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

[Patrick Johnson]

i have said many times that cte/pro1 does not eliminate all "other skills" needed to become a great player

You're not the only CTE user here - you're just the one ignored the most.

pj
chgo

 

[champ2107]

You're not the only CTE user here - you're just the one ignored the most.

pj
chgo

here is the guy that makes it virtually impossible for any other user on this site to understand cte! Your ability to not grasp the basics or common sense of a topic has polluted these threads beyond belief! you just continually regurgitate the same stuff post after post. I think we all know your discussion skills are virtually non existent, with your answering a question with a question,etc. I must not be ignored by too many people, considering i am always getting pm's asking for help

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

..........

 

[champ2107]

Chump,
You recently made this comment: "im really not a serious player at all and i have only played pool once or twice this summer." It's very obvious that you're just a banger with an elevated sense of sef-importance.

PJ is right: you're the one poster who should be the most ignored.

 

[Roadie]

Feel = "guessing" and "estimation".


I don't know if "CTE relies on feel as much as any other method". I just know it doesn't eliminate feel.


I don't think all CTE users think the same thing about the reasons CTE works for them.


In addition to being a useful pre-shot alignment routine, yes.


Experience is a very unreliable witness.

pj
chgo

Experience is all we have in this situation. In the absence of controlled measurement the performance of a method is based on two major criteria, first-hand knowledge and results.

With something like pool instruction on DVD it's quite easy to acquire first-hand knowledge by purchasing the DVD. The buyer can then study and apply that information as much as they desire to. Which then causes the user to experience results and report on them. The buyer of pool instruction who reviews has two things to report on, the presentation and the results obtained.

If the only new variable in a player's approach is the adoption of CTE then it's fair for that player to assume that CTE is the reason for the increase in performance. Now I agree that CTE might not be doing what the player thinks it is doing let's say that it picking out a perfect shot line. Perhaps CTE really is just a glorified pre-shot routine. But if so then it's still a routine which if followed leads to better shotmaking. In that sense it certainly works and is deserving of the positive reviews.

Regarding feel. No it doesn't eliminate feel. Nothing does because a jiggling mass of mostly water controlled by synapses is trying to make a thin stick hit a small ball into another small ball to send that small ball toward a small target. That jiggling mass has to use its judgement to decide where, when and how to propel that stick. Its judgement is influenced by its knoweldge and muscle memory. So estimation and guessing are certainly part of any aiming method which does not have rulers and laser lines as guides. The question on the table is how much of that is present. My answer based on my experience is very very little when the routine is followed.

 

[Roadie]

"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

Excellent find and pretty much a summaton of my belief that Mr. Schmidt simply is tired of hearing about aiming systems. I felt that he thinks that aiming systems are being promoted as the cure-all which will elevate a player to world class status. And with all the back-and-forth and mocking that opponents have done coupled with the overzealous promotion by those who see great value it is easy to see how Mr. Schmidt could feel that way. As a professional who is above the fray and mostly above the need for the same type of improvements that the amateurs need it is probably galling to him to think that anyone is out there saying do this and reach John Schmidt's level in far less time than it took him to get there.

What Mr. Schmidt probably does not realize is that the proponents of aiming systems have never said that. However the opponents of aiming systems have claimed that the proponents have said it. Obviously in this type of he-said-she-said antagonistic environment it's easy to become confused and fed up with the whole thing.

Mr. Schmidt is wrong. Aiming systems do work and it's not crazy to use them as some of his fellow professionals do use them successfully. Mr. Schmidt is also very right that shooting until one's hands bleed is what forges great players. Shooting until one's hands bleed in the wrong direction however is just a way to get bloody hands and have not much skill to show for it. Having a firm guide to set the direction and then practicing relentlessly is a sure-fire way to acquire skill.

I believe Mr. Schmidt's rant was mostly to say don't belittle my hard work to get where I am by advertising something as a shortcut to world-class level. I agree and would like to assure Mr. Schmidt that I have not seen any coach or instructor doing that.

 

[AtLarge]

... I believe Mr. Schmidt's rant was mostly to say don't belittle my hard work to get where I am by advertising something as a shortcut to world-class level. I agree and would like to assure Mr. Schmidt that I have not seen any coach or instructor doing that.

Well, the apparent originator of CTE didn't exactly call it a shortcut to world-class level, but his "marketing" talk was fairly extreme. Enjoy: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2397932&postcount=239

 

[Roadie]

Well, the apparent originator of CTE didn't exactly call it a shortcut to world-class level, but his "marketing" talk was fairly extreme. Enjoy: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2397932&postcount=239

Not knowing the context of those statements I certainly can't debate them. Of course on the surface some of them are impossible to prove such as saying that all pros use the same method. In the discrete context this is probably physically impossible for all the pros to use the same method and in the holistic sense it's not sensible to think that all professionals in a competitive environment would use the exact same techniques.

Your last entry was in 2008. It is now the last half of 2012. In those four years we have had quite a bit more insight into the systems from a lot of angles.

I would be willing to bet a substantial amount that Hal Houle and his statements were not in Mr. Schmidt's mind at all when making the comments he did. Furthermore as in Olympic judging we can throw out the over-the-top comments where Mr. Houle was trying to get people to call him and we can throw out the underhanded comments calling Mr. Houle (and others) con-artists and go with the average testimonials by other master instructors and their students.

What interests me is the peer review. Since Mr. Houle was acting in the capacity of an instructor what do other instructors think about what he so exuberantly promoted?

Randy Goetlicher, recently chosen to head the BCA's instructor program, teaches several versions of CTE and has for twenty years.

Tom Simpson, a successful instructor and serial billiard product entrepeneur, teaches Mr. Houle's methods and swears by them.

Scott Lee, a traveling instructor whose business depends solely on leaving satisified customers in his wake teaches Mr. Houle's methods.

Stan Shuffet, a highly regarded instructor, developed a variation of CTE that he teaches and has essentially bet his son's billiard career on.

Let's leave Mr. Houle out of it and focus only on the people who are actively taking money to teach these methods of aiming. We have to assume that not all of them are capable of brainwashing their students as a cult leader does. So it's entirely plausible that the product they are charging for does actually work. And none of these men make any overt advertisment for these methods, they don't use them as the cornerstone of their instructional curriculum. And they certainly don't tell people that these methods are a shortcut to world-class pool.

What they have done is to learn what Mr. Houle had to teach and then learn to teach it themselves. Being sellers in a very small industry they had to have a product which they could stand behind. This to me, is the proof and not what Mr. Houle said. I myself dismissed Mr. Houle's statements more than a decade ago as hogwash. But instead of calling him a liar, a charlatan, a con-artist and the like I merely sat back and watched to see what would develop. What did develop, surprisingly, was acceptance by the major instructors. People with every incentive to not confuse their students with wacky methods.

In these past four years the base of positive reviews by competent players has grown considerably. Players who already played pretty good by most standards and who reported playing better after learning the aiming systems. We can dismiss incredulous claims and we can dismiss hateful critique. What is harder to dismiss is the even-keeled professional approach by professional and certified instructors coupled with the positive reviews by their students.

So I can agree that the reaction of some to Mr. Houle's more inflammatory statements was a case of logic-rash to the brain. But Mr. Houle has been gone from AZB for 4 years so what is the explanation for the continued hatred? Surely Mr. Shuffett has done nothing to warrant that. Furthermore I doubt highly that Mr. Schmidt would say these things to Mr. Shuffett in person. In fact, I am sure he wouldn't.

What Mr. Schmidt would do, being the lover of pool intricacy that he is, would be to invite Mr. Shuffet to prove to him the value of the system. Which Mr. Shuffett would adequately do I am sure.

 

[AtLarge]

Roadie -- your post #48 is well done. Perhaps I shouldn't have posted Hal's stuff again; I just thought you might not have seen it in the past and might be entertained by reading it. But most of us who have been interested in CTE have been beyond that sort of talk for a long time. As I have said several times, Stan Shuffett deserves enormous credit for enhancing Hal's CTE and making it into something usable for a lot of people.

 

[champ2107]

Experience is all we have in this situation. In the absence of controlled measurement the performance of a method is based on two major criteria, first-hand knowledge and results.

With something like pool instruction on DVD it's quite easy to acquire first-hand knowledge by purchasing the DVD. The buyer can then study and apply that information as much as they desire to. Which then causes the user to experience results and report on them. The buyer of pool instruction who reviews has two things to report on, the presentation and the results obtained.

If the only new variable in a player's approach is the adoption of CTE then it's fair for that player to assume that CTE is the reason for the increase in performance. Now I agree that CTE might not be doing what the player thinks it is doing let's say that it picking out a perfect shot line. Perhaps CTE really is just a glorified pre-shot routine. But if so then it's still a routine which if followed leads to better shotmaking. In that sense it certainly works and is deserving of the positive reviews.

Regarding feel. No it doesn't eliminate feel. Nothing does because a jiggling mass of mostly water controlled by synapses is trying to make a thin stick hit a small ball into another small ball to send that small ball toward a small target. That jiggling mass has to use its judgement to decide where, when and how to propel that stick. Its judgement is influenced by its knoweldge and muscle memory. So estimation and guessing are certainly part of any aiming method which does not have rulers and laser lines as guides. The question on the table is how much of that is present. My answer based on my experience is very very little when the routine is followed.

watch the beauty of a response your going to get from this post you made! He will pick out a few sentences or words of your post and quote therm, most likely out of context as always! questions will be answered by questions, you will be asked to answer your own questions,you will be brought back oi the basics,etc ... very amusing to me anyways

 

[Ratta]

Thought it must be someday boring to offense someone or just being aggressive at each other.

Perhaps a new sub-forum called *virtual wrestling* would be the bomb..........

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

To paraphrase the old adage: Arguing about aiming systems is like arguing over religion or politics. No ones' opinion really changes.

There's been a lot of interesting comments in this thread about what John Schmidt and Corey Deuel think about aiming systems. It seems to me that people may be trying too hard to use the comments of these two US Open champions to buttress their own particular beliefs about aiming systems.

Personally, I think JS and CD are being too harsh in their criticisms of aiming systems. Even with the limitations that aiming systems may have, most people probably could benefit from learning an aiming system, to develop the confidence and the skills needed to aim and pocket balls.

 

[lfigueroa]

“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




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.




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.



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.




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.

How sound can a system be when it does not account for the elements I mentioned? For years, the system has been touted as geometrically definitive. For months, we were promised a proof that would show this to be so but was never delivered. And if you watch the DVD, the people on screen would have you believe that all you need is the system and “Viola!” you make shot after shot. (The system also introduces numerous physical movements that, IMO, are counter-productive for the player, but you can go look up my review if you need more info on that.) For whatever reasons, there is a certain segment of the pool populace that wants to believe, in the worst way, that the system will solve their woes and if used properly (with great study and faith) make the balls go in the pockets and put the cue ball on a string.

As to the testimonials, I’m fine with the positive ones. I do not discount or disqualify them out of hand -- I understand that people can and do find improvement or that the system “works” for them for any number of reasons. It is up to each of us to decide their merits. But people can be convinced that placebos work. Some people do not understand that something can be working for reasons other than the ones advertised. People believe in UFOs, Big Foot, and The Loch Ness Monster.

Over the years, the pro-CTE faction has proven itself to be a zealous and fanatical lot and so I would suggest to you that the reason you might find many endorsements posted is the same reason you are more likely to find a religious zealot proselytizing on a street corner or knocking at your front door, rather than an agnostic or atheist. By and large that last group of guys is happy to just have a good laugh over the whole thing and fergetaboutit, while only a few of us are willing to point out the emperor is nekked.

As in most other difficult endeavors there are always some people looking for the magic bullet or quick fix. Just turn on your TV late at night to see what I mean. It is not a question of intelligence or being deluded, it is merely human nature. And the only reason interest in some of this baloney has been so strong, for so long, is because of the fanaticism of the believers. You don't have to look too hard for it -- it's on display in this very thread.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Roadie]

To paraphrase the old adage: Arguing about aiming systems is like arguing over religion or politics. No ones' opinion really changes.

There's been a lot of interesting comments in this thread about what John Schmidt and Corey Deuel think about aiming systems. It seems to me that people may be trying too hard to use the comments of these two US Open champions to buttress their own particular beliefs about aiming systems.

Personally, I think JS and CD are being too harsh in their criticisms of aiming systems. Even with the limitations that aiming systems may have, most people probably could benefit from learning an aiming system, to develop the confidence and the skills needed to aim and pocket balls.

Mr. Duell was not critical of aiming systems in that conversation as I remember it. In fact he did state his position that he feels that aiming should happen from the cueball and attempted to demonstrate his method.

Mr. Schmidt was harsh but not entirely consistent in his critique. We are simply discussing the content. There are other US Open Champions who do use and endorse aming systems though. Darren Appleton, the reigning US Open champion who won it back to back. Shane Van Boeing and Jimmy Reid come to mind. Rodney Morris uses an aiming method that is not taught in books.

I find that Mr. Schmidt's seemingly exasperated comments serve to further the conversation. I do agree that some would like to latch on to them and use them as proof that their own perspective is correct. The very same people unfortunately don't then want to allow for pros on aiming system side to count as positve reinforcement.

 

[Roadie]

How sound can a system be when it does not account for the elements I mentioned?

An aiming system? This is not a delivery system, it is an aligmment method to bring the player to a shot line. From there the player has to apply his skill to the execution of the shot. That's where touch and speed and deflection and swerve come into play. In that sense there is no difference between CTE and Ghost Ball. Ghost Ball at it's most basic is a center ball method of determining a shot line. As players advance in skill they are taught to compensate for throw and spin and deflection and so on. But as far as a mehtod to getting on the centerball shot line I think that the soundness depends on how consistently the shooter can lay the cue down on the right line when deliberately using whatever method he uses. If I said to someone that they should use Ghost ball and do a series of shots and they made 10 of 15 and I said to another person use CTE and they made 13 of 15 and those results stayed pretty much consistent then I would conclude that CTE is the better method.

For years, the system has been touted as geometrically definitive. For months, we were promised a proof that would show this to be so but was never delivered. And if you watch the DVD, the people on screen would have you believe that all you need is the system and “Viola!” you make shot after shot. (The system also introduces numerous physical movements that, IMO, are counter-productive for the player, but you can go look up my review if you need more info on that.) For whatever reasons, there is a certain segment of the pool populace that wants to believe, in the worst way, that the system will solve their woes and if used properly (with great study and faith) make the balls go in the pockets and put the cue ball on a string.

Well, instead you got a step-by-step instructional that many people have been able to use to learn the method. Many others have needed a little extra help which they received free-of-charge from Mr. Shuffett.

Granted there are people who want to buy a better game in a box without putting in any table time. Those are the people whom good instruction is wasted on. I know people who have paid upwards of $100 an hour to be coached by professionals. A few days after the lessons they are ecstatic about all the things they were shown. A month later they can barely remember most of those things because they thought that the skill would be transferred through demonstration rather than practice. So what? That does not make the information less valid or less valuable because some people aren't willing to spend the time to really learn it.

As to the testimonials, I’m fine with the positive ones. I do not discount or disqualify them out of hand -- I understand that people can and do find improvement or that the system “works” for them for any number of reasons. It is up to each of to decide their merits. But people can be convinced that placebos work. Some people do not understand that something can be working for reasons other than the ones advertised. People believe in UFOs, Big Foot, and The Loch Ness Monster.

Understood. But this is not a placebo. It is the actual medicine. A placebo in this sense would be if you gave someone a method that for sure would not work and their brain overcame it and found the shot line anyway. That's not the case here. This is a very simple method that has defined steps.

Over the years, the pro-CTE faction has proven itself to be a zealous and fanatical lot and so I would suggest to you that the reason you might find many endorsements posted is the same reason you are more likely to find a religious zealot proselytizing on a street corner or knocking at your front door, rather than an agnostic or atheist. By and large that last group of guys is happy to just have a good laugh over the whole thing and fergetaboutit, while only a few of us are willing to point out the emperor is nekked.

Sure. Which is one of the big turn-offs when exuberance turns to zealotry. However you can also admit to some persecution as well. We all know that this has been an equal opportunity flame-fest. But I do not think that the average player who has purchased Mr. Shuffet's dvd is indocrinated enough to post a testimonial/review due to zealous fervor. I submit to you that most of them have been fairly simple accounts of how the method has helped them. I do understand that if you feel strongly enough that the methods don't work where you can assume the role of vocal skeptic liek James Randi. However all of the objections to the method have been answered. Mr. Shuffet met you head on and produced a DVD with detailed instructions. So really the emperorer in this situation certainly has clothes on and they are fine indeed. I personally am an atheist who only believes in what can be proven. CTE has been proven to work satisfactorily for me.

As in most other difficult endeavors there are always some people looking for the magic bullet or quick fix. Just turn on your TV late at night to see what I mean.

Certainly. In fact looking for shortcuts is the very reason innovation happens. Today we have so much extra time that we can spend it frivolously debating the best method of how to aim balls into each other. 100 years ago the common man had to work much harder to provide for his existence with little time for intellectual and leisurely pursuits. As a result science and art were mainly the endeavors of the wealthy. Now anyone can be an artist or a scientist. Looking for shortcuts is hardwired into us. So it's clear that some people will cash in on that desire. However not everything advertised on late-night television is bogus. Sometimes that is the only place a legimately good idea can get exposure.

It is not a question of intelligence or being deluded, it is merely human nature. And the only reason interest in some of this baloney has been so strong, for so long, is because of the fanaticism of the believers. You don't have to look too hard for it -- it's on display in this very thread.

Lou Figueroa

Well it's interesting that human interaction seems to mirror physics in the sense that force is always met with opposing force to balance out. So the way I see it is that at this point it's really a chicken/egg proposition. Which came first the zealots or the critics? Did the critics create the zealots? Did the zealots invite the critics? I say it's been pretty much even.

And as I said previously, the proof to me, as with science, is in peer review. We have seen many people come and go on this and other forums who had magical systems. They arrive with a huge amount of fanfare touting some magical way to play pool that will revolutionize pool and within weeks they are gone because there method could not withstand close scrutiny by good players. Why then has CTE survived? Well it could very well be that it actually works as opposed to simply being kept alive by fanatics. In my opinion that is the reason, it actually works.

 

[justadub]

Well it's interesting that human interaction seems to mirror physics in the sense that force is always met with opposing force to balance out. So the way I see it is that at this point it's really a chicken/egg proposition. Which came first the zealots or the critics? Did the critics create the zealots? Did the zealots invite the critics? I say it's been pretty much even.

And as the volleys were fired back and forth, the level of the hyperbole increased, and the claims were magnified/derided, and the whole thing continued to escalate.

Each side feeds the fire, and watches it grow. While each side has pertinent points, they are lost in the conflagration.

This thread has, thus far, remained mostly civil and reasoned. A real exchange of thoughts and ideas. We shall see if it can possibly continue. I have my doubts....

 

[bender_lu]

i would only have one question. i didnt care for systems or whatsoever, but had a look at youtube to "know" what is ment by CTE. ok so far i know its a system for propper alignement using the CB and the OB.

my question is: how does the system adept to playing conditions? the contact point remains the same, but the cloth for example plays a huge role in our game/sport.

example: last year our cloth was renewed. shots with follow spin changed completely, the CB seemed to "push" the ob and you had to play it fuller than the correct "aiming line" would suppose.
after some months the cloth played as usual and the aiming line went "back" to the "theoretical" correct position.

thanks for the answer (honestly )

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Roadie:
Experience is all we have in this situation.

Some of us also have reason.

[CTE] doesn't eliminate feel. Nothing does...

"Experience" misleads many to believe that CTE does eliminate feel. As Lou pointed out, SpiderWebb went so far as to threaten for a year or more that he would publish the "math" to prove it - all because his "experience" of making more shots with CTE convinced him the system is "exact".

The silly idea that a fractional system could be "exact" was the original bone of contention many years ago when some of the same system wonks argued endlessly that Hal Houle's "Three Angle" system (CTE's precursor) was "exact" for every possible shot because of pocket slop.

pj
chgo

 

[champ2107]

Roadie!!!! you have some serious skillz there, very impressive! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

[duckie]

An aiming system? This is not a delivery system, it is an aligmment method to bring the player to a shot line. From there the player has to apply his skill to the execution of the shot. That's where touch and speed and deflection and swerve come into play. In that sense there is no difference between CTE and Ghost Ball. Ghost Ball at it's most basic is a center ball method of determining a shot line. As players advance in skill they are taught to compensate for throw and spin and deflection and so on. But as far as a mehtod to getting on the centerball shot line I think that the soundness depends on how consistently the shooter can lay the cue down on the right line when deliberately using whatever method he uses. If I said to someone that they should use Ghost ball and do a series of shots and they made 10 of 15 and I said to another person use CTE and they made 13 of 15 and those results stayed pretty much consistent then I would conclude that CTE is the better method.



Well, instead you got a step-by-step instructional that many people have been able to use to learn the method. Many others have needed a little extra help which they received free-of-charge from Mr. Shuffett.

Granted there are people who want to buy a better game in a box without putting in any table time. Those are the people whom good instruction is wasted on. I know people who have paid upwards of $100 an hour to be coached by professionals. A few days after the lessons they are ecstatic about all the things they were shown. A month later they can barely remember most of those things because they thought that the skill would be transferred through demonstration rather than practice. So what? That does not make the information less valid or less valuable because some people aren't willing to spend the time to really learn it.





Understood. But this is not a placebo. It is the actual medicine. A placebo in this sense would be if you gave someone a method that for sure would not work and their brain overcame it and found the shot line anyway. That's not the case here. This is a very simple method that has defined steps.



Sure. Which is one of the big turn-offs when exuberance turns to zealotry. However you can also admit to some persecution as well. We all know that this has been an equal opportunity flame-fest. But I do not think that the average player who has purchased Mr. Shuffet's dvd is indocrinated enough to post a testimonial/review due to zealous fervor. I submit to you that most of them have been fairly simple accounts of how the method has helped them. I do understand that if you feel strongly enough that the methods don't work where you can assume the role of vocal skeptic liek James Randi. However all of the objections to the method have been answered. Mr. Shuffet met you head on and produced a DVD with detailed instructions. So really the emperorer in this situation certainly has clothes on and they are fine indeed. I personally am an atheist who only believes in what can be proven. CTE has been proven to work satisfactorily for me.



Certainly. In fact looking for shortcuts is the very reason innovation happens. Today we have so much extra time that we can spend it frivolously debating the best method of how to aim balls into each other. 100 years ago the common man had to work much harder to provide for his existence with little time for intellectual and leisurely pursuits. As a result science and art were mainly the endeavors of the wealthy. Now anyone can be an artist or a scientist. Looking for shortcuts is hardwired into us. So it's clear that some people will cash in on that desire. However not everything advertised on late-night television is bogus. Sometimes that is the only place a legimately good idea can get exposure.




Well it's interesting that human interaction seems to mirror physics in the sense that force is always met with opposing force to balance out. So the way I see it is that at this point it's really a chicken/egg proposition. Which came first the zealots or the critics? Did the critics create the zealots? Did the zealots invite the critics? I say it's been pretty much even.

And as I said previously, the proof to me, as with science, is in peer review. We have seen many people come and go on this and other forums who had magical systems. They arrive with a huge amount of fanfare touting some magical way to play pool that will revolutionize pool and within weeks they are gone because there method could not withstand close scrutiny by good players. Why then has CTE survived? Well it could very well be that it actually works as opposed to simply being kept alive by fanatics. In my opinion that is the reason, it actually works.

Your reasoning in the highlighted section is false because of one factor-the person. You can not take the person out of the equation as you did in order to say one system is better than another. Remember a aiming system is not a delivery system. The how you get the CB there is more about than how you determine where to put the CB. And this is where table time comes in and not the system used.

And as for using shots to prove one system is better than another, there are shot's that CTE, as well as double the distance, fractional, can not work on whereas there are no shots that ghost ball can not be used on therefore ghost ball is the better system.

What is funny is anytime that any discouraging words are spoken about CTE, there is such a effort to prove the validity of the system. If it is so good and so strong, then there is no need for defending it.

It isn't the system used, its the amount of time using the system that matters.

JS and CD comments are just that comments. Take em or leave em, but some just can't seem to accept the ole agree to disagree idea.

It is more beneficial to pick one way, whatever way suits your fancy, stick with it, put in table time using it then trying this system or that system or that cue, or that shaft or that tip. Doing this you will never go far. You will never develop a high level of feel. And feel is at the heart of the game.

Think beyond cut shots when it comes to systems and you will find most have limitations. The world of shot making in pool goes beyond just cut shots. Any system that relies on being to hit the OB directly has limitations.

So, what do you do for those non cuts shots. Say a simple rail first shot. Do you learn another system for those and another one for banks and another and another for caroms and another for two-three rails shots? How many systems is need to make all the different types of shots that can happen in pool.

Ghost ball works on all shots. Why, because it doesn't rely on being able to hit the OB directly. It works for one rail kicks, it works for rail first shots, it works for caroms.

The real problem is the thinking that I highlighted, that one system is better than another when there is no proof as such. If you want to take achievements as proof, than I'll stick with Ghost Ball as used by Babe Cranfield. One Hall of Famer tops 4 instructors.