Try this at home. $100 if you can do it.
- Thread starter JB Cases
- Start date
I don't think it was me.
Let's be real.
It was the negative nellies who caused it.
Someone posts a thread on the forum and says how do I draw my ball and there isn't a whole slew of attackers causing major arguements to erupt.
Someone posts a thread about aiming and then they come out like angry wasps if anyone dares to suggest that aiming could be systematic.
That is what caused this subforum to be created. Otherwise aiming threads would have been drama-free and died their natural deaths. But the upside is that without the critics we wouldn't have a dvd on it, we wouldn't have stan's youtube vids, we wouldn't have the other videos.
So no, I am not the cause at all.
Not even 49% the cause. Sorry but aiming wars have raged with or without me. They were raging before I ever dipped a toe in AFTER Hal sought me out. Prior to Hal looking me up I NEVER posted in a single aiming war thread. I skipped over them.
You're absolutely wrong here.
But as I said, all's well that ends well and because of being called all sort of defaming things Stan responded by proving his point through a great DVD and demonstrating what can be achieved in these recent videos.
If you want to spout percentages then try this one. Without the attackers there is a 100% certainty that no CTE/ProOne DVD would exist.
And without the DVD we would 100% not have all the great videos showing off the accuracy that CTE/ProOne offers.
I will respond to this by rephrasing a quote from the great Cawood Ledford, the legendary voice for the University of Kentucky basketball and football programs.
If I had my life to do over again, there would be some things that I would do differently.....but I would not change a single thing concerning my journey and work with Center to Edge Aiming.
Stan Shuffett
I have followed this thread trying to understand what it is all about.
And I get the impression that you/someone is saying that you don't need to know where the pocket is to make the ball!! lol
And that ,,one can just look at the orientation of the cue and OB(only)..use CTE and hit it into the pocket.
That is not a any type of aiming system!!! That is VODOO!!!! LMAO
Some one straighten me out please,,I don't want to be involved with any Vodoo. lol
But it seems to me,,if someone spends enough time on a table,,they know where the pocket is,without looking at it. And can shoot balls in from that knowledge and practice!! It's some great shooting ,,for sure!!!
And I get the impression that you/someone is saying that you don't need to know where the pocket is to make the ball!! lol
And that ,,one can just look at the orientation of the cue and OB(only)..use CTE and hit it into the pocket.
That is not a any type of aiming system!!! That is VODOO!!!! LMAO
Some one straighten me out please,,I don't want to be involved with any Vodoo. lol
But it seems to me,,if someone spends enough time on a table,,they know where the pocket is,without looking at it. And can shoot balls in from that knowledge and practice!! It's some great shooting ,,for sure!!!
If you feel it is voodoo and don't want to be involved then stop reading and watching the videos.
As for knowing where the pockets are - setup a curtain and try it - post your video for us all to see. I will do the same very shortly once I unpack 400 boxes.
Gerry
As for knowing where the pockets are - setup a curtain and try it - post your video for us all to see. I will do the same very shortly once I unpack 400 boxes.
Gerry
Really???
I already said,,I can't do it without the curtain. But I can make balls without looking at the pocket,,not that many in a row though.Only off by a few banks.
usually I try to stay away from Aiming forum conversations, because opposite views always fail to persuade each other there.
I have no problem with the concept that CTE works for some people. This demonstration by Stan Shuffett is impressive, no doubt. But he makes conclusions which are wrong, to my view, so I decided to comment on that.
I remember someone referring to Hal Houle claimed his system doe not require the shooter to be aware of the pocket at all. The first time I read it I became suspicious about that system and concept it uses. How come you don't need to take care of where your target is? That's ridiculous, and is possible only if one knows it due to any kind of reference.
"Cue ball and object ball both have objective aspects" - that's absolutely true. And every player uses them the way they were taught or got used to do, regardless of whether it is a system or not. But to know where you want to drive the object ball you absolutely require to know where the target is.
Hence several posts in this thread were aimed at this one, like making Stan really unaware of where the pocket is by different means. No doubt it is impossible to make a ball if you don't know where it is to be made.
Once lined up (using the pocket/any other target/ reference) the pocket is no longer required, that's true. Evgeny Stalev proves that in this video. That's wy our eyes shift back and forth between two balls and not between any ball and a pocket. But again, initial alignment is essential, and the reference is there.
By using the curtain Stan (I suppose) is trying to demonstrate the principle that the pocket is not to be taken into consideration. In the end of The Curtain Part 3 Banks video he says he did not use a rail or diamonds as a reference. Well, with experience of his he is always supposed to know where they are, so this reference is basically in his mind. Just as well as he quite aware of where the pockets are.
Therefore I assume that even though a player can claim he does not use any reference (and shows visual proof of that) he still does. Because if decorations change the system needs to be adjusted too.
Suppose the banks are demonstrated on a 10-footer, with both balls in the same position. That means both balls, cue ball and object ball, kept their objective aspects. My guess that would make things hard for the shooter. To make things more complicated, suppose we didn't tell Stan the table is changed now. Do you think the banks would still be pocketed then?
I also assume a pool player with no experience of playing on a full-sized (12 ft) snooker table will have serious trouble with any kind of curtain shots demo, simply because he has no mind picture of the table and thus has no reference to lay on.
On a side note, could be great to see how any snooker pro of top 200 rankings copes with the same task; I guess the results would be as impressive, and without any kind of specific aiming system.
Again, I'd like to repeat, I'm not in favor or against any kind of aiming system marketed at AZB. But it's hard to accept when they are based on (or lead to) wrong conclusions. I think that is the primary reason for multiple holy wars, when a thoughtful mind runs across something of non-scientific nature. Then it all beats down to "you've got to believe" and makes resemblance to religion even stronger.
Just my 2 cents (or was it a quarter?)
I have no problem with the concept that CTE works for some people. This demonstration by Stan Shuffett is impressive, no doubt. But he makes conclusions which are wrong, to my view, so I decided to comment on that.
I remember someone referring to Hal Houle claimed his system doe not require the shooter to be aware of the pocket at all. The first time I read it I became suspicious about that system and concept it uses. How come you don't need to take care of where your target is? That's ridiculous, and is possible only if one knows it due to any kind of reference.
"Cue ball and object ball both have objective aspects" - that's absolutely true. And every player uses them the way they were taught or got used to do, regardless of whether it is a system or not. But to know where you want to drive the object ball you absolutely require to know where the target is.
Hence several posts in this thread were aimed at this one, like making Stan really unaware of where the pocket is by different means. No doubt it is impossible to make a ball if you don't know where it is to be made.
Once lined up (using the pocket/any other target/ reference) the pocket is no longer required, that's true. Evgeny Stalev proves that in this video. That's wy our eyes shift back and forth between two balls and not between any ball and a pocket. But again, initial alignment is essential, and the reference is there.
By using the curtain Stan (I suppose) is trying to demonstrate the principle that the pocket is not to be taken into consideration. In the end of The Curtain Part 3 Banks video he says he did not use a rail or diamonds as a reference. Well, with experience of his he is always supposed to know where they are, so this reference is basically in his mind. Just as well as he quite aware of where the pockets are.
Therefore I assume that even though a player can claim he does not use any reference (and shows visual proof of that) he still does. Because if decorations change the system needs to be adjusted too.
Suppose the banks are demonstrated on a 10-footer, with both balls in the same position. That means both balls, cue ball and object ball, kept their objective aspects. My guess that would make things hard for the shooter. To make things more complicated, suppose we didn't tell Stan the table is changed now. Do you think the banks would still be pocketed then?
I also assume a pool player with no experience of playing on a full-sized (12 ft) snooker table will have serious trouble with any kind of curtain shots demo, simply because he has no mind picture of the table and thus has no reference to lay on.
On a side note, could be great to see how any snooker pro of top 200 rankings copes with the same task; I guess the results would be as impressive, and without any kind of specific aiming system.
Again, I'd like to repeat, I'm not in favor or against any kind of aiming system marketed at AZB. But it's hard to accept when they are based on (or lead to) wrong conclusions. I think that is the primary reason for multiple holy wars, when a thoughtful mind runs across something of non-scientific nature. Then it all beats down to "you've got to believe" and makes resemblance to religion even stronger.
Just my 2 cents (or was it a quarter?)
The videos demonstrate that Stan is looking at the CB and OB only to execute the shots. The pocket is not involved. However, the CB/OB orientation to the pocket does determine the visuals used on the OB. So the pocket is involved, just not during aiming/execution. So anyone proficient with CTE should be able to pull a curtain between the OB and pocket and shoot the same shots. That is, they are using CTE as described, using CB and OB only, and not using the pocket or rails to "steer" the shot. The curtain only exemplifies the process, not make it harder. That said, I'm sure it is more difficult since you don't have the pocket/rails/table in peripheral vision as subconscious reassurance during the shot.
I would think that covering the pocket using CTE is much easier than covering the pocket with ghostball, since ghostball requires exact angles and contact points and the pocket is directly involved to find them.
You have to know where the pockets are. In fact on every rectangle you know where the corners and centers are. When you play pool or snooker and you face the balls you only have a 2.25" or less for snooker span of movement from teh cue ball to the object ball. So obviously when the cut shot is to the right then the sighting to the left edge already puts you in the right frame to send the object ball towards the pocket.
What CTE does is dial you into the shot line, that line you must send the cue ball down in order for it to send the object ball into the pocket. Because Hal Houle figured out that you could do this with only a few visual references on the balls for all shots on the table you don't actually need to USE the pocket as a reference point.
The conventional way is to use the pocket and draw a line backwards through the object ball and then connect the contact point (that you cannot see) with the cue ball in some way, mostly by imagining another object you can't see, a ghost ball lined up with the pocket and then connect this imaginary Ghost Ball to the real cue ball. After all that you have to account for cling, CIT, speed, cleanliness of the balls, skid, swerve, squerve, etc...and ADJUST your ghost ball accordingly.
This way eliminates most if not all of that. You see the ball you align to it get down and shoot it accurately. That's thy key, accurately.
Simply put with CTE you have greater accuracy.
What CTE does is dial you into the shot line, that line you must send the cue ball down in order for it to send the object ball into the pocket. Because Hal Houle figured out that you could do this with only a few visual references on the balls for all shots on the table you don't actually need to USE the pocket as a reference point.
The conventional way is to use the pocket and draw a line backwards through the object ball and then connect the contact point (that you cannot see) with the cue ball in some way, mostly by imagining another object you can't see, a ghost ball lined up with the pocket and then connect this imaginary Ghost Ball to the real cue ball. After all that you have to account for cling, CIT, speed, cleanliness of the balls, skid, swerve, squerve, etc...and ADJUST your ghost ball accordingly.
This way eliminates most if not all of that. You see the ball you align to it get down and shoot it accurately. That's thy key, accurately.
Simply put with CTE you have greater accuracy.
usually I try to stay away from Aiming forum conversations, because opposite views always fail to persuade each other there.
I have no problem with the concept that CTE works for some people. This demonstration by Stan Shuffett is impressive, no doubt. But he makes conclusions which are wrong, to my view, so I decided to comment on that.
I remember someone referring to Hal Houle claimed his system doe not require the shooter to be aware of the pocket at all. The first time I read it I became suspicious about that system and concept it uses. How come you don't need to take care of where your target is? That's ridiculous, and is possible only if one knows it due to any kind of reference.
Hal said lots of things that sent people into a frenzy. That was just Hal. Of course the pocket is involved, just not during execution.
"Cue ball and object ball both have objective aspects" - that's absolutely true. And every player uses them the way they were taught or got used to do, regardless of whether it is a system or not. But to know where you want to drive the object ball you absolutely require to know where the target is.
Hence several posts in this thread were aimed at this one, like making Stan really unaware of where the pocket is by different means. No doubt it is impossible to make a ball if you don't know where it is to be made.
Again, (general) pocket location determines visuals on CB/OB, and not used during execution.
Once lined up (using the pocket/any other target/ reference) the pocket is no longer required, that's true.
With CTE pocket is not required during any part of execution, only to determine CB/OB visuals.
Evgeny Stalev proves that in this video. That's wy our eyes shift back and forth between two balls and not between any ball and a pocket. But again, initial alignment is essential, and the reference is there.
By using the curtain Stan (I suppose) is trying to demonstrate the principle that the pocket is not to be taken into consideration.
He is demonstrating that the pocket is not involved during execution.
In the end of The Curtain Part 3 Banks video he says he did not use a rail or diamonds as a reference. Well, with experience of his he is always supposed to know where they are, so this reference is basically in his mind. Just as well as he quite aware of where the pockets are.
He knows the visuals on the CB/OB required to pocket the given shot.
Therefore I assume that even though a player can claim he does not use any reference (and shows visual proof of that) he still does. Because if decorations change the system needs to be adjusted too.
Suppose the banks are demonstrated on a 10-footer, with both balls in the same position. That means both balls, cue ball and object ball, kept their objective aspects. My guess that would make things hard for the shooter. To make things more complicated, suppose we didn't tell Stan the table is changed now. Do you think the banks would still be pocketed then?
Yes they would go just the same with the same visuals, they translate to different table sizes. And yes, the targets (pockets) would be harder to hit, less leniency.
I also assume a pool player with no experience of playing on a full-sized (12 ft) snooker table will have serious trouble with any kind of curtain shots demo, simply because he has no mind picture of the table and thus has no reference to lay on.
On a side note, could be great to see how any snooker pro of top 200 rankings copes with the same task; I guess the results would be as impressive, and without any kind of specific aiming system.
The system works the same on a 12-footer, it just requires more accuracy.
Again, I'd like to repeat, I'm not in favor or against any kind of aiming system marketed at AZB. But it's hard to accept when they are based on (or lead to) wrong conclusions. I think that is the primary reason for multiple holy wars, when a thoughtful mind runs across something of non-scientific nature. Then it all beats down to "you've got to believe" and makes resemblance to religion even stronger.
Glad to see your input. Many holy wars around here are based on misconceptions, such as the pocket is not involved in any way whatsoever. Not true, it is involved initially.
Just my 2 cents (or was it a quarter?)
See my replies in blue above.
JB you have good reasoning.
Still would be interested to see a top snooker pro making some curtain shots
thanks for your comments. Actually what I quoted is true with any kind of approach like I said. Any "system" like ghost ball, fractions, SEE, CTE, etc. uses balls "visuals" and during execution pocket is not involved.
Still would be interested to see a top snooker pro making some curtain shots
Last edited:
Lets look at a specific shot, CB and OB placed on a random spot.
What are the things we know? We know that the CB and OB are sitting on a rectangular surface with pockets in six fixed locations. This is always the case for any given shot.
We know that using CTE, you can find the geometric aiming line for any pocket using only the CB/OB during execution. Depending on the pocket you are trying to hit, the specific visual used is different. (And of course, the shooter needs to be aware of speed and spin for any given shot.)
What does that mean? That means given enough experience, you can look at any CB/OB orientation to a pocket and recognize the visuals required to find the shot line. Therefore, if you cover half of the table with a curtain, it should not affect your shot since you only use the CB/OB to execute the given shot. This is what the curtain forces the shooter to do. What would be interesting is to shoot a table-length three-rail bank shot with the curtain covering the top half of the table. Most anyone not using CTE will be looking at the rails/diamonds to line that shot up. But with CTE you just use CB/OB visuals to execute the shot. The curtain shouldn't make a difference.
What are the things we know? We know that the CB and OB are sitting on a rectangular surface with pockets in six fixed locations. This is always the case for any given shot.
We know that using CTE, you can find the geometric aiming line for any pocket using only the CB/OB during execution. Depending on the pocket you are trying to hit, the specific visual used is different. (And of course, the shooter needs to be aware of speed and spin for any given shot.)
What does that mean? That means given enough experience, you can look at any CB/OB orientation to a pocket and recognize the visuals required to find the shot line. Therefore, if you cover half of the table with a curtain, it should not affect your shot since you only use the CB/OB to execute the given shot. This is what the curtain forces the shooter to do. What would be interesting is to shoot a table-length three-rail bank shot with the curtain covering the top half of the table. Most anyone not using CTE will be looking at the rails/diamonds to line that shot up. But with CTE you just use CB/OB visuals to execute the shot. The curtain shouldn't make a difference.
John, I think you just gotta let it go man. You can't jump off a building to prove gravity to someone. If they can't figure this out... or don't want to, so be it. But you're just wasting your time trying.
I figured I would give this a try, I have a only had this table a couple of weeks and it has pockets that are right at 4.5 inches and old cloth (waiting on Glen):smile:.. It plays tight.
I am usually just see and shoot player anymore. To do this I had to go to fractional aiming which is not how I normally aim so this was a good test for me.
While not perfect I think it is close enough to show that a better player using any method could do this one.. The length of table video is the one like Dave and I had done years ago and I could not do 15 then and I don't think I could do it now, at least without practicing it. The banks would be the most difficult.
I do believe a pro level player could come close or duplicate these using what ever method they use.
One thing is for sure Stan did a great job of showing what is possible!:smile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZHgnI3bL5o
I also need to apologize to John for my comment yesterday, sorry John I was just a little on edge!
Mark
I am usually just see and shoot player anymore. To do this I had to go to fractional aiming which is not how I normally aim so this was a good test for me.
While not perfect I think it is close enough to show that a better player using any method could do this one.. The length of table video is the one like Dave and I had done years ago and I could not do 15 then and I don't think I could do it now, at least without practicing it. The banks would be the most difficult.
I do believe a pro level player could come close or duplicate these using what ever method they use.
One thing is for sure Stan did a great job of showing what is possible!:smile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZHgnI3bL5o
I also need to apologize to John for my comment yesterday, sorry John I was just a little on edge!
Mark
Last edited:
You guys are never going to understand this because PRO1 is an actual system. You guys are debating the outer shell of it and don't understand there is an engine inside that drives the system. I tried explaining this years ago but it would just go over people heads and three years later it still is.
When a pro1 user steps up to a pool table, the table becomes wired to the system and the user. Now let us just use a cue ball and a object ball on the table as an example. Throw the two balls on the table and when they come to a stop, the system automatically on its own makes a connection and syncs with the two balls. pockets and the table. Pockets have been determined already by the system and not the user. the user now has option to choose what alignment to shoot and which pocket he wants to use. This is just a bit of a rough example to try help you guys along.
I don't know why Stan doesn't want to let this info out and chooses to ignore my posts now pretty much?
Now I am done talking about pro1, try and figure out what I am saying or spin your wheels for the next 10 years, good luck :thumbup:
Added: PRO! is a msterpiece created by Stan and time will show this.
When a pro1 user steps up to a pool table, the table becomes wired to the system and the user. Now let us just use a cue ball and a object ball on the table as an example. Throw the two balls on the table and when they come to a stop, the system automatically on its own makes a connection and syncs with the two balls. pockets and the table. Pockets have been determined already by the system and not the user. the user now has option to choose what alignment to shoot and which pocket he wants to use. This is just a bit of a rough example to try help you guys along.
I don't know why Stan doesn't want to let this info out and chooses to ignore my posts now pretty much?
Now I am done talking about pro1, try and figure out what I am saying or spin your wheels for the next 10 years, good luck :thumbup:
Added: PRO! is a msterpiece created by Stan and time will show this.
Last edited:
Yes this is right, and basically saying the same thing that has been said in various ways :grin:. When I was first looking at CTE I didn't really understand how the system could connect perfectly with the pockets on a rectangle. It would make more sense if it connected with a square. Well the thing is, it does connect with a square. Imagine if the pool table were perfectly square, with a pocket at each corner, at the middle of each side, and one in the table center. Using visuals on the CB/OB, you could find routes through any pocket. Well, a rectangle is just cutting this square in half, using only one side and six of the pockets.