Why CTE is so controversial

SmokinJoe46 said:

Throughout history, closed mindedness has negatively impacted science.
The right side of the brain needs to be exercised. I for one use too much logic in my approach...

Click to expand...

Low500 said:

Here’s the CTE controversy in a nutshell. Stan Shuffett declared many years ago that CTE resolves THE center cue ball for nearly all shots.
The so-called scientists say that the only center cue ball that can be resolved in pool is for a 100% dead-on zero angle shot to a perfectly marked center pocket. All other shots are essentially cuts that must have a degree of feel for arriving at center cue ball.
The phenomenon of CTE changes the existing aiming paradigm in that nearly all shots can have a defined, objective CCB just like a dead-on straight-in shot. If Stan is correct in his declaration, it changes the game of pool forever in a way that perception will rule over existing science. But today’s "Aiming Police" should have no fear because there will be a day in the future when science will unravel the perceptions of CTE with a huge stamp of approval.

Click to expand...

ENGLISH! said:

While waiting, I went onto YouTube to watch Mr. Shuffett's videos on CTE. I came across His Video on 'Perception' where he had 5 like shots with equal distances between the CBs & Obs lined up across the width of the table parallel to the side rails. He indicated that ALL 5 shot could be made using the same defined 15 visual & the same defined 1/2 tip offset thinning pivot.

My intelligence & science education immediately told me, "NO WAY!". I immediately knew right then & there that Mr. Shuffett's "whatever' was in no way what it was said to be... & that there would be nothing forthcoming to show it to be such.

Click to expand...

Low500 said:

Cookie...I just cannot see why these anti-CTE people don't just leave it alone and stop with the controversy.
I could not care one flip whether or not Brian Crist uses his Poolology, or Patrick Johnson uses his "Lizard Head" movement, or Lou Figueroa complains about everything in the pool rooms he attends. They can aim, shoot, make deals or bets anyway they please.
I am not interested in "saving them from themselves" like most of them seem to try and do to the CTE people.
Yet, it goes on and on and on and on, ad nauseam. All disguised under the charades of "inquiring minds want to know" or "visitors here need to know the truth".
I swear, my man, I just don't get it.
:shrug:

Click to expand...

BigBoof said:

Thanks mohrt. This post is very thoughtful. My own experience with CTE was similar to yours except I had your blog to help answer my questions.

I know I am not using pure Pro One but the ball goes in center pocket more often than before and that is all I care about.

Shots like this go in with confidence. Maybe that shot is easy with any method but it feels like magic to me.

I owe you many thanks.

Click to expand...

BC21 said:

What I find controversial is the terminology, the standard talking points that Hal came up with and Stan simply held on to. I understand why though....If you don't truly understand something, you just stick to repeating how someone else described it.

I don't have a problem with its true lack of objectivity, or the exact workings of the results. I don't care about advertising gimmicks, false advertising, or whatever the "anti-cte" side calls it. It's the whole, "2 × 1 playing surface", and "connects to right angles", that makes me shake my head. The perceptions can be achieved anywhere you can set two balls up and look at them. Stan even says he doesn't have to see the rails/cushions or pockets in order to use the system, which means the balls are the only elements needed to achieve the "perceptions".

I can use it and pocket balls. Objectively, however, strictly in accordance with Stan's instructions, I can't make it work for all shots. Maybe it's because there are specific bridge distances that must be used here and there, or not exactly a half tip pivot here and there. I don't know. But I have always been curious, and curiosity leads to experiments, which leads to questions, which leads to getting caught up in 20yr aiming war that I really don't give a damn about.

Stan is a good guy, a good instructor. Some people use cte and probably play great, though it seems most of these players were already great before. But that doesn't mean it can't improve a non-great player's game. If it works for you then that's awesome. If it doesn't, and you've put in some table time trying to figure it out, move on, unless you wanna invest in a private lesson. It seems that those who've taken a personal lesson from Stan benefit much more than those of us who've spent hours and hours watching YouTube lessons. Like I've said before....maybe there's something that in the past could only be taught in person, and the truth series and upcoming book is designed to make it easier to learn than it has been.

Click to expand...

BC21 said:

Sometimes what people think is "objective" is merely their own subjective bias making it feel like what they are doing is objective. Like juggling. I learned to juggle through practice until my brain was able to make it happen automatically. I feel like I don't estimate or use personal judgment/opinion when I do this, but that doesn't make it objective.

Click to expand...

duckie said:

The issue isn’t CTE. It is certain users and supporters that act out when anything is asked, questioned about how you implement the steps CTE users describe to make shots.

Like, if you understand convergence of the eyes, then how can one eye be used to see one line?

Then there are statements made......like everyone uses CTE subconsciously or it is totally objective.......which your post proves it isn’t.

Or challenging non CTE users to prove something, but when CTE users are challenged, like put your steps on paper, become all whiny.

Certain users and supporters throw temper tantrums, make personal attacks, use naming calling..........all things that bullies do.

Your post for example............naysayers.........name calling.

And since you cant explain how it works, how do you know it works they way you think.......there is the subconscious.

They only reason you made this post was to imply that non CTE users are the cause of the controversy regarding CTE, but in reality, it is the bad behavior of a few CTE users and supporters, which includes you.

Click to expand...

ENGLISH! said:

Hi, Brian.

I think you should know that science can not be circumvented. What can possibly make something that is that "S" word turn into that "O" word?

That is the whole crux of the controversy & the things that you noted that "get you" are the supposed explanations.

ALL Best Wishes for Y'all.

Click to expand...

BC21 said:

We could say that a great hitter in baseball is able to hit the ball anywhere in the field/diamond because there are 2 foul lines that define the playing area, and these two lines form a 90° angle at home plate. The lines connecting each of the 3 bases also form 90° angles. So there are 4 90° angles, and since the ball and bat are circular, they each have 360 degrees to work with, which happens to be the sum of all the infield angles. :embarrassed2:

Click to expand...

Patrick Johnson said:

Only if he has watched all the videos and "taken it to the table".

pj <- gotta have standards
chgo

Click to expand...

BC21 said:

I understand. The objectiveness/subjectiveness may be what you and others deem the crux of the controversy, and I get that. But it doesn't spin my head as quickly as the goto explanation for how it works.

All too often, and certainly not exclusive to CTE, pure coincidental or unexplainable things (due to lack of knowledge or understanding) are explained as being supernatural or phenomena.

We could say that a great hitter in baseball is able to hit the ball anywhere in the field/diamond because there are 2 foul lines that define the playing area, and these two lines form a 90° angle at home plate. The lines connecting each of the 3 bases also form 90° angles. So there are 4 90° angles, and since the ball and bat are circular, they each have 360 degrees to work with, which happens to be the sum of all the infield angles. :embarrassed2:

Click to expand...

cookie man said:

I agree. Why should a scientist actually have to go through all the trouble to conduct the experiment when they can just sit behind the keyboard and make up the results. Sounds about right for the scientist that frequent our wonderful aiming forum.

Click to expand...

JoeyInCali said:

How can someone with " FAKE CTE " make balls ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4lEJrYWRgM&t=527s

And someone who has the real CTE keep missing ?
https://youtu.be/oqkYHRTeMZ0?t=1189

Click to expand...

Tony_in_MD said:

Don't care who you are you start flinching and jumping up through the stroke and you are going to miss, except if your last name is McCready.

Click to expand...

Tony_in_MD said:

Don't care who you are you start flinching and jumping up through the stroke and you are going to miss, except if your last name is McCready.

Click to expand...

JoeyInCali said:

So, fake CTE with good mechanics trump real CTE with bad mechanics.

Click to expand...

Tony_in_MD said:

That's your opinion.

I don't care how you aim, if you cannot deliver the cuetip through the CB with an accurate, repeatable stroke, your toast.

Click to expand...