Stan Shuffett youtube videos

[JB Cases]

Something I've been thinking about (and Stan please chime in if you have other insight about this):

If you notice, a lot of players at a very high level using Pro One are (likely) already short-stop or better shooters without a specific aiming system. This is something telling: stroke and knowledge is extremely important to be consistent. Take Gerry Williams for example. He smashes the 9-ball ghost routinely. Before he knew Pro One, he was already a semi-pro ranked player in Canada (at least thats what I'm told

So, I'm going to make a wild guess that stroke is 50% of the effort on a shot, experience/knowledge is 25%, and aiming is the other 25%. This means if stroke is not razor sharp, you will never be consistent, regardless of the aim! A lot of people struggling with Pro One may very well be struggling with their stroke as well, making everything that much more frustrating. You have to couple a razor sharp stroke to make an aiming system work to its full potential.

Now lets move to the other side of the coin. Lets take guys that are razor sharp at stroke, they have a lot of experience playing, but their aiming technique is purely feel. That is, they don't really take conscious objective aim, they do everything based on experience. Aim just may be their weakest link. I'm guessing this is where Gerry Williams was before taking on Pro One. Now his aim is based on objective targets instead of pure feel, and I have a hunch his game has climbed another notch because of it. (Gerry feel free to tell your story

So I guess what I'm trying to say here, CTE Pro One aiming can take your aiming to the highest level. However, there is no substitute for stroke and shot knowledge. You *have* to put in the time to master that part of your game, along with aiming to put it all together and be a top player.

With that, if you are serious about pool, get professional lessons. I'll highly recommend Stan's private courses to take *all* aspects of your game to the next level. He will give you all the tools and knowledge it takes, not just CTE!

This is what we have said all along. I specifically have said hundreds of times that an aiming system just gets you to the shot line. Even GB is a method of bringing the shooter to the shot line.

That is all a system can do for you. Like a jump cue the system does not take the shot for you.

I have done several videos talking about and demonstrating this.

The flip side to an accurate aiming system like ProOne is that once you are on the right aiming line you can easily throw it off by not trusting the line you are on or with a lousy inconsistent stroke.

But if your stroke is dialed in then it feels like cheating. If some gave you ten boards to cut in half for $100 a board you would do everything possible to measure those boards and find the center. No way would you attempt to do it all by feel.

 

[Gerry Williams]

Hey Mohrt,

I just finished a pretty solid session with Pro One. It is getting better every day for me as Stan said it would. There is still plenty of work to do but Pro One has made me more consistent and straightened my stroke.

It is pretty much subconscious for me which is where it needs to be. I have been working hard on this for 1 year now and have loved the journey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhNTkxaDvIQ&feature=youtu.be

Cheers,
Gerry

Something I've been thinking about (and Stan please chime in if you have other insight about this):

If you notice, a lot of players at a very high level using Pro One are (likely) already short-stop or better shooters without a specific aiming system. This is something telling: stroke and knowledge is extremely important to be consistent. Take Gerry Williams for example. He smashes the 9-ball ghost routinely. Before he knew Pro One, he was already a semi-pro ranked player in Canada (at least thats what I'm told

So, I'm going to make a wild guess that stroke is 50% of the effort on a shot, experience/knowledge is 25%, and aiming is the other 25%. This means if stroke is not razor sharp, you will never be consistent, regardless of the aim! A lot of people struggling with Pro One may very well be struggling with their stroke as well, making everything that much more frustrating. You have to couple a razor sharp stroke to make an aiming system work to its full potential.

Now lets move to the other side of the coin. Lets take guys that are razor sharp at stroke, they have a lot of experience playing, but their aiming technique is purely feel. That is, they don't really take conscious objective aim, they do everything based on experience. Aim just may be their weakest link. I'm guessing this is where Gerry Williams was before taking on Pro One. Now his aim is based on objective targets instead of pure feel, and I have a hunch his game has climbed another notch because of it. (Gerry feel free to tell your story

So I guess what I'm trying to say here, CTE Pro One aiming can take your aiming to the highest level. However, there is no substitute for stroke and shot knowledge. You *have* to put in the time to master that part of your game, along with aiming to put it all together and be a top player.

With that, if you are serious about pool, get professional lessons. I'll highly recommend Stan's private courses to take *all* aspects of your game to the next level. He will give you all the tools and knowledge it takes, not just CTE!

 

[mohrt]

One more video in the progression:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A14srrn2uEg

 

[scottjen26]

The balls have know thought on how they lay on the table,only the shooter does.
Twice he created a straight in shot by producing the the same visuals and sweep.
He proceeds to do the same on a fake pocket on the rail.Now for some reason it doesn't produce a line to the fake pocket..but a bank to the corner.

Keep the balls in the same position and slide them over to the rail.(as in my picture)
Now the system connects to the pocket.Seems a little strange don't you think.
Again balls don't know a thing .

Tied to the geometry of the table....I guess that's all on the shooter.

Thanks Anthony

I have to agree with you Anthony, I just don't get it. This is one of the questions I've had ever since working with Pro One. I just ignored it and kept working with the system...

You setup a diagonal to the corner, straight on shot in the side, etc. - really any straight on 0 angle shot. You are not looking at or orientating yourself to the pocket in any way, although you are aware directionally where you are shooting. You line up CTE and ETA (or C) and perform an outside sweep to thicken the shot up. Or manually do an outside manual half tip pivot. You end up on a dead straight path to the object ball, and it goes into the pocket.

Now you do the same thing up the middle of the table, to a "fake" pocket in the middle of the end rail, perform the same visuals and movements, yet the ball cuts 5 or 10 degrees to take it to a bank in the corner?

Because of this and some other questions I just had to suspend my disbelief and skepticism and continue to work with the system and allow everything to just happen. And it works, very well. But now I see these new support videos, and the question comes up again, for me at least doing more harm than good.

I for one don't understand the explanations that were given. I get that it connects with the geometry of the table, but if I line up 2 objective lines and perform the same exact movement, someone please try to explain why something different happens. My guess - a visual "trick" based on the geometry of the table and how we orientate ourselves. Even so, we should be able to "trick" ourselves into shooting into that fake pocket as well.

I completely believe in the system, have used it and now SEE at a very high level. At least in SEE, I CAN "trick" myself into shooting that shot straight into the end rail. I wouldn't do that in a game, as there is no pocket there, but I can control my rotational movement by stepping toward that "fake" pocket and the cue ball will go in that direction instead of cutting the ball for the bank or cut.

Not suggesting necessarily that one is better than the other, only that the rotational aspects of the two systems are different and with SEE it's not as binary as either left or right. There are thing with SEE that confuse me occasionally as well, but since I know they work and my goal is to make balls I just let it happen. Really lends support to the notion that certain things are happening in the subconscious, or because of our orientation to the shot, and the systems function as a guideline to lead us into the proper shot line more consistently than might be possible with a less objective aiming approach.

Scott

 

[mohrt]

I for one don't understand the explanations that were given. I get that it connects with the geometry of the table, but if I line up 2 objective lines and perform the same exact movement, someone please try to explain why something different happens. My guess - a visual "trick" based on the geometry of the table and how we orientate ourselves. Even so, we should be able to "trick" ourselves into shooting into that fake pocket as well.

That pretty much sums it up. The "trick" is visual perception, and we learn how to recognize it through practice. You can force yourself to line up to the fake pocket, but it won't look or feel right at all. Stan demonstrates this in his perception video series.

 

[8pack]

I have to agree with you Anthony, I just don't get it. This is one of the questions I've had ever since working with Pro One. I just ignored it and kept working with the system...

You setup a diagonal to the corner, straight on shot in the side, etc. - really any straight on 0 angle shot. You are not looking at or orientating yourself to the pocket in any way, although you are aware directionally where you are shooting. You line up CTE and ETA (or C) and perform an outside sweep to thicken the shot up. Or manually do an outside manual half tip pivot. You end up on a dead straight path to the object ball, and it goes into the pocket.

Now you do the same thing up the middle of the table, to a "fake" pocket in the middle of the end rail, perform the same visuals and movements, yet the ball cuts 5 or 10 degrees to take it to a bank in the corner?

Because of this and some other questions I just had to suspend my disbelief and skepticism and continue to work with the system and allow everything to just happen. And it works, very well. But now I see these new support videos, and the question comes up again, for me at least doing more harm than good.

I for one don't understand the explanations that were given. I get that it connects with the geometry of the table, but if I line up 2 objective lines and perform the same exact movement, someone please try to explain why something different happens. My guess - a visual "trick" based on the geometry of the table and how we orientate ourselves. Even so, we should be able to "trick" ourselves into shooting into that fake pocket as well.

I completely believe in the system, have used it and now SEE at a very high level. At least in SEE, I CAN "trick" myself into shooting that shot straight into the end rail. I wouldn't do that in a game, as there is no pocket there, but I can control my rotational movement by stepping toward that "fake" pocket and the cue ball will go in that direction instead of cutting the ball for the bank or cut.

Not suggesting necessarily that one is better than the other, only that the rotational aspects of the two systems are different and with SEE it's not as binary as either left or right. There are thing with SEE that confuse me occasionally as well, but since I know they work and my goal is to make balls I just let it happen. Really lends support to the notion that certain things are happening in the subconscious, or because of our orientation to the shot, and the systems function as a guideline to lead us into the proper shot line more consistently than might be possible with a less objective aiming approach.

Scott

Thanks Scott.

I know its hard to agree with me.:smile:

 

[rubell]

Monte, interesting question. Can someone learn to perceive straight shot to the fake pocket to feel right or there is something fundamental that would never match?

That pretty much sums it up. The "trick" is visual perception, and we learn how to recognize it through practice. You can force yourself to line up to the fake pocket, but it won't look or feel right at all. Stan demonstrates this in his perception video series.

 

[stan shuffett]

That pretty much sums it up. The "trick" is visual perception, and we learn how to recognize it through practice. You can force yourself to line up to the fake pocket, but it won't look or feel right at all. Stan demonstrates this in his perception video series.

Yes, Monte, you are correct when you say it's about visual perception. There is no trick to it , though. What there is is an objective perception for each set of balls that connect with tpockets, real pockets and it just happens that the same visuals and sweep is used for all 3 shots.

The cut to the upper left pocket is A left and the left cut bank is A outside. There is NO FEELING one's way to the banking angle. Sorry, but some do NOT want this to be true but as I have indicated many times, real CTE was never supposed to be.

And there is a simple PRO ONE method of shooting straight up table to the makeshift pocket. No forcing as has been implied.

Stan Shuffett

 

[JB Cases]

Yes, Monte, you are correct when you say it's about visual perception. There is no trick to it , though. What there is is an objective perception for each set of balls that connect with tpockets, real pockets and it just happens that the same visuals and sweep is used for all 3 shots.

The cut to the upper left pocket is A left and the left cut bank is A outside. There is NO FEELING one's way to the banking angle. Sorry, but some do NOT want this to be true but as I have indicated many times, real CTE was never supposed to be.

And there is a simple PRO ONE method of shooting straight up table to the makeshift pocket. No forcing as has been implied.

Stan Shuffett

Stan,

After watching your video I went to the table and tried it with three rail banks. I was putting the object ball within 3" of the pocket consistently in about ten minutes from almost any position where it was even possible to do so.

Now previously, doing it by feel I would miss the pocket by a diamond sometimes on either side of it.

I didn't want to believe that this works either and Randy Goetlicher told me it does years ago but I didn't bother to practice and figure it out.

Your videos have been the catalyst for me and I am sure for many others who have followed these methods for years.

Thank you.

 

[stan shuffett]

Stan,

After watching your video I went to the table and tried it with three rail banks. I was putting the object ball within 3" of the pocket consistently in about ten minutes from almost any position where it was even possible to do so.

Now previously, doing it by feel I would miss the pocket by a diamond sometimes on either side of it.

I didn't want to believe that this works either and Randy Goetlicher told me it does years ago but I didn't bother to practice and figure it out.

Your videos have been the catalyst for me and I am sure for many others who have followed these methods for years.

Thank you.

Thanks, JB.
I am glad my videos are helping you along.
I am still amazed with CTE PRO ONE and how it can so accurately connect to pockets.
I confirm to myself nearly everyday the realness of CTE while many think " can't possibly be".
Stan Shuffett

 

[8pack]

That pretty much sums it up. The "trick" is visual perception, and we learn how to recognize it through practice. You can force yourself to line up to the fake pocket, but it won't look or feel right at all. Stan demonstrates this in his perception video series.

And why's that?

 

[BeiberLvr]

Hey Anthony

How many times out of 5 attempts do you think you could make this 5 rail back as diagrammed? Would you be able to record the attempts?

I know you're a good enough player that it shouldn't be hard, I'm just curious to see how a non Pro one user would fair.

 

[One Pocket John]

I'm going to go back and watch the posted videos again.

After watching them the first time I went to my table and started setting up shots. After determining if the hit on the OB was on A,B or C in the standing position shooting to the right corner pocket I would do a right sweep down to place the center of the QB on the edge of the OB.

It appears to me that this is a four step process.
1. Is the hit point on the OB, A, B or C inside or outside
2. Sweep right or left - depends on the shot
3. Line up the CCB with the edge of the OB
4. Shoot

This is pretty cool. I can see myself using Stan's teachings in the future. :wink:

Oh yeah, love the one pocket shots.

Thanks again.

John

 

[stan shuffett]

I'm going to go back and watch the posted videos again.

After watching them the first time I went to my table and started setting up shots. After determining if the hit on the OB was on A,B or C in the standing position shooting to the right corner pocket I would do a right sweep down to place the center of the QB on the edge of the OB.

It appears to me that this is a four step process.
1. Is the hit point on the OB, A, B or C inside or outside
2. Sweep right or left - depends on the shot
3. Line up the CCB with the edge of the OB
4. Shoot

This is pretty cool. I can see myself using Stan's teachings in the future. :wink:

Oh yeah, love the one pocket shots.

Thanks again.

John

Thanks, John.
I am glad you appreciate what I have shared. I put a lot of "work' into those videos. There will be many more.
Stan Shuffett

 

[One Pocket John]

Looking forward to the videos Stan.

I think it was Ingo that stated:

"You only know something well enough when you can explain it to your grand-mother."

I don't have a clue as to how this works. At my age, I don't have any grand-parents alive.

John

 

[scottjen26]

Yes, Monte, you are correct when you say it's about visual perception. There is no trick to it , though. What there is is an objective perception for each set of balls that connect with tpockets, real pockets and it just happens that the same visuals and sweep is used for all 3 shots.

The cut to the upper left pocket is A left and the left cut bank is A outside. There is NO FEELING one's way to the banking angle. Sorry, but some do NOT want this to be true but as I have indicated many times, real CTE was never supposed to be.

And there is a simple PRO ONE method of shooting straight up table to the makeshift pocket. No forcing as has been implied.

Stan Shuffett

That's what I don't get. The left cut bank is A outside. Which, if the balls were on the left side of the table as Anthony showed, is the same exact shot yet it goes straight up table into the pocket. So why doesn't the one in the middle of the table go straight up table as well?

You say it connects to the pockets - how? If I'm purely lining up to the shot based on an objective perception of CTE and edge to A, the pockets should not come into play at all. Struggling with how from a systematic perspective the balls do something different...


I'm not trying to be overly critical, and I really appreciate the extra effort you've put into these support videos. And I may be a tad more analytical than the average bear... But if I'm having these questions, so are others, and I would think you would want to give a clear, concise answer. Most people wouldn't do what I did and just power through the questions and still learn the system and see the results, they would get frustrated and give up. I know if I put something out there for others to learn that would be unacceptable to me if anything was unclear. If the explanation is something visual, great, I've given up a long time ago on trying to make any sense of this or other systems mathematically. Just can't figure out how the table or pockets are somehow coming into play in the alignment, as they must be for this to happen...

Scott

 

[One Pocket John]

I hear ya Scott.

For those of us that are analytical CTE is a hard pill to swallow.

I had to let the analytical thing go and just do it.

I can't help to wander though there has to be some way of explaining what is going on and why CTE works. (analytical again)

I'm having fun with CTE, its a new adventure and another tool to add to the ole tool box.

John

 

[stan shuffett]

That's what I don't get. The left cut bank is A outside. Which, if the balls were on the left side of the table as Anthony showed, is the same exact shot yet it goes straight up table into the pocket. So why doesn't the one in the middle of the table go straight up table as well?

You say it connects to the pockets - how? If I'm purely lining up to the shot based on an objective perception of CTE and edge to A, the pockets should not come into play at all. Struggling with how from a systematic perspective the balls do something different...


I'm not trying to be overly critical, and I really appreciate the extra effort you've put into these support videos. And I may be a tad more analytical than the average bear... But if I'm having these questions, so are others, and I would think you would want to give a clear, concise answer. Most people wouldn't do what I did and just power through the questions and still learn the system and see the results, they would get frustrated and give up. I know if I put something out there for others to learn that would be unacceptable to me if anything was unclear. If the explanation is something visual, great, I've given up a long time ago on trying to make any sense of this or other systems mathematically. Just can't figure out how the table or pockets are somehow coming into play in the alignment, as they must be for this to happen...

Scott

Scott,
You have said a few times that the perceptions of CTE PRO ONE connect to pockets. You have demoed CTE PRO ONE while others have watched. Your posting history will bear out that the system works and is accurate.
Now, all of the sudden, the visuals of CTE PRO ONE are only good for one angle and just fill in the needed angles with subconscious adjustments.
Once again, this is simple, it's perceptual. The perceptions of CTE as I have said over and over take one's aim to pockets.
I am sorry, really sorry that you find what I do not up to your analytical standards. I am working my tail off to share my knowledge and if you do not like my style of teaching then I guess just go ahead and try to drag me down as well as what I do.
There's more SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE KNOWLEDGE to come, my way, my style. I won't leave you hanging!!
Stan Shuffett

 

[nobcitypool]

Stan, I don't think Scott was wanting to be critical (although his post may have not be clear in that respect). I'm not trying to put words into his mouth but I believe he was trying to offer a perspective he hoped may be helpful to you. I've talked to Scott on multiple occasions and he has always been very complimentary about you, your teaching and your systems. Not trying to butt in, I know you both, you're both great guys and I hate to see a conflict where it probably shouldn't exist.

 

[stan shuffett]

Stan, I don't think Scott was wanting to be critical (although his post may have not be clear in that respect). I'm not trying to put words into his mouth but I believe he was trying to offer a perspective he hoped may be helpful to you. I've talked to Scott on multiple occasions and he has always been very complimentary about you, your teaching and your systems. Not trying to butt in, I know you both, you're both great guys and I hate to see a conflict where it probably shouldn't exist.

Nobcitypool,
Most of the time I just let it roll off. But there have a few negative comments offered up
In recent posts.......support videos are doing me more harm than good.... Implications that my explanations are unacceptable......and I am a perfectionist and certain aspects of the system just don't cut it....... Just paraphrasing some comments from memory.

If I am dealt the negativity, even if it's just an ear- thumping, in time I will say something.
I think I have been very clear that my knowledge is not completely out there yet and sometimes I just get tired of the interrogation and at times it's a full court press from a small core group. I am a big boy and I can take it but I won 't always take it without response.....
Stan Shuffett