Another video from Stan, looks like his reply regarding cut induced throw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJ-bZJTGfE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJ-bZJTGfE
10 footer 3 1/2 inch pockets. Impressive!
Mohrt - first of all let me say that I like this format. Stan gives you stuff to post and you post it. That is not a dig on anybody. You are far more reasonable and level headed than Stan. I think paultex said it best. Stan makes great videos but he sucks at posting in the forum.
So I'd like to reply to this latest video by asking a couple of questions:
1. Why is it that Stan throws the ball a good inch in the first video when he's not thinking about it, and throws it virtually not at all in the second video when he triple shims the pocket and is thinking about it? What has changed? (Note: It is significant that he hits soft and hard shots twice in the first video. In both cases the ball throws an inch less when hitting hard. If he had done it only once he could say it was just a fluke. Doing it twice exactly the same proves that the throw effect while using CTE is real.)
2. You never answered my question so I'll ask it again. If you wanted to hit a shot softly with CTE and then again hard, how would you put both balls into center pocket knowing that the throw changes the ob path by an inch?
Side note: the speed of the 8 shots in this video are all pretty similar to each other. In the first video he actually hit it softly first, and then hard. Doesn't happen in this video.
Side note 2: EVERY system over cuts the ball to center pocket, so what is the significance of saying it over and over? Ghost ball over cuts the pocket. If you want the ob to go center pocket, you have to over cut it. This is aiming 101 and I don't see what purpose it serves to keep repeating it as if it were some great benefit of using CTE Pro1.
Final comment. I'm not sure what purpose this video serves other than to show that Stan can hit nearly center pocket when he is trying to. Is he going to delete the evidence in the first video and leave the second one to show everybody how CTE puts the ball into center pocket every time?
I'm looking forward to the answer to question 1.
Like I said. I think this is a red herring.
I'm going to read through this thread later but I want to make one thing very clear: I am in now way being told by Stan or anyone to post videos here. I am subscribed to Stan's youtube channel, and I simply post new vids here if I feel they are useful or relevant.
Haha. Good one. Speed or stun really doesn't begin to affect CIT until the cut angle becomes larger than about 15° to 17°. At the angle of this shot the CIT is about 2.5° regardless of shot speed or stun.
Its arguable that a delivery that is truly down the line, may in fact, not create the effects that are accepted and certainly not to the degree that probably most would expect.
I said "delivery".....its certainly objective and does mean a lot of things. For instance, a cueball does not have to adhere to the cloth in its line of delivery. There are many other examples, just like the opposite end of the spectrum and effect of immediate adherence in which, after launch, the cueball immediately succumbs to the effect of friction.
I call it warpage but when one considers the cb often leaves the surface of the table, especially with above center hits from most players, then what is warpage exactly? What is a true roll? What is a true line of path etc etc.
Neil, are you aware that the world of science is based on skepticism as much, if not more than discovery? Its called keeping the claimers in check and its important.
My respect for Mr Shuffett says this, if it were most others pushing a cte or whatever, i would be more likely to dismiss it in the sense of basically going on the attack. I know Dan respects Stan and its only because we know that Stan has legit pedigree and is very disciplined in approach, that he is not dismissed out of hand, but put in check.
Somewhere in that history, its gotten nasty, temper's flare, and yes, the door of "con man" is in the equation because the criticism is legit, but the tact obviously sucks.
Beat a man with facts and ideas and it seems like both sides have not exactly stuck to the rules of rational debate and i dont see how you help with that post in this thread. It's worded specific and im not going to play your game about who it ISNT or whatever.....just say what you got to say and make it clear.
At least Dan or Stan dont make any bones about shoving it in each others faces and thats alot more respectable and i think you should agree if you are trying to be constructive.
Stan is NOTa con man in my opinion and i would be willing to lose a lot on that bet. I think Mr Shuffett is simply a firm believer beyond the line of total fact, but I repeat, I DO NOT PERSONALLY CARE, because pool has not standardized a legit book of facts yet, but they got a claim or rule for everything that is in constant flux and not for the better.
Stan has done excellent work and of few quality that i find worth a damn. Dan too has done good work. They are both putting effort in and putting themselves out there. If its on or reached a personal level between either one, then let them fight it out. Its good for pool right now.
That's an interesting point. You have a much better handle than I do on details like this as it is stuff you needed to know while developing Poolology.
I observe a couple of things. In video 1 Stan's soft hit is about pocket speed (soft) and his harder shot is almost warp speed. In video 2 his softer shots are about medium speed and his "hard" shots are what I would call slightly harder than medium... not much difference.
Also, in the first video he puts the ob on the foot spot. In the second one he puts it about a half ball diameter above the foot spot. Any reason for that? It seems like the cue balls are about in the same place, so aren't the angles in the two videos about the same? Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but wouldn't he get the same amount of throw in video 1 based on your throw comment? What do you estimate the angle to be? To me it looks a little shallower than a half ball hit, which is larger than your estimate.
Neil, are you aware that the world of science is based on skepticism as much, if not more than discovery? Its called keeping the claimers in check and its important.
Based on the direction of the follow shots it looks close to a 15° angle. That's why the ball is slightly above the spot, to thicken the angle. The throw is about 2.5°. In the other vid the shot was closer to 20°, where the CIT would be about 3.5° on a stun and over 4.5 on a soft hit.
Paul, just let Neil be. He has no interest or apparent ability to engage in such matters. He is stuck on a short list of tired phrases. Here are the more common ones you can look out for in the future. You might even want to make a game out of it. Take a shot every time he says any of the following:
- It's been explained to you a dozen times already, because it has
- You have never even tried to learn the system, because it's true
- If you ever spent any time at the table you wouldn't say that. because it's true
About the only thing Neil has ever said that is probably true is that he has no idea how Stan can shoot an ob in multiple directions with the same perception. Neil will probably say he never said that, but he actually did.
Anyway at some point you have to write people off as trolls and learn to ignore them.
mohrt, can you ask Stan why he placed the ob above the spot on the second video? I know he won't answer me.
You have no desire to learn the system, as you have stated many times.
Oh, your second to last paragraph is another lie on your part.