Stan Shuffet Challenge

[ronscuba]

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.

Sounds like a visual estimate based on his experience. He adjusts his standing position until point until he "sees" the visual.

Nothing wrong with this, but it's still an estimate, similar to other aiming systems where you adjust until you "see" the angle.

 

[The Saw]

Sounds like a visual estimate based on his experience. He adjusts his standing position until point until he "sees" the visual.

Nothing wrong with this, but it's still an estimate, similar to other aiming systems where you adjust until you "see" the angle.

If you understood and "got" CTE/Pro One, you would understand that it is very objective, not subjective. The system is based on constants, not happy little visions and pixie dust.

 

[Timothy Rose]

Sounds like a visual estimate based on his experience. He adjusts his standing position until point until he "sees" the visual.

Nothing wrong with this, but it's still an estimate, similar to other aiming systems where you adjust until you "see" the angle.

Is it a visual estimate for an experienced user?

 

[ronscuba]

If you understood and "got" CTE/Pro One, you would understand that it is very objective, not subjective. The system is based on constants, not happy little visions and pixie dust.

"happy little visions and pixie dust"

I never said anything condescending like that. I respect Stan and the users of CTE. But like other systems, it's not for everyone.

There are some parts that are objective, but also some parts that are subjective. Watching the 2 videos posted in this thread on perception, show both. He adjusts his stance and entry point until he "sees" the line. That is subjective.

 

[Timothy Rose]

......................................

 

[Colin Colenso]

Keep in mind that a lot of great players have made claims such as they "aim at the contact point". They aren't lying, they just think they are doing this.

In the same way, in the early days of CTE discussion here, claims were made about a bridge pivot, but upon examination the bridge moved during the pivot.

This didn't disprove CTE methods, or prove anyone to be lying, it meant that the nature of the pivot required more thought and a more objective description to enable others to implement it successfully.

 

[The Saw]

"happy little visions and pixie dust"

I never said anything condescending like that. I respect Stan and the users of CTE. But like other systems, it's not for everyone.

There are some parts that are objective, but also some parts that are subjective. Watching the 2 videos posted in this thread on perception, show both. He adjusts his stance and entry point until he "sees" the line. That is subjective.

That wasn't pointed at you, more of a generalization to some of the others reading....

"Perception", of course, will have a certain amount of subjectivity. But that perception is rooted in very objective things, center to edge and edge to an aiming point.

 

[mantis99]

This thread seems to bear out something I said in the series of articles I wrote on CTE several years ago. In them, I said that the controversy over CTE had to do with its marketing on these forums.

The letters "CTE" (standing for Center-To-Edge) are just a name given to a certain aiming system in order to market it (identify it, explain it, sell it). It's called, "branding." The letters themselves are harmless. There is nothing in them for anyone to hate. The same goes for the system, itself. It is harmless. There is nothing in it for anyone to hate.

So what is the source of all the arguments on here any time a CTE thread is started?

I think it stems from the disagreement between those who think CTE has no right to be marketed here at all, and those who think it does. It's not so much a matter of whether or not the system works, or doesn't work, anymore. The merits and/or demerits of the system have been hashed and rehashed many times. Now the argument seems to exist more for the purpose of having something to argue about. I guess some people might get a certain satisfaction out of being able to say that they won the argument, if that could ever happen. But then, I think there would be even more people who would be totally lost and would go looking for something new to argue about.

Roger

I think I have to really disagree with this. I believe the argument fully has to do with whether or not CTE is actually a viable aiming system, and it always has been. In the beginning it was PJ amongst others suggesting that the math of the system simply did my pan out, and could not possibly work. From then, the cross has been taken up by many others who don't believe that it actually works. I have met people in pool halls who were part of those discussions, and upon talking to them, their opinion was always that it did not work as anymore than a good psr, not that it did not belong being marketed here. I remember when the topic was in strong discussion, and people literally begged Stan to make a DVD to show the system as he had supposedly refined it from Hal's previous system. Go back and look at the preorder threads and threads where people wanted to get on a preorder list for the DVD if and when he made one. Also, I have seen many people say that they feel that CTE is so bogus, that they feel it is their duty to confront it whenever the topic comes up. The idea of its marketing on the forum may be an issue to some, but the underlying issue has always been its validity, and in all reality, most have come to their decision on it and let it rest, and only a few continually address it here.

 

[ronscuba]

Keep in mind that a lot of great players have made claims such as they "aim at the contact point". They aren't lying, they just think they are doing this......

Could also be they are not explaining or describing what they do correctly.

For example, aim at the contact point might mean aim cue stick parallel to CB contact point to OB contact point line.

 

[(((Satori)))]

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.

Did anyone try this?

 

[Kid Dynomite]

His system does not explain or adjust for this shot!

Spot SHot - No Rails: http://youtu.be/viZdXpUDxR4

 

[ENGLISH!]

Keep in mind that a lot of great players have made claims such as they "aim at the contact point". They aren't lying, they just think they are doing this.

In the same way, in the early days of CTE discussion here, claims were made about a bridge pivot, but upon examination the bridge moved during the pivot.

This didn't disprove CTE methods, or prove anyone to be lying, it meant that the nature of the pivot required more thought and a more objective description to enable others to implement it successfully.

Colin,

What do you mean regarding the bridge moved. Do you mean that the cue pivots on the back/butt end & not on the bridge point?

Thanks in advance,
Rick

 

[Neil]

Did anyone try this?

Did you not read post # 135? This has been explained a number of times in past threads also.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Regardless of who you are those shots have different perceptions.

 

[nobcitypool]

Did anyone try this?

Actually, they are alike in they originate with the same starting perception. Your belief they are not is further indication of how little you understand CTE/Pro One. But that isn't a surprise.

 

[8pack]

Actually, they are alike in they originate with the same starting perception. Your belief they are not is further indication of how little you understand CTE/Pro One. But that isn't a surprise.

You have known cte for how long???? Can you run racks as much as you run your mouth??? No ..why? Actually can you run 4 balls? Like I said you got the end rail ...and you can get it for 300 a set...pm if your intereasted you turd.

 

[gazman100]

I must say that I do enjoy these CTE threads.
Keep it up guys, as I love the way you guys carry on and on.
By the way, a big thanks to Stan for his awesome teaching and knowledge. :thumbup:

 

[mista335]

I must say that I do enjoy these CTE threads.
Keep it up guys, as I love the way you guys carry on and on.
By the way, a big thanks to Stan for his awesome teaching and knowledge. :thumbup:

I love them too. You couldn't script this stuff.

My favourite *was* Corey Duel's comment about "pivoting your back foot".

But when 8pack called nobcitypool a "turd" I knew this thread had moved to a new level.

I didn't know until yesterday that CTE apparently doesn't work because I haven't broken Mosconi's high run record.

 

[BeiberLvr]

I didn't know until yesterday that CTE apparently doesn't work because I haven't broken Mosconi's high run record.

I remember when someone taught me that hitting below center would make the CB draw back.

I was constantly hitting stop shots, getting it to come back just an inch or two, and even scooping the CB off the table.

It's a good thing I kept at it, and didn't give up after one attempt and say it was a scam.

 

[duckie]

Keep in mind that a lot of great players have made claims such as they "aim at the contact point". They aren't lying, they just think they are doing this.

In the same way, in the early days of CTE discussion here, claims were made about a bridge pivot, but upon examination the bridge moved during the pivot.

This didn't disprove CTE methods, or prove anyone to be lying, it meant that the nature of the pivot required more thought and a more objective description to enable others to implement it successfully.

Then what are they aiming at?

How do you know what someone is aiming it?

If they say contact point, why would you assume they are not?

Most CTE user are really using Ghostball users, they just don't know it, despite the claims they make.