Yup, the whole topic of aiming is caustic. A lightning rod topic (I'm NOT sorry, Tim
). That's why this subforum was enaCTEd.-Sean
How to Aim Pool Shots (HAPS) - new videos by Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Yup, the whole topic of aiming is caustic. A lightning rod topic (I'm NOT sorry, Tim
). That's why this subforum was enaCTEd.-Sean
Yup, the whole topic of aiming is caustic. A lightning rod topic (I'm NOT sorry, Tim
-Sean
Yeah I get it, but I just don't quite understand why. I have a Poli Sci background so that stuff kind of fascinates me. I understand why people are impassioned about subjects that involve a right (or perceived right depending on your position) like abortion, gun control, civil rights, but aiming pool shots doesn't seem to belong in that group but it generates the same sort of heated debate with little room for persuasion on either side.
I wasn't around when the supposedly "bitter and nasty" aiming wars took place. However, I obviously know Stan quite well now. I have a reasonable comprehension of how he has poured his heart and soul into his development of CTE/Pro One and the two DVD's he has created. When you factor in the hours he has invested in just developing the DVD's (doesn't include the thousands of hours he spent developing his knowledge of CTE/Pro One) and the cost of publishing the DVD's, it should be obvious this isn't a profit motivated endeavor on his part.
Since I've been a member here, I constantly see people such as Thaiger, 8 pack, Lou and others taunting, baiting and posting blatantly false statements about CTE/Pro One. I'm not sure why the Mods allow it. On one hand, they banished aiming threads to it's own forum because of the flame wars but then they allow this behavior to continue. If someone doesn't agree with the "claims" made by Stan, does that give them a right to flame him and CTE/Pro One? I don't see CTE/Pro One advocates continuously flaming other aiming methods. I know I don't care about other aiming methods. Fact is, hundreds of thousands of pool players use other aiming methods, many quite well. I don't care one bit what aiming method they use. However, when I see someone attack CTE/Pro One falsely and attack Stan personally, I most often do have a response.
I respect Dr. Dave but also recognize his passive aggressive stance towards CTE/Pro One. That's his business but I don't buy is "I'm innocent blah, blah, blah" responses. Since he is a scientist, engineer, rather than post crap he reads on AZB and call it fact, he should either post nothing or make sure what he has posted is factual. He has invited Stan to provide the text for him to post on his site. I hope Stan accepts Dr Dave's invitation to do that and then we'll see what the end result is.
Why do low lifes like Thaiger, 8 pack and Lou (and many others) continuously bait Stan and attack him and his work personally? No idea, I guess they're such little people they are jealous of what Stan is and what he has accomplished. I think if people vigorously attacked Dr. Dave's work, you'd see similar responses. I happen to like and respect what Dr. Dave has done and don't see why there needs to be an either/or or why there seems to be any competition there. Most of what Stan and Dr. Dave have to offer is unique and both people are big contributors to this sport we love. In fighting is stupid and counter productive IMHO.
Something Wrong here
Ok lets see. You call me delusional and it was my conversation with Justadub that you broke into and started all this.
My anti-cte comments. Don't think so I don't recall doing anything except saying it was a great product...but personally since you ask I aim just fine and don't need it. So Im not anti-cte....Im just Pro Robin.
CTE like anything is made up of parts and pieces so reference is pretty accurate. You would act as if CTE is the only way to play pool and that's is more to pool than just an aiming system. This whole thing of connecting into the Geometry of the Table is well.... sure anyone can do that with any aiming system. Lines and points can be found to pockets and rails from any system.
As for tearing my playhouse down....really...I do this for some really serious fun and I plan to share my ideas with people but that's the extent of it. How they view it is up to them, I don't plan on being this defensive and as for this market...all yours.
Its obvious that you know nothing about the Real Robin, the Real Robin connects up to all points in the universe and is at peace with it. I wish for you the same.
Ok lets see. You call me delusional and it was my conversation with Justadub that you broke into and started all this.
My anti-cte comments. Don't think so I don't recall doing anything except saying it was a great product...but personally since you ask I aim just fine and don't need it. So Im not anti-cte....Im just Pro Robin.
CTE like anything is made up of parts and pieces so reference is pretty accurate. You would act as if CTE is the only way to play pool and that's is more to pool than just an aiming system. This whole thing of connecting into the Geometry of the Table is well.... sure anyone can do that with any aiming system. Lines and points can be found to pockets and rails from any system.
As for tearing my playhouse down....really...I do this for some really serious fun and I plan to share my ideas with people but that's the extent of it. How they view it is up to them, I don't plan on being this defensive and as for this market...all yours.
Its obvious that you know nothing about the Real Robin, the Real Robin connects up to all points in the universe and is at peace with it. I wish for you the same.
I stand corrected
Sean,
I stand corrected and appreciate the candor and honesty of some of your earlier posts on this subject although I cannot pretend to like the situation. It is what it is and people are certainly to blame.
Yup, the whole topic of aiming is caustic. A lightning rod topic (I'm NOT sorry, Tim
-Sean
Sean,
I stand corrected and appreciate the candor and honesty of some of your earlier posts on this subject although I cannot pretend to like the situation. It is what it is and people are certainly to blame.
opinions
A couple of things
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts. The facts here are in typed.
This argument reminds me of liberals (CTE) vs conservative (non CTE). To a liberal 1+1= anything but 2, because the conservatives say it equals 2.
Because you don't like his true statement, why is it trolling? Please see my first statement.
That ends today's lesson and there is no charge for a DVD
A couple of things
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts. The facts here are in typed.
This argument reminds me of liberals (CTE) vs conservative (non CTE). To a liberal 1+1= anything but 2, because the conservatives say it equals 2.
Because you don't like his true statement, why is it trolling? Please see my first statement.
That ends today's lesson and there is no charge for a DVD
It is obvious that you do not understand CTE PRO ONE. If you had an understanding of the system, a real working knowledge, you would not be making the comments that you are. It is plain and simple..you speak about CTE PRO ONE with no experience....basically just idle talk. Sorry, but it is the truth.
Stan Shuffett
Get your digs in ,,, Nowhere have I ever said a forum member can not have their opinion.
When I see something that is incorrect about CTE PRO ONE or directly about me... I typically express the correction.
It will be a sad day for some when the math bears out what I have been teaching for the past few years.
Rest assured, it's coming one day.
Stan Shuffett
Sean,
I have kept an extremely low profile concerning marketing. No one sees DVD pictures on this post or the link to my website or anything of the sort. It has been that way since day one.
I have consistently over and over shared my findings based on a vast amount of work.
I have done nothing more than to share the truth. In no way have I been over the top with marketing.
Yes, I hate the DAM paragraph. PERIOD. I know what is really behind it but I will refrain from divulging my thoughts about that.
I appreciate your interest in my work. I hope that you can undertake a serious math study of CTE. For sure, I do not sit idly by in that department. Many would be surprised with my efforts that have taken place in that area. Of course, it is impossible to share the extent of what I have done....I would just be ridiculed...tired of it.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
Stan, for as long as I have known about the CTE approach and the many versions that have been proposed over the years (from Hal, Spidey, others, and more recently you), I have been trying to come up with this "math" that you speak of (for about 12 years). The best I've been able to do is here:
the principles explaining how the CTE approach works for the people who use it effectively
I hope you don't take this as disrespectful. It is simply my analysis based on everything I have seen, read, viewed, and discussed over these many years with many different proponents of these systems. I mean no disrespect by my analysis and opinions. It is just the best I can do to explain what is happening geometrically during the "alignments," "visualizations," "pivots," and "perceptions" of the CTE approach.
Now, if somebody offers other "math," illustrations, and/or descriptions that do a better job of explaining how these systems actually work, I would be more than happy to share this with others by posting links or quotes on my CTE resource page. If you spot something like this, please let me know about it.
I and others (e.g., Colin Colenso and Mike Page) have also worked hard to document and summarize all of the benefits pivot-based aiming systems like CTE can provide to people who use them effectively. This is also not meant to be disrespectful in any way. On the contrary, I think it praises the inherent value of these "aiming systems."
Stan, I've done my best to be respectful and non-confrontational to you. Please read back through all of my posts in this thread (in response to you) and try to re-judge them with an open mind. I hope you will see that I have no disrespect for you personally, and I am just presenting my objective position. I certainly have nothing to gain by trying to diminish you in any way, nor is it my intent to do this.
Best regards, and with respect,
Dave
You called me a troll for expressing my opinion.......
What does math have to do with anything? Do you not understand that some people just prefer different aiming systems? There are other ways to aim and you are against anyone who uses anything other than CTE. You knock every other system and say that CTE is the only way to aim. For most people, aiming is not the problem. It is their stroke. What good is CTE or any other system if you can't hit CCB consistently?
There is zero math on your site that is related to CTE PRO ONE. Your math is a simplistic incorrect adjustment math for Cte Pro One which is exactly how you want CTE forever portrayed.
The 2 CTE visuals provide aim lines for the zillion shots on on 2x1 table to many pockets of the six and most of the time to the desired pocket ! Do you show that? Can you show that? Can you shoot a few shots on video and explain that you actually understand the perceptual/ mathematical task involved? Do you you fully realize the perceptual nature of CTE that occurs other than by some 2D presentation?
You can demonstrate your respect by taking your DAM paragraph down and by removing your incorrect presentation of CTE PRO ONE... That you put up on your site right after my DVD 1 was released and without permission I might add.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
Stan,
I think it is obvious at this point that no further communication between us on this matter will be of value, so I'll let you have the last word here. My offers to post corrections and improvements still stand.
I honesty wish you success with your product, and I look forward to seeing any future developments or improvements.
Regards,
Dave
Soo...E.3....
I'm guessing the closer the cut is to 30 degrees the more English is required to make it gearing English? How much effect does speed have on the gearing effect? And is there an ideal speed the shot should be stroked to give the biggest margin for error in eliminating throw?
Almost every pro uses outside English on the money ball, all hit it firm. I doubt they calculate the precise tip position needed for a gearing effect, but probably just hit it with a little outside. I always assumed the firm hits were down to not leaving it hanging if you miss, and also its more natural to stroke a ball firm than at pocket speed and most can stroke truer on a firm shot...if that makes sense.
I'm guessing the closer the cut is to 30 degrees the more English is required to make it gearing English? How much effect does speed have on the gearing effect? And is there an ideal speed the shot should be stroked to give the biggest margin for error in eliminating throw?
Almost every pro uses outside English on the money ball, all hit it firm. I doubt they calculate the precise tip position needed for a gearing effect, but probably just hit it with a little outside. I always assumed the firm hits were down to not leaving it hanging if you miss, and also its more natural to stroke a ball firm than at pocket speed and most can stroke truer on a firm shot...if that makes sense.
Actually, the amount of sidespin required for gearing outside english increases with cut angle. More is required for 30 compared to 20, but more is also required for 40 vs. 30. However, the system accounts for this automatically.
... practically no effect (except for long, slow shots where some of the CB sidespin wears off on the way to the OB).
If the exact gearing amount of sidespin is used, there is absolutely no throw, regardless of the shot speed. Now, if you are off with the amount of spin, in general faster speed will result in less throw.
... they don't need to "calculate" it, because they have a good natural feel for what works based on lots of past successful experience.
Agreed. Firmer speed has several advantages:
- truer stroke, in general (unless the stroke speed is too fast)
- less throw
- less chance for table roll off
Regards,
Dave
You, but not you alone, understand that CTE PRO ONE works.
You have never offered up even so much as a single shot that doesn't.
If it didn't work as prescribed you'd be all over it with examples that show obvious adjustment. So, since you can not do that, you have just left it alone. Please do not pretend that you have worked on CTE math for 12 years. LOL
You KNOW already what must be done to your site! Please do it.
When it boils down to the nuts and bolts of real CTE and its real math, you're ready to stop communicating.
Get in there and figure it out. Someone will.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
Pidge or anyone else I used the information about Gearing last night in a long One Pocket match. I had several long shots that I needed Outside English on the cue ball to widen the cue ball spin off the rail. I've not been real big on conscious backhand English applications I tend to use parallel adjustments but am becoming very fond of it. I shot one and missed it and later on had a feel for what I needed to do and I fired in several shots to the place where I felt a Center Ball hit would go and fired cue ball with outside English using a Back Hand Adjustment which applied Outside English. It feels sort of funny first time or two that you do it but when all that spin hits the object ball you sort of hear a certain whack and then you see the ball go straight in the pocket,..... that's good stuff, definitely a game enhancement. It speaks very well of the series, very useful information.
When someone who is truly unbiased (like you two, StraightPoolIU and 336Robin), looking at this whole thing from the outside results in a serious head-scratching. I mean, aiming. Aiming(!).
Why is this topic so impassioned? I can only offer two possible explanations:
1. The marketing of some of the alternate systems' creators immediately attacked "the established" method of learning. I remember seeing posts from Hal Houle on RSB that dripped with the notion, "if you really want to know the secret of why 'all the pros' (notice the phraseology here -Sean) are as good as they are, come hither and I will show you how. It's called CTE." And the obvious knee-jerk reaction to this kind of marketing approach is a "Say WHAT?!?"
2. Once that tone was established, everything from that point on was adversarial. Like it or not, the CTE camp made their own bed here. Not all of them, of course, but NOW they had to follow in Hal's wake and stick up for him. Once you make the first step in calling out established teachings and attack them, it's all on you (meaning, Hal and his followers) to prove why. And the other side is just as guilty as well -- it does take two to fight, remember.
Personally, I'm a big fan of finding better ways of doing things. Especially if they are mathematically linked to the geometry of the playing surface. That should be EASY to prove, right? Unfortunately, 15, 20 years (or so) on, noone has.
And here we are. The vitriolic nature of this seemingly religious topic, aiming(!), can trace its roots to its founder, who set the tone from the get-go.
Hate to say it (because I think it's roughly analogous to ripping the ignition system from the pool-playing car, because "it causes flames"), but this is certainly a case of the forum learning how to deal with its subject matter as time went on. It's an adaptation that because the topic of aiming is so caustic now, it had to be moved into its own subforum.
I don't like it one bit. In fact, I HATE that the very-basic topic of aiming and alignment -- so crucial to good pool -- has to be treated with kid gloves; as if you're walking on egg shells. But like I said, it's an adaptation due to the long-proven history of certain parties.
-Sean
Stan:
The problem is that you are now riding in the wake left behind by those before you -- including Hal, as he was the first. I remember Hal's "come hither if you ever want to learn the secrets of the pro's abilities" posts that started all this. It's possible that in real life Hal is not like this at all. But he set the tone in writing.
Be careful with that word, "truth," by the way. Your "truth" isn't truth to others, unless you prove it. And I don't mean "prove it" with videos showing you shooting shots under a curtain or anything like that. Execution of a technique doesn't "prove" the underpinnings (the math) of that technique. I can get on a table and run 100 balls in 14.1 -- and before I do it say I will use CTE on all those shots -- but what am I really proving? I certainly am not proving "the truth," only that I played or shot well. Execution of a technique, and proving that technique, are two distinctly different things.
You'll be receiving an order from me, shortly. I don't have a lot of time in my personal time, but I will use what I can to start putting together a plan for finding the math behind CTE. As part of my home repair and general hobby toolkit, I have laser levels and laser line pointers to paint accurate lines on the table. I'm interested in the relationship between the CTEL (the half-ball hit alignment), the three different visuals (CTE "A," "B," and "C"), and that half-tip pivot -- all related to the geometry of the table.
-Sean
Yes, Sean, I understand that Hal did stir things up but I have come to understand that he thoroughly and truly understood that CTE absolutely connects to a 2x1 table.
There is an undeniable truth there:
Change the table and real CTE will NOT work.
Change The CTE perceptions and the system will not connect.
I have been at it a long time....years.....thousands of hours. I know what I know and a body of math will likely emerge one day that supports real CTE in a very strong way.
Since CTE is so perceptually based I doubt you will find your lasers and other such tools of real help. Bottom line...you will be dealing with a system that was never supposed to be.....there is a reason why it will be a toughie for anyone to assign math solution for......it can be done though IMO.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited: