Stan Shuffet Challenge
- Thread starter Outre Bron
- Start date
- Status
Outre Bron
Registered
I got a good laugh out of this. For the record, I know nothing about CTE/Pro One. I can barely hold a cue. He seems really confident about the system and is willing to put up some money. Lou should challenge him to one pocket
"Read my lips... NO NEW TAXES..."
I hesitate to say this but 'A' & 'C' are not objective. They are intended to represent 1/4 & 3/4 hits on the object ball but there are no objective points on the balls to indicate visually exactly where they are. While one can use relative points on the ball to fairly accurately determine the vertical center axis & the equator 'edge' of the cue ball & object ball there are no such points on the balls to objectively see where the 1/4 & 3/4 ball points are on the object ball.
Most do not have a problem with CTE but instead have a problem with the way Mr. Shuffet presents it as purely objective.
I am intrigued by CTE but can not make myself go further into it not because of the above but because of Mr. Shufftt's assertion that 5 parallel shots can ALL be pocketed into the same corner pocket with the exact same perception (alignment) & the exact same pivot. Until that is explained better, IF it can be, I can't see myself going into using CTE. It loses all credibility with me due to this assertion. It also just seems more complicated to me than other very viable methods.
There is no doubt that it is a very valuable tool to those that are using it & I wish Stan every success & validation that he is due.
Naturally all of the above are just my opinions.
Most do not have a problem with CTE but instead have a problem with the way Mr. Shuffet presents it as purely objective.
I am intrigued by CTE but can not make myself go further into it not because of the above but because of Mr. Shufftt's assertion that 5 parallel shots can ALL be pocketed into the same corner pocket with the exact same perception (alignment) & the exact same pivot. Until that is explained better, IF it can be, I can't see myself going into using CTE. It loses all credibility with me due to this assertion. It also just seems more complicated to me than other very viable methods.
There is no doubt that it is a very valuable tool to those that are using it & I wish Stan every success & validation that he is due.
Naturally all of the above are just my opinions.
Last edited:
I got a good laugh out of this. For the record, I know nothing about CTE/Pro One. I can barely hold a cue. He seems really confident about the system and is willing to put up some money. Lou should challenge him to one pocket
I don't see what you find "funny" about it at all. But, what you won't see, is a single person against CTE taking his challenge. They won't even collectively pool their money for the challenge because they know they will lose.:smile:
p.s.- Lou knows he has no chance against Stan in one pocket or any other pool game. Stan is a pro level player.
If someone can't find the exact vertical center line of a ball, they don't know what they are looking at. And, if they can't divide half a ball in half very accurately, they won't be able to pocket 3 balls in a row anyways. They surely won't be able to hit the cb where they want to if they can't even see where that even is. Pool is a game of millimeters, and your saying one can't judge a quarter ball hit?
Outre Bron
Registered
The mj video
I can't disagree that those points aren't completely objective, because they do require a persons perception of the points. However, a repeated ability to line yourself up with those points is not at all that difficult with a little practice. I don't beseech anyone for questioning the validity of any system, but I dislike the continued aggressive attacks against a system that most people attacking it have not even legitimately tried. Kind of like saying a bmw drives better than a Mercedes and giving reasons why because you looked at the specs, but never drove either car.
Exactly. All those naysayers have been challenged numerous times, in countless ways, to pony up and prove Stan wrong. No takers to date. None. Nada. Lou stated today, in another thread, that Stan's system is bogus. Yet, when challenged to play Stan with Stan using CTE on every shot with a visible mechanical half tip pivot, he backed down. I'd like some help understanding that. In one post, Lou maliciously calls Stan's CTE bogus but two pages later in the same thread, he refuses a challenge to compete with someone using the system he claims is bogus. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to unravel that mystery.
Then you have PJ, posing as Ron Swanson, giving his 2 cents worth and not offering change when it is clearly owed. The anti aiming system Nazis are rapidly losing what little credibility they may have been clinging to.
Funniest post I've read this week......thank you for the laugh!:thumbup:
I don't see why people would call for Lou to play Stan in some kind of money match to prove anything. Because suppose another player, take for instance, John Schmitt, thinks the aiming system is also not the way to go, then Stan should play him some straight pool to also prove the system. They are both pros. Right. Lou isn't. But in either case, it makes absolutely no sense. It's like using this chart to make an assertion about the weather, is it not??
I don't see why people would call for Lou to play Stan in some kind of money match to prove anything. Because suppose another player, take for instance, John Schmitt, thinks the aiming system is also not the way to go, then Stan should play him some straight pool to also prove the system. They are both pros. Right. Lou isn't. But in either case, it makes absolutely no sense. It's like using this chart to make an assertion about the weather, is it not??
I totally agree. If anything, it should be nothing more than a shotmaking test. There is much more to pool than just making the shot.
Originally Posted by ENGLISH! View Post
I hesitate to say this but 'A' & 'C' are not objective. They are intended to represent 1/4 & 3/4 hits on the object ball but there are no objective points on the balls to indicate visually exactly where they are. While one can use relative points on the ball to fairly accurately determine the vertical center axis & the equator 'edge' of the cue ball & object ball there are no such points on the balls to objectively see where the 1/4 & 3/4 ball points are on the object ball.
Why hesitate? I always wondered myself why no one brought this up. It is such a patently fraudulent claim.
Most do not have a problem with CTE but instead have a problem with the way Mr. Shuffet presents it as purely objective
Count me among those people. CTE obviously works, that should be enough..
I am intrigued by CTE but can not make myself go further into it not because of the above but because of Mr. Shufftt's assertion that 5 parallel shots can ALL be pocketed into the same corner pocket with the exact same perception (alignment) & the exact same pivot. Until that is explained better, IF it can be, I can't see myself going into using CTE.
I did try it. It is as effective for me as any other method of aiming. No more, no less.
It loses all credibility with me due to this assertion. It also just seems more complicated to me than other very viable methods.
The complicated part I agree with completely.
There is no doubt that it is a very valuable tool to those that are using it & I wish Stan every success & validation that he is due.
As do I.
Naturally all of the above are just my opinions.
Thank You for actually reading my words with an open mind & not trying to put other words in my mouth.
Best Wishes,
Rick
Last edited:
How could Stan beat Lou, or anybody else, using a bogus aiming system? I posted the definition of bogus below for your edification. Obviously, one couldn't pocket balls with a bogus aiming system. How could an accomplished player such as Lou ever lose to someone using a bogus aiming system? What, you think Stan would play a safe on every shot and hope Lou beats himself?
bo·gus
ˈbōɡəs/
adjective
not genuine or true; fake. "a bogus insurance claim"
synonyms:fake,*spurious,*false,*fraudulent,*sham,*deceptive;*
counterfeit,*forged,*feigned;*
make-believe,*dummy,pseudo,*phony,*pretend,*fictitious
Why wouldn't the edges of balls be objective? I know that centers are somewhat illusive at times.. but wouldn't edges be objective?
I don't see why people would call for Lou to play Stan in some kind of money match to prove anything. Because suppose another player, take for instance, John Schmitt, thinks the aiming system is also not the way to go, then Stan should play him some straight pool to also prove the system. They are both pros. Right. Lou isn't. But in either case, it makes absolutely no sense. It's like using this chart to make an assertion about the weather, is it not??
The challenge was for Lou to play Stan where Stan would shoot every single shot using a visible obvious mechanical pivot. You know, the system Lou stated was bogus. If you can't comprehend the difference, prayers sent.
But forget that for a moment. Stan challenged anybody to prove that CTE/Pro One doesn't work for any single shot. Stan threw down the gauntlet, let us see who steps forward and picks it up. Perhaps PJ hiding behind his anonymous Ron Swanson handle, will step up with proof instead of hiding behind his keyboard. I for one am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
- Status