Alignments Contrast Video And Speed Contrast Video by Stan

mohrt said:

Three-Quarter Fractional Alignment Contrast to the CTE 15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrs0aWd9TD4


ASS-Speed Variable Isolation for a 15 Inside

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFrpI-5rKbM

Click to expand...

First clip: The shot is thinner than a 3/4 aim. That's why a 3/4 aim was fat. It looks closer to 20° than 15°, but could be because of the camera angle. Regardless, setting up a shot that a 3/4 aim won't pocket, just to show that a 3/4 aim won't work, is a little funny.

Second clip: He is hitting one tip above center, firm. This creates top spin, which reduces CIT. So the throw ends up being about the same at both speeds. In every other CTE example he uses (and says he prefers) a stun shot, which surely adds a couple of degrees of CIT. I think that's what Dan White was asking.....how does a player account for the changing angle between a firm stun shot and a normally rolling CB shot? Well, I know I've asked that question anyway.

BC21 said:

First clip: The shot is thinner than a 3/4 aim. That's why a 3/4 aim was fat. It looks closer to 20° than 15°, but could be because of the camera angle. Regardless, setting up a shot that a 3/4 aim won't pocket, just to show that a 3/4 aim won't work, is a little funny.

Second clip: He is hitting one tip above center, firm. This creates top spin, which reduces CIT. So the throw ends up being about the same at both speeds. In every other CTE example he uses (and says he prefers) a stun shot, which surely adds a couple of degrees of CIT. I think that's what Dan White was asking.....how does a player account for the changing angle between a firm stun shot and a normally rolling CB shot? Well, I know I've asked that question anyway.

Click to expand...

After this post I've come to the conclusion you aren't about learning and understanding CTE better. It's all about dissecting it with your own spin to turn it all into a negative affair. Damn good thing I didn't waste my time based on the outcome of events. I can only imagine what would have come out of it.

Here's an idea for you. Set up the same shot or multiple shots and show what needs to be done with the fractional aim points for YOUR system when you change the speed and follow on youtube. Do a video.

That's the ONLY thing you should be focused on.

SpiderWebComm said:

After this post I've come to the conclusion you aren't about learning and understanding CTE better. It's all about dissecting it with your own spin to turn it all into a negative affair. Damn good thing I didn't waste my time based on the outcome of events. I can only imagine what would have come out of it.

Here's an idea for you. Set up the same shot or multiple shots and show what needs to be done with the fractional aim points for YOUR system when you change the speed and follow on youtube. Do a video.

That's the ONLY thing you should be focused on.

Click to expand...

I am simply showing the obvious misinformation presented here concerning fractional aiming. Stan has made many videos where he calls the shot angle out specifically. In every one he is wrong because he uses the wrong line to determine shot angle. The 15° angle here is not the shot angle -- it is the angle between the centerline of the balls and the line from center OB to the pocket. I don't see how anyone can really learn with such misinformation as this being out there. The shot angle is measured from the CB to GB line, not CB to OB line. I'm sure you know this, but I don't expect you to speak up. Somebody has to though.

BC21 said:

I am simply showing the obvious misinformation presented here concerning fractional aiming.

Click to expand...

If a picture is worth a thousand words then a video must be worth 10,000.

DO A FRACTIOAL AIMING VIDEO OF YOUR OWN. You're the one with a fractional aiming system being sold.

SpiderWebComm said:

If a picture is worth a thousand words then a video must be worth 10,000.

DO A FRACTIOAL AIMING VIDEO OF YOUR OWN. You're the one with a fractional aiming system being sold.

Click to expand...

Here is the sketch of the shot....the actual angle is not 15°, so there's no surprise that 3/4 aim doesn't work. I believe instructional information should be somewhat accurate in order for players to learn.

BC21 said:

I believe instructional information should be somewhat accurate in order for players to learn.

Click to expand...

And do you have any friggin' idea how many thousands (yes thousands) of times Hal Houle and Stan's material has been mischaracterized, misinterpreted, misidentified, twisted and spun so out of hand over the last 20 YEARS? They just make sh!t up and start harping on it to see what sticks. Then get strength in numbers from more haters aligned with their cause.

No, you couldn't because you've only been HERE for 8 MONTHS and one of those who do the above.

If an individual or a group of hateful antagonistic troublemakers picked you and your system out as a target to rip apart starting 8 months ago and continued the onslaught for another 19+ years, how do you think you'd react?

You think it's impossible because the system is so perfect? WRONG! It could be dissected and ripped to shreds whether correct or incorrect, doesn't matter. You would be in a DEFENSIVE posture for the rest of your life if they had the zeal and inclination.

Let me ask you a question that I did a few days ago. Do you ever stop running your mouth like a woman just to be on top and get the final say? Your wife must be the ONLY woman on Earth who loses to her husband.

SpiderWebComm said:

And do you have any friggin' idea how many thousands (yes thousands) of times Hal Houle and Stan's material has been mischaracterized, misinterpreted, misidentified, twisted and spun so out of hand over the last 20 YEARS? They just make sh!t up and start harping on it to see what sticks. Then get strength in numbers from more haters aligned with their cause.

No, you couldn't because you've only been HERE for 8 MONTHS and one of those who do the above.

If an individual or a group of hateful antagonistic troublemakers picked you and your system out as a target to rip apart starting 8 months ago and continued the onslaught for another 19+ years, how do you think you'd react?

You think it's impossible because the system is so perfect? WRONG! It could be dissected and ripped to shreds whether correct or incorrect, doesn't matter. You would be in a DEFENSIVE posture for the rest of your life if they had the zeal and inclination.

Let me ask you a question that I did a few days ago. Do you ever stop running your mouth like a woman just to be on top and get the final say? Your wife must be the ONLY woman on Earth who loses to her husband.

Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from regarding novice or non CTE users misrepresenting CTE. But those aren't certified, professional instructors providing obvious misinformation. I expect more from people that claim to be more.

And my wife is a very smart woman. If she knew anything about pool she'd point out the same errors I'm pointing out. She wouldn't dance around the erroneous information like it didn't exist. And no, I don't always win. But the arguments are much more logical and we don't put each other down over simple differences of opinion.

It's like at work or in a pool hall, if someone blatantly says something factually incorrect (I know that never happens :grin-square, do you just accept it or do you speak up and call the guy out on it? Do the same thing here, and not just with me or Dan or Lou. You and many others often seem to thrive on hypocrisy.

Sorry to get off topic Mohrt. I assume this videos are in direct response to Dan questioning Stan about how he fires every example shot in with firm stun, and I thought it was only fair to point out that that isn't what Stan is doing here. And also that a 3/4 aim isn't supposed to work on a 20° shot.

BC21 said:

I understand where you are coming from regarding novice or non CTE users misrepresenting CTE.

So why are you, Lou, and Dan always doing it and expect to get away with murder? You're all non CTE users misrepresenting CTE. You aren't understanding anything about where I'm coming from or where you are.

It's like at work or in a pool hall, if someone blatantly says something factually incorrect (I know that never happens :grin-square, do you just accept it or do you speak up and call the guy out on it? Do the same thing here, and not just with me or Dan or Lou. You and many others often seem to thrive on hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much for including yourself with Lou and Dan and being in their camp. It's what I've been saying for a long time now.

The last sentence, "You and many others often seem to thrive on hypocrisy", is a real identifier of the group divisions with you definitely not in the CTE group or neutral. And of course, you don't see yourself guilty of any hypocrisy.

SpiderWebComm said:

Thank you very much for including yourself with Lou and Dan and being in their camp. It's what I've been saying for a long time now.

The last sentence, "You and many others often seem to thrive on hypocrisy", is a real identifier of the group divisions with you definitely not in the CTE group or neutral. And of course, you don't see yourself guilty of any hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

I don't recall ever providing CTE instructions to anyone, so how can it be said that I'm teaching misinformation? I've asked questions, suggested possible methods, etc....but never gave an error-filled lesson. My beer bottle perception was accurate, as was my aiming with hockey pucks. Even Stan said he could get the cte perceptions with pucks.

It's like debating with people from outer space that have their own language and laws of physics. When it comes to cte, we just can't communicate in a constructive manner. After the book release I'll look you up and maybe I'll be able to speak your language.

BC21 said:

I don't recall ever providing CTE instructions to anyone, so how can it be said that I'm teaching misinformation? I've asked questions, suggested possible methods, etc....but never gave an error-filled lesson.

Cut the crap with the misdirection of giving an error filled instructional lesson and taking this somewhere else. You didn't just ask questions. You gave error filled assumptive misinformation in your posts repeatedly.

It's like debating with people from outer space that have their own language and laws of physics. When it comes to cte, we just can't communicate in a constructive manner. After the book release I'll look you up and maybe I'll be able to speak your language.

Click to expand...

Do you think you can hold to what you just said? It's the best idea you've come up with so far. I'll promise if you will. Actually, it is a different language.

No need to answer with a response. Just shake your head up and down and maybe I'll hear the rattle. (I couldn't pass that one up, relax) :grin-devilish:

mohrt said:

BC21, I don't think you are interpreting this video for what it is meant to be. This isn't about the 3/4 ball shot hitting the pocket or not, Stan is simply contrasting the 3/4 ball hit to CTE 15 degree perception, nothing more. He is even marking the rail where the fractional hit is taking the ball. Of course the 3/4 ball hit doesn't go to the pocket on a 20D shot, and the video isn't trying to convey that at all.

Click to expand...

Stan specifically says it's a 14.5° cut. Then he goes on to explain how in order to make this cut using a one line fractional aim, you actually have to adjust your aim about a 16th thinner. Well, that means it isn't a 3/4 aimed shot. He then goes on to explain the simplicity and objectivity of using 3 steps with CTE. What I find unbelievable is the fact that one aim to the appropriate spot on the CB (which here would be a 5/8 aim) would be the most simple and straight-forward approach. It's also an objective aim point because it's a known, repeatable solution.

But if I've misinterpreted what he's doing I apologise. I am thinking of my system, not the traditional Quarters system. So he really doesn't know what fraction to use, he's just estimating that it's about a 15° shot so he uses the 3/4 as an example.

mohrt said:

From what I gather, Stan dropped this shot on the table and marked it (for reset purposes), then showed that an exact 3/4 ball connection indeed comes short of the pocket. The 3/4 ball connection is ~14.5 degrees, hitting the rail. (not the cut to the pocket)

So to make this shot connect to the pocket, you would have to thin it to some extent. A fractional shot would require a fractional judgement call. It's not always going to fall on 5/8 or what have you.

With CTE, you can use a 15 degree perception, and then with a strict pivot find the shot line. No fractional judgement calls. It visually works the same for shots that fall within the 15 degree perception. I think that was the point being made here. Be very clear, 15 degree perception is not equal to a strict 15 degree angle. That nomenclature should be understood.

Click to expand...

Ok. That makes sense. The only thing is, the fractional aim no longer has to be based on guesswork. It can be determined very accurately. I can't comment on the CTE portion of the video because I only know as far as the perception. But I have never said it doesn't work, only asked too many why or how questions about it. But maybe my questions were too probing, like I once asked what the exact angle range was for each perception. I'll admit that I tend to focus on details and get a little compulsive with over-analyzing things. Anyhow, I'm good with waiting and buying the book to maybe get the rest of it understood. Maybe I'll never understand it, and that's ok also.

SpiderWebComm said:

Do you think you can hold to what you just said? It's the best idea you've come up with so far. I'll promise if you will. Actually, it is a different language.

No need to answer with a response. Just shake your head up and down and maybe I'll hear the rattle. (I couldn't pass that one up, relax) :grin-devilish:

Click to expand...

That was a good one. :yeah:

mohrt said:

Three-Quarter Fractional Alignment Contrast to the CTE 15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrs0aWd9TD4


ASS-Speed Variable Isolation for a 15 Inside

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFrpI-5rKbM

Click to expand...

I haven't watched the first video yet, but did see the second one. I disagree a little with Brian's interpretation. This video is extremely revealing and says a lot... a whole lot more than Stan realizes. If I have time I'll post up a video to explain what I mean, unless somebody beats me to it. I think we are finally beginning to unravel the mystery of CTE.

Please make more videos, Stan! :thumbup:

BC21 said:

Ok. That makes sense. The only thing is, the fractional aim no longer has to be based on guesswork. It can be determined very accurately. I can't comment on the CTE portion of the video because I only know as far as the perception. But I have never said it doesn't work, only asked too many why or how questions about it. But maybe my questions were too probing, like I once asked what the exact angle range was for each perception. I'll admit that I tend to focus on details and get a little compulsive with over-analyzing things. Anyhow, I'm good with waiting and buying the book to maybe get the rest of it understood. Maybe I'll never understand it, and that's ok also.

Click to expand...

I think the disconnect here Bryan is the perception part of it. I can set up shots with very different angles and make them all aiming at the same thing by varying my perception only slightly.

It's how I shoot in straight shots. I can aim at the exact same thing and pivot and make anything from straight in to about 10 degrees or so just by letting my head float around naturally.

If you aim everything like a rifle (eye, tip, cb, aim point all in a straight line) and try to shift back to that perception when you pivot then you lose the flexibility that the perception shift gives you.

Stan talks about in one of his videos about how you can pivot without moving your head (i.e. not re-aligning your aim) and the center of the cue looks like it is aimed at the contact point.

In reality the perception is off slightly and the cue is aimed at the aim point.

But that perception difference gives you the correct aim point without knowing the correct aim point if you can see the contact point. Like on almost straight in shots.

With starting at the fractional points it works similarly. If you align and aim for the 3/4 ball hit and then pivot - without moving your head - to the center of the CB it will look like the cue is aimed at the CP but it really is aimed at the correct aim spot. It's a combination of deflection and perception delta that makes the shot from there.

It's not surprising that CTE does not work on paper if you don't account for the perception shift. The entire system (at least my understanding of it) is based on the relationship between the perception of the true aim point and the true aim point.

What Stan is working on now with multiple lines and falling into place - I don't really know what he's talking about yet but I can't wait to find out.

BC21 said:

Stan specifically says it's a 14.5° cut. Then he goes on to explain how in order to make this cut using a one line fractional aim, you actually have to adjust your aim about a 16th thinner. Well, that means it isn't a 3/4 aimed shot. He then goes on to explain the simplicity and objectivity of using 3 steps with CTE. What I find unbelievable is the fact that one aim to the appropriate spot on the CB (which here would be a 5/8 aim) would be the most simple and straight-forward approach. It's also an objective aim point because it's a known, repeatable solution.

But if I've misinterpreted what he's doing I apologise. I am thinking of my system, not the traditional Quarters system. So he really doesn't know what fraction to use, he's just estimating that it's about a 15° shot so he uses the 3/4 as an example.

Click to expand...

Gadzooks! Who among us can reliably distinguish a 14.5 degree angle from a 15, 16, or even 17 degree angle?!

Lou Figueroa
still working on
the dif between
45 and 90