Did you just call me a bigot?
More exciting CTE facts and information
- Thread starter Low500
- Start date
Did you just call me a bigot?
Would you agree that if subjectivity is involved in forming the 'conclusion'... then the 'conclusion' was not formulated objectively?
I believe he called you an ignorant, absurd, bigoted amateur scientist. Next he'll ask you to be polite.
pj
chgo
Absolutely. If any part of any process is subjective, then the net outcome or final result is tainted with subjectivity and therefore the process is not truly objective. This most definitely applies to all aiming methods, which is why practice and experience become crucial factors for determining individual consistency.
Tap! Tap! Tap!
Thanks, Brian. You are certainly one of the more reasonable, rational, AZB members...
as are Dan White, PJ(mostly...WINK, PJ), & many others.
Best Wishes,
RJ
Last edited:
I can post a video of an avid CTE'r using a ghost ball template because he keeps missing and says he does not know why and a pro cte'r lining up an open 10 ball to the pocket by checking the contact point.
But, that will be called bashing.
But, that will be called bashing.
Post it, along with detailed description as to how he is actually performing CTE. Who his instructor was or is would be helpful too. No need to ever use a ghost ball template, imo, so i'd like to hear how he's using it and why.
And there is nothing wrong in checking the contact point when using CTE. Checking the contact point is a way to correctly pick out the reference and sweep direction. But after checking out the contact point you then go back to strict CTE instructions to make the ball.
But would you say the instructions and description of said system could be objective.
I believe so. To use Poolology as an example, the instructions and math are objective, but I admit that what I see as a 3/8 or a touch thicker or thinner may not be what someone would consider it. So you are correct, imo, that instructions can be objective, but the execution of those instructions could very well be subjective by nature, which throws the whole process into the realm of subjectivity.
Pretty much agree. If the execution was exact like the instructions, then objective all the way. But realistically i consider playing pool an art with lots of individual flair thrown in so things do turn subjective at a point.
I'm not sure I know what that means. Can you give an example of an objective instruction or description?
pj
chgo
I think we need to be careful here. I've said that Poolology seems to be an objective system or method in its raw numbers form as it would then dictate the exact fractional overlap. It would do that for every shot except that you had to change the arcs to straight lines for ease of use. Hence there would be an extremely large number of fractional overlaps.... enough to cover all of the required angles. Again through estimation & rounding of those numbers that large amount of fractional overlaps is reduced to a usable amount for a normal human being & brings in the subjectivity of the analysis portion.
In other methods they start off with a limited amount of visual markers & try to expand on those to cover ALL of the necessary shot angles. THAT involves Subjective Analysis & Application regardless of whether or not the instructions are so called objective instructions.
In others words, even if the instructions could be objective, such does not transform an innately subjective process into an objective process.
Another way to say it is that in any method there are a number of shots(angles) that objectively fit the instructions/visual markers... per the limited visual markers, but no usable 'system' or method is universally objective. Hence the subjective.. whatever one wants to call them... MUST be implemented in order to produce the intended success.
Does that make sense to you... or have I left out some connective tissue out & do you agree?
Best,
RJ
Last edited:
I forgot to give YOU 3 taps for this. Please consider them given?
Don't let ole' Stan hear you say that. This has got to be the grand daddy of all crawfishing I've seen. Hmm, maybe this is the first salvo in softening up the defenses in preparation for the landing of Stan's book. Stan has been beating us up for years with positions that are untenable. When it comes to putting it in writing I'm starting to think the edges will be softened, as in, "That's what we've been saying all along but you just misunderstood."
Today is June 9, 2019. Will the book be out by Christmas (of 2020)? In 2017 I made the same joke about the book not being out in time for Christmas 2018. lol.
I've said it all along and quite frankly i think Stan would agree. Thanks again though for your misunderstandings and mis interpretations.
I'd say the only joke here is you but you've had some recently revived company
You really haven't been sure what anything about a certain system has meant for over 20 years
OK then please correct me. I do not want to create misunderstandings.
As I understand it, I can line up 5 balls across the table between the side pockets and line up 5 cue balls at the head string so that each set of balls is parallel to the side rail. I'd reference Stan's youtube video on perceptions but he deleted it after so may years. So, anyhoo, I can shoot all five of these set up shots in the same corner pocket with the 15 degree (ETA) perception and an inside sweep. All 5 are done the exact same way, same sweep and every shot, each of which are different shot angles, will go in the corner pocket. This would be an objective system.
Now, is that no longer correct, and now some sort of artistry needs to be applied to this process?