Why CTE is silly

[KMRUNOUT]

However recently some scientists have discovered that in fact acupuncture needles stimulate the release of a chemical in the muscle that is a pain killer. Now that they have identified what is happening they can work to isolate and reproduce the chemical for all sorts of medical uses.

2000 years for science to catch up to Chinese medicine.

With all due respect John, what was Chinese medicines explanation of *why* acupuncture works? It certainly was not about the release of chemicals in the muscles. Rather it was some vague energy manipulation thing. It took Chinese medicine 2000 years to catch up with Chinese medicine.

I don't see the value in talking about whether it works. I don't think anyone is disputing that it does for many. The real question is about why and how it works. If that can be clearly and accurately explained, it would provide people with limited time in their lives to evaluate the data and determine if it is worth investing the time in learning.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Dude...if it don't work for YOU, don't use it. Pretty easy if you ask me. I don't use it per se either, but at the same time, if this system is working for someone else, great, more power to them.

Couldn't the same exact response be made about his spreadsheet? If you don't care for the info there...etc.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I mean it's sort of silly to think that you can reduce all the variables inherent in shooting a pool shot into an excel table don't you?

That isn't what he's doing. His spreadsheet isn't any sort of aiming system. It is simply a demonstration of the precision needed to pocket pool balls. Nothing else.

For all the calculations you and others do can you even make a ball? I mean when it comes down to it you aren't at the table measuring angles in 100th of an inch increments. You see, you assess, you get down and you shoot. If your perception is right and your execution is fairly good then you make the ball. If not then you miss. It's called judgment.

Then why bother with *any* aiming system, including CTE?

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I could hear someone describe the value of a straight stroke, and it would be immediately clear that it was WORTH LEARNING--even if I hadn't yet learned it.

Ah yes...there it is...the key to the whole debate.

KMRUNOUT

 

[JB Cases]

With all due respect John, what was Chinese medicines explanation of *why* acupuncture works? It certainly was not about the release of chemicals in the muscles. Rather it was some vague energy manipulation thing. It took Chinese medicine 2000 years to catch up with Chinese medicine.

I don't see the value in talking about whether it works. I don't think anyone is disputing that it does for many. The real question is about why and how it works. If that can be clearly and accurately explained, it would provide people with limited time in their lives to evaluate the data and determine if it is worth investing the time in learning.

KMRUNOUT

That's exactly my point. They did something that they found to be physically effective but were unable to explain it scientifically so they resorted to using mysticism to explain it.

That they were wrong about why acupuncture works doesn't diminish the fact that it works.

As to CTE the person who started this thread is denying that CTE works. Other people have also denied that it can work.

I don't think that there is a book anywhere that explains the physics or even the geometry behind "ghost ball". It's easy to follow on paper because it's easy to diagram.

However it's not always easy to implement and it really falls apart with shots that have a lot of collision induced throw and really thin shots.

GB is a very visual method requiring a person to imagine a ball precisely the right size in a very precise spot. If I person happens to be a little challenged in the imagination department then they will probably have trouble doing this consistently. Yet GB persists because it's easy to diagram.

In contrast you have a bunch of other systems which don't lend themselves so well to being diagrammed but which rely on connecting lines between physically present objects.

So I am at a loss to explain WHY I can see and do the system if asked to describe it in words or draw it on paper, yet on the table it's clear. Maybe someday pool academics will catch up to Hal Houle.

 

[JB Cases]

That isn't what he's doing. His spreadsheet isn't any sort of aiming system. It is simply a demonstration of the precision needed to pocket pool balls. Nothing else.

Yes I know but he is using it as "proof" that CTE doesn't work. I say that CTE covers the range in his chart and he says it doesn't. The difference? I can move the cue ball anywhere along the compass around the object ball and make it using the same approach. I can't explain WHY the same approach works but it does. So I can take any angle on his chart and make it using CTE. CTE works for all makeable shots with a direct line to the pocket.

Then why bother with *any* aiming system, including CTE?

Because sometimes people have perception issues where they think that they are aiming right but they are getting down on the wrong line.

Thus an aiming "system" might help them to find the right line in much the same way that using glasses corrects a person's vision.

After all Ghost Ball is exactly such a system where a person is taught to imagine a ball sitting in line with the pocket.

Here's an experiment you can do to see how flawed people's perceptions are.

Take a ball and put it out in the middle of the table.

Now give someone five seconds to freeze a second ball to the first one in line with any corner pocket. I bet you that you will find many people can't do it accurately without some thought. So why should we just assume that the Ghost Ball instructions which are so clear on paper are easy to implement in real life? They are for some people and not so easy for others. Hence the plethora of Ghost Ball aim trainers out there. All these devices designed to help people "see" something so easily explained?

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Go ahead, I guess it's easier for you to try and make someone look stupid than to actually do a little work yourself and look it up. I already have, I'm not going to spoon feed you just because you want to be lazy.

Neil,
I notice you keep talking about what the posters are "trying to do". ("trying to sound like an authority on the subject", "trying to make someone look stupid"). Are you sure these are his motives and not your assumptions? Personally I like to take peoples words at face value *first* before making assumptions about their motives. Sometimes these assumptions are defense mechanisms in disguise. No offense intended, just an observation...

I want to know this background stuff for myself. I don't need you to spoon feed me either, but perhaps you would be kind enough to suggest a search term to use? I have trouble imagining what words might return results that would distinguish the specific things PJ was asking for from the giant database of CTE threads. You already have done the work, hopefully you at least remember what you searched for?

Thanks for any help you can offer,

KMRUNOUT

 

[GetMeThere]

LB Cases:

I admit I'm getting bored. But I'll try a bit again.

1) OK, so now your last word is: NOBODY is going to describe ANYTHING concrete about CTE without getting paid. Fine. People can't keep secrets about aliens, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, endless conspiracy theories, miraculous healings--or for that matter, government secrets kept by threat of life imprisonment....but they CAN keep them for Hal Houle's goddam aiming system!! I guess life's just funny that way

2) Stevie Moore: Just another seller ("pro one"). A neat $500. I don't want to get into disparaging well known people. Can you name one who will tout it who isn't making a buck off it?

3) My opinions; and "have I never met someone who didn't WANT to tell me something." Yes, I've met individual people all over the map. But what I've NEVER seen is a BOATLOAD of people, ALL on to something positively amazing, who won't give details of it (even to their friends, who then THEMSELVES go online to talk about it). If you're NOT aware of that situation, then your experience is DANGEROUSLY limited.

I will positively, without hesitation, stand by my conclusion that if there were ANYTHING positive or useful about it (in an objective, clear, concrete way), then that information would by now be widely available. For you to deny or dismiss that claim makes you....well, in delusion.

4) Estimable Chinese pharmacists (who are definitely worthy of considerable skepticism): One makes one's judgments with the best information one has. Personally, when I was doing my doctoral work in molecular and cell biology at UC Berkeley, the place was FILLED with Chinese graduates students (as was Cornell, when I was a student there). I have extensive, COMPREHENSIVE indications that the Chinese have HEARTILY EMBRACED western science--very often to the exclusion of traditional Chinese medicine. Traditional methods are still heavily practiced, for sure--because the populace demand them, from tradition. But the smartest people in China (whom the Chinese government chooses to lavishly support in western educational institutions) have tossed 5000 years of "testimony" out the window for a chance at knowledge that is EVIDENCED and RATIONAL.

An aiming system must be rational, JB. There's nothing more rational or objective than the issue of aiming. In fact, much of western physics and mathematics (including calculus) was originally worked on to learn about "aiming" (ballistics). You might say that aiming is a foundational aspect of western science!

5) Your trust in "high level" players: Do you not know that "high level players" ALSO will declare (if cornered) that Houle's stuff is BUNK? The obviously most rational minds on this forum have stood up to denounce this crap (or headed for the hills--some people just can't face controversy).

I understand that you're not a sophisticated thinker, but you also strike me as at least a somewhat savvy person in general. Do you REALLY believe that Houle's methods are used by high level players? If so, then...well...I'll admit I made a mistake in my assessment of your savvy.

In fact, an article often cited in these threads, describing interviews with many well-known pros and asking them how them aim, elicits (in one way or another) that they use some version of ghost ball/feel.

6) My final word on this subject (to you. As I said, I'm getting bored). Absolute, top-of-the-line billiards people, like say, Bob Jewett, or Dr. Dave, have elaborated on their ideas COPIOUSLY for YEARS. Dr. Dave has a TREASURE TROVE of highly technical and insightful information published FOR FREE for anyone who would like to view it. Bob Jewett has written LOADS of articles over the years with sophisticated insider technical info that people would have NO ABILITY to get on their own.

YET, both those guys sell lessons, DVDs, books, etc., etc. as well. It seems that THEY are willing to describe COUNTLESS things in great detail--but still very rightly know that if people want to be FULLY informed/trained/enlightened about many of the things they say, they will STILL want some individualized instruction.

I wonder why the same doesn't seem to be true with CTE? That it must remain at the TOP of TOP SECRET....That somehow everyone who has learned this secret from the masters (to whom, btw, it was apparently given, free of charge, by Hal Houle) keeps the secret closer to their vests than their wife's infidelities....

Your position is simply irrational, unrealistic, untenable. There's nothing concrete said about CTE because there's nothing concrete TO IT. That is the way the world works. And people like Bob Jewett and Dr. Dave get lessons business BECAUSE they have a great deal of CONCRETE, DEMONSTRABLE information, because they OFFER IT by publication, knowing that people will understand they are great sources, and want to come for lessons to get further elaborations.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Nice post. Well said. (edit: I meant to imply the JB's last post was well said)

That they were wrong about why acupuncture works doesn't diminish the fact that it works.

Certainly true. But it does diminish the conversation about why it works.

As to CTE the person who started this thread is denying that CTE works. Other people have also denied that it can work.

I agree with you. I don't think it is fair to say it doesn't work without trying it, and it is equally unfair to say that it can't work without knowing the explanation.

I don't think that there is a book anywhere that explains the physics or even the geometry behind "ghost ball". It's easy to follow on paper because it's easy to diagram.

Do you really think that would be difficult to generate? Anyone could accurately explain how to use GB method and why it works. It is obvious *because* there are simple rational reasons backing it up. (And also plenty of highly complicated and rigorous explanations found in the study of physics).

However it's not always easy to implement and it really falls apart with shots that have a lot of collision induced throw and really thin shots.

Indeed. The GB method is not really that great. It totally falls short in these areas. I don't use it for these reasons. If I do use it at all, it is only for the purposes of positioning my body before even bending down.

So I am at a loss to explain WHY I can see and do the system if asked to describe it in words or draw it on paper, yet on the table it's clear.

Ok I can accept that. However, you also implied elsewhere that the reason it isn't being explained is because people were *choosing* not to, under some sort of obligation or something. To be clear, which one is it for you? I certainly don't mind either way. I can't say how I aim. I can describe the process and many aspects of what I do, and could probably do so in enough detail that people would understand what I meant, but ultimately I will have to face the following fact: I shoot when it "looks" right, and it looks right because of shooting 1000's of pool balls and observing the relationship between how it looks and what happens. When it looks right, and my stroke is smooth, it nearly always goes in, regardless of the shot.

Maybe someday pool academics will catch up to Hal Houle.

Perhaps! Time will tell. I appreciate your dialogic technique!

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

4) Estimable Chinese pharmacists (who are definitely worthy of considerable skepticism): One makes one's judgments with the best information one has. Personally, when I was doing my doctoral work in molecular and cell biology at UC Berkeley, the place was FILLED with Chinese graduates students (as was Cornell, when I was a student there). I have extensive, COMPREHENSIVE indications that the Chinese have HEARTILY EMBRACED western science--very often to the exclusion of traditional Chinese medicine. Traditional methods are still heavily practiced, for sure--because the populace demand them, from tradition. But the smartest people in China (whom the Chinese government chooses to lavishly support in western educational institutions) have tossed 5000 years of "testimony" out the window for a chance at knowledge that is EVIDENCED and RATIONAL.

An aiming system must be rational, JB. There's nothing more rational or objective than the issue of aiming. In fact, much of western physics and mathematics (including calculus) was originally worked on to learn about "aiming" (ballistics). You might say that aiming is a foundational aspect of western science!

6) My final word on this subject (to you. As I said, I'm getting bored). Absolute, top-of-the-line billiards people, like say, Bob Jewett, or Dr. Dave, have elaborated on their ideas COPIOUSLY for YEARS. Dr. Dave has a TREASURE TROVE of highly technical and insightful information published FOR FREE for anyone who would like to view it. Bob Jewett has written LOADS of articles over the years with sophisticated insider technical info that people would have NO ABILITY to get on their own.

YET, both those guys sell lessons, DVDs, books, etc., etc. as well. It seems that THEY are willing to describe COUNTLESS things in great detail--but still very rightly know that if people want to be FULLY informed/trained/enlightened about many of the things they say, they will STILL want some individualized instruction.

I wonder why the same doesn't seem to be true with CTE? That it must remain at the TOP of TOP SECRET....That somehow everyone who has learned this secret from the masters (to whom, btw, it was apparently given, free of charge, by Hal Houle) keeps the secret closer to their vests than their wife's infidelities....

And people like Bob Jewett and Dr. Dave get lessons business BECAUSE they have a great deal of CONCRETE, DEMONSTRABLE information, because they OFFER IT by publication, knowing that people will understand they are great sources, and want to come for lessons to get further elaborations.

I think these are excellent points.

KMRUNOUT

 

[cookie man]

I simply haven't seen any SINGLE aspect of "CTE" mentioned by ANYONE that even remotely suggests any method contained in it that would produce the precision necessary. I'm more than open to hearing evidence of such a method. So far, all I've heard from more than a few CTE accolytes is that it's not even NECESSARY to know where the pocket is!

If you don't need to know where the pocket is, how much more precise do you want to be? CTE center pocket system!!

 

[cookie man]

Johnny Archer's obviously tongue-in-cheek comment about CTE here (scroll about halfway down):

When players write to you, asking how to aim, your pat answer is to say that you get three feet back from the shot, then you shoot parallel lines. That is all hogwash. That is not how you aim. Why don't you level with these recreational players? You use the aiming system whereby you aim the center of the cue ball at the edge of the object ball for any and all shots. You know exactly what I am talking about. We both know about placing the cue tip either left or right of cue ball center, and you know why we do that. Get honest for a change. These recreational players are no threat. Tell them the truth. - Hal Houle

I really don't know why you keep writing about my aiming system. Everybody that is listening, IT IS MY AIMING SYSTEM. I hope this would relieve some pressure that you have. Thanks, Johnny

With these 2 quotes I think Hal is much more believable than Johnny, But you go ahead and hero worship anyway.

 

[cookie man]

Empty assurances. Why don't YOU convince us that CTE "works?"

Since you're making the statement, we can only assume that YOU know what CTE is, AND that it works. So why do we need to "Talk with an instructor that teaches it" when we have you here already who can tell us?

Stop begging.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

GetMeThere:
if there were ANYTHING positive or useful about [CTE] (in an objective, clear, concrete way), then that information would by now be widely available.

Miscommunication is the biggest problem in these CTE threads, and you're miscommunicating here by overstating your case. It's obvious to you and me that CTE describes no precisely programmed steps to an accurate aiming solution, but it's also obvious to CTE's users that it provides something objectively positive and useful for them - objective because it produces concrete results (they shoot better). If you want to communicate you have to be careful not to conflate or confuse the two concepts.

An aiming system must be rational, JB. There's nothing more rational or objective than the issue of aiming. In fact, much of western physics and mathematics (including calculus) was originally worked on to learn about "aiming" (ballistics).

Again you're conflating/confusing terms. A system can be geometrically undefinable and yet be a rational choice for a player because it produces objective results.

I don't think it's valid to assume that a system can't be objectively useful (or even "a system") because it isn't useful in ways we prefer.

I'm not arguing against you; just trying to draw you closer to a middleground that's more productive for discussion. My motives are selfish: we've been all over this ground many times already over several years and several versions of this system, and I'm tired of talking past each other.

pj
chgo

 

[Maniac]

Stevie Moore.

John, with all due respect (as I am neutral on this CTE debate), I find it completely useless to actually bring a name into the conversation, even if one is asked for. The reason I feel this way is that while Stevie Moore is a very talented shotmaker, there are literally HUNDREDS of players worldwide that shoot on the same level as he (many even better than he) that do NOT claim to use CTE. More power to him if he claims CTE has helped his game (as I am sure it has AND others games as well). But what about people like Mosconi, Hall, Mizerak, Cochran, Lassiter, etc. (or basically, all the "greatest of the greats")? They achieved what they did without nary an uttered word about an "aiming system/method". Stevie Moore represents a very small percentage of good poolplayers that are "tooting-the-horn" for CTE. To bring his or anybody elses name up in these types of threads would be "pissin'-in-the-wind" as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I too am in the opinion that CTE probably HAS helped many a persons game. In battle, a field medic will save the morphine for a wounded soldier who has a chance of living and gives a placebo to a dying soldier in pain. Many a dying soldier has been comforted by being administered these placebos, not knowing any better. If CTE is nothing more than a placebo to a poolplayer, then more power to it as far as I'm concerned. My own personal experiences with CTE (it was called something else by my then instructor) were not good and I went back to my own way of pocketing balls (which is good if I didn't have so much wobble in my stroke).

I really don't see the point of arguing over it. What works for some doesn't always work for others (and vice-versa). It's ALL good!!!

Maniac

 

[JB Cases]

LB Cases:

I admit I'm getting bored. But I'll try a bit again.

Thank you. It's always such a treat when elite minds spend time conversing with me.

1) OK, so now your last word is: NOBODY is going to describe ANYTHING concrete about CTE without getting paid. Fine. People can't keep secrets about aliens, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, endless conspiracy theories, miraculous healings--or for that matter, government secrets kept by threat of life imprisonment....but they CAN keep them for Hal Houle's goddam aiming system!! I guess life's just funny that way

I didn't say that at all. I said the information is available for free if you are nice to the people who have it. People are just funny that way.

2) Stevie Moore: Just another seller ("pro one"). A neat $500. I don't want to get into disparaging well known people. Can you name one who will tout it who isn't making a buck off it?

Stevie Moore is a world class player who happens to be one hell of a nice guy. He doesn't "sell" Pro One or make any money off of Stan's lessons. In fact it would be well to his advantage IF the system actually works if he DID NOT endorse it and did not encourage people to take lessons.

3) My opinions; and "have I never met someone who didn't WANT to tell me something." Yes, I've met individual people all over the map. But what I've NEVER seen is a BOATLOAD of people, ALL on to something positively amazing, who won't give details of it (even to their friends, who then THEMSELVES go online to talk about it). If you're NOT aware of that situation, then your experience is DANGEROUSLY limited.

That you know of. How do you know what people want or don't want to talk about. As a molecular biologist you have met plenty of people who didn't want to tell you every detail of their research because they wanted to publish it and get credit for their discoveries. I know how academia and the politics of science works.

As far as the discussion of CTE goes the details are shared among FRIENDS. Do you have any friends who know CTE thoroughly? If not maybe you ought to try to make some, under another username I'd suggest.

I will positively, without hesitation, stand by my conclusion that if there were ANYTHING positive or useful about it (in an objective, clear, concrete way), then that information would by now be widely available. For you to deny or dismiss that claim makes you....well, in delusion.

Well you seem to have your mind up. I guess you'll have to wait for the DVD.

4) Estimable Chinese pharmacists (who are definitely worthy of considerable skepticism): One makes one's judgments with the best information one has. Personally, when I was doing my doctoral work in molecular and cell biology at UC Berkeley, the place was FILLED with Chinese graduates students (as was Cornell, when I was a student there). I have extensive, COMPREHENSIVE indications that the Chinese have HEARTILY EMBRACED western science--very often to the exclusion of traditional Chinese medicine. Traditional methods are still heavily practiced, for sure--because the populace demand them, from tradition. But the smartest people in China (whom the Chinese government chooses to lavishly support in western educational institutions) have tossed 5000 years of "testimony" out the window for a chance at knowledge that is EVIDENCED and RATIONAL.

It's the Chinese goverment "lavishly supporting" these students? Boy oh boy are you misinformed. But let's let that little bit of ignorance stay on the side for a moment. Chinese doctors and scientists are not "tossing" out traditional Chinese medicine. They just don't hold the belief that it's necessarily better or worse than western methods. Chinese doctors will prescribe whatever they feel is the proper treatment which could be pain pills or acupuncture. How do I know this? I have been living in China for the past four years.

As for your assertion that Chinese students have "tossed 5000 years of "testimony" out the window for a chance at knowledge that is EVIDENCED and RATIONAL." how does this happen? Do they have to sign a form swearing a blood oath not to think about or use or promote Chinese traditional medicine as a condition to study molecular biology?

An aiming system must be rational, JB. There's nothing more rational or objective than the issue of aiming. In fact, much of western physics and mathematics (including calculus) was originally worked on to learn about "aiming" (ballistics). You might say that aiming is a foundational aspect of western science!

Sure, that's why archers and shooters are taught all sorts of holistic methods to use when "aiming". Instead of being told to hold the pistol at 22 degrees above the horizon for a distance of 300 yards they are told to hold themselves still and have "quiet eyes" and try to judge the wind to keep still etc.... Although I do certainly agree that one needs to know some proper math to be able to shoot a boulder into the general's tent.

So as a scientist then you ought to be trying to figure out the calculus involved in how something like CTE could work. According to one of CTE's proponents he has a technical document in the works that explains the math behind it.

You two can have a chart duel when he publishes.

5) Your trust in "high level" players: Do you not know that "high level players" ALSO will declare (if cornered) that Houle's stuff is BUNK? The obviously most rational minds on this forum have stood up to denounce this crap (or headed for the hills--some people just can't face controversy).

Well then that isn't any different than competing scientists is it? If one top player denounces it, and another one endorses it then who do you believe?

It's funny that to you the "rational minds" are the ones who agree with you. Aren't people funny like that?

I understand that you're not a sophisticated thinker, but you also strike me as at least a somewhat savvy person in general. Do you REALLY believe that Houle's methods are used by high level players? If so, then...well...I'll admit I made a mistake in my assessment of your savvy.

I am a cretin with barely a third grade education. Let's turn it around a little, do you have any proof that Hal's systems or similar are NOT used by some high level players? I have at least TWO players who are known to use them, Stevie Moore and Landon Shuffet. Would you please provide evidence of the denunciations you claim exist? After all you say that one's word is not enough.

In fact, an article often cited in these threads, describing interviews with many well-known pros and asking them how them aim, elicits (in one way or another) that they use some version of ghost ball/feel.

In fact that article describes a lot of different ways to aim including CJ Wiley saying that he preferred NOT to tell people in the article as he was and subsequently did make a DVD about how he aims.

6) My final word on this subject (to you. As I said, I'm getting bored). Absolute, top-of-the-line billiards people, like say, Bob Jewett, or Dr. Dave, have elaborated on their ideas COPIOUSLY for YEARS. Dr. Dave has a TREASURE TROVE of highly technical and insightful information published FOR FREE for anyone who would like to view it. Bob Jewett has written LOADS of articles over the years with sophisticated insider technical info that people would have NO ABILITY to get on their own.

Well thank you. I would never have known this without your instruction. Do you think you could find it in you to provide links to those treasure troves? We would all be better off for your generosity.

YET, both those guys sell lessons, DVDs, books, etc., etc. as well. It seems that THEY are willing to describe COUNTLESS things in great detail--but still very rightly know that if people want to be FULLY informed/trained/enlightened about many of the things they say, they will STILL want some individualized instruction.

I wonder why the same doesn't seem to be true with CTE? That it must remain at the TOP of TOP SECRET....That somehow everyone who has learned this secret from the masters (to whom, btw, it was apparently given, free of charge, by Hal Houle) keeps the secret closer to their vests than their wife's infidelities....

Well grasshopper it seems as if it boils down to you being upset that no one will give you what you do not yet know. As I said the answer is there for free if you know how to get it. Hint: try a new username and another vector. May I suggest reading Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People"? before going this direction. It ain't molecular biology but it will get you closer to what you want.

Your position is simply irrational, unrealistic, untenable. There's nothing concrete said about CTE because there's nothing concrete TO IT. That is the way the world works. And people like Bob Jewett and Dr. Dave get lessons business BECAUSE they have a great deal of CONCRETE, DEMONSTRABLE information, because they OFFER IT by publication, knowing that people will understand they are great sources, and want to come for lessons to get further elaborations.

My position? What is my position? That I believe something works which I use? That I believe other people when they say it works for them as well? It's irrational to believe what I can do?

Unrealistic? I pocket more balls, win more matches, win more when I gamble and the results are not real? I don't have to prove my individual results to you nor does anyone else. The system/method exists. Learn it if you want and use it if you like. If not then don't.

As for untenable, it seems to me that despite the efforts you are currently making as well as the efforts of others to paint it negatively CTE persists. Despite it's 'mystery' and lack of paint-by-number clarity in print and illustration it persists. So it's doing just fine having been adopted and adapted by many of the United State's best instructors and used by at least one of America's best players.

For someone who says that they only deal in concretes and absolutes you seem to speak a lot about people's inner motivations as if you were able to read their minds. You ascribe motivation to instructors and consumers alike as well do a lot of prediction.

Seems to me that out of the two of us I am the one who is more grounded in reality here being that I am speaking from a point of real experience concerning Hal's systems.

Of course being that I am not a deep thinker like yourself, nor all that savvy really, I suppose that I could just be delusional about this. Just that I think that the balls are still real and they go in the pockets. So while I am fantasizing the shots into the pockets you can spend your time trying to figure out how I am doing it.

 

[JB Cases]

John, with all due respect (as I am neutral on this CTE debate), I find it completely useless to actually bring a name into the conversation, even if one is asked for. The reason I feel this way is that while Stevie Moore is a very talented shotmaker, there are literally HUNDREDS of players worldwide that shoot on the same level as he (many even better than he) that do NOT claim to use CTE. More power to him if he claims CTE has helped his game (as I am sure it has AND others games as well). But what about people like Mosconi, Hall, Mizerak, Cochran, Lassiter, etc. (or basically, all the "greatest of the greats")? They achieved what they did without nary an uttered word about an "aiming system/method". Stevie Moore represents a very small percentage of good poolplayers that are "tooting-the-horn" for CTE. To bring his or anybody elses name up in these types of threads would be "pissin'-in-the-wind" as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I too am in the opinion that CTE probably HAS helped many a persons game. In battle, a field medic will save the morphine for a wounded soldier who has a chance of living and gives a placebo to a dying soldier in pain. Many a dying soldier has been comforted by being administered these placebos, not knowing any better. If CTE is nothing more than a placebo to a poolplayer, then more power to it as far as I'm concerned. My own personal experiences with CTE (it was called something else by my then instructor) were not good and I went back to my own way of pocketing balls (which is good if I didn't have so much wobble in my stroke).

I really don't see the point of arguing over it. What works for some doesn't always work for others (and vice-versa). It's ALL good!!!

Maniac

He asked for a name. Stevie Moore is one player that has "gone on record" so to speak for a CTE (Pro One) aiming system.

Shane Van Boeing says he uses a stick aiming system. Hal Houle taught stick aiming systems as well. Does that mean Shane uses Houle's methods? No. It means that Houle taught some and Shane happens to have mentioned his uses he cue to aim.

Dave Segal mentioned that he asked Bustamante flat out and Busty said he uses CTE or something like it (I don't remember the exact way Dave said it).

I have asked top players how they aim and many of them do NOT use Ghost Ball.

The point was that the guy asked for "any hint" that CTE is worthwhile and used pro-player use as an example, well now he has one.

 

[JB Cases]

Nice post. Well said. (edit: I meant to imply the JB's last post was well said)



Certainly true. But it does diminish the conversation about why it works.

Of course. I am the first to agree that not being able to describe the nuts and bolts detail is a major sticking point for a lot of folks. Frankly I was always one who poo-pooed acupuncture. Even after my first wife swore by it after an auto-accident. The insurance paid for it. Over here in China I did it for a shoulder injury that had become chronic and within two months I was out of pain. Even so I still thought it was hokey and had more to do with positive suggestion until I read the article that now acupunture has been figured out.

I agree with you. I don't think it is fair to say it doesn't work without trying it, and it is equally unfair to say that it can't work without knowing the explanation.

Fair enough

Do you really think that would be difficult to generate? Anyone could accurately explain how to use GB method and why it works. It is obvious *because* there are simple rational reasons backing it up. (And also plenty of highly complicated and rigorous explanations found in the study of physics).

It might be. I don't know. I just found it funny that such an easy and rational method requires so much "help".

Indeed. The GB method is not really that great. It totally falls short in these areas. I don't use it for these reasons. If I do use it at all, it is only for the purposes of positioning my body before even bending down.

And what if you use it but the "ghost ball" you see is a few millimeters off?

As the original poster proposes these few millimeters are critical. So you line up perfectly to what you "see" but you are not in perfect alignment to the correct center ball shot line.

Ok I can accept that. However, you also implied elsewhere that the reason it isn't being explained is because people were *choosing* not to, under some sort of obligation or something. To be clear, which one is it for you? I certainly don't mind either way. I can't say how I aim. I can describe the process and many aspects of what I do, and could probably do so in enough detail that people would understand what I meant, but ultimately I will have to face the following fact: I shoot when it "looks" right, and it looks right because of shooting 1000's of pool balls and observing the relationship between how it looks and what happens. When it looks right, and my stroke is smooth, it nearly always goes in, regardless of the shot.

That is the reason. It has been stated clearly many times throughout these threads that Hal has asked the people he teaches not to detail what they are taught online. Stan asks the same and I presume that Randy also asks his students the same.

Which is why I just lend support of the concept.

 

[justadub]

I don't know that I've learned anything new abut CTE in this thread than we've seen discussed in any of the last several similar threads.

What I have learned is that both JB and PJ have become truly enjoyable posters since their latest "vacations". I mean that very sincerely. Not saying I'm agreeing with them or not in this thread, but they have been very measured, reasonable and rational in their postings. Not just in this thread, but any of their posts recently.

Carry on with the debate. I'll find more popcorn.

 

[duckie]

This is all you need to know. Everything else is bullshit. Make the training aid and have at it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=dK...v=onepage&q=the arrow babe cranfield&f=false

You all look silly still discussing this stupid way to aim.