I agree, the system is very easy to use, not so easy to explain. Could you imagine trying to learn to ride a bike by reading books and asking questions on a forum? It would be maddening to both explain it and also understand it. A few days on top of two wheels however, it becomes apparent very quickly. Same here. Take the system to the table and give it two weeks of drills from the DVD.
Stan Shuffet Challenge
- Thread starter Outre Bron
- Start date
- Status
I agree, the system is very easy to use, not so easy to explain. Could you imagine trying to learn to ride a bike by reading books and asking questions on a forum? It would be maddening to both explain it and also understand it. A few days on top of two wheels however, it becomes apparent very quickly. Same here. Take the system to the table and give it two weeks of drills from the DVD.
Most English 8 ball sets come with a 2" same size CB included. Mine has, and I have a smaller CB in addition.
Anyway, my main reason for replying is that executing some nice curtain shots is only proof that the player is good at finding the aim required, not proof of all aspects claimed by proponents of the system.
What would be proof, is to have one player observe the table to determine which visual and sweep is required. Then cover up all the rails and alter the rail being leaned over, as it can provide a guide to pocket position. Then have another player, who has been told the visual and sweep requirement, come in and execute the shot. Then move the CB around a few inches side to side, within the same visual and sweep and see how well it works.
Just knowing the visual and sweep puts a player within several degrees, so pots wouldn't be a long way off, but this would settle whether or not players are intuitively predicting pocket position.
I know I play shots where I only reference the rail, not the pocket when aiming the shot. e.g Long 3/4 ball rail shots, with CB a foot or so from the OB and the OB within 4 inches of the rail. A curtain would make no difference to me on those shots.
Obviously my imagined scenario above would be quite difficult to set up, but it would all but rule out intuitive estimation of the pot angle.
FWIW: I don't think the laser comparison holds up well. We practice potting balls to pockets hundreds of thousands of times, rarely do we try to point anything directly to a pocket, and when we do, we have the pocket as a reference.
What we do have proof of, is that some people find these systems a much better way to aim for them, and that some very good players are proponents. The rest is pretty much speculation at this stage. Time will tell its value, and perhaps provide proofs and disproofs of various beliefs.
I'm sure the system has values and wish the dedicated proponents luck with it.
I can't recall another system or concept which has created such dichotomy and debate. Be it other aiming systems, banking, BHE, FHE, squirt, swerve, masse and so on, there is general agreement on nearly all the aspects between what is physically explainable and where intuition steps in.
It is a horse of a different color, that's for sure. :smile:
mohrt,
Okay, so I should be able to set up a shot that pockets with A & a thinning pivot & then set it up again exactly & pocket it with B & an exact amount of thickening pivot, with no other adjustment, is that correct?
Best,
Rick
I've not once seen an English pool table played with a 2" CB, they're always 1 1/8", hence why CTE does not worked as per the DVDs in that game. The ball return system in the tables needs the CB to be smaller to separate the white from the reds, yellows and black.
Perhaps a better test would be to have a shooter find the correct visuals for a marked shot to make the ball consistently. For example, a blue off the spot into a corner with a right sweep with an A and CTE visual. Mark the CB and OB with doughnuts, the put a curtain across. Not only that, cover the table that the shooter can see, so they have no rails or other pockets to reference. Then, get a new shooter in to shoot the marked shot, tell them its an A/ctel alignment with a right sweep. This shooter should not see the shots being attempted by the player trying to make the shot previously, nor should they have much experience on a snooker table, but they will need a decent stroke. See how many times they can make the shot using the correct visuals. For someone who is not used to a snooker table, even being able to see the rails will not be much help because they don't have the experience to judge just how far the pocket is, nor will they be able to pin point where its located.
I am like you, I rarely look at the pocket at any stage of a shot. For example, a blue off the spot into a corner...at no point will I look at the desired pocket. I will simply focus on bob and flick between blue and CB as I step in and get down. That's down to a lot of previous experience. Sure the pocket is in my peripheral vision, but I don't focus on it at any point.
If a player can do as I've set out above, no one can have any doubts about the system. No one. If the above test was completed would I start using CTE again? No, but it should help pipe down some of the arguments on the matter.
I am just going to toss this out there. After about the first year of using the cte/pro1 and a strong understanding how it actually worked. I really became aware of the perceptions,angles,visual intelligence and alignments, the approach into the shot and the banking,(I will add feel in here to make people happy) etc that was needed to make the shots.
The system kept evolving and I could see where the system was leading me too and that was to just drop down on the correct pro1 shot line and shoot. I no longer consciously needed the pro1 alignments to place myself in the correct position, the system became a subconscious system, but i could bring out the system consciously when needed. Now for me to debate how a thicker or thinner cte,edge to A can make different angled shots is really meaningless.
Pro1 users really don’t want to discuss this meaningless debate about how an cte,edge toA alignment makes all those shots, You need to learn the system yourselves because I personally can keep all naysayers running around in circles trying to understand the system for the next ten years
added - I was always conscious of executing the sweeps correctly and if I ever had to get up off a shot its was most likely cause by a bad sweep into the shot line that i did not feel comfortable with.
Hi Pidge,
Though I don't frequent a lot of pool halls these days, in Australia, a lot of the net pocket tables were adorned with 2" sets. That may not be so common in the UK. The casino balls may come standard with the smaller CB, I'm not too sure.
I'm in agreement that any demonstration of CTE at near pro level on a snooker table would impress me far more than demonstrations on US tables.
I would imagine it would take some time for a proponent to get an eye for the visuals using the 2 & 1/16" balls,especially when the balls are over 9 feet apart.
I have played snooker on a full sized table many times, it doesn't take long at all to get used it. You have to focus a little more that's for sure and most shots are A and C.
have a look at this video its one of stans good ones he has on his channel and explains alot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SabVVyVNLe0&list=UUW8lTFYIYGN2AjHKN23M-RQ
Last edited:
Hi Tim,
Have you had a go using Pro1 or CTE on a full size snooker table yet? Curious as to whether the visual perceptions transfer easily, for the smaller balls and for the long shots.
Thanks for the link. Have watched most of his youtubes, catching up on the more recent ones.
Last edited:
Timothy ,I actually don't think your doing pro1.
What your doing sounds better, you keep keeping at it, I'm sure a ran rack is in your future.
Last edited:
Yea I have played many times on a full sized regulation snooker table. The hall I played at had one 12 foot regulation sized table, a couple 7 foot bar boxes and a lot of 9 foot tables in it. I have played with pro1 on all the tables.
Playing on the snooker table takes more potting focus then the others for sure but it doesn't take long to get used to it. Once you get used to it, you become familiar with what it takes to make balls on a snooker table and it becomes routine. the sixe of the balls become a non issue very quickly.
Timothy ,I actually don't think your doing pro1.
What your doing sounds better, you keep keeping at it, I'm sure a ran rack s in your future.
will do!
All that and it makes what??? People (me)more confused.
I never said anything about a physical location..
A...B...C could be objective but since were not robots and programmed to see these points it becomes a little subjective. We try the best we can. Why is the word unique always being tossed in here.??? What does 2 balls (cb,,,ob) in any given shot with 4 lineups have to do with unique....were not playing hockey here.
BTW...Quit being silly...and stop using unique words with aiming..it just sounds stupid..:wink:
Last edited:
oneball
Registered
Here's the thing: I think it's possible that there's merit to the system. I'm not so much a doubter as I am someone who is seriously trying to understand CTE. Unfortunately I'm cursed with a logical mind.Hop on the bus Gus.
He should take the curtain trick on the road, seriously. If its so legit he could bust a lot of people and sell the heck out of his system. Win win situation for him.
I would travel to a lot of events and show the magic live. Why not.
Given that Stan's challenge and offer of time is to those who claim the system doesn't work, I'm not sure I qualify. Additionally, I have no interest in any kind of bet. I'm just an earnest student of the game and at the moment CTE.
logic is all you need to learn the system ... There is no mystery to it, I learned it very quickly using logic. Do not over think it and get a head of yourself, everything will fall into place on its own.
Last edited:
oneball
Registered
Why is it every time someone says "With all due respect", what follows is the opposite of what most would consider to be respectful?
If your aim is to be an ambassador for CTE, you failed.
Here's a technical statement that can be made about the video you mention:
Given 5 cueball/objectball pairs at different angles to a single pocket, there is no possible way to make all 5 shots directly into that pocket using a single objective edge to A, center to edge perception.
Because geometry.
If such a technical statement makes one an idiot, then I guess me and Pythagoras are idiots.
You just have to try it at the table - I agree from a mathematical sense it is hard to grasp/believe. But it works - evidence enough for me.
Good luck with the system and your game.
Good luck with the system and your game.
- Status