CTE PRO ONE Contrast with Quarters System

[tonythetiger583]

Patrick has called out Stan repeatedly over time, here and on other web sites. He apparently likes to be known as a pool technical guru and a man of fact and science. Yet he constantly slanders Stan's work with misinformation when he clearly lacks factual understanding of the system. One way to end that debate is to have the parties meet and let the facts speak for themselves. I'm guessing Stan would gladly throw in more money in that wager.

You tell me. If Patrick is so certain of his "facts", why would he turn down several thousand dollars when offered the chance to prove his credibility with this matter?

This is no different than a pool room. You can sit on the side woofing at someone about their game. But what happens when the guy you're woofing throws a few hundred dollars bills on the table and asks the woofer to step up and give it a go? If the woofer won't ante up, what would your thoughts be? This is a pool forum, seems like this is a perfect way to settle this debate once and for all.

I don't understand what you're asking. Are you asking him to go get paid a thousand dollars to show that he can't learn CTE? (cause that sounds like free money)

Or are you asking him to go stand in a room and after a certain amount of time, simply say that Stan is subconciously aiming each shot.

I honestly don't get how you could prove anything this way.

Add to that, that you've now called Patrick's pride into question, and if he's human at all, that is a great way to convince him to defend his viewpoint with conviction. If he wasn't open to learning before, what makes you think he wants to fly however many miles to somehow try and accept that he's wrong, and give someone a thousand dollars...when the other person realistically hasn't really given any hard proof.

The problem really isn't that CTE isn't objective, it's that people on an individual basis, are subjective. You can't make him see the world your way if he doesn't want to. And you can't prove what's going on in your head.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Are you stating the sweet spot for a golf club or tennis racket is the center of gravity?

Leave me out of your internet spats. I commented on your distinction between the center of gravity and center of mass, not about "sweet spots" for sports equipment, which is an entirely different matter (for tennis racquets it has a lot to do with how the strings are strung, for example).

However, now that you mention it I believe the sweet spot and center of mass/gravity for a club head (the relevant mass on a golf club) are identical to a practical degree.

pj
chgo

 

[nobcitypool]

I don't understand what you're asking. Are you asking him to go get paid a thousand dollars to show that he can't learn CTE? (cause that sounds like free money)

Or are you asking him to go stand in a room and after a certain amount of time, simply say that Stan is subconciously aiming each shot.

I honestly don't get how you could prove anything this way.

Add to that, that you've now called Patrick's pride into question, and if he's human at all, that is a great way to convince him to defend his viewpoint with conviction. If he wasn't open to learning before, what makes you think he wants to fly however many miles to somehow try and accept that he's wrong, and give someone a thousand dollars...when the other person realistically hasn't really given any hard proof.

The problem really isn't that CTE isn't objective, it's that people on an individual basis, are subjective. You can't make him see the world your way if he doesn't want to. And you can't prove what's going on in your head.

According to Patrick, he doesn't need to learn CTE. Just read this thread, I believe his words were something to the effect that Stan would be surprised how well he understands CTE. I can find them and post verbatim if that would be helpful.

Patrick could drive down to Kentucky from Chicago, flying not necessary. Yes, I called his pride (and credibility) into question because he has repeatedly slandered Stan's system and called Stan's pride into question. Stan didn't start this argument with Patrick.

I am not in the least trying to get Patrick to see things my way, Stan's way or any way. I'm simply calling him out for repeatedly representing false information as fact here that is negative towards Stan and his aiming system. I could care less whether or not Patrick sees things my way. I hope not because that means I would also be seeing things his way (and I shudder at the thought). I'm not going to chase Patrick around this forum repeatedly asking him to endorse CTE/Pro One or "to see things my way". I'm simply asking that he sticks to fact, not uneducated unfounded opinion, when he makes his derogatory comments.

 

[tonythetiger583]

So here's an idea:

Make a flat paper cut-out like this image. Attached together to swing on a thumbtack.

This should give a good idea on how pivot aiming works.

You line the arrow up with the edge to edge line, and then you turn the tip of the cue until it points at the center of the cue ball.

Now it's just a matter of understanding that one system has points that lead to a fixed and incorrect alignment that makes us pivot a varying amount to the correct line.

The other has points that lead us to the correct alignment and allows us to pivot by a fixed amount to the correct line.

Note: The thumbtack represent the heel of your foot. Also of note, when you use the cut-out, it's on a fixed point. So, there is only degree of pivot that will allow you to point the cue at the center of the ball. Otherwise you come up short or long.

 

[nobcitypool]

Leave me out of your internet spats. I commented on your distinction between the center of gravity and center of mass, not about "sweet spots" for sports equipment, which is an entirely different matter (for tennis racquets it has a lot to do with how the strings are strung, for example).

However, now that you mention it I believe the sweet spot and center of mass/gravity for a club head (the relevant mass on a golf club) are identical to a practical degree.

pj
chgo

Patrick, perhaps you should check your facts. I didn't bring up the sweet spot center of gravity dispute with you. You brought it up with me. Just check back a couple of posts.

You really do have a problem playing fast and loose with the facts don't you? What does identical to a practical degree mean? Is that scientific jargon for almost? To answer your question, I don't believe the center of gravity and center of mass for most club heads would be close to identical.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick, I'll even add some additional incentive for you. You and I will both post up $500 when we meet at Stans. We'll shoot 20 shots on 1/2 of the table with the curtain hiding the pocket. We'll shoot 20 more full table shots with the curtain hiding 1/2 the table. The one who pockets the most balls wins.

This should prove your point about CTE requiring feel and adjustments. Seriously, how can a banger like me hope to compete with a high level playing scientist like yourself in this type of scenario? How can I adjust CTE with feel when I can't even see the pocket? Obviously, your patented fractional aiming would reign supreme here.

What's your schedule look like Patrick? And as the Commercial goes "What's in your Wallet?"

So you still don't understand that videos of people shooting shots (even Stan ), bets about who can make the most shots (even for hundreds or thousands of dollars ), or any of this internet woofing about those things, has any meaning for the question of whether or not CTE is "objective". I'm not surprised.

Here's a simple test for you: explain clearly and succinctly (you know, like it's objective) how a person gains the "visual intelligence" to make CTE work. If you have to resort to saying things like "it comes with practice and experience", then you've only confirmed that it's done by feel like all other kinds of aiming (which, of course, is the fact)*.

pj
chgo

*P.S. Stating the obvious fact that CTE relies on feel like other methods is not an insult to it (or you or Stan or any CTE user), nor does it invalidate it as a useful method.

 

[nobcitypool]

So here's an idea:

Make a flat paper cut-out like this image. Attached together to swing on a thumbtack.

This should give a good idea on how pivot aiming works.

You line the arrow up with the edge to edge line, and then you turn the tip of the cue until it points at the center of the cue ball.

Now it's just a matter of understanding that one system has points that lead to a fixed and incorrect alignment that makes us pivot a varying amount to the correct line.

The other has points that lead us to the correct alignment and allows us to pivot by a fixed amount to the correct line.

Note: The thumbtack represent the heel of your foot.

Tony, the key to CTE/Pro One and the primary source of disputes has not been pivoting. It has been the visual perceptions and the idea the user uses their pool experience and feel to "adjust" their aim instead of the system being objective. Your idea for the pivoting mechanism is fine but it doesn't serve to resolve the primary issues. I will agree with you however, there has been debates over the pivot. It was discussed with AtLarge and Colin a couple of months ago. Even then, it wasn't fully resolved and the two of them didn't really understand how the bridge hand slides along the perception line to the fixed pivot point and how this offsets varying bridge differences. In general, "I think" we agreed (to an extent - that's a lot of caveats) the varying bridge lengths would have some effect but it was so small that it is irrelevant.

 

[tonythetiger583]

Tony, the key to CTE/Pro One and the primary source of disputes has not been pivoting. It has been the visual perceptions and the idea the user uses their pool experience and feel to "adjust" their aim instead of the system being objective. Your idea for the pivoting mechanism is fine but it doesn't serve to resolve the primary issues. I will agree with you however, there has been debates over the pivot. It was discussed with AtLarge and Colin a couple of months ago. Even then, it wasn't fully resolved and the two of them didn't really understand how the bridge hand slides along the perception line to the fixed pivot point and how this offsets varying bridge differences. In general, "I think" we agreed (to an extent - that's a lot of caveats) the varying bridge lengths would have some effect but it was so small that it is irrelevant.

Why would bridge distance matter? I could understand if you tried to factor it in after you finished pivoting in to center. But based on the cutout, if the bridge length is determined from the beginning, it will adjust how much you pivot.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Patrick, perhaps you should check your facts. I didn't bring up the sweet spot center of gravity dispute with you. You brought it up with me. Just check back a couple of posts.

You really do have a problem playing fast and loose with the facts don't you? What does identical to a practical degree mean? Is that scientific jargon for almost? To answer your question, I don't believe the center of gravity and center of mass for most club heads would be close to identical.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...-between-center-of-mass-and-center-of-gravity

Centre of mass & gravity coincides until they have uniform gravitational field. The time uniform gravitational field is lost we rather consider centre of mass than centre of gravity. However, they're both interchangeable.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...-between-center-of-mass-and-center-of-gravity

 

[nobcitypool]

So you still don't understand that videos of people shooting shots (even Stan ), bets about who can make the most shots (even for hundreds or thousands of dollars ), or any of this internet woofing about those things, has any meaning for the question of whether or not CTE is "objective". I'm not surprised.

Here's a simple test for you: explain clearly and succinctly (you know, like it's objective) how a person gains the "visual intelligence" to make CTE work. If you have to resort to saying things like "it comes with practice and experience", then you've only confirmed that it's done by feel like all other kinds of aiming (which, of course, is the fact)*.

pj
chgo

*P.S. Stating the obvious fact that CTE relies on feel like other methods is not an insult to it (or you or Stan or any CTE user), nor does it invalidate it as a useful method.

I take it you lack the wherewithal to accept the wagers huh? Can't say as I'm surprised.

Patrick, the practice and experience for me was learning how to see the perceptions. From your posts, I can tell you don't know how to see them. At first, try as I may, I couldn't see both at the same time or understand what to do with it when I did. That may have been the result of my own ignorance or just the way my left brain works, I'm just admitting to how it was. At one point, it suddenly snapped into place. I wish I could explain what accomplished that.

My Son, on the other hand, picked it up immediately in a 4 hour lesson with Stevie. He's a right brain type of person. I thought he was full of crap, no way he picked it up that quickly when I struggled for so long. So I got him to a table and tested him. I felt like strangling him when I saw that he indeed had it. Since taking that lesson with Stevie, my Son has gone from an APA 6/6 to a 7/8 in 5 months.

Not surprised that you focus on "practice and experience" wording. Again, all that does is prove you aren't listening and understanding. The vast majority of the time Stan utters those words, he is referring to how practice and experience help the CTE User to recognize the correct perception and pivot to use given the shot. Stan or nobody else has said this system is easy, a walk in the park or anything like that. In fact, just the opposite. Stan has repeatedly said it is a professional approach to aiming and will require a commitment and sustained effort by the User to gain proficiency.

I get better almost daily with my visual intelligence. I used to have to stand there and move my head side to side trying to zone in on CTE, ETA and then seeing the perception line. That got to where I quickly snapped into it. Now, most of the times, I walk up and know what the image of that perception looks like to my visual intelligence and can subsequently just sweep in and pocket the shot. Stan, Stevie and Landon (and I'm sure others) are well beyond that. They know what the image should look like when they're down in shooting position and can even tweek slightly to get it perfect.

I hope that answers your question. So when are you ready to make a few thousand dollars Patrick? You seem to be dodging that. If CTE required feel and it worked for me, I wouldn't be insulted in the least. Why would I care Patrick? The issue is, it doesn't require feel. That is a lie, it simply isn't the case no matter how badly you seem to want it to be.

 

[nobcitypool]

Why would bridge distance matter? I could understand if you tried to factor it in after you finished pivoting in to center. But based on the cutout, if the bridge length is determined from the beginning, it will adjust how much you pivot.

Tony, graph it out and use the tangent of the angle. If that angle were fixed, it does make a difference (a significant difference). However, when you consider the bridge hand slides in on the perception line, that angle varies as the bridge length varies. This is the correcting offset I referred to.

 

[tonythetiger583]

Wait, we weren't arguing about pivot systems?, just CTE?. Well this has been a waste of time. I understand if you question the validity of all pivot aiming, but poking at the most complex one is silly. CTE is a pivot system, and pivot systems work. The fact that visuals might require a longer learning curve should be a non-issue.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The vast majority of the time Stan utters [the words "practice and experience"], he is referring to how practice and experience help the CTE User to recognize the correct perception and pivot to use given the shot.

Of course.

You don't see that "practice and experience help the fractional aimer to recognize the correct perception" is the same thing? Explain the difference.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...pivot systems work.

Depending on what "work" means.

pj <- not Bill Clinton
chgo

 

[nobcitypool]

Of course.

You don't see that "practice and experience help the fractional aimer to recognize the correct perception" is the same thing? Explain the difference.

pj
chgo

Patrick, I understand the fractional aiming system. You obviously don't understand Stan's CTE. Could you explain the theory of relativity to first graders such as they would comprehend it? However, just for you, I'll waste a few more minutes of my time.

How many shots are there on a pool table? Ten million? A billion? I don't know but I believe we can agree on it. With fractional aiming, the shooter needs to recognize which angle to apply. Similarly, CTE Users need to understand which perception and pivot to apply. It takes a certain amount of practice and experience to get to either of those points, the amount varying depending upon the natural talents of the player.

That's where the similarity ends. The fractional aimer now needs more practice and experience to understand how to properly apply feel and subsequently adjust when the cut isn't a perfect fraction. The CTE User sweeps in and makes the shot after having obtained the correct visual and determining the correct pivot. Stan explained that quite succinctly in his recent YouTube video. Sorry, perhaps you overlooked that Patrick.

Let all those Readers know when you want to put your money where your mouth is Patrick. I checked your AZ Technical Credibility Meter and the reading is steadily declining. Perhaps you should go back to the main forum and argue with CJ over TOI and deflection.

 

[nobcitypool]

A Question for You Patrick

These are your documented words Patrick.

First, what I think it is: I think CTE is a "reference" aiming system (very similar in concept to, and in fact an outgrowth of, Hal Houle's old "3-angle" system), that divides all the possible shots into two categories (thinner or fuller than half ball), leaving the final aim adjustment up to you to learn "by feel". I think it adds some suggested "systematic" adjustments, but nobody can seem to describe those, which makes me think they're probably mostly learned by feel too.

Since they're still published and you've obviously made no effort to remove or amend them, we have to conclude you still mean them.

1. Do you think Stan's CTE breaks all shots into two categories, thinner or thicker than a half ball?

2. What systematic adjustments are required Patrick? How would the CTE User go about learning those systematic adjustments?

3. Given these statements, you must have a thorough understanding of how Stan's CTE works. Could you make a video of yourself using it then with emphasis on explaining how you go about getting your perceptions? That should be easy for you since you obviously have such a thorough understanding of Stan's CTE. Otherwise, how else could you make these kinds of statements Patrick?

4. If CTE is merely a feel system, how do you explain my Son improving 2 skill levels in 5 months after having played in APA for over 5 years? He must be feeling pretty good, huh Patrick?

I look forward to your answers and your schedule for traveling to Kentucky to prove your credibility and pick up your cash.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I look forward to your answers and your schedule for traveling to Kentucky to prove your credibility and pick up your cash.

You're trying to make this way too personal. When you can talk about this stuff less combatively (and WAY more reasonably) we might be able to continue.

pj
chgo

 

[nobcitypool]

You're trying to make this way too personal. When you can talk about this stuff less combatively (and WAY more reasonably) we might be able to continue.

pj
chgo

Different story isn't it Patrick when the shoe is on the other foot. You don't think Stan took it personally when you have slandered his work? That hasn't impeded you in the least and you know it. If you're sincere, why don't you prove it by asking Dr Dave to remove your blatantly false statements from his website?

You won't answer the questions because you can't, at least with honest answers that you would like. You won't accept the bet because you absolutely know you'd lose and be proven wrong to everyone at AZ. If you really want to avoid making it too personal Patrick, quit making it personal with your lies and negative posts that are based upon a flawed opinion and have zero validity in fact. You've been exposed Patrick for all the false information you've posted.

 

[ENGLISH!]

..... You've been exposed Patrick for all the false information you've posted.

The only thing that you've exposed is yourself.

 

[Neil]

Of course.

You don't see that "practice and experience help the fractional aimer to recognize the correct perception" is the same thing? Explain the difference.

pj
chgo

Pat, I see where you are coming from, but, bluntly, you are out in left field this time.

1. Stan, and others, have said numerous times that the VISUALS are objective. It can be argued if the perception is objective, but that really is a mute point. Reason being, while one can have the wrong perception of the shot, you really have to be a beginner with zero knowledge of how to play to get the perception wrong. So, practice and experience will help one get the correction perception of the shot to then get the correct visuals.

2. Perception and visuals are two different things.

3. There is zero adjusting once the visuals have been obtained. If you correctly saw the visuals, then the pivot will put you on the shot line. Any adjustment and you will then miss.

4. Yes, the system takes time and experience to learn. That isn't because it is so difficult, but because one must first "empty the cup". That is not so easy to do. Also, because it takes time to learn which visuals you want, and which way to pivot.

5. This system is not really for beginners. The reason being, it is adamant that one has a straight stroke. And deviation from that and you are likely to miss. You can't be steering the cue.

When I first tried it, it didn't come close to working for me. So, I put it on the shelf. The more I saw of it, and the more testimonies I read about it, I decided to give it another go. This time, it worked some of the time, but not enough to change to it.

Again, the more I saw of it, the more I believed there was something there I was missing. So, I did the logical thing to do. I got on a table and set out to prove it one way or the other. Worked a little better, but still no wheres near good enough. But, that fact the it worked at all had me intrigued. So, this time, I went over it step by step, just following the steps as stated, with no attempt to pocket the balls, just to see what would happen.

I was quite shocked at the results! Not what I was expecting at all! When I actually forgot about making the ball, and just followed the steps, I made almost every single ball I tried. Those that I missed, I set back up and shot several more times. I then realized just how bad my "good stroke" really was! The system did work, but I didn't "work" so well!

What I found out that was holding me back from it working was really quite simple. After over 35 years of playing, at first I could not let go of the way I used to aim. That took time to do. It wasn't until I was convinced that the system works that I was finally able to let go of the old way.

And, that is something that MUST be done to have any success. Without that letting go, you will find yourself constantly adjusting between methods which will result in dismal failure. The way CTE shots are aimed is light years different than the old way of aiming. The only thing that comes close is 90/90. What shocked and embarrassed me, was that once I "got it", I then realized that it works exactly as described. Once you understand it, it's really very simple and beautiful. But, until one lets go of the other ways to aim, it won't even make any sense. You cannot combine aspects of any other way of aiming to this method. It stands alone.

I only wish that I could have known this system 30 years ago. One other good aspect of using this system, is that it showed me that my stroke wasn't as accurate repeatedly as I thought it was, and I ended up having to spend a lot of time correcting that.