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.
