Why CTE/Pro One Works

ChrisWoj said:

Neil,

Thus far you've shown me nothing but personal attack after personal attack. You're quite obviously incapable of backing up anything you have to say at all. I keep asking you to back up word one, and stop lying and making up things, for example: stating that I said I was a better educator than anyone here. Which was an out and out lie. I did say that I know the world from the perspective of an educator better than the others here, and thus far no one has chimed in to say otherwise. But that is miles and miles from saying I'm a better educator than anyone here.

Plain and simple I've repeatedly praised the people here, and said I am here to learn and you have no desire to do anything but denigrate me for nothing more than the sake of being a troll.

Click to expand...

Well, if you can't even understand that those two phrases in this context mean the same thing, then what's the point of saying anything else? Like I said, you just don't get it. Or, you are just trolling here.???

p.s.- for context, don't forget to add in the other statements you made about your education.

nobcitypool said:

Actually, I have a bit of a clue kid. I have a BSME from Rose Hulman Institute of Technology and own a multi-million dollar Construction Business with offices in 3 states. That's why I find a puffed up narcissistic kid all full of himself like you fairly humorous. Label me "unimpressed" with your resume. You may now return to your disc sports pal.

Click to expand...

Congratulations? Does that give you any expertise or expert level training in education? Indiana is nearby, I have a fair number of friends that attended Rose Hulman back in the day, I didn't know mechanical engineers spent a lot of time on psychology.

What's psychology have to do with it? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I responded to your post about not being aware of there being a world outside of billiards. In case you missed it, I'll go real slow for you. Check the post. I quoted that part of your post and even made bold print for the area I was specifically referencing. I don't see Psychology referenced once in that post.

If you're going to attempt to debate, at least take your time to read the posts a few times and if you need some help understanding, ask one of your students, a friend or another teacher to explain it to you. Perhaps then you won't mix your facts and have to attempt some stupid spin in a vain attempt to avoid looking foolish.

Neil said:

Well, if you can't even understand that those two phrases in this context mean the same thing, then what's the point of saying anything else? Like I said, you just don't get it. Or, you are just trolling here.???

p.s.- for context, don't forget to add in the other statements you made about your education.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm not smarter than you all. I don't know more about billiards. I am not an expert within this field. I have my areas of expertise, just as you and nobcity have yours. Nobcity is a business man and a mechanical engineer. You are whatever you are. We all have our areas of expertise from which we draw our knowledge, and can apply them to the real world. We can also use them to inform, and pass on information. Which was my initial intent.

Additionally - saying I have more experience within an educational context is 100% true. I've been an educator for almost a decade now, and working constantly to develop myself. This is my field, it is what I know, it is what I dedicated my masters degree to. Does it mean that I am a born inherently better teacher than Stan? No. It does not. However his information regarding what I brought up initially is out of date. His talent as an educator does not preclude the possibility that he may be wrong about something. He is a stellar teacher of billiards from a visible perspective. What my statement was meant to express is that I have an immediate knowledge of the subject, I am fresh on it, I have been studying it for years to advance my licensure and the development of my students. If you have been out of education for a decade, your understanding of the field is going to be very limited.

This is what my statement was meant to convey - the freshness and poignancy of my knowledge within the context of the minor point I was attempting to advance in the beginning. It was not meant to convey "I am better than you all!" - not. at. all. I'm sorry that you took it that way, and it becomes clear that the misunderstanding comes from my not being clear enough initially and if that is truly the issue I apologize for causing friction with my verbiage.

nobcitypool said:

What's psychology have to do with it? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I responded to your post about not being aware of there being a world outside of billiards. In case you missed it, I'll go real slow for you. Check the post. I quoted that part of your post and even made bold print for the area I was specifically referencing. I don't see Psychology referenced once in that post.

If you're going to attempt to debate, at least take your time to read the posts a few times and if you need some help understanding, ask one of your students, a friend or another teacher to explain it to you. Perhaps then you won't mix your facts and have to attempt some stupid spin in a vain attempt to avoid looking foolish.

Click to expand...

It has EVERYTHING to do with the initial topic - which is where I was expressing expertise. My credentials mean everything with regards to authority within a particular subject area, in this case educational psychology. The credentials are not meant to say "I'm smarter than you." - they're to express that I have fresh and pertinent knowledge regarding something like intelligences and learning styles.

Obviously your educational experience doesn't include debate. I specifically quoted your post to make a point. That doesn't automatically tie the reference back to your initial post. I don't believe Psychology is even the core topic for the thread. But whatever, your Narcissistic Personality won't allow you to face the facts.

ChrisWoj. Rule #1, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Whether you are right or wrong, you are not going to win this one. I have no doubt you know your field extremely well but what you have done here is comparable to this. You've gone into another man's backyard, took over his barbeque and told him how to cook his steak. No matter how well you cook that steak you will always "appear" to be in the wrong.

There are many helpful people here on the forums. Yes, we do have our strong opinions from time to time. But with a bit of humility most here will be more than happy to share their knowledge with you and help you to obtain your goals with your pool game.

Good luck and good shooting.

Neil said:

Yes, mathematically it does work. Problem is, NO ONE had yet been able to figure out how to put into math what we see. Let alone how to factor in the little fact that we all actually see things a little bit differently. Which is why you see a number of proficient users of pro one explaining the visuals a little bit differently from each other. You have to have the end goal in mind, then work backwards with the knowledge of the system to get that AHA moment. That AHA moment is when you finally get yourself into the correct position for YOU to see the visuals correctly.

Everything one needs to know, Stan shows. However, for each of us, there are small "tweaks" to initially getting the visuals that will work for us. (no tweaks once you have the visuals, the system itself is accurate). I've talked to Stan, and we had a "disagreement" about one part. Well, what I learned, is that we were both right. We were both right according to how we actually see things. Where he stands one way to get his visuals, my way is close to his, but a little different. Most are not willing enough to learn to get past that point, and they give up and say it doesn't work. What doesn't "work", is those that won't put in the time to actually make it work for them.

So, because we all do see slightly differently, I don't see where the "math" would have any benefit in learning the system anyways.

Click to expand...

That's a simple yet sound and true explanation :wink: :grin:

ChrisWoj said:

Neil,
Thus far you've shown me nothing but personal attack after personal attack.

Click to expand...

I thought that's what they created this sub forum for.

I attack you. You attack me. They attack him. Then everyone loses interest.

Then we all wait for the next victim.

When I read the tile of this thread I'm like hell yeaahhh!...
But now.. I'm like huh!? ...... it looks like a courtroom....

It's a very simple deduction and logical thinking... there's no need for Education this and that...

If one really wants to learn CTE Pro 1 of course he/she would ask it's inventor or proponent like a normal customer would do like:

What makes you so sure that it works?
Will my $30+ dollars go to waste?
Will it help my game?

and of course the proponent would answer in a positive manner ...BUT when a customer asks about a little bit of details and then arguing it's not correct based on his/her experience and educational knowledge... it's quite.. I'm sorry but quite stupid.........

It's like the customer is asking the bread and butter of the product..

Instead of arguing having a love for the game and a potential customer.. that said person end up being sucked up by his pride and understanding and became the prosecutor of the system..

==================================

The thing is one cannot gain understanding if he/she can't visualize or imagine stan's point of view as an instructor.


About the bread and butter... The initial answers to players who want to learn CTE pro One rests on all of Stan's YouTube channel! It's there!... all of the beginners question is there.......

I've learned CTE (basics) via watching his YouTube channel.

====================================================

IN THE END, this thread is NOT GOING TO HELP any aspiring player who showed interest in CTE PRO 1 in any way.

I will apologize for one thing...

My comments regarding Stan Shuffett's seeming (key word: seeming) demeanor were not appropriate. They should have been kept private and not expressed in this forum. I had a brief eMail exchange with Stan after he informed me my DVD had been shipped and admit a definite mistake on my part.

nobcitypool said:

Obviously your educational experience doesn't include debate. I specifically quoted your post to make a point. That doesn't automatically tie the reference back to your initial post. I don't believe Psychology is even the core topic for the thread. But whatever, your Narcissistic Personality won't allow you to face the facts.

Click to expand...

Without context, information is useless. Semantics of debate are meant to structure for the purpose of organized argument in an effort to debate an issue. This isn't a debate. You posted your credentials in an effort to show you're smarter than me, seemingly in direct response to me posting my own credentials. The point of my credentials and who I am was not to express any higher intelligence, rather the relevance of my initial point at the start of all this. You clearly interpreted my posting them as a sign that I think I'm better than people here. I posted them because I don't believe that anyone should have to simply "believe" what someone says on face value.

Newsflash: I'm not better than anyone. Nor do I think so. Nor did I ever express the idea that I was. Nor will I ever express the idea that I am. Because I am not. All of those are facts regarding me. I don't know where you get this idea of narcissism from - my purpose here is to learn from my betters. Whatever you've determined was evidence of my thinking I'm better than everyone here, you've misinterpreted it.

I'm going to say outright and clearly: I am not BETTER than anyone.

If I'm a narcissist, I'm really shitty at it.

My advice to Mr. Woj...

Be the bigger man, and stop posting for awhile. You question a man's teaching methods, and in your mind, you may be right in doing so. However, this isn't some high school math teacher that has had half his/her students fail the final exam. As far as I know, Stan has a 100% success rate with those that have actually taken lessons from him.

So stop posting until after you've spent some time with the DVD. Watch it at least twice before going to the table. Print out the reference shots (provided with the DVD), and practice those shots, and only those shots. Watch the DVD a few more times. It won't be easy at first, and you're going to stumble along the way. But keep at it, and you'll find success.

I think it would be good to post after you have spent a few months working with Pro-One.
Imagine a student in a classroom that is very critical and who has a lot of problems with a teacher's method without doing his/her homework.
I believe that aiming is a very personal thing where one develops their own methods over time while staying open minded to different ideas and putting their time in on the table.
All I can say about Pro-One is that I have worked with both DVDs and have found that there is value in it for me. I enjoy playing in the visual/physical realm, and I enjoy the mystery of CTE/Pro-One and how it frustrates people who need to understand the math behind how everything works.

catscratch said:

I think it would be good to post after you have spent a few months working with Pro-One.
Imagine a student in a classroom that is very critical and who has a lot of problems with a teacher's method without doing his/her homework.

Click to expand...

It's actually a bit different than that. Imagine someone being critical of the Teacher without having ever been in their classroom or even attended an online class. :smile:

Looks like Chris offered some kind of apology. I hope he gives CTE/Pro One a fair try, learns the system and enjoys the substantial improvement available from doing so.

stan shuffett said:

1-3. A CTE. LEFT
4. B CTE. LEFT
5. C LEFT
6. 1/8 RIGHT

Stan Shuffett

Click to expand...

How do you calculate and recognise the angles ?

Sahivash said:

How do you calculate and recognise the angles ?

Click to expand...

LAMas said:

CTE Aiming System - Billiards and Pool Principles, Techniques, Resources

Answers to frequently-asked questions (FAQs) about the Center-to-Edge (CTE) aiming system.

billiards.colostate.edu

Click to expand...

Funny, this is also the Achilles Heel. (as in Dr.D must maintain an unbiased stance on these matters.)

Fine it'll keep your brain engaged while shooting pool. It may also be a good eye training drill. I mean sirsly, if you do it enough to where it works, you improved right?
This is also the Achilles Heel. What happens when the guesswork fails? These eddies happen in every pool session. Will the Certain To Estimate guy bonehead it and stumble ahead? Does the smart player suck it in and reach for the real pool? Further, If you only know Can Take Eons, what you gonna reach for?

On & off Freddy "The Beard" and I used to e-mail back & forth. I was the one getting the education. We did both agree that the more systems you mastered on banking the better off you would be.

There seem to be so many aiming systems that so many of you are so good at championing that it often gets confusing.

I was thinking that if all of you took the 1st 6 systems that you are knowledgeable about, isn't the desired end result is to get the cue ball contacting the object ball exactly at the point that make the object ball in the part of the pocket we desire. This is commonly called the Ghost Ball. Our desired end result is the same. Our paths to achieving this goal are varied. Some are taught one way and stay with that way their entire lives, while others experiment with different ways their entire lives. We see things differently. We comprehend things at different rates and in different manners. Our physical attributes diminish while our knowledge grows. I have never been able to accurately see the Ghost Ball and hold that vision and stroke it accurately. My friend does not understand my inability to do what he finds so easy. No matter who we are or the system we use to get there the end result is the perfect "Ghost Ball" hit. However, because we are individuals at different stage of life and different levels of skill there is a varying degree of subjectivism involved.

So says the guy who hasn't hit a ball in 9+ months.

Hope you all have a good New Year in "21."

Yeah, ghost ball is estimation. Might be sufficient for straight pool where there is usually a bunch of balls in the shot. This gives a ton of subliminal cues about perspective and ball paths. This preponderance of balls also gives convenient spherical examples and often actual ball connectivity. Even that though, makes more sense than Cyber Target Estimation. I mean really, show me the sweeps for three and four ball combinations. {?}