Same Old Same Old

Dan White said:
That's fine. I went ahead and found the original conversation. I don't want to quote you incorrectly. You actually said:

My first comment is that the shot in question is in fact set up as close to a 30 degree angle as possible which is the conventional 1/2 ball shot in the quarters system and it has been defined that way for a hundred years. My intentions were to convey a half ball aim....and it will still be the same in a hundred more years.

At times, during demos I stun a lot of balls.....creates a lot grabbing....sometimes I do compensate for stun. I have trained myself to do that.

I can shoot the shots with finesse or draw and the balls will split the pocket minus any rolling of the hand.

Stan Shuffett

The post can be found here:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5320401&postcount=1412
Click to expand...

I do NOT compensate for stun every time I use stun and far from it.....my intentions are for CCB when the lesson calls for it.......and that lesson called for it.......
You know, sometimes during filming for demos I accept set-ups that are not perfect and I accept strokes that are not perfect .....The point of that lesson was clearly made whether I was off CCB by a mm or not.........

Stan Shuffett
 
Dan White said:
You are clearly delivering the cue in a different path than the practice stroke. Your original explanation is that you were compensating for stun, so my comment is a summary of what I observed combined with your explanation of the reason:

Again, I said:

He [Stan] alters the actual shot line after taking a different practice stroke to compensate for stun throw.

The blue part is my observation from the video analysis, and the red part is the explanation you gave. If it is not stun compensation but it is a hand tremor then I would have put that in the red part instead.
Click to expand...

JB refuted your video........Neil did the same as well!!!! .I guess your videos count as evidence for your position but my CTE videos do not count......
You are an RSB Anti CTEer from way back and you have nothing but snake in the grass intentions.

Stan Shuffett
 
Dan White said:
Shot 5 cannot be made if something else doesn't change, and I can't get the same visual in shot 5 if I move to a thinner cut in order to pocket the ball. This is the dilemma. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

I don't really know what to tell you to make it work. I'm not an instructor of the system, I can only relay how it works for me. That said, I didn't get CTE working at first either. It took time at the table, practicing the shots from the first DVD where the perceptions were given to me. I'd say it took a solid couple of weeks for my eyes to understand what they were seeing, which ultimately are the correct perceptions. What I don't know, is exactly how to convey to someone that can't see the perceptions what they need to do to see them. I'll bet 15 minutes at a table with Stan would sort it all out. For me it was repetition at the table that got me going.

So, you are looking at the lines and CCB with both eyes as a perception yes? Can you tell which eye is picking up the lines, or if it is both or more of one than the other? That is just a thought that might help figure it out.
 
stan shuffett said:
I do NOT compensate for stun every time I use stun and far from it.....my intentions are for CCB when the lesson calls for it.......and that lesson called for it.......
You know, sometimes during filming for demos I accept set-ups that are not perfect and I accept strokes that are not perfect .....The point of that lesson was clearly made whether I was off CCB by a mm or not.........

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

I can accept that. I'm not here to criticize. I'm interested in how CTE might work and since it is hard to figure I thought I'd look at some video. I'm not even concluding that the stroke issue we are discussing necessarily proves anything other than that there is a stroke issue. As far as the bold part above, I think the idea that your tip is a mm off from CCB is less important than the direction the cue is moving in. Of course you can hit the cue ball in the same spot and send it in very different directions depending on the angle of attack, so to speak, of the stick.
 
mohrt said:
I don't really know what to tell you to make it work. I'm not an instructor of the system, I can only relay how it works for me. That said, I didn't get CTE working at first either. It took time at the table, practicing the shots from the first DVD where the perceptions were given to me. I'd say it took a solid couple of weeks for my eyes to understand what they were seeing, which ultimately are the correct perceptions. What I don't know, is exactly how to convey to someone that can't see the perceptions what they need to do to see them. I'll bet 15 minutes at a table with Stan would sort it all out. For me it was repetition at the table that got me going.

So, you are looking at the lines and CCB with both eyes as a perception yes? Can you tell which eye is picking up the lines, or if it is both or more of one than the other? That is just a thought that might help figure it out.
Click to expand...

Let me ask this: Neil and/or cookie man, I think, said that you first have to stand in the approximate correct position to pocket the ball based on where the pocket is. So in shot 1 you will stand more in line with the cb-ob line than you will with shot 5, which requires a thinner cut. Is this what you do? If so, the perplexing issue is how you can get the same visual perception from two different starting vantage points. Is this what took you time to be able to do successfully?
 
I just went through the motions from the shots on the DVDs until I started seeing and aligning the perceptions. When you start seeing it you know it. You will begin to focus your attention in the right places almost unconsciously.

Instead of asking so many questions in a forum, why not spend time at the table for awhile? You can always revisit the questions. Had I needed all questions answered first I would have never got it. It's just different.

FYI I never really messed with this #5 shot until recently. Admittedly it is an extreme edge case for the 15, not a simple perception and probably not a good one to learn with.
 
mohrt said:
Instead of asking so many questions in a forum, why not spend time at the table for awhile? You can always revisit the questions. Had I needed all questions answered first I would have never got it. It's just different.
Click to expand...

Well, to be precise I haven't been asking a lot of questions. I've been asking the same one many times. The only reason I don't shut up about it already is that nobody has been able to describe how to use the method. You're a stand up guy by all accounts so if you say it basically can't be explained and that you just have to perform the shots in the DVD then I can accept that. I won't keep harping on it.

I have spent time at the table with it, which is why I keep asking the question. I guess I need the DVD because when I practice different shots with the same visual it becomes instantly clear that the shots are not going to go in as aimed.

Thanks again for entertaining my question (that's 1 question, not many!).
 
Dan White said:
Well, to be precise I haven't been asking a lot of questions. I've been asking the same one many times. The only reason I don't shut up about it already is that nobody has been able to describe how to use the method. You're a stand up guy by all accounts so if you say it basically can't be explained and that you just have to perform the shots in the DVD then I can accept that. I won't keep harping on it.

I have spent time at the table with it, which is why I keep asking the question. I guess I need the DVD because when I practice different shots with the same visual it becomes instantly clear that the shots are not going to go in as aimed.

Thanks again for entertaining my question (that's 1 question, not many!).
Click to expand...

Are you having success with any shots? If so please describe shots.
 
Dan White said:
Mohrt: Thanks for the explanation but I am still lost. I appreciate that you are trying to explain things in a way different from the way Stan presents it. Here's the problem I have with your explanation, and I want to add that I do "honestly" try to make it work, but I also try to make sure I am not fooling myself. (The other day I made like 4 out of 5 long shots using CTE, but then I made 0 out of 5 when getting the visual alignment the same way, but then looking at cb last and making sure I am not steering the ball. I can pocket balls with my eyes closed at a better rate than that, so it makes me wonder if steering the cue is part of what makes CTE work).
Click to expand...

You are fooling people by closing your eyes. No need for that. You are a video guy, take some film. But don't you think you should work with the system for a while first?
 
Dan White said:
Anyway, not to get side tracked... So in your example of shot 1 I am marking a spot on the rail with a hole reinforcer. The issue I keep bumping up against is that to me, shot 5 is like a photocopy of shot 1. Take a snapshot of my alignment for shot 1 and then copy and paste that position onto shot 5. Shot 5 cannot be made if something else doesn't change, and I can't get the same visual in shot 5 if I move to a thinner cut in order to pocket the ball. This is the dilemma. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Are you making shot one with cte consistently? If so move to shot two. It's a process for some.
 
Dan White said:
For those of you who have expressed interest, the original video I did is here. I though most of the participants here had already seen it:

https://youtu.be/wpljeVvOqRs

There was some discussion of this in another thread. JB said there was nothing to see here, move on.

Stan said in his demonstrations he hits them hard and with stun. He uses outside english to combat the extra throw caused by the stun. I believe that was close to his explanation if not a direct quote. I can find the other thread easily enough if necessary.
Click to expand...

Ok so Stan answered, end of story. What are you trying to do by analyzing one shot used for instructional purposes.
Video yourself shooting the shot and analyze why Stan is wrong if that's what you think.
Hell I miss most shots when i'm helping people. It's the description of what i'm doing that's important.
 
cookie man said:
Ok so Stan answered, end of story. What are you trying to do by analyzing one shot used for instructional purposes.
Video yourself shooting the shot and analyze why Stan is wrong if that's what you think.
Hell I miss most shots when i'm helping people. It's the description of what i'm doing that's important.
Click to expand...

I don't want to rehash the history that led to the making of that video. I found a good one of Gerry Williams shooting the 5 shots and I haven't analyzed it yet. From a first watch it looks like his cue is straight on all the shots.

I'm torn between not spending any more time on this because, honestly, I pocket balls pretty nicely. On the other hand I find the whole debate interesting and if I can shed some light on it with video or whatever then that is a good thing.

When I have the inclination I'll analyze Gerry's video and post it and I might do one of myself trying to demonstrate CTE so you can tell me what I'm doing wrong, which could be a lot. That doesn't change the fact that nobody can explain the system. I wish more people were like morht and just said it can't be explained and the only way to make it work is to I guess force your mind to see the perceptions like they are all the same (or something like that).
 
Patrick Johnson said:
For instance, Stan could end up paying his expenses, my expenses, and court costs, plus sanctions for bringing a frivolous suit, not to mention having his claims about his system judged by the court.

Hopefully his attorney isn't driven by the same juvenile anger issues as you and can give him real professional advice.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


I happen to be good friends with a couple of attorneys, one is a Fed. And what I've heard from them is that there is a glut of attorneys out there. Some can barely keep the lights on and will take any case, regardless of legal merit and probability of success. For too many of these guys it has become a matter of survival and they will do anything for billable hours.

And what many don't know, until they hire an attorney, is that every time you call or speak to them, every minute they work on your case, or write and file a motion, or even just make copy of something or sit in a courtroom waiting for the judge or another case to finish up, the meter is running at a rate of $150 - $300 an hour.

Cases of any complexity will take months to unwind, between initial consultations, discovery, motions to dismiss, hearings, depositions, and maybe eventually an actual trial. You are basically looking at a five figure investment from the get-go and that first digit can go up way fast.

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
I happen to be good friends with a couple of attorneys, one is a Fed. And what I've heard from them is that there is a glut of attorneys out there. Some can barely keep the lights on and will take any case, regardless of legal merit and probability of success. For too many of these guys it has become a matter of survival and they will do anything for billable hours.

And what many don't know, until they hire an attorney, is that every time you call or speak to them, every minute they work on your case, or write and file a motion, or even just make copy of something or sit in a courtroom waiting for the judge or another case to finish up, the meter is running at a rate of $150 - $300 an hour.

Cases of any complexity will take months to unwind, between initial consultations, discovery, motions to dismiss, hearings, depositions, and maybe eventually an actual trial. You are basically looking at a five figure investment from the get-go and that first digit can go up way fast.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

I have an attorney I use on occasion and he's become a friend so he does some things for free, although I urge him to charge me for his time. Then in a reversal of roles I asked him to look over a couple of pages that I gave him and asked if this was something I should get a lawyer for, or if I could just ignore it. Two days later he calls me and says he had to do a lot of work on it and sorry, but that'll be $1500. I was a little pissed at first but since he did other things for nothing I was happy to pay. He feels guilty about it now because he keeps talking about giving me a gift someday... of $1500. Nice guy and a tough lawyer but a little strange! :)
 
Dan White said:
For those of you who have expressed interest, the original video I did is here. I though most of the participants here had already seen it:

https://youtu.be/wpljeVvOqRs

There was some discussion of this in another thread. JB said there was nothing to see here, move on.

Stan said in his demonstrations he hits them hard and with stun. He uses outside english to combat the extra throw caused by the stun. I believe that was close to his explanation if not a direct quote. I can find the other thread easily enough if necessary.
Click to expand...


There was nothing to see. You found one stroke issue on a shot that wasn't aimed using CTE.

The rest of the shots you criticized were done with a straight stroke.

Colin Colenso put out a video showing that pivoting and swiping across the ball has little effect on the resulting pocketing when a KNOWN line is carefully marked and the bridge is fixed to the line. You just ignored that.

So the point is, if we accept Colin's demonstration, that even if there was the tiniest amount of stroke deviation from dead straight that doesn't necessarily CORRELATE to the SUBCONSCIOUS gearing you claimed it happening.

In other words the shooter chooses a line and goes with it and you can't say that they are subconsciously doing anything based on their stroke. Even if there were deviations to talk about which in Stan's video there aren't on any of the CTE shots.

Video One - analyzing your "analysis" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THkFF7FBGBA

Video Two - again debunking your attempt to discredit Stan. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4DDQ0NUC5U

And finally in response to your continued claim - the video magnified 500% and shown 75% slower than normal - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcch-egS9Qk

I am sure that I can slow it down even more if you're still not convinced.

You need to stop thinking that Stan is "gearing" these shots in some way.
 
Any system that offers no way, no method to know why you missed is useless.

Dan, you need to work on speed control, not aiming. This from watching your part 1 video. How many times have you practice that combo to get the speed right? Yet you are trying to get something to work and failing. Why?

Your game is stalled until you get CTE out of your head.
 
lfigueroa said:
I happen to be good friends with a couple of attorneys, one is a Fed. And what I've heard from them is that there is a glut of attorneys out there. Some can barely keep the lights on and will take any case, regardless of legal merit and probability of success. For too many of these guys it has become a matter of survival and they will do anything for billable hours.

And what many don't know, until they hire an attorney, is that every time you call or speak to them, every minute they work on your case, or write and file a motion, or even just make copy of something or sit in a courtroom waiting for the judge or another case to finish up, the meter is running at a rate of $150 - $300 an hour.

Cases of any complexity will take months to unwind, between initial consultations, discovery, motions to dismiss, hearings, depositions, and maybe eventually an actual trial. You are basically looking at a five figure investment from the get-go and that first digit can go up way fast.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
I'm friends and acquaintances with lots of attorneys, few of whom charge as little as $300/hr these days. Fortunately for me, some of them are good enough friends to take a case as easy as this on the come - they'd wait to be paid by Stan. So much for any profits he's made from CTE.

But despite Stan being the one who wants to attack me, I don't wish that on him. Stan, I know you don't trust me, but get some objective advice. The imbeciles goading you on here would be thrilled for you to throw yourself under the bus for a pie-in-the-sky chance at their personal revenge for some past slight. No skin off their noses.

And, by the way, if you think threatening lawsuits will chill discussion about the nonsense descriptions of how CTE works, think again. I'll still offer my opinion, and I'm not the only one. AzB isn't your bought-and-paid-for billboard; it's a discussion forum.

pj
chgo
 
duckie said:
Any system that offers no way, no method to know why you missed is useless.

Dan, you need to work on speed control, not aiming. This from watching your part 1 video. How many times have you practice that combo to get the speed right? Yet you are trying to get something to work and failing. Why?

Your game is stalled until you get CTE out of your head.
Click to expand...

I still don't think Dan has any honest intentions of learning CTE. He is just here to nitpick.

With that being said. I have no idea if Dan plays 14.1, but I would gladly back him against you spotting you 50 going to 100.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top