Why CTE is silly

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a serious question for anyone who uses CTE or for anyone who teachs CTE:

Since learning and beginning to teach CTE yourself, has it become the aiming system that you use in your own game, and if so, by how much in percentage would you say it has improved your overall game?


I would appreciate an answer to the above question,

Thanks Craig
 
Maniac said:
Were you there that day :confused:? I don't remember you being in the class. How can you comment like you did in the above quote on something that you were not a witness to? The instructor had spent the entire previous day showing/teaching form. The next day (the part I posted about) was commited to nothing but an aiming system which the instructor himself failed to demonstrate effectively, thus casting doubts on the usefulness of it to those PRESENT in the class.

Once again Neil, let me state that I am neither for nor against ANY aiming system that someone may wish to use. I simply stated in my previous post what I experienced that day in class and how it had a profoundly negative effect on those in class. I was there. I know what I saw. I saw an instructor struggling to make balls to prove that the system he was trying to teach was credible. He failed to "win over" his class that particular day. I understand how easy it is to miss shots when trying to show someone a particular shot/technique, but THAT day, he failed to make an impact on his students. That's all I was saying.

As far a someone missing six shots in a row, changing methods, then making the FIRST ball attempted afterward, this is NOT concrete evidence of anything other than a person making one shot. If it was told that the person made the next TEN shots in a row, then we'd have something to hang our hats on!!! Like we say down here in Texas, "Even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then" :thumbup:.

Maniac (uses the "feel" system)
Click to expand...

You're right, I wasn't there. And, I admit I was wrong by assuming. However, the point I was making is still valid. As instructors, we need to be careful when showing shots to actually make them. That your instructor couldn't make them when actually trying, well, I'll leave that one alone.:confused:

The student I mentioned made 4 out of 6 tries doing it the way I showed him. The other two hung up. His way, he had one try come close. He's been around pool for a long time, is an APA 6 for years. He has said that what I showed him is the best thing he has ever seen pool related. That speaks volumes to me.
 
mikepage said:
Actually, you CAN learn molecular biology on the internet. The amount of very high quality information in scientific areas presented clearly and accurately is staggering.

Just a couple years ago I was teaching advanced graduate-level courses in quantum mechanics and in statistical mechanics. When I went to the internet to see if I could find a few examples involving some advanced topics, I was amazed to find thorough, clear, up-to-date descriptions of every topic I was teaching.
Click to expand...

Yup, I agree. With experimental sciences you can't learn EVERYTHING, of course--some stuff requires hands-on experience (I used to operate on embryos with an eyebrow hair glued to a toothpick used as a knife! Try learning THAT online!). Many critical lab techniques are known only to specific labs --to the ever-lasting consternation of other labs ;) But surely, there's an AMAZING amount of beautifully up-to-date info available. I sometimes look up stuff from my own field in Wikipedia and I'm AMAZED at the detail and timeliness of the information--very often BETTER than any textbook, in completeness, recent info/changes, and diagrams etc.

Hey Mike, maybe you could, er, help me with a little problem I'm having with Dr. Dave :)

Take a look at our discussion and give your input (you'll surely want to click on the "see all comments" choice to get everything in the right order).
 
Last edited:
manwon said:
I have a serious question for anyone who uses CTE or for anyone who teachs CTE:

Since learning and beginning to teach CTE yourself, has it become the aiming system that you use in your own game, and if so, by how much in percentage would you say it has improved your overall game?


I would appreciate an answer to the above question,

Thanks Craig
Click to expand...

It's not the version that Hal or Stan teach, because I don't know their full version. But, it is a hybrid of theirs. Yes, I use it on all but very close shots now. I would estimate that my pocketing percentage has gone up 10%. Now, to be honest, at first it went down. During the transition stage. Once I re-trained myself, and could shoot automatically again, it is higher than it was before.
 
manwon said:
I have a serious question for anyone who uses CTE or for anyone who teachs CTE:

Since learning and beginning to teach CTE yourself, has it become the aiming system that you use in your own game, and if so, by how much in percentage would you say it has improved your overall game?


I would appreciate an answer to the above question,

Thanks Craig
Click to expand...

Yes all the time. The improvment percentage - I went from the clear third best player on a masters team that took ninth in vegas APA in 2009 to being the best player on the team. 2 days with Stan Shuffet is the clear factor in my improvement. Long live Pro-One.
 
Neil said:
That's because you are so biased that you can't even read something for what it is. The missed shots were due to showing form, not aiming. The made shot was showing aiming. Sorry you can't see the difference.
Click to expand...


Man, that's a tough one to swallow. It's like saying if you watch a pro do a trick shot exhibition -- during which he misses every single shot -- the exhibition was just to show the setup of the shots.

Lou Figueroa
 
mikepage said:
I suppose I should ignore questions like this. What is your point in asking it?
Click to expand...

The point is that deflection exists and must be (and is) accounted for without having a clear description of how it works. Having a clear description makes it nicer to understand. It certainly helps some people to shorten their learning curve. People get along just fine with the instruction that it exists and a basic guide on how to adjust for it.


By the time you were looking up threads on RSB to learn who Hal was, I had been involved in a lot of discussion about aiming and had already twice talked to Hal Houle in person around a pool table. In fact one time he, Bob Jewett, and I were together at Family Billiards in San Francisco. You and some others seem to think anybody who doesn't embrace your enthusiasm must be not trying or unwilling to consider something new.
Click to expand...

And have you then since published a description of Hal's systems as he showed them to you? Along with yours and Bob's conclusions?

If so why not provide that information every time one of these threads comes up?

I am sure that Dave Aliciatore would like to put a link on his site to such a publication and would take up the task of providing that link in most such aiming threads.

And since your time with Hal was at least a decade ago have you since followed up with him to see where he is at in his quest to find better ways to aim in pool?

[/QUOTE]



Ah, the mystery ...

The truth is

...

............................there is no spoon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm8kTIj_0M
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth?

:-)
 
GetMeThere said:
Yup, I agree. With experimental sciences you can't learn EVERYTHING, of course--some stuff requires hands-on experience (I used to operate on embryos with an eyebrow hair glued to a toothpick used as a knife! Try learning THAT online!). Many critical lab techniques are known only to specific labs --to the ever-lasting consternation of other labs ;) But surely, there's an AMAZING amount of beautifully up-to-date info available. I sometimes look up stuff from my own field in Wikipedia and I'm AMAZED at the detail and timeliness of the information--very often BETTER than any textbook, in completeness, recent info/changes, and diagrams etc.

Hey Mike, maybe you could, er, help me with a little problem I'm having with Dr. Dave :)

Take a look at our discussion and give your input (you'll surely want to click on the "see all comments" choice to get everything in the right order).
Click to expand...

LOL. Eyes glaze over. If you love pool then stop. The types of "discussions" you have make people NOT want to play pool.

Anyone who actually PLAYS pool at a decent skill level knows how to make a cue ball curve with a fairly level cue up to a full masse.

Nothing that you have written will help a player learn how to do that. However what you have written makes a fairly simple task seem complicated and would turn me off to pool if I read more tha one paragraph.

An engineer and a biologist arguing over what rolling and sliding are?

Don't you guys have bigger issues to solve than how pool balls roll or slide?
 
JB Cases said:
The point is that deflection exists and must be (and is) accounted for without having a clear description of how it works. Having a clear description makes it nicer to understand. It certainly helps some people to shorten their learning curve. People get along just fine with the instruction that it exists and a basic guide on how to adjust for it.




And have you then since published a description of Hal's systems as he showed them to you? Along with yours and Bob's conclusions?

If so why not provide that information every time one of these threads comes up?

I am sure that Dave Aliciatore would like to put a link on his site to such a publication and would take up the task of providing that link in most such aiming threads.

And since your time with Hal was at least a decade ago have you since followed up with him to see where he is at in his quest to find better ways to aim in pool?
Click to expand...





Ain't that the truth?

:-)[/QUOTE]



John since you also have some experience with CTE, would you please give me your take on the question I aksed in Post 261 of this thread.

Thanks
 
lfigueroa said:
Yes. Like a moth to the flame :-)

Lou Figueroa
or the mosquito
to the bug zapper
Click to expand...

True no shortage of flame around this topic.

However, Hal Houle Aiming + John Plus a Little Luck = John 1 Lou 0, so far.

You can avenge it next time we are in the same place. We can play two races to three in One Pocket with no weight. That way there will be no tie.

At least when you beat me then you will be able to claim, like Mike Page, that you beat me when these discussions come up.

:-)

For now I can claim that while wearing my tinfoil hat and my Vote For Hal button and not knowing very much about one pocket - I beat you the one and only time we played.

I give credit to Hal's aiming systems and the luck of the pool gods. And also that this was a rinky dink social affair which you weren't taking seriously.

Still,

John 1 Lou 0.

:-)
 
manwon said:
Ain't that the truth?

:-)
Click to expand...



John since you also have some experience with CTE, would you please give me your take on the question I aksed in Post 261 of this thread.

Thanks[/QUOTE]

Sure but my answer isn't limited to CTE. Since learning from Hal Houle my pocketing percentage has gone up and my overall game is up at least two balls from what it was prior to learning the system.
 
8pack said:
First off im not promoting anyone,to each there own...

This is not how i normally aim but i do use it on certain type of shot's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULuhwtEeSD4
Click to expand...

Good. It sounds like you don't have much of an ax to grind.

So tell us (explain to us), what is "it?" Just a word or phrase, like "it's CTE" isn't a useful answer. Please describe EXACTLY, step by step, the process of "aiming" you're using to make those shots.

EDIT: Wow, that was fast! That video was up for all of, what, ten minutes? Why did you take it down, there was nothing wrong with it.
 
Last edited:
8pack said:
First off im not promoting anyone,to each there own.


This is not how i normally aim but i do use it on certain type of shot's.
In this video i use pocket tightners which make the pockets 3"s which is tight.I do miss but hell we all do.
How ever you pocket ball thats great im not trying to say the pivot system
is the best but to say its Bs well that's nonsense.


Sorry for the video.
Not trying to piss people off with them so dont get angry.
Just having fun thats all.
Click to expand...

Forget it. If you and he played he would be standing on the side trying to figure out how to prove that what you are doing to him is impossible. By the end of the match he'd have a chart to prove it.

Oh and where's the video?
 
GetMeThere said:
Good. It sounds like you don't have much of an ax to grind.

So tell us (explain to us), what is "it?" Just a word or phrase, like "it's CTE" isn't a useful answer. Please describe EXACTLY, step by step, the process of "aiming" you're using to make those shots.

EDIT: Wow, that was fast! That video was up for all of, what, ten minutes? Why did you take it down, there was nothing wrong with it.
Click to expand...

Why should he? Why do you feel that you are entitled to a step-by-step description?

After starting a thread calling the people silly and deluded who use it and calling the system itself BS why do you think that you have the right to demand that someone give it to you?

Post a video of you working on an embroyo with an eyelash for a knife with step by step instructions and I will see to it that you get the instructions for CTE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top