Stan Shuffet Challenge
- Thread starter Outre Bron
- Start date
- Status
Neil, you keep making derogatory comments about stuff other folks haven't learned here but should have. The truth is, I bought the DVD and I can't make it work, so I don't read but maybe 10% of what gets written about it in the aiming section. I mostly stay away from this forum because it always seems to become a discussion of CTE/Pro One no matter what aiming method was initially brought up.
Seems if you can't understand or use CTE then you are an idiot to many here. I find that attitude very offensive, so I just stay away... even though I am curious about everything, and try my best to maintain an open mind.
Hi Stan,
Thank you for your personal input.
Please check your PMs.
Thanks again & Best Wishes,
Rick
Not true at all. You're an idiot when you attempt to make technical statements when the poster obviously doesn't understand the system and/or spent time at the table working with it. If you tried the system and didn't like it, understand it or whatever, and simply state that, I don't recall anybody calling you an idiot. If you bought the DVD, watched it once, spent 2 hours at the table and then state there's no way the 5 balls on the one YouTube can be pocketed with the same perception ... with all due respect, you're an idiot or some similar adjective.
What would you call someone who has never opened a physics book who turned around and told Hawking his theories on quantum physics are completely erroneous? What if I were having a conversation with John Schmidt and told him his pattern play in 14.1 was completely off?
You have guys like English, who is always trying to offer opinions about almost every aspect of pool but obviously has almost zero real knowledge of CTE, constantly posting their opinions in this forum. And then you have Sartori constantly taking shots even though it is equally obvious he lacks substantial understanding of the system.
If you don't like the system, nobody is going to insult you. If for whatever reason, you feel the need to make false slandering statements about it when you clearly lack understanding, then yeah, you may get some blowback from the CTE advocates. If you believe I'm wrong here, please post some examples proving your point.
FWIW, I will agree with you and others, the system isn't easy to learn. That's been said over and over. No argument. Pool isn't easy to learn. What's the point?
mohrt,
Thank you much for the attempted explanation.
Let me first say that I am NOT trying to put CTE down in any way. I am just being honest as to my take & one reason as to why I have not pursued trying to use it except for the occasional attempt on some shots.
As to your explanation, this is what I'm getting. You're saying that from the same visual perception of say cte & edge to A with a planned thickening pivot or sweep, depending on the angle of the OB to the pocket one can arrive at a different physical set up & alignment which would result in hitting a different point on the OB depending on different angles to the same pocket.
If that is so then, to me, something was different to cause that & to me, that would have to be one's subjective perception as related to the pocket.
I would think that most if not all 'detractors' of CTE could agree with what I just said.
But as I have understood the explanation of CTE there is no subjectivity in it as it is suppose to be totally objective.
As you say something has to be physically different to get a different outcome. If the difference is not in the system or the method, then it must be in the subjective nature that it is applied.
I thought Stan has always said that seeing the pocket is not even necessary. Now you're saying that it is.
If we both look at a shot & decide on the same cte & A with a thickening pivot or sweep & then both get down in a physically different alignment then that difference is caused by our subjective analysis & subsequent outcome of our positioning.
Said a bit differently, If one selects cte & edge to A & thickening pivot or sweep & then can get down in a different physical position depending on the OB's angle to the pocket then that physical difference would be dependent on a subjective interpretation of the angle to the pocket.
I think, all that need be agreed upon is that while CTE is basically objective there is a small amount of subjectivity required to get the appropriately needed outcomes or else there are holes as some if not many think that there are.
If I have gone off & you're capable of correcting please do so.
As was stated elsewhere, many disagreements are merely a result of different terminology, nomenclature, or semantics.
Is subjectivity equal to VISUAL INTELLIGENCE?
Sincerely,
Rick
CTE gets you in the line of the shot. You can then move the tip to shoot with english and of course adjust for throw and squirt as needed. I use CTE at this point on just about every shot I take, but I certainly don't use center ball all the time.
This is a tough question. If what Mohrt is proposing is true, then Stan shouldn't be able to make the shots with the curtain up, as the point of that is that the pocket is not in view. I know many detractors argue (mainly PJ at first) that there has to be a subjective unconscious adjustment that allows for the system to work, and while it may work, it is not the objective points with the pivot alone that allows it to work.
I have personally been using the system since I bought the DVD when it first came out. It took a while to get good at the system, and takes some time to learn to recognize what pivots are always needed (and I still miss at times from choosing the wrong setup). However, I can honestly say that I make harder to aim shots at a much ihgher percentage that I did before, and I make banks with a much higher frequency than I did before. I am not trying to blindly defend any system, I simply want to improve my game, so I only seek what actually works.
Logically, I still can't explain how the math works, because at first glance it shouldn't. I am not sure if there is something about the math that we are missing, for example the difference in aim points created by one ball being farther from another than it would be on certain shots, or if there is a subjective unconscious alignment that occurs after the system gets me close to the shot line, but I do know that it works for me. Given many of the shots that I have made where I can not really visualize the pocket well, especially with certain bank shots, it is difficult for me to believe that it requires a significant amount of mental adjustment.
This whole thing intrigues me, and I would like an answer. Maybe I will cover the pockets with my ping pong table, sight the lines, get down on the shot focusing only on the CB, do my pivot, then close my eyes so I can't see the OB, and shoot. I am not sure how straight my stroke will be with my eyes closed (may be a good drill), and I am sure it won't satisfy some people from an objective test standpoint, but it may help me figure out what I think is actually going on.
Post deleted as Stan had already answered this.
Last edited:
Good post English.
Someone posted this video before. It's Stan's CTE perception part 2 video. Almost 15 minutes long, but what I found interesting is minutes 3:00-7:00 or more specifically, 5:30-7:00.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Psy5hOJT0
I have nothing against CTE, Stan or people who use it. I can see it's a system that works and works well for many people. But there is obviously some adjustment and subjectivity involved when it comes to the OB, CB and pocket locations.
For players like Stan,mohrt,and other experienced pro1 uses, a cte an edge to A and all angled shots that fall into that alignment are just cte an edge to A. There experience has taught them the correct starting offset position to make all those angled shot that fall under a specific pro1 alignment, get it?
Math cant be applied to this system
This is a must watch for all beginners of cte/pro1. You must learn to trust the alignments when shooting. When you start learning cte/pro1 you cant help but look at cb/ob and pocket and the shot line.The distortion Stan talks about will make you feel like you will miss the shot and you will be making subconscious adjustments that "will" make you miss the shot, This was my experience when learning it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhqJwuHKANw&list=UUW8lTFYIYGN2AjHKN23M-RQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhqJwuHKANw&list=UUW8lTFYIYGN2AjHKN23M-RQ
Was there a question even there? This is English's mode of operation. He tries his little passive aggressive crap where he first proclaims he is innocent then he goes on to purposefully be irritating and insulting. He usually closes by proclaiming innocence again. Rinse, repeat process. It got him suspended for a 6 months or a year. I knew it wouldn't be long when he came back that he'd be back here in the aiming section trying to get suspended again. It won't take long, just watch.
Some idea of where the pocket sits must exist in order to know if it is a 15/30/45 or 60 degree perception and whether or not an inside or outside pivot is required. When the naysayers talk about subjectivity, they have typically maintained there is some tweaking that occurs once the shooter goes down into shooting position. Some may say it is purposeful, some may say it is intuitive. None have ever been able to actually prove that in any way.
I find the 15 and 30 perceptions to be very objective. Are they 100% perfectly objective? No. But once you understand how to properly obtain/visualize the perceptions where you have an edge to go along with A, B or C, they pop in quickly and clearly. Are the 45 and 60 objective? Yes, but without question, they are less objective than the 15 and 30 because you only have one point for your perception. You want to call it subjective, feel free. All that does is brings up a debate over Stan's marketing claims but it doesn't debunk the validity of Stan's system in the least.
If someone questions whether tweaking goes on, just watch the recent YouTube Stan uploaded where he sinks shots using a CTE Mechanical Pivot into the pockets that have been adjusted to 2 1/2". That means there is 1/4" tolerance to make the shot. Do you see any tweaking on the video? Do you have any idea whatsoever how difficult it is to sink those consecutive shots on 2 1/2" pockets?
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if the system is 100% perfectly objective or if it technically has some subjectivity about it. There's absolutely no question in my mind that the system is 100% technically sound. If you have the correct perception, come into the shot properly on that alignment and pivot perfectly, the shooter is on the aim line to center pocket. Period. Is it possible, if not likely, there could be a slight amount of subjectivity with each individual in acquiring those perceptions and making the pivot? I suppose that could vary ever so slightly player to player. It can't vary much or that individual will miss the shots.
The naysayers have lost this battle they've waged for years so badly, now, they have to resort to disputing fine points relating to marketing claims. Stan's challenge was simple, however, some apparently missed it. Go to his house, put up your money and then prove that CTE/Pro One won't make the shots as advertised, you can take the wager and go home. Not sure which part of that was difficult to understand.
Where is the pocket for the 40-11th time
I do NOT know where it is under blinded conditions.....what I do know is that a 2x1 table has 8 90 degree angles.
What else I know is that real CTE takes to me aimlines that are directed as a slight overcut for a given pocket.
So, for a blinded pocket I can not point a laser under the curtain to the heart of a pocket with any degree of accuracy and often I will miss the whole pocket with a laser line guess.
An example from a lesson yesterday with am engineer/architect .
When asked to point a laser to a pocket location from under a curtain he missed the entire pocket by a few inches. Then I set up a random CB OB and he followed the system and split the pocket.
He said he was certain that he was going to miss the ball and would nearly have bet his car on it....the system took him to the shot line.
Anyone can experience this.....but what many do is bail out at the first few quibbles from their left brain logic that says it can't be. They proceed proclaiming that it must be subjective....feely stuff.
What is right is that it does not seem right....and it was not ever supposed to be.
Stan Shuffett
I do NOT know where it is under blinded conditions.....what I do know is that a 2x1 table has 8 90 degree angles.
What else I know is that real CTE takes to me aimlines that are directed as a slight overcut for a given pocket.
So, for a blinded pocket I can not point a laser under the curtain to the heart of a pocket with any degree of accuracy and often I will miss the whole pocket with a laser line guess.
An example from a lesson yesterday with am engineer/architect .
When asked to point a laser to a pocket location from under a curtain he missed the entire pocket by a few inches. Then I set up a random CB OB and he followed the system and split the pocket.
He said he was certain that he was going to miss the ball and would nearly have bet his car on it....the system took him to the shot line.
Anyone can experience this.....but what many do is bail out at the first few quibbles from their left brain logic that says it can't be. They proceed proclaiming that it must be subjective....feely stuff.
What is right is that it does not seem right....and it was not ever supposed to be.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
Really? What subjectivity is there? What adjustments are there? You keep saying this, please provide some detail. Deciding which perception and pivot isn't subjectivity, that is a decision. To say that is subjective is to imply that one shooter might decide it is a 15 degree perception while another shooter could decide it is a 45 degree perception and subsequently, both make the shot. That is absolutely untrue. No question, some shots that are very close to the transition between 15 and 30 require a decision to be made and often, that decision is based upon experience and practice. That doesn't make it subjective.
As far as tweaking goes, of course you can tweak. Go down on the shot and before shooting, mistrust what you've done and add your own little tweak. That guarantees a miss 95% plus of the time. Even though this has been stated countless times, it apparently needs to be stated again. CTE takes you to the aim line. Put a straight stroke through center cue ball and the object ball will go into center pocket. The tweaking comes in for an experienced player when they may want to add a little inside or outside spin, for whatever reason. Perhaps they want to cheat the pocket slightly for the sake of cue ball position. The beauty of CTE is that it takes you to center pocket but it doesn't prevent you from tweaking to add performance to your game. What tweaking you don't see by Stan is some intuitive tweak that makes the ball into center pocket. The perception and pivot do that without any tweaking at all.
But again, by your own words, you say some adjustment and subjectivity is needed ... blah, blah, blah. That sounds really profound but frankly, is utterly useless as reveals no knowledge. Please advise specifically what adjustment and subjectivity is required.
Ron,
I watched the 5:30 to 7:00 part & that is what I don't understand. What is he talking about. Why would Stan have to turn more to be able to see the same cte & edge to A? That makes no sense, at least not to me.
The only answer that I can come up with is that he 'knows' by his 'visual intelligence' or subjective reaction to that incorrect line that the SAME cte & edge to A will not pocket the ball & must be approached from a different physical angle to get the larger cut angle.
Why would that shot not be cte & edge to B or C with the appropriate pivot or sweep whatever it might be.
I think the whole thing comes down to terminology, semantics, nomenclature or whatever. What Stan calls visual intelligence I think is what most of us would call a subjective understanding of the shot line.
That said, I just can't see myself looking at shot #5 & coming up with the same alignment as shot #1.
It's sort of like with TOI. At some point you switch from center to center to center to edge because you've reach about the limit of the amount of angle you can create from the ctc alignment & going to center to edge alignment puts the tip back more toward the center of the cue ball & uses the angle more than the deflection squirt.
I think we are getting a bit redundant & nothing will be resolved unless Stan can find a new & better way to explain what he means.
The bottom line is that the 'system' or method works for many & may be able to for almost all & we are just trying to explain the why & wherefore as to how it works.
Best to Ya',
Rick
Last edited:
I don't want to debate terminology or the definition of the word subjective.
In the video posted, during minutes 3:00-7:00, Stan is making adjustments in his starting position depending on the cut required to pocket the OB. Call those adjustments whatever you want. Decision, subjectivity, visual intelligence, feel, experience.....
If a system or method, whatever it is, helps you play better, then that is what matters most.
Last edited:
Correct.... But he is teaching in that video also. he could also make the same video of himself making the shots with no visible adjustment. That is what the system teaches you and a cte and edge to A is just that, get it?
For players like Stan,mohrt,and other experienced pro1 uses, a cte an edge to A and all angled shots that fall into that alignment are just cte an edge to A. There experience has taught them the correct starting offset position to make all those angled shot that fall under a specific pro1 alignment, get it?
Math cant be applied to this system
Sooooo, are you saying that they are seeing the same 'visual' from different angles as they stand to the cue ball?
If so, now we are getting somewhere. But...if so then the method would not work for an inexperienced player.
I don't want to debate terminology either, I want to discuss the difference between knowledge based fact and speculative opinion. You can't factually equate subjectivity and visual intelligence. You are implying that visual intelligence includes an intuitive tweak or something similar. That simply isn't true. You're back peddling now because you made a statement as if it were fact when in reality, you simply don't understand how the system works and is correctly applied. I could go outside, look into the sky and say the sun is obviously rotating around the earth. That would be an erroneous opinion based upon lack of factual knowledge. It is understandable why one would form that opinion but it doesn't make it any less erroneous.
He is looking at the two visuals (the 5 shots video) - in a way that if you imagine them (the 2 lines - CTEL and A) as a road - he is looking down the middle of the road, in all 5 shots. When he is there, if he looks now through the center of the CB - it would point to a different place on/off the OB - which enables him to pocket the ball with the same pivot and same bridge distance for all 5 different shots/angles. Why that happens - I don't know....maybe sfleinen will find out some day in his math behind CTE thread :smile:
- Status