Stevie Moore parallel shots CTE video

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lou probably paid Dennis to give John bad information

LOL.

I went to a clinic that John Schmidt was giving a couple years back at Sandcastle and the clinic was delayed for a good half our, maybe longer. The reason is that JS was playing Dennis some one pocket. I didn't know who Dennis was but figured he could play. I never inquired who won whatever it they were playing for.
 
Hal did not want to fool with trying to get through to thick skulls that constantly cried like a baby about logic and common sense.

See there you go again. The teacher blames the student instead of attempting to find other ways of communicating to the thick skulled people.

Actually, you are going in the right direction when you/mohrt say that it is the orientation of the balls relative to the rails that makes the same visual produce two different results. If that's what really happens, it should be possible to demonstrate it in various ways. In other words, you would win everybody over if you could prove that the rails make two different shots look like the same visual, kind of like this:
 

Attachments

  • lines.jpg
    lines.jpg
    34.6 KB · Views: 124
Those are your words, not mine. The placement of two spheres on a square plane affect how we perceive the alignments. If you want to call perception fooling the eye, go ahead. I'm not saying it's wrong.

An alignment on, say, ctel/A is not a protractor and ruler alignment, our perception gives us the correct alignment for the given shot. Accurately and repeatedly. In Stevie's two examples, the same procedure results in slightly differing physical cue position in relation to the balls. If you cannot accept that to be possible, then we are at a stand off. That is the visual phenomenon that happens at the table. I agree it may not be obvious at first. It's right under our nose in plain sight, yet it's not readily identified by everybody. It took me time to figure it out too.

Re the bold part. I'm playing along with your thinking, but how do you know that is happening? Can you answer my first question: IF you use CTE and it works well for you, and IF you don't understand FOR A FACT how it works, then how can you rule out any alternative possibilities as to how it works?
 
Is it not easier to get longer runs when your opponent makes more mistakes and gives you open shots?


I don't think you really get it.

Did you read all the tons of ca-ca in the lead up? Did you actually watch the match? Did you read any of the post mortem? Do you know what John is telling people at his booth nowadays about playing me again?

He's telling people he, "Likes the game."

Lou Figueroa
gofiger
 
See there you go again. The teacher blames the student instead of attempting to find other ways of communicating to the thick skulled people.

Actually, you are going in the right direction when you/mohrt say that it is the orientation of the balls relative to the rails that makes the same visual produce two different results. If that's what really happens, it should be possible to demonstrate it in various ways. In other words, you would win everybody over if you could prove that the rails make two different shots look like the same visual, kind of like this:

I will be doing tons of demos of which I doubt you will ever be in attendance. But you will hear about them.
I think the feedback will be extremely positive.
Stan Shuffett
 
I'm going to say his major problem in understanding CTE is that he is not lacking in common sense.

Actually, it's just the opposite. You guys don't seem to have enough common sense to be able to get rid of your present thinking on how to aim to be able to embrace a different way to do it. But, you go right ahead and keep thinking like you are. Just try and remember who it is that can't seem to be able to use CTE. :rolleyes:
 
Re the bold part. I'm playing along with your thinking, but how do you know that is happening? Can you answer my first question: IF you use CTE and it works well for you, and IF you don't understand FOR A FACT how it works, then how can you rule out any alternative possibilities as to how it works?

I know you think you made a slamdunk point there, but you really haven't made any point except that you have shown you don't understand what you are stating. Your statement shows a total lack of any in depth thinking about the statement itself.

No one really knows how gravity or electricity really works. Yet, there are tons of examples of possibilities of how it does NOT really work. And, that is not even to mention the times in the past you have tried the same old argument and been shown exactly why your statement is a false premise.
 
I don't think you really get it.

Did you read all the tons of ca-ca in the lead up? Did you actually watch the match? Did you read any of the post mortem? Do you know what John is telling people at his booth nowadays about playing me again?

He's telling people he, "Likes the game."

Lou Figueroa
gofiger

Unless he's worked on his technique he has no chance. CTE or no CTE.

Your match only proved one thing: When the heat gets turned up, how you aim will not make or break you... Barton dogged at least three shots I can remember, that were dead straight in or close to it (edit: found them). It's been a while since the game, but these are the shots I remember now. I'm sure there were others. How can aiming help when you can't make the dead straight ones, it's not like he hung them up, either...

Look, I don't want to bash Bartons game, but lets get real here. He didn't get outmoved, he got outshot! Lou ran more balls, and made the important ones most of the time.

Five pictures (if you want even more, I'll scan through the match again, if it can stop this "he got outmoved" nonsense):

1,2,3 straight in misses
4 Ball in hand miss
5 Just a miss, but he missed by a mile.

He also miscued at least twice, maybe even more.
 

Attachments

  • straight in.jpg
    straight in.jpg
    24 KB · Views: 176
  • straight in2.jpg
    straight in2.jpg
    31.6 KB · Views: 174
  • straight in 3.jpg
    straight in 3.jpg
    28.4 KB · Views: 172
  • Ball in hand.jpg
    Ball in hand.jpg
    27.7 KB · Views: 163
  • miss.jpg
    miss.jpg
    27.8 KB · Views: 176
Last edited:
Re the bold part. I'm playing along with your thinking, but how do you know that is happening? Can you answer my first question: IF you use CTE and it works well for you, and IF you don't understand FOR A FACT how it works, then how can you rule out any alternative possibilities as to how it works?

:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:
 
Some common sense from a snooker coach!

Sometimes only the snooker coaches can actually say what needs to be said. This continues my bit about straight ins in the previous post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxjTAmP-9B4

Cueing, stance and alignment IMO are 50-60 percent of the game. The rest of it is mental, for the most part. Keeping your emotions in check, making correct shot choices, being able to get up off the shot if it feels wrong, these are important mental bits. Aiming is maybe, and I do stress that even this may be too much, 5% of the game.

If you can't make shots straight into the pocket, you have no business at all looking at aiming systems. You'll only get confused and do harm to your game. How can you possibly know what caused a miss, when you're splattering shots all over the place like a worn out shotgun!?
 
Last edited:
1,2,3 straight in misses
4 Ball in hand miss
5 Just a miss, but he missed by a mile.

I actually find that's a legitimate con for CTE. The system is precise, when in reality people are not. If you get lazy with the visuals, you miss. If you get lazy with your pivot, you miss.

Trying to pivot by the exact same amount sideways isn't very intuitive, and sometimes for w.e reason your body will fight the inclination to turn sideways (ex: Shooting over a ball, I'll tend to land thicker, because my body just doesn't want to rotate).

Also I think ghostball aiming etc has an advantage in the sense that you're lining up to something in the distance instead of the cueball directly in front of you. Is it easier to drive in a straight line by looking down the road, or at the hood of your car?

Also if you're looking at the object ball and then landing straight on the shot line, if you're off you could probably still make the ball within reason.

With CTE, you're essentially rotating around the cueball to get an alignment to the object ball that also share a relationship based on rotation. Then you rotate into the shot line. I find if you're off at any of those rotations, the errors magnify because you're dealing with angles of rotation instead of just mm's left or right of a target.

So essentially you're picking up your visuals at an offset, aligning at an offset, landing with another offset, and if you want to put english on the ball, you're using back hand english, which means offsetting your cue. When it's all said and done, sometimes beginner me didn't even know which direction to stroke straight even was.

I think the biggest strength and weakness of CTE is actually how precise it is. Precision requires precision. It's not ever going to make a person who is lousy at aiming better at aiming. But it gives a person with the visual knowledge to be precise, a tool in which to be precise with.

Yes you've reduce all the shots on the table into 4 categories that you repeat the same way every time, but it's a pretty complicated process to repeat the same way every time.

Suddenly difficult cut shots become relatively easy, BUT, since you're following the same steps for any shot regardless of what it is, the same way, every time, the truth is now your easy shots are just as difficult as your hard ones. I feel like this catch is the main thing people never talk about.

That's why I don't think CTE is some magic pill. You're kind of just shifting your percentages around. Instead of being someone who can make easy shots a high percentage of the time, and harder ones, less so, you're pretty much even across the board and with that comes it's advantages and disadvantages.

I do believe that CTE is potent when you've completely mastered it, and all shots become easy across the board.

I think CTE can make a person an A player or better really quickly in a very attainable sense. It definitely speeds up the process from beginner to advanced if you apply yourself and are willing to grit down.

I honestly don't think CTE will ever make someone one of the greats. I think beautiful pool is too organic and natural to be restricted to something so rigid. I'm not sure if you can create true art with just CTE. (This parts a completely personal belief.)

Sorry for the rant, I use CTE exclusively and I love it. I just wanted to present a different perspective instead of the default one (Being super defensive and butthurt by people asking perfectly reasonable questions. I really don't know how that's supposed to make CTE more popular)
 
Last edited:
For the record, my stance is:

Yes: You set up the visuals the same way every time by following the steps of lining up Edge to A,B or C and Center-to-Edge.

Yes: The result of applying the steps above will result in a different offset depending on the shot.

No: I cannot explain why this happens. I have heard explanations for why it happens, but I haven't yet heard an answer that I would be comfortable using to convince a normal rational human being.

Yes: I pivot the exact same way and amount every time.

No: I am not subconsciously pivoting more or less depending on the shot. If you're going to blame something, blame how you can apply the same steps in one category of visuals and get different results for two different but similarly angled cuts (It makes no sense).

No: You don't have to "just try it" to make your questions valid.

No: Me racing you for x amount of money, any time, any where, will not prove I'm right or you're wrong or vice versa.

No: It's not fractional aiming with subconscious adjustments.

Yes: As much as I believe that it's not fractional aiming with subconscious adjustments, that is not actual proof. Until we develop the technology for you to enter my mind, or you learn the system for yourself, there is nothing I can do to actually prove it's not fractional subconscious aiming.

No: Testimonies, personal experience, tournament wins etc, are not scientific proof.


Sorry I'm really frustrated that people don't know what real factual proof is.

P.S IT'S NOT FRACTIONAL AIMING WITH SUBCONSCIOUS ADJUSTMENTS
(trust me (still not actual proof though (but really, trust me (seriously))).

P.P.S The explanation I was given: Something, something, Since a pool table is a 2 x 1 ratio, the visuals connect you with the geometry of the table.

The proper response: ....what?
 
Last edited:
I knew this would be coming. The jasonlaus challenge to play, your favorite street corner crowing when all else fails. Yep, all of us are going to go all over the country to play a dumbass money match with you.

Here's one for you. Go play Stan or his son Lajndon. How about Stevie Moore.
Cookie offered to show you stuff about CTE in Florida, play him. Hop in your jalopy and do some traveling to play.


Cookie? :eek:

Seemed to need help aiming simple shots to me...
 
Looks like you have your sensitive feeling turned all the way up. Might wanna turn it down a bit.

I don't think anybody who knows me in person or on the forum for many years would refer to me as a sensitive person. It's more like being brutally honest and to the point when some loser know nothing about a particular subject comes in with a big mouth to interrupt and chime in with senseless drivel as you, Lou Figueora, Dan White, and a couple of others do.

On the other hand, if it's for help and an exchange of ideas in a positive manner then I'm all in 100% for the good and growth of it - not the destruction.


I showed you what I said, you were wrong and tried twisting words. Now you're all butthurt.

Butthurt? LMAO. Nothing would please me more than to hear somebody kicked your wise guy butt all over a pool room or bar somewhere. That's the way you come across and what you deserve.

I gambled for the first time in probably 5 years 2 days ago. The guy asked to play, I didn't go to him. We played 9ball $10/game, when I got 10 games ahead he quit.
Jason

Yep, you are the man alright. Invincible. Hero pool player but undeveloped mentally and emotionally as a grown man.

The way I see you, Lou, Dan White, English (who I thought was banned from the aiming section for life but trying to weasel back in here) and some other pests is very much like the pests described in the article below. All each of you attempt to do is DESTROY like locusts.

Each of you are the scourge and blight that has anything to do with three letters, CTE. It's just another aiming system to help pool players worldwide with THEIR choice to learn or reject it, not yours or anybody else's to shield and protect as if it's going to harm or alter their life forever. SICK, SICK, SICK, SICK.

http://www.historynet.com/1874-the-year-of-the-locust.htm

Grow up, DUDE. As I said, you disgust me with your actions and lack of knowledge and I don't ever want to come in contact with you in person or here again. Not butt hurt, but the same way I also feel about Lou or Dan White, especially Lou.
 
All I'll add right now is that learning CTE wasn't the worst thing I did for my game, but quitting it was surely the best.

With that being said, I do still look forward to purchasing Stan's book.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top