Here's the bottom line. There is absolutely no reason to believe CTE is an objective process that gives you the shot line.
For you. For cte users it is objective.
It is not up for me to disprove something that Stan claims yet cannot prove.
He has proven it to the satisfaction of the users who have mastered the method.
The reason Poolology works immediately is because it is a geometrically correct method that tells you the shot line.
Even the creator doesn't claim it works immediately.
The reason CTE has that steep learning curve is because students, IMO, are basically learning how to pocket balls through HAMB with the CTE pre shot steps as basically a placebo.
That is completely incorrect. Incredibly incorrect and shows a deep misunderstanding of the process. CTE users can shoot shots with at least a 50% chance of success that they have never shot before.
They don't need to practice every shot for that.
You can have a bunch of proficient cte users and a bunch of ghost ball users and the CTE users can call out the aiming solution in "cte-code"and any of them will know how to align without hesitation. Thus the make percentage for the CTE users is likely to be higher, probably much higher.
I will say that the perceptions will get the player in the general vicinity of the pocket
Every aiming method gets the shooter in the "vicinity of the pocket" so to speak. Otherwise it isn't even brought out for public consumption.
but only through that steep learning curve will they start to shoot better.
Lasting improvement takes dedicated effort. Some people benefit from cte within days of starting to learn it. As with all methods some people get things faster than others and some take more time to digest the information.
If you can create some studies that prove otherwise then great.
Prove what otherwise? I will prove that cte is very effective at leading the user to shot line.
Until then, don't you think its best not to make claims that you can't substantiate?
What claims have I made that I cannot substantiate? I said that from the user's perspective the process is objective. That has been echoed by many other cte users. By it's very nature one would have to be a proficient cte user to offer a valid opinion on what the process looks like from the shooter's perspective.
I personally think if Stan took the tactic that you mention a lot of arguing would have been avoided.
Fair enough. But again when anyone else makes similar claims like "never miss another shot" then it is curious that the cte critics aren't so diligent about challenging claims.
Don't make any claims other than you will play much better after learning this.
Let's not pretend that this would not be criticized. In fact you and all of the cte critics have consistently challenged the "play better after leaning it". You all have literally rejected every person's claim of improvement due to cte by saying that the claimant is self-deluded.
Stan had enough cred he didn't need the hyperbole and idiots like Low Joe saying ridiculous things.
Maybe but Stan has his reasons for saying everything he says. To him it is not hyperbole.
The criticism is excessive and obsessive in my opinion.
