CTE Pro One Sweeps

bdam123 · Jun 26, 2017

Do you guys have any tips on locking down the Pro One Sweeps? I can't seem to get them consistent especially the inside sweep.

This is becoming a source of real frustration for me. I'm pretty sure I have my perceptions locked down. Then I go in with the sweep and take the shot and its all over. Been working on CB at 31 and OB at 21 right cut to the corner pocket and I'm literally pocketing like 10%. That some setup with a left cut to the side I can pocket like 90%. Same sweep on both. I guess the shorter distance allows for more room for error. I don't know.

Any tips would help.

Ratta · Jun 26, 2017

bdam123 said:
Do you guys have any tips on locking down the Pro One Sweeps? I can't seem to get them consistent especially the outside sweep.

This is becoming a source of real frustration for me. I'm pretty sure I have my perceptions locked down. Then I go in with the sweep and take the shot and its all over. Been working on CB at 31 and OB at 21 right cut to the corner pocket and I'm literally pocketing like 10%. That some setup with a left cut to the side I can pocket like 90%. Same sweep on both. I guess the shorter distance allows for more room for error. I don't know.

Any tips would help.

Hi,

right from the beginning: I am definitley no "expert" in cte- I tried everything on my own- by reading, watching.
what i can say for sure, that I started to "play around with it" in 2010- because i was and am very curious.
What would be the very very best solution: Meet with an instructor, who is able to teach CTE (or pro 1 also). An expirienced person would be able to see, where you limit yourself- or where you are doing something wrong (wrong perspective? technically something wrong? limitating bc of having no good fundamentals? etc. etc. ).

Best advice i received was (from Stan long ago)- to do it the hard way at the beginning- to start with manual "old school cte"- doing the manual pivot. What i can tell you is, that here you will learn easier (and more repeatable) to learn the different perceptions, and how to slide correctly into the shot from "behind"!

Once you "see it right"- once you re able to use the manual pivot easily, you will also benefit from it and will be much easier for you to use the "Pro1" pivot.
This learning process to start with manual cte is a great help in my opinion.

What i have shown up about "what mistakes" ...which you maybe do-- if you re struggling with your fundamentals- for example not being able to deliver with a repeatable stroke.....- will always force you to struggle even more! You would not know if you ve missed a shot by just not being able to deliver the cue how and where you want- or if you re not being able to execute the pivot correctly, using a wrong perception or whatever.

Hope this makes sense for you

And i can just recommend again: to meet with Stan in person- or another guy- would help for very sure. Bob Nunley would be also a good choice to get as an instructor.

best from overseas,

have a smooth stroke,

Ingo

bdam123 · Jun 27, 2017

Ratta said:
Hi,

right from the beginning: I am definitley no "expert" in cte- I tried everything on my own- by reading, watching.
what i can say for sure, that I started to "play around with it" in 2010- because i was and am very curious.
What would be the very very best solution: Meet with an instructor, who is able to teach CTE (or pro 1 also). An expirienced person would be able to see, where you limit yourself- or where you are doing something wrong (wrong perspective? technically something wrong? limitating bc of having no good fundamentals? etc. etc. ).

Best advice i received was (from Stan long ago)- to do it the hard way at the beginning- to start with manual "old school cte"- doing the manual pivot. What i can tell you is, that here you will learn easier (and more repeatable) to learn the different perceptions, and how to slide correctly into the shot from "behind"!

Once you "see it right"- once you re able to use the manual pivot easily, you will also benefit from it and will be much easier for you to use the "Pro1" pivot.
This learning process to start with manual cte is a great help in my opinion.

What i have shown up about "what mistakes" ...which you maybe do-- if you re struggling with your fundamentals- for example not being able to deliver with a repeatable stroke.....- will always force you to struggle even more! You would not know if you ve missed a shot by just not being able to deliver the cue how and where you want- or if you re not being able to execute the pivot correctly, using a wrong perception or whatever.

Hope this makes sense for you
And i can just recommend again: to meet with Stan in person- or another guy- would help for very sure. Bob Nunley would be also a good choice to get as an instructor.

best from overseas,

have a smooth stroke,

Ingo

Hey brother,

thanks for the advice. Looks like I'll be going back to the manual pivot for a while haha.

I'l search around and see if I can find an instructor near me.

Low500 · Jun 27, 2017

bdam123 said:
Do you guys have any tips on locking down the Pro One Sweeps? I can't seem to get them consistent especially the inside sweep.
This is becoming a source of real frustration for me. I'm pretty sure I have my perceptions locked down. Then I go in with the sweep and take the shot and its all over. Been working on CB at 31 and OB at 21 right cut to the corner pocket and I'm literally pocketing like 10%. That some setup with a left cut to the side I can pocket like 90%. Same sweep on both. I guess the shorter distance allows for more room for error. I don't know.
Any tips would help.

From a fellow manual pivoting user..(me)
I wish I was qualified to help, but I'm not. It's difficult to refrain from trying to impart knowledge about a subject when unqualified....especially when people keep asking for it. But I know my limitations.
I will state without question that, in my opinion, it completely blows away any of that old fractional aiming stuff that has been around for decades.
I'm having great success with it in a very short time.
I'm just sticking with the manual pivots, they're working fine, I'm winning some small money in some tournaments, making some high runs, and using it to play what I call "jailhouse safeties" as well. And..........................I'm very hesitant to tinker around with something that is working good.
Maybe I'm just lucky, I don't know. I'm waiting to buy his book which should lock everything else down. Then it's going to really get good!
My best to you.
EDITED: I'm sorry, I misread your question, you were asking about the pro 1 sweeps (which I have no clue about). Just take this post as encouragement.........that guy Shuffett is one smart cookie and can flat shoot pool. He's qualified to teach too, unlike some of the know-it-alls around here. Keep on truckin'.

LAMas · Jun 27, 2017

"From a fellow manual pivoting user..(me)
I wish I was qualified to help, but I'm not..."
Low500

Can you teach manual pivoting that works real good for you instead?

Low500 · Jun 27, 2017

LAMas said:
"From a fellow manual pivoting user..(me)
I wish I was qualified to help, but I'm not..."
Low500
Can you teach manual pivoting that works real good for you instead?

Honestly speaking, mister, I just do what the guy said to do on his youtube videos. And that's it.
I would be arrogant to try and "teach" something I just learned how to do myself.
That's all I know. It's there on youtube under his name, "Stan Shuffet"

BC21 · Jun 28, 2017

Low500 said:
...... (cut) ........

I will state without question that, in my opinion, it completely blows away any of that old fractional aiming stuff that has been around for decades.

........ (cut) …......

Maybe I'm just lucky, I don't know. I'm waiting to buy his book which should lock everything else down. Then it's going to really get good.

........(cut).........

Yes, that "old fractional aiming stuff" was probably a long and tough learning experience for a lot of players, especially not knowing which fractional aim point to use. Recognizing shot angles in order to know if it's a 15, 30, 45, 60, or anywhere in-between, takes a long time and a lot of missed shots before a player gets proficient at pocketing balls.

If you're waiting on that big book you're talking about, you should invest in the author's DVDs. He has specifically stated that the book will come out AFTER his remaining stock of DVDs are sold. I'm a firm believer of supporting working professionals and creative minds when it comes to subjects that capture my interests. Try it. It'll make you feel good to give back, and you'll be helping the author reach the goal of getting that book out.

stan shuffett · Jun 28, 2017

BC21 said:
Yes, that "old fractional aiming stuff" was probably a long and tough learning experience for a lot of players, especially not knowing which fractional aim point to use. Recognizing shot angles in order to know if it's a 15, 30, 45, 60, or anywhere in-between, takes a long time and a lot of missed shots before a player gets proficient at pocketing balls.

If you're waiting on that big book you're talking about, you should invest in the author's DVDs. He has specifically stated that the book will come out AFTER his remaining stock of DVDs are sold. I'm a firm believer of supporting working professionals and creative minds when it comes to subjects that capture my interests. Try it. It'll make you feel good to give back, and you'll be helping the author reach the goal of getting that book out.

Your statement about my book release is simply not true. I have never stated that my book release is conditional upon selling my remaining stock of DVDs. My book would have been released a year ago had it been ready. Regardless of my stock count my book will be published and released when it's completed.
Now it may be that my release is after my stock sells out but that was never in any way a part of my plan.
This is the second timer that you have stated such so I am here now to set the record straight.

Stan Shuffett

Low500 · Jun 28, 2017

stan shuffett said:
Your statement about my book release is simply not true. I have never stated that my book release is conditional upon selling my remaining stock of DVDs. My book would have been released a year ago had it been ready. Regardless of my stock count my book will be published and released when it's completed.
Now it may be that my release is after my stock sells out but that was never in any way a part of my plan.
This is the second timer that you have stated such so I am here now to set the record straight.Stan Shuffett

Hello.
Can you give any kind of wild approximate guess about the planned selling price of your book? It's not breaking the rules to do that here is it? Don't get yourself in trouble if it's not permitted.
I know lots of things can change before you finish it and its not possible to set a price up front.
Not trying to pin you down on anything.
(I just need to start saving away some of the small bucks from some of the local 'big shots' I'm murdering now that I've got a way that works consistently). :thumbup:

I got them going nuts.
By the way, I enjoyed the video on spot shots.

BC21 · Jun 28, 2017

stan shuffett said:
Your statement about my book release is simply not true. I have never stated that my book release is conditional upon selling my remaining stock of DVDs. My book would have been released a year ago had it been ready. Regardless of my stock count my book will be published and released when it's completed.
Now it may be that my release is after my stock sells out but that was never in any way a part of my plan.
This is the second timer that you have stated such so I am here now to set the record straight.

Stan Shuffett

You are correct. I misread the following statement as a conditional goal before book release time:

"At this stage, just wait and see my free online material that is coming later this year I hope. If you like what you see, then get the book.
I have less than 5% of my original stock of DVD2 left.....2.5% of DVD1 left." Stan Shuffett

I thought you were hinting that buying the dvd's would help you get the book finished quicker. No damage done anyway with what I said, as I was encouraging someone to purchase your dvd's. You're welcome.

SpiderWebComm · Jun 29, 2017

BC21 said:
Yes, that "old fractional aiming stuff" was probably a long and tough learning experience for a lot of players, especially not knowing which fractional aim point to use. Recognizing shot angles in order to know if it's a 15, 30, 45, 60, or anywhere in-between, takes a long time and a lot of missed shots before a player gets proficient at pocketing balls.

There were more fractional methods than what you mentioned above and they all didn't have anything to do with knowing the numerical shot angles.

I've mentioned Hal's fractional aiming system a number of times which had 3 and the science guys assigned the numerical shot angles to them just as you have but the numbers had nothing whatsoever to do with the angle boundaries. That's why they were always chasing their tails and making false assumptions. They weren't even close.

Nor did it take a long time to learn. It was super quick to learn and make balls accurately.

Try testing your brain to figure out how something works by giving 90/90 a whirl by Ron Vitello. If you can figure out why all different angle shots can go in by aiming and pivoting the way he prescribes without having a clue about the actual angles, you just might get the Nobel Prize. But the balls do go in. In the workbook that accompanied his 90/90 system along with the DVD, it did have a grid with OB/CB locations.

Even though I've never seen your entire system, I think the most effective part of it is very much like Joe Tucker's which has the grid and ball locations for the correct contact point or in your case, fraction, to aim at.

The grid and ball locations might also have had value to Hal's aiming system to speed up the learning process even though there was only 3.

BC21 · Jun 29, 2017

SpiderWebComm said:
There were more fractional methods than what you mentioned above and they all didn't have anything to do with knowing the numerical shot angles.

I've mentioned Hal's fractional aiming system a number of times which had 3 and the science guys assigned the numerical shot angles to them just as you have but the numbers had nothing whatsoever to do with the angle boundaries. That's why they were always chasing their tails and making false assumptions. They weren't even close.

Nor did it take a long time to learn. It was super quick to learn and make balls accurately.

Try testing your brain to figure out how something works by giving 90/90 a whirl by Ron Vitello. If you can figure out why all different angle shots can go in by aiming and pivoting the way he prescribes without having a clue about the actual angles, you just might get the Nobel Prize. But the balls do go in. In the workbook that accompanied his 90/90 system along with the DVD, it did have a grid with OB/CB locations.

Even though I've never seen your entire system, I think the most effective part of it is very much like Joe Tucker's which has the grid and ball locations for the correct contact point or in your case, fraction, to aim at.

The grid and ball locations might also have had value to Hal's aiming system to speed up the learning process even though there was only 3.

I've experimented with several pivot methods that work when using precise bridge placements for varying distances between the balls. I was trying to come up with a method of teaching my daughters how to pocket balls. No specific systems to name, considering I had no knowledge of Hal Houle's systems or anyone else's system(s). I just tinkered with contact points, fractions, pivots, etc...anything I could draw out on paper and then demonstrate on the table. I decided to focus on the fractional aspect because it seemed easier to aim at a known point that would give a known result. All I had to do then was come up with a way of determining the known variables. Probably very similar to Stan's quest of bringing enlightenment to Hal's CTE system, enhancing it quite a bit along the way, transforming it into something that Hal probably never imagined was possible.

I joined AZ simply thinking it was going to be an open forum of ideas where I could introduce my book for anyone interested, getting feedback and advice from fellow pool players. Unaware of the years of aiming wars, I quickly found out that this forum isn't quite as open as I thought it would be. For the most part it is, but years of old hostility too often creep into certain threads, making everything either black or white with no room for open middle ground.

And then a post (like the one quoted above) steps away from the hostility and actually brings good thought-provoking conversation into the mix. It's great for players that come here looking for something that might actually improve their game. Sure, old aiming war mud slinging makes for good reading entertainment, sort of like the old tasteless Springer show, but it's not very constructive.

One Pocket John · Jun 29, 2017

bdam123 said:
Do you guys have any tips on locking down the Pro One Sweeps? I can't seem to get them consistent especially the inside sweep.

This is becoming a source of real frustration for me. I'm pretty sure I have my perceptions locked down. Then I go in with the sweep and take the shot and its all over. Been working on CB at 31 and OB at 21 right cut to the corner pocket and I'm literally pocketing like 10%. That some setup with a left cut to the side I can pocket like 90%. Same sweep on both. I guess the shorter distance allows for more room for error. I don't know.

Any tips would help.

Like most here, I am not qualified to teach CTE. I haven't been able to explain it to my Grand Mother. (thanks Ratta)

If you have an Iphone or other video device on a stand it may be helpful for you to do a frontal video of yourself shooting a shot using CTE. You may pick up a fundamental flaw that's preventing you from sending the cue ball down the fixed cue ball path.

I purchased DVD2 when it became available out of curiosity. I have watched that DVD many, many times as I have done with all of Stan's YouTube videos.

Being a back of the object ball contact player for 54 years you can only imagine how difficult it was for me to use CTE. I kept looking for a contact point on the object ball.

There is no contact point on the object ball to point your cue. Only a fixed cue ball path.

One thing you may want to try is: (for reinforcement purposes only)

See your perception then fix the cue ball. Come down on the cue ball and manually pivot the cue to the center cue ball.

Once you have a fixed cue ball it is no longer necessary to even look at the object ball any more, stare at the cue ball, bring the cue back and shoot, do not look up to see if you made the object ball, if you made it you will hear it go in the pocket.

This is where you will find out if you have a flaw in your fundamentals, your perception was off and the cue ball was not fixed properly.

Just trying to help.

John

paultex · Jun 30, 2017

bdam123 said:
Do you guys have any tips on locking down the Pro One Sweeps? I can't seem to get them consistent especially the inside sweep.

This is becoming a source of real frustration for me. I'm pretty sure I have my perceptions locked down. Then I go in with the sweep and take the shot and its all over. Been working on CB at 31 and OB at 21 right cut to the corner pocket and I'm literally pocketing like 10%. That some setup with a left cut to the side I can pocket like 90%. Same sweep on both. I guess the shorter distance allows for more room for error. I don't know.

Any tips would help.

If you are looking for a solution in words, then you should state in words what 10% means. You are stating 90% miss rate of?......overcut or undercut? Or a mix of both?

For the record, I assume 31/21 are positional static locations of cb/ob relationship, correct?

I don't know what that means if I'm correct, as far as what layout that means exactly, but if a manual pivot solves your problem, then you are correct, your visual sweep is either betraying you or the layout with a visual sweep is not enough to overcome a positional layout relationship that skews your physical stroke alignment.

FACT:

In general, a universal commonality with most, if not all players, is that a particular cb/ob relationship, will skew your final stroke delivery incorrectly, regardless of shaft angle being visually "correct" for the pocketing solution.

EXAMPLE:

(Extreme)......stretching out your body for a shot or shooting over a ball etc etc.

(Less extreme but most deceptive)......shooting along side a side rail, where conventional stance alignment becomes unconventional etc etc.

FACT:

CTE conventionally brings you into the shot. A very good solve to "alignment".

FACT:

"Solve" is relevant. CTE alone cannot solve a skew in unconventional stance addresses due to particular cb/ob relationships. This will vary from player to player, obviously with left or right handed players, but a commonality of "skew" is universal.

FACT:

Shaft angle address + incongruent shaft angle delivery = SKEW

ANALYSIS:

After stroke delivery, don't move and note the shaft angle and start compiling the data of inconsistencies or consistencies that are relevant to success/failure rate.

CONJECTURE:

Visual sweep is a shortcut or disguise to a manual pivot, not a different method solution. It is also a progression of the pivot or manual sweep that generally requires the prior methods as a foundation to progress more successfully to a visual sweep if one so chooses.

FACT:

Stepping into a shot, left or right foot first bias, is also the equivalent of a "sweep" or more clearly, a biased shaft angle formulation to solution.

ANALYSIS:

Make note of a possible unknowing foot position shift.

FACT:

Analysis recommendations as previously stated are basic generalizations to the deep subject of "aiming".

Hope this helps and good luck.

stan shuffett · Jun 30, 2017

paultex said:
If you are looking for a solution in words, then you should state in words what 10% means. You are stating 90% miss rate of?......overcut or undercut? Or a mix of both?

For the record, I assume 31/21 are positional static locations of cb/ob relationship, correct?

I don't know what that means if I'm correct, as far as what layout that means exactly, but if a manual pivot solves your problem, then you are correct, your visual sweep is either betraying you or the layout with a visual sweep is not enough to overcome a positional layout relationship that skews your physical stroke alignment.

FACT:

In general, a universal commonality with most, if not all players, is that a particular cb/ob relationship, will skew your final stroke delivery incorrectly, regardless of shaft angle being visually "correct" for the pocketing solution.

EXAMPLE:

(Extreme)......stretching out your body for a shot or shooting over a ball etc etc.

(Less extreme but most deceptive)......shooting along side a side rail, where conventional stance alignment becomes unconventional etc etc.

FACT:

CTE conventionally brings you into the shot. A very good solve to "alignment".

FACT:

"Solve" is relevant. CTE alone cannot solve a skew in unconventional stance addresses due to particular cb/ob relationships. This will vary from player to player, obviously with left or right handed players, but a commonality of "skew" is universal.

FACT:

Shaft angle address + incongruent shaft angle delivery = SKEW

ANALYSIS:

After stroke delivery, don't move and note the shaft angle and start compiling the data of inconsistencies or consistencies that are relevant to success/failure rate.

CONJECTURE:

Visual sweep is a shortcut or disguise to a manual pivot, not a different method solution. It is also a progression of the pivot or manual sweep that generally requires the prior methods as a foundation to progress more successfully to a visual sweep if one so chooses.

FACT:

Stepping into a shot, left or right foot first bias, is also the equivalent of a "sweep" or more clearly, a biased shaft angle formulation to solution.

ANALYSIS:

Make note of a possible unknowing foot position shift.

FACT:

Analysis recommendations as previously stated are basic generalizations to the deep subject of "aiming".

Hope this helps and good luck.

CTE DOES NOT BRING ONE "CONVENTIONALLY" INTO THE SHOT LINE. NOT EVEN CLOSE!

Stan Shuffett

paultex · Jun 30, 2017

stan shuffett said:
CTE DOES NOT BRING ONE "CONVENTIONALLY" INTO THE SHOT LINE. NOT EVEN CLOSE!

Stan Shuffett

con·ven·tion·al·ly
kənˈvenSH(ə)nəlē/
adverb
in a way that is based on what is traditionally done or believed.

I believe my statement is correct in general. "Brings you into the shot", my definition, is the system brings you into the physical body alignment or helps aid the process. Certainly, your general alignment I have observed is not unconventional, if this clarifies my statement. I suspect it might not though, but my personal method of solve is "alignment is the system".

I have watched and studied your videos on YouTube extensively. Very closely. However, I may be wrong in analysis and statement, but I don't think I'm incorrect in generalization to the question of alignment.

Yes, I do understand you have a method of visual pick up and ultimate foot and bridge placement. So of course my statement would be incorrect.

Once again, I am speaking from my own perspective in which I basically don't aim, i align myself purely to shotline.

QUESTION:

Does a object ball method of edges or overlaps, NOT help aid at the very least, into bringing one into a shot?

Not a trap question, i am sincere. The question sounds obvious but you personally know it may not be so but I personally think, IN GENERAL, it conventionally does.

The eyes lead and the body follows. This is congruent even with my method of "aiming".

Thanks.

stan shuffett · Jun 30, 2017

paultex said:
con·ven·tion·al·ly
kənˈvenSH(ə)nəlē/
adverb
in a way that is based on what is traditionally done or believed.

I believe my statement is correct in general. "Brings you into the shot", my definition, is the system brings you into the physical body alignment or helps aid the process. Certainly, your general alignment I have observed is not unconventional, if this clarifies my statement. I suspect it might not though, but my personal method of solve is "alignment is the system".

I have watched and studied your videos on YouTube extensively. Very closely. However, I may be wrong in analysis and statement, but I don't think I'm incorrect in generalization to the question of alignment.

Yes, I do understand you have a method of visual pick up and ultimate foot and bridge placement. So of course my statement would be incorrect.

Once again, I am speaking from my own perspective in which I basically don't aim, i align myself purely to shotline.

QUESTION:

Does a object ball method of edges or overlaps, NOT help aid at the very least, into bringing one into a shot?

Not a trap question, i am sincere. The question sounds obvious but you personally know it may not be so but I personally think, IN GENERAL, it conventionally does.

The eyes lead and the body follows. This is congruent even with my method of "aiming".

Thanks.

Aligning with CTE is apples and organges to conventional aiming.....The visual process involved is not even remotely close to anything that is traditional.

Stan Shuffett

paultex · Jun 30, 2017

stan shuffett said:
Aligning with CTE is apples and organges to conventional aiming.....The visual process involved is not even remotely close to anything that is traditional.

Stan Shuffett

Yes sir, but I meant alignment, not visual systems.

I just wanted to make myself clear on a subject that can be generalized, in which it justifiably takes a book to give a definitive answer. Also, most importantly, to help out the original poster.

No system in the world is going to override a discrepancy in a final stroke delivery event, but atleast the system can pull a player into a better or optimal position to pocket a ball.

So if original poster is having a particular problem with a certain system, then we can usually conclude it's not the system's fault. Systems in general get a bad rap from one camp to the next.

CTE as you said is a professional system that can objectively be explained. That's the difference but in reality, any system can be objectively explained, but obviously the rationale may not be black and white. CTE has alot of rationale because it has definitive edges to guage off of with what I call "double verification".

This is also why I personally like a parallel system but the second verification line has to be visualized, but in a sense, no different than visualizing where ABC is exactly.

Not knocking CTE and your work. It's brilliant and if it wasn't for that, I would probably be still struggling. Your analysis and explanations on perception, imo, is the best part of your work.

That's why I took a chance and tried to go toward a pure perception line of "solve".

For instance, right now, I'm working on long distance high English power shots. There is absolutely no real visual aim other than thick or thin of the shot line and having a complete understanding of, or continuance of understanding, in alignment and sphere physics to reach "solution".

So with that said, even shot line is relative, to a reasonable extent and I believe it can be explained relatively objectively.

If someone out there has a repeatable, one type stroke, that applies in any situation without having to be cognizant.......god bless that person and I would like to meet said person.

Perception alone has a very controlling grip on "stroke" and everything associated with it.

By the way, thank you as well for the work you did on shaft angles. It's a must watch or read.

LAMas · Jun 30, 2017

Complicated question?

"If someone out there has a repeatable, one type stroke, that applies in any situation without having to be cognizant.......god bless that person and I would like to meet said person."

Like focusing to center the aim on the OB, adjustments can be made to "straighten" one's stroke or address the CB off of the point necessary for a straight stroke to adjust for the not straight but natural stroke.

Not everyone can shoot the straight in shot straight at pocket speed and also at break shot speed - muscle clinch issue.

Like work, concentration and determination helps.

paultex · Jul 1, 2017

LAMas said:
Complicated question?

"If someone out there has a repeatable, one type stroke, that applies in any situation without having to be cognizant.......god bless that person and I would like to meet said person."

Like focusing to center the aim on the OB, adjustments can be made to "straighten" one's stroke or address the CB off of the point necessary for a straight stroke to adjust for the not straight but natural stroke.

Not everyone can shoot the straight in shot straight at pocket speed and also at break shot speed - muscle clinch issue.

Like work, concentration and determination helps.

Yeah I agree with that about having a offset cue angle to compensate for a redirection of delivery stroke.

Yes, it is complicated because there are so many address variances, shooting off a rail, over a ball, leaning in from the side rail, jacking up etc etc.....if someone has a stroke where delivery is never an issue, God bless that person, I would like to meet him or her.

In other words, like Sam Snead the golfer said, "I just take the club back and "hits" it".

That must be a pretty nice feeling.

I don't think pool is very difficult, but it's so involved, it's extremely difficult. I mean for me it is and I've found these stroke variances and a demand of cognizance for every person I have observed or talked with.

For instance, I saw Dennis Orcollo stretch way out on the table and try to draw the cb back about a foot and he executed a "stop shot". This is universally common because there's just something about that body position that lifts your stroke up on delivery. You have to trust hitting a low miscue in perception and that usually produces a better result. I'm generalizing the nature and remedy, but that is the point I'm trying to make, where cognizance is a must and aiming systems only take one so far as a good foundation.....whatever that system is if it works for the individual.

CTE Pro One Sweeps

Registered

Hearing the balls.....

Registered

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

HelpImBeingOppressed

https://www.playpoolbetter.com

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member