PDA

View Full Version : Possible Proof that Pivot Systems Need Adjustments


bluepepper
08-10-2008, 02:51 PM
Colin Colenso, I'm reposting these pictures from the "mathematical aiming system" thread you created, because they are incredibly relevant to resolving the pivot system arguments. If the graph below actually represents the variety of pivots/bridge hand adjustments required to pocket the variety of labelled shots, then way back in November of 2005 you had already proven that one or two pivots do not fit all shots. Thanks for sparing me from having to create my own experiments. I'd rep you up and down, but I did so too recently.

If a system can place the bridge hand in a simpler way than you explain here:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=21113&page=3
then it would certainly be a fantastic system. But looking at your graph and seeing how many subtle adjustments would have to be made, I doubt very much that a simple system could do all of the math on its own.
74384

74385

Kevin Lindstrom
08-10-2008, 04:28 PM
Awesome graphics in this post. Very well done.

Kevin

Patrick Johnson
08-10-2008, 04:58 PM
Thanks for posting this graph - it's interesting and revealing. But we don't really need proof that no practical aiming system can mechanically define enough cut angles to make all shots. That fact is (or should be) obvious to anybody who thinks about it for a few minutes. It's about as obvious to me as the fact that you can't make all shots with full-ball hits.

I'm interested in another question: Why are some aiming systems taught as if they need no adjustments? Do they work best for some players this way, or is it just an effective promotion by those who sell them? Do the promoters/teachers of these systems actually believe it, or do they think the systems work best with the pretense, or do they just use the pretense to attract students?

pj
chgo

bluepepper
08-10-2008, 05:38 PM
I'm interested in another question: Why are some aiming systems taught as if they need no adjustments? Do they work best for some players this way, or is it just an effective promotion by those who sell them? Do the promoters/teachers of these systems actually believe it, or do they think the systems work best with the pretense, or do they just use the pretense to attract students?
pj
chgo

I think it's good promotion to say that a system covers everything and will solve all aiming woes. It may even be believed by those who come up with it. I don't doubt that the systems work when the human element is mixed into the formula. This is why I think it takes living with the system for a while in order for it to really kick in. The subtle adjustments are trained over time. If it were really that easy, pocketing shots would begin right away. It's very easy to see the edge of the object ball. It's very easy to place the bridge hand. It's very easy to pivot to center. It's also very easy to say that the system is flawless, and human error is messing it up.

This isn't knocking the pivot systems. I'm just saying that they work because the minds of the people using them work better on them, like a shot visualization lens cleaner.

Dead Crab
08-10-2008, 06:02 PM
Sin 30 = 0.25???????

I don't think so.......

bluepepper
08-10-2008, 06:05 PM
Sin 30 = 0.25???????

I don't think so.......

Look more closely. He goes into this in the original thread. It's Sin 30=0.5 then he makes a calculation based on distance from CB to OB. In this case he divides by 2.

SpiderWebComm
08-10-2008, 06:11 PM
Ah, ok. So if you bridge 1" or 15" from the CB, you adjust 3.something mm.

Got it.

Thanks:)

LAMas
08-10-2008, 06:16 PM
Blupepper,
Thanks for the Isometric view for it fortifies the system that I use which doubles the distance away from the center of the OB (not shown with a line) to the contact point that goes to the pocket (initial aim line) - that when doubled, results in this case the edge of the OB (final CB travel line). This works well for all but very close shots. Others have said the same thing and use this system for there is nothing that is hidden or not told - save phone calls to H.H..

Can't rep you again.

Dead Crab
08-10-2008, 06:23 PM
Ah, so it should say:

Distance of Movement = (sine of angle / length of shot in feet) x 15mm.

As written above, it looks to be making the claim that sin 30 = .25

bluepepper
08-10-2008, 06:32 PM
Ah, ok. So if you bridge 1" or 15" from the CB, you adjust 3.something mm.

Got it.

Thanks:)

He wasn't suggesting that anyone really use this. I think it was just an exercise he did because he could. He went into depth in the original thread about how to adjust for the pivot distance. Still way too mathematical, but interesting.

bluepepper
08-10-2008, 06:39 PM
Lamas, don't rep me. It's Colin who deserves all the credit. All I did was realize that his work was important to this longstanding debate. And I want to go on record to say that I'm not anti-pivot. It seems like a great way to find your aim. The only reason I haven't adopted it yet is because I currently pocket balls better by other methods. Even though I'm not satisfied with my pocketing ability, I find myself having to make adjustments after pivoting. I don't land right on the shot, which by other methods I get closer to doing.

av84fun
08-10-2008, 07:27 PM
Nice graphs Jeff but they don't conform to the principles of CTE and therefore are quite irrelevant.

You are trying to transfer the limitations of FRACTIONAL systems i.e. there are too many potential contact points for any reasonble number of fractions to the CTE system.

CTE does NOT have ANYTHING to do with ball fractions, contact points or angles.

If you move the CB/OB postions, the CTE system will demand a new cue stick direction. Therefore, the directions the system demands the cue to point in or virtually unlimited and are demanded SOLELY by the orientation of the CB/OB.

NO feel...NO intuition. You may not agree with me but am I making my point clearly????

Your mission, should you decided to accept it, is to find out how to go about arriving at the direction in which to point the cue.

Have you called Mr. Houle? In far less time than you have spent in these threads, you could know EXACTLY what you need to know...and then YOU can post it.

Regards,
Jim

Patrick Johnson
08-10-2008, 07:56 PM
You are trying to transfer the limitations of FRACTIONAL systems i.e. there are too many potential contact points for any reasonble number of fractions to the CTE system.

The graph illustrates that there are too many potential contact points for any practical system to mechanically define, no matter how it's done. This is nothing new to people with functioning basic logic circuits - it's the same obvious fact that has been pointed out repeatedly since Hal Houle's "3-angle" fractional system was first discussed on the internet a decade or more ago, but it applies equally well to CTE. You don't have to stand in front of a bus to find out it will hurt if it hits you.

pj
chgo

JoeyA
08-10-2008, 08:13 PM
Why are some aiming systems taught as if they need no adjustments?
pj
chgo

Which aiming system are you talking about that needs no adjustments?
JoeyA

bluepepper
08-10-2008, 08:18 PM
Have you called Mr. Houle? In far less time than you have spent in these threads, you could know EXACTLY what you need to know...and then YOU can post it.

Regards,
Jim

So now you're saying Hal's method will achieve the same results as Pro One? What happened to Pro One being the one that takes it 2 steps further and accounts for all orientations?
I've met with Hal. I drove 4 hours that day to do so. I learned it from him on his home table.

av84fun
08-10-2008, 08:20 PM
The graph illustrates that there are too many potential contact points for any practical system to mechanically define, no matter how it's done. This is nothing new to people with functioning basic logic circuits - it's the same obvious fact that has been pointed out repeatedly since Hal Houle's "3-angle" fractional system was first discussed on the internet a decade or more ago, but it applies equally well to CTE. You don't have to stand in front of a bus to find out it will hurt if it hits you.

pj
chgo

Utter, stoneheaded NONSENSE. The CTE method has NOTHING TO DO WITH AIMING AT CONTACT POINTS so however many there are make no difference!

You are now just arguing "religion and politics" on a non-factual basis and inventing straw horse "logic" that is neither based on fact or logic.

You should run for office.

In the other thread, you lied like a politician when you said that you don't demean such systems as being advocated by people without functioning logic circuits.

Everyone knows that you do not understand the CTE system so why do you embarrass yourself by continuing to protest that it does not and cannot work?

Jim

JoeyA
08-10-2008, 08:23 PM
So now you're saying Hal's method will achieve the same results as Pro One? What happened to Pro One being the one that takes it 2 steps further and accounts for all orientations?
I've met with Hal. I drove 4 hours that day to do so. I learned it from him on his home table.

I'm not stirring the pot but I am very curious as to what you learned from Hal.

Can you articulate what you learned and/or what he attempted to teach you?

(If you posted this in another thread, please provide a link).
Thanks in advance!

Sincerely,

JoeyA

bluepepper
08-10-2008, 08:28 PM
Patrick, in the interest of having a thread that is not thinned out by flames, can you please just ignore Jim's comments. I don't know why, but he seems to have a way of misinterpreting your posts. Maybe he just expects them to be an attack on him personally. I know they're not, and I believe most people here know they're not.

SpiderWebComm
08-10-2008, 08:31 PM
The graph illustrates that there are too many potential contact points for any practical system to mechanically define, no matter how it's done. This is nothing new to people with functioning basic logic circuits - it's the same obvious fact that has been pointed out repeatedly since Hal Houle's "3-angle" fractional system was first discussed on the internet a decade or more ago, but it applies equally well to CTE. You don't have to stand in front of a bus to find out it will hurt if it hits you.

pj
chgo

PJ....

There was a reason why I asked what your speed was the other day. If I knew you could stroke WELL as-is (straight) and that your body alignment was strong, I was going to put an end to this nonsense once and for all with the ignorant comments like the one above.

I can prove it works. I can prove there are no contact points. In addition, if your ego will allow.... you, the most outspoken opponent of Houligan pool will himself, be our leader.

Tell ya what buddy boy....

Fly out to Harrisburg, PA (HIA) and I'll pick you up. There's a hotel about 300 yards from my house. Spend one day with me (it'll only take an afternoon) and re-evaluate your position and what you "think" you know.

If you think I wasted your time (you can tell me, I'm a big boy), I'll transfer 25,000 frequent flier miles to you (basically paying for 1/2 your trip). If I changed your life in pool, I don't want you to pay me.... but I'm F-ing you into buying us a nice dinner at my favorite place (Mangia Qui).

I'm a smart guy. If you take me up on this, you're gonna QUOTE YOUR STATEMENT ABOVE and retract it. My biggest fear with you is your ego won't allow it because of your "anti-system" position and you'd say it's horseshit..... and then go home and practice it feverishly.

... that scares me with you, honestly.

P.S. Make a video of yourself playing 9-ball (unedited) or 14.1 (unedited) so I can see before I agree to this.

av84fun
08-10-2008, 08:33 PM
So now you're saying Hal's method will achieve the same results as Pro One? What happened to Pro One being the one that takes it 2 steps further and accounts for all orientations?
I've met with Hal. I drove 4 hours that day to do so. I learned it from him on his home table.

Why do you INSIST on making things up out of the thin air? Not only did I never say that the two would achieve the same result but went out of my way to note that they are DIFFERENT and referred to as different levels.

Get a GRIP.

And well, you Hal may have tried to teach you but you obvious haven't LEARNED the system as your comments have made perfectly clear.

But you have chastised me for not posting exact details so avoid being a competely hypocrite, please post the EXACT dynamics of the CTE method as taught to you.

I am sure you would not be unwilling to do what you asked me to do.

Right!

I can't wait.

(-:

Jim

LAMas
08-10-2008, 08:49 PM
Lamas, don't rep me. It's Colin who deserves all the credit. All I did was realize that his work was important to this longstanding debate. And I want to go on record to say that I'm not anti-pivot. It seems like a great way to find your aim. The only reason I haven't adopted it yet is because I currently pocket balls better by other methods. Even though I'm not satisfied with my pocketing ability, I find myself having to make adjustments after pivoting. I don't land right on the shot, which by other methods I get closer to doing.

I already repped Colin for his graphics earlier. WOW H.H.'s has been secreted since the 2005 debates. It's like a religion without the written word as a Bible or Quran or conscious adjustments.

bluepepper
08-10-2008, 08:55 PM
Jim, you've been involved in threads where I've posted exactly how Hal taught it to me. I don't want to sift through hundreds of posts to find them though, and I am very willing to repeat myself here.

Hal's system as taught to me:

Approach the shot by lining up your eyes directly behind the line that connects the center of the cueball and the outer edge of the object ball. He actually told me just a hair outside of the edge.

Once your center-to-edge sighting is aligned, place the bridge and cue to one side of center cueball. For thinner cuts you place it on the inside of the shot. For thicker shots you place it on the outside of the shot. He told me it didn't matter where.

Now pivot the cue back to center cueball and shoot. If you miss, it's your fault. I kept missing. It must have been my fault.

Patrick Johnson
08-10-2008, 08:56 PM
Patrick, in the interest of having a thread that is not thinned out by flames, can you please just ignore Jim's comments. I don't know why, but he seems to have a way of misinterpreting your posts. Maybe he just expects them to be an attack on him personally. I know they're not, and I believe most people here know they're not.

OK. And I'm glad to hear that you recognize I'm overlooking his constant personal attacks and not reacting in kind. But don't blame me if everybody gets stupid from reading his posts.

pj
chgo

PKM
08-10-2008, 09:00 PM
Jim, you've been involved in threads where I've posted exactly how Hal taught it to me. I don't want to sift through hundreds of posts to find them though, and I am very willing to repeat myself here.

Hal's system as taught to me:

Approach the shot by lining up your eyes directly behind the line that connects the center of the cueball and the outer edge of the object ball. He actually told me just a hair outside of the edge.

Once your center-to-edge sighting is aligned, place the bridge and cue to one side of center cueball. For thinner cuts you place it on the inside of the shot. For thicker shots you place it on the outside of the shot. He told me it didn't matter where.

Now pivot the cue back to center cueball and shoot. If you miss, it's your fault. I kept missing. It must have been my fault.

Interesting, that's all there is to it? I assume the pivot is with your back hand?

bluepepper
08-10-2008, 09:02 PM
All there is to it, PKM. Yes, pivot with the back hand.

SpiderWebComm
08-10-2008, 09:03 PM
Jim, you've been involved in threads where I've posted exactly how Hal taught it to me. I don't want to sift through hundreds of posts to find them though, and I am very willing to repeat myself here.

Hal's system as taught to me:

Approach the shot by lining up your eyes directly behind the line that connects the center of the cueball and the outer edge of the object ball. He actually told me just a hair outside of the edge.

Once your center-to-edge sighting is aligned, place the bridge and cue to one side of center cueball. For thinner cuts you place it on the inside of the shot. For thicker shots you place it on the outside of the shot. He told me it didn't matter where.

Now pivot the cue back to center cueball and shoot. If you miss, it's your fault. I kept missing. It must have been my fault.

LOL it is your fault, that's the ironic thing. But I'm going to help you....

Three things are probably wrong (I have no idea how you play, by the way):

1) You're not perceiving that line correctly. You THINK you're seeing center-to-edge and you're not. I struggled with this when I first started. My guess is many people don't perceive that line correctly and they immediately quit. Setup a wide range of cut angles at different distances to the CB. Get your wife/girlfriend/son/daughter to help you by holding a piece of string at the edge of the OB (equator) and pull it taut to the CB center. I did this for a week or so. Really helped me get past the initial chasm.... perception/sighting.

2) Use Joe Tucker's 3rd eye trainer. ENSURE you know where CB center is. I had a breakdown a few months ago and couldn't figure out what happened to my ball pocketing. I put on the 3rd eye and I was 1/4 tip off of center. No kidding. If you're not pivoting to center, you risk missing the ball.

3) Body pivot instead of using back-hand english. From what I've seen with people, they get slight lateral movement during a pivot and they don't stroke straight post-pivoting. Pivot around your hip (see my banking video, I do a quick demo of how this is done). This will give you the same result, but eliminate pivot variation and unnecessary movement.

Hope this helps,
Dave

Patrick Johnson
08-10-2008, 09:09 PM
I can prove it works. I can prove there are no contact points.

I'm not interested in being converted to an aiming religion. If you have something practical to teach about aiming in pool, then it can be explained in simple English. If it can't be explained in simple English, then it's not practical enough to interest me. Pool isn't quantum mechanics - the balls are too big.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson
08-10-2008, 09:12 PM
LOL it is your fault, that's the ironic thing. But I'm going to help you....

Three things are probably wrong (I have no idea how you play, by the way):

1) You're not perceiving that line correctly. You THINK you're seeing center-to-edge and you're not. I struggled with this when I first started. My guess is many people don't perceive that line correctly and they immediately quit. Setup a wide range of cut angles at different distances to the CB. Get your wife/girlfriend/son/daughter to help you by holding a piece of string at the edge of the OB (equator) and pull it taut to the CB center. I did this for a week or so. Really helped me get past the initial chasm.... perception/sighting.

2) Use Joe Tucker's 3rd eye trainer. ENSURE you know where CB center is. I had a breakdown a few months ago and couldn't figure out what happened to my ball pocketing. I put on the 3rd eye and I was 1/4 tip off of center. No kidding. If you're not pivoting to center, you risk missing the ball.

3) Body pivot instead of using back-hand english. From what I've seen with people, they get slight lateral movement during a pivot and they don't stroke straight post-pivoting. Pivot around your hip (see my banking video, I do a quick demo of how this is done). This will give you the same result, but eliminate pivot variation and unnecessary movement.

Hope this helps,
Dave

So you agree that how far to the side the cue is shifted before pivoting doesn't matter?

pj
chgo

bluepepper
08-10-2008, 09:14 PM
Dave, I can hit targets. If I set up a long half ball hit over again, I'd make that shot over and over again. My stroke is pretty good. My alignment is good enough to hit the edge of a ball or any target downtable consistently.

I run 30s often in straight pool on tight pockets. Occasionally I'll run in the 40s. My high run is around 60. I can line up a shot. Sometimes I have rough days, but I'm not failing because I can't hold a cue or I can't find center cueball.

Maybe I'm not used to pivoting and that accounts for something, but I think it's pretty easy to pivot with a steady bridge hand. I've also pivoted with my hips as you and RonV have suggested.

I hate to come off as anti-pivot, because that's really not what I'm trying to do here, because I know it works. I just don't think it works on its own.

bluepepper
08-10-2008, 09:21 PM
And let me just say that I would absolutely love to be proven wrong and have a system that takes the guesswork out of pool. I would kiss the feet of the person who gave me that. That's why I drove to see Hal. I desperately wanted something that would solve this last piece of the puzzle for me.
For me it is so not about being correct. It's about learning new things. If this worked for me, I would have been praising it to death here and Hal along with it.

SpiderWebComm
08-10-2008, 09:30 PM
I'm not interested in being converted to an aiming religion. If you have something practical to teach about aiming in pool, then it can be explained in simple English. If it can't be explained in simple English, then it's not practical enough to interest me. Pool isn't quantum mechanics - the balls are too big.

pj
chgo

If knew as little as you about pocketing balls and someone offered to guarantee 1/2 of my trip if the info was bad, I'd be on priceline.com immediately.

What are you afraid of? Don't wanna post a video of you playing? I wish I you were with me when I was with Stevie or Francisco so you could tell them they're using an aiming religion. After they'd get done laughing in your face and begging for oxygen, they'd ask you how you aimed....and if you had the heart to answer, they'd laugh again.

There you have it.... I offered to pay 1/2 PJ's airfare based on the strength of my information and the non-houligan's leader chicken-shitted himself.

Poolplaya9
08-10-2008, 09:55 PM
Thanks for posting this graph - it's interesting and revealing. But we don't really need proof that no practical aiming system can mechanically define enough cut angles to make all shots. That fact is (or should be) obvious to anybody who thinks about it for a few minutes. It's about as obvious to me as the fact that you can't make all shots with full-ball hits.

I'm interested in another question: Why are some aiming systems taught as if they need no adjustments? Do they work best for some players this way, or is it just an effective promotion by those who sell them? Do the promoters/teachers of these systems actually believe it, or do they think the systems work best with the pretense, or do they just use the pretense to attract students?

pj
chgo
I think many of these people really believe these systems work without adjustment, and the reason for that boils down to perception. They swear they are aiming without any adjustments. The "I saw it with my own eyes" syndrome makes them ignore all evidence, facts, and common sense. The reality is that they are making subconscious aiming adjustments, and this allows an unworkable system to work, but they will refuse to accept it based on their own conviction and perception.

It reminds me of a similar thing that can occue with pilots. Under certain circumstances a pilot can lose grasp of their orientation in the air. They may think they are right side up when in fact they are upside down for example, and every fiber of their being will swear that they are correct regardless of what the instrument panel says. They are trained to ALWAYS believe the instrument panel (the facts) over their own perception, no matter how strongly they disagree with it or feel that it is malfunctioning. Many a pilot has died because he thought he was right side up and pulling up and climbing, when in reality he was upside down and pulling his plane straight down into the ground because he just couldn't let go of what his own senses were telling him.

The people who believe these aiming systems work without subconscious adjustments are the same ones that would be flying their plane into the ground instead of trusting their cockpit instruments. They value their own perceptions over indisputable proof.

Nick B
08-10-2008, 09:58 PM
Dave,
for f sake. The man is not obligated to come nor does he have to answer in 15 minutes not to be branded a coward. Take it easy. This system may have merit. Most have something to offer (well all except the floating lights :eek: )

This reminds my of the IPT. When I spoke up and said the man was a crook I was branded a nit and a fool. Anybody want some of that now? Their is just way too much passion in these HH threads.

Come to Vancouver (it's only 2880 Miles away). I'll play you Snooker (my rules, my local...my game) for say $100.00/game. Should you beat me I will double your money and I'll keep my points. I don't expect you to take me up on my offer nor will I call you a coward if you don't accept.

Nick "My Wife took my tin foil" B

If knew as little as you about pocketing balls and someone offered to guarantee 1/2 of my trip if the info was bad, I'd be on priceline.com immediately.

What are you afraid of? Don't wanna post a video of you playing? I wish I you were with me when I was with Stevie or Francisco so you could tell them they're using an aiming religion. After they'd get done laughing in your face and begging for oxygen, they'd ask you how you aimed....and if you had the heart to answer, they'd laugh again.

There you have it.... I offered to pay 1/2 PJ's airfare based on the strength of my information and the non-houligan's leader chicken-shitted himself.

bluepepper
08-10-2008, 09:59 PM
Dave, Patrick has said that he doesn't deny pivoting working. He, like me, just wants to get to the bottom of why it works.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you and Bustamante pivot the way Hal or Ron teach.
You have developed your own pivot from the left. What it appears to do is sweep the many angles available until you recognize the right one for the shot at hand.
It's as though with every millimeter of the pivot/sweep you're saying, "no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no, YES that's it! Time to shoot."
I think anyone aiming by feel does this. They may do it in a standing position behind the cueball though. They move left or right until it just looks right. Then they get down to shoot. You're just doing it in a different way. Not too bad to be doing it like Bustamante.

av84fun
08-10-2008, 10:14 PM
OK. And I'm glad to hear that you recognize I'm overlooking his constant personal attacks and not reacting in kind. But don't blame me if everybody gets stupid from reading his posts.
pj
chgo

You are TOO funny. First you say that you are not reacting in kind to personal attacks...and then you post one!

You post history is LADEN with personal attacks directed to me. You should not fib Patrick. If you keep it up, there will be NO pudding for desert.

(-:

You've really been giving me some major laugh-out-louds lately. Thanks!

Jim

av84fun
08-10-2008, 10:20 PM
Jim, you've been involved in threads where I've posted exactly how Hal taught it to me. I don't want to sift through hundreds of posts to find them though, and I am very willing to repeat myself here.

Hal's system as taught to me:

Approach the shot by lining up your eyes directly behind the line that connects the center of the cueball and the outer edge of the object ball. He actually told me just a hair outside of the edge.

Once your center-to-edge sighting is aligned, place the bridge and cue to one side of center cueball. For thinner cuts you place it on the inside of the shot. For thicker shots you place it on the outside of the shot. He told me it didn't matter where.

Now pivot the cue back to center cueball and shoot. If you miss, it's your fault. I kept missing. It must have been my fault.

If that is the limit of what you were taught...or what you absorbed, no wonder you can't pocket balls accurately.

There are GAPING holes in what you posted nor do I believe that you are accurately describing what you were told. Not that you are engaging in falsehoods necessarily...possibly you simply didn't grasp what you were being taught.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
08-10-2008, 10:22 PM
Interesting, that's all there is to it? I assume the pivot is with your back hand?

Not even close. But yes, the pivot is accomplished with the back hand.

Regards,
Jim

Colin Colenso
08-10-2008, 10:38 PM
Colin Colenso, I'm reposting these pictures from the "mathematical aiming system" thread you created, because they are incredibly relevant to resolving the pivot system arguments. If the graph below actually represents the variety of pivots/bridge hand adjustments required to pocket the variety of labelled shots, then way back in November of 2005 you had already proven that one or two pivots do not fit all shots. Thanks for sparing me from having to create my own experiments. I'd rep you up and down, but I did so too recently.

If a system can place the bridge hand in a simpler way than you explain here:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=21113&page=3
then it would certainly be a fantastic system. But looking at your graph and seeing how many subtle adjustments would have to be made, I doubt very much that a simple system could do all of the math on its own.
74384

74385

Just to clarify a couple of things. I linked to these diagrams in another thread as I think they give some insights into how adjustments in bridge positioning can be made to alter the pot angle.

This system used aiming at the contact point as a reference. A similar one could be constructed using OB Edge as the reference.

This is not the same as the system or apparent variations (Stage 2, bridge and pivot - Stage 3 air pivot).

FWIW, I'm still in the dark concerning any detail of how either of these systems establish the final cue line through the center of the Cue Ball.

We've heard that the Pro One system is proprietary, and so the details of this system are not being discussed. But a lot of people have apparently learned the Houlian CTE system, yet no one seems able to explain the adjustment system it adapts.

Adjustment systems have been discussed before such as aligning 1/4 tip, or 1/2 tip (etc) off CB center parallel with CTE. These seem like method to expand the usability of the SAM system.

Different proponents of CTE even seem to have different takes on how it works.

Colin

av84fun
08-10-2008, 10:54 PM
First, let me correct you regarding your aviation analogy. Pilots rarely loose control due to being upside down and thinking they are right side up.

Gravity makes pilots QUITE well aware if they are upside down. The problem arises when they mishandle the process of righting the airplane at night or in the clouds.

In addition, pilots are NOT taught to "always believe the instrument panel" because some instruments can and do fail. The pilot must always CROSS CHECK the entire panel in an attempt to determine whether any particular instrument or group of instruments have failed and if so, which ones.

Having said that, I understand and agree with the essence of what you were trying to say. Your point is quite valid. However, it is one of those arguments that a good lawyer would never present in court because it can be used to justify either side of the debate.

While it is true that subconscious adjustments can make a flawed system seem to work, it is equally true that such adjustments can make a perfect system fail. Since, using your own argument, the adjustments are not consciously applied, neither side can prove their case!

Moreover, as I and others have stated, even if the "student" actually attempts to execute the system and no subconscious adjustments are made...intentionally or otherwise...it is true that the cue must be directed straight to the target and not pulled/pushed off line due to a faulty stroke.

No system can survive a poorly executed stroke so ANY testimony from a player who says a given system doesn't work can ONLY be evaluated if the listener/reader happens to know that the "student" has a strong, repeatable stroke.

THAT is one of the many reasons why debates like these are so useless.

Having said all that, it is just fundamentally SILLY for people to crticize a system that they do not fully understand! And there has been A LOT of that in these threads.

Spidey has offered to personally teach the system to Patrick who of course declined and dismissed the system as "religion" WHEN HE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A CLUE ABOUT THE BASICS OF THE SYSTEM!!!

I have read and enjoyed much of what you posted and I think you are a better man than that.

Frankly, given that Stan Shuffett who is widely known and accepted to be one of the best instructors in America endorses the system and has taught it to his own SON...who at age 14 can drill most of the posters on this forum...and CERTAINLY Patrick Johnson...I am ASTONISHED that so many of you dismiss it as bunk.

Call me a fool...call Spidey a liar for posting that Django told him he uses CTE EXCLUSIVELY...but don't call Stan Shuffett a fool.

Regards,
Jim

(as for my aviation comments: 1000 hours Total Time, Private, Instrument, Commercial and Multi-engine ratings. Former co-owner of Part 135 Charter, Air Ambulance company).

I think many of these people really believe these systems work without adjustment, and the reason for that boils down to perception. They swear they are aiming without any adjustments. The "I saw it with my own eyes" syndrome makes them ignore all evidence, facts, and common sense. The reality is that they are making subconscious aiming adjustments, and this allows an unworkable system to work, but they will refuse to accept it based on their own conviction and perception.

It reminds me of a similar thing that can occue with pilots. Under certain circumstances a pilot can lose grasp of their orientation in the air. They may think they are right side up when in fact they are upside down for example, and every fiber of their being will swear that they are correct regardless of what the instrument panel says. They are trained to ALWAYS believe the instrument panel (the facts) over their own perception, no matter how strongly they disagree with it or feel that it is malfunctioning. Many a pilot has died because he thought he was right side up and pulling up and climbing, when in reality he was upside down and pulling his plane straight down into the ground because he just couldn't let go of what his own senses were telling him.

The people who believe these aiming systems work without subconscious adjustments are the same ones that would be flying their plane into the ground instead of trusting their cockpit instruments. They value their own perceptions over indisputable proof.

cleary
08-10-2008, 10:58 PM
Dave,
I have learned the pivot or "swivel" system from RonV and I must say, it does work, but after working with it I have to agree that bridge length DOES matter. And its the different between making and missing a ball. And its not a matter of stoke. Here is a simple graphic with 3 different pivot points. its a "90 to 90 - pivot to center" shot. So line shot up parallel 10% of object ball and 10% of cueball, pivot to center of cueball.
One back ball is the cue ball, the other is the object ball and the gray balls are the ghostballs.
the whole shot
http://www.andrewcleary.com/pivot1.png
pivot lengths and cue ball.
http://www.andrewcleary.com/pivot2.png
object ball and ghostballs.
http://www.andrewcleary.com/pivot3.png
object ball and ghostballs.
http://www.andrewcleary.com/pivot4.png

cueball and object ball are 27" away from each other
pivot 1=11"
pivot 2=15"
pivot 3=19"

shot 1 misses completely, shot 2 and 3 are only .13" from each other, but as you can see it will send the object ball on a different path and after 36" the two paths are 2.25" from each other.

All Im saying is, the system will work, but there are limits that you have to know and stay within. a 19" bridge is HUGE... but this is just an example of why the bridge location matters.

Sorry for the sloppy graphic.... trying to get the point across in as little time as possible.

av84fun
08-10-2008, 11:10 PM
Dave, Patrick has said that he doesn't deny pivoting working. He, like me, just wants to get to the bottom of why it works.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you and Bustamante pivot the way Hal or Ron teach.
You have developed your own pivot from the left. What it appears to do is sweep the many angles available until you recognize the right one for the shot at hand.
It's as though with every millimeter of the pivot/sweep you're saying, "no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no, YES that's it! Time to shoot."
I think anyone aiming by feel does this. They may do it in a standing position behind the cueball though. They move left or right until it just looks right. Then they get down to shoot. You're just doing it in a different way. Not too bad to be doing it like Bustamante.

That's his "political spin" gobbledegook which he ROUTINELY and REPEATEDLY follows with comments to the effect that people who think it does work are blithering idiots. I have posted several such comments. Want more?

And from a man who supposedly spent time with MR. Houle...your description above about how the process functions is rather...well...astonishing.

The system DOES NOT in ANY way, shape or form...depend on just "sweep" the cue around until you find a line of aim that looks right.

If you actually spent time with Hal and if you were both reasonably sober at the time, you would know that at Level One...which involves a fully mechanical pivot...you start the pivot from a FIXED POINT and you end it at a FIXED POINT.

Since the above has nothing to do with the Pro One level, I don't mind telling you that the Level One pivot is no random sweep but a sweep of EXACTLY 1 1/8 inches...or as close as possible.

Conveniently, a cue ball is 2.25 in. so if you point the cue to the outside edge of the CB at pivot ON THE HORIZONTAL EQUATOR to the center of the CB, you will have swept awfully close to 1.125 inches...and therefore, will have done the pivot correctly.

Also, it DOES matter where the bridge hand is placed.

For example, place the bridge hand 4 inches to the left of the CTE line and pivot from the edge of the CB to its center...and I guarantee you that you will miss the shot AND MISS THE OBJECT BALL ENTIRELY!

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
08-10-2008, 11:27 PM
Just to clarify a couple of things. I linked to these diagrams in another thread as I think they give some insights into how adjustments in bridge positioning can be made to alter the pot angle.

This system used aiming at the contact point as a reference. A similar one could be constructed using OB Edge as the reference.

This is not the same as the system or apparent variations (Stage 2, bridge and pivot - Stage 3 air pivot).

FWIW, I'm still in the dark concerning any detail of how either of these systems establish the final cue line through the center of the Cue Ball.

We've heard that the Pro One system is proprietary, and so the details of this system are not being discussed. But a lot of people have apparently learned the Houlian CTE system, yet no one seems able to explain the adjustment system it adapts.

Adjustment systems have been discussed before such as aligning 1/4 tip, or 1/2 tip (etc) off CB center parallel with CTE. These seem like method to expand the usability of the SAM system.

Different proponents of CTE even seem to have different takes on how it works.
Colin


RGHT Colin! Great point. And there are several reasons for that. Some students are better/worse than others and the teacher cannot be condemned if their students acquire more/less correct information.

Likewise, some people have massive knowledge but a poor teachers so students cannot be condemned if their teacher is less than perfect.

Also, the method itself has evolved over time...including elements of Pro One that I happen to know have only crystalized within the past 48 HOURS!

Finally, with great respect for a man who certainly has some quirks but one who has been enormously generous in sharing his accumulated knowledge...it is nevertheless true that he has invented/proliferated a large number of aiming systems over the years and therefore has become rather controversial.

But after all, Alexander Graham Bell was a terrible student, a royal pain in the a$$ to most who knew him and worked on such projects as the creation of commercially available power from cow manure. That one didn't work out too well!

But there are MANY on this forum who simply dismiss the man as a nutcase and are dismissive of anything that his name is associated with. That is both very unfortunate...and wrong.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
08-11-2008, 12:52 AM
From another thread....

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm
At the highest level, there's only 1 bridge placement---addressing the CB dead center.


Dave, were pretty much on the same team here but I'm not sure I understand the above.

Since the CB is round..."addressing the CB dead center" can mean a lot of things.

If the reader assumed you meant dead center in relation the the CTE line, that would not be correct because simply aiming through the center of the CB to the edge of the OB merely produces a half ball hit.

I KNOW that advanced users don't even think in terms of determining a specific hand placement...they just land correctly due to repetitive practice...just like you don't have to look at the keyboard keys after a while...but you DO have to look at them at first, and since there are so many readers who are beginners at the system or who haven't even tried it, I'm trying to speak to Level 1...or Level 0...and to that audience, IMHO the bridge hand placement is CRITICAL and has to be learned mechanically at first.

For those interested, first place your bridge hand 4 inches to the left of the CTE line...point the tip to the edge of the CB and pivot to the center. You will see that you will miss the whole OB!

Do the same thing from the right and DITTO.

So, now we have established that bridge hand placement DOES matter. So, where the hell do you place it.

There are several different ways to explain that which is why those who think that simple breif text can teach much of anything are mistaken. (You don't read a book and then go drive a car...at least not MY car!)

GENERALLY, the shaft needs to be a LITTLE offset from the CTE line. It should be outside the line on a cut to the right and inside the line on a cut to the left.

How much? Say 1/4 inch. But the shaft is angled to the CB when you move into the shot so that inside/outside placement is a little difficult to determine.

So, for Level 1...the purely mechanical level that everyone should start on, I have developed a couple of methods myself and therefore, don't mind posting them.

If you imagine the CTE line....and if you can't do that then forget about the whole enchalada...and extend it back from the CB toward you...place your hand so that the CTE line is directly under the inverted V formed by the index finger of your closed bridge.

Push up to your normal bridge length keeping that inverted V RIGHT ON TOP of the CTE line...like it was a track while pointing the cue tip to the outside edge of the CB.

When you get to your normal bridge length, stop...and pivot ALONG THE HORIZONTAL CENTER OF THE CB...to dead center.

THAT is your aim line and if you look, you should see that the V formed by your thumb and index finger of your bridge hand is just about 1.4 inch offset from the CTE line.

Start by setting up pretty easy cuts ...10 degrees and 2 diamonds from the pocket and 1 diamond CB/OF distance and DO NOT take a full backstroke. The shot should be short enough so that lag speed on the CB is plenty so just take a SHORT...Allen Hopkins backstroke of maybe an inch and stroke straight throuh the center of the cb.

All you're doing is trying to verify the accuracy of the aim line...not play pool at this stage.

Then, replace the CB to where it was and move the OB a half ball for a little more angle and do the same thing. Keep doing that...in both directions until you PASS the half ball hit.

Shoot 5 different cut angles 5 times each in both directions for a 50 shot series.

Approach each shot like it was the 9 ball for the match and DO NOT set up longer shots before you have done the 50 shot series. If you race ahead, then don't blame me if you start missing.

As SpideyDave said (I think) this is a PROCESS and if you don't use a building block approach then missing will be your own fault and not that of the system.

If you have trouble PM me. I have now reached the limit of what I am going to post on the forum and won't say much more in PMs at this time...I'll only try to explain the above with different words.


But at this point, you should see that there is NO feel or intuition or any need for subconscious adjustments....dealing of Tarot cards or Gregorian chants necessary.

It is a ROTE system that will work for a HUGE range of cut angles...AS LONG AS THERE IS AN AVAILABLE POCKET i.e. if the OB is frozen to a long rail and the CB is directly across the table on the same diamond line...sorry folks but there is not pocket available for the shot so you bank it or duck.

This is an aiming system not voodoo! And the beauty of it...even at Level 1...is that when the system runs out of gas it is OBVIOUS and you resort to plan be and eventually get to Level 2 and then Pro One at which point you will use CTE on almost every shot...just like Django.

Finally....I'm TRYING to be helpful here and to the extent that sharp comments have passed BACK AND FORTH that is unfortunate.

But there have been a LOT of dismissive posts...you are subconsciously adjusting...you don't understand what you are actually doing...the method cannot work...etc. posted by people who have NO IDEA how the system works and sorry...that is just intellectual laziness and/or closed-mindedness which makes me want to YUKE!

(-:

Jim

Poolplaya9
08-11-2008, 01:07 AM
First, let me correct you regarding your aviation analogy. Pilots rarely loose control due to being upside down and thinking they are right side up.

Gravity makes pilots QUITE well aware if they are upside down. The problem arises when they mishandle the process of righting the airplane at night or in the clouds.

In addition, pilots are NOT taught to "always believe the instrument panel" because some instruments can and do fail. The pilot must always CROSS CHECK the entire panel in an attempt to determine whether any particular instrument or group of instruments have failed and if so, which ones.

Having said that, I understand and agree with the essence of what you were trying to say. Your point is quite valid. However, it is one of those arguments that a good lawyer would never present in court because it can be used to justify either side of the debate.

While it is true that subconscious adjustments can make a flawed system seem to work, it is equally true that such adjustments can make a perfect system fail. Since, using your own argument, the adjustments are not consciously applied, neither side can prove their case!

Moreover, as I and others have stated, even if the "student" actually attempts to execute the system and no subconscious adjustments are made...intentionally or otherwise...it is true that the cue must be directed straight to the target and not pulled/pushed off line due to a faulty stroke.

No system can survive a poorly executed stroke so ANY testimony from a player who says a given system doesn't work can ONLY be evaluated if the listener/reader happens to know that the "student" has a strong, repeatable stroke.

THAT is one of the many reasons why debates like these are so useless.

Having said all that, it is just fundamentally SILLY for people to crticize a system that they do not fully understand! And there has been A LOT of that in these threads.

Spidey has offered to personally teach the system to Patrick who of course declined and dismissed the system as "religion" WHEN HE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A CLUE ABOUT THE BASICS OF THE SYSTEM!!!

I have read and enjoyed much of what you posted and I think you are a better man than that.

Frankly, given that Stan Shuffett who is widely known and accepted to be one of the best instructors in America endorses the system and has taught it to his own SON...who at age 14 can drill most of the posters on this forum...and CERTAINLY Patrick Johnson...I am ASTONISHED that so many of you dismiss it as bunk.

Call me a fool...call Spidey a liar for posting that Django told him he uses CTE EXCLUSIVELY...but don't call Stan Shuffett a fool.

Regards,
Jim

(as for my aviation comments: 1000 hours Total Time, Private, Instrument, Commercial and Multi-engine ratings. Former co-owner of Part 135 Charter, Air Ambulance company).
I kind of figured you might reply. My analagy was intentionally kept simple to avoid a lengthy explanation that was not needed to make a point to the aviation layman, and my analogy was accurate in that context (as you agreed). I did also preface it by saying "in certain circumstances."

You are correct in that a perfect aiming system could be rendered useless by a stroke that is not repeatable, or the inability to hit where you aim. Unfortunately, the perfect system (that is actually usable) has yet to be found.

The fact that any of the common aiming systems cannot work as described is beyond arguing (by the intellectual) and could be proven in court (using mathematics). They are mathematically impossible. This is one of the main reasons why they cannot be explained in writing. It is also a big reason why they don't seem to work at first for many people (until they learn to compensate subconsciously).

I do however think that aiming systems help some people. The only plausible explanation for them working (when we know that they are mathematically flawed and impossible) is subconscious adjustments off of a reference aiming point that gets you close. I also think there could also be a placebo effect in some people that results in increased confidence.

That being said, the bottom line is that if it helps for whatever reasons then that is a good thing for that person. I would be willing to thoroughly learn this system in person, or any other aiming system from anyone in the San Antonio TX or Sacramento CA areas that considers themselves extremely knowledgable and proficient with one. Just contact me by PM if you are willing to share.

Poolplaya9

(as for my aviation comments: son of one of the leading airplane accident investigators in the WORLD for several decades (and himself a pilot), who was lead investigator on several Thunderbird Flying Team crashes as well as numerous other high profile crashes worldwide. Trust me, although not extremely common, there have been many pilots who have flown their planes straight into the ground because they chose to rely on their own senses instead of their instruments.)

Colin Colenso
08-11-2008, 01:46 AM
Push up to your normal bridge length keeping that inverted V RIGHT ON TOP of the CTE line...like it was a track while pointing the cue tip to the outside edge of the CB.

When you get to your normal bridge length, stop...and pivot ALONG THE HORIZONTAL CENTER OF THE CB...to dead center.

THAT is your aim line and if you look, you should see that the V formed by your thumb and index finger of your bridge hand is just about 1.4 inch offset from the CTE line.

Jim
Jim,
If the bridge V slides up the track line of the CB to OB Edge line. Then if the cue is pivoted at the bridge hand V to the center of the CB, then the Cue and aim line is directly aligned to the OB edge, or CTE line.

I can't see how the V has become offset at all.

Colin

av84fun
08-11-2008, 02:05 AM
I kind of figured you might reply. My analagy was intentionally kept simple to avoid a lengthy explanation that was not needed to make a point to the aviation layman, and my analogy was accurate in that context (as you agreed). I did also preface it by saying "in certain circumstances."

You are correct in that a perfect aiming system could be rendered useless by a stroke that is not repeatable, or the inability to hit where you aim. Unfortunately, the perfect system (that is actually usable) has yet to be found.

The fact that any of the common aiming systems cannot work as described is beyond arguing (by the intellectual) and could be proven in court (using mathematics). They are mathematically impossible. This is one of the main reasons why they cannot be explained in writing. It is also a big reason why they don't seem to work at first for many people (until they learn to compensate subconsciously).

With respect, that is a SWEEPING generalization and is therefore fundamentally unsustainable in or out of court.

WHICH aiming system "cannot work as described"? And described by whom?

Your argument also fails due to the irrefutable FACT that every shot that CAN be made HAS been made. It is therefore fatally flawed logic to suggest that in spite of the FACT that any given shot CAN be made, that there is no way to explain to anyone HOW it can be made.

Of course it can be explained. Shots are not made by voodoo. And there is NO SUCH THING as "aiming by feel." In fact, all top shotmakers are aiming at SOMETHING...quite intentionally. They may have acquired the understanding of where EXACTLY to aim by trial and error...fine.

But once they LEARN the shot, there is a SPECIFIC AND SYSTEMATIC way that they approach such shots and a specific and systematic approach is, in fact, a "system."

If the above were not true, you could put a blindfold on a player after he is down on the shot and taken is practice strokes. So, in fact, shotmakers aim at something...quite intentionally and quite systematically.


I do however think that aiming systems help some people. The only plausible explanation for them working (when we know that they are mathematically flawed and impossible) is subconscious adjustments off of a reference aiming point that gets you close. I also think there could also be a placebo effect in some people that results in increased confidence.

Again, WHICH system do you suggest is mathematically flawed and impossible? You seem QUITE sure about that so, since this thread is primarily about the so-called center to edge system, why don't you take a whack at being the FIRST poster in the past 1000 posts on this subject to fully and completely describe that system...including ALL of its components and then opine on which aspects of the system are impossible.

Really...I mean it. You MUST know all of the elements of any system you demand to be impossible, so set them forth and demonstrate why it is impossible.




That being said, the bottom line is that if it helps for whatever reasons then that is a good thing for that person. I would be willing to thoroughly learn this system in person, or any other aiming system from anyone in the San Antonio TX or Sacramento CA areas that considers themselves extremely knowledgable and proficient with one. Just contact me by PM if you are willing to share.

Poolplaya9

(as for my aviation comments: son of one of the leading airplane accident investigators in the WORLD for several decades (and himself a pilot), who was lead investigator on several Thunderbird Flying Team crashes as well as numerous other high profile crashes worldwide. Trust me, although not extremely common, there have been many pilots who have flown their planes straight into the ground because they chose to rely on their own senses instead of their instruments.)

With great respect to your father, what HE knows and what YOU know are, of course, two entirely different things correct?

I am fully aware of the reasons for aviation accidents including those associated with spatial disorientation. As you correctly pointed out, I agreed with your premise in general so there is no need to debate this sub-topic further. I was just busting your chops a little to the extent that when pilots are upside down, they KNOW they are upside down because A) they are hanging from their shoulder restraints (except at the very top of a loop) and B) unless they are military or aerobatic pilots they know they are upside down because their pi$$ isn't running down their legs!

(-:

Jim

Jimmy M.
08-11-2008, 02:10 AM
Ok, so all of this talk finally has me wondering what all the hoopla is about. :)

I have to ask, what if you need to use English? In the system that you're describing, you're always pivoting back to center. What if you need to use side English? Also, in your thread where you talked about Bustamante's system, he always pivoted from left to right. In the system that Bluepepper just described, it calls for you to pivot from one side or the other, depending on the severity of the cut (and I assume which side you're cutting the ball from). Or am I misunderstanding?

LOL it is your fault, that's the ironic thing. But I'm going to help you....

Three things are probably wrong (I have no idea how you play, by the way):

1) You're not perceiving that line correctly. You THINK you're seeing center-to-edge and you're not. I struggled with this when I first started. My guess is many people don't perceive that line correctly and they immediately quit. Setup a wide range of cut angles at different distances to the CB. Get your wife/girlfriend/son/daughter to help you by holding a piece of string at the edge of the OB (equator) and pull it taut to the CB center. I did this for a week or so. Really helped me get past the initial chasm.... perception/sighting.

2) Use Joe Tucker's 3rd eye trainer. ENSURE you know where CB center is. I had a breakdown a few months ago and couldn't figure out what happened to my ball pocketing. I put on the 3rd eye and I was 1/4 tip off of center. No kidding. If you're not pivoting to center, you risk missing the ball.

3) Body pivot instead of using back-hand english. From what I've seen with people, they get slight lateral movement during a pivot and they don't stroke straight post-pivoting. Pivot around your hip (see my banking video, I do a quick demo of how this is done). This will give you the same result, but eliminate pivot variation and unnecessary movement.

Hope this helps,
Dave

softshot
08-11-2008, 02:21 AM
I have been playing with this stuff off and on for a few days,,,

CTE seems to send the ball "near" a pocket pretty much all the time so there might not be as much snake oil in this as I had first thought..

however, it keeps coming back to that pivot. the belivers say its always the same..

but reality teaches me that if I hit with extreme top right vs extreme bottom left.. I need to send the cue ball to a SLIGHTLY different spot on the OB to both pocket the ball and get shape...

I am thinking Pivot is a euphemism for feel..

you gotta feel the shot.

everyone needs a baseline to go by and some take the science approach to the extreme and many of them are very knowledgeable about such things and can chart out equasions all day long...

but this is pool and everything about the game is in constant motion

the balls are wearing out

the cloth is wearing out

that dry cold front just moved in..(the humidity might be out of the air but I'd bet it takes a little longer to get out of the felt)

my tip isn't the exact same shape it was before my last shot..

the variables can go on for days and by the time you list them all

half of them have changed.

you want a baseline aim system

I guess this is as good as any..

but you still gotta feel it...

av84fun
08-11-2008, 02:30 AM
Jim,
If the bridge V slides up the track line of the CB to OB Edge line. Then if the cue is pivoted at the bridge hand V to the center of the CB, then the Cue and aim line is directly aligned to the OB edge, or CTE line.

I can't see how the V has become offset at all.

Colin

Thanks for the question Colin. If I didn't say so, I should have said that the process I described was for MY closed bridge and that other's may vary.

On my closed bridge, the apex of the inverted V is NOT directly over the center of the shaft but instead slightly to the RIGHT of the shaft.

Therefore, for ME the shaft is offset from the apex of the inverted V.

I have responded to a LOT of posts but somewhere, I stated that the shaft offset from the CTE line should be about 1/4 inch. So everyone has SOME reference on their open and closed bridges that they can determine and use until the hand placement just becomes automatic...in Level 2 or Pro One.

The top speed CTE players aim their shots 100% before they ever bend into them. I'm not there yet and may never be. But Django is...most other Philipinos are...Stevie Moore is and LOTS of other players...many of whom refuse to even discuss the subject for the simple reason that they KNOW it works brilliantly and they must HATE threads like this because they don't want to see their advantage melt away.

But it will. The combination of CTE and Pro One is going to raise the bar Colin.

Finally...not addressed to you but to others who demand that the system works only due to subconscious adjustments...that logic is fatally flawed.

Think of it. If a player experiences virtually immediate shot making improvement and becomes SUBSTANTIALLY better in a brief period of time...which I can testify to in my own case...the "subconscious adjustment" theory goes out the window.

If a player gets BETTER it MUST be the method because subconscious adjustments would REVERT the player to his OLD ways!

The "subconscious adjustment" crowd needs to understand that if the player experiences zero improvement it is because....due to subconscious adjustments...he is NOT executing the NEW system but his OLD methods...by definition!

Conversely, if the player improves substantially, IT CANNOT be due to reverting subconsciously to his old methods because the old methods have just been proven inferior!

(except due to the "placebo effect" as one poster suggested but if that is the reason...so what? Gimme a lifetime supply of placebos please)!

(-:

Jim

av84fun
08-11-2008, 02:38 AM
Ok, so all of this talk finally has me wondering what all the hoopla is about. :)

I have to ask, what if you need to use English? In the system that you're describing, you're always pivoting back to center. What if you need to use side English? Also, in your thread where you talked about Bustamante's system, he always pivoted from left to right. In the system that Bluepepper just described, it calls for you to pivot from one side or the other, depending on the severity of the cut (and I assume which side you're cutting the ball from). Or am I misunderstanding?

Excellent question Jimmy. At the present time, here's the deal. Stopping the pivot slightly...say a half tip...along the horizontal centerline before or after dead center doesn't SEEM to abort the accuracy.

I am JUST getting into that aspect of the system so no one hold me to that.

Beyond that, I am not aware of any SYSTEMATIC approach to the application of side although doing so might well be and probably is part of what Stan has accomplished in Pro One.

That's the bad news. The good news is that regardless of what aiming method you now use, you have to use "educated guesses" sometimes referred to as "feel" in order to compensate for the issues related to side.

In my view, it is better to start those educated guesses from a KNOWN line of aim rather than to A) get your line of centerball aim by "feel" and then adjust...AGAIN by feel...to compensate for side.

Regards,
Jim

halhoule
08-11-2008, 02:46 AM
If that is the limit of what you were taught...or what you absorbed, no wonder you can't pocket balls accurately.

There are GAPING holes in what you posted nor do I believe that you are accurately describing what you were told. Not that you are engaging in falsehoods necessarily...possibly you simply didn't grasp what you were being taught.

Regards,
Jim YOU GOT THAT RIGHT JIM. HAL

JIM CALL ME AT 484 623 4144 I WILL TELL YOU HOW IT GOES.

av84fun
08-11-2008, 02:55 AM
Check out my reply to JimmyM.

CTE is a CENTERBALL aiming system...as far as I know and from a centerball point of view it works BRILLIANTLY.

English is a WHOLE NUTHER MATTER. There are others WAY more advanced in CTE than I am at the moment but so far, I acquire what I really have come to KNOW is the correct line of aim and then, if I need a little low left on a cut to the right, I would adjust for that as I always have..BUT I AM ADJUSTING FROM A FLAT OUT CORRECT BASELINE OF AIM!!!

Big advantage IMHO.

Regards,
Jim



I have been playing with this stuff off and on for a few days,,,

CTE seems to send the ball "near" a pocket pretty much all the time so there might not be as much snake oil in this as I had first thought..

however, it keeps coming back to that pivot. the belivers say its always the same..

but reality teaches me that if I hit with extreme top right vs extreme bottom left.. I need to send the cue ball to a SLIGHTLY different spot on the OB to both pocket the ball and get shape...

I am thinking Pivot is a euphemism for feel..

you gotta feel the shot.

everyone needs a baseline to go by and some take the science approach to the extreme and many of them are very knowledgeable about such things and can chart out equasions all day long...

but this is pool and everything about the game is in constant motion

the balls are wearing out

the cloth is wearing out

that dry cold front just moved in..(the humidity might be out of the air but I'd bet it takes a little longer to get out of the felt)

my tip isn't the exact same shape it was before my last shot..

the variables can go on for days and by the time you list them all

half of them have changed.

you want a baseline aim system

I guess this is as good as any..

but you still gotta feel it...

softshot
08-11-2008, 02:58 AM
--------------------------

av84fun
08-11-2008, 03:03 AM
YOU GOT THAT RIGHT JIM. HAL

JIM CALL ME AT 484 623 4144 I WILL TELL YOU HOW IT GOES.

THANK you sir. I absolutely will...SOON.

But I did call you once...maybe a year ago. We talked for a while...you told me what to do...I gave it a half-a$$ed effort..and then abandoned the system!!!

Ever heard THAT before??? (-:

But I came back to it for various reasons and have been saying HOLY $HIT so often that my wife is going to have me committed if I don't settle down.

BIG improvement and I wasn't too horrible to start with.

And the BANKS! I am drilling them from all over the table...and if the OB doesn't go IN the pocket...it SCARES THE HELL OUT OF IT!!!

(-:

THANK you sir...and I know that you are proud of Stan Shuffett and others who have spent enormous amounts of time learning what you have taught them and putting their own footprints in the sand.

Regards,
Jim

Colin Colenso
08-11-2008, 03:17 AM
Thanks for the question Colin. If I didn't say so, I should have said that the process I described was for MY closed bridge and that other's may vary.

On my closed bridge, the apex of the inverted V is NOT directly over the center of the shaft but instead slightly to the RIGHT of the shaft.

Therefore, for ME the shaft is offset from the apex of the inverted V.

I have responded to a LOT of posts but somewhere, I stated that the shaft offset from the CTE line should be about 1/4 inch. So everyone has SOME reference on their open and closed bridges that they can determine and use until the hand placement just becomes automatic...in Level 2 or Pro One.

Jim

Jim,
A slight difference between your bridge V and the center of your shaft does not account for the offset of 1.4 inches you stated in your explanation of how you create and offset in a stage 1 type process. In fact, all that difference would account for is that your shaft always ends up being aligned slightly off the CTE line.

It cannot work the way you explained it.

Care to correct it or re-explain it?

Colin

Poolplaya9
08-11-2008, 03:31 AM
Thanks for the question Colin. If I didn't say so, I should have said that the process I described was for MY closed bridge and that other's may vary.

On my closed bridge, the apex of the inverted V is NOT directly over the center of the shaft but instead slightly to the RIGHT of the shaft.

Therefore, for ME the shaft is offset from the apex of the inverted V.

I have responded to a LOT of posts but somewhere, I stated that the shaft offset from the CTE line should be about 1/4 inch. So everyone has SOME reference on their open and closed bridges that they can determine and use until the hand placement just becomes automatic...in Level 2 or Pro One.

The top speed CTE players aim their shots 100% before they ever bend into them. I'm not there yet and may never be. But Django is...most other Philipinos are...Stevie Moore is and LOTS of other players...many of whom refuse to even discuss the subject for the simple reason that they KNOW it works brilliantly and they must HATE threads like this because they don't want to see their advantage melt away.

But it will. The combination of CTE and Pro One is going to raise the bar Colin.

Finally...not addressed to you but to others who demand that the system works only due to subconscious adjustments...that logic is fatally flawed.

Think of it. If a player experiences virtually immediate shot making improvement and becomes SUBSTANTIALLY better in a brief period of time...which I can testify to in my own case...the "subconscious adjustment" theory goes out the window.

If a player gets BETTER it MUST be the method because subconscious adjustments would REVERT the player to his OLD ways!

The "subconscious adjustment" crowd needs to understand that if the player experiences zero improvement it is because....due to subconscious adjustments...he is NOT executing the NEW system but his OLD methods...by definition!

Conversely, if the player improves substantially, IT CANNOT be due to reverting subconsciously to his old methods because the old methods have just been proven inferior!

(except due to the "placebo effect" as one poster suggested but if that is the reason...so what? Gimme a lifetime supply of placebos please)!

(-:

Jim
Jim, with all due respect (not intended as an insult at all), anybody with any common sense or citical thinking skills and an open mind can quickly determine that NONE of the practical aiming systems that rely on a set number of contact points can work as described (meaning without using "feel" or subconscious adjustments). They simply do not use enough cut angles or contact points to make any shot that could come up on a pool table.

They also do not account for all of the variables that are present from day to day, and table to table, as softshot pointed out in his excellent post #48 which is spot on. For anyone that is capable of looking at indisputable facts, rather than "well it seems to work for me and I don't feel like I'm making adjustments," then it really is about as simple as Pat Johnson put it when he said it is as obvious as the fact that not every shot can be made with a full ball hit.

As I said before, I think some people benefit from having a system that gets them close, where they only have to use a bit of feel or small subconscious adjustments. Even this is arguable, but as far as I'm concerned it's possible for some people. It would certainly explain how someone could improve almost immediately after being shown an aiming system. And if the player is not that good at aiming to begin with (they haven't yet developed a good feel for the contact point on the object ball or where the ghost ball would be etc), pure odds alone will dictate that they make more balls immediately if all of their shots are a least in the vicinity of the pocket, which is what the systems will get you.

There is NO doubt that the aiming systems DO NOT account for all possible angles and shots, and therefore do not and cannot work in any mechanical, geometrical, or mathematical way. Whether or not they work at all for other reasons is the only thing that is arguable. And if you feel that they do, it can ONLY be because it was a good baseline to start from when making small conscious adjustments by feel, or with subconscious adjustments that you do not even realize you are making.

If it works for you for whatever the reason then be an advocate of it all day long, but recongnize it for what it is, and also for what it indisputably is not.

Colin Colenso
08-11-2008, 03:39 AM
Jim, with all due respect (not intended as an insult at all), anybody with any common sense or citical thinking skills and an open mind can quickly determine that NONE of the practical aiming systems that rely on a set number of contact points can work as described (meaning without using "feel" or subconscious adjustments). They simply do not use enough cut angles or contact points to make any shot that could come up on a pool table.


Poolplaya9,

Such systems, that include some adjustment methodology certainly can make any cut angle. The first post in this thread has diagrams and a link to a complex system that I developed. Developed, not recommended for use.

The argument here is whether the CTE type systems have a systematic method of adjustment. None has ever been publicly described in detail or convincingly in my opinion.

Colin

SpiderWebComm
08-11-2008, 04:35 AM
Dave,
for f sake. The man is not obligated to come nor does he have to answer in 15 minutes not to be branded a coward. Take it easy. This system may have merit. Most have something to offer (well all except the floating lights :eek: )

This reminds my of the IPT. When I spoke up and said the man was a crook I was branded a nit and a fool. Anybody want some of that now? Their is just way too much passion in these HH threads.

Come to Vancouver (it's only 2880 Miles away). I'll play you Snooker (my rules, my local...my game) for say $100.00/game. Should you beat me I will double your money and I'll keep my points. I don't expect you to take me up on my offer nor will I call you a coward if you don't accept.

Nick "My Wife took my tin foil" B

The funny thing is... I just started playing snooker a year ago in China. I wouldn't come to Vancouver, but if we run into each other in Vegas, we can go to Fatboy's house and you'd have action. :) I'd even stop by the convenience store to make a tin foil hat on the way.... just for laughs.

SpiderWebComm
08-11-2008, 05:24 AM
Dave, Patrick has said that he doesn't deny pivoting working. He, like me, just wants to get to the bottom of why it works.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you and Bustamante pivot the way Hal or Ron teach.
You have developed your own pivot from the left. What it appears to do is sweep the many angles available until you recognize the right one for the shot at hand.
It's as though with every millimeter of the pivot/sweep you're saying, "no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no, YES that's it! Time to shoot."
I think anyone aiming by feel does this. They may do it in a standing position behind the cueball though. They move left or right until it just looks right. Then they get down to shoot. You're just doing it in a different way. Not too bad to be doing it like Bustamante.

No...

I'm saying, "not center, not center, not center, CB center....shoot."

SpiderWebComm
08-11-2008, 05:27 AM
From another thread....

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm
At the highest level, there's only 1 bridge placement---addressing the CB dead center.


Dave, were pretty much on the same team here but I'm not sure I understand the above.

Since the CB is round..."addressing the CB dead center" can mean a lot of things.

If the reader assumed you meant dead center in relation the the CTE line, that would not be correct because simply aiming through the center of the CB to the edge of the OB merely produces a half ball hit.

I KNOW that advanced users don't even think in terms of determining a specific hand placement...they just land correctly due to repetitive practice...just like you don't have to look at the keyboard keys after a while...but you DO have to look at them at first, and since there are so many readers who are beginners at the system or who haven't even tried it, I'm trying to speak to Level 1...or Level 0...and to that audience, IMHO the bridge hand placement is CRITICAL and has to be learned mechanically at first.

For those interested, first place your bridge hand 4 inches to the left of the CTE line...point the tip to the edge of the CB and pivot to the center. You will see that you will miss the whole OB!

Do the same thing from the right and DITTO.

So, now we have established that bridge hand placement DOES matter. So, where the hell do you place it.

There are several different ways to explain that which is why those who think that simple breif text can teach much of anything are mistaken. (You don't read a book and then go drive a car...at least not MY car!)

GENERALLY, the shaft needs to be a LITTLE offset from the CTE line. It should be outside the line on a cut to the right and inside the line on a cut to the left.

How much? Say 1/4 inch. But the shaft is angled to the CB when you move into the shot so that inside/outside placement is a little difficult to determine.

So, for Level 1...the purely mechanical level that everyone should start on, I have developed a couple of methods myself and therefore, don't mind posting them.

If you imagine the CTE line....and if you can't do that then forget about the whole enchalada...and extend it back from the CB toward you...place your hand so that the CTE line is directly under the inverted V formed by the index finger of your closed bridge.

Push up to your normal bridge length keeping that inverted V RIGHT ON TOP of the CTE line...like it was a track while pointing the cue tip to the outside edge of the CB.

When you get to your normal bridge length, stop...and pivot ALONG THE HORIZONTAL CENTER OF THE CB...to dead center.

THAT is your aim line and if you look, you should see that the V formed by your thumb and index finger of your bridge hand is just about 1.4 inch offset from the CTE line.

Start by setting up pretty easy cuts ...10 degrees and 2 diamonds from the pocket and 1 diamond CB/OF distance and DO NOT take a full backstroke. The shot should be short enough so that lag speed on the CB is plenty so just take a SHORT...Allen Hopkins backstroke of maybe an inch and stroke straight throuh the center of the cb.

All you're doing is trying to verify the accuracy of the aim line...not play pool at this stage.

Then, replace the CB to where it was and move the OB a half ball for a little more angle and do the same thing. Keep doing that...in both directions until you PASS the half ball hit.

Shoot 5 different cut angles 5 times each in both directions for a 50 shot series.

Approach each shot like it was the 9 ball for the match and DO NOT set up longer shots before you have done the 50 shot series. If you race ahead, then don't blame me if you start missing.

As SpideyDave said (I think) this is a PROCESS and if you don't use a building block approach then missing will be your own fault and not that of the system.

If you have trouble PM me. I have now reached the limit of what I am going to post on the forum and won't say much more in PMs at this time...I'll only try to explain the above with different words.


But at this point, you should see that there is NO feel or intuition or any need for subconscious adjustments....dealing of Tarot cards or Gregorian chants necessary.

It is a ROTE system that will work for a HUGE range of cut angles...AS LONG AS THERE IS AN AVAILABLE POCKET i.e. if the OB is frozen to a long rail and the CB is directly across the table on the same diamond line...sorry folks but there is not pocket available for the shot so you bank it or duck.

This is an aiming system not voodoo! And the beauty of it...even at Level 1...is that when the system runs out of gas it is OBVIOUS and you resort to plan be and eventually get to Level 2 and then Pro One at which point you will use CTE on almost every shot...just like Django.

Finally....I'm TRYING to be helpful here and to the extent that sharp comments have passed BACK AND FORTH that is unfortunate.

But there have been a LOT of dismissive posts...you are subconsciously adjusting...you don't understand what you are actually doing...the method cannot work...etc. posted by people who have NO IDEA how the system works and sorry...that is just intellectual laziness and/or closed-mindedness which makes me want to YUKE!

(-:

Jim

CB center to me is NOT on the CTE line.

Colin Colenso
08-11-2008, 05:45 AM
Finally...not addressed to you but to others who demand that the system works only due to subconscious adjustments...that logic is fatally flawed.

Think of it. If a player experiences virtually immediate shot making improvement and becomes SUBSTANTIALLY better in a brief period of time...which I can testify to in my own case...the "subconscious adjustment" theory goes out the window.

If a player gets BETTER it MUST be the method because subconscious adjustments would REVERT the player to his OLD ways!

The "subconscious adjustment" crowd needs to understand that if the player experiences zero improvement it is because....due to subconscious adjustments...he is NOT executing the NEW system but his OLD methods...by definition!

Conversely, if the player improves substantially, IT CANNOT be due to reverting subconsciously to his old methods because the old methods have just been proven inferior!

(except due to the "placebo effect" as one poster suggested but if that is the reason...so what? Gimme a lifetime supply of placebos please)!

(-:

Jim
Jim,
I think the term Subconscious Adjustments is not the best way to describe what is also sometimes referred to as feel. A better term, imho is Intuitive Judgement.
i.e. Intuitive Judgement (IJ) is something different in kind to mechanical, mathematical or geometrical systems as they are applied to aspects of a shot, though such shots can also include one or more IJ aspects.

I don't think it follows logically that improvement, via use of a system proves that IJ isn't involved in that system. I think this happens often.

For example, there used to be a method advised whereby on nearly straight shots (up to around 5 degrees) the player should just aim at the middle of the OB as the brain tends to intuitively find the line of the pot.

Interestingly people reported good results from this. Even I found it to be a useful method provided I didn't try to aim too precisely at the center of the OB. Just look at the OB, slide into the shot toward full ball and the brain intuitively directs you a little off full ball to make the shot. It is really just a reference point system that is poorly explained, but which can work for a lot of players.

You mention that part of the system's success could be due to the Placebo effect. I suspect that is the case, but that infers that the system is not complete, that it relies on Intuitive Judgement.

Personally I think most pre-alignment methods, where there is heavy focus on just shooting straight through after the bridge has been set, do instil a great deal of confidence as one's accuracy in pre-alignment improves. Most players, for all their pool lives swoop their cues and shift their bridges during shot execution rather than to ever develop accurate pre-alignment.

When a system (even if it incorporates Intuitive Judgements), works to remove doubt and second guessing from the execution phase, it will likely lead to consistent improvement.

Colin

Poolplaya9
08-11-2008, 06:38 AM
Poolplaya9,

Such systems, that include some adjustment methodology certainly can make any cut angle. The first post in this thread has diagrams and a link to a complex system that I developed. Developed, not recommended for use.

The argument here is whether the CTE type systems have a systematic method of adjustment. None has ever been publicly described in detail or convincingly in my opinion.

Colin
Colin, I think we are basically in agreement. I did specifically say practical aiming systems, and there are none. Sure, you can have a system where you divide the object ball into 1000ths and be able to make any shot. This shot here, just hit 362/1000ths of the object ball and it goes right in.

Same thing with your system, it just isn't practical. I think that if you can accurately judge what 6.7 millimeters is, and then actually move your cue over that exact amount, then you were already capable of judging where to hit the object ball and executing the shot to begin with without the need of a "system." And that doesn't even include all the pivoting, complicated math, accuratley judging the cut angle to begin with, accurately judging the length of your bridge, standing on one foot while touching your tongue to your nose, etc.

And even after all that you still have the all the other issues of varying conditions and other variables that the system would have to be able to adjust for, like dirty or clean balls, etc.

The mind is a beautiful thing, and is the most advanced computer ever in existence, capable of doing complicated calculations involving hundreds of variables in a split second. No system will ever come close to it's power and accuracy.

Before a pitcher throws the baseball he doesn't say ok, I'm exactly 50 feet away from the batter, the wind is blowing exactly southeast and I am facing exactly north, it is swirling but blowing an average of 4.3mph, the ball weighs exactly 8.9ozs, and has x coefficient of drag, which means I will need to pull my arm back exactly 17 inches, accelerate these particular arm muscles at 85% of maximum ability, open my hand to release the ball one inch before the arm reaches maximum extention, aim exactly 4 feet 7 inches high and 6 ft 1 1/2 inches to the right of the strike zone to account for wind and drag and weight etc etc etc. He just looks at where he wants to throw and then throws the ball. The mind does it's hundreds of calculations almost instantly and controls everything without much if any conscious thought, and the ball gets there. And the more he throws, the better he will get. The brain fine tunes itself.

Aiming in pool is much the same thing. No system is ever going to replace the brains ability to calculate what to do with all of the dozens of variables. The nice thing about it too, is that the brain is constantly updating it's "software" every time you hit a ball, making you more and more accurate with every ball you hit until your talent and ability has eventually been exhausted.

Colin Colenso
08-11-2008, 07:33 AM
Colin, I think we are basically in agreement. I did specifically say practical aiming systems, and there are none. Sure, you can have a system where you divide the object ball into 1000ths and be able to make any shot. This shot here, just hit 362/1000ths of the object ball and it goes right in.

Same thing with your system, it just isn't practical. I think that if you can accurately judge what 6.7 millimeters is, and then actually move your cue over that exact amount, then you were already capable of judging where to hit the object ball and executing the shot to begin with without the need of a "system." And that doesn't even include all the pivoting, complicated math, accuratley judging the cut angle to begin with, accurately judging the length of your bridge, standing on one foot while touching your tongue to your nose, etc.

And even after all that you still have the all the other issues of varying conditions and other variables that the system would have to be able to adjust for, like dirty or clean balls, etc.

The mind is a beautiful thing, and is the most advanced computer ever in existence, capable of doing complicated calculations involving hundreds of variables in a split second. No system will ever come close to it's power and accuracy.

Before a pitcher throws the baseball he doesn't say ok, I'm exactly 50 feet away from the batter, the wind is blowing exactly southeast and I am facing exactly north, it is swirling but blowing an average of 4.3mph, the ball weighs exactly 8.9ozs, and has x coefficient of drag, which means I will need to pull my arm back exactly 17 inches, accelerate these particular arm muscles at 85% of maximum ability, open my hand to release the ball one inch before the arm reaches maximum extention, aim exactly 4 feet 7 inches high and 6 ft 1 1/2 inches to the right of the strike zone to account for wind and drag and weight etc etc etc. He just looks at where he wants to throw and then throws the ball. The mind does it's hundreds of calculations almost instantly and controls everything without much if any conscious thought, and the ball gets there. And the more he throws, the better he will get. The brain fine tunes itself.

Aiming in pool is much the same thing. No system is ever going to replace the brains ability to calculate what to do with all of the dozens of variables. The nice thing about it too, is that the brain is constantly updating it's "software" every time you hit a ball, making you more and more accurate with every ball you hit until your talent and ability has eventually been exhausted.
I wouldn't discount the use of systems. In fact, there are certainly systems that are more powerful and predictable than just letting the mind do its thing via its previous experience. Diamond systems and BHE come immediately to mind. But even the very nature of potting a ball becomes systematized to some degree, no matter how much intuitive judgement comes into it. Players reference the CB, the Cue Line, some reference point on the OB, the line to the pocket and the position of the pocket perhaps and even the stance and head position. Some use less or more, but these are systems to some degree and players find them usefull.

The question we face here is whether or not the pivot adjustment methods concerning CTE methods are purely systematic in a geometric or mathematical sense or if they rely on intuitive adjustment for this aspect of the system.

Without having an exact description of the CTE systems is it hard to be sure.

I think that systematic approaches such as visible reference points and strict pre-alignment have advantages for allowing a player to hone their intuitive skills, to train their brains we could say.

If the adjustment is done purely in a systematic way, then it would do away with an aspect of the game that many players have been able to pretty well master intuitively. That is, to just see how to make a pot.

I like the first part of CTE systems as they are described. I don't see that total systematization is necessary, or even that it exists. Rather that it is a kind of ball park starter that allows for fine tuning of the intuitive judgement aspect of aiming.

I do agree that the mind is an amazing tool and can perform many things that we could never replicate with purely systematic approaches. e.g. How to draw back 3 feet. We might systematize such things as a low flat bridge, a smooth accelleration, a set backswing, a slight pause, a loose wrist and wrist flick, finishing with cue tip on the cloth etc, but in the end, there is a great deal of intuitive judgement in the shot and that intuitive judgement can be developed / refined with a lot of repetition.

Colin

bluepepper
08-11-2008, 07:49 AM
For those who use Hal's system, if my previous description was in any way inaccurate, please correct it. It seems that, according to Jim, my visiting Hal wasn't the proper way to learn it.

perspicaz
08-11-2008, 08:29 AM
I see aiming a little bit like cooking... you need knowledge but also lots of touch.

Even if the most precise aiming system could be devised and we had a computer to calculate all variables for us for any given shot... it would still need to compensate for the subtle errors in stroke that we humans incur in (how can the computer predict 'our' stroke?).

I believe that knowing several aiming systems will help "double check" your aim. I usually aim by feel (subconscious ghost ball I guess) but on some shots I will consciously calculate ghost ball contact point and of course I then introduce compensation for throw, squirt, swerve, etc. I can see that knowing this pivoting systems might be helpful to check in case your aim doesn't feel right with your usual "aiming system" or whatever.

I guess our limited "human" precision makes any mathematical aiming system useless unless some experience, practice and subconscious "touch" is also employed to master all variables involved.

Best aiming system imho: knowledge (conscious) + experience (unconscious) -- you need both. :embarrassed2:

bluepepper
08-11-2008, 08:43 AM
No...

I'm saying, "not center, not center, not center, CB center....shoot."

Then perhaps you're already lined up before you do any pivoting. The stick pivot is just to place the stick onto your already visually secured shot line.

spoons
08-11-2008, 11:12 AM
From another thread....

IMHO the bridge hand placement is CRITICAL and has to be learned mechanically at first.

For those interested, first place your bridge hand 4 inches to the left of the CTE line...point the tip to the edge of the CB and pivot to the center. You will see that you will miss the whole OB!

Do the same thing from the right and DITTO.

So, now we have established that bridge hand placement DOES matter. So, where the hell do you place it.



The idea of aiming by using two reference points that are easy to spot and that will be available on every shot makes perfect sense to me. I can find the center of the cue ball, and I can find the edge of the object ball, and every cue ball has a center, and every object ball has an outside edge. Even if (as Dave mentioned), I'm not able to see them or the relationship correctly at first, I'm pretty confident that I can learn to find them every single time.

So, this whole thing is intriguing to me, but like so many other people, I'm hung up on this bit about how bridge hand placement is determined. This is confusing to me, so hopefully one of the Houligans or one of Stan's students can answer it for me. If I'm understanding what I've read so far, this should be a yes or no question.

In CTE, is there a systematic way to learn where to place the bridge hand? I'm not necessarily interested in knowing what that is just yet. I'm more interested in knowing whether Hal or Stan teaches it that way.

Thanks!

SpiderWebComm
08-11-2008, 11:32 AM
No one understands the dynamics of this stuff better than Hal. I think he simplifies it to the point that may not be believable to some, but his favorite comment is.... "It doesn't matter."

After a year of doing it very successfully, I believe him. Whatever he says, I do, and my game improves. Go figure. Stan is a super source as well. Might as well learn from the creator of the system and then call Stan - I'm sure he'd agree. Why not, right?

If you're reading Hal... THANKS :)

jay helfert
08-11-2008, 12:34 PM
Forgive me if I'm missing something here. But does the "pivot system" endorse a player adjusting his cue stick when he is down on the shot? You know, pivoting it slightly to find his aim point?

If that is the case I wholeheartedly disagree with this method. I'm a firm believer that once you get down on the ball, you do NOT adjust your stance or set-up in any way. Without a firm solid stance, you are operating at a big disadvantage.

I could not recommend any system that encourages a player to move around once he gets down.

cookie man
08-11-2008, 12:38 PM
Forgive me if I'm missing something here. But does the "pivot system" endorse a player adjusting his cue stick when he is down on the shot? You know, pivoting it slightly to find his aim point?

If that is the case I wholeheartedly disagree with this method. I'm a firm believer that once you get down on the ball, you do NOT adjust your stance or set-up in any way. Without a firm solid stance, you are operating at a big disadvantage.

I could not recommend any system that encourages a player to move around once he gets down.
watch bustamonte

Koop
08-11-2008, 12:41 PM
I could not recommend any system that encourages a player to move around once he gets down.

Jay,

With all due respect, watch the filipino's a little closer next time. I know you have played these guys plenty but if you really look they are adjusting their tip just prior to striking the cueball. Almost every one I have watched does this with their backhand. Now if you said not to adjust your bridge hand I would completely agree with you. Even Parica, who probably has the least noticeable adjustment still does pivot slightly during final stroke. Bustamante and even Reyes are very noticeable.
I watched Gandy Valle a year ago take down the Ocean State Classic in R.I. and I watched him pivot as well. I was probably the only one who noticed because I know what to look for.

Regards,
Koop

halhoule
08-11-2008, 12:50 PM
[QUOTE=spoons]The idea of aiming by using two reference points that are easy to spot and that will be available on every shot makes perfect sense to me. I can find the center of the cue ball, and I can find the edge of the object ball, and every cue ball has a center, and every object ball has an outside edge. Even if (as Dave mentioned), I'm not able to see them or the relationship correctly at first, I'm pretty confident that I can learn to find them every single time.

So, this whole thing is intriguing to me, but like so many other people, I'm hung up on this bit about how bridge hand placement is determined. This is confusing to me, so hopefully one of the Houligans or one of Stan's students can answer it for me. If I'm understanding what I've read so far, this should be a yes or no question.

In CTE, is there a systematic way to learn where to place the bridge hand? I'm not necessarily interested in knowing what that is just yet. I'm more interested in knowing whether Hal or Stan teaches it that way.
HAL HOULE, YOU PLACE YOUR BRIDGE HAND LIKE YOU AND EVERY OTHER PLAYER HAS . THE DEAL IS LOOKING AT THE EDGE OF THE CUE BALL ON EVERY SHOT.

jay helfert
08-11-2008, 12:51 PM
Jay,

With all due respect, watch the filipino's a little closer next time. I know you have played these guys plenty but if you really look they are adjusting their tip just prior to striking the cueball. Almost every one I have watched does this with their backhand. Now if you said not to adjust your bridge hand I would completely agree with you. Even Parica, who probably has the least noticeable adjustment still does pivot slightly during final stroke. Bustamante and even Reyes are very noticeable.
I watched Gandy Valle a year ago take down the Ocean State Classic in R.I. and I watched him pivot as well. I was probably the only one who noticed because I know what to look for.

Regards,
Koop

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I mean are they actually moving their body (pivoting) to adjust their aiming point? I'm not talking about moving your arm slightly to hit a certain point of the cue ball. That's normal.

I guess I don't understand the "pivot system". Keith hit the cue ball from all kinds of funny angles, but once he was down on the ball, he stayed down and solid.

Koop
08-11-2008, 12:58 PM
I guess I didn't make myself clear. I mean are they actually moving their body (pivoting) to adjust their aiming point? I'm not talking about moving your arm slightly to hit a certain point of the cue ball. That's normal.

I guess I don't understand the "pivot system". Keith hit the cue ball from all kinds of funny angles, but once he was down on the ball, he stayed down and solid.

Oh, gotcha Jay. No, no body movement, just backhand alignment.

cookie man
08-11-2008, 01:01 PM
Jay, the pivot usually takes place in the air as you go down on the shot.

jay helfert
08-11-2008, 03:16 PM
You know I've seen players aim one place on the cue ball and hit it in another. Maybe this is what you mean by the "pivot system".

Jimmy Moore was famous for aiming at the very bottom of the cue ball (I mean right on the cloth) and then hitting it with all different kinds of english. Was he "pivoting"? I don't know.

I've also seen players aim to the left and hit the cue ball on the right side, and vice versa. Kind of weird but it worked for them.

spoons
08-11-2008, 03:21 PM
I've noticed Bustamante lining up off center in the past, but I never knew why. If I remember correctly, he always lines up, and even takes his practice strokes with his cue tip positioned to hit extreme low left. I'd have to look again, but I think his final stroke through the ball is the first time that he actually puts his cue where he's going to contact the cue ball.

LAMas
08-11-2008, 10:01 PM
[QUOTE=halhoule HAL HOULE, YOU PLACE YOUR BRIDGE HAND LIKE YOU AND EVERY OTHER PLAYER HAS . THE DEAL IS LOOKING AT THE EDGE OF THE CUE BALL ON EVERY SHOT.[/QUOTE]

Hal,
Thanks for your comment - for this is the first that I have read this and not from any of your students that "THE DEAL IS LOOKING AT THE EDGE OF THE CUE BALL ON EVERY SHOT".

Colin Colenso
08-11-2008, 11:27 PM
Just to follow up on a discussion that was started with Jim yesterday but left unanswered. I believe it is a critical issue, because in this statement by Jim, he claimed to have explained how an aim line, separate to the CTE line is determined.

Here are the relevant parts of the discussion.

The original quote came from post #43 in this thread. Read here for full context: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=1350455&postcount=43

Originally Posted by av84fun
Push up to your normal bridge length keeping that inverted V RIGHT ON TOP of the CTE line...like it was a track while pointing the cue tip to the outside edge of the CB.

When you get to your normal bridge length, stop...and pivot ALONG THE HORIZONTAL CENTER OF THE CB...to dead center.

THAT is your aim line and if you look, you should see that the V formed by your thumb and index finger of your bridge hand is just about 1.4 inch offset from the CTE line.

Jim
My original reply:
Jim,
If the bridge V slides up the track line of the CB to OB Edge line. Then if the cue is pivoted at the bridge hand V to the center of the CB, then the Cue and aim line is directly aligned to the OB edge, or CTE line.

I can't see how the V has become offset at all.

Colin


Jim's follow up
Originally Posted by av84fun
Thanks for the question Colin. If I didn't say so, I should have said that the process I described was for MY closed bridge and that other's may vary.

On my closed bridge, the apex of the inverted V is NOT directly over the center of the shaft but instead slightly to the RIGHT of the shaft.

Therefore, for ME the shaft is offset from the apex of the inverted V.

I have responded to a LOT of posts but somewhere, I stated that the shaft offset from the CTE line should be about 1/4 inch. So everyone has SOME reference on their open and closed bridges that they can determine and use until the hand placement just becomes automatic...in Level 2 or Pro One.

Jim

My reply
Jim,
A slight difference between your bridge V and the center of your shaft does not account for the offset of 1.4 inches you stated in your explanation of how you create and offset in a stage 1 type process. In fact, all that difference would account for is that your shaft always ends up being aligned slightly off the CTE line.

It cannot work the way you explained it.

Care to correct it or re-explain it?

Colin

So can you explain further Jim?

Colin

av84fun
08-12-2008, 02:17 AM
Just to follow up on a discussion that was started with Jim yesterday but left unanswered. I believe it is a critical issue, because in this statement by Jim, he claimed to have explained how an aim line, separate to the CTE line is determined.

Here are the relevant parts of the discussion.

The original quote came from post #43 in this thread. Read here for full context: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpo...5&postcount=43


Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
Push up to your normal bridge length keeping that inverted V RIGHT ON TOP of the CTE line...like it was a track while pointing the cue tip to the outside edge of the CB.

When you get to your normal bridge length, stop...and pivot ALONG THE HORIZONTAL CENTER OF THE CB...to dead center.

THAT is your aim line and if you look, you should see that the V formed by your thumb and index finger of your bridge hand is just about 1.4 inch offset from the CTE line.

Jim

Quote:
My original reply:
Jim,
If the bridge V slides up the track line of the CB to OB Edge line. Then if the cue is pivoted at the bridge hand V to the center of the CB, then the Cue and aim line is directly aligned to the OB edge, or CTE line.

I can't see how the V has become offset at all.

Colin




Quote:
Jim's follow up
Originally Posted by av84fun
Thanks for the question Colin. If I didn't say so, I should have said that the process I described was for MY closed bridge and that other's may vary.

On my closed bridge, the apex of the inverted V is NOT directly over the center of the shaft but instead slightly to the RIGHT of the shaft.

Therefore, for ME the shaft is offset from the apex of the inverted V.

I have responded to a LOT of posts but somewhere, I stated that the shaft offset from the CTE line should be about 1/4 inch. So everyone has SOME reference on their open and closed bridges that they can determine and use until the hand placement just becomes automatic...in Level 2 or Pro One.

Jim



Quote:
My reply
Jim,
A slight difference between your bridge V and the center of your shaft does not account for the offset of 1.4 inches you stated in your explanation of how you create and offset in a stage 1 type process. In fact, all that difference would account for is that your shaft always ends up being aligned slightly off the CTE line.

It cannot work the way you explained it.

Care to correct it or re-explain it?

Colin

Colin, check my statements. I said 1/4 not 1.4. (-:

If you point the tip at the edge of the CB pre-pivot and swing over to center along the horizontal centerline, that is about 1.125 inches.

But the CUE is offset about 1/4 inch...not 1.4.

Roger that???

Finally, let me say this. I am not a beginner so I can't really testify how this system would work for raw recruits who have no clue how a shot should look.

The really advanced CTE/Pro One players were pretty sporty shotmakers before adopting that method...and like Spidey, they air pivot and can just SEE where to land.

What I'm trying to do is to dumb down that process so the uninitiated have a ROTE way to get down on the shots and the method I've described would GREAT...FOR ME.

In the real world, I say that hand placement is critical but the advanced guys say they don't even THINK about hand placement...and we are BOTH telling the truth...just like my typewriter analogy. At FIRST, you gotta look at the keys and later, you don't but both methods are correct...the latter only being faster.

Same deal here. I am JUST getting into the air pivot but I have to ADMIT that when I land wrong, I can SEE that I have landed wrong whereas a less experienced player might not.

But the way I've described getting into the shot makes it seem impossible (in my mind) that anyone would do what I described...shoot with a straight stroke...and miss.

Hell, I feel like I've done something wrong if the ball doesn't go DEAD CENTER.

But just to be clear...FOR ME...the method breaks down beyond a certain cut angle which I can SEE so I don't even care to calculate it...and B) it breaks down when the CB/OB are very close together...which again, is OBVIOUS.

When those situations happen...you just do what you gotta do but you have not WORSENED your game by having to abandon the system! You have only returned to where you were before adopting the system.

In the meantime, for the VAST majority of shots, aiming is no longer even an issue and you turn your ENTIRE attention to SHAPE which is the #1 skill by FAR.

Instead of being a little proud of yourself for draining a 50 degree cut from 6 diamonds away...you are SHOCKED if you miss it and you KNOW that you put a bad stroke on it.

ALL THE ABOVE HAS TO DO WITH CENTERBALL HITS (actually vertical center). NONE OF THE ABOVE HAS TO DO WITH THE USE OF SIDE.

At this stage of my progress with the system (Level 2) I adjust my aim to account for side-related issues as I always did with above average proficiency...BUT...I am adjusting from what I consider to be a KNOWN reference and doing so has SIGNIFICANTLY improved my shotmaking when using side.

Pro One level guys may be able to explain a systematic adjustment for side but I doubt it. I think the student will be told to practice, practice, practice....with the clear advantage of making adjustments from a known correct reference point.

But I think there would be a WAY to practice in an optimal fashion to incorporate side into the system. All I can suggest is to get instruction on that aspect when you are ready for it.

Regards,
Jim

EDIT: Colin, I now see that I mistyped 1.4 once and correctly typed 1/4 once. Sorry for the confusion

Colin Colenso
08-12-2008, 03:16 AM
Colin, check my statements. I said 1/4 not 1.4. (-:

You mentioned 1/4 in another paragraph so I see what you mean. I copied and pasted that part, as I just saw you noted below.

Anyway, the 1/4 or 1.4 is not the main question, though it did confuse me a little.

The main point is that your description seems to suggest that on ALL shots, the required cue position pivot offset is 0.25 inch to the right of the CTE line. I ask you to try a few shots at different angles (thin cuts to full ball) and once you have your bridge set, look at the CTE line and your pivot offset from it. It cannot always be 0.25 inch to the right. Else you'd hit every ball at about the same angle.

Also, this 0.25 inch is how far your cue center is to the right of your bridge V, and this seems to be what determines your offset. That suggests that the cue middle position relative to bridge V (at the pivot point) is the actual systematization method that creates the required offsets.


Pro One level guys may be able to explain a systematic adjustment for side but I doubt it.
I doubt it too, because I have actually developed what I believe to be the first comprehensive side / english / throw adjustment system. That took a damn lot of work, testing, calculations and thinking. It's not simple, but it is practical and accurate. It compliments any method that can get a player aimed up accurately for a natural roll medium speed pot angle. (Pot angle changes with different speeds and rate of vertical spin of course).

Jim, it's great you're potting balls like never before and your's and other's testimony indicates that using this system definitely helps some players considerably. But these testimonials don't help myself or others to understand the system. Just pointing that out so you know I am not ignoring the testimony of your experiences. I just want to keep the discussion along the subject line that I think needs most attention.

Colin

Koop
08-12-2008, 06:06 AM
You know I've seen players aim one place on the cue ball and hit it in another. Maybe this is what you mean by the "pivot system".

Jimmy Moore was famous for aiming at the very bottom of the cue ball (I mean right on the cloth) and then hitting it with all different kinds of english. Was he "pivoting"? I don't know.

I've also seen players aim to the left and hit the cue ball on the right side, and vice versa. Kind of weird but it worked for them.

Jay,

Bustamante does the exact same thing, with the tip also slightly off center. When speaking with Hal about this he mentioned Busty and said, "watch him." He can lay the stick down on the table, turn and talk to people and then come back around and smack the ball. He is already lined up and needs no further adjustment. What you wrote about above is definitely the pivot we are writing about.

Regards,
Koop

stan shuffett
08-12-2008, 06:53 AM
Colin,

In PRO ONE there is an exact system for the application of spin. Using minimal spin is typically all a player needs and the system for that is quite simple.

Also, I have developed a system for more than minimal spin that works extremely well.

Stan Shuffett

Colin Colenso
08-12-2008, 07:13 AM
Colin,

In PRO ONE there is an exact system for the application of spin. Using minimal spin is typically all a player needs and the system for that is quite simple.

Also, I have developed a system for more than minimal spin that works extremely well.

Stan Shuffett
Stan,

It would be interesting to compare systems at some stage.

Mine uses aim & pivot with effective pivot point guides to compensate for squirt and swerve. I use throw plots (a few have been posted here - they utilize the throw angle prediction formulas available to Dr. Dave.) to indicate the amount of throw for various angles, spins and speeds. This basically tells a player how they should aim compared to a medium speed natural roll shot, which usually has similar throw characteristics to a firm stun shot.

There are regions that will always be hard to compensate for accurately, such as slow stun and slow OE, and particularly on longer CB -OB seperations obviously, but many shots don't need much adjustment. Maybe 1/2 pocket of aim.

While you're here, any chance on getting some insights as to the nature of how the aim line differentiates from the CTE line, and how this is predicted or developed with your system?

Colin

Patrick Johnson
08-12-2008, 07:17 AM
Colin,

In PRO ONE there is an exact system for the application of spin. Using minimal spin is typically all a player needs and the system for that is quite simple.

Also, I have developed a system for more than minimal spin that works extremely well.

Stan Shuffett

Stan,

Contrary to the impression you might get from some of these threads, most players don't think an element of "feel" is a bad thing in a system. Many (including myself) believe using some "feel" to make shots is necessary, and good systems help make its use easier and more effective.

Do you think "feel" plays a part in your Pro One system?

pj
chgo

P.S. I'm the guy who emailed asking for a written version of your system. Thanks for the reply.

stan shuffett
08-12-2008, 02:12 PM
Patrick,

Phase 1 is a very specific 5 step phase that trains one to pivot correctly. Essentially, there are 4 shots per CB,OB relationship. 2 shots per each edge of the OB. Many of these shots go...many don't. Somewhat limiting.
Phase 2 is when one learns to blend the steps of phase 1 together into a very fluid-like movement to center CB using a proper pivot.
Phase 1 and 2 are comprised of outside and inside pivots.
Phase 3 or PRO ONE...A player learns to come in from one side or just from 1 pivot. The core of phase 1 shot making is maintained. In PRO ONE all shots can go. Adjustments are made CTE. Efren is not limited. No player is limited in PRO ONE.
PRO ONE is the ultimate phase.