And I have to say, it surprised the hell out of me, because I remember you from the 14.1 subforum as being the opposite of what I heard. How you got so wound up in the aiming system controversy -- and for so long -- is beyond me. So I would be careful in thinking you sit with the "sane" or in some neutral position to judge.
-Sean
OK, I spent some time thinking how to best respond to this without writing a novel that probably wouldn't change any minds anyway. In a nutshell, some people love CTE Pro1 and swear by it. Stan explains how it is supposed to work, but video analysis of Stan shooting shows that his explanations are often dubious (BTW, Stan was kind enough to label me "Dubious Dan." When he realized I liked the nickname he came back with two or three really nasty ones, but I digress). So for me it's an interesting problem to study. Stan calls it "a mystery that was never supposed to be." That, of course, is the reference to the method working because the table has 2x1 dimensions. But, in the end, some people play well with it and I am happy that they are satisfied. I've often said that I wish Stan's system worked objectively and that every shot was the same as a straight in. I'd buy the first 10 books from Stan and give them out. It's not about any kind of grudge or ego thing. Look at my posts back in time and I've often said things like this.
There are a great many unproven and unanswered claims swirling around CTE Pro1. By "unanswered" I mean a real answer and not "it's been explained to you a dozen times already," or "you don't know anything because you haven't put in the table time," or "go back 5 years and you'll find the answer," and so on. I'm talking about an answer that would pass mustard (threw that in there so you could correct me, :wink
at an engineering firm. In other words, a real answer. The more recent one (like for the last three years) is that it will be explained in the upcoming book. OK, but if the answer is known do we really have to wait another year (?) for a book?
How to illustrate? I more or less at random picked a few comments made in the last few days. These are interesting questions and none have been answered. I don't obsess over these things, I don't post here every day, but I am interested in the whole controversy and would ultimately like to see both sides agree on what is really going on. In order for that to happen, both sides need to make an honest effort and I don't think that is happening.
Now on to some examples:
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6425854&postcount=255
morht seems to be saying that all of his shots track to center pocket, allowing for small stroke inaccuracies. In the post above, Brian points out the ramifications if that were true. So question for Sean: Do you think CTE automatically puts the ball in center pocket for the whole range of shots, sharper and sharper, until you have to switch over to the next perception?
Next,
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546&highlight=throw
I posted this a long time ago but it still goes unanswered. It is self-explanatory but to recap: Stan does not realize that the ball is throwing a very significant amount, enough that many shots will be missed if hit at the wrong speed. What do you think?
In a related topic, Stan answered my post above by shimming the pockets and demonstrating that he could pocket balls using CTE. I'm the nitpicker in the video, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiwvH_3A7pY
Two things wrong with this. It is supposed to refute the idea that the ball throws at different speeds. Problem 1: In the video where Stan's ball does throw, it is clear that he is fixated on assuring identical strokes with every shot. I believe he lost sight of where in the pocket the ball was actually going, so it went where it should, depending on the shot speed. In the shimmed pocket video, the cat is already out of the bag. If the test subject, Stan in this case, knows what the outcome is supposed to be, it is an invalid test. Meaningless. If you have any background in science this is a 101 level concept. Problem 2: The whole video is a straw man argument. He says that my complaint was that the ob did not go perfectly in the center of the pocket. Stan says that the eyes can pick out the exact spot to hit, but the body has physical limitations and cannot execute perfectly, but can execute to a professional level. This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. The balls in my video did not go center pocket because of throw. I made the point that the throw effect happens twice almost exactly the same because Stan is a high level player. See the difference? It's another non-answer.
Last one,
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6425052&postcount=189
I don't know anything about DTL other than his name is Duke, he shoots damn good straight pool, and he believes his aiming system won't work on a table that is not 2x1. Here's a kind of wise-guy question but I want to make sure I understand what you guys really mean with the 2x1 table stuff: Put the cb on the head spot and the ob at center table, about a half ball hit. Cut the ob in the far right pocket using CTE on a 2x1 table. OK, now set up the balls again but before you get down to shoot I'm going to take a circular saw and lop off 6 inches from the playing surface from head rail to foot rail on the left side of the table. Now you have a 2.3x1 ratio table. Using CTE go ahead and shoot this shot again. What will happen (and don't tell me the table will fall over, lol)?
So these are the kinds of things that interest me. I spent a fair amount of time here trying to explain my point of view in a concise way because I think my involvement in this forum has been unfairly characterized. I'm hoping this gives you a better idea of my motivation, and that you will give some thought to these kinds of questions.