All 5 shots are a slight overcut to center pocket.
I can show it to any one!!
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
Why CTE/Pro One Works
- Thread starter JMW
- Start date
All 5 shots are a slight overcut to center pocket.
I can show it to any one!!
Stan Shuffett
I have know doubt you can.
I tried all 6 shots I posted I made the first one with your line up tried the same on the next 2 drove them both in the rail.The other 3 i made with your pro1 .
Am I just not doing something rite on the 2 I missed?Made 4 out of 6..not bad.
Last edited:
Actually, they're quite different.
My #1 and Your #1
My #5 and Your #5
It was a good try though. I'm no expert, but I know that while the same visuals can be used on different cut angles, there is a point where different visuals/sweeps must be used instead.
You have know clue,,,you just want to be part of something dont you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1S4z_d351U&feature=youtu.be
The reference shots help us to recognize the correct visuals through table time. I am still learning.
The reference shots help us to recognize the correct visuals through table time. I am still learning.
You have know clue,,,you just want to be part of something dont you.
Please show me where I'm wrong. Thanks.
The shots are clearly not the same. In fact, they aren't even close to being the same.
I understand that,I do the same thing.
The table is our best friend we just got to study it.
You ability shows that you have spent time on the table.
Anthony
Just kidding ,your rite.:smile:
The shots or angles are not the same. In CTE, those 2 shots of the zillion possible just happen to share the same visuals and rotation to CCB.
Essentially 2 visuals and the 2 rotations to CCB make all zillion shots somewhere and most of the time to your desired pocket.
This is not going to change. It will be forever!
Stan Shuffett
Actually, they're quite different.
My #1 and Your #1
My #5 and Your #5
It was a good try though. I'm no expert, but I know that while the same visuals can be used on different cut angles, there is a point where different visuals/sweeps must be used instead.
This only happens when the different angles have something in common.And thats the only time.
Anthony
This diagram and Stan's naming of the shots was very helpful to me. I found a problem that I've been struggling with. Shot number four is much easier for me when I'm cutting it to the right. Not sure how to fix it yet, but at least I have a better understanding of it. Does anyone else have issues like this? Good discussion, and thanks again for the help Stan.:thumbup:
Im right handed also right eye dominate.When i have long shots that are past the halfball hit
this becomes an issue when im cutting to the left.For some reason the shot has to look a little thick for me,because when it looks good it seems to be a over cut.Wish I could see them as good as I was shooting to the right.
Anthony
Last edited:
Just making my way through this thread - and you're using these phrases incorrectly. Just a point so that you can move forward successfully. You can't "change gears to the visual/perceptual mode" in order to "really" get what you want out of things. If someone is more of a mathematically inclined mind they can't magically snap between intelligences. I'm assuming you're not coming from a background in education - I'd recommend checking out some educational psychology texts if you want to learn to teach based on intelligences. It is the role of the educator to differentiate based on the prevalent intelligence of the student, it is not what the student can do to switch to the intelligence that the educator prefers to teach by.
I have a Masters in education. Also, I am a PBIA MASTER instructor.
Pool is a visual motor game primarily played with visual physical intelligence.
Nowhere have I indicated in any way that one SNAP between intelligences.
I merely prefer to teach the game from the intelligence perspective from which it is played vs. other intelligences that are in the backseat when it comes to playing.
My research is quite thorough concerning what I teach.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
Masters in education as well. And I was merely stating that your comment doesn't fly in modern theory. I didn't realize I was responding to such an old thread, by the way, apologies for bumping such an old post. I did not realize that the newest posts in the thread were all still so old. But to get to my point the fact that you "prefer to teach the game from the intelligence perspective from which it is played" doesn't really jive... A better way of stating it, to follow modern theory, would be that you prefer to teach the game from the intelligence perspective that you are strongest with.
Although the visual/spatial component of the game is the most obvious - this does not necessarily put a mathematical mindset in the back seat. If a student thinks strongest mathematically, a master teacher gives them a transition point that allows them to smoothly relate to the visual concepts. Hence the importance to some of your readers (critics?) of a mathematical explanation of your concepts. As with absolutely everything in our world there is a mathematical backbone for everything (constructivists in the mathematical world would dare say that the only real truth is the math)... this puts the onus on you as the educator to develop a way to give those mathematically inclined students a smooth transition point into your visual/spatial theories.
I do not intend to be combative, by the contrary I am just looking to see some things clarified and instead of offering to answer some of the posts you insulted their learning styles. I have no "dog" in this "fight" so I'm in no way against your system, I intend to study it some going forward.
You are missing the entire point. I explain the game as much as possible from a visual physical perspective. I still do not understand your problem.
My insult as you call it was a prompt for an individual to not and try too hard to learn CTE from a 2 D diagram.
Stan Shuffett
I see what you are saying now - you intentionally avoid engaging the other intelligences. I dare say that this could be what has led to many of the heavy critiques here on this site, from what I've read. You've been very combative to anything remotely resembling critique, however - I think you could avoid some of that by simply acknowledging to them that your aim is to purely look at the game from the perspective of a single intelligence, allowing others to mathematically put it together since it isn't your strong suit.
As an outside observer who has only started watching your videos - you come across very intelligent and easy to learn from in video however on here you come across as combative, disagreeable, and often angry. It could be a matter of a very brusque typing style. But I say this as someone that likes your videos: your attitude here on a thread-by-thread basis turns me off from wanting to learn from you.
You are quick to spin my words which sheds light on your character. There is plenty of math as well as language in my teaching of pool. Your motive on here is something else other than MI clarifications.
Stan Shuffett
And the so called battle rages on...
No ones avoiding or dismissing "other" intelligences. The aiming controversy has been going on for many years in due part bc there are some out there who are stubborn old fogies who dismiss anything new or revolutionary.
Back to the topic. Stan is a very educated and devoted teacher of the game. He gives away lots of info with out trying to "sell" you a product. That being said... I believe that what Stan's trying to convey is that. To learn CTE ProOne you have to in essence put the other intelligences on hold for a second. The visual perceptual intelligence area hasn't been discussed enough, so therefore it's probably behind in a sense.
So in order to understand what's happening in CTE ProOne you have to just work on the visual side and learn what the system is trying to teach you. If you get side tracked and start trying to use your previous ways of thinking you'll be right back to where you are now.
He's not saying that math or language isn't relevant. Math is in everything. But for now work on it from its strongest aspect which is visual. Then once you understand it fully visually you can have more concrete understanding of what parts of math really apply.
Paid for by the ad counsel of a confrontational free user.
"I approved this message"
No ones avoiding or dismissing "other" intelligences. The aiming controversy has been going on for many years in due part bc there are some out there who are stubborn old fogies who dismiss anything new or revolutionary.
Back to the topic. Stan is a very educated and devoted teacher of the game. He gives away lots of info with out trying to "sell" you a product. That being said... I believe that what Stan's trying to convey is that. To learn CTE ProOne you have to in essence put the other intelligences on hold for a second. The visual perceptual intelligence area hasn't been discussed enough, so therefore it's probably behind in a sense.
So in order to understand what's happening in CTE ProOne you have to just work on the visual side and learn what the system is trying to teach you. If you get side tracked and start trying to use your previous ways of thinking you'll be right back to where you are now.
He's not saying that math or language isn't relevant. Math is in everything. But for now work on it from its strongest aspect which is visual. Then once you understand it fully visually you can have more concrete understanding of what parts of math really apply.
Paid for by the ad counsel of a confrontational free user.
"I approved this message"
Stan, I'm a potential customer who has no motive or bias. I'm planning on buying your DVD series, I'm using this site as a pre-view of sorts because I do not intend to buy up every single aiming DVD out there. Judging by reactions to your system - it is worth purchasing and learning from. I don't see how you could perceive me as having some alternative motive besides that of a customer. My statements were meant to give you the viewpoint of a complete outsider looking only at things as a potential source of profit for you. You come across very disagreeable and combative, not like someone that would like to maximize your own income.
Well that's just a common reaction that a person with a True love and passion for what he believes in. I am always nice and most agreeable when I know I have a fish on the line. But when I'm teaching someone I care about it can get intense. Just food for thought.
Paid for by the ad counsel of real hustlers will hold ur hand the whole way till ur pockets are dry. Lol