Let's All Support Stan

JB Cases said:
It's not about hurting CTE. It's about deliberately hurting those who teach or advocate aiming systems and IN PARTICULAR, the incredibly nasty attacks against Hal and Stan perpetrated by a few here.

Aiming systems aren't going anywhere and they can only get more precise over time as more people adopt them and more minds analyze them and find ways to explain the methods and instructions.

My major issue is the naysayers who have literally made it almost their personal mission to conduct a war against aiming systems to the point that they enjoy warning people to stay away from them. Much like a stepping on something sharp, you don't do it often but when you do it hurts and has to be addressed. But in a way the naysayers are also partially responsible for fueling the interest. Without them there would be no aiming forum and the motivation to prove what is known in various mediums would be lacking. Because of the naysayers, hurtful and hateful that they have been, the conversations have continued far longer than they otherwise would have. They have forced people to examine all aspects of aiming to a much higher degree.

So at the end of the day the pool world is better off for having many recognized OBJECTIVE methods of aiming, from fairly simple such as 90/90 to kind of complicated (for some) like yours, to intense but very very accurate like CTE.

With that in mind I would give an award to the hateful naysayers. Although I believe that their motivation was purely negative it would not be right not to acknowledge that without their actions we wouldn't likely be as interested in aiming.

All that said, I can't believe none of them are going to take down that 5k freeroll Stan posted. Should be easy money considering that they have all claimed to know exactly how CTE does and does not work. Guess maybe their position isn't as strong as they thought.
Click to expand...

For interested lurkers, please take note of which "side" is using personal insults and smears and which side isn't.
 
JB Cases said:
It's not about hurting CTE. It's about deliberately hurting those who teach or advocate aiming systems and IN PARTICULAR, the incredibly nasty attacks against Hal and Stan perpetrated by a few here.

Aiming systems aren't going anywhere and they can only get more precise over time as more people adopt them and more minds analyze them and find ways to explain the methods and instructions.

My major issue is the naysayers who have literally made it almost their personal mission to conduct a war against aiming systems to the point that they enjoy warning people to stay away from them. Much like a stepping on something sharp, you don't do it often but when you do it hurts and has to be addressed. But in a way the naysayers are also partially responsible for fueling the interest. Without them there would be no aiming forum and the motivation to prove what is known in various mediums would be lacking. Because of the naysayers, hurtful and hateful that they have been, the conversations have continued far longer than they otherwise would have. They have forced people to examine all aspects of aiming to a much higher degree.

So at the end of the day the pool world is better off for having many recognized OBJECTIVE methods of aiming, from fairly simple such as 90/90 to kind of complicated (for some) like yours, to intense but very very accurate like CTE.

With that in mind I would give an award to the hateful naysayers. Although I believe that their motivation was purely negative it would not be right not to acknowledge that without their actions we wouldn't likely be as interested in aiming.

All that said, I can't believe none of them are going to take down that 5k freeroll Stan posted. Should be easy money considering that they have all claimed to know exactly how CTE does and does not work. Guess maybe their position isn't as strong as they thought.
Click to expand...


What is the $5K free roll?

Lou Figueroa
 
Dan White said:
sixpack referred to it earlier in the thread but it seems you have to be facebook friends with Stan, so nobody seems to know. Nice to get ridiculed for not accepting a challenge that was never made.
Click to expand...


So Stan is challenging his friends?!

Lou Figueroa
whaddaguy
 
Dan White said:
sixpack referred to it earlier in the thread but it seems you have to be facebook friends with Stan, so nobody seems to know. Nice to get ridiculed for not accepting a challenge that was never made.
Click to expand...

He has had ample time to make it public so here goes: this is my understanding so any mistakes or misinterpretations are mine. He is offering 5k for his detractors to come to him and be videotaped explaining in detail how CTE works. I’m not sure if you get the 5k if you explain it correctly or just if you agree to be videotaped and included in the truth series of videos.

If you are interested don’t rely on my understanding, contact him for details.
 
BC21 said:
I like the analysis, both yours and Dan's. But in my mind this whole video of Stan's is flawed simply because he keeps referring to that first shot as if it's a halfball hit, which he obviously spins in because it's not a halfball hit, as you even acknowledge. Little things like this (a professional instructor making simple errors in describing what he is doing) is what tarnishes the rest of what he is does in the video. There's room for doubt and speculation because he is so wrong from the start.

I do like where Stan says he doesn't care about the exact angle because it doesn't concern him when using CTE. But still, that whole halfball business puts the video into shady territory for most people trying to learn CTE.
Click to expand...

There is no one who has made more videos on aiming as Stan. So within all of those videos will he misspeak sometimes? Will he guess at the hit angle sometimes when doing some other way to align to the shot? I would think so.

Nothing tarnishes the rest of the video because the POINT is still valid. Namely that CTE usage means that you are not concerned with the exact hit-angle and don't really need to know it.

If the video makes sense when the ball IS at a dead perfect half ball hit and a dead straight stroke makes it then it still makes sense when the hit is NOT a half and unconscious steering shows up. In fact the latter situation, when unintentionally done by the presenter, shows that even an experienced high level player like Stan can have a visual-subconscious-action disconnect when the wrong line is chosen and thus the subconscious has to kick in big time to "steer" the ball into the right direction. Which is why an objective method takes the shooter consciously and methodically to the correct shot line and from there a straight stroke gets the job done.

So he inadvertently made the point even stronger. But no one else caught it or cared until Dan decided to try and say Stan was steering all the shots in. Stan has trained champions, players who asked that the training not be made public. So, no there is no taint from this one swoop stroke from a misalignment caused by a slightly mistaken guess as to the hit angle.
 
Dan White said:
For interested lurkers, please take note of which "side" is using personal insults and smears and which side isn't.
Click to expand...

Isn't NOW. The things that the other side has said have been far more hurtful and actually defamatory rather than a typical offhand insult.

Bottom line, CTE has helped thousands, maybe tens of thousands, and will continue helping people long after the naysayer "side" is gone and forgotten. None of those folks will leave anything worth remembering while the CTE side will have a viable community forever.
 
JB Cases said:
There is no one who has made more videos on aiming as Stan. So within all of those videos will he misspeak sometimes? Will he guess at the hit angle sometimes when doing some other way to align to the shot? I would think so.

Nothing tarnishes the rest of the video because the POINT is still valid. Namely that CTE usage means that you are not concerned with the exact hit-angle and don't really need to know it.

If the video makes sense when the ball IS at a dead perfect half ball hit and a dead straight stroke makes it then it still makes sense when the hit is NOT a half and unconscious steering shows up. In fact the latter situation, when unintentionally done by the presenter, shows that even an experienced high level player like Stan can have a visual-subconscious-action disconnect when the wrong line is chosen and thus the subconscious has to kick in big time to "steer" the ball into the right direction. Which is why an objective method takes the shooter consciously and methodically to the correct shot line and from there a straight stroke gets the job done.

So he inadvertently made the point even stronger. But no one else caught it or cared until Dan decided to try and say Stan was steering all the shots in. Stan has trained champions, players who asked that the training not be made public. So, no there is no taint from this one swoop stroke from a misalignment caused by a slightly mistaken guess as to the hit angle.
Click to expand...

The error does not make the point stronger. It muddies it up. When people are trying to learn CTE Pro1 or manual pivots (including many that purchased both dvd's) they set this shot up, then they get their visuals and pivot or sweep to ccb. Since the instructor specifically states it's a halfball shot, you can check to see if your pivot or sweep was correct by looking straight down the shaft to see if the cue is lined for a halfball shot. The same check is used when learning to shoot straight ins with a 15 outside. That final ccb should be leading straight from ccb to center ob. If not, keep practing the sweep or pivot and bridge v placement until you get it. It's nice when it all works out and there's a way to verify you're aligned properly.
 
sixpack said:
He has had ample time to make it public so here goes: this is my understanding so any mistakes or misinterpretations are mine. He is offering 5k for his detractors to come to him and be videotaped explaining in detail how CTE works. I’m not sure if you get the 5k if you explain it correctly or just if you agree to be videotaped and included in the truth series of videos.

If you are interested don’t rely on my understanding, contact him for details.
Click to expand...


If you think about this for just a moment it's pretty amazing.

Basically, Stan is saying that: after endless posts, God only knows how many YouTube videos, and two DVDs that's he's sold, he's willing to bet $5,000 that experienced, accomplished players cannot explain how CTE works.

That admission is breath taking.

Lou Figueroa
 
BC21 said:
The error does not make the point stronger. It muddies it up. When people are trying to learn CTE Pro1 or manual pivots (including many that purchased both dvd's) they set this shot up, then they get their visuals and pivot or sweep to ccb. Since the instructor specifically states it's a halfball shot, you can check to see if your pivot or sweep was correct by looking straight down the shaft to see if the cue is lined for a halfball shot. The same check is used when learning to shoot straight ins with a 15 outside. That final ccb should be leading straight from ccb to center ob. If not, keep practing the sweep or pivot and bridge v placement until you get it. It's nice when it all works out and there's a way to verify you're aligned properly.
Click to expand...

Everyone makes mistakes. I seem to recall when you first came here advertising your book an error in the book being pointed out. I believe you went back and corrected said error. Does that make your whole book invalid?

PS half ball hits never really come up in CTE. We just look down the shaft to make sure we are at true CCB after the sweep
 
lfigueroa said:
If you think about this for just a moment it's pretty amazing.

Basically, Stan is saying that: after endless posts, God only knows how many YouTube videos, and two DVDs that's he's sold, he's willing to bet $5,000 that experienced, accomplished players cannot explain how CTE works.

That admission is breath taking.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Right on. He is betting that after 20 years of you bad mouthing CTE you couldn't explain it. He's calling you out. Now what.
 
cookie man said:
Everyone makes mistakes. I seem to recall when you first came here advertising your book an error in the book being pointed out. I believe you went back and corrected said error. Does that make your whole book invalid?

PS half ball hits never really come up in CTE. We just look down the shaft to make sure we are at true CCB after the sweep
Click to expand...

Very true. I just meant, for learning purposes, it's convenient when you know the exact angle of the shot, and also know where to aim fractionally to achieve that angle. This could be very beneficial info when trying to learn CTE. After getting your perception and placing your bridge hand down and sweeping or pivoting to ccb, you can then compare this final aim line to the known fractional aim line to see if you did it correctly. So my point was, with Stan incorrectly stating this was a halfball shot, how many new CTE users out there kept doing the perception and pivot trying to make it work out as a halfball hit?

Imagine when you first learned CTE on straight in shots. You get your 15 outside visuals, place your bridge V down so that your cue is half a tip from this fixed cb perception, then pivot to ccb. From here you can look straight down your shaft and see that you are lined from ccb to center ob. That same learning check can be used for known halfball shots also, as long as it's really a halfball shot and not somebody just telling you it is.
 
Last edited:
You guys keep ridiculing us over some phantom $5000 wager that none of us have seen. Where is it?
 
JB Cases said:
If the video makes sense when the ball IS at a dead perfect half ball hit and a dead straight stroke makes it then it still makes sense when the hit is NOT a half and unconscious steering shows up. In fact the latter situation, when unintentionally done by the presenter, shows that even an experienced high level player like Stan can have a visual-subconscious-action disconnect when the wrong line is chosen and thus the subconscious has to kick in big time to "steer" the ball into the right direction. Which is why an objective method takes the shooter consciously and methodically to the correct shot line and from there a straight stroke gets the job done.

So he inadvertently made the point even stronger. But no one else caught it or cared until Dan decided to try and say Stan was steering all the shots in. Stan has trained champions, players who asked that the training not be made public. So, no there is no taint from this one swoop stroke from a misalignment caused by a slightly mistaken guess as to the hit angle.
Click to expand...

regarding the bold: I always get a kick out of people who come with their own rap to explain away the inconvenient observations. The problem is, when you do that, you begin to contradict the guy you are defending. Stan said he knew he was spinning the ball in and was doing it on purpose, so, uhh, hmm...

Otherwise, for those who want to see what I actually said, rather than what John wants you to think, here is the original video. I'm not going to debate what is pretty well settled ad nauseum. Some who haven't seen this may find it interesting, others won't. So be it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpljeVvOqRs
 
JB Cases said:
Isn't NOW. The things that the other side has said have been far more hurtful and actually defamatory rather than a typical offhand insult.

Bottom line, CTE has helped thousands, maybe tens of thousands, and will continue helping people long after the naysayer "side" is gone and forgotten. None of those folks will leave anything worth remembering while the CTE side will have a viable community forever.
Click to expand...

Oh, OK. Read this post from a year and a half ago and tell me who is throwing the barbs even back then. I don't think you were on AZ at that time so maybe you never saw this thread. It appears that most of the CTE guys didn't see it, either, based on all the cricket sounds.

I'm not here to relitigate this. Just watch and judge for yourself. Note that Stan has removed the "5 shot perception" video that I refer to in the link below. This is the one that illustrated the controversy most clearly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zjQoNfXcck&feature=youtu.be
 
sixpack said:
I posted a summary of it. For more information contact Stan.
Click to expand...

I understand it and appreciate that. However, you posted a sort of, maybe and kind of vague description. The other guys are acting like there has been some big wager announced and we're all ducking it. If the challenge were what you are saying it is, there will be (what is that charming pool player saying again?) a line of guys willing to swim through a river of sh!t to take that action.

Of course it will never happen because the money would have to be posted to a neutral third party. Good luck getting that to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top