The only way this makes sense is if you move or distort your bridge after it's "set". Otherwise you must "rotate/pivot from the bridge".
pj
chgo
CTE testimonial
- Thread starter dgem
- Start date
The only way this makes sense is if you move or distort your bridge after it's "set". Otherwise you must "rotate/pivot from the bridge".
pj
chgo
Dr. Dave may be curious what else you can say about it, but I really never have been - I don't think you have anything to say that's any more comprehensible than what you've already said. I only prod you to show that you can't explain it rationally, to illustrate that it isn't a "rational" system.
pj
chgo
Does it rely on doing anything different for shots A and D above. Yes or no would be fine.
So a lot of pros who can spot you the rack, literally, don't use a rational system? You're the only one who isn't rational.
You don't prod me at all. I can explain everything rationally, I just choose to not post anything. There's a bunch of people on this site who KNOW I can explain it rationally. I just choose not to educate your ass.
You're even lucky to be on here. The last time you got cocky and "prodded" me, you should have lost your cue, a few G's and perma-banishment. The outcome of that bet was already proven to be in my favor. You shouldn't even BE here, as far as I'm concerned. You should be pissing off the people on CCB, Jimbosarmy, easypooltutor or cuetable forums....not here. Be a man and ban yourself...or at least send me your cue and a few G's. Someone should put you on the bad action list.
I'm not surprised by your response. This is just about what I said when he showed up here.
If Stephen Hawking had anything to say about aiming, or banking, or draw, or throw, or squirt, or swerve, or anything else involving colliding spheres, I would be more inclined to believe him than Willie Mosconi hisself, and everyone knows Hawkings can't draw his rock -- he can't even hit a ball. And it's the science that Dr. Dave has been contributing for a long time. It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of knowledge and the ability to clearly explain the physics and geometry to those that are interested in knowing and learning that part of the game.
Is the knowledge the whole enchilada? No. To excel, players will always need the mechanical skill or, if you prefer, artistry, to play pool well. But to many players the science is still an important part of the game. Some get along just fine without knowing the shortest of equations. But to many, it helps, and people all over the world -- as evidence by hits on Dr. Dave's website, books purchased, articles published and read, videos viewed, and his contributions on this and other forums -- are testament to the fact that players everywhere are interested in and appreciate this kind of knowledge.
Guys like Dr. Dave, Wayland Marlow, Jack Koehler, Bob Jewett, Ron Shepard, and PJ Have contributed more to improving the play of pool players worldwide than all baloney combined churned out by the CTE guys, who have yet to contribute diddly do-da.
Lou Figueroa
Ya know what... I'll take your comments ALL day long with a smile on my face because at least I know you're a player. If you really think posting equations helps someone improve, then more power to ya. For me, I don't think of a damn thing when pocketing a ball. I certainly don't think of PJs tables and diagrams.
But like I said, you're obviously a great player so you can rub it in my face all day long and I'd never say a peep. But, that's just me. With Dr. D and PJ --- I peep my ass off.
Shot Circle Arc
Spidey,
The shot circle arc, if I've understood it correctly, would appear to provide an adjustment mechanism for dealing with required pivot adjustments over various CB to OB distances (a longstanding a point of debate).
It alone still can't explain how we arrive at a 3/4 ball vs a 7/8 ball contact from the same position, but let's leave that aside for now. The Shot Circle concept, in regards to how it affects the pivot or turn, is interesting.
In my diagram below, adapted from yours, does my marking of the effective pivot point at the shot circle arc, coincide with your understanding?
Your statement of "Once you're set in your bridge, the cue is turned along the shot circle arc, in relation to the OB" is a little unclear to me.
Spidey,
The shot circle arc, if I've understood it correctly, would appear to provide an adjustment mechanism for dealing with required pivot adjustments over various CB to OB distances (a longstanding a point of debate).
It alone still can't explain how we arrive at a 3/4 ball vs a 7/8 ball contact from the same position, but let's leave that aside for now. The Shot Circle concept, in regards to how it affects the pivot or turn, is interesting.
In my diagram below, adapted from yours, does my marking of the effective pivot point at the shot circle arc, coincide with your understanding?
Your statement of "Once you're set in your bridge, the cue is turned along the shot circle arc, in relation to the OB" is a little unclear to me.
Attachments
Last edited:
Good to have you back, Colin. No, you're not pivoting from the bottom of that circle. For all intensive purposes, the bottom of the circle doesn't exist--- only what's in your field of vision.
The purpose of the shot arc is to get you to the correct CB center. When executing a true pivot from the bridge (the bridge circle), it's possible to miss the OB completely. You're pivoting along the OB vertical plane on every single shot. So, with every pivot, the OB distance matters. If you don't take the OB distance into account, you're not hitting the correct center.
The pivot point on nearly every shot will be behind the bridge, but never so far back that you have to move your bridge-- ever. Let me repeat that - "EVER."
When the distance of the CB to OB is shorter than your bridge length, you must shorten your bridge for real tight quarters shots.
To answer your question about the 3/4 and 7/8 hit, there are not two edges of the OB (one on each side) that are "fixed." The moment you eyes move a hair, it's a new edge. This is something that's referred to as finding "your outermost edge." Some people shift their heads; however, I prefer to set my feet off of the CTEL vertical plane. Someone above (maybe Tennesee, I forget) said that your alignment changes--- and that's 100% true.
I mentioned before I don't wanna get into outermost edges on here because it's not my info to post. However, if you experiment with changing your alignment to the CTEL while still being in-line with the CB, a player of any decent speed will soon discover the 3 limits.
EDIT:
Colin, you turn your tip along the front-side of the shot circle diagram--- along that arc, while your bridge is in place. Your diagram is not showing the proper cue alignment. Your starting position is affected by your outermost edge alignment.
Last edited:
Look, it's not a matter of rubbing anything anywhere. And thank you for the player comment. Actually, I'm with you 100% when it comes to what happens when I'm at the table in a match. (In fact, a long time ago I wrote something about the science of the game that you'd probably like *a lot.* I'll find and re-post it of you like.)
But nonetheless, I have found over the years, that knowing the science can help. I know that approaching the game with a good understanding of what is happening physically has made me a better player. Am I thinking about any of this when shooting? Absolutely not. But I understand better what's causing what and that can't hurt. Maybe if you're a natural and you were running 100s when you were so small you needed a soapbox to stand on around the table, the science is totally irrelevant. But most of us are not in that boat.
What I think everyone wants to know is: is there a scientific basis for this thing called CTE. How does it work? I don't think anyone doubts that it helps some players, and there have been a variety of theories proposed for why that is so.
I think most of us here like to share so that we all get better. Everything from answering questions about the best tips to use, to discussions about grips, bridges, eye position, stance, and everything else pool. People all across this and other forums have freely helped each other and maybe we've all learned a tidbit here or there that has taken us a little further up the mountain.
And that is what I think many find infuriating about CTE and its proponents: the claims that it works and has scientific validity, while being unable and/or unwilling to share and explain. Personally, I have said before that I think the reason it works is because it makes some players more systematic in their approach to lining up and aiming. Certainly, you would have to concede that purely as a matter of geometry, the system can't work (maybe not
and that's at the crux of the controversy. I think the CTE guys are worried that, if all is revealed, it will be shown that CTE is not 100% scientifically. But even that would not mean that CTE is not a good helpful useful thing, because there are a lot of things that aren't 100% when it comes to pool. There will always be the element of artistry needed to blend all the things like squirt and swerve and throw and spin, and speed, regardless of the system.I know this isn't going to persuade anyone, but at this point I think it's time for both sides to let go. Without someone from the CTE side giving up a coherent explanation, this isn't going anywhere. But by the same token, if you're not willing to share and explain, you should stop with the claims and taunts, IMO.
Lou Figueroa
Look, it's not a matter of rubbing anything anywhere. And thank you for the player comment. Actually, I'm with you 100% when it comes to what happens when I'm at the table in a match. (In fact, a long time ago I wrote something about the science of the game that you'd probably like *a lot.* I'll find and re-post it of you like.)
But nonetheless, I have found over the years, that knowing the science can help. I know that approaching the game with a good understanding of what is happening physically has made me a better player. Am I thinking about any of this when shooting? Absolutely not. But I understand better what's causing what and that can't hurt. Maybe if you're a natural and you were running 100s when you were so small you needed a soapbox to stand on around the table, the science is totally irrelevant. But most of us are not in that boat.
What I think everyone wants to know is: is there a scientific basis for this thing called CTE. How does it work? I don't think anyone doubts that it helps some players, and there have been a variety of theories proposed for why that is so.
I think most of us here like to share so that we all get better. Everything from answering questions about the best tips to use, to discussions about grips, bridges, eye position, stance, and everything else pool. People all across this and other forums have freely helped each other and maybe we've all learned a tidbit here or there that has taken us a little further up the mountain.
And that is what I think many find infuriating about CTE and its proponents: the claims that it works and has scientific validity, while being unable and/or unwilling to share and explain. Personally, I have said before that I think the reason it works is because it makes some players more systematic in their approach to lining up and aiming. Certainly, you would have to concede that purely as a matter of geometry, the system can't work (maybe not
I know this isn't going to persuade anyone, but at this point I think it's time for both sides to let go. Without someone from the CTE side giving up a coherent explanation, this isn't going anywhere. But by the same token, if you're not willing to share and explain, you should stop with the claims and taunts, IMO.
Lou Figueroa
Lou-
I agree, but you missed my point. It's not mine to share. I promised when I got clued-in that I wouldn't post it so I never have. People know where to go to get the info--- but they don't go. So, is that my fault?
One last comment to Colin... the reason why RonV's hip pivot is so effective is because it's a natural pivot along the shot arc. However, when you get close, you must change your alignment reference line because pivoting from the hip is a flatter arc than the distance of the shot.
This is true, and I think Spidey obviously agrees with you, based on his diagram and description. If a "mechanical" (non-"air") pivoter wants to change the effective pivot length (i.e., use a "bigger circle"), he or she must shift and/or deform the bridge during the pivot (or use a longer bridge length). I know you and Spidey had a big argument about this last year, but I think this matter was finally cleared up. I'm not sure who won the "bet," but it doesn't matter.
Regards,
Dave
At one time in my life I had a top secret crypto eyes only destroy after reading cleared up to and including ridiculous security clearance. In fact, for a couple years at the Pentagon, I was the USAF spokesmodel for Project Blue Book (you know, the one about UFOs and little grey-skinned big-eyed men from Roswell we kept on ice at Wright-Patterson AFB... oh, wait a minute. Strike all that :-o
And in all my time, answering questions from Wolf Blitzer, and Byrant Gumbel, and Katie Curic, and Mike Wallace, and Sam Donaldson, and the rest of the Washington, DC press corps, I never once said, "You won't believe what I know, but can't tell you, but believe me it's amazing."
IOW, if it was classified, I'd just say, "Sorry. That's classified and I can't speak to that."
End of story.
Lou Figueroa
but one time
at Area 51...
Last edited:
You don't have to do anything different ... you still align, pivot, and shoot; you just have to do it differently ... align to a different "edge" or "pivot" with a bigger "circle." The keys are in which "edge" you choose and how big of a "circle" you use. I'm not writing this to be disrespectful (or to claim I am an expert at CTE) ... this is just clear from everything I have heard, read, seen, and tried.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
That's totally understandable. Like when I choose not to embarrass Efren at 1 pocket. It's a principled choice.
pj
chgo
Dave,
Good to be back and see the lads are up to the same ol' tricks
I figured my interpretation wouldn't be what you are visualizing, but I wanted to clarify that.
The thing is, that if I turn the tip along the front side of the shot circle, to make a tip curve that estimates that shape (radius), the cue would have to pivot radially from the CB center. Obviously this isn't what happens. Any cue that moves or turns from one position to another can be described as having been pivoted at some distinct point. On CTE shots this pivot point must be behind the CB and usually it is behind the bridge hand so the shape of an arc, projected to the front of the shot circle would always be flatter than the actual shot circle arc.
Hence, it seems more like the shot circle is an approximate visualization method, like, as you've said, scraping your tip along a distant window. This is fine, but it's not very quantifiable or systematic, other than it would seem to indicate that you can intuitively sense the nature of the turn and that the turn pivots noticeably closer to the CB with closer distance shots.
Regarding edges of the OB, technically there is only one edge each side that is on the CTE line, but I understand that one's perception of variations in this edge change if one sights the various angled shots from different positions relative to the CTE line.
Anyway, the more you can explain your method of visualizing the shot mechanism the more I think it helps people to get an idea of how to implement it better, even if it doesn't provide the slide-rule type accuracy or geometrical perfection we might like to see.
IMHO, a simple and accurate geometrical solution will never be provided, but the nature of the adjustments and visualization could be improved upon considerably. No doubt, the butting of heads, will continue to provide a percussive audible backdrop.:grin:
I agree ... posting equations doesn't help anybody. But using the insight provided by equations can sometimes help create useful knowledge (e.g., the 30-degree rule, throw trends, tip height recommended for optimal speed/distance control, how to maximize spin-induced throw and spin transfer, the best tip position to use for maximum power draw, etc. !!!). You still need to have skill (accurate and consistent stroke, excellent speed control, accurate and consistent aiming, and good vision and perception) to apply the knowledge, but the knowledge is still useful ... to some people anyway.
I hope you and others realize it is ridiculous to think that anybody actually thinks about this kind of stuff when they shoot. However, some of us do think a little before we shoot ... but usually not about equations and diagrams. It would be silly and stupid to think during a shot, even for a "thinking man."
Regards,
Dave