Center Pocket Music, the long-awaited CTE Pro One book, by Stan Shuffett.
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
Cyber Targeting Enterprise. The imaging software is for autonomous weaponry. Pool has no such requirements. I use contact geometry. It's all right in front of you. There is no more difficulty by contact points than any other shot locator. There is vastly more accuracy attainable because you START with the exact shot. It does not get any simpler or more correct. PERIOD. It's often argued that lining up contact points is too difficult but all it takes is learning proper shot and shooting technique.
CTE won't save you that either and tries to make a college course of shots that don't lie in the base perceptions. Conversely, contact geometry is the same and available for everything on the table.
You are wrong. There is no other way to say it. Contact points are imprecise because looking at the face of sphere it is hard to identify and hold a correct contact point but even if you are able to do that you still have the task of figuring what line to adopt as the shot line.
This is why I am confident that in a pure shot making contest the CTE users come out on top. IN fact in most shot making contests held in the past decade the CTE users and users of other OBJECTIVE aiming methods have consistently finished in the top ten.
Oh Dan, you're so reaching here. The religious zealot mocking started in 1997. You just decided that you wanted to join in.
BS.
Including supposedly CTE aimers.
Lord, when did you become a flat-earther?
Stan did, in fact, compare what he is teaching to a religion. We both know how he used it (enthusiastically) but I'm not sure you understand how I used it. After months of nonsensical answers from CTE people I concluded, then and now, that it is more of a religion or actually a cult than anything else. All inconsistencies are explained away. One of my favorites is when mistakes are pointed out in what Hal taught the CTE official line is that Hal intentionally told people the wrong thing until he knew you were a legit student. Another favorite is that physicists and engineers like Dr. Dave, Bob Jewett, Ron S, and Jal are not able to understand CTE because they are too stuck in traditional thinking to see otherwise. It appears that in order to understand CTE you cannot have beyond high school level physics understanding.
Indeed.
And what level of logic is needed to realize that no aiming system can be fine grained enough to fully define every cut angle needed in pool? Hal's original "3-angle" system was the poster boy for that misunderstanding - and realizing that was indefensible is likely what made his followers claim he was just razzin' the rubes (and gave birth to the complications of CTE).
pj
chgo
lol - just because I might not have explained something to your satisfaction doesn't mean it doesn't work or that how you think it works (subconscious adjustment) is how it works. Maybe I didn't have the words to explain and I certainly don't have the "math" to explain perception in 3d space but I know that you didn't then and don't know now how it works either.
Better than your lame - and it was TRULY LAME - attempt to discredit Stan with a two shot curtain video. I will give you $500 - NOT A BET - I will GIVE YOU $500 if you duplicate the two videos of Stan shooting with a curtain and get the same results by this Friday. Go ahead and prove to us all how easy it is "if you have played long enough" to just know where the pockets are and make balls without seeing them.
As far as it works because it works - billions of people live highly productive lives using methods and techniques that work without knowing the underlying physics/math/calculus/geometry of those methods and techniques.
The bottom line with any widely observed phenomena is that existence of such is not in question. When humans discovered how to create fire they didn't know the physics and chemistry behind combustion. But they sure as hell knew how to start a fire and burn down a village. CTE is not like sightings of Bigfoot it is literally having Bigfoot over for breakfast. The how and why of how Bigfoot came to exist would still be a mystery at that point but the existence of Bigfoot wouldn't be in question. Especially if more people came to meet Bigfoot and then Bigfoot's family showed up.
I keep saying the proof is on the table and that's the real point here. Every pool player at every level understands pocketing balls. They understand pocketing levels BEFORE learning ghost ball and AFTER learning ghost ball. They understand pocketing BEFORE learning about the effects of spin and AFTER the learning about how spin affects the path of the cueball and object ball.
You mocking CTE is the EXACT same as you mocking some player who said they just learned ghost ball and are now pocketing at a higher level if that player couldn't tell you WHY it works. There is certainly a valid inquisition for those interested in the underpinnings but NOT in my opinion a valid inquisition and mocking of the practitioners who are having success. That is what you are engaged in.
Earlier you made another snide remark implying that the opinions of degreed knockers outweighs the experiences of successful practitioners. What you don't know is that there are many degreed practitioners who use CTE successfully when they play pool and enjoy it very much. They don't need to use their science/engineering degrees to argue for the system in a credential battle. They follow the instructions and see the results and that's enough. And that IS enough. The goal in pool is to pocket the shots you want to pocket and win matches and win or do well in tournaments, match and league play.
No other aiming system gets this much hate and it is because that hate started long before you showed up here. It is because a small group of haters has kept the hate flame alive and thus provided the motivation to continue studying and improving on the method. It is because that small group of haters isn't content with "it just works" being the answer to "how does it work" and they seek to discredit if they don't get the answer the want.
Just because a phenomena can be observed to be true doesn't mean that it will be accepted as true. Just because a phenomena doesn't have sufficient correlation in the current body of evidence doesn't make it untrue. Many things were observed and discovered BEFORE the rest of the world accepted them and ultimately the pioneers were proven right.
Why do you think that you know everything that there is to know about how a system that you didn't discover and refine works? My criteria is this.
1. Use the method to take me to a shot line.
2. Shoot the shot.
3. analyze the results.
That's really it. If that leads to making more shots and winning more then it's good enough for me. Just like ghost ball did for me when I learned it. Just like banking and kicking systems have done for me. I don't go to Tom Rossman and DEMAND the geometry behind the kicking systems before I will recommend them to others. I don't need to. I follow the directions then successful results ON THE TABLE are enough for me.
Before learning the kicking systems I know what my success percentages were and what they are afterwards. Pretty simple.
So honestly I don't know what your real problem is. As Bruce Lee said, learn everything and keep what works and discard what doesn't. If you tried to learn CTE and you couldn't for whatever reason then discard it. But discounting and knocking it because YOU could not figure it out is simply silly. That's hubris. There is no way in this universe that Hal Houle, Stan Shuffett and the countless other instructors teaching objective aiming methods created non-working purely psychological mind tricks just to mess with your sense of order.
I don't care if I change your mind. I am not writing for you. In my opinion if you HONESTLY wanted to learn CTE then you would have and you would have then been in a position to analyze it as deeply as your curiosity would take you. I am writing to those whom you seek to dissuade from learning it, those whom you would steer away from it based on your unproven claims.
Those folks, like me, deserve the opportunity to try CTE and any aiming methods that interest them without the false and slanderous claims you and other knockers make devaluing the proposition. But since you and them are morally deficient when it comes to this subject those claims will not stop, the mocking will not stop and so whenever I feel like it I will rebutt your statements as needed.
I am so glad I didn't get into the "aiming wars" when they appeared on RSB. If I had I might have avoided Hal Houle and not been gifted with some amazing methods to aim that were not found in conventional books. And later when I was drawn into the aiming wars in 2001ish after merely recounting my day with Hal and being attacked by some on this forum now I am glad that I didn't let them win by running me off.
But more than that I am glad that you and your cohorts did not succeed in stopping Stan Shuffett in his quest to learn CTE in depth and to improve it constantly.
Hal did do that unfortunately. He had a cantankerous side and didn't like those whom he felt were not genuine.
As for enthusiastic statements - I am sure I used similar language when describing the feelings I had when I was able to line up and pocket balls with less effort and more accuracy.
My point is that Jewett, Alciatore, nor Jal have demonstrated that they can apply the method correctly. Nor have the indicated that more than a cursory examination and subsequent dismissal is what they were willing to give to it. And along with that came the mocking.
As evidenced by your high-school physics remark. Your snideness is simply rude. Please explain to me what part of the sciences covers visual perception as pertains to 2.25" spheres on a perfect rectangle with 8 90 degree corners. Acting as if only what can be diagrammed in 2d space covers what is perceived in 3d space seems limited to me. You act as though appealing to the authority of Jewett and the others is the end of the argument. Well if Jewett says he can't get it then it's not any good.... Jewett can BET as high as he wants to in a proof of concept bet.
It is super simple. Jewett and Alciatore MUST at that point understand every way to aim that is mathematically provable using 2d diagramming. They MUST be able to do every shot at least as consistently as Stan if not more consistently. So the obvious answer is to do what scientists have done for 200 years. Challenge to a duel of demonstration where the principles claimed are tested against real world tasks.
I have $20,000 that says that they cannot, with all their knowledge, successfully pocket more shots in less tries than Stan Shuffett can. They are the highest known practitioners of physics/engineering/math based approaches to playing pool so their combined knowledge MUST be enough to equal or exceed Stan's success rates. And if it isn't then I am curious to hear why not.
This is not a joke. All you knockers can form a corporation and chip in. I will put the cash on the table. Tired of your snide remarks and your tone.
I would say put up or shut up but we all know that your side will do neither. You could surprise me and do either of them though.
Not really. If some player did that , he can easily show where the cue ball has to be to pocket the ball and you would have no argument when the t two balls line up to the pocket . He would HAVE NO PROBLEM telling you how it works .
Jeesh, John. Rally ? You really wrote that ?
I don't know but I do know that you CRIED to youtube when I made a video using YOUR diagram on the table and stated clearly how I was aiming - proving that indeed, using the method as instructed did in fact handle all the cut angles. I merely mentioned your name so that the reference for whose claims I was addressing would be clear and you WHINED AND CRIED and had it taken down.
CTE today is not what Hal put out in 1997. And no, Hal wasn't razzing the rubes, he was messing with the jerks. Did that cause issues among the "math" crowd? Absolutely and that is unfortunate. However the knocker crowd also didn't give much of a chance IMO.
The opportunities to work WITH him were squandered by you and others because in my opinion it was far easier to be dismissive and mocking.
Lastly, you personally should not be talking to anyone about aiming. Your fidget method is RIDICULOUS. Want to talk about miracles then it's a miracle that you have reached the average level that you are at with your terrible habits on the table. I mean my form sucks but yours is flat out absurd.
Lol, then how would he explain when it didn't work? Sorry your imagination must be broken.....
Nope. Despite this being explained hundreds of times a half ball aim and subsequent hit IS NOT the same as the initial CTE alignment perception. The player does not see a half ball alignment and drop in on that line and shoot for a half ball hit.
This is basic and a continuing example of your inability or malicious refusal to understand.
And? First as you people LOVE TO SAY how would you know what is being looked at. Secondly why can't people use more than one method? Thirdly, when did you become such a sorry human being?
Huh?
This from the same person who in a video said he could always go back to ghost ball ?
The same person who was hyping and showing a system he really did not even know the proper way of using but was making a ball or two in demo ? Let me guess, he was just pretending to be using it . Should we paste your words here about learning an incredible system that might make you a top 20 someday ? The one where it doesn't matter where the pocket is ?
John I can't keep up with you. In the past I would try but I'd rather spend the next 1/2 hour hitting some balls rather than typing stuff that will go in one ear and out the other. There are a couple of things I want do say to set the record straight and hopefully that will be the end of it.
1. Your comment quoted above shows that you either have a hard time understanding what people write, or you intentionally distort comments to discredit the writer and seem more authoritative. Stan says CTE provides objective aiming points such as ABC and edge. Nobody ever said CTE tells you to aim center to edge and shoot. It is, however, part of the process to find the shot line. Period. That reminds me of something Stan said in one of the truth series videos. He said the dominant eye finds the sight line and the non dominant eye finds the aim line before finally finding the shot line. I'm pretty sure this is impossible unless you are Marty Feldman or a gecko.
2. I never debated in hs or college but I've learned that "appeal to authority" is an invalid debate technique. For example, two students debate global warming and one kid cites his teacher as an authority to show that global warming is real. The teacher is an authority, but his specialty is 19th century French poetry, not physics or meteorology. The fact that the teacher holds a position of authority does not mean he is qualified to comment on global warming. On the other hand, if the subject is physics then experts on physics are valid references.
3. The CTE debate over the last 20 years is much simpler than you make it out to be. Here it is, ready? If you can't prove that your aiming system is objective for 100% of the shots then STFU and don't claim that it is. Saying that you know it is objective and then say you don't know how is absurd. What makes it particularly silly to make that claim is that pool is very complicated and our perceptions are often wrong. examples: on rail shots hit the ball and the rail at the same time...WRONG, keep the cue level...IMPOSSIBLE. History is full of professional players thinking they know what is happening and being completely wrong.
4. Regarding your $500 challenge - it would probably take me to Friday just to find a curtain. I don't recall every having tried to pocket a two or three rail bank shot... ever. I have a more interesting challenge. Why not make the same offer to all of Stan's CTE students. Surely there is one out of the thousands who could simply find the objective shot line and start firing off the 3 rail banks to take the cash, no?
Well there goes 15 minutes.
JB - did you ever consider taking a more Zen approach to pool? Based on these photos you are way too concerned with the outcome. Make the focus of your game more about your body during the stroke, trying to execute the perfect stroke, and pay less attention to whether the ball was pocketed. I know this was a high pressure situation, but that is when you really need to focus even more on yourself rather than the shot.
Left to its own vices I believe CTE could evolve into a species particularly adept at discussing pool - without words or even pool.
Speaking of perceptions, here's a bizarre one.
www.theguardian.com
Walker 'stunned' to see ship hovering high above sea off Cornwall
David Morris encounters rare optical illusion known as superior mirage while out on coastal stroll
www.theguardian.com
Can you clarify this statement in bold? I get that the ghost ball is imaginary, but if you put an actual ball there to act as the ghost ball, wouldn't the center then be visible. I tend to use this method, for admittedly inconsistent results. Meaning, I know that the center of the ghost ball has to be 2.75 inches from the center of the OB.
So even though the GB center isn't technically visible, if a fella knows what 2.75 inches looks like, he should be able to pick a specific point on the cloth that the center of the CB has to pass over in order to make the ball? Then it becomes the task of being able to deliver the center of the CB to that exact location. At least, this makes sense to my addled brain...
So does CTE offer a quicker/easier way to get to that point 2.75 inches from the OB center?