Thanks Dan for the information. I'm certainly going to give a try. I know it'll be hard for me to break this bad habit.
Stan and a 33 minute video...
- Thread starter Dan White
- Start date
Thanks Dan for the information. I'm certainly going to give a try. I know it'll be hard for me to break this bad habit.
Thanks Neil
So, since the "why" can't be explained, you just write it off as a naturally occurring thing, and give it no more thought. As long as you can use it, and explain how to use it, you are satisfied.
Yet, for some reason, you want to hold CTE to a higher standard. It's not enough that you can use it, and describe how to use it, but it has to be held to a higher standard and you must know the "why's" of it. If you can't know that, it is to be dismissed.
Doesn't seem like a consistent, fair standard to me.
(since you didn't like the electricity example, another one is gravity.)
You better clear this Dan White before doing anything. He is the self-appointed protector of new people like you who are interested in CTE.
Send him the URL of the video and he'll tell you if you should watch it or not and probably include a highly detailed analysis of all its flaws.
It's like this.....I can make electricity with a wire and two magnets, and I can show you how to do it and you can do it immediately afterwards. That's because it's an objective process. There is no learning curve. We know exactly why there is electricity in nature (like lightning and static electricity). It's measurable and proven with physics. Unlike CTE, no one that knows any better is claiming that electricity is a mystery. Gravity is a different case, a different theory, though still provable and calculable. A theory holds true unless scientific testing/experiments/observations proves it false. So far electricity and gravity are holding their own.
CTE is not in the same league. I don't hold it to a higher standard because it wouldn't hold up as advertised. It fails to meet the requirements, which means it can be disproved with experiments, examples, observations, etc.... It could be a perfectly fine system, but evidence shows that it does require players to use judgement based on individual experience, and Stan flat out says that it doesn't.
Yet, despite the false claims of some on here, it has not been disproved. Every one of the so called claims against it have been disproved. Your side won't accept the proof because you talk from an uniformed position.
So, I'll ask again, if you really are only concerned about what you think are false claims, why only concern yourself with CTE? Where are you with all the claims on cues, shafts, rails, racks, tips, other aiming systems, ect. ?
Video observation disproves the claim that CTE trumps throw. Despite denial, physics trumps CTE. The fact that a player must develop, through experience, the ability to get CTE to function consistently on all shots disproves the claim that it's so objective one simply has to look, align, then shoot. The visual perceptions may be considered objective, but no more objective than visualizing a straight-aim fractional alignment, which Stan calls guesswork. So seeing one line to an ob aim point is guesswork, while seeing one line to a CCB solution (obtained through two other visual lines and an exact bridge placement and pivot/sweep to CCB) is considered 100% objective? I don't get it, but then again I don't have an agenda that relies on such thought.
And are you really comparing what we know about nuclear physics (atoms, quarks, electrons, etc...) to CTE? Certainly not. The study of subatomic particles is much more solid in reference to the why's and how's when compared to CTE. And I'd say less than 95% of the world's population doesn't even know what a quark or a lepton is. And even though there are still questions about why a proton is heavier than an electron, or why an up quark is lighter than a down quark, we have plenty of solid answers to describe matter, from which we are all made.
Cue shaft, chalk, cases, tips, aiming gadgets, etc....are all subject to thorough testing and public scrutiny. Meucci sales reps don't call Predator cue players "haters" simply because they question or compare deflection properties between the different shafts. Observations and testing provide proof, but players choose to play with what feels good to them. It's about feel and experience, which is taboo to the ears of CTE proponents. It shouldn't be, considering you must develop your visual experience/portfolio before CTE begins to really click. And that's fine, but at least admit it.
Last edited:
To the throw- once again, you miss parts and take parts out of context. What did Stan actually say? He said that one should play a professional game. That means all shots hit with a medium to medium firm speed. That is SOP for the system. Now, if you need to or want to go outside the SOP, that is easily done. Your stating that it doesn't properly allow for throw on slow shots is nothing more than a red herring. You might as well claim it doesn't work on masse' shots.
As t your nuclear stuff, a lot of words that never answered the question.
As to the equipment question, a bunch of more words that never answered the question. You like fishing? You sure are tossing a bunch of red herrings out there.
As to admitting that one must develop their visual intelligence, are you kidding me?? How many times must Stan and others say that before you actually hear it? Are you really going to stoop so low that you are going to claim that as a drawback or that means it's not objective?Because if you think learned things can't be objective, you would be very wrong.
Last edited:
This SOP of hitting all shots with medium to firm speed was never mentioned as standard until Dan White pointed out the CIT that Stan says gets trumped by CTE.
It doesn't matter, pros play shots at varying speeds. No pro player plays "all" shots at medium to medium firm speed. And that's not cherry picking your words or taking them out of context. You should word things differently if one can't quote what you write without being accused of taking it out of context. The fact is, MANY shots are played at a normal medium speed, not ALL shots. Some are slow-rolled and some are fired in at lightning speed.
I'm not saying the CTE over-cut doesn't work for slow speed, I'm saying the player must adjust the shot in many situations where the natural over-cut is going to cause a miss if an adjustment isn't made. That's SOP for any method of aiming and not a bash on CTE. However, Stan has claimed many times that CTE requires no aiming or stroke adjustments and no player judgement. Once again, nothing here is out of context.....Stan has been very vocal on these claims.
And I'm very aware that a learned process can be considered objective once the process is learned, but that only applies to learning things like trigonometry or calculus. It's math, a process that requires zero personal judgement. I'll agree that a visual, something anyone with eyes and a known fixed focal point can see, is objective. If I say "Look at that ball", you can easily look and see the ball -- no training or learning curve needed. That is objective. If I ask, "What perception would you use to pocket that ball?" or "What fractional aim would you use to pocket the ball?", the player would have to use some sort of judging criteria, asking himself if it's too thin for a 15° perception, or too thick for 3/8 fraction, etc... This judgement process depends solely on the player's personal opinion, based on comparable experiences and results. It's subjective.
It may feel objective to him, but that's because the 86 billion neurons in his brain have built a complex pathway of understanding for this particular situation, unique to him and no one else. Now if he doesn't use personal judgement, but instead uses a pure objective process like math or measuring devices to determine exactly where to aim, he has removed the subjectiveness from the process and can truly call his result objective.
Last edited:
The CTE objectivity claim is based on centers, edges and quarters of balls. In contrast to a contact point, which is more "subjective" than this finite set of references. For a shot in CTE, your visual alignments use these references for each and every shot. The visual alignment is acquired the same way, over and over. Reduction of variables. Once you establish CCB from these references, CTE is done and then other factors can come into play. spin, speed, all that fun stuff. You have wiggle room for much of these factors since pockets are wider than balls. BHE also has built-in compensation for much of it. The vast majority of shots can be made with these variables alone. Some do require extra judgement. If you can run 100 balls with a system, its probably pretty solid.
I understand this. Unlike Stan, I actually do consider focal points on the object ball as objective references. Stan has said that only applies to his CTE reference points, not to my fractional ref points,even though they are the exact same ref points. He told me it was "apples and oranges". Lol.
Like I said, that's not where I question the objectiveness of CTE. My question is, what objective method leads/dictates/guides the player to the appropriate perception needed to pocket the ball?
When you are on a given perception, you are VERY close to the shotline. Within about an 1/8 ball I’d say. You are one strict pivot away. So one way is reverse engineer it (while learning). Stand behind the ghost ball shotline and pay attention to the inside edge of the CB. How does it cross the OB? Is it center? Then it’s likely a 30. Does it cross a quarter? Then it’s
Likely a 15. So now align to that perception. Now does the shot need to be thick or thinned? That is the pivot direction.
If you are down on the shot and it doesn’t look right, stand up and try again. It gets easier until it’s automatic.
I think guys like Neil and mohrt have said in the past that you have a general idea of where the pocket is, and since each visual line up covers a rather large range of shot angles, it isn't hard to pick the right one. That could be, but my question is obviously once you choose the visual alignment, how is it able to achieve those various shot angles without anything changing?
Name some products, other than CTE, that make false claims in their advertising, and we can go from there.
The perception changes. Every CB/OB orientation has a unique perception. I believe this has been said before. This can be discovered at the table. This what Stan phrases as what Hal said “what was not meant to be”. I suppose that can mean it is something contradictory to logic? Because yes, I think it is. But nonetheless, there it is. Perception is a curious thing.
I think CTE is the best visual reference point method I've seen or messed around with. There's no question in my mind that when I experimented with edge to A, center to edge and come in that line to off center, it would typically be a tip off center, manually pivot to center, boom......a connection with center ball to a very very different visual line up picture of a slight over cut and of course, that's the way it would have to look to be able to not use a helping type additional offset with spin etc etc.
This is what's known as the manual pivot version of CTE.
The manual sweep version, I am very well aware of because I in fact sweep big time past what would be considered normal CTE lines to manipulate warp. Cut to the left and I want to bend and straighten out a angle, I left eye sweep my entire delivery alignment right and then hold that position and shift my eye alignment to right eye and come in with the delivery system of low right English, elbow in, and pure right eye sighting. That's about as swept as it gets and produces a outside cb inward angle attack on the shaft and to the normal right handed player, I know this visual looks like a overcut to the left big time of the ob. But in fact, the launch point will be thick and more adjustments have to be made from there.
The point is, and I will confirm this later today, I can pick up the CTE 15 degree perception, maintain that visual, come in and cut the ob easily 45 degrees + or - because the eyes don't have to match the delivery system.
Stan does say but not often, and it doesn't matter to me because one time is enough and if a person isn't paying attention despite 90-100 videos, that's there problem and Stan is not at fault. Stan says what eye or portion of it you should be picking up the visual and where you should place your feet.....end of story.
A basis of physical alignment is established and its up to you to work within those perameters that are laid out. It's totally reasonable and objective enough in my opinion.
However, it's not automatic.
For someone to say I can't understand CTE is nonsense because I too visually sweep too and that idea, I figured out from stans videos after I was content with enough of my own methods and discoveries based on hellish thousands of hours on the table and I got thousands more left. Bottomline, visual with delivery is explainable enough but the gap of reality is what is truly objective in the sense that the gap is individually dependant and I would venture that 2 proficient CTE'ers, like snow flakes, are not exactly the same.
CTE works and that is the bottomline but so does closing your eyes at address if you take the time out to make it work. Obviously one is more reasonable than the other but which one is better?
Well, the war, she goes on and on forever and im happy with that. Let a person decide what they want to do if they are informed enough and if they choose CTE as a platform and add to it, then I think that's a good choice, if it's the eyes closed aproach, then I say keep me posted so I can learn something.
Name one that doesn't.
I'm one of those people that don't really understand CTE. I'm sure I'd have to taught by an Instructor to actually get it.
I'm sure my mechanics has a lot to do with me missing certain shots.
Search Stan Shuffet CTE on youtube and you'll find all of his videos.
They are a little hard to 'get' what he's talking about. The best way is to have someone show you in person. Don't get discouraged if you watch them and really don't get it.