Stan posted another youtube---Subjectivity, Objectivity, and a little CTE

mm20_R.jpg


This seems to have been 'overlooked' in the 'discussions'.

I don't really have any points, but I just wanted to point out a couple of things for consideration.

The first thing to note, I think, is that the 'edge' point of #8 can not even be seen from the line of head on from the zero location. (That is one way that Aristotle knew that the earth was not flat when stars low in the sky could not be seen if one took a trip & the horizon then blocked their view & hence he did not have to actually circumvent the earth to know that the earth was not flat.)

Secondly, note that the quarter section of 0 to 4 nearest the vision perspective looks wider than the quarter section from 8 to 4.

That is an issue of depth & 3 dimensions. Some have the spatial awareness to realize that visual 'phenomenon' much better than other individuals. If one can look at this proper division & can realize the why it appears that way may be beneficial to some. This may be an issue for some of those that are having trouble with CTE. Perhaps their A & C points are too far inside or too far outside.

I guess I did have a point or so to make.

Best 2 All,
Rick
 
Last edited:
The reason Stan calls the system "objective" is basically because it is concise, repeatable, no guesswork, no estimations. Splitting hairs about what objectivity means in a pedantic sense is irrelevant. It's not important to understand and execute CTE. Maybe instead of coining CTE as "objective" we can just say it is concise and repeatable. Does that make everyone feel better? Wait, maybe I should't use that word ;)

So back to the age old question, how can a single visual such as CTEL/A take you to a range of shot angles? Obviously you can't start at the same physical alignment for each shot. That is because our perception takes care of the matter for us. No we don't have all the math and technical answers WHY, but the HOW is easy, just follow the instructions. As we DO understand, the system plays off our perception of two spheres on a 2x1 table with 90 deg angles to the pockets (at corners of perfect squares.) By merely executing the system in the same way, our perception starts us on a physical alignment that ends up on the shot line. I think this becomes crystal clear when we apply the system to something like a three-rail bank.

As for ENGLISH's comment about where A and C fall on the sphere, I have had good luck using the spot where the darkest shadow disappears behind the ball. For whatever reason, this is always very close to the quarter ball segment. These days I know the A/C perception just by recognizing how the two balls overlap. I've just seen it so many times.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
That would be objective, alright - if it was true.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


All you need to do is produce a 10-15 minute video with various cut angles as you call out the visuals and prove why it's untrue. It will end the CTE controversy forever and you'll be the new High Priest of pool instruction. Simple, isn't it?
Yet you continue to run and hide along with running your big mouth as you will to this suggestion like you always do.

Lets see one of those snappy trademark one liners now which is about all you're good for.
 
mohrt said:
The reason Stan calls the system "objective" is basically because it is concise, repeatable, no guesswork, no estimations. Splitting hairs about what objectivity means in a pedantic sense is irrelevant. It's not important to understand and execute CTE. Maybe instead of coining CTE as "objective" we can just say it is concise and repeatable. Does that make everyone feel better? Wait, maybe I should't use that word ;)

So back to the age old question, how can a single visual such as CTEL/A take you to a range of shot angles? Obviously you can't start at the same physical alignment for each shot. That is because our perception takes care of the matter for us. No we don't have all the math and technical answers WHY, but the HOW is easy, just follow the instructions. As we DO understand, the system plays off our perception of two spheres on a 2x1 table with 90 deg angles to the pockets (at corners of perfect squares.) By merely executing the system in the same way, our perception starts us on a physical alignment that ends up on the shot line. I think this becomes crystal clear when we apply the system to something like a three-rail bank.

As for ENGLISH's comment about where A and C fall on the sphere, I have had good luck using the spot where the darkest shadow disappears behind the ball. For whatever reason, this is always very close to the quarter ball segment. These days I know the A/C perception just by recognizing how the two balls overlap. I've just seen it so many times.
Click to expand...

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
 
mohrt said:
The reason Stan calls the system "objective" is basically because it is concise, repeatable, no guesswork, no estimations. Splitting hairs about what objectivity means in a pedantic sense is irrelevant. It's not important to understand and execute CTE. Maybe instead of coining CTE as "objective" we can just say it is concise and repeatable. Does that make everyone feel better? Wait, maybe I should't use that word ;)

So back to the age old question, how can a single visual such as CTEL/A take you to a range of shot angles? Obviously you can't start at the same physical alignment for each shot. That is because our perception takes care of the matter for us. No we don't have all the math and technical answers WHY, but the HOW is easy, just follow the instructions. As we DO understand, the system plays off our perception of two spheres on a 2x1 table with 90 deg angles to the pockets (at corners of perfect squares.) By merely executing the system in the same way, our perception starts us on a physical alignment that ends up on the shot line. I think this becomes crystal clear when we apply the system to something like a three-rail bank.

As for ENGLISH's comment about where A and C fall on the sphere, I have had good luck using the spot where the darkest shadow disappears behind the ball. For whatever reason, this is always very close to the quarter ball segment. These days I know the A/C perception just by recognizing how the two balls overlap. I've just seen it so many times.
Click to expand...


There is all kinds of guess work and it is different from player to player. Each has to fill in the blanks, because of their different physical and perceptual abilities and proclivities. No way it is objective.

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
There is all kinds of guess work and it is different from player to player. Each has to fill in the blanks, because of their different physical and perceptual abilities and proclivities. No way it is objective.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

In other words nothing really works and everything is guesswork based on physical and perceptual abilities and proclivities.

A fat person sees and aims differently than a thin person. A thin person can use ghost ball because his eye sockets are deeper but a fat person can't use GB since his eyes bulge more. It might work the opposite for fractions, I'm not sure.

A taller player sees and aims differently than a shorter player. A shorter player can use contact point aiming but a taller player can't because he's not at the same level for the balls. Or maybe a taller player can use contact point aiming better because he can see more of the contact point on the CB from being higher up.

The master pro player/instructor Lou Figueroa has spoken so it MUST be true. CTE is all guesswork as well as everything else. It all boils down to luck and who gets the rolls. LOL
 
SpiderWebComm said:
All you need to do is produce a 10-15 minute video with various cut angles as you call out the visuals and prove why it's untrue.
Click to expand...
That's never worked for you, despite many tries. As you've been told every time, videos can't "prove" how somebody aims, no matter how deeply they believe what they say.

I know you don't understand that - it's for other readers who might.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
That's never worked for you, despite many tries. As you've been told every time, videos can't "prove" how somebody aims, no matter how deeply they believe what they say.



I know you don't understand that - it's for other readers who might.



pj

chgo
Click to expand...


That is the most true statement written in the aiming forum. Thank you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Feel isn't guesswork or luck; it's practiced estimation.

It's how you aim too, so you're talking about yourself when you try to ridicule it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Hey Johnson... do you still cock your head back and forth like a lizard when you aim? That's how you described it on RSB. Still use the lightsaber method?
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Feel isn't guesswork or luck; it's practiced estimation.

It's how you aim too, so you're talking about yourself when you try to ridicule it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

If feel is practiced estimation for various shots, at some point it is no longer estimation from doing it thousands of times. It's totally ingrained and immediately recognized with objective alignments. Possibly the same way CTE was developed which is why it can be explained and passed on from one player to another without everyone having to reinvent the wheel.

I don't ridicule CTE or objective alignments as the way I aim but you do and think it's impossible in order to continue this garbage forever.

Show us how the practiced estimation works on video, I'm open enough to see what you produce.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
If feel is practiced estimation for various shots, at some point it is no longer estimation from doing it thousands of times.
Click to expand...
Of course it is - it's just very practiced estimation. I think this is your and most CTE users' problem with this discussion - you don't really understand what's being said.

I don't ridicule CTE or objective alignments as the way I aim but you do
Click to expand...
No, I don't - in fact I often point out its good points (as you well know). I just disagree that it's so different from every other way of aiming.

Show us how the practiced estimation works on video
Click to expand...
I won't jump through your irrelevant hoops. There are hundreds of YouTube videos of pros showing you what they can do with practiced estimation.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
That's never worked for you, despite many tries. As you've been told every time, videos can't "prove" how somebody aims, no matter how deeply they believe what they say.

I know you don't understand that - it's for other readers who might.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

But many "others" decided to learn CTE because of Dave's video's. Many "others" were obviously impressed.
Doubt you would have that success though.
 
cookie man said:
But many "others" decided to learn CTE because of Dave's video's. Many "others" were obviously impressed.
Doubt you would have that success though.
Click to expand...

Many have tried all kinds of stuff, doesn't mean they work or work as claimed. Then again, it would appear that the only ones that are required by CTE Law to back up claims are those that question it.

To use your own argument..

If adjusting by feel is how one arrives at a consistent aiming method, which you say is no longer an estimation.. then how is CTE not feel-based since you have to figure it out, find your perceptions and then practice it?

I don't expect an actual answer.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Of course it is - it's just very practiced estimation. I think this is your and most CTE users' problem with this discussion - you don't really understand what's being said.

You don't understand what the hell you're talking about when it comes to CTE. You'd like to make others think you do but you don't.

No, I don't - in fact I often point out its good points (as you well know). I just disagree that it's so different from every other way of aiming.

If it's so similar to other ways of aiming then keep your trap shut and just be happy what you're doing and everybody else will be happy what they're doing.
I'm surely not going on an enlistment campaign to convert anyone.


I won't jump through your irrelevant hoops. There are hundreds of YouTube videos of pros showing you what they can do with practiced estimation.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

They aren't explaining it step by step like a real expert as yourself could do it, Mr. GUTLESS NOBODY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top