This has been talked about plenty already.
I'm pretty sure Stan has already admitted his mistake in incorrectly calling it a 1/2 ball hit.
Same Old Same Old
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
This has been talked about plenty already.
I'm pretty sure Stan has already admitted his mistake in incorrectly calling it a 1/2 ball hit.
And this may come as a surprise to you, it can be different from one person to another in a specific area or subject. Various subjects used to be debated for days on end from differing logical viewpoints in the forums of ancient times during Plato and Aristotle. You don't have the corner on it that makes yours the only right one although you'd like to think so.
Last edited:
Based on your actions and words in various forums and pool rooms over the years, I'm quite certain there are a number of individuals who would like to have seen you bleed from more areas than just your eyes and that's not just figuratively speaking either.
Well Patrick, looks like you're off the hook. The consensus among your fawning sycophant legal expert followers declare nothing could possibly be made of this and you're the winner.
But wait, maybe just maybe, Stan will find a brilliant, intelligent lawyer as Lou did who can pull a rabbit out of the hat to make your eyes bleed and bankroll disintegrate. I'm not his legal counsel or advisor nor are your sycophants to you.
He could already have that whiz kid lawyer.
A lot of weird things can happen with what is considered frivolous lawsuits. Kinda like the woman who claimed unbelievable pain, suffering, and permanent damage to her mentally and physically when she spilled hot coffee in her lap at McDonalds.
Everybody laughed at the thought of a lawsuit. She was awarded $2.86 MILLION DOLLARS!
Once again, I am NOT his legal counsel and advisor. You would be wise not to be your own or listen to those who aren't. You'd be even wiser to STFU with your personal attacks on him directly and indirectly. You've done more than enough already over the years in addition to Lou.
Last edited:
This is the part of the system that no one can agree on the explanation. When I line up on a visual, my perception gives me the unique eye address of the given shot. This is not something I need to think about, perception does the work for me. This can be realized at the table by anyone giving it an honest try. This is why "objective" comes into play because at a conscious level it is just edge to A. If you want to call perception "unconscious adjustment" I don't really care. What I do know is that it is consistent and repeatable, enough to result in high ball pocketing accuracy. I'm using ball centers edges and quarters to find shot lines using unique identifiable repeatable perceptions.
Try this. Setup shots #1 and shots #5 from perception video. Pick one and line up right CB edge to A(or B if that is easier). Just the single line. From that eye position take note where the CCB line crosses the rail underneath you. Now move to the other shot and repeat. What you should find is the CCB offsets differ in offset a little bit, maybe by an inch (I have not measured but I have noted them recently.) if you are not familiar with CTE, keep going between the two shots, really focus on the edge to A and CCB line. See if you can find consistency at a location and mark it on the rail with a hole reinforcer.
Take note both lines are perceptions for your own vision center. Use both eyes and find exactly edge to A (or B) and then CCB coming straight back to the rail. Try all 5 shots, see that the offsets are progressive.
Last edited:
For instance, Stan could end up paying his expenses, my expenses, and court costs, plus sanctions for bringing a frivolous suit, not to mention having his claims about his system judged by the court.
Hopefully his attorney isn't driven by the same juvenile anger issues as you and can give him real professional advice.
pj
chgo
That's up to the attorney to decide...not me, not you. All you need to be concerned about at this point is STFU now and in the future with the direct and indirect personal attacks.
Attorneys are driven to win. If they think they have a case and chance to win they'll take it. Many cases get turned down right from the beginning after a short session in their offices. I have given Stan NO advice. He's his own man.
Hopefully you'll get over your "NEED TO BE RIGHT" and juvenile anger issues with CTE and Stan or get some professional psychiatric advice.
Last edited:
What I said is the truth and a known fact from what others have stated. (not necessarily on this forum in writing)
Dude, get a damn life already. Must be hell to be 68 years old and looking back how you wasted 20 years of your life on forums badmouthing CTE, Hal, Stan, and anyone who uses it.
And I thought I was exaggerating with the term "wacko" earlier. Since the moderators aren't trying to curtail your expressions of rage, maybe, for your own sake, you should consider voluntarily taking some time off.
Jim
As I said earlier, it had nothing to do with rage. It's a known fact especially with men Lou has been around in St. Louis pool rooms as well as California. He was never civil with some others on this forum, RSB, or one pocket.org and they had a very real hatred for him. There's also a certain pro player who was so livid that he wanted to draw some real blood out of his body. Are you oblivious to it or your head buried in the sand?
Hey...sue me.
Last edited:
You insinuating that Stan is tweaking is huge stretch. He is directly on line as the cue ball is shot. Keep searching for things that aren't there.
Keep making stupid posts like this then turn around and beg for key information to be spoon fed to you.
Mohrt: Thanks for the explanation but I am still lost. I appreciate that you are trying to explain things in a way different from the way Stan presents it. Here's the problem I have with your explanation, and I want to add that I do "honestly" try to make it work, but I also try to make sure I am not fooling myself. (The other day I made like 4 out of 5 long shots using CTE, but then I made 0 out of 5 when getting the visual alignment the same way, but then looking at cb last and making sure I am not steering the ball. I can pocket balls with my eyes closed at a better rate than that, so it makes me wonder if steering the cue is part of what makes CTE work).
Anyway, not to get side tracked... So in your example of shot 1 I am marking a spot on the rail with a hole reinforcer. The issue I keep bumping up against is that to me, shot 5 is like a photocopy of shot 1. Take a snapshot of my alignment for shot 1 and then copy and paste that position onto shot 5. Shot 5 cannot be made if something else doesn't change, and I can't get the same visual in shot 5 if I move to a thinner cut in order to pocket the ball. This is the dilemma. What am I missing?
JB saying he doesn't see any alignment problem doesn't refute the evidence any more than him saying the sky isn't blue refutes the color of the sky.
I'll google Gerry Williams and if I find anything I can analyze I'll post it in a separate thread.
Video
For those of you who have expressed interest, the original video I did is here. I though most of the participants here had already seen it:
https://youtu.be/wpljeVvOqRs
There was some discussion of this in another thread. JB said there was nothing to see here, move on.
Stan said in his demonstrations he hits them hard and with stun. He uses outside english to combat the extra throw caused by the stun. I believe that was close to his explanation if not a direct quote. I can find the other thread easily enough if necessary.
For those of you who have expressed interest, the original video I did is here. I though most of the participants here had already seen it:
https://youtu.be/wpljeVvOqRs
There was some discussion of this in another thread. JB said there was nothing to see here, move on.
Stan said in his demonstrations he hits them hard and with stun. He uses outside english to combat the extra throw caused by the stun. I believe that was close to his explanation if not a direct quote. I can find the other thread easily enough if necessary.
Thanks. I just see what I see. People were very helpful early on and I tried to make the system work based on the feedback I got, but it just doesn't compute with me. So I decided to do a little of my own analysis to see if there was something I could learn from video. I had the idea because I used this same type of thing on my own stroke and it really helped me out.
Why would somebody take a practice stroke, and then follow a different path on the actual shot? I'm observing things and trying to learn. At least JB sees the value in that even if he refutes what his eyes show him.
Stan already answered the question posed in my video. He alters the actual shot line after taking a different practice stroke to compensate for stun throw.
Don't shoot the messenger.
I NEVER teach or do demos of any type and purposefully use outside spin as a counter to stun with my intentions being CCB...I would much rather use a touch of inside before resorting to outside.......
I spent a lot years working on CTE and got into a habit at times of just whacking balls with one stroke.....quick result oriented feedback......
I have a tremor in my arm/hand that I must deal with in different ways.....squeezing my hand tightly around the cue's butt during testing, demos and teaching serves its purpose for me......
What you see on videos is much different that what'd you'd see in different circumstances.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
That's fine. I went ahead and found the original conversation. I don't want to quote you incorrectly. You actually said:
My first comment is that the shot in question is in fact set up as close to a 30 degree angle as possible which is the conventional 1/2 ball shot in the quarters system and it has been defined that way for a hundred years. My intentions were to convey a half ball aim....and it will still be the same in a hundred more years.
At times, during demos I stun a lot of balls.....creates a lot grabbing....sometimes I do compensate for stun. I have trained myself to do that.
I can shoot the shots with finesse or draw and the balls will split the pocket minus any rolling of the hand.
Stan Shuffett
The post can be found here:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5320401&postcount=1412
You are clearly delivering the cue in a different path than the practice stroke. Your original explanation is that you were compensating for stun, so my comment is a summary of what I observed combined with your explanation of the reason:
Again, I said:
He [Stan] alters the actual shot line after taking a different practice stroke to compensate for stun throw.
The blue part is my observation from the video analysis, and the red part is the explanation you gave. If it is not stun compensation but it is a hand tremor then I would have put that in the red part instead.