You are under the predisposition that a single objective edge to A (with CTEL) equates to a single physical ball address. It does not. Perception takes us to a unique physical ball address. The placement of CB/OB affect our perception.
Stan Shuffet Challenge
- Thread starter Outre Bron
- Start date
- Status
You are under the predisposition that a single objective edge to A (with CTEL) equates to a single physical ball address. It does not. Perception takes us to a unique physical ball address. The placement of CB/OB affect our perception.
Not the case at all. I'm certain if Pythagoras watched the DVDs a few times and spent a couple of weeks at the table, he'd figure it out and be sinking balls.
Then why don't you just go to Stan with your proof and make a bundle with it?
I just love how people make "technical" statements as fact while leaving out pertinent parts of the equation due to lack of knowledge. If you guys spent half the amount of time actually learning the system on a table as you do arguing that it doesn't work as described, you would be experts in it, and you would understand the answers to your own questions.
Because Stan's challenge requires proof to change his mind about claims that have no basis that can be analyzed.
e.g. Length of pivot in CTE, degree of sweep in Pro 1, direction of visual perceptions, 2x1 ratio, 90 degrees. In all, it's the most poorly descriptive system, in terms of objectivity, ever devised.
Finally, a civil and "objective" response.
Monte, the bolded above means that the *table itself* then is influencing your visuals. Meaning, you can't have the same CTEL with A/B/C relationships for 5 different shots, *unless* the table's "placement" under that shot affects your visuals.
Would you agree? If you do, then -- and unfortunately I do have to "go there" -- you are bringing the orientation of that target pocket into the relationship. It appears the location/orientation of the pocket to the shot "affects" your visuals. It would *have* to.
Thoughts?
-Sean
Sean,
Beyond recognizing the requisite visual perception and sweep of any shot, I'm aware of no other variables being stated as aligning requirements for any given placements of CB and OB.
Colin
You're of course welcome to your opinion. Given all the detailed technical materials and graphs you have generated, I would think you would offer some factual technical detail versus an unfounded opinion at a very high level of abstraction.
I have pondered how our planet really came to be and wished there were absolute definitive proof whether that was natural happenstance or the work of a higher level being. However, I do know I'm here, life is good and I'm not going to slit my wrists because I don't have the perfect factual answers to all that. I'm not even considering slitting my wrists. While I don't have the factual math on why CTE/Pro One works, I have worked with it now for two years and know it works. I have no motivation whatsoever to "want it to work", I know I'm not subconsciously tweaking or doing anything like that. I'm consistently hitting shots I didn't hit before. Were my subconscious taking over, I'd be missing those shots.
Thanks for the reply, Colin. Actually, what I was suggesting was that -- either indirectly or subconsciously -- the table itself is playing a part in the visual perception.
How on earth can you have the same CTEL + A/B/C relationship (and half-tip pivot) for, say, five different shots; unless the table is playing a part in the visual perception? There has to be a third variable. You can't have 2+2=4, and =5, and =6, and =7... unless there's an "unseen" variable playing into it that's not part of the "spoken" equation?
-Sean
You are correct. Somehow, the presence of the rails and the pockets lead to the perceptions working. It does seem counter intuitive those 5 shots in the CTE Perception 2 YouTube video would use the same perception and go in. When i first saw it, I questioned it as well until I went to the table and proved it to myself. I did it using CTE so there was no question in my mind about subconsciously "tweaking" with the Pro One pivot. Interesting result. I actually hit the shot on Stan's far right (referencing the YouTube video) with CTE on the first try. It took several attempts to pocket it with Pro One. My subconscious was taking over and tweaking. It was tweaking wrong.
I'm now mostly using CTE, per Stan's YouTube videos about "CTE Full Circle" on medium to difficult shots. I suspect most haven't watched those videos or understand what Stan's doing in them. I had to watch them several times to put it together. To be sure, I'm still working on my footwork to move into the ball as smoothly and comfortably as Stan obviously does which results in a comfortable stance when shooting the shot.
Perhaps I've missing something but I don't believe there has been an argument, by Stan or anyone else, about the table itself providing a reference. I believe that is why Stan has always maintained the system works on any 2 x 1 configuration. While the curtains mask the pocket, they still allow the shooter to see the rails for a reference.
I'm guessing, and it's a guess since I haven't seen it done, that if you were to somehow put curtains on all 4 rails, blindfold Stan and lead him inside the walls of those curtains and then ask him to pocket balls without having any reference at all, he or anyone else couldn't do it. That makes perfect sense as he would have no reference as to whether he was on a 3.5 x 7, 4 x 8, 4.5 x 9 or 5 x 10 table.
I agree completely. You have five paralell shots. That are going to be shot by a person with a straight stroke who does not know where any of the rails are. All the information he is given is the visuals and sweep, which is identical for all shots. Obviously they have to be cut at different angles (especially since Mr. Shuffet keeps reminding us that it is a "center pocket system"). The system gives no other cues than The visuals and sweeps. As long as the balls are the same distance away from each other there is no way the visuals are unique for each ball (given the same visuals and pivot) UNLESS you take the rails into account. It is just simple logic. If the CTE people cannot concede such a simple point, then there is no point in even arguing. How are you going to get different (and always correct) cut angles from performing the same mechanical operation from the same starting point?
Last edited:
If you play enough pool you see and feel the table ... its kind of like the old kung fu master telling the student to close your eyes and see and feel the table lol it gets burnt on your brain over time and when you step to the table you know where everything is at 
Can you direct me to the source of your information where Stan has said you need no references at all for CTE/Pro One to work? If not, why are you posting blatantly false information?
I'm with you here.
Well I guess its time for me to weigh in on this topic. Ive been using and working on CTE since mid september and I have to say it has dramatically increased by skill level in a short amount of time. Im not going to go into technical details but I will explain my experience to date with the system.
I first learned the system during a 2 day clinic with Stevie Moore at my bar. I had bits and pieces of knowledge about it prior but had never put any table time in with it. It took me about 30 minutes before I finally had that "AHAA!" moment when the visuals made sense for the first time. I noticed within the next 30 minutes to an hour the other 3 guys in the clinic started having their "Aha" moments as well. I cant really describe it any other way because its almost surreal when you really get IT for the first time.
Anyway, by the end of the 2nd day we were all pocketing balls with regularity using CTE. All of us at varying skill levels. Of the 4 of us only myself a 6 6 SL in APA at the time and Tommy(my bartender @ blue collar) a 2 3 SL in APA have spent time working with the system and putting in the time to advance our knowledge and skills with it. In that time I have moved up to a 7 7 SL and Tommy is on the verge of being a 4 4 and is shooting way beyond his experience level. The other two guys at the clinic have not put in the time to work on CTE and find its potential and they are both treading water wondering why they arent getting better.
Although both of us admittedly are not using CTE on every shot we both use it on all shots where a 15 degree perception would apply and are hitting those shots at an alarming rate. I am starting to see the 30 degree perceptions much better and I am applying them more and more when I feel comfortable with them but I know they will become just as natural and consistent as the 15's are for me now.
One thing I have noticed is that I prefer the Pro1 visual pivot now that I have gotten to where I am on the 15's but I still use the manual pivot for the 30's and 45's to "check myself" when Im down on the shot and even if I dont use the actual CTE a,b,c I still find myself aiming with the quarters instead of contact points like I did before learning the system and my ball making is substantially improved overall in those situations.
Anyway, I have really enjoyed my journey with CTE so far and I really hope to become proficient with it and report back my findings at a later date. I have worked with Stevie Moore twice now for about 20 total hours on CTE and Im hoping to see Stan here in a few weeks on my way up to Indiana for Thanksgiving. Stevie has been an incredible teacher and friend in the game and I would recommend him to anyone for lessons on CTE/Pro 1 or just for your overall game. I have learned much more than an aiming system through him.
I first learned the system during a 2 day clinic with Stevie Moore at my bar. I had bits and pieces of knowledge about it prior but had never put any table time in with it. It took me about 30 minutes before I finally had that "AHAA!" moment when the visuals made sense for the first time. I noticed within the next 30 minutes to an hour the other 3 guys in the clinic started having their "Aha" moments as well. I cant really describe it any other way because its almost surreal when you really get IT for the first time.
Anyway, by the end of the 2nd day we were all pocketing balls with regularity using CTE. All of us at varying skill levels. Of the 4 of us only myself a 6 6 SL in APA at the time and Tommy(my bartender @ blue collar) a 2 3 SL in APA have spent time working with the system and putting in the time to advance our knowledge and skills with it. In that time I have moved up to a 7 7 SL and Tommy is on the verge of being a 4 4 and is shooting way beyond his experience level. The other two guys at the clinic have not put in the time to work on CTE and find its potential and they are both treading water wondering why they arent getting better.
Although both of us admittedly are not using CTE on every shot we both use it on all shots where a 15 degree perception would apply and are hitting those shots at an alarming rate. I am starting to see the 30 degree perceptions much better and I am applying them more and more when I feel comfortable with them but I know they will become just as natural and consistent as the 15's are for me now.
One thing I have noticed is that I prefer the Pro1 visual pivot now that I have gotten to where I am on the 15's but I still use the manual pivot for the 30's and 45's to "check myself" when Im down on the shot and even if I dont use the actual CTE a,b,c I still find myself aiming with the quarters instead of contact points like I did before learning the system and my ball making is substantially improved overall in those situations.
Anyway, I have really enjoyed my journey with CTE so far and I really hope to become proficient with it and report back my findings at a later date. I have worked with Stevie Moore twice now for about 20 total hours on CTE and Im hoping to see Stan here in a few weeks on my way up to Indiana for Thanksgiving. Stevie has been an incredible teacher and friend in the game and I would recommend him to anyone for lessons on CTE/Pro 1 or just for your overall game. I have learned much more than an aiming system through him.
Excellent post. I have been down this road before and during a polite discussion they tried to confuse me by showing examples of shots with different distances but the five shots in question all have the same distances. When I pointed this out I became a trouble making hater again and was met with hostility.
Im with you to on the logical thing and there are still points of the system I am still trying to understand. I have noticed that when I am banking using the system I have a tendency of letting the pocket closest to the rail I am hitting into effect my visual perception. Its like its drawing my body into a different shot line. Im not sure how else to explain it.
It seems to me that Stan repeatedly stresses that the system works on ANY 2 to 1 table. To me that is THE reference that makes the system work.
Edit: I meant to quote Straightpool. I suck at using all the tools in these forums. My apologies in advance.
- Status