CTE PRO ONE Contrast with Quarters System

[mohrt]

That's not my definition of objective, but OK, if you say so.

pj
chgo

Thats OK with me too. I take it that part of your definition of objective is that is must be easy to understand and execute by anyone right away. To me, objectivity is more about no guessing, consistent, repeatable. Using these perceptions is a little different, not real hard, and with some time at the table they are realized pretty quickly. No guessing, consistent, repeatable.

 

[mohrt]

It could also be a description of learning to visualize cut angles by feel.

pj
chgo

The argument sounds feasible until you start applying CTE to 1/2/3/4 rail banks. I'm not really thinking about angles at all as I cannot see them anyways. I just use the perceptions, same as usual. [edit] shooting under a curtain, same thing. I cannot see the pocket to estimate an angle anyways.

 

[nobcitypool]

lol

You think your "manhood" is determined by whether you take silly internet bets? Sounds intense.

pj
chgo

When you're constantly slandering a person's integrity and life work, then offered a chance to prove your accusations, validate you're credibility and integrity as well as make a couple of thousand; yeah, I'd consider that manhood. Sure, you call it silly because you know all this crap you're slinging is just that; crap. You have to try to shrug it off because you know you can't back up your words. Money talks, BS walks.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Lol, All of you cte guys vs P.J. and P.J. has won every round on my score card.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Thats OK with me too. I take it that part of your definition of objective is that is must be easy to understand and execute by anyone right away.

The distinction I'm making is between (A) being shown by the system exactly where the aim line is and (B) determining that yourself with the assistance of the system but ultimately by experience-based "know it when I see it".

To me, objectivity is more about no guessing, consistent, repeatable.

By "no guessing" I guess you mean "no feel", but I suspect what you're really describing is "greater confidence". That's invaluable.

pj
chgo

 

[nobcitypool]

Lol, All of you cte guys vs P.J. and P.J. has won every round on my score card.

You're welcome to your opinion. On my scorecard, he's diminished what little credibility he may have had, proven absolutely nothing and shown he has no heart whatsoever. I guess perspective is everything.

 

[Colin Colenso]

..offered a chance to prove your accusations, validate you're credibility and integrity...

How does meeting in real life allow one to prove anything any more than can be done here?

So shooting better than someone gives credibility and integrity to one's opinions on CTE? I can put together a 10 man squad that know nothing about CTE who could smash the top 10 CTE'rs on AZB. That would prove nothing.

It's the POST A VIDEO and such macho challenges that have severely harmed the credibility of the CTE'rs in the eyes of those who have some concept of what logic and objectivity is.

 

[Colin Colenso]

You're welcome to your opinion. On my scorecard, he's diminished what little credibility he may have had, proven absolutely nothing and shown he has no heart whatsoever. I guess perspective is everything.

It's not PJ's obligation to prove anything. It's the obligation of CTE'rs to prove the system is objective, as that is your claim.

Yet, there is no objective explanation of the following:
How 2 exact same CB-OB relationships can produce various visuals.
How much pivot or sweep. (Note: 1/2 tip is not objective as the fulcrum position is not quantified).
How a slight variation of angle leads to a reversing of pivoting direction. The visual must jump considerably around these boundaries.

Apparently only practice can teach these things, and then once learned, cannot be described in any objective way.

 

[nobcitypool]

How does meeting in real life allow one to prove anything any more than can be done here?

So shooting better than someone gives credibility and integrity to one's opinions on CTE? I can put together a 10 man squad that know nothing about CTE who could smash the top 10 CTE'rs on AZB. That would prove nothing.

It's the POST A VIDEO and such macho challenges that have severely harmed the credibility of the CTE'rs in the eyes of those who have some concept of what logic and objectivity is.

You should bring them Colin. I'll just bet they could smash Stevie, Landon and Stan. You have no idea Colin. The challenge/bet wasn't to just meet. Take the time to go back and read the details.

 

[nobcitypool]

It's not PJ's obligation to prove anything. It's the obligation of CTE'rs to prove the system is objective, as that is your claim.

Yet, there is no objective explanation of the following:
How 2 exact same CB-OB relationships can produce various visuals.
How much pivot or sweep. (Note: 1/2 tip is not objective as the fulcrum position is not quantified).
How a slight variation of angle leads to a reversing of pivoting direction. The visual must jump considerably around these boundaries.

Apparently only practice can teach these things, and then once learned, cannot be described in any objective way.

CTE has already been proven. If you're not satisfied, that's your problem. The fact you lack the wherewithal to understand it only speaks of your own abilities. Stan has put up money and challenged anyone to come to his training facility and prove CTE doesn't work. If you're ever in the states, I'll gladly offer you the same wager I proposed to Patrick. Words are cheap Colin.that seems to be all you and Patrick can muster.

 

[Colin Colenso]

You should bring them Colin. I'll just bet they could smash Stevie, Landon and Stan. You have no idea Colin. The challenge/bet wasn't to just meet. Take the time to go back and read the details.

As I said, it would prove nothing. Perhaps it would prove something to you. If so, invite the top 10 from the Chinese 8 Ball masters and play them at that game, a potter's game.

None of the guys you mention are in the top 5,000 potters in the world in terms of pure potting accuracy.

 

[Colin Colenso]

CTE has already been proven. If you're not satisfied, that's your problem. The fact you lack the wherewithal to understand it only speaks of your own abilities. Stan has put up money and challenged anyone to come to his training facility and prove CTE doesn't work. If you're ever in the states, I'll gladly offer you the same wager I proposed to Patrick. Words are cheap Colin.that seems to be all you and Patrick can muster.

All that has been proven is that some players can discover ways to make it work. That is not proof of it being an objective system.

The fact that the pivot is a guess, based on experience proves it is a feel system alone. It may be the best darn system in the world, but it ain't objective. Perhaps it can be developed into an objective system one day, but as you guys already think it is, that doesn't seem likely to happen. You all seem quite satisfied with the guesswork aspect of it.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Lol, All of you cte guys vs P.J. and P.J. has won every round on my score card.

:thumbup2: Sorry. I could not help myself.

 

[ENGLISH!]

How does meeting in real life allow one to prove anything any more than can be done here?

So shooting better than someone gives credibility and integrity to one's opinions on CTE? I can put together a 10 man squad that know nothing about CTE who could smash the top 10 CTE'rs on AZB. That would prove nothing.

It's the POST A VIDEO and such macho challenges that have severely harmed the credibility of the CTE'rs in the eyes of those who have some concept of what logic and objectivity is.

:thumbup2: :thumbup2: Sorry again. I doubly could not help myself.

 

[ENGLISH!]

It's not PJ's obligation to prove anything. It's the obligation of CTE'rs to prove the system is objective, as that is your claim.

Yet, there is no objective explanation of the following:
How 2 exact same CB-OB relationships can produce various visuals.
How much pivot or sweep. (Note: 1/2 tip is not objective as the fulcrum position is not quantified).
How a slight variation of angle leads to a reversing of pivoting direction. The visual must jump considerably around these boundaries.

Apparently only practice can teach these things, and then once learned, cannot be described in any objective way.

:thumbup2::thumbup2: :thumbup2:

I'm not sorry. Very well said.

 

[nobcitypool]

As I said, it would prove nothing. Perhaps it would prove something to you. If so, invite the top 10 from the Chinese 8 Ball masters and play them at that game, a potter's game.

None of the guys you mention are in the top 5,000 potters in the world in terms of pure potting accuracy.

Whatever you say Colin. You said you would assemble 10. Now you want me to invite the Chinese National team. LMAO You have a lot in common with Patrick, that's for sure. You two must be journalists, not engineers or scientists. Good with throwing around words, really short on facts, excellent when hiding behind a keyboard. You guys must have taken the same physics classes English purportedly attended. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

[Neil]

As I said, it would prove nothing. Perhaps it would prove something to you. If so, invite the top 10 from the Chinese 8 Ball masters and play them at that game, a potter's game.

None of the guys you mention are in the top 5,000 potters in the world in terms of pure potting accuracy.

Colin, before you go reading things into what was said, maybe you should just catch up first. You are thinking the bet was about playing. The bet had nothing to do with playing at all.

 

[ENGLISH!]

All that has been proven is that some players can discover ways to make it work. That is not proof of it being an objective system.

The fact that the pivot is a guess, based on experience proves it is a feel system alone. It may be the best darn system in the world, but it ain't objective. Perhaps it can be developed into an objective system one day, but as you guys already think it is, that doesn't seem likely to happen. You all seem quite satisfied with the guesswork aspect of it.

:thumbup2: More than well said.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Whatever you say Colin. You said you would assemble 10. Now you want me to invite the Chinese National team. LMAO You have a lot in common with Patrick, that's for sure. You two must be journalists, not engineers or scientists. Good with throwing around words, really short on facts, excellent when hiding behind a keyboard. You guys must have taken the same physics classes English purportedly attended. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

I said I can (not will or would). But I won't. Unless someone throws 100k my way to fund it.

 

[nobcitypool]

Colin, before you go reading things into what was said, maybe you should just catch up first. You are thinking the bet was about playing. The bet had nothing to do with playing at all.

When has being knowledgeable about the facts been a requirement for Colin or Patrick to post their derogatory opinions?