Dude, you just unwittingly walked into a black hole. There is no way out once you are in it's gravity... you will be missed!
Lol, no worries I am right behind ya...
To Review or Not to Review -- THAT is the Question
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
Dude, you just unwittingly walked into a black hole. There is no way out once you are in it's gravity... you will be missed!
Lol, no worries I am right behind ya...
Actually, I think the much smaller pivot Stan recommends with CTE (1/2-tip instead of 1/2-ball suggested by others in the past) is a big improvement. With less pivot, there is less effect from bridge length and CB-OB distance changes (see my CTE resource page for more info).
Do you know what would be even better? No pivot! :thumbup:
Regards,
Dave
Success
Choosing to succeed at something is basically a choice. Lou did not choose to succeed with CTE/PRO ONE. It is quite evident in Lou’s review that he did not take the content of my DVD to the table and put in the time.
Basic Manual CTE amounts to some homework and then it’s quickly on to PRO ONE. In PRO ONE, it’s just “see the visuals and shoot”. All of this seems a little complicated at first but it’s really quite simple given a little time. Lou chose to miss these major concepts.
My son, Landon, uses CTE/PRO ONE and I am very proud of that fact. (Landon won our monthly open tournament yesterday.) Landon knows what to objectively see for every shot. He simply bends and shoots for a right PRO ONE pivot or slightly rotates left for the left PRO ONE pivot. A huge KEY for Landon in PRO ONE is that he is always 1/2 tip visually offset for each and every shot he shoots where pocketing is concerned. (In PRO ONE there is no manual pivoting.) Last June I made a choice to share this information with everyone. In other words, My DVD presents to you what Landon objectively sees for all of his shots and how he moves into center cue ball with his PRO ONE movements. There has never been anything like this before! I have done my best to share this very important information.
There is not one thing on my DVD that cannot be learned or understood if one is properly motivated. It is a matter of choice by each individual.
I chose to be successful with CTE aiming a few years ago and it has evolved into something very special, CTE/PRO ONE. This happened because of the choices I made. My DVD was by choice because I wanted to share this great information with everyone. I knew there would be detractors. It’s contrast that makes the world tick. Lou simply chose to “not get it”.
I am very proud of my CTE/PRO ONE DVD. Thanks to those of you that have ordered a DVD and to all that have lended positive support for me over the past few years.
Stan Shuffett
Choosing to succeed at something is basically a choice. Lou did not choose to succeed with CTE/PRO ONE. It is quite evident in Lou’s review that he did not take the content of my DVD to the table and put in the time.
Basic Manual CTE amounts to some homework and then it’s quickly on to PRO ONE. In PRO ONE, it’s just “see the visuals and shoot”. All of this seems a little complicated at first but it’s really quite simple given a little time. Lou chose to miss these major concepts.
My son, Landon, uses CTE/PRO ONE and I am very proud of that fact. (Landon won our monthly open tournament yesterday.) Landon knows what to objectively see for every shot. He simply bends and shoots for a right PRO ONE pivot or slightly rotates left for the left PRO ONE pivot. A huge KEY for Landon in PRO ONE is that he is always 1/2 tip visually offset for each and every shot he shoots where pocketing is concerned. (In PRO ONE there is no manual pivoting.) Last June I made a choice to share this information with everyone. In other words, My DVD presents to you what Landon objectively sees for all of his shots and how he moves into center cue ball with his PRO ONE movements. There has never been anything like this before! I have done my best to share this very important information.
There is not one thing on my DVD that cannot be learned or understood if one is properly motivated. It is a matter of choice by each individual.
I chose to be successful with CTE aiming a few years ago and it has evolved into something very special, CTE/PRO ONE. This happened because of the choices I made. My DVD was by choice because I wanted to share this great information with everyone. I knew there would be detractors. It’s contrast that makes the world tick. Lou simply chose to “not get it”.
I am very proud of my CTE/PRO ONE DVD. Thanks to those of you that have ordered a DVD and to all that have lended positive support for me over the past few years.
Stan Shuffett
This is another point that shows you had a preconceived view on Stan's video before you even watched it. Instead of taking a legit look at it, like Lou, you go into the viewing of it with the mind set that pivoting is a bad thing. Based on that, you reverse-engineer your review based on your own beliefs - not what the video content presents.
Not like it matters--- because no one in the GALAXY thought you or Lou would like Stan's video. It was predetermined that you wouldn't.... and you didn't.... imagine that?
Stan's video definitely stands on its own. Every question ever posed by you or anyone else in any thread is answered in that video. You and others raise questions to incite a riot on AZB when the answers are in front of you. It merely shows your true intentions in these threads.
This attitude that someone is not motivated enough to learn CTE is bullshit.
The truth is the CTE is not what it was claimed to be and you just can't handle the truth.
Just from reading the reviews from non naysayers, you know the ones that bought the DVD in hopes of learning but only to be disappointed by it, proves that the system is just too hard, overly complicated and does not work for all shots.
I'm not surprised one bit about the DVD not being the answer to all question as was promised it would be. In fact, all the negitive views have just proved me right about CTE.
And so what your sons uses it, big deal. Is that really suspose to mean something? Does to prove the DVD is worth the money?
Get real,,,,,,learn to accept the fact that CTE is not what it was claimed to be nor your DVD.
The truth is the CTE is not what it was claimed to be and you just can't handle the truth.
Just from reading the reviews from non naysayers, you know the ones that bought the DVD in hopes of learning but only to be disappointed by it, proves that the system is just too hard, overly complicated and does not work for all shots.
I'm not surprised one bit about the DVD not being the answer to all question as was promised it would be. In fact, all the negitive views have just proved me right about CTE.
And so what your sons uses it, big deal. Is that really suspose to mean something? Does to prove the DVD is worth the money?
Get real,,,,,,learn to accept the fact that CTE is not what it was claimed to be nor your DVD.
i thought my question was simple?
Spidey,
I probably shouldn't have written that last sentence, especially with emotions running high in these threads.
However, I honestly think Stan's 1/2-tip pivot is better than the tradition 1/2-ball pivot for the reasons I describe and illustrate on my resource page.
I'm sorry you think I didn't watch the DVD with an open mind. IMO, you are very wrong. I put in a lot of time and effort thinking about (and trying at the table) what was presented.
I honestly think Stan's version of CTE is definitely an improvement over previous versions, as I mention on my resource page.
Regards,
Dave
The fact is that it worked for many of us long before the DVD. It's no surprise to anyone that the naysayers continue to naysay. Where's patrick johnson?
I disagree-- I think it was appropriate for you to say that. Be yourself. Speak your mind. Don't pretend to BE one thing and BELIEVE in one thing and then actually be/believe something totally different. The only reason you think you shouldn't have written that is because you "slipped" and it shows your true feelings/intentions and puts in a crack in that facade role you're playing.
I haven't been around forever, but I've been around long enough to see the politics involved in pool and the science/practice that drives it. There are some (like you) who think a "DAM" approach to pool is the only way to play. Forget the fact that it's riddled with feel, adjustments, guess work, and hitting a billion balls. For some reason, any attempt to make an infinite game more finite to help players improve quicker is blocked at every corner by guys like you, Lou, Patrick, Bob, etc. Some guys who subscribe to the DAM way of playing NEVER EVER EVER get above a "C" level after playing their entire lives.
You label CTE/Pro1 on your site as a system that has many faults/adjustments; however, what you fail to realize is that if you list those faults/adjustments, they're only a small fraction of a % of the TOTAL number of faults that a DAM approach provides. I think it would be interesting if you listed the faults in CTE/Pro1 and I list the faults of DAM (that way of thinking) and let's see which list is longer? Additionally, let's see which faults/adjustments are easier to correct and fix.
The ironic thing is you guys are SO QUICK to knock this method of playing, yet you fail to knock the alternative which is RIDDLED with fault. What I really fail to understand is why you would be so fast to find everything wrong with CTE/Pro1 instead of going out of your way to rejoice in everything that is right (that list you keep linking to "the benefits" only scrapes the surface).
Since you've been playing pool for all of those years, one would think your level would be much higher. Players like you should investigate and STUDY alternative methods of playing instead of brain-locking yourselves into the traditional "HAMB" methods of playing. They may not be right for you-- but play with CTE for a year, or 90/90 for a year, or shishkebob for a year and do nothing BUT for a year and then report back. You tend to take cursory looks (playing-wise, not computer forum-wise) at all of these systems and never post videos of your progression. If you're going to be a "pool scientist" -- run some case studies and experiment and put yourself out there.
I hope this makes sense. I'm not KNOCKING you, I'm just stating that your style in examining pool information is highly flawed. When Gene Albrecht sent me his Perfect Aim DVD, I worked on his information for nearly 6 months (you can ask Gene--- I called him often during that time discussing my progress). When I learned JoeT's numbers system, I worked on that for months as well. Both DVDs are highly valuable to the serious player. There's no way you've "immersed" yourself with this information long enough to even have a serious say in either direction.
I sincerely hope you put yourself out there more and immerse yourself with content before posing countless questions. MANY of your questions have obvious answers--- answers that are found within the first few days of playing. Otherwise, you'll only be a "classroom teacher" instead of a real player.
Dave
I'll throw my 2 cents into the muck.
For the most part, I liked Lou's review. I'm sure if there were no wisecrack shots thrown in here and there, the review might have been more palatable to the CTE advocates. But, there are no rules in a knife fight.
I bought the DVD and watched it. As an advocate of these style of aiming systems, I was somewhat disappointed at what I thought were missing key steps early in the part of the process that would have given non-believers more clarity and something more finite to aim at. Instead, I got the feeling that Stan and company were saying, "choose your two reference points, go right to left or left to right, and one of them will work."
That being said, as a long-time pivot aimer, I brought the information to the table, tried it, and as is normal for these systems, balls went into the hole. But, I was guessing at the initial "aimpoint" based on what I was reading between the lines of the information given. Note to believers: non-believers shouldn't have to rely on reading between the lines.
To the believers again, it seems clear to me that whether to choose one set of reference points vs the other is akin to the Hal Houle two angle theory. If you already believe in and are comfortable with the two angle theory, then the two reference sets makes all kinds of sense. But, if you don't subscribe to the two angle theory, I can't see how this DVD is going to make headway.
Finally, I did show someone what I thought the DVD was saying, and as again as usual with these discussions, even if he didn't think that particular aim was going to make the ball, the object ball would be pocketed enough times to convince him there was something in the CTE method. All anectdotal, so take it for what it's worth (which ain't much in these discussion that do nothing but add cyber pages).
Fred
For the most part, I liked Lou's review. I'm sure if there were no wisecrack shots thrown in here and there, the review might have been more palatable to the CTE advocates. But, there are no rules in a knife fight.
I bought the DVD and watched it. As an advocate of these style of aiming systems, I was somewhat disappointed at what I thought were missing key steps early in the part of the process that would have given non-believers more clarity and something more finite to aim at. Instead, I got the feeling that Stan and company were saying, "choose your two reference points, go right to left or left to right, and one of them will work."
That being said, as a long-time pivot aimer, I brought the information to the table, tried it, and as is normal for these systems, balls went into the hole. But, I was guessing at the initial "aimpoint" based on what I was reading between the lines of the information given. Note to believers: non-believers shouldn't have to rely on reading between the lines.
To the believers again, it seems clear to me that whether to choose one set of reference points vs the other is akin to the Hal Houle two angle theory. If you already believe in and are comfortable with the two angle theory, then the two reference sets makes all kinds of sense. But, if you don't subscribe to the two angle theory, I can't see how this DVD is going to make headway.
Finally, I did show someone what I thought the DVD was saying, and as again as usual with these discussions, even if he didn't think that particular aim was going to make the ball, the object ball would be pocketed enough times to convince him there was something in the CTE method. All anectdotal, so take it for what it's worth (which ain't much in these discussion that do nothing but add cyber pages).
Fred
JustRackem
Registered
Why would a man spend his hard earned money just to make a post on a pool forum. You have a very creative imagination though. I for one, appreciate his review and he does have a point. I do not feel that he attacked Stan in any way. He was just giving his honest opinion. Not that big of a deal considering this is only a pool forum. Some of you guys take this way to seriously....:thumbup:
Rich93...I don't think you're 'dumb' at all. It sounds to me like the top pro you mentioned uses the "feel" method of aiming...which is something I believe every pro on Earth uses, a LOT of the time. Do "aiming systems/methods" work? Sure...all of them...as long as you have an accurate & repeatable setup and delivery process. I think a lot of people look for the 'magic bullit', mistakenly believing it will make up for an inconsistent stroke process.
For myself, I like CTE. It make sense for ME, but I don't shove it down the throat of my students. If they want to learn it, I can show them. That doesn't mean it will automatically drastically improve their pocketing ability, let alone their position play.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
For myself, I like CTE. It make sense for ME, but I don't shove it down the throat of my students. If they want to learn it, I can show them. That doesn't mean it will automatically drastically improve their pocketing ability, let alone their position play.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
From the AZB "machine:" You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cornerman again.
As usual, excellent post,
Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by cookie man
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfigueroa
the pivot is a total deal breaker because it alters your stroke setup without regard to how accurate it makes your stroke delivery.
Really a half tip of movement changes everything, a deal breaker.
MyPost:Something should be pointed out here. Spider referred to this 1/2 tip pivot as 6.5mm (close enough for me). But: a 6.5mm pivot eight inches from the bridge equals five times that much, 1.28", at the grip (the grip is roughly 40" from bridge). (5x6.5=32.5mm=1.28".) This is not a negligible amount. If I line up for a shot, and then move my hips 1.28 inches toward or away from my cue, I am then radically out of allignment.
So, really, a half tip movement does change everything, and might be a deal breaker. This is not to say that one cannot make balls when he is out of allignment, but as figueroa suggests, stroke accuracy may be a casualty. Difficult to imagine you would disagree with this, cookie.
Last edited:
If it's a deal breaker for you - stop sweating up your panties. Many of us pivot WAY more than that when applying english using BHE. That doesn't affect your alignment in any way. Whether you're pivoting from an offset position to center or from center to an offset position-- it's all the same.
You're making a moot point about a red herring topic. These posts of yours remind me of your OCD Perfect Aim posts where the cue needs to be directly between your eyes--- or that your eyes are 1 1/8" apart or something like that. You kept insisting this and that and no one had a clue of what you were saying. Just like the distance of a pivot doesn't affect alignment.
If you're pivoting right to left as a right hander... (opposite for left hander).... you would make an alignment adjustment as to pivot INTO position, not out of it. Everyone knows that. Since every top player who pivots always comes in from their strong side (left, as a right hander, right as a left hander) ***OR*** pivots while standing up and comes it with a straight cue.... your post makes no sense and is a moot point.
Last edited:
I couldn't let you burn in AzB alone.
I'll offer my $.03 on the dvd after I've seen it.
What I see here so far is business as usual: "naysayers" offering substantive comments and questions that the CTE choir can only respond to with personal attacks and "you just don't get it" (is that really the best argument for the dvd that was supposed to answer all the questions?).
pj
chgo
I couldn't let you burn in AzB alone.
I'll offer my $.03 on the dvd after I've seen it.
What I see here so far is business as usual: "naysayers" offering substantive comments and questions that the CTE choir can only respond to with personal attacks and "you just don't get it" (is that really the best argument for the dvd that was supposed to answer all the questions?).
pj
chgo
He's back....
HA--- PJ commenting on the DVD.... here --- let me do it for you...
"This DVD sucks because of _____ and _____. He fails to provide a scientific explanation for_____ and ____. Dr. Dave and Lou are right about ____ and ____. IMO people should save their $$ and HAMB and DAM it up. Guys like Spidey only throw personal attacks because because guys like me can't learn anything new and are PERSONALLY VESTED to be against anything regarding this topic. I'm somehow back from the dead but it won't be long before I'm dead again, trust me on that."
OK, I'll be you:
"Where's your video? You can't play half as good as me, but I'm not KNOCKING you. Hip pivot to the crop circle!"
This is more fun than I remembered.
pj
chgo