Stan Shuffet Challenge

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, here is why all you stuck on the pivot length are wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPo177PNq1Q

I clearly show how the pivot length can vary and still give the desired results. It's all about pivoting from the correct line to start with.

Nice video Neil, appreciate your efforts.

Don't mean to be rude, but that video proved to me that your air pivot is intuitive. If you'd done the manual pivot from the ETC line with a 4 inch bridge and a 20 inch bridge, you'd miss the pot thin then thick unless you moved your bridge intuitively to alter the actual pivot point.

Also, if you'd moved the OB 2 inches further away along the same line, you'd need to alter the pivot to make the ball.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Now if it was me and i set up those 5 shots. I make the first one and undercut the next 4 in a row in a noticeable pattern, a light would go off in my head....im just saying

Don't play games. Speak your mind.

 

[nobcitypool]

I have tried it on the table & found it to have holes. Since I had seen that it works I attributed them to the fact that perhaps I was not performing it correctly.

I've been away from these forums for a year.

3 hours not 3 weeks.

It's certainly not the money but I lost some interest when seeing the 5 shots video.

It also made me question whether or not I wanted to invest the time & effort in what I & others perceive as a more complex method when what we are using is much more simple & works quite well.

Too bad you haven't lost interest in insulting Stan with your comments. Perhaps it would be helpful if you repeated, for the 20th time, how you lost faith, you found holes, the five shots threw you off, you don't get the illusions, blah, blah, blah. Stan has made his thoughts and feelings about you and your comments explicitly clear yet you persist. Amazing.

 

[Neil]

The challenge: Get a group of 4 or 5 and go to Stan. He will teach them CTE. You show them where the system is wrong, and show them your method of aiming. Let the students decide if what Stan teaches is correct.

After that, you are free to set up shots, curtain or no curtain and test Stan on the system. He also is free to test you on your system. You simply have to show Stan where he is wrong, and where you can connect to the table in a better fashion.

Here's your response Colin: "Because Stan's challenge requires proof to change his mind about claims that have no basis that can be analyzed."

Now, how can you say his challenge provides nothing that can be analyzed?? You are free to analyze any part of the system!! Your statement makes no sense at all.

You say you spent years studying pivots. Yet, you failed to see the obvious? How is that possible??

Your claim about the 1/2 tip pivot is weak at best, ridiculous at worst. Prone to error? What part of pool is not prone to error? Because a person is somehow not capable of moving their tip 1/2 tip distance, that is a problem with the system??

Visual perceptions- if you really believe that statement you made, there is your challenge to Stan. Have at it.

2x1, 90 degrees- Your statements are worded as fact, not questions. They are belittling, and false. And you guys wonder how the "wars" start. They stem from a total lack of knowledge on your part. Then you go on to say you never said it doesn't work. Yet, as pointed out above, you did say just that. You state things as fact, then to cover your butt, you say you are just questioning because you don't understand. Everyone sees right through that nonsense, Colin. You wouldn't be stating things as fact if you were just trying to understand.

People keep asking how the CTE wars always happen? Look no further than your, English, and Sean's posts. Stating false things as fact and then trying to disguise your wrongful, hurtful statements as just questions. Someone else in this thread only has questions. His are being answered just fine. He's actually trying to learn it, not see what he can nitpick to knock it.

As to your last statement, not one user of it has admitted to intuitive adjustments. Another false claim by you. Then you claim someone admitted to using the rails for reference. I DID. You act like that is counter to the system. It's not, it has been said all along, you have to have visual intelligence and perspective. You cannot possibly attain that without any rails to give you a reference. So, quit acting like that is something wrong with the system. The only thing wrong is your understanding of it. The claims you guys are coming up for what 's wrong with the system are absolutely ridiculous. All they do is showcase your lack of knowledge.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, just address one of your questions regarding how the half pivot isn't affected by bridge distance. I had this discussion with at large on another thread. He brought up some good points that I had to think about. I sat down and did some trig to try and figure it out.

What I believe happens with CTE is you're pivoting off of the perception line. If you watched Stan's first DVD, you may recall how he described sliding his bridge hand along the perception line. It is important to realize the perception line isn't the cte line. Were we talking about the cte line, you would be correct about the bridge distance having an affect. However, with the perception line, you have an offset occurring as the bridge length varies along the line. This offset "offsets" the affect of the change in bridge length. If we were sitting together, I could sketch this out for you in a few seconds and I think you'd see what I'm trying to describe. Might lead to an interesting Technical discussion.

I discussed this with Stan the last time I was there. Just to test theory, Stan tried CTE with a half tip pivot using a 2 foot and up bridge length on his 9' diamond. It was a little awkward but he was still sinking shots.

Thanks Nob,

I think I've got a clear picture of what you are proposing regarding sliding the bridge into the perception line (which I understand is not the cte line) and how that might cancel out pivoting differentials. Glad to know you've thought through that.

I'll play around with some geometry to see to what degree this might compensate for bridge length pivot angle variation. I've got a feeling such a perception line would need to be curved to compensate perfectly, but I'll see where the geometry takes me and post a graphic with analysis later.

Colin

 

[Neil]

Nice video Neil, appreciate your efforts.

Don't mean to be rude, but that video proved to me that your air pivot is intuitive. If you'd done the manual pivot from the ETC line with a 4 inch bridge and a 20 inch bridge, you'd miss the pot thin then thick unless you moved your bridge intuitively to alter the actual pivot point.

Also, if you'd moved the OB 2 inches further away along the same line, you'd need to alter the pivot to make the ball.

How do you study pivots for years and not see what is so obvious? Do you see how the bridge hand always lands on the same line? That is the line you get from your visuals. In the case of the video shown, 90/90. But, it is the same as for CTE/Pro 1. From where you are standing, you look at the cb and see center from the fixed cb. Then you pivot to it.

If you are standing back farther, or standing closer, your perception of where center cb is on that fixed cb will change. Hence, landing you in the correct spot regardless of the pivot length.

What you have been doing wrong is finding center, THEN moving back and pivoting to the same center cb you saw from a different distance. Of course that will change everything. Quite simply, you have yet to learn the proper way to pivot. Now you know.

 

[Colin Colenso]

The challenge: Get a group of 4 or 5 and go to Stan. He will teach them CTE. You show them where the system is wrong, and show them your method of aiming. Let the students decide if what Stan teaches is correct.

After that, you are free to set up shots, curtain or no curtain and test Stan on the system. He also is free to test you on your system. You simply have to show Stan where he is wrong, and where you can connect to the table in a better fashion.

Here's your response Colin: "Because Stan's challenge requires proof to change his mind about claims that have no basis that can be analyzed."

Now, how can you say his challenge provides nothing that can be analyzed?? You are free to analyze any part of the system!! Your statement makes no sense at all.

You say you spent years studying pivots. Yet, you failed to see the obvious? How is that possible??

Your claim about the 1/2 tip pivot is weak at best, ridiculous at worst. Prone to error? What part of pool is not prone to error? Because a person is somehow not capable of moving their tip 1/2 tip distance, that is a problem with the system??

Visual perceptions- if you really believe that statement you made, there is your challenge to Stan. Have at it.

2x1, 90 degrees- Your statements are worded as fact, not questions. They are belittling, and false. And you guys wonder how the "wars" start. They stem from a total lack of knowledge on your part. Then you go on to say you never said it doesn't work. Yet, as pointed out above, you did say just that. You state things as fact, then to cover your butt, you say you are just questioning because you don't understand. Everyone sees right through that nonsense, Colin. You wouldn't be stating things as fact if you were just trying to understand.

People keep asking how the CTE wars always happen? Look no further than your, English, and Sean's posts. Stating false things as fact and then trying to disguise your wrongful, hurtful statements as just questions. Someone else in this thread only has questions. His are being answered just fine. He's actually trying to learn it, not see what he can nitpick to knock it.

As to your last statement, not one user of it has admitted to intuitive adjustments. Another false claim by you. Then you claim someone admitted to using the rails for reference. I DID. You act like that is counter to the system. It's not, it has been said all along, you have to have visual intelligence and perspective. You cannot possibly attain that without any rails to give you a reference. So, quit acting like that is something wrong with the system. The only thing wrong is your understanding of it. The claims you guys are coming up for what 's wrong with the system are absolutely ridiculous. All they do is showcase your lack of knowledge.

I'm sorry that Stan's challenge was vague as I understood it. It came across as if you still doubt anything I preach, then you'd better have a shoot out with me on my own table for big cash, perhaps with curtain tricks included. It came across as sophomoric to be frank.

Your video shows me that your understanding of pivot length is about where CTE proponents were years ago. Completely in the dark and unaware that they were making some form of adjustment which was geometrically impossible to explain.

The system as it is presented nowadays goes a long way toward reducing the need for pivot adjustment. Has it been eliminated? I don't know, hence the honest inquiry for an explanation, to which Nob kindly offered one.

 

[nobcitypool]

Colin, I didn't take it to the point to be able to guarantee the offset is 100%. I do believe it is far more than sufficient to work for a reasonable range of bridge distances. As the bridge length lengthens, a 1/2 tip pivot correlates to less arc at the butt of the cue and vice versa as the bridge length shortens. As you move the bridge hand along the perception line closer to the cb, the distance between the pivot point and the actual aim line is increasing at a linear rate. Thereby, the offsetting affect.

 

[Colin Colenso]

How do you study pivots for years and not see what is so obvious? Do you see how the bridge hand always lands on the same line? That is the line you get from your visuals. In the case of the video shown, 90/90. But, it is the same as for CTE/Pro 1. From where you are standing, you look at the cb and see center from the fixed cb. Then you pivot to it.

If you are standing back farther, or standing closer, your perception of where center cb is on that fixed cb will change. Hence, landing you in the correct spot regardless of the pivot length.

What you have been doing wrong is finding center, THEN moving back and pivoting to the same center cb you saw from a different distance. Of course that will change everything. Quite simply, you have yet to learn the proper way to pivot. Now you know.

Do you propose that you can make that shot with mechanical pivots of varying lengths? It seemed to me you were making that case. If so, go try the shot with your bridge on your line with a 4 inch bridge length and a 20 inch bridge length.

 

[Neil]

I'm sorry that Stan's challenge was vague as I understood it. It came across as if you still doubt anything I preach, then you'd better have a shoot out with me on my own table for big cash, perhaps with curtain tricks included. It came across as sophomoric to be frank.

Your video shows me that your understanding of pivot length is about where CTE proponents were years ago. Completely in the dark and unaware that they were making some form of adjustment which was geometrically impossible to explain.

The system as it is presented nowadays goes a long way toward reducing the need for pivot adjustment. Has it been eliminated? I don't know, hence the honest inquiry for an explanation, to which Nob kindly offered one.

Yeah, whatever. There is no adjustment. quite the opposite. Too bad you aren't open minded enough to even see the obvious. Even after it was explained to you by Nob and myself. Guess it's easier to say I'm in the dark on it than admit you missed a key point about pivoting. Yet, I'm the one that can do it and explain it, and you aren't. hmm.... Whatever, you are just proving that you don't want to understand, only nitpick. Thanks for clarifying that for us.

You make yourself out to be an expert on pivoting, yet fail to see and understand when clearly explained to you that ones perception of center cb shifts proportionately the farther one moves away from the cb. Instead, you want to stay fixated on the the same center cb point, move backwards to pivot, and then act surprised when it doesn't work that way.

If you ever care to have an open mind, admitting you are wrong isn't hard to do at all, and in doing so, you can actually learn something and better yourself. Just get your ego out of the way. Heck, I would have bet large on something I thought just the other day. Dr. Dave proved me wrong. So, now I have more correct knowledge at my finger tips, and my perception of a point has changed. That's half the problem with people on here trying to learn something. Their egos. They refuse to admit when they are wrong about something. Better to cling onto old false beliefs.

Another point- your perception of what the challenge was, was wrong. It goes back to reading and listening comprehension. Far too many today inject what they want to hear into what someone is actually saying, Then state that what the person said was wrong. I don't know why it is that way today, but I see it a lot. The simple fact that you didn't comprehend Stans challenge should prove to you that you aren't comprehending CTE correctly. Try going back over it with an empty cup and giving it a try the way he actually says to do it.

 

[Neil]

Do you propose that you can make that shot with mechanical pivots of varying lengths? It seemed to me you were making that case. If so, go try the shot with your bridge on your line with a 4 inch bridge length and a 20 inch bridge length.

What part are you not reading?? YES! The video PROVES that the bridge length doesn't matter when you pivot correctly! Please read it again without pre-conceived ideas about it so you can see what I actually said! It's not where you are pivoting to, it's your reference that you are pivoting from! Where you pivot from changes the pinpoint on the cb that you pivot to!

edit: As to the 4" bridge length, when you get too close, your visuals of the shot have to change. In that video, I was using 90/90. Edge to edge, pivot to center cb. There is a point when you get too close to the cb that your visuals have to change to center to edge, or 3/4 to edge. But, from a standard bridge length of 6-20", if you reference correctly, you will make the shot. The center point on the cb that you pivot too changes with the distance. So, your pivot is not the same angle pivot at different distances. It self corrects itself when you pivot off the correct line to start with. (the tape line in the video)

 

[Colin Colenso]

Originally Posted by Colin Colenso View Post
Do you propose that you can make that shot with mechanical pivots of varying lengths? It seemed to me you were making that case. If so, go try the shot with your bridge on your line with a 4 inch bridge length and a 20 inch bridge length.

What part are you not reading?? YES! The video PROVES that the bridge length doesn't matter when you pivot correctly! Please read it again without pre-conceived ideas about it so you can see what I actually said! It's not where you are pivoting to, it's your reference that you are pivoting from! Where you pivot from changes the pinpoint on the cb that you pivot to!

edit: As to the 4" bridge length, when you get too close, your visuals of the shot have to change. In that video, I was using 90/90. Edge to edge, pivot to center cb. There is a point when you get too close to the cb that your visuals have to change to center to edge, or 3/4 to edge. But, from a standard bridge length of 6-20", if you reference correctly, you will make the shot. The center point on the cb that you pivot too changes with the distance. So, your pivot is not the same angle pivot at different distances. It self corrects itself when you pivot off the correct line to start with. (the tape line in the video)

I concede, I do not have a clue what you are talking about, nor how your video proved anything regarding my inquiry into the objectivity of the pivot, mechanical or air.

Am I the only one scratching my head in utter confusion about what the heck you are explaining and how it answers my inquiry?

 

[Neil]

I concede, I do not have a clue what you are talking about, nor how your video proved anything regarding my inquiry into the objectivity of the pivot, mechanical or air.

Am I the only one scratching my head in utter confusion about what the heck you are explaining and how it answers my inquiry?

Try "emptying your cup" on what you think you know, and just read the words.

Remember the video? The tape line that I have there? That is your edge to edge line. In CTE/Pro 1, it would be on the line from your visuals to center cb bridge placement. That line is where your bridge hand goes down on. From distance "A", you look at the cb without changing your head position, that is your center cb. Put a dot there on the cb. Now, from the same bridge line, go farther back (distance B), place your bridge hand on the reference line. Again, without moving your head, look for center cb. The point you now see on the cb as center cb is NOT the same point you picked out earlier. That point has shifted along with your distance from the cb.

Likewise, the angle that you will actually be pivoting the cue has also changed due to the different perspective of just where center cb actually is. Thereby, giving you the same results with different pivot lengths.

Very simple to do what I did in the video for yourself and you will see what I am saying. Your problem with pivoting is that you have changed where you place your bridge hand with different distances and you always see the same center cb then.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, I didn't take it to the point to be able to guarantee the offset is 100%. I do believe it is far more than sufficient to work for a reasonable range of bridge distances. As the bridge length lengthens, a 1/2 tip pivot correlates to less arc at the butt of the cue and vice versa as the bridge length shortens. As you move the bridge hand along the perception line closer to the cb, the distance between the pivot point and the actual aim line is increasing at a linear rate. Thereby, the offsetting affect.

I doubt this graphic is sufficient, but it was the best I could do. Perhaps you could suggest a different way to place the perceived line.

My graphic would indicate that the further the perception line is from the final aim line, the smaller range of pivot length variation could be tolerated.

In the example drawn, the pivot would need to occur around the crossing point of the two lines.

 

[Neil]

I doubt this graphic is sufficient, but it was the best I could do. Perhaps you could suggest a different way to place the perceived line.

My graphic would indicate that the further the perception line is from the final aim line, the smaller range of pivot length variation could be tolerated.

In the example drawn, the pivot would need to occur around the crossing point of the two lines.

Forget the 2D charts, and just try it on the table.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Try "emptying your cup" on what you think you know, and just read the words.

Remember the video? The tape line that I have there? That is your edge to edge line. In CTE/Pro 1, it would be on the line from your visuals to center cb bridge placement. That line is where your bridge hand goes down on. From distance "A", you look at the cb without changing your head position, that is your center cb. Put a dot there on the cb. Now, from the same bridge line, go farther back (distance B), place your bridge hand on the reference line. Again, without moving your head, look for center cb. The point you now see on the cb as center cb is NOT the same point you picked out earlier. That point has shifted along with your distance from the cb.

Likewise, the angle that you will actually be pivoting the cue has also changed due to the different perspective of just where center cb actually is. Thereby, giving you the same results with different pivot lengths.

Very simple to do what I did in the video for yourself and you will see what I am saying. Your problem with pivoting is that you have changed where you place your bridge hand with different distances and you always see the same center cb then.

I get that the surface CCB will be different for different distances along a visual which is not on a line through center cue ball.

I'm trying to figure how this could help in determining where to pivot from.

 

[(((Satori)))]

I think some of the proponents know the truth but they are in way to deep to now admit the system does in fact have a subconscious element to it and it is the subconscious adjustments that fill the gaps.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Forget the 2D charts, and just try it on the table.

I have, hundreds of hours. Never an aha moment. Not saying I did it all right, was just following various descriptions provided by various proponents, but the only way it worked alright for me, was when I made intuitive adjustments.

Two things I do really like about the system is that it trains you to look hard at and perceive the balls and that it trains you to commit to an aim line and stroke straight through it without post-alignment adjustments such as swiping or bridge hand movements. I've incorporated those into my more traditional aiming.

 

[nobcitypool]

I think some of the proponents know the truth but they are in way to deep to now admit the system does in fact have a subconscious element to it and it is the subconscious adjustments that fill the gaps.

And you have what specific facts to support that thinking? Or this just you violating Mr. Wilson's requirement of you actually contributing something instead of being negative? That's a rhetorical question by the way, it is painfully obvious to everyone what you're all about. But again, if you have something that is factually specific, it would be great for you to actually offer something for the very first time. The shock value would be tremendous.

 

[nobcitypool]

I doubt this graphic is sufficient, but it was the best I could do. Perhaps you could suggest a different way to place the perceived line.

My graphic would indicate that the further the perception line is from the final aim line, the smaller range of pivot length variation could be tolerated.

In the example drawn, the pivot would need to occur around the crossing point of the two lines.

Colin, as a graphical representation, I believe that is reasonably correct. I think the point the perception line and actual aim line cross may be further back from the CB than what you're showing if it were to scale. I also think the angle between the two is less.