CTE and TOI

Status
Not open for further replies.
RG1 said:
Its not like that on here Stevie, there are ego`s, etc. You will also be surprised at how knowledgeable some guys are here. So be careful at what you put out here because you will get called on it. Some guys will be licking there lips following your posts, your marked man :wink:
Click to expand...

knowledge is power.

the only reason i could think an instructor wouldnt want to teach real CTE to theyre students would have to be ego. no way a credited instructor couldnt see how special real CTE is. unless theyre not willing to praise Stan for what he has done because it would hurt theyre own pocket book. if thats the case theyre not in it for the right reasons anyway.
 
BLADE said:
knowledge is power.

the only reason i could think an instructor wouldnt want to teach real CTE to theyre students would have to be ego. no way a credited instructor couldnt see how special real CTE is. unless theyre not willing to praise Stan for what he has done because it would hurt theyre own pocket book. if thats the case theyre not in it for the right reasons anyway.
Click to expand...

I know where your coming from Stevie. EGO`S rage on here on a daily basis even with instructors. I know your new but the instructor topic is best left alone and let them come to you in private or if your paths cross somewhere.
 
JB Cases said:
Rick it's very nice of you to give Lou the benefit of the doubt but he has been a rabid opponent of these methods for more than ten years....

John,

Thanks for the background. Why then are so many trying to convince Lou of the benefit of CTE. It seems that everyone is beating a very dead horse.

Lou seems to be one of a few detractors vs many more proponents. Would not a simple & polite 'your entitled to your opinion along with the other few that CTE seems to not fit in some way' be a more appropriate response than beating a dead horse. One size does not fit all & to each his own kind of thing. I realize that I could be wrong as I'm not specifically familiar with the history.

I too have had mixed results in my attempts at CTE but have atributted it to my limited knowledge & me employing it incorrectly. At least for the time being I am keeping an open mind as I am intrigue with it & will give it a good go when the time is right for me probably after the new DVD comes out.

I have been playing fairly well for 46 years but if one does not look to improve, one is being passed by someone that is. CJ's TOI is totally different than the way I have been playing but I certainly see its' potential as well.

If an old dog can't learn new tricks then the old dog won't be in the show.

I wish Lou would post some of what he specifically feels are deficiencies with CTE so an honest discussion can be had regarding them. I would rather read a current discussuion than the old stuff that apparently resolved nothing.

Thanks again John & Congratulations again on the birth of your beautiful Daughter Katrina & tell Karen from me, that she did a great job & deserves a reward from the Father.

Take Good Care &
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
JB Cases said:
Rick it's very nice of you to give Lou the benefit of the doubt but he has been a rabid opponent of these methods for more than ten years....

John,

Thanks for the background. Why then are so many trying to convince Lou of the benefit of CTE. It seems that everyone is beating a very dead horse.
Click to expand...

No one is trying to convince Lou any longer. It's mainly just an ongoing dialog that is prolonged each time he pops in with the anti-system message.

Lou seems to be one of a few detractors vs many more proponents. Would not a simple & polite 'your entitled to your opinion along with the other few that CTE seems to not fit in some way' be a more appropriate response than beating a dead horse. One size does not fit all & to each his own kind of thing. I realize that I could be wrong as I'm not specifically familiar with the history.
Click to expand...

That doesn't work with Lou. He doesn't go away that easily.

I too have had mixed results in my attempts at CTE but have atributted it to my limited knowledge & me employing it incorrectly. At least for the time being I am keeping an open mind as I am intrigue with it & will give it a good go when the time is right for me probably after the new DVD comes out.
Click to expand...

Lou has not had mixed results. He has had no results. People who actually try it with an open mind have mixed results. They ask for help from others, they really try to understand and give it an honest effort.

I have been playing fairly well for 46 years but if one does not look to improve, one is being passed by someone that is. CJ's TOI is totally different than the way I have been playing but I certainly see its' potential as well.
Click to expand...

This is the thing for me. People can do whatever they want to with their time. My position is that if you are happy with your game then great. If not then feel free to try whatever methods you like. Just don't spend your time knocking and actively campaigning to STOP other people from spending their time trying new methods. That's what Lou and a few others have actively done. And to call genuinely good people like Stan frauds and snake-oil salesmen is over-the-top and well beyond the simple doesn't work for me type of response.

If an old dog can't learn new tricks then the old dog won't be in the show.
Click to expand...

Well the only way to find if the old dog can learn is for the old dog to try.

I wish Lou would post some of what he specifically feels are deficiencies with CTE so an honest discussion can be had regarding them. I would rather read a current discussuion than the old stuff that apparently resolved nothing.
Click to expand...

That will never happen because to figure out what's wrong with a system you have to learn the system. This is the fundamental argument. Those who knock will not learn and provide specifics as to the detriments they claim are there. Those who advocate provide testimonials, video examples, professional examples.

Thanks again John & Congratulations again on the birth of your beautiful Daughter Katrina & tell Karen from me, that she did a great job & deserves a reward from the Father.

Take Good Care &
Click to expand...

Thank you. Mom and baby are doing well and Karen has already let me know that I owe her something special ;-)
Click to expand...
 
John,

You did not have to take the time to go through that step by step.

I hear what you are saying.

There's quite a bit of 'going over the top' on AZB as we both know. Did you know that I am an ignorant moron'. And the thing about that is, is that that is not over the top, as you well know.

If you find the time, can you send me a PM on how to do the multiple quotes.

Have a good evening, Is it even there yet, or is it tommorow?:wink:
 
lfigueroa said:
Well, they/you would lose that $1K bet because after watching your DVD I did try *many* racks of 14.1 and couldn't begin to make it work.

As I said in my first post in this thread, it would be beneficial to the discussion if the proponents would just acknowledge that this system is not for everyone. But apparently that is too much to ask -- you would prefer to place the blame for failure on the individual rather than the system.

And here's some free PR advice: you should get off the repeated proffers to teach people at your home in the manner that you are offering it because the message it sends is that the DVD does not stand alone and that after folks purchases it they will, almost inevitably, need further instruction that may or may not make it work. You're welcome.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

I am dubious about your claim that you progressed with your Pro One studies into the actual playing of many racks of 14.1. That typically takes time and you were Quick Draw McGraw with your biased review. Anyway, the point is, who really thinks you tried 14.1 as you described with CTE PRO ONE. Excuse me, but I do not. I could be wrong....

Speaking of 14.1, I watched your DCC runs on a youtube link. You handle yourself well. A 30 on a Diamond under those conditions in 3 trys is alright. I did notice a left Pro One technique on one break shot. You split the pocket. In CTE PRO ONE what you did can be described so it can be more repeatable. All shots can essentially be that way, describable and repeatable. Good for you, for getting up there and taking your attempts.

I have no problem in saying that CTE PRO ONE is not for all that pick up a cue. I do scratch my head a little when a serious player expresses no interest in learning a system that takes them to the geometry of a table. This is IMO all about a "can't be" mindset. Just cant be!! That mindset is slowly breaking down and will be mostly gone in due time.

Lou, I do view you as a PR person but I can assure you I do not need your advice on how to advance CTE PRO ONE. Thank you, though.
I am a giving person and that is my nature and I have no intentions of altering my approach at this time. The CTE controversy has existed for a decade plus. While I consider myself a young 62, I am not guaranteed another day. A passion of mine is CTE and I love sharing it and teaching it to those that are interested. I have some unique knowledge and it is highly significant to our game, enough so, that my drive at this time has little to with money but more so to do with promoting something that was never supposed to be thanks to Hal Houle. The very first time I unlocked all this for myself I did not sleep for 2 days and nights. Last spring when my optimal understanding occurred, it was the same feeling all over again.

I am heavy into editing at this time for DVD 2 and I will be focusing on that task and less on AZ posting.

Stan Shuffett
 
The issue isn't the system, it is the belief that this system is the end all to aiming and anyone that doesn't accept this belief must not be trying hard enough to use it.

I believe that people don't try to use ghost ball are lazy and can't understand why one would use anything else but ghost ball. I have no issues with using ghost ball. I use all day long. If I miss it isn't the system used, its me.

You can not say with absolute fact that this system or any one certain system will improve anyone games. Prove that CTE will improve everyone games.

It's the bullshit marketing statements that are the issue not the system.

Anything that can be done with CTE can be done with ghost ball. Prove me wrong.

Put the cb and 1 OB on the table. Send the cb 2 rails to hit the OB. Tell me how well CTE does on this shot.
 
Last edited:
duckie said:
The issue isn't the system, it is the belief that this system is the end all to aiming and anyone that doesn't accept this belief must not be trying hard enough to use it.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. No one said that. What we said is that if you don't want to bother trying it then why knock it. In fact there is a cliche' that comes to mind, don't knock it until you have tried it. Have you tried CTE Duckie?

I believe that people don't try to use ghost ball are lazy and can't understand why one would use anything else but ghost ball. I have no issues with using ghost ball. I use all day long. If I miss it isn't the system used, its me.
Click to expand...

Followed up by this. Oh the irony.

You can not say with absolute fact that this system or any one certain system will improve anyone games. Prove that CTE will improve everyone games.
Click to expand...

I can say with absolute fact that CTE has improved my game. I stand with a lot of other people who can make that same statement about their games.

It's the bullshit marketing statements that are the issue not the system.
Click to expand...

Like what?

Anything that can be done with CTE can be done with ghost ball. Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone want to prove this wrong. CTE brings the shooter to what is the perfect center GB position. The major difference is that GB requires estimation based on imagining something that cannot be seen. If your powers of estimation and imagination are not great then you aim wrong. CTE works with what IS visible, the edges of the object ball and the center of the cue ball.

Put the cb and 1 OB on the table. Send the cb 2 rails to hit the OB. Tell me how well CTE does on this shot.
Click to expand...

For that there is method to measure the aim. CTE is a method for pocketing ball. For that task it's a wonderful way to aim. Much better than GB for me and a lot of others.
 
stan shuffett said:
I am dubious about your claim that you progressed with your Pro One studies into the actual playing of many racks of 14.1. That typically takes time and you were Quick Draw McGraw with your biased review. Anyway, the point is, who really thinks you tried 14.1 as you described with CTE PRO ONE. Excuse me, but I do not. I could be wrong....

Speaking of 14.1, I watched your DCC runs on a youtube link. You handle yourself well. A 30 on a Diamond under those conditions in 3 trys is alright. I did notice a left Pro One technique on one break shot. You split the pocket. In CTE PRO ONE what you did can be described so it can be more repeatable. All shots can essentially be that way, describable and repeatable. Good for you, for getting up there and taking your attempts.

I have no problem in saying that CTE PRO ONE is not for all that pick up a cue. I do scratch my head a little when a serious player expresses no interest in learning a system that takes them to the geometry of a table. This is IMO all about a "can't be" mindset. Just cant be!! That mindset is slowly breaking down and will be mostly gone in due time.

Lou, I do view you as a PR person but I can assure you I do not need your advice on how to advance CTE PRO ONE. Thank you, though.
I am a giving person and that is my nature and I have no intentions of altering my approach at this time. The CTE controversy has existed for a decade plus. While I consider myself a young 62, I am not guaranteed another day. A passion of mine is CTE and I love sharing it and teaching it to those that are interested. I have some unique knowledge and it is highly significant to our game, enough so, that my drive at this time has little to with money but more so to do with promoting something that was never supposed to be thanks to Hal Houle. The very first time I unlocked all this for myself I did not sleep for 2 days and nights. Last spring when my optimal understanding occurred, it was the same feeling all over again.

I am heavy into editing at this time for DVD 2 and I will be focusing on that task and less on AZ posting.

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...


Well, you can be as dubious as you want but at the end of the day all we have is what we write here, whether it's talking about trying out a system or running a 100 balls or playing someone. If we can't take some things on faith then there's no point in talking about our personal experiences here, is there?


Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
Yeah... a guy with a ton of education, who passed the bar, is used to analyzing evidence, arguments, and presenting logical persuasive arguments before juries and judges, often involving federal charges.

What was I thinking.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

So a pool playing lawyer and Lou's wife OR Stevie Moore and Rodney Morris. I know what side i'm on.
 
duckie said:
The issue isn't the system, it is the belief that this system is the end all to aiming and anyone that doesn't accept this belief must not be trying hard enough to use it. Now from my experience i do consider cte/pro1 by far to be the the best system for aiming. I believe all other systems do work also and anyone can become a pro using them.

I believe that people don't try to use ghost ball are lazy and can't understand why one would use anything else but ghost ball. I have no issues with using ghost ball. I use all day long. If I miss it isn't the system used, its me. When i miss, it's me also and like yourself i don't blame the systems we use.

You can not say with absolute fact that this system or any one certain system will improve anyone games. Prove that CTE will improve everyone games. I do believe that this system will help improve at the very least "some part of anyone's game".

It's the bullshit marketing statements that are the issue not the system. Every product needs some form of marketing especially in the early part of the products release.

Anything that can be done with CTE can be done with ghost ball. Prove me wrong. I am not sure what this means?

Put the cb and 1 OB on the table. Send the cb 2 rails to hit the OB. Tell me how well CTE does on this shot. This is not hard to do, i will explain below
Click to expand...

Now, we are assuming I know where the contact point, etc on the rail is to make this two rail hit, correct. I will have to get out of the geometry of the system, but I will still use the system. I will look at the shot and find the closest cte/pro1 alignment that the shot will fall into and use that as the foundation of the shot. I then can make an adjustment to the target and shoot,this is the simplest way i can describe it so you will understand. Now I often practice shooting cte/pro1 by leaving out the geometry of the system and just shoot at random targets.

I personally can pick out a random target before moving to the bridging position using cte/pro1. Now for me, the only hard part in your example is finding the correct contact point on the rail. This is how I do it, I do not know how other cte/pro1 users would do it. Cte/pro1 has really made me aware of where the contact points are on the object ball.

Do you have any other examples or questions Duckie or anyone else? I have no problem answering them straight up.

added: in case your wondering Cte/pro1 is the only system out there that is linked to the geometry of the table, that i know of. 90/90 isn't, half ball pivot system isn't and any other cte system or systems out there isn't either. cte/pro1 stands alone. I am just a users sharing my experience with you guys like Lou. The difference is that i share my informed opinions.

Lou your in way over your head trying to discuss this system, believe me.
 
Last edited:
Know what you're looking at before lambasting / making fun

cookie man said:
Love how he hopped up on that bank try on the six that he should have played in the side.
Click to expand...

Hey folks:

I don't check the Aiming forum as much these days, other than to stay on top of Stan's product announcements, or whenever I see a lot of traction on certain threads.

But I wanted to interject here, because Lou is apparently catching a lot of flack for something that most of you short-rack rotation players may not even have a clue what he was trying to do. Other than Dave Segal (SpiderWebComm) who actually plays 14.1, I dare say MOST OF YOU here would have a hard time putting up a 30-ball run on a regulation 9-footer, nevermind a Diamond. And I put that dare to anyone here, especially those with the "in straight pool, you can shoot any ball you want, how hard can that be?" short-rack-rotation player myopic stance.

Only Lou can speak authoritatively here about what his thought process was at the time. But when watching that video, the first impression I had was that shot on the 6-ball was an intentional "bump" shot. Meaning, obviously Lou was trying to pocket the 6 in the side, but a secondary intention was to bump that 8-ball towards the side pocket as a key-ball to the ultimate break-ball. The 8-ball was in a funny spot (it did have a pocket, but it was a narrow window to get to it). It is a common technique in straight pool to solve these problem spots quickly, and even to bump balls to a better position (in this case, to a key-ball spot -- a ball hanging by the side pocket is a perfect key-ball for a break-ball to the side of the pack).

As mentioned in the 14.1 forum, on this past New Year's Day, I scored a 78-ball run, and much of the run included some bumping to break clusters and put balls in an optimum spot. I would venture to say that literally half of my break balls turned out to be "bumped" balls, because of the slowness of the table I was playing on, and having to deal with clusters. (Sometimes I need to shoot my break-ball off prematurely, because it was the only ball that offered me an angle to deal with a cluster.)

I realize that Lou's position on aiming systems and review of Stan's product does not sit well with most of the readership on this particular forum. But before we lambaste, 1.) know what you're looking at, and 2.) try playing some 14.1 and putting up your own numbers in video form.

Respectfully, and back to our regularly-scheduled programming,
-Sean
 
sfleinen said:
Hey folks:

I don't check the Aiming forum as much these days, other than to stay on top of Stan's product announcements, or whenever I see a lot of traction on certain threads.

But I wanted to interject here, because Lou is apparently catching a lot of flack for something that most of you short-rack rotation players may not even have a clue what he was trying to do. Other than Dave Segal (SpiderWebComm) who actually plays 14.1, I dare say MOST OF YOU here would have a hard time putting up a 30-ball run on a regulation 9-footer, nevermind a Diamond. And I put that dare to anyone here, especially those with the "in straight pool, you can shoot any ball you want, how hard can that be?" short-rack-rotation player myopic stance.

Only Lou can speak authoritatively here about what his thought process was at the time. But when watching that video, the first impression I had was that shot on the 6-ball was an intentional "bump" shot. Meaning, obviously Lou was trying to pocket the 6 in the side, but a secondary intention was to bump that 8-ball towards the side pocket as a key-ball to the ultimate break-ball. The 8-ball was in a funny spot (it did have a pocket, but it was a narrow window to get to it). It is a common technique in straight pool to solve these problem spots quickly, and even to bump balls to a better position (in this case, to a key-ball spot -- a ball hanging by the side pocket is a perfect key-ball for a break-ball to the side of the pack).

As mentioned in the 14.1 forum, on this past New Year's Day, I scored a 78-ball run, and much of the run included some bumping to break clusters and put balls in an optimum spot. I would venture to say that literally half of my break balls turned out to be "bumped" balls, because of the slowness of the table I was playing on, and having to deal with clusters. (Sometimes I need to shoot my break-ball off prematurely, because it was the only ball that offered me an angle to deal with a cluster.)

I realize that Lou's position on aiming systems and review of Stan's product does not sit well with most of the readership on this particular forum. But before we lambaste, 1.) know what you're looking at, and 2.) try playing some 14.1 and putting up your own numbers in video form.

Respectfully, and back to our regularly-scheduled programming,
-Sean
Click to expand...

Heartily disagree Sean. Very much doubt that mot people here in this section could not easily make thirty balls with three break shots.

Speaking for myself I am just busting Lou's balls a little when I say he could benefit from CTE. That one video of him is not fair to his actual skill level which is better than what is shown.

I think though that you underestimate the skill level present here. And it's also not a good idea to assume that because people don't spend time discussion straight pool that they don't know how to play nor have ever played.

Regardless though, the point is still well made that no matter what the game is if the object is to make a ball in order to continue shooting then making the ball is the single most important priority. Doesn't matter what Lou was trying to do or not since he missed the easy shots.

And this brings us back to aiming which is to say that when you are aimed correctly and you KNOW you are aimed correctly then you also know from that position what is possible and what is not possible. Not saying that this matters in the least as far as Lou's particular thought process was during those attempts but a miss is a miss and you don't get points for misses. Especially in a one made ball one point shoot till you miss format.

This weekend I watched the Chinese 8 Ball Masters and I guarantee you these guys know more about bumping balls for position than a good percentage of straight pool players do. They don't have the luxury of being able to bump balls and choose many pockets. They absolutely had to play some amazingly precise position and due to the severity of the pockets they were forced by necessity to constantly bump balls into more favorable positions to even have a chance to pocket them.

These players had to have laser-like aiming as well as immaculate stroking. Hardly any wiggle room at all. The point I am making is that they didn't need to try and make things happen, they simply made them happen at will. Giving Lou a pass because he was trying to do something is not the right way to analyze it for the the exact reason that aiming accurately is the first and most important aspect of the shot when you absolutely must pocket the ball.

In my opinion of course. And of course always willing to take any video challenge time permitting.
 
I HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU. I HAVE THE "PRO ONE" DVD. I BOUGHT IT 20 MONTHS AGO. I KNOW THAT PRO ONE IS A GREAT SYSTEM. BUT THERE IS NO CLEAR INFO ON THE DVD. NO EXPLANATION AND NOT GOOD E-MAIL SUPPORT BY Mr SHUFFETT. LOTS OF "YES AND NO", "COULD BE", "MAYBE" ANSWERS TO THE PLAYER THAT WANTS TO LEARN. NOT TRYING TO OFFEND YOU Mr SHUFFETT. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.
 
JB Cases said:
This weekend I watched the Chinese 8 Ball Masters and I guarantee you these guys know more about bumping balls for position than a good percentage of straight pool players do. They don't have the luxury of being able to bump balls and choose many pockets. They absolutely had to play some amazingly precise position and due to the severity of the pockets they were forced by necessity to constantly bump balls into more favorable positions to even have a chance to pocket them.
Click to expand...

Try it on an English 8 ball table then, with a CB smaller than the OB. Very, very difficult. Breaking clusters effectively is an art-form in itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top