GoldenFlash
Banned
Exactly!
:thumbup:
Reply to Dan White's Questions
- Thread starter JB Cases
- Start date
:thumbup:
@John Barton: How about addressing the part in bold instead of writing about extraneous info on you youtube video. If you are going to spend 51 minutes making a video, the least you could do is follow up with an answer to the guy you made the video for, no?
GoldenFlash
Banned
Same old stuff. Man, you might need to get a life. :boring2:
Over on youtube, JB said:
Each shot is a single task. Within the half ball space that I detailed on the video one of three perceptions, A B or C will work to put the shooter's eyes and body in the position to go into the shooting position. The shot being faced has nothing to do with any other shot being faced.
The point of this is that what IS the explanation is what you refuse to accept.
If the Edge to A perception puts me at an offset of say .25" to the ghost ball line on shot #1 and the Edge to A perception puts me at .35" offset to the ghost ball line on Shot #2 then that is because of the thickness of the hit IS actually different and from the CTE line the shot will need to be thickened or thinned. That thickening or thinning is accomplished by the Edge to A, B, or C perception.
What do you really want to know? The math? The 3 dimensional calculus? If that's what you need to know then I don't have that answer for you.
OK, so now maybe we're getting somewhere. Can you dissect what you are saying because I'm trying to follow but it isn't really clear (the blue text, specifically).
When you say the Edge to A perception might put you at an offset of .25" on one shot and .35" on another are you really talking about the Edge to A perception (that already includes the CTE line, as in CTELA) or are you specifically talking about the one line between the cue ball edge and the A on the object ball, which is then "modified" when you bring in the CTE line?
This is going to take me several posts back and forth to understand completely due to the possible dual meaning of words like "perception," but then again I sat through your 51 minute video, so humor me. :wink:
Each shot is a single task. Within the half ball space that I detailed on the video one of three perceptions, A B or C will work to put the shooter's eyes and body in the position to go into the shooting position. The shot being faced has nothing to do with any other shot being faced.
The point of this is that what IS the explanation is what you refuse to accept.
If the Edge to A perception puts me at an offset of say .25" to the ghost ball line on shot #1 and the Edge to A perception puts me at .35" offset to the ghost ball line on Shot #2 then that is because of the thickness of the hit IS actually different and from the CTE line the shot will need to be thickened or thinned. That thickening or thinning is accomplished by the Edge to A, B, or C perception.
What do you really want to know? The math? The 3 dimensional calculus? If that's what you need to know then I don't have that answer for you.
OK, so now maybe we're getting somewhere. Can you dissect what you are saying because I'm trying to follow but it isn't really clear (the blue text, specifically).
When you say the Edge to A perception might put you at an offset of .25" on one shot and .35" on another are you really talking about the Edge to A perception (that already includes the CTE line, as in CTELA) or are you specifically talking about the one line between the cue ball edge and the A on the object ball, which is then "modified" when you bring in the CTE line?
This is going to take me several posts back and forth to understand completely due to the possible dual meaning of words like "perception," but then again I sat through your 51 minute video, so humor me. :wink:
I'll be all over this like white on a cue ball. Can hardly wait.
Thanks Stan
John
Yeah, I thought about that too. That was actually the first time I made a video at home and I was in the flow....I don't even think she was aware of what I was doing.
She however has a pretty sporty video online with more to come.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INlBCPW_-oE
Dan before I address your comments let me say this.
Hal Houle constantly refined the methods he discovered during the decades he worked on this type of aiming. He would call up those he felt were most interested and who he thought "got" it and rattle off the new information. I was one of those who got the calls but I was rarely in a position to get to the table with him on the phone to work through it.
Stan and some others worked extensively with Hal. And without Hal they continued to work on the methods and learn and refine them.
I, on the other hand, am a cheerleader. I don't develop aiming systems, I don't refine them. I butcher them. My part in all this is as much as possible to introduce people to the CONCEPT of objective ball to ball aiming systems in order to pass on the same type of introduction that Hal fortunately for me decided to give to me. I did NOT seek him out. I did not call him. I was not involved in aiming discussions/arguments prior to meeting Hal. I knew of him peripherally only because his aiming system was a frequent thread topic on RSB.
So when Stan or anyone says I am not using a particular system correctly I don't take offense because I know full well that I am not nearly as consistent as Stan is nor as many of his students are and if that lack of consistency is partially due to aiming wrong sometimes because I am not doing it right then I accept that. (let's not talk about the lousy stroke)
But what I do know is that even if it's not 100% right it's still damned awesome for me and my game and that's the point I am trying to make in these videos. The videos are not intended to instruct as much as they are intended to whet the appetite for more.
It's the nature of methods to constantly see them refined to the simplest possible way. I would honestly be surprised if Stan had stopped at DVD 1 and said that's it, can't be better than that. He didn't do that, he kept adding what he learned and eventually made a second DVD with that information and went beyond that.
Now, I know he has even more information, an even better way to do it. That will be what he reveals later. For now people can get interested from what I do and they can graduate to what Stan teaches for an even greater level of accuracy.
Hal Houle constantly refined the methods he discovered during the decades he worked on this type of aiming. He would call up those he felt were most interested and who he thought "got" it and rattle off the new information. I was one of those who got the calls but I was rarely in a position to get to the table with him on the phone to work through it.
Stan and some others worked extensively with Hal. And without Hal they continued to work on the methods and learn and refine them.
I, on the other hand, am a cheerleader. I don't develop aiming systems, I don't refine them. I butcher them. My part in all this is as much as possible to introduce people to the CONCEPT of objective ball to ball aiming systems in order to pass on the same type of introduction that Hal fortunately for me decided to give to me. I did NOT seek him out. I did not call him. I was not involved in aiming discussions/arguments prior to meeting Hal. I knew of him peripherally only because his aiming system was a frequent thread topic on RSB.
So when Stan or anyone says I am not using a particular system correctly I don't take offense because I know full well that I am not nearly as consistent as Stan is nor as many of his students are and if that lack of consistency is partially due to aiming wrong sometimes because I am not doing it right then I accept that. (let's not talk about the lousy stroke)
But what I do know is that even if it's not 100% right it's still damned awesome for me and my game and that's the point I am trying to make in these videos. The videos are not intended to instruct as much as they are intended to whet the appetite for more.
It's the nature of methods to constantly see them refined to the simplest possible way. I would honestly be surprised if Stan had stopped at DVD 1 and said that's it, can't be better than that. He didn't do that, he kept adding what he learned and eventually made a second DVD with that information and went beyond that.
Now, I know he has even more information, an even better way to do it. That will be what he reveals later. For now people can get interested from what I do and they can graduate to what Stan teaches for an even greater level of accuracy.
For any shot that is not a 30 degree hit the CTE line and the Ghost Ball Center Shot Line will NOT be the same.
Agreed?
But when the shooter sights the CTE line and orients his body to it he is at that moment less than 1/2 ball away from the actual shot line.
By simply standing offset to that line the shooter's eyes looking at the back of the cueball are literally less than 1mm from the actual shot line.
So, how does one then get to the shot line? By further refinement in perception.
From the body position that the CTE line produces one then sights the Edge of the CB to the A B or C points and moves the head/body until the lines are clearly "visible" in a comfortable manner. The body movements are extremely slight but they literally close the cte line to shot line gap at the back of the cue ball significantly.
This is how the "shot" is thickened or thinned from the cte line. Edge to A for a left cut would thicken and Edge to C for the same cut would be a thinner perception.
-------------
Now your premise is that body position for the CTEL line is ALWAYS the same. And if that position is the same then the resulting body position at A B or C is always the same and thus same positions can only produce same resulting shot angles.
But the fact is that Hal explained this 15 years ago and I showed it to you on the video. The pocket is fixed and so the shooter can only address the two spheres inside the width of the object ball. And when it comes to attempting to pocket the object ball (as opposed to deliberately sending it somewhere other than a pocket) then the shooter can literally ONLY address half of the ball to aim into. So all of the aiming happens in 50% of the cue ball and 50% of the object ball. This is true for every shot no matter what the actual shot angle is.
So here is where perspective matters. For a zero degree shot - straight in sighting the center to edge gives the user a body position that looks like the cue ball is almost covering the whole object ball. For a 33 degree shot the cue ball looks like it's covering 2/3 of the object ball and the same for a 31 degree shot etc... that's the visual perception....it literally changes how the coverage looks to the shooter as the cueball moves away from zero. But the result is that regardless of the actual shot angle one of the three perceptions 15/30/45 will reconcile to where the actual ghost ball is INSIDE that half ball where the aiming takes place. That's the phenomena that has been observed and verified by hundreds of players.
So when I give coordinates to someone else and say this shot is CTEL-A they can line up perfectly and shoot it right in.
Ok, so now your point is that same input produces same output. Ok, if we have the rectangle and we let a player line up so that the CTEL-A would produce a shot line to a corner pocket what if we simply rotated the table under him but left him in the exact same position? Well....this is again what Hal and Stan (with Stan demonstrating it) both tried to say to everyone for so many years, the resulting shot would be likely tracking towards one of the other 90 degree intersections that are present. If I understood you that is what you are getting at ultimately.
Now WHY does this happen? What is it about a closed system of two squares where the targets are at each corner of the squares which allows for a closed loop of perceptual visual "keys" to resolve to lines that track to those corners?
I don't know. But it does. I have gone as far as my understanding of math and geometry can take me.
BUT (you knew there was going to be a but right)
Today I spent a day with a good friend who has created an amazing set of training tools. He has the contact line marked out for shots that are 0,15,30,60,75 degrees. So when you place the ball on the template it shows you the actual contact point on the cueball as it emanates from the cueball.
Fair enough that is easily mapped out with any computer program right?
But here is the kicker......wait for it........
ON THE CUEBALL if you divide it into four sections with a cross hair with the exact middle line pointing down the ghost ball line and then draw a line through the center that makes a 15 degree angle ON THE CUEBALL where that line exits the sphere IS the actual contact point for the 15 degree shot. And this is true for the rest of the shots as well.
Why does this matter and what does it have to do with CTE? Well, I find it interesting that there is a way to measure the angle of a shot and then go to the cueball and plot an angle from the center of the cb to the edge to find an exact contact point on the cueball that is exactly parallel the the Ghost Ball shot line. So with a little (or a lot) of practice one could train one's visual perception to get fairly decent at "seeing" those angles on the cueball and if so then one would be much more accurate using a couple OBJECTIVE references once one knows that doing xyz actually produces the shot line from any position.
Now that is geometrically correct. it's literally the same as equal opposite aiming. But CTE aligns perfectly to the same tracks on the template.
So my conclusion is that IF any aiming system resolves to the actual known and marked shot line consistently then there MUST be a mathematical underpinning supporting it OR that system is literally so damn close with the conscious steps that the final "guess" made subconsciously is so trivial as to be insignificant.
In other words a system which allows the user to adopt a shot line without hesitation or doubt where that shot line turns out to be correct close to 100% of the time can be said to be practically objective for the purpose of the results desired. Especially if instructions for aiming any shot can be verbally conveyed and carried out with equal precision by anyone proficient in the application.
Last edited:
I'll be all over this like white on a cue ball. Can hardly wait.
Thanks Stan
John
You are welcome!
My free online series will likely consists of at least a dozen and possibly up to 20 videos detailing precision visuals, what the pivot or the angling of one's cue is all about and how to line up to the single tick that represents the overcut shot line. I will present examples of shots spanning across the entire range of visuals.
I am doing this as an update specifically for all people that have purchased my material or have had lessons with me......I owe this and have promised this.
Stan Shuffett
i look forward to the information and your new book
I am shooting for 2017. It will definitely be later in the yesr rather than sooner. I wish I knew when I would be through with this seemingly endless project.
As I said before, I must finish writing and roughing everything out. Then it's diagramming and on to Ilustrator. Then it's staging for all of the photography. Then there's my publisher and their work......
As for the video series it will start at about the time of my book release and I will likely add 1 or 2 videos per week until I have majorly frameworked the system out.
Stan Shuffett
Do you plan on disabling comments on your new YouTube videos that are a companion to your book?
I'd like to see his training aid, it sounds interesting. Here's a picture of my training card for shooting with a pivot triangle.
The bottom line is 2 1/4 inches across with holes punched through at the CCB, 1/4, 1/2, 45*, 3/4, and 7/8 ball radius marks. At the top is a cue tip slide indicator which can give a visual reference as to how the shot looks. When shooting very fine cuts it was possible to look at the amount of overhang the cue tip made beyond the edge before pivoting. On the left are four triangles of 15, 30, 45, and 60 degrees as a quick guide for tangent line estimations. If you want to learn the pivot triangle method, I'll make one up for you. Just be sure to break out your old trig book first.
I certainly would if i were Stan
You dang right! If that will not suit folks then I need to know so I can pull up on that plan.
Maybe someone needs to do a poll. Cause I am sending CTE around the globe.
Stan Shuffett
Then why did you create a video entitled, "Reply to Dan Why CTE Works"? You should rename it, "Generating Interest in CTE by Pretending to Answer Dan's Question."
Like I said at the beginning, even if we agree on some kind of explanation for what you are doing, Stan will simply jump in and say you don't know what you're talking about, and so we are left with debating the John Barton Aiming Method, which was never my intent.
There goes the whole argument about this system being so simple.
Correct. We agree that my concern is that a CTELA perception will yield the same shot angle no matter where the balls are on the table, just as we agreed that a simple half ball hit will always yield a 30 degree angle no matter where the balls are on the table.
OK, do you realize that none of this has anything to do with answering the question? It doesn't even mean anything, really.
OK, I follow what you are saying. The ball overlap looks fuller or thinner depending on how sharp the angle is. This doesn't seem to help answer the question. Why is this relevant? (Also, I thought straight in shots were center to center aimed with a pivot, no?)
So this is where the meat of your argument needs to be. This is the closest thing I can see in your discussion that looks like a final answer to my question. However, all you do (in bold) is simply state that it DOES work. The key word here is that the three discrete CTE angles will "reconcile" to the ghost ball line. How can you say this is true? What does that even mean? How is this any more accurate than saying a half ball aim will somehow reconcile to give you any ghost ball aim position that is needed?
Yes, my point, restated, is that the same input produces the same output, agreed. Let's talk about rotating that table underneath fixed balls and player: You say that CTE will then send the ball to a different pocket, right? How about this -- set up the balls so that the ob is pocketed with CTELA. Now replace the balls and the player but rotate the table underneath by 3 degrees. In my mind, you will miss the pocket by 3 degrees. You are trying to tell me the ball will now travel 5 rails to a different pocket? I thought even with the 3 degree adjustment CTELA is still supposed to work. So which is it?
Exactly. You don't know what is happening any more than I do. What you believe is happening is what Stan is telling you, yet this flies in the face of reality. I'm suggesting that since you really don't know, then maybe you should consider being more open to other possible explanations.
You yourself said that before CTE you steered the cue and did all sorts of things to body english the ball into the pocket. Is it possible that Hal's method caused you to focus more on a pre shot routine that reduced your body english and allowed your stroke to relax? You see what I'm getting at I assume? Maybe CTE has made you a better player because it has removed some of your bad habits. Maybe it is NOT that three objective aim points are capable of sending the cue ball to the ghost ball position.
Are you even open to the idea that such a thing might be closer to the truth than the A,B,C thing?