Same Old Same Old

[mohrt]

Hi Mohrt.


SUBJECT #1: Yes, this is the part of the descriptions of CTE that I've questioned.

SUBJECT #2: I've always agreed that CTE "works" for those who like it - but we have to be careful about what "works" means. You've made the usual mistake by conflating part of SUBJECT #1 into SUBJECT #2 by saying what I highlighted in blue above - i.e., you're confident of your shotmaking ability with CTE and therefore it "works without steering or adjustments".

Everybody who has practiced enough, no matter what their method, is confident of their shotmaking ability - does that mean no "steering or adjustments" with any method? Confidence doesn't tell you what you're doing; it just means you've gotten good at it. Getting good at practiced estimation ("feel" or "adjusting") doesn't make it something else.

pj
chgo

What I mean by no steering or adjustments: I do not fall back on a second look and tweak things after the steps for CTE are processed. I follow the steps and get definitive results. I trust the outcome.

You can apply similar logic on other systems. With ghostball you line up on the contact point and then fall into the shot. This obviously works for many, and at very high levels. With CTE I am replacing contact points with visuals to centers, quarters and edges. What matters is the outcome.

The merits of CTE can be seen by throwing a couple balls on the table and start applying different visuals and observe the results, which are paths to pockets.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

But that would be one of the unfortunate results if this silliness ever went to court: Stan would lose (probably summarily) and CTE itself would be perceived by the general public as being "disproven" in a court of law.

Who would be the one to disprove it and how? Your doing? They don't allow keyboard testimony, Mr. Keyboard Cowboy.

I don't agree with that interpretation, but that's what would be said about CTE from then on whenever the subject came up. By going after me, who has always said CTE can work,

Really? LMAO. Say that in court after you've had your hand on a Bible (which you don't believe in) and said "I DO" when asked "do you swear to tell the truth...the whole truth...and nothing but the truth so help you GOD?"

Wait until the proof for that lie comes out faster than a bolt of lightning from your written posts over the years.



you'll give high-caliber ammunition to those who say it can't. I hope Stan is grateful to you for that after all your expert legal advice.

pj
chgo

Stan and I have a great relationship, no need to worry. Since you're suddenly so concerned about his financial well being from lawyer costs, why don't you help him out before hand and make a video on the table of how the inadequacies of the system as taught cause system failure. Easy thing to do for a pool shooting champion like yourself. A lot easer than typing for another 18 years.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What I mean by no steering or adjustments: I do not fall back on a second look and tweak things after the steps for CTE are processed. I follow the steps and get definitive results. I trust the outcome.

OK. And what I mean by "practiced estimation" is what happens during some of "the steps".

You can apply similar logic on other systems.

Saying "I do this and I make shots" isn't logic. The logic we're looking for is what must "this" include in order to make sense? So far the only reasonable answer has been "it must include practiced estimation (feel)".

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Who would be the one to disprove it and how? Your doing?

Like I've said, I doubt that I'd have to do much of anything. Judges generally have a grasp of logic and reason.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Like I've said, I doubt that I'd have to do much of anything. Judges generally have a grasp of logic and reason.

pj
chgo

Then your attorney better damn well have to do it with you being the defendant. Then you wouldn't have to do or say anything.

You've spent that much time in courtrooms to know how any of them will react? Maybe the judge could be a hanging judge and just didn't like you. I think it would be a strong possibility based on your ego and personality.

It's only YOUR logic so if you want to save your own ass you better run that big mouth as usual.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

It's only YOUR logic

This may come as a surprise to you, but not everybody's logic is unique and personal.

pj
chgo

 

[Dan White]

But the cameras can't get into a player's mind. For every shot line that you claimed was found using only CTE, we could claim that you reverted to your pre-CTE method of aiming as a final check/adjustment. As you've noted before, the difference in cue direction between making a shot and missing it is very small - we're generally talking about a few tenths of a degree at typical ball separations and cut angles. I suppose, though, that if you were doing manual CTE, once you got into the pre-pivot alignment, some sort of device could be used to ensure that the pivot to centerball was done without any further tweaking.

By "further tweaking" do you mean this?

https://youtu.be/FWZEoyoYMQ8

 

[Dan White]

Then your attorney better damn well have to do it with you being the defendant. Then you wouldn't have to do or say anything.

You've spent that much time in courtrooms to know how any of them will react? Maybe the judge could be a hanging judge and just didn't like you. I think it would be a strong possibility based on your ego and personality.

It's only YOUR logic so if you want to save your own ass you better run that big mouth as usual.

Guys, I'm missing something here. Admittedly I'm no legal expert, but don't there have to be some damages resulting from the defendant's transgressions? What are the damages? By Stan's own admission CTE Pro1 is spreading worldwide, "To da moon, Alice!" and all that. He's said it like a million times. You can't sue somebody if there are no damages, and hurting someone's feelings doesn't cut it. It is an interesting subject if you google "libel" and "damages."

 

[Dan White]

Now, I'm going to explain a little bit about how CTE works for me, purely from a procedural standpoint. I'm also not teaching the system, I'm only going to describe what is already out there in hundreds of videos. Firstly when I approach a shot, I'm making a decision what perception I'm going to be using (15, 30, 45, 60), and what pivot direction. This becomes very quick with experience, almost unconscious. Now I put my eyes on that perception. I know there are arguments around that statement, but I have been able to put myself on a perception very consistently and precisely for some time now. There is no guessing if a perception is "on" or not, it only looks perfect from one place. It is consistent and repeatable with any given shot. Now it is a matter of going in on the center cue ball at the 1/2 tip offset. There is only one center cue ball for my vision center. I'm doing the same thing every time. Once at the offset, I again look at center cue ball from there, and turn my cue onto it. There is only one center cue ball line for my vision center here, and the cue must be directly on it. A simple turn on the bridge is enough (see my pivot dissection article in the link below for details on that.) And, assuming I have no major blunders with stroke, spin, speed, or other human errors and table conditions, that ball is heading to the intended pocket.

Well this is the crux of the issue for many people. If you have chosen a particular visual for a given shot and you are not making any subconscious adjustments, and you do everything exactly the same way every time, then how can you pocket an object ball with the exact same visual if you move the object ball to the left by an inch?

So I guess my statement is, that SUBJECT #1, yes I agree we have no unanimous agreement to explain how CTE works technically

Given that, do you think it appropriate that CTE supporters state as fact that it is a completely objective system? If there is no real agreement on how it works then how can definitive statements like that be made?

 

[lfigueroa]

By "further tweaking" do you mean this?

https://youtu.be/FWZEoyoYMQ8

I have often written about how we all construct our own personal realities when it comes to shooting pool. Because of the very idiosyncratic way we see the balls, the wildly different dimensions of our body parts, our different abilities to detect spatial relationships and, how we stroke a CB -- it's different for every person.

What I see is not what you see. How I stand at the table is not how you stand at the table. And how you stroke a ball is not how I stroke a ball. And what Stan sees and does is probably unlike what most of us do.

Stan is telling us what he sees and does. And it seems to work for Stan and maybe a few others. But it's impossible to translate to the huge, honking universe of pool players at large. It's the problem I have always had with his system. All the lines he sees... few others can see and make work. And now, to see how his execution is flawed, is also telling and explains a lot.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Guys, I'm missing something here. Admittedly I'm no legal expert, but don't there have to be some damages resulting from the defendant's transgressions? What are the damages? By Stan's own admission CTE Pro1 is spreading worldwide, "To da moon, Alice!" and all that. He's said it like a million times. You can't sue somebody if there are no damages, and hurting someone's feelings doesn't cut it. It is an interesting subject if you google "libel" and "damages."

Am I the only guy here who has ever actually sued someone?

Some of the stuff I'm reading here about how it'll go is laughable and some of you are dreaming. Entering a real court of law is not like on television. Preparing to do so is not what you imagine. It is expensive, takes years, and will make you sick to your stomach, even if you are in the right, eventually win the case, gain relief, and are even awarded damages.

I was fortunate in that I was lucky enough to find a brilliant, intelligent lawyer who made the other side bleed from their eyes with how he assembled the evidence, depositions, and testimony. It didn't hurt that I had a valid tort.

Stan stepped into a controversy that had already been raging for years. Pat's position, by the time Stan entered the fray, was already well established -- it has little to do with him personally. So if Stan has taken flak after throwing himself into the mosh pit, it is no one's fault than his own. And like you, Dan, I have read over and over how well Stan's DVD sales have gone. How he now plans a book. How Pro 1 is taking over the pool playing world.

So which is it? Where are the damages?

The irony of it all is that Stan's side would have to acknowledge Pat's expertise as an individual whose opinion on CTE and Pro1 had sufficient standing and validity to sway people on the forum and inflict presumed damages simply by stating them here and on RSB. IOW, he would have to acknowledge Pat as an authority, lol.

Lastly, there is this issue: it is not defamation if what is said is true.

After 18 years the factual representation of CTE is still a matter of great controversy. Regardless of Stan's credentials, I suspect that depositions and/or testimony from expert witnesses -- such as prominent professional pool players like John Schmidt and Corey Duel -- would immediately show that aiming systems, as a whole, are of highly questionable validity at the sport's highest levels.

But you guys knock yourselves out. Pat's side will feast.

Lou Figueroa

 

[BeiberLvr]

By "further tweaking" do you mean this?

https://youtu.be/FWZEoyoYMQ8

Listen. I'm not saying CTE is perfect or works 100 percent as advertised, but your video has already been refuted.

Gerry Williams has a few videos shooting similar shots on his page. You should do a stroke analysis of him. No offense to Stan, but I personally think Gerry has slightly better stroke mechanics

I would genuinely be interested in seeing if he twists his stroke.

 

[Player]

Well this is the crux of the issue for many people. If you have chosen a particular visual for a given shot and you are not making any subconscious adjustments, and you do everything exactly the same way every time, then how can you pocket an object ball with the exact same visual if you move the object ball to the left by an inch?

That's easy. To get the "same visual", you have to move over to the right. That changes the shot line.

 

[Straightpool_99]

By "further tweaking" do you mean this?

https://youtu.be/FWZEoyoYMQ8

Wow, that's a very good video! I can't believe how the stroke looks dead straight after 4/100 s. I don't think you'd see that with the naked eye very easily. This is why video analysis can be a very good tool! No comment on CTE, btw.

 

[Straightpool_99]

Listen. I'm not saying CTE is perfect or works 100 percent as advertised, but your video has already been refuted.

Gerry Williams has a few videos shooting similar shots on his page. You should do a stroke analysis of him. No offense to Stan, but I personally think Gerry has slightly better stroke mechanics

I would genuinely be interested in seeing if he twists his stroke.

--Deleted by poster--

 

[cookie man]

Well this is the crux of the issue for many people. If you have chosen a particular visual for a given shot and you are not making any subconscious adjustments, and you do everything exactly the same way every time, then how can you pocket an object ball with the exact same visual if you move the object ball to the left by an inch?

LEARN the VISUALS and you would know

 

[8pack]

This video here has me puzzled, this is no 1/2 ball hit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orMhr2ezftA

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...don't there have to be some damages...? What are the damages?

...it is no one's fault than his own.
...Where are the damages?
...it is not defamation if what is said is true.

Buzz killers.

pj
chgo

 

[Straightpool_99]

This video here has me puzzled, this is no 1/2 ball hit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orMhr2ezftA

Is this the video Dan has been using? Because I see the same thing here. Both CTE shots have movement of the cue to Stan Shuffets left. The shot on the 11 has more subtle movement, while the shot on the 13 has more significant movement. You need to watch in 0.25x speed to catch it. It's easier to see if you focus on the nose and cue shaft at the same time. You can also see the corrective movement after the shot. I'm not sure if this proves anything at all?

Stan is obviously a great player, so whatever he does with his stroke is working for him. I wish he would shoot a shot the other way, so we could tell if his stroke always does this, or if he is indeed correcting for wrong alignment here. He does state that he goes back to center ball, so I'm not sure about the english explanation standing up to that.

https://youtu.be/orMhr2ezftA?t=201
https://youtu.be/orMhr2ezftA?t=256

Anyway, when I can start playing again, I will definitely use video from straight ahead to see, wether I do something similar with my cut shots.

 

[8pack]

Is this the video Dan has been using? Because I see the same thing here. Both CTE shots have movement of the cue to Stan Shuffets left. The shot on the 11 has more subtle movement, while the shot on the 13 has more significant movement. You need to watch in 0.25x speed to catch it. It's easier to see if you focus on the nose and cue shaft at the same time. You can also see the corrective movement after the shot. I'm not sure if this proves anything at all?

Stan is obviously a great player, so whatever he does with his stroke is working for him. I wish he would shoot a shot the other way, so we could tell if his stroke always does this, or if he is indeed correcting for wrong alignment here. He does state that he goes back to center ball, so I'm not sure about the english explanation standing up to that.

https://youtu.be/orMhr2ezftA?t=201
https://youtu.be/orMhr2ezftA?t=256

Anyway, when I can start playing again, I will definitely use video from straight ahead to see, wether I do something similar with my cut shots.

I think your right. Nothing about this makes sense. The ball is past a 1/2 ball hit and after watching Dan's video, Stan might of put a little spin on the ball which might make the ball. Stan doesn't mention any of this but it would explain the ball going in.
Isn't he trying to show a center cb hit and a half ball hit ?
There's nothing hard about seeing where your tip is pointed, baffling to call this a 1/2 ball hit so many times with out noticing this.