Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[JoeyInCali]

Then why do you speak against it so much on here?

Prevent truth? Why would I do that? I don't care what Rodney does. I know what he told me when he worked for Fury cues.

I know what he said on FB a few years ago.

People can use whatever tools serve them best. Many here, you included seem to be dead set against CTE and your posts seem to be telling readers not to bother trying it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

We're going around circles here .
First, you said you didn't even know if he used CTE AT ALL or if he's using CTE now .
You forgot about that old thread .
You would start a thread when Rodney started using CTE , but now you don't care what he does ? Don't you think you should talk to him and find out what part of it he doesn't like ( IF AT ALL ) or if he's still using it ?

I'm not speaking against it here .

The CTE bashers should stop . Let those who want to try it buy the DVD. It's cheap.

 

[Dan White]

Cool. Now you get on the bus trying to actively stop people from learning CTE?

Where did I say that? I actually want to learn it but I don't know what the hell he is talking about! I'm not criticizing CTE, I'm criticizing Stan's inability or unwillingness to explain a very important part of his system. It's like I'm going to explain to everybody how an internal combustion engine works. 1: fuel and air enter the cylinder, 2. a spark plug ignites the mixture, 3. the thingamabob jimmies the caboose dessert, 4. the car rolls forward. Uh, wait a sec. Can you run that step 3 by me again?

I know there is a lot of agreement with me because of the pm's I'm getting. Even some of his supporters don't get it. I think people just don't want to appear rude or ignorant, so they don't bring it up to Stan. Maybe hashing that out would be the best thing he could do to elevate CTE.

Also, I only mention Hal Houle to answer the other question about whether I've tried any of this. I tried it way back then, I've seen some of Stan's videos here and there, but really only when this thread started did I really try to find if there are any answers to the things I never understood, and what the latest CTE looks like.

 

[cookie man]

Answering your own post feels a little like explaining a joke to people after telling it to them:

A couple of people pm'ed me some information, but safe to say that nobody understands what Stan is talking about in this video. This is unfortunate as this is the crux of the CTE system... and nobody seems to understand it.

I was pm'ed this video (thank you):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iuvQT7dwfs

It is about using left and right pivots to adjust the direction of the cue ball. It is very clear that Stan does require a knowledge of where the pocket is in order to select the proper visuals. It is also clear that each visual line up (A,B,C whatever) along with the CTE line will only produce one path for the object ball. Stan even says that you need to use the pivot or else the object ball will hit the side rail. So clearly, pivoting is a method to increase the number of angles you can send the object ball along towards a pocket. He also says that if you move the two balls a little more and a little more to sharper angles, eventually a line up to A won't work any more and you have to transition over to a B lineup. An A with inside sweep is like a B with outside sweep. Clearly, then, as you move the object ball a half inch or so at a time to sharper angles, the object ball is going to go fatter and fatter until it will no longer be pocketed. Then you know you need to aim at B. You only get this experience, as Stan says, by hitting thousands and thousands of balls and by learning the relationships between the balls and the right angles of the table (that is, where the pockets are).

Let me close by saying that everyone in this forum wishes Stan had something that we could all benefit from. God knows I wouldn't have spent a whole week in this thread if I didn't hold out some hope that I would understand how the system works.

I don't mean to sound harsh, and I KNOW I'm going to get flamed for this, but in this case I have to call it like I see it. I believe Stan is doing a great disservice by marketing a system that he does not understand well enough to communicate clearly to students. Nobody can sell a DVD set and half way through the lesson say, "Now at this point I'm not sure what happens, but just do it and it'll work" so he has mastered an air of authority and earnestness without really saying anything sensible (I'm referring to everything after 6:30 in the video). Stan should figure out what he is really doing in that video with the large balls and then explain it clearly. If it really works then it should be explainable. I believe I understand Stephen Hawking's theory on the beginning of time better than I understand the two minutes following 6:30.

Now that I am officially a hater, I would like to offer that I would like nothing more than for someone like Stan to show me what a fool I am and let me understand how anybody can send the ob in three different directions by using the same visuals and same half tip sweep.

It's your loss. It just amazes me that you can make this post after just watching a video and not spending time at the table. The video above is certainly very clear and gives you a great foundation to work from.

 

[Dan White]

The pivot is only which direction that the shooter comes into the shot from. You haven't understood what you were told as to how a player gets to the point of pivoting.

I understand exactly what the purpose of the pivot is. I don't understand how he is able to see the same visual (edge to A and CTE) yet at the same time be cutting a thinner angle and standing in a different location or body angle. I think my original post asked the question pretty clearly.

This video was so informative that Stan pretty much teaches the whole thing in it.

For any student of CTE the video makes perfect sense.

That's why Stan makes them. They are not intended to spoon feed those who want magic bullets.

CTE Pro 1 is marketed as a magic bullet, really. In the video, Stan says he played thousands of hours (HAMB method) but then immediately tells us 3 stories of people who picked it up in a day and a week, plus one guy who ran 100 balls right after learning it. So, really, the magic bullet idea is floated out there. I've been playing long enough to know there are no easy answers, but at the same time there are some tricks of the trade and who wouldn't want to learn those? Diamond systems for kicking, for example.

Anyway, all of that is besides the point. I just want to understand what he is saying and nobody has yet helped me out. I can understand Stan ignoring me because I'm not even a paying customer, so no hard feelings. Actually, I would pay Stan retroactively if I was able to learn this thing and if it worked as advertised. But I don't consider "hand waving" explanations adequate.

..........

 

[cookie man]

With CTE, the contact point on the ob shouldn't be a factor .
I've seen him bend over and look at the contact point .
Do I think he's using CTE now? Not really as he shoots really fast and I don't see any pivot. And from the video shown where he teaches GB, it seemed to me he does not like adjusting when he is down .
I could be wrong . He could still be using CTE.
You know him, you can always PM him.

He could be bending down to look at the reference lines. Also sometimes we look at the approximate contact point to help us pick the reference line to use. Someone using cte would not have to adjust when down or use a visual pivot.
I have no idea how Rodney aims except for whats been posted here.

 

[Dan White]

Dan,

How do you feel about individuals being pulled into trying it with assertions that are not (objectively) explained?

There are laws against false advertising, and while I don't really care to delve into whether that is an issue in this case, I don't think it is ever fair to entice a new player by using false claims. One thing that rubbed me a little the wrong way is when Stan says this is a "professional system." He goes on to tout that this is a very high level thing and implies that it is something only the top players really understand. To someone new to pool, they are going to think that CTE is standard training for the high level players, and it just isn't.

 

[Dan White]

FWIW that video you linked to tended more toward clarification of the method for me than it did toward obfuscation, enough so that I am willing to give the method another go in the near future. Funny how our minds all work differently.

Howdy, SP. OK, then maybe you can read my original request for clarification and clue me in? I'm trying to learn it, not debunk it, but a lot of you guys, Stan included, don't make it easy.

 

[Dan White]

You're sending Dan the videos I am sure.

Problem is that you can't even appreciate the level of objectivity Stan demonstrated in this video. You don't get it and never will.

I don't care if Dan ever learns CTE but to have you and others turning him into a poison weapon stopping people from trying is horrible on your part.

Makes you and them horrid human beings in my opinion.

Take a yoga class, John. :smile: I'm not at the point of trying to stop anybody from doing anything. I just want to learn more. And, yes, I have my own brain, and no, Rick isn't sending me any videos. I did google some on my own as well.

From my view at this point, the CTE system as defined can be called an objective system because the cue ball and object ball aim points, and the pivots are all fixed and used repeatedly the same way. The problem is that I'm not sure that's how balls are actually pocketed. I would be more sure if I understood the video instruction better.

 

[cookie man]

And yet none of them (including Stan) can describe it intelligibly.

pj <- go figure
chgo

Oh great guru, which part do you need explained?
Of course your post goes against all the years of you saying you know cte better than just about everyone.

 

[cookie man]

Good Morning John.

Do you not see where a sort of magic bullet is inferred by the assertion that it is a totally objective 'system'?

That's part of the issue. That is sort of what is known as the 'bait & switch'.

I, like Dan, am not saying that Stan has done any such thing intentionally. Like Dan, I think Stan is sincere. It's just that he made a rather large 'mistake' making that assertion.

Take that assertion away & I truly think most, if not all, of the hub bub goes away or at least is reduced significantly.

But... that may not be what some actually want.

Best Wishes.

PS Do you know if Mr. Wilson is still a moderator here?

Really, are you speaking for Dan because this is his qoute. "From my view at this point, the CTE system as defined can be called an objective system because the cue ball and object ball aim points, and the pivots are all fixed and used repeatedly the same way."

 

[JB Cases]

We're going around circles here .
First, you said you didn't even know if he used CTE AT ALL or if he's using CTE now .
You forgot about that old thread .
You would start a thread when Rodney started using CTE , but now you don't care what he does ? Don't you think you should talk to him and find out what part of it he doesn't like ( IF AT ALL ) or if he's still using it ?

I'm not speaking against it here .

The CTE bashers should stop . Let those who want to try it buy the DVD. It's cheap.

Look I don't care. At the time, two or three years ago or whenever I posted what Rodney publicly said on FB. It was relevant then. It isn't relevant now.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

Where did I say that? I actually want to learn it but I don't know what the hell he is talking about! I'm not criticizing CTE, I'm criticizing Stan's inability or unwillingness to explain a very important part of his system. It's like I'm going to explain to everybody how an internal combustion engine works. 1: fuel and air enter the cylinder, 2. a spark plug ignites the mixture, 3. the thingamabob jimmies the caboose dessert, 4. the car rolls forward. Uh, wait a sec. Can you run that step 3 by me again?

I know there is a lot of agreement with me because of the pm's I'm getting. Even some of his supporters don't get it. I think people just don't want to appear rude or ignorant, so they don't bring it up to Stan. Maybe hashing that out would be the best thing he could do to elevate CTE.

Also, I only mention Hal Houle to answer the other question about whether I've tried any of this. I tried it way back then, I've seen some of Stan's videos here and there, but really only when this thread started did I really try to find if there are any answers to the things I never understood, and what the latest CTE looks like.

The video you linked to explains it very well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[Dan White]

Even Dan White is still in the undecided 'realm'.

I'm trying my best to take people at their word and not prejudge. There's no hurry and when I believe I have an answer, which looks like it may be in the form of a non-answer, then I'll go "poof" like a genie and will be back to running balls rather than typing keys.

Regards,

 

[Dan White]

So true. Any method of aiming has to start with the fact that the cueball must contact the object ball opposite the pocket. This is a physical fact and cannot be derived from pure geometry. With that fact in hand, you can develop various derivative statements using geometry, but the salient things you have to work with are precious few, namely, the centers and edges of the balls. Using them to arrive at the ghostball position involves some combination of two things: visualization and feel, the latter being memorization from experience.

Jim

Now I can guarantee that that guy right there understands Hawking's theory concerning how time began. :thumbup:

 

[JB Cases]

..........

Please. He gave examples of guys who got it quickly AFTER stating clearly that those are not typical results.

The guy who got it in a week was already a 70-80 ball runner when he decided to try CTE. For him he saw immediate improvement.

As Dave said, it is your loss. To use your engine analogy.....you would refuse to learn how to be a mechanic unless someone explained to you all the intricacies of an engine first.

Many people know how to fix cars without a full understanding of the engineering used to design the car.

I'd offer to send you my DVD just as I have lent it out many times but I think it's not worth it. Just try it seems to be a step to far for you. My sincere apologies for wasting your time trying to help you through pms. Sounds like you have the support that confirms your initial bias already.

Cte team, we lost one.....moment of silence please.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[Dan White]

For all the people that don't want to buy into your method there's others that will....find those and preach on. If you want people to support your system then ignore posts from people that say it doesn't work and put your efforts into helping people who want to use your system.

... and don't accuse those people of trying to discredit the system when they don't understand the instructor's lesson.

 

[JB Cases]

Take a yoga class, John. I'm not at the point of trying to stop anybody from doing anything. I just want to learn more. And, yes, I have my own brain, and no, Rick isn't sending me any videos. I did google some on my own as well.

From my view at this point, the CTE system as defined can be called an objective system because the cue ball and object ball aim points, and the pivots are all fixed and used repeatedly the same way. The problem is that I'm not sure that's how balls are actually pocketed. I would be more sure if I understood the video instruction better.

Balls are pocketed by sending the cueball down the shot line.

This all reminds me of trying to get my six year old to eat new things. Just try it doesn't work on her either. After years of trying to get her to eat apples she finally tried one and now loves apples.

Trippy how hard it is to convince forum readers to try new things designed to help them play better.

Knockers are liked those who picket abortion clinics trying to convince women not to do what the woman feels is best for their own life.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[Dan White]

It's your loss. It just amazes me that you can make this post after just watching a video and not spending time at the table. The video above is certainly very clear and gives you a great foundation to work from.

Hi cookie man. I did spend time at the table. That's how I realized that edge to A is edge to A is edge to A (with CTE at the same time of course). Stan seems to get a different shot angle using the same edge to A in his three big ball examples. A good teacher doesn't tell the student "too bad your an idiot." He tries to explain the problem areas in a different way until the light bulb comes on in the student.

 

[duckie]

Yall do know in the real world.....spheres, ie balls do not have edges, just a surface.

A cube has edges.

 

[KRJ]

There are laws against false advertising, and while I don't really care to delve into whether that is an issue in this case, I don't think it is ever fair to entice a new player by using false claims. One thing that rubbed me a little the wrong way is when Stan says this is a "professional system." He goes on to tout that this is a very high level thing and implies that it is something only the top players really understand. To someone new to pool, they are going to think that CTE is standard training for the high level players, and it just isn't.

C'mon, really? False advertising does not fit into this mold, and most folks know that already. Now alleging false claims? Lets break it down and see if this helps;

You say: Stan says this is a "professional system"?

I say: well, yes, Stan is not only a life long professional school teacher, but also a professional pool instructor and a person who finishes high in professional events.

You say: He goes on to tout this is a "very high level thing" & implies that it is something only the top players understand.

I say: When did "high level" imply, at any time, that meant it was only for top players? You might have inferred it, but that is not Stan's fault. It's high level because it's quite a bit more complicated than "ghost ball" would you not agree?


So, if you want to "beef" about the system, that's fine. But, to take stuff out of context or "infer" what you think he means by a certain word, that's not really accurate. Just saying. But if you like or don't like CTE, that's fine too, but let's not "assume" things are not part of the record.

I wish you good shooting however you get there