PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions

Interesting story to report from Friday afternoon, a little long but I just wanted to share...

I have a friend at work, great athlete but average pool player mostly because he just doesn't play often, probably be a 4 - 5 in APA right now but could easily be 6/7 with a little regular shooting. He actually hasn't shot or done any sports in almost a year because of a torn shoulder and surgery/rehab.

He and I talk about pool often, he understands more than he can execute, probably more than a lot of people that I shoot with, and I've discussed a lot with him over the last few years. I've recently told him about my experiences with CTE/Pro 1 and I told him I had to show him.

So I spent 15 minutes showing him all of the things I've been talking about, demoing shots, and explaining the basics of the visuals. I picked a relatively easy 15 - 20 degree shot and stood aside while I directed him to do what I had just showed him. Didn't even tell him about the pivot portion, just had him pick up the lines and set up 1/2 tip off center. He took 10+ seconds to really zero in on the lines and get setup, and I asked him if he felt lined up to make the ball and he said it looked too straight on. So now I told him to pivot to center ball and shoot, he did and made the ball cleanly.

The best part of this story was his reaction, I wish I had recorded the process. He jumped up, backing away from the table and just laughing. I just had him go through all of these steps and he made his first shot in a year! He had an instant realization that he never really focused on the pocket, or the back of the contact point of the object ball, or any other thing he would have normally done, he just followed instructions and made the ball!

I had him shoot a thicker shot requiring a different pivot, same thing, also had him shoot a much tougher, longer thin cut, he did miss the first one but I saw him not trust his alignment and swerve the cue and he felt it as well, he re-executed the steps on his own and fired it in.


We never even got a chance to play, hopefully next week, but I was happy that I've learned enough to be able to teach it to someone in 15 minutes and get them to understand what to look for and follow the steps. I also felt better about things since I'm pretty sure he didn't use "feel" to make the shots as he hadn't shot in a year and was so focused on the lines that he didn't even pay attention to anything else. Hopefully next time I can have him shoot a larger number of shots and see how he does.

We also discussed how the balls might possibly go in, since for each given shot to a particular side (left or right) there seems to be only 6 possible angles that the ball can travel with the menu of aim points and pivotds, and how it's odd that 1 - 3 of those seems to make the ball in a pocket or bank it in another pocket for seemingly every position. He thought he had some ideas on that, I could see the wheels turning, so who knows, maybe as someone who's not been absorbed with this for months or years he'll come up with something as well?

Scott
 
scottjen26 said:
Interesting story to report from Friday afternoon, a little long but I just wanted to share...

I have a friend at work, great athlete but average pool player mostly because he just doesn't play often, probably be a 4 - 5 in APA right now but could easily be 6/7 with a little regular shooting. He actually hasn't shot or done any sports in almost a year because of a torn shoulder and surgery/rehab.

He and I talk about pool often, he understands more than he can execute, probably more than a lot of people that I shoot with, and I've discussed a lot with him over the last few years. I've recently told him about my experiences with CTE/Pro 1 and I told him I had to show him.

So I spent 15 minutes showing him all of the things I've been talking about, demoing shots, and explaining the basics of the visuals. I picked a relatively easy 15 - 20 degree shot and stood aside while I directed him to do what I had just showed him. Didn't even tell him about the pivot portion, just had him pick up the lines and set up 1/2 tip off center. He took 10+ seconds to really zero in on the lines and get setup, and I asked him if he felt lined up to make the ball and he said it looked too straight on. So now I told him to pivot to center ball and shoot, he did and made the ball cleanly.

The best part of this story was his reaction, I wish I had recorded the process. He jumped up, backing away from the table and just laughing. I just had him go through all of these steps and he made his first shot in a year! He had an instant realization that he never really focused on the pocket, or the back of the contact point of the object ball, or any other thing he would have normally done, he just followed instructions and made the ball!

I had him shoot a thicker shot requiring a different pivot, same thing, also had him shoot a much tougher, longer thin cut, he did miss the first one but I saw him not trust his alignment and swerve the cue and he felt it as well, he re-executed the steps on his own and fired it in.


We never even got a chance to play, hopefully next week, but I was happy that I've learned enough to be able to teach it to someone in 15 minutes and get them to understand what to look for and follow the steps. I also felt better about things since I'm pretty sure he didn't use "feel" to make the shots as he hadn't shot in a year and was so focused on the lines that he didn't even pay attention to anything else. Hopefully next time I can have him shoot a larger number of shots and see how he does.

We also discussed how the balls might possibly go in, since for each given shot to a particular side (left or right) there seems to be only 6 possible angles that the ball can travel with the menu of aim points and pivotds, and how it's odd that 1 - 3 of those seems to make the ball in a pocket or bank it in another pocket for seemingly every position. He thought he had some ideas on that, I could see the wheels turning, so who knows, maybe as someone who's not been absorbed with this for months or years he'll come up with something as well?

Scott
Click to expand...

Scott,

Thanks for posting. I enjoyed reading that. :)

Best,
Mike
 
scottjen26 said:
Interesting story to report from Friday afternoon, a little long but I just wanted to share...

I have a friend at work, great athlete but average pool player mostly because he just doesn't play often, probably be a 4 - 5 in APA right now but could easily be 6/7 with a little regular shooting. He actually hasn't shot or done any sports in almost a year because of a torn shoulder and surgery/rehab.

He and I talk about pool often, he understands more than he can execute, probably more than a lot of people that I shoot with, and I've discussed a lot with him over the last few years. I've recently told him about my experiences with CTE/Pro 1 and I told him I had to show him.

So I spent 15 minutes showing him all of the things I've been talking about, demoing shots, and explaining the basics of the visuals. I picked a relatively easy 15 - 20 degree shot and stood aside while I directed him to do what I had just showed him. Didn't even tell him about the pivot portion, just had him pick up the lines and set up 1/2 tip off center. He took 10+ seconds to really zero in on the lines and get setup, and I asked him if he felt lined up to make the ball and he said it looked too straight on. So now I told him to pivot to center ball and shoot, he did and made the ball cleanly.

The best part of this story was his reaction, I wish I had recorded the process. He jumped up, backing away from the table and just laughing. I just had him go through all of these steps and he made his first shot in a year! He had an instant realization that he never really focused on the pocket, or the back of the contact point of the object ball, or any other thing he would have normally done, he just followed instructions and made the ball!

I had him shoot a thicker shot requiring a different pivot, same thing, also had him shoot a much tougher, longer thin cut, he did miss the first one but I saw him not trust his alignment and swerve the cue and he felt it as well, he re-executed the steps on his own and fired it in.


We never even got a chance to play, hopefully next week, but I was happy that I've learned enough to be able to teach it to someone in 15 minutes and get them to understand what to look for and follow the steps. I also felt better about things since I'm pretty sure he didn't use "feel" to make the shots as he hadn't shot in a year and was so focused on the lines that he didn't even pay attention to anything else. Hopefully next time I can have him shoot a larger number of shots and see how he does.

We also discussed how the balls might possibly go in, since for each given shot to a particular side (left or right) there seems to be only 6 possible angles that the ball can travel with the menu of aim points and pivotds, and how it's odd that 1 - 3 of those seems to make the ball in a pocket or bank it in another pocket for seemingly every position. He thought he had some ideas on that, I could see the wheels turning, so who knows, maybe as someone who's not been absorbed with this for months or years he'll come up with something as well?

Scott
Click to expand...

Careful with these kind of posts Scott. You're going to have the Naysayers on your back.:D j/k Good post.
 
jwpretd said:
So if somebody says "I stand about here and angle my body like this and imagine a line over the top of the cue ball to the right side of the object ball, and shift my eyes a little like this and imagine a line from the left edge of the cue ball to the left quarter of the object ball, and once I'm positioned so I can imagine seeing both lines simultaneously, then I move into shooting position by moving down and directly toward what I see to be the center of the cue ball while sliding my bridge hand in from the left with the tip pointed so it winds up offset 1/2 tip from the cue ball's axis just as I reach my normal shooting position, and I can imagine seeing those two lines remain steady in my vision while I'm doing that."

So if somebody says all that, it can't be true because it's impossible?
Click to expand...
It's impossible if they insist there's no feel involved in all that imagining.

Well, maybe so, I guess, but there's sure a lot of video out there where it looks like people are doing that. (Except maybe the eye bit - difficult to see on the videos available, though even that doesn't sound impossible.) I think for now I'll accept, just as a hypothesis, mind you, that all that's possible and is what they're doing and see if it gets me anywhere.
Click to expand...
Have fun imagining that. I'll continue to take into account the real-life limitations.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Why did that make you feel better about things? Is there something wrong with using feel? Would it have invalidated the system?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I love how you pick that one sentence out of a small novel to quote... :)

As you know, I'm still trying to figure out for myself at least how or why this works (or doesn't work) as well. Obviously everyone else is as well or we wouldn't have these 50+ page threads one after another.

For me, it was enlightening to see someone with no preconceived notions and no current pool playing experience be able to understand the steps and make several random shots where he obviously wasn't interpolating between 6 discrete angles or "feeling" his way into the shot. Both things that have been argued here or in other threads.

I don't think using feel would invalidate the system, but since I'm using it and want to know on some level why it's helping me, it would be nice one day to "prove" whether it's visual/feel based or geometry based or some blend of the two. I know what I feel I'm doing at the table and how everything looks to me now, and seeing someone else do the same thing was an edifying moment.

That's all, and that's why I posted the story, just food for thought. Believe me, my friend is still thinking about it and wondering many of the same things people here have been wondering, will be interesting if he comes up with a fresh perspective.
Scott
 
scottjen26 said:
I love how you pick that one sentence out of a small novel to quote... :)

As you know, I'm still trying to figure out for myself at least how or why this works (or doesn't work) as well. Obviously everyone else is as well or we wouldn't have these 50+ page threads one after another.

For me, it was enlightening to see someone with no preconceived notions and no current pool playing experience be able to understand the steps and make several random shots where he obviously wasn't interpolating between 6 discrete angles or "feeling" his way into the shot. Both things that have been argued here or in other threads.

I don't think using feel would invalidate the system, but since I'm using it and want to know on some level why it's helping me, it would be nice one day to "prove" whether it's visual/feel based or geometry based or some blend of the two. I know what I feel I'm doing at the table and how everything looks to me now, and seeing someone else do the same thing was an edifying moment.

That's all, and that's why I posted the story, just food for thought. Believe me, my friend is still thinking about it and wondering many of the same things people here have been wondering, will be interesting if he comes up with a fresh perspective.
Scott
Click to expand...

:thumbup: good story scott and keep up the good posts!
 
scottjen26:
I also felt better about things since I'm pretty sure he didn't use "feel" to make the shots
Click to expand...
Me:
Why did that make you feel better about things? Is there something wrong with using feel? Would it have invalidated the system?
Click to expand...
scottjen26:
I love how you pick that one sentence out of a small novel to quote...
Click to expand...
Should I have quoted the whole thing just to ask about that one?

Let's talk about the rest of the sentence I quoted: What makes you think a player who's an APA 4/5 has no feel even after a year off?

Let's put that another way: Why do you jump to the largely unsupported conclusion that this player uses no feel when the simple geometry of the situation virtually proves that he does? In other words, why is your "analysis" slanted so heavily toward believing the no-feel interpretation? Is it because you want the system to be non-feel? If so, why?

The reason I ask like this is the same reason you say you're interested in this stuff: to find out how it works.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Should I have quoted the whole thing just to ask about that one?

Let's talk about the rest of the sentence I quoted: What makes you think a player who's an APA 4/5 has no feel even after a year off?

Let's put that another way: Why do you jump to the largely unsupported conclusion that this player uses no feel when the simple geometry of the situation virtually proves that he does? In other words, why is your "analysis" slanted so heavily toward believing the no-feel interpretation? Is it because you want the system to be non-feel? If so, why?

The reason I ask like this is the same reason you say you're interested in this stuff: to find out how it works.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

No, it's funny, it just seems you tend to pick out the parts that support your beliefs. But you are right, better than quoting the whole thing, we are too quote happy here anyway...
:)
Click to expand...

And I jumped to that conclusion because of what I saw. He's not an APA 4 or 5, I said he would be if he played regularly, which he doesn't. Even before his shoulder surgery, he played at best a few times a year, although in his past he had played more so was familiar with shooting and as I said was a natural athlete.

I had him purely focus on the steps, I didn't even tell him everything he had to do, I left the pivoting out of it. Therefore he fully concentrated on picking up the lines so his approach to the ball was set, I watched him move into the shot along that visual line or plane, and set up to the ball 1/2 tip off center. He wasn't looking at the pocket, or the contact point, just the lines and moving into the shot 1/2 tip offset. He questioned it, since he wasn't lined up, and I told him to pivot and shoot. As I said, his reaction was priceless. I doubt that someone who hadn't played in a year, and not that often before that, could make 4 shots from various angles and distances on the table after rigidly following these steps for 10 - 15 seconds on each shot and then just magically feel his way into making the shot. That's what was powerful for me.

Frankly, I don't care if this all works by feel or not. My belief, if I have one at this point, is that it can't purely work by feel. I had just started shooting again after a long layoff, and I know how long it takes me to get back into shooting shape again. Feel does not explain to me how this interrupted and accelerated my return to 100%, and in some ways 105% - 110% since I feel I'm pocketing balls better than I ever have. With a little more work on my focus on confidence with my current routine I have no doubt I will be playing better than I have at any point in the last 20 years.

I just don't understand how feel accounts for this. I get how powerful our hand/eye/brain connection is, how I can flick a ball of paper across the room at a garbage can and hit it, especially if I don't think about it, and there is no system for calculating speed, trajectory, distance, etc. But this system has you visualize a line or approach to the shot that is NOT on the intended shot line, and then pivot into it. I'm pretty sure our brains aren't wired that well to be able to consistently visualize something in a repeatable manner that is purposefully not on the intended line of aim but with an adjustment (pivot) will be.

Nothing I've seen on paper proves that this should work. But because of the perception issue, and the physical proof I have from using this at the table, nothing I've seen disproves it yet either. I've said before, if this is a fully visual system, and I'm also getting other benefits by following a defined routine, focusing more on my aim, etc, then so be it, I'm going to keep visualizing while my opponents watch from the chair. I'm also aware that even if this is proven and fully works it still may not be for everyone.

I knew my post would draw yeas and nays from the appropriate people, but I thought it was interesting and had to share. I doesn't prove anything, but to me at least it was an interesting and validating experience.
Scott
 
Sometimes.....

scottjen26 said:
No, it's funny, it just seems you tend to pick out the parts that support your beliefs. But you are right, better than quoting the whole thing, we are too quote happy here anyway...

And I jumped to that conclusion because of what I saw. He's not an APA 4 or 5, I said he would be if he played regularly, which he doesn't. Even before his shoulder surgery, he played at best a few times a year, although in his past he had played more so was familiar with shooting and as I said was a natural athlete.

I had him purely focus on the steps, I didn't even tell him everything he had to do, I left the pivoting out of it. Therefore he fully concentrated on picking up the lines so his approach to the ball was set, I watched him move into the shot along that visual line or plane, and set up to the ball 1/2 tip off center. He wasn't looking at the pocket, or the contact point, just the lines and moving into the shot 1/2 tip offset. He questioned it, since he wasn't lined up, and I told him to pivot and shoot. As I said, his reaction was priceless. I doubt that someone who hadn't played in a year, and not that often before that, could make 4 shots from various angles and distances on the table after rigidly following these steps for 10 - 15 seconds on each shot and then just magically feel his way into making the shot. That's what was powerful for me.

Frankly, I don't care if this all works by feel or not. My belief, if I have one at this point, is that it can't purely work by feel. I had just started shooting again after a long layoff, and I know how long it takes me to get back into shooting shape again. Feel does not explain to me how this interrupted and accelerated my return to 100%, and in some ways 105% - 110% since I feel I'm pocketing balls better than I ever have. With a little more work on my focus on confidence with my current routine I have no doubt I will be playing better than I have at any point in the last 20 years.

I just don't understand how feel accounts for this. I get how powerful our hand/eye/brain connection is, how I can flick a ball of paper across the room at a garbage can and hit it, especially if I don't think about it, and there is no system for calculating speed, trajectory, distance, etc. But this system has you visualize a line or approach to the shot that is NOT on the intended shot line, and then pivot into it. I'm pretty sure our brains aren't wired that well to be able to consistently visualize something in a repeatable manner that is purposefully not on the intended line of aim but with an adjustment (pivot) will be.

Nothing I've seen on paper proves that this should work. But because of the perception issue, and the physical proof I have from using this at the table, nothing I've seen disproves it yet either. I've said before, if this is a fully visual system, and I'm also getting other benefits by following a defined routine, focusing more on my aim, etc, then so be it, I'm going to keep visualizing while my opponents watch from the chair. I'm also aware that even if this is proven and fully works it still may not be for everyone.

I knew my post would draw yeas and nays from the appropriate people, but I thought it was interesting and had to share. I doesn't prove anything, but to me at least it was an interesting and validating experience.
Scott
Click to expand...

The truth is that I don't know enough about CTE/Pro One to tell for sure that there is or isn't some feel in CTE/Pro One, HOWEVER, nothing that I do seems related to "feel".

If there is some feel to CTE/Pro One like just about any aiming system (or so they say), then CTE/Pro One is INCREDIBLE when it comes to making your "feel" SO ACCURATE.

I know from personal experience that CTE/Pro One has increased my pleasure in playing pool, increased my confidence in shot making, increased my ability to bank better and increased the accuracy of my alignment and in summary: increased my ability to play better pool.

How or why those things happened is not a big concern of mine.

Like you, it wouldn't make any difference to me if Patrick was able substantiate his claims about feel or not. To me, it's kind of funny that Patrick is holding on so tight to his belief that there is all this feel to CTE/Pro One.

Patrick's position on CTE/Pro One reminds me of a quote by one of the women in the movie by Kathy Bates/Delores Claiborne called Vera who said, "Sometimes you have to be a high-riding ***** to survive. Sometimes being a ***** is all a woman has to hold onto."

JoeyA
 
I actually understand most of Patrick's (and others) consternation or disbelief of the system being exact. Much of the arguing seems to have started over semantics or possibly even over zealous claims by the other side, and this goes back a long way. And on paper, and based on some of the very good diagrams done to date, it doesnt seem like it could possibly work.

However, mine, yours, and many others experiences show differently. That still doesn't prove whether it's geometric in nature or just some elaborate trick we are all playing with our minds. But like you, I am playing more consistently and overall better than ever, and that's saying something for me especially coming off of a long period of not shooting. I'm shooting very thin rail shots right now all the way up table and making 8 or 9 out of 10, where before I would be lucky to make 2 or 3. It's having that consisten alignment and resulting success-bred confidence that is making the difference.

My only issue so far with some of the opponents of CTE is the willingness to at least try it on the table. I did and was pleasantly surprised. Maybe they would try it and not see the lines (or want to see them), but at least an honest effort could spawn some more constructive discussion.

Scott
 
scottjen26 said:
I actually understand most of Patrick's (and others) consternation or disbelief of the system being exact. Much of the arguing seems to have started over semantics or possibly even over zealous claims by the other side, and this goes back a long way. And on paper, and based on some of the very good diagrams done to date, it doesnt seem like it could possibly work.

However, mine, yours, and many others experiences show differently. That still doesn't prove whether it's geometric in nature or just some elaborate trick we are all playing with our minds. But like you, I am playing more consistently and overall better than ever, and that's saying something for me especially coming off of a long period of not shooting. I'm shooting very thin rail shots right now all the way up table and making 8 or 9 out of 10, where before I would be lucky to make 2 or 3. It's having that consisten alignment and resulting success-bred confidence that is making the difference.

My only issue so far with some of the opponents of CTE is the willingness to at least try it on the table. I did and was pleasantly surprised. Maybe they would try it and not see the lines (or want to see them), but at least an honest effort could spawn some more constructive discussion.

Scott
Click to expand...

I've never made any over zealous claims. In fact, my claims are all personal and I can back up everything I have ever said about CTE/Pro One.

The Naysayers have teased and taunted and ridiculed and denigrated anyone who has ever used CTE/Pro One including the CREATOR of CTE (Hal Houle) and anyone else who has announced that they have improved their level of play.

They've even had the audacity to call Stan Shuffett a snake oil salesman and now all of their pomposity is coming back to bite them on the arse.

They all deserve what they get imo. For the most part, they have all been a bunch of shallow-minded, mean-spirited, sheat-stirring, scoundrels. At every turn they attempt to discredit something that is obviously helping a lot of people, not just here in America but all over the world.

Times are a changin'. The Naysayers are backing off their claims that CTE/Pro One is hooey and so JoeyA is slacking up on his trademark blue font. :D

Me, I've never had a problem with the Naysayers whining about how CTE Pro One is supposed to be a feel based aiming system or how it is not possible to be a geometrically perfect aiming system or any of their other whiney little claims.

I do have a problem with them ridiculing the other posters and will continue to point out their mean-spiritedness until they quit being jerks. A few have stopped being jerks and I've left them alone and will continue to leave them alone until they start back up.

When a person learns something that helps to improve their game, it's only natural for them to want to share their joy and euphoria with a peer and all of us are peers. None of us have the right to pizz on someone's joyous cheerios regardless of what they have learned or what they think they learned. We're supposed to be brothers and sisters of the spheres and somewhere along the line some of us have become haters and that just shouldn't be tolerated.

The Naysayers are my brothers and sisters and are always welcome at my table providing they show respect to the rest of my brothers and sisters. I'm not a hater and never will be regardless of our differences. It's the way I roll.

JoeyA
 
I think you are confusing the naysayers with the trolls. What has been ridiculed is the claim that CTE is an exact aiming system and that math could prove it, which it clearly doesn't. Any skeptical person can see this immediately. When Stan advertises Pro One as the "most accurate" or "exact aiming system", then he is either mistaken or lying. I (one naysayer) also said, that there wouldn't be a debate of such magnitude if this were being "sold" as an alignment system or aid. It could have been a problem of semantics. But here we are debating about whether you need to know where the pocket is in order to put a ball in it. What a joke.
The position of them naysayers hasn't changed. It was said from the beginning that pivot systems can be beneficial to some players. And we are still trying to figure out the details, or for example how the pivot works. But it's difficult to do this when every good argument is bound to drown in a stream of neverending bullshit, trolling, war cries and non-sequiturs. What has changed - in my view - is that pivot systems are no aiming systems.

I hope that didn't sound too angry. It's just frustrating. What must all the AZBers think who just take a peek into these threads out of curiosity. wtf?!

Now... I said I would try CTE as I understand it - an "alignment system" (I tried to use it before, but under the premise that the system would do the aiming for me, which resulted in utter failure). I haven't had much time at the table, but I played some 14.1 vs. myself (as usual) and some 9-Ball. For every shot I visualized the CTE line, then the line parallel to the CTE line through the right or left side of the cueball, depending on the cut. Then I did an "air pivot" and brought the cue into the desired aiming line - which I got by "feel" - through the center of the cueball. I must say now that I would need more time to play with this in order to get some real results! But here is what happened:

At first it was troublesome to go through the routine on every shot, mainly because it's different than my normal PSR. Lining up the CTE line on every shot really slowed me down. Later it got a little smoother.
It appeared that, almost looking from above the shot, I could bring my bridgehand, cue and shooting arm together as one construct into the right position to pocket the objectball, even on the first shot. Alignment was suprisingly easy on short and middle ranged shots. Not that these shots posed a huge threat without the system. But before I thought, it would only hurt the setup. I also tried to put my bridgehand on the table first and then do the pivot. But that only lead to me fumbling around with my bridgehand until it felt right. Not good.
Alignment wasn't that easy on long range shots though. I don't know why, but it could just be because the object ball is farther away from the cueball, the shot demands more accuracy and is more difficult no matter what system you use. And there was also the following problem.
I couldn't play with my normal stance. On most shots I felt that my body wasn't aligned to the shot like I got used to. My stroke didn't feel as steady as I wished. Maybe I could try to adapt my stance over time, but I won't do that. Usually I could make the shot anyway. The bigger problem was control. At first I overshot almost every position. Also one of my favorite shots is to slowly roll the objectball into the side pocket from an acute angle. I could simply forget that. No chance. Maybe with more practice that problem could go away as well. I don't know. That's why I said I would need more time.
Did I feel that I could pocket the balls easier than before? I can't tell. It seemed to be just as good or bad. I managed to run 33 balls once at least. For comparison, my highest run so far is 91 (BY FEEL LOL), so 33 is not bad for me at all. I also played a race to 7 in 9-Ball with someone, but in that match, I must admit, I slipped back to my normal PSR (unintentionally?).

Maybe I did everything wrong! Because after all, that was not CTE...
 
Last edited:
ThePoliteSniper said:
... For every shot I visualized the CTE line, then the line parallel to the CTE line through the right or left side of the cueball, depending on the cut. Then I did an "air pivot" and brought the cue into the desired aiming line - which I got by "feel" - through the center of the cueball. ...

Maybe I did everything wrong! Because after all, that was not CTE...
Click to expand...

Sniper -- I sounds like you are not really following Stan's CTE or Pro-One prescriptions precisely. The secondary alignment line is not necessarily parallel to the CTE line. Here's Dr. Dave's summary of the alignments (go down to "CTE Version 4"): http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE

But, based on your last sentence, maybe you know that; I can't tell.
 
PoliteS,
Once you pivot, keep your bridge still and readjust your stance to your normal one.

If you are using the 1/2 tip offset pre-pivot, then the large separations between the OB and CB are not possible for the angle of the 1/2 tip offset will send the CB at a constant angle that may miss the OB all together - without adjustments - different bridge distances behind the CB?
 
scottjen26 said:
And on paper, and based on some of the very good diagrams done to date, it doesnt seem like it could possibly work.

However, mine, yours, and many others experiences show differently.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the absolute reliance on that first sentence, and the concomitant denial of the validity of the second, is at the root of the acrimony surrounding this subject. Suppose I report results similar to those you posted and someone responds saying, "The actions you claim you took cannot possibly, of themselves, have produced the results you claim."

The person making that statement has said that:

1. I misreported or omitted at least some part of my actions, either inadvertently or deliberately.

and/or

2. I misreported the results I achieved, either inadvertently or deliberately.

Therefore, that person is saying that I'm either stupid or a liar (or possibly both). Even if I didn't overtly analyze the person's statement in the way I just outlined, I might well feel that I've been rather grossly insulted for doing nothing more than saying (rather joyously, as JoeyA points out) "Hey! Lookit, ma! I did this and the ball fell in the hole!"

That's been going on for many years.
 

Attachments

  • cartoon.jpg
    cartoon.jpg
    33.5 KB · Views: 252
Last edited:
ThePoliteSniper said:
I think you are confusing the naysayers with the trolls. What has been ridiculed is the claim that CTE is an exact aiming system and that math could prove it, which it clearly doesn't. Any skeptical person can see this immediately. When Stan advertises Pro One as the "most accurate" or "exact aiming system", then he is either mistaken or lying. I (one naysayer) also said, that there wouldn't be a debate of such magnitude if this were being "sold" as an alignment system or aid. It could have been a problem of semantics. But here we are debating about whether you need to know where the pocket is in order to put a ball in it. What a joke.
The position of them naysayers hasn't changed. It was said from the beginning that pivot systems can be beneficial to some players. And we are still trying to figure out the details, or for example how the pivot works. But it's difficult to do this when every good argument is bound to drown in a stream of neverending bullshit, trolling, war cries and non-sequiturs. What has changed - in my view - is that pivot systems are no aiming systems.

I hope that didn't sound too angry. It's just frustrating. What must all the AZBers think who just take a peek into these threads out of curiosity. wtf?!

Now... I said I would try CTE as I understand it - an "alignment system" (I tried to use it before, but under the premise that the system would do the aiming for me, which resulted in utter failure). I haven't had much time at the table, but I played some 14.1 vs. myself (as usual) and some 9-Ball. For every shot I visualized the CTE line, then the line parallel to the CTE line through the right or left side of the cueball, depending on the cut. Then I did an "air pivot" and brought the cue into the desired aiming line - which I got by "feel" - through the center of the cueball. I must say now that I would need more time to play with this in order to get some real results! But here is what happened:

At first it was troublesome to go through the routine on every shot, mainly because it's different than my normal PSR. Lining up the CTE line on every shot really slowed me down. Later it got a little smoother.
It appeared that, almost looking from above the shot, I could bring my bridgehand, cue and shooting arm together as one construct into the right position to pocket the objectball, even on the first shot. Alignment was suprisingly easy on short and middle ranged shots. Not that these shots posed a huge threat without the system. But before I thought, it would only hurt the setup. I also tried to put my bridgehand on the table first and then do the pivot. But that only lead to me fumbling around with my bridgehand until it felt right. Not good.
Alignment wasn't that easy on long range shots though. I don't know why, but it could just be because the object ball is farther away from the cueball, the shot demands more accuracy and is more difficult no matter what system you use. And there was also the following problem.
I couldn't play with my normal stance. On most shots I felt that my body wasn't aligned to the shot like I got used to. My stroke didn't feel as steady as I wished. Maybe I could try to adapt my stance over time, but I won't do that. Usually I could make the shot anyway. The bigger problem was control. At first I overshot almost every position. Also one of my favorite shots is to slowly roll the objectball into the side pocket from an acute angle. I could simply forget that. No chance. Maybe with more practice that problem could go away as well. I don't know. That's why I said I would need more time.
Did I feel that I could pocket the balls easier than before? I can't tell. It seemed to be just as good or bad. I managed to run 33 balls once at least. For comparison, my highest run so far is 91 (BY FEEL LOL), so 33 is not bad for me at all. I also played a race to 7 in 9-Ball with someone, but in that match, I must admit, I slipped back to my normal PSR (unintentionally?).

Maybe I did everything wrong! Because after all, that was not CTE...
Click to expand...

I give props to you for trying to shoot with cte although you can't expect to be perfect first time out. It also is not for everyone but that doesn't mean it is not a very good system.
I also think your an a$$ for implying that Stan is lying or mistaken.He has spent several years developing and studying CTE to make it understandable and usable. He has total knowledge of it and you have an opinion based on very little knowledge. It is you who are mistaken or lying.
 
cookie man said:
I give props to you for trying to shoot with cte although you can't expect to be perfect first time out. It also is not for everyone but that doesn't mean it is not a very good system.
I also think your an a$$ for implying that Stan is lying or mistaken.He has spent several years developing and studying CTE to make it understandable and usable. He has total knowledge of it and you have an opinion based on very little knowledge. It is you who are mistaken or lying.
Click to expand...

He obviously wasn't around to see the tinfoil hat and decoder ring posts on RSB. The sniper is trying his best to spin the facts but anyone that has followed this from the RSB days or cares to do a search can see he is either mistaken or flat out lying.
 
This is where the argument was in 2004. It doesn't look like we've made much progress....

View profile *
*More options Aug 17 2004, 7:07*pm
Jim Wyant wrote:
> ... *The problem with trying to 'splain too much here
> is the naysayers would rather take the discussion off-course and nit-pick
> things than simply try it.

Bullshit. *The problem with trying to explain this here is that you
CAN'T. *You want to sell this "nit-pickers" excuse so you won't have to
admit that you bought into a "system" that you don't understand, can't
describe, and is probably nonsense.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top