Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[GoldenFlash]

Mister Patrick Johnson.
No "before or after" video available and none forthcoming. Anyway, you would not be impressed.
I have made an attempt to avoid you as, In my opinion, you're quite the troublemaker and I don't need any of that.
I furthermore believe that no video, personal appearance, or anything else would satisfy your quest for "evidence". I don't think you would be persuaded by any facts since your mind is already made up.
Just make a real effort to show up at one of those oft mentioned, but strangely elusive, "shot making" contests between Shuffett and anyone else.
Then maybe you can enjoy watching me lose my money along with the "failure of CTE".
Happy days.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

In your world you would say well it must be some sort of subconscious thing but those who use it do it very consciously and report that they literally see themselves walking through their memory palace and recalling facts that they associated with objects in that palace of the mind.

The forming, filing and retrieving of memories is entirely a subconscious activity. You can assist it indirectly by imagining you're doing concrete things like walking through your memory palace, but those imagined things aren't really concrete and don't change the subconscious nature of memory - they're just aids to the same old subconscious process.

In the same way, how you imagine yourself aiming with CTE may be a very vivid image of a "concrete" way to do it, but it doesn't change the nature of aiming - and simple reason says it's not what you think.

pj
chgo

P.S. In another thread I said that even though I think my "monocular" view while aiming might be an illusion, it seems to be a useful illusion that I want to keep if it continues to be useful. I mention this so you'll know that I recognize the potential value in how we perceive things, even if it's imaginary. My point is not that these stories we tell ourselves are useless or bad; my point is just that, factually speaking, they're stories.

 

[8pack]

Worked out pretty good over here.

Lou Figueroa

That it did. Do you feel you won because John was using cte?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I have made an attempt to avoid you

I won't argue with you about that.

...no video, personal appearance, or anything else would satisfy your quest for "evidence".

No video or personal appearance would, and suggesting those could be "evidence" means you don't understand what I'm seeking evidence for or you don't know how to recognize evidence (or both). Don't feel like the Lone Ranger - most CTE users don't seem to get it either.

pj
chgo

 

[GoldenFlash]

That it did. Do you feel you won because John was using cte?

Of course, it's ALWAYS CTE's fault.......just like anything political is ALWAYS George Bush's fault.

 

[Ron Swanson]

So respectfully, who are you to tell me what is happening in my mind?

Lol.

And how's the 'grudge' room doing? Is it full yet? :smile:

 

[Ron Swanson]

Lot's of us were good players before learning to aim using systems. We are better players now after learning them. The amount of improvement will vary from person to person but the point is that aiming by itself isn't going to improve a person's form, it won't improve their pattern play, it won't improve their judgement of speed and spin, it won't improve their stroke (except perhaps to remove body english caused by aiming wrong),

Where they can see improvement in those areas by virtue of using an aiming system is that once they are confident in the aim that it is true each time they go down on the shot then they can spend more focus on the execution side. PLUS more table time spent on aiming also helps them to refine the other aspects of the game.

As I mentioned earlier, knowing the true shot line allows me to "see" the tangent line correctly and that allows me to play better shape and stay in line more. That is a byproduct of aiming accurately.

And let's be damn honest here, if ANYONE showed you a video of them playing at a certain level and then claimed they used CTE and four months later showed you a video of themselves playing a much higher level you still wouldn't believe that CTE had anything to do with it. Treating everyone as if they are lying though is simply ludicrous.

Everyone? There's only about three of you in the whole world.

You realise this is the problem, right? You hold a personal conviction that no one else shares. I have loads of them but I'll only shout about them once they are proven.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Mister Patrick Johnson.
No "before or after" video available and none forthcoming. Anyway, you would not be impressed.
I have made an attempt to avoid you as, In my opinion, you're quite the troublemaker and I don't need any of that.
I furthermore believe that no video, personal appearance, or anything else would satisfy your quest for "evidence". I don't think you would be persuaded by any facts since your mind is already made up.
Just make a real effort to show up at one of those oft mentioned, but strangely elusive, "shot making" contests between Shuffett and anyone else.
Then maybe you can enjoy watching me lose my money along with the "failure of CTE".
Happy days.

You're still avoiding him.

 

[JB Cases]

Lol.

And how's the 'grudge' room doing? Is it full yet? :smile:

Let's just say that in an alternate universe some people don't exist. Yes, in my memory palace I have names attached to various piles of animal excrement so as not to forget them.

 

[cookie man]

Everyone? There's only about three of you in the whole world.

You realise this is the problem, right? You hold a personal conviction that no one else shares. I have loads of them but I'll only shout about them once they are proven.

All the major instructors teach CTE

 

[cookie man]

Good story & I'm very Glad for you & that all would make perfect sense from your point of view.

But there are those like TonyTheTiger & others (some have PMd me) that it did not work for them. Tony spent more than a year trying to get it to work to a satisfactorily level. I don;t think Stan offers a money back guarantee, but I could be wrong about that. If he does, & it's in writing with the purchase than that would get me to be less concerned. I had not really thought of that before. I guess because I've never seen that mentioned.

Dan gave it a brief try & found it lacking & may be coming back for a 2nd. try but he can't seem to get his questions answered to any satisfactorily manner.

If it could be agreed upon as to it's core nature & that would explain why it did not work for the likes of Tony, etc, then perhaps it would allow those to approach it from a different perspective & maybe actually reap some real benefit from it as you certainly seem to have gotten.

But as long as there is an 'air' about it that some if not many see as not factual, there will always be this disagreement & hence 'discussion' regarding it. How long has it gone on already? Two decades?

I'm relatively new & now Dan to some extent. If I pack up & shoot my laptop with a shotgun, there will be someone like Dan that comes along.

So... why not do away with all of the vitriol & trolling & take certain things seriously & try to do some intellectual critical thinking & then state the truth of matters.

To me that would certainly be the best thing for all of the innocent by standers.

I hope you can see & understand my points or at least take them as food for thought.

Best Wishes.

Who is this Tony the tiger u refer too all the time

 

[GoldenFlash]

You're still avoiding him.

However, I have a rent free space right inside your head and his, forever.....which I delight in having.
So there.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Who is this Tony the tiger u refer too all the time

You don't know him? How can you not know him?

He's on so many of the...

Kellog's cereal boxes.

From all I wrote in that post, this is what you come at me with?

What does it matter who he is?

If you want to call me a liar, just do it.

Go back & look at some of what you've said about me or to me, then tell me why I should answer any question you ask of me.

You contribute nothing of ANY real substance except repeated one liners, etc.

I've tried & we've had what seemed to perhaps be some decent discussions in PM for you to then come out in the forums & 'attack' me every which way but loose but with no substantive information, reason, or even common sense.

Best Wishes.

PS I know... it was just a simple question.

 

[cookie man]

You don't know him? How can you not know him?

He's on so many of the...

Kellog's cereal boxes.

From all I wrote in that post, this is what you come at me with?

What does it matter who he is?

If you want to call me a liar, just do it.

Go back & look at some of what you've said about me or to me, then tell me why I should answer any question you ask of me.

You contribute nothing of ANY real substance except repeated one liners, etc.

I've tried & we've had what seemed to perhaps be some decent discussions in PM for you to then come out in the forums & 'attack' me every which way but loose but with no substantive information, reason, or even common sense.

Best Wishes.

PS I know... it was just a simple question.

Touchy tonight huh. Just curious. Never implied you were lying just haven't seen that name in this thread other than in your posts.

 

[KRJ]

You don't know him? How can you not know him?

He's on so many of the...

Kellog's cereal boxes.

From all I wrote in that post, this is what you come at me with?

What does it matter who he is?

.

So, in other words, you don't have to explain a gosh darn thing. You don't need to document your vast playing and teaching credentials so folks can determine who to believe. And this has been your "beef" , that you want to give folks all the info to make the best decision, except any info related to your yourself.

C'mon now old chap, lets be fair. Let folks decide based on the folks making the claims, for and against. We all already know Stan's credentials, why will you not give potential buyers the same info to ensure they know that you know what you're talking about?

I mean, this is your chance to shine and show all those potential buyers to pass on CTE because the mystery man behind the curtain really knows what he's talking about and is not just some faceless internet keyboard commando living in OZ.

I mean, have some heart, get a brain or at least muster up a little courage Dorothy

 

[JB Cases]

I do not even view it as a mistake. I used a tool and it read the shot as a 30 degree angle.
The truth of the matter is, is that my point was made, regardless of the shot location as long as it was anywhere near 30.

When one simple shot in a 5 year span can not be set up to disprove CTE then what is resorted to:
1. Language/semantics----also stuff like Stan Stammers....
2. Slo-motion stroke errors that have nothing to do with anything. CTE is a visual system!
3. Personal attachs ...like snake oil salesman....recently I was called a liar.

I appreciate it all........because CTE is not going anywhere except to be stronger than ever.

Stan Shuffett

Exactly. To me the video makes an even stronger case for CTE. No silly devices needed and it is there for the shooter the same in practice and in battle.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

What you both seem to be missing at 6:35 of your video,JB, is that the stroke stays straight through contact. It doesn't have that large swoop until well after the cb is gone. And, the only reason it swoops then is because Stan dropped his elbow after the shot causing the cue to swerve.

Another point to make about using lines to determine a straight stroke- what counts is the final stroke to the cb up to the actual hit. Many pros strokes are basically all over the place until the final stroke, which is dead straight. Also, just the act of the tip hitting the cb will cause the cue to go off line at least a little bit.

So, if using lines to determine how straight the stroke is, several things have to be taken into account.

I can agree with that. But I am willing to concede the swoop pre-contact because it makes a stronger case for why using CTE is so strong.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[Dan White]

Here you go Dan. My analysis of your analysis of Stan's video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THkFF7FBGBA

OK, thanks. I looked over your video carefully and I have to disagree with your contention that the first CTE stroke Stan did was straight. I redid my video with a closer view of Stan's stroke for only his first CTE shot, which is the one you spent the most time discussing.

For reference, here is my initial video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpljeVvOqRs&feature=youtu.be

and here is JB's reply to my video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THkFF7FBGBA

and here is my latest video in response to yours:
https://youtu.be/FWZEoyoYMQ8

Once everybody is in agreement with what we are actually seeing, then maybe we can go another step as to whether it this is unusual, or if it is routine for Stan, does it matter, does it say anything about CT1, and so on.

Comments?

 

[Dan White]

What you both seem to be missing at 6:35 of your video,JB, is that the stroke stays straight through contact. It doesn't have that large swoop until well after the cb is gone. And, the only reason it swoops then is because Stan dropped his elbow after the shot causing the cue to swerve.

Take a look at my video reply to JB, just posted above. Does it change your mind at all? IMO the stroke is not straight through contact, and even if it were, this does not mean all that much. If Stan's practice stroke represents the original aim path then clearly the actual shot line is not on that path. The cue is pulled in at the end of the backswing and then pushed forward at an angle. So while you might argue that the stroke is straight, it is certainly not on the same line and will push the cue ball to the right.

All I really mean by a "swoop" is that the cue is being redirected at the back of the stroke, not necessarily that the cue is changing direction throughout its forward travel.

...........

 

[ENGLISH!]

As I've said, an individual that has never held a cue or seen a pool table could make the proper, logical, rational, common sense, conclusion regarding whether or not CTE is completely objective with no subjectivity at it's core.

That is because those things are of an abstract nature & really have nothing to do with Playing Pool.

That said I've been playing for nearly 50 years since I was 13.

It's a rather well known fact that when the message can not be sufficiently argued down, some then attack the messenger.

I think the majority of the AZB readership can see & make their own proper determinations based on the facts of the matter & not based on who says what.

As John Barton pointed out awhile back, even scientists sometimes make mistakes.

Deciding the issue regarding the abstract nature of CTE has everything to do with one's ability to perform intelligent, rational, logical, critical, thinking.

That could very well be why this 'debate' (& I use the term loosely) has continued for two decades.

It appears that some base what they consider & determine to be the truth based on WHO says... instead of WHAT is said.

Some individuals can think for themselves & others can not. Those that can not usually follow others & place their BLIND FAITH in others.

Best Wishes to ALL...

& Some are certainly in my Prayers more than everyone else.