Coming Soon... the end of all aiming system calculating.

[JB Cases]

A

CTE is just too limiting to be useful in the long run. The DVD sole purpose is to make money.

How can you say this when you don't even know how to use CTE?

And as to the comment about the DVD? Yeah, Stan is really out to "make money" here.

Let's see, he is a high level instructor who gets several hundred a day for his instruction, someone who coaches professional players. He has been teaching his Pro1 system for years.

So he is going to RISK ridicule by opening up what he teaches to all the critics for $39?

Let's just say that the anti-CTE crowd decides to buy ONE dvd and pass it around and they all write reviews which are unflattering. Now there are five or six unflattering "reviews" out there which very well could be EXACTLY the same things that they have said on AZB. No one will have any proof that any of these people tried it as instructed.

But let's say that they do this, then Stan not only has his video out but he has people saying that they watched it and are still highly critical. Obviously this poses a risk for Stan's personal instruction business should he lose credibility.

So I highly doubt that Stan's principle motivation here is "to make money".

Basically you are calling Stan Shuffet a fraud are you not? If you don't know how to even do CTE then how can you judge it's worth to the user? And by that token if you don't know it then how can you presume to malign a teacher of it?

Stan is known by ALL who know him personally as an honest and upstanding man. His son Landon is a gentleman and world class player. Many of us have watched Landon grow up around pool guided by Stan. And you know as well as I do that pool has a lot of temptation for a young man. It's a true testament to Stan's parenting that Landon has developed into a role model for how a pool player should be rather than a poster child for what's wrong with pool.

You honestly owe Stan an apology for maligning his character here in my opinion.

 

[skeptic]

Since this thread has degenerated into a discussion comparing other aiming systems... So far the only two systems I have seen that actually make sense "to me" are ghost ball and parallel aiming. Neither of which I use because I am less accurate visualizing the GB or the contact point to contact point line. However, both I see as potentially valuable if I were to put the time in to practice them. I don't see the value of trying to learn this cue stick edge to contact point method, it doesn't make sense and 5 minutes of trial confirmed what I expected. Granted, I haven't put a ton of time into it, but conceptually for it to work it must require subconscious adjustment, if not intentional adjustment. Either way I'd rather put my time into something that makes sense.

As for CTE - I'm not a nay-sayer. The few videos and descriptions I've seen do not make sense, not enough detail to fully understand it. However, with as many people who have actually learned it supporting it I am interested in giving it a shot. Honestly, until the DVD comes out and all the subtleties are explained I think everyone should hold off on the negative "it can't work" comments. They may be right, but until the details are out in the public for everyone to see how can people that don't know the details know it can't work?

Right now the best thing that works for me is to try to get into a zone, not spend a lot of time examining where to hit, just line up the ball to the pocket then bend over take a couple warm up strokes and shoot without rushing. When I rush the shot or spend more time lining it up, trying to visualize the contact point, make sure everything looks right, etc. that's when I miss. A calm rhythm playing by feel works best for me. This is no system, no science, all about feel and one could say all subconscious adjustment. THIS is what I think others are doing within their system that makes it work. The aiming system gets you close (usually), and the subconscious makes those tiny adjustments that cause the ball to actually drop in the pocket.

 

[rebound]

Here's my system. Get ready. Wait for it. It's big. It's the best. It's....

Practice. A lot. A system where you have to devote brain power to working out what the system says before each shot is detrimental to your concentration. Your shot execution should be as automatic as possible. Practice routines will do this in a way that no system can.

 

[FASTEDDIE427]

B i n g o !!!!!

 

[Blue Hog ridr]

How did this thread get turned into CTE?
I could post my mothers Christmas shortbread cookie recipe and somehow it would get turned into another 50 pager CTE debate.

 

[Nostroke]

What's nauseating about the CTE discussions is that people still want to insist that the earth is flat, because based on their experience it sure seems flat to them, even though they have been shown conclusive and absolute proof that it is not flat. "But but but, CTE has got to be physically valid because I make balls with it." "But, but, but, the earth has got to be flat because it sure seems flat to me." Some people simply have no use for truth and facts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

I saw the pres of the Flat Earth Society interviewed a while back and it was abundantly clear that the FE Society was a Tongue in Cheek Organization. They are not at all serious from what i heard/observed.

 

[champ2107]

Here's my system. Get ready. Wait for it. It's big. It's the best. It's....

Practice. A lot. A system where you have to devote brain power to working out what the system says before each shot is detrimental to your concentration. Your shot execution should be as automatic as possible. Practice routines will do this in a way that no system can.

This is a uninformed opinion from what sounds like a ghost ball shooter...ijs

 

[JoeW]

I tried Mullen’s approach last night and found it to be useful. I use front dead center (with adjustments) to the contact point for aiming and have for a long time. I did not “like” Mullen’s ideas because of my use of front dead center but after a few games I found I was using it to consistently pocket balls. This is disconcerting and now I will have to spend more time with it to figure out why it works so well over a range of shots.

Usually I do not get involved in these aiming discussions because they are far too emotional and aggravating. None-the-less, Mullen’s has described a useful approach and that is worth commenting on. I have tried most of the other described methods and find all of them limiting. Mullen’s method is also limited but it is easy to adopt and quite useful over a wide range of shots. It would be interesting to read what some of the physicists have to say about this offset from a positive perspective.

Certainly we play with different size shafts and even different size balls (snooker, billiards, etc). None-the-less there appears to be something other than personal subconscious adjustments that are involved with Mullen’s ideas. After the method has been accommodated to for one’ personal equipment it would appear that his use of the ferrule is in some way compensating for the offset between the balls or for connecting the CB and OB.

 

[SirNoobs]

Interesting, though I'm a bit skeptical about how he insists that it'll work for whatever English (even left and right) you put on it and also, he shoots at a considerable speed and the cue ball and object ball distances aren't that far.

I'll have to try this out on when I have billiards during the school week before I can make any final judgments.

 

[champ2107]

That systems strong point is about shooting with English and is a ghost ball system, is my opinion.

 

[SirNoobs]

You're right, it can't work, except it does.

One thing I'll say that someone mentioned, it doesn't tell you how to align your body to the shot so ... in the attachment, if you are standing behind "B" instead of "A" it sure won't work.

Please forgive the poor attempt at an illustration.

I see you like to hustle your opponents by rigging the game with oval shaped balls and uneven pockets lol.

 

[3andstop]

Interesting guys, I see this as anything but a ghost ball type system. You are shooting directly at the contact point on the object ball. The only thing is you use the sides of the shaft which help converge the difference between point of aim and point of contact.

Not at all shooting over an imaginary spot.

 

[champ2107]

I actually can see the evolution of cte from that video. I think you would have to know cte to see it though...ijs

 

[Poolplaya9]

Care to share that science.

1. Care to share the CTE? In the 15 years it has been discussed on the internet, not one person yet has been able to explain how to do it. Not one. You know why that is? Because it requires conscious or subconscious aiming adjustments from the user, which is something you guys won't admit to and as a result you are always unable to give a working explanation for CTE because the missing piece is always the conscious or subconscious user aiming adjustments that you continue to refuse to admit to.

Every feeble and incomplete attempt at explaining it has been debunked with absolute and indisputable facts from science. Why don't you go ahead and give it your best shot of telling us how to do it though. I'll be waiting for all the usual excuses when you can't (because we know you aren't going to break down and admit the truth of user aiming adjustments being necessary and therefore you will be unable to give a working explanation).

2. The science has already been shared, multiple ways, in multiple threads. Go check just about any of the CTE threads and it is in there. Yes I know you have seen it and just don't get it, but I can't take any blame over your capacity for understanding basic science.

 

[rebound]

This is a uninformed opinion from what sounds like a ghost ball shooter...ijs

I have no idea what a ghost ball shooter is nor do I have any vested interest in this debate. I learned to aim by playing and practicing. I stand looking down the line of the shot then I bend over and pull the trigger. My point is that if you practice in an organized fashion you don't need any aiming system getting in the way of your thought processes and distracting you.

[edit] Incidentally, you are welcome to go ahead and tell me in what way I am so uninformed. Please provide evidence to prove I have no sound basis for my opinion.

 

[peteypooldude]

What's nauseating about the CTE discussions is that people still want to insist that the earth is flat, because based on their experience it sure seems flat to them, even though they have been shown conclusive and absolute proof that it is not flat. "But but but, CTE has got to be physically valid because I make balls with it." "But, but, but, the earth has got to be flat because it sure seems flat to me." Some people simply have no use for truth and facts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

You were saying CTE had been disproven, cookie ask for YOUR facts
about cte being disproven.

 

[champ2107]

I have no idea what a ghost ball shooter is nor do I have any vested interest in this debate. I learned to aim by playing and practicing. I stand looking down the line of the shot then I bend over and pull the trigger. My point is that if you practice in an organized fashion you don't need any aiming system getting in the way of your thought processes and distracting you.

[edit] Incidentally, you are welcome to go ahead and tell me in what way I am so uninformed. Please provide evidence to prove I have no sound basis for my opinion.

This, explain only this to me in detail since you feel informed enough to have basically posted it twice now :thumbup:

 

[Poolplaya9]

But, what you fail to see, is that YOU are the 'flat earther".

I am? Science has proven that the system is not physically sound or valid, and I am not the one that still continues to claim that it is anyway. That would be you my friend. The "flat earthers" also continue to hold a belief that science has thoroughly debunked as well, which is why there is a coorelation between the two.

We, (system users), have come up with a non-conventional way of doing things,

You have come up with a way of doing things that does not physically work and is not physically valid, but the user just makes subconscious aiming adjustments to take care of this pitfall and there appear to be some other side benfits from the system that seem to help some people.

and you and your kind always want to say "It can't work, it can't work".

That's simply not true (well maybe one person says that, but certainly not the vast majority). What we say is that it does not physically work, and is not a physically sound system, and it isn't. We have acknowledged that it may give some benefits to some people, but one of those benefits is NOT that it is able to find the precise and correct aiming line (without subconscious user aiming adjustments) each and every time.

And, by failing to even try something different, you fail to get whole new worlds opened up to you.

First off, nobody can even explain it. Not one person. Go ahead and try if you think you are the exception. Second, I don't have to try to jump off the empire state building to know that I can't fly. I can prove it without having to do it, just as with CTE. There is NO doubt whatsoever that it absolutely cannot physically work (without subconscious user aiming adjustments), just as there is NO doubt watsoever that I absolutely cannot fly. Now should those that already know that it is not physically valid still try CTE anyway to see if they get any of the apparent side benefits that many claim? Perhaps.

Are the faults with this system? Sure there are. Does it work on paper? No. Who cares, we aren't writing a book about it, we are using it.

In so many words you just admitted that it is not a physically valid system, but that you still reap benefits from it in other ways. So why not just be open and honest about that, instead of it having to be "in so many words?"

In reality, with different perceptions of what we actually see, it does work a lot of the time.

With the conscious or subconsious user aiming adjustments you mean. I think we all tend to agree, with those user aiming adjustments there is some strong anecdotal evidence that it does seem to help some people. Now the question is exactly why and how does it help some people, because we already KNOW how it does not (finding the precise and correct aiming line). THAT is what we should be spending our time discussing and arguing.

Now, what really is the nauseating part, is when someone finds something that actually helps them, and someone else, like you, has to come along and call them names and tell them that they are delusional and shouldn't be doing whatever actually helps them.

Again, nobody has said not to use the system, or that it doesn't have some benefits for some people. Just don't misinform people by claiming that it is a physically sound system that gets the exact aiming line without user judgement, when it most certainly does not.

They have never tried it, don't understand it, but they feel qualified to tell others that it is actually hurting their game.

I've never jumped off the Empire state building to try to fly, but I am certainly qualified to tell others that without a doubt if they try it they will end up getting scraped off the pavement, and I am qualified to do that because I understand enough of the science behind gravity, how lift is achieved, and the physical limitations of the human body on things such as how fast you can flap your arms. Similarly I understand enough about geometry and physics to know without a doubt that CTE is not physically valid. To say the only way you can know that something won't work is to try, is just plain silly. Again, we are talking about its physical validity, not whether or not is has any other benefit at all.

 

[champ2107]

I've never jumped off the Empire state building to try to fly, but I am certainly qualified to tell others that without a doubt if they try it they will end up getting scraped off the pavement, and I am qualified to do that because I understand enough of the science behind gravity, how lift is achieved, and the physical limitations of the human body on things such as how fast you can flap your arms. Similarly I understand enough about geometry and physics to know without a doubt that CTE is not physically valid. To say the only way you can know that something won't work is to try, is just plain silly. Again, we are talking about its physical validity, not whether or not is has any other benefit at all.

ok cool! someone finally knows the geometry and physics on this cte stuff! now prove this point you made with facts please :thumbup:

 

[Poolplaya9]

You were saying CTE had been disproven, cookie ask for YOUR facts
about cte being disproven.

And I asked him to explain what I am to disprove. I'll ask you as well, go ahead and explain CTE. I am expecting to hear crickets.

I also pointed out that all of the attemtped CTE explanations so far have been disproven in many of the threads, and I know for a fact that both of you have seen the proof and just lack the ability to understand. That is not in any way an insult toward anyone as we all have different aptitudes for different things, and some people are no good with basic science, and some people are no good with basic art for example.

One of the proofs that CTE cannot work as it has ever been described is the diagram where the cue ball and three different object balls are all in the same line but at different distances being cut into the same corner pocket. I know you don't agree but it can't be disputed that no CTE explanation so far works for all three shots in that diagram, and we have yet to hear the version that does. If you think it does go ahead and explain your version and exactly how to do it so that someone else can replicate it.