Stan shuffet and cte pro one

[BC21]

That is curious. Me and most of my group picked up the basics from a 10 minute phone call to Hal. Makes one wonder how a guy as smart as you claim to be doesn't have the slightest clue how to use it. I mean just follow the objective instructions. What could be so hard about that. Then it takes a little time to work with. After all it is a complete playing system and not something you fiddle around with in practice but dont use in a match situation, like some other system on here.

PS i love how you overstate things

The objective basics are simple, you're right, but that only includes the two-line perception. The other steps require experienced judgement and are only simple to those that have such experience.

The pivot is the only thing that is really tough to understand it pick up. I've watched Spider's CTE Pivoting video and that makes it even more cloudy, mainly because he's using 1/2 ball pivots instead of 1/2 tip, but I realize that's the original CTE and 90/90 style pivots. Spider shows how a fixed 10" bridge won't work. Then he states that the sweet spot for pivoting is between a 10 to 12 inch bridge. He then demonstrates a strict pivot from the bridge hand followed by a squishy bridge hand pivot where he says it feels like he's really pivoting the cue at about the joint area. But he's not. In both examples the cue pivots exactly at his bridge hand -- coach's eye app shows it with no doubts. That's about as clear and accurate as mud. But he is entertaining, seems like a funny guy, witty.

 

[Neil]

The objective basics are simple, you're right, but that only includes the two-line perception. The other steps require experienced judgement and are only simple to those that have such experience.

The pivot is the only thing that is really tough to understand it pick up. I've watched Spider's CTE Pivoting video and that makes it even more cloudy, mainly because he's using 1/2 ball pivots instead of 1/2 tip, but I realize that's the original CTE and 90/90 style pivots. Spider shows how a fixed 10" bridge won't work. Then he states that the sweet spot for pivoting is between a 10 to 12 inch bridge. He then demonstrates a strict pivot from the bridge hand followed by a squishy bridge hand pivot where he says it feels like he's really pivoting the cue at about the joint area. But he's not. In both examples the cue pivots exactly at his bridge hand -- coach's eye app shows it with no doubts. That's about as clear and accurate as mud. But he is entertaining, seems like a funny guy, witty.

Except just to pick at something, why so fixated now on the pivot? Can you not see that by pivoting to center cb, what you are really doing is putting your cue on that ccb line? Why do you think that Pro One has no pivots? It's not about the pivot at all. It's about putting your cue on the ccb line, which is now the shot line.

 

[BC21]

Except just to pick at something, why so fixated now on the pivot? Can you not see that by pivoting to center cb, what you are really doing is putting your cue on that ccb line? Why do you think that Pro One has no pivots? It's not about the pivot at all. It's about putting your cue on the ccb line, which is now the shot line.

How do you objectively just put your cue on the shot line? The perception gives you a shot line that may or may not be dead on. So how do you determine the exact shot line? It's really not a tough question, and I'm sure I'm not the only that doesn't get that part. I've read comments on Mort's website from guys that have working with it for more than a year and still have questions.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Lol. The reason I am analyzing it is because I am curious as to why I don't easily get it. If it were truly objective in every step then anyone with a decent stroke would pick it up white easily. But according to successful users, it takes a while before it "clicks", often several months, and I some cases a couple of years. That is what I am curious about.

All food recipes are objective in every step, yet most people still overcook the meatloaf their first time.

 

[BeiberLvr]

First of all, you don't get to decide what the point is in a conversation between another poster and me. Regarding your point... oh that's right, you don't have a point. Your purpose here is to rile things up and see if you can cloud the issues and maybe get one of us to lose our cool and get banned. I get it. Beiber keeps baiting me to see if I'll do something to get me banned as well. It's a charming tactic, but most of us are on to it.

Do tell how I'm baiting you.

 

[Neil]

How do you objectively just put your cue on the shot line? The perception gives you a shot line that may or may not be dead on. So how do you determine the exact shot line? It's really not a tough question, and I'm sure I'm not the only that doesn't get that part. I've read comments on Mort's website from guys that have working with it for more than a year and still have questions.

Total baloney. Now you are saying that CTE may or may not work. And, how is it, that immediately after I tell you what the shot line is, you then ask how to determine it?

 

[Dan White]

Total baloney. Now you are saying that CTE may or may not work. And, how is it, that immediately after I tell you what the shot line is, you then ask how to determine it?

Neil - I have to ask: What is the highest level of education that you have completed?

 

[Neil]

Neil - I have to ask: What is the highest level of education that you have completed?

High enough to be able to understand simple instructions and then be able to follow them so as to be able to successfully use CTE.

Maybe you should have gone to my little country school instead of your fancy education that leaves you scratching your head.

 

[Dan White]

High enough to be able to understand simple instructions and then be able to follow them so as to be able to successfully use CTE.

Maybe you should have gone to my little country school instead of your fancy education that leaves you scratching your head.

I've typed about six different replies and deleted them all. Some things are better left unsaid, even for me. :smile:

Have a good evening and enjoy your discussion with Brian. If you weren't trying so hard to prove him wrong you might find he's a pretty sharp guy that knows a few things about aiming. His Poolology is quite an accomlishment, and is quite unlike anything else out there, despite what some have claimed. Our resident math expert, Vorpal, might even call it elegant. (That's what math guys do).

 

[Neil]

I've typed about six different replies and deleted them all. Some things are better left unsaid, even for me. :smile:

Have a good evening and enjoy your discussion with Brian. If you weren't trying so hard to prove him wrong you might find he's a pretty sharp guy that knows a few things about aiming. His Poolology is quite an accomlishment, and is quite unlike anything else out there, despite what some have claimed. Our resident math expert, Vorpal, might even call it elegant. (That's what math guys do).

I don't need to prove him wrong. He does that all by himself. By the way, Poolology has nothing to do with CTE. Nice strawman, though.

 

[Neil]

I've typed about six different replies and deleted them all. Some things are better left unsaid, even for me. :smile:

Have a good evening and enjoy your discussion with Brian. If you weren't trying so hard to prove him wrong you might find he's a pretty sharp guy that knows a few things about aiming. His Poolology is quite an accomlishment, and is quite unlike anything else out there, despite what some have claimed. Our resident math expert, Vorpal, might even call it elegant. (That's what math guys do).

That fancy education let you down again, huh?

 

[Dan White]

I don't need to prove him wrong. He does that all by himself. By the way, Poolology has nothing to do with CTE. Nice strawman, though.

That's not actually what a strawman argument means. You aren't using the term correctly.

 

[Neil]

That's not actually what a strawman argument means. You aren't using the term correctly.

Actually, I was using the "country" meaning. You set up the straw, and I just sit back and watch you burn yourself with it.

 

[BC21]

Total baloney. Now you are saying that CTE may or may not work. And, how is it, that immediately after I tell you what the shot line is, you then ask how to determine it?

I never said CTE may or may not work. I'm only repeating the very instructions given by several CTE users, including Stan Shuffett himself.

Facts as stated: The perception gives the player a distinct CCB alignment. By looking at this alignment the player must determine whether or not it looks a little thick or a little thin. This determination indicates whether the player uses an inside or outside pivot/sweep.

Common sense indicates that occasionally an alignment will be dead on, not thick or thin. But of course the player would have to have the experience to recognize it.

 

[BC21]

I've typed about six different replies and deleted them all. Some things are better left unsaid, even for me. :smile:

Have a good evening and enjoy your discussion with Brian. If you weren't trying so hard to prove him wrong you might find he's a pretty sharp guy that knows a few things about aiming. His Poolology is quite an accomlishment, and is quite unlike anything else out there, despite what some have claimed. Our resident math expert, Vorpal, might even call it elegant. (That's what math guys do).

Yeah.....I'm just trying to have a productive conversation about CTE, and several CTE users are participating with solid advice and tips. Neil seems to be more concerned with creating confrontation, keeping that old 10 or 20 year feud going.

 

[Neil]

I never said CTE may or may not work. I'm only repeating the very instructions given by several CTE users, including Stan Shuffett himself.

Facts as stated: The perception gives the player a distinct CCB alignment. By looking at this alignment the player must determine whether or not it looks a little thick or a little thin. This determination indicates whether the player uses an inside or outside pivot/sweep.

Common sense indicates that occasionally an alignment will be dead on, not thick or thin. But of course the player would have to have the experience to recognize it.

Here is what you said- "How do you objectively just put your cue on the shot line? The perception gives you a shot line that may or may not be dead on." Since we were talking about the pivot going to ccb, which is the shot line, you stating that it may or may not be the shot line can only mean that CTE may or may not work. Which really means it does not work.

As far as your common sense statement, it's not really that common. The visuals alone are never the shot line.

 

[BeiberLvr]

I never said CTE may or may not work. I'm only repeating the very instructions given by several CTE users, including Stan Shuffett himself.

Facts as stated: The perception gives the player a distinct CCB alignment. By looking at this alignment the player must determine whether or not it looks a little thick or a little thin. This determination indicates whether the player uses an inside or outside pivot/sweep.

Common sense indicates that occasionally an alignment will be dead on, not thick or thin. But of course the player would have to have the experience to recognize it.

How can an alignment be dead on when using CTE?

You do understand that when someone is using CTE, they will never be directly behind/or on the line of the shot?. They are offset (hence the term).

The pivot/sweep is what brings the player to the shot line.

 

[Neil]

Yeah.....I'm just trying to have a productive conversation about CTE, and several CTE users are participating with solid advice and tips. Neil seems to be more concerned with creating confrontation, keeping that old 10 or 20 year feud going.

What a crock! I'm actually giving you the answers in plain english and you are too dense to even hear it! It's crap like your statement above that makes people want to tell you where you can shove it. Rest assured I won't bother helping you anymore. You can rot in "I can't get CTE" hell for years like Dan and a few others for all I care anymore.

 

[Neil]

Yeah.....I'm just trying to have a productive conversation about CTE, and several CTE users are participating with solid advice and tips. Neil seems to be more concerned with creating confrontation, keeping that old 10 or 20 year feud going.

As to the first part of your statement, you say several CTE users have provided tips and help in this thread. What posts would those be? I don't see a one.

 

[BC21]

How can an alignment be dead on when using CTE?

You do understand that when someone is using CTE, they will never be directly behind/or on the line of the shot?. They are offset (hence the term).

The pivot/sweep is what brings the player to the shot line.

For the 30 category:

CB OB relationships for the 30 are always seen as being either thick to the pocket or thin to the pocket.
Those alignments that are thick to the pocket must have an inside pivot. INSIDE always thins a thick alignment.
Those alignments that are thin to the pocket must have an outside PIVOT. OUTSIDE always thickens a thin alignment.

Stan Shuffett

So let me get this straight..... EVERY 30 perception will have to look either thin or thick? Nothing will ever look just right? That is a bit far-fetched.