Stevie Moore parallel shots CTE video

Status
Not open for further replies.
mohrt said:
The key is, every CB/OB position on the table affects our perception of them. If you move either ball, the perception changes. Try this:

Take the two "B" shots from the video. We will only be doing the initial alignment from a standing position. Shot 1, align to B (as described in the DVDs) until it looks perfect. Now freeze and focus your eyes to CCB and where it crosses the OB (drawing a line through CCB to the OB mentally). Now move the balls and do the same thing for the second shot. What you should observe is that even though you aligned things identically from a procedural standpoint, the CCB crosses the OB on an ever slightly different (thinner) alignment. Same procedure, ending in slightly thinner physical alignment. The only thing that differed is the placement of the balls on the table.

You didn't *do* anything different. This is the phenomena of our perception and how we perceive two spheres on a square plane. If you just let your eyes do the work and let your body follow, you'll figure it out. It's all there, but *very* different than conventional ball aiming and thus, not easy to drop old habits to pick up new ones. I didn't get it for a while when I started. It required setting up the shots from DVD1 and shooting them for a couple weeks until it started to click. Once you get it, the pieces fall together quickly and you'll be pocketing balls like a mad man, mad why you didn't discover this years earlier. Then comes the discovery of applying the technique to banks, and all of your pool transgressions will surface ;)
Click to expand...

Mohrt, you sure about all that in bold? Stan seems to disagree:

https://youtu.be/EJTJh05FEKw?t=2m39s
 
stan shuffett said:
Yup, I am nothing more than a damn huckster, a peddler at best.

Stan Shuffett
Master Huckster
Click to expand...

Well, with all due respect, Stan, I don't know about "huckster," but you sure aren't the instructor you are cracked up to be. I'd be embarrassed if I single-handedly took curious individuals with honest interest in what you were selling, and turned them into outcasts unworthy of your time. As I've said before, any instructor worth his salt would be embarrassed to blame the student for not being able to learn, rather than my inability as an instructor to find a way to communicate my ideas effectively. I haven't been in this forum for a long time, yet I still see the same three or four people here, and nobody new. You might want to work on growing that pie with better communication.
 
Dan White said:
Well, with all due respect, Stan, I don't know about "huckster," but you sure aren't the instructor you are cracked up to be. I'd be embarrassed if I single-handedly took curious individuals with honest interest in what you were selling, and turned them into outcasts unworthy of your time. As I've said before, any instructor worth his salt would be embarrassed to blame the student for not being able to learn, rather than my inability as an instructor to find a way to communicate my ideas effectively. I haven't been in this forum for a long time, yet I still see the same three or four people here, and nobody new. You might want to work on growing that pie with better communication.
Click to expand...

He didn't turn you into an outcast at all, Dan. You did that all by yourself. Aren't you proud of that?
 
stan shuffett said:
You are right, Dan. I am a sorry a POS!

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

There isn't one person on Earth who has either met or worked with you in person that would even consider thinking such a thing, let alone say it.

However, there are two others in particular over the last two pages where it does apply and that's putting it mildly. Everyone on this forum knows it and goes far beyond them bashing CTE or you personally.
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
However, there are two others in particular over the last two pages where it does apply and that's putting it mildly. Everyone on this forum knows it and goes far beyond them bashing CTE or you personally.
Click to expand...

The point I am making is that none of the regulars in the CTE debate understand how CTE works. Some have even resorted to coming up with their own explanations. The reason nobody understands it is because Stan doesn't understand it. I believe the reason for this is that Stan is simply using feel to dial in the shot yet he refuses to believe this. Hence, the mental gymnastics we see in these discussions.

There's an old saying: "If you can't explain it to your grandmother you don't understand it well enough." That's all I'm really saying.
 
Dan White said:
The point I am making is that none of the regulars in the CTE debate understand how CTE works. Some have even resorted to coming up with their own explanations. The reason nobody understands it is because Stan doesn't understand it. I believe the reason for this is that Stan is simply using feel to dial in the shot yet he refuses to believe this. Hence, the mental gymnastics we see in these discussions.

There's an old saying: "If you can't explain it to your grandmother you don't understand it well enough." That's all I'm really saying.
Click to expand...


Willie Mosconi addressed the subject of aiming in a couple of pages. It didn't take him 20 years of argumentation, multiple DVDs, and certainly not a whole book. For him it boiled down to, "Practice is the only sure foundation for successful shotmaking, and success breeds confidence." Sound anything like HAMB?

There is only one reason to create this humungous, ridiculously complicated, unintelligible Rube Goldberg of machine for aiming pool balls and that is to create something to sell. And there is only one reason for proponents to label those that point out the insanity of the machine as "haters" and that is because they can't explain their illogical system.

It is not that tough to explain aiming, it is just tough to do. But there are always a few people that don't want to hear that. They want to hear that there is a secret system that is going to provide them an end run around the 10,000 hours of applied, focused practice.

Cha-Ching.

Lou Figueroa
 
Dan White said:
The reason nobody understands it is because Stan doesn't understand it. I believe the reason for this is that Stan is simply using feel to dial in the shot yet he refuses to believe this. Hence, the mental gymnastics we see in these discussions.

There's an old saying: "If you can't explain it to your grandmother you don't understand it well enough." That's all I'm really saying.
Click to expand...


Oh yes he does understand it! A few months back I finally had the opportunity to get away from things at my job and be with him in Kentucky. What Stan understands, knows, demonstrates, and how incredible he plays would blow your brain right out of your thick skull.

You have no idea what he does to dial in a shot, none whatsoever. You refuse to believe anything and probably what I'm saying here in this post but I saw it with my own eyes and it goes beyond "impressive". More like jaw dropping.

There's also an old saying, "If you think you know it all about everything and everyone, you probably do in the confines of your own limited world and nothing will convince you otherwise."
 
I was away from this forum for about 7 years, and we were arguing over CTE back then. It appears that 7 years has passed, and the debate hasn't convinced either side to concede. It's just like the political debates over the last couple of years. Both sides can get vicious, and no one changes sides or gives an inch. I believe cognitive dissonance is rampant in the human race. How much of our lives should we be devoting to arguing with brick walls?
 
lfigueroa said:
Willie Mosconi addressed the subject of aiming in a couple of pages. It didn't take him 20 years of argumentation, multiple DVDs, and certainly not a whole book. For him it boiled down to, "Practice is the only sure foundation for successful shotmaking, and success breeds confidence." Sound anything like HAMB?

There is only one reason to create this humungous, ridiculously complicated, unintelligible Rube Goldberg of machine for aiming pool balls and that is to create something to sell. And there is only one reason for proponents to label those that point out the insanity of the machine as "haters" and that is because they can't explain their illogical system.

It is not that tough to explain aiming, it is just tough to do. But there are always a few people that don't want to hear that. They want to hear that there is a secret system that is going to provide them an end run around the 10,000 hours of applied, focused practice.

Cha-Ching.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Be a free giving humanitarian for a change instead of an obnoxious, repulsive knocker on almost all subjects and others.

Tell everyone your secrets for aiming, championship 14.1, HOF one pocket playing and the steps of focused practice.

Don't be a hypocrite forever. Give all of your knowledge away for free on any subject you desire that made you the HOF player you've become.
 
Dan White said:
The point I am making is that none of the regulars in the CTE debate understand how CTE works. Some have even resorted to coming up with their own explanations. The reason nobody understands it is because Stan doesn't understand it. I believe the reason for this is that Stan is simply using feel to dial in the shot yet he refuses to believe this. Hence, the mental gymnastics we see in these discussions.

There's an old saying: "If you can't explain it to your grandmother you don't understand it well enough." That's all I'm really saying.
Click to expand...

I may not completely understand how it works. I do know completely how to correctly perform the steps and use it in my everyday game. I ALSO KNOW ITS NOT BASED ON FEEL OR ADJUSTMENTS. So you can think i dont understand it well enough, and maybe i don't, but i do know that if i try to make an adjustment i miss the shot.
 
JE54 said:
Stan,
When do you anticipate releasing the book ?
Click to expand...

Sorry, John. I thought I had already answered your question twice in this thread.

For the record:

Parts of all 38 chapters are finished. Approximately half of all 38 chapters are entirely finished.

I hope to be through with all chapters by February/March.

Most all diagrams for the 38 chapters are roughed but they must be put on illustrator by daughter. 100-150 diagrams.

Much of my photography is roughed out. My wife, a photographer in her retired life, will do all the picture taking. 150-200 pics

Then there's getting the work to my publisher and all that entails.

A conservative estimate of my total time is 3000 hours.

Having said the above, I wish that I could give you a date for the completion of this behemoth of a project. My goal is 2017.

Stan Shuffett
 
To the nay-sayers:

Have you read posts 40 - 44 where I offered an experiment to try on the table? Heck, you can even do it as a 'thought experiment' and you don't need to uncover your table. When you move from a straight in shot to a cut, you can either rotate a bit more or you can move your body position slightly. Either way this will cause a relative cue ball 'rotation' from your initial position on the straight in shot. Now you obtain a new spot on the cue ball for your tip pre-pivot. This gives a new cut angle for the shot. Simple physics.

When members start to see a little light in the CTE darkness, other members insist on blowing out the candle, knocking over the candlestick, and cursing the candle maker. Bad form, gentlemen. We can agree to disagree and still be civil.

I enjoy pool but I doubt if I've spent 10,00 hours playing it. A quick and dirty calculation shows you'll need over 6 years playing time if you practice 4 hours a day every day of the year. That's not possible for most people. If your desire is to become a professional player, I can understand devoting that much time as a requirement to reach your goal and I applaud you for your dedication. After hitting so many balls I can see how aiming can become instinctive and less relevant to the game.

For most casual players like myself there are some tough shots we can't seem to make consistently. And there are some simple ones too that we dog because we tend to take them for granted and don't put enough effort into the shot. An aiming system brings order out of chaos and adds to the understanding of the geometry of the table. We learn through aiming systems to approach each shot with the same fundamentals and we gain consistency with our shot making skills.

By using CTE I find myself approaching every shot the same way. It forces a certain pre shot routine which undoubtedly helps your game in it's own way. Once you figure out the bridge length and the correct amount to pivot, the balls seem to find the pocket 'by magic'. It isn't magic but it is good trigonometry. I tried to equate a pivot amount from center cue ball to a cut angle in my post about the pivot triangle. If you haven't read it yet I urge you to do so. I'll be happy to discuss it with you in that thread if you have any questions. In it I try show the trig behind the pivot process.

If you're up for a little experimentation on the table set up an exact 15* cut angle and approach the shot as if it were a straight in shot. Aim center cue ball to center object ball. Find the correct 1/4 ball offset on the cue ball for the shot be it left or right cut. Aim the cue stick tip at that spot and rotate your body around until you're looking at that spot through the center of the cue ball. Raise your sight picture and you'll find you're aiming at the correct place for the cut to go into the pocket. Trig at it's finest hour for us pool playing fools.
 
Resolution

CTE won't be resolved explanation-wise until the right players are in front of me. I have made many public offers of special training for certain pros. No worries! It will happen in time.

I have used CTE for many years knowing of its specialness but at the same time lacking the phenomenal explanation of the how the eyes can see a single tick on the CB for an objective overcut alignment as if thecshot were a straight in.

My work is done. Clinics are coming! Free video info will be presented. A book is coming.

In the meantime if a clown or two wants to test my explanatory knowledge they can have a shot at my book publishing money.......That'd be a grand way to shut me down.

I am like Donald Duck!

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
Vorpal Cue said:
To the nay-sayers:

Have you read posts 40 - 44 where I offered an experiment to try on the table?
Click to expand...

Vorpal - I see you only have 17 posts. Are you new to this CTE discussion? It's been going on for 20 years or more. Experiments like yours don't seem to shed any light on the matter. I have an experiment for you as well:

Put the object ball in the center of the table. Put the cue ball one foot in front of a corner pocket so that you have a "corner to corner" shot. Attempt to shoot the object ball with follow so that the cue ball scratches into the opposite corner pocket, following the object ball in. Attempt this shot 10 times and report back how many times out of 10 you were successful.

What is the purpose of this experiment? Well, we have a shot in which a 10 year old can spot the aim point on the object ball (straight in). Any miss, therefore, is not due to incorrect aim, but to incorrect delivery of the cue (ie, a "bad" stroke). I say that you are likely to miss many of these shots unless you have a very straight stroke. Even if you make the ball but do not make the cue ball, that is sometimes enough stroke error to cause a miss on any given shot.

So the question is, if you are unable to deliver the cue in a straight line for a majority of the shots, then how can any aiming system allow you to pocket balls like a pro? Aiming systems do not matter if you can't send the cue ball exactly where you intend.

My contention is that you can learn to aim any shot on the table in a matter of weeks or months, while it takes many years, if ever, to hone a truly straight stroke. You aren't missing because you aimed wrong. You're missing because you can't hit the cue ball in the exact spot and direction intended.

Thoughts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top