That's some bunny-boiling level of crazyness. I guess caution is adviced on this sub forum.
Nice and quiet...
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
That's some bunny-boiling level of crazyness. I guess caution is adviced on this sub forum.
oh no.
That was in the Main Forum though he frequents this neighborhood too.
Lou Figueroa
I not going to
be ignored, Lou
Come on, Lou... I've just never seen windows with those types of locks! No biggie. Lol:wink:
Hell, I could give you 20 to 26 in the alphabet in a spelling bee! j/k It wasn't obvious at all. I'm sure many people think it is supposed to be "metered," which is the reason I pointed it out.
So you heard about me most likely from guys like Spider and cookie. I'm no different in the straight pool forum than I am here. It's just that there are far fewer controversial subjects over there. It seems you have a skewed view of my involvement here. I'll give you my take on the problem when I have a little more time and then maybe you can weigh both "sides" and see if you still think I have horns.
OK, I spent some time thinking how to best respond to this without writing a novel that probably wouldn't change any minds anyway. In a nutshell, some people love CTE Pro1 and swear by it. Stan explains how it is supposed to work, but video analysis of Stan shooting shows that his explanations are often dubious (BTW, Stan was kind enough to label me "Dubious Dan." When he realized I liked the nickname he came back with two or three really nasty ones, but I digress). So for me it's an interesting problem to study. Stan calls it "a mystery that was never supposed to be." That, of course, is the reference to the method working because the table has 2x1 dimensions. But, in the end, some people play well with it and I am happy that they are satisfied. I've often said that I wish Stan's system worked objectively and that every shot was the same as a straight in. I'd buy the first 10 books from Stan and give them out. It's not about any kind of grudge or ego thing. Look at my posts back in time and I've often said things like this.
There are a great many unproven and unanswered claims swirling around CTE Pro1. By "unanswered" I mean a real answer and not "it's been explained to you a dozen times already," or "you don't know anything because you haven't put in the table time," or "go back 5 years and you'll find the answer," and so on. I'm talking about an answer that would pass mustard (threw that in there so you could correct me, :wink
at an engineering firm. In other words, a real answer. The more recent one (like for the last three years) is that it will be explained in the upcoming book. OK, but if the answer is known do we really have to wait another year (?) for a book?How to illustrate? I more or less at random picked a few comments made in the last few days. These are interesting questions and none have been answered. I don't obsess over these things, I don't post here every day, but I am interested in the whole controversy and would ultimately like to see both sides agree on what is really going on. In order for that to happen, both sides need to make an honest effort and I don't think that is happening.
Now on to some examples:
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6425854&postcount=255
morht seems to be saying that all of his shots track to center pocket, allowing for small stroke inaccuracies. In the post above, Brian points out the ramifications if that were true. So question for Sean: Do you think CTE automatically puts the ball in center pocket for the whole range of shots, sharper and sharper, until you have to switch over to the next perception?
Next,
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546&highlight=throw
I posted this a long time ago but it still goes unanswered. It is self-explanatory but to recap: Stan does not realize that the ball is throwing a very significant amount, enough that many shots will be missed if hit at the wrong speed. What do you think?
In a related topic, Stan answered my post above by shimming the pockets and demonstrating that he could pocket balls using CTE. I'm the nitpicker in the video, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiwvH_3A7pY
Two things wrong with this. It is supposed to refute the idea that the ball throws at different speeds. Problem 1: In the video where Stan's ball does throw, it is clear that he is fixated on assuring identical strokes with every shot. I believe he lost sight of where in the pocket the ball was actually going, so it went where it should, depending on the shot speed. In the shimmed pocket video, the cat is already out of the bag. If the test subject, Stan in this case, knows what the outcome is supposed to be, it is an invalid test. Meaningless. If you have any background in science this is a 101 level concept. Problem 2: The whole video is a straw man argument. He says that my complaint was that the ob did not go perfectly in the center of the pocket. Stan says that the eyes can pick out the exact spot to hit, but the body has physical limitations and cannot execute perfectly, but can execute to a professional level. This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. The balls in my video did not go center pocket because of throw. I made the point that the throw effect happens twice almost exactly the same because Stan is a high level player. See the difference? It's another non-answer.
Last one,
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6425052&postcount=189
I don't know anything about DTL other than his name is Duke, he shoots damn good straight pool, and he believes his aiming system won't work on a table that is not 2x1. Here's a kind of wise-guy question but I want to make sure I understand what you guys really mean with the 2x1 table stuff: Put the cb on the head spot and the ob at center table, about a half ball hit. Cut the ob in the far right pocket using CTE on a 2x1 table. OK, now set up the balls again but before you get down to shoot I'm going to take a circular saw and lop off 6 inches from the playing surface from head rail to foot rail on the left side of the table. Now you have a 2.3x1 ratio table. Using CTE go ahead and shoot this shot again. What will happen (and don't tell me the table will fall over, lol)?
So these are the kinds of things that interest me. I spent a fair amount of time here trying to explain my point of view in a concise way because I think my involvement in this forum has been unfairly characterized. I'm hoping this gives you a better idea of my motivation, and that you will give some thought to these kinds of questions.
Dan,
Here's the deal.
As someone that has used and may continue to use CTE from time to time. I do believe it is a subjective system, and I think your questions (at one time) were fair.
However, to say they haven't been answered isn't true. The issue that you (and others) have is that the answers haven't been to your liking.
That doesn't mean the answers are right, but the CTE folk aren't trying to mislead you. They simply answered your questions to the best of their ability. If you aren't satisfied with the answers, then asking over and over again won't change that.
Here's the deal.
As someone that has used and may continue to use CTE from time to time. I do believe it is a subjective system, and I think your questions (at one time) were fair.
However, to say they haven't been answered isn't true. The issue that you (and others) have is that the answers haven't been to your liking.
That doesn't mean the answers are right, but the CTE folk aren't trying to mislead you. They simply answered your questions to the best of their ability. If you aren't satisfied with the answers, then asking over and over again won't change that.
I disagree. These things have been given vague, half-hearted treatment in the past, at best. I appreciate where you are coming from, and that you came to what I think is a rational conclusion about subjectivity. Let's look at that link I provided about throw from nearly 2 years ago, here:
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546&highlight=throw
I'll try to paraphrase and distill the responses from CTE users as best I can:
mohrt's reply: throw exists but overcut is a red herring... I don't think about throw. Maybe Stan can clarify about overcut. (never happened)
mohrt's 2nd reply: refers to Stan's second video that is a straw man and irrelevant.
Beiber's reply: a wise crack (presumably before you came over to the dark side).
Neil's reply: blah blah blah (literally that's what he said) more ridicule.
greyghost's reply: sarcasm (in his case I'll give him a break because he's a trip).
sixpack's reply: interesting but a red herring... doesn't really matter.
That it. So do you consider these to be 6 "answers" to my presentation? To me they look more like attacks and attempts to minimize the findings. Mohrt came close when he thought Stan should clarify, but sadly the clarification came in the form of another video (already discussed) that almost intentionally seems to muddy the waters with straw man arguments.
So you say they are not being misleading, but what do you call it when everybody seems afraid to admit the obvious?
What is your opinion? Stan says that balls do not throw at different speeds when using CTE Pro1. Do you agree? Oh, and it just isn't that they throw the same amount. He says they don't throw AT ALL. At slow speeds there isn't enough friction "built up" and at fast speeds the contact time is too fast for there to be throw to adjust for.
If I walk up to a guy and ask him, "How much is 4 + 4?" and he answers, "9" then as a person with an elementary understanding of mathematics, it wouldn't be unusual for me to question his answer. He may genuinely believe that his answer is correct, but a belief is rarely substantial to the test of universal truth. Beliefs can lead to truths, but they must first be subjected to intense, open, honest and often aggravated scrutiny.
Just because our country believed in and thrived on the institution of slavery in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, didn't make slavery right. Wars have been fought in search of the truth. We are adult enough to know that CTE is just another fart in the whirlwinds of time. To be afraid to subject it to tireless, systematic, and ethical scrutiny, is to admit in advance that it has little merit and can not stand up to the tests of time.
The tragedy is that the twenty year old debate on the topic of CTE has been argued by constituents unable to divorce emotion from reason. Zealots rarely make honorable, rational arbiters. To expect that just because a question is asked and an answer is given can, by and of itself, yield a conclusion is at best imprudent and at the worst, completely unrealistic.
Dan:
Much like you did these huge snips of my posts, and only quoted/answered one sentence, I'm going to do the same. My answer to the above is "I don't care."
You are trying to engage me in yet another aiming system soiree, when I have made it clear -- in another reply to you -- that these days, I don't care about aiming systems anymore. Rationale: 1.) I've come to accept that aiming systems are useful for people who unlike me, cannot use the traditional ghostball, CP-to-CP, fractional, or back-of-ball methods. They obviously work, because folks like Tyler Styer (as just one example) prove it through execution. 2.) I don't NEED to understand an aiming system that doesn't "jive" with me. My issue is getting time on the table, not what's in my head. 3.) That all this banter and analysis of aiming systems is just tilting at windmills. For all the time you guys spend analyzing, "discussing," bantering, arguing, etc., if you spent that same amount of time at the table, boy-oh-boy I think you'd start to see the improvement in play that you seek. Having full-time jobs as an information security consultant during the week and as an arborist on the weekends, I don't have time to be "armchair experting" (yes, I intentionally used that word as a verb to show the silliness) on topics that would more quickly be answered by purchasing Stan's product or seeking personal instruction. You want the answer that badly? Pony up. This is the pool world -- do as what other people do and open your wallet when you want to learn something.
And about that "name" thing I mentioned in a previous post, here's the thing to help drive my point home. When I go to a pool event, say, SBE/SBX, I can comfortably mix with any crowd, including CTE'ers, and get along famously. People appreciate seeing and spending time with me. Can you say the same?
-Sean
Not sure what's wrong with that. I try to include only those portions I am responding to for clarity.
Like I said in the post above, my purpose was to inform you of my point of view on the subject directly, rather than you hearing what a horrible person I must be from what I consider nut jobs on this particular subject. I was not intentionally trying to rope you into something you don't care to discuss. Maybe I should not have asked you to answer those questions. Again, I surmise that you may agree with at least some of my points and therefore might realize that your impression of my involvement is skewed. Maybe that's why you were shocked when you heard those things about me. There's not much else to say.
Not sure what the name thing is but I don't hate anybody and I rarely hold a grudge. I'd be perfectly happy hanging out with Stan as it has never been a personal thing for me (until it got personal a few times). I'm actually online friends with a number of people who pretty much hate each other, lol.
I think I nearly met you at an SBE years ago. I had just met Steve K and his wife at the straight pool table and hung out there for awhile. I left to go home and on my way out a guy I think was you passed me. I was going to introduce myself but you were moving kind of fast and I was headed out anyway.
I agree 100% about playing more pool, which is what i have been doing the last couple of months. I don't post much here now except the last few days. Believe me, aiming is the least of my issues. I am just interested in the subject and the answers. If you are not, then that is your choice not to care.
I'm a lawn nut but have been learning more about trees. I had 10 evergreens put in the yard 5 years ago. I also managed to grow a giant sequoia here in NJ. Two of them. They made it to about 2' tall before succumbing. Oh well, I tried.
That was it, right there. If you put my name in there, you're asking me directly to answer those questions, when I made it clear I'm not interested in digging into the guts of an aiming system that I don't even use.
No, that's not it. It's more the impression I had that you didn't strike me as the red pill type on such an inflammatory topic as aiming systems. You don't find very many straight poolers whiling away their day on forums "discussing" aiming systems. The reasons are clear: straight pool is a game of the subconscious, because you're dealing with patterns and have your conscious mind so engaged on patterns, that you *have* to have your fundamentals (which include aiming) pushed into your subconscious. I find that rotation players and 8-ballers by and large make up the majority of the aiming system enthusiasts. This is obviously due to the periodic "rest" their conscious minds get between racks, because the rack is over, the scoring bead has been slid over, and they are ready to break the next rack a-new. These "consecutive self-standing games" give their minds a natural reset and rest period. That is not the case with 14.1, as it is one continuous game.
That's why I say I was surprised to hear your name in amongst the handful of "the controversials," because I thought as a straight pooler you weren't of the "conscious mind enabled at all times" type to get mired in aiming systems.
So am I. If you looked at my friend list on social media, you'd find people from all walks of life, all biases / persuasions, all political biases (and some hard-line extremists from both sides of the aisle), etc. And that's by design. I don't believe in "echo chambers." Some of my centrist beliefs get me in trouble from both sides of the aisle, due to the extremist nature of people these days -- "you are either one of us, or one of 'them'."
The problem is perception though. I'm constantly checking myself at the door. I think you may have an issue with this, because it's not just the people that you think are "CTE extremists" who put your name on that list, but also some pretty moderate people who lurk but don't post in this subforum. When I see folks like that mention your name, I perk up.
If I recall, I was helping out at the 14.1 Challenge booth (scoring, etc.) and also running errands while not actually scoring at a table. I was also competing in the SBE events (amateur open, one pocket), so I could've been running to my next match, or maybe to go get something (food, drink) for someone in the booth. I'm not sure. In any case, I'm always up for meeting new people, especially names that I might be familiar with online.
That may be the case now, but it wasn't the case some time ago when you were extremely active in going back and forth with aiming system advocates, almost ENGLISH-like. To be fair, I don't hear your name much anymore, and this may be the "era" you think your name represents. The problem is that people have long memories when it comes to stuff like that. You can't just push behavior like that under the rug just because you don't do it anymore.
Along with the usual tree surgery work I do (complete takedowns and removals, chipping and stump-grinding, pruning / beautifying, etc.), there's also the conservation work, i.e. combating the pests like the Emerald Ash Borer beetle that is destroying North America's ash trees -- injecting trees with pesticides, etc. It's a labor of love, and keeps me fit as I near my mid-50s (especially climbing -- that is a young man's job, but I've managed not to let go of it).
If you can, give it another shot at growing the giant sequoia. I've heard success out in NJ from other folks, so it's not a climate issue.
-Sean
Kind of an interesting thought. That doesn't mean that I cannot find the controversy an interesting topic.
Got it.
I try to stick to the facts. Like someone else said, if people want to believe that 4+4=9 then I can only try to persuade them otherwise in so many ways. After awhile you kind of just have to shrug your shoulders and give up, which is what I did for the most part. Having a strong opinion does not necessarily make someone a partisan and being more neutral does not make someone right. I know that 4+4=8 but if others get by thinking otherwise then fine.
The other issue I spend time on is global warming/climate change. I've been studying it since 1998. I frequently challenge my own thoughts on the matter as it is a complex subject. I often find that the "other side" does not do that.
I can't help how people characterize my position. The truth is in reading the posts and seeing everything in full context. I took a lot of sh!t in those exchanges and I never started the insults. I tried to ignore them but occasionally fired back. It's old news and not worth dissecting other than to say there are always two sides to a story.
I believe the sequoias that survive around here are of the Hazel Smith variety or cultivar (whatever the term is) and these were just seeds I had from a trip to California about 40 years prior! I think botrytis fungi does them in.
The only reason an "aiming forum" was created was to quarantine all the CTE cult nonsense. It's a small topic without that.
pj
chgo