Why CTE is silly

Status
Not open for further replies.

GetMeThere

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
GMT,Making fun of another man's hard work is not funny. Maybe it is to you but to many of us, it's not.

Oh, I don't know. Most people who have come up with very IMPORTANT true things were first made fun of. I think you take the issue too seriously. The NORMAL human thing to do when you think someone has a "goofy idea" is to make fun of it. The one who's right gets the last laugh--I'm quite sure Lou understands that clearly.

You, Lou and a few others have tried to poison CTE from the very beginning with every one of your posts. I don't object to constructive discussion concerning the plusses or minuses of CTE or pattern play. That's all good stuff. Mean-spirited needless, needling has no place in this forum.

As I understand it, the ideas that are the source of CTE have been discussed for AT LEAST ten years--so "from the very beginning" statements...certainly don't apply to ME. Furthermore, it was Hal who called LOU originally, to offer information on the topic. When someone puts information and ideas in the public sphere, there's every reason to expect those ideas to get a good going over.

But there HAS been a tendency toward mean-spiritedness (at least from me). That's fundamentally because CTE advocates insist on making ASSERTIONS that they won't back up! The ONLY reason this has gone on so long is that CTE advocates CONTINUE to make the same assertions while CONTINUING to refuse to back them up. Sorry, but that gets annoying after awhile. If they don't WANT to back up their assertions (their right), then they shouldn't keep MAKING them--and not expect some critically-minded people not to get tired of listening to baseless assertions which, on their face, don't seem to make sense.

Stan would be the FIRST person who would tell any student or fellow posters that CTE Pro One is only a small portion of what top level pool is all about and that regular, quality practice in all areas of pool is what is necessary to achieve a high level of play. But you, Lou and everyone else already knows that.

That's right, we do (well, personally I'm just assuming--since Stan seems to be widely known as trying to have a positive influence on pool for many many years). If this is all about's Lou's one post, I think it has been misjudged. I don't think it was his intention to frame STAN like a carnival barker, I think he was putting it in terms of the carnival barkers you CAN see anytime you turn on a TV (which I haven't done for ten years--I'm going on memory on that one).

Sometimes I AM left to wonder why SO MUCH emotional energy is spent defending the PEOPLE involved with CTE, and SO LITTLE intellectual energy is spent defending the IDEA of CTE. I'm 95% interested in the idea.

It just so happens that if a person has trouble aiming as MANY people do, CTE/Pro One may be one of the best tools to start with. Trying to ridicule and discourage people from using it or trying it is doing a disservice to the pool community.

I don't believe such claims without convincing evidence. I know from a great deal of real world experience that many people often MISJUDGE such things. And this is exactly where the religion analogy comes in: Just BELIEVING something doesn't make it true; and things don't BECOME true just because they're strongly believed.

OTOH, from a geometrical perspective, there IS reason to think that people could be confused about what CTE does, or does for them. The whole scenario invites EXAMINATION--which is what these threads try to do. The reason they devolve into something less is almost always the relentless LACK of information input from CTE advocates to SUPPORT the CLAIMS they wish to make.

It's my opinion that every top player winds up in the same place as where CTE/Pro One attempts to put the shooter.

I have a lot to learn about CTE/Pro One but the few things I know is that it is an entirely different method of aiming and there may be a lot more to this than any of us imagine.

I've been told that you're a formidable player. That certainly must mean SOMETHING. I have to say though, that NO voice of authority could make me reject fundamental rules of geometry--stuff I've known and lived by since the fourth grade. People have accepted, lived by, even put their LIVES ON THE LINE based on certain basic, simple mathematical realities for a good TWO THOUSAND YEARS. Giving that up would take a WHOLE lot more than what I'm seeing on this forum!

Poking fun at another man's livelihood in this forum is in the poorest taste, imo and it's not all right.

Well, around 1900 or so, poking fun at a wagon-maker's livelihood might eventually come to have been seen by the wagon-maker as doing him a FAVOR.

When you put your ideas on a public forum (as Hal did), you're subjecting them to public examination and criticism. Nobody gets to have one but not the other--unless you live in North Korea.
 

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
Sure: go ahead and do all those pivots and convince yourself that it's a short cut -- a magical system. If you stick with it, chances are that it will keep you you from ever being the best pool player you can be. IMO, if you believe that, or have other reasons to doubt the benefits of a system, you need to speak out.

Lou Figueroa
Certainly fair, but you have to admit that the way several doubters have expressed their doubt just sucks ass from a "let's get down to better learning" point of view. And, yes, the way several of the believers express themselves leaves much to be desired.

Bottom line: if you believe the systems (any and all of the Houle/Shuffet systems) work, then you believe people should try them and expand their knowledge, right??? You yourself have said that these systems work.

Fred
 
Last edited:

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I have to say though, that NO voice of authority could make me reject fundamental rules of geometry--stuff I've known and lived by since the fourth grade. People have accepted, lived by, even put their LIVES ON THE LINE based on certain basic, simple mathematical realities for a good TWO THOUSAND YEARS. Giving that up would take a WHOLE lot more than what I'm seeing on this forum!



.
Really, what good pool player in the last two thousand years cared about geometry when making a ball. I'd really like to know why your so stuck on geometry concerning CTE. If I was that passionate about the geometry you can bet your ass I would go see Stan and figure this thing out for the world once and for all, fastest way to become an AZ INTERNET HERO. By the way I took the lesson from Stan and all i worry about is the rapid improvement I am seeing in my total game. I also believe the geometry will be figured out but I just don't care to do it.
 

peteypooldude

I see Edges
Silver Member
It always seems to work out this way.
You have got a group of players saying they aim using CTE.
Then you have the players saying, ...No you dont that is impossible and
you are delusional .
Some are interested in learning and others are here to take pop shots.
I think it is the ridicule that causes rebellion . Why is it that big of a deal
what method a player uses to help his game? This mess gets way out of hand and turns personal often on this topic .
 
Last edited:

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Certainly fair, but you have to admit that the way several doubters have expressed their doubt just sucks ass from a "let's get down to better learning" point of view. And, yes, the way several of the believers express themselves leaves much to be desired.

Bottom line: if you believe the systems (any and all of the Houle/Shuffet systems) work, then you believe people should try them and expand their knowledge, right??? You yourself have said that these systems work.

Fred


And you would have to concede that it is a system so crazy that even people that claim to fully know it put up YouTubes and then disavow them because they themselves got it wrong. It is a system that its proponents claim to be rooted in science and geometric precision, yet they cannot provide the proofs. It's a system that needs dozens (100s?) of pages to be described, or a DVD (and maybe accompanying individual instruction) to deploy. It has been under constant discussion for almost 15 years, is still as clear as mud, but its advocates insist: "it works."

That deserves to be ridiculed.

I don't believe I have ever said the system works. What I believe I have said is that there may be some benefit to some in terms of focusing a player in on an aspect of the game they may not have before, and/or help them get into the habit of a consistent setup (even if that is not their optimal setup).

So now we have a few that are *heavily* invested with dozens, if not hundreds, of hours of time and effort. They have their kindly old godfather figure. And they are a bit touchy about things to the point they can't take some good-natured ribbing about *the system* and mistakenly take every comment to be about *the person.* But we are not the Nobel Prize committee. We are not the Royal Family. We are the Simpsons here talking about a game that involves poking little multi-colored balls over a cloth-covered surface.

It's a game.

But some have lost sight of that.

Lou Figueroa
good to see you participating
Fred ;-)
 
Last edited:

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
peteypooldude:
You have got a group of players saying they aim using CTE.
Then you have the players saying, ...No you dont that is impossible and
you are delusional .
The argument isn't that simplistic. It's about whether CTE works in a certain way.

pj <- maybe another hundred times or so will do it
chgo
 

GetMeThere

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Really, what good pool player in the last two thousand years cared about geometry when making a ball. I'd really like to know why your so stuck on geometry concerning CTE. If I was that passionate about the geometry you can bet your ass I would go see Stan and figure this thing out for the world once and for all, fastest way to become an AZ INTERNET HERO. By the way I took the lesson from Stan and all i worry about is the rapid improvement I am seeing in my total game. I also believe the geometry will be figured out but I just don't care to do it.

Pool players may not care about geometry, but you can be sure that GEOMETRY CARES ABOUT POOL PLAYERS!

I think you fail to understand that--or don't want to understand that.
 

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
{snipped hilarious analogy}

good to see you participating
Fred ;-)

It's like a damned black hole. I avoided it for 90 pages and it kept popping up to the top. And I decided to jump in, but not head first. I'm trying to be more like Marge Simpson and less like Smithers.

Fred <~~~ it works, dammit and I don't care how or why!!!!
 

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
Pool players may not care about geometry, but you can be sure that GEOMETRY CARES ABOUT POOL PLAYERS!

I think you fail to understand that--or don't want to understand that.

You just don't get it. And you're a naysayer. No wafers for you.

Fred <~~~ there. I'm fully in now.
 

GetMeThere

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You just don't get it. And you're a naysayer.

In the same situation, others often say something like: "You just don't WANT to believe!" :D



If someone tells me that 2+2=5, and that they MAKE MORE MONEY because they believe that....would you recommend that I "get it" and not be a "naysayer" about it?

Instead, I personally would be much more interested in finding the REAL cause of them making more money (because I can KNOW it's not because 2+2 really equals 5). Now maybe that REAL cause of making more money would be useful information to get hold of!
 

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
It has been under constant discussion for almost 15 years, is still as clear as mud, but its advocates insist: "it works."

That deserves to be ridiculed.

I don't believe I have ever said the system works.
I could have let this one go, but since we're all just doing the good-natured ribbing thing...

Lou says Hal Houle's Systems Work

And to be fair, you gave as good a reason as any as to why it works. And Pat Johnson has been saying a similar reason as to why it might work as well for years. I think he was peaking over my shoulder, but I digress. But, you did exclaim that "it works. " No "might" or "sometimes." And you said itw as "useful." If it was true then, I think it's true now.

And also to be fair, I'm sure anyone can find posts where I also ridiculed the believers because of their crazy claims. I ridicule them today (because I feel the claims can be downright silly), but I'm still a proponent of all of the crazy systems.

Fred <~~~ it works!!!!
 

GetMeThere

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
And they'd be right. You don't want to believe. Which is fine. Just say that and we're done.

Fred <~~~ wants to believe

Well, OK then.

But from a great deal of studied experience, I can say that removing "wants" from the chore of deciding what to believe is very USEFUL. It's a practice that will take one much further than leaving the "wants" in.
 

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
Well, OK then.

But from a great deal of studied experience, I can say that removing "wants" from the chore of deciding what to believe is very USEFUL. It's a practice that will take one much further than leaving the "wants" in.

We'll see you in a year or two.

Fred
 

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Now that all of the childish banter, schoolyard bullying, accusations, and passionate defenses to accusations are over (I hope anyway), can we now return to some meaningful discussion concerning CTE?

Fred, Spidey, Stan, cookie man, and others, what do you think about the stuff below?

Let's try to remain "camp-less" and make our best efforts to answer some of the important questions about CTE, while doing out best to remain calm and objective without causing bad feelings ... please.

cookie man: With a different cut angle comes a different edge on the OB that the CTEL comes in contact with.
How would you explain this relative to these three shots:

CTE_shots.jpg

The CB-OB distance and CTEL (OB to CB, or CB to OB) are the exact same for all three shots, both in the 2D illustration and in 3D perspective. The only thing different is the amount of cut required. The CTE information I've heard and seen so far doesn't provide guidance on how to deal with this, other than: It takes "visual intelligence" and "experience at the table" to develop a sense for how to adjust the "effective pivot length." That's fine, but if there is something more specific than this, I think it would be interesting and useful to describe and discuss it in a calm, logical, and objective way.

Spidey: This has been answered 100000x times (which is why I ignored it on the 100001x).
Sorry. I was using it to address cookie man's post, which didn't sound right to me.

Spidey: The CTEL line remains the same; however, the distance your eyes are off this line varies for each shot.
This is the missing piece of information in most descriptions of CTE I have seen and heard so far. However, this information is of little use unless there is some guidance as to how much to shift the eyes based on the amount of cut needed, because the only thing changing in the example is the amount of cut needed on each shot. Now, the guidance could just be: practice with the system enough to develop a sense for how this changes with the amount of cut needed.

The other important thing to know is whether or not you should change your "effective pivot length" in addition to changing your eye alignment for different shots. It would also be nice to have guidance on how and how much to do this. Again the answer could be: practice with the system enough to develop a sense for how you should change the "effective pivot length" for different ball distances and cut amounts.

If there were procedures or more-specific guidance to deal with these issues, it might help the understanding of and appreciation for CTE. In particular, it would be useful to know how to learn to judge and be consistent with both eye alignment and pivot for a wide range of shots with different ball distances and amounts of cut. Please share what you know about these topics.

Now, if Stan's DVD covers all of this stuff in detail, I am happy to put the discussion on hold until we can view it, but it doesn't seem like there should be any harm in continuing the discussion.

Thank you in advance to everybody willing to participate in focused and worthwhile discussion and debate.

Regards,
Dave
 

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
Now that all of the childish banter, schoolyard bullying, accusations, and passionate defenses to accusations are over (I hope anyway), can we now return to some meaningful discussion concerning CTE?

Fred, Spidey, Stan, cookie man, and others, what do you think about the stuff below?

Sorry Dave, but I'm only here for the childish banter at this point. There isn't anything earth shattering in this thread that would make me want to do anything else.


The thread can be summed up as follows:

Haters with no integrity campers say: BS system because the geometry gods will give you an F on your math score. Your future is doomed at this game.

Overzealous non-descript 2-point wafflers say: you'll see, you'll see, you'll, see, you naysaying, non-videoing , egomaniacs. I make every shot, every time.

And I could point at any of the other hundred threads in the past ten years, and it would be the same synopsis.

----------------------------------------

You show three shots. My system uses three different starting points. I don't know what CTE'ers use. Your illustration is pretty good because if you just keep duplicating that setup vertically down, it seems obvious (to me) that there is a finite number of aim points that would get you every shot in the corner pocket. Maybe 7? 9? Not 50.

Fred
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top