CTE PRO ONE Contrast with Quarters System

[nobcitypool]

this is a question for stan and you based on your post above
let me start by saying i dont understand cte but am trying to get a better grasp of it
here is my question after watching the video
towards the end of the video (i hope i remember this correctly /i only have watched it once)
stan shows a shot thats not on the 15 degree line
and clearly shows if he hit it as a 15 degree shot it would miss
then he shows how he lines up on the 15 degree line/perception
and then with his pivot he is on the right line and makes the shot
so
is there a different pivot/percption for each certain amount of degrees off 15...(each 5 miles to use nobcitypool analogy)
even though you are coming into the shot on the 15 degree line??
i hope you can understand what im asking???

I suspect you've often seen Stan reference an inside and outside pivot. One thickens the shot, one thins it. Take a left cut with a 15 degree perception, CTE and ETA. Coming in 1/2 tip to the right of the perception and pivoting to center thickens the cut. Coming in from the left would thin it. Stan had another excellent video he put up just last week that shows this and how the shooter would understand which to choose. Just look down a couple of threads for the link.

 

[nobcitypool]

I understand it much better than you like to think - remember I was one of the first to review your original CD. And what else I have (and you apparently don't) is a real true grasp of logic, reason, and the geometry and physics that apply to pool. And I can say unequivocally that the claims you make for CTE's "objectivity" don't stand to reason - so I guess it's "magic" like you say.

Anyway, I've said my piece about this and don't want to engage in another go-nowhere "debate" about these things. Thanks again for the effort to explain.

pj
chgo

What you've posted on Dr. Dave's site and here conclusively prove your understanding of Stan's CTE is extremely limited. That's fact, it's in print. When you're so willing to document your opinions as "certain facts", that are clearly flawed, one can't help but question the rest of your "factual opinions" you so often throw out there.

You sure are posting in a lot of CTE threads for someone who doesn't want to engage in another "go nowhere debate". Your actions don't match your words. I can truthfully state I enjoy most of your posts on AZ and appreciate your knowledge. Why you choose to have a hard on for Stan and CTE, and have altered your normal scientific, factual approach, is beyond me.

 

[bbb]

I suspect you've often seen Stan reference an inside and outside pivot. One thickens the shot, one thins it. Take a left cut with a 15 degree perception, CTE and ETA. Coming in 1/2 tip to the right of the perception and pivoting to center thickens the cut. Coming in from the left would thin it. Stan had another excellent video he put up just last week that shows this and how the shooter would understand which to choose. Just look down a couple of threads for the link.

thanks for the reply
ill look for that link

 

[Neil]

this is a question for stan and you based on your post above
let me start by saying i dont understand cte but am trying to get a better grasp of it
here is my question after watching the video
towards the end of the video (i hope i remember this correctly /i only have watched it once)
stan shows a shot thats not on the 15 degree line
and clearly shows if he hit it as a 15 degree shot it would miss
then he shows how he lines up on the 15 degree line/perception
and then with his pivot he is on the right line and makes the shot
so
is there a different pivot/percption for each certain amount of degrees off 15...(each 5 miles to use nobcitypool analogy)
even though you are coming into the shot on the 15 degree line??
i hope you can understand what im asking???

You are not understanding it correctly. The 15 degree perception is not the same thing as a 15 degree angle. Watch the video again, you missed some key elements in it. (everyone does on just one viewing, takes several viewings to get it all processed)

 

[nobcitypool]

thanks for the reply
ill look for that link

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=389293

As Neil correctly stated, don't confuse a quarter ball fractional aim with a 15 degree perception. They're not the same thing.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Here's your words, seem rather clear if one looks at them "objectively". Keep your compliments, means nothing coming from the likes of you.

Where'd you take those physics classes? LMAO Just to help you out, the true sweet spot is the center of mass. Technically, it is an infinitesimal small spot. Marketers have expanded on that by saying it is the area immediately around the center of mass. How's that for subjective? But you're not even in the ball park, you thought it was the center of gravity. LMAO So the guy who has harped on Stan continuously about objectivity is clearly the chief of subjectivity and misinformation. Irony at its best.

I know exactly what a center of gravity is. I also know what relativity is & reference points & frames of reference & lines of reference & associated speech, etc.

I also know what a technical casual mistake is, like when one uses the word 'on' instead of 'in line with' when having a casual conversation & not writing a technical manual or teaching a class.

I also know when one twists & distorts for their own purposes.

I also know what a troll is.

 

[nobcitypool]

I know exactly what a center of gravity is. I also know what relativity is & reference points & frames of reference & lines of reference & associated speech, etc.

I also know what a technical casual mistake is, like when one uses the word 'on' instead of 'in line with' when having a casual conversation & not writing a technical manual or teaching a class.

I also know when one twists & distorts for their own purposes.

I also know what a troll is.

Your own words conclusively prove you don't know the difference between center of gravity and the sweet spot. You obviously can identify with a troll as well as twisting and distorting. If not, find a mirror.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Just to help you out, the true sweet spot is the center of mass. Technically, it is an infinitesimal small spot. Marketers have expanded on that by saying it is the area immediately around the center of mass. How's that for subjective?

Would you explain this concept, in pool terms, to patrick johnson? The poor boy just can't grasp it.

It's something you need to experience to understand, i fear.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Your own words conclusively prove you don't know the difference between center of gravity and the sweet spot. You obviously can identify with a troll as well as twisting and distorting. If not, find a mirror.

Yeah, well I'll leave it to the unbiased readers to make their own conclusions. I think they're more than capable of seeing through you.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Why you choose to have a hard on for Stan and CTE, and have altered your normal scientific, factual approach, is beyond me.

My comments about CTE are what's apparently beyond you. It's not so much an aiming system as a belief system.

I don't expect you or other CTE believers to get it - clearly these concepts are simply Greek to you. But there are lots of other readers here who may be able to tell what's reasonable or not, once they hear both sides - they're who I'm talking to.

And I don't have a hard on for CTE or Stan or you for that matter. I just want to periodically state the facts about it for those who may be interested. Obviously that doesn't include you - fine; good luck with it.

pj
chgo

 

[nobcitypool]

Typical response with no substance to support anything that you say.

I posted your words verbatim, not sure how there can be any more substance than that. The ultimate objectivity. The only twisting and spinning is your attempts to overcome your own words dude.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I posted your words verbatim, not sure how there can be any more substance than that. The ultimate objectivity. The only twisting and spinning is your attempts to overcome your own words dude.

I've clarified the technicality of saying 'on' instead of 'in line with' while having a casual conversation vs writing a technical manual or teaching a class & I've posted what golf-club technology.com has to say about the two.

I'll leave it to the unbiased readership to make their own determinations just as I did when you did not understand the gearing effect for a driver with bulge.

 

[ENGLISH!]

My comments about CTE are what's apparently beyond you. It's not so much an aiming system as a belief system.

I don't expect you or other CTE believers to get it - clearly these concepts are simply Greek to you. But there are lots of other readers here who may be able to tell what's reasonable or not, once they hear both sides - they're who I'm talking to.

And I don't have a hard on for CTE or Stan or you for that matter. I just want to periodically state the facts about it for those who may be interested. Obviously that doesn't include you - fine; good luck with it.

pj
chgo

He & others just don't seem to get that, Patrick.

They seem to think that any disagreement is a personal attack on 'all' that are using CTE or trying to use CTE or trying to teach CTE.

It's like they're in a plane & when they look across the aisle they say that the guy across the aisle is not moving even though they are both moving at 200+ mph.

Best,
Rick

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...the true sweet spot is the center of mass.
...you're not even in the ball park, you thought it was the center of gravity.

You don't seem to understand the distinction very well. The center of mass and the center of gravity are identical unless the gravity force is not uniform throughout the mass (remember, mass is what gravity works on).

For practical purposes, especially for small bodies like golf balls (and pool balls) where the gravity force is just about perfectly uniform throughout, they're identical to any measurable degree.

pj
chgo

 

[nobcitypool]

My comments about CTE are what's apparently beyond you. It's not so much an aiming system as a belief system.

I don't expect you or other CTE believers to get it - clearly these concepts are simply Greek to you. But there are lots of other readers here who may be able to tell what's reasonable or not, once they hear both sides - they're who I'm talking to.

And I don't have a hard on for CTE or Stan or you for that matter. I just want to periodically state the facts about it for those who may be interested. Obviously that doesn't include you - fine; good luck with it.

pj
chgo

Patrick, when are you going to get around to stating facts about CTE? As I stated, what I've seen you document as "facts" are anything but. Your own words only factually prove you are mostly clueless about how Stan's CTE Pro One actually works. What facts do you speak of Patrick? Instead of throwing ambiguous BS out there, lay out your "facts" please.

Here are some of your facts Patrick.

from Patrick Johnson (concerning Version 3 above):

First, what I think it is: I think CTE is a "reference" aiming system (very similar in concept to, and in fact an outgrowth of, Hal Houle's old "3-angle" system), that divides all the possible shots into two categories (thinner or fuller than half ball), leaving the final aim adjustment up to you to learn "by feel". I think it adds some suggested "systematic" adjustments, but nobody can seem to describe those, which makes me think they're probably mostly learned by feel too.

Nice fact there. This is so far from the truth, I don't believe it worthy of a response. But it's your "fact".

Another one of your facts:

The controversy surrounding CTE is about whether or not it's an "exact" system that doesn't rely on the player's ability to finish the aiming process "by feel". Since nobody can seem to describe the whole process (actually, nobody can seem to clearly describe any of it past the initial half-ball alignment), it seems obvious to some (including me) that it therefore can't really be an "exact" system and must include some (maybe a lot of) feel. For some reason, CTE users can't stand this idea and argue vehemently against it (this may be part of the confidence thing), but their arguments always boil down to the same thing: it works for them.

Why don't you regale us with your wisdom and "facts" on this Patrick? Really, we'll need to see a video of you taking it to the table and showing us how you actually understand the perceptions (even though it is blatantly obvious from your postings you don't understands the perceptions at all). Since those same perceptions are the core of CTE/Pro One, I marvel at how you can dispute the validity of the system when you don't understand them.

Here's the real facts Patrick. I have $1,000 that says you can't meet me at Stan's training facility and physically prove, in person and for the entire world to see, how the system won't work. It's easy for you and others to slander Stan and his great work here in cyber space, how about you put your money where your mouth is though? For most of those Readers you refer to here, that's where the rubber really hits the road.

When would you like to schedule that trip Patrick? I'm sure all those other Readers here will be real interested in seeing if you can actually back up what you say or, on the other hand, if the credibility of your technical acumen should indeed be questioned.

 

[tonythetiger583]

I can't tell if my posts are just so crazy, that people just ignore them. I'm trying my best, not to just give the same arguments as those before me, and I'm trying to brainstorm different ways of looking at the problem, but apparently all anyone wants to do, is argue about definitions.

 

[tonythetiger583]

Here's the real facts Patrick. I have $1,000 that says you can't meet me at Stan's training facility and physically prove, in person and for the entire world to see, how the system won't work. It's easy for you and others to slander Stan and his great work here in cyber space, how about you put your money where your mouth is though? For most of those Readers you refer to here, that's where the rubber really hits the road.

When would you like to schedule that trip Patrick? I'm sure all those other Readers here will be real interested in seeing if you can actually back up what you say or, on the other hand, if the credibility of your technical acumen should indeed be questioned.

Yeah, let's call them out personally with money bets, again, for the billionth time. Cause that's worked every other time it's been suggested, and we've clearly resolved the issue.

 

[nobcitypool]

You don't seem to understand the distinction very well. The center of mass and the center of gravity are identical unless the gravity force is not uniform throughout the mass (remember, mass is what gravity works on).

For practical purposes, especially for small bodies like golf balls (and pool balls) where the gravity force is just about perfectly uniform throughout, they're identical to any measurable degree.

pj
chgo

I understand it very well Patrick. Obviously, the center of mass and center of gravity are similar for a sphere. Thanks for sharing Mr. Obvious! Can you show me where I said anything about small bodies? I believe English referenced a golf club. In most cases when discussing the sweet spot, you aren't concerned about the object being struck, the discussion centers around the device striking it (examples: Tennis Racket, Golf Club). Are you stating the sweet spot for a golf club or tennis racket is the center of gravity? What WAS your point then?

Seems like when you get called out Patrick, you attempt to focus on some esoteric meaningless point to attempt to make your argument while hoping your technical jargon overwhelms most listeners. You've obviously done that often enough with CTE/Pro One. Let's just stick to the facts Patrick. The facts don't debate or argue, they are simply the facts.

 

[nobcitypool]

Yeah, let's call them out personally with money bets, again, for the billionth time. Cause that's worked every other time it's been suggested, and we've clearly resolved the issue.

Patrick has called out Stan repeatedly over time, here and on other web sites. He apparently likes to be known as a pool technical guru and a man of fact and science. Yet he constantly slanders Stan's work with misinformation when he clearly lacks factual understanding of the system. One way to end that debate is to have the parties meet and let the facts speak for themselves. I'm guessing Stan would gladly throw in more money in that wager.

You tell me. If Patrick is so certain of his "facts", why would he turn down several thousand dollars when offered the chance to prove his credibility with this matter?

This is no different than a pool room. You can sit on the side woofing at someone about their game. But what happens when the guy you're woofing throws a few hundred dollars bills on the table and asks the woofer to step up and give it a go? If the woofer won't ante up, what would your thoughts be? This is a pool forum, seems like this is a perfect way to settle this debate once and for all.

 

[nobcitypool]

Patrick, I'll even add some additional incentive for you. You and I will both post up $500 when we meet at Stans. We'll shoot 20 shots on 1/2 of the table with the curtain hiding the pocket. We'll shoot 20 more full table shots with the curtain hiding 1/2 the table. The one who pockets the most balls wins.

This should prove your point about CTE requiring feel and adjustments. Seriously, how can a banger like me hope to compete with a high level playing scientist like yourself in this type of scenario? How can I adjust CTE with feel when I can't even see the pocket? Obviously, your patented fractional aiming would reign supreme here.

What's your schedule look like Patrick? And as the Commercial goes "What's in your Wallet?"