I have heard that Stan is a great guy in person. He just doesn't handle constructive criticism or questions here online very well, no diplomacy or understanding. But I'm cool with him, and plan on buying his book.
Stan shuffet and cte pro one
- Thread starter Valiant Thor
- Start date
- Status
I have heard that Stan is a great guy in person. He just doesn't handle constructive criticism or questions here online very well, no diplomacy or understanding. But I'm cool with him, and plan on buying his book.
In the first one, that simply means your perception is incorrect. Or you're incorrect in your judgment that the perception line will make the ball. If you're doing it correctly, which you clearly aren't, you're offset (as BieberLvr has repeatedly tried to tell you) so that may explain it. Don't know since it is blatantly evident you don't understand it.
As to two, you answered your own question, i.e. you have trouble understanding.... Take the time to thoroughly review the materials and practice some, then your "understanding troubles" will diminish. How would you have me explain it to you when your understanding is essentially nill? It would be like explaining neon green to a person who has been blind their entire life.
You said the key thing, you haven't met him in person. If you'd been around for a long time and seen the brutal and slanderous onslaught brought on by the lowlifes here and other places, you'd understand his sensitivity. Especially when none of those lowlifes could hold a candle to Stan with respect to pool resume, capability and knowledge. I can say I think Stan should have simply blocked them and therefore, ignored them. But Stan is very passionate about what he is doing. If you met him, you'd understand and I suspect your opinion would change substantially.
By the same token, I have spoken to many people who have met Lou in person. I've yet to speak to a single one that had one good thing to say about him. He is in person at least as bad, if not worse, than he is on here.
By the same token, I have spoken to many people who have met Lou in person. I've yet to speak to a single one that had one good thing to say about him. He is in person at least as bad, if not worse, than he is on here.
I have a slight understanding of science having a Mechanical Engineering Degree. Stan didn't "stomp off", he got fed up with being trolled by scumbags. The site is worse for his departure, it's a shame it was allowed for so long.
There is a huge difference between disagreeing with someone and constantly trolling them. I don't think it is possible for you to be too stupid to know that. You may have fooled the Admins or perhaps they don't care for other reasons. Their site, their rules. But you have fooled nobody else about what your intentions are.
See, I don't get it. Even call Stan and his supporters sycophants. WTF elected you, Lou and a few others to be the torch bearers for your version of the truth? You wouldn't do that in real life out in public with a group of strangers. At least you wouldn't do it for very long. You don't like or agree with Stan, perhaps both. No surprise to anybody. But why would you have to go out of your way to ruin threads for the people that do like and follow Stan? If you can't stand your life of insignificance, take your bitterness out elsewhere. Seriously.
There is a huge difference between disagreeing with someone and constantly trolling them. I don't think it is possible for you to be too stupid to know that. You may have fooled the Admins or perhaps they don't care for other reasons. Their site, their rules. But you have fooled nobody else about what your intentions are.
See, I don't get it. Even call Stan and his supporters sycophants. WTF elected you, Lou and a few others to be the torch bearers for your version of the truth? You wouldn't do that in real life out in public with a group of strangers. At least you wouldn't do it for very long. You don't like or agree with Stan, perhaps both. No surprise to anybody. But why would you have to go out of your way to ruin threads for the people that do like and follow Stan? If you can't stand your life of insignificance, take your bitterness out elsewhere. Seriously.
Here's a thought, Daniel.
Why don't you learn CTE, and then YOU can explain the science behind the system.
Oh, and saying, "It's a feel based system" isn't very scientific.
Clearly you are too far gone to be able to see things clearly. Case in point: Nobody here "hates" Stan or the good things he has done in the pool world. I'm going to leave it at that.
Based on your posts today I can see that you do have only a slight understanding of how science works. An ME degree out of a box of Cracker Jacks doesn't count.
I've already done that and given my opinion on how it must work. You just don't like my explanations, which BTW are more backed up by actual evidence than any other explanations I have seen.
You have no idea where my degree is from. Really poor troll attempt ... Again. Goodbye Dan, as you still contribute nothing positive, meaningful or even occasionally humorous, I'm done with you. Enjoy your little life little man.
ah, so the nob is back, lol. Have had him on Ignore forever — always thought it was just another version of Roadie ;-)
Lou Figueroa
sure sounds like him
You should put me on ignore again after you borrow some money and heart from your wife Lou. Goodbye Lou.
Stan Shuffet's YouTube instructions
Stan, if you're reading this stuff....take this as great praise. (I know there are people on here who hate your guts and have trashed you terribly, but there are those of us who really think you're a gold mine of information.
The YouTube videos on "The Grip" are fantastic. (You know in Hogan's book on golf he went to great pains to explain different grips on the club.) I've never seen it discussed for pool.
Man, I am lapping that information up with a spoon!
The stuff about the longer cue and bridge has REALLY helped me. Since I've become older (older than you) my eye doctor has said that I have a problem with depth perception. You're right....using that old Mosconi 6-8 inch bridge length that we were brainwashed with as youngsters, gets me too close to the cueball and it looks huge, while the object ball out there looks small. This results in a lot of misses that I just could not explain....especially on easy shots with CB about 3-4 feet from OB.
I bought one of those extensions that goes in the middle of the stick, have started using a longer bridge away from the balls...about like what you're showing. And the depth perception thing is no longer an issue. Both balls appear to be the same size...making it easier to pick up the shot angle and SEE the shot correctly.
Why oh why don't these big time instructors out there TEACH this kind of thing...Dr. Dave doesn't, Bob Jewett doesn't, I don't know of anyone who puts out this kind of help.................for FREE, too.!!!
I never realized why I was so anxious (I could feel it building up inside..choking to death) and would miss by a mile or miscue with cueball on rail shots until you explained the "poke" stroke. I see now that the regular stroking is not good percentage and is bad accuracy when frozen on that rail. By using that 'poke', the fear of the rail is now almost gone. Even those long ones are much better....combine that "poke" with CTE as an aiming method to zero in on that sucker and it's really great. Again..none of the big shots TEACH this valuable stuff.
I'm not sure I like Truman Hogue's idea on twisting that wrist for spin. I'm going to leave that one alone and stick to the old way. That twisting the wrist might be a prelude to leading into bad habits. I've got a straight stroke now and I don't want to tinker with it.
Concerning that stroking velocity stuff: Mizerak told me once when we were small stake betting on stuff in the stands at Grady's one pocket event (the one with that long finale between Hopkins and Varner). that the first place to go for correction if you start missing is to slow down that back stroke. Mizerak was no dumbass, for certain.
The 'poke' is great for banks though. Never dreamed of such a thing. I've always ran from banks and would do about anything to avoid them, but with that 'poke' I'm on the way to controlling them for a change instead of them controlling me.
Just wanted to let you know how much your information is appreciated. Keep it coming, man.
Regards and keep on truckin' :thumbup:
Pete L.
Stan, if you're reading this stuff....take this as great praise. (I know there are people on here who hate your guts and have trashed you terribly, but there are those of us who really think you're a gold mine of information.
The YouTube videos on "The Grip" are fantastic. (You know in Hogan's book on golf he went to great pains to explain different grips on the club.) I've never seen it discussed for pool.
Man, I am lapping that information up with a spoon!
The stuff about the longer cue and bridge has REALLY helped me. Since I've become older (older than you) my eye doctor has said that I have a problem with depth perception. You're right....using that old Mosconi 6-8 inch bridge length that we were brainwashed with as youngsters, gets me too close to the cueball and it looks huge, while the object ball out there looks small. This results in a lot of misses that I just could not explain....especially on easy shots with CB about 3-4 feet from OB.
I bought one of those extensions that goes in the middle of the stick, have started using a longer bridge away from the balls...about like what you're showing. And the depth perception thing is no longer an issue. Both balls appear to be the same size...making it easier to pick up the shot angle and SEE the shot correctly.
Why oh why don't these big time instructors out there TEACH this kind of thing...Dr. Dave doesn't, Bob Jewett doesn't, I don't know of anyone who puts out this kind of help.................for FREE, too.!!!
I never realized why I was so anxious (I could feel it building up inside..choking to death) and would miss by a mile or miscue with cueball on rail shots until you explained the "poke" stroke. I see now that the regular stroking is not good percentage and is bad accuracy when frozen on that rail. By using that 'poke', the fear of the rail is now almost gone. Even those long ones are much better....combine that "poke" with CTE as an aiming method to zero in on that sucker and it's really great. Again..none of the big shots TEACH this valuable stuff.
I'm not sure I like Truman Hogue's idea on twisting that wrist for spin. I'm going to leave that one alone and stick to the old way. That twisting the wrist might be a prelude to leading into bad habits. I've got a straight stroke now and I don't want to tinker with it.
Concerning that stroking velocity stuff: Mizerak told me once when we were small stake betting on stuff in the stands at Grady's one pocket event (the one with that long finale between Hopkins and Varner). that the first place to go for correction if you start missing is to slow down that back stroke. Mizerak was no dumbass, for certain.
The 'poke' is great for banks though. Never dreamed of such a thing. I've always ran from banks and would do about anything to avoid them, but with that 'poke' I'm on the way to controlling them for a change instead of them controlling me.
Just wanted to let you know how much your information is appreciated. Keep it coming, man.
Regards and keep on truckin' :thumbup:
Pete L.
Last edited:
BC21;6015143 I also have trouble understanding how a 15° perception said:
Pravda (or even CNN) would be proud of you. The people who have questions like this are the ones who HAVE taken it to the table. It souinds plausible, sort of, in theory, but when you get to the table it is like, WTF?
Can you answer my question about the near straight in shot in the other thread? I know probably I'll get an insult instead, but I'll take my chances.
Last edited:
At the table is where I noticed it. I mean....I've already proven to myself that one perception and a consistent 1/2 tip offset pivot from a fixed bridge point can provide different shot angles. This can be illustrated on paper. However, when I set two sets of balls out on the table, anywhere on the table, and ensure the distance between CB and OB are the same for each set, and then use the same perception and exact bridge length and pivot for each set, I get the same cut results regardless of where the ball sets are positioned on the table.
That makes sense, because nothing is changing....my exact location to pick up the perception for each ball set is the same in reference to CB/OB relationship, and my pivot is the same for both shots. I can vary the results only if I change something, like bridge distance or the distance between CB and OB. And there probably are different bridge lengths to use or some other little detail I don't know. And that's cool, I'll find out when the book becomes available.
Dan, didn't I just post a warning a couple weeks ago asking you to stay out of CTE conversations?
Pravda (or even CNN) would be proud of you. The people who have questions like this are the ones who HAVE taken it to the table. It souinds plausible, sort of, in theory, but when you get to the table it is like, WTF?
Can you answer my question about the near straight in shot in the other thread? I know probably I'll get an insult instead, but I'll take my chances.
Pravda (or even CNN) would be proud of you. The people who have questions like this are the ones who HAVE taken it to the table. It souinds plausible, sort of, in theory, but when you get to the table it is like, WTF?
Can you answer my question about the near straight in shot in the other thread? I know probably I'll get an insult instead, but I'll take my chances.
See i disagree. Your keyboard opinion convinces you of one thing but table time reveals the real truth.
Why would i answer questions with your constant little digs attached to them
He won't be answering. Mike banned him.
Brain try this. 5balls touching within a 15 perception line them up and sticker them.then sticker the cb ob two diamonds away from pocket. Clear your mind of all math and just focus on the process. Feet placement! Get your visuals at ball address it will be crystal clear! Cue ball should be 2 to 3 diamonds from ob! Stick with the half table shots. This is very important. Dont want to bite off more than you can chew at this point. Two lines show ccb... instead of manual pivot let your eyes rotate from the very top of ccb... like find your ccb on top dead center... all while standing up and back foot on cte line. From here step in with your left foot while your eyes rotate leftward AROUND top dead center of cue ball for a right cut at the every ball location the needs a left sweep. Dont over think it. Let your eyes rotate around top dead center so your left foot follows/flows into place. It should feel very natural stepping in... your going to get to a point the leftward rotation will not work shot needs to be thinned...so rotate from top dead ccb to right the with your feet. You will feel your rotations around ccb with your feet. When done correctly it will feel very natural. Your eyes lead and your body/feet follows. Repeat the process. It might take an hour. It wont even feel like a pivot! Question are you picking up ccb from the face of cb or very top? Try this for me. Just line the very first shot of the 5 to the point on the pocket so its a slight cut to the right. Shoot this shot over and over. Step into the shot with your left foot in such a way it allows you to rotate around top dead center cue ball to the left ever so slightly thats the pivot! Forget the math! Your eyes will guide your body.. just try this out! Even if your bridge might feel funny just stroke the shot learn from the shot. Adjust the way your feet come into the shot rather than your bridge. For me i found at times i would manual pivot and i would over rotate while stepping straight into the shot naturally another words it was hard for me to walk striaght in to ccb and then pivot to shot line ccb. If you know Cte then you should understand what i just described all of it. You will notice that there is very little pivot its a very natural flow to ccb the shot line. If you can do this you've just performed a version of the Pro 1 sweep. Stan might explain it different im sure he will. My journey of cte has taught me some things that might help others out until the book and video comes out. This is all im going to offer the steps above. They are mine refined to me and my style to get me on the shot line. They might differ from your Journey of cte. Stan has set a really good base line up for cte. You gotta do the work and learn from each and every shot. Very important stick to half table shots... if your visuals are not right you will never ever get it! If you over rotate you will never get it... if you cant focus on ccb you will never get. All these steps can be done by anyone who truly tries. As you progress then and only then you really understand what's going on at the table and how these perceptions lock you into the pocket. We all step into shots differently well for me ive used stans approach as a baseline. I line my eyes and back foot then I step into the shot rotating around Center cue ball. This is my assumption of what's to come. Stan's going to lay out a foundation which he already has. it's going to be more refined in his book. He's going to help you get on the shot line and you're going to have to listen to your body /eyes to do it. Until then try some of the things ive learned it just might help you until the book comes out. I've learned all this from Stan DVDs and all his YouTube videos you can too! Just pay attention!
What I'm describing is the reason a 30 outside is the same as a 15 inside. There are certain angles produced with certain perceptions, and they change with respect to CB/OB distance. This is how one perception is able to give different angles. I am drawing them all out but will not post them without Stan's consent. It's very interesting.
- Status