I guarantee you that if we arrange a shotmaking contest then EVERY shot that Stan takes he will use CTE to aim it.Stan Shuffett won't be on 100% CTE. I'm from the 70s. Is 10,000 the new 100?
I guarantee you that if we arrange a shotmaking contest then EVERY shot that Stan takes he will use CTE to aim it.Stan Shuffett won't be on 100% CTE. I'm from the 70s. Is 10,000 the new 100?
Not faith based. Objective aiming. VISUAL USE of OBJECTS and REFERENCE points to lead to a SHOT LINE WITHOUT IMAGINATION. The premise is simple. For a cut shot the shot line is not visible. The ghost ball nor the center of that ghost ball is not visible. Using clear reference points as described in the Center to Edge method the shooter can get to the accurate shot line. That's it. No faith required. Just practice to learn how to see the reference points consistently and practice to learn how the body moves using those visual markers so as to have a proper rhythm from shot to shot. Still hitting a million balls but with a better aiming method.The reason for your frustration is that CTE is presented as more of a faith based pursuit than a fact based one. When inconsistencies and even flat out errors are made by Stan some of us ask for a clarification. After all, this is a discussion forum. I watched Stan's first 8 videos and had some questions and comments. I posted them here politely to mohrt and he politely gave me non-answers. Most of the time our questions are met with insults so I appreciate at least the tone of mohrt's replies.
I've learned that people involved in faith based pursuits are not persuaded by facts. They are threatened by them. My comments are mostly geared toward new people who want to understand more about CTE. They have not yet been seduced by the promise of a short cut to excellence and are still able to weigh both sides of the issue. If you don't like opposing viewpoints then you might consider sticking to Stan's private facebook page
There we go with the contingency. You honestly think that shooters can't figure out set shots with Common Trial and Error?I guarantee you that if we arrange a shotmaking contest then EVERY shot that Stan takes he will use CTE to aim it.
Is it made of wood?Just received Stan's book today. It's extremely well made. Looking forward to getting to the pool table with it. I ordered it Monday, so their shipping time is fast.
A better test would be number of Joe Tucker aiming drillsThat match had zero to do with CTE aiming. It had everything to do with you being a more experienced one-pocket player. John was out of his element, but was still willing to give it a go. You clearly out-moved him. I'd like to see a rematch with 9-ball or 10-ball, that would be a much better measure of shot performance.
Oh please . You weren't singled out . Mohrt was arguing Lou beat you with experience and would lose in a rematch.You really go out of your way to be nauseous. Truly you are a vile human in my opinion.
I was NOT on the verge of a nervous breakdown. I was however upset with myself for doing something that was not intended and was the culimination of MANY factors. As I always do I wear my heart on my sleeve and interact with the public with openness about my feelings about events.
I used CTE in the match with Lou. But as has been said thousands of times CTE is an AIMING TOOL not a magic wand that transforms a player into a champion. It doesn't fix bad fundamentals or psychological defects. It is a tool that can used well, adequately, or even inconsistently.
I offered a rematch dozens of times. For more money. When I saw that they weren't going to play (as nits do) and only wanted to milk the one win for the rest of their lives I made a choice to not keep offering. So now there is pretty much nothing they can say to get me to play again.
I didn't intend to get my nose open playing Austin. That was actually pretty far out of character and had MANY factors as I said. That said it was another experience in life and one which I came though a better person on the other side of it.
No one on this planet will be talking about the things JoeyinCali or Lou have done in their lives but I know that people talk about what I have done in mine and what I do for people every day. And thanks to Hal Houle and Stan Shuffett and many others the sport has been elevated with a knowledge base on aiming that is unequaled in my opinion. Both of these men went farther than they ever needed to to help players all over the world. Neither of them EVER said that fundamentals are not important or that CTE would replace the need to have solid technique. They said the exact opposite in fact and said that CTE would be hard to use effectively without good fundamentals. And this ought to be obvious to you and your gang of knockers because all methods of aim - INCLUDING using ghost ball templates and drawn shot lines - are not going to result in consistent pocketing if the shooter's delivery is compromised by bad technique.
But you have consistently thrown up this red herring. You like to point to ME and say look see it's all about fundamentals while CONVENIENTLY ignoring the players like Mohrt, CookieMan, Gerry Williams, Dave Segal, Bob Nunley, and countless others who DO HAVE good fundamentals and who HAVE demonstrated proficiency and improvement after learning and mastering CTE. Imagine if you and the knockers had put your energy into learning along with us. That's what makes me sad. 20 years later you're still knocking but the door was open and so was the invitation.
What contingency? Sure if you have enough trial and error time. I contend that with a large amount of shots Stan will make them more often and in less tries than those who don't use objective aiming systems.There we go with the contingency. You honestly think that shooters can't figure out set shots with Common Trial and Error?
They have contributed greatly. You are nothing but a knocker. I have never bragged about OR stated that I had great mechanics. IN FACT ten years ago I made videos that pointed out my bad mechanics - stroking on the known line.Oh please . You weren't singled out . Mohrt was arguing Lou beat you with experience and would lose in a rematch.
I said he vastly underrated fundamentals and mechanics .
Funny that you have flip-flopped on mechanics now. It was pointed out to you more than a decade ago, your mechanics were really flawed . And you argued " so what if I had a laser straight stroke" .
If you think I'm vile, meh. I think you're pathological and a hypocrite.
Hmm, plenty of people in this planet talked about Lou beating you.
Please , Hal and Stan are far from unequaled . Tor Lowry has done more imo.
Hal Mix has done more .
Mark Wilson has done more .
Heck, Bert Kinnister has done more .
CTE users regularly have the highest scores on those drills.A better test would be number of Joe Tucker aiming drills
LOL - the old hit back cuts all day method.....I didn't say you were frustrated with CTE. I meant you were frustrated with the arguing about CTE. The rest of what you wrote is perfectly reasonable and I agree with it with one qualification. You are in the camp that it doesn't matter how it works as long as it works. You could take a placebo from a guy telling you it is the cure for gout and if your gout goes away you think he's a great guy whereas others like myself are interested in the claims being made and whether they hold up to scrutiny/reality. You don't need to learn CTE in order to get good at back cuts. Hit 15 back cuts a day for two weeks and I guarantee you will become an expert at back cuts.
Meh.They have contributed greatly. You are nothing but a knocker. I have never bragged about OR stated that I had great mechanics. IN FACT ten years ago I made videos that pointed out my bad mechanics - stroking on the known line.
Your contributions to this sport are less than nothing. Even your cues, however good they may be, are nothing in a sea of great cues. Were they never to exist the sport would be no worse off. I have honestly never seen anything positive out of you.
The contingency that Stan shall perform his set shot routine when it's put up time. Of course he can make his R&D shots especially if they're defined by donuts. What about haphazardly throwing the cue ball and another ball onto the table and banking? This part doesn't end. Pool is largely a random affair.What contingency? Sure if you have enough trial and error time. I contend that with a large amount of shots Stan will make them more often and in less tries than those who don't use objective aiming systems.
This. Plus as things went I decided BEFORE the match to do a cross country sales tour instead of spending time training and getting my fundamentals squared away. AND - even when I did have the time to practice I instead spent it on AZB responding to the bait tossed out by Lou's "group". I later found out just how coordinated they were in doing that. In other words I did everything in the most SUCKER way possible to prepare for a big match. Still wasn't totally unhappy about the performance. I was MORE UNHAPPY that I was a TERRIBLE example of CTE in use on an important stage.
It would have been worth remembering that being a cheerleader for a great aiming system doesn't make one into a decent player by osmosis. At the end of the day though I am on the right side still. The marketing I got out of that match, in the five months leading up to it and for about a month after was worth so much more to me than the money I spent on the match. The logo impressions were in the hundreds of thousands and everywhere I went people wanted to talk to me about the match. So for me the only better result would have been to win but I didn't really give myself the best chance to perform better under pressure. Countless people stepped up to help me though and the things I learned about how detested my opponent is were sadly enlightening and not unexpected.
At the end of it all I am still the same person and am happy that I stepped up with ZERO deception. The other side......let's just say it took a group to take me down and to me that says they had some fear that I might show up able to play a little. What else I know for a fact is that in the total games played between myself and Lou the score stands at 11-10.
And I know FOR A FACT that when I offered to play for 30k they didn't show up. Dave Segal put it best, if they thought they they had the nuts then they should have begged and borrowed to lock up that offer.
Stan Shuffett is about the same speed as Lou in balls run in 14.1. Yet Lou WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER NEVER even consider stepping up to play Stan in ANY GAME for anything serious. Lou yips and yaps and embellishes but NEVER steps up to face any actual heat. Twice now I have shaken this man's hand with an agreement to be peaceful from that point and twice he has broken his word completely. As far as I am concerned the pool world will be far better off when he is no longer in it. People like Stan grow pool. People like Lou kill it.
Yes they are. Just because you are not smart enough to figure it out doesn't mean other people haven't figured it out.
The sad part is that if you were intelligent enough to learn it you might have been able to get to 150-200 balls. You definitely have put in the table time so the only explanation for you not getting better is that you have gotten into the "know everything" zone where you make a zillion excuses for not being able to improve despite hours a day of practice. Basically the human version of the old dog not being able to learn new tricks. It's sad really because you had potential. Must really suck to see Stan still playing and posting higher results than you even though he is older. When Stan puts in hours a day on the table he does it for all of us first and himself second. He represents continuous improvement and you only have continuous embellishment.
So more often and in less tries than everybody, including himself.I contend that with a large amount of shots Stan will make them more often and in less tries than those who don't use objective aiming systems.
Oh please . You weren't singled out . Mohrt was arguing Lou beat you with experience and would lose in a rematch.
I said he vastly underrated fundamentals and mechanics .
Funny that you have flip-flopped on mechanics now. It was pointed out to you more than a decade ago, your mechanics were really flawed . And you argued " so what if I had a laser straight stroke" .
If you think I'm vile, meh. I think you're pathological and a hypocrite.
Hmm, plenty of people in this planet talked about Lou beating you.
Please , Hal and Stan are far from unequaled . Tor Lowry has done more imo.
Hal Mix has done more .
Mark Wilson has done more .
Heck, Bert Kinnister has done more .
The contingency that Stan shall perform his set shot routine when it's put up time. Of course he can make his R&D shots especially if they're defined by donuts. What about haphazardly throwing the cue ball and another ball onto the table and banking? This part doesn't end. Pool is largely a random affair.
Point being?