Fair enough.
But even that statement is designed (intentionally or not) to get under people's skin.
You say "a few vocal proponents who can't seem to understand the most basic common sense." I assume I'm included in that and when you said I was being dishonest I lost my cool. If you want to have civil conversations you can't throw those cutesy insults in there.
I was answering the question I thought you were going to next. I understood your point with the rods and assumed you knew I did so I went to the next step.
I have an undergraduate degree in Math/Computer science. First two years were physics before I switched. I have a graduate degree in a very mathematical discipline. Both from a top engineering school. I've done extensive 3d modeling and co-authored a CAD system when I was in college. Believe me I can understand any math/physics/science that you can throw at me. Or Dan or PJ. I've met and played with PJ and we get along just fine. Dr. Dave is another story. I like him and his posts but generally I don't want to work hard enough to understand the math that he throws around. But I could if I wasn't so dang lazy.
On paper, CTE does not work. We all agree on that. Not one person has been able to draw a diagram of CTE that works and is geometrically correct.
But that's not relevant because it isn't supposed to work on paper. It is supposed to work in real life. In three dimensions.
I don't know if it does. I gave up on it years (decades?) ago because I thought there was no way it works. Because I tried to draw it on paper. Because I'm an engineer/math guy.
Then at an AZB meetup I met an AZB member who used CTE and he showed me a little of it. Literally 3-4 minutes. One aim point and the pivot. Something clicked and I was fascinated because it *shouldn't* work but it did. I watched Stan's videos and I had some of the same problems you do with them.
I love Stan (even though I've never met him, I admire his dedication) and I couldn't figure out CTE from the videos.
So I started thinking about how it might work. I started looking at ways that it could work. And you know what happened? I started seeing it and making balls. I remember as clearly as if it were yesterday. I was trying it and a guy came up and asked me to play. I said sure and just decided to use what I was doing (CTE-ish?) on every shot. He racked 8-ball. I broke and ran out. He racked again and went to get a drink. I broke and ran ANOTHER rack. Not even looking at anything but the perceptions and pivoting to the spot. I was playing with a house cue.
The guy I was playing looked at me and turned and walked away without saying a word.
That night I was shooting balls in like a fiend. From everywhere. Straight in, slight angle, hard back cuts full table length. I wasn't even bothering to play position because I knew I could make ANY shot.
What I was doing was NOT CTE. Or at least a very limited version of CTE. I know that now. But it worked really, really well. And I think CTE probably works better. What I've learned since tells me that it does work very well.
This week, after three months of travel and hardly playing I went to practice with a buddy. I couldn't make a ball. Then I decided to use CTESP (CTE sixpack) and suddenly everything starts working and I ran a table of 8-ball.
I don't use CTESP all the time because I have been so busy with work and caring for a sick relative the last few years that I haven't had time to really get used to doing it. So I generally use my old aiming system and Poolology if I can't see something right.
I think the answer to your question is that I look for reasons it can work and you (all) look for reasons it won't work.
One of the best banking systems for me is one where you just visualize the path of the ball and it lights up for you.
Same for putting in golf. And I've had 9 holes of golf where I only putted 11 times...And shot 29 (par 36) in case you think I had a lot of chip shots.
Obviously there is something else going on there. Something in the brain. And yet, it works.
What I was trying to explain earlier is that I think the magic happens in the pivot and the perception.
The perception changes. Even in your question you asked me earlier. If you move your eyes right or left the convergence of the rods moves to different places.
So yeah. I believe that there is something there. And I can't wait to see what Stan has been working on because I'm curious about it. I want to explore this mystery. My mind is always looking for patterns and finding them where most don't even look.
That doesn't make me unable to understand common sense. It makes me willing to go beyond it.
This is probably the most reasonable and well thought out post I've seen from a CTE supporter in a long time. The more I read into it, however, the more I realized that you are singing the praises of an aiming system that is NOT the controversial one that Stan teaches. You said you use your own version of CTE and play well with it. OK, that's great but what does it have to do with the argument that goes on here? Let me ask you this -- does CTESP make use of the contact point? Can you give us a short description of what CTESP involves?
In reading some of your previous posts to English and BC21 it occurred to me that you really don't understand Stan's version of CTE. You've said repeatedly that you don't fully get it and that the "magic" must happen in the pivot. I agree. The pivot step may well be what makes it work for some people, but it isn't magic. It is simply the player adjusting their stroke either while getting down on the shot or during the stroke. CTE gets you close to the pocket but the "magic" part puts it in the hole. Ever wonder why it takes months for CTE users to get it and then it all clicks? I think it is because their brain is finally figuring out how to pocket the ball with little adjustments here and there to counteract the errors introduced by the CTE instructions. So that makes CTE PRO1, specifically Stan's version of CTE, no different from any other system. It takes rote learning to learn the small adjustments needed to pocket the ball. It is a subjective process only the strong supporters here don't realize that.
I could go on and on but history says we'll continue to disagree so I'm not sure it is worth the effort. Let me just say that I don't "look for reasons it won't work" as you say. I look at the claims made by Stan and look for evidence to test those claims one way or the other. I sometimes find evidence of Stan steering the cue to make the shot and also find him making false statements. I'm not passing judgment on Stan about these things, just observing and trying to put all the data together in order to understand why it works when Stan does it. He says it's "a mystery that was never supposed to be." Well that's not a satisfying explanation for curious people.
Here's one example. Stan says that players using CTE don't have to worry about throw because CTE counteracts throw and even shooting hard or soft doesn't matter. OK, that's a pretty strong claim. Is it true? Stan was kind enough to demonstrate what he meant. In so doing he actually proved the opposite. If you follow the logic you'll see that CTE cannot work the way Stan claims. That means it works by some other means. Some say it is magic but I believe the simpler explanation: the brain is given the task of pocketing the ball and EVENTUALLY it will find a way to make that happen, or will give up trying. Of course that begs the question of why bother? It is the same process of rote learning as HAMB (hit a million balls) with the perceptions helping you get the ball in the proximity of the pocket, kind of how Poolology gets the ball close to the pocket (extremely close).
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546
In looking at that link I see that you already responded and kind of fluffed away the observations. You made an incorrect statement that throw increases with more speed and also said you don't understand CTE and agree that you might be making subconscious adjustments. I'm lost as to what you are trying to say now.
If you were truly looking at this video objectively and dispassionately, no matter how impressed you are with Stan's passion, you have to conclude that Stan is incorrect and speed does alter the path of the ob when using CTE. If I am interpreting what is clearly happening the video incorrectly I would welcome a different interpretation.
