............
Last edited:
My Thread... just so I can make some comments on... whatever.
- Thread starter ENGLISH!
- Start date
- Status
The thing is, IMO, is that if one even allows too much info to be allowed into the application it can cripple one's subconscious as a fight rather often breaks out between the two.
I personally do not think that the subconscious requires much real practice. The cup thing is different because it requires so many sort of independent movements. In pool, the movement is rather singular & it's only a thought process that has to be done subconsciously.
Anyway, If what you do works for you, that is all that matters to you.
I've never been a drill type guy, Once I recognize something & do it once or twice, I consider it as logged & filed for my subconscious to access it.
We're all different, even how much alike that we are.
Best Wishes to You & ALL.
Yes, sometimes video is ALL we have to demonstrate a method outside of in-person demonstrations.
Of course we can debate it ad nauseum in words. And we can each be anal to the point of sickness over the semantic use of words. But as my writer wife used to say it's about the communication and not the grammar.
A person who puts so much faith in the subconscious ought to understand that.
I understand how one can purposely use words to give impressions without actually saying what that impression is.
I was in advertising for several years.
I understand that using text alone can be sometimes challenging to convey the exact message that one wishes to convey & that sometimes a picture or video can be an aid.
I also understand how a picture or video can be used to give an impression that one wishes to give.
I am also aware that subliminal messages can be put into video.
There is a lot that I understand.
I also understand when tendencies appear & what that sometimes can indicate.
Does your wife sometimes write some of your posts?
I have noticed a difference in style at times & have been wondering about that.
Yes it should be about the actual communication but as I hope I've shown that is not always an easy task & sometimes it can be done by what are not so straight forward means.
Best Wishes to You & ALL.
My wife's feeling about AZB these days is that she would rather stab herself in the heart than to waste one second looking at this forum or writing anything on it.
I liken the entire CTE debate to Plato's Allegory of The Cave. Those inside the cave chained facing the wall are the opponents in my opinion.
See how one can give an impression that is totally incorrect.
Some of us are not opponents to CTE at all. It's merely the incorrect description to which we object.
On that subject I see, IMO, that there are a few vocal proponents that either can't see the truth on that subject or they simply refuse to admit the truth regarding that subject due to biases, etc. as PoolPlaya9 laid out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poolplaya9 View Post
You don't understand how CTE works, don't care how it works, and don't feel how it works is important. You have said that a number of times, John Barton who has said that dozens of times, and many of the other CTE arguers have said it as well. The problem is that on the one hand you all say you don't understand how CTE works, and then on the other hand you turn right around and argue in the most closed minded and adamant manner possible about every last detail of how it works and doesn't work. You all obviously do care a lot about the mechanism by which it works for you otherwise you wouldn't be so militant in your need to argue how it works even when you admit not knowing. Surely you see how it makes no sense to say you don't understand it on the one hand, and then argue every last detail about it with someone on the other. Surely you see how it makes no sense to say you don't care how it works, and then be absolutely and completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that you might be subconsciously adjusting for an inaccurate system regardless of the evidence.
When it is convenient for the CTE arguers, you admit you don't understand how CTE works. When someone asks questions you don't have answers to, or wants more detail where descriptions of the steps are vague, or wants proof of anything like that it objectively finds the correct aim/shot line or of anything else, the response from your side is all too often "CTE can't be proven to work as claimed and I don't understand how it works and it isn't important how it works and I don't care, all I know is it works for me and that is all that is important". But when someone is showing mathematical proof on paper or through explanation that it does not find the correct shot line, and that CTE users are actually adjusting by feel to make their shots just like with any other system, you and the rest suddenly become experts who fully understand every last detail of the system and will argue vehemently against any possibility of subconscious adjustment.
So which is it? Do you fully understand it or not? Do you care how it works or not? Here is the answer and give this some serious internal soul searching before replying back with the knee jerk argument that every pore of your being will reflexively want to make. You all don't understand how it works, otherwise you would never say you didn't understand if you did. Plus you would be able to answer those tough questions if you did. Of course you don't understand how or why it works and have said so many,many times. You also do care how it works--a lot. A whole lot. Like a WHOLE LOT. But why is that? Because you will feel stupid if you actually have to accept to yourself that you were just subconsciously adjusting for everything the whole time. So your ego makes you have a closed mind about that and makes you need to have to argue against that vehemently, in the hopes that nobody believes you were subconsciously adjusting and will think to themselves "look how dumb those guys were", and so you don't have to accept it yourself and feel like "man how dumb was I to have just been using feel all along and adjusting and never even realizing it". But it shouldn't be something to be embarrassed about or ashamed about or to feel stupid about. We all do things subconsciously that we don't realize, and often, and it's just part of being human. But ego just won't let you guys look at the evidence and the facts without that bias.
The truth of the matter is that you and the rest of the CTE arguers/users don't understand the system, and it isn't important to you how it works as long as it isn't subconscious adjustments you are making that corrected for the system's inaccuracies. Ego is why you can never accept subconscious adjustment and is why you are so compelled to argue that which you admit to not understanding. It is misplaced ego though. Again, not consciously realizing something you are doing subconsciously doesn't make you an idiot, it makes you human, and there is no shame in being human. On the other hand, ignoring facts and evidence because of your ego displays a lack of ability to utilize critical thinking skills, and that level of willful bias is something that actually is shameful though IMO because that is something we have a lot more if not total control over.
This is simply a case of reflexively fighting against something simply because it isn't the way you would want it to be (because you are afraid it will make you look and feel silly) instead of just searching for the truth without bias and with an open mind whether you will hate the answer you arrive at or not. Seriously, do some real soul searching on this and ask yourself honestly why it is so important to you that it doesn't turn out to be subconscious adjustment. If it was really true when you guys all say "who cares how it works as long as it works" then it wouldn't matter to you if the reason was subconscious adjustment, but yet it does matter to you all a lot (it shouldn't, and so the question to ask yourself is why does it, and in that answer lies the cause of your biases).
Last edited:
It's really only you objecting to the phrase "objective aiming system". Didn't you originally object to "totally objective aiming system" a phrase as it turns out you made up.
One side of the dispute has actually learned the system and knows that a subconscious adjustment will very likely cause you to miss, while the other side types opinions from behind the keyboard.
Care to give a little more detail on the 75 required angles. Where and how did you come up with that number.
https://youtu.be/Eb9e6NuNteE?list=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9
John,
Why is this video labeled 'parallel shots'?
They are the same shot with the same outcome angle just at different distances from the pocket.
It's things like this that go to our earlier conversation. I've pointed this out to you before, but you've done nothing to clarify the situation.
Yes the balls are on parallel lines & they are more than one so hence shots, plural.
Technically correct?
Misleading? Intentional? Accidentally? Subconsciously? End result motivated? The ends justify the means?
What does that video really show? That a rail shot can be pocketed a few times in a row. A rail shot has a rather well defined line of the shot & there is no need for any CTE method.
Video Propaganda?
Also, when the ball is frozen to the rail, how does CTE get the slight over cut that is inherently incorporated by mother nature to counter CIT?
If anything, this shows that you're not using CTE as defined or CTE is not as defined.
If so, the cue ball would be hitting the rail first to get the slight over cut & then rebounding into the object ball & it would bounce it off the rail. Also the center of the ball is not going to the 90* intersection of the 2:1 ratio table, but instead it is the outside edge that goes there.
No doubt this too will be one of the have it both ways explanations.
Either CTE is as the 'system' is defined or it is not. It can not flip back & forth or it is not a 'system' at all. & if it does somehow magically flip then what allows it to defy science?
Would that possibly be one's subjectivity, whether subconsciously employed or not?
Best Wishes to You & ALL.
John,
Why is this video labeled 'parallel shots'?
They are the same shot with the same outcome angle just at different distances from the pocket.
It's things like this that go to our earlier conversation. I've pointed this out to you before, but you've done nothing to clarify the situation.
Yes the balls are on parallel lines & they are more than one so hence shots, plural.
Technically correct?
Misleading? Intentional? Accidentally? Subconsciously? End result motivated? The ends justify the means?
What does that video really show? That a rail shot can be pocketed a few times in a row. A rail shot has a rather well defined line of the shot & there is no need for any CTE method.
Video Propaganda?
Also, when the ball is frozen to the rail, how does CTE get the slight over cut that is inherently incorporated by mother nature to counter CIT?
If anything, this shows that you're not using CTE as defined or CTE is not as defined.
If so, the cue ball would be hitting the rail first to get the slight over cut & then rebounding into the object ball & it would bounce it off the rail. Also the center of the ball is not going to the 90* intersection of the 2:1 ratio table, but instead it is the outside edge that goes there.
No doubt this too will be one of the have it both ways explanations.
Either CTE is as the 'system' is defined or it is not. It can not flip back & forth or it is not a 'system' at all. & if it does somehow magically flip then what allows it to defy science?
Would that possibly be one's subjectivity, whether subconsciously employed or not?
Best Wishes to You & ALL.
CTE naturally takes you to a slight overcut.
Then explain the why & how it is for the ball frozen on the rail.
That is a rhetorical question & not directed to you, as I have no inclination to have any conversation or discussion with you.
I merely quoted you & posted to show how some CTEers just make statements with no supporting explanation as to the how & why...
'it just does because we say that it does because that is what we were told.'.
I know you will most probably post back but you've made yourself irrelevant, at least to me, with regards to discussing this topic.
So, I'm asking you to please do not try to explain it to me because as you have referred to me on several occasions as being "stupid" & an "idiot".
So, please do not waste your time.
Like Mr. Wilson asked, why are you even posting in this thread if not to just cause dissension?
Best Wishes to ALL.
The overcut is a result of how ALL 15 30 and 45s visually lead one into a bridge V placement that is a slight overcut position to the GB in relation to right angles.
OB frozen on rail.....Pros firm them or spin them....You see few slow rolls for those shots..
CTE is perfect for frozen rail shots......Increase the shot speed and the cue ball is into the rail first where it needs to be.....or inside and outside spin can be used.....no visual adjustment for inside and a very measured adjustment for outside spin....
CTE is perfect for rail shots in an array of ways.....
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
I gave Mr. Wilson a legitimate answer.
And you are not supposed to be commenting on anything concerning CTE. You have no understanding of CTE and post just to try to give it a bad name.
You are on record as saying you will not ever use it, WHY POST WRONG ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT IT ?
You make inaccurate statements.
I am only restricted from posting in the threads of others & have received a confirming authorization from Mr. Howerton to open my own threads as was outlined by Mr. Wilson.
The reason for my restriction has nothing to do with anything CTE but with the number of posts & imposing them into the threads of others.
Another false statement by you regarding my potential use. I've said that when I determined that it was not 'an objective aiming system' my desire to completely learn & possibly use it waned & disappeared.
So, if I were shown that it is TRULY 'an objective aiming system', my interest & possible desire regarding it might & probably would change.
I make no 'wrong assumption'. I & others are making very logical conclusions based on the facts & lack of any logical countering, non science bending explanations to the contrary.
So, here once again you show why, at least to me, you are irrelevant to any 'discussion' regarding the topic.
You never offer anything useful other than employ your 'attack' the messenger type tactics.
I think that is rather obvious to any unbiased individual that reads these threads.
Best Wishes to ALL.
Last edited:
Thanks for that explanation & I understand the physics of the increased speed into the rail to 'cheat' the rebound of a slower shot.
But that is a necessary adjustment, but as I said, I understand why as the rail is 'blocking' the path so to speak.
Would you be so kind as to take the opportunity to explain why the outer edge of the OB then tracks to the 90* intersection rather than & instead of the center of the ball for a center pocket 'system'?
I've never heard that it was any edge that went 'center pocket'. If the edge is going center pocket then it's not a center pocket 'system', is it?
Thanks in advance.
Last edited:
If you think the edge of the ball is hitting center pocket on a rail shot, maybe you should first learn where center pocket is. That, or stop playing on tables with buckets for pockets.
I play on 9' Diamonds with 4" pockets & what is less then 4" pockets.
There was discussion that you seem to have missed regarding the intersection of the rails & the 'connection to the 90* vertex of the angle.
It seems as with many points, CTEers want to have it both ways whichever fits their 'current argument' best.
Yet, here is another post by an advocate that avoids a question & 'attacks' the messenger.
Best to ALL.
Last edited:
- Status