His arrogance was his downfall! He brought this all upon himself and hopefully he will work on his social skills and learn to treat other adults with the respect when debating opinions! He was articulate, but dont mistake that for having brains!
Aiming Voodoo Video
- Thread starter JB Cases
- Start date
His arrogance was his downfall! He brought this all upon himself and hopefully he will work on his social skills and learn to treat other adults with the respect when debating opinions! He was articulate, but dont mistake that for having brains!
Well...I'm sorry to say that I feel a fair amount of this is my fault.
Personally (this will probably surprise the HELL out of everyone), I like to argue. I like to think, and wrestle and play with ideas, and challenge myself and others. In certain environments that attitude has worked very well for me, and gained me friends and respect. Here, obviously not so.
I think the hell I raised with the original "CTE is silly" thread gave Patrick (and others) a little wind again for the fight--and they maybe didn't pick up as fast as I did that ultimately, CTE dissension wasn't going to be tolerated by the powers that be here.
It is an important "bottom line" that people enjoy themselves here. People who enjoy something in common should be able to be friendly toward one another (of course, I would hope that could INCLUDE stimulating argument over ideas). I'm as guilty as any in ignoring that truth.
So if I incited people to forget to be friends with those who share their interests, I apologize. I'm sorry Patrick felt the need to melt himself down over this; and I'm sorry a lot of bad feelings got spread around. All I personally wanted to do was challenge a (pretty silly) idea.
Never meant any harm, guys...
I do think though, when the heat of the moment dies down, that many will recognize that there was more value to the forum WITH Patrick than without him...
Personally (this will probably surprise the HELL out of everyone), I like to argue. I like to think, and wrestle and play with ideas, and challenge myself and others. In certain environments that attitude has worked very well for me, and gained me friends and respect. Here, obviously not so.
I think the hell I raised with the original "CTE is silly" thread gave Patrick (and others) a little wind again for the fight--and they maybe didn't pick up as fast as I did that ultimately, CTE dissension wasn't going to be tolerated by the powers that be here.
It is an important "bottom line" that people enjoy themselves here. People who enjoy something in common should be able to be friendly toward one another (of course, I would hope that could INCLUDE stimulating argument over ideas). I'm as guilty as any in ignoring that truth.
So if I incited people to forget to be friends with those who share their interests, I apologize. I'm sorry Patrick felt the need to melt himself down over this; and I'm sorry a lot of bad feelings got spread around. All I personally wanted to do was challenge a (pretty silly) idea.
Never meant any harm, guys...
I do think though, when the heat of the moment dies down, that many will recognize that there was more value to the forum WITH Patrick than without him...
I have been shooting EVERY shot with CTE/Pro One aiming system by Stan Shuffett. And yes, I have been manually pivoting on every shot although I can feel that I want to move on into the more natural way of shooting with just Pro One which doesn't involve the "manual" pivot. I've been doing this since I learned it which must be at least three weeks or more.
I tried this method the other night, with shots longer than the ones shown in the video. I tried my best not to make any subconscious adjustments, essentially making the pocket disappear in my mind once I was down on the shot ready to stroke.
I missed 90% of my shots.
I guess it doesn't work for me. Movin on...
I missed 90% of my shots.
I guess it doesn't work for me. Movin on...
What claims are unsubstantiated?
Which words are undefined?
The rules of discussion are that posters should not attack other posters.
Isn't it enough to state your disagreement with a claim or a definition once? Why do you have to keep pushing it to the point where people are feeling hatred for each other?
What is so wrong with allowing people to discuss something in peace?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and all these pivot aiming systems are a bunch of nonsense. Wouldn't the best way to show that be to ALLOW the proponents to hang themselves by getting more people to try them and have those people then come back with their own conclusions that they are nonsense?
You are a level headed guy, do you consider Randy Goetlicher to be a snake oil salesman? A charlatan? A fraud?
How about Scott Lee?
Stan Shuffet?
Tom Simpson?
Are these guys perpetrating frauds on the billiard community?
Because that's essentially what Pat and others have accused them of doing.
Don't you have any respect whatsoever for your fellow instructors or is it just the ones you agree with?
I mean if it were me and I were in your position I would be on the phone with Randy and Tom and Stan and Scott saying all right boys let's get together and figure out why you think that Hal's systems have merit and are worth teaching. What have you figured out that I don't know about them?
That's just me though.
This thread is a tribute to a system developed independently of Hal by Ron Vitello. Ron is also a lifelong student of the game. Bob Jewett even gave him some credit in one article for making him rethink the light reflection system of aiming.
Why does Ron not deserve some respect?
After all the goal is not to make people play worse. None of these guys would be promoting any "alternative" aiming methods if they thought that people using them would get worse.
Let me ask you this, how would you react if you were giving a lesson in your pool room where you all were discussing aiming and I came over and butted in to tell you that you are wrong and if you didn't agree that you are wrong I would then start insulting you on top of it? Would you just stand there and take it in the name of free speech? Would you debate me endlessly? Would you tell me to prove my assertions? Or would you show me the door?
Well I don't think that you can complain that Pat and everyone else has not been able to state their objections. Those objections have been stated more times than can be counted and have been accompanied by plenty of insults.
If you want a place where insults are allowed to flourish and anyone can post as much crap as they want then there is always RSB and Jimbo's forum.
The fact is however that a lot of good and thoughtful information is GONE because of Pat and others who had to instigate until people's blood was boiling. So many threads were closed because of this animosity. Threads where people interested in the topic were eagerly discussing it positively until the so-called naysayers arrived.
Which again brings me to the fundamental question of what is wrong with allowing people to discuss a topic about some other aiming method without ridiculing them?
After all don't you agree that the goal is to play better pool? Don't you want people playing on your tables? If learning CTE was responsible for just an extra two hours of table time per week in every pool room in the country would that be a bad thing?
This is good to hear! I wish i could have a look at the dvd so i could totally understand what you know Joey. I will be ordering the dvd this week so be prepared for some good cte posts haha! :thumbup:
Mike, I realize that you and Patrick are good friends. You've shown that in all of your posts defending him. Many times you were right in defending him.
What you didn't do is to school him on the SIMPLE basics of polite communication.
You didn't admonish him in public for his insolent and arrogant manner and if you did in private then he wasn't listening to you either.
While you have had MANY opportunitites to admonish Patrick publicly you chose not to.
Patrick took every opportunity to disrespect the vast majority of posters that he came in contact with.
What Patrick and a FEW OTHERS have done is to villify and demonize Stan Shuffet's CTE/Pro One aiming system as well as the man himself. They were happy to call it and the people who enjoy using it silly, stupid, nonsense, and delusional, snake-oil salesman, etc. DESPITE the fact they had NEVER learned it, nor had they taken a lesson from Stan or seen the video.
But you just sat there, supporting Patrick with every one of your posts. I have to feel that had you made an attempt to discourage his mean-spirited replies things might have turned out differently.
And now after Patrick has insulted the very people who attempt to keep a semblance of order on the forum, you don't even acknowledge that. I guess that fits with the trend.
I'm disappointed with you Mike.
Some think so, some don't. When you have one out of ten posts good, and 9 out of ten sowing discord, the forum is better off without that type of person.
I must say, I am very pleasantly surprised by this post! There's hope for you yet!
And that's what it's all about. Try it and if it's not for you then drop it.
I didn't try CTE for a long time because I already have an aiming system that works. I read a few of the threads and the instructions were like gibberish to me. A while back I thought I'd give it a shot and it didn't work real well for me.
However I did do an experiment where I aimed directly down the CTE line just to see how many shots I could make that way.
To my surprise I made most of my shots and of course I was steering on some of them but the point was that I could see that there was something there.
So I learned CTE - still not quite sure that I have it down right but I am making some wicked shots and running out more.
Frankly I don't think a person CAN learn 90/90 from Cleary's video. I think that this is a nice video introduction at best. If a person REALLY is interested in learning it then they would look up RonV on here and ask him.
From what I understand Ron has helped quite a few people over the phone.
That's what I would do at least if my curiosity was piqued by Cleary's video but I wasn't getting it based on Clearly's instructions.
Mike,
I actually learned what I know from taking a one on one lesson from Stan, not from the video. The video came after I took the lesson and was exhausted from a day or playing pool. Still, I believe that anyone who wants to learn CTE/Pro One will be able to do so by purchasing the video, watching it and practicing it on the table. At the beginning, I didn't make every basic shot even after learning the information on how to use CTE/Pro One. There is a learning curve to it but I can and have used it on virtually every shot. I know that occasionally I have caught myself not paying attention to an easy shot and just getting down and potting the ball. Old habits are hard to break.
I guess I should have said that I try to use it on every shot and do use it on practically every shot but that sometimes I get lazy and don't pay attention or get in a rush. For the record, it seems that I am far more likely to slip up and not use it when playing fast paced rotational games. With one pocket I seem to make it a part of the game on every shot and don't forget about using it.
I haven't been following all these aiming threads as closely as many here. But whenever I do poke my head into these threads that describe fractional aiming systems, or CTC/CTE, or whatever, many claim that once you do your final "pivot" or "shift into place" or whatever, than any subconscious adjustment is completely not necessary. The pocket can be completely hidden from your sight and you'll be lined up perfectly 100% of the time. Do you subscribe to this view?
You're talking about Cleary's video, using Ron's 90/90 system, correct? If so, that's not something I can help with, although I did use it a little and it seemed to work OK with the limited amount of time I gave it. I guess, I'm kind of used to pivoting and the alignment and the pivoting seem to be the critical portion of that aiming systen.
My apologies for discussing CTE/Pro One in this thread as much as I have.
It will always amaze me how two people can read the same thing, and come away with two totally different meanings. There are no "new" rules here. Pat got banned for breaking a number of old ones. Plain and simple. Had nothing to do with the topics, just the way he posted.
As to your "unsubstantiated claims", the main ones making those where the "naysayers". You can't very well say something is unsubstantiated when others have said it is substantiated, and you haven't even checked out the claims for yourself.
You want everything to be "letter perfect" on here, well, this isn't a book being sold, it's just a forum. Deal with it. This is a place to exchange ideas and methods, not do a complete review to the science of every post.
If you find something that helps you, GREAT! If not, move on to another thread. There's nothing wrong with correcting misinformation, just the way some on here prefer to do it is wrong. Correcting is one thing, just trying to sow discord is a completely different animal.
I don't see that. I don't read everything, but I recall multiple incidendences where Pat acknowledged Stan's sound reputation. Most of this is not about Stan Shuffett at all.
joeyA said:
Joey - There HAS been a plethora of silly, delusional, nonsensical claims by 2nd-rate snake-oil salesfolk here. That's pretty much been the order of the day around here for quite a while. It is what it is.
For this forum to improve, we need more thoughtful people exposing nonsense when they see it, not fewer.
Let me put it this way. When I am on my table at work I will often put on a hat and when I use CTE I will set the hat so that I cannot see the pocket. I will address only the cueball and the object ball and perform the steps. I do not always make the ball in the pocket but I do quite often.
I did not believe Hal when he said I didn't need to see the pocket. In fact I can clearly remember groaning inside when he said it and looking around to see if there was anyone I could go play with to get away from him.
But when I started doing what he said and looking ONLY at the balls and aiming ball to ball I was able to to make the shots without looking at the pocket.
Now having said that you can't escape having the pocket in view for most shots. So it's there and part of the shot whether you are using it or not.
I do a little thing I probably shouldn't when I use CTE. I will mentally draw a line from the object ball's edge to the pocket and where that line intersects the center to edge line is the "edge" I use as my reference.
So, to answer your question no I do not subscribe to the idea that a person can aim ball to ball ALL the time and be 100% lined up to the pocket. However I think that they can be lined up to the pocket a good percentage of the time aiming ball-to-ball if they are using the system properly.
For me this is battle tested. I gamble with my own money and have used CTE exclusively the past few months. I would drop it in a heartbeat if it wasn't working and costing me money. It has saved me money by allowing me to get out more and come with shots that used to give me trouble and also to some with shots I normally wouldn't even try.
Some seven years ago or so a bunch of us were standing around a table at Valley Forge and we did an experiment where we hid half the table with a cloth and we tried Hal's systems and we made most of the shots.
My thinking on this is forget about the claims. If you have nothing better to do then learn the systems without regard to the claims and see if there is something for you. For me I was bored with pool but I still like to play once in a while so I figured I'd make an honest effort to learn CTE and see what it's about.
And for me, it's the nuts. I just feel like a kid again and want to try to make every shot that comes up.
Really? So when Pat and others allude to those who teach these systems as snake oil salesmen then that doesn't include Stan?
A plethora? Like what? Who are these 2cnd rate snake-oil salesfolk you speak of? Seriously. Because now you are being ambigious about it.
I see, so all Pat and others were doing was doing was exposing nonsense?
What nonsense specifically were they exposing Mike?
Why don't you take up the challenge and expose the nonsense on video? You have made many excellent videos so far.
So if you believe that CTE is nonsense then prove it on video. All we have ever asked of Pat or anyone is to learn the system and then criticize it from a basis of experience. Why is that so hard?
I appreciate the candid response, and I'm happy you stated the obvious above.
It seems the vast majority of the "naysayers" in these threads are posters simply trying to convince those who actually believe that these systems allow you to be lined up to the pocket 100% of the time on 100% of the shots. I believe this is THE one "unsubstantiated" claim Mike is referring to.
If you don't subscribe to that claim, then we "naysayers" really should have no beef with you.
This is a misquote. I doubt that you can find one single actual quote where anyone has ever said that that any of these systems will allow the user to be lined up to the pocket 100% of the time on 100% of the shots.
I don't see this as a claim that has ever been made by anyone.
However the one that is in fact a claim that Pat and others have a huge problem with is the one that claims that these systems are "exact" and are center pocket systems and that they don't rely on feel.
To the users of the system it is a fairly exact process. The object ball does in fact split the pocket quite often. And to users of the system, it doesn't seem like there is much "feel" involved. In fact when first learning them it's pretty much the exact opposite of feel. It is very mechanical and rigid.
The point is that you can hardly call these claims unsubstantiated when you have plenty of anecdotal testimony as to the effectiveness of the systems. To date no one has proposed a proper way to substantiate them in a more concrete way as far as I can remember.
Colin Colenso put up a pocketing test with 18 shots and Dave Segal posted a video where he made 17 of them on the first try. Dave claimed to use CTE on every shot. Dave also posted a video of him running 49 balls in 14.1, and a video of himself banking balls in using CTE. And another video where he makes something like 11 of 15 balls cutting a frozen ball in from more than 90 degrees using CTE.
So unless Dave is a liar and he was not using CTE I'd say that his videos alone go a long way toward substantiating the claims he has made regarding CTE.
CTE users and teachers have truly gone far in answering every question and critique.
There is about to be a video out from Stan where he lays it all out. He is putting his whole reputation on the line here to do this.
Whatever claims have been made should be addressed in the video.
I personally have nothing against skeptics. I think that they are a necessary part of progress. I have a lot against people who are just negative and mean about it.
I'm confused. How does you saying that these systems are "exact" differ from saying that these systems line you up correctly 100% of the time on any cut shot?