Why CTE is silly

[dr_dave]

This thread could die it's loooong overdue death if folks would simply stop responding.

Agreed. I wish I could have back all of the time I have dedicated to CTE "discussions" over the years. Who knows what I could have done instead with that time. I probably could have written at least a book or two, or worked on several DVD projects.

Woops, I'm still wasting time and avoiding real work. :angry:

Dave

 

[GetMeThere]

he doesn't owe you sh&t, doesn't owe you responses to crap, doesn't owe you detailed explanations for crap, doesn't owe you a response (or anyone else on here) a response to anything.

Too bad for you that you didn't see my post as the OFFERING FROM ME that it was. It certainly doesn't DEMAND anything from anyone. It EXPLAINS that ignored points generate the tendency to needle those who do the ignoring.

You get yourself SO ANGRY you can't even understand what people are saying. I wonder, WHY are you so angry about people's response to SOMEBODY ELSE'S idea? None of this stuff is even your work, it's Hal's--and he's not even on the forums, so he couldn't be upset in any way by the goings on here.

That you take something so personally that isn't even YOURS personally certainly demonstrates that you're FAR from objective on these issues.

 

[GetMeThere]

Dr. Dave, I need to go no further than to a recent post of yours or to your website to see mockery that is directed at me or my project.......

It's hard to have it both ways.........you either respect me or you do not.
The proof is in the pudding.

Stan

So it's not possible to respect SOME things a person does, and not respect other things he might do?

 

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave, I need to go no further than to a recent post of yours or to your website to see mockery that is directed at me or my project.......

It's hard to have it both ways.........you either respect me or you do not.
The proof is in the pudding.

Stan,

I suspect, but I'm not sure, you are referring to the following, which I recently posted and added to the "marketing" intro to my DAM aiming system, the purpose of which is to mock outrageous statements made by "aiming system" proponents over the years:

If you want to learn the magic of DAM, I am currently offering exclusive private lessons. I know this might sound ridiculous, but I must be clear on this matter: My students are not allowed to share with anybody anything they learn. They are required to sign a special nondisclosure agreement that binds them for life. People are willing to openly discuss and share everything they learn from my VEPS series; but if and when I ever release the DAM-DVD, the information must not be disclosed by any viewers; otherwise, they risk exposing themselves to extreme wrath and persecution.​

I posted this only after I saw some of the statements made by JoeyA recently in one of the other CTE/Pro-One threads. I don't know whether or not you endorse Joey's statements, but I certainly agreed with the large response he got from many people challenging his statements. I like and respect Joey, but I do challenge (and even mock) his recent statements.

Regards,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Too bad for you that you didn't see my post as the OFFERING FROM ME that it was. It certainly doesn't DEMAND anything from anyone. It EXPLAINS that ignored points generate the tendency to needle those who do the ignoring.

You get yourself SO ANGRY you can't even understand what people are saying. I wonder, WHY are you so angry about people's response to SOMEBODY ELSE'S idea? None of this stuff is even your work, it's Hal's--and he's not even on the forums, so he couldn't be upset in any way by the goings on here.

That you take something so personally that isn't even YOURS personally certainly demonstrates that you're FAR from objective on these issues.

Nice try, mongo. You "needle" because people don't reply the way you want. Earth to mongo - they don't have to reply at all.

 

[stan shuffett]

So it's not possible to respect SOME things a person does, and not respect other things he might do?

Yes, possible.

My point, Dr. Dave does not show professional respect toward me and he knows it.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Stan,

I suspect, but I'm not sure, you are referring to the following, which I recently posted and added to the "marketing" intro to my DAM aiming system, the purpose of which is to mock outrageous statements made by "aiming system" proponents over the years:

If you want to learn the magic of DAM, I am currently offering exclusive private lessons. I know this might sound ridiculous, but I must be clear on this matter: My students are not allowed to share with anybody anything they learn. They are required to sign a special nondisclosure agreement that binds them for life. People are willing to openly discuss and share everything they learn from my VEPS series; but if and when I ever release the DAM-DVD, the information must not be disclosed by any viewers; otherwise, they risk exposing themselves to extreme wrath and persecution.​

I posted this only after I saw some of the statements made by JoeyA recently in one of the other CTE/Pro-One threads. I don't know whether or not you endorse Joey's statements, but I certainly agreed with the large response he got from many people challenging his statements. I like and respect Joey, but I do challenge (and even mock) his recent statements.

Regards,
Dave

What would you say if I took every little bit of info from your VEPS and posted it so no one has to buy it anymore.

Would you be angry?

I'll remind you that I totally could legally--- the info (as it stands alone) isn't copyrightable.

I think you guys play a high-horse on information----- but if it's yours, I think it doesn't apply.


While I'm at it--- why isn't the content from VEPS posted on your site??

 

[stan shuffett]

Stan,

I suspect, but I'm not sure, you are referring to the following, which I recently posted and added to the "marketing" intro to my DAM aiming system, the purpose of which is to mock outrageous statements made by "aiming system" proponents over the years:

If you want to learn the magic of DAM, I am currently offering exclusive private lessons. I know this might sound ridiculous, but I must be clear on this matter: My students are not allowed to share with anybody anything they learn. They are required to sign a special nondisclosure agreement that binds them for life. People are willing to openly discuss and share everything they learn from my VEPS series; but if and when I ever release the DAM-DVD, the information must not be disclosed by any viewers; otherwise, they risk exposing themselves to extreme wrath and persecution.​

I posted this only after I saw some of the statements made by JoeyA recently in one of the other CTE/Pro-One threads. I don't know whether or not you endorse Joey's statements, but I certainly agreed with the large response he got from many people challenging his statements. I like and respect Joey, but I do challenge (and even mock) his recent statements.

Regards,
Dave

What do you "challenge and mock" that Joey stated?

 

[Neil]

Too bad for you that you didn't see my post as the OFFERING FROM ME that it was. It certainly doesn't DEMAND anything from anyone. It EXPLAINS that ignored points generate the tendency to needle those who do the ignoring.

You get yourself SO ANGRY you can't even understand what people are saying. I wonder, WHY are you so angry about people's response to SOMEBODY ELSE'S idea? None of this stuff is even your work, it's Hal's--and he's not even on the forums, so he couldn't be upset in any way by the goings on here.

That you take something so personally that isn't even YOURS personally certainly demonstrates that you're FAR from objective on these issues.

OFFERING???? Are you kidding me??? Are you really so full of yourself that you think anyone really cares about any review YOU might make on it?? Who really cares about what a non-player has to say about aiming? Especially one that admits that he will not try it on a table, only on paper??

He's retired now, but maybe if you ask him nicely in a p.m. Joe W. will help you out with your little "problem". Even if you really do have "expertise" in one area of your life, it does NOT mean that you are an expert in anything else in life. You would do well to start taking the role of a student when it comes to pool, instead of trying to be the know-it-all-about-all that you think you are. Your ignorance on the subject is just astounding. And your insistence on having things "your way" just reeks of arrogance. Please, contact Joe W.

 

[GetMeThere]

Yes, possible.

My point, Dr. Dave does not show professional respect toward me and he knows it.

Stan,

In all sincerity, as one adult to another, I just don't think that's true. I think (in general) the CTE "deniers" like myself have a tendency to:

1) Make fun of CTE, because it seems to contain aspects that are contrary to demonstrable geometric fact.

2) Make fun of people BECAUSE they won't directly address rational challenges that have been made to CTE.

I think the days of "absolute respect" are LONG gone--at least in western society (and indeed, Socrates shot away the first chunk of it with his testimony about "reputation" during his trial for "not believing in the Greek gods"--from which he got to drink his Hemlock).

Nobody is above getting needled a bit, over certain things. NOBODY.

And I think it's best that way. Almost all of us are RIGHT ON about some things, sometimes, and goofy as a loon on other issues. That seems to be true from a President or Nobel prize winner, down to a street sweeper.

You seem to want to "float above it all" and always be "respected" as you promote CTE. Well, solid questions have been raised about the theoretical underpinnings of CTE. And in this world as we have it, nobody gets to just "float above" those questions without expecting that someone will POINT THEM OUT, and send a little needling their way.

 

[stan shuffett]

Stan,

In all sincerity, as one adult to another, I just don't think that's true. I think (in general) the CTE "deniers" like myself have a tendency to:

1) Make fun of CTE, because it seems to contain aspects that are contrary to demonstrable geometric fact.

2) Make fun of people BECAUSE they won't directly address rational challenges that have been made to CTE.

I think the days of "absolute respect" are LONG gone--at least in western society (and indeed, Socrates shot away the first chunk of it with his testimony about "reputation" during his trial for "not believing in the Greek gods"--from which he got to drink his Hemlock).

Nobody is above getting needled a bit, over certain things. NOBODY.

And I think it's best that way. Almost all of us are RIGHT ON about some things, sometimes, and goofy as a loon on other issues. That seems to be true from a President or Nobel prize winner, down to a street sweeper.

You seem to want to "float above it all" and always be "respected" as you promote CTE. Well, solid questions have been raised about the theoretical underpinnings of CTE. And in this world as we have it, nobody gets to just "float above" those questions without expecting that someone will POINT THEM OUT, and send a little needling their way.

I may be a little "old school" but I almost always present myself in a respectful manner. I think that it's not too much to expect the same in return. I am not trying to float above anything as you suggest.

Stan

 

[Redneck Jim]

Mock Latin Advise

I may be a little "old school" but I almost always present myself in a respectful manner. I think that it's not too much to expect the same in return. I am not trying to float above anything as you suggest.

Stan

" Illegitimis non carborundum "

 

[GetMeThere]

I may be a little "old school" but I almost always present myself in a respectful manner. I think that it's not too much to expect the same in return. I am not trying to float above anything as you suggest.

Stan

I understand you.

Unfortunately (or not), now is the future. At one time, we could, if we wished, keep our "negative comments" about what somebody was up to only, perhaps, within a circle of good friends (then it was called "gossip").

Nowadays, there are these FORUMS for DISCUSSION. And when things get mentioned, they're mentioned into the WORLDWIDE PUBLIC.

Who's to say which social construct is best? But the future is now!

But people (mostly young people) who have gained facility with the "new ways" have discovered (big surprise) that nobody's perfect, and that otherwise reasonable and upstanding people can sometimes be completely wrong about something--and there's no REAL skin off anybody's nose because of it.

In the new world, people can (and have to) take some ribbing when others think they're "off" on something. And that can be done WHILE GENERAL REPSPECT IS MAINTAINED--or while respect for the person on OTHER issues is maintained.

To allow myself to be FRANK for a moment: You have SIDESTEPPED (at least in this thread) the arguments OF SUBSTANCE against CTE. People who make those arguments can't fail to notice your absence in defending CTE, while at the same time trying to promote it on DVDs and lessons. On a discussion forum--a big jumble of ideas, challenges, defenses, and good and bad information--you can't expect to escape the consequences of what you say and what you DON'T say.

I think it's perfectly possible (and almost certainly true) that Dr. Dave (or anybody) thinks you have a screw loose regarding CTE, but OTHERWISE sees you as an "elder statesman" of pool, thinks you represent it well, and thinks you provide helpful instruction and VALUE to those who hire you for instruction.

That's no longer a contradiction or paradox in today's world of instant communication.

 

[AtLarge]

... Can you explain how I can hit an OB at warp speed right into the crotch of the corner on a 10'table with that OB sitting in the middle of the table and CB about 3' away.

All this discussion about making adjusting without realizing it got me second guessing. So I just went to my table and made sure I didn't look at the corner just the balls. And bingo 5 shots in a row dead on. ...

Yes, I can explain it. The elementary 3-step prescription for CTE, if followed with robot precision and absolutely NO adjustments, will enable the user to pocket many shots. Perhaps the shot you mention is one of those. With your particular way of seeing the center-to-edge line, and your particular offset from center, and your particular bridge length, and your particular way of pivoting -- that shot goes for you.

However, precisely following the elementary prescription for CTE, as least so far as we currently know it, will also lead to missing a lot of shots. The now well known Dr. Dave 3-shot set up should tell anyone that something more is going on than robotic repetition of 3 simple steps.

What I have been looking to learn (for quite a long time) is whether there is any fairly simple and systematic way of sighting, offsetting, and pivoting that will work for all shots (if carried out with robotic precision). Call it a systematic set of "adjustments," if you will, or a more complicated prescription for a shot. For example, if the OB is approximately A feet from the pocket, and the CB is approximately B feet from the OB, and the angle to the pocket is approximately C (thicker, thick, thin, thinner, ...), then sight to point D on the OB and use an offset of approximately size E and a bridge length of approximately size F, and an effective pivot point of length G, and ... . Or something that works better (hopefully, simpler than that).

If CTE is just another way of "getting in the ballpark" with a consistent pre-shot routine, and then letting subconscious adjustments take over, then it's not for me. But I am still open to the notion that pivot aiming can be more than that. And I eagerly await whatever additional information we will receive from Stan, Dave, and Ron.

 

[dr_dave]

What would you say if I took every little bit of info from your VEPS and posted it
...
Would you be angry?

Spidey,

I wouldn't be angry, but I would be extremely impressed. Actually, I might even feel honored that my product deserves so much attention from such a critic. :grin:

The value of VEPS is not just the "information" ... the value is in how the "information" is presented and demonstrated.

Much of the "information" in VEPS has been openly shared and discussed. I don't see anything wrong with this. In fact, I welcome it. I didn't write my book or create all of my DVDs to keep things secret.

Feel free to attempt to summarize all of the "information" in my entire VEPS series. I can guarantee that this would not be easy; although, the result would be extremely useful. Actually, I've already started doing it with my recent series of articles for Billiards Digest. I've written thirteen articles so far, but I've barely scratched the surface. I think a complete summary of all of the "information" in VEPS would require a full set of encyclopedias (hence the name: Video Encyclopedia of Pool Shots). But again, I don't consider the "information" the main value. The main value is in the "presentation." Information is not Copyrightable ... but the "presentation" (the actual "video") is. If you try to illegally copy and profit from the "presentation" (i.e., the actual "video") then you have a legal problem, and I'll send Tom after you ... he's the "muscle man" in the partnership.

While I'm at it--- why isn't the content from VEPS posted on your site??

Actually, most of the "information" is on my website ... it's just presented differently. Also, the VEPS DVDs contain many demonstrations and examples of how the "information" in applied and used at the table.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Stan,

I suspect, but I'm not sure, you are referring to the following, which I recently posted and added to the "marketing" intro to my DAM aiming system, the purpose of which is to mock outrageous statements made by "aiming system" proponents over the years:

If you want to learn the magic of DAM, I am currently offering exclusive private lessons. I know this might sound ridiculous, but I must be clear on this matter: My students are not allowed to share with anybody anything they learn. They are required to sign a special nondisclosure agreement that binds them for life. People are willing to openly discuss and share everything they learn from my VEPS series; but if and when I ever release the DAM-DVD, the information must not be disclosed by any viewers; otherwise, they risk exposing themselves to extreme wrath and persecution.​

I posted this only after I saw some of the statements made by JoeyA recently in one of the other CTE/Pro-One threads. I don't know whether or not you endorse Joey's statements, but I certainly agreed with the large response he got from many people challenging his statements. I like and respect Joey, but I do challenge (and even mock) his recent statements.

What do you "challenge and mock" that Joey stated?

I've highlighted in my quote above the sentences that were inspired by what Joey wrote.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Excellent post! IMO, this summarizes the crux of the CTE debate perfectly. The lack of a substantive and meaningful response also explains why the "debate" has gone on so long (10+ years). I try to address the answers in my CTE resource page, but the CTE proponents think it is a bunch of hooey.

Good job,
Dave

The elementary 3-step prescription for CTE, if followed with robot precision and absolutely NO adjustments, will enable the user to pocket many shots. Perhaps the shot you mention is one of those. With your particular way of seeing the center-to-edge line, and your particular offset from center, and your particular bridge length, and your particular way of pivoting -- that shot goes for you.

However, precisely following the elementary prescription for CTE, as least so far as we currently know it, will also lead to missing a lot of shots. The now well known Dr. Dave 3-shot set up should tell anyone that something more is going on than robotic repetition of 3 simple steps.

What I have been looking to learn (for quite a long time) is whether there is any fairly simple and systematic way of sighting, offsetting, and pivoting that will work for all shots (if carried out with robotic precision). Call it a systematic set of "adjustments," if you will, or a more complicated prescription for a shot. For example, if the OB is approximately A feet from the pocket, and the CB is approximately B feet from the OB, and the angle to the pocket is approximately C (thicker, thick, thin, thinner, ...), then sight to point D on the OB and use an offset of approximately size E and a bridge length of approximately size F, and an effective pivot point of length G, and ... . Or something that works better (hopefully, simpler than that).

If CTE is just another way of "getting in the ballpark" with a consistent pre-shot routine, and then letting subconscious adjustments take over, then it's not for me. But I am still open to the notion that pivot aiming can be more than that. And I eagerly await whatever additional information we will receive from Stan, Dave, and Ron.

 

[stan shuffett]

I understand you.

Unfortunately (or not), now is the future. At one time, we could, if we wished, keep our "negative comments" about what somebody was up to only, perhaps, within a circle of good friends (then it was called "gossip").

Nowadays, there are these FORUMS for DISCUSSION. And when things get mentioned, they're mentioned into the WORLDWIDE PUBLIC.

Who's to say which social construct is best? But the future is now!

But people (mostly young people) who have gained facility with the "new ways" have discovered (big surprise) that nobody's perfect, and that otherwise reasonable and upstanding people can sometimes be completely wrong about something--and there's no REAL skin off anybody's nose because of it.

In the new world, people can (and have to) take some ribbing when others think they're "off" on something. And that can be done WHILE GENERAL REPSPECT IS MAINTAINED--or while respect for the person on OTHER issues is maintained.

To allow myself to be FRANK for a moment: You have SIDESTEPPED (at least in this thread) the arguments OF SUBSTANCE against CTE. People who make those arguments can't fail to notice your absence in defending CTE, while at the same time trying to promote it on DVDs and lessons. On a discussion forum--a big jumble of ideas, challenges, defenses, and good and bad information--you can't expect to escape the consequences of what you say and what you DON'T say.

I think it's perfectly possible (and almost certainly true) that Dr. Dave (or anybody) thinks you have a screw loose regarding CTE, but OTHERWISE sees you as an "elder statesman" of pool, thinks you represent it well, and thinks you provide helpful instruction and VALUE to those who hire you for instruction.

That's no longer a contradiction or paradox in today's world of instant communication.

So, you think it's almost certainly true that Dr. Dave thinks that I have a screw loose? I do not think he would say that because if he did I would challenge him to TAR presentation match for a hefty wager if JCIN would have us. (45 minutes each to make our case) JCIN could choose a panel of observers that are deemed to be unbiased to make the call. (Screw loose or not)

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Ye...The elementary 3-step prescription for CTE, if followed with robot precision and absolutely NO adjustments, will enable the user to pocket many shots.

I think this is an overstatement. It will enable the user to pocket some shots - probably a very small minority.

...precisely following the elementary prescription for CTE, as least so far as we currently know it, will also lead to missing a lot of shots.

I think this is an understatement. It will lead to missing most shots - probably the vast majority.

What I have been looking to learn (for quite a long time) is whether there is any fairly simple and systematic way of sighting, offsetting, and pivoting that will work for all shots (if carried out with robotic precision). Call it a systematic set of "adjustments," if you will, or a more complicated prescription for a shot. For example, if the OB is approximately A feet from the pocket, and the CB is approximately B feet from the OB, and the angle to the pocket is approximately C (thicker, thick, thin, thinner, ...), then sight to point D on the OB and use an offset of approximately size E and a bridge length of approximately size F, and an effective pivot point of length G, and ... . Or something that works better (hopefully, simpler than that).

Of course it's possible for computerized robots, but not for humans - it would have to be much too complicated. This is the obvious bottom line for any "pivot" system: anything so indirect and vague can't be made "exact" with simple add-on adjustment instructions.

If CTE is just another way of "getting in the ballpark" with a consistent pre-shot routine, and then letting subconscious adjustments take over,

I don't think "if" is the question - I think the only question is how much conscious adjustment Stan has managed to graft onto the basic pivot without making it unusably complicated.

then it's not for me.

But it is for some - maybe the "mysterious" aspect of it is why.

...I eagerly await whatever additional information we will receive from Stan, Dave, and Ron.

I wouldn't get my hopes up that any really new information is coming. If pivot systems were more than ballpark systems we'd know about it by now.

pj
chgo

 

[GetMeThere]

So, you think it's almost certainly true that Dr. Dave thinks that I have a screw loose? I do not think he would say that because if he did I would challenge him to TAR presentation match for a hefty wager if JCIN would have us. (45 minutes each to make our case) JCIN could choose a panel of observers that are deemed to be unbiased to make the call.

Well, obviously, I don't speak for Dr. Dave.

It's my impression, however, that people like Dr. Dave, Mike Page, Patrick Johnson, Lou Figueroa, and others (including myself) perceive LARGE INCONSISTENCIES in the reasoning and theories behind the IDEA of CTE and how CTE is claimed to work.

Regarding TAR presentations: surely you must be aware that many very IMPORTANT and complex matters have been decided in ways other than BETS. (It's funny to recall when you described yourself as an "old school" guy: what you're offering almost has the sound of a challenge to a DUEL ).

The simple fact remains that challenges of IDEAS have been made to the principles underlying CTE (as far as CTE is understood, that is. Most of what is understood and discussed comes from the seminal posts of Hal Houle a long time ago). Those challenges have been made, and those challenges have NOT BEEN MET.

I would imagine that it has not escaped Dr. Dave's notice that, at least in this thread, you have not arose to try to meet those challenges. What Dr. Dave thinks of that is his business--as is his choice regarding whether to share what he thinks.

As for your case, I'm interested in giving a close reading of posts right here of your case for how the place to hit balls into pockets can be determined without taking into account the exact LOCATION of the pockets in relation to the balls. It's my understanding that the CTE system claims that it's NOT necessary to know the exact location of the pockets in relation to the balls being pocketed--and I personally think that anyone who believes that has their "geometric screw" severely loosened (or missing). If you can MAKE a sensible case against my challenge I'm pretty confident I would be able to UNDERSTAND IT, and if I could understand it, I can completely and easily assure you that I would SAY SO--and be very HAPPY about it. I am ALWAYS happy to learn new things, and, as many have pointed out--since my screen name is an anonymous one, I could "disappear" from the forum, and nobody in real life would ever have to know how WRONG I was to challenge the ideas underlying CTE--if worry about being wrong was a concern to me.