This is a classic!
Stan Shuffet Challenge
- Thread starter Outre Bron
- Start date
- Status
This is a classic!
Mr. At Large,
Thank You for Your Input. You always seem so knowledgeable yet so distant & far away. I'd like very much to hear more from you...but I understand why you remain on the peripheral.
With Appreciation & Best Wishes,
Rick
That has already been done by Stan too, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l0fAwmeOq8&list=UUW8lTFYIYGN2AjHKN23M-RQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l0fAwmeOq8&list=UUW8lTFYIYGN2AjHKN23M-RQ
oneball
Registered
That video seems to make a pretty compelling argument that the system works as claimed. However, I can't make sense of the other video linked in this thread where he explains perception using the three sets of parallel balls aimed at the same pocket.
If I understand correctly, the same perception and rotation would be used for all three shots (edge to A, center to edge). I don't see how (without some other adjustment) the three shots could be made. Or are the sweeps different?
If I understand correctly, the same perception and rotation would be used for all three shots (edge to A, center to edge). I don't see how (without some other adjustment) the three shots could be made. Or are the sweeps different?
Hop on the bus Gus.:smile:
He should take the curtain trick on the road, seriously. If its so legit he could bust a lot of people and sell the heck out of his system. Win win situation for him.
I would travel to a lot of events and show the magic live. Why not.
Mizra,
Thanks for the link.
That IS interesting. My only critique is that they were all basically the same shot with the same 'perception alignment' & with the OB relatively close to the pocket. Stand does a video shooting 15 balls long ways into both corner pockets with the curtain between the OB & the Pocket & the shots were random. I'd like to see that with the curtin between the CB & the OB. The system obviously works for Stan & others. The only question that seems to remain is whether or not the system requires any subjectivity for certain shots for the system to work or whether it is totally objective, given ones ability to 'find the actual 'A' & 'B' locations which to me is vital to the system & is subjective & not totally objective but should not be difficult for most. If given one can do that then the system certainly seems to work for those that have taken the time to learn the proper 'perception alignments'.
I am not trying to be critical, I am just looking for what might be even a more convincing demonstration that the system is totally objective. I also may be on my way to using CTE, at least in part. When knocking balls around last night waiting for my playoff opponent to arrive I had a short cross corner shot with the 6 ball very near the rail. I missed it, set it up again & shot it 2 more times each with a different method & missed it. I decide to give CTE a try & pocketed the ball. I can't really see a finite edge of the darker balls & especially when they are near the rail areas with light more on only the one side. Using CTE took me to using the edge of the cue ball to align to the 'A' location. The method took the 'stress' & strain of trying to see the ball & the doubt of if I was seeing it right to just go through the process & shoot. It worked & I will be experimenting more with it as I may not have even performed it correctly last night as I used a bit of outside english when I banked the 6.
Anyway, thanks again for supplying the link.
Best Wishes,
Rick
Last edited:
Yes. This is what has kept me from going more into CTE. There is another video where Stan has 5 such shots set up with real balls & says that they ALL can be pocketed into the same corner pocket with the exact visual perception alignment & with the same pivot. My geometry & physics education just simply told me NO.
I think this might be the biggest deterrent to some people accepting Stan's explanations of the system. I think this is what to some if not most suggests that the system is not totally objective but instead requires even something especially subjective.
I don't know if perhaps Stan misspoke or ...I don't know, but it just does not go along with the geometry or the physics education as I was taught.
How can FIVE(5) DIFFERENT angles be obtained from the exact same setup line & the exact same pivot?
Obviously I & others simply don't get this IF it is true. I & others can't see how it can be true. Something's amiss.
Best Wishes,
Rick
Last edited:
Hi Rick,
I just completed a 2 day 19 hour lesson with an engineer/architect.
He came with his cup empty.
I threw everything at him but the kitchen sink. He absorbed my teachings in the most studious manner possible.
He clearly spelled out in one statement what holds some back from learning REAL CTE.
He clearly said IT is not logical. "But I have seen it and experienced it and it works."
This individual CLEARLY saw and experienced how the perceptions such as 15 and 30 can make shots form a multitude of angles.
He was correct in that thus far the typical left math brain thinking has no logical explanation.
But as I have said all along we're dealing with a different intelligence. VISUAL INTELLIGENCE
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
Try it and you will see that Stan is correct. It will continue to sound crazy until you do it.
This has been explained so many times that it should be embarrassing for anyone to still be asking it. If you really want to know, why not just do the obvious and try it? Instead of using it as an excuse to not try it.
The thing I got from trying CTE was you have to throw yourself into it 100%, not only that, you have to have an open mind on the matter and not let yourself get bogged down with mathematical thoughts. If you don't, you won't succeed.
I am by no means a die hard CTE fan, in fact I find it a rather complicated way to pocket a ball, but I did have success with it. I used it for about a 6 month stretch, gave it a damn good go, but reverted back to my normal way of aiming shots simply due to the fact I found it slightly to complicated for something simple like pocketing a ball. Perhaps the reason my ball pocketing skills didn't improve (or get worse for that matter) is I simply didn't fully understand it well enough. Another reason I didn't stick with it was the fact pool isn't my main game, I actually play very little pool. Snooker is my game and whilst I had some unbelievable sessions playing snooker with CTE, I also had some bad ones. For some reason I would try every single visual for some shots, and they wouldn't go anywhere near the intended pocket. Again, perhaps a lesson with someone more knowledgeable on the system would have been handy to tell me where I was going wrong, but unfortunately in the UK there wasn't anyone.
So, my conclusion on the matter is don't go into the realms of CTE if you don't expect it to work. Use an open mind, and take it for what it is...an aiming system, not an equation to solve ball pocketing.
Not sure why he'd should be embarrassed for speaking his mind. I'm blown away by anyone thinking different. Explain to us how its possible to lock on the 5 shot situation that English is talking about. Its not possible if your being objective.
This is the crux of the CTE controversy. I've explained this multiple times on many threads (the best of my own ability any way), and I'll go ahead and put it here again.
So, question is: how can the same visual pocket a range of angles? If you take the system to the table and actually test it (BTW it takes some acclimation for your eyes/body to "get" the visuals, maybe a couple weeks of effort at first), you will see that what happens is for every CB/OB position, there is a unique physical ball address. So even though VISUALLY the shots use the same alignments, PHYSICALLY they differ ever so slightly. If you watch the YouTube videos Stan posted with the 5 different shots with same visuals, he clearly indicates how his physical alignment at ball address is different for each and every shot. Stan calls this "visual intelligence." It is easy to verify when lining up a visual for a specific shot on the table, the physical ball address is unique every time. Followed by a proper pivot/sweep (again, VISUALLY the same, body follows what the eyes see), you will find the shot line.
So to recap, VISUALLY the alignments/sweeps are obtained the exact same way, but PHYSICALLY our ball address alignments are unique for each and every shot. The way this all tallies up: the placement of the CB/OB on a flat surface with pockets that meet at exactly 90 deg angles affect how our eyes see the visuals, and ultimately affect our physical head/body alignment at ball address. You don't have to think about any of this, you just line up on A/B/C and do a L/R sweep.
Your visual intelligence figures this out given some practice time. When you line up A/B/C and CTEL EXACTLY, the physical ball address is always unique. Ever so slightly, but unique.
That is about all I know. I know its not a perfect explanation, but at the table it is not hard to get it clicking and verify that it works. When you start covering parts of the table with curtains to force yourself to pay attention to CB/OB alignment, it becomes even more clear that it does work.
Last edited:
That's a pretty cool name. I just call it feel.
I watched the whole video and I'm not sure what the challenge is.
At first, Stan speaks of getting some students in his home (free of charge, or must we pay?) to learn CTE and then challenge them to show him where he is wrong. I ain't afraid of putting myself out there for that.
Then later he speaks of betting "a sizable amount of money"? Is that the challenge that we're all supposedly afraid to take? Challenging a pro-level player to a demonstration of sharpshooting accuracy, each using his own method? Well, I certainly am afraid of that. But how would that prove anything about CTE? Heck, Stan's stroke alone will beat me, even if he shoots with his eyes closed, no matter which aiming system we each use.
So, here the deal. Stan invites a few doubters like myself for a day or two of hanging around, learning the basis of CTE, trying out our respective aiming systems, and coming to a very public (and hopefully honest) conclusion about the usefulness of CTE to our game. Particularly, we can discuss at length how this is a truly objective system, and why other ways of aiming fail in this regard.
I effed up my social security and can't collect until some time in March, so I'm flat broke, but I can find a way down there from way up here in upstate NY if this is not a ploy to drum up paying students (not accusing him of that at all, just stating that I'm not paying anybody to challenge them at something). If so, I accept the challenge. I'll even do all the cooking while were there. We just need to get a couple other doubters on board. Lou... Anthony... you guys in?
The major difference between feel and visual intelligence is that you are visually aligning your eyes exactly on objective targets, namely edges and centers, to arrive at the shot line. Not estimations.
Stan can correct me if I'm wrong, I believe he has already made this offer numerous times on this forum and on video. He will offer some time with you to understand CTE and answer your questions.
Yes objective. Not invisible contact points. You can see the edges and centers of balls from ball address I hope? And quarters are certainly obtainable given centers and edges. If shooting balls under curtains does not give you any indication of the strength of the system, then I cannot help you. Feel free to stick to HAMB if that works best for you, I have no objections. Someone wanted to know how a visual covers a range of angles, I obliged.
- Status