CJ, I have gone over point by point with you many times. Yet you fail to hear. I'm not against using inside english when appropriate. I am against the false claims you have made many times. Look over my post history if you really want to know them again. I wont be going back over them point by point again. I said my piece to you and about what you teach, and what the problems with it are. Let reality be the teacher.:wink:
Could Stan clarify this statement in his video
- Thread starter Colin Colenso
- Start date
- Status
Alright.. its pretty cool.:thumbup: just dont do it the way you do.:smile:
I think of it as having 2 centers on the cb. Has its place in the game forsure .
Amen....wait..unless the ball skids.:grin-square:
I think the ball skidded on the bank shot, thats why it didn't cut like the second shot.
I'll play.....you used the wrong perception of the shot, so when you used the correct visuals, they didn't give you the results you wanted.
I'm just glad I was not on here today.
I don't think I ever said that TOI does not work the way CJ says that it does.
If I did I either misspoke or mistyped.
What I think I said or meant to say Is that , I, Again I had trouble & could not play all the shotes form just the two line of CTC & CTE.
That may well have been because I was using LD shafts.
I adapted the method by adding in another line between the two, which would be like the A & C points on the OB.
TOI is a dynamic method & is dependent on the dynamics of the the cue ball squirt from the tip hot the touch of inside Using the LD shafts I had to go too far inside & got too much spin relative to the squirt.
When I use TOI, I may not be using it exactly as CJ does because he is NOT playing with a LD shaft AND I am not a former World Champion NOR do I have anywhere near the experiance CJ has with TOI.
I don't think I ever said that TOI does not work the way CJ says that it does.
If I did I either misspoke or mistyped.
What I think I said or meant to say Is that , I, Again I had trouble & could not play all the shotes form just the two line of CTC & CTE.
That may well have been because I was using LD shafts.
I adapted the method by adding in another line between the two, which would be like the A & C points on the OB.
TOI is a dynamic method & is dependent on the dynamics of the the cue ball squirt from the tip hot the touch of inside Using the LD shafts I had to go too far inside & got too much spin relative to the squirt.
When I use TOI, I may not be using it exactly as CJ does because he is NOT playing with a LD shaft AND I am not a former World Champion NOR do I have anywhere near the experiance CJ has with TOI.
If you can't see how the 5 shots and the recent parallel shots performed by Stevie Moore work, try this simple experiment. Set up these shots on a table. Get to the shot line using whatever method will achieve that for you. Once you're set with your cue aligned along the correct shot line, pivot 1/2 tip away from center. Carefully place your cue on the table maintaining that orientation. Stand Up. Align yourself approximately correctly as if you were to shoot down that line. While looking straight down the line of your cue, glance to the appropriate edge (depending upon what CTE perception you were to have gotten)and then to a, b or c (again, dependent upon what perception you were trying to get for that shot). While it may not be perfect due to some inadvertent movement, you should see (or be very close to seeing ) the two perception points.
If it helps, use a ghost ball as a prop. If you actually take the time and genuinely try to do this, I think it may help you understand how these shots can be made as described. You will see that while you use the same two perception points, the perception lines you perceive are different. That is the key thing to comprehend the CTE visuals.
If it helps, use a ghost ball as a prop. If you actually take the time and genuinely try to do this, I think it may help you understand how these shots can be made as described. You will see that while you use the same two perception points, the perception lines you perceive are different. That is the key thing to comprehend the CTE visuals.
I hit the balls the same..why? Because i did the same for both.
The only way you pocket the balls with the same line up is to create 2 different perceptions of the line up and that is a bad ideal. And then you really cant call them the same. How could anyone feel comfortable knowing that he or she needs to find the right line up A..B..C.1/8 and with each one of these will also need to know more then one perception for each(A..B...C....1/8) because thats basically what Steve showed by this video. And then call it a center pocket system .
The sciences of geometry & physics are what they are.
I think anyone that passed basic geometry can make an appropriate determination.
If the bridge placement is the same & the the line is the same & the pivot is the same then the outcome must be the same, unless there is an outside influence that affects the outcome.
If the line is determined by objectively looking at the Center to Edge along with the Edge to the Point of A, B, or C at the same time then that puts the shooter on ONE line & One Line Only. So...if the bridge placement is placed down based on that line & at the same distance from the Cue Ball & the Pivot is the exact same, then there is only one outcome angle.
If any of that is changed for any reason then it is done so either,
1. because the shooter changed it on purpose in violation of what the objective visuals should have told him to do
2. it was done so subconsciously based on influences outside of the objective points.
3. what one calls A etc, is not a point but a range of points or the 'edge' is not an edge but a series of 'edges'
In the 5 shots video Stan made a reference to the INNER EDGE. That would imply that there is at least 3 'edges', the inner edge, the actual edge, & the outer edge.
If the points of A, B, & C also have 3 such parts of inner, actual, & outer then the system has much variation & one could say that I used CTE & ET X & then get a whole array of different angled outcomes.
But that would certainly not be what I or I think any logical rational individual would call objective because one individual's 'inner' would be different from the next individual's 'inner'.
100 or 1,000 individuals could have success with something & that something could STILL not be described properly as to what it really & actually is.
I NOT attacking anyone. I just disagree with how CTE is being 'defined' & I am pointing out the reason that I disagree & those reasons are certainly within the sciences of geometry & physics & within the definitions of the actual words used.
I guess I am going to have to paint out the in the shy hypothetical again.
Place yourself up in the big blue sky with a cue ball & an object.
Align yourself so that you see the Center of the cue ball aligned to the Edge of the object ball along with seeing the Edge of the cue ball aligned to the either one of A, B , or C. Now fall into that line with a one half tip offset to whatever side you wish. Now pivot to the center of the cue ball. Shoot the Cue Ball into the Object Ball & the Object Ball will shoot off at given angle.
Do it exactly the same again. What angle would you get? The same angle?
Do it exactly the same again. What angle would you get? The same angle?
Do it exactly the same again. What angle would you get? The same angle?
The answer is YES, YES, & YES. You would get the exact same angle.
The reason is because there are no pockets & no rails & no conscious desire or intention to get any other angle than what the OBJECTIVES of CTE & ETX with the exact same offset & exact same pivot would result in yielding.
So... If one says that they are doing the exact same thing & are getting a different result then SOMETHING THAT IS NON OBJECTIVE MUST HAVE INFLUENCED SOMETHING TO OCCUR DIFFERENTLY and....
whatever influenced the difference is NOT OBJECTIVE.
At least that is how I see it & I think anyone with an ounce of logic & rationality would see it.
AND they would not even have to know anything about geometry, nor physics, nor pool.
You either understand this or you don't. Fanatics very often overlook the shortcomings of what they are fanatic about.
Does CTE work? YES but IMO not as described.
Others say it works just as describe.
Every individual can decide for themselves & should do so.
Merry Christmas to ALL & to ALL a Good Night.
I think anyone that passed basic geometry can make an appropriate determination.
If the bridge placement is the same & the the line is the same & the pivot is the same then the outcome must be the same, unless there is an outside influence that affects the outcome.
If the line is determined by objectively looking at the Center to Edge along with the Edge to the Point of A, B, or C at the same time then that puts the shooter on ONE line & One Line Only. So...if the bridge placement is placed down based on that line & at the same distance from the Cue Ball & the Pivot is the exact same, then there is only one outcome angle.
If any of that is changed for any reason then it is done so either,
1. because the shooter changed it on purpose in violation of what the objective visuals should have told him to do
2. it was done so subconsciously based on influences outside of the objective points.
3. what one calls A etc, is not a point but a range of points or the 'edge' is not an edge but a series of 'edges'
In the 5 shots video Stan made a reference to the INNER EDGE. That would imply that there is at least 3 'edges', the inner edge, the actual edge, & the outer edge.
If the points of A, B, & C also have 3 such parts of inner, actual, & outer then the system has much variation & one could say that I used CTE & ET X & then get a whole array of different angled outcomes.
But that would certainly not be what I or I think any logical rational individual would call objective because one individual's 'inner' would be different from the next individual's 'inner'.
100 or 1,000 individuals could have success with something & that something could STILL not be described properly as to what it really & actually is.
I NOT attacking anyone. I just disagree with how CTE is being 'defined' & I am pointing out the reason that I disagree & those reasons are certainly within the sciences of geometry & physics & within the definitions of the actual words used.
I guess I am going to have to paint out the in the shy hypothetical again.
Place yourself up in the big blue sky with a cue ball & an object.
Align yourself so that you see the Center of the cue ball aligned to the Edge of the object ball along with seeing the Edge of the cue ball aligned to the either one of A, B , or C. Now fall into that line with a one half tip offset to whatever side you wish. Now pivot to the center of the cue ball. Shoot the Cue Ball into the Object Ball & the Object Ball will shoot off at given angle.
Do it exactly the same again. What angle would you get? The same angle?
Do it exactly the same again. What angle would you get? The same angle?
Do it exactly the same again. What angle would you get? The same angle?
The answer is YES, YES, & YES. You would get the exact same angle.
The reason is because there are no pockets & no rails & no conscious desire or intention to get any other angle than what the OBJECTIVES of CTE & ETX with the exact same offset & exact same pivot would result in yielding.
So... If one says that they are doing the exact same thing & are getting a different result then SOMETHING THAT IS NON OBJECTIVE MUST HAVE INFLUENCED SOMETHING TO OCCUR DIFFERENTLY and....
whatever influenced the difference is NOT OBJECTIVE.
At least that is how I see it & I think anyone with an ounce of logic & rationality would see it.
AND they would not even have to know anything about geometry, nor physics, nor pool.
You either understand this or you don't. Fanatics very often overlook the shortcomings of what they are fanatic about.
Does CTE work? YES but IMO not as described.
Others say it works just as describe.
Every individual can decide for themselves & should do so.
Merry Christmas to ALL & to ALL a Good Night.
Last edited:
To make a false & fake 'quote' like that simply shows... well those that know, know what it shows.
I'm Sorry for you that you don't seem to know.
All rubbish Rick. Only showcases what you have said repeatedly...you have no desire to learn it. Proof is in the same questions that you keep on asking. Such as the inside edge. That was explained to you, and shown to you that you don't have a clue what you are talking about, yet, here you are again saying the exact same nonsense. Even when explained clearly to you, you refuse to even learn enough to not look "gifted".
Why skip over everything else, why shrug off your support of CJ even while saying you can't get it to work the way he describes? You talk of science and geometry, yet you show you know nothing about them. The first rule of science is to look at all the evidence. You fail to even do that. All you do is nitpick the same old things over and over no matter how many times you are shown you are wrong. You aren't even correct in your basic premises! So why even mention science? Just to try and make it look like you know what you are talking about when you don't have a clue?
Even you talking about "objectivity" is a joke, because you show just by your example that you don't even know what it is in relation to the system, or what is objective that is being claimed as objective.
You see Anthony, the only one calling every step of it the same are those that can't or refuse to use it. Those that do use it have repeatedly stated that the visuals are the same for each of the shots. And, they are. But, the visuals are not the entire system. You also have perception. From the chosen perception, there is only one place to get the correct visuals. There are several perceptions one can use for any given set-up of ball positions. What perception you choose is from experience and, quite frankly, just plain old common sense.
What you are calling "lineup" is actually the visuals. Your a, b, or c line and center to edge. Your perception is something totally different, and not to be confused with the visuals. Anyone that actually uses the system knows this as a basic component. Your perception is where you are standing when you get your visuals. And is what allows you to use the exact same visuals for each of the shots with different outcomes in the shots.
Look at it this way, your perception puts you on a rough line, your visuals put you onto the exact line.
Your perception is nothing more than, "where should I roughly stand to accomplish the shot I want to?"
You are correct in that if one uses the same perception, and the same visuals, you will get the exact same outcome. No users have claimed otherwise.In fact, that's the beauty of the system! It's the lack of understanding of how to use the system by you and others that causes the problems.
Your visuals may stay the same on numerous shots, but your perception of the shot does not.
You say having a different perception is a bad idea. Why is that? You do it on every single shot you shoot or ever have shot. So, what is bad about it?
Last edited:
Or I was just pointing out how much of a hypocrite you are.
In other words it's okay for you to not get on CJ's case because you aren't as experienced as he is with TOI, yet you feel you're entitled to ridicule Stan about CTE despite the fact you are even less knowledgeable about CTE.
Hope I spelled that out well enough for you to comprehend.
Neil,
It is very obvious to me & I am fairly sure that most everyone other than a couple or a few 'FANS' of CTE, including most all of the non members can plainly see that you are extremely more 'gifted' than me.
I am also rather sure that they can see the diversion tactics & the refusal of such like yourself to logically discuss the matters at hand but instead make personal 'attacks' on anyone that does not agree with you.
May God Bless You, Neil
More rubbish! I have made no personal attacks, unlike you, and I have been logical, where you haven't even begun to be logical. All see that. So, for you to even post what you just did is nothing more than a personal attack on me because you cannot refute logically anything that I have said. You can't, because you have zero knowledge base from which to do so. You have yet to even answer one question, or refute one thing I have stated. Yet, you say you want a discussion. So far from the truth, as usual with you. You only want to make false claims about that which you know nothing. You aren't here to discuss anything, only to cause turmoil.
TOI works as CJ says it does. It is a dynamic method & CJ has never said that it is a 100% totally objective method. On the contrary CJ has said numerous times that one needs to calibrate it often if not every time. TOI is not a strict mechanical method.
Just because I do not agree with the description that Stan applies to CTE is in no way a ridicule of Stan.
You & a couple of others can try to slant & twist & distort my position as much as you like & enjoy doing so. It does not make what you say truthful.
Do you know that you so very often repeat what Neil has already said but just in slightly different manner sometimes using slightly different words?
Why don't post something of substance to prove or at least support that CTE is a 100% totally objective system instead of attacking me for putting up what I think & why I think it?
I have my opinion on why that is.
I've been advised in PM that it is pointless to attempt to have a rational discussion of the parameters of CTE here on AZB & that it is a waste of time to attempt to do so.
I've found that to be the case.
CTE is what it is.
Every individual interested should determine for themselves just what that is.
I'd suggest that anyone interested look at the YouTube videos &/or buy the DVD & make your own decisions.
Merry Christmas.
PS I have also been advised by AZB personnel that I should place Neil on my Ignore List or words to that effect & it seems like sound advice & perhaps not just for me.
I've found that to be the case.
CTE is what it is.
Every individual interested should determine for themselves just what that is.
I'd suggest that anyone interested look at the YouTube videos &/or buy the DVD & make your own decisions.
Merry Christmas.
PS I have also been advised by AZB personnel that I should place Neil on my Ignore List or words to that effect & it seems like sound advice & perhaps not just for me.
Last edited:
Last one before the I-list.
Neil, I doubt you would know The Truth if He walked up to you & kissed you on the forehead.
So much for the "discussion". Just shows you never did want to discuss anything. But, I agree wholeheartedly that you should stay out of any CTE discussions. At least until you at least have an inkling of a desire to learn something about it.
- Status