I will ask again is it possible you can please post in your words the claims or issues you have with cte/pro1? please dont cut and paste something or make me read between the lines on your site or link to to something? Just post like everyone else does? you seem to be the most knowledgeable guy out of all these guys that think there are some issues?
I would be happy to. First of all, here are some of the "marketing claims" we have heard over the years (quoted from the
DAM resource page):
I have invented an amazing and new aiming system called DAM that will revolutionize pool playing all around the world. You won't find DAM in any books, because it has just been recently invented. But rest assured ... all future pool books will present DAM in its full glory. DAM is the best and most complete aiming system, that also contributes to correct body alignment, that has ever been devised. Most of the pros use it, especially the Filipino players ... that's why they are so good. DAM works on every shot, regardless of the distance between the balls, or the angle and distance to the pocket. The best thing about DAM is you don't even need to know or see where the pocket is. Just align and pivot, and the ball just goes in the hole. When a good player uses the system, it is impossible to tell ... it will just look like they are naturally pocketing balls. That's when you know they are using DAM!
Try to prove that DAM doesn't work ... you can't, because it does work. If you can't make it work, it is because you really don't understand it. If you ask a pro if he or she uses DAM, and he or she says he or she doesn't, it is because he or she doesn't want you to know his or her secrets. The DAM system will radically improve the shot-making abilities of those who spend the time to learn it. DAM will eventually become the "aiming standard" and will significantly accelerate your learning curve. There are those who will eventually learn the system, and there are those who will not, and be beaten by those who do. If you don't think DAM works, it is because you haven't had personalized lessons with somebody who truly understands it. I make almost every shot with this system ... I rarely miss. Isn't that proof of how good it is? Don't you want to be as good as me? If you want to master the DAM system, you must visit me in person and pay outrageous sums of money to learn all of the required intricacies.
It only takes two days to learn DAM, and if you practice it for two months, you will start winning tournaments. If you can't make it work, it is because you don't have enough "visual intelligence," in which case you are hopeless. Don't ask me to describe the system in words or with diagrams, because this can't be done; although, I do have lots of fancy words and phrases to describe various parts of the system ... aren't you impressed? If you don't believe in my system or if you doubt the validity of my approach, you will be banished by all of my followers.
Probably the most amazing fact about DAM is that it works for all types of shots, not just cut shots. It also gives you the correct line of aim for combos, caroms, and banks. And you don't need to adjust for speed, English, throw, or spin-transfer effects. All of the adjustment happen automatically with DAM.
If you want to learn the magic of DAM, I am currently offering exclusive private lessons. I know this might sound ridiculous, but I must be clear on this matter: My students are not allowed to share with anybody anything they learn. They are required to sign a special nondisclosure agreement that binds them for life. People are willing to openly discuss and share everything they learn from my VEPS or VEPP series; but if and when I ever release the DAM-DVD, the information must not be disclosed by any viewers; otherwise, they risk exposing themselves to extreme wrath and persecution.
Many of these outrageous claims are direct quotes or paraphrases from statements posted by "aiming system" proponents on pool Internet forums over the years.
And here is a good explanation of the "issues" involved with all align-and-pivot "aiming systems" like CTE/Pro-One:
Here are the three famous (or infamous) shots specifically addressed on Stan's DVD:
Shot "A" is about a 10-degree cut, shot "B" is about a 15-degree cut, and shot "C" is about a 20-degree cut. All three shots fit into the "thick cut" category of CTE. Also, the CB-to-OB distance is the same for all three shots. If the bridge length and pivot amount is the same for all three shots, a pertinent question is: What do you do differently with the alignment and/or pivot steps of CTE to pocket each of the three shots?
BTW, these three shots were brought up many years ago, long before your version of CTE came on the scene, so they were originally intended for discussion with
previous versions of CTE; although, they still apply in the current debate.
Some CTE/Pro-One users have seemed to claim that the same alignment and pivot is used for all three shots. Some seem to have claimed that a different alignment and/or pivot is used for each. There seems to be confusion about this in the CTE/Pro-One community. Honestly, I haven't watched your DVD in a while and don't remember which alignments and pivots you suggest. Regardless, for discussion purposes, instead of the 5 shots you request, let's make it 15 shots instead. Let's have the 15 shots be equally spaced between shots A and C above.
As is clear on your DVD and in
the brief summary of your approach, as interpreted by me, the alignment and pivot choices change with shot cut angle. As the cut angle changes in small increments between shots A and C, the choices for alignment and pivot change at certain points in the range. At each point where they change, because neighboring shots of the group of 15 are so close together, it seems reasonable to conclude that different alignments and pivots should be able to be used to pocket the same shot. It also seems reasonable that the alignment and pivot will not change for certain ranges of shots among the 15. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to conclude that a single alignment and pivot should be able to be used to create a range of cut angles. However, if you follow the
procedure listed here accurately and consistently (and don't make any "adjustments" whatsoever), it seems to me that it would result in the exact same cut angle every time for a selected alignment and pivot, and for a given CB-OB distance and chosen bridge length, assuming a rigid and fixed bridge. Obviously, this particular cut angle will work for some of the shots in the range, and it won't work for others (depending on the distance to and size of the pocket), because every shot in the range requires a different cut angle (assuming center-pocket aiming).
Now, does that mean you can't make CTE work for all shots at a table? Absolutely not. I have suggested
four ways it can be made to work, despite the apparent challenges. This is where the "visual intelligence," "adjustment," "experience-based intuition," and "feel" come into play. (Also, with enough practice, a person might be able to learn to do one or more of the four techniques suggested naturally and even subconsciously ... to where they might not even know they are doing them.) I certainly don't think there is anything wrong with a system that involves "experience-based intuition"; in fact, I think "aiming systems" and "pre-shot routines" like CTE and Pro-One offer
many real benefits for some people.
I hope that helps clarify things a little. I think these concepts and issues are at the heart of the controversy with align-and-pivot systems, as has been the case for 15 years.
BTW the way, I don't want to restart this whole debate again. It has gone on for too long and I feel I have addressed the issues as well as I possibly can in this post and on my resource pages. Although, I will continue to listen and learn if people share new and meaningful insight. I am also happy to clarify anything that is unclear in my explanation above (in response to any civil and mature questions or comments).
Regards,
Dave
