The suggestion of a CTE specific sub forum

[lfigueroa]

Please do. Really PLEASE DO because I am going to LOVE using it no matter what you write. The pairing of video and one's words editorially can really do a lot to bring the viewers to the right understanding. Just as you can take screenshots of my goofiest moments and pair them with words that put me into a negative light the right pairing of your words along with your performance will put CTE into a very positive light. You have provided me with a ton of visual examples to use with the proper context of your words and analysis.

You know that you are dying to knock the book. So go for it. Every critique will be answered and any praise evaluated for the knowledge behind it to determine the sincerity and value.

All that said what I GENUINELY hope is that you actually read it with a truly open mind and that you actually learn to see the alignment visuals as we see them. I genuinely hope that you find the value that we have and that you break 200+ if that happens to be your next 14.1 goal. Despite everything you have ever said and done maliciously on this subject I still want you to improve and enjoy this sport.

No, I’m not dying to do anything and I actually passed on writing a review of Stan’s 2nd DVD, a copy of which someone sent me gratis.

So whether I write something or not is unknown. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. But thanks for the encouragement.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JB Cases]

I don't have a problem with practitioners "witnessing" at each other. (the Christian kind) There's a certain novelty to multiple outcomes for the same shot and perhaps there are truly important pivotal relationships to be discovered. What seems more likely though, is a CTE forum would become an elitist frat house. I'd tick no on that one but if Stan is that important, or even deserving then it doesn't matter what I think anyway.

Actually it's just enthusiastic players geeking out and having fun with various methods of aiming. Not elitist in any way or any sense of the word.

There are not multiple outcomes for the SAME shot. There are multiple outcomes possible from the same cueball-object ball coordinates which are consistently found through the application of a perception method that relies on visually connecting objective reference points in a specific manner. There are, as a matter of FACT multiple outcomes possible for ANY cueball-object ball relationship. The question is whether the shooter can reach those outcomes deliberately and consistently. CTE makes it possible to reach those outcomes deliberately and consistently.

See Mike Howerton, this is what they do. First the religious "nut" reference and then the deliberate MISREPRESENTATION of the method.

 

[ShootingArts]

As a general statement I think that AZB is already too fragmented. I would take a look at the entire site and see what could be pulled back to the main forum. What can not go back to the main forum might be able to be consolidated into fewer subforums.

As for a CTE forum, I thought that was why the aiming forum was created, to lower the noise level from CTE on the main forum. A serious suggestion, why not give the current aiming forum to CTE and it's derivatives, renaming it slightly to indicate that, and move all other aiming discussions back to the main forum where they have always belonged in my opinion. CTE belongs there too but I understand that it is easier to manage the CTE bedlam away from the main forum.

I can say no new forum but my vote is of questionable value since I don't come to this forum a half-dozen times a year. The "what's new" feature does have me visiting forums I very rarely visited. Promoting that feature might increase traffic everywhere.

Hu

 

[JB Cases]

I think a CTE forum is a good idea. Clearly there is a lot of material to discuss surrounding that particular subject and anyone willing to learn it would seek it out. All critique or debate could then take place on the main aiming forum and those wanting to discuss technical aspects of CTE or praise it and testify to its effectiveness unopposed, could go to the specific forum. It could be made as a by invitiation only forum moderated by a CTE guy, I think that would work the best. Frankly I don't see any problem with this, but then again the CTE people themselves have said they don't want to participate here anymore, and would rather be on facebook, so I guess maybe they're not that into the idea.

I really don't see any productive discussion regarding CTE taking place at the current time or in the future. Naturally the most enthusiastic users want to use this forum as a recruiting tool, others want to combat what they feel is false information. There really hasn't been any movement in the positions in all the time I've been on here. The conflict has degraded into a destructive cycle where nobody has any motivation to try to see the issue from the others perspective and any disagreement is attributed to perceived negative personality traits. It's a little bit entertaining to see kindergarten insults being used by men pushing 60 and 70, and even threats to fight from people who probably are not in any kind of health and should watch their blood pressures carefully, but it's mostly just sad. People have been killed and seriously hurt over petty online squabbles like this, so it's less harmless than one would think. The positions are so entrenched and polarized, that there really is no chance of anyone actually changing their position. Some people have just realized that the whole issue is just cirkling the drain and got out.

Lets face it, the whole CTE thing is just a source of drama and cheap entertainment right now on this forum. There is zero chance of anyone learning anything from whats going on. So if anyone actually WANTED to teach this system, a dedicated sub forum is the way to go, IMO. However, I think the hardcore crowd would miss their daily dose of drama after a while. Some people just love a good argument or even a petty squabble.

When the critics have all been answered on the table how can you say that the CTE users are not willing to look at it from the other side.

I personally have made many videos where I take shot placement challenges posted by critics and perform them. Then when I successfully complete them and report that I was objectively aiming as described and that the system handled all of the shots despite the critics claiming that it cannot do so I am told that I am self-deluded. Where is a CTE user supposed to go with that? I have setup overhead cameras to capture the stick placement as challenged by a critic who said that would reveal the flaws. It didn't do that at all. The fact is that the CTE users are very interested in figuring out as much as they can of the how and they welcome the opportunity to test CTE against propositions.

For example here is a test proposed years ago by JSP
Center to Edge demonstration for AZB Forum User JSP. All of these balls are lined up with the same center to edge line. As you can see I shoot all of them with a bridge distance that is about the same. On all shots I start my tip pre-pivot at the left edge of the cue ball and pivot to center ball and then I shoot. I make 4 of 7 shots - barely miss two and the one I miss by more than half a ball is the 4 ball which I inadvertently rolled out of position and didn't put back in it's place in line. This demo was shot in one take only - as of this video posting I have only done it ONE time only. It has not been edited at all.

We have asked the critics to identify the areas in the system that they say are flawed with demonstrations and they won't do it. They mischaracterize the instructions and the actual mechanics - such as claiming that a 30 degree perception in CTE equals a 30 degree HIT. I personally have offered to PAY for the critics to go to Stan in the interest of them comparing notes and working out concerns ON THE TABLE and year after year this is refused.

So respectfully, the ONLY reason why people are not learning CTE on AZB is because of the unreasonable critics and no one else. They know how to easily derail the conversation and they do it over and over.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

A serious suggestion, why not give the current aiming forum to CTE and it's derivatives, renaming it slightly to indicate that, and move all other aiming discussions back to the main forum where they have always belonged in my opinion.

Yes. CTE is the only explosive aiming topic, and it's invariably explosive. I'd gladly avoid a CTE-only forum if CTE is restricted from other forums.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

As a general statement I think that AZB is already too fragmented. I would take a look at the entire site and see what could be pulled back to the main forum. What can not go back to the main forum might be able to be consolidated into fewer subforums.

As for a CTE forum, I thought that was why the aiming forum was created, to lower the noise level from CTE on the main forum. A serious suggestion, why not give the current aiming forum to CTE and it's derivatives, renaming it slightly to indicate that, and move all other aiming discussions back to the main forum where they have always belonged in my opinion. CTE belongs there too but I understand that it is easier to manage the CTE bedlam away from the main forum.

I can say no new forum but my vote is of questionable value since I don't come to this forum a half-dozen times a year. The "what's new" feature does have me visiting forums I very rarely visited. Promoting that feature might increase traffic everywhere.

Hu

It shouldn't be that CTE is banished to a subforum while then the knockers would have free reign to post about every other aiming system on the main board where the most eyeballs are. And you know how it would go, they would make their snide comments and wait for the inevitable rebuttal.

I think that major topic could have it's own subforum like Aiming has now. Stroking, pattern play, drills, ghost/test results, etc.... That way information can be consolidated and easy to find. We just want people to be cool about it no matter what thread they are in. And if they can't then boot them until they can be.

 

[JB Cases]

Yes. CTE is the only explosive aiming topic, and it's invariably explosive. I'd gladly avoid a CTE-only forum if CTE is restricted from other forums.

pj
chgo

What stops you from avoiding CTE posts now? No one is forcing you to open or comment on them.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What stops you from avoiding CTE posts now? No one is forcing you to open or comment on them.

A topic that can't abide open discussion doesn't belong in an open forum.

pj
chgo

 

[straightline]

Baseball is a team sport but everyone playing the game is individually busting a move while on the field. They're either getting a hit or striking out. They're either making a fantastic catch or making an error. They're either pitching a great game or getting battered all over the place. Somebody will end up as the hero or heroes, or the goat.

The same could be said for ALL team sports.

Ostensibly like clockwork. Problem I have is it's like watching clockwork.

 

[straightline]

Actually it's just enthusiastic players geeking out and having fun with various methods of aiming. Not elitist in any way or any sense of the word.

There are not multiple outcomes for the SAME shot. There are multiple outcomes possible from the same cueball-object ball coordinates which are consistently found through the application of a perception method that relies on visually connecting objective reference points in a specific manner. There are, as a matter of FACT multiple outcomes possible for ANY cueball-object ball relationship. The question is whether the shooter can reach those outcomes deliberately and consistently. CTE makes it possible to reach those outcomes deliberately and consistently.

See Mike Howerton, this is what they do. First the religious "nut" reference and then the deliberate MISREPRESENTATION of the method.

Lol. If it were just geeking out, bFD. The rest, I just stated what your correction implies sans attributing CTE as the key to everything.

 

[JC]

Would this idea work? It would still not be a place for CTE bashing.

Sounds perfect. The British did this with Australia and it was a smashing success!

Not a bad idea. Here would be my first order of business regarding the CTE Forum. (Why did you delete your post, Joey?)

Joey Bautista, YOU'RE BANNED! Pat Johnson - BANNED! Lou Figueroa - BANNED! Dan White - BANNED!

All problems SOLVED with CTE.

You don't come into our forum disrupting CTE discussions EVER and we don't go into your threads talking about ghost ball, contact points, fractions, how math, geometry, and every force of nature has to be factored into a shot before pulling the trigger with a stroke.

DEAL?

Or maybe Mike could do it himself. Either way...ALL PROBLEMS SOLVED WITH CTE AND THE REST OF IT!

Why don't you just not bring your CTE stuff into the other threads anyway? Why do you need a "deal" to act like an adult? Every side of this thing enables and thrives on it.

 

[JB Cases]

A topic that can't abide open discussion doesn't belong in an open forum.

pj
chgo

Lol, translation, you want to reserve a right to be a troll.

 

[fathomblue]

I'd love a CTE-only forum.

The incessant trolls are one of the very reasons that I don't frequent this board anymore. I had been gone for a few years, but decided to pop back in when the news of Stan's book hit the presses.

Sure enough. Same ole haters still hatin'. Bringing nothing to the conversation, but trying mightily to save us from ourselves. Didn't work in the past, present, nor will in the future. Just draining people's energy like the soulsuckers they are.

This board is a shell of what it was thanks to them. Some people aren't happy unless they're making others miserable.

Please let us CTE'ers discuss and learn amongst ourselves in peace. Either that or just shut the board down.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Why don't you just not bring your CTE stuff into the other threads anyway? Why do you need a "deal" to act like an adult? Every side of this thing enables and thrives on it.

If you're supposed to be the poster boy example of acting like an adult, I think I'll just stay where I am. You're about the furthest thing from it with all of the attacking wise guy tough guy posts. Btw, didn't you give your word just the other day that you were going to be out of the smack talking and attacking of CTE. Yeah.....right! I haven't sought you out, but here you are again going against your word. That's some real credibility you have going for yourself.

 

[Straightpool_99]

When the critics have all been answered on the table how can you say that the CTE users are not willing to look at it from the other side.

I personally have made many videos where I take shot placement challenges posted by critics and perform them. Then when I successfully complete them and report that I was objectively aiming as described and that the system handled all of the shots despite the critics claiming that it cannot do so I am told that I am self-deluded. Where is a CTE user supposed to go with that? I have setup overhead cameras to capture the stick placement as challenged by a critic who said that would reveal the flaws. It didn't do that at all. The fact is that the CTE users are very interested in figuring out as much as they can of the how and they welcome the opportunity to test CTE against propositions.

For example here is a test proposed years ago by JSP
Center to Edge demonstration for AZB Forum User JSP. All of these balls are lined up with the same center to edge line. As you can see I shoot all of them with a bridge distance that is about the same. On all shots I start my tip pre-pivot at the left edge of the cue ball and pivot to center ball and then I shoot. I make 4 of 7 shots - barely miss two and the one I miss by more than half a ball is the 4 ball which I inadvertently rolled out of position and didn't put back in it's place in line. This demo was shot in one take only - as of this video posting I have only done it ONE time only. It has not been edited at all.

We have asked the critics to identify the areas in the system that they say are flawed with demonstrations and they won't do it. They mischaracterize the instructions and the actual mechanics - such as claiming that a 30 degree perception in CTE equals a 30 degree HIT. I personally have offered to PAY for the critics to go to Stan in the interest of them comparing notes and working out concerns ON THE TABLE and year after year this is refused.

So respectfully, the ONLY reason why people are not learning CTE on AZB is because of the unreasonable critics and no one else. They know how to easily derail the conversation and they do it over and over.

The proof by video concept doesn't work. Since I cannot prove what you are thinking or even looking at and it's hard to see what you are doing as well, I would have little reason to believe anything you claim on such a video. It's nothing personal. Likewise, if I were to set up some CTE shot and show that when I do it, it hits the jaw of the pocket, the conclusion from you or anyone else in that camp would be that I'm either not doing what I say I'm doing or I am doing it wrong. Again, I wouldn't take that personally. Of course I wouldn't like to think that people think I'm lying or stupid, but I would realize that I haven't proven my point in an undisputable way. Likewise when you played Lou, nothing was really proven, either. The only true measure of an aiming system would be individual improvement and even that is hard to really prove because of the number of variables involved.

I have no doubt that Stan has a lot of knowledge and is a great instructor. That being said, based on the years of interaction on this forum, I can't say I blame those refusing to go to him to debate. The tone just hasn't been great on this forum and people are entrenched. I'd be worried about potential fights breaking out, especially with many people present.

Stan reportedly does not explain the mechanism behind CTE in his book. In that case, how could anyone disprove it? When something is not scientifically defined, discussing it with regards to proving/disproving is fruitless. The goalposts can easily be moved in either direction. It doesn't mean that there can't be some truth to it, that it doesn't work or whatever else. That is what I mean with the discussion not being productive. It all ends up with name calling, "my dad can beat up your dad", screaming nuh-uh, and such wastes of time.

If I set up a CTE shot and hit it into the rail 100 times in a row, what would be proven? That I'm talentless? That I'm a liar? That CTE is nonsense? It would all be up to interpretation. It's really not productive to even discuss this subject based on such ambivalent "proofs". A CTE forum is a good idea. All the details could be discussed, adjustments to technique could be made, teaching appointments could be set up, it really would be ideal if you wanted a teaching environment. That's the best that can be hoped for at this time, because 20 years of "debating" so far hasn't given good results.

 

[One Pocket John]

https://www.facebook.com/1039197069/posts/10221436101305501

To those interested.
John


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SpiderWebComm]

https://www.facebook.com/1039197069/posts/10221436101305501

To those interested.
John


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's for sane, truly interested pool players. The life long haters will be carded at the door and kicked out. If they get past the doorman and start pulling the same antics and stunts as done here or elsewhere for the last 23 years, they'll be booted out like a 60 yard field goal in a New York minute! Some already have been booted for 3 pointers and will never come back unless they have a way of doing it with a phony alias. They'll end up going through the goal post for more points.

 

[straightline]

Make it a sub forum of NPR. Live happily ever after.

 

[JB Cases]

The proof by video concept doesn't work. Since I cannot prove what you are thinking or even looking at and it's hard to see what you are doing as well, I would have little reason to believe anything you claim on such a video. It's nothing personal. Likewise, if I were to set up some CTE shot and show that when I do it, it hits the jaw of the pocket, the conclusion from you or anyone else in that camp would be that I'm either not doing what I say I'm doing or I am doing it wrong. Again, I wouldn't take that personally. Of course I wouldn't like to think that people think I'm lying or stupid, but I would realize that I haven't proven my point in an undisputable way. Likewise when you played Lou, nothing was really proven, either. The only true measure of an aiming system would be individual improvement and even that is hard to really prove because of the number of variables involved.

I have no doubt that Stan has a lot of knowledge and is a great instructor. That being said, based on the years of interaction on this forum, I can't say I blame those refusing to go to him to debate. The tone just hasn't been great on this forum and people are entrenched. I'd be worried about potential fights breaking out, especially with many people present.

Stan reportedly does not explain the mechanism behind CTE in his book. In that case, how could anyone disprove it? When something is not scientifically defined, discussing it with regards to proving/disproving is fruitless. The goalposts can easily be moved in either direction. It doesn't mean that there can't be some truth to it, that it doesn't work or whatever else. That is what I mean with the discussion not being productive. It all ends up with name calling, "my dad can beat up your dad", screaming nuh-uh, and such wastes of time.

If I set up a CTE shot and hit it into the rail 100 times in a row, what would be proven? That I'm talentless? That I'm a liar? That CTE is nonsense? It would all be up to interpretation. It's really not productive to even discuss this subject based on such ambivalent "proofs". A CTE forum is a good idea. All the details could be discussed, adjustments to technique could be made, teaching appointments could be set up, it really would be ideal if you wanted a teaching environment. That's the best that can be hoped for at this time, because 20 years of "debating" so far hasn't given good results.

Actually great results have been produced. The acrimony is unfortunate and sadly ongoing but the results are that thousands worldwide are befitting from cte and other objective aiming methods.

 

[JB Cases]

Here is where video proof is valuable. A person says look what I can do and explains how they did it. Another person tries to do what was demonstrated not using the method described but can't. So person two, without trying the method tries to do it through feel or some other method and they fall short. Then they try the method demonstrated and get much closer to the results achieved by the demonstrator.

The other night I have a jump exhibition and lesson. The players ranged from 500 to 700 speed. No one there was better at jumping than me because I had both the right techniques and experience. By the end of the night they were all much closer. And within a few days the 700 speed player was better than me.

The demonstration was proof of concept. In other words this is what is possible with this tool. However what is probable depends on your mastery of the best technique with this tool. Without the tool jumping is limited and inconsistent even with the best technique. With the tool jumping is expanded but still inconsistent without proper technique. With proper technique the expanded range of shots that are possible become way more likely to have a successful outcome.