Why CTE is silly

[SpiderWebComm]

Getmethere (whatever your name is):

Explain in detail how someone can make a video to prove CTE works. You mentioned before that explaining how the alignment is found, how the bridge is placed, how the pivot is executed and then finally making the ball doesn't count (which is weird to me because if the recipe to make a cupcake isn't proof of making a cupcake - I'm confused). I'd never do anything that would take any thunder from Stan's video -- but I'm curious if there's a "test" that would suffice.

CTE is, in my opinion, the purest way of pocketing a ball. Not only does it conform to your tolerances - it's probably within 1/2 the tolerance assuming a perfectly straight stroke (because the ball goes center hole - not to the side of the pocket). If you watch some of my videos, you'll see a huge majority of shots are center-pocket. Doesn't mean I don't miss--- hell, we all dog our strokes.

You just seem like you're on a mission to prove it's bullsh1t. However, I've shot the same shot over and over for 5 years and balls fly from everywhere. I'm an analytical thinker and I'm offended with your use of "cult" and "religion" in your posts as if players such as myself are retards who wiggle their ass, pivot their cue and magically think balls go.

The stone-cold-sobering fact is I know exactly what's going on with the system and I know exactly how it works and I can describe it perfectly. Can it be described in 15 mins (if I'm not interrupted) sure. Will someone GET IT in 15 mins - no. Like learning how to perform a "flop-shot" in golf, a sports technique takes quite a bit of practice.

If I had your math background or PJ's math background, this debate would have been over long ago. The information I have compiled has been done with the help of others, but still isn't at 100% because the geometry work required from this point forward can't be done without the 3D calculations (which takes a LOT of work and real-life gets in the way of finding help with that aspect).

So, without being a total dick and having some respect in your response --- educate this retard on how someone can make a video to prove your tolerances.

If I can see an OB "edge" long enough to position my eyes, I'm making the ball. Maybe not 100% of the time because I'm human---- but WAY more than the average joe on this forum....many of which are sick and frickin' tired of these CTE threads (just as I am). I could give a shit if no one in the galaxy gets the info --- I just keep on keeping on and pivoting balls in the hole... which is the purpose of this game. Many guys like you can theorize this and that and never make a shot in their life. I'm glad I'm the former and not the latter.

Dave

 

[dr_dave]

so far, NOBODY has been willing to supply the CTE method for objective analysis.

The CTE method (with the two most common versions) are described and analyzed here, along with links to supporting resources (e.g., Spidey's blog):

IMO, that's all you need for objective analysis.

Regards,
Dave

 

[mikepage]

[...] The information I have compiled has been done with the help of others, but still isn't at 100% because the geometry work required from this point forward can't be done without the 3D calculations (which takes a LOT of work and real-life gets in the way of finding help with that aspect).[...]

Maybe you can throw your extra Halloween candy to your rocket scientist friends

 

[lfigueroa]

With all equal due respect, I call bullspit.

A breath of fresh air is someone who is arrogant, demeaning, and condescending? You breath some different air than I do.

I fully realize that you are poking fun in most of your posts, with some intent behind them. But you haven't been malicious, at least in the threads that I've read this past year that I've been involved.

Then we have GMT, who finds his vast superior intellect enough justification to look down his nose at almost everyone who doesn't agree with him. He has undoubtedly a much greater mind than mine, as evidenced in his education and past accomplishments. But that doesn't make him any less a nasty person, at least here on AZB. (In person he could be the nicest of people. The anonymous nature of internet message boards has to be taken into account in this instance.)

All of this back and forth could have been handled in a far more respectful manner. (Like Dr.Dave and many others do.) But our OP doesn't choose to do so. He chooses to demean people who have spent a lot of time learning an aiming system they believe works for them. Whether or not it can be quantified by his spreadsheets. Yes, there are other posters here who didn't handle themselves any better initially in this thread, but they have backed away from acting in that manner, while our OP remains in his ivory tower of supreme intelligence and lords it over the rest of we peasants.

So in short, I don't share your opinion of the "fresh air" that GMT provides.

Over and out.

OK, well, bullseet-o right back at you.

Particpation here is not tea with The Royal Family. It takes all kinds and you have to accept that upfront. And since this is GMT's thread, and he is defending an idea (CTE is silly) and has been under steady attack from all the Houligans, I think he's entitled to get a little uppity when the CTEr's start whining and drag out all their usual, old, stinky bait.

I'm appreciative that you can see that I'm (usually) not malicious in my posts. I've been around long enough that my skin is thick and general attitude pretty laid back. But that's just me. Others are entitled to have their own style. Some of them are going to be more Pollyanna (Joey), Spock (Dr. Dave), Jon Stewart (PJ), or Billy Buckley (GMT).

I do find GMT's attempt to conduct a Firing Line type discussion refreshing. Unfortunately, instead of a polite, rational, in-depth discussion of the topic, the CTEr's have dragged out their usual, old, stinky bait and he's had to wade in, point out that their bait is old and stinky, and toss it back at them.

Lou Figueroa

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Maybe you can throw your extra Halloween candy to your rocket scientist friends

The whole "weed-smoking" comment and this. If you have a problem - call me up and solve it. You're a "nice to your face" guy and when you're online you act smart.

Some people might respect you, but to me you're acting like a creep. I've never said anything bad to you or about you yet you're a disrespectful to me online. If you want to be respectful--- great. If you disagree, no prob--- but you can leave the smoking "good stuff" comments and smart comments like the one above to yourself.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I agree, Joey, but the deifying of Hal by a few others hasn't helped anything, either.

Roger

What context are you deriving the above comment? I've said Hal is smart - but how is that God-like status? Where does that come from?

 

[dr_dave]

Others are entitled to have their own style. Some of them are going to be more ... Spock (Dr. Dave) ...

From now on, I think I'll use the Vulcan salute when teaching people the 30-degree-rule peace-sign technique. :grin-square:

Live long and prosper,
Dave

 

[Neil]

Ah, I think I'M the early bird here, and you're the worm who has been worming.

Neither you nor anyone else has provided a shot example demonstrating that CTE comes up with the proper aim point within the tolerances I gave in my OP. Without that, all cheerleading talk about CTE is empty and meaningless.

Why not step up to the plate RIGHT NOW (as someone who surely knows CTE--your post is REALLY silly if you don't) and tell us about a shot, the CTE rules for aiming it, and how you know you have the correct place within the tolerances as spelled out in the OP. If you provide the exact, formulaic rules and processes of arriving at the shot solution, then there are people here (the smart ones, not me) who can determine whether what you described will point toward the correct OB hit zone, within the tolerances.

If you're unable to do that, then CTE is not worthy of being called an "aiming system," because, obviously, it doesn't provide or create the necessary information about where to aim.

I'd like to know why you have singled out CTE. No other aiming system meets any of the requirements you impose on CTE, yet, you seem to have no problem with any of them. I just don't understand why CTE creates such controversy, when the others do not. It doesn't make any sense.

It almost like some of you are doing everything in your power to prevent others improving their game, instead of helping others. And people wonder why pool can't get anywhere.

You claim that if it doesn't meet all your little tests, that it shouldn't even be discussed. Pray tell, what method do you use to aim, and why do any of you so against CTE use a system with flaws built in it??

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I'd like to know why you have singled out CTE. No other aiming system meets any of the requirements you impose on CTE, yet, you seem to have no problem with any of them. I just don't understand why CTE creates such controversy, when the others do not. It doesn't make any sense.

It almost like some of you are doing everything in your power to prevent others improving their game, instead of helping others. And people wonder why pool can't get anywhere.

You claim that if it doesn't meet all your little tests, that it shouldn't even be discussed. Pray tell, what method do you use to aim, and why do any of you so against CTE use a system with flaws built in it??

Exactly, well said. We can talk about CTE being a super system, we can talk about how ghost ball is a tried-and-true system and how people make balls by hitting a spot on the OB all day long. The fact remains nobody in the pool world is a robot or iron-byron. Human perception is imperfect.... human mechanics are imperfect and friction adds to the equation of fallibility.

It makes you wonder how anyone can make a ball at all. For many, including myself, CTE is far easier to perceive than the alternatives and provides a solution to the pocket with proper execution. So, for the nay-sayers... I'll bet whatever you're comfy with that you can't hold a laser-pointer and point to the base of a ghost ball within the tolerances of Getmethere's grid. Nevertheless, that's the basis of this ridiculous thread.

So, Getmethere.... I have a laser pointer on my desk--- let me know where you want to meet and when. I'll even go double-nothing on a shot-by-shot basis you miss the ball.

The other side says, "Yeah yeah yeah but we're not making ridiculous claims..." -- There are no ridiculous claims. We say if you do x, y, and z with a straight stroke while having correct perception you make the ball. Pool is outcome based--- all that matters is if you make the ball or not. If CTE helps people make balls that otherwise wouldn't... well, it works. The fact that it works over and over and shot after shot proves there's a LOT more math under the covers than many in this thread give credit for.

Here's a nice test for Getmethere and the rest of the guys in this thread knocking CTE... in regards to ridiculous claims.... how about we setup a table, get some guys to hold a poster board in between the CB and OB and play a little game of "pig" and see who, after being set, can make more balls blind? That's scientific right, Getmethere, Dr. Dave, Mike Page, Lou & PJ? Let's do that at Valley Forge.

That should shut up the group.

** hoping like hell Mike Page and Getmethere say yes. *** (on a 9'er)

If we do this... I'm gonna rent a van and pick up Hal in a wheelchair and give him a ring side seat to watch.

 

[GetMeThere]

Getmethere (whatever your name is):

Explain in detail how someone can make a video to prove CTE works. You mentioned before that explaining how the alignment is found, how the bridge is placed, how the pivot is executed and then finally making the ball doesn't count (which is weird to me because if the recipe to make a cupcake isn't proof of making a cupcake - I'm confused). I'd never do anything that would take any thunder from Stan's video -- but I'm curious if there's a "test" that would suffice.

CTE is, in my opinion, the purest way of pocketing a ball. Not only does it conform to your tolerances - it's probably within 1/2 the tolerance assuming a perfectly straight stroke (because the ball goes center hole - not to the side of the pocket). If you watch some of my videos, you'll see a huge majority of shots are center-pocket. Doesn't mean I don't miss--- hell, we all dog our strokes.

You just seem like you're on a mission to prove it's bullsh1t. However, I've shot the same shot over and over for 5 years and balls fly from everywhere. I'm an analytical thinker and I'm offended with your use of "cult" and "religion" in your posts as if players such as myself are retards who wiggle their ass, pivot their cue and magically think balls go.

The stone-cold-sobering fact is I know exactly what's going on with the system and I know exactly how it works and I can describe it perfectly. Can it be described in 15 mins (if I'm not interrupted) sure. Will someone GET IT in 15 mins - no. Like learning how to perform a "flop-shot" in golf, a sports technique takes quite a bit of practice.

If I had your math background or PJ's math background, this debate would have been over long ago. The information I have compiled has been done with the help of others, but still isn't at 100% because the geometry work required from this point forward can't be done without the 3D calculations (which takes a LOT of work and real-life gets in the way of finding help with that aspect).

So, without being a total dick and having some respect in your response --- educate this retard on how someone can make a video to prove your tolerances.

If I can see an OB "edge" long enough to position my eyes, I'm making the ball. Maybe not 100% of the time because I'm human---- but WAY more than the average joe on this forum....many of which are sick and frickin' tired of these CTE threads (just as I am). I could give a shit if no one in the galaxy gets the info --- I just keep on keeping on and pivoting balls in the hole... which is the purpose of this game. Many guys like you can theorize this and that and never make a shot in their life. I'm glad I'm the former and not the latter.

Dave

Well, I take what you said as being constructive. And I'll take you at your word that you want to prove this works "probably within 1/2 the tolerance" as you stated.

If you would like to try to work through this right here, right now, to put out information that would show that it can work, then I'll do my best to COOPERATE to try to tell you what I think needs to be said/explained/videotaped in order to be convincing.

I'll start off with two initial questions:

First of all, can you confirm or deny whether Dr.Dave's outline of CTE is basically correct?

That is, does the system depend on
1) Making a very rough estimate of the cut required (like 15, 30, or 45 degrees)?
followed by:
2) A cue alignment that depends only on parts (edges and/or centers) of the CB and OB?
followed by:
3) A pivot (with the bridge hand as pivot point) to bring the tip "back to the CB center?

We can leave off further complications for now (for example, about varying bridge length). I just need to know if the above is APPROXIMATELY what you do--or is it completely and wildly wrong, and what we're talking about is WHOLLY different.

And next:

Are any imaginary lines used to set up the shot positions or pivots, which have one of their ends either at the pocket, or at any table dots?

The answers to those questions I believe will get me pointed in the right direction toward working out how to demonstrate that CTE works.

 

[pool101]

"Here's a nice test for Getmethere and the rest of the guys in this thread knocking CTE... in regards to ridiculous claims.... how about we setup a table, get some guys to hold a poster board in between the CB and OB and play a little game of "pig" and see who, after being set, can make more balls blind? That's scientific right, Getmethere, Dr. Dave, Mike Page, Lou & PJ? Let's do that at Valley Forge.

That should shut up the group."

I can set up on a shot, close my eyes and still make it, that only proves you align right and stroke straight. I have a friend who just went to Stan and swears by it and I must say he seams to be improving...but he will not disclose what he learned.
I am waiting for the dvd because I have tried the methods shown and so far I don't get it!

 

[SpiderWebComm]

"Here's a nice test for Getmethere and the rest of the guys in this thread knocking CTE... in regards to ridiculous claims.... how about we setup a table, get some guys to hold a poster board in between the CB and OB and play a little game of "pig" and see who, after being set, can make more balls blind? That's scientific right, Getmethere, Dr. Dave, Mike Page, Lou & PJ? Let's do that at Valley Forge.

That should shut up the group."

I can set up on a shot, close my eyes and still make it, that only proves you align right and stroke straight. I have a friend who just went to Stan and swears by it and I must say he seams to be improving...but he will not disclose what he learned.
I am waiting for the dvd because I have tried the methods shown and so far I don't get it!

It proves you're not making subconscious adjustments. The basis for this thread.

 

[GetMeThere]

I'd like to know why you have singled out CTE. No other aiming system meets any of the requirements you impose on CTE, yet, you seem to have no problem with any of them.

What? They all seem OK to me. They point you to the proper shot IF you can visualize the components accurately. Obviously, to do so depends on the ability of the shooter to accomplish the task of visualizing the components accurately.

The difference with CTE (from what I can garner about it) is that it DOES NOT CONTAIN COMPONENTS that accurately delineate the shot. The others methods SHOW YOU where to shoot (if you can follow them correctly), while CTE DOES NOT tell you where to shoot.

For CTE to work as the others do (take GB, for example) it would have to have rules that produce 80-90 precisely defined shot configurations. From everything I've heard, it produces far fewer (if, in fact, it produces ANY precisely defined configurations).

 

[SpiderWebComm]

The answers to those questions I believe will get me pointed in the right direction toward working out how to demonstrate that CTE works.

How does my understanding of CTE affect the way you construct a test? Let's shoot blind shots to ensure there are no subconscious adjustments. We should have a control group and a cte group. See who shoots blind shots better. You and I.

 

[GetMeThere]

How does my understanding of CTE affect the way you construct a test? Let's shoot blind shots to ensure there are no subconscious adjustments. We should have a control group and a cte group. See who shoots blind shots better. You and I.

Ah, here we go again.

So now you're backing out of your implied offer to make a video "Explain in detail how someone can make a video to prove CTE works."

Now you're just yapping. You're not keeping up with what's being said here.

You're trying to offer all sorts of INDIRECT tests (blind shots, shooting contests, etc.) in place of a DIRECT test: clear proof from its fundamental principles that CTE can determine a shot solution.

Yer just yappin' Dave.

The one and only way to demonstrate that CTE is an aiming system is to analyze and explain how it aims. Everything else is mumbo-jumbo, dodging, bravado, and baloney.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Ah, here we go again.

So now you're backing out of your implied offer to make a video "Explain in detail how someone can make a video to prove CTE works."

Now you're just yapping. You're not keeping up with what's being said here.

You're trying to offer all sorts of INDIRECT tests (blind shots, shooting contests, etc.) in place of a DIRECT test: clear proof from its fundamental principles that CTE can determine a shot solution.

Yer just yappin' Dave.

The one and only way to demonstrate that CTE is an aiming system is to analyze and explain how it aims. Everything else is mumbo-jumbo, dodging, bravado, and baloney.

No, you're yapping. No bravado-- just scientific fact. If I'm not looking at the OB, and CTE doesn't get you to the shot, I'd never make a ball because I can't subconsciously adjust. So, blind shots are a great way to show how CTE hits your tolerances without subconscious adjustment. Alignment without adjusting after the fact IS aiming and that's what CTE is. So, let's see how a good CTE user such as myself does against the alternative without looking at the OB after you step into the shot.

So, you can twist this however you want -- it is what it is. If CTE doesnt get you to the shot (as you've said a million times), you should be tripping over yourself to say yes.

 

[GetMeThere]

So, you can twist this however you want -- it is what it is. If CTE doesnt get you to the shot (as you've said a million times), you should be tripping over yourself to say yes.

Yap, yap, yap Dave. Can we start calling you "Double Talk Dave?" All top players get a nickname, right?

There's no twist involved. Let's analyse what CTE does, to see if it produces the correct shot. Nothing else is NEEDED, and no proof is more substantial or more direct.

NO scientist or engineer would CONSIDER allowing that CTE had any value from the tests you mention unless it could ALSO be described by its components, and it could be seen that those components were put together in a way that could geometrically set up shots.

 

[duckie]

I'd like to know why you have singled out CTE. No other aiming system meets any of the requirements you impose on CTE, yet, you seem to have no problem with any of them. I just don't understand why CTE creates such controversy, when the others do not. It doesn't make any sense.

It almost like some of you are doing everything in your power to prevent others improving their game, instead of helping others. And people wonder why pool can't get anywhere.

You claim that if it doesn't meet all your little tests, that it shouldn't even be discussed. Pray tell, what method do you use to aim, and why do any of you so against CTE use a system with flaws built in it??

Ghost ball is dead on balls accurate, a industry term. You put the CB at the right spot on the table, the OB will go center pocket.

Ghost ball is the only way that does not rely on hitting the OB ball first and that the ball hit is the ball wanted to be made.

Meaning Ghost Ball can be used effectivey in combos, carom, banks, rail first shots and so on.

No other can. Why, because Ghost ball is about putting the CB at the right spot on the table to make the OB and not trying to hit a spot on the OB with a spot on the CB. Big difference. And how can one learn to find that spot on the table,,,,,,,the ARROW.

Now, if you truely believe about trying something, than make the arrow. Place is as needed. Now, I wrote about what I refer to as the CB contact patch which the area of a ball that contacts the table.

Well, 180, on top of the CB is the same point. Now, just align the top of the CB to the point of the arrow and wham bam, center pocket goes the OB.

Now if you are also looking for a system that directs your exact bridge, stance, then you are really dreaming or you don't play much and the only game you play is 9 ball.

I did land surveying for a bit, so I looks at things from points and angles.

This type of explaination is all GMT is asking for. Simple, direct, factual.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Yap, yap, yap Dave. Can we start calling you "Double Talk Dave?" All top players get a nickname, right?

There's no twist involved. Let's analyse what CTE does, to see if it produces the correct shot. Nothing else is NEEDED, and no proof is more substantial or more direct.

NO scientist or engineer would CONSIDER allowing that CTE had any value from the tests you mention unless it could ALSO be described by its components, and it could be seen that those components were put together in a way that could geometrically set up shots.

This would be a shooting contest if we're all looking at the OB. The idea to not look at the target (once set) is not a shooting contest--- it's a scientific method to determine the tolerances of the initial set position.

Alignment = aiming center ball with zero post-set adjustment. If you can't understand that, you're on the wrong forum. Since Dr. Dave, you, Mike, etc, all think we're adjusting our ever-loving hearts out--- let's remove the possibilities of adjusting and see who does better.

You can't say, "All that proves, Dave, is that you align better." Well, aligning with no aiming adjustment is aiming at its purest sense.

So, it's not a shooting contest--- it's a valid scientific test.

 

[Neil]

Yap, yap, yap Dave. Can we start calling you "Double Talk Dave?" All top players get a nickname, right?

There's no twist involved. Let's analyse what CTE does, to see if it produces the correct shot. Nothing else is NEEDED, and no proof is more substantial or more direct.

NO scientist or engineer would CONSIDER allowing that CTE had any value from the tests you mention unless it could ALSO be described by its components, and it could be seen that those components were put together in a way that could geometrically set up shots.

I guess that's why there were no scientists in the recent U.S. Open. They can't make a ball. :rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1:

Not wanting to change the subject, but why don't the scientist just do like they did with evolution- when you don't have the components, just make up some that seem to fit?? Thanks for the laughs this morning, I needed them!