.............
Regards,
Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?
- Thread starter SamLambert
- Start date
Regards,
Dan, maybe you need to do an internal search and find out why you want to know the inner workings of CTE so much, and not of any other system or method.
Regarding the bold above. I don't think any of these questions are nitpicking. If you can't get your tip to within about 1 mm of where you are aiming, then you don't really have control of the cue ball. The devil is in the details and sometimes the most innocent of discoveries can lead to the greatest understanding.
I know from our discussions that even you don't have all your questions answered, so why not join in and see if we can't stumble upon something we can all learn from?
You are correct.
Actually, Neil, he did. He just erred anyway.
Dan,
I'm sorry, but I just can't pass this up...
but...
I am serious too.
What the videos 'prove' to me are that...
You, Dan, are operating from a core nature of objectivity, while...
John is operating from a core nature of...
subjectivity... or bias.
Sorry again.
Best 2 Ya.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan shuffett View Post
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:
I don't think anybody ever said that they would be able to set up a shot that you can't pocket. The proposal you suggest is a straw man argument. The problem is when you pocket a ball, nobody really knows exactly what method you used, consciously or subconsciously, to make that shot. Saying "I pocketed that shot using CTE Pro1" is great, but for those of use who want a greater understanding than "align your body to the approximate position you need to be in and then use the visuals to fine tune the shot" just doesn't cut it.
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 really do respect your professionalism and the work you've put into this, but when you and your supporters leave repeated questions unanswered the vacuum gets filled with 1,2,3 above. Even if you would just say that your comments are reserved for paying customers I could respect and understand that position, but we don't even get that!
I appreciate it all........because CTE is not going anywhere except to be stronger than ever.
You would become a household name (or maybe pool hall name) if you were able to help the more inquisitive among us understand the inner workings of the system.
Stan Shuffett
.............
Regards,
Dan White
:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2: for Dan White's blue text.
Originally Posted by stan shuffett View Post
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:
I don't think anybody ever said that they would be able to set up a shot that you can't pocket. The proposal you suggest is a straw man argument. The problem is when you pocket a ball, nobody really knows exactly what method you used, consciously or subconsciously, to make that shot. Saying "I pocketed that shot using CTE Pro1" is great, but for those of use who want a greater understanding than "align your body to the approximate position you need to be in and then use the visuals to fine tune the shot" just doesn't cut it.
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 really do respect your professionalism and the work you've put into this, but when you and your supporters leave repeated questions unanswered the vacuum gets filled with 1,2,3 above. Even if you would just say that your comments are reserved for paying customers I could respect and understand that position, but we don't even get that!
I appreciate it all........because CTE is not going anywhere except to be stronger than ever.
You would become a household name (or maybe pool hall name) if you were able to help the more inquisitive among us understand the inner workings of the system.
Stan Shuffett
.............
Regards,
Dan White
:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2: for Dan White's blue text.
Last edited:
Dan,
What do you mean by what I put in Blue?
Neil knows everything & never has an doubt, much less any questions.
Best 2 Ya.
Last edited:
I never warmed up to that technique, but I did learn Harry Lorayne's method years ago. It still works to this day. The mind remembers images and scenes in a photographic manner if there is something unusual about the scene. It has helped me in many situations. For fun, I memorized pi out to about 500 decimal places and it only took a day or two...(yes, I'm admitting I did that). The brain is amazing!
Two major instructors not on the CTE bandwagon that come to mind:
Jerry Briesath
Mark Wilson
See, that's the difference between us. I really don't care about exactly why it works. I only care about if it works for me, not how it works. There are many, many, things in life that I use everyday that I don't understand the workings of. This computer is just one of them.
I don't need to know how it works, only that if I hit these buttons, this happens. And, that makes my life a little better. I won't refuse to use the computer just because I don't understand it all, or because someone said it's the best thing going, or because there are some real idiots on it all the time.
All I know is this- follow these steps, and it works. Worry about why it works, and you will never benefit from it. Will CTE work for everyone? No. I say no because some just don't see things the same, and even more can't follow directions without questioning every little step. Instead of seeing where the directions lead them, they jump ahead with their own conclusions to where the steps will lead, and then erroneously come to a conclusion that just doesn't fit the facts.
I think it would be rare for anyone to learn CTE right off the bat. It took me trying it, discarding it, and then going back to it again and failing, and then going back and making sure I followed the directions as given verbatim. That is when I had the AHA moment, and also realized that it works exactly like the directions say it does.
First thing you have to do is discard your old way of aiming, listen to the steps, and not prejudge the outcome, but instead observe the outcome.
You do the above, and it still doesn't work for you, then move on to something else that will work for you.
Dan,
I just recently looked at it. I have already told John that your 1st. analysis clearly shows that Stan's stroke was not straight & that might be able to be expanded upon or that expansion might be able to be refuted.
It was what it was. Please see my posts after your new analysis.
One thing. I believe you said that it would push the ball. I am rather sure that that would depend on what happened with the cue at the bridge area. If it pivoted then the effect would be outside english. If it slid it might wind up putting a TOI on the ball & at that speed of shot I would think it would result in a net squirt to the outside or it might have pushed it right as you said if the tip hit the "NEW CENTER".
I did not study that closely & I doubt that one could see which it is with the blur at impact.
Good job by the way.
You showed what can appear to be done when John attaches his words to a video like statisticians do when they want a certain outcome to be 'apparent'.
Good Job & Best 2 Ya.
Well, I do know that was nothing but a trolling post on your part. Or, should I quote your nonsense and state how you aren't omniscient, don't know everything so you are most likely wrong here, are attacking me, ect. ect. (just add the other nonsense you usually say)
By the way, what business is it of yours what I say in a pm to someone else? A little nosey, aren't you?
Hi Neil. I've seen these threads going back for so many years and I've learned a little here and there, but never got it to work for me. I've spent the last 3 years or so breaking down and rebuilding my stroke so I'm happy to report (OK brag a little) that I finally have a pretty complete understanding of why stroke the way I do, and what matters and what doesn't. I aim with the ghost ball, but really almost don't need that. After awhile you just know where you need to send the cue ball. With that method, and having a STRAIGHT stroke, I rarely miss. So even if we could prove out how CTE works, I doubt I'd use it. I just don't need it. Well, if it could help me pocket 2 and 3 rail banks all the time then maybe I'd learn it!
I think my recent interest is based partly on achieving a certain level of success, and want to pass on some of what I have learned. Bottom line, I'm just interested in the controversy and wanted to see if I could figure any of it out.
So, you really have no idea what happened, but you had to give your two cents anyways just to knock JB again.
And yet the best player on Mark's Lindenwood team uses CTE/ProOne and no one on that team can beat him including Mark in my opinion.
The majority of well known BCA/PBIA Master Instructors teach some form of CTE or Ball to Ball objective aiming.
Dan I think Stan hit the ball with a straight stroke. I will go back and do another video analysis of your analysis of my analysis of your analysis of Stan's stroke in his video.
LOL. OK, but let's be sure we understand each other. I'm not saying that Stan is necessarily swooping his cue as he strokes forward. I'm saying that he changes the path of the cue at the end of the backswing by pulling it in, and then propels the cue forward in a straight line that is different from his warm up stroke which represents the CTE Pro1 line up (that is, until .004 seconds after contact at which point the cue gets jolted back in line). I'm very keen to this motion because it is exactly what I used to do, and probably still do from time to time.
Then the best thing for you to do is get ahold of the DVD, follow the steps in it, including the layouts given, learn the system, and then try and figure out why it does work.