PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions
- Thread starter stan shuffett
- Start date
Your 3-cut scenario violates Stan's principles of alignment. For a given CB-OB distance, the CTEL and the secondary alignment line uniquely define a 180-degree face of the CB. From that position, one moves straight in with the necessary 1/2-tip offset and pivots to center.
In other words, you can't move your head laterally to create 3 different cut angles using the same visuals.
Edit : in fact, if you secure the visuals for the first of your shots (straight) and then move your head 2" or 4" to the right, you probably can no longer even see a CTEL -- any line from the new viewpoint through the center of the CB would pass on by to the left of the OB.
Last edited:
It's simple: For a given CB/OB position there's only one center-to-right-edge line and only one left-edge-to-A line, and together they "point to" only one correct eye position for that "visual".
You seem to be saying that pocket position affects how the shooter interprets the visuals, but if so it's not clear how that works.
pj
chgo
morht,
Thanks for incorp. the cut angles and the work sheet so that one can enter their results - hit or miss.
AtLarge,
Thanks for the cut angles, we now have a Rosetta Stone to adjust the visuals, stance, tip offset, bridge location - pre-pivot or not.:thumbup:
There was an error in the post that AtLarge refers to here. I've deleted its content, and my response here which brought forward the error. My thanks to him for bringing it to my attention.
Last edited:
I'll repost this as I never saw an answer.
I'm trying to constantly get to the same position for the Basic 1 /8 ball overlap. I've watched the video numerous times and I'm not getting that position. If your doing a shot where you going CTE edge to a & b for left cuts or c & b for right cuts. You have the Ctel for the cue poistion whether it's a right or left pivot. With the 1/8 ball overlap, it's not clear to me where the staring point of the cue is. It dosen't matter if it's a left or right cut. I understand the sighting visual of it, but has anybody come up with a spot/position to position your cue before the pivot to center. I do fairly well with the Pro 1 1/8ball overlap, but I'm looking for a spot to do the same postilion all the time with Basic.
The other problem I find is, determing whether it's a right or left pivot. I practice this all the time so it's not due to putting in the practice time. I'm not talking about all pivots, most are easily seen. But some are hard to determine and you can have the visuals right and pivot wrong and miss the shot by alot. When practicing it's one thing, but if your in a game situation and think your pivoting correctly and you pivot wrong and miss what should be a makeable shot that causes you to lose a game. It can be aggravating to say the least.
Any suggestions ?
I'm trying to constantly get to the same position for the Basic 1 /8 ball overlap. I've watched the video numerous times and I'm not getting that position. If your doing a shot where you going CTE edge to a & b for left cuts or c & b for right cuts. You have the Ctel for the cue poistion whether it's a right or left pivot. With the 1/8 ball overlap, it's not clear to me where the staring point of the cue is. It dosen't matter if it's a left or right cut. I understand the sighting visual of it, but has anybody come up with a spot/position to position your cue before the pivot to center. I do fairly well with the Pro 1 1/8ball overlap, but I'm looking for a spot to do the same postilion all the time with Basic.
The other problem I find is, determing whether it's a right or left pivot. I practice this all the time so it's not due to putting in the practice time. I'm not talking about all pivots, most are easily seen. But some are hard to determine and you can have the visuals right and pivot wrong and miss the shot by alot. When practicing it's one thing, but if your in a game situation and think your pivoting correctly and you pivot wrong and miss what should be a makeable shot that causes you to lose a game. It can be aggravating to say the least.
Any suggestions ?
If you could, what would be the significance of the visuals in the first place?
pj
chgo
You can, and should, do two things. One- you want to look at the ob last anyways for position and speed input. That should already be set in your mind to where you can close your eyes and be successful, but it never hurts to look at the ob last. When doing that, you should be able to see if you are lined up correctly or not. If you feel you might not be, stand up and try the opposite pivot. If that looks right, then you know you are dead on and are free to shoot.
Two- If neither pivot looks right, stand up and aim it another way. You aren't ready yet to use CTE (something new) for that shot in a game situation. You find a different way to aim that shot that will give you the highest results or percentages. Game time is not the time to be experimenting. You experiment and learn at the practice table, not the game table. During game time, you never shoot a shot that you aren't sure about.
The CTE line doesn't move. The secondary aim line doesn't move. The eye position they dictate doesn't move. What makes you want to move your eyes?
This is elementary stuff that you're overcomplicating.
pj
chgo
My apologies, you are correct. I've noted that in the original, and removed the content; don't have time to fix it right now.
Thanks for letting me know.
If this is true, then what moves for each new angle? The balls are going in...something must be changing! Or are you still stuck on ghost ball?
Best,
Mike
That's the point, Mike. Something must change - but nothing within the system changes. The system has already given all its information with the CTE line and the secondary line. The shooter makes the change based on his observation that the cut angle is different. It's what we call "adjusting by feel". And, by the way, it's necessary on most shots.
One of us seems to be. I hardly ever mention or even think about ghost ball.
You and JB seem to think ghost ball and x-angle systems are in head to head competition for the hearts and minds of pool players. I think you overestimate both.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Pj only answers questions with questions. he doesn't answer a question with an answer. He wants you to answer the questions he is incapable of figuring out. This is the game he plays lol
Those are the only questions worth asking, no? Otherwise, if you're capable of figuring it out, why ask?
He keeps telling everyone that he knows all this stuff better than everyone, so shouldn't he be giving everyone the answers?
Just yanking your chain about the ghost ball. It's been the 'go to' shark for these debates. I understand your stance and have understood it from the git.
Something to think about...Can and does each player see the reference points similarly? Does an A, left pivot make a ball at 15.5 degrees for each user? Is there a fudge factor for individual perception? Can it be up two degrees in either direction per individual?
This is part of a +/- way of looking at some of the possible angles. Not rooted in math, but a function of all pivot systems. I'm not talking about slop here, but real world alignments per individual users. Is this feasible with your view on system parameters? We're starting to make progress if you even consider it. :wink:
BTW, I seriously think your new avatar is extremely outstanding!
Best,
Mike
I'm sure it can be more than that, but that doesn't make the system any more or less "complete". I have the same small number of system cut angles to work with, even if yours aren't the same as mine.
pj
chgo
Complete is a tough standard and subjective, but now we have possibly enlarged the scope of angles to more than 5,6,8,9,11 or 12. Without getting too crazy, we could even say 20-25 more angles? With small imprecise alignments I think this is possible. And while we're on the subject of things being aligned slightly off or just different, would it be possible that the user could move himself a small distance and still be able to see the same visuals?
After all, the eyes can stay stationary while the body moves, right? So visually, it could be possible for a person to line up for a shot and attain a certain visual perspective, but be turned an eighth inch, hardly a fraction and create another 20-25 different angles. And the visuals are still in the same EXACT place they were for other angles. Wow, must be something in the water. LOL The user would never know what happened physically because it is such an insignificant adjustment that it could never be detected. Not even by a motion detector.:wink:
Of couse, this is all just conjecture. How could the visuals be this accurate? Our brains don't have the capability to control our bodies to pocket balls without our directing them with a geometrically proven, diagrammable, used by NASA, aiming system. But what do I know?
Excuse me, will you? I have to leave and switch out the tin foil for aluminum foil on my hat. Hard to find good tin foil, anymore.
Best,
Mike
Mike, I think these are valid observations. As I've said several times -- if performed robotically, Stan's CTE is a discrete aiming method ("x-angle system" in pj's terms) rather than a continuous aiming method. That means, on paper, that it offers only a limited number of cut angles for any given distance between the CB and OB.
In use, however, I believe many players actually convert it into something more flexible (more cut angles) by slightly modifying something either before or after the pivot, based upon their knowledge of where the pocket is. I think those "feel" adjustments can become so routine and ingrained that the method starts to seem like a continuous method (unlimited cut angles at any CB-OB distance).
Here's an analogy. The "quarters" system -- or SAM or something similar -- is an x-angle system. Many players use these systems with high proficiency -- snooker players included, apparently. But we know that a relatively small number of cut angles is not enough to play at a high level. So the user develops a keen sense of needing to go a little thinner or a little thicker off of each of the reference cut lines, thereby converting the x angles into many more. This way of adjusting becomes ingrained, natural, automatic -- almost systematic, yet it can also be labeled "feel."
With Stan's manual CTE, it's harder to understand what's going on for the adjustments. The multiple visual alignment lines and the pivoting complicate the analysis. It has often been said in the past that CTE just gets the user in the ballpark and then he adjusts as needed. That's just one way of adjusting. I think it can also become built-in to the alignment process -- shade something a little here or there, wind up at a slightly different cut angle.
I don't even think there is anything magic about Stan's A/B/C alignment points on the quarters and his pivot being 1/2 tip. I think CTE mechanics could be defined using OB thirds or fifths or eights, for example, instead of quarters. And the pivot could be of a different size. But to make any such method work with great proficiency at all cut angles for all CB-OB distances takes considerable experience to ingrain the needed "feel" adjustments, to make it subconscious, to make it continuous.
Like it, dislike it, use it or not -- but no harm in actually understanding and acknowledging what is going on.
That's the way I see it -- March 28, 2011.