Just continue to slam me with your negative words. I do not think that you will get a following....
I do not think your digs will hold up.
Stan Shuffett
Why CTE/Pro One Works
- Thread starter JMW
- Start date
Just continue to slam me with your negative words. I do not think that you will get a following....
I do not think your digs will hold up.
Stan Shuffett
Stan - it took me 2 posts before I had him on ignore. I find this technique works very well. I have added 5 this month alone 
Hope all is well.
Gerry
Hope all is well.
Gerry
stan - it took me 2 posts before i had him on ignore. I find this technique works very well. I have added 5 this month alone
hope all is well.
Gerry
exactly!!!
I've watched quite a few Professional Matches and I've yet to see any of the Pro's take a calculator to the table. I think you are taking Stan completely the wrong way. I am an Engineer by degree and I had to fight some of my natural inclinations before I finally pulled my head out of my butt and just started listening to what Stan is saying instead of trying to figure out how the system mathematically is correct.
Forget the "intelligences" debate, you may find it intellectually stimulating but it is frankly useless in discussing Pro One. Instead, pay attention to what Stan is instructing and also, pay attention to all the excellent players who are using it with great success. I don't fall into that category (yet - :smile: ) however, once I just focused on learning the system, I found out how incredible it is. I firmly believe I would have never gotten to the skill level I'm at presently without Stan's system and it has me in a position to be ready and capable of adding further substantial improvement. I don't care about the mathematics, the "intelligences" or any of that crap, I just know if I follow the system and put a straight stroke on the CB, the OB's disappear dead center in the pocket. The only relevant intelligence is to know that is the objective of the game and CTE/Pro One does that far better than anything else out there.
If you're committed and serious about improving your game, buy the DVD and get to the table so you can enjoy the same improvement. If you want an intellectual debate, PM duckie.
I owe it to you
Small price to pay for the help you've provided me with CTE/Pro One. I struggle to understand how intelligent people will come to a website forum and argue with the same morons endlessly when they can simply put them on ignore and never waste another keystroke on them.
@Chris
Lets match up- you bring your degree and scientific calculator and I will bring my knowledge of Pro1.
Lets say $1000.00 a race, minimum of 3 races and I will come to you. I am serious and will post the cash.
Lets match up- you bring your degree and scientific calculator and I will bring my knowledge of Pro1.
Lets say $1000.00 a race, minimum of 3 races and I will come to you. I am serious and will post the cash.
What digs? I'm sorry, but where in this intellectual discussion did I "dig" at you? I gave you a perspective as a potential customer. You're an intelligent man - I'm starting to believe what I'm seeing is something I often see in technological immigrants your age - you simply don't realize how brusque you're being. Your perspectives are valuable, and as I said I am going to purchase the DVD based on the information I've seen here. I just don't see why you're being so pointlessly aggressive right now. I'm a new player looking for help and advice, and I'm seeing someone intelligent and valuable to a community that is not maximizing his intellect and what he can provide. This is from a perspective of expertise as an educator, not from a perspective as a novice pool teacher. I can speak on the subject of teaching with as much (and more recent) evidence and perspective as yourself, but you're shutting me out and claiming I'm trying to slam you and your system, which I'm not doing.
If you're so smart, be smart enough to just drop the argument with Stan. What are you hoping to gain by continuing the argument. You probably weren't around here when there were some very nasty aiming wars threads with many people taking some vicious swipes at Stan and his system. This was in the early stages of CTE/Pro One before many people have proven how great the system is. Many of those A-Holes still harass Stan about it in many different ways. If you understood this, you'd realize why he might be a little over sensitive. Quit taking it personal and move forward to something constructive.
How long have you been playing bigshooter, did you start in 2005 when you joined here? Give me half that time and I'll come whip you nicely.
I'm smart enough to know I'm a newb.
How long have you been playing bigshooter, did you start in 2005 when you joined here? Give me half that time and I'll come whip you nicely.
I have a 30 year jump start on you. Had a table in our house when I was 10 years old. Truly if I were starting over again and could get my hands on CTE/PRO1 my learning curve would have been much shorter for top play.
It is worth it and if I misunderstood your intentions in this thread I do apologize. If I were closer I would be happy to work with you on the basics of CTE/Pro1.
Regards,
Rob
I did not realize people were so vicious around here. What I know better than anyone is the world from the perspective of educating. Taking that and pairing with my knowledge of the mental game - both of which translate across disciplines and skill games - are where I can provide intelligent and nuanced insight. It is the side of things I can contribute to the discussion on, as opposed to the pure physical side. My primary goal was to help Stan out in an area he seems to be deficient. If I as someone who wants to learn from him is turned off to his lessons by his attitude, I could certainly say that someone who does not have pre-exposure to his videos and ability to educate visually would likely be turned off as well. How is that in any way sound business practice?
Maybe he's 'old school' and doesn't care what people think. If so.... Well, more power to him nothing will get through.
I am very anxious to learn. I started 1.5 years ago with the intent of becoming a professional player inside of five years. I'm lagging way behind because of my career and*hopeful that this system can give me a huge kick in the ass and take me far beyond a mere 60-65 (Napa) player. I like the base principles a lot.
Stan is one of the most respected people in pool. You are being a bit pompous and presumptuous to think he needs your help and with some of your statements. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm simply giving you another perspective as you are attempting to give Stan. If this were golf and you took your message to Butch Harmon, David Leadbetter or Hank Haney, how receptive do you think they'd be? In other words, who the hell are you? You say you are a world class educator? By what measure? Is that your opinion or do you have awards and recognition from your peers that verify this?
And you're going to go from a D player to professional in another 3.5 years? With all due respect, given what you've said, you'd be well served to say less and listen a lot more. Regardless, do as you please but based upon your attitude, I don't see any fault with Stan's responses to you. If you're looking for the problem at this point, go in the bathroom and look in the mirror. Just MHO but apparently, not mine alone.
Can I ask how one would approach pool from a mathematical perspective anyway? I mean when you are looking at a shot you aren't really doing any math, your only measuring devices are your eyes.
Someone posted the equation that governs ghost ball here. I can only assume it's mathematically correct since I don't know enough math to dispute it. But no one ever would use it to teach ghost ball aiming. No instead they rely on asking the student to IMAGINE the ghost ball or to use any one of twenty or so ghost ball aim trainers to train their visual accuracy in estimating the ghost ball position.
I have 6 PhD's in nothing. Ah, make that 7 since I'm making them up anyways. You come across as someone that just got their "education" and thinks that is how the world really works. You are showing to all but yourself that you really have no clue in what you are talking about. Sure, all that crap sounds great on paper, with all the different learning intelligence's and all, but this is the real world.
Forget the math, your cue doesn't have a calculator on it. You have eyes, the system is strictly a visual system. If you are so close-minded that you can only learn from a math perspective, pool isn't for you anyways, and never will be.
Stan is flat out telling it like it is. It is a visual system, and the only way one is going to learn it is by ones visuals. I'm glad he's a great instructor that tells it like it is, and isn't telling a bunch of garbage on here to try and get across to all the people that don't know how to learn something the easy way. You know, the ones that can't follow simple directions, but instead want numbers to add up.
To insult Stan for using visuals to teach a visual system is just about as ignorant as one can get.
National Board Certification, Masters of Ed, experience in the field, grants awarded, etc. And honestly - he may be one of the most respected people in pool, but that does not make any single person above constructive criticism. His ability to sell himself is quite obviously lacking. As I said - if he's above constructive help because he's "old school" and "better" than other people, so be it. But as an independent customer I couldn't help but note that he comes across as an angry and unapproachable person online. I don't care who you are, is that really good for business? Is he really making the multiple hundreds of thousands per year you'd imagine someone should be from selling the most innovative training/aiming method in a sport of thousands upon thousands of players? From what I can tell, and as a sponsored professional working with a wonderful and customer friendly company in another skill game, he's just hurting his own sales.
If you'd like me to get snippy - okay. This is the internet, welcome. It takes me all of a minute and a half tops to make this post. Don't put yourself under the impression that I'm spending any significant time making posts like this. It is a quick conversational bit. Trust me - I've read everything on the Dr Dave site, I've been reading this forum. This is an internet forum, I made a very very minor criticism of his use of intelligences - he has been retired for years, if he got his masters any earlier than 20 years ago then his information is long out of date. What do I receive for a minor constructive criticism? Massive flak and attack, for no reason at all.
So the equation didn't work to help you. What we're looking for is a "bridge" in understanding, hence the idea that an equation can be useful. No one is saying that anyone is going to walk up to a table with a protractor and a ruler and measure out their shots and their angles. No one is bringing a calculator out. What you're looking for is understanding. When someone says to me "30 degrees" I can perfectly visualize it. When someone shows me an equation directly relating spin-speed ratios and thickness of contact to levels of english I can take that an better apply it than I could if someone simply said to me "okay now if you hit the ball more left but you take a little off of it you can kick it out more that way." - I am not going to understand that as clearly.JB Cases said:
My point was entirely related to his statement that one needed to take themselves out of the mathematical-logical intelligence in order to use the visual-spatial intelligence. It was in no way related to aiming system expertise, and entirely related to comments that, whether he intended it or not, do alienate an entire group of learners. In what way, regardless of Stan Shuffett's experience in the billiards community and respected status as a teacher of the game, in what way is that good business practice for someone looking to sell an undoubtedly brilliant learning tool?
This is how the real world works. My students learn. Both in the classroom as a biology instructor, as well as outside of the classroom as a disc sports instructor. As someone who has multiple amateur national championship level pupils in another skill game, as well as one at the very top of the national tour in the disc world. I made one little comment regarding intelligences, which is valid teaching theory - and you all chose to blow up at me.
I'll bugger off these aiming threads. You guys are bonkers, and entirely lack civility.
Some of you guys seriously need to lighten up.
Everything this guy is saying about Stan is accurate. All these aiming debates have really made him very defensive. Not everyone that comes along is looking to start another aiming war.
You guys really are trying to snuff out any discussion. Might as well just go off and start your own forum.
“The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes.”
― Winston Churchill
Everything this guy is saying about Stan is accurate. All these aiming debates have really made him very defensive. Not everyone that comes along is looking to start another aiming war.
You guys really are trying to snuff out any discussion. Might as well just go off and start your own forum.
“The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes.”
― Winston Churchill
I don't agree - if you honestly think that he was delivering his message in a non confrontational style then you should read it again.
It came across as very arrogant - like he was more educated than the rest of the forum which I guarantee is not the case. If the questions had been posed in a polite manner with true intention of learning there would have been no issue. Instead it was a very condescending attitude. He immediately went on the attack although it was wrapped around his superior understanding of intelligence.
It came across as very arrogant - like he was more educated than the rest of the forum which I guarantee is not the case. If the questions had been posed in a polite manner with true intention of learning there would have been no issue. Instead it was a very condescending attitude. He immediately went on the attack although it was wrapped around his superior understanding of intelligence.