That's one of Stan's very best informative videos.
Thank you Stan Shuffett!
Randy
Goettlicher
PBIA Master Instructor
and Hal Houle follower.
Another video from Stan: The How vs. The Why
- Thread starter mohrt
- Start date
That's one of Stan's very best informative videos.
Thank you Stan Shuffett!
Randy
Goettlicher
PBIA Master Instructor
and Hal Houle follower.
I was including you in the 3. Not because I consider you overtly against CTE but because I was trying to be generous to Dan's cause.
I don't want to feud with you, sixpack. If that's what you believe then so be it. Of course, if there are only like 2 guys complaining all the time, why did Stan take his marbles and stop off from the forum, and then go on a video producing bender?
You must have seen Alice's restaurant................As I read it I thought about Arlo saying it.
I was including you in the 3. Not because I consider you overtly against CTE but because I was trying to be generous to Dan's cause.
Lol. What a guy.
. That's fine to include me with Dan and Lou, because I haven't judged Dan or anyone else here based on anything prior to my joining AZ. I can't help that I have the same issues with CTE that they have, and I don't consider any of us as being haters or destroyers of CTE. Anyway, thanks.
That's what I keep hearing, that the questions have been answered. But when specific questions are asked, especially concerning multiple shot angles from the same perception and pivot, or why it's called objective even though the only objective part art the visuals themselves, which is very much like the fractional aim points that Stan refuses to call objective....I could go on but there's no use.
The only answers I've read here on AZ (and listened to on YouTube) are generic responses like, "it just works", or "you don't know what you don't know", or "it's apples and oranges", or "it's a mysterious phenomenon", or "it's simple", or "anybody can do it", etc.... I could search for every "answer" I've seen or heard and none come close to actually answering my questions it Dan's questions. That's why I hope Stan's book will at least provide something that is logical enough to answer some things.
Trust me: I have been observing this goat rope for 20 years. The questions have *never* been answered.
Yet, regardless, it's their stock answer -- it's been answered numerous times, blah, blah, blah. Never been answered or they'd quote it or post a link.
Lou Figueroa
it's not that tough unless...
it's never been answered
well, they do get answered. I've answered a lot of them, over and over. I wish I put together an FAQ so we can just point there. It takes a lot of time and effort to go though each question and answer them in a very thorough way. then, often we just go in circles and then some later time the same questions get asked again. and again. after awhile we get tired of answering the same old questions and then stop. so then it becomes "we never get answers". Its frustrating from this end of it too, just saying.
They want everyone to do it all for them.
Can you explain why the correct sweep is learned over time and why it isnt written in stone or obvious. Ive always been curious of this.
If its too hard to explain, then dont trouble yourself. I tried to compile it myself as if a chart could be made and it appears its very complicated. It can be quantified i believe, but the chart would be a nightmare and i agree its best to just learn it over time and then it becomes obvious.....but not always.
Is there shot angles, depending on where it lays on the table, where left or right sweep is basically the same result? I believe the answer is yes but not sure.
Thanks.
Good morning,
The purpose of the sweep is simple! Once you have determined the visual and which pivot (inside or outside), you just move you, your cue, your bridge to center cue ball. Then you are on the shot line. That's it. In my opinion, Stan's best video (one of the earliest) regarding CTE is the Pro One Support Video. This video explains best about the sweep. This video put it all together for me. If you want to understand it watch that video.
What CTE has done for me is this... I used to be afraid of certain shots on the table. Now, I no longer fear those same shots.
Good day.
The purpose of the sweep is simple! Once you have determined the visual and which pivot (inside or outside), you just move you, your cue, your bridge to center cue ball. Then you are on the shot line. That's it. In my opinion, Stan's best video (one of the earliest) regarding CTE is the Pro One Support Video. This video explains best about the sweep. This video put it all together for me. If you want to understand it watch that video.
What CTE has done for me is this... I used to be afraid of certain shots on the table. Now, I no longer fear those same shots.
Good day.
Last edited:
From CCB, does the shot need thickened or thinned? That determines the sweep.
lol, oh, the irony. More: they've been answered non-answers.
Reminds me of the old MP sketch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Lou Figueroa
Yes, i understand all that guys and thanks, but the question remains as to why it has to be determined. Why is it not clear cut and dry because a shot relationship is a static angle. Its not changing before my eyes or anyone else's like a change in wind or something.
Ok, let me ask this, would a right handed player, over time, be sweeping one direction more than the other if it was recorded over time?
Im trying to figure out why this particular aspect, that should be very objective, is too hard to explain and needs to be learned rather that a fixed chart to reference when one is not sure.
This in all reality is not about CTE because a sweep from the side, one way or the other, is part of a process that Stan is right about, most good players sweep whether they know it or not.
So like in poolology, quadrants can be converted to numbers, therefore, a shot relationship angle should be able to be calculated to a definite left or right sweep determination based on adding up the quadrant numbers.....however one would do that.
Im not trying to make a chart per say, just trying to clarify a phenomenon that certainly is real, but seems difficult to determine exactly.
Im sure some of you CTE users have swept the wrong way. Ive also seen Stan have to take a extra second to determine a sweep. Thats why i theorized some shots may in fact be neutral and dont need a sweep but most shots do.
I hope this clarifies my question, thanks.
The sweep direction is always determined by how the shot lays from the given perception: thicker or thinner. That is always the variable to determine. I don't know how else to explain it. You can't map perceptions or sweeps to static angles.
Adding valuable information to a conversation, as always!
I asked Stan this same question about determining thick or thin. He said any player can recognize whether or not the perception is providing a thick or thin CCB alignment. He insisted it was an automatic process, that the player would just know. I suggested they would only know if they were already good shooters, so this determination of thick or thin is based on individual player experience, not on any solid objective criteria.
The perceptions, however, I would agree are objective in the same manner as any well-defined fractional aim point.
Lol. What a guy.
I don't have much history in the aiming forum either. I think I started posting in it about the same time you did.
Anyway, it's all good. I don't think anybody is a 'hater'. I just feel like you guys are pushing on points that really there is no good answer to. I'm waiting for the book.