Oh?......well I don't see you stepping up to play either one of them, so..........
Hee hee!
Stan shuffet and cte pro one
- Thread starter Valiant Thor
- Start date
- Status
Oh?......well I don't see you stepping up to play either one of them, so..........
Hee hee!
Possibly you knew who Sax Delporto was?
I've always asked the same question of the upright straight pool stance and all those legendary players who used it, if they could play rotation type velocity games and the answer is always yes yes they can blah blah blah. As if they can do anything and never missed, which I have also heard rumors of etc etc.
Well, where are these guys who could do all the this and that's? We got Efren, siegel, hall, parica and Varner, and that group combined along with strikland and a few others, we're basically impossible to beat and they "missed".
Any way, I knew Sax personally and yes, with the upright stance and in his 70's and 80 years of age, the guy had tremendous fire power and wasn't any where near the player he used to be and was said to be one of the best position players ever and I believe it.
He used to go around pool halls as "the masked marvel" and if you could beat him, you got some money or something. It was common knowledge he could run out nine ball into one hole. Not every time or else it turns into another "story" you constantly hear out there like Mosconi whippin ass on Davis blindfolded shooting with is left foot etc etc......but Sax and his abilities were quite well true. The guy was a very special player but even he himself admitted when I asked him, because varner was coming to town and I never seen a world champion play before in real life, if he played better position than Nick and he said "HELL NO, Nick is a world champion and can do ANYTHING, you'll see".
He was basically right from what I did in fact see. Dead cold out of the car from an all day drive, nick put his cue together, broke a full rack of 15 balls and ran it out first try in rotation, on a severly tight triple face pocket, gold crown 2.......piece of cake and everyone applauded.
I scratched my head and asked a friend what the hell was the big deal? Talk about ass licking at its finest.....he said, "dude, he ran it out in sequential order".
Ohhhh? Ok, gotcha lol, I didn't know or realize that lol.....wow yeah, let me get in line fo sum of dat butt lick'n.
What a dumbass i was for not realizing that. True story.
Oh?......well I don't see you stepping up to play either one of them, so..........
Hee hee!
I'd love to play Davis just to pick his brain and study his form/shooting style. He is also a great chess player. As far as Mosconi, I'm sure I'd run over top of him now. :thumbup:
Dr. Dave hasn't figured out anything about CTE and bringing his name up doesn't add one ounce of reality to your opinion.
I'm just rehashing his exact assessment of CTE as stated here....http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE.
I reached my assessment through mathematics and table time. Not sure how Dr Dave reached his, but it's pretty spot on with what I've found. He even provides a table showing bridge/pivot adjustments needed for varying distances between the CB and OB. Either he got that from one of Stan's DVD's or he calculated it like I've done. Can't remember if it's in the first DVD....been too many years since I watched it.
I'd love to play Davis just to pick his brain and study his form/shooting style. He is also a great chess player. As far as Mosconi, I'm sure I'd run over top of him now. :thumbup:
No doubt, much could be learned from a guy like Davis. If Strikland picks his brain, then that's enough proof right there and there's a video somewhere, perhaps TAR, where Strikland talks about a particular modified snooker stance he uses from Davis as well.
Davis is the only player I've seen, amongst a deluge of players i "hear" do this, but they don't, and that is, keeps his head perfectly still. He's the only one I've seen, short of mr Shuffett himself, who also strokes down the line extremely well, but still not as good as Davis in that regard as well.
Im positive there are others but never the ones i "hear" about. Its as if people see what they want to believe or something.
That takes me to your video you recommended about ignoring rails and other visual distractions and just engraining the shotline based on the aim line. I got to be honest, I didn't get much out of that video but what I did take away from it, is that you do a very good job of getting underneath the objective and breaking it down for what it actually is.
Your recent pivot/angle work is obviously compelling at the very least IMO, and I would say the filler in the gaps you are finding, if true according to bottomline angle attacks, is simply a miss alignment of some sort on particular shots that need another nuance to satisfy the requirements.
Brian, your findings are based on pure paper analysis, correct? If we juxtapose your stroke mechanics into the mix, then obviously the whole experiment or trials get thrown out the window.
You gots dat helpin stroke fo sho mang. Reminds me of Efren, but I don't think it works well with CTE. But this isn't about your stroke, just trying to clarify something.
Thanks.
DR. Dave as a reference. He's been told for years that he has bad info about CTE on his site. He doesn't care that he has false info. Now you use him as a reference. Don't you think if the how was that easy Stan would also know it. Do you realize how long the argument about the HOW has gone on, years.
This is exactly why all discussions should really stop and everyone should save there energy for when the book comes out.
What I like to do is sketch something out, do the math, then go to the table and aim exactly where the math tells me to aim. Of course this isn't standard play, it's just a method of testing ideas, a scientific approach I suppose.
I won't happen.
They will still find 'something isn't right'.
If Moses himself came back to earth, parted the Red Sea, and did a demonstration of the CTE aiming with an Egyptian king's sword.....they still would say "something isn't right".
They're obsessed with science, diagrams, protractors and T-squares, probably slide rules too (if they can find one nowadays), "so and so said this", "so and so said that", "it is not accurate"...............Man, it can go on forever.:boring2: (If I had to go through all that stuff to shoot pool balls, I'd quit and take up golf)
They're not going to study any book, video, even personal instruction at the Temple in Israel,.............NONE of it will matter one bit.
That's why people like CJ Wiley and Stan Shuffett packed up and got the hell out of town. Why go through the grief......:shrug:
:thumbup:
Cookieman....that won't make a bit of difference to the soothsayers. None whatsoever.
They will still find 'something isn't right'.
If Moses himself came back to earth, parted the Red Sea, and did a demonstration of the CTE aiming with an Egyptian king's sword.....they still would say "something isn't right".
They're obsessed with science, diagrams, protractors and T-squares, probably slide rules too (if they can find one nowadays), "so and so said this", "so and so said that", "it is not accurate"...............Man, it can go on forever.:boring2: (If I had to go through all that stuff to shoot pool balls, I'd quit and take up golf)
They're not going to study any book, video, even personal instruction at the Temple in Israel,.............NONE of it will matter one bit.
That's why people like CJ Wiley and Stan Shuffett packed up and got the hell out of town. Why go through the grief......:shrug:
:thumbup:
Exactly. The numbers don't lie, so what you are deducing is basically one of two things. There's a extra inherent help of judgment or stroke/alignment compensation or simply or a open mind of "it" being released in the book, correct?
Or perhaps a bridge distance measurement is in order and hasn't been examined yet? Im not sure if you factored a bridge distance constant in your examinations but I would think you did. A varying bridge distance would change the calculations for sure.
Let me get one thing straight and anyone who knows for sure, please respond if you like.
Question, in CTE developed by mr Shuffett, the end result before pulling the trigger is.....a center cueball strike of your shaft tip, relative to what?
The visual perception or the shotline itself, based on center to center axis points?
I've heard Stan reference or state at least once about shots, not sure if it runs the entire zero to 45 realm or all shots, like I said im not sure......as "straight in's".
Does this mean a 30 degree cut for instance looks like a straight in to your vision at address, and a offset to compensate?
Don't understand what he meant by that but thanks in advance.
stockbob55
Registered
Does anyone have this cte pro one for sale or know where a copy is available. I would like to check out the system debated in this thread.
PS I don't use any system for aiming.
PS I don't use any system for aiming.
Last edited:
Stan's done a ton of videos explaining the system from footwork to bridge placement. Search for his channel on youtube and get ready for your head to explode.
I'm pretty sure Dr. Dave knows more about how CTE does (and doesn't) work than any of its users.
Good luck to you and other CTErs - I'm sure it helps you a lot. But science and logic aren't your strong suits.
pj
chgo
Judging by the stuff Dr. Dave posts about CTE, he doesn't know much about it. He has even admitted that he never had the time to fully learn CTE.
Why you have to go with insults. Things have been civil in here. Are you that bored.
And judging by the stuff you post about CTE you don't know much about the science and logic of it. How is that an insult and your comment about Dr. Dave's knowledge isn't?
Again, good luck with it.
pj
chgo
This thread was dead on 11-18-17. Some curious user bumped it up asking for some info and then some asshole comes in and starts making snarky remarks about CTE, again.
Begone, troll.
Begone, troll.
Vorpal Cue said in reply to the curious user: "Search for his channel on youtube and get ready for your head to explode."
I thought that was pretty snarky, too. I took that to mean that the videos are so inscrutable that heads explode, not that you will learn so much about how great CTE is that your head will explode. Otherwise, your post on the pivot triangle was quite interesting.
I meant there's enough info in there to make your head explode. To think the comment was snarky is just plain silly, imho.
Thanks for the plug on the PT. More coming, stay tuned.
Thanks for the plug on the PT. More coming, stay tuned.
Well we each have our own point of view colored by our opinion of Stan's version of CTE. For instance, I thought you were being snarky while Pat was actually being factual. Some people around here (not you) like to admonish everybody while they themselves do the same exact thing, and often quite a bit worse. I've documented examples in the past. The explanation is usually something like, "Yeah, but it's OK when I do it because you deserve it." Fits the overall profile.
You're welcome re PT.
- Status