Same Old Same Old

Patrick Johnson said:
Whose results? Proof of what? Stop claiming that it "proves" CTE is uniquely objective and people might stop questioning that. Pretty simple.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Uniquely objective? You mean substantially objective? Because that's what I claim it is based on my experience with it.

And yeah, if CTE were subjective, as in feel based, Patrick, then the RESULTS would not be as consistent as they are.

Not a single one of you "feel" players can duplicate Stan's videos with any consistency.

NOT ONE OF YOU. Not you Pat, Not you Dan, None of YOU.

So either you all aim perfectly and your strokes all suck, or you aim wrong and your stroke is great.

As Mohrt said you don't get that level of REPEATABILITY without objective methods.

Said Watson to Holmes, how did you know it was Trichinopoloy? Said Holmes, I have made and exhaustive study of cigar ashes and there is only one which makes that sort of ash.

Said Hal to Stan, I have made an exhaustive study of how to approach aiming and have found many ways that work extremely consistently to put the shooter on the line. Said Stan to all of us, I have made an exhaustive study of Hal's methods and I concur that his CTE method works extremely well to put the shooter on the right shot line consistently.

Objectivity Patrick is making a determination based on CONSISTENT methods and knowledge. It is using tools proven to be reliable for the task.

So perhaps you should stop being so OCD about the use of the word and realize that the RESULTS are what matters, not the PERCENTAGE of objectivity in use.
 
JB Cases said:
As for your idea that I can't follow a logical path....well that's your wrong opinion. You decided to pick on one shot where Stan aimed it wrong NOT USING CTE and "appeared" to possibly steer the cueball and then falsely claim that Stan steered all of his shots that WERE AIMED USING CTE, coming to the conclusion that Stan MUST BE subconciously adjusting to make the shots because his brain knows that the shots are not aimed right.
Click to expand...

Well if you going to engage in flat out revisionist history, then you force me to respond. You are proving my point. The first video analyzed all of Stan's shots, the first one being non-CTE. The second video analyzed Stan's first CTE shot. The rest of the above is blather I never said...but somehow you inferred.
 
cookie man said:
Maybe not explained but it can be taught very easily.
Click to expand...

Don't you think you guys could have saved a lot of bandwidth if you had just said from the beginning something like, "How it works can't be explained. It doesn't make logical sense when you describe it but for some reason when you spend two weeks at the table trying to get it to work all of a sudden it clicks in and thereafter you only have to aim at objective points on the balls."

I'd have been skeptical of that, but I would have accepted it as a reasonable answer and moved on.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Whose results? Proof of what? Stop claiming that it "proves" CTE is uniquely objective and people might stop questioning that. Pretty simple.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I have a new theory. JB is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. He's been using CTE for what, 20 years, saying how great it is, yet by his own admission he is too lazy to do it properly. By now he should be shooting as well as Stan does, but he cannot. Instead of concluding that maybe CTE isn't what he thought it was, he blames himself for being too lazy to use it properly.

Just a thought.
 
cookie man said:
Where is your game at? Wanna play some
Click to expand...

Not sure who is talking to whom anymore, but I don't recall making the video duckie is talking about. If he lets me know I'd like to look at it.

Basically I only play 14.1 but coincidentally I actually played some nine ball this morning. I don't normally brag about my play but I was happy with some good results. My score against the ghost was 3-1 and only took ball in hand once after the break. I haven't played more than 5 games of 9 ball in 5 years so I was happy to see how my 9 ball game has progressed over time. I didn't play more because I was already bored with it and had to put down my winterizer fertilizer. :grin: I just prefer straight pool.
 
JB Cases said:
Not a single one of you "feel" players can duplicate Stan's videos with any consistency.
Click to expand...
Neither can you or any of the CTE users posting here. This is an example of what's meant when people say you fail to grasp simple logic.

pj <- here come da bet...
chgo
 
Dan White said:
Don't you think you guys could have saved a lot of bandwidth if you had just said from the beginning something like, "How it works can't be explained. It doesn't make logical sense when you describe it but for some reason when you spend two weeks at the table trying to get it to work all of a sudden it clicks in and thereafter it seems like you only have to aim at objective points on the balls."
Click to expand...
That would work.

pj
chgo
 
Dan White said:
I have a new theory. JB is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. He's been using CTE for what, 20 years, saying how great it is, yet by his own admission he is too lazy to do it properly. By now he should be shooting as well as Stan does, but he cannot. Instead of concluding that maybe CTE isn't what he thought it was, he blames himself for being too lazy to use it properly.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

See, this is where you fail to read.

First of all I have been using aiming systems such as Hal's for 15 years since Hal and I met.

Secondly in that time I have built two businesses and lived in China for 7 years barely playing pool during the last ten.

Thirdly I am fairly lazy but when motivated I will intensely study whatever subject interests me. Thus I can know enough about CTE to see that it works as advertised even if I myself am not the best practitioner of it.

I don't shoot as well as Stan for the single reason that I don't shoot and practice as much as Stan does and has done. It's why I don't shoot as well as a lot of people CTE aside.

And I said I am too lazy to practice CTE to the point where I know FOR SURE what the right key is for every shot. Not that I am too lazy to do it properly. I properly apply CTE all the time but then don't stroke properly. My stroke has fallen into a truly sad state and I see that clearly when I TRY to stroke properly and my aching muscles tell me how out of shape I am.

So save your bullshit. I do just fine with the level I am at and where I am in my life. I don't run around like you trying to tear other people down like you do with Stan and anyone who advocates CTE.

If I thought CTE didn't work or Hal's other methods didn't work I would say it. As I said before I am not indebted to anyone to be their lapdog. Not to Hal, not to Stan or anyone else. If I say something works then it's because I have seen it work myself on the pool table.

It's all about perspective Dan and you have none. Yet.
 
JB Cases said:
Uniquely objective? You mean substantially objective? Because that's what I claim it is based on my experience with it.

And yeah, if CTE were subjective, as in feel based, Patrick, then the RESULTS would not be as consistent as they are.

Not a single one of you "feel" players can duplicate Stan's videos with any consistency.

NOT ONE OF YOU. Not you Pat, Not you Dan, None of YOU.

So either you all aim perfectly and your strokes all suck, or you aim wrong and your stroke is great.

As Mohrt said you don't get that level of REPEATABILITY without objective methods.

Said Watson to Holmes, how did you know it was Trichinopoloy? Said Holmes, I have made and exhaustive study of cigar ashes and there is only one which makes that sort of ash.

Said Hal to Stan, I have made an exhaustive study of how to approach aiming and have found many ways that work extremely consistently to put the shooter on the line. Said Stan to all of us, I have made an exhaustive study of Hal's methods and I concur that his CTE method works extremely well to put the shooter on the right shot line consistently.

Objectivity Patrick is making a determination based on CONSISTENT methods and knowledge. It is using tools proven to be reliable for the task.

So perhaps you should stop being so OCD about the use of the word and realize that the RESULTS are what matters, not the PERCENTAGE of objectivity in use.
Click to expand...

Ok, cte expert..

YOU duplicate Stan's schtick.

Let's see that cte magic.

Still waiting for him to challenge Daz, too.
 
Dan White said:
Don't you think you guys could have saved a lot of bandwidth if you had just said from the beginning something like, "How it works can't be explained. It doesn't make logical sense when you describe it but for some reason when you spend two weeks at the table trying to get it to work all of a sudden it clicks in and thereafter you only have to aim at objective points on the balls."

I'd have been skeptical of that, but I would have accepted it as a reasonable answer and moved on.
Click to expand...

Exactly what we have said all along. Go read the thread Pat linked to. I said essentially this very thing back then.
 
Dan White said:
Well if you going to engage in flat out revisionist history, then you force me to respond. You are proving my point. The first video analyzed all of Stan's shots, the first one being non-CTE. The second video analyzed Stan's first CTE shot. The rest of the above is blather I never said...but somehow you inferred.
Click to expand...

Because I had already conceded the stroke issue on the non-CTE aimed shot. We figured out that what Stan THOUGHT was a half-ball aim was not in fact a half ball hit to the pocket.

You then went on to INSIST that all of Stan's CTE aimed shots ALSO contained steering-gearing hits on the cue ball and surmised that this must be because of subconsciously adjusting to be sure of pocketing the ball.

That's why the followup videos focused on the CTE shots only.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Woohoo!


I never thought you were foolish enough to sue me. Can I get a "CTE MVP" t-shirt instead?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Foolish? Foolish has nothing to do with it on my part. Nothing at all. It is your foolishness or not that drives the decision-making.

T-shirt? that could be very possible at some point but only if you will wear it and submit a picture to me for publishing.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
JB Cases said:
Just because you're broke and can't afford to put your money where your mouth is doesn't mean I won't.

If you can borrow some money I will bet you on whether I can duplicate Stan's videos or not.

Until then, I will PAY YOU $100 if you set up a camera straddling the curtains and duplicate Stan's banking video here. You have 24 hours....go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY0tp_UnS_g&index=1&list=PLSKV5CK_fziXmQJCXU3-DBYNTadtjZecS
Click to expand...

So when Stan uses english on some of those banks is that objective or is he, at least in part, playing by feel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top