CTE/ PRO ONE with Stan Shuffett

[Shawn Armstrong]

Here is the problem right here. Anything that takes a DVD and possible instruction from someone is not easy to use. The arrow training device is easy to use and no DVD is needed to learn it.

Man, I guess systems just take the player out of the game. As far as I know the only dependable way for me to make shots is to hit my mark and it ain't the system that does that for me. It's all me baby.

FWIW

Yes and no. I used to think I was a good player. Then, I was playing at a tournament, and the room owner asked me if I'd be interested in taking lessons. I kind of took it as an insult, but after the initial burn subsided, I asked him why he thought I needed lessons. He said "you're good, but you could be so much better, and I could fix it in one weekend".

Without wasting your time, here's the point. He was a certified BCA instructor. He videotaped my stroke in all directions, and showed me my glaring stroke errors. He then started teaching me about aiming. It wasn't a system. He said "line up the shot above the balls, then set down on the line, and freeze". I did. A split second after I froze, he hit the butt end of the cue without me knowing. The shot went in. He said "did that seem easy?".

That weekend of lessons made me 2-3 balls better per 9ball rack. Sometimes we get in the way of ourselves. I just had to swallow my pride, spend a couple of bucks, and step out of my comfort zone.

This is why "bashers" peeve me off. When someone from my league heard that I took lessons, he was shocked. "You're one of the best players in the league", he said. I didn't want to be one of the best players in the league, I wanted to be one of the best players in the area. Any knowledge is good knowledge. It is up to us, as students, to filter through the material that does and doesn't work for us. If it doesn't work for you, it isn't "silly" or "hogwash". It just isn't for you. Say that, and move on.

 

[sfleinen]

You can't be serious Sean. The GetMeThere attacks were not limited to just an aiming system. He has attacked other members as well as instructors. Not just an aiming system. I'm at a loss for words.

Sean -1 in my book.

eezbank:

I don't know who GetMeThere is, and frankly, I don't approve of his "technique" for debate. It obviously got him in trouble. But what you can't deny is that he was an active participant in the debate. He was attacking an idea, not any single person. If an instructor happened to step in and defend the idea, he seemed to go after that instructor's defense itself, not after the instructor as a person. (I don't ever recall him calling Stan or others "an idiot" or anything directed personally like that -- please correct me if I'm wrong.) And that's something I think a lot of people are missing on here -- confusion of the attack on an idea (and its defenses) as an attack on the person him/herself.

I say again, I don't approve of his technique. He wasn't the most civil debater, and that's putting it kindly. But when we get "heckler's row" jumping in and throwing feces around, it makes things much more messy than they need to be. That's my point.

You can disapprove of my viewpoint. You can attack it. And that's the point (beauty?) of these forums. But let's not attack each other as people, right?

-Sean

 

[lfigueroa]

I can only speak for myself, but I do conduct follow-up with my students. And since I am just starting to teach Same Aim, I haven't had much opportunity to get any feedback, but the initial reaction from a couple of my team members who I shared this with was very positive.

This forum has a history of letting it be known in no uncertain terms if anyone doesn't offer a quality product or service. Just look at the threads in the past about certain cuemakers who didn't deliver as promised. Believe me, if our students weren't happy, you would have heard about it.

Steve

Well, it's just that these claims are often thrown about with gay abandon like: thousands of satisfied students that were taught and use xyz system.

Over the course of my time playing pool I've learned dozens and dozens of systems and even played around with many of the 3C systems in Walt Harris' "Atlas" series. But just because I learned and/or was taught them does not mean that now, years removed, I am satisfied with them, use them, they are responsible for whatever success I enjoy on the pool table, or even remember them. We all get a chance to learn things in life and we discard much of it along the way as dead baggage.

And it's not the same with instruction as with a product that you can hold feel, smell, taste, take pictures of and post on the Internet for all to see and judge. Concepts are more amorphous -- especially in the case of CTE

Lou Figueroa

 

[sfleinen]

Sean, while you're busy "pooping" on the rest of us, mind telling us just what "value" they have added to the discussion on CTE???? While you're at it, mind telling us how they COULD add value to something they don't even understand???

Neil:

Those in "heckler's row" perched there on the wire probably don't like it when the feces are thrown back up at them.

As for the "value" -- that is a matter of perception. And that's the point. The "value" is being debated. I get your point, too. But let's keep the personal attacks out of it?

I hope this makes sense,
-Sean

 

[Neil]

eezbank:

I don't know who GetMeThere is, and frankly, I don't approve of his "technique" for debate. It obviously got him in trouble. But what you can't deny is that he was an active participant in the debate. He was attacking an idea, not any single person. If an instructor happened to step in and defend the idea, he seemed to go after that instructor's defense itself, not after the instructor as a person. (I don't ever recall him calling Stan or others "an idiot" or anything directed personally like that -- please correct me if I'm wrong.) And that's something I think a lot of people are missing on here -- confusion of the attack on an idea (and its defenses) as an attack on the person him/herself.

I say again, I don't approve of his technique. He wasn't the most civil debater, and that's putting it kindly. But when we get "heckler's row" jumping in and throwing feces around, it makes things much more messy than they need to be. That's my point.

You can disapprove of my viewpoint. You can attack it. And that's the point (beauty?) of these forums. But let's not attack each other as people, right?

-Sean

You really ought to read all of his posts. He does call people idiots, and quite frequently.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Neil:

Those in "heckler's row" perched there on the wire probably don't like it when the feces are thrown back up at them.

As for the "value" -- that is a matter of perception. And that's the point. The "value" is being debated. I get your point, too. But let's keep the personal attacks out of it?

I hope this makes sense,
-Sean

NOBODY has thrown more insulting personal attacks than GMT. Even PJ with his "idiot" comments are a far second. Calling CTE instructors scam artists and snake oil salesmen is inexcusable.

To think GMT has added ANYTHING positive is crazy. CRAZZZZZY

 

[lfigueroa]

You really ought to read all of his posts. He does call people idiots, and quite frequently.

This is patently false.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

NOBODY has thrown more insulting personal attacks than GMT. Even PJ with his "idiot" comments are a far second. Calling CTE instructors scam artists and snake oil salesmen is inexcusable.

To think GMT has added ANYTHING positive is crazy. CRAZZZZZY

He calls them the way he sees them, is not willing to give anyone a free pass, and had the balls to stand by his conclusions.

And, he is being demonized, by a few here, because he was able to logically dismantle one silly argument after another. It must have been infuriating

Lou Figueroa

 

[Neil]

He calls them the way he sees them, is not willing to give anyone a free pass, and had the balls to stand by his conclusions.

And, he is being demonized, by a few here, because he was able to logically dismantle one silly argument after another. It must have been infuriating

Lou Figueroa

No, Lou, what I stated is not patently false, it's the truth. You and him have the blinders on so tight that you fail to see the obvious. Logically, he didn't dismantle a single thing, nor have you. It's your lack of logic and knowledge that makes you think he has.

 

[dr_dave]

Don't you think you (and Dr. Dave) might tend to confuse people by saying "CTE works?"

No.

I think saying "CTE works for the people who can use it effectively," and then trying to explain how and why it might actually "work" for those people, is very helpful in trying to better understand some of the potential benefits of align-and-pivot systems like CTE.

The written descriptions of CTE offered to date are obviously "incomplete," and don't offer detailed guidance on how to arrive at precise lines of aim for a wide range of shots of different CB-OB distances and cut angles. However, some people are able to use the CTE "framework" to pocket balls. I think a person can learn to pocket balls with any "aiming system," and he or she will be more successful with better focus, more practice, and a consistent pre-shot routine. Maybe CTE helps some people with some of these elements.

So yes, "CTE does work" for some people. Furthermore, some possible explanations for how and why it works are described and illustrated by me and others on the CTE resource page and in the supporting linked resources.

Regards,
Dave

 

[champ2107]

He calls them the way he sees them, is not willing to give anyone a free pass, and had the balls to stand by his conclusions.

And, he is being demonized, by a few here, because he was able to logically dismantle one silly argument after another. It must have been infuriating

Lou Figueroa

LOL, can you explain how he logically dismantled, just "one" silly argument and cut and paste it here?

 

[Mikjary]

Well...if you can fathom statistics, then you can understand this. Try PRETENDING you think CTE is wrong, then look at the reasoning I suggested. It should be VERY SIMPLE for you, because you very clearly KNOW what CTE IS.

Look at the 3 shots that Dr. Dave has put out. WHAT would CTE show you to do differently on each of those three shots? Nothing, that's what.

The difference would be that you KNOW they have to be cut at different places, and you would ADJUST to cut in the different places BY YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A PLAYER--not by something CTE told you to do.

GMT,

I feel like an opportunist to debate with you after your forced vacation, but I know you'll be lurking. So here's something to ponder. Yes, you're right...you're not talking to a group of players that do not understand what you are trying to say. To make Dr. Dave's three shots it is a physical impossibility to shoot the same way and pocket all three balls. Your alignment changes with reference to the pocket.

All players realize this reference after learning to play the game in short order. Cte, as taught by Stan, teaches the user to visually pick out the alignment for all pocketable shots and banks despite slight variations in the positioning of the balls themselves.

You have not been shown this and are more than skeptical. I have no problem with your skepticism. I do have a problem with your approach as a scientist. Without any empirical effort on your part you will never "get there".

I got there by my own personal efforts that actually started unknowingly 30 years ago. I spent many hours working with guys like Don Feeney and Gerry Kanov on CB/OB relationships and aiming systems. Pivot systems were looked at and we ended up at the same spot you are at now. The difference is that there were no Stan Shuffetts, Ron V.s, Dave Segals, Randy G.s, or Scott Lees, etc. to talk to then. We missed the biggest part of the answer to our problem. We didn't use our brains to "see" what our eyes were showing us. We dismissed this visual perspective because it simply was there literally in front of our faces, yet we didn't understand. It wasn't a question of intelligence, it was an issue of breaking with the past and with what we understood were prerequisites for an aiming system.

Pivot systems are not new. There is a possibility that even the great Ralph Greenleaf employed a version of them called "shadowing". There is also a possibility that Jimmy Moore was able to learn this system and exploit it. Further research on my part and others is in the works and I can only guess where it will lead.

In the future pivot systems will be accepted as a valid aiming alternative to presently accepted systems. It is "new" and subject to scrutiny and possible ridicule for its users. Champions past, present and future will emerge and the debating will die down. Full understanding of each different system will finally quiet the logically motivated debaters and naysayers.

I've moved past the Cte debate a while ago. I don't waste my time trying to prove something to somebody if they won't at least take a look at what I'm showing them. Right now I'm working on an aiming system with Gerry Kanov that a top pro let leak in our direction years ago. He was mentored by Buddy Hall for years and he has some cryptic things to say about aiming that make Cte look like a walk in the park. They rank right up there with Cte mysticism, but I have a handle on that sort of stuff. Unlike you, I will do what it takes to get the answers to my questions and make allies along the way. Their input will be valuable and further my research. Any debate will open a new door and bear looking at its possibilities.

But hopefully this won't be the next great debate on aiming systems. Who knows? :wink:

Best,
Mike

 

[lfigueroa]

No, Lou, what I stated is not patently false, it's the truth. You and him have the blinders on so tight that you fail to see the obvious. Logically, he didn't dismantle a single thing, nor have you. It's your lack of logic and knowledge that makes you think he has.

Then all I can say is: you are in denial.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

LOL, can you explain how he logically dismantled, just "one" silly argument and cut and paste it here?

Sorry, no spoon feeding for you.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JB Cases]

So that's it? Because a dissatisfied student "can REACH back and strangle them" validates what is being taught/sold?! Is that the way you felt about every instructor you've ever had in your life? High school? College? Profession? Were every one of them excellent, or were some of them a waste of your time? It's happened to all of us.

You talk about overwhelming numbers of satisfied customers, but whenever the subject comes up just the few usual suspects chirp. I asked if they had a follow up system to see exactly how satisfied students were and whether they still employed and found value in what they were taught a year removed and, if I recall, didn't get much of an answer.

And believe me, John. *Nothing* about this discussion "bugs the living crap" out of me. It often surprises and amazes me, but "bugs me" are not words I would use to describe how I feel about the give and take here or the systems under discussion.

Lou Figueroa

Lou,

Do you honestly not get it? People have choices. No one HAS to step up and testify that they took instruction on CTE and are happy with it.

Some of the people chiming in here have learned this stuff years ago and they are still saying that they use it every day successfully.

I am saying that I still use what Hal taught me 8 years ago, successfully.

The FACT is that you and GMT and others have called the instructors who teach CTE frauds. You have called CTE users delusional and idiots and worse.

If you are not bothered by a system that you care nothing about then why do you participate in the discussions?

What is your motivation?

Years ago you railed against Hal's systems. You called me a tin-foil hat wearing nutjob and told me I'd have a better chance trusting the force. During those times NO instructor was openly teaching CTE or any of Hal's systems.

Now there are plenty of instructors who do teach Hal's systems or their own variants of Hal's systems.

So I can understand you laying into me since you don't think I can play as good as you do and you don't find any personal benefit to the systems.

But I can't understand how you can lay into people who have made teaching pool their career. People whose professional reputation depends on the students seeing immediate improvement and sustainable improvement.

I would think that an intelligent person such as yourself might take a step back and say hmmm, John Barton might be a crazy nutjob but Randy Goetlicher has always been well respected and I don't know Stan Shuffet but people speak highly of him and his boy Landon can really play. And Scott Lee has a good rep too, so maybe there might be something to this CTE stuff that warrants another look, or at least maybe I should just let them do their thing since they want to put their asses on the line teaching this.

Don't you think that someone who has dedicated their life to teaching pool and does it for a living has higher standards as to what they teach than some random amateur? Especially in a small insular world like pool?

The problem is that fundamentally you dismiss personal testimony from students as self-delusion. So based on that premise you won't accept anyone's personal experience as validation. And since you think it's all a personal form of delusion then you "see" the instructors as hypnotists rather than teachers.

So what good would follow-ups be to you when you don't see personal testimony as valid in the first place?

But at the same time you want us to accept YOUR personal experience where Hall called you and gave you some of his systems and you couldn't get them.

I accept that. No reason to believe that every person would get them and when one is so strongly prejudiced against them in the first place then it's a huge wall to over come. I am positive that if a great St Louis player were to have introduced you to CTE then you would have probably looked at it with a slightly more open mind. But when it's someone you don't know and not only have no respect for and even show major disrespect to then it's not any wonder that you wouldn't "get them".

I am much more impressed with the good players on this forum who were also skeptical until they got the chance to learn it form someone who knows how to teach it and then they changed their minds.

Emerson said that he reserves the right to change his mind at any time.

 

[JoeyA]

You really ought to read all of his posts. He does call people idiots, and quite frequently.

This statement is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

GMT has made it a habit to call people names and to ridicule them at every twist and turn.

He is valueless to this forum. GMT contributes nothing but strife to this forum, except for a few others who find joy in poking and prodding fellow member posts.

There have to be many people who see this type of poster and choose to leave the forum permanently never to return.

 

[JB Cases]

He calls them the way he sees them, is not willing to give anyone a free pass, and had the balls to stand by his conclusions.

And, he is being demonized, by a few here, because he was able to logically dismantle one silly argument after another. It must have been infuriating

Lou Figueroa

And we call them as we see them and have the balls to stand by our experience. It's perspective.

And no he is not being demonized for logically dismantling arguments. He is being criticized for jumping to incorrect conclusions based on inaccurate information and then being highly insulting to all pro-CTE people when they wouldn't give him the complete instructions in written form.

 

[JoeyA]

NOBODY has thrown more insulting personal attacks than GMT. Even PJ with his "idiot" comments are a far second. Calling CTE instructors scam artists and snake oil salesmen is inexcusable.

To think GMT has added ANYTHING positive is crazy. CRAZZZZZY

There is no doubt that GMT has created resentment and has added NOTHING to this forum.

You can say what you want about Pat Johnson but he contributes positively to this forum on a regular basis.

It's time that GMT is sent on a permanent vacation.

I can only imagine how many people he has chased off this forum. I'm sure some have stopped long enough to watch the car wreck but they too won't be returning.

OH gee, I didn't get the memo. GMT is banned. Oh well, he'll get himself another alias and pop in as another troll, I'm sure.

JoeyA

 

[dr_dave]

GMT has made it a habit to call people names and to ridicule them at every twist and turn.

Agreed.

He is valueless to this forum.

I disagree.

Many of the "CTE proponents" also seem ridiculing and even hateful at times, and some rarely (if ever) offer any insight or useful information. Do you think their participation is valueless also? I just see it as something we have to live with as part of belonging to the AZB community. It's like any real family. Family gatherings aren't always perfectly "harmonious."

GMT still has a lot to learn about interpersonal communication, but he does seem to have good ideas and questions at times. Unfortunately, few people actually see value in or even read his posts because many feel attacked and ridiculed by him. I hope a week off of "time out" will help him understand this better.

Sincerely,
Dave

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou,

Do you honestly not get it? People have choices. No one HAS to step up and testify that they took instruction on CTE and are happy with it.

Some of the people chiming in here have learned this stuff years ago and they are still saying that they use it every day successfully.

I am saying that I still use what Hal taught me 8 years ago, successfully.

The FACT is that you and GMT and others have called the instructors who teach CTE frauds. You have called CTE users delusional and idiots and worse.

If you are not bothered by a system that you care nothing about then why do you participate in the discussions?

What is your motivation?

Years ago you railed against Hal's systems. You called me a tin-foil hat wearing nutjob and told me I'd have a better chance trusting the force. During those times NO instructor was openly teaching CTE or any of Hal's systems.

Now there are plenty of instructors who do teach Hal's systems or their own variants of Hal's systems.

So I can understand you laying into me since you don't think I can play as good as you do and you don't find any personal benefit to the systems.

But I can't understand how you can lay into people who have made teaching pool their career. People whose professional reputation depends on the students seeing immediate improvement and sustainable improvement.

I would think that an intelligent person such as yourself might take a step back and say hmmm, John Barton might be a crazy nutjob but Randy Goetlicher has always been well respected and I don't know Stan Shuffet but people speak highly of him and his boy Landon can really play. And Scott Lee has a good rep too, so maybe there might be something to this CTE stuff that warrants another look, or at least maybe I should just let them do their thing since they want to put their asses on the line teaching this.

Don't you think that someone who has dedicated their life to teaching pool and does it for a living has higher standards as to what they teach than some random amateur? Especially in a small insular world like pool?

The problem is that fundamentally you dismiss personal testimony from students as self-delusion. So based on that premise you won't accept anyone's personal experience as validation. And since you think it's all a personal form of delusion then you "see" the instructors as hypnotists rather than teachers.

So what good would follow-ups be to you when you don't see personal testimony as valid in the first place?

But at the same time you want us to accept YOUR personal experience where Hall called you and gave you some of his systems and you couldn't get them.

I accept that. No reason to believe that every person would get them and when one is so strongly prejudiced against them in the first place then it's a huge wall to over come. I am positive that if a great St Louis player were to have introduced you to CTE then you would have probably looked at it with a slightly more open mind. But when it's someone you don't know and not only have no respect for and even show major disrespect to then it's not any wonder that you wouldn't "get them".

I am much more impressed with the good players on this forum who were also skeptical until they got the chance to learn it form someone who knows how to teach it and then they changed their minds.

Emerson said that he reserves the right to change his mind at any time.

John, really, why are we here on any topic? Are we only allowed to enter into discussions on topics that we are "bugged" or "bothered" about? We're here because we like to talk about pool. You or I don't need any further justification to enter into any thread on this board (well, except some of the crazy ca-ca in the NPR forum).

And how you play has nothing to do with anything. It's a lot of others that are always asking for names, stats, tournaments won, or issuing challenges ;-)

Lastly, without speaking to the subject of any one particular instructor, in every walk of life there are people trying to make money giving lessons. Many of those communities or specialties are small. And one of the ways an instructor distinguishes themselves from the pack is to lead people to believe that they have something special to teach. Often times, that "something" is not all it's cracked up to be. Sometimes, it's something else, just packaged a little differently and in a prettier box with a bigger ribbon. It happens in every discipline, including pool. If there are 10, or 20, or 30 instructors all vying for the few souls out there willing to pay money for instruction, it only makes sense that they are going to try their best to give that individual a reason to come to them instead of someone else. Sometimes people get what they pay for and other times they just get a prettier box and a bigger ribbon.

Lou Figueroa