I personally believe using pro one force me to have a preshot routine that have made me consistent. Granted I am in no way a great player.. or in my opinion a good player. In fact after deciding to go with pro one my game drop significantly where it was just embarrassing but to me anyone that is trying to apply something new to their game will see a decrease in their game but its the potential upside that makes it worth it. But my pocketing has gotten a lot better and it seems easier to pocket balls. My issue now is controlling the cue ball. You can be a great ball maker but eventually you are going to get hook and with being comfortable on making balls i feel i can finally work on my ball control and this will definitely make me a better player.
Perception in CTE Pro 1
- Thread starter rubell
- Start date
I personally believe using pro one force me to have a preshot routine that have made me consistent. Granted I am in no way a great player.. or in my opinion a good player. In fact after deciding to go with pro one my game drop significantly where it was just embarrassing but to me anyone that is trying to apply something new to their game will see a decrease in their game but its the potential upside that makes it worth it. But my pocketing has gotten a lot better and it seems easier to pocket balls. My issue now is controlling the cue ball. You can be a great ball maker but eventually you are going to get hook and with being comfortable on making balls i feel i can finally work on my ball control and this will definitely make me a better player.
Don't get me wrong. I see the difference in object balls placement but I am also aware that this is my practice that did it. I replaced CTE and ETA to left edge to left edge and right edge to right edge and painted the target line to have a good feel of the position (by some reason I always try to be aware on the rail behind and type of pocket , center or corner), and I try to feel the table, feel my shots and then my body automatically goes to a correct position and since I train my pre-shot routine and practice, I am able to pocket balls. So, I am thinking, why to change what I can already do?
ln817, you can try Dr Dave's drills on cue ball control. I am in the same position as you, need to work on cue ball control and these drills help me a lot, it is like I see improvements of my real game after just few days. Another thing I do, I try to never give up when analyze a position. It allows me to find feasible solutions, rather than some unrealistic crazy shots.
Don't get me wrong. I see the difference in object balls placement but I am also aware that this is my practice that did it. I replaced CTE and ETA to left edge to left edge and right edge to right edge and painted the target line to have a good feel of the position (by some reason I always try to be aware on the rail behind and type of pocket , center or corner), and I try to feel the table, feel my shots and then my body automatically goes to a correct position and since I train my pre-shot routine and practice, I am able to pocket balls. So, I am thinking, why to change what I can already do?
What you are describing here is not CTE, this is much like other systems such as ghost ball or back of ball aiming. What works for you is fine, but don't try to think it is a system that connects you to the pockets with a handful of visuals. Every shot is a different approach with that method.
Of course it is not CTE. I would be very wrong to say this. My pre-shot routine is different, my connecting method to the aim line is different, why would I say something like this?
At the same time it is not the same as ghost ball at all, even close. I think we are discussing a complex subject of how brain learns. And what my intuition says about it, there is no way of getting away from getting around the table and practice and make the brain connect different positions at the table with whatever action results in ball pocketing, with a named system or not. Consistency though allows a faster learning process and simplifies decision making process, specially under pressure.
rubell, you will not get resolution here to your valid concerns about this system, so you might as well give it up. All you'll get here are protestations that: you have not given it sufficient time, dedication, commitment, and do not truly believe, or the system would work.
When the DVD first came out, I said pretty much the same thing you've said -- stuff is missing: "Which brings me to this: overall, there is a part of me that wants to say that, perhaps, there is some (much) key info kept purposely fuzzy, because there is *no way* you could put this out in the marketplace and expect people -- that had no prior knowledge and understanding of the system -- to succeed. If you want “to believe” after watching this DVD you are almost compelled to contact Stan, because IMO, it certainly does not stand alone as advertised."
You can read the entire discussion here, with my complete review of the DVD at about page six:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=221106
So, stay if you must, just keep in mind that in this sub forum it will always be *your* fault.
Lou Figueroa
Lou,
Let it go!
What was missing was your pathetic lack of motivation and ultimately no effort.
I am tired of your stupid comments.
Stan Shuffett
I see what you mean, Lou. I am not seeking answers on the subject anymore. I do not like cults or an autocratic behavior. I like playing pool and enjoy it and enjoy discussing stuff about pool. Such arguing is just out of the scope of my interests.
Lou - just because you cannot figure it out doesn't mean the DVD is incomplete. I worked with the system for 3 months and dedicated a lot of time to it and guess what, it works.
I use Pro One 100% and IMO it is complete - there are no gaps or adjustments.
What exactly is missing? Show me a shot that exposes a hole in the system.
Gerry
I use Pro One 100% and IMO it is complete - there are no gaps or adjustments.
What exactly is missing? Show me a shot that exposes a hole in the system.
Gerry
I don't usually participate in sh*t flinging contests, but I want to add something beneficial for both sides of the fence. Or at least I'll try.
No one is at fault for anything. This has never been about accusations. But here is the thing about this CTE aiming stuff. Bottom line, it does take table time to figure it out. Even if you somehow possessed and understood all the required knowledge up front, there is no way around it.
When Stan says this is a "new dimension" in aiming, he is exactly right. It is very different than what traditional methods of pool aiming have taught. Different enough that even if you could read a book or watch a DVD and grasp 100% every aspect about it, you still would not be able to execute the system with fluency until you give your eyes and mind a chance to acclimate itself to this new concept.
All I can do is compare it something like golf. You can read a book and learn everything you need to know about how to get that ball on the green. But damned if any of that is going to work until you put some real time in behind that club.
I think Stan did a good job explaining the system as well as he knew how through a DVD. It's not something easy to convey. But once you put the time in and get it working, you go back through the DVD and start picking up on all the little details that flew right by from previous viewings. Stan now has a few more years of experience with this system behind him, and I think the next DVD may shed more light on the subject in new and better ways. But nothing will change the fact that it takes table time to make it happen.
I have been to Stan's and took a lesson. The best thing I ever did for my game. For those of you who think Stan is in this purely for profit, or purposely hiding details because it is fog and mirrors, you are sorely mistaken. Stan is genuinely excited about bringing a very unique concept in pool to the masses, and did this well knowing he would be getting flack for it. This system goes against the grain of what a lot of people have taught for decades, and flack is expected.
People used to think the earth was flat, and those that didn't were ridiculed. I think a day will come when CTE will be common player knowledge, and thinking otherwise will only be a page in the history books.
mohrt, I think you had the best response here in this thread to help understand the system. I guess, some people do not see the same perspective as others do. People have similar but different senses, vision. Moreover, something is being tried to explain which is something new (in some way).
Imagine, if someone lives up North and tries to explain what polar light is. A conversation could be like that:
- There is a beautiful light in the sky. Look there and you will see.
Another person sees a star and says:
- Look,it is a polar light.
- No
- Can you tell me what to look for?
- I already told you everything I know. Just look at the sky and you will know it.
Well, there are two potential problems here. First, this information does not help the student, does not tell what to look, even approximately, there is Sun, Moon, stars, planets, city lights, etc. So, what is the Polar light? Could that person at least say, well, you shall see multiple colors, something big, bigger than Sun, you can see it in certain regions, etc. Nobody asks to give a proof and formulas or explain it is because some angle and the light reflects that way and you see that light.
- You did not try enough! It's your lack of motivation!
Also, there is another problem be too. How in the world someone would see the polar light from say California or Arizona? Read, aka specifics of person's perception, vision, etc. Some people just might not see it.
Rubell, I understand what you are saying here, but it's not really the case. If you can see a line going from edge to edge, or edge to center, then the system can easily work for you.
The problem some have is that this style of aiming is so different than the norm that they can't let go of what they do now completely. I had the same problem at first. Subconsciously trying to fit CTE into my old way of aiming. You can't do it. It won't work at all.
Reading all the posts by those that had success with it, and knowing they had no stake in lying about it, I knew it had to work as described. And, that I wasn't really doing it as described, even though I thought I was. Was finally got me "over the hump" was to get on a table by myself, and totally forget about making balls. My sole intent was to follow the steps step by step, and then just observe what would happen if I did that. If the ball fell, it fell. If it didn't fall, where did it go?? And, more importantly, was I missing it the same way every time?? Was I being consistent?
What I found out, was that I wasn't being very consistent. So, I worked on that first. Then I tried the system again. Same way, no thoughts about if it worked or not, I knew it did. Just if I could get it to work for me. What happened was that I found the system worked extremely well, and that the steps needed were actually exactly as described!
OK, now I proved to myself that the system does work perfectly. However, I again found out that I did not. I had to really work on my stroke, and get rid of any steering I had been doing. Had to be precise in my setup until it became second nature, and the "old way" of aiming and playing was knocked out of my subconscious as much as it could be .
Doing that, I found CTE/Pro 1 and 90/90 to not only be a fantastic way to aim, but there are an number of great side affects to playing that way. Such as a solid pre-shot routine, which in itself is huge.
Again, you have to let go of the old way you aim, and just follow the steps and see what happens. Don't try and make the ball, just observe what happens.
Just to be sure, I never accused Stan of lying or anything unethical. Neither I ever told the system is incomplete. What I mean with that approach of answering, the learning process going nowhere.
The problem is understanding what all these terms mean, like "right", "not right", "perception", etc. It is like one needs one more step for further explaining.
Let me give you an example. Let's say, I've been working in the fields related software engineering at different capacities for more than 20 years. How would I explain someone 7 years old, who does not know anything about it? I would explain the basics, what this term means, what that term means, would give some examples, etc. Otherwise if I say something like "use the Bridge Pattern here", just use it, the student will not understand, what it is, why it is needed, etc. Even if I say it is a "pattern to decouple abstraction from implementation" will not help, I would have to introduce what decouple means, what abstraction, what implementation, why they are important, etc. I am not saying in this case it must be done that precise, but I feel like hitting a wall, where no more information disclosed. I do not say it is done intentionally again.
Nobody needs to say it is legit, I do not challenge that. I just need answers.
Gotcha. Have you seen Stan's support videos on you-tube?? Those may very well answer the question you have. If not, then how about making a list of the terms that you still don't understand, and we can see if we can provide a meaningful meaning for them.
Sorry, still getting over a real bad chest cold, not thinking real clearly yet. Will go back over the thread and check it out.
Rubell, I made this video today for someone else on here. It is for 90/90, not CTE/Pro 1. And, is somewhat similar to a support video Stan put out. Maybe it will clear a few things up for you on CTE/Pro 1, maybe not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPo177PNq1Q
OK Rubell, I read throught the thread. Here is what I picked up from it- you think you are, but you are not following directions. The directions aren't vague or ambiguous, it's just that you are not actually reading what is actually written or said. You are instinctively adding to what is said or written.
It's clear to me that you are trying to add CTE into your existing aiming system. As I stated earlier, you cannot do that. You can't just take the directions into a game and except to have success. You HAVE to follow the DVD. Set up the shots shown, and practice them. THEN you will understand how it works, and be surprised that it does work just like is stated. Nothing missing at all.
You are wanting to understand it "on paper". You won't, and shouldn't. Quit trying to understand, and just do as directed and observe. Then, the "light" will come on.
It's clear to me that you are trying to add CTE into your existing aiming system. As I stated earlier, you cannot do that. You can't just take the directions into a game and except to have success. You HAVE to follow the DVD. Set up the shots shown, and practice them. THEN you will understand how it works, and be surprised that it does work just like is stated. Nothing missing at all.
You are wanting to understand it "on paper". You won't, and shouldn't. Quit trying to understand, and just do as directed and observe. Then, the "light" will come on.
Neil, it is not true. I followed the directions to my best understanding, it did not work, then I opened the thread, asked very specific questions but did not receive answers, and once again I am getting "you are doing something wrong, not following directions" but did not receive answers to specific questions.
If you read the thread, you noticed that I performed the test with multiple balls according to the diagram and tried to follow directions and it did not work. The same angle was cut.
Now the question, what came first, the chicken or the egg? If I have unanswered questions on directions, how can I be following what Stan said? How can I follow answers if I am said I need to follow the directions?
Nick
Give it a month, not a day. Practice the shots as demonstrated. All the understanding will come. This is the only way forward. You can't possibly come back after one practice session with definitive results. This is the point where you decide to be a finger pointer, or put in the time to really get it. As you might observe, many don't get past here.