Stan is doing a video on his CTE based system . Pro 1
I don't know what other material is being covered though .
Spidey has been involved and probably knows what is being covered
Has anyone else seen the new series of articals on CTE by Roger Long?
- Thread starter manwon
- Start date
Stan is doing a video on his CTE based system . Pro 1
I don't know what other material is being covered though .
Spidey has been involved and probably knows what is being covered
Craig, In chapters 1 through 10 I will establish the exactness of basic CTE in its most pure form. The first 10 chapters will serve as a necessary foundation for PRO ONE as it will be presented in chapters 11 through 26.
Landon and Stevie Moore participated in the production. Filming was completed during the second week of July.
Hopefully, the DVD will be ready by no later than late fall.
Price has not been established at this time.
It's likely that I will begin taking orders about 30 days prior to release.
Thanks again to all at this forum for the positive support over the past few years.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
Allow me to be the first - welcome back, Patrick! Missed ya.
it's exact enough to make nearly every shot. It's nearly perfect in a frictionless world. Therefore, it's perfect up to a certain cut angle until CIT/cling affects the result when alignment/english adjustment is needed.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in the near future. Welcome back.
Welcome back, Patrick.
I do not think it's out of line to take 10 chapters(40-45 minutes) to explain a system that's been so controversial over the past few years.
I think most members on this forum will not fault me for taking less than an hour to present CTE as an exact center pocket aiming system.
Stan
Thanks for the response. I am glad you decided to do the video, and would like to get on any list for the video when you start taking orders.
There is nothing wrong with have a beleif which automatically puts you on one side or the other. However, telling others that their opinion is not welcome and telling them that they should leave a thread just because they do not agree with you is wrong, and so as long as everyone is respectful in my opinion that should never happen.
I think a big part of the problem on the INTERNET is that since we all are not face to face talking what we are thinking and the way it comes across when typed doesn't always add up to the same thing and this is what in most cases creates most the drama that occurs.
Thanks for your post
Stan-
Agreed. Speaking for one. Looking forward to it.
Take Care.
PS: Spidey's recent mellowness is noted.
For those who are interested in discussing CTE and similar methods in a civil, non-controversial manner you can join the CTE Study Group here - http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/cte-students/messages
We have 80 members and so far not one fight.
Stan, please count me as a buyer for your DVD. Ron Vitello, please count me as a buyer for yours.
We have 80 members and so far not one fight.
Stan, please count me as a buyer for your DVD. Ron Vitello, please count me as a buyer for yours.
As to the article's content I feel that any time one group of people refuses to learn something but they denounce it as impossible to those who have learned it then there will be major friction.
I look at it as a situation where someone comes across a method that is not yet deciphered by science who tries to explain it to a scientist.
On the surface the scientist thinks that the way the person is describing their experience is impossible to exist. Therefore the scientist, in the absence of going and getting the same experience, can only attempt to explain the phenomena in terms of what they know to that point.
I am reminded of the recent discovery of how acupuncture works to relive pain. For 3000 years Chinese doctors have been putting needles into people's muscles to relieve pain. A lot of Western doctors and scientist have said that acupuncture is hooey which does not and cannot work and that any relief reported by an acupuncture patient is hallucinatory and a result of the placebo effect.
In recent years however some doctors have come around to believe that acupuncture does work but they didn't know exactly how.
Recently science has discovered that when the muscle is stimulated with a needle that it releases a natural painkiller. So now they know not only that it works but how it works.
For years however many people would have terrible debates and arguments about acupuncture with the "science" side accusing the other side of being blind and going on faith and deluding themselves.
So it's clear that any such method which cannot or has not been adequately explained by "science" is likely to result in some major disputes. Especially when there are some very strong voices on the "science" side who are authors and instructors and who have reputations to protect. This is the case in all walks of life. People form their views, take their stands and grow roots in a few concepts of how life is and they will spend a fortune in time defending that position rather than going to the source and investigating it.
This is how I see CTE. I see that those who know it well are persecuted by those who don't know it all and this leads to major tension. I have yet to see one of the opponents of CTE say that they went to Hal Houle or Stan Shuffet or Dave Segal to receive instruction and still don't believe that it works.
I personally believe that an article saying people disagree was not needed.
Then answer to the question of why someone who asks "innocent questions" would be seen as antagonistic is because when a person jumps into the fray in an already vitriolic situation they cannot be neutral as one side or the other will want to claim them. In other words there are no innocent and neutral questions. If someone wants to stay out of it then they should stay out of it and wait for the book or video.
The fact of the matter is that until there IS a book or video then the controversy will continue, as this thread so far has already proven.
I look at it as a situation where someone comes across a method that is not yet deciphered by science who tries to explain it to a scientist.
On the surface the scientist thinks that the way the person is describing their experience is impossible to exist. Therefore the scientist, in the absence of going and getting the same experience, can only attempt to explain the phenomena in terms of what they know to that point.
I am reminded of the recent discovery of how acupuncture works to relive pain. For 3000 years Chinese doctors have been putting needles into people's muscles to relieve pain. A lot of Western doctors and scientist have said that acupuncture is hooey which does not and cannot work and that any relief reported by an acupuncture patient is hallucinatory and a result of the placebo effect.
In recent years however some doctors have come around to believe that acupuncture does work but they didn't know exactly how.
Recently science has discovered that when the muscle is stimulated with a needle that it releases a natural painkiller. So now they know not only that it works but how it works.
For years however many people would have terrible debates and arguments about acupuncture with the "science" side accusing the other side of being blind and going on faith and deluding themselves.
So it's clear that any such method which cannot or has not been adequately explained by "science" is likely to result in some major disputes. Especially when there are some very strong voices on the "science" side who are authors and instructors and who have reputations to protect. This is the case in all walks of life. People form their views, take their stands and grow roots in a few concepts of how life is and they will spend a fortune in time defending that position rather than going to the source and investigating it.
This is how I see CTE. I see that those who know it well are persecuted by those who don't know it all and this leads to major tension. I have yet to see one of the opponents of CTE say that they went to Hal Houle or Stan Shuffet or Dave Segal to receive instruction and still don't believe that it works.
I personally believe that an article saying people disagree was not needed.
Then answer to the question of why someone who asks "innocent questions" would be seen as antagonistic is because when a person jumps into the fray in an already vitriolic situation they cannot be neutral as one side or the other will want to claim them. In other words there are no innocent and neutral questions. If someone wants to stay out of it then they should stay out of it and wait for the book or video.
The fact of the matter is that until there IS a book or video then the controversy will continue, as this thread so far has already proven.
Last edited:
Very pleased to see that eventually the DVD is coming. Will definately buy it, I'm looking forward to the coming fall.
Ladies and gentleman, this thread is not designed to carry on previous discussions about the pro's and con's of CTE. The only purpose of this thread was to bring the current and future articles about CTE that are being written by Roger Long to the attention of the forum as a whole, along with other information such as the DVD's that are being made. Mr Long is a Certified BCA Instructor who is taking his personal time to offer information to the AZ Community. This is not a study group so please save your opinions whether positive or negative for another discussion or for a study group of your choice.
In my opinion Mr. Long deserves the same respect as all forum members and that is to participate and to discuss pool related topics, and apparently the forum owner "AZ House Pro" must agree that Mr. long is qualified and knowledgeable enough to do so or he would not be included in the Columns section of this forum as an instructor and these articles would not be published in that section.
I would recommend that those who have information and knowledge that they would like to share, should contact the AZ House Pro and ask to publish a column, I am sure that those who are qualified will be allowed to share their knowledge.
Thanks for everyones opinion and interest concerning this subject, I am certain that Mr. long appreciates your interest also.
Have a great night
In my opinion Mr. Long deserves the same respect as all forum members and that is to participate and to discuss pool related topics, and apparently the forum owner "AZ House Pro" must agree that Mr. long is qualified and knowledgeable enough to do so or he would not be included in the Columns section of this forum as an instructor and these articles would not be published in that section.
I would recommend that those who have information and knowledge that they would like to share, should contact the AZ House Pro and ask to publish a column, I am sure that those who are qualified will be allowed to share their knowledge.
Thanks for everyones opinion and interest concerning this subject, I am certain that Mr. long appreciates your interest also.
Have a great night
I hope I didn't come off wrong . It was meant as a joke . Roger told me how eager he thought people were take sides about the subject and how they seem to take offense quickly . I am sorry if I came off wrong . I am a CTE user , is it perfect ? I dont know , because I am not perfect . Did it improve my performance ? ABSOLUTELY
Last edited:
John, I don't have a dog in this fight (don't use CTE, not gonna try to learn it just now, I need to be able to develop a consistent stroke before venturing into any "system", I'm still at baby-step level), so I'm pretty objective about the discussion aspect of it all.
I believe you will find more "civility" if you stop going on about being "persecuted" when someone disputes the belief in CTE. I agree that there are some who stoop to name-calling and other foolishness, but other than those folks the discussion here has been reasonable. Certainly as reasonable as anyone could expect on an internet forum. I believe Roger has been civil for the most part in these discussions. Yes, there was a day or two where he perhaps was "less than", but he did apologize and continued to participate in a civil manner after that.
I do believe a lot of the explosiveness in these CTE threads come from your rabid defense of the concept. You have made yourself a target for those who would be less than civil. And other than in a completely moderated Yahoo discussion group you will always find someone to stir the pot.
I can see how strongly you feel about the benefits of CTE. I think thats great. Don't get so caught up in it's defense. If it's all that its purported to be Stans video will show everyone. Certainly you can cut back on proclaiming to being "persecuted" because someone doesn't agree with you. If everyone agreed, why bother to have a forum in the first place?
As much as it pains me to say this, (well, maybe only a little) I think Patrick has really summed up the central issue in all these CTE Wars. CTE is a tool, even a system if want, and it works just fine to a certain degree. But all the video and CAD drawings in the world are not going to ever prove it's exact or perfect.
CTE is kind of like the old 3C "Spot-on-the-Wall" system. For those that don't know it, it's basically is a quick system where you stand behind one corner of the table, pick a spot on the wall, or a chair, or another table -- preferably around 10 feet away -- that is lined up with the traditional three-rail aiming spot on the first rail. Once you have "the spot" picked out, you can aim at that spot from somewhere else on the table near the first rail, to successfully kick three rails to the opposite corner pocket. Does it work from everywhere along the first rail? No. Is it perfect? No. Is it handy to know as a reference tool? Yes.
This is a true story (insert flashback music): I was playing Efren at the US Open 1pocket tournament up in Kalamazoo one year. As you might expect, he kept tying me up so bad that several times I had to kick to get safe. Anywhos, one shot he leaves a ball in the jaws of his pocket, hides the cue ball and I have no alternative but to go for the three rail kick. So the cue ball is kind of in an odd spot near the rail just below the side pocket on my side and I'm not sure of the angle. Oh, did I mention a couple hundred people are sweating the match? So now I'm thinking to myself, "I have no clue how to hit this" and I really don't want to look like a total boob and wiff the ball with a bad kick. And then I remember the "Spot-on-the-Wall" system. So I stand behind my pocket, figure the spot on the wall, go back to the cue ball, aim at the spot on the wall, adjust for it to go long because of the new cloth and balls, shoot at the spot on the wall, make the shot clean as a whistle, the crowd bursts into applause, Efren smiles.
CTE is kind of like that -- a handy tool. But a perfect exact system -- no.
Lou Figueroa
If a simple diagram can show that contact point to contact point is exact or that ghost ball is exact, please explain why a CAD drawing can't show that CTE is exact?
That's like saying, "All the globes in the world will never prove the world isn't flat."
First, one article does not make a series. That takes more than one or two.
Second, this "series" of aticles seems to be more focus on why one may believe one way or the other way and nothing really about how CTE works.
Third, to be exact, there are no "aiming systems". They are all visualization methods. Its not like aiming a gun where you have a front and rear sight to line up. There are no "hard" points to line up like on gun. You have to visualize everything.
There is exactness in making a shot. The exactness is in that the object ball and cue ball will go exactly to positions on the table based on how you hit the cue ball. The inexactness comes from the player not being able to be exact in their execution of the shot. Exactness comes from exact visualization.
Exactness in executon also comes from hours on hours on hours at the table paying attention to all the little things that happen in making a shot and how a small change can have a big affect.
There are no shortcuts.
FWIW
Second, this "series" of aticles seems to be more focus on why one may believe one way or the other way and nothing really about how CTE works.
Third, to be exact, there are no "aiming systems". They are all visualization methods. Its not like aiming a gun where you have a front and rear sight to line up. There are no "hard" points to line up like on gun. You have to visualize everything.
There is exactness in making a shot. The exactness is in that the object ball and cue ball will go exactly to positions on the table based on how you hit the cue ball. The inexactness comes from the player not being able to be exact in their execution of the shot. Exactness comes from exact visualization.
Exactness in executon also comes from hours on hours on hours at the table paying attention to all the little things that happen in making a shot and how a small change can have a big affect.
There are no shortcuts.
FWIW