actual mechanics from that perspective.
(CTE advocates please stay out of this as long as you can.)
I don't see any reason this can't be a decent thread, well other than the problem of JB starting this thread out with a straw man argument. The CTE proponents do this a lot. You continually make claims that the skeptics say that CTE DOES NOT work. That's really not the case. What the skeptics continually say is that CTE does not work as advertised. There's really a pretty big difference between the two. It's pretty much impossible to prove what's inside the head of another player when they pull the trigger so video evidence used to support or tear down CTE is pretty pointless.
There are quite a few apparently honorable people on this forum that claim that they use CTE (of one sort or another) that play pool at a very high level. We should all take them at their word. So - CTE clearly works. So it just becomes a matter of clearly defining what it is that "CTE" even is.
In a previous thread, before it was closed I was narrowing down what the main issue is that skeptics have with CTE. That issue is whether or not there is subconscious adjustment. I equated subconscious adjustment to what Stan and others refer to as "Finding the visuals". To which Morht put forth the following very well worded response:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=4708240&postcount=170
Morht said:
The argument is correct, but the assumption (IMHO) is not correct. So the argument is, how can two similar but not identical shots be pocketed using the exact same steps? The assumption is subconscious adjustment.
The precise answer is our change in perception on the 2x1 table surface is ultimately what makes the difference. Our eyes see the CB/OB sitting on a table surface in front of us, contained inside of two squares with perfect 90 degree angles and pockets at the corners. When we align our strongest VISUAL alignment for the given shot, our perception gives us a unique PHYSICAL alignment. This is the ever so slight difference that leads us to a connection to the pocket. Now you could argue that this change in perception is "subconscious adjustment", but that will likely be taken very wrong, because VISUALLY there is no adjustment whatsoever. But the reality is that each and every unique perception gives us a unique PHYSICAL alignment. We don't really need to think about this, because with a little work at the table this becomes automatic. All you need to do is observe the results and see that it does work. Exactly why it works it not yet put into mathematical terms, but it is teachable and demonstrate-able.
Of course we are assuming your stroke is reasonably consistent. No one will get reliable results with any aiming system without a good stroke to back it up.
So here we are. The question now becomes do these unique "perceptions" on the 2x1 playing surface account for all the possible shot angles on the table. This is what the CTE proponents claim. I'm not yet convinced that this is accurate.
Now if someone were to ask me how I go about doing something on the table and I explained it to them and they said something like, "You know that's probably not exactly what's going on." I would probably say something like, "You know -- you might be right. Let's see if we can figure this out." But when it comes to CTE, lines have been drawn in the sand and everybody always comes out swinging. Quite frankly, I will never lose any sleep over this stuff one way or the other. There are much more important things to worry about in life than how to aim at a billiard ball. To me, this is just a mild curiosity. So here I am.
So back to this perception thingy:
Does the 2x1 table surface (along with the 90 degree angles) really play a role in acquiring the "visuals"? There are two reasons I have a hard time with this:
1. Side pockets and corner pockets are completely different. I know this is obvious but what's the explanation for how you can acquire the visuals the same way for a shot into the corner pocket as you can for a shot into the side pocket? If I'm lining up a shot into the side pocket and I was playing on a table that was perfectly square how would that change anything? I can't see (no pun intended) how that would change anything other than how far I would have to stretch across the table to make the ball. So this would eliminate the 2x1 playing surface as an intrinsic part of the perception process at least for the side pocket shots.
2. The 2x1 playing surface requirement for CTE seems to not be necessary for any shots. iusedtoberich (how rich? may I ask) pointed out that a snooker table is not exactly 2x1. Also, let me point out that many tables throughout this country are setup with the wrong rail configuration (k55 vs k66) and this can slightly throw off the 2x1 table dimensions. Would CTE not work on these tables? Stan has said that CTE would work on snooker tables so I would imagine that it would also work on a slightly incorrectly dimensioned pool table. How does CTE account for these variables? I bet it happens during the acquiring the visuals phase. If you can adjust for a slightly modified table why can't you adjust for a table that is more significantly modified? At what point would the system break down?
The bottom line for me is -- I don't think the CTE proponents have the answers to these two questions. Something is going on during the perception phase that has not yet been sufficiently explained. When I aim, I just overlap the contact point. Sometimes I can't quite perfectly overlap this point and I just rely on feel to get me there. I'm not so certain that CTE users aren't doing the exact same thing and if it turns out that this is what they are doing -- what would be the harm in that?
Even with having a table and camera that's simply not enough. I do think a fixture would have potential, but it really would be an undertaking to do it. One I'm not willing to take at this point (that's where the 10k comes in) lol.
