Stan posted another youtube---Subjectivity, Objectivity, and a little CTE
- Thread starter JE54
- Start date
Yes, at least 17 years standing post at the gates of bizarro aiming world...
...I don't know why but there's a part of me that now that wants to do the Jack Nicholson thing from "A Few Good Men."
Lou Figueroa
a greater responsibility
than you can possibly fathom
You'd be much better doing Jack Nicholson while acting out the entire movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." You're a natural!
Now if my memory serves me correctly, which admittedly could be a touch faulty, at the time your argument was about whether a video could prove that CTE works.
So now you do this video saying you are using CTE, calling out the visuals and pocketing balls - like other CTE videos.
Now it might just be my devious and suspicious mind, but you wouldn't say you shot a CTE video only to later say that you really weren't using CTE and that this proves your point about aiming videos in general.
I'd really like to think that you wouldn't do that, would you?
Most of these arguments over the years seem to fall on the technical terms used to describe CTE. So let's discuss the heart of the matter. Why do CTE advocates praise the system? Because it's "objective"? That really holds little meaning in itself. The system is good for one main reason: it minimizes the variables required to pocket a ball. Any aiming system works given enough effort. CTE maximizes your efficiency of that effort, and minimizes the effort to maintain it. That is the experience I take away from it, judging by 20 years of PIITH, then the last few years of CTE.
If you can't tell, then that demonstrates the "videos can't prove it" point, whether he meant to or not.
pj
chgo
Then why the loud objections when its objectivity is questioned?
What variables does CTE minimize/eliminate?
pj
chgo
I have a really busy weekend and breezed through it watching only bits and pieces fast forwarding all the way through. Many have proven beyond all doubt that CTE is a valid aiming system but I'll look and listen closer next week for the visuals you called out and if you're a knowledgeable user. It would be a great scam if you didn't just to prove your point about videos like Gutless is now stating.
What you are regardless of using CTE or not is a very decent pool player with a good stroke and speed control and will NEVER be called GUTLESS like Pat Johnson who wouldn't EVER consider exposing himself about CTE or as a pool player. He is GUTLESS.
Besides, he wouldn't be under the same set of rules to call out the visuals and make balls as you did. His task would be to set up various angled shots exactly as Stan has done and show why the same visual DOESN'T make the ball(s) as opposed to Stan or Gerry making them.
Should be a no brainer for him since missing is his forte. But we'll see what he knows and how he executes it. Explaining it ON THE TABLE is far different than his word games and diagrams here.
I applaud you for making the video. Good shooting even though you're a "rack artist". :thumbup:
Last edited:
answers in bold.
I'd say it calibrates and ritualizes the guesswork to reduce errors and instill confidence, but who's counting?
pj
chgo
If that's how you like to word it, no problems
The effectiveness of the system doesn't change.
Quote from SFbilliardswebsite
Here is a quote from the SFbilliards website I find interesting.
"Aiming is as much psychology as it is physics. Arguing that the
physics of a system is wrong doesn't prevent the psychology from
working, one way or another. On the other hand, it's not clear
to me why people who know a system works for them psychologically
argue it to be valid physically. There's no point."
Why argue?
If that's how you like to word it, no problems
Here is a quote from the SFbilliards website I find interesting.
"Aiming is as much psychology as it is physics. Arguing that the
physics of a system is wrong doesn't prevent the psychology from
working, one way or another. On the other hand, it's not clear
to me why people who know a system works for them psychologically
argue it to be valid physically. There's no point."
Why argue?
Gentlemen,
I've read your posts, and wanted to let you know that I will be posting on this subject again, but probably not till tomorrow (maybe late tonight)... I didn't want you all (including PJ, and mohrt, and others) to think I was just dropping this.
Also, now that I've posted the video, I'm wondering myself what it actually demonstrates... But, be assured that it was in no way meant as some sort of ploy, or scam, or insult to anyone. Nor was I trying to one-up anyone else. Yes, I have a hidden agenda, but it's only hidden because I haven't had a chance to craft the followup, and explanatory, post.
We're actually having people over tonight for this ridiculous 'Fight of the <fill in the hyperbole>'. Personally, I have no interest, and the attendees assure me that they will be fully reimbursing me for the $100 PPV fees... I should also be getting some good wings, or pizza, out of the deal.
mista335 said:
SpiderWebComm said:
I've read your posts, and wanted to let you know that I will be posting on this subject again, but probably not till tomorrow (maybe late tonight)... I didn't want you all (including PJ, and mohrt, and others) to think I was just dropping this.
Also, now that I've posted the video, I'm wondering myself what it actually demonstrates... But, be assured that it was in no way meant as some sort of ploy, or scam, or insult to anyone. Nor was I trying to one-up anyone else. Yes, I have a hidden agenda, but it's only hidden because I haven't had a chance to craft the followup, and explanatory, post.
We're actually having people over tonight for this ridiculous 'Fight of the <fill in the hyperbole>'. Personally, I have no interest, and the attendees assure me that they will be fully reimbursing me for the $100 PPV fees... I should also be getting some good wings, or pizza, out of the deal.
Its effectiveness for those that find a fit with it is well known; I don't challenge that. My comments are about how it's understood and how that contributes to (or detracts from?) our knowledge base.If that's how you like to word it, no problems
pj
chgo
I think Bob's right on, and I have a theory about why some system users argue their systems' physical validity: it's an integral part of their aiming psychology.
pj
chgo
I like Bob's statement. It is observable that the people questioning the physical validity of CTE are the ones that don't use it
I like it too, partly because it can be taken either way. Bob can be tricky like that.I like Bob's statement. It is observable that the people questioning the physical validity of CTE are the ones that don't use it
pj
chgo
GoldenFlash
Banned
And that is the whole deal in one sentence and the reason behind it all!
You, sir, are probably one of the few people commenting on this, who really knows what he is talking about.
I salute you.