John, I think you're overcomplicating it. My response would be far simpler. Fact -- a half-ball hit produces a cut of 30 degrees and a quarter-ball hit produces a cut of about 49 degrees. Fact -- so the two-hit "system," if performed precisely, is capable of only 2 cut angles to the left and 2 cut angles to the right. Fact -- far more cut angles than that are needed to pocket all shots. Conclusion -- claims that the 2-angle system is geometrically perfect for all shots are false. Testimonials of great success using the 2-angle system mean that the users are doing something outside the basic prescription of the system; let's call it adjustments, or feel, or visual intelligence. Sound familiar?
PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions
- Thread starter stan shuffett
- Start date
John, I think you're overcomplicating it. My response would be far simpler. Fact -- a half-ball hit produces a cut of 30 degrees and a quarter-ball hit produces a cut of about 49 degrees. Fact -- so the two-hit "system," if performed precisely, is capable of only 2 cut angles to the left and 2 cut angles to the right. Fact -- far more cut angles than that are needed to pocket all shots. Conclusion -- claims that the 2-angle system is geometrically perfect for all shots are false. Testimonials of great success using the 2-angle system mean that the users are doing something outside the basic prescription of the system; let's call it adjustments, or feel, or visual intelligence. Sound familiar?
This is a good post. A respectful way to go about any situation. That is what has been missing from these threads.
So why don't you insist that system users "make a thorough good faith effort to understand what's really going on"? Or do you think they satisfy that request by being system users?
pj
chgo
Of course, Patrick. I wouldn't be bothering with this discussion at all if that wasn't what I was attempting to do. It's precisely the apparent dichotomy between what users of the system report and what a simplistic geometric analysis indicates that interests me.
As far as I'm concerned, however, that issue is separate from the one of denigrating people because their beliefs about their experience differ from what seems to be possible. At least insofar as their efforts to communicate their beliefs to others don't actively cause the others harm.
I don't remember Stan mentioning AIR pivoting on the DVD. Do you remember roughly where he talks about it?
Air pivoting, or the "Pro One" portion of the system, starts in chapter 10 I believe, with a few chapters of explanation and a few chapters of examples, much like the first part of the DVD. I hope you weren't being facetious, or the rest of this is going to really be overkill...
For me, that's the sh!t. It is admittedly weird, and certainly seems to have the potential to allow a lot of "feel" into the system, but I swear when at the table as loose as that air pivot feels if I do it incorrectly I miss the ball. Since I'm still new to it and working on various shots and just trying to pick up the visuals quicker, if I find myself missing a few shots here and there I always go back to the 4 reference shots, by fine tuning my pivot to those shots then everything else drops as well.
To PoliteSniper, kudos for trying the system out. I can tell you from my recent experience that it does slow you down at first and feel uncomfortable, and I didn't like the manual pivoting but I did it for a few sessions to really understand the shot selections and work on the visualizing part. Then I switched to the air pivoting, and I'm just now (after 10 - 12 practice sessions) starting to pick up the lines and pivoting into the shot pretty seamless on all but the tougher, longer shots.
Have to report I practiced 5 hours last night and got another 4 hours in today. Spent a lot of time with long, thin shots (where a lot of precision is needed and traditionally something I didn't do well), shooting with more english, and banks. I was setting up normal cross-side banks and cutting the ball up into the corner instead, and on a tight table was making 8 out of 10 easy from various positions. Also making 6 - 8 out of 10 long, thin cuts that were 6 or 7 diamonds away. The visuals and hit needed are so precise that I'm happy with that number for now, certainly higher than it was before when I was guessing.
The banks are just sick. I figured out how to accurately use the system on cross side, cross corner, and straight back banks from most angles, anything from normal dead banks to off angle banks, although so far the really off angle ones don't seem to work right all the time but still working on that. I was a good banker before, but now I can step up on any normal cross side or reverse side bank, even crossing over the ball, and make it 9 out of 10 easy with just quickly visualizing the line, pivoting and shooting. For me using either a natural medium speed center ball or a firmer stroke with some outside english works.
Only thing that sucks about the system (for me) is that now I need to work on my stroke...
Unlike when I shot before, I have a more instant recognition when I miss if it was my stroke or alignment, since I feel so locked in on the proper aim line. And unfortunately about 80% of the time it's my stroke. So back to basics for me with some stroke drills to work on my rhythm and smoothness and eradicate that old bad habit of steering from time to time.
Scott
For me, that's the sh!t. It is admittedly weird, and certainly seems to have the potential to allow a lot of "feel" into the system, but I swear when at the table as loose as that air pivot feels if I do it incorrectly I miss the ball. Since I'm still new to it and working on various shots and just trying to pick up the visuals quicker, if I find myself missing a few shots here and there I always go back to the 4 reference shots, by fine tuning my pivot to those shots then everything else drops as well.
To PoliteSniper, kudos for trying the system out. I can tell you from my recent experience that it does slow you down at first and feel uncomfortable, and I didn't like the manual pivoting but I did it for a few sessions to really understand the shot selections and work on the visualizing part. Then I switched to the air pivoting, and I'm just now (after 10 - 12 practice sessions) starting to pick up the lines and pivoting into the shot pretty seamless on all but the tougher, longer shots.
Have to report I practiced 5 hours last night and got another 4 hours in today. Spent a lot of time with long, thin shots (where a lot of precision is needed and traditionally something I didn't do well), shooting with more english, and banks. I was setting up normal cross-side banks and cutting the ball up into the corner instead, and on a tight table was making 8 out of 10 easy from various positions. Also making 6 - 8 out of 10 long, thin cuts that were 6 or 7 diamonds away. The visuals and hit needed are so precise that I'm happy with that number for now, certainly higher than it was before when I was guessing.
The banks are just sick. I figured out how to accurately use the system on cross side, cross corner, and straight back banks from most angles, anything from normal dead banks to off angle banks, although so far the really off angle ones don't seem to work right all the time but still working on that. I was a good banker before, but now I can step up on any normal cross side or reverse side bank, even crossing over the ball, and make it 9 out of 10 easy with just quickly visualizing the line, pivoting and shooting. For me using either a natural medium speed center ball or a firmer stroke with some outside english works.
Only thing that sucks about the system (for me) is that now I need to work on my stroke...
Unlike when I shot before, I have a more instant recognition when I miss if it was my stroke or alignment, since I feel so locked in on the proper aim line. And unfortunately about 80% of the time it's my stroke. So back to basics for me with some stroke drills to work on my rhythm and smoothness and eradicate that old bad habit of steering from time to time.Scott
How do you feel about people who cast blame before knowing the facts?
pj
chgo
I don't take it this way at all. I think it is more a statement that says, "I know the current ideas of the math suggest this won't work, but somehow, my experience at the table seems to go against what the math says".
I can't figure the math out myself, and had gotten to a point of thinking that it must have been some feel adjustments. However, my time at table just doesn't back that up. I make shots where I would not make them as easily before, so how could feel be helping. Also, I do nothing but the exact process, and the ball goes in. No other adjustments or steps. Thus, I have simply aligned myself to the fact that it works for me, but that something must be missing in our currect explanation.
The system has improved your consistency, alignment, focus and confidence. Of course that could improve the effectiveness of your shooting with feel. Why would you even question that? Furthermore, it's been pointed out many times that it's patently impossible to make many shots using the system without feel, so how could feel not be helping?
..that you're conscious of. Aiming by feel is usually a subconscious process. That's why it's called feel. And, by the way, saying you follow the system steps strictly every time actually proves that you make adjustments - because the system steps can only make 6 shots in each direction.
What's missing is openness to facts that system users don't seem to want to hear.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Scott -- congratulations on raising your game a notch. From what you say, you were a pretty good player in the past, and are now even better. If CTE/Pro-One has helped in that progress, you're right to extoll it.
How do you know the miss is because of doing the air pivot incorrectly as opposed to the system putting you on an incorrect line of aim?
Again, how do you know sometimes when you miss that it was stroke rather than alignment? I understand that any decent player knows when he has just put a horrible stroke on a shot and thereby caused a miss. But a lot of my misses are stroked just as well as the makes; I just aimed wrong. How do you know the system hasn't put you on the wrong line of aim sometimes?
How do you know the miss is because of doing the air pivot incorrectly as opposed to the system putting you on an incorrect line of aim?
scottjen26 said:
Again, how do you know sometimes when you miss that it was stroke rather than alignment? I understand that any decent player knows when he has just put a horrible stroke on a shot and thereby caused a miss. But a lot of my misses are stroked just as well as the makes; I just aimed wrong. How do you know the system hasn't put you on the wrong line of aim sometimes?
The answer is understood more as the player gains experience with the system. His visual intelligence through hours of practice ingrains the correct process and provides an automatic, effortless alignment.
Scott is starting to reach the next level of Pro One, which he says he doesn't really make an effort to use aiming points. They are picked up automatically visually through practice and need to be occasionally refreshed when he strays or gets possibly lazy. He isn't providing the correct visual information to his brain and this causes his mind to do extra calculations and mistakes are made. He is out of the Pro One program, so to speak, and consistency starts to suffer.
When Scott is dialed in visually, his brain takes over the math. As long as he continues to input the needed, consistent visual information, he will achieve a high rate of success with the system. This link is a dead stroke connection where the user is aware of fine motor movements, but unaware of automatic adjustments being made from visual inputs.
He can tell when he is lined up correctly and will notice a definite negative response from his pool brain when he is not performing up to par physically. An improper stroke will be noted immediately, whereas an improper aiming point or pivot will be seen as no loss of confidence in the stroke. Cte users have repeatedly said they seem to be lined up better and can immediately tell when they make a bad stroke. It is the link to the brain that is using the visual feedback, that says the shot line was good. The stroke sucked!
Best,
Mike
There is the crux of the issue. Frankly, even if we developed a completely correct technical justification for Stan's CTE/ProOne system, I doubt that knowing it would help improve one's play, though knowing that a justification exists might increase some players' initial confidence in the system. That alone might be valuable, but I doubt that any of the individual components, either known or as yet unstated, could be exploited to advantage.
This is the usual case with sports. Knowing the theoretical justification for doing things a certain way rarely helps actual performance, assuming that the mechanical steps the player is taught correctly implement the underlying theory. The only activity with which I'm personally familiar where knowledge of the underlying theory helps performance is round-the-buoys sailboat racing.
This doesn't mean that trying to isolate and clearly define components is pointless or only of intellectual interest. We might find, for instance, that there are common elements shared by Stan's CTE/ProOne, Robin's Aim is the Game in Pool, Gene's Perfect Aim, 90/90, and other systems - a set of core principles upon which they all depend. That might allow instructors to more easily tailor instruction to the individual student; and allow students to confidently choose the method that works best for them, knowing that all of the systems are efforts to provide the same underlying knowledge. The effort isn't to benefit any particular person to play better; it's to provide everyone a way to improve their level of play, especially those just entering the game. The goal isn't to make the game easier for the new player, it's to allow each player, and especially the new ones, to progress as rapidly as possible if they want to.
Aiming is only a small part of that progress, but you can have the best stroke in the world and be the best position player in the world, if the balls don't fall in the pockets, you lose. And nobody finds that much fun.
Last edited:
Good grief! 60 pages, and nearly 900 posts on CTE/Pro One? That's a record for a single thread on the matter. There's been several threads on it in the past that were quite lengthy and hostile. This is a whole new level. I've been away since about the time a DVD on CTE was announced. Been several months, and it appears the video is out.
Anyone have the verdict? Has CTE/Pro One been determined as either being or not being an actual real aiming system?
It would seem that the release of a DVD from the guru of CTE would serve as the definitive explanation and layout of what CTE actually is. No more 20 page threads arguing with supporters of CTE as to what CTE actually is. It was a major obstacle toward progress on the subject. In the middle of determining whether CTE is a real aiming system, there was constant confusion and battle as to what the system actually is.
My question now is, is it an actual system or were the skeptics right in declaring it as an elaborate way to structure "feel" ....??? Being that the actual CTE has been put forth - it can now be thoroughly examined and scrutinized via a scientific approach.
Sorry, I'm feeling a little lazy and didn't want to read through 60 pages. At least I admit it.
Anyone have the verdict? Has CTE/Pro One been determined as either being or not being an actual real aiming system?
It would seem that the release of a DVD from the guru of CTE would serve as the definitive explanation and layout of what CTE actually is. No more 20 page threads arguing with supporters of CTE as to what CTE actually is. It was a major obstacle toward progress on the subject. In the middle of determining whether CTE is a real aiming system, there was constant confusion and battle as to what the system actually is.
My question now is, is it an actual system or were the skeptics right in declaring it as an elaborate way to structure "feel" ....??? Being that the actual CTE has been put forth - it can now be thoroughly examined and scrutinized via a scientific approach.
Sorry, I'm feeling a little lazy and didn't want to read through 60 pages. At least I admit it.
Your the master.
Theres not much missing from the explanation. What your experiencing from doing the steps properly is what really happens and I know it doesn't exactly make sense, but things like this happen in life everyday. The only difference is in life PJ's not peeking over your shoulder, picking a sentence out here and there, twisting your words and trying to make himself feel smart. Stop trying to muddy the waters PJ and leave CTE alone.
My initial experience with cte was with dave segal, and after about 1/2 hour I turned to donny and dave and said " this is stupid ". I got a puzzled look to which I explained " it's so easy to pocket balls, it's stupid ". Why cte is not the standard way to aim is beyond me.
I highly doubt you'd go through all that with the specific example I gave. Just to reiterate, the example I gave is a two-angle system to pocket every shot on the table. The claims are that you can line up every shot with only one of two hits, absolutely no feel is necessary, and it's a center pocket system.
I would expect you to say right away that my claims are false. You would say that it's easy to argue against those claims logically, mathematically, or graphically without setting foot on the table. You'd probably give a specific counterexample or two, such as a straight-in shot, to disprove my claims. How can I pocket a straight-in shot while lining it up with a half-ball or quarter-ball hit without making some type of adjustment during execution? It's impossible.
The point with my example is that if you know certain claims are logically/mathematically false, is there really a need to test them? If it's easy enough to disprove them in the mathematical/logical realm, isn't that sufficient? And if you know with certainty a claim is impossible and yet others supposedly have "data" supporting the claim (like pocketing a straight-in shot while lining it up as a half-ball hit), wouldn't you cast doubt on the validity of the data or the execution of the experiments that provided the data?
Yes, I'm okay with that if you're implying that it's not a center pocket system. After all, aiming directly at the center of the pocket is "an advantage but not a necessity for all shots."
So if you're okay saying...
The system isn't a center pocket system, but that's okay because it's not necessary to have a center pocket system for all shots.
...then I'm absolutely okay with that. We're on the exact same page now.
That's not a record by a long shot. Here's a thread that went 164 pages (2451 posts): http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=204937
Bola Ocho said:
Yes, it's a "real aiming system." But that term does not mean it has to be geometrically exact for all shots. Stan Shuffett has done a good job of adding some structure to the rather cryptic prescription of CTE that Hal Houle taught to many people. Stan's specification of secondary sighting lines and specific pivot lengths (for manual CTE) elevates the method to something that is now useful to many more people. Some viewers of the DVD wish Stan had explained some things more fully or differently, and some claim that the method is still not precisely defined, but we now know reasonably well how the system is to be performed mechanically.
The debate continues, however, as to the role of adjustments, feel, or "visual intelligence."
Welcome back to the saga.
Edit: Here's Dr. Dave's summary of Stan's manual CTE (go down to "CTE Version 4"): http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE
Last edited:
AtLarge,
Not surprisingly, Mike very eloquently explained exactly what I feel!
It's a little hard to explain, especially succinctly, but whatever is going on with the system (visual intelligence etc.) I KNOW why I missed a shot immediately after doing so. I can play well enough so that I know when I don't stroke purely, and typically if I set up a shot like that again I make it cleanly, validating what I thought.
Right now I would say of the shots I miss, probably 75% are stroke issues (either bad stroke or bad adjustment for english) and 25% are alignment, where as Mike says I either didn't pick up the visuals properly or possibly used the wrong visual or pivot. I'm trying to move faster just to push myself, right now I am picking up the visuals either as I move into the shot or looking at the shot for 1 - 2 seconds at most, I only spend maybe 3 - 4 second on very long or very thin cuts. When I make a pure stroke and miss I can typically shoot the shot again with the same alignment/pivot and will miss in the same place again. Both of those last two scenarios are happening far less as the weeks go on and I'm making more shots than I ever did. I've learned when to trust that I'm not lined up right, as in the beginning many more shots were falling even though it didn't feel right, probably a product of my old way of shooting.
This is the part that's especially hard to reconcile with the math, but a happy by product of using the system. I literally feel that if I stroke straight that I will make everything, including difficult shots and all normal banks. Back cuts or very thin cuts no longer give me pause, to me every shot is addressed in the same manner and using the same lines so it doesn't matter if it's a 5 degree cut or a 75 degree cut. That was definitely missing from my game before. Now if that's gotten better because of consistent alignment (which I was very consistent in my approach before), focusing more on my aim (which again I did before), or this whole concept of visual intelligence, I'll take it. As my stroke continues to develop and return to normal after my absence from the game and my speed control and thought process continues to improve as well, I will definitely have taken my game to another level.
Scott