Why CTE is so controversial

mohrt said:

That is a broad question, but I'll try to break it down.
When it comes to executing a specific CTE perception to pocket a ball, to me the execution is quite robotic. That is, I use CBE to a specific place on the OB, combined with CTEL, from there move in to CCB, and then pivot R or L (or sweep) to CCB from full stance. I can explain to someone at a table, step by step, how to execute this process and end up on the shot line if they do everything correctly. At a table it's also to easier to examine and correct issues a newcomer might have. And of course, human error is always a factor.
So no with that out of the way... of course there are the same subjective elements of the game of pool that accompany CTE. For instance, you have to choose the correct perception. With experience this becomes pretty much automatic. However if you do choose an incorrect one, once you are on the shot line its usually obvious that you are going to miss. So then you stand up and start again, probably picking the next perception. So, this is a component of CTE that requires some experience: choosing the perception.
Then there are all the other elements of the game: table cloth speed, humidity, cleanliness of the balls, dead rails, table levelness, how hard/soft to hit a bank, where you want the CB to end up, closeness of the balls, throw/stun effect of certain situations, etc etc etc. All these elements come into play along side aiming. CTE is not a magic bullet to compensate for all of these things I listed. But, I think it is already quite clear, no? It's an aiming system after all. CTE gives you the shot line and gives it to you accurately, depending on your execution fundamentals of course. None of us are perfect, none of us make every shot. The human error element is what makes pool a game.
Now on another topic, the crux of your issue with CTE that you always exemplify with the 5-shot video. You are completely hung up on the perconceived notion that applying a specific perception to a shot CANNOT end in slightly differing physical alignments depending on CB/OB table position. Well I'm here to tell ya something. "perception" does not mean "specific angle" or "specific physical alignment". It doesn't work that way. Now I wish I could explain why our eyes, when using CTE perceptions correctly (!!!) give us slightly different alignments when CB/OB placement change. But IT DOES (OMG NO, CANT BE! SCIENCE!). It's not about science. It's about human perception. How our eyes work given CTE perceptions when we look at these spheres sitting on a rectangular surface.
Here is an example. I can take a shot that is exactly 30 degree shot to the pocket. This is very likely going to be a B-inside perception. Now, I can take these two balls and laterally shift them maybe 3 inches (and assuming still a B-inside) so that now, according to your science, the same B-inside perception will miss the pocket with a 3 inch shift. But that's not what happens. The ball still goes to the center of the pocket. It all starts at ball address. When we use the 30 perception to line up CBE to B, *this physical alignment will slightly, almost inconceivably* differ from the shot 3 inches over. This "phenomena" can also be directly observed by aligning a perception, observing, the moving the balls over slightly, aligning the same perception, observing, and noticing slight differences in physical alignment. I'll also put out there: it is also possible to FORCE yourself to align the same physically every time. But that is not CTE, those are not CTE perceptions. Maybe that is what you are doing all along. *shrug*
So if you are willing to have civil discussion around this, maybe we could. If you are going to continue to press on that this could never work, We CTE users must be guessing, etc. and you are not willing to experience the process for yourself, then we'll just continue to argue the same arguments.

Click to expand...

mohrt said:

Yes it’s like talking to a wall. I’m out until book release. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

mohrt said:

Here is an example. I can take a shot that is exactly 30 degree shot to the pocket. This is very likely going to be a B-inside perception. Now, I can take these two balls and laterally shift them maybe 3 inches (and assuming still a B-inside) so that now, according to your science, the same B-inside perception will miss the pocket with a 3 inch shift. But that's not what happens. The ball still goes to the center of the pocket. It all starts at ball address. When we use the 30 perception to line up CBE to B, *this physical alignment will slightly, almost inconceivably* differ from the shot 3 inches over. This "phenomena" can also be directly observed by aligning a perception, observing, the moving the balls over slightly, aligning the same perception, observing, and noticing slight differences in physical alignment. I'll also put out there: it is also possible to FORCE yourself to align the same physically every time. But that is not CTE, those are not CTE perceptions. Maybe that is what you are doing all along. *shrug*

So if you are willing to have civil discussion around this, maybe we could. If you are going to continue to press on that this could never work, We CTE users must be guessing, etc. and you are not willing to experience the process for yourself, then we'll just continue to argue the same arguments.

Click to expand...

mohrt said:

That is a broad question, but I'll try to break it down.

When it comes to executing a specific CTE perception to pocket a ball, to me the execution is quite robotic. That is, I use CBE to a specific place on the OB, combined with CTEL, from there move in to CCB, and then pivot R or L (or sweep) to CCB from full stance. I can explain to someone at a table, step by step, how to execute this process and end up on the shot line if they do everything correctly. At a table it's also to easier to examine and correct issues a newcomer might have. And of course, human error is always a factor.

So no with that out of the way... of course there are the same subjective elements of the game of pool that accompany CTE. For instance, you have to choose the correct perception. With experience this becomes pretty much automatic. However if you do choose an incorrect one, once you are on the shot line its usually obvious that you are going to miss. So then you stand up and start again, probably picking the next perception. So, this is a component of CTE that requires some experience: choosing the perception.

Then there are all the other elements of the game: table cloth speed, humidity, cleanliness of the balls, dead rails, table levelness, how hard/soft to hit a bank, where you want the CB to end up, closeness of the balls, throw/stun effect of certain situations, etc etc etc. All these elements come into play along side aiming. CTE is not a magic bullet to compensate for all of these things I listed. But, I think it is already quite clear, no? It's an aiming system after all. CTE gives you the shot line and gives it to you accurately, depending on your execution fundamentals of course. None of us are perfect, none of us make every shot. The human error element is what makes pool a game.

Now on another topic, the crux of your issue with CTE that you always exemplify with the 5-shot video. You are completely hung up on the perconceived notion that applying a specific perception to a shot CANNOT end in slightly differing physical alignments depending on CB/OB table position. Well I'm here to tell ya something. "perception" does not mean "specific angle" or "specific physical alignment". It doesn't work that way. Now I wish I could explain why our eyes, when using CTE perceptions correctly (!!!) give us slightly different alignments when CB/OB placement change. But IT DOES (OMG NO, CANT BE! SCIENCE!). It's not about science. It's about human perception. How our eyes work given CTE perceptions when we look at these spheres sitting on a rectangular surface.

Here is an example. I can take a shot that is exactly 30 degree shot to the pocket. This is very likely going to be a B-inside perception. Now, I can take these two balls and laterally shift them maybe 3 inches (and assuming still a B-inside) so that now, according to your science, the same B-inside perception will miss the pocket with a 3 inch shift. But that's not what happens. The ball still goes to the center of the pocket. It all starts at ball address. When we use the 30 perception to line up CBE to B, *this physical alignment will slightly, almost inconceivably* differ from the shot 3 inches over. This "phenomena" can also be directly observed by aligning a perception, observing, the moving the balls over slightly, aligning the same perception, observing, and noticing slight differences in physical alignment. I'll also put out there: it is also possible to FORCE yourself to align the same physically every time. But that is not CTE, those are not CTE perceptions. Maybe that is what you are doing all along. *shrug*

So if you are willing to have civil discussion around this, maybe we could. If you are going to continue to press on that this could never work, We CTE users must be guessing, etc. and you are not willing to experience the process for yourself, then we'll just continue to argue the same arguments.

Click to expand...

Dan White said:

The reason CTE is so controversial is that supporters like you are unwilling to fully engage in the discussion, so I call complete BS on the above. I never say things like "CTE sucks." I say that it does not work as Stan describes it. I do so because I have evidence to the contrary, both in inconsistent statements that Stan makes, and in video analysis. Awhile back I posted video proof that Stan is wrong when he says that CTE trumps CIT and that you don't need to worry about CIT when using CTE. The implications from that video show that many CTE shots simply will not go if hit at the wrong speed. Instead of engaging in the discussion and trying to agree on what we are seeing (and maybe getting Stan to modify what he is saying) what is Monty's reply... it's a red herring and doesn't matter. I will give you credit for suggesting that Stan say more on the matter, however.

https://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6003223&postcount=2

What you don't seem to realize is that almost everything you say points to the idea that you are using CTE perceptions as a starting point and then are adjusting as needed based on where the pocket is. You just said it yourself when you said to move the two balls over three inches and aim again and the ball goes in the pocket. The only difference is that the pocket is at a slightly sharper angle and you can see that as you get down on the shot. So you have it backwards. It is the pocket location that determines how you set up for the shot. You're probably using the 30 degree perception, for example, from a starting position and then as you fudge everything up with sweeps and getting down on the shot you ultimately end up on the shot line. Your subconscious is guiding you into the correct position, which takes months of practice to "click." You could also be making changes in your stroke after getting down the way Stan has done on video. Doesn't matter. My bet is that you're getting on the real shot line as you get down because that's kind of what I do (without getting into it).

Just because you say, "No, I don't do any of that" does not mean you are right. I was 100% sure of what I was doing with the cue on certain shots until I took video of what I was actually doing. I was completely wrong, and amazed. The fact that you won't entertain that notion shows that maybe you are the one unwilling to consider more realistic explanations for how CTE works. Sorry, but there's no magic.

I keep on with this subject because I believe the more precisely you follow the exact CTE steps the worse it will work for you and the more frustrating it becomes. Even you almost gave up until you found a way to MAKE it work. You said it in a different way. You said if you force yourself into the same physical alignment every time than that might be the problem. Yes, that IS the problem because "the eyes lead and the body follows," right? If the eyes are in the exact same spot, which they should be since this is an objective system, then the body will be as well. It is only when you stray from this rigid framework (after months of practice) that it begins to work.

Sorry, but if you want people to respect your opinion and maybe come to an understanding you can't just reply with, "well that doesn't matter" or "you haven't tried it enough."

Click to expand...

duckie said:

gee a drawing would be nice......you know, a picture is worth a thousand words.

So, basically, you learned to “just see the shot” after hours of repetition. Gee how orginal.

Every sighting method gets you on the shot line......they all have to or else they would be useless.

Every shot requires perception regardless of the sighting method used......that’s how balls are made.......the shot looks right, go for it.

Pool is all about execution, doing the shot. No sighting method gets around this. Using cte has nothing special in regards to execution.....doing the shot.

Cte is a anywhere in the pocket sighting method and is not a precesion sighting method like ghostball paths.

But then again, no one knows shit about cte until the book comes out, the truth series is on line. What a joke......

Click to expand...

SpiderWebComm said:

GFY.

Since most of the posts now get deleted there's no sense wasting time in thought, composing, and typing This will be my rubber stamp from here on out and makes the most sense to the SAME stupid questions and responses regarding CTE over the last 10 years on this website alone.

Are you responsible for the deletions with a new behind the scenes position? Me thinks so.

(Btw, before you get your balls in an uproar...GFY is short for - Good For You)

Click to expand...

Dan White said:

Monty please observe the response above when you wonder why CTE has been such a point of contention. The fact is a serious look at what is happening has never been entertained by CTE supporters in this forum. Spider once said on video that he doesn't give a sh!t how CTE works. Fine, but if that is the case then maybe he should not take part in these kinds of conversations among people who ARE interested.

Click to expand...

SpiderWebComm said:

GFY. Dig back into the archives between the years 2012 - 2014 when I, Neil, Stan, Gerry Williams, Stevie Moore, and a host of others who used and knew CTE answered these SAME questions by you and the rest of the gang. THE ANSWERS ARE ALL THERE AND HAVEN'T CHANGED.

Seek and ye shall find.

Click to expand...

SpiderWebComm said:

GFY.

...This will be my rubber stamp from here on out

...(Btw, before you get your balls in an uproar...GFY is short for - Good For You)

Click to expand...

Patrick Johnson said:

I think a pivot (or air pivot or sweep or whatever) is really more of a visualization method than a move - the better a player is with it the harder it is to see.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

Boxcar said:

It's starting to look light the acronym CTE stands for Continuously Talking Esoterically.

Click to expand...

Dan White said:

You're making my point. Instead of addressing the issue you say the issue has already been addressed, which of course it hasn't.

Stan didn't make the video I'm interested in back then. .

Click to expand...

Patrick Johnson said:

lol

Believable as anything else you post, I guess...

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

SpiderWebComm said:

GFY.

Since most of the posts now get deleted there's no sense wasting time in thought, composing, and typing This will be my rubber stamp from here on out and makes the most sense to the SAME stupid questions and responses regarding CTE over the last 10 years on this website alone.

Are you responsible for the deletions with a new behind the scenes position? Me thinks so.

(Btw, before you get your balls in an uproar...GFY is short for - Good For You)

Click to expand...

mohrt said:

Yes it’s like talking to a wall. I’m out until book release. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

ENGLISH! said:

It is comments like THAT that YOU & others want to throw out, but go whining & complaining if such is "bounced" back in your direction.

Yet YOU referred to a "civil" discussion.

Post an essay. Get asked a clarifying question... NOT answered... & then Say Bye until after THE BOOK.

Stan Shuffet has already said that he did NOT go into the WHY at all in THE BOOK.

I seriously doubt if there will be anything in THE BOOK that will modify the Declaration of WHAT & Why it is supposed to be.

However, Like Dennis Miller always says, I could be wrong... about that.

However... if there is... it would have been beneficial to also put it out here ASAP. We have been waiting for THE BOOK for how many years?

Best Wishes to All.

Click to expand...

Dan White said:

The reason CTE is so controversial is that supporters like you are unwilling to fully engage in the discussion, so I call complete BS on the above. I never say things like "CTE sucks." I say that it does not work as Stan describes it. I do so because I have evidence to the contrary, both in inconsistent statements that Stan makes, and in video analysis. Awhile back I posted video proof that Stan is wrong when he says that CTE trumps CIT and that you don't need to worry about CIT when using CTE. The implications from that video show that many CTE shots simply will not go if hit at the wrong speed. Instead of engaging in the discussion and trying to agree on what we are seeing (and maybe getting Stan to modify what he is saying) what is Monty's reply... it's a red herring and doesn't matter. I will give you credit for suggesting that Stan say more on the matter, however.

https://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6003223&postcount=2

What you don't seem to realize is that almost everything you say points to the idea that you are using CTE perceptions as a starting point and then are adjusting as needed based on where the pocket is. You just said it yourself when you said to move the two balls over three inches and aim again and the ball goes in the pocket. The only difference is that the pocket is at a slightly sharper angle and you can see that as you get down on the shot. So you have it backwards. It is the pocket location that determines how you set up for the shot. You're probably using the 30 degree perception, for example, from a starting position and then as you fudge everything up with sweeps and getting down on the shot you ultimately end up on the shot line. Your subconscious is guiding you into the correct position, which takes months of practice to "click." You could also be making changes in your stroke after getting down the way Stan has done on video. Doesn't matter. My bet is that you're getting on the real shot line as you get down because that's kind of what I do (without getting into it).

Just because you say, "No, I don't do any of that" does not mean you are right. I was 100% sure of what I was doing with the cue on certain shots until I took video of what I was actually doing. I was completely wrong, and amazed. The fact that you won't entertain that notion shows that maybe you are the one unwilling to consider more realistic explanations for how CTE works. Sorry, but there's no magic.

I keep on with this subject because I believe the more precisely you follow the exact CTE steps the worse it will work for you and the more frustrating it becomes. Even you almost gave up until you found a way to MAKE it work. You said it in a different way. You said if you force yourself into the same physical alignment every time than that might be the problem. Yes, that IS the problem because "the eyes lead and the body follows," right? If the eyes are in the exact same spot, which they should be since this is an objective system, then the body will be as well. It is only when you stray from this rigid framework (after months of practice) that it begins to work.

Sorry, but if you want people to respect your opinion and maybe come to an understanding you can't just reply with, "well that doesn't matter" or "you haven't tried it enough."

Click to expand...

Dan White said:

Monty please observe the response above when you wonder why CTE has been such a point of contention. The fact is a serious look at what is happening has never been entertained by CTE supporters in this forum. Spider once said on video that he doesn't give a sh!t how CTE works. Fine, but if that is the case then maybe he should not take part in these kinds of conversations among people who ARE interested.

Click to expand...