This statement is a great example of Lou and his tactics. I have not mentioned or referred to Lou in anyway shape or form in so long I cant remember. And here he is trying to get a reaction.
Sorry Lou . Dont make me put you in the bit bin lol
Naysayers vs. Yeasayers
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
- Status
This statement is a great example of Lou and his tactics. I have not mentioned or referred to Lou in anyway shape or form in so long I cant remember. And here he is trying to get a reaction.
Sorry Lou . Dont make me put you in the bit bin lol
CTE/Pro1 doesn't take months to understand. Some people may not get it as easily as others because people learn and visualize differently. I was able to "see" the lines and start making shots consistently with it in my first hour using it, then another few practice sessions to work out which aim points and pivots to use for which shots.
I admit there were some sections of the DVD that could have been a little more clear, overall though there was a lot of good content there as well. And there was no shortage of followup explanation by Stan himself as well as many others who offered to clarify any details.
I do think Dr. Dave has a point - not everyone can use systems effectively or even want to for that matter. I've tried to teach the standard Corner 5 3-rail system to numerous people, some of whom have been IT professionals, accountants, etc. Even with explanation and several examples, showing them diagrams I had, etc., a lot of people just get confused. But essentially the numbers on the rails are very easy to remember and you are just doing first grade subtraction. I've seen the look on some people's faces, and they'd rather just keep guessing than put the time into learning something new or calculating anything at the table, even though I tell them that with just a bit of practice the aim point can be determined almost automatically. Sound familiar?
As to the constant argument of the ghost ball being the most commonly taught and explained "system" - sure it is. It's easy to place a cue ball next to the object ball, line it up to the pocket, and tell someone that's where the cue ball needs to end up to make the shot, minus factors such as throw, cling, etc. Visualizing that spot from various angles and distances may not be that easy for people, which is why a lot of amateurs miss by up to a diamond at larger cut angles or distances. I've even helped people who were intermediate players that just couldn't "see" certain shots that most players would make or at least come close to regularly.
CTE/Pro1, 90/90, fractional, SEE, etc. are just alternative approaches to alignment and aiming that do work and can be beneficial to people in both areas. Maybe over time some of these approaches or even a new approach will replace ghost ball as the traditionally accepted method of teaching someone to aim. All sports evolve in their teachings, I would never have taught someone to play tennis 20 years ago like I would now, the equipment and study of the swing mechanics have evolved quite a bit. Maybe over time the same will happen to pool. After all it wasn't that long ago that most advanced pool knowledge was passed on from person to person as closely guarded secrets, I for one am glad that we have the ability now to share and debate this information so easily.
Scott
I admit there were some sections of the DVD that could have been a little more clear, overall though there was a lot of good content there as well. And there was no shortage of followup explanation by Stan himself as well as many others who offered to clarify any details.
I do think Dr. Dave has a point - not everyone can use systems effectively or even want to for that matter. I've tried to teach the standard Corner 5 3-rail system to numerous people, some of whom have been IT professionals, accountants, etc. Even with explanation and several examples, showing them diagrams I had, etc., a lot of people just get confused. But essentially the numbers on the rails are very easy to remember and you are just doing first grade subtraction. I've seen the look on some people's faces, and they'd rather just keep guessing than put the time into learning something new or calculating anything at the table, even though I tell them that with just a bit of practice the aim point can be determined almost automatically. Sound familiar?
As to the constant argument of the ghost ball being the most commonly taught and explained "system" - sure it is. It's easy to place a cue ball next to the object ball, line it up to the pocket, and tell someone that's where the cue ball needs to end up to make the shot, minus factors such as throw, cling, etc. Visualizing that spot from various angles and distances may not be that easy for people, which is why a lot of amateurs miss by up to a diamond at larger cut angles or distances. I've even helped people who were intermediate players that just couldn't "see" certain shots that most players would make or at least come close to regularly.
CTE/Pro1, 90/90, fractional, SEE, etc. are just alternative approaches to alignment and aiming that do work and can be beneficial to people in both areas. Maybe over time some of these approaches or even a new approach will replace ghost ball as the traditionally accepted method of teaching someone to aim. All sports evolve in their teachings, I would never have taught someone to play tennis 20 years ago like I would now, the equipment and study of the swing mechanics have evolved quite a bit. Maybe over time the same will happen to pool. After all it wasn't that long ago that most advanced pool knowledge was passed on from person to person as closely guarded secrets, I for one am glad that we have the ability now to share and debate this information so easily.
Scott
Last edited:
That is all such bad and misleading info on CTE that it's no wonder people get so confused.
If you or others would be specific with what information you think is bad or misleading, and provide an alternative explanation that is logical, understandable, well-illustrated, and complete, I would be happy to post the contribution on my site, with appropriate credit (and links). I already have links to Spidey's and mohrt's stuff, and to Stan's DVD (in several places). I also have a concise and well-illustrated summary of Stan's basic CTE procedure on the site, as interpreted by me. Is all of that information bad and misleading also? Your blanket statement seems to refer to all of the CTE info on my website. Again, if you or others have better information, explanations, and illustrations to share, I would be happy to add them to the CTE resource page. And if I think any new information clearly shows that any older information is inaccurate or misleading, I would be happy to remove the older material from the website. Until then, I will continue to include all perspectives and links to supporting info (from me, Spidey, mohrt, Stan, and others [PJ included]) on my site.
Peace,
Dave
Ghost ball is simple, so simple it works for all shots which can not be said for these other so called aiming systems.
If you don't know how to use it, practice your own words and stop knocking it.
Like I said, any system that requires you being able to see the OB for aiming purpose is limited in use.
Using ghost ball and HAMB has brought my WINNING percentages up and not some one or two ball improvement whatever that means.
It's winning that matters and if your system and not using HAMB isn't getting you to win more, you better change something.
I find it ridiculous to say the ghost ball is too hard. The people that are saying that are just too lazy to put in the time and do not know how to practice properly. I see this all the time. Poor practice.
I'll also tell ya why people will tend to think their system works. It's called margin of error, or as I call it the Impact Zone.
This is the area on the OB that if hit anywhere inside that area, the ball will go in the pocket. Unless you are aware of this, you will think the system works plus how big the pocket is. The size of the impact zone varies with the distance and angle to the pocket the OB is. This is one reason you can make a shot that is close to the pocket, the same ball layout just farther away is missed even though you hit both shots at the same spot on the OB, margin of error.
Change the standards to always hitting center pocket and see what if they all go center pocket.
Ghost ball is total center pocket, if that's where you want to put the OB.
I can do things using ghost ball that has really made by opponents shake their heads, put down their cue and go buy the beer I just won, such as that three bank in the side I posted for the win in one game.
I just played 20 games of 8 ball on a super mean 9 ft table. Sets of 4, race to 3 in 8 ball against someone that when we started playing couple of months ago beat me regular. The final was 12 games I won, all 4 sets, him 6 games. No spots, straight heads up.
We played 9 ball once, it was like taking candy from a baby it was so easy.
My winning percentages are going up because of ghost ball and HAMB. Of course, I'm more committed to my game then most. I strive for perfection in my game, I push myself on what shots I have in my bag of tricks, like multi banks now, which is what made the difference in the last games I played this guy in.
He couldn't hide me anymore by playing safe. I've have been practicing multi rail banks using ghost ball and a few banking concepts for the past 3-4 weeks. Where I was giving up BIH before, now, no such thing, and I even would make some simple two rail kicks and get shape on the 8 ball for the win.
My wins are going up using ghost ball and HAMB.
Ghost ball is the only way to go and I'm more than willing to show anyone how I use it, for free, and how effective it really is.
Training with me will bring anyone games up and you'll quickly see ghost ball is the real deal.
Scott, you make excellent points in all areas.
The Ghost ball is a simple thing to learn. Executing it consistently well is a whole different ball game.
I think some of the people don't like the idea that CTE/Pro1 is proving to be an effective way to teach people how to aim and I have a hard time understanding that. You would think that even the naysayers would welcome new teaching methods to help people better their game.
I've experienced the same thing with intermediate players as well. CTE/Pro1 can definitely help some intermediate players see certain shots BETTER.
Like a diet, any system can be effective if you practice it. As far as the math behind cte goes, naysayers wouldnt have asked for it unless the yea guys started saying their system is 100% dead ghost ball for every shot. Because many people believe no system is 100%, the main controversy revolves around cte. Every other method is accepted because it is not touted as a cure all end all, 100% dead nuts ghost ball system.
I have to admit I know very little about pro-1, only a little feedback from some users and the info on daves site. The main thing that jumps out at me is that you have to change your bridge length for it to work. Since this method is supposed to be advanced cte: Wouldnt that mean that all other variations that dont call for bridge length adjustments, require some feel/experience to be effective? I dont say this to discourage anybody, to be facetious or anything like that. Maybe theres a reason I dont know. Logic tells me that even if any system is 100%, spin transfer and throw exist(feel adjustment required).
I have to admit I know very little about pro-1, only a little feedback from some users and the info on daves site. The main thing that jumps out at me is that you have to change your bridge length for it to work. Since this method is supposed to be advanced cte: Wouldnt that mean that all other variations that dont call for bridge length adjustments, require some feel/experience to be effective? I dont say this to discourage anybody, to be facetious or anything like that. Maybe theres a reason I dont know. Logic tells me that even if any system is 100%, spin transfer and throw exist(feel adjustment required).
Listen again I will say this, your site is a disaster and not organized at all and everything just blends in together on your aiming page, it is confusing these people! They do not have the experience or knowledge to distinguish the difference between one system and another! They think 90/90 and cte/pro1 is the same shit! For some reason these people all look up to you to inform them and you are keeping them ignorant in these discussions.
How come these people are not coming away from your site knowing there are different systems and some work better than others do?
here is a cut and paste from your site: If you are good at judging the type of cut, version 4 above will definitely work better than the others (without "adjustment") because it involves a larger number of lines of aim, which will offer better coverage over a wide range of cut angles. Also, because there is less pivot than with the other versions, there will be less variation in results with different bridge lengths and CB-OB distances (see more info below).
Above you say version 4 that is Stan Shuffets manual cte works better than any other system. Your site is a mess and you are trying to evaluate these systems and educate these people but you are doing a terrible job of it and your just confusing them! Are you doing this on purpose? I do not know.
Have you made it clear that Stan shuffets cte/pro1 is and evolving system and that manual cte in his system is where you learn the foundation of the system and as you progress to pro1 there are no pivot adjustments that you seem to be stuck on?
Cut and Paste again from your site:If you follow any of the procedures above literally and exactly (without "adjustment"), you will make shots within certain limited ranges of cut angles and CB-OB distances for each line of aim (see limited lines of aim). However, if you don't vary the alignment or pivot (see more below), you will miss shots outside of and between these ranges, unless the OB is close to the pocket or the pockets are large (providing a large margin for error). However, even if a person is not good at judging or "adjusting" between the lines of aim, CTE still might be beneficial for any of the many possible reasons summarized here.
All three of these shots have a different aiming line (reference point) as taught in the dvd, they look no different to me than any other shot on the table that will come up and i will shoot(my expierince using the system will tell me the aim line). I remember when you first brought this picture out and it was your main weapon! You used to tell everyone that the same ctel/pivot could not make all three shots and then cte/pro1 came out! im glad you found another use fro the pic now.
You have all these pivot issues you talk about on your site in stans manual cte and i dont think you explained to these guys that manual cte is basically a training stage in Stans system. As you advance into the system they disappear unless a person has chosen not to advance out of manual cte because it is a working system on its own.
Now i found this some where else on your site and i cut and pasted from your site again:Pro One is really not so much an "aiming system" as it is a "level of ability" that one can develop through lots of practice with CTE, where bridge hand placement and accurate center-ball alignment come naturally without a mechanical fixed-bridge pivot. Pro One is also a pre-shot routine, which can help create consistency.
Last edited:
I think my aiming resource page is very well organized. It is clearly subdivided into 27 different sections and subsections, each dealing with very specific topics related to aiming systems and aiming adjustment.
I don't think you give people enough credit ... they are smarter than you think. There is no reason they should confuse 90/90, the various CTE approaches, or ProOne. They are all in separate sections of the resource page, and they are clearly defined independently. Although, I think most people (especially the smart ones) will realize that these different systems do have some common characteristics and foundational principles.
If anyone visits my aiming system page, he or she should come away knowing there are a wide variety aiming systems out there. Judging which one (or ones) might work best for them (in different situations) is for them to decide. All I present is the information and my understanding of the information, along with views and resources from other people (e.g., Spidey, mohrt, Stan, etc.).
I think this statement is backed up fairly well with the subsequent evaluation and analysis. I also clearly explain several ways how any version of CTE can be used effectively for a wide range of shots. If any of these techniques are applied effectively, any of the versions can be as good as any of the others.
That's not true. My claim is that Stan's manual CTE approach is generally better than the other CTE approaches in principle, based on the subsequent analysis and evaluation. That doesn't mean everybody will like and be more effective with Stan's version. Some people might like and be more effective with one of the other versions instead. And some people might not like or be effective with any of the CTE versions. That is up to every individual to decide, based on all the information and resources available from me and others, and based on their experience when attempting to learn CTE and use it in their game.
Regards,
Dave
i added on to the other post while you were responding to mine.
your opinion is that stan shuffets cte/pro1 works better than any other system! you said it? I did not say what will work better for any specific person! you are acknowledging that these system are all different, like i have been saying. You are trying to make your site out to be the "go to pool site in the world of billiards" learn to be more specific and have up to date knowledge on it please.
I can go to your site and figure it out but most do not have the knowledge i have about these systems.
your opinion is that stan shuffets cte/pro1 works better than any other system! you said it? I did not say what will work better for any specific person! you are acknowledging that these system are all different, like i have been saying. You are trying to make your site out to be the "go to pool site in the world of billiards" learn to be more specific and have up to date knowledge on it please.
I can go to your site and figure it out but most do not have the knowledge i have about these systems.
Last edited:
I did not say or write that, nor do I believe this, but you are allowed think whatever you want.
Neither did I.
Finally, we agree on something.
Peace,
Dave
Dr. Dave -- can you explain the difference in geometry between visual alignments versus 2D alignments?
Cut and pasted form your site again from the CTE Evaluation and Analysis section:
"If you are good at judging the type of cut, version 4 above will definitely work better than the others (without "adjustment") because it involves a larger number of lines of aim, which will offer better coverage over a wide range of cut angles. Also, because there is less pivot than with the other versions, there will be less variation in results with different bridge lengths and CB-OB distances (see more info below)."
CTE Version 4 (as interpreted by dr_dave from the description and examples on Stan Shuffett's Pro One DVD) - 6 lines of aim:
Is version 4 not stan shuffets system, what am i missing here?
Last edited:
Yes; although, your interpretations of these phrases might be different from mine.
Regards,
Dave
I think you are missing a few screws (or maybe some are just loose), but don't quote me on that, because I'm not a medical doctor (although, I do stay at Holiday Inn Express every once in a while).
Catch you later,
Dave
Those who run away live to fight another day, go regroup dr dave and when your ready, come back and play, i guess that education was good for something after all
learn to be specific and i will too, because i can play your game too
Last edited:
- Status