I would also like a wide angle shot for those shots down table up to 8 feet between the OB and CB for all angles with the bridge hand hanging on fingertips on the rail.
CTE Aiming Systems - Fact or Fiction?
- Thread starter Redneck Jim
- Start date
I would also like a wide angle shot for those shots down table up to 8 feet between the OB and CB for all angles with the bridge hand hanging on fingertips on the rail.
Sorry Dave but I have decided that while I do want to post here it's too difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff on AZ when it comes to this topic.
If you want to see what I present then sign up for the group, lurk, take what you want and bring it back here and tear it up if you can. But I won't have you posting your claims of why CTE "can't work" or your links to other people's ideas that it's all subconscious adjustment or advertisements for your website every two posts.
I'd love it if you come there as a respected guest ready to try things. But if the idea of it being moderated offends your sensibilities then that's fine you will just need to get your information second hand.
All my YouTube videos and postings on the Yahoo Group are copyrighted and I am not giving you permission to display or replay them on your website. Under fair use you may use snippets to critique them if you like but you may not play them in their entirety on your website without my express written permission.
And yes our group is small but we are nice to each other and all focused on exploring CTE without tearing each other down.
Ok. Can you diagram the shots you want to see on the Cuetable? If so then I will set them up and shoot them for you. I still don't have the ability to get true overhead shots so that's out for the time being.
If you post videos on Youtube (publicly), and they do a good job of explaining or demonstrating aspects of CTE, I will certainly add links to (and/or embed) them on my CTE resource page. I don't need your permission for this, and it certainly wouldn't violate any copyright laws. What would violate copyright laws is uploading copyrighted video (e.g., a copy of the video you post) on Youtube or any website (e.g., my CTE resource page) without the owner's permission. People have done this often on Youtube with many of my videos, and I often ask YouTube to remove the illegally posted videos (which they do).
Regards,
Dave
A good place to come and discuss these things is here - http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/cte-students/
Your questions are valid and the type of questions that we are answering.
Sorry to not be willing to answer your questions here but I would really like to have the CTE discussion happening in a place where it's easier to keep the good information and valid questions together for easy reference.
I will now remove the embed permissions from my videos since you will not honor my request not to display them on your site. When I post them to YouTube they are not posted with the idea that you can surround them with your content. Just because YouTube makes it technically possible for the videos to play on your website does not make it legal for you to do so without the copyright holder's permission. I don't care if you link to MY content.
It's also easier to keep control of the heretics at the Good Church of CTE. Are you stoning them nowadays, John, or just burning them at the stake?
Lou Figueroa
It's also easier to keep control of the heretics at the Good Church of CTE. Are you stoning them nowadays, John, or just burning them at the stake?
Lou Figueroa
Neither. I just won't tolerate the sort of ridiculing that goes on here. It's a discussion group Lou not a church. If the end result is that no one can define it and distill it into easy and measurable steps then that conclusion will be apparent to everyone there.
It's just like no one can have a good discussion on the pros and cons of abortion when there are radicals on both sides shouting at each other.
I just want a place where the conversation happens respectfully with the intention of overturning every stone concerning CTE and analyzing them. No need to debate the IF it works and focus instead on the HOW it works and what are the limitations and parameters.
It's like if you wanted to have a thread talking about certain strategies in one pocket and every three posts some trolls showed up to shout out how boring and stupid one pocket and the people who play it are. By the time you are done putting out those fires anyone who was interested in the strategic beauty of one pocket will have long left the building.
Hence, onepocket.org - where one pocket and only one pocket is discussed.
and CTE Students Group - http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/cte-students/
Everyone welcome. There will be cookies and punch after the sermon.
Well, right. Sounds like you have the makings of real nice congregation, what with the intolerance and the gotta believe and have faith mentality, John.
Will you be passing the collection plate too, or just taking payroll deductions? Anywhos, good luck with all that.
Lou Figueroa
one of the
great unwashed
This is as good a forum as any and better forum than most to discuss CTE. Until someone provides some sort of proof for the validity of CTE it must be taken with a grain of salt. All the CTE proponents that "know" how it works will not or cannot explain it's guts. As explained CTE only has three cut angles without a variable pivot or tip offset. Running a censored group and not allowing work to stand on it's own to criticism is the hallmark of a flawed philosophy. This is the same mentality that kept the Communist Party in the Soviet Union in power for so many years. You do more harm to CTE by protecting and censoring information than letting people see it with all it's criticisms.
I have seen nothing that proves to me that there is much mathematical validity to the system. I had a lot of hope for Stan Shuffett's video but it evaporated. I'll give CTE a fair chance if someone will provide a good source of information but none are forthcoming.
I don't understand why some people feel so threatened by the possibility of mathematical deficiencies in the system. Pocketing balls should be the ultimate criteria for judging a system, not mathematics that most people won't care about. Some people would not accept that the earth was round even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In the light of the evidence that has been presented so far CTE mechanics are a flat earth. The consequences are the same to CTE as the flat earth. Nothing changes. People still go on living and people still go on pocketing balls. Most people go through life without noticing that the earth isn't flat and most won't notice if the math doesn't add up.
dr_dave's page is the best, most open, source of information about many pool related topics on the net. It is balanced. Criticism is vital to the proper evolution of ideas and understanding. CTE and it's variants take up more room on dr_dave's aiming page than any other topic. If anything he's given too much attention to it relative to other topics and a lot of it is quoted from people "in the know." dr_dave is very clear about what is his opinion and what is fact. I don't know how you could reasonably ask more of an author.
If CTE is valid and a good option for people to try I don't see why any CTE proponent would be hesitant to let CTE stand on it's own. If you believe in it then allow your material to be displayed.
Hey Mike, I am trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. You might not mind ruffling other peoples feathers, but I do.
It will be soon. Math, guts, and technique in all its glory. I've invested countless hours (along with Josh McPhie and Stan) into compiling a historic document that will likely be the first time the actual system has been published.
My only motivation is to shed light on the genius of Hal Houle in hopes he someday gets voted into the hall of fame for his information. I mean, if Minnesota Fats can get voted in for showmanship and progressing the game, the guy who invented "sight CTE, offset your cue, and pivot to center" to make every shot in pool deserves to be in as well, 100%.
Beer:30:
Bravo! Great post. What's interesting is that I brought the topic of "open source" into my discusion with JB -- not of software program source code (which applies to me), but of information sharing. I.e. putting the "guts" of CTE on display, in all their glory, so that the system can be looked at, written up, talked about, improved upon (this part is key). I know John supports the concept of open source related to information sharing, and when he brought up the phrase, "Creative Commons" -- I knew he'd done his research and due diligence. (Or he was already well aware of its existence.)
And you're correct -- taking measures to privatize the information goes against the very concept of open source. I'm sure this is the background that Dr. Dave comes from -- most of academia and the educational institutions subscribe to the concept of open source. So he (Dr. Dave) links to other material, perhaps embeds it, to give attribution to the original author. And giving attribution to others before you is a key concept of open source. You see it in the SCCS headers of all open source program source code -- attributions galore. Which surprised me about John -- he wants to give attribution to Hal Houle (there's absolutely no doubt about that), but he wants to privatize the information. So it's "sort of" an open source, but yet not.
Maybe this is just a phase, a sort of knee jerk to the initial stages of "code review" that John is taking exception to (which all new "code" goes through -- it's the scrutinizing Phase 1 and can't be avoided, unfortunately), but then it'll open up later. We'll see. I myself eagerly await knowing why CTE arrives at the correct contact point to pocket the ball, even if I myself may or may not use it. We're all pool fanatics here, so any topic like this is definitely apropros!
-Sean
No one is threatened. What's so wrong with people who want to discuss something going off on their own to a place where they aren't bothered by aspects of the discussion that they want to deal with?
This type of thing happens all the time, one group in a discussion wants to talk about one aspect and another group wants to talk about another aspect.
For CTE some of us aren't interested in the math. We are interested in the procedure and figuring out the best way to implement it consistently. We aren't interested in being talked down to, called idiots and religious fanatics, etc....just because we can't provide neat diagrams and formulas to support CTE.
Sorry but people do a lot of things without understanding the underlying science.
Don't tell me what "harm" I am doing to CTE by having a group to discuss it. The group is open to everyone, the information that comes out of it is open to everyone to use and dissect to their heart's content. All I am doing is consolidating the information into one place where people can discuss it reasonably without insults and without a bunch of off-topic "this can't possibly work" type of posts to wade through.
If you want to take something I posted somewhere else and rip it to shreds go ahead. If your critique has merit and can be validated on the table then it will be included in the information presented.
That has already happened with one of the videos I posted. One astute observer noticed that my actual cue action was not synchronized with my spoken description. I went back and reviewed it and found that he is right and amended the information accordingly. When I have time I will make a new video with the correct information.
Anyway, as you can see, this very CTE thread is now spinning off on a tangent with people making claims of censorship, calling me a zealot, etc.... Exactly the type of thing that I want to avoid by having a place that's all about CTE and nothing else.
AZ Billiards COULD be a great place to discuss this but no such discussion can happen without the trolling and personal attacks.
My point is you go your way and I will go mine - we have more than 40 people signed up now and I expect that the discussion will progress at whatever pace happens naturally. I am certain that whatever is discovered there that has relevance will be brought back here for the skeptic's review so it's all good.
Meanwhile all it takes to keep yourself abreast of the discussion is to sign up - no one is forcing you to participate.
Bravo?
Come on Sean. How far do you think a "lets figure out Linux" thread will get on a general computing board?
Open source means that the technology or code is available for all to tinker with it does not mean that the tinkerers should make themselves available to be preyed upon by those who advocate other methods.
You act as though having a separate space to discuss something is somehow closing off the topic. It's not - it's actually opening up the topic for all those who wish to discuss it and explore in a friendly environment.
Gotta go. But you're off base here.
CTE folks are probably going to like this, but I'm out of the discussion and won't read any threads about this anymore. Forever! I can't stand it.
The last thing I have to say about this is: When math and logic tell you, it is impossible or ridiculously difficult to get in line with CTE, then you simply don't want to hear about the math. Problem solved. Whatever you are doing at the table, it is not CTE. The only way you could make any shot would be by making subconscious adjustments, and you are too proud to admit that.
Somebody warned me not to participate in this discussion. I should have listened. I can only hope that as few people as possible are getting convinced of CTE being the holy grail that will pull their game out of the hole. If they spent the time on practicing fundamentals, alignment and such, instead of trying to figure out an impossible system, their game could actually improve.
The last thing I have to say about this is: When math and logic tell you, it is impossible or ridiculously difficult to get in line with CTE, then you simply don't want to hear about the math. Problem solved. Whatever you are doing at the table, it is not CTE. The only way you could make any shot would be by making subconscious adjustments, and you are too proud to admit that.
Somebody warned me not to participate in this discussion. I should have listened. I can only hope that as few people as possible are getting convinced of CTE being the holy grail that will pull their game out of the hole. If they spent the time on practicing fundamentals, alignment and such, instead of trying to figure out an impossible system, their game could actually improve.
ThePoliteSniper IMHO you have a closed mind, do the math!
“Pool is geometry, in its most challenging form, the science of precise angles, and forces"-Quote from: A Game of Pool, The Twilight Zone 1961 Television Show
CTE IMHO is good math!
“Pool is geometry, in its most challenging form, the science of precise angles, and forces"-Quote from: A Game of Pool, The Twilight Zone 1961 Television Show
CTE IMHO is good math!
Cowboy,
Accepting assertions which directly and egregiously violate the facts of geometry is not being opened minded, it's being ignorant of those facts. There's no crime in not knowing those facts; not everyone is interested in math (hard as that may be to believe). But you might have hoped that somewhere over the span of this decade long debacle, the more ardent and persistent advocates would have sought out those facts from a "neutral party," such as a friend of a friend of a cousin who has had the relevant courses. But they didn't, and at times even rejected and ridiculed the possibility of examining the system "on paper." So who's being close-minded?
You've become a recent enthusiast and have urged us to just give the system a try at the table. That seems fair, and as far as I know, CTE might actually improve my shot making percentage. But, as it's been described, it wouldn't do this because it yields a workable aim line. In fact, I'm sure my first estimate would be better than it in most cases. The discipline behind it, however, might. One thing that would be lacking for those of us that don't accept the claims of it providing an exact aim line (or close enough for most shots) is the "calming effect" that belief would have. We'd get no placebo fix. Therefore, there's less motivation for us to really work with it over a long period of time; we might just as well substitute something else, such as staring at the shot longer.
Just discussing.
Jim
P.S. I appreciate the great sense of humor you've displayed throughout!
Last edited: