Stan Shuffet Challenge
- Thread starter Outre Bron
- Start date
- Status
Kind of new here and to pool. Started playing 3 yrs ago.
As people have said in other threads, much of the controversy is not that it markets on the forums. It's how it is marketed. There are some big claims and statements by Stan and the users of CTE. Could be the excitement and belief in the system, could be part of the sales/marketing pitch, could be a combination of both.
I was really curious about all the enthusiasm and bought the DVD. I respect Stan, his fans, users of CTE. I can see it is a system that can work for people. That being said, it's not for me.
Last edited:
Damn, this is a great idea. Why am I wasting my breath defending myself against this same character?
Done, as well. Thanks for the example.
-Sean <-- does the smack-the-forehead "coulda had a V8" thing
Starting to sound like "Shark Tank" around here.
Lou Figueroa
and for that reason
I'm out too
Sure Sean, given you've played probably 25 years or more longer than I have, why not even up? Does that seem reasonable to you and your warped view of the world? And let's bet $500 to $1000. Here's the rub. We'll have a bet of equal amount that you'll never be able to provide the mathematical proof that CTE/Pro One unequivocally works, or doesn't work.
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of crap like you, Lou, 8pack or others have when taking shots at someone else's game and how that relates to their ability to discuss pool. Lou won't get within 50 feet of a table where Stan is waiting to play him, yet Lou feels qualified to call Stan's aiming system "bogus". In fact, I'd wager $1000 of my own money none of those mentioned would play Stan for money. But somehow since you all have played 15 to 20 years longer than I have, I am not qualified at all to discuss pool. Even though I've spent 40 hours or more learning CTE/Pro One from Stan and Stevie and probably now practiced on it 500 to 1000 hours, I'm less qualified than guys like you who haven't spent 20 hours on it and have never spent one minute at the table with Stan learning it. Hummmm, yeah, that all makes perfect sense to me.
The fact is, when it comes to CTE/Pro One, you guys aren't even noobs. You have proven yourselves to be totally and completely clueless regarding it. Obviously, that has done absolutely nothing to deter you from discussing it, calling it "bogus" and making all kind of claims and statements that have no foundation of fact and are laughable at best.
Just some thoughts from the "angry noob". I guess anyone who happens to disagree with Sean and states their disdain for him has to be angry.
Yeah, stated by the guy that has played over 40 years and is afraid to go anywhere near the table with Stan Shuffett. Wow, just wow. That glass castle you live in Lou must have lots of cracks and holes from the stones tossed back at you.
I'm quite familiar with the long Hal post you quoted; it's famous in the annals of aiming methods. And it was the basis of a lot of discussion and debate back then as to whether "3 angles are enough."
But the passage is not about CTE. When Hal began teaching CTE, the essence was: sight center to edge, offset the stick inside or outside depending on thickness of cut needed, and pivot to center. You won't find any of that in the long Hal post you quoted. That post is about the "quarters" or fractional-ball aiming method, not CTE. That's what Hal taught John Barton, and that's what John was talking about in his posts on RSB many years ago. John recently posted that he did not get involved with CTE until 2010.
Now, I am also aware that at least one poster has claimed that Hal's 3-angle-method passage was really just a joke -- something he wrote to confuse readers by intentionally leaving out anything about offsets and pivots. I prefer to read it for what it says. It presents a legitimate aiming method, one that establishes several reference cut angles. But to make it work for all cut angles, one must consciously or unconsciously interpolate between those reference cut angles. From what I understand, back-of-the-ball or fractional aiming is overwhelmingly the main aiming method used by snooker players -- a half-ball aim, a quarter-ball aim, a thick quarter-ball aim, a thin three-quarter-ball aim, etc.
So while I might agree that the quarters method or fractional aiming is foundational and a pre-cursor to CTE, what we really know as CTE now, with offset and pivot, was not what was discussed by John or others on RSB.
I'm assuming this is a stupid post/idea, but instead of arguing on here in terms of if you think it works or doesn't work why don't both parties come up with a test to determine if CTE has merit.
Each side write up their test/variables. A panel of 10 unbiased players who don't use the system will help to determine the validity of the test. Obviously you can't have the test be player A using X has to beat player B using CTE. You will need to test the actual system by shooting results, not player vs player.
If I had to guess neither side will agree to the terms on the test so it is probably a wasted thought though.
For me personally I am a pure feel player. I am just your standard APA locked 7 that has moments of great shooting, but also head scratching moments. At the end of the day I don't see the harm in promoting something to try to help players get better. Now I have a problem with shoving it down peoples throats saying you need to do this to get better as we have seen there are many ways people get better at things so there is no one size fits all....still way too much bickering on something like this. Who really cares anyway lol?? GL to both sides...
Matt
Each side write up their test/variables. A panel of 10 unbiased players who don't use the system will help to determine the validity of the test. Obviously you can't have the test be player A using X has to beat player B using CTE. You will need to test the actual system by shooting results, not player vs player.
If I had to guess neither side will agree to the terms on the test so it is probably a wasted thought though.
For me personally I am a pure feel player. I am just your standard APA locked 7 that has moments of great shooting, but also head scratching moments. At the end of the day I don't see the harm in promoting something to try to help players get better. Now I have a problem with shoving it down peoples throats saying you need to do this to get better as we have seen there are many ways people get better at things so there is no one size fits all....still way too much bickering on something like this. Who really cares anyway lol?? GL to both sides...
Matt
Here is a test someone can try.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Psy5hOJT0
1) Set up the above shots that supposedly require the same visuals and the same pivot.
2) Do some reverse engineering by:
a) placing a ball in the correct ghostball position.
b) lining up cueball and ghostball
c) place your stick on the line of the shot and then reverse pivot to find your outside "edges of the cueball"
d) mark the outside edges and remove the placed ghostball
e) rise to the standing position with the cueballs outside edges in place and notice the visuals between the cueball and object ball.
The first shot and the last shot (which are suppose to have the same visuals) are nothing alike.
I would have to disagree because I was one of those guys for many years on RSB and ASP. The three-angles was all about center-to-edge. In fact, give me a moment... I recall that Dr. Dave has the 15, 30, 45 listed as an early form of CTE http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE :
#####
CTE Version 1 (an early and simplified "version" of CTE) - 3 pre-pivot alignments:
Here is a description of a version of the CTE, based on a video demonstration posted (and later removed) by eezbank, that he claimed was the version of CTE originally taught to him by Hal Houle:
For a “thick hit” (a small cut angle, less than about 15 degrees) to the left:
Align the cue 1 tip to the right of the CB center through the right edge of the OB.
Place the bridge hand down with the cue along this line.
Pivot the cue until the cue is pointed directly through the center of the CB.
Stroke perfectly straight along this line.
For a “half-ball hit” (close to 30 degrees) to the left:
Align the cue through the center of the CB and through the right edge of the OB.
Place the bridge hand down with the cue along this line.
Stroke perfectly straight along this center-to-edge (CTE) line.
For a “thin hit ” (a large cut angle, more than about 45 degrees) to the left:
Align the cue 1 tip to the left of the CB center through the right edge of the OB.
Place the bridge hand down with the cue along this line.
Pivot the cue until the cue is pointed directly through the center of the CB.
Stroke perfectly straight along this line.
Here's a more-recent clarification from eezbank:
The way Hal teaches the system you pivot on every shot. So, the halfball info is wrong. Also, where I use the one tip reference Hal says it doesn't matter how many tips you use. You can start all the way to one side of the CB if that's what works with your pivot length.
#####
Now I do admit I may be wrong because this is going back over 10 years. But that's the way I recall it. I also recall that everyone was told that Hal purposely left out essential parts in the original description -- that would have been the pivot -- but that too eventually became general knowledge.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
What you quoted for thick and thin cuts specifically talks about offsetting the cue from center and then pivoting. That wasn't in the long Hal passage, nor, as I recall, in the RSB discussions back then. It was just fractional aiming -- 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 stuff.
Matt:
That might be a good test. I firmly believe that the system works. The only qualm I have, is with some of the marketing claims.
For example, someone quoted ENGLISH earlier in this thread (methinks it was Neil in post #7?) where he (ENGLISH) stated that he doesn't believe that the CTE "A" and "C" visuals were objective. And with this, I have to agree. Those are fractional aim points, and are not objective at all -- that aim point / visual is inside the perimeter of the object ball -- at 1/4 and 3/4 ball respectively. True, as Neil says, these are common aim points, but to say these are fixed "objective" aim points is a mischaracterization. Even CTE "B" is not an objective aim point when you compare it to the CTEL itself -- someone's center ball may not actually be center ball because of parallax error (hence why there exists a training aid like Joe Tucker's Third Eye Stroke Trainer). And some people just have a hard time finding the "center" of some mass in the first place. That's where a two-point system like CTE/Pro-1 may also have some merits. Sort of a checks and balances thing.
So while there may be some, shall we say, marketing faux pas, I still believe there's considerable merit to the system. Here's an aiming system that introduces a formal sighting and PSR to pool players -- something that's been missing for ages with all the loosey-goosey unregimented "do what's easy and comfortable" pool stances you see out there. That can only be a good thing.
You saw nobbie try to wiffle-bat me about a thread about proving CTE through math. That thread does exist, and nobbie's impatience aside, if I can get some focused "by myself" time to study the DVD and work with it at the table, I hope to use devices like laser line painters on the table to work out exactly what happens when you view the CTE visuals, and do that half-tip pivot. This topic interests me, because in my innate "take the watch apart to see how it works" mode of thinking, I want to find out why it works. This "why" won't address, though, the question that your test mentioned above would, which is really the question of "which takes longer to learn and become proficient with?". I do believe they are separate efforts.
Anyway, I firmly believe that you use what works for you. If you use light reflections to aim, and it works, so be it. If you use CTE or any of its variants, and it works, so be it. If you're successful with the traditional methods of aiming and you're not having fits with doing something you can't do (i.e. you can perceive the ghostball, or you can perceive fractional overlaps/eclipsing, etc.), then so be it -- that works for you.
The problem is these threads -- they are a lightning rod for these kind of fights you see here, right in this very thread. And dare point this out -- you get attacked on this notion, as well.
-Sean
When it comes to pool I have always had the open mind/empty cup philosophy. If I don't have an open mind on a concept then it is useless to even attempt it as my mind is already made up and that is not a good thing imo.
Is it because there are a lot of variables that are in the gray area on both sides on what they consider to be important for why there is so much controversy here? I guess I don't see why 2-3 adults on each side of the argument can't work on a test to prove or disprove it...or maybe just prove or disprove certain aspects of it. Peoples ego's can't be put aside to do this? I see both sides slinging mud constantly. Try to work out a valid test or two between each viewpoint and then have some non biased people test it out. Instead of wasting so much time arguing with each other and getting carpal tunnel posting, why not try to do this to help the community, who is trying to get better at pool maybe view the results and decide for themselves if they want to try it or not?
Right, that was supposedly what Hal left out on purpose, but still generally known on the group.
Lou Figueroa
He is using the pocket to determine his starting (perception) offset position to move onto the correct shot line to make the ball for all shots in the same pocket.
Last edited:
Been done, didn't mean a thing to those that want to knock the system. That's where the "curtain" test came from. That was supposed to prove the system, until it was actually done. Then, all of a sudden, it proved nothing.
Same with other shots set up. They were the proof, until it was shown they could be done as described. Then, again, all of a sudden it was no proof at all. Funny how some of those on here have no problem calling Stan all kinds of names for something that works and has merit. But, when CJ makes some outlandish claims, they fall silent. In pm's they will speak their mind, but are afraid to post what they think in the forum. My question is, what makes Stan fair game in their eyes, and CJ off limits?
Just in case anyone has you on ignore, LOL. Your welcome !!! :wink:
I thought I knew this system, then a post like this comes along?! I thought the pockets were irrelevant, as long as the visuals and the pivot was the same? Please explain further what you mean. The offset should be the same, IE determined by the visuals. Then you decide if the shot needs to be thicker or thinner and place (or imagine) the shaft of the cue 1/2 cuetip from the center in the direction needed.Then you pivot (or move pro 1) into the shot line. I guess maybe what you mean is that left/right pivot is decided through experience. If not, what am I missing here?
Last edited:
Are you implying that people have to actually listen to what he says to do and then actually follow the steps to be successful? That's it's ridiculous to just take part of the system and then claim it doesn't work? My, my. That would leave out all those against the system, wouldn't it??
- Status