Critique of "Dr." Dave's Review of CTE/Pro One

Murdoch7627

Frank Reid aka "Fly Man"
Silver Member
A Critique of Dr. Dave’s Review of Stan Shuffett’s CTE/Pro One Aiming System

I find Dr. Dave’s review of Stan Shuffett’s CTE/Pro One aiming system to be poor at best lacking in the most elementary concepts of research and the utilization of key source data. Dr. Dave states that he used two sources for his write up – Stan’s CTE/Pro One Aiming System DVD and ”many posts in recent CTE and Pro One threads” on AZ. The glaring omission in the source data he used is, of course, Stan Shuffett who publicly announced he was available for discussion or answering questions on CTE/Pro One. If Dave’s paper were being graded by any college professor I believe Dave would get an F on the paper due to poor utilization or lack or proper utilization of the sources available. Now if the three sources available to Dave are the DVD, threads on AZ, and Stan Shuffett and if the objective is to get the most knowledge possible before writing a review on the CTE/Pro One Aiming System which source would be the best to use? Doesn’t take a PhD to figure this one out does it? It’s the one David totally ignored. Remember, Dave is not writing a report on the DVD and if it is good or bad or if it gets the points of CTE/Pro One to the viewers accurately and concisely. He states he is reviewing the CTE/Pro One aiming system itself so the DVD is just one source for this information. The only possible reason for not contacting Stan would be if Dave thought that the DVD was so good that it completely and clearly explained CTE/Pro One and that, hence, contacting the primary source would yield no additional information. From Dave comments on the DVD this does not appear to be the case.

Did Dr. Dave “do his best” as he states? I don’t think so. I sure hope that was not his best. Was this an “accurate and fair description” as Dr. Dave states? I think the key word here is fair. What can “fair” mean other than fair to the person whose work he is reviewing, namely Stan Shuffett? Once again the answer is a resounding no it was not fair as he did not once contact Stan.

Sorry Dave, you do indeed get an overall F on your write-up due to extremely poor use of the sources available. Now no one thinks that Dave is anything but a very smart person. But the way he handled this evaluation makes one wonder if he had some other agenda going on in his head. Could it be “Professional Jealously” that San solved the CTE mystery before he did? Or is it just some ego thing that Dave thinks if Stan gets credit for his knowledge people might think he is the number one instructor in the US and not Dave. One wonders.

And now even today Dave is posting his questions on AZ. Come on Dave, you can’t be that stupid. If you really wanted answers you’d be talking to Stan not those on AZ. It’s really very clear that you are just trying to muddy the waters. You’re too transparent on this. Got real questions, call Stan. Want to cause problems, ask them on AZ. I, for one, am very disappointed in Dave. I may sell my Video Encyclopedia of Pool Shots (which, by the way, is very good) only because I am losing respect for Dave very quickly.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A Critique of Dr. Dave’s Review of Stan Shuffett’s CTE/Pro One Aiming System

I find Dr. Dave’s review of Stan Shuffett’s CTE/Pro One aiming system to be poor at best lacking in the most elementary concepts of research and the utilization of key source data. Dr. Dave states that he used two sources for his write up – Stan’s CTE/Pro One Aiming System DVD and ”many posts in recent CTE and Pro One threads” on AZ. The glaring omission in the source data he used is, of course, Stan Shuffett who publicly announced he was available for discussion or answering questions on CTE/Pro One. If Dave’s paper were being graded by any college professor I believe Dave would get an F on the paper due to poor utilization or lack or proper utilization of the sources available. Now if the three sources available to Dave are the DVD, threads on AZ, and Stan Shuffett and if the objective is to get the most knowledge possible before writing a review on the CTE/Pro One Aiming System which source would be the best to use? Doesn’t take a PhD to figure this one out does it? It’s the one David totally ignored. Remember, Dave is not writing a report on the DVD and if it is good or bad or if it gets the points of CTE/Pro One to the viewers accurately and concisely. He states he is reviewing the CTE/Pro One aiming system itself so the DVD is just one source for this information. The only possible reason for not contacting Stan would be if Dave thought that the DVD was so good that it completely and clearly explained CTE/Pro One and that, hence, contacting the primary source would yield no additional information. From Dave comments on the DVD this does not appear to be the case.

Did Dr. Dave “do his best” as he states? I don’t think so. I sure hope that was not his best. Was this an “accurate and fair description” as Dr. Dave states? I think the key word here is fair. What can “fair” mean other than fair to the person whose work he is reviewing, namely Stan Shuffett? Once again the answer is a resounding no it was not fair as he did not once contact Stan.

Sorry Dave, you do indeed get an overall F on your write-up due to extremely poor use of the sources available. Now no one thinks that Dave is anything but a very smart person. But the way he handled this evaluation makes one wonder if he had some other agenda going on in his head. Could it be “Professional Jealously” that San solved the CTE mystery before he did? Or is it just some ego thing that Dave thinks if Stan gets credit for his knowledge people might think he is the number one instructor in the US and not Dave. One wonders.

And now even today Dave is posting his questions on AZ. Come on Dave, you can’t be that stupid. If you really wanted answers you’d be talking to Stan not those on AZ. It’s really very clear that you are just trying to muddy the waters. You’re too transparent on this. Got real questions, call Stan. Want to cause problems, ask them on AZ. I, for one, am very disappointed in Dave. I may sell my Video Encyclopedia of Pool Shots (which, by the way, is very good) only because I am losing respect for Dave very quickly.


For months -- as we all waited with bait on our breathes, for the production, editing, reproduction, copyright protected release and shipping of the DVD -- it was told to the great unwashed masses that the DVD would "stand alone" (by Stan hisself) and answer all questions. It would be The Rosetta Stone, The Missing Link, and the look inside Area 51 (there might have been mention of Big Foot DNA), we have all been waiting for and talking past each other on for years. "Just you wait Henry Higgins, just you wait!" we were all told repeatedly by the CTE Monkeys.

Why should anyone need to call Stan when the Stone Tablets have been shipped and bought directly from The Mountain Top?

Lou Figueroa
back in the saddle
again :)
 
Last edited:

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
For months -- as we all waited with bait on our breathes, for the production, editing, reproduction, copyright protected release and shipping of the DVD -- it was told to the great unwashed masses that the DVD would "stand alone" (by Stan hisself) and answer all questions. It would be The Rosetta Stone, The Missing Link, and the look inside Area 51 (there might have been mention of Big Foot DNA), we have all been waiting for and talking past each other on for years. "Just you wait Henry Higgins, just you wait!" we were all told repeatedly by the CTE Monkeys.

Why should anyone need to call Stan when the Stone Tablets have been shipped and bought directly from The Mountain Top?

Lou Figueroa
back in the saddle
again :)

And we wait with bait on our breaths for your review,WHY? I believe you and PJ wrote the review as soon as you found out Stan was making the dvd. Some minds have been made up for years and to go in the other direction now would hurt them way too much. Lou is back in the saddle, but he should be eating instead.
 

TimmyB80

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Critique of the critique of the review

Thank God! I was waiting (finally) for a critique of "Dr." Dave's review!! Here it is! Why is Dr. is parenthesis? Does he not hold a PhD is Physics or something? As far as your review... who cares? Why would you start a new thread based on someones review? Maybe I should start a thread about your critique! You might want to consider starting another thread based on this post...
 

GeoEnvi

Diamond System Enthusiast
Silver Member
That Murdoch titles his post with quotes around Dr is reason enough NOT to listen to a word said therein.

Not only is Dr. Dave a PhD, but he also happens to be a wealth of knowledge on the physics behind pool. From what I can tell, it's his love for the game and pursuit of intellect that drives his efforts to educate anyone that cares enough to learn more about billiards. It's not as Murdoch suggests: a self-serving desire for the notoriety of having debunked CTE, or to sell more VEPS.
 

xdy77

Banned
Thank God! I was waiting (finally) for a critique of "Dr." Dave's review!! Here it is! Why is Dr. is parenthesis? Does he not hold a PhD is Physics or something? As far as your review... who cares? Why would you start a new thread based on someones review? Maybe I should start a thread about your critique! You might want to consider starting another thread based on this post...

And when did you get anointed as the chief of the "Thread Police"....?
If you don't like what you see here, there is a very easy solution.
EUREKA! DO NOT READ IT. :boring2:
 

PoolSharkAllen

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If Dave’s paper were being graded by any college professor I believe Dave would get an F on the paper due to poor utilization or lack or proper utilization of the sources available.

And now even today Dave is posting his questions on AZ.

Stan opened a PRO ONE thread with the specific intent of answering any questions that people had about his DVD. So with all the questions that Dr. Dave and other posters had about PRO ONE, Stan has managed to respond just three times to people's questions.
 
Last edited:

shankster8

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
i didnt really see it as a review but more like he had questions and was looking for answers? my opinion.

Good post Champ. That is the same way I see things. Dave asked some very specific questions, and everyone dove for cover or bad-mouthed, rather than answer. It is clear to me that Dr. Dave is being very gentle and respectful of everyone, including Stan.

And Murdink, is there a reason Stan cannot reply to Dr. Dave's posts? Didn't Stan start the thread saying he was answering questions? Perhaps Dr. Dave should have prefaced his questions with "Dear Stan"?

Finally, IMO, Dr. Dave's little table and few lines of narrative are probably the best aids to date for deciphering Stan's DVD. Wasn't the purpose of the DVD to explain the method. Well, based on the mass confusion evidenced in this forum, it didn't accomplish that. So, instead of whining, I suggest CTEr's answer Dr. Dave's questions; maybe he can clear things up.

I can promise you that the limited ProOne/CTE information Dr. Dave put up will not deter anyone from purchasing Stan's DVD who seriously wants to learn ProOne. In fact, Dave's little tidbits stand to salvage what some might otherwise consider a questionable investment, IMO

And I mean no offense to Stan. I realize he put his heart into this. But like Figueroa pointed out, this was supposed to be the holy grail.
 
Last edited:

Nick B

This is gonna hurt
Silver Member
Perfect. Well thought out and articulated.

I think Dr. Dave has made every effort to "wrap his mind around the concept" and illustrate what he and others have grasped on the topic.

Nick

Good post Champ. That is the same way I see things. Dave asked some very specific questions, and everyone dove for cover or bad-mouthed, rather than answer. It is clear to me that Dr. Dave is being very gentle and respectful of everyone, including Stan.

And Murdink, is there a reason Stan cannot reply to Dr. Dave's posts? Didn't Stan start the thread saying he was answering questions? Perhaps Dr. Dave should have prefaced his questions with "Dear Stan"?

Finally, IMO, Dr. Dave's little table and few lines of narrative are probably the best aids to date for deciphering Stan's DVD. Wasn't the purpose of the DVD to explain the method. Well, based on the mass confusion evidenced in this forum, it didn't accomplish that. So, instead of whining, I suggest CTEr's answer Dr. Dave's questions; maybe he can clear things up.

I can promise you that the limited ProOne/CTE information Dr. Dave put up will not deter anyone from purchasing Stan's DVD who seriously wants to learn ProOne. In fact, Dave's little tidbits stand to salvage what some might otherwise consider a questionable investment, IMO

And I mean no offense to Stan. I realize he put his heart into this. But like Figueroa pointed this was supposed to be the holy grail.
 

TimmyB80

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
[/COLOR]
And when did you get anointed as the chief of the "Thread Police"....?
If you don't like what you see here, there is a very easy solution.
EUREKA! DO NOT READ IT. :boring2:

This isn't the first time I have been told not to read something I did not like.

When I figure out how that works, you will be the first person I PM!

I had to comment when I saw the OP putting someone's salutation in quotes... as though it is made up. When you spend 7+ years in college and someone calls you a "Dr." I will be sure to jump on them for you :)
 

pablocruz

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This isn't the first time I have been told not to read something I did not like.

When I figure out how that works, you will be the first person I PM!

I had to comment when I saw the OP putting someone's salutation in quotes... as though it is made up. When you spend 7+ years in college and someone calls you a "Dr." I will be sure to jump on them for you :)

Let's call a spade a spade!! "Dr." Dave = Literary Theft!!
 

ChazL

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Critique of Murdoch 7627's Critique of "Dr." Dave's Review

Dr. Dave certainly doesn't need me to fight his fights for him, but a point must be made here.

When an academic reviews the work of another, the reviewer will typically limit his research and analysis to published work. This is done so that the readers of the review can directly access the work in question, and can independently reach their own conclusions as to the quality and fairness of the review.

While our discussions of aiming systems here don't rise to the level where these standards must be strictly applied, neither can Dave be faulted for for not doing enough to gain greater insights. As Lou pointed out, we were told that the DVD would "stand alone" to give us a comprehensive explanation of the Pro One aiming system. There's nothing unreasonable in expecting that this promise would be fulfilled.

And no, it's also not unreasonable to expect the defenders of Pro One to answer the questions that Dave has posted on these forums.
 
Last edited:

Murdoch7627

Frank Reid aka "Fly Man"
Silver Member
Stan opened a PRO ONE thread with the specific intent of answering any questions that people had about his DVD. So with all the questions that Dr. Dave and other posters had about PRO ONE, Stan has managed to respond just three times to people's questions.


Maybe you should learn to read. Stan did NOT open a thread to start answering questions on AZ. He gave his phone number and said he would be available to take calls to answer questions. Once again we have the "twisting" of the truth.
This time by the Pool Shark.
 
Last edited:

PoolSharkAllen

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Stan opened a PRO ONE thread with the specific intent of answering any questions that people had about his DVD. So with all the questions that Dr. Dave and other posters had about PRO ONE, Stan has managed to respond just three times to people's questions.


Maybe you should learn to read. Stan did NOT open a thread to start answering questions on AZ. He gave his phone number and said he would be available to take calls to answer questions. Once again we have the "twisting" of the truth.
This time by the Pool Shark.

Ooopsie. Once a thread on CTE is opened and people start asking questions about something, they expect answers in writing regardless of what the initial post stated.

You earlier faulted Dr. Dave with the following comment: "If Dave’s paper were being graded by any college professor I believe Dave would get an F on the paper due to poor utilization or lack or proper utilization of the sources available." Shouldn't Stan get an F for not utilizing his own thread to answer people's questions in writing about PRO ONE?

In addition, I've seen the materiel that Dr. Dave posted on his web site about PRO ONE. I would hardly call what Dr. Dave wrote a review of PRO ONE. If you want to read a review, try reading Lou Figueroa's observations of PRO ONE. Lou's review of PRO ONE is far more scathing than anything Dr. Dave has written about it so far.
 
Last edited:

Kickin' Chicken

Kick Shot Aficionado
Gold Member
Silver Member
I have mostly avoided the myriad threads regarding cte, and pro one, as these are not subjects of interest to me.

I must say, though, that after reading this thread, it strikes me as disingenuous, and patently unfair, really, for the op to critique a critique starting with wrongly calling into question, the original reviewer's credentials.

A better and much more credible course of action, IMO, would have been to simply do his own review of the product and share his conclusions, and precisely how he arrived at them. Then, anyone interested could see how these two reviews square with one another and would be able to draw their own conclusions.

From what little I've read, the seemingly neverending aiming system debates bear an uncanny resemblance to certain religious zealot's philosphies that require they either convert you to their way of thinking or kill you.

Let the holy war continue.

Best,
Brian kc
 
Last edited:

Murdoch7627

Frank Reid aka "Fly Man"
Silver Member
"Ooopsie. Once a thread on CTE is opened and people start asking questions about something, they expect answers in writing regardless of what the initial post stated."

OK, let me get this straight. Stan says he will be happy to answer questions over the phone (one on one in other words). However, according to you that means if you do not call him but ask your question on AZ, he should answer on AZ. I think I am missing some part of your logic there. What I am hearing is, "OK, I misread the thread but he should have done not what he said he would do, but what I thought he said he would do and what I want him to do."?????????

Wow, I sure am glad you're on Dr. Dave's and Lou's side and not on the CTE/Pro One side.
 
Last edited:

PoolSharkAllen

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
"Ooopsie. Once a thread on CTE is opened and people start asking questions about something, they expect answers in writing regardless of what the initial post stated."

OK, let me get this straight. Stan says he will be happy to answer questions over the phone (one on one in other words). However, according to you that means if you do not call him but ask your question on AZ, he should answer on AZ. I think I am missing some part of your logic there.

If you have a class room full of CTE students, if one student has a question, then there's a good chance that other students have the same question too.

If posters are asking questions in writing in Stan's thread, it's to Stan's advantage to respond in writing as there is a good chance that others have the same question.
 
Last edited:
Top