John Schmidt says CTE works after all.
- Thread starter Sloppy Pockets
- Start date
Is John taking CTE lessons?
Yes hundreds of hours a week on the Internet makes him so. Don't forget about the conversations he overheard at social events.
Shame he cannot put in the same amount of time at the table.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He's "near genius", you know. He said so therefore it must be true.
Absolute babble and double talk that makes no sense at all.
Here's your task:
Pick 1/2 dozen shots on the table. Any 1/2 dozen shots of varying cut angles and illustrate where the OB and CB is located along with the target pocket.
We don't even need a video. Verbalize in writing as comprehensively as you do in your 5,000 word single posts what and where the aim point is for the shot and whether you're using manual CTE or Pro1 and describe exactly what your seeing and doing from there.
If you know for a fact from experience the shot will be missed according to the instructions from the Dvd or Stan's other youtube videos, tell us what the adjustment is to make it in the chosen pocket. As I understand where you're coming from, it's ALL in the adjustments. Describe what they are.
This should be very easy for you to do as a highly educated pool player and wordsmith.
DON'T WANT TO DO IT?? TOUGH SH!T, TROLL!!!
Last edited:
It doesn't matter who Brian Wallace is. The first post in this thread started by SloppyPockets had a copy and paste from Facebook by John Schmidt talking about CTE and apologizing to Stan Shuffett. Brian is his good friend which is all you need to know and should respect.
You remember who John is don't you? He's the pro player who invited you out into a parking lot where he wanted to beat your face and head into the cement.
You forgot that incident?
My ASERTIONS AND CLAIMS!
The onus is me? So, You, Mr. Wordman, who cowers behind a keyboard, are challenging my claims? Will you challenge my claims at 2 to 1?
I am a man of the TRUTH! If I say something, you can bet that it is said with integrity.
I understand CTE! I can apply what I understand! I can back up my application with diagrams.......Get you some it......Man.
Stan Shuffett
The onus is me? So, You, Mr. Wordman, who cowers behind a keyboard, are challenging my claims? Will you challenge my claims at 2 to 1?
I am a man of the TRUTH! If I say something, you can bet that it is said with integrity.
I understand CTE! I can apply what I understand! I can back up my application with diagrams.......Get you some it......Man.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
The guy -- Brian Wallace -- is right here in this thread, though apparently he is too shy and/or modest to talk about himself... other than to mention he likes CTE.
Lou Figueroa
It also perplexes me how some seem incapable of understanding that we can not see what is going on in the subconscious mind of others much less ourselves.
The same individuals seem to not be able to differentiate when an issue is one of the mind (intellect) vs a physical issue.
It's as though they say, 'I can't understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but I can swim down stream faster than that fish can swim upstream.'.
'I'll prove it, I'll race him in the still waters of the lake so you can see that I am right.'.
Logical.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When someone says that a product is this or that & someone says how so...
The onus is on the one making the assertion to explain, how so.
There are individuals that shoot quite well using ghost ball, fractional, equal & opposite overlap, shadow methods, light reflections, Joe Tucker's numbers method, etc.
The assertion that a certain method is fundamentally different from other methods in that it does not require subjectivity but is a definitive objective system is no small claim or assertion.
That assertion should be explained in a manner that basically proves how so.
The issue is that subjectivity & perceptions are in the realm of the mind.
Hence only a logical rational explanation can 'show' how so & not any video or live physical performance because any subjectivity either conscious or subconscious can NOT be seen. Hence video or even live performances prove NOTHING in the realm of whether or not one's subjectivity is in play.
Can one turn off their subconscious mind? Does one know when it has influenced an action? NO. That is why it is called SUBconscious.
There are 90 possible angles that can come into play & are required for the object ball to go center pocket. Given that the pocket is larger than the balls it has been figured that that number might be reduced down to 75. I'd say all 90 can still come up.
For a system to be an objective system without any subjectivity in play the system would need at least 45 objective visual indicators given a defined pivot, sweep, or whatever to thicken or thin the angle by that specific amount. Hence two angles per indicator = 90 outcome angles.
What aiming method has at least 45 objective visual indicators? Does any aiming method have 45 visually objective indicators?
I do not think anyone has ever said that an aiming method does not work. What has been said is that the assertion of the how & what allows it to work is not accurate & hence the description of WHAT it is is not accurate.
A certain few very vocal proponents will probably never be convinced of the above.
Those of us that see it in a non biased objective light will probably never be convinced that it is as described by most proponents.
Hence any thoughts, comments or whatever that are posted here are for those that are undecided to partake, ponder, & perhaps make their own determinations, as well that they should.
As I have said before...
Is it the best aiming method? Perhaps.
Is it as described? That's for each individual to make their own determination. Does it have at least 45 objective visual indicators so that subjectivity is not necessary for it to work effectively? I don't think so.
Now as to the original post of this thread...
All John Schmidt, a World Class Player, has said is that his friend has told him that it has helped his friend & that he believes his friend.
That's fine... & I do not recall anyone ever saying that it can not be beneficial or an aid.
However, that is not an endorsement as to the nature of what it is & even if John Schmidt or anyone else says that it is X, they would still need to be able to logically explain... how so & why. Otherwise the statement would be only an opinion with no logical basis.
So... nothing has really changed other than more thoughts, comments, etc. have been posted for the members & visitors to partake of, ponder, & possibly make their own determinations, as well that they should.
Also, just because a man has integrity does mean that he is infallible & can not make a mistake or mistakes. Even Einstein made mistakes. Some subjects can be rather complex & somewhat intangible.
Last edited:
Not too shy. I have seen how these threads end up and I don't want to be part of it.
I will be in Vegas for the BCA;s in July and would be happy to have a face to face, civil, discussion with you.
Brian
I have been nothing but civil in this thread and have only asked about your bona fides as a player. If you don't want to answer of course that's your purgative. However, in the absence of any info it's hard to put much stock in all the ballyhoo over the OP.
Lou Figueroa
Yeah Lou,
A 'friend' of mine, that is one of the better players in my area & is a serious player, told me that it has holes. I would think that if he found it to be without holes he would be using it exclusively. But he's not.
I would think that he was considering it without any subjective 'adjustments' to fill those holes & as a system would normally function.
Naturally if one uses their time built visual subjective 'intelligent' perceptions (feel) to adjust between the indicators, then the holes would be filled & one would perhaps then say that it has no holes.
Fractional has no holes when it is utilizes in that manner either.
What do you think?
Last edited:
If you trust your friend, then take my 2 to 1 and set a meeting with me for book release time. You can be the hero!! We can duscuss the holes of my work in front of an astute group at the same time.
Stan Shuffett
GoldenFlash
Banned
Wants half of Stan's action at this event (which will never take place anyway)===> Flash.
Well, yes of course, your point is well taken but I'm not interested in getting into all that.
I do want to say that it's pretty amusing, after all of these years of CTE catcalling to the effect: you're nobody; you can't play; you hide behind a keyboard; provide us a video of your play; and so-on-and-so forth -- that one itsy-bitsy inquiry about a player's capabilities has them all puckered up. Particularly after all the ballyhoo
Lou Figueroa
What are you suggesting by the quotes around 'meeting,' Stan?
If and when you answer, don't forget:
Jim
Last edited: