Yes, and perhaps this is one of the main reasons why AZB is the world's best billiard website.
JoeyA
Cte
- Thread starter jamesroberts
- Start date
Yes, and perhaps this is one of the main reasons why AZB is the world's best billiard website.
JoeyA
Sorry about that John.
Not in ALL cases. But the potential is there and in some cases actually does bring causation. Persons such as JoeyA, John Barton, Dave Segal, and others on this site have all obviuously "gotten it" so to speak, and from their testimonies have improved their games by doing so. It's proof positive that CTE HAS helped some.
Maniac (not wanting an argument, just stating my opinion)
That's not what AZB is all about. Would you rather have it that no industry people posted here at all? It's kind of live by the sword and die by the sword though. By posting here and promoting one's business then one is opened up to criticism and personal attack as well.
This particular subject however centers around a technique that is (or was) available for free through the last decade with just a phone call to Hal Houle. In fact it's still free IF you ask the right people nicely. Ron Vitello has offered to tell anyone who calls him just what they need to do.
Cleary has made a great PDF on the techniques, Dave Segal has given away a lot of information and made videos, I have made videos, other people have made videos.
David Alciatore has collected whatever he thinks is worthy enough about CTE and pasted it on his site.
There is enough information out there for anyone to get started with CTE for free.
Now if they want the benefit of professional instruction then they can go to any of the BCA Master level instructors who have studies CTE in depth enough to be able to teach it. This costs money. But NONE of those instructors have ever hawked their business in one of these threads, they all have too much class for that. And beyond that CTE is just a small part of their overall coaching business.
Banks is throwing up a red herring with these claims that CTE proponents are only being pro-CTE to promote their businesses. In my case every CTE post I make HURTS my business.
Be careful what you wish for because you may get it. - proverb of unknown origin.
"The steps" are incomplete for this purpose and a considerable amount of "user input" is required. The system users on this forum seem to be unaware of this, but I think you can be aware of it and still use the system successfully.
Some skeptics think CTE is useless (or worse) and others just think it doesn't do everything the CTE users here claim (i.e, it doesn't define a complete aim "solution"). CTE users tend to lump these kinds of skeptics together.
This is false. No description of CTE that has been printed here or published on the official DVD gives a complete description of how to use CTE. Critical parts of every description are left open for the user to define himself.
This is more or less true. People seem to have improved their shotmaking as a result of using CTE - but I don't think that's been proved. What constitutes proof, or even evidence, is a constant bone of contention between CTE users and "the science guys".
But they don't necessarily know why or how. Is it because CTE gives them a "framework" that helps them use their own innate aiming ability, or because CTE actually does all the aiming for them? "Science guys" say it's an incomplete but helpful framework; CTE users (at least the ones here) seem to think it does all the aiming.
What's your conclusion when the opposite happens?
This is false. There is not a set of steps that are defined well enough to be followed strictly, so the claim that they "produce a valid shot line" is moot.
Defining success and determining which method is better are two different things. A person may be more successful than another for reasons other than his methods - for instance, it may be because of his greater experience or greater innate talent.
This is the basic metric for raw success; it doesn't show the reason for success.
pj
chgo
What user input? And what do you mean by that anyway? I was given certain steps to follow, I did them and it works. I did not have to invent anything or discover anything on my own to use CTE effectively.
Pretty much. Because it does define a complete aiming solution. The goal of aiming is to get on the right shot line. CTE makes this happen. What is more complete than ending up in the shooting position on the correct shot line? So a skeptic who say it's all nonsense and one who says it's partially nonsense are both wrong.
You are wrong. The DVD has everything a person needs to do CTE - no critical parts were left out. And on the web there is plenty of instruction in written and video form.
How would you suggest that it be proven? Since you have no way of knowing a person's ability BEFORE they learned CTE then you kind of have to take their word for it. Kind of hard to say that ALL the people on here who claim to be playing better after learning CTE are delusional. And since you won't accept that otherwise rational adults can be mentally stable enough to know when they have improved their shotmaking it's kind of hard to have a level headed discussion.
Well if you ever tried it then you might find that you could start making some pretty awesome shots which look kind of impossible. I don't see how making such shots comes from an innate ability. When I get on some of these shots I have NO IDEA if I am right or not. So unless my mind is suddenly getting on the right line for those shots when in all the years prior it coudn't find the line I have to conclude that CTE is bringing me to the shot line.
Based on what I know of both systems my conclusion would be that the person using CTE isn't doing it right.
You are wrong. Stan's DVD for one gives you the well defined set of steps.
We are speaking about people of relatively equal experience and ability where the only difference between them is what they have been taught about aiming.
Again, when the ONLY variable that has been changed is the introduction of a new aiming system, i.e. new information, then that's a pretty strong correlation. I would think that should be clear to you.
I am 100% sure that we wouldn't have this discussion if your helpless student learns GB and suddenly she is pocketing more balls. You would say that the cause of her improved skill is a direct result of learning a tried and true method of aiming. You would not say well, she got talent and I am sure she would have improved her pocketing just as rapidly even if I hadn't taught her GB.
No, it does not. I don't think you know what that means.
The results of you using the system are not an indication of whether or not the system is "complete" in these terms. You don't understand what we're talking about.
Nobody has used the word "nonsense" in this exchange except you. I've said that CTE doesn't do what you think it does. If you ever start understanding what's said to you we might have fewer "disagreements" - I'm not counting on that.
pj
chgo
Billy is enjoyable to play with. He just plays to good!
You mentioned in the other thread you like your chances with me. I like my chances against you too, so we can bet more if you like if we do get to play. While I do play hard, it is always sociable with me and I enjoy a tough match for enough $$ to pay attention.
James, people are thick headed. They don't see how it could possibly work, so they would rather talk about how it doesn't work than actually try it.
Yes it does. You just can't follow directions.
Then your premise is wrong. You can't take a ruler to the table when you play. So when Dave Segal says that he finds that a 12-14" bridge works best for him then that's as exact a description as it needed. Because then the next person can start with a 12-14" bridge and if that works then great, if not then try a 10-12" etc.... the steps however remain the same.
And you know this how? What do you think I think CTE does?
Here is what I think. The proper application of the CTE system produces a valid aiming line more often than any other method. In fact I think that the proper application would produce a valid aiming line every time. however since I am prone to errors in judgement and also errors in execution I cannot prove that it produces a valid aiming line every time by merit of my own skill. But I know that for the consistent application of the CTE method has resulted in me being able to make more shots and tougher shots.
Disprove it.
I am sure that we will bet enough to make the time worthwhile. I ran my first 15 today so I am feeling quite froggy.
Whatever happened to using your trusty arrow and the butt of your cue to line up every shot? Did that seem to fail you some how? You know, the system you were so passionate about in the Naysayers Unite Thread! How 'bout you start your own thread on this system rather than being in one you dislike!.....Yea, I thought so!! LMFAO...along with everyone else!!
The think a lot of people tend to forget that pool is not a shot making contest. An aiming system does not play position for you. It doesn't give you a straight stroke or force you to play the right pattern. Just helps you pocket balls.
I've been using similar system, aiming voodoo, for a little while now and my game has got a lot better. My ball pocketing and confidence has went up a whole lot and I feel I'm getting better every time I play.
If you havn't checked out aiming voodoo, check it. http://vimeo.com/17712024
http://www.andrewcleary.com/aiming_voodoo.pdf
Here's how I know this:
By saying "proper application" you allow for the user's instinctive aiming ability to enter the picture. If this is what you mean to say, and since this is what I've said virtually every time we've talked about this, then you've obviously missed the point I've made virtually every time we've talked.
On the other hand, if you really mean to say that the system itself produces a valid aiming line without the user's instinctive aiming ability being needed, then you're simply and obviously wrong but can't tell.
To quote myself:
pj
chgo
Pat, you will never get it. Of course there MUST Be some innate ability to aim. That comes from being a normal human being. Today three of my shop staff were messing around on the table. I had to teach one of them to stroke and form a bridge, the other one could stroke but she didn't know how to place here hands.
The one with the decent stroke was able to pocket balls suprisingly good. Then I taught her GB and her pocketing got worse. Had I left her alone then she would have done bettter. However I think that you would agree that knowing the GB principle will be beneficial and augment her natural ability.
What you don't get is that people report a dramatic increase in pocketing ability once they learn CTE. So however it works it's producing valid shot lines. You seem to think that everyone has an ability inside them to just see any shot and if only they could turst that then they would be able to make all those incredible shots without CTE. You're wrong if you think that.
What CTE does is provide a framework for doing the same thing every time to get to the right shot line. By following the steps exactly the cue tip ends up pointing at the GB almost every time. And I only say almost because I am making an allowance for errors in judgement that come with being a human.
Unlike you I have tested this out every possible way, inlcuding with the use of GB templates. I have also reverse engineered it from GB to better understand it.
Just get over it. CTE works as advertised whether you believe it or not.