Fear of Feel

I know it seems that way to some of you that don't understand either one, let alone truly understand both. Stan's system works as described. CJ's doesn't and can't, which I have proven on here, as well as others have. There is not one person on here that has posted on here or p.m.'d me that has even been able to describe what they do as the same thing that CJ describes to do. Not ONE. The reason for that, is that it simply does not work as he describes it.

The guys against CTE on here, the vocal ones, can't even describe the steps to use it correctly, despite all the videos and words posted about it. They are stuck in their little 2D world, and have taken sides to where they no longer can be open minded about any of it, but HAVE to continue down the same path they are on. They will never understand it simply because they don't want to.

I'm going to take a cte stance here and say that you just don't understand cjs system.
 
Two things... one clear, and one confusing.

1) Since SpiderWebComm has not disputed the facts, it would seem clear that, had a judge been agreed on, he would have lost the bet. However, since a judge was <not> mutually agreed upon, the bet was never validated. To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best, deceitful at worst, and casts him in a new light.

2) Although it's still early, I'm a little surprised that there is not a single taker, pro or con, on making direct use of the quotable verbiage from the transcript of the CTE video to make some sort of point in support of a position about CTE vs 'whatever', when it comes to this notion of feel (i.e., the topic of this thread... remember that?)

Apparently you didn't read post #4. What else needs to be said?
 
So after all these years of woofing (while I stayed silent), when finally confronted with the facts, including your own admission in print... you weasel.

I wonder if anybody's surprised. I'm not.

pj
chgo
You and your fluffer can spin however you like, I would have left with the cash Mr. Barrel.
 
I'm going to take a cte stance here and say that you just don't understand cjs system.

You would be at least partially right. I say that because he has had at least three different versions of it on here. But, in the past, I have gone over one of the versions step by step and stated where he was correct, and where he wasn't and why. I was called an idiot for believing in the science of how spheres have to react. And that he is above what science knows about how spheres react.

I stopped with him, because despite his nonsensensical statements, which no one was following anyways, some people were playing better. (due to actually paying attention to what they were doing for a change) And, that is the goal, to help others play better. And, that is the ONLY reason I stopped correcting him. Despite me getting reported every time I posted anything, and the mods getting sick of having to do a little work of actually reading threads and just banning me instead.
 
CTE Perception Part 2 video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Psy5hOJT0

time stamp 5:48 to 6:48

changing approach angle to acquire same visual on thin cut vs thick cut.


"When I try to assume the same perspective over here, it's... it's very difficult even to... to begin to resemble that. It's... I just don't have a CTE, the left edge of the CB, I can make a case for that being on A, but I have not CTE. So, I have to keep rotating... so, center... center-to-center... there's my rotation... still don't have it... there's my rotation... still don't have it... See I'm having to move more on this one to acquire the proper visuals. So, I'm gonna start again on this one. The center-to-center... there's my rotation... there we go... there we go... so, there it is: Right there. I'm at the limit, really, of what I could do to cut that ball to the left corner. But, from here... from here, it's the same left sweep that I use for the other four shots."
 
No Neil.

It's you that is ever continuingly to show that you really do not know the difference between what is objective & what is subjective perception.

You've shown 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that you can not logically or rationally truly explain your side of the disagreement.

I've had my say regarding the subject of 'feel' as it relates to the subject brought up by others.

I'll leave it to the readership to make their own determinations as to what makes rational common sense.

May Blessings be sent your way, Neil.

PS I will now heed the advice of others.

--------------------------------
 
You would be at least partially right. I say that because he has had at least three different versions of it on here. But, in the past, I have gone over one of the versions step by step and stated where he was correct, and where he wasn't and why. I was called an idiot for believing in the science of how spheres have to react. And that he is above what science knows about how spheres react.

I stopped with him, because despite his nonsensensical statements, which no one was following anyways, some people were playing better. (due to actually paying attention to what they were doing for a change) And, that is the goal, to help others play better. And, that is the ONLY reason I stopped correcting him. Despite me getting reported every time I posted anything, and the mods getting sick of having to do a little work of actually reading threads and just banning me instead.

Stan has him beat forward and backward in regards to using words, consistently, according to the globally understood meanings.

What i still don't understand is how people are required to find a correct visual, yet any time feel is brought up, it's like a banned word. Any time you ask people of different shapes and sizes, to get into a position to find a sighting of identical angles, it incorporates feel. To add pivoting and imaginary lines compounds that. Then are things like equipment and execution. That could explain why those that are established players find more benefit from a repeating structure than newer players.

Of course i have other issues with the claims, but those are the ones pertinent to the topic.
 
Interesting to see that nothing has changed here. CTErs continue their condescending preachings and don't seem to know the basic rules of discussion, or how to interact with human beings in general. It would be so much easier to sell your product, if you answered questions and criticism in a friendly manner, instead of hijacking threads and talking down to people.

Fear of Feel = Fear of Pool
 
I know it seems that way to some of you that don't understand either one, let alone truly understand both. Stan's system works as described. CJ's doesn't and can't, which I have proven on here, as well as others have. There is not one person on here that has posted on here or p.m.'d me that has even been able to describe what they do as the same thing that CJ describes to do. Not ONE. The reason for that, is that it simply does not work as he describes it.

The guys against CTE on here, the vocal ones, can't even describe the steps to use it correctly, despite all the videos and words posted about it. They are stuck in their little 2D world, and have taken sides to where they no longer can be open minded about any of it, but HAVE to continue down the same path they are on. They will never understand it simply because they don't want to.

Actually it is CTE users stuck in a 2D world since they seem to believe balls have edges as well as those that believe you can hit 1/2 a ball.

In a 3D word, balls do not edges and you can not hit 1/2 a ball.
 
No Neil.

It's you that is ever continuingly to show that you really do not know the difference between what is objective & what is subjective perception.

You've shown 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that you can not logically or rationally truly explain your side of the disagreement.

I've had my say regarding the subject of 'feel' as it relates to the subject brought up by others.

I'll leave it to the readership to make their own determinations as to what makes rational common sense.

May Blessings be sent your way, Neil.

PS I will now heed the advice of others.


Oh, you mean the advice to ignore Neil and stay from any conversation that mentions CTE?

I don't need to be omniscient, a fortune teller, or even Jesus "Mother #$#@ing" Christ himself to know that's not true.

If you actually valued your membership here, then you would have put him (and others) on ignore by now, because your will power is non-existent.
 
Thread over......
:rolleyes:


Actually it is CTE users stuck in a 2D world since they seem to believe balls have edges as well as those that believe you can hit 1/2 a ball.

In a 3D word, balls do not edges and you can not hit 1/2 a ball.
 
Going around a race track on a 180hp motorcycle at a fast pace, I use feel a lot.

In this case it is feeling how he bike is working, feeling of how fast I'm going, feeling of being hard on the brakes going from 130 down to 30 MPH in the shortest distance possible before I turn in.

These feelings, inputs, are triggers for my muscle memory on what to do on the bike.

In pool, the isn't the same type of input....no sensation of accelartion or deceleration and so on.

The inputs, feelings, in pool are how your body feels in the shooting stance for the shot, where you have to bridge at times, how the balls roll based on the stroke and so on.

Feelings help in the execution or rather the performance part of something. You can not perform well without feeling, the inputs needed to do so.
 
I'm going to take a cte stance here and say that you just don't understand cjs system.

There you go! :thumbup:

This debate is just like those about religious beliefs. One side says you can't know anything about their god until you spend considerable time worshiping him, but ask them to put the shoe on the other foot and they claim they don't need to because they can understand the other person's god to be a false one just by using logic.
 
Well speaking for myself I never disclaim something until I have spent time with it on the table.

Guess that puts me in the middle?


There you go! :thumbup:

This debate is just like those about religious beliefs. One side says you can't know anything about their god until you spend considerable time worshiping him, but ask them to put the shoe on the other foot and they claim they don't need to because they can understand the other person's god to be a false one just by using logic.
 
There you go! :thumbup:

This debate is just like those about religious beliefs. One side says you can't know anything about their god until you spend considerable time worshiping him, but ask them to put the shoe on the other foot and they claim they don't need to because they can understand the other person's god to be a false one just by using logic.

:thumbup2:

Except for referring to this stuff as a 'debate'.
 
CTE Part 3 Pivoting Techniques

Some pivots are 1/4 tip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCnki7a9cH4

I can pivot 4 whole tips worth if I want to. CTE is a visually driven system. The eyes lead the bridge V placement and one's back hand can turn the cue to knock chalk off the table and still go to CCB and the shot line.

My pivoting techniques video is primarily for those that understand CTE....and want to broaden their abilities of how to close the rotation to CCB other than by the foundational 1/2 tip basic pivot.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
Stan has him beat forward and backward in regards to using words, consistently, according to the globally understood meanings.

What i still don't understand is how people are required to find a correct visual, yet any time feel is brought up, it's like a banned word. Any time you ask people of different shapes and sizes, to get into a position to find a sighting of identical angles, it incorporates feel. To add pivoting and imaginary lines compounds that. Then are things like equipment and execution. That could explain why those that are established players find more benefit from a repeating structure than newer players.

Of course i have other issues with the claims, but those are the ones pertinent to the topic.

I totally disagree with this statement- Any time you ask people of different shapes and sizes, to get into a position to find a sighting of identical angles, it incorporates feel. If you "feel" that you can see something, that means that you really aren't sure if you can see it or not. Once you get lined up correctly, you SEE what you are supposed to see. That's "knowing", not "feeling". There is a big difference there.

If you have a gun with no sights, and ask someone to aim it dead center at a target, they have to go by feel to align it. But, give the same person a scope, and they will know they are on target.

As to the equipment and execution variables, that isn't even an issue. It's not, because it's stated that one has to have a straight, repeatable stroke for the system to work. And the equipment has to be a 2:1 ratio table. Of course it has to be straight and level. To argue that it isn't stated that you need a level table would be ridiculous to the extreme.

Bottom line is, some of you are just trying to pick words to argue, because you now know that the system does work. You can't really argue the effectiveness of the system anymore. Real question is, why do you same guys always get down on Stan for saying things, yet give CJ a free pass when he claims absolute nonsense things?
 
Back
Top