Millions of Views!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan White said:
You won't like this last comment, but I don't believe Stan is a particularly gifted instructor like you do. His demeanor and sincerity and general approach is terrific. The problem is that anyone can teach the student who understands everything right away. Only the good instructors can take someone who just doesn't get it (ie, me) and find a different way to explain/demonstrate things so that student can understand. Stan doesn't attempt to win over hearts and minds to his way of thinking by finding unique ways of teaching. He insults and demeans and ignores. I find that somewhat telling, don't you? If I knew 2+2=4 and I had the courage of my convictions about that, you'd better be sure I'd find a way to demonstrate to every last skeptic that 2+2 really did equal 4. Some people are skeptics for a reason, not because of some great unknown conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Obviously you have never taken an in person lesson from Stan. You have no idea how great this man's teaching ability is.
It's posts like these that starts all the trouble, one big assumption on your part with no actual knowledge.
 
cookie man said:
Obviously you have never taken an in person lesson from Stan. You have no idea how great this man's teaching ability is.
It's posts like these that starts all the trouble, one big assumption on your part with no actual knowledge.
Click to expand...

I have enough knowledge to understand that it is poor form to blame the student for something the teacher is unable to communicate. Some call it a cop out. If the only way to learn this stuff is by taking a personal lesson, then why is he selling books and DVDs?

Guys, I don't want to rain on your parade. You are obviously convinced of the method and I do believe it works for you. I also agree with everybody here that nobody understands why it works. It certainly doesn't work the way Stan's videos describe it. The best explanation I can think of is that you improve by having structured practice sessions and a placebo called CTE. I'm not starting a flame war, just stating my opinion as it has been formed by my objective analysis.
 
The instruction over and over was On topic and Constructive.

The constant arguing about prove it, you're wrong, etc...
If you can't agree, so what? Say so ONCE and drop out of the conversation.

Badgering everyone else that wants to talk about it is done, not just for him, but all.
 
Dan White said:
Spider - see my comment to Neil above. It isn't that big a deal so let's move on. I didn't whine and cry about being called a knocker, except maybe when Stan told me he hopes I never get a copy of his DVD. Maybe that's worse than being called a knocker. Whatever.

I didn't read this post as you think I did yesterday but am doing it now so here we go. I know one thing you can be called which is a CHEAP MISER!

If you were really that interested in learning CTE you could have purchased it from Stan a long time ago instead of trying to learn it from the freebie videos he's done on youtube or get a loaner from JB or somebody else. Are you that broke not to be able to purchase CTE videos or any others that come available from other pro players and instructors?

You know more about my posts from 10 or 15 years ago than I do at this point. I looked into CTE for awhile and, yes, I spent the 2 hours on the phone with Hal. First off, I don't even know PJ after all these many years. I think he and I have had maybe 3 back and forths in any thread in all that time.

I love how your selective memory works. I don't know if this contains ALL of your posts which actually start back in 1996 but knock yourself out in the various threads. Definitely more than 3 Mr. Alzheimers: https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/rec.sport.billiard/dan$20white%7Csort:relevance

PJ rubs people the wrong way because he doesn't suffer fools,

I guess you never considered that PJ could possibly be a fool himself.

if you are familiar with the expression. I'm not in any "camp." PJ is generally correct when it comes to technical matters, so yes I think he's a good contributor. If he says something that you disagree with then the solution is very simple: prove him wrong to shut him up.

He's been proven wrong many times and nothing shuts him up. It's like he's a WIFE in a man's body.

How about this, instead of having a lot of back and forth and not producing anything of use, why not answer this question that Stan simply ignores:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5321812&postcount=1615

It's up to Stan, not me or anyone else.

I have no agenda.

Right, and Richard Nixon wasn't a crook.

Nobody here has an agenda.

Pat Johnson has had an agenda for 17 going on 18 years now which is to discredit, belittle CTE as well as crow "I'M RIGHT, I'M RIGHT. THEY'RE WRONG." If he doesn't have an agenda then he has a severe mental illness to carry on about the same thing for 18 years as he's done as often as possible. He's back in this thread yapping away as I write this. Don't you find THAT ODD?

Well, truthfully Stan has one because he stands to make a lot of money.

I don't think Stan has ever been motivated by money as a primary goal. He does have an agenda which would be better termed as a cause or mission which is to help pool players play better. He's definitely done it with HIS OWN SON, LANDON. Do you think he would want to destroy his son's playing level with some phony garbage?

I'm not against that, but let's face the fact that he's really the only one who stands to be affected positively or negatively if CTE is accepted or discredited.

He's the ONLY ONE to be affected positively? What the hell kind of statement is that? Sounds like you're a man with an agenda after all. What about the PLAYERS THEMSELVES who are affected positively like the ones who use it and praise the system? CTE is always being discredited by people like PJ, English, now you, and others so yes, it affects Stan negatively. PJ or English have never attempted making a video while at the table as you have because they're CLUELESS. (there's that bad word again but very appropriate)

You won't like this last comment, but I don't believe Stan is a particularly gifted instructor like you do. His demeanor and sincerity and general approach is terrific. The problem is that anyone can teach the student who understands everything right away. Only the good instructors can take someone who just doesn't get it (ie, me) and find a different way to explain/demonstrate things so that student can understand.
Click to expand...


This is a mind numbing paragraph you just wrote. Totally CLASSLESS and IGNORANT!!! What do you think he was doing as far as finding different ways to explain and demonstrate things so students can understand when he poured HOURS INTO THOUGHT AND MAKING THESE FREE VIDEOS POSTED ON YOUTUBE??!!
https://www.youtube.com/user/stanandlandonshuffet His phone and emails are ALWAYS AVAILABLE to eager students that have PURCHASED the dvds
unlike yourself. NOBODY OWES YOU SQUAT, ESPECIALLY STAN!

Stan has more credentials and certifications for teaching than any pro pool instructor out there. HE WAS A SCHOOL TEACHER IN THE KENTUCKY SCHOOL SYSTEM AND RETIRED AFTER 30 YEARS OF TEACHING TO PUT UP WITH THE CRAP ON A POOL FORUM REGARDING CTE. HE'S DEVELOPED THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN TO BECOME SUCCESSFUL ADULTS!

HE'S BEEN A PROFESSIONAL BILLIARDS INSTRUCTOR FOR 29 YEARS.

HE OBTAINED HIS INITIAL BCA INSTRUCTION UNDER JERRY BRIESATH IN 1989.

IN 1992, HE BECAME ONE OF THE ORIGINAL 19 CHARTERED MEMBERS OF THE BCA INSTRUCTORS' PROGRAM AS WE KNOW IT TODAY.

IN OCTOBER 2006 HE ADDED BCA ADVANCED LEVEL TRAINING TO HIS INSTRUCTING CREDENTIALS.

STAN COMPLETED HIS TRAINING FOR PBIA MASTER INSTRUCTOR IN FEBRUARY OF 2014 UNDER THE DIRECTION OF SCOTT LEE.

So Dan, would you be so kind to list YOUR TRAINING/TEACHING CREDENTIALS AND CERTIFICATIONS in pool? How about Pat Johnson? How about troll English or troll Ron Swanson aka Thaiger? HOW ABOUT ANYBODY OF YOUR CHOICE WHO YOU DEEM WORTHY?
 
Last edited:
Hey Dan, since you think Stan is a poor instructor, I guess you never looked at or considered how he developed his son Landon to become the player he is.

The TITLES he's won starting at a young age in 2004 through 2014 are INCREDIBLE! I don't think any youngster in the history of pool has the accomplishments of Landon as a result of Stan's instruction.

To much for me to write out but you can read it for yourself:

http://www.justcueit.com/landon.html

I'd like to provide some visual proof of how a "POOR INSTRUCTOR" has hurt the play of his son:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t-3BGNaTv0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HYQjoHjwL4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seOCo9T1tLo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYAw4i-wHfk
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
He wasn't wrong; he just needs to learn how to deliver his message without annoying even those who agree with him.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I think you should try learning what to do for yourself instead of others. You'd think after almost two decades of practice it would be down pat. Actually you do have the "ANNOYING" part perfected.
 
mohrt said:
I believe this is a good example of what mr. Wilson means by "badgering". Please keep posts on topic and useful.
Click to expand...
No offense meant to you, mohrt, but that explanation just didn't make any sense. I think pointing that out is on topic and useful (OK, a little less snarky would be better), especially when you're presenting things as facts and not impressions.

Sorry it had to be about your post - I generally like them.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
No offense meant to you, mohrt, but that explanation just didn't make any sense. I think pointing that out is on topic and useful, especially when you're presenting things as facts and not impressions.



Sorry it had to be about your post - I generally like them.



pj

chgo
Click to expand...


You can say it does not make sense to you, that is fine and I'm aware of your own personal sentiments on the subject. I don't think that speaks for everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mohrt said:
Dan, I'll try to cover the questions as well as I can. This is the easily the most misunderstood part of the CTE system.

So regarding the 5 shots, all using the same perception (CTEL/A), and they all pocket the ball into the same hole. Obviously each shot has its own unique angle. How does that work?

The answer is to first understand that perceptions are not static alignments or angles. That is to say CTEL/A, although a single perception, is not a single physical alignment. As you stand behind each of these 5 shots and line up on the CTEL/A perception, the physical alignment becomes slightly thinner and thinner as you move from the nearest shot to the farthest (from the target pocket). This isn't something you have to force yourself to do, your perception does the work. If you go to the table and setup these 5 shots and line up each one with CTEL/A where it looks right (move eyes left or right at all and you lose one or both lines.) If you are honest with yourself and not trying to FORCE the physical alignment to be the same shot-to-shot, you should see the physical alignment slightly change shot to shot. How does that happen? Although we don't have all the answers to explain the WHY, the HOW is easy. Anyone can go to the table and discover this for themselves. We know that the position of the two balls (CB/OB) on the 1x2 surface of the table with pockets at 90d angles lend to unique physical eye positions for a given perception and CB/OB position.

Regarding the second shot in the video. For a straight-in shot, a left or right outside pivot works identically. However for any other angle, these two pivots end up as different shots. In the video a left pivot is a shot to the side pocket, and a right pivot is the bank. If the CB/OB were aligned directly into a pocket, either left or right outside pivot would work the same. Again, this all hinges on how our perception works.

I had the same questions when I first started. Instead of bothering myself with so much "WHY", I just setup shots and did my best to find the perceptions and shoot the shots. It didn't take long to figure it out. I think the subconscious mind needs a chance to identify out what it's looking for. It's not a matter of learning how to line up on a perception so it works, but rather learning to recognize the perception right in front of us and harnessing it.
Click to expand...

Well, this is what would be needed for the CTE system to work. I think this is what people that struggle with the system can't understand. I know I can't. I can cheat because I know what "offset" the pivot will give me, so that if I start with an offset that magnitude away from the "ghost ball" pre-pivot, I will of course be dead on. However, I can't with the best of efforts see a CTE alignment in this position. The CTE edge to A will suck me into the exact same alignment every time, which of course will not work at all, at least not for all 5 shots.

If I start with an approximate alignment for a traditional ghost ball shot and then try to pick up the visuals (as I believe Neil suggests, though I might remember incorrectly), the results are always the same. The CTE edge to A gets locked in, and my head ends up in the exact same spot. With the Pro-one approach, that can be worked with, since there is more room to make subtle adjustments, but for strict CTE, it won't pocket the shot without major cheating with bridge lengths etc.

I don't think these so called unique alignments can be easily explained, I know that they can look nothing like the straight forward CTE edge to A/C/B that anyone can see using to balls. They have to look unique (obviously) for each shot, so some sort of distortion must come into play. Maybe your head needs to be twisted somewhat away from the ball as the shots get thinner, so that the distance between your eyes changes? Or the same effect achieved by offsetting the head more from the center line. That's my best guess.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I can also say it doesn't make logical sense, can't I?
pj
chgo
Click to expand...


You've been chasing down Hal, CTE, CTE Users, and Stan Shuffett for 18 years now and you've pretty much said all of it thousands of times over, which doesn't make logical sense.

Here is YOUR FIRST POST in September of 1997 about Hal's first post. He latched in YOUR mouth hook, line, and sinker and you're still thrashing around in the water.

PAT JOHNSON - September 1997

"This is the biggest crock of transcendental pool bull I've ever heard. Even
worse than I imagined. Is this really the line (including hook and sinker) you
Houle Pool suckers... er, students are buying? Does he do seances, too? Can he
channel Efren through me for the Chicago RSB Shootout?

You know, if you count up your fingers and toes and subtract the number of tries
it took to get it right, that leaves sixteen... exactly the number of balls in
pool! Weird, huh? You don't think that's an accident, do you?"

Pat Johnson
Chicago
 
Straightpool_99 said:
Well, this is what would be needed for the CTE system to work. I think this is what people that struggle with the system can't understand. I know I can't. I can cheat because I know what "offset" the pivot will give me, so that if I start with an offset that magnitude away from the "ghost ball" pre-pivot, I will of course be dead on. However, I can't with the best of efforts see a CTE alignment in this position. The CTE edge to A will suck me into the exact same alignment every time, which of course will not work at all, at least not for all 5 shots.

If I start with an approximate alignment for a traditional ghost ball shot and then try to pick up the visuals (as I believe Neil suggests, though I might remember incorrectly), the results are always the same. The CTE edge to A gets locked in, and my head ends up in the exact same spot. With the Pro-one approach, that can be worked with, since there is more room to make subtle adjustments, but for strict CTE, it won't pocket the shot without major cheating with bridge lengths etc.

I don't think these so called unique alignments can be easily explained, I know that they can look nothing like the straight forward CTE edge to A/C/B that anyone can see using to balls. They have to look unique (obviously) for each shot, so some sort of distortion must come into play. Maybe your head needs to be twisted somewhat away from the ball as the shots get thinner, so that the distance between your eyes changes? Or the same effect achieved by offsetting the head more from the center line. That's my best guess.
Click to expand...

Yes they can.

Mohrts words.

That is to say CTEL/A, although a single perception, is not a single physical alignment.As you stand behind each of these 5 shots and line up on the CTEL/A perception, the physical alignment becomes slightly thinner and thinner as you move from the nearest shot to the farthest (from the target pocket). This isn't something you have to force yourself to do, your perception does the work

He sounds kinda confused with this post but what he's really saying is you must move (adjust for the thinner cut) to make it work for all shots using the same line up.

Adjustments are what really needs to happen, call it what you want.;)

Some people are easily fooled. Objective..Ok..good luck with that.

Hopefully someday its seen the same way by all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top