Holy Smoke!!!

randyg said:
SPF Instructors total is at 167 around the World. That is a very tight clique.

Thanks
SPF=randyg
Click to expand...


Sounds like restraint of trade and collusion. No wonder we have a lack of information. 167 guys are holding all the answers to themselves. Unless of course you want to do something for that info. Like pay for dinner or something else outrageous.

Ah for the old days when you could learn from the local shortstop, game by game.:eek: Life was simpler then.
 
pooltchr said:
You are probably right. In fact, since you seem to have made up your mind that you're right, then your reality is that you are right.
Don't bother to try and learn it. It won't happen. Continue to do what you are doing.

Now, for anyone who has an open mind, and is willing to try new things in an effort to improve, well, my advice would be very different.

Open minds open doors.


Steve
Click to expand...

Learn what? An "aiming system" that aims balls at pockets without taking note of where the pockets are in relation to the balls? There's nothing to "learn."

It would be like a month-long course teaching how to determine the type of cheese that the moon is made of.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Guys I'm gonna run a 50/50 drawing. $10/chance. Pick how many days it'll take for GMT to get perma-banned (or say he's "done" posting again).
Click to expand...

Aha! Well, I noticed JUST AFTER MY DEPARTURE that a group of back-slapping CTE instructors started up this phony looking thread to promote each other. The timing was TOO SUGGESTIVE, and required me to hop in to deflate the phony bag of fetid gas that is this thread.

I will be gone again soon--only to return if more gas builds up too fast and needs venting.
 
Shawn Armstrong said:
OK, so CTE sucks. SAM sucks. Same Aim sucks. BCA instructors suck.

Could you let me know what pool related things you feel don't suck?
Click to expand...

Glad you put it that way. In fact, "branding" of instruction has ALWAYS sucked, wherever it has been seen. "Branding" overall is invariably a method to add false value to something. It's best known in consumer products: the name "Tide" is probably worth BILLIONS--but it's just the same old soap that anybody could make, for a tenth the price.

But branding of instruction is the WORST! It connotes "zombie, machine-like" analysis and instruction of PEOPLE--each of whom are different.

To give an example: Do you think that greatly talented musicians seek out a "brand" of playing instructors? Or do they seek out something more like "rogue geniuses" who can actually think independently, and offer something more that a trite "formula for success?"

Do you really believe that hordes of US open winners are going to ensue from some "instruction brand?" What a laugh that would be!

You give yourself a brand name when you don't have anything of OBVIOUS value, that others can easily see, or that is quickly gained through word of mouth or reputation.
 
Last edited:
GetMeThere said:
Glad you put it that way. In fact, "branding" of instruction has ALWAYS sucked, wherever it has been seen. "Branding" overall is invariably a method to add false value to something. It's best known in consumer products: the name "Tide" is probably worth BILLIONS--but it's just the same old soap that anybody could make, for a tenth the price.

But branding of instruction is the WORST! It connotes "zombie, machine-like" analysis and instruction of PEOPLE--each of whom are different.

To give an example: Do you think that greatly talented musicians seek out a "brand" of playing instructors? Or do they seek out something more like "rogue geniuses" who can actually think independently, and offer something more that a trite "formula for success?"

Do you really believe that hordes of US open winners are going to ensue from some "instruction brand?" What a laugh that would be!

You give yourself a brand name when you don't have anything of OBVIOUS great value, that others can easily see, or that is quickly gained through word of mouth or reputation.
Click to expand...

What the hell did you smoke before you wrote this?

When you cut your finger, do you put a Band-Aid on it, or an adhesive bandage strip? Brand isn't used to develop value. Value comes from the brand having quality. Two brands - Kia and BMW. Which would you rather drive? Is BMW expensive merely because of the name?

Why do you think musicians go to Berklee or Juilliard? Guess those aren't brands, though......
 
Shawn Armstrong said:
When you cut your finger, do you put a Band-Aid on it, or an adhesive bandage strip? Brand isn't used to develop value. Value comes from the brand having quality.
Click to expand...

Ah, you're a "well-educated" consumer. A good boy, good corporate citizen. You've learned your lessons well, and will serve as you're asked.

Sorry about my comment I....must have been confused.
 
3kushn said:
Sounds like restraint of trade and collusion. No wonder we have a lack of information. 167 guys are holding all the answers to themselves. Unless of course you want to do something for that info. Like pay for dinner or something else outrageous.

Ah for the old days when you could learn from the local shortstop, game by game.:eek: Life was simpler then.
Click to expand...

Of course, you didn't have to pay anything for those lessons, did you?

Learning/Education is a funny thing. One can go to the library, get a free library card, and pretty much learn anything they want to learn. So why would anyone spend thousands of dollars to attend a University to learn the same things one can learn for free on their own?

Those big bad universities are holding out on us! They should just let everyone come in and sit in classes for free and get an education. Or better yet, those universities should just put all the information they teach out on the internet so nobody even has to bother to attend classes. They should be able to sit in their living room drinking a cold one and have access to whatever they want.

In fact, we probably should just get rid of all schools and teachers and let everyone go out and learn everything they need to know from the school of hard knocks.

Good Plan!!

Steve
 
GetMeThere said:
Ah, you're a "well-educated" consumer. A good boy, good corporate citizen. You've learned your lessons well, and will serve as you're asked.

Sorry about my comment I....must have been confused.
Click to expand...

And you keep "stickin' it to the man" by protesting the evils of CTE and Tide, brother. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!
 
pooltchr said:
Learning/Education is a funny thing. One can go to the library, get a free library card, and pretty much learn anything they want to learn. So why would anyone spend thousands of dollars to attend a University to learn the same things one can learn for free on their own?
Click to expand...

A very good point. Most things one could learn at a university are also printed right there for anyone to see in a textbook--yet people STILL go to university.

I wonder why CTE purveyors haven't taken that route (since it hasn't seemed to harm universities). But no, CTE contains mystical secrets that can't be divulged on, for example, discussion forums.

pooltchr said:
Those big bad universities are holding out on us! They should just let everyone come in and sit in classes for free and get an education. Or better yet, those universities should just put all the information they teach out on the internet so nobody even has to bother to attend classes.
Good Plan!!
Click to expand...

I guess you're not aware that prestigious universities are now putting videos of many of their courses online for anyone to view--free of charge, OR that most universities allow "auditing" of many of their classes by the general public. Most university classes don't "take attendance" so ANYBODY could be in them, and nobody would know (I was once involved as a teaching assistant for a HIGH LEVEL university biology course, understandable only by relative "experts," where the best student in the class was someone who more or less just "walked in off the street." I was a bit pissed off, after taking the effort to grade her exams, when I discovered she wasn't on the official list of students!)

Here's the first class of a year long course in physics from the famous physicist Leonard Susskind.

Here's a great one from MIT on solid state chemistry.

Or maybe you'd like to learn about circuits and electronics from MIT?

BTW, Stanford and MIT are PRIVATE universities--not state sponsored. They GIVE THIS STUFF AWAY, yet people scramble and compete by the tens of thousands to go there and pay for it ANYWAY.

Hey, maybe you can go back to school and actually LEARN something? I'll tell you one thing for sure, if Stanford or MIT ever decides to have a class on POOL I'll definitely be watching it!
 
Shawn Armstrong said:
And you keep "stickin' it to the man" by protesting the evils of CTE and Tide, brother. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!
Click to expand...

Well...Tide actually DOES DO SOMETHING--it doesn't belong listed with CTE.

They just charge more for it than it's worth--just as, I'm sure, "billiard instructors" who need to "brand" themselves do.
 
GetMeThere said:
A very good point. Most things one could learn at a university are also printed right there for anyone to see in a textbook--yet people STILL go to university.
Click to expand...

I agree with that! I think Dr. Dave said it before: with instructional material most of the times it is not the information itself that is new or unique but rather the way how it is presented. So, even if there was already a description of Pro-1/CTE available on this forum or wikipedia or somewhere else, people would still buy the DVD in order to see the very same information properly presented by its inventor.

I also would like to comment on the uselessness of judging the validity of someone's comments on this person's ability to shoot pool. Myself, I am a pretty lousy player. I have never ever run a complete rack of 8-, 9- or 10-ball and my high-run in straight pool is embarissingly low. I have not started playing pool until a year or two ago, so I can live with that performance and I am working on improving it anyway.

BUT, when someone tells me that I can make any ball by aligning center-to-edge, do some kind of shift to one side or the other and pivot back to center (yes, I am aware that I am oversimplifying the issue!), it at least makes me curious.

It also makes me think that there has to be something missing in the description. But so far I could not clearly identify this missing pieces in all of these threads. Maybe it is the "effective pivot length", or it is the "outermost edge" that pops up occasionally (is that edge different from the one I can see standing behind the CB?), or maybe it is the "line from the pocket to the OB edge" that JBcases has recently refered to.

I don't know it yet, but I do want to find out, what it is. Just out of curiosity. I consider buying the DVD, at least after I have seen more reviews of the final edition. I just love to watch pool videos and read books on pool.

Karl
 
pooltchr said:
Of course, you didn't have to pay anything for those lessons, did you?

Steve
Click to expand...

Of course not Steve. Why do you think I play 3Cushion. I'm a tight wad. We're all so happy to have someone else thats even heard of the game, the info flows freely around the table be it good or bad.

Your teacher argument is good. Maybe all service organizations should be banned from charging anything and all manufacturers banned from making a profit.
Hmmmm. Am I the first one to think of this?

Regards
Karl M.
 
3kushn said:
Maybe all service organizations should be banned from charging anything and all manufacturers banned from making a profit.
Hmmmm. Am I the first one to think of this?

Regards
Karl M.
Click to expand...

If I answered that question, it would probably stir up a political discussion that would not belong on this forum! :grin::grin::grin:

NPR???

Steve
 
GetMeThere said:
A very good point. Most things one could learn at a university are also printed right there for anyone to see in a textbook--yet people STILL go to university.

I wonder why CTE purveyors haven't taken that route (since it hasn't seemed to harm universities). But no, CTE contains mystical secrets that can't be divulged on, for example, discussion forums.



I guess you're not aware that prestigious universities are now putting videos of many of their courses online for anyone to view--free of charge, OR that most universities allow "auditing" of many of their classes by the general public. Most university classes don't "take attendance" so ANYBODY could be in them, and nobody would know (I was once involved as a teaching assistant for a HIGH LEVEL university biology course, understandable only by relative "experts," where the best student in the class was someone who more or less just "walked in off the street." I was a bit pissed off, after taking the effort to grade her exams, when I discovered she wasn't on the official list of students!)

Here's the first class of a year long course in physics from the famous physicist Leonard Susskind.

Here's a great one from MIT on solid state chemistry.

Or maybe you'd like to learn about circuits and electronics from MIT?

BTW, Stanford and MIT are PRIVATE universities--not state sponsored. They GIVE THIS STUFF AWAY, yet people scramble and compete by the tens of thousands to go there and pay for it ANYWAY.

Hey, maybe you can go back to school and actually LEARN something? I'll tell you one thing for sure, if Stanford or MIT ever decides to have a class on POOL I'll definitely be watching it!
Click to expand...

And so what?

You can also audit a PAID CTE class when it's being held in a public place.

Many people have put up videos that have been helpful to the people who want to learn CTE.

The information is out there for free. The people who have more details are (were) willing to give those details for free in exchange for respectful communication.

What about the research happening at MIT that they don't want to have published on the web in detail?

By your logic I should be able to demand that they present that material to the world for free.

Let's take a big step back here.

People can learn CTE without knowing the underlying physics. Many people on this board have learned CTE to some degree of proficiency based SOLELY on freely available material.

Even someone who teaches CTE doesn't have to understand the underlying physics as long as they can demonstrate the technique and convey it well enough to others that those others can perform it.

In fact, sometimes it's a hindrance to try and figure out the underpinnings of a technique. Sometimes it's better to just know how to "twist" a bank shot in and get the cash rather than to know that force plus amplitude increases rotation to cause the object ball to take a path that appears to defy physics.

Scientists study the dynamics of running. Runners run and scientists study them.

Right now you are living in an ivory tower and expecting the world to come to you.

Doesn't work that way. If you want to know the steps to perform CTE then go get them. If you want to study CTE users to test your theories then go find them. Otherwise all your postings on here are 100% useless except as some sort of entertainment.
 
John. How many serious players have you met that were not interested in learning any possible thing that could help them improve?

The really good players seem to understand that there is always something new to learn, if only they are open minded enough to learn it, and their ego doesn't get in their way.

Steve
 
pooltchr said:
The really good players seem to understand that there is always something new to learn...
Click to expand...

Ah! An endless source of income for anyone who can always INVENT something new to learn! And, of course, since everybody wants to be like "really good players," then everybody is a sucker for any new piece of baloney anybody can come up with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top