Center Pocket Music, the long-awaited CTE Pro One book, by Stan Shuffett.

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Stan's sweep has nothing to do with the cue stick. It is a visual sweep. The sweep replaced the manual pivot, which was something definable and shown to be in conflict with physics. The sweep took care of that because it was no longer measurable. Pivoting 1/2 tip with a 10 inch bridge results in something concrete. Sweeping your head into the shot from 4 feet away is hard to measure, but let's see what the book says.

This book has got to be the longest tease in all of publishing. Now we're waiting on the website to be redone? Why couldn't the website have been redesigned sometime over the 3 or 4 years that fans have been patiently waiting on the book to be finalized? Seems like an odd way to do things, but maybe the final result will make the wait worthwhile.
Ok. Still confused but only as to how CTE is supposed to work. The Raga thing was more like incremental clicks on a gun scope. It was an easy shot but the cue ball landing was tricky and perfect.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Dan, do you actually think he'll sell you a copy?

Lou Figueroa
Kind of a moot point because I won't be buying one. Stan eventually admitted that he will not be providing an explanation that will settle the long standing controversy about CTE in the book. Maybe there will be other things besides CTE that could be of interest.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Kind of a moot point because I won't be buying one. Stan eventually admitted that he will not be providing an explanation that will settle the long standing controversy about CTE in the book. Maybe there will be other things besides CTE that could be of interest.

I hope you reconsider -- I'd be interested in your take on it.

Lou Figueroa
you can always
reselll it later
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Stan eventually admitted that he will not be providing an explanation that will settle the long standing controversy about CTE in the book.
What's your description of the long standing controversy? The one I think of is the claim that CTE is "totally objective" with no "user estimation/feel" needed.

pj
chgo
 

JC

Coos Cues
Gold Member
Kind of a moot point because I won't be buying one. Stan eventually admitted that he will not be providing an explanation that will settle the long standing controversy about CTE in the book. Maybe there will be other things besides CTE that could be of interest.
A couple solid chapters on fundamentals and suddenly by golly this aiming system does work after all! ;)

Stan is after all an expert on this subject as well.

Aiming does me little good when I don't deliver the cue ball where I think I'm going to.
 

swest

goldmember
Silver Member
... Stan eventually admitted that he will not be providing an explanation that will settle the long standing controversy about CTE in the book.

What's your description of the long standing controversy? The one I think of is the claim that CTE is "totally objective" with no "user estimation/feel" needed.

pj
chgo
Which he assured the naysayers he would provide to settle the question and put them in their place. But, no?

- s.west -- color me "unsurprised"
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I hope you reconsider -- I'd be interested in your take on it.

Lou Figueroa
you can always
reselll it later
Aww, shucks. I'm blushing. Maybe the truth series will provide enough clues to comment on. Unless, of course, you need that decoder ring thing we always talk about to get to that.
What's your description of the long standing controversy? The one I think of is the claim that CTE is "totally objective" with no "user estimation/feel" needed.

pj
chgo
Yes, that's the one.

Which he assured the naysayers he would provide to settle the question and put them in their place. But, no?

- s.west -- color me "unsurprised"
Well... he did until later when he didn't.

I feel like a disclaimer is in order. Stan's book may well be a very positive thing for the pool community so let's not prejudge.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Kind of a moot point because I won't be buying one. Stan eventually admitted that he will not be providing an explanation that will settle the long standing controversy about CTE in the book. Maybe there will be other things besides CTE that could be of interest.
Just so people know where I'm coming from on this, watch this segment of the video. Watch up to 19:35 which is less than a 60 second clip. What Stan is saying here is that his book will not discuss why all shots can be made with just a few perceptions but only HOW TO DO IT. He is saying that the "math" hasn't caught up to the perceptions. He is really saying that physics can't explain it. The issue is that he keeps saying that nobody has been able to explain his system with physics. The reality is that, yes, simple physics and geometry have been able to explain it. He simply refuses to accept it.

Also, Stan says earlier in the video that it is impossible to come up with a new way of aiming by using math first and then perceptions. Simply impossible. Well, talk to Brian Crist about that as he pretty much did that with Poolology. He used the inscribed angle theorem as a basis for his brilliant system.

Here is the video:
Edit: for some reason you can no longer imbed a video that will start at a particular point. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. Anyway, scroll the video to 18:50 minutes in.

 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
He is saying that the "math" hasn't caught up to the perceptions. He is really saying that physics can't explain it.
I can make myself invisible and walk through walls. The only reason you can't is because you're still using that old 21st century math.

pj
chgo
 

JoeyInCali

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Just so people know where I'm coming from on this, watch this segment of the video. Watch up to 19:35 which is less than a 60 second clip. What Stan is saying here is that his book will not discuss why all shots can be made with just a few perceptions but only HOW TO DO IT. He is saying that the "math" hasn't caught up to the perceptions. He is really saying that physics can't explain it. The issue is that he keeps saying that nobody has been able to explain his system with physics. The reality is that, yes, simple physics and geometry have been able to explain it. He simply refuses to accept it.

Also, Stan says earlier in the video that it is impossible to come up with a new way of aiming by using math first and then perceptions. Simply impossible. Well, talk to Brian Crist about that as he pretty much did that with Poolology. He used the inscribed angle theorem as a basis for his brilliant system.

Here is the video:
Edit: for some reason you can no longer imbed a video that will start at a particular point. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. Anyway, scroll the video to 18:50 minutes in.

I don't even care about the math.
Let's see the diagrams how the shots are done .
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't even care about the math.
Let's see the diagrams how the shots are done .
When he says "math" he means geometry and physics. When you ask to see the diagrams you are asking to see the geometry, or Stan's "math." It is all the same thing and he doesn't want you to look at that. He's already said that his method cannot be diagrammed in a book.
 

JoeyInCali

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
When he says "math" he means geometry and physics. When you ask to see the diagrams you are asking to see the geometry, or Stan's "math." It is all the same thing and he doesn't want you to look at that. He's already said that his method cannot be diagrammed in a book.
Jeesh, I thought the system was simple.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
When he says "math" he means geometry and physics. When you ask to see the diagrams you are asking to see the geometry, or Stan's "math." It is all the same thing and he doesn't want you to look at that. He's already said that his method cannot be diagrammed in a book.

I'm confused.

If he can't diagram his system in a book, what's in it for all those hundreds of pages?! Anyone know?

Lou Figueroa
 

Poolmanis

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What is so magical in that shot? it is 26-30 degree angle on every position he have. Slightly thicker than half ball to perfect half ball.. I probably could shoot that shot in 1 hour straight. There is fundamental problem this shot though. If shooter have tendency to line up little right or left english and not know it. Then aiming will come hard when you mirror the shot. I actually use that shot to teach students their flaw on seeing where is true center ball.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What is so magical in that shot? it is 26-30 degree angle on every position he have. Slightly thicker than half ball to perfect half ball.. I probably could shoot that shot in 1 hour straight. There is fundamental problem this shot though. If shooter have tendency to line up little right or left english and not know it. Then aiming will come hard when you mirror the shot. I actually use that shot to teach students their flaw on seeing where is true center ball.
I like to put an ob at center table and the cue ball on the foot spot. This is a half ball hit to each far corner pocket. Hit the shot to the left and observe where the cue ball ends up. Then shoot to the right and observe the cb. If it doesn't end up in the mirror position then you are doing something wrong.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
I like to put an ob at center table and the cue ball on the foot spot. This is a half ball hit to each far corner pocket.
Thanks for the tip. That simple setup is less than a degree off a perfect 30° cut - moving the OB just one ball's width (2 1/4") farther away makes it exact.

Here's one I've posted before showing a simple setup for a half ball spot shot. The exact 30° cut from there hits the left side of the pocket, allowing for some throw.

pj
chgo

Half Ball Spot Shot - Easy Setup.jpg
 
Top