Would anyone like to take the lead on this that way they can all be in one thread rather than scattered all over the place.
Thanks
John
Thanks
John
Would anyone like to take the lead on this that way they can all be in one thread rather than scattered all over the place.
Thanks
John
My understanding is that Stan has not yet started the Truth Series of videos and won't do so until closer to the book release. Right now he's only looking for a head count to see how many it is worth doing. He has committed to a minimum of 6 videos even if there is no interest.
Looks like we have about 9 or 10 people so far from AZ wanting more than the 6 videos.
Your right Dan he hasn't. What I wanted to do is to start a thread, in advance, to place all oth the "Truth" series videos as the first post has stated.
If you would like to copy and paste all of Stan's "Truth" series videos to this thread that would be great.
He has a ton of support that's a given.
John
Nothing like learning new information
that will further my Billiard education.
I'm all in favor of the truth series videos! Stan mentions how knowledge is very important, and I agree 100%.
I just hope there's no soap box preaching about "naysayers and haters" in the truth series, because that's simply not true. Many of us "naysayers" have taken CTE to the table for long sessions, trying to understand it, trying to gain the knowledge that Stan himself admits he doesn't have -- the why or how it works for him and others. All he knows is how to do it. I want more knowledge than that, because the simple "how to" knowledge isn't enough. Stan is fooling himself and all CTE users by saying things like this around 9:05 in this video...https://youtu.be/0Y4xh89CWXg?t=545s
The example scenario he gives is exactly what I and others have done countless times. He's assuming we've never taken it to the table, but he's way off there. The fact that we've taken it to the table is the reason we question the objectivity of the system. Especially the part about the perception not leading the player directly to the shot, but instead leading the player to a line that's either thick or thin of the true shot line needed, and that's where the pivot or sweep adjustment comes into play.
Regardless, I'm looking forward to the truth series videos and I hope they stick to the point of teaching CTE without any time wasted on defensive tactics.
Can someone please enlighten me, as I haven't read all the threads? What is this "truth" series about (other than CTE). Is it the promised free "nuts and bolts videos" or is it something else?
I enjoyed the grip stuff. Would like to hear his advice on delivering a straight stroke. CTE stuff aside, the guy is very knowledgeable
Brian, it seems pretty simple to me that CTE acts as a method to reference point a truer perception of connectivity to a pocket because of repeatability of a consistent double line reference point.
The only problem I see is that your stroke line has to match the CTE point of reference and that's the only problem I see that why people including myself, can't make it work unless you hone your stroke to that visual reference, but that's where, speaking for me, is even more of a problem because I know there is at least 30% of shot lay outs that skew my delivery system because if my hips get out of wack, my shooting arm gets effected big time.
............(snip snip)........
When you use, I assume fractional overlap, how do you verify the overlap is consistent with the stroke line?
.............. (snip snip).......
Thanks
The dual reference lines in CTE aiming are to get the player's visual center aligned to a certain perception based on the two lines. This perception is not the stroke line. The stroke line itself isn't revealed until after the sweep or pivot. And at that moment the player will be using one line of aim. The perception reference lines are dropped as soon as the player addresses center cue ball as given from the perception. From then on it boils down to a one-line solution, a "CCB solution" as Stan calls it, that comes from pivoting or sweeping.
I don't use fractional overlap visuals. I use one line, the known stroke/shot line that produces the proper fractional relationship to pocket the ball. I build my stance and stroke around that one shot line.
Right, so when down and everything set with CTE, you pull the trigger and everything is dependent on the sequence that has to be performed correctly and you're left with a one line picture that over time, you'll know when it's right or wrong. But the sequence is supposed to be part of a method that has a true nature of finding center cb to the contact point of the ob. So I guess it's more of a aim the bullet thing vs aim the rifle.
Ok, thanks for explaining your method and I agree it sounds correct since you offset alignment to fit a particular shotline.
Do you always retain a accurate visual or is there some shots you apply a gap filler of some sort. For instance, when spinning inside English on some shots, do you have to compensate the visual more than others even though it's the same shot angle but the table forces a undesireable alignment?
Thanks
I always retain the aim line for the shot, even when adding english or accounting for table conditions. In other words, the aim is where it is, and whatever I do with the CB it should still find it's way on to that sim line before it reaches the OB, else it's a probably a missed shot.
Yeah or i call it a bandaid if you have to compensate more than usual. There are certain positions on the table that skew alignment and make it hard to execute and get the result one expects.
I know the table being in the way is one factor but I still haven't figured out why exactly the shot line visual is harder to see than others. My theory is the rails, whether a corner or down the rail, interferes with the visual alignment. I can't think of anything else it could be but it gets annoying that I still get owned by it and have to use another visual aproach.
Do you or anyone else experience this as well?