Interesting CTE INFO

S

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Consider this.

In CTE PRO ONE, visuals are seen,
Let's say LCBE TO A and a CTE perception.
I rotate to fall on the shot with a visual left sweep and the ball goes.
It is natural.

Let's say, on purpose, I incorrectly see CBE to inbetween A and B. That visual will not allow for a CTEL. So, once again, I sweep left to CCB.
I miss the shot. I will miss them all day if my visual alignment is incorrect. The rotation will be faulty.


SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS.

Pros rotate left and right to the shot line as natural as rainwater. They make the ball. Their eyes are in the correct place before they rotate or they would miss just as I described how my miss occurred.

Real CTE can connect you with where the pros are before they rotate to CCB.

Hal Houle once said that the top 200 players used his system. Hal knew about the rotation and where the eyes had to be....

You might say that CTE PRO ONE is an objective prescription for feel at the highest level.

Watch the pros. They're not moving straight in to a GB or CPs.
They rotate in to CCB.

Their eyes and body, magnificent intelligences, figured this out over a blue million shots. Language and math can't always explain what the eyes and body are doing. That's why pros have a hard time explaining how they aim.

Chances are a reasonable percentage of you that read this are rotating into your shot line, perhaps totally unaware.
Phil Burford did not know that he rotated until I pointed it out and then he was all over CTE PRO ONE.

Something to chew on,

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
For as long as I can remember I've been approaching shots in that manner. I think that's why, at first, I struggled with the Pro One section of your DVD. I was doing something entirely different, because I thought I had to for the visual pivot.

Then I went back to my old ways and the balls started dropping.

Now it's as simple as finding the two visuals and then rotating into CCB.

My shotmaking alone has improved greatly. The rest is still a work in progress.
 
(((Satori))) said:
Would it be correct to say that all cuts to the right only have 4 visuals, rcbe to ABC or 1/8?
Click to expand...

Yes sir, almost.

For right cuts, C and B are your CTE visuals.
All right cuts will go somewhere with C and B coupled with CTE.
The A visual represents a single line thin cut but extremely accurate.


Then on the 2 extremes:

you can use 1/8 for an extra thin type cut. Also, very accurate.

The other extreme would be a very, very close straight in type shot.
So, for a right cut like that the visual would be RCBE to ROB1/8. Sort of a 7/8 of a ball visual overlap.

Stan Shuffett
 
BeiberLvr said:
For as long as I can remember I've been approaching shots in that manner. I think that's why, at first, I struggled with the Pro One section of your DVD. I was doing something entirely different, because I thought I had to for the visual pivot.

Then I went back to my old ways and the balls started dropping.

Now it's as simple as finding the two visuals and then rotating into CCB.

My shotmaking alone has improved greatly. The rest is still a work in progress.
Click to expand...

Very nice, You said it quite well. Thank you!

Stan Shuffett
 
stan shuffett said:
Consider this.

In CTE PRO ONE, visuals are seen,
Let's say LCBE TO A and a CTE perception.
I rotate to fall on the shot with a visual left sweep and the ball goes.
It is natural.

Let's say, on purpose, I incorrectly see CBE to inbetween A and B. That visual will not allow for a CTEL. So, once again, I sweep left to CCB.
I miss the shot. I will miss them all day if my visual alignment is incorrect. The rotation will be faulty.


SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS.

Pros rotate left and right to the shot line as natural as rainwater. They make the ball. Their eyes are in the correct place before they rotate or they would miss just as I described how my miss occurred.

Real CTE can connect you with where the pros are before they rotate to CCB.

Hal Houle once said that the top 200 players used his system. Hal knew about the rotation and where the eyes had to be....

You might say that CTE PRO ONE is an objective prescription for feel at the highest level.

Watch the pros. They're not moving straight in to a GB or CPs.
They rotate in to CCB.

Their eyes and body, magnificent intelligences, figured this out over a blue million shots. Language and math can't always explain what the eyes and body are doing. That's why pros have a hard time explaining how they aim.

Chances are a reasonable percentage of you that read this are rotating into your shot line, perhaps totally unaware.
Phil Burford did not know that he rotated until I pointed it out and then he was all over CTE PRO ONE.

Something to chew on,

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...


I like the description of cte pro one being an objective prescription for feel.
 
(((Satori))) said:
I like the description of cte pro one being an objective prescription for feel.
Click to expand...

Thx, that wasn't a slip up either. Phil Burford would have run away if I had put him on anything other than "natural".

Hal made it clear to me. This stuff was never supposed to be.

I am laying some groundwork now and it will all come together in time, DVD or by my home demos or by continued explanations here over time.

This is fun for me!

Stan Shuffett
 
I apologize if it's been posted previously, but do you have a possible date yet for the DVD release?

After ingraining the CTE/Pro One fundamentals into my game, the "natural" part popped up. I just wonder why it wasn't so "natural" before that! happy0129.gif

Best,
Mike
 
Mikjary said:
I apologize if it's been posted previously, but do you have a possible date yet for the DVD release?

After ingraining the CTE/Pro One fundamentals into my game, the "natural" part popped up. I just wonder why it wasn't so "natural" before that! View attachment 254988

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

It's been a long haul for me. My prompt for the DVD occurred last spring.
350 hours of prep time led to filming in September. Editing is well underway but I do not want to hazard a guess for release until a few more weeks pass.
So, it is happening.

Why wasn't it natural before? You gave your eyes and body a gift, a gift of objectivity so they could begin to work efficiently with the zillion shots on a rectangular surface. Just a few things to see and 2 natural movements to CCB. Once you put that into routine you do it every day, every shot resulting in natural......you know sort of like throwing a ball or swinging a bat or punching a bag.

Stan Shuffett
 
stan shuffett said:
Consider this.

In CTE PRO ONE, visuals are seen,
Let's say LCBE TO A and a CTE perception.
I rotate to fall on the shot with a visual left sweep and the ball goes.
It is natural.

Let's say, on purpose, I incorrectly see CBE to inbetween A and B. That visual will not allow for a CTEL. So, once again, I sweep left to CCB.
I miss the shot. I will miss them all day if my visual alignment is incorrect. The rotation will be faulty.


SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS.

Pros rotate left and right to the shot line as natural as rainwater. They make the ball. Their eyes are in the correct place before they rotate or they would miss just as I described how my miss occurred.

Real CTE can connect you with where the pros are before they rotate to CCB.

Hal Houle once said that the top 200 players used his system. Hal knew about the rotation and where the eyes had to be....

You might say that CTE PRO ONE is an objective prescription for feel at the highest level.

Watch the pros. They're not moving straight in to a GB or CPs.
They rotate in to CCB.

Their eyes and body, magnificent intelligences, figured this out over a blue million shots. Language and math can't always explain what the eyes and body are doing. That's why pros have a hard time explaining how they aim.

Chances are a reasonable percentage of you that read this are rotating into your shot line, perhaps totally unaware.
Phil Burford did not know that he rotated until I pointed it out and then he was all over CTE PRO ONE.

Something to chew on,

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

Stan I said pretty much the same thing many times but of course it was lost in the amount of back and forth.

Basically what I said is that after learning CTE and THEN watching the pros it appears that the same movement that comes with using CTE is what the pros do almost every time.

And this bears out in snooker, in pool, even in Russian Pyramid. Many pros seem to come into the shot in exactly the same way that a CTE user does it.

Whenever I have the chance I do ask pros how they aim. Klaus Zobrekis was here last year and we played a little and I noticed he was also coming into the shot in a CTE-like manner. So I asked him how he aims and he said he just comes into to the contact point and stops where he knows is right. So I said well I use the edge of the object ball and he said yes he does to as the starting point and then just comes in until he is lined up with the contact point. He didn't elaborate more than that and it's clear that he is NOT using CTE per se, but the motion is nearly identical and of course the result is identical.

I have encouraged people who ask me about it to go and watch how the pros get into the shooting position. A great number of them sweep in from the side. I firmly believe that when a person reaches pro level, regardless of how they got there, they will have had to put in thousands of hours and since pool is outcome based where you simply have to be able to run out consistently and shoot accu-stats 850 or better to stay on tour that this sweeping in from the side to get into the shooting position simply develops as the most efficient and trustworthy way to get on the right shot line. Whether they use a "branded" method like CTE or ProOne or simply insist that it's all feel I believe that most pros are using some form of objective reference that works out to produce the same motion and result as CTE does.
 
stan shuffett said:
Hi Mike,

It's been a long haul for me. My prompt for the DVD occurred last spring.
350 hours of prep time led to filming in September. Editing is well underway but I do not want to hazard a guess for release until a few more weeks pass.
So, it is happening.

Why wasn't it natural before? You gave your eyes and body a gift, a gift of objectivity so they could begin to work efficiently with the zillion shots on a rectangular surface. Just a few things to see and 2 natural movements to CCB. Once you put that into routine you do it every day, every shot resulting in natural......you know sort of like throwing a ball or swinging a bat or punching a bag.

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

Here is a freebie for you Stan. ProOne is like following the carpenter's rule, measure twice and cut once.
 
(((Satori))) said:
I like the description of cte pro one being an objective prescription for feel.
Click to expand...

Have you ever asked yourself what is "feel" and how does it play into tasks?

To me pure feel is groping around blindly for an answer.

When a beginner asks you how to aim a shot what do you tell them? Just feel it? Point your cue at the ball? Turn your body that direction?

No, most of us will use ghost ball to attempt to give them a set of instructions that they can follow. See this ball, line it up to the pocket, now imagine another ball behind that one in line with the pocket, now line up the cue ball with that imaginary ball and put your cue down on that line.

Is that "feel"?

Of course it isn't. It's a set of instructions that a person should follow to be able to put their cue on the shot line.

The feel part of it is the estimation that occurs when they are asked to imagine the ghost ball and find it's center and line up to that. All other methods of aiming are attempting to reduce this guessing by allowing more objective references.

And the more objective references the less "feel" is needed at the front end, finding the shot line and the more it can be employed on the shot end, which is where the fine fine tuning is done to cinch the shot.

I don't know about most of you but I certainly used to get down on shots and have no confidence whatsoever that I was on the right line. That's right, I would not be sure that I had the cue ball aimed at the object ball correctly. This then affected my execution forcing me to try to throw balls in which then affected my position play as the act of throwing balls in limited where I could send the cue ball.

The result was inconsistency that manifested itself into either balls made with no position OR balls missed with perfect position. Or balls missed AND no position either.

Now when I get down on the shot I am totally confident that the line is right, no feel needed. The downside is that now it's much too easy to throw balls OUT of the pocket with a poor stroke. But at least I know that this is the problem and am not unsure about whether it was the aim or the stroke or both.

Anyway, to me feel runs the spectrum from totally clueless groping to a highly developed understanding. The player who takes the mechanical and objective method and spends enough time making it an unconscious part of their game is the one with the highest sense of feel who can play with the right amount of touch where lesser players have no idea how he makes the ball move that way.
 
JB Cases said:
Have you ever asked yourself what is "feel" and how does it play into tasks?

To me pure feel is groping around blindly for an answer.

When a beginner asks you how to aim a shot what do you tell them? Just feel it? Point your cue at the ball? Turn your body that direction?

No, most of us will use ghost ball to attempt to give them a set of instructions that they can follow. See this ball, line it up to the pocket, now imagine another ball behind that one in line with the pocket, now line up the cue ball with that imaginary ball and put your cue down on that line.

Is that "feel"?

Of course it isn't. It's a set of instructions that a person should follow to be able to put their cue on the shot line.

The feel part of it is the estimation that occurs when they are asked to imagine the ghost ball and find it's center and line up to that. All other methods of aiming are attempting to reduce this guessing by allowing more objective references.

And the more objective references the less "feel" is needed at the front end, finding the shot line and the more it can be employed on the shot end, which is where the fine fine tuning is done to cinch the shot.

I don't know about most of you but I certainly used to get down on shots and have no confidence whatsoever that I was on the right line. That's right, I would not be sure that I had the cue ball aimed at the object ball correctly. This then affected my execution forcing me to try to throw balls in which then affected my position play as the act of throwing balls in limited where I could send the cue ball.

The result was inconsistency that manifested itself into either balls made with no position OR balls missed with perfect position. Or balls missed AND no position either.

Now when I get down on the shot I am totally confident that the line is right, no feel needed. The downside is that now it's much too easy to throw balls OUT of the pocket with a poor stroke. But at least I know that this is the problem and am not unsure about whether it was the aim or the stroke or both.

Anyway, to me feel runs the spectrum from totally clueless groping to a highly developed understanding. The player who takes the mechanical and objective method and spends enough time making it an unconscious part of their game is the one with the highest sense of feel who can play with the right amount of touch where lesser players have no idea how he makes the ball move that way.
Click to expand...

John,

I have in fact asked myself what feel is and here is what I believe. When it comes to aiming, I believe it is when you rely on the subconscious mind to guide you into the correct line of aim.



I believe that the power in Stan's system is the ability to teach players to play by feel. He teaches guys to connect, drop down, and believe they are aligned without need for "aiming" or looking to make sure they are aligned for a halfball hit, or whatever. No need for adjustments once they are down in order to "aim". Let me explain how that is feel.



I think you are way off when you say that feel is the visualization of the ghost ball. Visualization is not a subconscious act and it is not feel. Again, feel is letting your subconscious align you to the shot and it is when you can sense that you are not aligned properly.




Now I will tell you where Pro-one is feel just as much as the way I aim is feel. It is when you drop into your shot in both pro one and in my aiming that feel takes place. Let me ask you, do you believe that all cut shots, to the right for example, can be made with the 5 visuals pro-one provides X's dropping in with a pro one left pivot or pro one right pivot? That is only 10 contact points on the object ball if the left or right pivots were done exactly the same everytime.




What I'm saying is when you align by using your visuals you are putting yourself in an approximate position. When you drop into your shot it is the work of your subconscious that aligns your aim precisely to the shot. Your subconscious is a powerful computer that is able to do the math telling you exactly how much to rotate into the shot.




Here is another thing we disagree on. You think every miss while using pro-one is because of a bad stroke. I would claim that a beginner using pro one is going to make some mistakes dropping in on line because his subconscious needs more programming. With time you will succeed with pro one consistantly though just as people who put time into other systems can succeed.




If pro-one works for you though and it is something you like, I say do it.
 
Last edited:
Center Cue Ball is Key

(((Satori))) said:
John,

I have asked myself what feel is. When it comes to aiming I believe it is when you rely on the subconscious mind to guide you into the correct line of aim.

I believe that the power in Stan's system is the ability to teach players to play by feel. Let me explain.

I think you are way off when you say that feel is the visualization of the ghost ball. Visualization is not a subconscious act. You could make the arguement that it is easier for you to align the shot by drawing, with visualization, imaginary straight lines from center to edge and edge to a,b,c to align your shot but I could make the same argument that it is easier for me to align from cue ball to ghost ball. Neither of is would be right because it is just our opinion of which method of alignment works best. If you can't see ghostball then by all means use center to edge but you won't convince me that your method of alignment is more accurate. I know for a fact that I align just fine with ghostball, Stevie aligns just fine with pro-one, and apparently Darren aligns just fine with SEE. They all work IMO.

Here is where Pro-one is feel as well as the way I aim. It is when you drop into your shot. Let me ask you, do you believe that all cut shots to the right for example can be made with the small amount of visuals pro-one provides and only be dropping in with a pro one left pivot or pro one right pivot, without the help from your subconscious mind in assisting minute adjustments?

That's right, when you align by using your visuals you are putting yourself in an approximate position and it is the work of your subconscious that aligns you as you drop into the shot. Your subconscious works to carry out what you have pictured in your head so if you believe you are aligned and can picture the shot going in then you are most of the way there.

Here is another thing we disagree on though. You think every miss while using pro-one is because of a bad stroke. I would claim that a beginner using pro one is going to make some mistakes dropping in on line because his subconscious needs more programming. With time you will succeed with pro one consistantly though but I can do the same by putting myself in line using a ghostball method.

I could make pro one work but it would take the same programming errors you would make because dropping in at the angle of pro one visuals is slightly different. I have already fine tuned my method of feel. In pro one you come in at more of an angle as opposed to me planting my back foot on the line of the shot and my head is right in line too. While my body pivots into the shot my head comes straight down because the visuals we started with are slightly different. You say you see people drop in like pro one and it might look to you like I am using pro one if you saw me play but in fact things are slightly different.

If pro-one works for you though and it is so
Etching you like, I say do it.
Click to expand...

In CTE PRO ONE there are objective visual alignments that when coupled with a specified rotation to CCB, there is a connection to table geometry, the pockets and in doing so produce slight over cut.

It is absolutely unnecessary to look at pockets. The system,resulting in a CCB aim, takes to the shooter to his shot lines.

This can be demoed quite easily and I will be happy to always to so.

Stan Shuffett
 
stan shuffett said:
In CTE PRO ONE there are objective visual alignments that when coupled with a specified rotation to CCB, there is a connection to table geometry, the pockets and in doing so produce slight over cut.

It is absolutely unnecessary to look at pockets. The system,resulting in a CCB aim, takes to the shooter to his shot lines.

This can be demoed quite easily and I will be happy to always to so.

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

I am willing to listen. I'd like to hear more about the specified rotation to ccb.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Sorry for your handicap - guess that's why some players need aiming systems.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Well Pat I certainly think what I do is better than the way you do it. You get down and then fidget your aim until you are set and then you pull the trigger.

Sorry but I don't see that your way is any better. I am sad that you seem to feel some major need to put people down who like system aiming. That to me is a handicap of character.

Were I to show a video of the way you get down on a ball I very much doubt that many people would consider instructing anyone else to emulate your method. However it does work for you to a degree as you are a decent player, not great, but ok enough to run out once in a while.

The difference between us though is that I wouldn't tell your students that what you are teaching them is bunk. Nor would I tell them that no other instructor demonstrates the fidget method of aiming. What I would do if any of your students were to ask me is simply say that there are other methods than the Pat Johnson fidget method and that if the PJF method of aiming isn't doing it for them then they should try out other ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top