Fear of Feel

[SpiderWebComm]

Are you convinced now that whatever Stan says about CTE must be right and whatever I say about it must be wrong?

pj
chgo

No, it's you exhibiting once again what Stan says is WRONG and what you say is RIGHT. It has to be because you are you and you're never wrong.

http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/

"The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they’re wrong. This is bad. Worse, if they got away with it when they were young (say, because they were smarter than their parents, their friends, and their parent’s friends) they’ve probably built an ego around being right, and will therefore defend their perfect record of invented righteousness to the death. Smart people often fall into the trap of preferring to be right even if it’s based in delusion, or results in them, or their loved ones, becoming miserable. (Somewhere in your town there is a row of graves at the cemetery, called smartypants lane, filled with people who were buried at poorly attended funerals, whose headstones say “Well, at least I was right.”)

 

[Patrick Johnson]

"The problem with smart people..."

lol

Don't feel bad, Dave. You obviously don't have to be "smart" to play pool real good.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

lol

Don't feel bad, Dave. You obviously don't have to be "smart" to play pool real good.

pj
chgo

That's been proven in pool rooms for the last 100 years.

You also don't have to be "smart" like yourself to play mediocre pool. You should feel bad.

lol

 

[Pidge]

I've never said what Stan says is gospel. He is however the most knowledgeable person on the subject that has contributed to the thread. So, if Ronnie O'Sullivan tells you to cue the ball like he does you don't turn around as say hang on, you're wrong because of such and such. Anyone with half a brain that wants to improve would say ok, I will try it. If it doesn't work out for you you just put it on the knowledge shelf for a later date. You don't, like you do, argue day in day out with him trying to trip him up with words. You simply say it wasn't for me, but fair play for getting it to work for you. Which brings me to the question, have you tried CTE out as Stan suggests? I gave it my best shot but had really good moments and really bad moments and decided it wasn't for me.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I've never said what Stan says is gospel.

That wasn't the question - do you think the "bets" that Stan and others throw around might demonstrate anything other than who shoots better?

...if Ronnie O'Sullivan tells you to cue the ball like he does you don't turn around as say hang on, you're wrong because of such and such. Anyone with half a brain that wants to improve would say ok, I will try it.

Somebody with a whole brain might notice first if the idea makes simple sense.

Which brings me to the question, have you tried CTE out as Stan suggests? I gave it my best shot but had really good moments and really bad moments and decided it wasn't for me.

Have you tried jumping off a building to see if gravity "works for you"? For those who can see it, how CTE works is pretty much as obvious as gravity.

Notice I didn't say CTE doesn't work - just that it's obvious how it does, and therefore whether or not it's for me. But that clearly isn't as obvious to others, so I try to point it out so they can make the same decision based on facts rather than the constant drumbeat of marketing hyperbole heard here.

pj
chgo

 

[stan shuffett]

That wasn't the question - do you think the "bets" that Stan and others throw around might demonstrate anything other than who shoots better?

Somebody with a whole brain might notice first if the idea makes simple sense.


Have you tried jumping off a building to see if gravity "works for you"? For those who can see it, how CTE works is pretty much as obvious as gravity.

Notice I didn't say CTE doesn't work - just that it's obvious how it does, and therefore whether or not it's for me. But that clearly isn't as obvious to others, so I try to point it out so they can make the same decision based on facts rather than the constant drumbeat of marketing hyperbole heard here.

pj
chgo

How can the way CTE works be obvious, when you are clearly in the dark about the visuals.
Real CTE is all about special perception......not perception of the kind that is used in typical aiming but a perception that exist beyond what you have ever experienced.

This is where you and others are missing the boat and frankly I don't a hoot whether you get it or not. And the same goes for the others that take special joy in hammering me.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Pidge]

I think the bets have a valid point. Its pretty hard to shoot aswel as Stan while using a system that isn't complete. Something tells me the system must be complete and able to tackle any shot at hand.

Why not take the stroke out of the equation? Get down and get someone to place a ghost ball against the OB whilst you direct them when down where to place it and see if it isn't in a position to pocket the ball. Would you be willing to bet against Stan on this? After all, all that practice you do must at least teach you how to aim even if your stroke is as bent as a crowbar.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Real CTE is all about special perception......not perception of the kind that is used in typical aiming but a perception that exist beyond what you have ever experienced.

Stan, this is one of those "extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence". When you claim that your method uses "a perception that exists beyond what I've ever experienced" you have to expect some skepticism and be prepared to provide hard evidence of that.

With all due respect, your descriptions of "acquiring the visual" fall far short of hard evidence that it's anything very new - in fact, it sounds just about like what I already do: "acquire the visual" by feel using simple reference alignments as starting points and crosschecks.

Once again, let me emphasize that I don't think that's an argument against using CTE - obviously not, if I think it's like what I do. My only argument is that the claims made about how it works are fanciful.

Why do I keep saying this? Because you keep saying that. Fair is fair.

pj
chgo

 

[Neil]

I have to question how much time you really spend at the table. You spend far more time trying to be "right" here on the forum, by far. I think you're one of these intelligent people who has a severe mental imbalance that goes along with it. You'd have to since you've been making the same arguments and need to be right for 17 YEARS between RSB and here. Something wrong there, pal.

But I'm going to give you and everyone else an experiment to do ON THE TABLE.
I don't want to hear any of your usual crap until it's actually done. The only area to be discussed has to do with results. What were they for you?

Hal taught this to me and another part was taught to me by someone else and it has to do with a fraction system along with pivot. Hal had about 20 systems and THIS had more to do with what you refer to as the 3 angle system, not CTE. It's a combination of "stick aiming, centerball, edge, and 1/2 way between center and edge.

DIRECTIONS: Place an OB dead center in the side pocket with the front of the ball accurately measured at 8" from the pocket edge. It should be marked off to the side with a piece of tape or notebook reinforcement because you'll be moving the CB to multiple spots.

Place the back of the CB centered 10" away from the 1st diamond at the other side pocket for a right cut shot. As you align the CB with the OB, straight in should look like it will hit the tip of the pocket. Address the CB with 1/2 tip of INSIDE English from center and the tip of your cue aimed at the CENTER of the OB. Then PIVOT back to the center of the CB and take the shot. It should go in.

Set the OB back to the same preset spot. Move the CB one more diamond away from the side pocket toward the corner pocket to increase the angle with the same 10" away. Address the CB the same way as above with inside offset aiming to center OB and then pivot back to center and take the shot. Should also go in even though it was the same aim point to center of OB and pivot to center.

Set the OB back and now move the CB 10" from the FIRST diamond on the END rail from the corner pocket of the rail you've been shooting from. Now a straight in shot would be aimed slightly more than one diamond beyond the side pocket for the OB.
Do everything the same as before. 1/2 tip inside center CB to center of OB and then pivot back to center of CB. You may make it or your may not. If you miss more than you make use ONE TIP of inside instead of 1/2 tip when pivoting back to center.

So the question is, WHY do these different angled shots all go in with the same starting offset, pivoting back to center, aiming at the CENTER of the OB?

The same results can be duplicated by aiming your tip at the CENTER of the OB while addressing the CENTER of the CB but pivoting 1/2 tip to OUTSIDE English.

As you increase the angle further, your new aim point will be 1/2 way between center and edge with the same tip offsets and either pivoting back to center CB from inside or outside from center.

Let's see who the doers are on the table and the keyboard bullsh*t artists are by battling with words and never getting on the table.

THE ABOVE IS NOT CTE!

I did try it, and it did work. Thanks for another "arrow". :thumbup:

As to the "why" it works, beats me. But, I did find it quite interesting in that regard. Here's another system that requires a pivot that puts one on the shot line. There is something there, a common denominator, that we all are missing that ties them all together.

I imagine that some day, when the truth is finally known, that it will actually be something so simple that some will ask how we did not see it right away. I'm quite sure there are still some other pieces to the puzzle out there just waiting to be discovered.

 

[Neil]

Stan, this is one of those "extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence". When you claim that your method uses "a perception that exists beyond what I've ever experienced" you have to expect some skepticism and be prepared to provide hard evidence of that.

With all due respect, your descriptions of "acquiring the visual" fall far short of hard evidence that it's anything very new - in fact, it sounds just about like what I already do: "acquire the visual" by feel using simple reference alignments as starting points and crosschecks.

Once again, let me emphasize that I don't think that's an argument against using CTE - obviously not, if I think it's like what I do. My only argument is that the claims made about how it works are fanciful.

Why do I keep saying this? Because you keep saying that. Fair is fair.

pj
chgo

Pat, we keep telling you, but you do not "hear". If and when you finally understand by actually trying the system as detailed, and understand the system, then you will see that the statements are not out in left field, but dead on.

The perception that exists beyond what you have ever experienced....Actually, that is dead on. And is the root of your problems with it. You keep inserting what you already do into it. And that is exactly where you keep failing. It is beyond what you do now. Totally different. You haven't yet experienced how to properly visualize the way CTE requires you to.

That doesn't mean that you will suddenly feel a great euphoria, or even that it is better than what you do now. It simply means that it is beyond what you do now. It is totally different. And, until you accept that, and let go of what you now do, you will never understand it.

 

[stan shuffett]

Stan, this is one of those "extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence". When you claim that your method uses "a perception that exists beyond what I've ever experienced" you have to expect some skepticism and be prepared to provide hard evidence of that.

With all due respect, your descriptions of "acquiring the visual" fall far short of hard evidence that it's anything very new - in fact, it sounds just about like what I already do: "acquire the visual" by feel using simple reference alignments as starting points and crosschecks.

Once again, let me emphasize that I don't think that's an argument against using CTE - obviously not, if I think it's like what I do. My only argument is that the claims made about how it works are fanciful.

Why do I keep saying this? Because you keep saying that. Fair is fair.

pj
chgo

PJ. YOU DO NOT KNOW CTE.....really and truly you know nothing about which you speak.
And like I said I do not care if you miss out on CTE.
Stan Shuffett

 

[Patrick Johnson]

PJ. YOU DO NOT KNOW CTE.....really and truly you know nothing about which you speak.
Stan Shuffett

Well, it's at least mutual, Stan - you know nothing about which I speak. You're not alone in that here, by a long shot.

No offense, and I'm sure you meant none.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I did try it, and it did work. Thanks for another "arrow". :thumbup:

As to the "why" it works, beats me. But, I did find it quite interesting in that regard. Here's another system that requires a pivot that puts one on the shot line. There is something there, a common denominator, that we all are missing that ties them all together.

I imagine that some day, when the truth is finally known, that it will actually be something so simple that some will ask how we did not see it right away. I'm quite sure there are still some other pieces to the puzzle out there just waiting to be discovered.

Tell the truth, did you use your imagination to create a ghost ball? How about a ghost ball center? Did you line up behind the OB to the pocket to determine the exact contact point? What about bobbing up and down like a lizard with your head and body to make your final tip adjustment through feel?

Amazing that such a simple system can make ALL angled shots from only 3 reference points with a 1/2 to one tip offset pivoting back to center or outside.

I can't wait for all the intellectual geniuses who say it can't possibly work that never got on the table to do it. This is going to be fun.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If and when you finally understand by actually trying the system as detailed, and understand the system, then you will see that the statements are not out in left field, but dead on.

I can follow the instructions right up to "acquire the visual". I've never seen a detailed description of that on a DVD, on YouTube or here, that tells me to do anything specific other than "learn it by experience", which I already know how to do.

Cut and paste any previous description you like, or give me a new one, and I'll let you know if it means anything new to me and why or why not.

pj
chgo

 

[tonythetiger583]

Where's the difference?

He chooses a fractional alignment, then adjusts his aim ("pivots") until he sees the shot picture ("visual") that he has learned to recognize by trial and error (practice) - just like all other aiming, and especially like fractional aiming.

You may like the details of your particular way of doing that better than the details of somebody else's particular way, but those are details - in general it's the same way: find the nearest fractional alignment and adjust from there by feel.

That doesn't make this method bad; it just means it isn't really very different from other ways of doing the same thing - it just suits you best.

pj
chgo

I think I get where you're coming from now. I can't prove to you whether it's feel based or not. I'm not part of that bandwagon. You're essentially asking an unprovable question. But I still don't get how you can write a primer on different types of aiming, and then be hypocritically biased on an entire category and just lumping it in with the rest.

 

[stan shuffett]

I can follow the instructions right up to "acquire the visual". I've never seen a detailed description of that on a DVD, on YouTube or here, that tells me to do anything specific other than "learn it by experience", which I already know how to do.

Cut and paste any previous description you like, or give me a new one, and I'll let you know if it means anything new to me and why or why not.

pj
chgo

Your goal is not to get CTE or even if you did you'd NEVER admit it. Your goal is to discredit CTE.
You have long lost any chance of discrediting real CTE.
Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

... DIRECTIONS: Place an OB dead center in the side pocket with the front of the ball accurately measured at 8" from the pocket edge. It should be marked off to the side with a piece of tape or notebook reinforcement because you'll be moving the CB to multiple spots.

Place the back of the CB centered 10" away from the 1st diamond at the other side pocket for a right cut shot. As you align the CB with the OB, straight in should look like it will hit the tip of the pocket. Address the CB with 1/2 tip of INSIDE English from center and the tip of your cue aimed at the CENTER of the OB. Then PIVOT back to the center of the CB and take the shot. It should go in.

Okay...the bridge being offset inside along with the pivot back to center results in an angle out of the collision of the two balls.

Set the OB back to the same preset spot. Move the CB one more diamond away from the side pocket toward the corner pocket to increase the angle with the same 10" away. Address the CB the same way as above with inside offset aiming to center OB and then pivot back to center and take the shot. Should also go in even though it was the same aim point to center of OB and pivot to center.

Okay... same as before & a margin for error of the pocket with a ball only 8" away. The first could go in the left side & this one into the center of the pocket.

Set the OB back and now move the CB 10" from the FIRST diamond on the END rail from the corner pocket of the rail you've been shooting from. Now a straight in shot would be aimed slightly more than one diamond beyond the side pocket for the OB.
Do everything the same as before. 1/2 tip inside center CB to center of OB and then pivot back to center of CB. You may make it or your may not. If you miss more than you make use ONE TIP of inside instead of 1/2 tip when pivoting back to center.

Okay some margin for error of the pocket with the ball being only 8" away & this one going into the right side of the pocket due to as you said a variation of the wider offset & pivot back to create an increased angle from the collision. You yourself here assign subjectivity onto the amount of offset & the pivot back

So the question is, WHY do these different angled shots all go in with the same starting offset, pivoting back to center, aiming at the CENTER of the OB?

The same results can be duplicated by aiming your tip at the CENTER of the OB while addressing the CENTER of the CB but pivoting 1/2 tip to OUTSIDE English.

As you increase the angle further, your new aim point will be 1/2 way between center and edge with the same tip offsets and either pivoting back to center CB from inside or outside from center.

Let's see who the doers are on the table and the keyboard bullsh*t artists are by battling with words and never getting on the table.

THE ABOVE IS NOT CTE!

You've answered your own questions as you've allowed variable offsets & pivots back. So...what does this have to do with whether or not CTE is a totally objective system or it also requires some subjective intuition based on past experience or similar acquired from the experience while 'learning' the system? It proves nothing relating to that question.

But... your test experient brings up the question of variable subjective pivots along with different bridge lengths.

What did you suppose this to prove?

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

 

[Neil]

Tell the truth, did you use your imagination to create a ghost ball? How about a ghost ball center? Did you line up behind the OB to the pocket to determine the exact contact point? What about bobbing up and down like a lizard with your head and body to make your final tip adjustment through feel?

Amazing that such a simple system can make ALL angled shots from only 3 reference points with a 1/2 to one tip offset pivoting back to center or outside.

I can't wait for all the intellectual geniuses who say it can't possibly work that never got on the table to do it. This is going to be fun.

I set up center to center, then took my eyes off the ob and only focused on the cb. Actually tilted my head down to where I could not see the ob at all. I then shifted to half tip, and then pivoted. And then shot making sure I used a straight stroke. The balls went in.

Some banks worked, some did not. In any case, it definitely merits further investigation. This just might be the "ticket" for those with trouble aiming that can't seem to follow CTE or 90/90.??

 

[Neil]

I can follow the instructions right up to "acquire the visual". I've never seen a detailed description of that on a DVD, on YouTube or here, that tells me to do anything specific other than "learn it by experience", which I already know how to do.

Cut and paste any previous description you like, or give me a new one, and I'll let you know if it means anything new to me and why or why not.

pj
chgo

Guess you didn't pay much attention to the DVD, or the you tube videos. I'm not going to go back through all of them, or rehash what has already been written here. The homework is up to you to do. I already did my own.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

You've answered your own questions as you've allowed variable offsets & pivots back. So...what does this have to do with whether or not CTE is a totally objective system or it also requires some subjective intuition based on past experience or similar acquired from the experience while 'learning' the system? It proves nothing relating to that question.

But... your test experient brings up the question of variable subjective pivots along with different bridge lengths.

What did you suppose this to prove?

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

Forget CTE for the time being and forget variable offsets. Use ONE offset which will be 1/2 tip, PERIOD. Use the same normal bridge length for each shot.

Guaranteed you absolutely did NOT get on the table and set it up as explained or you wouldn't be asking these inane questions. Granted, you may very well have a couple of questions which would be expected and I'd be happy to address them thoroughly with the answers. But I'm not going to do it with you on your butt behind the keyboard shooting theory and imagined scenarios.

Until you get on the table and just set it up, do not post back to me again. I tried going down a better path with you earlier and you came back from outer space with a response I couldn't even imagine from Rod Serling.