I missed it sorting through so much BS from you. Then we agree on that at least. The kernel of truth amid the rest of your lies.
Center Pocket Music, the long-awaited CTE Pro One book, by Stan Shuffett.
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
Right, it is a court of public opinion. Which means you can LIE and embellish to your heart's content despite evidence to the contrary.
JC
Coos Cues
I don't know who the guy is so I can't comment for sure on his honesty and trustworthiness. But I am very skeptical about the role of CTE in many of these multi rail bank shots. I think it's highly likely the three railer into the side pocket early on in the video was a one railer to the corner gone long. We have all shot this one by accident many times and had it end up in the far side. I would think the odds of shooting this shot 4 or 5 times in a row successfully are minuscule even for top players with or without an aiming system. I'm not even sure he didn't use a trick ruler, 3.5 inches is almost impenetrably small and the pockets do not appear that small during the shooting video to my lying eyes. All in all what he did and how he presented it on film was not particularly impressive upon careful consideration.
On my video I was playing around with an object ball/cue ball position where a person could pot the ball in all six pockets in a row. As I said it took me many attempts. I'm sure that there are other spots on the table to put the two balls to do this but that was the best one I could find that my skills could complete in a reasonable number of attempts. I enjoy doing challenges like this.
Edit: Whomever it is he has a nice stroke and is obviously a more sound player than I am
Last edited:
You believe now that Appleton really used the SEE System ?
That Rodney Morris beat the 13-ball ghost using CTE ?
So, I reported on this concept many many years ago. What I did was go to Stan with a German friend (who is also a hundred ball runner) who didn't know anything about CTE or objective aiming systems. He was not a member of AZB or any other similar forum and had not discussed aiming with anyone other than me while we were on the way to Stan's. The purpose for bringing him to Stan's was to be a neutral observer. I told him that I would play devil's advocate and challenge Stan on this idea that CTE provides solutions for multiple pockets from a single position. Also I wanted to challenge him in another way and that was to have Andi choose the ball placements and call out the pockets and see whether Stan could use CTE and pocket the ball OR get within the jaws.
We did this for several hours and there was no shot that Andi challenged him on that he did not figure out within a few tries. As a control Andi would try the same shots and have inconsistent results. This experience is the FOUNDATIONAL basis of my willingness to bet on Stan as I have outlined here many times. Since then it has only been strengthened by more experience and the demonstrations of others.
One such demonstration that was not intended to be was at one of the Derby City Classics in the Poolaction.TV action room. Two players were playing a bank match for $100 a rail. They took a break and Tyler Styer got on the table and started shooting bank shots. He was draining multiple rail banks casually. This is not something that just happens. Either you're uncannily able to see those shots or you have some sort of reference frame.
And yes I agree that often a shot that runs short or long will often end up tracking to another pocket. But my experience with Stan was that he could do it on demand consciously and from any position. Of course there were some shots which were simply impossible such a straight back with no possibility to avoid a double kiss. But for all the shots that were possible to make Stan was able to figure out the CTE visual (I like to call is a key) for the shot within 3-4 tries at most. And when he figured it out he then either made the shot or put the cue ball within about half a ball at most. So for me and more importantly for Andi it was clear that there was something there.
The next day after my CTE lesson Andi and I went to a pool room about ten miles away from Stan's house. I got into a bank pool game in Kentucky and won. I was told that my "one pocket" banks were strong. By that they meant banking at pocket speed instead of at a higher speed to avoid inconsistent reactions. Since then I have won about $1800 in various random bank pool games that I have gotten into. But I personally would never presume, even with CTE on my side, that I could beat anyone who was already far above me in their understanding of speed and spin in banking. I played a guy at Derby and lost a couple hundred and he is one of the best in the south. I have no idea whether he uses any objective aiming methods but his results were incredibly consistent and he did bank at higher speeds. He was also not shooting a lot of multi-rail banks but he could run out five one railers fairly easily.
There is "there" there. I can understand the skepticism but I can't understand the unrelenting demeaning and dismissing of our experiences. We are all players and we all understand our own efforts and results. Not a single one us at your and my speed has not spent time at the table shooting three and four railers trying to improve our results. We have all spent time playing with bank shots. So we KNOW immediately when someone is able to do things more consistently than we can. We also KNOW immediately when we have learned something that provides us with a higher level of consistency.
With CTE I can make the sickest shots more consistently. Even with all the other variables being the same, shitty stance, wonky stroke, unstable mental condition......I can make shots more consistently. And not just any shots, stupid cuts and crazy banks. And by more consistently I don't mean every time or 9/10 up from 5/10 or even five out of ten. I mean that a sick shot that might have been 1/20 for me previously becomes 2/3 out of 20. Still low percentage but higher than before learning CTE. And the added benefit for me is that I have more shots that I feel confident in taking.
When I first met Hal he said to me that I should set up a shot I have trouble with. I knew exactly which shot because I had one that I could get decent results when I set it up and practiced it by rote. In fact my friend (and better player) Chris McDaniel and I had just practiced this shot a few days prior to meeting Hal and we shot reps of ten and recorded the results. Then in a money game I dogged it again. So I was 100% clear which shot I wanted to try. After about less than five minutes of getting over my brain screaming that I was NOT lined up right I started to perceive (or aim/align) the way that Hal was telling me to line up. I split the pocket in a way that I honestly - swear on my kid's lives - never had hit so cleanly. I stood up and said WTF!!! Bob Johnson, my friend who had called me down to meet Hal, just smiled at me. I did it again, and again, and again. I said HOW ON EARTH does this possibly work.
You said in response to Niels' video "Refreshing video of solid truth". The implication, in context, is that Stan, myself, Tyler, and many others are not telling the truth and what is demonstrated is somehow a trick deliberately crafted to fool the viewer. This is not fair and goes beyond skepticism. Clearly I don't want to directly contradict Niels Feijen but I must point out that he is a student of Bert Kinister. Bert is a HUGE proponent of rote practice and drills and has contributed significantly to pool in positive ways through his extensive library of drills and pattern play practice.
In one of Bert's videos he describes a visual trick to make the type of shots Niels was demonstrating. Bert said line up as if you were going to shoot it straight into the rail and your mind would adjust to the right line. I tried this and it works. Not ghost ball. Just a mind-trick that Bert discovered and shared that has some value. Rodney Morris several years ago commented that after learning a little CTE from Stevie Moore that he was making balls better than ever and had beaten the 13 ball rotation ghost. Then Rodney made an instructional video and on the subject of aiming he went back to ghost ball. Ghost ball is the standard go to for these types of instructional videos for many professionals even if that's not what they actually use. I had the fortune to spend a good amount of time with Rodney and asked him about aiming and whether he used any sort of method that wasn't in the books. He told me that Hawaiian Brian had taught him a method of aiming at the quarters of the object ball instead of looking for a contact point.
Shane Van Boening in his TAR instructional video and in a TAR interview where he was taking questions and answering them on the table said that he uses his shaft to aim with. He said he discovered it on his own and he demonstrated it. So when Niels says there is no magic pill and that Ghost Ball is all that is needed and you say "refreshing solid truth" I have to ask if you consider Shane to be a liar on the subject of aiming?
When Tyler Styer says he uses CTE aiming and demonstrates world class proficiency do you consider him to be a liar? When Darren Appleton said that he endorses the SEE system and was using something similar before Ekkes presented the SEE system to him do you consider Darren to be a liar?
Continued next post.
Last edited:
More importantly, do you think that there is anything that could possibly be better than or more consistent than Ghost Ball aiming?
Bob Jewett posted the video but even his own work with Dr. Dave contradicts Niels' comments. I study everything I can even if I am too lazy to diligently practice the methods described and shown. I do this because just like with my cases I want to understand as much as I can in all directions. This isn't a case of me going Hal is 100% right and Jewett/Alciatore/Niels Feijen etc... are wrong. It's a case of me taking in all the available information and going to the table and putting it into practice enough to at least have a competent understanding of whether it helps me to build skill or whether it is something I don't gel with.
There is another content producer out there who has excellent videos and instruction on how to measure shots. The demonstrations are fantastic and the calculations work as described. But for me I just can't approach shooting pool by doing math the way that is instructed. The name of this channel escapes me but I will post it. I bought the course and it is part of my library and there IS a ton of useful information. And some of it I do use and get better results than when I was winging it on the shots I use it for. But the fact is that this body of work contradicts Niels and every person who says Ghost Ball + Rote practice is the best way to gain proficiency in aiming. Edit: the website is poolshot dot org. Lots of cool stuff there.
I couldn't possibly say when the concept of Ghost Ball was first published or used instructively. For the sake of argument let's say it was 1850. Can you tell me any other sport where the best of the best says that the techniques used in 1850 are the best way to learn and use in world class competition? I can't think of any off of the top of my head.
That said, I think Ghost Ball is very useful. Mainly for this reason, when you have great Ghost Ball templates then you use them to test that whatever aiming method you use resolves to ghost ball or that aiming system does not work. I have a very good template provided by Gordy Vanderveer who has a method of training called Striking Line Aiming. He created some amazing templates that do teach his method using precise templates that show the ghost ball. If one wants to use GB and train their eyes to "see" it then using Gordy's templates are the best I have ever seen. Gordy's method basically trains the shooter to recognize the contact line, the "striking line" by virtue of identifying it as a number on a clock. Such as 10:00 or 10:30. But for me it is super helpful to test CTE visuals against the ghost ball position and be sure that the actual factual "no imagination" shot line is what the visual chosen gets to. So I hope that you can at the very least see that I am serious about this subject and not at all "in a cult" that rejects all else for some metaphysical mumbo jumbo. I personally, would never introduce anyone to some method that I myself wouldn't use and bet my own money on. I don't make a penny from CTE and arguably I might be the only person on the planet that has lost significant money betting on myself in matches that were only made out of CTE arguments. Meaning that I am willing to put my money where my mouth is on this subject. Not that I am a lock to beat any other human whose rating is close to mine just because I use CTE aiming. So I hope that you can consider this and why I personally bristle at being called a liar, being called a cult member, a religious zealot, brainwashed, self-deluded, and similar insults and characterizations.
I also fully believe that if Niels were to spend a weekend with Stan then his attitude might change just as the attitudes of other pros changed after spending some time with Stan. Sometimes it's easy to critique and mock that with which one is not familiar and that has the effect of possibly cutting people off from information that might help them a lot. If you were to go to Stan's house you would find pictures of him with dozens of pros who have come to him for training. While you might not agree with the way he says things you should not doubt his sincerity and honesty.
Bob Jewett posted the video but even his own work with Dr. Dave contradicts Niels' comments. I study everything I can even if I am too lazy to diligently practice the methods described and shown. I do this because just like with my cases I want to understand as much as I can in all directions. This isn't a case of me going Hal is 100% right and Jewett/Alciatore/Niels Feijen etc... are wrong. It's a case of me taking in all the available information and going to the table and putting it into practice enough to at least have a competent understanding of whether it helps me to build skill or whether it is something I don't gel with.
There is another content producer out there who has excellent videos and instruction on how to measure shots. The demonstrations are fantastic and the calculations work as described. But for me I just can't approach shooting pool by doing math the way that is instructed. The name of this channel escapes me but I will post it. I bought the course and it is part of my library and there IS a ton of useful information. And some of it I do use and get better results than when I was winging it on the shots I use it for. But the fact is that this body of work contradicts Niels and every person who says Ghost Ball + Rote practice is the best way to gain proficiency in aiming. Edit: the website is poolshot dot org. Lots of cool stuff there.
I couldn't possibly say when the concept of Ghost Ball was first published or used instructively. For the sake of argument let's say it was 1850. Can you tell me any other sport where the best of the best says that the techniques used in 1850 are the best way to learn and use in world class competition? I can't think of any off of the top of my head.
That said, I think Ghost Ball is very useful. Mainly for this reason, when you have great Ghost Ball templates then you use them to test that whatever aiming method you use resolves to ghost ball or that aiming system does not work. I have a very good template provided by Gordy Vanderveer who has a method of training called Striking Line Aiming. He created some amazing templates that do teach his method using precise templates that show the ghost ball. If one wants to use GB and train their eyes to "see" it then using Gordy's templates are the best I have ever seen. Gordy's method basically trains the shooter to recognize the contact line, the "striking line" by virtue of identifying it as a number on a clock. Such as 10:00 or 10:30. But for me it is super helpful to test CTE visuals against the ghost ball position and be sure that the actual factual "no imagination" shot line is what the visual chosen gets to. So I hope that you can at the very least see that I am serious about this subject and not at all "in a cult" that rejects all else for some metaphysical mumbo jumbo. I personally, would never introduce anyone to some method that I myself wouldn't use and bet my own money on. I don't make a penny from CTE and arguably I might be the only person on the planet that has lost significant money betting on myself in matches that were only made out of CTE arguments. Meaning that I am willing to put my money where my mouth is on this subject. Not that I am a lock to beat any other human whose rating is close to mine just because I use CTE aiming. So I hope that you can consider this and why I personally bristle at being called a liar, being called a cult member, a religious zealot, brainwashed, self-deluded, and similar insults and characterizations.
I also fully believe that if Niels were to spend a weekend with Stan then his attitude might change just as the attitudes of other pros changed after spending some time with Stan. Sometimes it's easy to critique and mock that with which one is not familiar and that has the effect of possibly cutting people off from information that might help them a lot. If you were to go to Stan's house you would find pictures of him with dozens of pros who have come to him for training. While you might not agree with the way he says things you should not doubt his sincerity and honesty.
Last edited:
No, I believe that what they said when they referenced those systems is the true account of their experiences. I don't believe that Darren was trying to trick anyone into purchasing Ekkes' content while he personally thought it had no value or was not effective. Darren never said he uses the SEE system. He said that he used something close already without elaborating on what that was/is.
I believe Rodney when he commented that he beat the 13 ball ghost AFTER learning a little about CTE from Stevie. The only indication was that Rodney seemed to feel that whatever Stevie showed him was HELPFUL to him. He clearly didn't give a full endorsement of CTE but he also didn't have to mention it at all.
And it appears Rodney did not find much value to it because he did not study it after that .
And I doubt if he shot a ball using nothing but his overlap system.
It sounded like a friend helping a friend to me.
Appleton was a paid endorser of SEE System for a year iirc. Same as Tiger Woods was a Nike endorser one time .
Well that's quite speculative. Are you intimate with Rodney? I see him from time to time and could ask him but it sounds like you are in much closer contact than me.
Yes Darren was endorsing the see system. I don't know what the details were and whether he was paid or not. Do you think that he was lying to players worldwide about a method of aiming that he endorsed? Do you think that he was deliberately telling players that the SEE method is great and works when it doesn't?
The SEE System has been taken down by the creator, EKKES. There is no "WAS" with Tiger Woods. Nike stopped making golf clubs so he had to use something else which is now a contract with Taylormade but still has an endorsement contract with Nike for clothes. Fact is, he has multiple endorsement contracts with a number of corporations.
How Tiger Woods made $60 million without hitting a single golf shot
Last edited:
Reposting the first post in this thread.
Joey is a marine and vietnam veteran. He is also a very very good player. He has never ever said anything that I have found to be false.
______________________
Joey is a marine and vietnam veteran. He is also a very very good player. He has never ever said anything that I have found to be false.
______________________
Do you believe the fiberglass clad cuetec shaft is low deflection because Allison Fisher said so?
Do you believe that Allison Fisher would be deliberately LYING to you IF she said it?
Here is MY first thread on this subject anywhere on the internet.
Pay attention to the participants and the replies. Especially those of JoeyA, the author of this thread.
groups.google.com
Pay attention to the participants and the replies. Especially those of JoeyA, the author of this thread.
Hal Houle is for real!
Those are your words .
I know for a fact a fiberglass clad shaft with long ferrule is not low deflection .
And I heard it say it in the ad .
Do you believe Hal said pros do not look at ghost balls or contact points, they are gearing ?Here is MY first thread on this subject anywhere on the internet.
Pay attention to the participants and the replies. Especially those of JoeyA, the author of this thread.
Hal Houle is for real!
I personally never heard Hal say anything to me about gearing. He did tell me that Johnny Archer doesn't use Ghost Ball and I asked Johnny about it once and Johnny said, "the way I am is mine" and didn't confirm or deny what Hal said. He was a little perturbed about it though.
Generally speaking, the standard here is quite simple: If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Put another way: if it look like you’re cheating, and everyone says that you’re cheating, and you act like you’re cheating...
Lou Figueroa
Sounds like you have a problem with Cuetec and Allison then. Has nothing to do with this topic. I don't really remember Cuetecs being sold as low deflection when Allison was using them but if they were then that's between them and the consumers and Cuetec's competitors.
As for what you know or don't know I would say make a new thread and post your proof that something said in an advertisement isn't as described if it is important to you. If I can't claim that something is as described without some standard of proof that you select then you can't claim it isn't as described without providing proof either. Was Nelsie O'Hare lying about what she claims Efren showed her?
When Efren was in my shop spending an evening with us we asked him about what aiming method he uses if any and he said he wouldn't talk about it and that he would put it out later after he retires. What does that mean? I don't know. He could use something other than ghost ball, or nothing or something with edges or whatever, he just didn't want to talk about it. So having asked him I certainly wouldn't be able to say how Efren aims other than to say he didn't want to talk about it. That's first hand information. I don't make statements about what any specific pro does unless I hear it from that pro. I also don't have any reason to disbelieve a pro if they say they use some method of another.
I have been fortunate to meet and hang with many pros and have asked many of them about aiming. Some have revealed that they use objective aiming in some form or another. Others have been non-committal. None of them that I asked told me that they use ghost ball.
My point is that when a pro says they use CTE specifically then it seems that you and others here think that they professional player is deliberately lying. Is that your position?
Here is MY first thread on this subject anywhere on the internet.
Pay attention to the participants and the replies. Especially those of JoeyA, the author of this thread.
Hal Houle is for real!
I totally own what I said 20 years ago.
lfigueroa
10/20/00Well, it's true. The Druids are acting up again.
We go through this a couple of times a year. All this hallelujah from the
Houlivatees, but not one, including The Big Houle hizself, can get on the NG
and explain diddly.
I thought one of the reasons we were here (other than to occasionally flame
the shit out of one another
was to share and learn.So where's the beef?
If you can't post it and put it to "peer review" you might as well take your
shaman and go dance around a campfire at Stonehenge during the next
solstice.
#####
It’s also interesting what Mike Page (Mr FargoRate) says in that thread.
Lou Figueroa