No, about the idea that his challenge was to PLAY someone one on one. That was not what he meant. He meant for someone to come and learn the system and show him what was fallacy with the system.
Stan Shuffet Challenge
- Thread starter Outre Bron
- Start date
- Status
No, about the idea that his challenge was to PLAY someone one on one. That was not what he meant. He meant for someone to come and learn the system and show him what was fallacy with the system.
Many have tried it, some people probably get it to a certain point, and then become lost. Read Englishes post, spot on and there's probably more that feel the same way but just don't wanna argue. Stan says his system is selling great all over the world, isn't that what he wants. He doesn't need to keep validating his system, let his customers do it for him.
Argument can't be won here or at his house, time to move on. :smile:
Thanks Anthony. You could have quoted me to make it easier.
I just want to say again that I have no problem with CTE or Stan. My only issue is in how CTE is presented as totally 'objective'.
Perhaps Stan has a bit of different meaning of the word 'objective' & the phrase 'the same perception'.
This whole ongoing rig-a-ma-rue may come down to semantics or nomenclature as much so often does.
Best to Everyone,
Rick
I hope this thread is moved soon as well.
I can't have the world knowing why I'm able to beat them.
I can't have the world knowing why I'm able to beat them.
Can someone explain what Stan means when he says "objective"?
Isn't this thread in the wrong place?
Why?
Because it is something that is 'seriously' related to pool like perhaps, for some, to actually playing better, like maybe a better way to aim or target actual pool shots.
Why should one of most fundamental aspects of playing the game be 'exempt' from the main forum? For the sake of harmony.
IMHO There are better ways than to just put someone in the corner.
I do agree with this to some extent. The original DVD lacked some view points that would have made it easier to understand. It presented all the necessary elements of the system, but if you didn't get it right away from that, it was missing explanations that could have helped. I have not seen the second DVD to review, but hopefully it filled in some of the gaps that the first one left out.
I do have to agree with Lou's point regarding the idea that different people will perceive Stan's points differently, making it hard to initially learn the system if you don''t perceive them the same way, and I posted about that way back when I first tried it. When I first watched the DVD I was very hopeful that it would help improve my ability to correctly aim at certain shots that I was having some trouble with. However, I found myself highly frustrated at my inability to get the system to work, even after spending several hours and different ways trying to figure it out. I was near giving up on the system when I finally realized that the fact that I am left eye dominant was making my perception of his aim points be off. Fortunately there was a very easy fix to orient myself to where I needed to be. It still took a while to get a feel for what alignments and pivots went with what shots, but I can definitely say that I make hard to aim shots at a much greater frequency than I did before I learned the system.
I have explained on a few other occasions what I did to orient myself to Stan's aim points, but I will be happy to explain it again if anyone thinks they are in the same boat.
This could certainly be argued as some of the points being looked at could change with ones perception. That being said, it does form a repeatable system that doesn't change once you are oriented to the points that you should be using. Your ability to see them and line up with them takes some practice, and although the word objective may not be the best term to use, it is as close to an objective idea for aiming as I have seen.
objective
/əbˈdʒɛktɪv/
adjective
1.
existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?
2.
undistorted by emotion or personal bias
3.
of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc
The above was copied & pasted form Dictionary.com
I am not sure if that is how Stan is using it but that is how I take what he means along with an actual object that one can see & does not have to imagine or assume or guess or 'perceive'.
Last edited:
Typical Lou. Here's an example that should tell you exactly how credible he is. On one hand, he himself states that if one of the greatest players ever told him CTE/Pro One was great, he'd not believe him.
A few paragraphs later, he quotes two other professionals as if what they say is gospel. And then he wants to divert his own cowardice at being afraid to play Stan while Stan is using a "bogus aiming system" by challenging Stan to play John and Corey.
So if the greatest player of all time doesn't agree with Lou, he can go back to being dead, but then he uses substantial bandwidth quoting statements made by two others that supports his side of things. Amazing, simply amazing. Lou is so arrogant that he believes other people are of lesser intelligence and won't see through this kind of crapola.
Lou, with that forked tongue and ability to constantly spin, spin, spin, you should be in politics.
Interesting!
So what do you have to say about Schmidt's comments being as how they do not agree with the pros whos word you take as gospel?
Last edited:
No, I would not believe Willie if he said CTE worked. I wouldn't believe him if he said the way to make a ball frozen to the rail was to hit the rail and OB simultaneously, either.
And, I do not take what JS and CD said as gospel and have in fact had significant differences of opinion here with JS.
Nice try though.
Lou Figueroa
So what your saying is, all those advocates of back hand english are touting a faulty method, right? Obviously that's what you're saying because if you can't stroke ccb with a half tip pivot, imagine the disaster of trying to apply a full tip of English or more to the side of the cb. What will that do to your stroke? That means you can disregard the video Colin Colenso just posted where he demonstrated bhe with one hand stroking while holding the camera with the other hand. And all the materials on Dr Dave's site should be taken down. And all the professionals and other players should immediately stop using bhe.
I don't take them at all. Schmidt doesn't know squat about Stan's system and he also can't speak for Stevie. I've spoken to Stevie about it for hours and watched him play numerous games from table side and on streaming. John is more than welcome to his opinion, however I'll choose to believe my own ears and eyes over his speculative opinion all day every day. I've watched Stan sink hundreds of balls with a curtain hiding the pocket I've potted balls using the curtain. I just watched Stan hit 5 consecutive shots on 2 1/2" pockets. I don't take anything someone says as gospel but I do believe what I see with my own eyes and personally experience.
First off, one does have to wonder why this wasn’t originally posted in the Aiming Forum or why it hasn’t been moved…
I have watched both of Stan’s DVDs and am completely unconvinced that he is selling a system that the average player can successfully employ. JB is a good example — 15 years of enthusiastically touting and ferociously defending it, along with 15 hours of personal instruction from the Grand Poobah himself.
What is going on here is that Stan has taken his personal reality of pool and how he sees the balls and made the leap that it’s the same for every other player. Of course, this is not so. How I see the balls or how you see the balls is not the same. We are different physically in terms of the height we view the balls from; we stand at different distances from the table while assessing the shot; when we get into shooting position some of us are more upright, while others have their chin on the cue; and some of us like to have the cue under one eye or the the other, while others center the cue beneath both eyes. IOW, it works for Stan, for others, not so much. One look at the years and years of controversy and questions on the forums about this proves the system is about as clear as mud.
And as others have already pointed out, there are no objective A and C on the OB. The same for the amount of pivot, body turn, and bridge length a player is supposed to accomplish.
As I've said, I've watched both of his DVDs. The first I reviewed, the second, though it was sent to me by a friend, I have not bothered to formally review. Here’s my my review of his first DVD. Please note that nowhere do I say anything bad about Stan himself.
#####
I tried watching the DVD with an open mind. But frankly, very quickly, the DVD became painful to watch. There is a thimbleful of basic info, followed by endless loops of shot demonstrations, often repeated a second time, and a couple of break and runs, all edited without a miss.
Here’s the good stuff: Stan teaches you a PSR. He tells you to offset your body, establish contact with the cue with your bridge hand and slide into the shot in a consistent manner. Good solid stuff, no doubt, but hardly news worthy. (Having just watched the video of his 183 ball run at the DCC, it is surprisingly similar to Darren Appleton’s PSR.) He even goes into a suggested shot routine (eye movement and warm up strokes) which was also some good stuff.
And I think that’s why some folks find success with the systems outlined on the DVD: they are adding some consistency to their pre-shot and shot routines. That, and what all this edges and centers stuff does is: *it forces you* to look -- and I mean *really look* -- at the cue ball and object ball. It is something tyros and advanced players can benefit from. So, all of that taken together is probably worth some serious improvement to a wide range of players. But that’s about it.
The bad part is that there is movement of the cue after you’re down. Or even with the air/body pivots, alignments that may or may not benefit you as an individual player. IOW, they may work for Stan, Landon, and Stevie, but not necessarily for many others. (I think that actually, for the camera, they could make it work shooting between their legsThis is most evident where Stan demonstrates the changing position of the V of his bridge hand and you sit there and wonder: how on God’s good green Simonis covered Earth does he think that is going to equally apply to all the pool players in pooldom.
And, in all probably, that little pivot is going to mess with your cue delivery. If you don’t believe me take a close look at the *huge* sideways movement of his cue, hand, forearm, elbow, and bicep when Stan demonstrates for the use of BHE. None of that is good for a good consistent repeatable and accurate stroke that won’t break down under the heat.
The systems themselves reminded me, by and large, of some of the 3C systems I’ve seen diagrammed over the years. You know: the ones where you put all kinds of numbers on the diamonds and corners, check the path/line the balls are on, do some rudimentary math, and viola! You can’t miss the shot. Of course that only works under perfect conditions and after you’ve done some major experimentation.
And so you have a DVD that contains a modicum of basic system info -- which I think Dr. Dave has done an excellent job of summarizing -- and then an endless loop of Stan, Landon, and Stevie, shooting shot after shot demonstrating how, if you make the right choices, you will not miss and the system will work for you.
The chapter on banks is… problematic. Banks are fired in by all participants, after you are told the right formula for various positions on the grid, but without any insight into how those formulas were arrived at for the appropriate aim point on the rail. And, of course, according to the DVD, the system works flawlessly not only for banks, but jump shots, break shots, caroms, and paper thin cuts (with an adjustment and a surprising amount of small print that basically explains how you’re on your own on these shots.) I was surprised it wasn’t claimed that it was perfect for masse shots too
And so, bottom line: the systems can and will be whatever the player wants them to be.
Sometimes the pivot is obvious; sometimes not; sometimes the body turns, sometimes it does not; bridge length -- pick one; amount of pivot -- till it looks right; back hand English can be used with gay abandon, to a point, if you pivot just so; and, according to the DVD, of course you can use the systems for everything from the lag shot to five ball combo kick banks (just kidding on that last one, but just barely).
IOW, if you work with it long enough you can make it work, but only because you’ve played with it so long that you eventually make all the necessary intuitive adjustments for any kind of success. Oh yes, and it seems that if you get outside the realm of a minimal use of English, to “get the cue ball off the object ball,” you are, once again, on your own. There is a very quick screen that does come up to mention (almost in passing), that English can be important for positional play. Who knew?
If you think the DVD is going to provide you with a definitive proof that these systems are scientifically and/or geometrically precise -- you can lose that thought right now, it’s not there. If you think you’re going to learn some aiming system that is going to make you a successful player in short order, forget that too -- to make these puppies work you are going to have to study, memorize, experiment, and put in loooooong hours (you’ll probably need to make a phone call or two, and probably sign up for a lesson or three). And you need to realize that all that system induced movement before and after you get into shooting position could send you down a path -- which depending on your devotion to the system -- from which you may never emerge and could possibly (probably) keep you from ever being as good a pool player as you might otherwise be.
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.
One last thing: I have no doubt that Stan really and truly believes in what he’s teaching. IOW, I do believe his work on these systems is a sincere effort to further pool knowledge and help the players watching it. But, I think he’s gone too far down the aiming system Rabbit Hole and perhaps can no longer see that his systems are highly inexact, or at least presented in an inexact manner on the DVD, and for many a dead end, or worse, a problem inducing course of endeavor.
For me, in all honesty, if Mosconi hisself came back from the grave and told me this was the greatest thing since sliced bread I’d tell him to go back and take a nap. This one is not a keeper, for me, and if anyone wants to buy a lightly used copy for $30, shipping included, please PM me for a PayPal address.
#####
Stan and his minions want to make this out about me. But as I just said in the the Lou v John thread, at this point in my life I only practice a couple of hours a day. I certainly do not have a table(s) in my house nor am I giving instruction. So I don’t have anywhere near the skill level that Stan does, which others have pointed out is at pro level. But, after almost 50 years of playing pool, being an ardent student of the game, and running the occasional 100 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRNPz_CEszE I feel like I’m entitled to my opinion.
So Stan feels that his system can withstand challenge. Then I would suggest to him that he challenge players at his pro level. Off the top of my head I can think of two guys who are on the record as saying his system is bogus, though perhaps not in those words. I’m sure there are many others, as that is inferred in these players comments.
So, Stan, why not challenge John Schmidt or Corey Duel?
Here is a transcript of their comments from a TAR broadcast http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8KsV...eature=related :
#####
John Schmidt: Well, don’t get me started on aiming systems. I’ll tell you if...
Maybe they work... but nobody’s telling me the one’s that work. Because if they work, first of all you’re not factoring in swerve and deflection. OK, now what if a guy comes up with a delivery system, that’s different. But, aiming’s adorable -- but you still have to deliver -- so you could aim perfect. If those aiming systems worked, well there would just be like four million people who played like Corey. But it’s year after year and it’s still Corey.
So these aiming systems are overrated, they’re a way to sell videos and books and make people pontificate about their own greatness and believe me if it worked, then they’d be out there winning tournaments, but they’re not.
What Stevie Moore doesn’t get is -- Stevie Moore -- you could put a bag over his head and he’d run out. He’s a great player. So he’s playing great in spite of his aiming system, not because of it. I mean, think about it: he’s already a great player. He could aim at the wall and he’s still going to make the ball. And it’s a way to give him comfort and confidence. He’s kind of like tricked himself into thinking ‘this aiming system works.’
(John sets up to demonstrate a shot.) I just can’t see how I’m going to use english here and I’m going to aim bottom right english. So I’m aiming out here -- it’s going to squirt. Well, what aiming system is going to work for that?! It’s only going to work with center ball. And you know, all these guys with their aiming systems can get like weight from me. And I don’t use an aiming system.
Corey Duel: Yeah the one that he’s talking about I haven’t been able to comprehend it yet. It’s something about pivoting the back foot and... I don’t know.
John Schmidt: My piece of advice, if anybody cares to the viewers at home: forget all the aiming systems. Just like when you throw a baseball to first, you just do it. Right? There’s no aiming, you do it, you feel it. It’s same with pool. You get a mental picture and you do it. Aiming systems are the most ridiculous, overrated thing...The pros scoff at that stuff, they’re like, ‘aiming systems, really?!’...
If they would quit spending so much time on line and learning about aiming systems and go hit more balls they’d become better players. There’s no short cut to it. Sitting on AZ Billiards looking for aiming systems isn’t going to get it. It’s like the golf swing guys. They got a thousand videos. But the guy that goes to the driving range till his hands bleed, that’s the good golfer. You can’t watch it online and go, ‘oh, there’s got to be a system for hitting a four iron two hundred yards on the green.’ It’s the same with pool. We’ve hit a million pool balls -- that’s our system. I mean, you’re not going to get good at anything using a system.
I could be wrong, I don’t know if I’m right. I just think aiming systems are crazy. Deflection and swerve is what makes this game so tough. If there was no such thing as that, you know you just hit whatever english, but this thing goes sideways off of your stick. That’s why the game’s so impossible.
#####
So there you go, Stan. Two guys for you to challenge. Can’t wait to see you guys go at it.
Lou Figueroa
"Deflection and swerve is what makes this game so tough". John said this. Does any body know if someone can hit ccb and the cue ball does not follow a straight line, but a slight arc ????
Panagiotis
Perhaps now you can understand that one can take a side between opposing views and still remain credible.
I bought and watched the 2nd DVD.
2 questions:
1. Standing behind the CB, Stans says see the CB edge to A line, see the CB center to OB edge line, but you don't stand on either line. Where do you stand ? 1/2 way in between those perceived lines ?
2. Manual pivot seems to be a measurable and repeatable way to pivot a precise amount. Pro One advocates a standing air pivot or standing sweep. The Pro One way to pivot seems to be less precise and use more player feel to determine how much to pivot ?
2 questions:
1. Standing behind the CB, Stans says see the CB edge to A line, see the CB center to OB edge line, but you don't stand on either line. Where do you stand ? 1/2 way in between those perceived lines ?
2. Manual pivot seems to be a measurable and repeatable way to pivot a precise amount. Pro One advocates a standing air pivot or standing sweep. The Pro One way to pivot seems to be less precise and use more player feel to determine how much to pivot ?
Yeah,
On our stupid commonwealth nap cloths. Drives me nuts why they still use it. The pro snooker players have specially shaved cloth which greatly reduces swerving on CCB hits, but they still have it.
That said, you're kinda right, but I think JS makes a valuable point in regard to the fact that aiming systems have little strength when it comes with dealing with shots that inherently require swerving.
- Status