CTE/ PRO ONE with Stan Shuffett

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick Johnson said:
That's untrue. You couldn't explain what you do clearly, even in person at a pool table. There was nothing that could be "tried" by anybody but you. I know you won't agree with this - that's because you simply don't understand it.

In fact, the apparent inability of any CTE user to explain himself, confirmed by your inability to do so in person, is the most revealing thing about how CTE really works. (Here comes the Code of Silence excuse.)

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Again with the untrue? I tried to SHOW you what I was doing so that you could duplicate it. Apparenlty 22 year old Chinese players who don't even speak English are better than you at just going through the motions and seeing if they can "get it" that way.

This is the crux of it. Even in person you CLING to the it must explained in millimeter precise detail or I won't try it.

I was able to explain myself, you were unable to understand, which only confirmed your obstinance on the subject.

You COULD have said ok John let me try to do what you're doing and see what you see. But no, you DEMANDED that I explain WHY I put my bridge hand down in a certain place and WHY I use the edge of the object ball, and HOW that can possibly work when it comes to sending the object ball to different locations.

If you remember right I said clearly that I don't know HOW to explain those things but I would just show you the steps of what I do and maybe we could go from there. Which I did.

I also explained my own theory on why CTE works and also how I have chosen to extend a line from the edge of the object ball the pocket and extend the CTE line to meet that line. I know that's not textbook CTE but it's the way I use it in order to use it to shoot the object ball to places other than a pocket. That's my own personal modification.

In other words I was open about everything I know about CTE as I use it.

I honestly do not think that if Hal or Dave Segal were standing there that the outcome would have been any different. And it's not because they are "unable" to explain CTE to you, it's because you are UNABLE to drop the wall you have erected on this subject and as such that makes you UNABLE to even try it and see where it goes.

Which isn't normally a problem. You can play well enough and seem satisfied in your game. You don't need CTE even if you understood the underpinnings of it. So you ought to just let it go. But you and I discussed the reasons why you don't and they don't have anything to do with CTE.

That you have a different perspective on the content of our meeting is no surprise. However to say that I am speaking untruths about it is a stretch. In my limited capacity I gave you all I had knowing the wall I was up against. That you chose to remain close-minded about it is your issue not mine. I see your side of it in certain aspects and in others I still disagree.

Mostly I disagree because you take the liberty to define and dissect something you cannot even do.
 
totally agree

mantis99 said:
Man this nice thread sure got out of hand. I guess I will give a few opinions regarding this topic.

First, while I generally really disagree with get me there, I did not take his original post about his intentions regarding the DVD to mean that he was going to give away the actual secrets, but to instead say what was on the DVD as far as valueable lessons or not, and what one can expect to get out of it. To say that he will say exactly what is on the DVD can easily be taken as describing the content in an outline type format that tells you what will be convered.

Second, I don't see how anyone can cover this material in written word in a way that the DVD would describe with visual aids. If I read about this system in detail and found it to be intuiging, I certainly would not find $45 to be too much to order it and learn it first hand. As a matter of fact, I think that would make me consider doing it more to learn it thoroughly instead of just the info I read on here. So that type of discussion will likely increase sales, especially if people continue to report positive results.

In the end, if we have info that someone else has worked hard on, and we can fully divulge it in a way that will allow others to fully understand it, I don't think that would be a good idea, and I would have moral issue with that. I have never explained the mother drills to people, even though Scott Lee says he does not have an issue with that. Partly because I don't think it would be right, and because people would not understand it in a basic explanation. The same will hold true here. Most will realize that a professionally done video with 90 minutes of explanation can't be replaced by a few written words, and will purchase the video if they see value in it. Those that will not buy the video, and wil instead try to learn it by what they read, likely would not have bought it anyways. I am sure this will turn out well for Stan if the video ends uo being what we are hopeing.

One other thing to think about. There are thousands of drilsl and systems available on-line, yet people still buy books and videos on mechanics, fundamentals, CB control etc. People like a concise, well planned body of info from someone they feel they can trust to put out good info. Anyone that is really serious about trying CTE will throw out $45 to learn it from Stan.
Click to expand...


Totally agree with your opinion, you formulated exactly what I had in mind when reading all these posts, but I was too lazy to write it down :-)
 
mantis99 said:
Man this nice thread sure got out of hand. I guess I will give a few opinions regarding this topic.

First, while I generally really disagree with get me there, I did not take his original post about his intentions regarding the DVD to mean that he was going to give away the actual secrets, but to instead say what was on the DVD as far as valueable lessons or not, and what one can expect to get out of it. To say that he will say exactly what is on the DVD can easily be taken as describing the content in an outline type format that tells you what will be convered.

Second, I don't see how anyone can cover this material in written word in a way that the DVD would describe with visual aids. If I read about this system in detail and found it to be intuiging, I certainly would not find $45 to be too much to order it and learn it first hand. As a matter of fact, I think that would make me consider doing it more to learn it thoroughly instead of just the info I read on here. So that type of discussion will likely increase sales, especially if people continue to report positive results.

In the end, if we have info that someone else has worked hard on, and we can fully divulge it in a way that will allow others to fully understand it, I don't think that would be a good idea, and I would have moral issue with that. I have never explained the mother drills to people, even though Scott Lee says he does not have an issue with that. Partly because I don't think it would be right, and because people would not understand it in a basic explanation. The same will hold true here. Most will realize that a professionally done video with 90 minutes of explanation can't be replaced by a few written words, and will purchase the video if they see value in it. Those that will not buy the video, and wil instead try to learn it by what they read, likely would not have bought it anyways. I am sure this will turn out well for Stan if the video ends uo being what we are hopeing.

One other thing to think about. There are thousands of drilsl and systems available on-line, yet people still buy books and videos on mechanics, fundamentals, CB control etc. People like a concise, well planned body of info from someone they feel they can trust to put out good info. Anyone that is really serious about trying CTE will throw out $45 to learn it from Stan.
Click to expand...

You're right mantis about some of these things but one thing you're not right about is GMT. He specfically said that after getting the video he was going to PROVIDE SPECIFIC DETAILS about how CTE/Pro One works.

I'm glad to see that you and others have some morale issues with divulging how CTE/Pro One works.

Just for the record, like ANY aiming system, aiming is a small portion of what you need to know to become a top player.

Have you ever noticed that CTE/Pro One afficianados seem like they have fun playing pool? In the past, I just thought that they were listening to a different drummer and it takes all kinds of people to make the world go 'round.

Anyway, for those that don't like it or don't want to use it; no problem, don't use it.

This antagonistic attitude from a few started a very long time ago and it continues to today.

I've taken a lot of pestering from some of my "stalkers" and they aren't the worst group of guys in the world and even they have their good points.

I also predict that there will be people who do not appreciate CTE/Pro One for what it is and what it brings to the pool world.

Overall, CTE/Pro One will be perceived in a positive light and will be utilized by the majority that apply themselves to it.

JoeyA
 
Patrick Johnson said:
That's untrue. You couldn't explain what you do clearly, even in person at a pool table. There was nothing that could be "tried" by anybody but you. I know you won't agree with this - that's because you simply don't understand it.

In fact, the apparent inability of any CTE user to explain himself, confirmed by your inability to do so in person, is the most revealing thing about how CTE really works. (Here comes the Code of Silence excuse.)

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Now here's where I get sort of lost. In your opinion John couldn't explain what he was doing to your satisfaction so this means what??

It appears to me that you and Dr. Dave and GMT, as well as others, take this stance and you're saying that because others can't explain it in terms that meet your specifications then that implies that ????? That the method doesn't work? That it's "wrong"? That anybody that sells the method is less than holy?

What is it that you are implying? You ARE implying something. Your use of the word "excuse" implies something.

To me your use of the word "excuse" implies that you are viewing from above, that you are owed something, that somebody SHOULD be living up to your rules, that you are somehow superior. are large and in charge and others have some explaining to do.

You ARE implying something with your constant argumentative stance(s)and I think it's condescending. You do this... Dr. Know It All does this... others of your ilk do this. Lots of people with a high level of scientific training do this. You/they take the stance that if others can't explain things in the same terms that you use then they just aren't to be taken seriously and can be laughed off. That's how you guys come across to me. You come across as condescending a**holes. I'm not saying you ARE condescending a**holes. I'm saying that it's my subjective interpretation of your words and methods that makes you come across, to me (and the implication is that you come across this way to others as well),... that you come across as conscending a**holes.
 
I'm a recovering alcoholic. I go to AA and I subscribe to the idea that I NEED... NEED!!... a Higher Power in my life in order to get into recovery and to stay recovering. I can't explain it. Nobody can explain how that works... but it dammed sure DOES work for more addicted people than anything else has ever worked. The "system", or "method" is NOT perfect. It doesn't work for some people. (Most of the people for whom it doesn't work want it to be explained and it's just not explainable so for them.. it won't work and they blow it off.)

Well.... I've bought, paid for and adopted several difference pieces of aiming ideas and I can't begin to explain how they have coalesced into a system that works pretty well for me (i.e. better than what I did have) but I paid for those ideas and I'm happy with the results... the quality of my life has improved so what I bought was a good buy.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation” Herbert Spencer.
 
JimS said:
Now here's where I get sort of lost. In your opinion John couldn't explain what he was doing to your satisfaction so this means what??

It appears to me that you and Dr. Dave and GMT, as well as others, take this stance and you're saying that because others can't explain it in terms that meet your specifications then that implies that ????? That the method doesn't work? That it's "wrong"? That anybody that sells the method is less than holy?

What is it that you are implying? You ARE implying something. Your use of the word "excuse" implies something.

To me your use of the word "excuse" implies that you are viewing from above, that you are owed something, that somebody SHOULD be living up to your rules, that you are somehow superior. are large and in charge and others have some explaining to do.

You ARE implying something with your constant argumentative stance(s)and I think it's condescending. You do this... Dr. Know It All does this... others of your ilk do this. Lots of people with a high level of scientific training do this. You/they take the stance that if others can't explain things in the same terms that you use then they just aren't to be taken seriously and can be laughed off. That's how you guys come across to me. You come across as condescending a**holes. I'm not saying you ARE condescending a**holes. I'm saying that it's my subjective interpretation of your words and methods that makes you come across, to me (and the implication is that you come across this way to others as well),... that you come across as conscending a**holes.
Click to expand...

It would seem the silent majority has spoken. Nice post, Jim.

Best,
Mike
 
JimS said:
I'm a recovering alcoholic. I go to AA and I subscribe to the idea that I NEED... NEED!!... a Higher Power in my life in order to get into recovery and to stay recovering. I can't explain it. Nobody can explain how that works... but it dammed sure DOES work for more addicted people than anything else has ever worked. The "system", or "method" is NOT perfect. It doesn't work for some people. (Most of the people for whom it doesn't work want it to be explained and it's just not explainable so for them.. it won't work and they blow it off.)

Well.... I've bought, paid for and adopted several difference pieces of aiming ideas and I can't begin to explain how they have coalesced into a system that works pretty well for me (i.e. better than what I did have) but I paid for those ideas and I'm happy with the results... the quality of my life has improved so what I bought was a good buy.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation” Herbert Spencer.
Click to expand...

Wish I could rep you again, another great post!
 
John:
you DEMANDED that I explain WHY I put my bridge hand down in a certain place and WHY I use the edge of the object ball, and HOW that can possibly work when it comes to sending the object ball to different locations.
Click to expand...
Stop with all the emotional editing, John. I ASKED what to do differently for different shots. You didn't have an answer.

When I tried to walk step by step with you through your description of how you executed shots, we went through all the preliminary steps that don't change and got to the point where you visualized the intersection of two lines (the CTE line and another line connecting the outer edge of the CB with the center of the OB), which you clearly considered key to finalizing your shot alignment. But when asked what should be done with that information you stood there like a deer in the headlights, unable to answer. Exactly what was I supposed to "try"?

This is the same nonsense accusation CTE questioners always get: we're accused of not being willing to try what you can't describe. That's not our obstinate closed-mindedness - it's your obstinate lunacy.

I guess we're supposed to just line up for half ball hits and then take random actions until "something clicks". That's about as good a description of CTE as we've heard so far.

pj
chgo
 
JimS said:
...you're saying that because others can't explain it in terms that meet your specifications then that implies that ????? That the method doesn't work? That it's "wrong"? That anybody that sells the method is less than holy?
Click to expand...
"Terms that meet my specifications" would be any explanation at all. If you think we already have that, point it out so we can all get back to Jeanette In The Buff.

pj <- Martians, I tell ya
chgo
 
Mikjary said:
Jerry, thanks for sharing your experience with your grandfather. I used to fish with mine in the warm summers of Minnesota. It was a real treat since I grew up in Chicago and the occasional open fire hydrant was the only water I ever saw.

I highlighted a part of your post I'm having trouble trying to understand. This exchange seems simple enough, but possibly the timing wasn't? I get the feeling the poster you singled out, who made an offering of dialogue/friendship, is scratching his head right now wondering what is going on?

I understand your radar blinking, but is pushing the "fire" button on a public forum the best diplomacy? I know I'm in the middle of somebody else's issue, but don't you agree this could be a tough pill to swallow if you were him? Nuff' said. JMO

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

Mike...To say I'm skeptical about CTE is probably an understatement as may be evident by my avatar. I offer that not as a reason to stir up another debate but to simply add some context with regard to my 'radar blinking'. Cookie Man (Sorry…don't know the gentleman's real name) has been a frequent poster in these threads and is obviously a proponent.

I'm anal about many things, including communication. I've been told many times that the self imposed adjective 'anal', in my case, is equivalent to asshole! Perhaps I'm guilty as charged! Having said that, if a person I've never met or spoken to was inclined to try and get together with me (i.e., offering dialogue/friendship) to engage in a shared passion as a result of gleaning that we lived in the same proximity, I would have expected to have been approached very differently. Perhaps…

Hey Jerry…I live in Baltimore…if you would like to get together some time and hit a few balls just drop me a line!
vs.
Do you live in Baltimore and do you use CTE?
 
Jerry Yost said:
Mike...To say I'm skeptical about CTE is probably an understatement as may be evident by my avatar. I offer that not as a reason to stir up another debate but to simply add some context with regard to my 'radar blinking'. Cookie Man (Sorry…don't know the gentleman's real name) has been a frequent poster in these threads and is obviously a proponent.

I'm anal about many things, including communication. I've been told many times that the self imposed adjective 'anal', in my case, is equivalent to asshole! Perhaps I'm guilty as charged! Having said that, if a person I've never met or spoken to was inclined to try and get together with me (i.e., offering dialogue/friendship) to engage in a shared passion as a result of gleaning that we lived in the same proximity, I would have expected to have been approached very differently. Perhaps…

Hey Jerry…I live in Baltimore…if you would like to get together some time and hit a few balls just drop me a line!
vs.
Do you live in Baltimore and do you use CTE?
Click to expand...
I guess I misunderstood the CTE under your name. By the way my name is Dave Stem.
 
cookie man said:
He would probably be my brother or my so-called cousin. I'll pm you my no. as long as you won't be an a$$ again.lol
Click to expand...

What a small World. Cookie man & Jerry Yost know each other. I just talked to Jerry and met Dave....go figure!

SPF=randyg
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Stop with all the emotional editing, John. I ASKED what to do differently for different shots. You didn't have an answer.

When I tried to walk step by step with you through your description of how you executed shots, we went through all the preliminary steps that don't change and got to the point where you visualized the intersection of two lines (the CTE line and another line connecting the outer edge of the CB with the center of the OB), which you clearly considered key to finalizing your shot alignment. But when asked what should be done with that information you stood there like a deer in the headlights, unable to answer. Exactly what was I supposed to "try"?

This is the same nonsense accusation CTE questioners always get: we're accused of not being willing to try what you can't describe. That's not our obstinate closed-mindedness - it's your obstinate lunacy.

I guess we're supposed to just line up for half ball hits and then take random actions until "something clicks". That's about as good a description of CTE as we've heard so far.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Ok Pat,

I give up. You're right. CTE is nothing more than start with a half ball aim and wait until something clicks.

That's it. That's what I wanted you to try. You got me.

That's all I do.

You're right Pat. No need to try anything.

All I can say for myself is that I am so glad that I never adopted the same attitude of demanding (perspective again) a reason for every step of the systems Hal taught me.

So speaking for myself I am giving up and allowing you the floor. Whatever self-satisfaction you get out of the approach you are taking I hope that it really does give you that.

I hope that after these exchanges you feel much better about yourself. You can pick up Stan's DVD at Chris's sometime this Christmas season, I will let you know when it's there. I am sure that given his experience teaching the CTE/Pro1 method he can explain it about as well as it can be explained.

If at that point you don't get it then Occam's Razor suggests that you don't want to get it given that so many others have gotten it based on Stan's teaching. Given your intelligence I am sure that a personal lesson is not neccessary and that the information in the video should be enough for you to grasp the physical instructions.

Have a good one and again, sincerely, thank you for the hospitality during our brief visit. Next time we meet I promise that we will just play and not bring up how to play.

Best,

John Barton
 
JB Cases said:
CTE is nothing more than start with a half ball aim and wait until something clicks.

That's it.

John Barton
Click to expand...


Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm certainly looking forward to having this added to Dr. Dave's CTE Resource page :-)

Lou Figueroa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top