GoldenFlash
Banned
Hello.
In the Private Message place on here, can you tell me where you play?
I think I'd like to visit and play you a few.
Any game except 3 cushion will be fine.
Regards,
Flash
John Schmidt says CTE works after all.
- Thread starter Sloppy Pockets
- Start date
In the Private Message place on here, can you tell me where you play?
I think I'd like to visit and play you a few.
Any game except 3 cushion will be fine.
Regards,
Flash
So you aren't getting spots any more?
Did you get a home table, cause last we heard nobody knew you at Edgie's which I find unbelievable as you claim to have put in over 2000 hours of practice there?
Finally don't assume.
Did you get a home table, cause last we heard nobody knew you at Edgie's which I find unbelievable as you claim to have put in over 2000 hours of practice there?
Finally don't assume.
Last edited:
A lot of crap and personal attacks..But the thread itself is not really about the substance of CTE, it's claims or even its usefulness. The OP's post was about how John Schmidt had been personally convinced that CTE works by a buddy. Let's forget how this is nothing like JS personally investigating the system: Let's instead focus on what would happen if he did and found it to work brilliantly.
Does that mean that it is a perfect, objective aiming system? NO
Does it mean that it will automatically work for every person? NO
Does it mean that it works better than anything out there? NO
I can't be the only one to notice that the CTE-pros or other system pros were all great players long before they started using CTE (with the possible exception of Stans son). Could that possibly mean that CTE is not the main cause of their success, but rather other factors such as eyesight, hand to eye coordination, drive to practice, persistance or all those factors combined with even more, what we call "talent"?
Sometimes when you investigate techniques used by pros, in any field, you will find that the techniques they use give no advantages (or rather give tremendous disadvantages) to amateurs. Without the talent or training behind you, it is simply impossible to execute the moves they make. Often they do things that are tremendously difficult, just for the tiniest bit of an advantage, while an amateur doing the same thing would break down. If you watched the guy in the CTE snooker thread, you'd see that a lot of factors have to come together for this system to work. He was constantly missing a simple shot in the side that most snooker players would make 10 times in a row without a sweat, the side pocket being the easiest on the table.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUh1km4lwNE
I'm not claiming to be superior to this guy, in fact I looked pretty much the same when I tried CTE on the snooker table, I do seem to remember missing most shots consistently to one side or the other but a miss is a miss. Maybe some people are not cut out for this system. I consider myself to be one of those people. If you can make it work, that's great.
Does that mean that it is a perfect, objective aiming system? NO
Does it mean that it will automatically work for every person? NO
Does it mean that it works better than anything out there? NO
I can't be the only one to notice that the CTE-pros or other system pros were all great players long before they started using CTE (with the possible exception of Stans son). Could that possibly mean that CTE is not the main cause of their success, but rather other factors such as eyesight, hand to eye coordination, drive to practice, persistance or all those factors combined with even more, what we call "talent"?
Sometimes when you investigate techniques used by pros, in any field, you will find that the techniques they use give no advantages (or rather give tremendous disadvantages) to amateurs. Without the talent or training behind you, it is simply impossible to execute the moves they make. Often they do things that are tremendously difficult, just for the tiniest bit of an advantage, while an amateur doing the same thing would break down. If you watched the guy in the CTE snooker thread, you'd see that a lot of factors have to come together for this system to work. He was constantly missing a simple shot in the side that most snooker players would make 10 times in a row without a sweat, the side pocket being the easiest on the table.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUh1km4lwNE
I'm not claiming to be superior to this guy, in fact I looked pretty much the same when I tried CTE on the snooker table, I do seem to remember missing most shots consistently to one side or the other but a miss is a miss. Maybe some people are not cut out for this system. I consider myself to be one of those people. If you can make it work, that's great.
Last edited:
I have miss-called a few shots over the years due to sweep, very few. ( Landon has won 7 national championships using specific sweep knowledge.)
The side pocket shot for the snooker video is actually 45 outside. The full stance perceptions are now basically FOOL PROOF.......
A week ago Tyler Styer of WI, CTE student, player and instructtor, qualified for the US OPEN 14.1 at Red Shoes. That was his 1st 14.1,event and he won against solid players. His game has improved at least 3 balls in the last 2 years and he is still on the upward move......He will be sharing his knowledge with many solid players to include pros......The argument that Landon is a loner does not hold water......
More and more upper level players to include professionals are going to be using CTE....
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
I really started the thread to show that even world-class players say things off the cuff that they later regret saying. In light of this, I believe we should not hang on their every word, but should try things out and make our own discoveries instead.
I don't think anyone ever said it is perfect, nor did anyone ever say the entire system is objective. The lines are objective, and they lead to the correct shot line once you can utilize them correctly.
No, it doesn't work automatically. For anyone. In fact, I think it may come a lot harder to folks who have used ghost ball or fractional overlap aiming methods all their lives. Totally different way to align to the aiming line, and I'm sure it does not feel right in the beginning. I'm suspect many give up at that point. Their loss.
Anyway, no claims of such nonsense were ever made. In fact, Stan has said on numerous occasion that it takes a ton of work to master the system. He himself has worked full time on it for years. Does that sound "automatic" to you?
BTW are there any aiming systems/methods that work automatically?
No, but it seems to work a lot more consistently than many do.
This is not a "pro" forum, but many folks of varying abilities have claimed the system has improved their game over the method(s) they were using before.
Funny, I heard that argument from a league player, who told me not to bother to watch the pros because it would be harmful to my game since they were just doing trick shots. Lol
I have learned a ton from watching the pros and listening to expert commentary that has helped my game. Sure, there are many things they do that I wouldn't attempt in a game, but good play is good play. For example, I've never see a great player take a flier on a tough, low-percentage shot when a good safety is available, but I have seen hundreds of league players drive balls into the rails when they should have just played safe. Bottom line is if you can't do what the pros can do, you will never, ever beat them.
For someone who has recognized that this wasn't supposed to be a thread about the claims or usefulness of CTE, you sure had a lot to say about those things, didn't ya?
BTW thanks to everybody for hijacking the thread and turning it into yet another AZB clusterf*ck. Special thanks goes out to English Rick, for without his tireless dedication to becoming the most prolific poster in AZ history, we would all be clueless about the game.
I tried to comment on the significance of JS changing his mind, and what the significance would be if he tried it. The rest came naturally from that. I'm sorry if that pissed you off. I was trying to illustrate the weakness that is inherent in testimonials.
It's too cheap to blame English for all the problems on this forum, and frankly it isn't fair either. I can't believe how much mudslinging is happening with no consequences at all. Besides there are a million threads on CTE, if English is such a nuisance to you can just block him and enjoy all the CTE content that you want, and if that is not enough Stan has lots of videos on youtube. It's not like you are starved of CTE information.
Very well said. I'm sorry that your thread go so derailed. This is exactly why I didn't want to get involved in it.
Like I said earlier though, I will be in Vegas in July for the BCA's. It would be nice to meet some of you..
Banks
Banned
Coming from one of the least knowledgeable players on here, ill take that as a compliment. You and Rick should have a subforum under this one, where you say stuff that makes no sense and he goes on for days disagreeing with it.
Next time i drive to socal, ill stop by milpitas and look for the guy that ducks every player that's ever offered a challenge.
Been there done that and it does not work, because when a blocked member is quoted, you can still read their post.
I'm not pissed at you at all. Sorry to come off that way. It's not like you were the one that derailed the thread. I just wanted to make my opposing viewpoints heard. No need to look at that as me being angry at you.
Now as for Rick, well now, THERE I have to differ with you. HE derailed the thread with his very first post on page 1:
Then after a few more posts filled with more drivel about subjectivity, I asked him to stop hijacking my threads. He informed me that it was not "my thread" (funny because he was the one crying when folks were posting stuff he didn't like on HIS threads
), and basically told me to fu*k off.Look, I don't come on here for "CTE info", I come on here to relax and talk pool with fellow players in a non-adversarial manner, about all aspects of the game, not just aiming. Not aiming at all, in general. I aim quite well already. I'm just intrigued with CTE because it works in spite of seeming like it can't. And I like to try to understand things that I don't already know about.
Rick's presence on here AZB is like a cancer IMO, a cancer that has now metastasized beyond the borders of the aiming forum. Numerous highly intelligent posters would agree with this assessment. Blocking him does nothing to keep a thread I am interested in from being hijacked, so I fail to see your point there. He spoils all the enjoyment, and I KNOW he knows it, and is doing it just out of spite. He's not the only one here who does that, but he is the current heavyweight champ by a large margin.
I personally have no power to ban him, or I would do so in a heartbeat and never allow him to post another word here. What I can do is to try to make his stay here as unpleasant as he makes mine. So, for every asinine remarks he makes I intend to return fire in his direction.
I'm not the player I once was after an eye accident & a ruptured disc in my back, but I can on occasion be once the player that I ever was, to sort of paraphrase Toby Keith.
But could you first explain why it is that you would like play me a few?
And then after that, can you explain to me what exactly it is that is objective that takes you to the TOTALLY DIFFERENT SHOT LINES when based off of THE EXACT SAME VISUAL & using the EXACT SAME PIVOT or sweep?
After you've answered those two questions to my satisfaction, I may PM you & set up those few games.
Personally, I do not think your post is sincere at all.
But, Like I have told you numerous times now, I am glad for you that you are playing well while utilizing it.
I and most others have never said that one can not play well while utilizing it.
Too many take offense just because the nature of the method has been questioned & continues to be questioned because no rational logical answer has ever been given.
If I were to say that me spinning around 4 times & then looking at a shot & crossing my eyes always yields the correct shot line with a slight over cut to counter collision induced throw by dropping down on the most extreme left of the multiple visions & that everyone of you can do the same because it is objective...
many of you would say BS & question me to explain how can that be & why is it so?
Then, if I were to say, well it's connected to the table because the spinning around is 4 times & the table has 4 corners & a single spin is 360* & that is the same as when you add up the angles of the 4 - 90* corners.
Many would say, that makes no sense & would ask for an explanation as to how does that make it CONNECTED to the table.
This may seem as though I am making 'fun' of it or Stan, but that is NOT what I am doing.
I am merely trying to show that questions are okay & especially when something seems impossible & when there has not been any real rational, logical explanations as to the how & why it is what it is said to be.
I could give more examples of what has gone on but it would appear even more so to be making fun & that I NOT my intention.
If I keep spinning around. crossing my eyes & dropping down & pocketing balls, that does NOT prove that that is the reason that I am pocket balls unless a rational & logical explanation can be & is given as to how & why that process objectively yields getting me onto the correct shot line.
I hope that you & others can see the point.
I know that you & oldmanatc & others do not give a rat about the how & why because you've seen improvement. That's fine.
But there are others that like things to add up & make sense.
There are rather many here like that, but they have been browbeaten & intimidated into virtual silence with only an occasional statement to show that there questions have not yet been satisfactorily answered.
As the relative rookie, I just have not allowed myself to be bullied off.
The easy way to silence me is to just provide the answer.
Perhaps that will be provided in Stan's Book & all of the hub bub will end & the aiming sub forum can be closed.
Congratulations on Your Playing Well & You Be & Stay Well. Somehow I had thought you to be younger than you are.
And this lengthy post has exactly what to so with the topic of the thread, which is that John Schmidt changed his opinion about aiming systems and made a public apology to Stan Shuffett on his FB page for comments he had previously made?
But to answer your question, nobody owes you an explanation of anything. Doesn't look like you will ever get one, either.
No one cares if that's what you're doing or not. But did it ever occur to you that it's the CTE users that are making fun of you? 'Cause I believe they are.:wink:
Go back & count the posts other than mine that are not specifically on topic.
I was responding to one such non topic post.
I know exactly what the advocates are doing & want to do & what result most want.
I said it in my last post.
The solution is simple & I said that too in my last post.
Your OP irregardless of whatever your intentions may have been was suggestive...
& not specifically qualified so as to clarify away from that 'suggestion'.
It rather amazes me that 'you guys' have not yet realized that, as Barton would say, that every time you 'hit' me you generate another post BY me.
What you say that you want is nearly the same thing that I want.
What is the how & why that allows success when utilizing it.
No real answers have been provided by any advocate & many are not really interested in that & that's fine for them.
Some of us know, or think that we know, & it is in contrast to what is said to be the reason.
Hence, a disagreement that should be able to be civilly & logically discussed.
Both of those qualifiers have been illusive for the side of the advocates.
I think I & a few recent others have been pigeon holed with some of the early questioners that may have been uncivil in their discourse.
Dan White, I think was rather like you, but perhaps a bit more on the other side of the fence, so he had to be silenced & driven off.
I have said rather many times now that there should be a means for those that want to discuss how to better use the method, or matters of that vein without the disagreement regarding it hindering such.
But, the problem is that it never stays in that vein as inevitably a reference to it being objective comes up.
Hence, someone will counter that. PJ, Lou, Satori, 8 pack, Jal, others or now me.
Sean Fleinen, who disappeared almost mob like when he was going to go under the hood as he said, suggested that the 3 letters were like a lightning rod. Well, I don't think it's the 3 letters, per say, but instead that assertion about what it said to be that is the lightening rod.
The phrase 'they work' & then the 'it works' suggested that it works for the reasons that it is said to.
That was a lightening rod.
I was responding to one such non topic post.
I know exactly what the advocates are doing & want to do & what result most want.
I said it in my last post.
The solution is simple & I said that too in my last post.
Your OP irregardless of whatever your intentions may have been was suggestive...
& not specifically qualified so as to clarify away from that 'suggestion'.
It rather amazes me that 'you guys' have not yet realized that, as Barton would say, that every time you 'hit' me you generate another post BY me.
What you say that you want is nearly the same thing that I want.
What is the how & why that allows success when utilizing it.
No real answers have been provided by any advocate & many are not really interested in that & that's fine for them.
Some of us know, or think that we know, & it is in contrast to what is said to be the reason.
Hence, a disagreement that should be able to be civilly & logically discussed.
Both of those qualifiers have been illusive for the side of the advocates.
I think I & a few recent others have been pigeon holed with some of the early questioners that may have been uncivil in their discourse.
Dan White, I think was rather like you, but perhaps a bit more on the other side of the fence, so he had to be silenced & driven off.
I have said rather many times now that there should be a means for those that want to discuss how to better use the method, or matters of that vein without the disagreement regarding it hindering such.
But, the problem is that it never stays in that vein as inevitably a reference to it being objective comes up.
Hence, someone will counter that. PJ, Lou, Satori, 8 pack, Jal, others or now me.
Sean Fleinen, who disappeared almost mob like when he was going to go under the hood as he said, suggested that the 3 letters were like a lightning rod. Well, I don't think it's the 3 letters, per say, but instead that assertion about what it said to be that is the lightening rod.
The phrase 'they work' & then the 'it works' suggested that it works for the reasons that it is said to.
That was a lightening rod.
If that's how you want to waste your life, dude. Nobody "hits" me for speaking my opinions here. Could it be I have a better way with people than you do, and can express my differences in a less confrontational way?
But it's not "fine" for you, even though you have zero interest in learning the system.
Bingo!!! You THINK you know. Problem is, you don't know anything at all.
Yes, it's called being able to discuss it amongst ourselves without cheap passive-aggressive shots from the peanut gallery.
You are always the first to bring it up, even in other forums that have nothing to do with aiming at all.
Sean is a buddy, and is fine posting on FB. He had enough of this place, and you are a major reason why. Too bad. He's a heck of a nice guy, and real smart about a lot of stuff. Now he's gone, along with many other insightful posters. What a shame.
I'm done with you for now. No need to "hit" back. You wouldn't dare try that in real life, I can promise you that, so please let it rest here, OK?
If that's how you want to waste your life, dude. Nobody "hits" me for speaking my opinions here. Could it be I have a better way with people than you do, and can express my differences in a less confrontational way?
But it's not "fine" for you, even though you have zero interest in learning the system.
Bingo!!! You THINK you know. Problem is, you don't know anything at all.
Yes, it's called being able to discuss it amongst ourselves without cheap passive-aggressive shots from the peanut gallery.
You are always the first to bring it up, even in other forums that have nothing to do with aiming at all.
Sean is a buddy, and is fine posting on FB. He had enough of this place, and you are a major reason why. Too bad. He's a heck of a nice guy, and real smart about a lot of stuff. Now he's gone, along with many other insightful posters. What a shame.
I'm done with you for now. No need to "hit" back. You wouldn't dare try that in real life, I can promise you that, so please let it rest here, OK?
That sounds like a not so veiled threat to me.
You totally turned the word 'hit' around as well as other crap & then you want to have the last word with your 'request'. At least you made it an official 'request' by putting a question mark at the end of "OK" as in "OK?"
I put the word 'hit' in single quotes which can mean that the word may not be being used literally.
I most certainly am not why Sean is not here as he & I had ended all exchange long before he decided to just drop his 'promise' & disappear.
It's rather obvious what you & others attempt to do with the suggestive inaccuracies.
Just similar evasive attempts to get a result without having to provide what has been asked for for nearly 20 years. Not so much from you, but...
you've joined the band wagon.
Now we can let it "rest" as you said , "I'm done with you for now."
Mr. Macho Macho Man.
Another diversion to avoid the use of intellectual reason for the purpose of logical debate.
Last edited:
How about we try to get this thread back on topic? (As if it really had any other intention when placed in the aiming forum.)
No one knows why it works but they say that "IT" works.
Please discuss it among yourselves for awhile
.
Last edited:
I started this thread because of the supreme sense of irony I saw after reading John Schmidt's retraction of his previous comments about aiming systems in general. Below is the text of the actual comments made by John in the TAR interview (thanks to the tireless efforts of our good friend Lou Figueroa for taking the time to accurately transcribe the entire interchange):
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=283974
Note that JS never actually referred to CTE by name, or even implied that it was a pivot-based system (Corey mentioned pivoting, but he ignorantly thought it had to do with pivoting the back foot). John just didn't think aiming systems were helpful (he didn't have much good to say about JD shafts, either, but that's a whole nother can 'o worms).
Although John was obviously completely in the dark regarding how CTE might or might not work, the anti-CTE goon squad jumped on his comments as proof that top pros are anti-CTE. The thread went on for 158 pages over a three year span, and yet there was never a single part of his comments that related to CTE. Just some pro stating that aiming systems were a waste of money was enough to classify his opinion on the matter as "expert".
So now, almost four years after his initial comments he decides to recant his position, and the same crew now says his opinion is invalid since he doesn't use the system... the very same system he didn't use four years ago when his opinion on the subject was golden.
Anyway, that's all I was pointing out - the incredible hypocrisy of those who willingly play both sides against the middle just to get their feeble little voices heard.
If John Schmidt's opinion in not valid now because he doesn't use or understand the system, it was never valid. Nor is the opinion of any lesser player who fails to grasp the simple concepts laid out by Hal Houle and then Stan Shuffett, all because they can't bring it upon themselves to spend 8 hours or so trying to figure it out at the table.
(yawn) Can't believe you guys are still at this about JS making his buddy feel good about his pet aiming system. SP99 said it well:
Also, at the time JS and CD commented there was some kerfuffle about CTE that they are addressing. I may be mistaken but you can see the context if you go back through the early part of the thread with the transcript.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited: