My Thread… Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE

Status
Not open for further replies.
cookie man said:
Yea this is probably the best post of the thread. Trying to explain things to know it all's that really know nothing is kinda stupid.

This has become noticeably apparent and true:
Never argue with an idiot (op), he will just bring you down to his level than beat you with experience.
Click to expand...

Is making a reference to an individual that can not be mistaken by anyone as to who it was intended (op) & that reference being one of an 'idiot' qualify as an ad hominem attack?

When a side gets desperate in a logical debate they resort to the 'attacking the messenger' tactic & when that is made apparent & is also then failing, they resort to NAME CALLING such as referring to the 'opposition' as an idiot.

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
I'd give him a pass on that, after all how many posts from English did he have to respond to since you stated that?

You almost have to take notes on every poster and what they said, since they get drowned out by the shear amounts and walls of text from some.


Patrick Johnson said:
False. I'm of the opinion that no aiming method is more objective than another.

You seem congenitally unable to understand what you read.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
 
ENGLISH! said:
Is making a reference to an individual that can not be mistaken by anyone as to who it was intended (op) & that reference being one of an 'idiot' qualify as an ad hominem attack?

When a side gets desperate in a logical debate they resort to the 'attacking the messenger' tactic & when that is made apparent & is also then failing, they resort to NAME CALLING such as referring to the 'opposition' as an idiot.

Best Wishes to ALL.
Click to expand...

if the shoe fits Rick it must be on your foot
 
HawaiianEye said:
Seeing the shot and making the shot are two different things, no matter what system you use.
Click to expand...

Agreed but that is part of what CTE is supposed to enhance as it supposed to take the pressure off as the system is supposed to take the shooter to the proper line & once the pivot it made the focus i just stroke with no further concern.

I now that match was no definitive indicator of anything but John made an implication regarding EVERY shot being pocketed & I too was simply making a relative point.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.
 
JB Cases said:
If there were a shotmaking test and a pure feel aimer who is a similar level of overall player performs better on the test consistently then it would certainly create discussion whether feel is indeed better.

But so far it seems as most of the high scores on these tests belong to system aimers.

I think Pat that YOU don't know what it means in the context of this discussion.

Do you think you will beat Gerry Williams or Stan Shuffett in a shotmaking contest? You're a decent player and you use some kind of feel/ghostball/fidgety method to hunt for a shot line.

I tell you what I would sponsor. I know you won't do it but I'd sponsor it anyway.....a shot making contest where you twice as many tries as a CTE aimer.

You're a scientifically minded guy and a decent player so you ought to have adopted whatever method of aiming you think works best for you by now. Thus in any given contest you should be able to perform to your highest level given that you are so self-aware and that your subconscious is trained to a high level.

Stan has a sufficiently straight stroke. Gerry has a sufficiently straight stroke.

I'd put either of them up against you in a shotmaking contest. Not a bet. I will donate $500 to the charity of your choice if you beat them. You pick 30 shots and Team CTE will pick 30 shots.

Neither side reveals the shots to the other side and you both go through the contest on live stream at the same time. Thus we can all watch it go down in real time.

We would need to agree on a grid that both sides use for accurate ball placement.

Both players have to try each shot until it's made. To win the CTE player has to make all the shots with an average number of tries that is 50% or better than yours.

If you want to create a larger sample size we can do it simultaneously with several CTE users and several self-proclaimed feel shooters.

I will donate $500 for each "feel" player's charity of choice that wins. If CTE users win then I will donate $500 to the Billiard Education Fund.

Would you like to participate in this experiment?

Yes, I know, video doesn't prove what method a person is using so I will just go off a basic premise that no one participating is lying about how they aim. This experiment is only to test whether or not CTE users can perform significantly better, about the same, or worse than feel players of about the same general skill level.

English you are barred because you use CJ's methods which are systematic (and mostly objective) ;-)

At the end of the day Pat without data we are just going in circles. In all big time sports there is some data to back up performance claims. For example it is known that on average those with more hours of dedicated practice perform better than those with less hours because the research found this to be the case.

So IF the only difference between two players is how they aim shouldn't we be able to get some meaningful data out of such structured performance experiments?

IF the CTE users do indeed perform better then perhaps you could conclude that using CTE make them better guessers.
Click to expand...

John,

Again? More challenges that would actually prove nothing because your premises of the IF's are not actually obtainable.

How long have you been using CTE? Why do you take yourself out of these challenges? I'm sure we could find an adequate 'feel' player to beat you. What would that prove? Nothing other that he might be a better player but just for that day he or she was the better player.

This type of response seems to indicate that you missed or do not understand the point that Patrick was making.

Also you seem to not understand that the only appropriate 'battle ground' is in logical, reasonable, rational, critically thought out, non science bending, analysis & explanation & not in any challenges, matches, or videos.

I think you realize that & that is why you seem to bounce between the different attempts at resolution.

Best to You & ALL.
 
Mr. Wilson said:
As I read these posts I feel I need to remind ALL of you that this will be a civil discussion.

From this point forward, it will result in at least temporary bans if you feel the need to add descriptives such as wacky, crazy, stupid, arrogant, ignorant etc.

The items that are added simply for defamatory effect will draw my attention.

English is in this thread and you are posting to it voluntarily. He's not stepping on your thread and for what I'm observing, has been polite.

Stop while you can.
Click to expand...

Arrogant, omniscient, illogical, disingenuous, non-sensical comments, condescending, hogwash, hypocrites, unreasonable, false accusers, deceivers, liars, ego inflaters, lacking intellectual ability to understand.

Those are just some of the terms Rick has used to describe others in this thread. Maybe to you that comes across as polite discourse. I can assure you, it doesn't to the rest of us. Are you only reading the posts that he keeps reporting to you?
 
JoeyInCali said:
How about tip aiming ?
Aim the tip in relation to the contact point.
Click to expand...
That's how I aim, with the aid of the contact point as an objective "landmark" and the stick (center CB) to show me where I'm aiming.

How do you know where to aim the stick in relation to the contact point? By "experience-based estimation" - i.e., by feel.

pj
chgo
 
JB Cases said:
As discussed here a million times.....aiming and execution are two separate tasks.

Aiming is what you do before you shoot. Shooting is what you do AFTER you aim.

Yes, I was using CTE when I played Lou. So it can be clearly seen that lousy fundamentals will destroy a perfectly aimed shot. On the other hand I was able to make a lot of "tough" shots during that match which were taken on precisely because CTE gave me a way to aim them that I could trust. Before learning CTE I wouldn't have even attempted them out of pure aiming fear.

When I say the perfect shot line every time I am referring to experienced CTE users who have enough experience to know that proper use of the method does indeed resolve to the right shot line every time.

In the assumption that this is indeed the case, and I am confident that it is, one would either need to conclude that the method is objective OR that it leads the subconscious mind to force the body to adopt the perfect shot line BECAUSE the shooter is making no conscious adjustment other than what the instructions tell him to do.

That was the whole point of Stan's 'five shot - same visual' video. He only does what the system tells him to do and even against his own conscious mind's objection accepts that the five shots all use the same solution.

In other words as an experienced CTE user Stan would not go to Edge to A as the first choice for the fifth shot UNTIL after he tries it and realizes that anything else doesn't work for that shot. I honestly don't how it could get any more objective than that when aiming in pool without the aid of external devices.
Click to expand...

John,

It was difficult to make myself even scan the rest of this post after reading the sentence that I put in Blue.

You're 'saying' that every shot you shot was perfectly aimed & it was your bad fundamentals that were the results of ALL of your misses.

You continually use 'bad' premises to get conclusions that are actually inapplicable to the issue.

Your, shall we say, belief of what happens & goes on might be interesting, but that does not make them definitively, logically conclusive.

The reason is because you refuse to accept the base premise that no system can sufficiently define ALL of the necessary shots in an objective manner & if one could & did, it would basically not be usable by most, if any, human beings & even if one existed to that level then the selection of such at such a small differential would require subjectivity in the selection of which to use, but since they would be so close together perhaps 'pocket slop' might still allow for success even if the subjectivity made an incorrect selection.

How about this premise? Many of your shots in your match with Lou were not properly aligned using the system & your subconscious knew that & that is why your 'fundamentals' were all over the place by trying to swoop & swipe for corrections.

I could say that I use a 1/4 overlap visual for shots of 15* but I move until I see the proper perception for such a shot.

I could say that I use that same 1/4 overlap visual for a series of 5 parallel shots across the table because depending on where they are on the table, the balls make me see a different 1/4 overlap visual from the only different physical position that allows me to see that 1/4 overlap visual.

I could say that but that does not make what I say accurate.

I'm not saying that anyone is intentionally putting out any inaccurate information.

But... everyone makes mistakes & the english language is not the easiest & most efficient means of communication for which to explain everything in existence.

We've basically devised mathematics in order to use it as a means of explaining the real life around us such as the true & real physics principles.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.
 
JB Cases said:
That's not a bad idea but it does allow him and others to have a soapbox from which to make assertions that are not true or not proven.

I can't give up the playground that way. It's not fair to everyone that has studied this method and not fair to Hal Houle who put so much of his life into trying to help players aim better and subsequently play better.

If they claim there are holes then they ought to be able to show them. If they claim CTE is not objective then they ought to be able to show it on the table.

Until then, as long as I feel like it I will challenge them until one of us dies. Where we have the advantage though is that we are willing to get on the table and discuss it ON THE TABLE on video. And that video is what wins the day IMO.
Click to expand...

Again!

What should be a very telling post to any unbiased individual.

Also, it would seem to be a rather good display of what, shall we say, is hypocritical thinking.

'Proof' is only required from one side of a dispute.

Best Wishes to ALL.

PS For any 'Proof' to be given one must first understand what type of explanation can be considered as proof for certain types of parameters.
 
cookie man said:
360 posts into this thread and not one iota of proof on there claims. They can't even post one hole and most in there camp have already admitted to it's objectivity as described. Most of course except one.
Click to expand...

Inaccurate.

You seem to not understand what proof is when you see it & that may be because you may not know what proof actually is.

Have you ever even heard of a thing called 'a logical proof'?

I explained what would be a hole with one given & the given is at the crux of the issue or more accurate it is the issue.

Each side applies a given in one way or the other as to whether the shots are objective shots or whether they made by other means.

It seems that you may not even understand the actual issue at hand.

The issue is the 'given' that is being used

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
ENGLISH! said:
John,

To summarize if I may...
....................

To say that something is definitively something & not know the how or why it could be such is, shall we say, disingenuous to a discussion on the topic.
............................






One of the problems when 'discussing' this difference of determination regarding whether or not it is 'an objective aiming system' or of a subjective nature is when some employ different uses of the word 'objective' to suit their intentions & possibly agenda.

If I employ my subjective intuition regarding a shot while using my abilities of spacial & 'visual intelligence' to pocket a shot & have never even ever heard of CTE & the shot pockets then I arrived at the true line for the shot... or said another way, I arrived at the (objectively) true line for the shot.

BUT... I did not use an objective system to do so, or said another way, I did NOT use an objective system to get to the objective (true) line for the shot.

I used a subjective means to arrive at the objective (true) line of the shot.


But, if the 'to the death' cling to the description of 'an objective aiming system' is maintained then the trail will not be a smooth one & you may never arrive at what should be the real true desired destination.

If there is not enough leather to cover a case can you cover the case by just looking at it with a different perception. If you fill in the gaps where there is NOT enough leather by using vinyl, is the case a true leather case. Does 50.0001% of leather qualify one to call it a leather case?

I know this is not an applicable analogy per say, but I am just trying to make a point. Leather & vinyl are hard solid materials while objectivity & subjectivity are of an abstract nature. Hence, they would require different forms of examination to determine their realities. Video can not be used as proof even if it might make some suggestions. The reality of any such suggestions lies in the logical non science bending analysis of them.

I hope this might get us closer to at least a partial agreement of some understanding, but some how I doubt it.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.
Click to expand...

In your quote above, I deleted some of the same old rehash that has been covered hundreds of times before.

Your first statement in the quote above is accusatory at best. It also is completely false. Disingenuous means deceiving. That is what you are doing while accusing others of it.

The topic is aiming using CTE. Which is nothing more than hitting one ball to make another ball go into a pocket. If the subject was getting from point A to point B and how to get there, one would talk about driving a car. In that description of how to arrive at point B from point A, there may be descriptions on how to drive a car and how to use maps. No where would there be any type of description on exactly how a car works. Nor would there be any accusations of deceit because the fine details of how a car operates where not included. Yet, you demand them from CTE. Does that sound like a reasonable demand?

Your next paragraph quoted, you state that some use a different meaning of the word objective to suit their needs and don't use the meaning that you want to use. Essentially, you are faulting us for using the proper definition of the word because it makes your whole argument null and void.

You even admit in your statement that the meaning we use is an acceptable meaning of the word. You just can't handle the truth of it, so now you are actually faulting us for using a proper word. You even state that if we continue to use an accepted definition of the word, that the journey will not be a smooth one. That alone should make it perfectly clear to the mods exactly what you are doing here. It's not about a word, it's about slandering others.

Then you attempt to make a point about leather. Yet, you didn't think it through very well. Go by any leather shoe. They are advertised as leather, yet have a lot of rubber, cloth, and stitching in them. No judge would say they are not leather shoes because they contain some other products also.

So, where does that leave us at? It leaves us at a point where CTE can be described as an objective system by the true definitions of the word objective. Does that also mean that every little detail in the system has to be objective? No, it does not. No more than a leather shoe must contain nothing other than leather. Which means, by your own examples above, you have totally blown your arguments out of the water, and therefore should no longer have any issue with CTE.
 
Tony_in_MD said:
He is going to have the soapbox regardless of others engaging him or not, he spends practically every waking hour monitoring this site and posting.Who can keep up with that?

Besides, I think the silent majority, know him for what he is.
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope that they do know me for 'what' I am.

I am one that offers logical explanations to topics of dispute such as this one that has seemed to have been raging on long before I was ever a member of AZB.

I am not like others that make personal 'attacks' on others directly nor by veiled means when they offer nothing substantive to the discussions.

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
JB Cases said:
Then you all OUGHT to be able to diagram shots that don't fit the visual in your opinion.

This is the crux of it all for this thread.

You claim a "fudge" factor but are unable to show it. You claim that CTE provides a limited number of cut angles but CTE in fact provides NO cut angles.

Cut angles exist regardless of how the shooter approaches the shot.

Each shot is a single task and has zero relationship to any other shot.

So therefore the shooter walks up to the shot where it lays and figures it out based on what they see in front of them.

One shot can be a 52 degree shot and the next can be a 48 degree shot and neither of those shots has any connection to the other. Each one is a puzzle to be solved and one of the CTE perceptions will work for each shot and it's for the shooter to choose which one that is.

Your premise that CTE should "define" all cut angles is where the problem lies I think. The starting point is the cueball. Wherever it is is what the shooter has to deal with and the cueball is where the system use begins and ends. That's what you're not getting I think.

This is all easy to figure out. Just set up a laser that when turned on projects a line down the mapped out shot line. Take CTE users and instruct them to get into shooting position. IF their cue tracks on the shot line more often than feel shooters you have your answer. And this includes any so called "hole shots" that your could assert don't fit in CTE's visuals. If indeed there are such shots and CTE users are getting on the shot line consistently with no conscious fudging then you would have to conclude that it's some very objective fudge.
Click to expand...

John,

Do you know what logical, reasonable, rational, critical, non science bending thinking is?

Do you know that such can be used as a means of proof & resolution for ALL disputes between individuals?

Do you know what a fallacy is?

Do you know what is meant by fallacious thinking?

fal·la·cious
fəˈlāSHəs/Submit
adjective
based on a mistaken belief.
"fallacious arguments"
synonyms: erroneous, false, untrue, wrong, incorrect, flawed, inaccurate, mistaken, misinformed, misguided; More

Do you understand that your attempts by other means will never be satisfactory until you can attach a completely logical non science bending explanation.

Your nit picking of words & phrases like 'produce an angle' will not undo what is logical.

75 angles! How does CTE 'define', 'deliver', 'produce', 'account for' or 'INSPIRE' each one needed to play the game completely successfully by a strictly 'OBJECTIVE' means?

PJ, Myself, Satorie, Anthony, etc, are attempting get everyone to apply logic.

You & your side seem to be trying to get everyone to put aside logic & simply believe.

You & others seem to be saying, don't ask questions, don't be concerned when certain questions are not or can not be answered or when answers offered don't make any logical sense.

You & others seem to be saying put all logic aside & just believe. It works for so & so & so & so, so it will work for you too because it is 'an objective aiming system'.

Well... logical, reasonable, rational, non science bending, critically thought out, thinking says otherwise given the fact 75 distinct outcome angels are required to play the game completely successfully.

Can CTE help someone play better if they drop ghost ball & employ CTE? Quite possibly so.

Can CTE help someone play better if they drop what ever other method they may be using? Quite possibly so.

Is it 'an objective aiming system' that is not depending on subjectivity for arriving at the true line of many if not most all shots?

Each individual should make their own logical determination when they hear both sides of the disputed description & keep in mind the required facts regarding the 75 distinct angles.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
I'd put either of them up against you. I guess that would prove CTE is better (and worse) than itself?

lol

How am I supposed to avoid insulting your so-called intelligence when you constantly post brainless nonsense like this?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

What it would prove is that CTE coupled with good fundamentals results in an even higher degree of successful shot making.

I guess we will forever be at an impasse when no one is good enough to talk to you.

I will refer again to the Memory Palace method.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Inaccurate.

You seem to not understand what proof is when you see it & that may be because you may not know what proof actually is.

Have you ever even heard of a thing called 'a logical proof'?

I explained what would be a hole with one given & the given is at the crux of the issue or more accurate it is the issue.

Each side applies a given in one way or the other as to whether the shots are objective shots or whether they made by other means.

It seems that you may not even understand the actual issue at hand.

The issue is the 'given' that is being used

Best Wishes to ALL.
Click to expand...

and you were wrong as usual
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top