Or avoidance. It's more fun for you when you don't have the steps. Then you can berate others for not giving them to you.
CTE/ PRO ONE with Stan Shuffett
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
- Status
Or avoidance. It's more fun for you when you don't have the steps. Then you can berate others for not giving them to you.
I don't know who you include in my "crew," but this is the best idea you have had in years, IMO.
John,
Why do you keep saying this? I have worked really hard on my CTE resource page. The page does contain descriptions of CTE versions offered by CTE proponents, and I have included insightful and interesting quotes from various people concerning the merits and limitations of CTE; however, IMO, the most important part of the page, which explains how and why CTE works, is all mine.
Since you asked, and for the record, I've included "my parts" below. I think it contains many of my thoughts and opinions, based on everything I have learned about CTE to date. Again, I honestly hope some of these observations and conclusions might change after Stan's DVD comes out, but I honestly doubt this will be the case (based on what I have heard so far).
from the CTE resource page, after published versions of CTE, and before quotes from others:
If you follow the procedures above literally and exactly, you will make shots within certain limited ranges of angles (for more info, see limited lines of aim). However, if you don't vary the alignment or pivot (see more below), you will miss most shots outside of these limited ranges, unless the OB is very close to the pocket (so it can be cheated slightly) and/or the pockets are huge (so the margin for error is larger than normal). The difficulty is in applying the subtle differences necessary from one shot to another. However, even if a person is not good at judging these differences, CTE still might be beneficial for the reasons summarized here.
Many "challenges" relating to "aiming systems" are described and illustrated in my November '08 and December '08 BD articles. These difficulties certainly apply to CTE. Here's a good experiment you can use to test whether or not you understand how to apply CTE (or any pivot-based aiming method) effectively:
Shot "A" is about a 10-degree cut, shot "B" is about a 15-degree cut, and shot "C" is about a 20-degree cut. All three shots fit into the "thick cut" category of CTE. Also, the CB-to-OB distance is the same for all three shots. Here's the CTE aiming procedure for a "thick cut" shot, per the 3rd version of CTE above, as I understand it:
1.) ALIGN: (for thick cuts): Start with your cue parallel to the CB-center-to-outside-OB-edge line (CTEL) with the tip pointing at the outside edge of the CB.
2.) PIVOT: Then pivot your tip toward the pocket until it reaches the CB's center. The "effective pivot length" you use during the pivot should be the distance from the bridge to the OB.
Since all three shots are "thick hits," and since the CB-to-OB distance is the same for each, the "effective pivot length" is also the same for each (assuming the bridge length is the same for all three shots). So the pertinent question is: What do you do differently with the alignment and/or pivot steps of CTE to pocket each of the three shots? There are several possible answers. You can:
1.) Change the initial alignment slightly (e.g., by shifting your eye alignment so the perceived cue alignment and/or parallel shift is different)
or
2.) Change the amount of the parallel shift (before the pivot) so you don't quite go all of the way to the perceived CB edge (e.g., shift a given number of "tips" instead)
or
3.) Pivot a slightly different amount (e.g., not quite to center, or just past center).
or
4.) Change the "effective pivot length" slightly (e.g., by adjusting your bridge length or by shifting/tilting your bridge during the pivot).
Options 1 and 4 are probably the most common approaches. The diagram below (from my December '08 article) shows how a change in "effective pivot length" changes the amount of cut. In the diagram, I am showing two different bridge positions, but this could also represent two different "effective cue-pivot-points" created by a non-rigid-bridge pivot method (see more below).
If using a "mechanical pivot" (i.e., pivoting after placing the bridge hand down), one way to vary the "effective pivot length" is to vary the bridge length (as implied by the diagram). Another is to shift, rotate, tilt, or deform your bridge hand during the pivot as you shift your body (AKA "hip pivot"). Here's an example of this, posted by Colin Colenso, where the "effective pivot length" is much longer than the bridge length:
Another way is to use an "air pivot," where you pivot the cue and/or entire body before placing the bridge hand down. In this case, you can easily create any "effective pivot length" over an extremely wide range. Sometimes, the "effective pivot length" is referred to as the "shot arc." Here is a demonstration of how some forms of pivoting are used in conjunction with CTE and other pivot-based aiming methods: CTE pivot demonstration. For more info concerning pivoting, "air pivot," and "shot arc," see Spidey's blog.
The difficulty is in judging how much to change the initial alignment or "effective pivot length" to pocket balls requiring similar, but slightly different, amounts of cut. Many of the CTE proponents will say you don't need to know where the pocket is, or take into consideration the necessary amount of cut (other than to judge a "thin hit" vs. a "thick hit"), but this obviously cannot be the case. Maybe people who seem to use CTE effectively must at least sense where the pocket is (even if they don't look at it), or maybe they just have a feel for how much cut they need to pocket the ball. This sense or feel could influence their alignment or "pivot" in intangible ways that are difficult to describe or illustrate.
With all pivot-based aiming methods, the choice for "effective pivot length" must vary with the distance between the CB and OB, as illustrated by this diagram from my November '08 BD article:
As you can see, with a fixed alignment and pivot, the cut angle is radically different for different ball distances. Interestingly, with the exact same initial alignment and pivot, two of the three balls can be potted if the pocket happens to be at points "a," "b," or "c." This would actually be a good proposition shot. Approach somebody who doubts pivot-based aiming systems and bet him or her you can make two radically different shots (e.g., shots "A" and "B" in the diagram) with the exact same initial alignment and the exact same pivot. You can even have the doubter shoot the shots for you, as long as his aim and stroke are reasonably good. If the balls are lined up to take advantage of the effect shown in the diagram (i.e., if the balls are lined up so the corner pocket is at point "a" relative to the balls), both shots will go and you will win the bet.
...
BOTTOM LINE: All CTE variations require changes in alignment and/or effective pivot length as the cut angle and shot distance change.
Personally, I think DAM is still a much simpler approach to basic center-ball aiming than any pivot-based system; although, like anything, it does requires practice. Regardless of which "aiming system" you use (even if you just "see the angle"), you still need to practice to develop and improve your "visual intelligence" and consistency, and you need to actually focus on aiming the shot. Many aiming systems can help some people do this (for more info, see benefits of "aiming systems"). Also, when you use English, you will need to compensate your aim to account for squirt, swerve, and throw.
mlalum
Banned
All I can figure is JB Crazy must be a brother-in-law of someone who works at AZForums. JB you're sure lucky you own your own company because if you had to answer to other people and they saw your behavior on this forum you would be out of a job. I have never seen anyone so insistent on losing business in such a public way. I hope insanity doesn't run in the family.
He works for Sterling Games. He has a boss. He does do the custom case thing as well.
So, you're saying he's lucky he's self employed? Boy, my dad sure was lucky he had his own business as well. Who knew he'd lose money for the first three years until he turned a profit, and had to work 80+ hours per week to get it back to scratch. Lucky him!
Did I lose your business?
That's ok because I don't want your gambling money. You wrote a long diatribe about how gambling is ruining pool and yet there you are on every live stream betting it up, illegally I might add since it's a federal crime to bet on sporting events over the internet.
And you wrote a children's book about how we should all just accept each other as we are. You did write Song for a Giraffe didn't you?
So forgive me if the words of a hypocrite don't mean much to me.
You can hit the report post button down under my avatar. The mods don't really know about a post until you do. Would you do me a favor and be so kind as to report Pat's post above it where he is in full dick mode?
As well can you report yourself for contributing NOTHING of substance to the discussion one way or the other. Your only two posts were to stir the pot and be insulting. At least Pat has an agenda concerning the TOPIC under discussion.
mlalum
Banned
I'm sure life is good in your own little JB Crazy world.
mlalum
Banned
I wonders if Sterling Games know how he represents their company?
I think it came from Ralph Greenleaf, but do not quote me on that.
mlalum
Banned
You can hit the report post button down under my avatar. The mods don't really know about a post until you do. Would you do me a favor and be so kind as to report Pat's post above it where he is in full dick mode?
As well can you report yourself for contributing NOTHING of substance to the discussion one way or the other. Your only two posts were to stir the pot and be insulting. At least Pat has an agenda concerning the TOPIC under discussion.[/QUOTE]
Well reporting you wouldn't do any good because apparently you're special because you get to behave like you do. I think you ruin the forums for many. Oh and please don't call my mother, me or leave nasty voice mails. And if you want to send me a nasty pm please don't illegally use your wife's account. Thank you.
As well can you report yourself for contributing NOTHING of substance to the discussion one way or the other. Your only two posts were to stir the pot and be insulting. At least Pat has an agenda concerning the TOPIC under discussion.[/QUOTE]
Well reporting you wouldn't do any good because apparently you're special because you get to behave like you do. I think you ruin the forums for many. Oh and please don't call my mother, me or leave nasty voice mails. And if you want to send me a nasty pm please don't illegally use your wife's account. Thank you.
Last edited:
Has he made any statements on behalf of Sterling Games? I haven't seen one yet.
I threw a basketball at a guy last week because he undercut me three times when I was driving for a layup. Didn't do it hard, but enough that he got the message. I didn't get a reprimand from 3M the next morning.
***In response to Dr_Dave's post***
Now that's a contribution to this thread! That's the information I was looking for. I appreciate this post very much. It did confirm to me that there has to be some feel involved in this CTE technique. Why the CTE proponents are so reluctant to acknowledge this I have no idea. What would be so wrong with using this CTE method as a starting point and then relying on your years of experience on a pool table to finish the job? Hmmm.
I'm sure this question has already been asked and answered a million times so I'm not expecting a answer. Thanks for the info.
Back to the basement. Enough for me.
Now that's a contribution to this thread! That's the information I was looking for. I appreciate this post very much. It did confirm to me that there has to be some feel involved in this CTE technique. Why the CTE proponents are so reluctant to acknowledge this I have no idea. What would be so wrong with using this CTE method as a starting point and then relying on your years of experience on a pool table to finish the job? Hmmm.
I'm sure this question has already been asked and answered a million times so I'm not expecting a answer. Thanks for the info.
Back to the basement. Enough for me.
Last edited:
I think somebody in another thread (maybe BRKNRUN) said it came directly from God, but don't quote me on that one.
Regards,
Dave
[/QUOTE]
It guys like you that help ruin the forums. All your posts, and you have yet to post anything worth reading. John can get a little too passionate and OCD at times, but he has contributed a LOT of good to the forums. There is nothing I see that would be bad for Sterling at all, in fact, just the opposite. The only thing I have seen you contribute is to being a mark for guys like Bartrum.
Totally unnecessary, and biased. Bad post.
.......and you wonder why nobody steps up to help you understand CTE.
No thanks, Dave.
First, the offer was only a friendly one for Ron -- "funsies" if you will, to enjoy his company.
Second, it was never intended to be an "aiming system bake-off or shoot-off" -- it's you trying to shoehorn it into something like that.
Third, banks are probably Ron's best game; although I play a decent game of short-rack banks, I wouldn't go head-to-head with someone that specializes in banks. One Pocket, sure; but not banks.
Fourth, this thread has really started to get ugly. From yesterday evening, until now, I'm disappointed at the down-turn in this thread. I don't want anything to do with "representation" of any kind of aiming system. I'm quite turned-off, actually. It's a shame.
Thanks for the offer, though. Maybe another time when all this crap blows over.
-Sean
If it didn't come from Hal (who says he made it), it was Greenleaf (for a number of reasons I'm not getting into). This info is probably decades and decades old. Hey - who knows--- if Hal or Ralph didn't make it, it could be as old as pool itself. All I know 100% is that CTE is older than me.
Did you try it? Do you have ANYTHING on topic to contribute? Surely a distinguished author such as yourself and such an accomplished player must have an opinion on CTE?
Or are you here to stalk me? Because from what I see that's been the sum total contribution of your posts in this thread. All about me.
Your mother is a very nice woman. I apologize again that I reached her and not you. I don't know why you had to lie about my very very brief conversation with her but that's your issue. I already apologized to you for even calling you in the first place to try and resolve things between us.
Sorry I read the excerpt from your book whSong for a Girafe where it's supposed to be acceptance and tolerance for others and thought maybe you are someone that I could have a reasonable conversation with. But no, you are a highly defensive liar who likes to tell me how to live my life. I should have known you were being a hypocrite with the kids as well. Oh well sometimes I am too pollyanna about people.
So it didn't work out. No problem. Does your mother know you are breaking the law with your illegal gambling Michaell Lalumiere? You do know that it's illegal to wager on pool matches over the internet right? I know it is and I have done it but I am not out there writing long essays on the evils of gambling at pool while at the same time betting on pool.
Since you don't want to discuss CTE or Stan's DVD or Joey's trip report how about we discuss you?
So how do you feel about your gambling on pool while at the same time railing against it? And how do you feel about your chastising others for being insulting and you do the same thing? Do you see any issues with these two seemingly hypocritical positions?
Johnny Blaze (my new nickname for JB when he starts catching the OCD gear), it's time to flame-off, man. Not worth it.
Stick to the facts, and let's stop getting personal. Most intelligent posters can figure out who isn't playing nice with the other children.
Let's kick it down a notch. They'll stop poking you with a sharp stick if you stop roaring every time they do it. Take it from someone who knows which of your buttons to push.
- Status