John Schmidt says CTE works after all.

[bwally]

But here is where matters can get started down the toilet bowl.

Your words the "the system works".

Did you not just a few short posts ago say that you were pretty sure we were in agreement.

Well I basically said that there really is no sufficient 'system' but merely methods to implement one's subjective interpretations, analysis, & decisions.

If the system works, How does it work? What is there in the 'system" that tells the shooter where the final cue line is for each individual shot?

Why & how does "the system work"?

I hope you can see how loose lips sink ships, so to speak.

Also did John take an extensive good look at it or did he just allow you to convince him that the method has benefited you... so therefore "the system works"?

Ghost ball works. Is it a system? Or is it a method?

I hope you can my points.

Best Wishes.

I think we are caught up in semantics. To me system or method would be pretty much the same thing. Makes little to no difference to me what it is called. Having said that I do believe we are on the same page.

I did not take John into an extensive look at CTE, he trusts my opinion on the matter (there are reasons for this I don't really want to dive into). Most importantly it was the way I communicated it with him that made the difference and changed his opinion. Something a few here could learn from.

I don't how how far he will pursue CTE in the future. So for now let's just be thankful that we know that those who dismiss CTE, or any aiming system, can have their minds changed. Thus opening up a civil discussion and help a few more people to enjoy the game of pool some more..

Cheers,

 

[ENGLISH!]

I think we are caught up in semantics. To me system or method would be pretty much the same thing. Makes little to no difference to me what it is called. Having said that I do believe we are on the same page.

I did not take John into an extensive look at CTE, he trusts my opinion on the matter (there are reasons for this I don't really want to dive into). Most importantly it was the way I communicated it with him that made the difference and changed his opinion. Something a few here could learn from.

I don't how how far he will pursue CTE in the future. So for now let's just be thankful that we know that those who dismiss CTE, or any aiming system, can have their minds changed. Thus opening up a civil discussion and help a few more people to enjoy the game of pool some more..

Cheers,

Well, that's fine.

But..

If they mean the same thing to you, then I would suggest not using the term system as it has implications that the term method does not have.

I can understand why you would not want John taking an intense look unless he is ready to do so.

Perhaps you could "communicate" it here as you communicated it to him to maybe get some here to have a better understanding of what made him change his mind.

Or was it just that he had no good regard for ANY aiming method & now considers ALL methods as 'okay'?

Cheers to You Too. I'm sitting my 2 year old Grandson & may have a glass when his Parents get home.:wink:

 

[kaznj]

John has several runs over 200. He has some runs over 300. Do you think he needs to change what he is doing?
I know these systems work. But, I think they are best learned by players who struggle with aiming and are looking for some system to help them.

 

[bwally]

John has several runs over 200. He has some runs over 300. Do you think he needs to change what he is doing?
I know these systems work. But, I think they are best learned by players who struggle with aiming and are looking for some system to help them.

And he has runs over 400. I never said to him that he needed to change, quite the opposite. Sorry but this kind of post is what takes these threads "off the rails".

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

And he has runs over 400. I never said to him that he needed to change, quite the opposite. Sorry but this kind of post is what takes these threads "off the rails".

I followed John's FB post and all of he comments, and I just didn't see the kind of animosity that appears immediately when a similar post is made on AZB. Sure, folks are on both sides of the fence over there, and some just sitting on the fence about it. But mostly it's done with a show of mutual respect. I am starting to see the limits of this place, and why great players like JS and many others stop posting on AZ soon after they start.

FWIW I didn't start this thread to prove anything about CTE, only to report that Mr. 400 has publicly recanted his previous statement that aiming systems can't possibly work. I've met John and talked with him at length, and he seems highly intelligent. I sincerely doubt that he would have made the statement he made on FB if he hadn't come to an new understanding of what CTE is about and why it might help folks.

I thought it only right to post his thoughts here since his previous opinion on aiming systems was the subject a long and protracted thread that cast CTE and Stan Shuffett in a very negative light. I think Stan deserves to have this public retraction by JS posted in the same forum as the one that attempted to discredit him over the course of about 150 pages.

What's interesting to me is that John's opinion at the time was considered proof that aiming systems are just marketing hype - even though he had never tried CTE before - but now his new and enlightened opinion that they can work is being dismissed out of hand because, well, he still hasn't tired it. I haven't really given LD shafts a good try, either, but I'm pretty sure I know how and why they work, and how they might help others play better... without actually making the decision to use one. I suspect this is the kind of understanding Mr. Schmidt has arrived at.

Thank you, Brian, for coming on here and explaining this from a first-hand perspective. I hope John doesn't mind that I posted his comments here. He strikes me as a really nice guy in person, and I would not want to offend him in any way.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

I followed John's FB post and all of he comments, and I just didn't see the kind of animosity that appears immediately when a similar post is made on AZB. Sure, folks are on both sides of the fence over there, and some just sitting on the fence about it. But mostly it's done with a show of mutual respect. I am starting to see the limits of this place, and why great players like JS and many others stop posting on AZ soon after they start.

FWIW I didn't start this thread to prove anything about CTE, only to report that Mr. 400 has publicly recanted his previous statement that aiming systems can't possibly work. I've met John and talked with him at length, and he seems highly intelligent. I sincerely doubt that he would have made the statement he made on FB if he hadn't come to an new understanding of what CTE is about and why it might help folks.

I thought it only right to post his thoughts here since his previous opinion on aiming systems was the subject a long and protracted thread that cast CTE and Stan Shuffett in a very negative light. I think Stan deserves to have this public retraction by JS posted in the same forum as the one that attempted to discredit him over the course of about 150 pages.

What's interesting to me is that John's opinion at the time was considered proof that aiming systems are just marketing hype - even though he had never tried CTE before - but now his new and enlightened opinion that they can work is being dismissed out of hand because, well, he still hasn't tired it. I haven't really given LD shafts a good try, either, but I'm pretty sure I know how and why they work, and how they might help others play better... without actually making the decision to use one. I suspect this is the kind of understanding Mr. Schmidt has arrived at.

Thank you, Brian, for coming on here and explaining this from a first-hand perspective. I hope John doesn't mind that I posted his comments here. He strikes me as a really nice guy in person, and I would not want to offend him in any way.

Tap Tap Tap.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Perhaps you could "communicate" it here as you communicated it to him to maybe get some here to have a better understanding of what made him change his mind.

I'd be very interested in that myself.

Cheers to You Too. I'm sitting my 2 year old Grandson & may have a glass when his Parents get home.:wink:

I remember when my grandson Ethan was that age. He wrote the book on "The Terrible Twos". Cheer up, they get to be a lot of fun by the time they are 5. But for now, may I recommend four fingers of J.W. Weller 107 proof after your duties are over for the day?

 

[ENGLISH!]

I'd be very interested in that myself.





I remember when my grandson Ethan was that age. He wrote the book on "The Terrible Twos". Cheer up, they get to be a lot of fun by the time they are 5. But for now, may I recommend four fingers of J.W. Weller 107 proof after your duties are over for the day?

He's 2 years & 4 months old & really a very good boy.

I don't ever really need anything, but a glass of wine with dinner will do nicely.

But I will keep your recommendation in mind.:wink:

 

[cookie man]

You seem like a level headed guy, and it can't hurt your pool playing to be friends with such a great player and have his input:smile:. Anyhow, if John Schmidt feels he was wrong, then kudos to him for admitting it. It certainly is not a worthless apology in that respect, but there is a history on the forum of people going bananas with this sort of thing.. Supposed endorsements, pros "using systems without knowing it" etc..Like you, I long for a civilized and rational discussion of aiming and aiming related topics. This time it seems like the shit storm is not going to happen, which is a welcome change, so maybe the forum has become better after all.

The shit storm started with post #13. Now the thread wont die till it's closed.

 

[cookie man]

I am not one that is against aiming methods. I very quickly went from ghost ball to equal & opposite fractional over lap & have used & still sometimes do use the shadows method & I use TOI with CTC, CTE, & C to the 1/4 line.

That said...

Do you understand that there is no sufficient 'system' that does not require one's subjective analysis, interpretations, & final decisions as to the actual final shot line?

Otherwise the 'system' would need 75 to 90 indicators & even then it would still involve the shooter to subjectively make the decision as to which one would be applicable to any given shot.

Hence there really is no real system, but merely a method of implementing one's own individual subjectively TIME learned pictures or 'perceptions' of the shots at hand.

If one wants to call one's own subjectively time learned pictures or 'perceptions' their 'visual intelligence', then that's fine, but we should be clear as to exactly what that 'visual intelligence' actually & truly is.

Would you agree?

If not, then we will just have to disagree & that's fine.

Best Wishes for You & Yours.

Pretty sure you have no clue about CTE.

 

[cookie man]

But here is where matters can get started down the toilet bowl.

Your words the "the system works".

Did you not just a few short posts ago say that you were pretty sure we were in agreement?

Well I basically said that there really is no sufficient 'system' but merely methods to implement one's subjective interpretations, analysis, & decisions.

If "the system works", How does it work? What is there in the 'system" that tells the shooter where the final cue line is for each individual shot?

Why & how does "the system work"?

I hope you can see how loose lips sink ships, so to speak. Language is all that we have & certain language can be very suggestive.

Also did John take an extensive good look at it or did he just allow you to convince him that the method has benefited you... so therefore "the system works"?

Ghost ball works. Is it a system? Or is it a method?

I hope you can see & understand my points.

Best Wishes.

CTE WORKS exactly as STAN teaches it.
Do you have any formal training with it or just a keyboard opinion?

 

[cookie man]

I think we are caught up in semantics. To me system or method would be pretty much the same thing. Makes little to no difference to me what it is called. Having said that I do believe we are on the same page.

I did not take John into an extensive look at CTE, he trusts my opinion on the matter (there are reasons for this I don't really want to dive into). Most importantly it was the way I communicated it with him that made the difference and changed his opinion. Something a few here could learn from.

I don't how how far he will pursue CTE in the future. So for now let's just be thankful that we know that those who dismiss CTE, or any aiming system, can have their minds changed. Thus opening up a civil discussion and help a few more people to enjoy the game of pool some more..

Cheers,

You wont get many open minds on here, just a shitstorm of semantics. Run away while you can.

 

[cookie man]

I followed John's FB post and all of he comments, and I just didn't see the kind of animosity that appears immediately when a similar post is made on AZB. Sure, folks are on both sides of the fence over there, and some just sitting on the fence about it. But mostly it's done with a show of mutual respect. I am starting to see the limits of this place, and why great players like JS and many others stop posting on AZ soon after they start.

FWIW I didn't start this thread to prove anything about CTE, only to report that Mr. 400 has publicly recanted his previous statement that aiming systems can't possibly work. I've met John and talked with him at length, and he seems highly intelligent. I sincerely doubt that he would have made the statement he made on FB if he hadn't come to an new understanding of what CTE is about and why it might help folks.

I thought it only right to post his thoughts here since his previous opinion on aiming systems was the subject a long and protracted thread that cast CTE and Stan Shuffett in a very negative light. I think Stan deserves to have this public retraction by JS posted in the same forum as the one that attempted to discredit him over the course of about 150 pages.

What's interesting to me is that John's opinion at the time was considered proof that aiming systems are just marketing hype - even though he had never tried CTE before - but now his new and enlightened opinion that they can work is being dismissed out of hand because, well, he still hasn't tired it. I haven't really given LD shafts a good try, either, but I'm pretty sure I know how and why they work, and how they might help others play better... without actually making the decision to use one. I suspect this is the kind of understanding Mr. Schmidt has arrived at.

Thank you, Brian, for coming on here and explaining this from a first-hand perspective. I hope John doesn't mind that I posted his comments here. He strikes me as a really nice guy in person, and I would not want to offend him in any way.

Good post and really the thread should end on this note.

 

[bwally]

Good post and really the thread should end on this note.

I agree.. :thumbup:

 

[ENGLISH!]

I think it should have ended with post #s 27 & 28...

that is unless you were going to communicate it to ALL of us the way you did to John.

Don't you think that might be a good thing to promote those civil discussions that you mentioned?

 

[JB Cases]

Considering that some folks here used John's previous stance on aiming systems as a virtual club to BASH - going so far as to start a thread specifically to use those comments and proceed to cause all sorts of animosity over it....I find this to be an amazing display of class on John's part.

Stan has an open invitation to show John or any pro CTE. Not that John would necessarily need it. But you never know....CTE might unlock something for him that turns him into Mr. 600.

CTE works and works as advertised. That's the bottom line for all of us that use it. Not a magic bullet but instead a solid way to aim that is extremely accurate when paired with diligent practice and a straight stroke. Pretty much zero guessing and as close to fully objective as humanly possible in my experience.

Shows how little I pay attention to AZB these days...I had to be told about this from a friend who showed up in the shop today. Thank you John for being big enough to be open minded about CTE.

 

[oldmanatc]

I'd like to retract my previous statement, it was made out of ignorance. There obviously is more substance in John making that statement publicly.

English, CTE is not and has not been sold as a total game solution. It is an aiming method for straight-in, cut shots and bank shots. It is also an aiming system in that by utilizing a combination of the same 8 points, the vast majority of these type of shots can be pocketed. Stan very clearly states that speed and/or spin affect the outcome of any shot.

As to whether a pros game can or can't be improved on by learning CTE, at the very least it cant hurt. Knowledge gained is always beneficial, whether that pro chooses to utilize that knowledge or not.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Looking forward to seeing JS use it and demonstrating it.

Looking more forward to seeing English, Pat Johnson, Jal, Lou Figueroa and the other keyboard warriors demonstrating what they know or think they know about it at the table where pool is played instead of their half a$$ed virtual pool imaginations while pounding keys to spout ongoing derogatory garbage.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I'd like to retract my previous statement, it was made out of ignorance. There obviously is more substance in John making that statement publicly.

English, CTE is not and has not been sold as a total game solution. It is an aiming method for straight-in, cut shots and bank shots. It is also an aiming system in that by utilizing a combination of the same 8 points, the vast majority of these type of shots can be pocketed. Stan very clearly states that speed and/or spin affect the outcome of any shot.

As to whether a pros game can or can't be improved on by learning CTE, at the very least it cant hurt. Knowledge gained is always beneficial, whether that pro chooses to utilize that knowledge or not.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

ATC,

Since you have 'spoken' directly to me, I will respond.

Since you have already admitted that to you it is not an objective aiming system, your characterizations of it seem rational.

I think perhaps you should do a bit of research & know the assertions & descriptions that have been made about & assigned to it.

Like earlier when the term system was used. That word along with other assertions has implications that can be rather misleading.

I think you have a common sense understanding of just what it is.

Others think it is more & portray it as more & that can be rather misleading.

If all that was said about it is what you've said here then there probably never would have been any 'objections' made of which I am a relative rookie.

I was pulled in by the 'objective' assertion. The enticement of that assertion made me lose sight of reality for a brief time in hope that the assertion might be true. I rather quickly came back to recognize the reality of the situation.

I even suspended my final 'self judgement' in hope that there might be some form of revelation with the then upcoming new Pro 1 DVD as it was sort of implied.

But... I then I saw Stan's 5 shot perception video & I realized based on that there would NOT be any such revelations forth coming.

There can not be any truly objective aiming 'system' in a form that can be utilized by any normal human being.

The reality is that ALL methods require the time spent to build a subjective reference file, based on what ever means are being used to 'define' a set of base shots along with the variances off of those base reference shots.

When I say variances, I do not necessarily mean conscious adjustments of any specific nature.

When a shot does not fit a fractional 1/2 ball alignment & one is using fractional aiming, one makes some sort of adjustment in order to pocket the ball...

BECAUSE... the 1/2 ball alignment alone will NOT pocket the ball.

That adjustment may or may not be a conscious one. It may be one made subconsciously based on the subjectively leaned pictures or perceptions garnered over time of the trial & error & successes & failures when utilizing the method.

Sorry, I am not trying to convince you or any of the other 'normal' crowd.

I'm just throwing out some food for thought in regards to the reality of the 'aiming' situation.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

PS1 If one wants to call that subjectively & experience based learning & building of that data base their "CTE visual intelligence", that's fine...but we all should know exactly what that factually & truly is.

PS2 I would NOT have made this post if you had not specifically referred to me implying that I think it is said to be something that it is not. My ONLY desire is to make matters clear so that the chance of others being 'unintentionally' misled is reduced. Language is all that we have to communicate ideas, etc. & it can at times be challenging to be precise so as to not mis-communicate & not cause others to be misled.

 

[cookie man]

ATC,

Since you have 'spoken' directly to me, I will respond.

Since you have already admitted that to you it is not an objective aiming system, your characterizations of it seem rational.

I think perhaps you should do a bit of research & know the assertions & descriptions that have been made about & assigned to it.

Like earlier when the term system was used. That word along with other assertions has implications that can be rather misleading.

I think you have a common sense understanding of just what it is.

Others think it is more & portray it as more & that can be rather misleading.

If all that was said about it is what you've said here then there probably never would have been any 'objections' made of which I am a relative rookie.

I was pulled in by the 'objective' assertion. The enticement of that assertion made me lose sight of reality for a brief time in hope that the assertion might be true. I rather quickly came back to recognize the reality of the situation.

I even suspended my final 'self judgement' in hope that there might be some form of revelation with the then upcoming new Pro 1 DVD as it was sort of implied.

But... I then saw Stan's 5 shot perception video & I realized based on that there would NOT be any such revelations forth coming.

There can not be any truly objective aiming 'system' in a form that can be utilized by any normal human being.

The reality is that ALL methods require the time spent to build a subjective reference file, based on what ever means are being used to 'define' a set of base shots along with the variance off of those base reference shots.

When I say variances, I do not necessarily mean conscious adjustments of any specific nature.

When a shot does not fit a fractional 1/2 ball alignment & one is using fractional aiming, one makes some sort of adjustment in order to pocket the ball...

BECAUSE... the 1/2 ball alignment alone will NOT pocket the ball.

That adjustment may or may not be a conscious one. It may be one made subconsciously based on the subjectively leaned pictures or perceptions garnered over time of the trial & error & successes & failures when utilizing the method.

Sorry, I am not trying to convince you or any of the other 'normal' crowd.

I'm just throwing out some food for thought in regards to the reality of the 'aiming' situation.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

PS1 If one wants to call that subjectively & experience based learning & building of that data base their "CTE visual intelligence", that's fine...but we all should know exactly what that factually & truly is.

PS2 I would NOT have made this post if you had not specifically referred to me implying that I think it is said to be something that it is not. My ONLY desire is to make matters clear so that the chance of others being 'unintentionally' misled is reduced. Language is all that we have to communicate ideas, etc. & it can at times be challenging to be precise so as to not mis-communicate & not cause others to be misled.

Bull shit and totally wrong. You reply to everything as evidenced by 16,000 posts in 3 years.
You've been told and proven too over and over that every thought you have about cte is wrong.
You continue to fight the bad fight.
You are allowed to continue to fight the bad fight.
It's disgraceful the lengths you go to to provide bad information to people willing to discuss aiming systems.
Shitstorm should be your new nickname.