John Schmidt's and Corey Deuel's comments on aiming systems

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Of course, the flip side to that is that any child of a professional instructor in any field, will very likely be brought up and trained in the manner of the fathers expertise. If Landon weren't so young, perhaps your point might very well have merit, but it stands to most reasonable folks that a young child would indeed be very, very likely to be working the way dad teaches.

He hasn't much time to develop a style of his own, certainly not to be playing at this level.

Just my .02, worth exactly what you paid for it.


I agree. The the other day a couple of us were talking about his outstanding performance and we all kind of agreed: if he can't succeed, who can? Personal table, presumably playing from an early age, coaching from a parent who plays well himself, but, also presumably, HAMB :)

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
JUST within the last month Landon won his fifth junior national championship, played quite well against great players like Morra and Strickland, and won a tournament tonight. *Dad's* CTE/PRO ONE instruction/training/information does work whether *You* choose to accept it or not. Most assuredly you will say my credibility is questionable as well since I have a wife/mother relationship with the father/son. I am not a pool player but I do witness the exchange of information between father and son and with that being said, our home is open for you to witness it for yourself at any time.

"The system" does not and cannot work for some very simple reasons that any experienced pool player understands. There are many other pros besides John and Corey who have the same opinion.

As to the issue of credibility, most folks would have to agree that, on a scale of 1-10, an evaluation of a given product has more credibility coming from an independent, unbiased source, as opposed to someone with an existing relationship with whomever is producing said product. That's why there's Consumer Report and Angie's List and TripAdvisor. As another example, I was personally questioned here after I gave a favorable review of John Brumbach's banking DVD, specifically being asked what my prior relationship with John was and whether I paid for the the DVD or was given it. (For the record: I had no prior relationship with John and paid for the DVD.) My point being that people care about things like that when it comes to someone endorsing a product.

Lastly, the last time I responded to you, very politely, on the issue of the number of DVDs sold, I was accused of picking on you. So, just to avoid any further misunderstanding I will not be responding to any further posts from you. Congratulations on Landon's performance. I you wish you and yours every future success.

Lou Figueroa
 

Roadie

Banned
"The system" does not and cannot work for some very simple reasons that any experienced pool player understands.

What are those reasons? I ask because there are experienced players on this forum who say that the system Landon uses does in fact work.

There are many other pros besides John and Corey who have the same opinion.

Who are they? Mr. Duell did not say that CTE does not work. He said he didn't get it without elaborating on what efforts on his part were undertaken to try and get it. Mr. Schmidt also did not say that CTE does not work. He stated that aiming systems are overrated, presumably meaning that if advertised as an instant path to professional status they are certainly not that. In this I agree fully. If any single aspect of the game is marketed as an sure-fire way to top level pool then it's defintely not since top level play requires a panopoly of skills surroundin nerves of steel. I didn't hear Mr. Schmidt or Mr. Duell say that CTE does not and can not work. Perhaps you could provide a link to where they said it on the video in question?


As to the issue of credibility, most folks would have to agree that, on a scale of 1-10, an evaluation of a given product has more credibility coming from an independent, unbiased source, as opposed to someone with an existing relationship with whomever is producing said product.

So therefore by this measure the many positive reviews of Mr. Shuffet's DVD count equally against the few negative reviews? Would you agree that a long history of animosity also taints the review? Your disdain for aiming systems and your negative attitude towards Mr. Shuffet was on display long before he created a DVD which you then posted a negative review of. By the criteria above it seems as if your relationship with Mr. Shuffet and the subject matter is not at all unbiased.



That's why there's Consumer Report and Angie's List and TripAdvisor. As another example, I was personally questioned here after I gave a favorable review of John Brumbach's banking DVD, specifically being asked what my prior relationship with John was and whether I paid for the the DVD or was given it. (For the record: I had no prior relationship with John and paid for the DVD.) My point being that people care about things like that when it comes to someone endorsing a product.

Good point. The fact that you had no preexisting bias against Mr. Brumback personally nor against his methods would indicate that your review of his instructional material was done without prejudice. That is not the case in your review of Mr. Shuffet's instructional material, unfortunately.

As mentioned there have been many excellent positive reviews of Mr. Shuffet's instructional materials and his instruction by consumers with no prior relationship to Mr. Shuffett. Using your own criterion and examples of Angie's List and Trip Advisor we must then conclude that the material taught does work. If we were to compile a list of positive reviews, which I would encourage Mr. and Mrs Shuffett to do, the number of them would far outweigh the negative ones. Toss out the negative ones done with prejudice and the positive ones done by those who received special dispensation and the positives still far outweight the negatives by an even greater margin.

Personally if I were Mr. Shuffet I would endeavor to get Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Duell to spend an hour with me on the table and then let them make up their minds about the method I had to teach. I firmly believe that Mr. Schmidt hasn't given CTE five minutes of his time since learning or it and probably Mr. Duell hasn't spent much on it either. That could be because they dismiss it outright or that no one who is qualified to explain it has done so. I would be very interested in the conversation after such a demonstration by Mr. Shuffet took place.
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Landon doesn't really "endorse" CTE/Pro1 --- he USES it and helped collaborate to create it. He's not an outside player who "endorses" it. Over the last couple of years, he and Stan jointly went through the trials and tribulations of putting the pieces together. The fact that he's Stan's boy has zero to do with "endorsing" that system.

Let's move on to Darren Appleton. Darren "endorses" Ekkes's SEE System because he uses it, plain and simple. Unless someone here has proof that he was paid for the endorsement, it's a clean endorsement.

The fact that Darren (who is one of the most decorated players of late) uses an aiming system must really chaff the asses of those who swing from other pros' d____s who knock or don't understand aiming systems. The same said guys huddle around and cheer when a pro says anything negative about an aiming system but God forbid if one ENDORSES said systems, they're either PAID, FAMILY or some other excuse rather than a USER of the system.

So here you have one of the most famed aiming system knocker of the last 15 years saying Landon isn't really a legit endorser of CTE/Pro1 because he's Stan's son, when in actuality Landon HELPED CREATE PRO1!!! Show's what Lou the Knocker knows.

Therefore, we can move past this father/son/endorsement crap because it has no bearing on the discussion. I'd love to see Landon draw Lou in one of those big huge tournaments (the one where Lou famously goes 2-and-out and writes a trip report) to see how he does against an aiming system. Darren doesn't even play one-hole and SEE-SYSTEMED Lou to death in the first round of the US Open 1-Pocket (probably playing wrong shot after wrong shot and STILL winning against Mr. Trip Report).

Because Schmidt doesn't like systems and Corey doesn't "understand" them doesn't mean any more than a said pro endorsing a particular system --- people can make their own mind up since everyone learns differently. Leave it at that.
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Lou,

John and Corey added together know virtually nothing about CTE PRO ONE the system. I am willing to educate John or Corey should they request any training. I'd be happy for them to share the results.

He who laughs himself SILLY first does not always laugh himself SILLY last.

Phil Burford, who uses and teaches CTE PRO ONE won against Corey last night in NY 8-2. Now, go ahead discredit Phil.

At Tunica I spent 2/3 hours with a highly respected U S player. He was thrilled with CTE PRO ONE.

This is only the tip of the iceberg!

CTE PRO ONE lives on and your efforts at discrediting my work WILL fail.

You will see.

Stan Shuffett
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Lou:
[CTE] does not and cannot work for some very simple reasons
I think "work" has different meanings for different people in this debate. To grossly oversimplify:

To CTE's users "CTE works" means it improves their shotmaking ability by whatever means. To CTE's detractors "CTE doesn't work" means CTE doesn't eliminate the need for other skills (including "feel").

Because of this ongoing miscommunication, the two "sides" will never see eye to eye.

pj
chgo
 

justadub

Rattling corners nightly
Silver Member
I agree. The the other day a couple of us were talking about his outstanding performance and we all kind of agreed: if he can't succeed, who can? Personal table, presumably playing from an early age, a coaching from a parent who plays well himself, but, also presumably, HAMB :)

Lou Figueroa

There is one point in your statement where everyone can agree, Lou. HAMB is very likely a critical component for any successful pool player.

That doesn't mean that there aren't different methods that some players can use, IN ADDITION TO HAMB, to help them play better. I believe pretty much everyone agrees that practice and experience are critical, regardless of what else they do. But if that player uses a system or philosophy or anything else to refine his or her game, then good for them.

Simply dismissing any method or system and jumping up and down yelling HAMB doesn't really make sense. I realize that you, Lou, have other basis for difference of opinion, which I'll not pretend to contest. But there are many here who will indeed dismiss any method with disdain, proclaiming that anything other than HAMB cannot work. That is extremely short sighted. And contributes to the general strife regarding the topic. (Which is likely the point, I realize...)

I watched Landon/Earl again last night. Wow. Mom and Dad, you sure must be proud. Quite a young man, not only how he played, but how he handled everything. I have son the same age, and I have had similar proud moments with him and his accomplishments. It is a great feeling, isn't it?
 

justadub

Rattling corners nightly
Silver Member
I think "work" has different meanings for different people in this debate. To grossly oversimplify:

To CTE's users "CTE works" means it improves their shotmaking ability by whatever means. To CTE's detractors "CTE doesn't work" means CTE doesn't eliminate the need for other skills (including "feel").

Because of this ongoing miscommunication, the two "sides" will never see eye to eye.

pj
chgo

That is your best post ever regarding the subject.
 

Roadie

Banned
I think "work" has different meanings for different people in this debate. To grossly oversimplify:

To CTE's users "CTE works" means it improves their shotmaking ability by whatever means. To CTE's detractors "CTE doesn't work" means CTE doesn't eliminate the need for other skills (including "feel").

Because of this ongoing miscommunication, the two "sides" will never see eye to eye.

pj
chgo

Actually to CTE users work means than the use of the system brings them to the proper shot line more often than not.

While you might be of the mind that "doesn't work" doesn't eliminate the need for feel that doesn't mean that this is what the other person was referring to when he said that "The system" does not and cannot work for some very simple reasons that any experienced pool player understands."

This method is merely an approach to determining a line to lay the cue down one. It happens to be an extremely accurate method for doing that. To me that is what I think of when I say it works. The natural result of getting on the right line would then be better shotmaking provided that one has a decent enough stroke.

Regarding the feel component it reduces feel to the point that there is no guessing involved, no estimation. Simply a formula that is followed to find the shot line, get down and shoot. So yes as long as you contend that CTE relies on feel as much as any other method there will be no agreement. Because in fact it is exactly this huge reduction in feel when aiming that make CTE so powerful as an aiming tool.

I don't believe that Mr. Figueroa meant the same thing that you do. I think that he as some other reason to state that CTE does not and cannot work. If I understand your contention you contend that CTE does work but not for the reasons that CTE users think it does. Your contention is that it's just another way to guess the shot line and let the brain subconsciously adjust, is that right?

If so I and many many others disagree with you. We know from experience that CTE/ProOne works as advertised to the letter. As Mr. Shuffett said, this is just the tip of the iceberg and I believe him. I played on 3.75" pockets two nights ago and did very well using CTE. I had never played on this table previously and I give credit to CTE for guiding me to the shot line. Once I settled down I was shooting very nice shots and gaining the respect of my opponent, a Taiwanese professional player who lives in Shanghai. We played on his practice table.

So I would like to give another personal thanks to Mr. Shuffett for making this method available on DVD. The proof as they say is in the shotmaking.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What are those reasons? I ask because there are experienced players on this forum who say that the system Landon uses does in fact work.



Who are they? Mr. Duell did not say that CTE does not work. He said he didn't get it without elaborating on what efforts on his part were undertaken to try and get it. Mr. Schmidt also did not say that CTE does not work. He stated that aiming systems are overrated, presumably meaning that if advertised as an instant path to professional status they are certainly not that. In this I agree fully. If any single aspect of the game is marketed as an sure-fire way to top level pool then it's defintely not since top level play requires a panopoly of skills surroundin nerves of steel. I didn't hear Mr. Schmidt or Mr. Duell say that CTE does not and can not work. Perhaps you could provide a link to where they said it on the video in question?




So therefore by this measure the many positive reviews of Mr. Shuffet's DVD count equally against the few negative reviews? Would you agree that a long history of animosity also taints the review? Your disdain for aiming systems and your negative attitude towards Mr. Shuffet was on display long before he created a DVD which you then posted a negative review of. By the criteria above it seems as if your relationship with Mr. Shuffet and the subject matter is not at all unbiased.





Good point. The fact that you had no preexisting bias against Mr. Brumback personally nor against his methods would indicate that your review of his instructional material was done without prejudice. That is not the case in your review of Mr. Shuffet's instructional material, unfortunately.

As mentioned there have been many excellent positive reviews of Mr. Shuffet's instructional materials and his instruction by consumers with no prior relationship to Mr. Shuffett. Using your own criterion and examples of Angie's List and Trip Advisor we must then conclude that the material taught does work. If we were to compile a list of positive reviews, which I would encourage Mr. and Mrs Shuffett to do, the number of them would far outweigh the negative ones. Toss out the negative ones done with prejudice and the positive ones done by those who received special dispensation and the positives still far outweight the negatives by an even greater margin.

Personally if I were Mr. Shuffet I would endeavor to get Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Duell to spend an hour with me on the table and then let them make up their minds about the method I had to teach. I firmly believe that Mr. Schmidt hasn't given CTE five minutes of his time since learning or it and probably Mr. Duell hasn't spent much on it either. That could be because they dismiss it outright or that no one who is qualified to explain it has done so. I would be very interested in the conversation after such a demonstration by Mr. Shuffet took place.


“Because when you have something that by itself is not interesting and not in demand you need to make it interesting to generate demand. Simple marketing 101 that is instinctively understood by most humans.”

Roadie



So, what are the reasons the system fails? Speed, spin, swerve, deflection, elevation come to mind. Also the fact that different players see the balls differently, set up differently, use different equipment, and have different mechanics.

As to what was and wasn’t said on the podcast, perhaps we need a transcript. I do recall, however, that both John and Corey seemed to scoff at the basic premise. I don’t have time to transcribe at the moment, maybe someone else does. (Where is JAM with her 2 bazillion words a minute fingers when you need her?)

I think “animosity” is far too strong a word to describe my feelings about CTE and the like. More like “incredulity.” Frankly, it would appear that, by your standards, anyone who finds fault and/or been consistent in their position can be labeled biased. That’s not very sound reasoning.

As to the positive reviews -- let's face it: some people will believe anything. It is a well documented fact that nowadays, no matter what the issue 30% are going to be believers (or non-believers, if you prefer). That does not mean the product works. An equal flaw in your logic is that a greater quantity of favorable reviews posted lends greater credibility to the system. By that measure, JB's posts alone would be sufficient proof ;-)

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Lou,

John and Corey added together know virtually nothing about CTE PRO ONE the system. I am willing to educate John or Corey should they request any training. I'd be happy for them to share the results.

He who laughs himself SILLY first does not always laugh himself SILLY last.

Phil Burford, who uses and teaches CTE PRO ONE won against Corey last night in NY 8-2. Now, go ahead discredit Phil.

At Tunica I spent 2/3 hours with a highly respected U S player. He was thrilled with CTE PRO ONE.

This is only the tip of the iceberg!

CTE PRO ONE lives on and your efforts at discrediting my work WILL fail.

You will see.

Stan Shuffett


Stan

I am sure that if either of those guys feel they need your help -- or that your system could be of value to them -- they know how to find you.

BTW, I applaud your enthusiasm for the game and sunny outlook.

Lou Figueroa
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think "work" has different meanings for different people in this debate. To grossly oversimplify:

To CTE's users "CTE works" means it improves their shotmaking ability by whatever means. To CTE's detractors "CTE doesn't work" means CTE doesn't eliminate the need for other skills (including "feel").

Because of this ongoing miscommunication, the two "sides" will never see eye to eye.

pj
chgo


Broadly speaking, yes, that's about right.

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There is one point in your statement where everyone can agree, Lou. HAMB is very likely a critical component for any successful pool player.

That doesn't mean that there aren't different methods that some players can use, IN ADDITION TO HAMB, to help them play better. I believe pretty much everyone agrees that practice and experience are critical, regardless of what else they do. But if that player uses a system or philosophy or anything else to refine his or her game, then good for them.

Simply dismissing any method or system and jumping up and down yelling HAMB doesn't really make sense. I realize that you, Lou, have other basis for difference of opinion, which I'll not pretend to contest. But there are many here who will indeed dismiss any method with disdain, proclaiming that anything other than HAMB cannot work. That is extremely short sighted. And contributes to the general strife regarding the topic. (Which is likely the point, I realize...)

I watched Landon/Earl again last night. Wow. Mom and Dad, you sure must be proud. Quite a young man, not only how he played, but how he handled everything. I have son the same age, and I have had similar proud moments with him and his accomplishments. It is a great feeling, isn't it?


JAD, I think HAMB is a component, but HAMB alone is worthless without intense, critical introspection. And we've all been over the part about how a system, almost *any* system, can help a player if they have not previously approached the game in a consistent, systematic manner. So can X or Y system help some guys? Sure. Does it mean the system is scientifically or geometrically sound? No.

Lou Figueroa
 

PoolSharkAllen

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
As to what was and wasn’t said on the podcast, perhaps we need a transcript. I do recall, however, that both John and Corey seemed to scoff at the basic premise. I don’t have time to transcribe at the moment, maybe someone else does.

Here are some of the more notable comments John and Corey made about aiming:
- Aiming systems are not factoring in swerve, squirt and deflection. JS
- Aiming is adorable but you still have to deliver (execute). JS
- If those aiming systems worked there would be like 4 million people who play like Corey. JS
- These aiming systems are over-rated, they are a way to sell videos and books and they're a way for people to pontificate about their own greatness. JS
- Believe me, if those aiming systems worked those people would be out there winning tournaments but they're not. JS
- Stevie Moore, you could put a bag over his head and he'd run out. He's already a great player who's playing great in spite of his aiming system not because of it. He could aim at the wall and still make the ball. It's a way of giving him comfort and confidence. JS
- I think that the reason people have problems with aiming is they don't aim with the cue ball, they aim the cue stick. I aim the cue ball at the spot I'm trying to hit. I think that a lot of amateurs aim with the cue stick. CD
- If they would go hit more balls, they would become a better player. There's no shortcut to this. The guy who goes to the driving range till his hands bleed, that's the good golfer. JS
- Deflection and swerve is what makes this game so tough. JS
 
Last edited:

Roadie

Banned

“Because when you have something that by itself is not interesting and not in demand you need to make it interesting to generate demand. Simple marketing 101 that is instinctively understood by most humans.”

Roadie



So, what are the reasons the system fails? Speed, spin, swerve, deflection, elevation come to mind. Also the fact that different players see the balls differently, set up differently, use different equipment, and have different mechanics.

Do yo mean the reasons a shooter misses even though he is using the CTE method to aim? Sure, any of those things can be a factor in a miss. We have seen Efren miss ball in hand, seen SVB miss ball in hand, seen Earl Strickland miss a two foot shot. If players of that caliber can miss such simple shots then certainly far lesser players would tend to commit the same errors at a far greater frequency.


As to what was and wasn’t said on the podcast, perhaps we need a transcript. I do recall, however, that both John and Corey seemed to scoff at the basic premise. I don’t have time to transcribe at the moment, maybe someone else does. (Where is JAM with her 2 bazillion words a minute fingers when you need her?)

You can watch it and simply pause at the approriate moment and then right click and save the url of the video at that moment.

I think “animosity” is far too strong a word to describe my feelings about CTE and the like. More like “incredulity.” Frankly, it would appear that, by your standards, anyone who finds fault and/or been consistent in their position can be labeled biased. That’s not very sound reasoning.

No sir. I merely applied your own standard. If you can disqualify a positive testimonial due to a positive relationship with the reviewed then it's only fair to disqualify a negative testimonial given by an antagonist. Neither reviewer is acting in a completely unbiased manner.


As to the positive reviews -- let's face it: some people will believe anything. It is a well documented fact that nowadays, no matter what the issue 30% are going to be believers (or non-believers, if you prefer). That does not mean the product works. An equal flaw in your logic is that a greater quantity of favorable reviews posted lends greater credibility to the system. By that measure, JB's posts alone would be sufficient proof ;-)

Lou Figueroa

Again sir I was using your example of Angie's List and Trip Advisor and Consumer Reports. Given that Angie's List at least is an experience-based review site I am merely agreeing with you that such unbiased and unsoliticited and non-prejudicial reviews carry weight. Now you seem to want to discredit the positive reviewers by implying that they are not intelligent enough to determine whether a method works or does not. You can't have it both ways sir. Either you have to accept the reviews or not. I think though that if we accept your 30% figure that still leaves 7 out of 10 reviewers who claim it works? Do you want to up your estimate of how may people can be deluded at the same time in the same way by the same material? Material which is easy to test on the pool table.

You are certainly correct that a bunch of favorable reviews does not mean that the product works. You said however that any decent player understands that the system does not and can not work. And yet there have been many decent players on this forum who have said that it does work. So are you calling all of those players deluded?

As to my statement above you have taken it out of context but we can apply it here. CTE and related aiming methods was never marketed using fabricated stories as is the cue in the thread from which you took the quote. In that thread a man is atempting to sell a cue that has very little actual value by inventing a story to go with the cue that seems intended to add value in the mind of the readers. In the case of these aiming methods they have had decent players to pro level players endorsing them for the past decade. They are backed by reviews from above average players with no bias and no prior relationship. Mr. Shuffet does not have to fabricate stories in order to make his DVD interesting. The DVD was created precisely because of the interest.

In fact to go farther the DVD was created precisely because of the negativity from you and several others. It was not done to cater to the supporters of CTE from the past decade. It was done precisely in repsonse to your accusations of charlatanism sent in Mr. Shuffet's direction. Were it not for you it's highly likely that this DVD would not exist.

So to recap, the interest in CTE has been strong for many years. The proof that it works is in an ever growing pool of very good players who have adopted it as their method of aiming. Mr. Shuffet has a sizable amount of testimonials from satsifed students from decent amateur to world class professionals. Unless all of these people are mentally incompetent and susceptible to mass delusion the evidence points to a good solid method of aiming taught by an extremely classy gentleman.

Although I would agree that overzealous cheering is also a turn off. So like the judges in the Olympics we toss out the high and low scores, in this case the zealots' reviews for and against, and take the average. When that is done the ProOne/CTE method is found to work and work well.
 

champ2107

Banned
Here are some of the more notable comments John and Corey made about aiming:
- Aiming systems are not factoring in swerve, squirt and deflection. JS
- Aiming is adorable but you still have to deliver (execute). JS
- If those aiming systems worked there would be like 4 million people who play like Corey. JS
- These aiming systems are over-rated, they are a way to sell videos and books and they're a way for people to pontificate about their own greatness. JS
- Believe me, if those aiming systems worked those people would be out there winning tournaments but they're not. JS
- Stevie Moore, you could put a bag over his head and he'd run out. He's already a great player who's playing great in spite of his aiming system not because of it. He could aim at the wall and still make the ball. It's a way of giving him comfort and confidence. JS
- I think that the reason people have problems with aiming is they don't aim with the cue ball, they aim the cue stick. I aim the cue ball at the spot I'm trying to hit. I think that a lot of amateurs aim with the cue stick. CD
- If they would go hit more balls, they would become a better player. There's no shortcut to this. The guy who goes to the driving range till his hands bleed, that's the good golfer. JS
- Deflection and swerve is what makes this game so tough. JS

"I could be wrong and i don't know if i am right, i just think using aiming systems are crazy" you forgot to add this quote which pretty much sums it all up at the 28:43 mark
 

Roadie

Banned
Here are some of the more notable comments John and Corey made about aiming:

- Aiming systems are not factoring in swerve, squirt and deflection. JS

Well in fact some aiming systems do factor those things in. CTE does not as it brings the shooter to a centerball shot line. From there the shooter's experience ought to kick in for any adjustments if needed. That's where hitting balls until your hands bleed is the proper course.

- Aiming is adorable but you still have to deliver (execute). JS

Which is exactly the same thing that aiming system proponents have always said.


- If those aiming systems worked there would be like 4 million people who play like Corey. JS

Assuming that those people could also have Corey's stroke, nerves and knoweldge. Mr. Schmidt says above that execution follows aiming and then he equates aiming with execution in this statement. Seems to me that he just chose to rant without a lot of thought behind it given the inconsistencies in statements.



- These aiming systems are over-rated, that they are a way to sell videos and books and they're a way for people to pontificate about their own greatness." JS

Hal Houle never once sold a single lesson. He gave away his knowledge for free and never spoke of his own playing ability. Stan Shuffet does sell his knoweldge of Hal's methods and the refined version he calls ProOne in DVD form. There is not any way under the sun that Mr. Shuffett developed ProOne as a way to sell DVDs. What he calls ProOne is simply an adaptation of Mr. Houle's methods that he offered as part of his lessons. No one was forced to buy them. To my knowledge Mr. Shuffet has never once shilled this forum since I have been a member trying to sell his services. He only created a DVD after being labeled a snake-oil salesman in order to prove that he could teach the exact steps to the method in a video format. And lastly Mr. Shuffet has never bragged about his greatness. He has been humble and straightforward, letting his results and the results of his students speak for themselves.


- Believe me, if those aiming systems worked those people would be out there winning tournaments but they're not. JS

Yes, they are. Admitted system users have won tournaments. But again it's not solely because of the system as Mr. Schmidt admits to. Again I feel as if he is ranting without any real thought as to what he is saying. Because on one hand he says that it takes more than a system and on the other he says IF the system worked then it would be enough to win tournaments. No system proponent has ever claimed that the use of an aiming system by itself is the magic key to playing great pool and winning events.


- Stevie Moore, you could put a bag over his head and he'd run out. He's already a great player who's playing great in spite of his aiming system not because of it. He could aim at the wall and still make the ball. It's a way of giving him comfort and confidence. JS

So Mr. Schmidt knows more about Mr. Moore than Mr. Moore knows about himself? But let's say that CTE really does just give Mr. Moore comfort and confidence. What's wrong with that? Isn't that what players want? Lets assume that Mr. Schmidt is right and CTE is of no real physical use but it only increases a player's confidence and comfort dramatically. What's so bad about that?


- I think that the reason people have problems with aiming is they don't aim with the cue ball, they aim the cue stick. I aim the cue ball at the spot I'm trying to hit. I think that a lot of amateurs aim with the cue stick. CD

This is where Mr. Duell was trying to explain his aiming system and was rudely interupted. But for that matter CTE and most of Hal Houle's systems are in fact ball to ball aiming methods. Mr. Van Boeing said that he thinks that the problem is that most amateurs aim with the cue ball and not the cue stick. Who's right? Mr. Duell or Mr. Van Boeing?



- If they would go hit more balls, they would become a better player. There's no shortcut to this. The guy who goes to the driving range till his hands bleed, that's the good golfer. JS

Then we can do away with golf coaches? Just send people to the driving range until their hands bleed? There is a certain range of motion that every good golfer has to adhere to in order to play golf. Same for pool and every sport. No matter what the sport there are techniques that are state of the art for the time. Every so often someone figures out a better way and then that becomes the state of the art after the rest of the field adopts that method. There is not a thousand ways to play pool or a thousand ways to golf. Even Mr. Schmidt knows that putting a rank beginner on the range until his hands bleed won't make that person a good golfer. That person needs instruction and guidance to know what techniques he must perfect with his bloody hands. Again Mr. Schmidt is ranting in my opinion without deeper thought behind it. Because with some deeper thought he might come to the conclusion that IF an method of aiming were ok then that coupled with shooing until your hands bleed might result in a really consistent player.


- Deflection and swerve is what makes this game so tough. JS

It's part of it. And nerves, and knoweldge, and nerves, and a good stroke, good touch, speed control, the whole enchilada as they say. The question I have for Mr. Schmidt is HOW do you determine deflection and swerve? Well you can take your cue and hit a million balls until you feel really tuned into how much it delects and swerves under different conditions which you should do of course. Then you have a pretty good educated guess every time you step to a shot. Or you can figure out some way to get a baseline dead center ball shot line and adjust from there. If you are already totally in tune with your cue and you have a dead nuts accurate way to get the shot line then how much better are you going to be in judging the deflection and swerve? I submit that you can be way better than by simply going on feel alone.
 

champ2107

Banned
I think "work" has different meanings for different people in this debate. To grossly oversimplify:

To CTE's users "CTE works" means it improves their shotmaking ability by whatever means. To CTE's detractors "CTE doesn't work" means CTE doesn't eliminate the need for other skills (including "feel").

Because of this ongoing miscommunication, the two "sides" will never see eye to eye.

pj
chgo



i have said many times that cte/pro1 does not eliminate all "other skills" needed to become a great player, lol!!! You guys have made this all so embarrassing for all of us in these aiming discussions! CTE/PRO! does exactly what Stan says it does. You guys are soooooo uninformed you have combined what the system doesn't do, into the system and in the discussions. This is the on going problem!
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
[CTE] reduces feel to the point that there is no guessing involved, no estimation.
Feel = "guessing" and "estimation".

...as long as you contend that CTE relies on feel as much as any other method there will be no agreement. Because in fact it is exactly this huge reduction in feel when aiming that make CTE so powerful as an aiming tool.
I don't know if "CTE relies on feel as much as any other method". I just know it doesn't eliminate feel.

If I understand your contention you contend that CTE does work but not for the reasons that CTE users think it does.
I don't think all CTE users think the same thing about the reasons CTE works for them.

Your contention is that it's just another way to guess the shot line and let the brain subconsciously adjust, is that right?
In addition to being a useful pre-shot alignment routine, yes.

We know from experience that CTE/ProOne works as advertised to the letter.
Experience is a very unreliable witness.

pj
chgo
 
Top