Stan Shuffet Challenge

[Neil]

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.

Another guy talking about that which he obviously knows essentially nothing about. You obviously didn't even bother to correctly understand the challenge he made.

For someone that has put out a fair amount of info on how to play, you sure dropped the ball here. Maybe someone should go through your material and lay waste to the claims you have made. ??? Nah, not worth it.

Like has been said a thousand and one times on here. Get your butt on a table, take the time to actually learn it, THEN talk about your problems with it. Until then, you are just talking out your arse.

 

[Neil]

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

Of course it does. That has been said many times, and yet, so many have scoffed at it. Remember the 2-1 ratio? Remember the 90 degrees part? Where are the pockets? Yep, in the 90 degree corners of a 2-1 table.

 

[BlueCollarBar]

Another guy talking about that which he obviously knows essentially nothing about. You obviously didn't even bother to correctly understand the challenge he made.

For someone that has put out a fair amount of info on how to play, you sure dropped the ball here. Maybe someone should go through your material and lay waste to the claims you have made. ??? Nah, not worth it.

Like has been said a thousand and one times on here. Get your butt on a table, take the time to actually learn it, THEN talk about your problems with it. Until then, you are just talking out your arse.

What he said ^

 

[Neil]

What's with all this nonsense about the rails? Show me just one case where Stan said the rails do not matter at all. Every accomplished user of the system has been saying all along that the rails give you your initial perception of the shot. The system is visual based. Why all the nonsense deflection trying to prove it doesn't work as described, when it is so easy to get on a table and find out that it does work just as described?

Stan makes a fair challenge, that should be very simple to beat him with if the system doesn't work as described, and all we hear from detractors is B.S. excuses why they won't take him up on it. Amazing how so many don't want it to work. Why, I'll never understand.

 

[Neil]

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?

Yes, you take the rails into account! If you knew anything about how to use the system, you would know that! SHEESH!

 

[Neil]

It's actually kinda funny the lame excuses some come up with on why it can't possibly work. Yet, each and every time, the excuses get shot down. Always interesting trying to guess what nonsense excuse will come up next.

Also, very telling on who has spent any time with the system and who hasn't bothered to, but just likes to spout off about how it can't work. Very easy to tell by the poor examples given of why it can't work.

Real easy to tell which on here are really interested in improving their play, and who just likes to talk a game with nothing to back it up.

 

[BlueCollarBar]

It's actually kinda funny the lame excuses some come up with on why it can't possibly work. Yet, each and every time, the excuses get shot down. Always interesting trying to guess what nonsense excuse will come up next.

Also, very telling on who has spent any time with the system and who hasn't bothered to, but just likes to spout off about how it can't work. Very easy to tell by the poor examples given of why it can't work.

Real easy to tell which on here are really interested in improving their play, and who just likes to talk a game with nothing to back it up.

Who cares? Dont let them get to you and just let them be motivation to put that much for time and effort into perfecting and advancing the system. Better for us that these guys spend more time running their mouths about something they dont understand than they are working on their game. When CTE gets bigger and bigger and more and more guys are whipping their asses using the system we will be the ones with the last laugh.

 

[mohrt]

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

Not so much the pockets themselves, but the CB/OB orientation in relation to the rails. The rails are always perfect squares. Our perception of spheres within these squares gives us the clues to find the aim line to take the OB to those intersections. Which happen to be pocket locations. I believe this is why you can cover the pocket with curtains and still make it work. The pocket is useful to determine which visual/sweep to use for the shot. Beyond that, not really necessary to be looking at it.

 

[nobcitypool]

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.

Really? Can you please provide the link to where that happened?

 

[(((Satori)))]

Really? Can you please provide the link to where that happened?

No. If you don't believe me I can live with that.

 

[mohrt]

Of course it does. That has been said many times, and yet, so many have scoffed at it. Remember the 2-1 ratio? Remember the 90 degrees part? Where are the pockets? Yep, in the 90 degree corners of a 2-1 table.

IMHO (this is my own hypothesis) is that the important part is 90 degree squares with pockets at the corners. A 1x1 table with 4 pockets would obviously work. 2x1 does too as we know. How about 4x1? I think so, because (for example) what was a bank off the end rail becomes a straight in shot, same visuals.

All that really matters is that 2x1 works, as that is what 99.99% of the world plays on.

 

[nobcitypool]

No. If you don't believe me I can live with that.

Translation: It doesn't exist, I just made that crap up (as normal).

 

[BlueCollarBar]

I think Stan actually has some support videos on youtube that show that you are actually wrong about the 1x1 and 4x1 situations. I may be mistaken though. I do know he has some pretty cool videos with modified rails and pockets.

 

[mohrt]

I think Stan actually has some support videos on youtube that show that you are actually wrong about the 1x1 and 4x1 situations. I may be mistaken though. I do know he has some pretty cool videos with modified rails and pockets.

He has videos showing how fake pockets won't work with arbitrary pocket positions. I'm talking about a table consisting of perfect squares with pockets at the corners. 1x1, 2x1, 3x1, 4x1, "L" shaped, etc. If you apply CTE PRO ONE on them, the shots that would have gone to pockets would bank to the mirror pocket, etc. I'm sure there are limitations to our perceptions and stroke abilities too, a stupidly large table would not work even if you were given the direction with a snapped chalk line.

 

[ENGLISH!]

...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?

The above statements were made by sfleinen & is a succinct representation of what I & others have been saying only using way too many words.

Best Wishes to Everyone,
Rick

 

[mohrt]

...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?

The above statements were made by sfleinen & is a succinct representation of what I & others have been saying only using way too many words.

Best Wishes to Everyone,
rick

The table most definitely has a direct affect on visual perception, and it is part of the equation. All the talk since the beginning about the table made up of 90 degree angles and perfect squares, etc. is evidence that it has been stated as such.

I'm not sure where the above text came from, and I don't recall anyone ever saying the table was NOT part of the perception. :/

 

[BeiberLvr]

I've proposed this before.

The ultimate test would be to set up the CB and OB (mark their locations), and then remove all references of the rails and pockets while maintaining the 2x1 integrity of the table.

Have Stan or another proficient user go through each visual/sweep until they pocket the ball. Once they do, repeat the shot to prove it can be made consistently. You could have them wear ear plugs so they couldn't hear the ball hit any rails or drop into the pocket

This would prove that CTE connects to the geometry of a 2x1 table.

The sad thing is that people would still have excuses.

 

[Neil]

...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?

The above statements were made by sfleinen & is a succinct representation of what I & others have been saying only using way too many words.

Best Wishes to Everyone,
Rick

Amazing, All along the users of the system have been saying that the rails do alter your perception of the shot. Yet, now that the non-users finally concede that point, it is supposed to be a claim against it working like described. Simply amazing. :shakehead:

 

[Straightpool_99]

Yes, you take the rails into account! If you knew anything about how to use the system, you would know that! SHEESH!

Gee thanks! It would have been nice to know that when I practiced CTE on the snooker table (snooker table being the best tester of aim IMHO), banging balls into the rails over and over and not finding any perceptions that worked. You see I thought since the system was such an "objective" and "center pocket" system that it would work if you followed the instructions to the letter. So that's what I did. I watched only the balls (trying to forget about the pocket) and pivoted strictly, trying one perception (visual) after another. According to the DVD I watched (nr.1) there was nothing there about adjusting, just that one of the perceptions would work for center pocketing. And Stan had shown video of playing through a curtain as well. I thought that I must not be doing it correctly.

I would make a couple balls in a row, then miss a ball and not be able to make it on repeat attempts no matter what visual I used. Then I sort of gave up on this (after probably being a laughing stock at the pool hall for a couple of weeks) and tried a looser Pro 1 approach and started making more balls. I guess it gives more room for letting the subconscious mind fill in the blanks? After a couple of weeks of this I wondered: Why am I doing all this work with the pivoting and staring into the balls until I go crosseyed when I am adjusting anyway. I might as well go straight to the source and let the subconscious pick out the shot line. All the unnatural staring and twisting was wearing me out mentally and not giving any better results (compared to other systems). I had time off from work and was playing 4-5 hours every day on average for about a month. So I invested maybe 120-150 hours total. That may not seem like much, but I am telling you, that is an awful lot of time to spend in a short time frame, with nothing to show for it other than sore eyes and a messed up stance. How much time is an average potential customer going to spend, I wonder? I felt that I might as well stick with back-of-ball aiming. Going directly into the shot line, instead of twisting and messing my stance up. So that's what I did.

If CTE is working for you, then that's fantastic. I gave it my best effort and alotted quite a bit of time to it as well. I am not in any way saying the system doesn't work. I am merely challenging some of the claims made or implied by the devotees. I don't see why my and others opinons on the system calls for a lot of the name calling and ridicule and frankly both pompous and arrogant replies that we have received. If that is how you wish to debate, then go right ahead. I hope that behind all your smug, angry and self important posts are people who run out like water and enjoy the game. Otherwise it would just be sad.

 

[stan shuffett]

...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?

The above statements were made by sfleinen & is a succinct representation of what I & others have been saying only using way too many words.

Best Wishes to Everyone,
Rick

I could show you in short order: CTE and A. Same pivot. And 500 different shots......

If that is not so.....then how in the world can the 15 and 30 do a zillion shots.

REAL CTE is the answer. PERCEPTION: something that can be explained for a 2x1 table that was never supposed to be. Meaningful perception in that the CTE perceptions lead to right angles.

Stan Shuffett