How beneficial is an aiming system?

[Banks]

OK then, what would YOU consider proof then Mr Expert?

Again I have nothing to gain here and I can only share my own experience with CTE. Of which I have ZERO reason to lie about.

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk

Well, Mr. Genius, I'd consider scientific proof of the claims to be enough. That's all I've ever asked for.

Edit: There's this new-fangled thing called "math" that can explain how things work in regards to lines, angles and force.

 

[Gerry Williams]

And what sort of proof do you expect people to provide other than video evidence of them applying what they are working on? Do you expect them to fly out to share experiences with you 1 on 1? A mathematical proof?

I have a career and a family as well - so I am not playing pool 10 hours a day like you might think.

Maybe your method of aiming is better - noone ever said otherwise. You can choose to believe it works or not - entirely up to you. But at least make sure it is an informed opinion and not one made in haste.

Who said you had anything to hide?

I've been playing for 9 years. No real lessons. Equipment, maybe $500 or so. I bought a barbox once, but it was so bad I didn't use it. I just drink and play primarily on bar tables. I've been on here since a year after I started playing and joined APA. Just about my entire pool history can be found on AZB. Locally, I'd be a high A or low master. I've played with a handful of people here on the board. I'm ok, not great but not horrible.

When I sit here at work at read about these cure-all claims, I just ask for proof. Nobody can give any solid proof. After 20 years of playing and having a table at home, you play really well? No kidding. Of course, Barton was all about CTE even 4 years or so ago when I first noticed this aiming topic. I guess that means my method of "just playing" is better than CTE? If I wanted to make such a claim, I'd think I would need some kind of solid evidence. From the sounds of it here, though, that wouldn't seem to be the case. Maybe I should add it to my sig line that what I do is better than CTE? After all, I don't need scientific proof.

 

[Neil]

THERE IS NOT "MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE". Do you even understand what evidence is?

Ok, how about this..

Learn and follow every single religion in the world and then tell me that whatever you currently believe is still correct.

Unfairly criticize? What are you smoking? CTE people make claims and they get their panties in a wad when asked for proof. I can make a bunch of shots and claim it was the PBR that I had the night before that made those shots. It does not make it so. Yeah, I get it, that's pretty hard to comprehend..



Seriously..

No, really..

What don't you understand about the words "proof" and "evidence"?

How about my proof that ghost ball works better? Yep, I did well doing things in a short amount of time, so it's obviously better.

Comparing CTE to religion now? That's a sure sign of someone that has nothing else to claim, so they resort to religion or Hitler. At least you haven't stooped to using the Hitler phrases ....yet.

See the part of your post that I put in red? Usually, the only people that say things like that, and can't take someone at their word, is because they would do exactly what they accuse the others of doing if it were turned around. They just can't comprehend someone actually being honest about something, because they never are themselves.

Not saying YOU are like that, but it sure does make one question your motives here.

 

[Banks]

Comparing CTE to religion now? That's a sure sign of someone that has nothing else to claim, so they resort to religion or Hitler. At least you haven't stooped to using the Hitler phrases ....yet.

See the part of your post that I put in red? Usually, the only people that say things like that, and can't take someone at their word, is because they would do exactly what they accuse the others of doing if it were turned around. They just can't comprehend someone actually being honest about something, because they never are themselves.

Not saying YOU are like that, but it sure does make one question your motives here.

You're demanding that people have faith that what you say is true, but refuse to provide evidence. Same thing.

 

[Gerry Williams]

So what you are saying is that people who share CTE experiences are not being honest about what they are doing?

Just trying to understand.

You're demanding that people have faith that what you say is true, but refuse to provide evidence. Same thing.

 

[shinobi]

I'm not sure why people get so emotional about this topic, on either side.

 

[Banks]

And what sort of proof do you expect people to provide other than video evidence of them applying what they are working on? Do you expect them to fly out to share experiences with you 1 on 1? A mathematical proof?

I have a career and a family as well - so I am not playing pool 10 hours a day like you might think.

Maybe your method of aiming is better - noone ever said otherwise. You can choose to believe it works or not - entirely up to you. But at least make sure it is an informed opinion and not one made in haste.

Mathematical proof would be sufficient. You don't even have to include force and spin. You can leave it up to angles and lines.

 

[Banks]

So what you are saying is that people who share CTE experiences are not being honest about what they are doing?

Just trying to understand.

Experiences are one thing. Claims are something else entirely.

 

[Banks]

Real CTE connects to table geomortry!!!

Just show me the math. :thumbup:

 

[Neil]

Well, Mr. Genius, I'd consider scientific proof of the claims to be enough. That's all I've ever asked for.

Edit: There's this new-fangled thing called "math" that can explain how things work in regards to lines, angles and force.

In case you haven't noticed, science can not yet do the math on how our vision perceives exactly what we see to use it in a formula for something like is needed with this subject. Since you seem to be such a fan of it, maybe you can be the first to discover how to do it.

 

[Neil]

Just show me the math. :thumbup:

1=aim like this
2= stroke like this
3= ball goes in pocket

1+2=3. Happy now?

 

[Gerry Williams]

Do you need math to make the ball go in the hole? That is how I judge any system I use.

Just show me the math. :thumbup:

 

[JB Cases]

Just like there is video proof of Bigfoot and ghosts.

The people pushing this stuff act like fanatical followers. Either people accept CTE as gospel or they're heretics. Lou doesn't do the puppy dog following act, so now he's filled with hate. Yeah, like that's a valid point.

If you make claims, the burden of proof is on you. Not the other way around. Just ask the FDA or even Kevin Trudeau.

PROVE IT! Just freakin prove it FOR ONCE! JUST ONCE! Give some EVIDENCE. You do understand what that is, right? I mean, I suppose I could post a link to a dictionary or something..

What would you accept as proof?

Please make a list for us and we can see what we can do for you.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[Banks]

In case you haven't noticed, science can not yet do the math on how our vision perceives exactly what we see to use it in a formula for something like is needed with this subject. Since you seem to be such a fan of it, maybe you can be the first to discover how to do it.

Which is why I don't try to explain how I shoot, nor do I make claims about what it can do for everybody.

If you make it a science, as aiming systems claim to do with lines and pivots, why is it so difficult to provide scientific evidence? As my post above shows, Stan even says that it "connects to table geometry."

 

[Banks]

1=aim like this
2= stroke like this
3= ball goes in pocket

1+2=3. Happy now?

That's how all shooting goes. So, you're saying CTE is the same then, not better?

 

[dr_dave]

Well, one thing you could do Dave- actually learn the system and then make an evaluation on it. Not make an evaluation of posts of others and then claim that is an honest evaluation of the actual system.

Neil,

I put much more time into learning CTE than you and others might think. I have read and tried everything the proponents have posted and communicated to me over these many years. I also put a significant amount of time studying, practicing, and concisely summarizing the fundamentals from Stan's DVD.

Being an instructor, it would benefit you to know how to use it correctly anyways.

Honestly, I have no desire to teach CTE or any of the pivot-based "aiming systems" (except BHE, which isn't really an "aiming system," based on my earlier definition). If I had a student approach me wanting to learn 90/90 or CTE, I would simply refer him or her to Stan, Ron, or you.

Regards,
Dave

 

[JB Cases]

You want proof that it not only doesn't work, but that it's harmful to one's game?

Stevie Moore's earnings:

2008: $62,155
2009: $36,725
2010: $26,746
2011: $16,020
2012: $19,466
2013: $3,115

Prove me wrong.

Lol. It's fun arguing with people that require no scientific evidence.

Everyone's earnings went down the past five years with the possible exception of very few players.

And CTE is again by itself only one component of playing the game.

Could you make a list of what scientific evidence you require?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[Neil]

Mathematical proof would be sufficient. You don't even have to include force and spin. You can leave it up to angles and lines.

What's actually funny and sad at the same time, is that I believe you actually think you are standing on a solid base with that statement. Care to show me the math behind ghost-ball, back-of-the-ball aiming, or any of a couple of dozen other aiming systems? How about the math behind what ever way you aim?

What? You can't show it? You must be a charlatan and huckster then.

Those of you that constantly claim "show me the math" wouldn't even understand it if you saw it. Truth is, you have to claim some nonsense to validate your reasons for not using something that inwardly you really believe might be of great benefit to you.

Fact is, in the past, all you detractors wanted videos of others using it as proof for you that it really does work. Now, you do have those videos. Yet, you now change your tune, and say that the videos isn't proof at all. Now you want math. What will you resort to if the math is ever shown to you? Save some typing on here and just go to that one. I'm curious to see what other nonsense you guys come up with.

 

[Banks]

I put much more time into learning CTE than you and others might think. I have read and tried everything the proponents have posted and communicated to me over these many years. I also put a significant amount of time studying, practicing, and concisely summarizing the fundamentals from Stan's DVD.

Dave, I'm trying to remember.. professor of physics, is it?

Since you've taken the time to study and critique CTE and have such a background.. have you taken the time to figure out any kind of mathematical formula that may prove that CTE does indeed connect to table geometry to make every shot?

 

[bwally]

I'm not sure why people get so emotional about this topic, on either side.

Because when someone with no motive shares their honest experience yet still questioned anyways it comes across as either you are lying or you have no idea what you are doing.

For me I am only trying explain what I have seen over the past few weeks with CTE. Hard to blame someone for being excited about consistently making shots that used to give me fits prior to CTE.

No its not something I can put down in a mathematical thesis. All I have is my word.

Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk