agreed.Lame
"come to the mountain"?!?! Pulleezzze...I just love the exclusionary aspect of the CTE religion.
Hal = Yoda. Stan = Kenobi. Spidey = Luke. CTE Zealots = padawans.
CTE/PRO ONE video--CANCELLED
- Thread starter stan shuffett
- Start date
"come to the mountain"?!?! Pulleezzze...I just love the exclusionary aspect of the CTE religion.
Hal = Yoda. Stan = Kenobi. Spidey = Luke. CTE Zealots = padawans.
************
Are they afraid it will work and they missed out on something by not getting the lessons, so they dismiss it out of hand, or what????
************
(Unproven incredible claims) + (Ineffective efforts at presenting a codified system) + (lack of demonstrated geometric plausibility) = skepticism
The zealots would probably only have to address two of the items on the left side of the equation to prove themselves geniuses, but this has not happened yet and is unlikely to.
Are they afraid it will work and they missed out on something by not getting the lessons, so they dismiss it out of hand, or what????
************
(Unproven incredible claims) + (Ineffective efforts at presenting a codified system) + (lack of demonstrated geometric plausibility) = skepticism
The zealots would probably only have to address two of the items on the left side of the equation to prove themselves geniuses, but this has not happened yet and is unlikely to.
I believe he simply regretted a decision made in haste
Neil,
As always your post is excellent. The truth is that most instructional DVD's are a heck of a lot of work for little return. Most people try to sell them for twenty to thirty-five dollars pretty much insuring that sales will never justify the time, effort, and dollars put into making them but that also somehow sets the market value for all instructional DVD's. If somebody tries to charge eighty or a hundred dollars which might be much closer to the fair price for a niche low volume DVD most people think they are trying to rob.
I thought that Stan was saying something in haste that he might regret at leisure when he said he was going to make this DVD. I do think he has too much respect for Hal to make it without Hal's blessing and even with Hal's blessing it is a tremendous investment in time and effort for very questionable return.
Hu
Neil,
As always your post is excellent. The truth is that most instructional DVD's are a heck of a lot of work for little return. Most people try to sell them for twenty to thirty-five dollars pretty much insuring that sales will never justify the time, effort, and dollars put into making them but that also somehow sets the market value for all instructional DVD's. If somebody tries to charge eighty or a hundred dollars which might be much closer to the fair price for a niche low volume DVD most people think they are trying to rob.
I thought that Stan was saying something in haste that he might regret at leisure when he said he was going to make this DVD. I do think he has too much respect for Hal to make it without Hal's blessing and even with Hal's blessing it is a tremendous investment in time and effort for very questionable return.
Hu
Stan,
I'm sure you have sound business reasons for cancelling the video production of the CTE/Pro One.
I'll respect your decision and won't speculate as to what caused you to change your mind.
In the future, I hope that I will still have the opportunity to learn more about CTE/Pro One as well as the rest of your cueing instruction.
Best Regards,
JoeyA
I'm sure you have sound business reasons for cancelling the video production of the CTE/Pro One.
I'll respect your decision and won't speculate as to what caused you to change your mind.
In the future, I hope that I will still have the opportunity to learn more about CTE/Pro One as well as the rest of your cueing instruction.
Best Regards,
JoeyA
What top players? There's Landon annnnddddd...
This is the beauty of marketing. If something gets repeated enough, people just start passing it on as truth. But the only high level player that I know of for sure is Landon. Then we have a handful of A players including JB, stan, and possibly spidey though I've seen him sink maybe 2 balls in my life.
Only hal claimed a number of pros use it. JB claims busty uses it but I need to hear that from busty, no offense to john or anyone else.
As to why it's not getting a fair shake due to the "on paper" bit - because anything else that works, works on paper. And/or on video. What other system or pool concept works, but is inexplicable on paper? If I claim I can throw a ball in with inside spin, or a halfball hit sends the OB on a 30ish deg. line... I can then demonstrate that in video. Fractional aiming can be diagrammed. Ghostball obviously diagrams well.
Many of the CTE detractors aren't even looking to show that it's useless or can't work. What they're claiming is that the system relies on estimation, feel, adjustments, etc. You know, the sort of thing that can't be diagrammed. A simple admission of this would go a long way towards removing some of that skepticism.
Stan, I would still like to setup a trip to see you some time this fall. I was very serious in the PM I sent you and feel I could learn alot from you. Please PM me when you can.
I don't know of ANY aiming system that doesn't rely on estimation, feel, adjustments, etc.
You have to estimate, feel and make adjustments for ghost ball or even contact point to contact point aiming. Otherwise, you're going to miss a whole lot of balls.
JoeyA
can anyone diagram fractional aiming?
People easily diagram fractional aiming in two dimensions with two balls the same size and height on the paper. However, I have never seen fractional aiming diagrammed as we often see it on the table, the cue ball hugely bigger than the object ball and so far below it in our line of sight that the balls don't appear to be touching much less overlapping. I can draw many a thing on paper that looks like it works. I can also write something up that seems extremely plausible. It still doesn't mean it works.
When discussing pool aiming methods and systems even video isn't proof because after a person taps his heels twice, spins three times to his left, gets down on the shot and pivots seventeen point six-seven-five degrees, we still can't see if he swaps to the HAMB system after that.
Because of the slop inherent in the size of the pool balls and the pockets some shots can be made with a precise system with no adjustments whatsoever for the dozen and one things that keep pool shots from being simple geometric exercises. However many other shots require a precision that can only be found through experience and awareness of the exact conditions we are playing in. That is why regardless of all we learn about ways to pocket balls there will always be good pool players and great pool players.
Hu
People easily diagram fractional aiming in two dimensions with two balls the same size and height on the paper. However, I have never seen fractional aiming diagrammed as we often see it on the table, the cue ball hugely bigger than the object ball and so far below it in our line of sight that the balls don't appear to be touching much less overlapping. I can draw many a thing on paper that looks like it works. I can also write something up that seems extremely plausible. It still doesn't mean it works.
When discussing pool aiming methods and systems even video isn't proof because after a person taps his heels twice, spins three times to his left, gets down on the shot and pivots seventeen point six-seven-five degrees, we still can't see if he swaps to the HAMB system after that.
Because of the slop inherent in the size of the pool balls and the pockets some shots can be made with a precise system with no adjustments whatsoever for the dozen and one things that keep pool shots from being simple geometric exercises. However many other shots require a precision that can only be found through experience and awareness of the exact conditions we are playing in. That is why regardless of all we learn about ways to pocket balls there will always be good pool players and great pool players.
Hu
******************
Now, see, this is what I just don't understand.??? People like you won't give the CTE method a fair shake just because it can't be, or isn't put on paper and geometrically "proven" to all. You want to dismiss it for these reasons, and these reasons alone, even though there are several top players that attest to it's validity.
********************
The solution to the aiming problem is exact. The proponents of CTE claim a specific process that reliably yields this solution, yet the process, as has been publically described, does not yield the correct solution. THAT is the problem that I have with the claims made regarding CTE.
An interesting comment(s) made in this forum recently is that CTE helps with straight in shots. Presumably, it also helps with 30 degree shots. For these shots, the aim point is known and there is no aiming system necessary. Yet, if the claims are believed, CTE still helps. This absolutely screams out that CTE is not so much an aiming system, but an alignment/stroke system.
Now THAT, I believe. and if it is true, and also CTE provides a ballpark aiming point, then that alone is enough to move a lot of people's games up.
***********************
Yet, you are a strong advocate of the HAMB system. (hit a million balls) The Hamb system also cannot meet the requirements you propose for CTE, yet you have no problem with it.??
************************
HAMB is nice, if you have the time. I'm not really a proponent, as I am too old to do it. The difference is, I don't hear anyone making the claims regarding HAMB being a set method that yields perfect solution, as is the case with CTE.
BTW, my aiming schtick is accurate angle estimation followed by direction of the CB to the corresponding specific aim point. I will be the first to admit that it only works when alignment/stroke actually succeed in geting the CB there.
Now, see, this is what I just don't understand.??? People like you won't give the CTE method a fair shake just because it can't be, or isn't put on paper and geometrically "proven" to all. You want to dismiss it for these reasons, and these reasons alone, even though there are several top players that attest to it's validity.
********************
The solution to the aiming problem is exact. The proponents of CTE claim a specific process that reliably yields this solution, yet the process, as has been publically described, does not yield the correct solution. THAT is the problem that I have with the claims made regarding CTE.
An interesting comment(s) made in this forum recently is that CTE helps with straight in shots. Presumably, it also helps with 30 degree shots. For these shots, the aim point is known and there is no aiming system necessary. Yet, if the claims are believed, CTE still helps. This absolutely screams out that CTE is not so much an aiming system, but an alignment/stroke system.
Now THAT, I believe. and if it is true, and also CTE provides a ballpark aiming point, then that alone is enough to move a lot of people's games up.
***********************
Yet, you are a strong advocate of the HAMB system. (hit a million balls) The Hamb system also cannot meet the requirements you propose for CTE, yet you have no problem with it.??
************************
HAMB is nice, if you have the time. I'm not really a proponent, as I am too old to do it. The difference is, I don't hear anyone making the claims regarding HAMB being a set method that yields perfect solution, as is the case with CTE.
BTW, my aiming schtick is accurate angle estimation followed by direction of the CB to the corresponding specific aim point. I will be the first to admit that it only works when alignment/stroke actually succeed in geting the CB there.
But of course. Let's all don togas, aluminum foil caps, put on our decoder rings, and cha-cha our way right over to that hill-o-beans!
Who's bringing the beer
Lou Figueroa
(burp)
\Joey: We're on the same page there. CTE guys have trouble admitting this and that's always bugged me. It claims exactness where exactness isn't really possible.
Hu: I understand the nature of trying to do video proof of something, I've often made the same argument. If I see a guy pivot before shooting... maybe the pivot helped and maybe it's clicking your heels.
I remember you saying you tried something like quarters but the perception issues made it no use to you. But even if doesn't work for you, it can be geometrically proven. I don't buy the theory that "just because it works on paper, doesn't mean it will work in the pool hall". If it doesn't work in the pool hall, some part of it was wrong on paper. There are tricks you can do to take human error out of the system. Beam a carpenter's level at your halfball hit, then freeze a 2nd ball on it so that its edge splits that thin red beam. Smack a cue ball into the 2nd ball and the halfball hit goes where it's supposed to (usual throw disclaimers apply).
The same halfball hit can be backed up by physics. A crapload of math has already been done to show where balls go when they collide. The math says the OB departure will be around 30 degrees (or whatever it is) and then a real life halfball hit will mirror that.
CTE has the same perception errors as the rest... but I don't see a diagram or physics or video that makes sense to back it up. I haven't seen too many things that made me think "yeah, that makes sense on paper" ...and then my experience in the pool hall doesn't match it. I'd be very surprised if you could make a fake system that fools non-gullible players into thinking it's valid when they see it on paper.
Koop: noted, but do we have non-anecdotal evidence of this? Something that isn't just I-heard-from-a-friend? A link on the internet, a line in a book?
Hu: I understand the nature of trying to do video proof of something, I've often made the same argument. If I see a guy pivot before shooting... maybe the pivot helped and maybe it's clicking your heels.
I remember you saying you tried something like quarters but the perception issues made it no use to you. But even if doesn't work for you, it can be geometrically proven. I don't buy the theory that "just because it works on paper, doesn't mean it will work in the pool hall". If it doesn't work in the pool hall, some part of it was wrong on paper. There are tricks you can do to take human error out of the system. Beam a carpenter's level at your halfball hit, then freeze a 2nd ball on it so that its edge splits that thin red beam. Smack a cue ball into the 2nd ball and the halfball hit goes where it's supposed to (usual throw disclaimers apply).
The same halfball hit can be backed up by physics. A crapload of math has already been done to show where balls go when they collide. The math says the OB departure will be around 30 degrees (or whatever it is) and then a real life halfball hit will mirror that.
CTE has the same perception errors as the rest... but I don't see a diagram or physics or video that makes sense to back it up. I haven't seen too many things that made me think "yeah, that makes sense on paper" ...and then my experience in the pool hall doesn't match it. I'd be very surprised if you could make a fake system that fools non-gullible players into thinking it's valid when they see it on paper.
Koop: noted, but do we have non-anecdotal evidence of this? Something that isn't just I-heard-from-a-friend? A link on the internet, a line in a book?
Stevie and Gerda have both said themselves they took lessons from Stan and learned Pro One.
Right after Gerda learned, a few months back, she quickly won the next tournament she entered. Stevie has been lighting it up ever since.
Looks like Matt Krah is another.
http://www.justcueit.com/Lessons.html
Regards,
Koop
I got the beer and will set up the altar.But of course. Let's all don togas, aluminum foil caps, put on our decoder rings, and cha-cha our way right over to that hill-o-beans!
Who's bringing the beer
Lou Figueroa
(burp)
I got the beer and will set up the altar.
Altar?!
OK. Virgins. We're gonna need some virgins too, then.
Lou Figueroa
always virgins.. did you ever notice no one ever says lets sacrifice the sluts..
we want to keep them around don't we LOL..
I can confirm that Stevie Moore is a CTE/Pro One user. I have watched him closely in person and have spoken to him about it. [Edit: It was 2008 when I watched him in person and spoke with him about CTE. I do not know whether he is still playing the same way.]
I am also aware of reports that Gerda took lessons from Stan, but I watched some of her play two months ago when she won the San Diego Classic, and I saw no evidence of CTE/Pro One -- no initial sighting of the CTE line, no sort of "creeping up" to the shot sighting that line, no pivoting on the table or in the air. In fact, she often walked around to sight the object ball straight into the pocket, which is normally done to find a contact point. So she may now know CTE/Pro One, but I am not yet convinced that she is using it.
Last edited:
I'm not so sure we are on the same page.
CTE people do use precision and exactness in aiming and the system is repeatable.
Also, I don't think CTE advocates have anything to prove to anyone.
And for the record, I don't think an aiming system has to be proven in physics, math or even geometry for it to be effective.
Most pool players have never seen a diagram of contact point to contact point aiming but many use it.
People waste so much time worrying about proving an aiming system.
Try it. If it doesn't work for you, put it on the shelf and Fugetaboutit!
Why waste your breath complaining that it doesn't work or does work and that it can or cannot be proven on paper? :boring2:
JoeyA