More exciting CTE facts and information

[BC21]

The bulk of those who've tried to learn it have done so with the DVDs and YouTube, as well as whatever threads they could navigate through here on AZ, all the while trying to avoid being labeled by one obsessive side or the other due to some 20yr war that they were never a part of. Like I said....I'm a loner. I'm no groupie, no totem pole rider, no religious-style aiming zealot.

Deleted 90% as not to take up a whole page.

Kudos Brian I think your a straight shooter (pun) wish I was more often.

This part above does apply to a few as I am one. I bought and tried it. Best I could at the time. Asked some question didn't get the response I felt I should have from Stan. But in his defense he may have been trying to protect his financial interest at the time. No one around here claims to know the system and getting to Stan cost $$$.

My personality may clash with his as he comes off like a RAIN MAN selling rain in his DVD. Some things just don't make sense TO ME. (Maybe just me.)
( BOY THAT is going to piss some off ...) It is not meant to.

Stan likely is a very nice guy I believe ,as I have no reason to think other wise. I would hope working one on one a totally different impression would be formed.

Point is: Any mention of not understanding or questioning how it can be then one is instantly an Anti CTE..
I surely am not...

Thanks. And I should add that the two players I know that have taken a CTE lesson from Stan have nothing but good words to say about the man, his knowledge, and the lesson they received. Neither of them use CTE, and I didn't pry into asking why, and I'm not insinuating any reason for it other than the likelihood of there being more work involved than either of them were willing to put into it. And I'm sure they picked up other valuable tips in the lesson, knowledge that they could put to immediate use.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Thanks. And I should add that the two players I know that have taken a CTE lesson from Stan have nothing but good words to say about the man, his knowledge, and the lesson they received. Neither of them use CTE, and I didn't pry into asking why, and I'm not insinuating any reason for it other than the likelihood of there being more work involved than either of them were willing to put into it. And I'm sure they picked up other valuable tips in the lesson, knowledge that they could put to immediate use.

How many years ago did these two guys take their lessons from Stan? How long was the lesson or lessons...so many hours in a one day session...a full day...multiple days? How old are they and how many years have they been playing? At what level would you guess since you've played with them? Do they now use Poolology?

 

[BC21]

How many years ago did these two guys take their lessons from Stan? How long was the lesson or lessons...so many hours in a one day session...a full day...multiple days? How old are they and how many years have they been playing? At what level would you guess since you've played with them? Do they now use Poolology?

About a year ago. One guy is older, in his 60's, and he's a very good player....been playjng as long as I have or longer, 30+ years. Probably just not willing to abandon the way he has played for years. I would put him in the top 10 players within a hundred mile radius.

The other guy is much younger, in his 20's. He is a decent player, but lacks consistency....been playing probably 7 to 10 years.

Neither use Poolology/fractional aiming, not that I'm aware of, but the older guy is one that I questioned about aiming prior to writing the book. Similar to most of the other good players I questioned, he couldn't really explain how he aims, other than just seeing the shot and shooting it. Probably started off with ghostball or whatever, and after so many years you just don't think about how you're doing it. You just do it.

Regarding CTE lessons, it was one lesson. Not sure how long or how in depth the lesson was, but it wasn't cheap. I didn't probe into any of the details. I simply showed them what I thought was CTE with manual pivots, based on what I figured out from Stan's YouTube videos and Mohrt's website. They confirmed I was doing it correctly and that was the end of it. But each only had one lesson, and pool players can be odd sometimes when it comes to sharing acquired knowledge, especially the type of knowledge that costs money. Everybody wants an advantage, and I can't fault anyone for not sharing information that they had to pay for. If you want to know it, pay for it yourself.

So who's to say they weren't holding out, just telling me whatever I wanted to hear....? It's very possible. And when each said they don't use CTE, they could've meant not yet. All I know, a year later, is that it's obvious by watching them play that neither have converted over to using the system. Maybe they use it on certain shots but not on others, which I find quite a lot players doing, like I use Poolology on certain shots. If you have a toolbox full of tools, and you know which tool works better for you on certain shots, then that's the tool you're going to use.

 

[Low500]

To BC-21 The Poolology man.......

Okay Mister "I'm Brian and I don't come here very much"(which you cleverly edited out)......you say you want honest criticism of that book of yours. (that's what you said in post #94)
So here's mine.
I think your book stinks...it is a ripoff and that entire goofy concept of poolology is based on snake oil and phony scientific mumbo-jumbo. It won't work as described. People I know who have bought it say it is ridiculous. I have watched your YouTube videos saying you are using it and you yourself are not using it at all. You're making it all up to sell those books for money to suckers.
You don't use it yourself. You've said so
Your big buddy Dan White doesn't use it, he's said so.
Your latest big buddy ENGLISH says he doesn't use it and neither does that guy PJohnson
So if your best buddies don't use it, then it sounds worthless to me. Maybe they're smarter than you think and they secretly realize it is absurd themselves....but they know they have gullible you to toy with here.
And that's my honest opinion of poolology......WHICH YOU ASKED FOR.
I'd bet 5 bucks one of your crybaby buddies will have this deleted so I'm sending it to you in PM as well and also in a letter to your house.
I'm done with you and your clique of liars....yes I said LIARS

 

[duckie]

In a recent chat, Stan Shuffett, reveals the following (which I consider VERY exciting)
Stan says:
"Is it possible to be in a standing, CTE ball address alignment with no awareness of that at all? Yes, Pros are in CTE visual territory quite a bit and are totally unaware of it.
So, what could a pro player actually see from a CTE subconscious alignment?....The most perfect Ghost Ball or Contact Point alignment that he’d ever want to view. Why perfect? The slight over cut to center pocket is in place and no adjustment of any kind is required. And to top it off, there is only CCB that can be seen that looks correct and locating it is exponentially faster than GB or CPs.
Without CTE knowledge of how to proceed from the standing alignment into full stance, problems can and often do occur.
It’s no wonder that many pros actually believe they’re using GB and CPs, but in reality, their alignment process is foundation-ally
based on CTE.
**The same could be said about fractional aiming. The perfect CCB to OB line from the CTE foundational alignment can be seen in a lightning fast manner with no adjustment required at any stage.
This CTE phenomena can only happen from the CTE position first. You can’t reverse it from GB, CPs or fractions as being first for arriving in the CTE position."

Here’s the orginal post..........so whose really talking out their ass,it ain’t BC21.

Amazing........

 

[BC21]

Okay Mister "I'm Brian and I don't come here very much"(which you cleverly edited out)......you say you want honest criticism of that book of yours. (that's what you said in post #94)
So here's mine.
I think your book stinks...it is a ripoff and that entire goofy concept of poolology is based on snake oil and phony scientific mumbo-jumbo. It won't work as described. People I know who have bought it say it is ridiculous. I have watched your YouTube videos saying you are using it and you yourself are not using it at all. You're making it all up to sell those books for money to suckers.
You don't use it yourself. You've said so
Your big buddy Dan White doesn't use it, he's said so.
Your latest big buddy ENGLISH says he doesn't use it and neither does that guy PJohnson
So if your best buddies don't use it, then it sounds worthless to me. Maybe they're smarter than you think and they secretly realize it is absurd themselves....but they know they have gullible you to toy with here.
And that's my honest opinion of poolology......WHICH YOU ASKED FOR.
I'd bet 5 bucks one of your crybaby buddies will have this deleted so I'm sending it to you in PM as well and also in a letter to your house.
I'm done with you and your clique of liars....yes I said LIARS

Lol....yes, it is all "made up" with black ink on white paper, a complete fabrication that only exists in the real world.

Anyway, thanks for your "honest" opinion. I'm sorry you feel this way. Fortunately for me, a few thousand others around the world disagree with you. But rest assured knowing that you are among the 5 to 10% who feel this way about my book. The remaining 90 to 95% are tickled pink with their $10 to $20 investment. And I realize that's no indication of future success.

Thanks again.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Here’s the orginal post..........so whose really talking out their ass,it ain’t BC21.

Amazing........

Good on Ya, Greg.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I NEVER said one way or the other whether I use Poololgy or not...

But I will NOW.

I use to have no problem making back cuts from anywhere on the table even if near a 90* cut. However, for whatever reason I have developed a bit of a problem with what I call long 'shallow' back cuts which should be easy. I used to use English on almost all shots. I changed to LD shafts about 7 or 8 years ago & perhaps that is the issue or with my eyes I occasionally start putting unintended right spin on the CB.

Anyway, for whatever reason I am not as consistent with them as I use to be...

So... I have gone to using Poolology whenever I feel uncomfortable with a back cut.

However, if I did NOT use it at all... THAT would NOT mean that it is not a viable very good method, especially for newbies & less experienced players.

For someone like me who has been playing for more than 50 years since I was 13, I simply do not NEED Poolology very much. And THAT is the goal of Brian's through the use of Poolology for those who can now benefit from its use.

What does it say about the Vocal CTE proponents when "THEY" make posts like this & the one that Cookie made in a thread of mine? I will leave that for the General Readership to determine.

Brain,

You certainly do NOT deserve the vitriol of Low500's post... regardless from whom it really came. Hang in there & hang tough.

ALL Best Wishes for You & Yours, Brian.

 

[cookie man]

Neither of them use CTE, and I didn't pry into asking why, and I'm not insinuating any reason for it other than the likelihood of there being more work involved than either of them were willing to put into it. And I'm sure they picked up other valuable tips in the lesson, knowledge that they could put to immediate use.

This is a quote of yours from a week or so ago "The younger might still be ironing it out, but he certainly isn't a fulltime CTE user yet"
Makes one wonder, is he still using it or not or do you really not know.

 

[cookie man]

Go to youtube and search CTE for long shots.

Stan, himself posted here he does not look at the contact point and that it is not needed.

And Stan is correct. The contact point is not needed. Doesn't mean a CTE user wouldn't look at it like i explained earlier.
By the way where is that video

 

[BC21]

This is a quote of yours from a week or so ago "The younger might still be ironing it out, but he certainly isn't a fulltime CTE user yet"
Makes one wonder, is he still using it or not or do you really not know.

Exactly. He very well might become a CTE player, I don't know. I did see him playing this past Saturday, and if he was using CTE perceptions he sure disguised it well. He's a good kid, but he dropped a few hundred and left. I was busy getting my ass handed to me by Alex Olinger, a great player that has a habit of breaking and running 9ball racks as tasty and smooth as the American Honey whiskey I was sipping on while waiting for an opportunity to fire back.

 

[cookie man]

Exactly. He very well might become a CTE player, I don't know. I did see him playing this past Saturday, and if he was using CTE perceptions he sure disguised it well. He's a good kid, but he dropped a few hundred and left. I was busy getting my ass handed to me by Alex Olinger, a great player that has a habit of breaking and running 9ball racks as tasty and smooth as the American Honey whiskey I was sipping on while waiting for an opportunity to fire back.

Tough game. Alex does play jam up,lol. American Honey whiskey sounds good though.

It would be hard to tell if someone was using CTE unless they were doing manual pivots. There is a slight tell in there but you would really have to know what you were looking for and even then it would be a guess.

 

[BC21]

Tough game. Alex does play jam up,lol. American Honey whiskey sounds good though.

It would be hard to tell if someone was using CTE unless they were doing manual pivots. There is a slight tell in there but you would really have to know what you were looking for and even then it would be a guess.

I understand what you're saying.

Alex and the whiskey were just great. I did get opportunities to put something together. It was alternating breaks, but my breaks were dry and he cleaned em up right sporty. It was 4-0 before I had an open shot opportunity. He caught a fluke scratch off the break and I got out a rack, then I broke dry again! THREE in a row! At 6-1 I got another opportunity, and knowing he was breaking next, I figured I could get one more game on the board, looking at a 7-2 loss. I figured wrong, took a 7-1 instead. Had my break been on, honestly, I would've at least fired back with a few racks. No delusions here though....he would've still gotten me, but a 7-5 sits better in my head than a 7-1.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
How many years ago did these two guys take their lessons from Stan? How long was the lesson or lessons...so many hours in a one day session...a full day...multiple days? How old are they and how many years have they been playing? At what level would you guess since you've played with them? Do they now use Poolology?

About a year ago. One guy is older, in his 60's, and he's a very good player....been playjng as long as I have or longer, 30+ years. Probably just not willing to abandon the way he has played for years. I would put him in the top 10 players within a hundred mile radius.

The other guy is much younger, in his 20's. He is a decent player, but lacks consistency....been playing probably 7 to 10 years.

Neither use Poolology/fractional aiming, not that I'm aware of, but the older guy is one that I questioned about aiming prior to writing the book. Similar to most of the other good players I questioned, he couldn't really explain how he aims, other than just seeing the shot and shooting it. Probably started off with ghostball or whatever, and after so many years you just don't think about how you're doing it. You just do it.

Regarding CTE lessons, it was one lesson. Not sure how long or how in depth the lesson was, but it wasn't cheap. I didn't probe into any of the details.

Stan did/does a one session ALL DAY lesson that lasts about 9 hours so it more than likely was it.


I simply showed them what I thought was CTE with manual pivots, based on what I figured out from Stan's YouTube videos and Mohrt's website. They confirmed I was doing it correctly and that was the end of it. But each only had one lesson, and pool players can be odd sometimes when it comes to sharing acquired knowledge, especially the type of knowledge that costs money. Everybody wants an advantage, and I can't fault anyone for not sharing information that they had to pay for. If you want to know it, pay for it yourself.

So who's to say they weren't holding out, just telling me whatever I wanted to hear....? It's very possible. And when each said they don't use CTE, they could've meant not yet.

I'd say if they aren't using it now they aren't going to use it. But who knows. Maybe a few things got internalized and worked into their style of play and game without even realizing it. There's a lot that goes on over and above what many think happens due to misinformation given on this forum, negative bias, and overall misunderstanding along with lies.

All I know, a year later, is that it's obvious by watching them play that neither have converted over to using the system.

Again,(below) probably 4-5 years ago.

Maybe they use it on certain shots but not on others, which I find quite a lot players doing, like I use Poolology on certain shots. If you have a toolbox full of tools, and you know which tool works better for you on certain shots, then that's the tool you're going to use.

I'd say that's more than likely true and an accurate statement. The majority of all amateur players have dribs and drabs from different areas of the game and stuff they read to produce their own mix & match patchwork quilt of pool knowledge turned into execution.

But is it the best way? Probably not. A good reason being why most amateurs only reach a certain level of play and go no further for many years. If you take Tennis or Golf as an example, the top teaching pros first of all have an excellent eye for diagnosing flaws and problems far beyond what the player knows what to look for or even a less skilled pro instructor. Having a friend do it is a kiss of death most of the time because they don't know what to look for but think they do. We as individuals can only "think" what we do incorrectly when missing shots or in a slump, We can't see ourselves which leads to working on areas that may not need attention.


The rest of the story with the guy(s) from your area gets somewhat convoluted on a few issues.

First of all, Stan hasn't given lessons to anyone over the last 2-3 years except to PRO PLAYERS. So he/they couldn't have taken a lesson over the last year.
More than likely it was 4-5 years ago

Secondly, they did NOT pay a high price for lessons unless you think $30 an hour is too high an amount of money to be paid for a top teaching pro and player who has gone undefeated at a tournament in 2002 against ALL the top pro players during that time period. He also had a high finish in the US Open against all the best in the world.

For years Stan was an accredited through the BCA and now with, well, you know the other organization. PBIA

Stan's lesson rates have always been posted right on his website. Those two gentlemen knew exactly what was going to be charged before they made the decision to get in the car and head to Kentucky. They accepted it knowingly and had the chance to reject it by just not going and saying "No".

So they paid a whopping $270 each for 9 hours. Most players who take lessons with Stan and get through whatever number of hours and lesson #'s they sign up for think Stan is UNDER CHARGING based on what they learn and how it improves their game.

Doesn't matter what it is in life, you just can't please everyone all the time. Some people are natural born bi*chers who can find fault with their Rolls Royce's, Bentley's. and Ferrari's.

 

[cookie man]

Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
How many years ago did these two guys take their lessons from Stan? How long was the lesson or lessons...so many hours in a one day session...a full day...multiple days? How old are they and how many years have they been playing? At what level would you guess since you've played with them? Do they now use Poolology?







I'd say that's more than likely true and an accurate statement. The majority of all amateur players have dribs and drabs from different areas of the game and stuff they read to produce their own mix & match patchwork quilt of pool knowledge turned into execution.

But is it the best way? Probably not. A good reason being why most amateurs only reach a certain level of play and go no further for many years. If you take Tennis or Golf as an example, the top teaching pros first of all have an excellent eye for diagnosing flaws and problems far beyond what the player knows what to look for or even a less skilled pro instructor. Having a friend do it is a kiss of death most of the time because they don't know what to look for but think they do. We as individuals can only "think" what we do incorrectly when missing shots or in a slump, We can't see ourselves which leads to working on areas that may not need attention.


The rest of the story with the guy(s) from your area gets somewhat convoluted on a few issues.

First of all, Stan hasn't given lessons to anyone over the last 2-3 years except to PRO PLAYERS. So he/they couldn't have taken a lesson over the last year.
More than likely it was 4-5 years ago

Secondly, they did NOT pay a high price for lessons unless you think $30 an hour is too high an amount of money to be paid for a top teaching pro and player who has gone undefeated at a tournament in 2002 against ALL the top pro players during that time period. He also had a high finish in the US Open against all the best in the world.

For years Stan was an accredited through the BCA and now with, well, you know the other organization. PBIA

Stan's lesson rates have always been posted right on his website. Those two gentlemen knew exactly what was going to be charged before they made the decision to get in the car and head to Kentucky. They accepted it knowingly and had the chance to reject it by just not going and saying "No".

So they paid a whopping $270 each for 9 hours. Most players who take lessons with Stan and get through whatever number of hours and lesson #'s they sign up for think Stan is UNDER CHARGING based on what they learn and how it improves their game.

Doesn't matter what it is in life, you just can't please everyone all the time. Some people are natural born *****ers who can find fault with their Rolls Royce's, Bentley's. and Ferrari's.

Welcome back Dave. I took the lesson. Knew before hand the price. Well worth it IMO. I'd also like to know how they heard about CTE and what made them decide to go take the lesson. Curious if a local player they knew was using it.

 

[BC21]

I'd say that's more than likely true and an accurate statement. The majority of all amateur players have dribs and drabs from different areas of the game and stuff they read to produce their own mix & match patchwork quilt of pool knowledge turned into execution.

But is it the best way? Probably not. A good reason being why most amateurs only reach a certain level of play and go no further for many years. If you take Tennis or Golf as an example, the top teaching pros first of all have an excellent eye for diagnosing flaws and problems far beyond what the player knows what to look for or even a less skilled pro instructor. Having a friend do it is a kiss of death most of the time because they don't know what to look for but think they do. We as individuals can only "think" what we do incorrectly when missing shots or in a slump, We can't see ourselves which leads to working on areas that may not need attention.


The rest of the story with the guy(s) from your area gets somewhat convoluted on a few issues.

First of all, Stan hasn't given lessons to anyone over the last 2-3 years except to PRO PLAYERS. So he/they couldn't have taken a lesson over the last year.
More than likely it was 4-5 years ago

Secondly, they did NOT pay a high price for lessons unless you think $30 an hour is too high an amount of money to be paid for a top teaching pro and player who has gone undefeated at a tournament in 2002 against ALL the top pro players during that time period. He also had a high finish in the US Open against all the best in the world.

For years Stan was an accredited through the BCA and now with, well, you know the other organization. PBIA

Stan's lesson rates have always been posted right on his website. Those two gentlemen knew exactly what was going to be charged before they made the decision to get in the car and head to Kentucky. They accepted it knowingly and had the chance to reject it by just not going and saying "No".

So they paid a whopping $270 each for 9 hours. Most players who take lessons with Stan and get through whatever number of hours and lesson #'s they sign up for think Stan is UNDER CHARGING based on what they learn and how it improves their game.

Doesn't matter what it is in life, you just can't please everyone all the time. Some people are natural born *****ers who can find fault with their Rolls Royce's, Bentley's. and Ferrari's.

Could've been 2 years ago, but certainly not 4 or 5. I wasn't playing on the VNEA league then. The last couple of years have been a bit cloudy, and time has moved awfully fast, but I know it wasn't that long ago.

I remember the older player telling me one day, "I'm about to drop five hundred on a pool lesson." As you know, pool players are notorious for exaggeration, but I had no way of knowing the real cost. The two probably went together, and between them the total day was $500. All I know is a month or so later I asked how the lesson went, and that's when I learned they had gone to Stan. And like I said, they were very pleased with the experience. But change is hard, and adapting to a new way of aiming takes commitment. Maybe they just aren't willing to do it.

Regarding a mix/patchwork of pool tools and acquired knowledge, I think it is the best way to improve. Keep what works for your game, discard what doesn't. There is no single all-knowing source of pool knowledge and instruction. One instructor may be the best in one area of the game, while another is best in another area, and so on. It's like instructional books and DVDs....you get a little bit of something from each, sometimes you get more than you expect, but you rarely get everything you you want or need.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Could've been 2 years ago, but certainly not 4 or 5. I wasn't playing on the VNEA league then. The last couple of years have been a bit cloudy, and time has moved awfully fast, but I know it wasn't that long ago.

Your source and my source are in conflict with the time.. My source says longer. My source is coming from the instructor himself.

I remember the older player telling me one day, "I'm about to drop five hundred on a pool lesson." As you know, pool players are notorious for exaggeration, but I had no way of knowing the real cost. The two probably went together, and between them the total day was $500.

Yeah, with travel and food expenses it would be for both. Or he rounded up the $470 to the next highest hundred.

All I know is a month or so later I asked how the lesson went, and that's when I learned they had gone to Stan. And like I said, they were very pleased with the experience. But change is hard, and adapting to a new way of aiming takes commitment. Maybe they just aren't willing to do it.

You do know, or more than likely DON'T know that a one day lesson with Stan isn't all about CTE all by itself, don't you. CTE is a PART of it but there's a lot more that goes on with all facets of the stroke, stance, head and body positions.

Regarding a mix/patchwork of pool tools and acquired knowledge, I think it is the best way to improve. Keep what works for your game, discard what doesn't. There is no single all-knowing source of pool knowledge and instruction. One instructor may be the best in one area of the game, while another is best in another area, and so on. It's like instructional books and DVDs....you get a little bit of something from each.

Is that what turned you into a pro player? What's that you whispered..."I'm not a pro player"?

I would say everyone on this forum has done it that way which is why we're all on this forum throwing out opinions on posts every day instead of having our names in the lights.

I've probably taken more live in-person lessons with pro instructors than anyone in here. I've taken them with Hal Houle, Stan, Joe Tucker, Ron Vitello, and informal ones with Allen Hopkins while he beats my brains out at 14.1, 1-pocket, or 9-ball. I've traveled to where I had to go to see all of them and done it multiple times with each.

I also have a loaded library of instructional books and DVDs. Fact is, I'm a junkie for all of it.

Which is now the reason why I think the way I do about LESS is better with a super knowledgeable instructor at some point to clear the mind and body of conflicting methods.. The earlier in ones pool playing life the better.

Unfortunately I never saw my first instructor in my teens and 20's. It started in my 30's.

I'd say Landon Shuffett has done alright for himself with only one instructor. Don't you agree? Now he's a happily married family man.

Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer only had one instructor their entire lives, although golf. They didn't do too bad in their profession.

 

[BC21]

You do know, or more than likely DON'T know that a one day lesson with Stan isn't all about CTE all by itself, don't you. CTE is a PART of it but there's a lot more that goes on with all facets of the stroke, stance, head and body positions.

I have already stated that both these guys more than likely benefited immediately from other knowledge obtained in the lesson, other than CTE itself. Keep up.:smile:

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I have already stated that both these guys more than likely benefited immediately from other knowledge obtained in the lesson, other than CTE itself. Keep up.:smile:

Oh I'm "UP" alright. Just gotta cross all of my T's and dot all of my I's to keep you and the gang in line. :grin:

 

[cookie man]

But change is hard, and adapting to a new way of aiming takes commitment. Maybe they just aren't willing to do it.

R

I would say this is accurate concerning CTE. Which makes it crazy that all these naysayers have formed such an uninformed opinion based on knowing so little about it and having such a small amount of time spent on it.