CTE Trumps CIT

[BC21]

LOL. Classic example of a straw man argument. NOBODY has argued the point that if the ball is offline from center pocket by 2 millimeters then the system is flawed. Why doesn't Stan talk about the reality on video 1? Why does the ball throw by a good inch? (That's 25.4 millimeters, not 1 or 2).

I really wish you would stop making good points, because when I agree it makes me look like a CTE hater.

Once again the angles are thick enough to allow for a constant amount of throw, which is actually what you and I were questioning -- how a player accounts for different amounts of CIT, not nit-picking whether or not the ball goes center pocket. But this video does back up something I've said many times......Stan is great shot maker.

 

[One Pocket John]

One more

https://youtu.be/RiwvH_3A7pY

Thanks for the link Mohrt.
Stan does drive home a good point in this demonstration of CTE.

I have been using CP2CP for almost 50 years and before that I used what some would call the Overlap system for pocketing balls.

I have Stan's DVD2 and have watched all of his videos (probably goes back two years). Today I use CTE to help me get back in line with CP2CP problem shots.

I like CTE. Would I ever use it all the time, probably not, I like my CP2CP system, I'm comfortable with it.

Stan's going to be coming to St. Louis one of these days to visit with Landon and we are suppose to get together for some one on one. Looking forward to that.

I don't really care about the wording used to describe whats objective and what is subjective. As far as I'm concerned, if something helps you to be better I'm all in on that.

Have a good one.

John

 

[BC21]

That’s never been said, please link to the evidence. CTE’s objective in the sense that you use aim lines and CCB in a consistent repeatable way. CTE is objective in a similar manner that a zero angle shot is objective.

Just a quick search got this....

CTE can't be fine tuned any further with its CCB foundation. It's not like, oh yeah, a little thicker here and a little thinner there.

CTE handles various angles without any adjustment. Again, there's no thicker or thinnner necessary to get the job done.

Sure, CTEers are already doing it and anyone can do it, .but that does not mean that they grasp all that's happening at this time.

Stan Shuffett

Sure sounds like he's saying no judgement or adjustments or augmentations are ever needed or required.

 

[Neil]

Just a quick search got this....



Sure sounds like he's saying no judgement or adjustments or augmentations are ever needed or required.

That's because you are nitpicking again and adding into what he actually stated.

But since that is what you want to do, you claim your system is objective. Does your system magically eliminate the variables you are claiming are faults with CTE?

 

[One Pocket John]

Every system used is based on what the eyes see and how that information is interpreted.

 

[paultex]

In comparison, Poolology works right out of the box, no tools for assembly required. If you can do simple division then you can make Poolology work on your very first shot. First thing I did was try it on back cuts and I made something like 5 in a row, and not even looking for the pocket.

Ok now wait a minute big boy, I admit you used the word "can", so i get everything from what I say here is null and void.

Forget poolology for a second and imo FOREVER because I take "not aiming" to insane levels of concept, but enough about that shit too, BUT, the same could be said for CTE PRO1 and even more so because Stan offers visual double line reference points, sweeps and stances etc etc, where poolology does not, last time I checked.

You can define quadrants objectively from what I understand, but there's not much else about it really, that helps you actually make the ball.

Stan has also said more than once that CTE isn't going to pocket the balls for you, you have to get on the table and WORK. I know this flies in the face of his other references to point aim and click or I mean SHOOT, but stan is not the best orator either in explanation, but that's no excuse when considering the arguments of objectivety.

So, i concede to you sir but let's keep it fair or I'll make a amendment saying you can't play pool. Got it?

By the way, I don't know much about poolology but I do know quite a bit about Stan's work, so it would be interesting to see how you reply to my poolology ignorance.

Surely you will not go full NEIL on me lol.

 

[BC21]

That's because you are nitpicking again and adding into what he actually stated.

But since that is what you want to do, you claim your system is objective. Does your system magically eliminate the variables you are claiming are faults with CTE?

Nope. There is no magic, and I don't promote it as such. I specifically state in the book that a player must develop a feel for pocketing balls. That's the primary goal of Poolology. The system gives an objective aim point to pocket the ball. Unlike CTE, a good stroke is important, so the objectivity ends at the point where the system becomes dependent on individual skill and experience. No extraordinary claims needed.

 

[Neil]

Nope. There is no magic, and I don't promote it as such. I specifically state in the book that a player must develop a feel for pocketing balls. That's the primary goal of Poolology. The system gives an objective aim point to pocket the ball. Unlike CTE, a good stroke is important, so the objectivity ends at the point where the system becomes dependent on individual skill and experience. No extraordinary claims needed.

And who ever said that a good stroke is not necessary in CTE? In fact just the opposite has been stated many times.

As far as objectivity, your system has the same problem that you claim makes CTE not objective- CIT. You can't claim that it gives you an objective aim point to pocket the ball if you actually have to add feel to make the ball.

Now that is a pretty extrordinary claim on your part.

 

[Snooker Theory]

Any of you read doctor Daves take on cte, ? At least i see why I get so confused.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE

 

[Neil]

Any of you read doctor Daves take on cte, ? At least i see why I get so confused.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE[/QU


If you want accurate info, go to Stan's videos.

 

[Dan White]

Ok now wait a minute big boy, I admit you used the word "can", so i get everything from what I say here is null and void.

Forget poolology for a second and imo FOREVER because I take "not aiming" to insane levels of concept, but enough about that shit too, BUT, the same could be said for CTE PRO1 and even more so because Stan offers visual double line reference points, sweeps and stances etc etc, where poolology does not, last time I checked.

You can define quadrants objectively from what I understand, but there's not much else about it really, that helps you actually make the ball.

Stan has also said more than once that CTE isn't going to pocket the balls for you, you have to get on the table and WORK. I know this flies in the face of his other references to point aim and click or I mean SHOOT, but stan is not the best orator either in explanation, but that's no excuse when considering the arguments of objectivety.

So, i concede to you sir but let's keep it fair or I'll make a amendment saying you can't play pool. Got it?

By the way, I don't know much about poolology but I do know quite a bit about Stan's work, so it would be interesting to see how you reply to my poolology ignorance.

Surely you will not go full NEIL on me lol.

I'm not sure if you were asking me a question or not.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

I don't consider recognizing an overlap depending upon table zones, memorizing said overlaps, then delivering the cb to that overlap objective.

IMHO the only objective part of your processes is the determination of the overlap based on the zones. I don't consider that to be an objective aim point. It is a sight picture based on a fractional overlap that the shooter has to know, recognize and deliver the cb to.

And I am sorry but EVERY aiming system requires a good stroke including CTE. I have been on these forums for nearly a decade, and I cannot remember any CTE proponent stating that a good stroke (accurate and repeatable) is not needed.

Nope. There is no magic, and I don't promote it as such. I specifically state in the book that a player must develop a feel for pocketing balls. That's the primary goal of Poolology. The system gives an objective aim point to pocket the ball. Unlike CTE, a good stroke is important, so the objectivity ends at the point where the system becomes dependent on individual skill and experience. No extraordinary claims needed.

 

[BC21]

You, of all the naysayers, should shut your trap about the word objective. You claim your system is objective, yet has the same issues you find fault with CTE for. You guys are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

Like I said earlier, you people are more concerned with tearing down someone else than building up your own game. And you seem to be doing it to try and get the spotlight off CTE and onto your system. Which as bad as you think Stan is, it makes you look a hundred times worse.

For a guy that came up with a system so difficult or unreliable that he admits he rarely uses it himself, you sure do have a lot to say against another guy that does use his system all the time.

As I've stated numerous times, the objective part of Poolology is getting the aim point. It's math, not guesswork. Math is objective.

And no one is really trying to take a spot light off of CTE. The current version of system has been around for more than 10 years. It has always gotten a fair amount of questions concerning certain claims and the "mysterious phenomena". Trust me, the spot light faded a long a time ago -- the wave of excitement has had 10 years of settling down. If anyone is capitalizing on an opportunity to steal the light, to ride the wave, it's always new ideas and creations that attract the most attention, create the biggest waves. So it stands to reason that older ideas must do their best to ride out the new wave or get left in it's wake.

And, as I've stated dozens of times, Poolology isn't a system that a player has to use on every single shot for their entire pool-playing life. It's a learning tool that leads a player away from being system-dependent. The system is very reliable and not difficult.

 

[BC21]

I don't consider recognizing an overlap depending upon table zones, memorizing said overlaps, then delivering the cb to that overlap objective.

IMHO the only objective part of your processes is the determination of the overlap based on the zones. I don't consider that to be an objective aim point. It is a sight picture based on a fractional overlap that the shooter has to know, recognize and deliver the cb to.

And I am sorry but EVERY aiming system requires a good stroke including CTE. I have been on these forums for nearly a decade, and I cannot remember any CTE proponent stating that a good stroke (accurate and repeatable) is not needed.

I agree 100%. The objective part of my system is the method of determining the aim point. It's math, which is 100% objective.

As far as "recognizing an overlap" being objective, I agree that it's not. It is purely subjective because it relies on a players experience, a player's development of visual skills. The same can be said for recognizing CTE perceptions.

And the only reason I said, "unlike CTE, a good stroke is needed", is because Stan seems to believe that CTE trumps everything, requiring no player judgement or stroke dependency, as stated here:

Your thread is about objectivity and subjectibity. Fractional aiming, no matter how you slice it /is ultimately guess-work. You have suggested off and on that's its one or the other. Well, Close is not what the topic iis about on the objective side of the coin. A system takes the player (visually) to CCB or not and fractions do not do that without an insertion of one's judgement.

As far as your comments about contacting CCB, CTE has noting to do with stroke. CTE yields a visual center. Hitting that center or working with the given center is up to the player and how they want to operate. I like CCB as much much as possible because it's not iffy, but if I need to go off center I can base my spin off of a known center rather than a guessed center.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Snooker Theory]

Dan, what program do you use to do this on your phone???

 

[Dan White]

Dan, what program do you use to do this on your phone???

It's called Coach's Eye and it is for the Android phones. There is something similar for iphones but I've forgotten what that is called. It takes a little playing around with it in order to be able to import/export, upload etc. Works great, though.

 

[Snooker Theory]

It's called Coach's Eye and it is for the Android phones. There is something similar for iphones but I've forgotten what that is called. It takes a little playing around with it in order to be able to import/export, upload etc. Works great, though.

Thank you, I enjoyed the videos you posted btw mate, nice approach not augmentative, thoughtful.
Well the first one in that other thread was kinda messed up(I laughed though), but I mean the others discussing cte.

 

[Dan White]

Thank you, I enjoyed the videos you posted btw mate, nice approach not augmentative, thoughtful.
Well the first one in that other thread was kinda messed up(I laughed though), but I mean the others discussing cte.

Thanks. If you need any help or pointers with Coach's Eye send me a pm.

Sometimes you have to resort to parody when facts don't seem to make a difference. I never insulted the man personally, only questioned some of his ideas. (OK, before the real nitpickers get on board, I have said on rare occasion that Stan must not be a very good teacher because too many people don't understand him, and he often resorts to blaming the student for not understanding, but even that isn't a personal insult).

 

[mohrt]

I agree 100%. The objective part of my system is the method of determining the aim point. It's math, which is 100% objective.



As far as "recognizing an overlap" being objective, I agree that it's not. It is purely subjective because it relies on a players experience, a player's development of visual skills. The same can be said for recognizing CTE perceptions.



And the only reason I said, "unlike CTE, a good stroke is needed", is because Stan seems to believe that CTE trumps everything, requiring no player judgement or stroke dependency, as stated here:

I don’t see where you think that says “no stroke dependency”. CTE takes your eyes to the shot line. It’s up to you to execute the shot from there. Compare CTE to a zero angle shot. Still gonna need stroke and fundamentals.

 

[8pack]

So cte takes you to an over cut everytime ?