Well, let's see if we can take this one in pieces now...
I get that some ppl want to see CTE proven thru math. We all want to know how something works on some level.
Correct. And this is where this post should've stopped, right there. The point of providing any kind of *proof positive* that something works -- and most importantly, why -- is for better understanding. To go one step beyond the mystics, and ground something in tangible math or other proof that can easily be seen by the layman.
The main controversy stems from those who want to disprove something bc it goes against their so called "beliefs" or bc they themselves can't or aren't willing to do it.
I would agree with this. I've personally noticed that whenever the topic of "math" (or any kind of phraseology related to mathematical proof) is brought up in reference to CTE/Pro-1, the hooded cloak-wearing mob comes out with pitchforks and torches to burn the heretic at the stake.
It's sad, but I can't say it wasn't deserved, considering the experiences of the CTE/Pro-1 supporters. However, what I intend to do is very much different.
Obviously I stand on the side of CTE, Hal and Stan's work on the topic has been tremendous. Let me start by saying this upfront though. Although I know the ins and outs of the system it does not mean that I'm a world beater or that I can make every shot everytime.
Knowing the system is one thing execution is another. But the main point is that what Stan has discovered is so revolutionary and profound that I think it's a bit of shock and if ur not ready for it then u should probably wait till ur a little more grown up to learn it.
Oh, no problem there. I already committed to the fact that I won't even touch a ruler, laser-line painter, or other measuring device (or even broach the "math" question) until I'm fully convinced I know the system. And that, I know, will take time.
I see a lot of ppl bring up fractional aiming and ghost ball as a direct comparison to CTE and what it represents. Ghost all and fractional aiming is a physics/math explanation of what occurs at the pool table when spheres collide.
In the end, that *IS* what it all boils down to -- how CTE/Pro-1 comes down to where the spheres collide. That *IS* what causes the ball to pocket. No amount of mysticism is going to cause that ball to go into the pocket.
CTE or ProOne is an explanation of how the human body and vision execute a pool shot. No different from an explanation of how to stand or stroke a ball.
I find that the argument everyone seems to use of fractions or ghost ball is how the body sees and executes is ridiculous. It's the same as if a student driver was handed a manual of how the car engine works and be expected to drive based on that.
Ridiculous analogy, based on a strawman argument to boot. Noone ever said that "fractions or ghost ball is how the body sees and executes."
First, you are *taught* to see ghost ball or fractions. When you were first playing pool, someone had to show you that to pocket a sphere into a pocket, you had to first correctly align an invisible sphere in-line with the pocket; that just merely pointing your cue through the cue ball at the back side of the object ball wasn't going to do it.
Second, how does your engine-functional-description/learning-to-drive analogy even fit this scenario?
Stan's work is the first and only to explain how the body is able to make a pool shot. What most of the world sees when they line up a shot is pretty close to the precise visuals that we use in CTE. But why aren't they able to make the ball aside from stroke errors? Bc what most of us see at ball address is the shotline without a calculation for CIT or throw.
When u don't know how to move into the CB you are essentially hitting the ball where u want but that doesn't account for throw. Therefore you miss and are perplexed as to why bc u swear that's where it supposed to be contacted.
While I'll agree with you that CIT plays a significant role in the final "fire control solution" to pocket a ball, I'm going to disagree with you about the misses. I'm very attuned to watching the stroke of players, especially since personally rebuilding my fundamentals by throwing away my pool fundamentals and adopting snooker fundamentals. I'll go on a limb and say well over 75% of misses I've seen -- of balls aimed directly at a pocket and not a bank shot, anyway -- were due to stroke errors, not aiming. At least among the amateurs. When I watch even a good amateur player, during a miss, I can see hitches, yaw, or anomalies in their stroke that directly contributed to going off line from their aim.
When u say that ghostball or fractions is the way to aim then why hasn't anyone said how to arrive at that aim? How do u move into the shot? How do I line up the edge of the CB to make that perfect overlap? And once I find that how or when do I adjust for the CIT?
See the folly in the argument?
Actually, no, I don't. Fundamentals are fundamentals. How you move into a shot is called a PSR -- that's part of your *fundamentals*. How you line up the edge of the CB to make the perfect overlap is part of *aiming*. How you adjust for CIT is part of *aiming*. There is a clear distinction between all of these.
Why is this folly for the use of math to show why CTE/Pro-1 works? How is it folly to show that it arrives at the correct aim for aligning the two spheres with a bit of compensation for CIT included?
CTE ProOne is a professional aiming system. It's what the pros are doing whether they know it or not.
Careful with that statement. That's the kind of thing that has gotten CTE supporters in trouble in the past, with overstated/overblown marketing.
Just the same as professionals are making the spheres collide at the perfect fraction or ghostball.
One is physics and math. The other is the human body. I never heard an argument that a NBA player must be calculating the arc and trajectory of a jumper. Yes that's what's occurring but how he arrives at that point is purely physical.
That's not the point of any exercise to show how math ties in with proving why something works. It's for greater understanding -- to move the stone a couple notches further.
So yeah,... I'm sure most will read half of this post and go back to their folly but for the few that make it to end that's what's occurring on its most basic level.
I'll tell you what's folly -- it's threads/posts like these, that assume just because someone wants to move the level of understanding one or two rungs further up the ladder, that it's somehow "folly" to do so. And, using ridiculous strawman analogies like your engine functional description to learn how to drive a car from, or that an NBA player thinks of "math" when shooting a shot. *Of course* pool is an execution-based sport -- noone ever argued the contrary. Noone ever mentioned that you have to mathematically calculate every nuance of your shots. In fact, if you've been here on AZB any length of time, you should know by my postings that I'm a big advocate of
leveraging your subconscious to play your best.
You know what I think? I'm beginning to think that certain folks DON'T WANT the functional underpinnings of CTE/Pro-1 proven. And I think those folks are a bunch of mystics living in the dark ages. Still trying to formulate gold from lead.
It *is* going to get done, like it or not -- whether by me or by someone else. Any science-minded person is not going to be satisfied with the explanation that "you follow these steps, in this order, and the ball pockets -- don't lift the covers, because you don't need to know why."
-Sean
