Not CTE Not squirt, Not BHE

[JB Cases]

Neil:

Sorry, my friend; concerning the bolded part above, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Aiming system advocates (and we're talking about the pivot-based aiming systems) *HAVE* stated:

• that "their" system "will make you a better player"
• that one will go up "x" number of balls using it
• that it's the best thing to come along since the two-piece cue
• that its inventor should be in the Hall of Fame because of the performance-changing impact it has (and "will") have
• that its much easier to teach beginners and for those beginners to reach proficiency quicker than the traditionally-taught methods
• that it's a more accurate system than the traditionally-taught methods (the phrase "center-pocket" being bandied about)

I understand your penchant for using the correct form and tense.

So with that in mind I will make the following statements based on your list.

• that "their" system "will make you a better player" - in my opinion this is true for most players at my level.
  
• that one will go up "x" number of balls using it - based on personal experience I believe that most players who are at my level will increase their ability by a couple balls.
  
• that it's the best thing to come along since the two-piece cue (never heard this one but it's obvious opinion.) However, based on personal experience this is kind of how I feel about some of these systems.
  
• that its inventor should be in the Hall of Fame because of the performance-changing impact it has (and "will") have - He shoud be, again personal opinion.
  
• that its much easier to teach beginners and for those beginners to reach proficiency quicker than the traditionally-taught methods - For some systems I would say this is true and for others I would disagree.
  
• that it's a more accurate system than the traditionally-taught methods (the phrase "center-pocket" being bandied about) I personally believe this also to be true and I believe that more study will bear it out keeping in mind that any given "system" is only a tool and the user is responsible for how well they use it.

The statements in italics are mine.

 

[duckie]

Has any system proponent ever once on here said that using a system eliminates the need for practice?

No. Not one.

I would bet you any amount of money that you could possibly scrape together that if I put you in a room for a week and told you to practice your bank shots and you had no system whatsoever and I had a system then I'd bet that I could make way more shots than you after that week.

Because in that week while you would be doing trial-and-error learning I would be focusing on advanced banking since I wouldn't be guessing at the starting aiming line.

If we both practiced for 40 hours that week - having both started with no idea how to bank - which of us would be "better" at banking after that week?

How many MORE hours would it take you to reach my level after that?

So let's say for example that after that initial 40 hours I stopped practicing.

How much more would you need to practice to reach my level through your trial-and-error method?

Thanks for the laugh, your way funnier than that other guy.

There is not one professional level athlete that does not practice.

Not one professional team that does not practice.

You can never get away from practice if you truly want to play at the highest level.

The problem is that the level of practice that is truly required to play pool at the highest level takes countless hours of practice and its this kinda of commitment to practice that people like yourself are unwilling to do, hence the reliance on systems in the false hope that this takes care of practice.

 

[duckie]

I understand your penchant for using the correct form and tense.

So with that in mind I will make the following statements based on your list.

• that "their" system "will make you a better player" - in my opinion this is true for most players at my level.
  
• that one will go up "x" number of balls using it - based on personal experience I believe that most players who are at my level will increase their ability by a couple balls.
  
• that it's the best thing to come along since the two-piece cue (never heard this one but it's obvious opinion.) However, based on personal experience this is kind of how I feel about some of these systems.
  
• that its inventor should be in the Hall of Fame because of the performance-changing impact it has (and "will") have - He shoud be, again personal opinion.
  
• that its much easier to teach beginners and for those beginners to reach proficiency quicker than the traditionally-taught methods - For some systems I would say this is true and for others I would disagree.
  
• that it's a more accurate system than the traditionally-taught methods (the phrase "center-pocket" being bandied about) I personally believe this also to be true and I believe that more study will bear it out keeping in mind that any given "system" is only a tool and the user is responsible for how well they use it.

The statements in italics are mine.

Sorry, but I just could resist.

There are two phrase that are being used that really get me to giggling.

One is the xxx systems has helped me by a couple of balls. I wonder if this means you can run 3 balls and now you can run 5 or what? Where does the extra two balls really come from?

The other is it's a center pocket system which means if you can't hit the center pocket, then what? You got a almost center pocket system or what.

Like this shot below on the 6 that came up in my practice session. Center pocket sure don't work here nor not much choice on where your bridge hand goes.

Oh, I made it BTW.

 

[JB Cases]

Sorry, but I just could resist.

There are two phrase that are being used that really get me to giggling.

One is the xxx systems has helped me by a couple of balls. I wonder if this means you can run 3 balls and now you can run 5 or what? Where does the extra two balls really come from?

The other is it's a center pocket system which means if you can't hit the center pocket, then what? You got a almost center pocket system or what.

Like this shot below on the 6 that came up in my practice session. Center pocket sure don't work here nor not much choice on where your bridge hand goes.

Oh, I made it BTW.

Yes, I am sure you and giggling happens a lot.......

If you were ever a player then you would understand the balls reference.

It means that if you are matching up and to be a fair match you would need two balls, as in the last two or the 7/8 and the next month you only need one ball to make it a fair game then you have improved by one ball.

As to the 6 ball, again if you were ever a player, you would know that once you see the place to hit the ball to make it the center of the pocket then it's an easy adjustment to hit a little to the side of that to send the cue ball into any other part of the pocket.

I don't know why you continue to post this nonsense.

Do you honestly think that a person who uses CTE doesn't know what to do in these situations?

 

[JB Cases]

Thanks for the laugh, your way funnier than that other guy.

There is not one professional level athlete that does not practice.

Not one professional team that does not practice.

You can never get away from practice if you truly want to play at the highest level.

The problem is that the level of practice that is truly required to play pool at the highest level takes countless hours of practice and its this kinda of commitment to practice that people like yourself are unwilling to do, hence the reliance on systems in the false hope that this takes care of practice.

You dodged the questions. Let me REPEAT the post for you and see if you can answer the points I brought up with anything close to the topic.

Here is the premise and the two questions (indicated by the question marks at the end of the sentences).

I would bet you any amount of money that you could possibly scrape together that if I put you in a room for a week and told you to practice your bank shots and you had no system whatsoever and I had a system then I'd bet that I could make way more shots than you after that week.

Because in that week while you would be doing trial-and-error learning I would be focusing on advanced banking since I wouldn't be guessing at the starting aiming line.

If we both practiced for 40 hours that week - having both started with no idea how to bank - which of us would be "better" at banking after that week? <------------------ question to be answered.

How many MORE hours would it take you to reach my level after that?
<------------------- question to be answered.
So let's say for example that after that initial 40 hours I stopped practicing.

How much more would you need to practice to reach my level through your trial-and-error method? <------------another question.

 

[JoeyA]

Neil:

Sorry, my friend; concerning the bolded part above, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Aiming system advocates (and we're talking about the pivot-based aiming systems) *HAVE* stated:

• that "their" system "will make you a better player"
• that one will go up "x" number of balls using it
• that it's the best thing to come along since the two-piece cue
• that its inventor should be in the Hall of Fame because of the performance-changing impact it has (and "will") have
• that its much easier to teach beginners and for those beginners to reach proficiency quicker than the traditionally-taught methods
• that it's a more accurate system than the traditionally-taught methods (the phrase "center-pocket" being bandied about)

I notice your "noone has ever said..." claim being tossed about often by the aiming system advocates, but this is pure back-pedaling, to get away from one's feet being held to the fire. Those things *HAVE* been said, and on numerous occasions, by aiming system advocates. And this is the heart of the controversy concerning these aiming systems. It is these sales pitches that cause any thread devoted to these aiming systems to go south.

By calling your post out (above), I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but these back-pedaling claims need to stop. Either stop with the sales pitches, or if the aiming system advocates are to continue using them, be prepared to have one's feet held to the fire -- be prepared to speak for those sales pitches and back them up.

And btw, I plan to do my own investigation when I get Stan's DVD. I hope to do a in-depth DVD review, using my most comprehensive methods -- pros and cons. (I've a lot of experience in doing book and video reviews for the technical/engineering industry, and I'm a published author myself.) And if I can provide a service to AZB by gleaning and discerning the math behind the system, you can bet I'll reveal it here, to do my part in helping squelch these "guaranteed to go south" threads. A tell order, yes, but if I can do it in a reasonable time, I'll do my best to.

-Sean

Sean,
Do you think you could find the post where someone says that CTE is a MORE ACCURATE AIMING SYSTEM than any OTHER AIMING SYSTEM?

Thanks,
JoeyA

 

[PocketPoint]

You say a system could improve your game by 3 balls, but it makes no sense to me.

You might play Johnny Archer and he will give you the 6. So you're saying with this new system you can now play Johnny even?

 

[JB Cases]

You say a system could improve your game by 3 balls, but it makes no sense to me.

You might play Johnny Archer and he will give you the 6. So you're saying with this new system you can now play Johnny even?

You folks are reading way too much into the improved by x-balls measure. That's just an expression that players use to indicate that they are playing better. It's not an "official" measure of skill that everyone can use to decide how good someone is.

And you aren't getting how the spots work. If Johnny gives me the six he isn't giving up three balls, he is giving up ONE ball.

But yes, in theory, if Johnny were to be able to give me three balls and I truly improved by three balls then we would play even.

In the pool room when a player's speed is known he is referred to to by how many balls he needs against another player. How does JB play? He needs two balls from Ed. Oh ok.

Hey have you seen JB he's playing two balls better now. Him and Ed can play even. Next month.........JB learned that CTE aiming and now he's making balls from everywhere Ed needs a ball now.

Get it?

P.S. CTE ROCKS BALLS

Tonight I played one of the best players in CHina some one pocket. This guy plays GREAT - and I mean GREAT GREAT. He doesn't know all the moves of course which is the only reason I can win a game at all but when you leave him anything he runs out.

I had several situations where I was faced with pretty much do or die tough shots and I made ALL of them using CTE. Here is one where he applauded me.

CueTable Help

And here is another one where I used CTE to line up the game winning bank shot.

CueTable Help

CTE works. It's really that simple. Either you know it or you don't. Knowing it doesn't make you into a world beater. But it sure allows you to feel like one when you make great shots that you would probably butcher otherwise. At least that's how it feels for me.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

John:
CTE works. It's really that simple.

No, it isn't really that simple.

CTE works for you (and the several other CTE Choir singers on here). That's simple enough. But whether it will work for anybody else depends on how it works. I seriously doubt that it's for everybody. Frankly, I seriously doubt that it's for many.

pj
chgo

 

[sfleinen]

Sean,
Do you think you could find the post where someone says that CTE is a MORE ACCURATE AIMING SYSTEM than any OTHER AIMING SYSTEM?

Thanks,
JoeyA

Joey, are you serious? Really? You mean to tell me you don't recognize this from past CTE threads? (And I'm not talking about posts where the CTE skeptics were regurgitating "something they saw posted.") Gosh, I hope we're not now going to play the "word technician" game where, if we don't quote something precisely, word-for-word, that it will be challenged as to having ever been said/posted.

I'm really doing a cartoon-ish wild shaking of the head on this one. ("Boppity-boppity-boppity-boppity-boppity-boppity-boppity-bop!!")

I mean, look at Stan's website itself (which you're very fond of quoting the link for):

http://justcueit.com/

And I quote, displayed right there in the middle of the page for all to see:

CTE/PRO ONE® is systematic, EXACT, and the most accurate aiming system in the world!

Now, not only was it said that CTE (and its derivatives) are "more accurate than other aiming systems," but here we have Exhibit A of one derivative being "the most accurate aiming system in the WORLD!"

Come on, Joey. Please don't force us to engage in "word/post technician" games. It will get ugly, and needlessly. We really don't need to go there.

Anyway, as the CTE advocates say, "the proof is in the pudding" when the DVD comes out. I am eager to taste the pudding, and give my Zagats review.

-Sean

 

[JoeyA]

Joey, are you serious? Really? You mean to tell me you don't recognize this from past CTE threads? (And I'm not talking about posts where the CTE skeptics were regurgitating "something they saw posted.") Gosh, I hope we're not now going to play the "word technician" game where, if we don't quote something precisely, word-for-word, that it will be challenged as to having ever been said/posted.

I'm really doing a cartoon-ish wild shaking of the head on this one. ("Boppity-boppity-boppity-boppity-boppity-boppity-boppity-bop!!")

I mean, look at Stan's website itself (which you're very fond of quoting the link for):

http://justcueit.com/

And I quote, displayed right there in the middle of the page for all to see:


Now, not only was it said that CTE (and its derivatives) are "more accurate than other aiming systems," but here we have Exhibit A of one derivative being "the most accurate aiming system in the WORLD!"

Come on, Joey. Please don't force us to engage in "word/post technician" games. It will get ugly, and needlessly. We really don't need to go there.

Anyway, as the CTE advocates say, "the proof is in the pudding" when the DVD comes out. I am eager to taste the pudding, and give my Zagats review.

-Sean

Sean,
I haven't read that statement you referred to in this forum and I was curious as to where you had read that in the forum. I thought maybe I had missed reading it in the forum and wanted to know who had posted it.

I'm trying to keep track of who is saying what and only wanted to know who said it. No attack on you or anyone else.

 

[sfleinen]

Sean,
I haven't read that statement you referred to in this forum and I was curious as to where you had read that in the forum. I thought maybe I had missed reading it in the forum and wanted to know who had posted it.

I'm trying to keep track of who is saying what and only wanted to know who said it. No attack on you or anyone else.

I understand, Joey. I just happen to remember in the past when these threads devolve into "word technician" games when something that was regurgitated, was then challenged by CTE advocates as having ever been said. If you'll remember, in a past post I stated that *this* is what gets CTE advocates in trouble -- the back-pedaling of certain things, the soft-peddling of others, and finally, the "bait and switch" technique of substituting a "safer" word for one that was actually written in the original claim, because the CTE advocates "don't like" that they have their feet are held to the fire to back up a claim.

I don't mind alternative techniques. Heck, I'm trying something new *all the time*. That is progress and innovation, afterall. But the incredible overblown sales pitches are what grab me by the base of the spine and make me feel like I'm about to go into a fit of Turets. The Billy Mays / Vince approach is much more wrought with trouble than, say, a Bob Vila or Norm Abram approach.

-Sean

 

[JoeyA]

I understand, Joey. I just happen to remember in the past when these threads devolve into "word technician" games when something that was regurgitated, was then challenged by CTE advocates as having ever been said. If you'll remember, in a past post I stated that *this* is what gets CTE advocates in trouble -- the back-pedaling of certain things, the soft-peddling of others, and finally, the "bait and switch" technique of substituting a "safer" word for one that was actually written in the original claim, because the CTE advocates "don't like" that they have their feet are held to the fire to back up a claim.

I don't mind alternative techniques. Heck, I'm trying something new *all the time*. That is progress and innovation, afterall. But the incredible overblown sales pitches are what grab me by the base of the spine and make me feel like I'm about to go into a fit of Turets. The Billy Mays / Vince approach is much more wrought with trouble than, say, a Bob Vila or Norm Abram approach.

-Sean

Yeah, the same back pedaling has happened over the years with CTE naysayers. People claimed it was worthless, stupid etc and then they started saying "Well, it might work for a few". Then they said it had some benefits and they guessed what those benefits were, still not knowing exactly how CTE/Pro One works. I stayed out of the line of fire because I didn't know anyone who used it that could beat me. I finally found a few that could and thought I would investigate further.

My initial investigations indicate that there will be more back pedaling by the naysayers. It's really kind of sad because I really don't care what other people use to help their pool game and don't understand why the naysayers have to harp on evey CTE/Pro One post and cause a riot wherever it is discussed.

As far as the "hype" that you refer to, it is kind of funny to me. I've watched people, ordinary people get really jazzed over the years about CTE and I never understood the hyperbole that sometimes accompanies users of CTE, until I used it for a week.

The system itself is PECULIAR to me but it is exciting because it is so foreign to me. It has yielded some unexpected benefits and I stand by every single word I have said about CTE. I speak from the heart and I speak honestly about my personal experiences. Whether someone else will see the benefits that I have seen remains to be seen. I don't expect anyone to take my word for what I am experiencing and expect lots of mixed reviews as the years go by.

As to the selling of the video, I am supporting my friend Stan Shuffett with all of my might. Whether it will help anyone else remains to be seen.

There is no one selling snake oil. There is one guy JoeyA who seems to be having fun learning something new and is having fun sharing his daily/weekly experiences with CTE/Pro One.

For those who have limited amounts of disposable income, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND FOR THOSE WHO WONDER IF CTE/PRO ONE IS THE REAL DEAL OR NOT to SIT ON THE SIDELINES AND WAIT FOR OTHERS TO WRITE THEIR REVIEWS.

As for you, I know you make the big bucks keeping the cloud afloat and I suggest you spend some of that dough on the video and when we meet we can compare notes. It's always a pleasure hearing from you even when we disagree.

Best Regards,
JoeyA

 

[sfleinen]

[...]
As for you, I know you make the big bucks keeping the cloud afloat and I suggest you spend some of that dough on the video and when we meet we can compare notes. It's always a pleasure hearing from you even when we disagree.

Best Regards,
JoeyA

Joey:

I'm not going to go into a point-by-point, because, really, it's a worthless exercise. I made my point, with a grand Exhibit A example from the purveyor of the DVD himself. The point stands. I'm not going to debate back and forth, because honestly, what good is it going to do?

Also, it appears you're not up-to-date with your "suggestion" to spend the dough. I already did. Which I stated a couple weeks ago, and I reinforce it in almost every post I make here in these CTE/aiming threads. You didn't see that? Admittedly, I don't post in these CTE/aiming threads nearly as much as others, so it could be my posts get lost in the gale-force winds here.

But this is at least twice, if not more, where I recall you "suggesting" that I personally buy the DVD. Lose the suggestion, please. It's been a long-done deal. And in case you missed it in the several previous posts, I am going to do a review -- which I mentioned prior to your previous "suggestion" to me to buy the DVD. So please don't "suggest" to me to do a review, either. It will be a done deal, I promise.

P.S.: did I mention that I purchased the DVD and will do a review?

Yes, a little tongue-in-cheek there, but it in good fun, hoping it stays in place this time.

-Sean

P.S.: always looking forward to meeting and comparing notes!

 

[JB Cases]

No, it isn't really that simple.

CTE works for you (and the several other CTE Choir singers on here). That's simple enough. But whether it will work for anybody else depends on how it works. I seriously doubt that it's for everybody. Frankly, I seriously doubt that it's for many.

pj
chgo

It's really simple Pat. CTE works. What you doubt, how you feel, what you think about it is meaningless.

Truly it's meaningless. Your opinion is worthless on this topic because you don't matter.

My opinion is also worthless. I don't matter either.

The people whose opinion matters are the well known instructors who are teaching it. In their opinion CTE works and is teachable. These guys have been in the business a LONG time and contributed a LOT to pool beyond just the world class instruction they provide. Their opinions on how to play pool are meaningful.

So you can continue doing what you do and tilting at the windmill but the windmills keep getting built.

Why?

Because CTE works, simple as that.

 

[3kushn]

I had a conversation with a guy who was so excited that he's starting to get it with 3Cushion. He says I hit this on with High. I hit this one with left. I hit this one with.........

I said, I have a question. How much high low left right or combination.. How would you like to know exactly where to place the tip.

His answer Well I can really feel the shot. I don't need any systems.

Well OK Keep feelin away. But keep track of your score/miss ratio.

Then come see me if you want to improve that number.

 

[lfigueroa]

It's really simple Pat. CTE works. What you doubt, how you feel, what you think about it is meaningless.

Truly it's meaningless. Your opinion is worthless on this topic because you don't matter.

My opinion is also worthless. I don't matter either...

So you can continue doing what you do and tilting at the windmill but the windmills keep getting built.

Why?

Because CTE works, simple as that.

John, and I do mean this will all due respect: can you get me some?

Lou Figueroa
WOW!

 

[duckie]

Isn't interesting that a thread that started out about the value of table time got turned into something about CTE and by CTE users. Yall should really practice what you preach.

This is not about CTE so keep your opinions about it out of this thread.

It is about table time, practice and the true value of it and how to use it to the fullest.

 

[JB Cases]

Isn't interesting that a thread that started out about the value of table time got turned into something about CTE and by CTE users. Yall should really practice what you preach.

This is not about CTE so keep your opinions about it out of this thread.

It is about table time, practice and the true value of it and how to use it to the fullest.

Well, the premise of the thread is that table time is all that's needed and that "systems" are worthless.

Some of us don't agree with that.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

The proper elements are necessary for someone to rise to the top.

Time on the table is a no brainer.
Playing tough opponents and immersing oneself in competition is KEY.

But systems, aren't really the determining factor.
You will have some people that inherently "understand" the game and just see things.
And you will have people that don't, who need detailed explanations to aid in their perceptions.

Systems cannot propel someone to the top ranks without time put in on the table and serious competition, but time on the table and serious competition CAN propel someone to the top ranks WITHOUT systems.

Systems can aid someone, but they are no guarantee, and to some, aren't as important as people make them out to be.