Banks
Banned
I thought your questions were pretty reasonable and without antagonism.. oh well. Guess it's a fitting spot for the thread title.
Same Old Same Old
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
I thought your questions were pretty reasonable and without antagonism.. oh well. Guess it's a fitting spot for the thread title.
What difference does seeing it in person make?!
I grant the balls are going in. But it still proves nothing about any system. Mosconi, during the trick shot portion of his exhibition, would shoot off wing shots. Is that suppose to validate a system? No. He had just developed *feel* and a technique to do it. Same with the masse shots he'd shoot. System? Screw the system. He had just learned to do them perfectly. Shots with a curtain -- the same. He has just learned to do it. I once ran a rack setting up, closing my eyes, and then shooting. If anything, THAT would prove it's all about the setup and not any system.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
An aiming system is all about the setup. It's what you see, how you align, and the correct position to deliver the stroke.
You say you don't use a system but I'm certain you didn't "set up" to make a ball in the right corner pocket by aiming or aligning yourself to the left corner pocket and doing it haphazardly. To be accurate consistently, nothing can be done by taking shots for granted and stepping in willy nilly. All shots require focus.
It also proves you're just one of the greats, maybe greatest unknown and unheralded player ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUqCPoBWXxs
Last edited:
Hi Anthony,
I don't think it has anything to do with personal sensitivity.:wink:
Best Wishes 2 You & Yours...
& All.
Last edited:
Yeppers but at least we get off the couch and go play pool once in awhile.
And....we can write properly. Not that an inability to correctly write sentences is any indication of intelligence but I have found that most people who can articulate their thoughts in written form seem to have a pretty good grasp of the world and how things work. Then again they're more apt to be consciously thinking about the words the write and the sentence structure and the grammar having mastered those techniques at an early age.
We also know how to use spell check and grammar check on our devices. I will admit though that sometimes I do screw up and if not too lazy I will go back and edit the post to have the proper grammar.
And yes, it's probably nitty to play the grammar nazi card but you know what else is nitty? Attacking CTE and CTE users daily for 15 years is nitty. Attacking a man who has put so much effort into figuring out how to refine this method and explain it is nitty.
Outright lying about him, attacking his wife, dogging him at every step, while at the same time DUCKING him and refusing to play him some is nitty.
And lastly, not even bothering to learn the method being dogged is beyond nitty, it is nutty.
Banks
Banned
Not even bothering to answer a question brought up by one's own system and words is nitty and nutty as well.
You've been getting off the couch for decades, but it's hard to tell. What was your point?
Why hasn't he challenged Schmidt, Deuel or others? It's obvious.
This gettin' ugly.
n/m
n/m
Last edited:
I could careless how I right, you rite, how Jesus writes.
I don't try to judge . You let little petty sh!t like this bauther you?
I think I asked Stan some legit questions.
Are you talking about Stan? If so, why haven't YOU challenged him since you're a megastar APA player? Do you think you could take him down, big mouth?
Why hasn't Schmidt or Deuel challenged Stan to a professional INSTRUCTOR match with an amateur or pro player to see who would take them to greater levels?
How about you? You seem to know so much, challenge him to an instructor challenge to take someone to greater levels.
His son Landon obliterated a 5 time US Open champion named Earl Strickland on a 10' table. Do you think Schmidt or Deuel would fare far better than Earl?
How would you like to go up against Landon, big mouth APA player?
Time to step up to the plate instead of the megaphone and keyboard, Mr. APA.
The method is transparent; there's no uncertainty about how it works and no need to "try it" to be able to assess it. The fact that you don't see this doesn't mean everybody who does is nutty - it means you don't see as well.
pj
chgo
Banks
Banned
Blah blah, yak yak yak.
You zealots keep telling people who don't care for aiming nonsense to challenge him to a match. Why doesn't he pull the same with better players? Don't answer, it isn't needed.
Tell us more about that time you played in that tournament.
Or you can answer the simple questions that were posed. Pretty sure that won't be happening either.
"Shuffet Up"
This reminds me of the Bill Murray movie, Groundhog Day where he is doomed to repeat the same day until he learns how to love.
In this case, the discussion goes something like this:
Skeptical Student: Stan, I don't understand how you do X.
Stan: Well it is simply a matter of the balls presenting themselves to the right angles with or without without a curtain. It's as easy as that.
Skeptical Student: Stan, but, uh, OK well does that mean you are using a rail to do X? :scratchhead:
Stan: I will never respond to you ever again under any circumstance.....not worth it...a waste time......I do not need your foolishness!
Then the crowd of Stan supporters start the barking about how their dad can beat your dad in 9 ball.
This exchange is one of the reasons I said months ago that CTE Pro1 makes Stan look like a poor instructor. Sorry, but I said it. By all accounts otherwise, Stan is an excellent instructor. So why is it so difficult for Stan to find a way to communicate how/why his system works so well? When one of us asks more than one follow up question in an HONEST attempt to really understand what he is saying, we inevitably get "Shuffeted Up."
My recommendation is to find a better way to engage your skeptics. Answering direct questions with direct answers would be a very effective start. Who knows, maybe you'll even convert some of them.
This reminds me of the Bill Murray movie, Groundhog Day where he is doomed to repeat the same day until he learns how to love.
In this case, the discussion goes something like this:
Skeptical Student: Stan, I don't understand how you do X.
Stan: Well it is simply a matter of the balls presenting themselves to the right angles with or without without a curtain. It's as easy as that.
Skeptical Student: Stan, but, uh, OK well does that mean you are using a rail to do X? :scratchhead:
Stan: I will never respond to you ever again under any circumstance.....not worth it...a waste time......I do not need your foolishness!
Then the crowd of Stan supporters start the barking about how their dad can beat your dad in 9 ball.
This exchange is one of the reasons I said months ago that CTE Pro1 makes Stan look like a poor instructor. Sorry, but I said it. By all accounts otherwise, Stan is an excellent instructor. So why is it so difficult for Stan to find a way to communicate how/why his system works so well? When one of us asks more than one follow up question in an HONEST attempt to really understand what he is saying, we inevitably get "Shuffeted Up."
My recommendation is to find a better way to engage your skeptics. Answering direct questions with direct answers would be a very effective start. Who knows, maybe you'll even convert some of them.
Come to the Dark Side, Dan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shuOYVeAj40
Could swear he says, "Come to CTE. Come to CTE."
Lou Figueroa
what color
are our light
sabers again?
FWIW, I'd like to learn CTE, at the table, from someone who actually KNOWS how it works.
That being said, I think it could be explained in terms that would be easier for people to understand. I've heard everybody from Stan on down try to explain it and yet people are still lost.
I don't necessarily think the system is flawed...I think the manner in which it is trying to be taught is flawed.
I don't care how good anyone may be at anything in particular, but just because you are good at something doesn't mean you are good at articulating the message so that others can understand it.
That being said, I think it could be explained in terms that would be easier for people to understand. I've heard everybody from Stan on down try to explain it and yet people are still lost.
I don't necessarily think the system is flawed...I think the manner in which it is trying to be taught is flawed.
I don't care how good anyone may be at anything in particular, but just because you are good at something doesn't mean you are good at articulating the message so that others can understand it.
Whoever made that video has a lot of time on his hands!
I really appreciate your comments and I fully connect with what you are saying. It is obvious that I have kept up with the pulse of CTE......I read most of the real feedback and have experienced all the ups and downs that anyone might encounter with learning CTE.
My work is over! For nearly 10 years,,I have turned perception and pivoting every which way but loose......My work has never gone backwards or even sideways...always forward.
I totally understand CTE and I can't wait to lay all I know on the table. CTE WILL BE MORE SIMPLIFIED THAN EVER!
I appreciate your respectful post....
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
This answers all questions about CTE right here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HYQjoHjwL4
Stan is the teacher/instructor and Landon is the finished product of what he teaches.
What do you have of yourself on video or can be put on video to match your big mouth, Mr. APA champion? How about a video of someone you've taught?
Answer those questions by showing us how great you play and your protégé.
Maybe he shoots a rack with his eyes closed and gets better results than when he shoots a rack with his eyes open. Yep, we know who that is.
The same guy plays SKEET 14.1. He yells "pull", somebody rolls a ball across the table and he fires wing shots at the moving object.
Last edited: