Stan and a 33 minute video...

BC21 said:
I think maybe our questions are too difficult. Instead of asking HOW one perception and exact pivot/sweep achieves multiple cut angles, or WHAT objective element automatically tells a player when a 15, 30, or 45 perception should be used, we should replace the HOW and WHAT with "WHY". Then generic answers such as "because CTE provides an over-cut alignment", or "because it was never supposed to be", etc....would actually fit the questions somewhat.
Click to expand...

There is no great "WHY" answer. But the HOW is there, and very learnable. I wish I could explain the WHY, but I can't. Not in a way you want it explained anyways. What I CAN do is demonstrate on a table, and also help other players to see and understand what I'm presenting. If you can't get it to work AT ALL, then there is a fundamental issue with your setup. Maybe it has something to do with looking straight at the CB vs looking to the side (wha Stan called "nosers" in that last video), I'm not sure but if you were at a table I'll bet I could help you figure it out.

As I have said before, it took me a couple of weeks of going through the motions to start to get it to click. The first day? No way was I trying to make sense of the WHY.
 
Last edited:
mohrt said:
There is no great "WHY" answer. But the HOW is there, and very learnable. I wish I could explain the WHY, but I can't. Not in a way you want it explained anyways. What I CAN do is demonstrate on a table, and also help other players to see and understand what I'm presenting. If you can't get it to work AT ALL, then there is a fundamental issue with your setup. Maybe it has something to do with looking straight at the CB vs looking to the side (wha Stan called "nosers" in that last video), I'm not sure but if you were at a table I'll bet I could help you figure it out.

As I have said before, it took me a couple of weeks of going through the motions to start to get it to click. The first day? No way was I trying to make sense of the WHY.
Click to expand...

I hope you will try to honestly answer my questions in post 78 above. If you now take the stance that you don't know why it works... it just does, then isn't there a possibility that you are doing something you don't realize you are doing to make it work? I mean, it would be absurd for someone to claim that they know exactly what their stroke is doing when they can't see themselves shooting a ball. With vision and mechanics so touchy in this game, it is impossible to really know what you are doing without high quality visual feedback. Even Stan, who is a great player, has a little wiggle in his stroke, and steers many of his shots, just a little. But I digress.
 
Back to the same old 'feely' argument. I've stated to you before that when I first started using a half ball pivot, I could only make some shots (<45*) by NOT looking at the OB. The perception was strange because my body position was awkward after my pivot. With time and a bit of footwork, I worked things out. You don't need to look at the OB after the pivot if you trust your stroke through center CB. It does make a good second check if you wish to use it. No looky at OB = No feely at CB. Can you parse that equation?
 
Dan White said:
I hope you will try to honestly answer my questions in post 78 above. If you now take the stance that you don't know why it works... it just does, then isn't there a possibility that you are doing something you don't realize you are doing to make it work? I mean, it would be absurd for someone to claim that they know exactly what their stroke is doing when they can't see themselves shooting a ball. With vision and mechanics so touchy in this game, it is impossible to really know what you are doing without high quality visual feedback. Even Stan, who is a great player, has a little wiggle in his stroke, and steers many of his shots, just a little. But I digress.
Click to expand...

Saying Stan steers many shots is a low blow, even for you. It's unproven and an outright lie. IN FACT CTE would drastically help someone that steers there shots. We aim off CB - OB relationships not OB - pocket relationships.
 
Hey Dan seriously. All joking aside....if you really take the time and learn the sytem and steps involved. I guarantee you will be converted. As for the hows and why... just patiently wait for the book and support videos to come out. But in the meantime you can get your visuals down and learn how to see those balls. Cte has its own language it's not even close to other aiming systems you can take that to the bank. Peace out.
 
cookie man said:
Saying Stan steers many shots is a low blow, even for you. It's unproven and an outright lie. IN FACT CTE would drastically help someone that steers there shots. We aim off CB - OB relationships not OB - pocket relationships.
Click to expand...

Stan does steer some shots, Dan clearly demonstrated that using that coaches eye app.

I think very few pros deliver the cue perfectly straight through the backswing into the follow through, so not knocking Stan.

And before you assume that I am on the Anti Cte bandwagon, find one post where I have said anything negative about Stan or cte. I am here to learn CTE not argue about it.
 
Snooker Theory said:
Stan does steer some shots, Dan clearly demonstrated that using that coaches eye app.

I think very few pros deliver the cue perfectly straight through the backswing into the follow through, so not knocking Stan.

And before you assume that I am on the Anti Cte bandwagon, find one post where I have said anything negative about Stan or cte. I am here to learn CTE not argue about it.
Click to expand...

Good honest post, but this is probably the start of you being labeled a CTE hater. I hope not though.

You are 100% correct about Dan's video showing Stan applying outside english to make a shot that he specifically states is a 1/2 ball hit. You can set the shot up and shoot it like Stan says, using a traditional 1/2 ball aim, and everytime is goes fat and misses the pocket. Tweak it with done outside and you'll spin it in like Stan does. Everytime I bring this example up I get hammered. But it's right there in plain view. Even without using coach's eye to analyze it, one can see they the setup is not a half ball shot to start with.

Regardless, enough players claim to be doing very well with CTE, so there's a chance you can learn it also. It's just difficult for me to accept any instruction or know-how from a guy that that says to do one thing but is obviously doing something else, like with the example above. For me, its little discrepancies like this that cast doubts on the integrity and objectiveness of the system.
 
Last edited:
Snooker Theory said:
Stan does steer some shots, Dan clearly demonstrated that using that coaches eye app.

I think very few pros deliver the cue perfectly straight through the backswing into the follow through, so not knocking Stan.

And before you assume that I am on the Anti Cte bandwagon, find one post where I have said anything negative about Stan or cte. I am here to learn CTE not argue about it.
Click to expand...

Well, sadly for you, Stan has left the building. If you're truly interested in learning you should contact him outside the forums.
 
Koop said:
Well, sadly for you, Stan has left the building. If you're truly interested in learning you should contact him outside the forums.
Click to expand...

yes that is unfortunate, I saw the thread that was the final straw so to speak.

I wish Stan would turn on comments on his youtube videos, I understand why he turned them off cause of negative comments. Seems silly to block everyone from posting comments cause some people posting negative things.
 
cookie man said:
Saying Stan steers many shots is a low blow, even for you. It's unproven and an outright lie. IN FACT CTE would drastically help someone that steers there shots. We aim off CB - OB relationships not OB - pocket relationships.
Click to expand...

Here's another example of steering the shot. He does it a couple of times in this video that a friend emailed me. Plain to see, no slow mo or lines needed. Video doesn't lie. Care to rephrase your nasty post?

https://youtu.be/B7XQRWz1eEs?t=57s
 
hogie583 said:
Hey Dan seriously. All joking aside....if you really take the time and learn the sytem and steps involved. I guarantee you will be converted. As for the hows and why... just patiently wait for the book and support videos to come out. But in the meantime you can get your visuals down and learn how to see those balls. Cte has its own language it's not even close to other aiming systems you can take that to the bank. Peace out.
Click to expand...

Thanks hogie, but been there and done that. I hate to break it to you, but the book will not be explaining anything about how the phenomenon or mystery works. Stan said as much when he said he's offered his work to a team of scientists at a university in CA to study it all. He also said mohrt is the only other person on earth who truly understands it the way he does. Mohrt just said he doesn't know why it works, it just works and that's good enough for him. So what's with Stan telling us all these months that the book will tell all. Was it a lie?

I also have a standing offer of $40,000 to Stan if he can explain the reason that the mystery phenomenon works. I don't know about you, but if I had the goods, I'd snatch up the cash in a heartbeat. All I hear is crickets... crickets I tells ya.
 
Snooker Theory said:
Stan does steer some shots, Dan clearly demonstrated that using that coaches eye app.

I think very few pros deliver the cue perfectly straight through the backswing into the follow through, so not knocking Stan.

And before you assume that I am on the Anti Cte bandwagon, find one post where I have said anything negative about Stan or cte. I am here to learn CTE not argue about it.
Click to expand...

No not even close. Stan has an occasional minor stroke flaw but nothing close to anything that could be confused with steering.
 
BC21 said:
Good honest post, but this is probably the start of you being labeled a CTE hater. I hope not though.

You are 100% correct about Dan's video showing Stan applying outside english to make a shot that he specifically states is a 1/2 ball hit. You can set the shot up and shoot it like Stan says, using a traditional 1/2 ball aim, and everytime is goes fat and misses the pocket. Tweak it with done outside and you'll spin it in like Stan does. Everytime I bring this example up I get hammered. But it's right there in plain view. Even without using coach's eye to analyze it, one can see they the setup is not a half ball shot to start with.

Regardless, enough players claim to be doing very well with CTE, so there's a chance you can learn it also. It's just difficult for me to accept any instruction or know-how from a guy that that says to do one thing but is obviously doing something else, like with the example above. For me, its little discrepancies like this that cast doubts on the integrity and objectiveness of the system.
Click to expand...

Nice try about needing outside to pocket the shot, but just not true.
 
cookie man said:
I'll rephrase nothing. Couple minor stroke glitches while doing an instructional video. No big deal.
Click to expand...

Call it steering or stroke glitches.....

What's the difference between subconsciously steering the cue ball to the left using a "steer" and a stroke glitch that subconsciously pushes the ball to the left? Same effect.


I don't think you can invalidate the system because his stroke doesn't move perfectly straight back and through, which it seems some are trying to do.

That said, Can anyone show me one professional that doesn't steer or delivers the cue perfectly straight back and through every-time?
 
Snooker Theory said:
Call it steering or stroke glitches.....

What's the difference between subconsciously steering the cue ball to the left using a "steer" and a stroke glitch that subconsciously pushes the ball to the left? Same effect.


I don't think you can invalidate the system because his stroke doesn't move perfectly straight back and through, which it seems some are trying to do.

That said, Can anyone show me one professional that doesn't steer or delivers the cue perfectly straight back and through every-time?
Click to expand...

The point of this debate is that Stan sells this product as being different from every other system in history because it is 100% objective, meaning that there are no subjective inputs required from the shooter to pocket balls.
 
Dan White said:
Thanks hogie, but been there and done that. I hate to break it to you, but the book will not be explaining anything about how the phenomenon or mystery works. Stan said as much when he said he's offered his work to a team of scientists at a university in CA to study it all. He also said mohrt is the only other person on earth who truly understands it the way he does. Mohrt just said he doesn't know why it works, it just works and that's good enough for him. So what's with Stan telling us all these months that the book will tell all. Was it a lie?

I also have a standing offer of $40,000 to Stan if he can explain the reason that the mystery phenomenon works. I don't know about you, but if I had the goods, I'd snatch up the cash in a heartbeat. All I hear is crickets... crickets I tells ya.
Click to expand...

Stan has three videos out that are pretty good on table geometry here's a link to one of them you can find the rest https://youtu.be/VEWx2dYPa1A
Dan what i can tell you and the rest is this.. the more you use CTE the more your visual intelligence will increase. Mine has!
 
Man who wanted to know everything while standing on one foot

Maybe this will help?

One famous account in the Talmud (Shabbat 31a) tells about a gentile who wanted to convert to Judaism. This happened not infrequently, and this individual stated that he would accept Judaism only if a rabbi would teach him the entire Torah while he, the prospective convert, stood on one foot. First he went to Shammai, who, insulted by this ridiculous request, threw him out of the house. The man did not give up and went to Hillel. This gentle sage accepted the challenge, and said:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this--go and study it!"

There are some members who seem to think that CTE can be explained while they're 'standing on one foot'. Here's my try at it. Learn to identify the visuals and develop a consistent pivot. The rest is just mechanics. GO AND STUDY IT ON THE TABLE!

Bonus points if you can identify the 'cult' that originated the tale. ;)
 
Vorpal Cue said:
Back to the same old 'feely' argument. I've stated to you before that when I first started using a half ball pivot, I could only make some shots (<45*) by NOT looking at the OB. The perception was strange because my body position was awkward after my pivot. With time and a bit of footwork, I worked things out. You don't need to look at the OB after the pivot if you trust your stroke through center CB. It does make a good second check if you wish to use it. No looky at OB = No feely at CB. Can you parse that equation?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you worked things out over time. An objective system should work right out of the box, other than learning to see two lines at once.

Steering or last minute adjustment is only one possible explanation for how it works (ie, multiple shot angles from one prescribed alignment). Of course nobody knows because a rigorous study isn't possible. That's why we have to resort to analyzing videos that Stan puts out here and there. Anyway, another possibility, and the one I think is more probable, is that the aim line is determined in a standing position. Watch Stan in the 5 shots perception video. He talks about rotating his body more and more until he sees the ETA visual. I believe what is happening is that he is simply creating a greater angle with his body movement until he sees the correct shot line, as determined by experience. Then, he does a CTE fan dance and gets into shooting position. He even says pivoting isn't really necessary. It just becomes automatic. Yes, once you know the shot line everything else is kind of an afterthought.

https://youtu.be/-1Psy5hOJT0?t=6m10s

I can shoot balls with my eyes closed once I get down on the ball. So when you say you make balls without looking at the ob I'm not particularly impressed. Maybe you don't steer your shots. Maybe you do sometimes and other times not. Maybe you already are on the shot line when your bridge hits the cloth. Lots of maybes, but one thing for certain, adjustments are being made. 100% objective is not possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top