I now believe Practical Discussion is not possible on this venue. CTE is a very broad term, just look at youtube and it's many variations and explanations of it. I'm quite aware of the "crap" that was spewed here back then, some I was involved in and some before my time here, most of it wrong, and not by a little bit. My concerns are, and always have been Pro One, which is Stans Shuffets method that uses Hal Houles basic CTE concept.
Sharivari on aiming....
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
oh, symantecs huh?
Show me a million acronyms,,,,,,,,,,,
There are tons of cte videos it's true,,,,,,,,, wonder why Stan Shuffet's 33 are always the ones in question here? BTW, his are actually ProOne, his product, which uses the cte concept, on steroids.
Because nobody defends those other ones .
They don't have fanatics.
33 videos plus 2 dvds and a 6 lbs book on how to aim.
Lord.
No, they don't have supporters, because they don't work. I haven't seen a single one that actually used Stan's methods, which do work,,,,,,,,, hence, fanatics!
Quite a bargain, even if you actually have to pay for the dvd's and book. I didn't have to.
Thanks Stan
Word!
Ok.
You're a paid endorser then.
Soldier,,,,,,,,,
CTE in this forum has pretty much always meant Stan.
Much of the bad blood happens when some refuse to engage in an honest discussion of the science. I presented a video that, in my opinion, shows a pretty serious flaw in Stan's method. The reaction was mostly "it doesn't matter" (without explanation) or "you're wrong" (without explanation).
If you are willing to have an honest discussion about the video I'm all for it. I could learn something, possibly.
CTE defenders lack the ability to discuss it. They simply don’t understand the topic.
pj
chgo
I just need a good diagram or video with graphics .
Stan, bless his heart, but just keeps rambling and pulling more acronyms in his videos.
Coos Cues
Coos Cues
So you broke even?
If Stan would have just taught folks to aim without naming his system and trying to make it be all end all then I don't think the criticism of the inconsistencies with it would be there. It would simply be like all other aiming tricks that have limits. But when it was aggressively claimed to handle every shot on the table using science then it's gotten exactly what it deserves.
I would go a step further and wager that there are a greater number of CTE loyalist that play slower than my 600 fargo than there are above it.
Last edited:
Last edited:
What flaw? I didn't see that. You made 3 shots, and I noted that you were very careful in placing the balls specifically, and at least 2 of them were even marked on the table. You proved Stan's theory that feel wasn't needed to make the balls. I wonder how long you practiced the shots before the curtain went up and the camera turned on. The biggest thing I remember from those days were the argument about his methods not being objective, but somehow aiming at contact points or ghost balls was. Mr Jewett says ghost ball is incorrect without adjustment, and most all aimed shots at contact points are a certain miss unless the shot was straight in. But if you guess right it's objective. The argument has always been a joke and still is. I just never understood why people who didn't want to use it felt so dedicated to run it down. Why did it matter to them so much?
Getting better at seeing/making shots through practice is the definition of "feel". The arguments haven't been about CTE not "working" - they've been about its users denying feel is involved.
pj
chgo
Speaking of rambling,,,,,,, do you actually have a point with all these hit and run postings. I really have no clue where you are trying to go with them.
That ain't the definition I find anywhere except in your posts here, but I'll give you that if a shot it obviously at an angle to a target and that you are consciously aware of that then I suppose you feel you have to cut it that direction. Beyond that, you cannot prove that feel is involved in any shot, with any method of aiming. Stan's Pro One CTE method certainly doesn't involve a step or point of instruction that says don't shoot until you feel this or that, or even focus on any part of the object ball or the area on the table around it.
More rambling.
Diagram or video with graphics should do it.
The only way feel can be eliminated is for the aiming method to clearly describe visible landmarks on the CB and OB and their precise alignment for each cut angle. A spot shot into a nearby corner pocket can be made from more than 20 different cut angles - it's up to the aiming method to show how it can clearly and unambiguously define that many alignments with no "practiced estimation" (feel) involved.
pj
chgo
There are no less than 33 videos,,,,,,,,,wth are you talking about?
you started smokin dope again didn't you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,