PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions

AtLarge said:
...Here's a wei example for you to explain. These are two shots from Stan's DVD. On mohrt's practice worksheet they are the 6th shot (the 1-ball shot into the upper right pocket with cue ball A) and the 25th shot (the 2-ball shot into the upper left pocket with cue ball B).

The DVD says to use the same alignment-menu choice for both shots -- CB center to OB left edge, secondary alignment point C, and pivot from left to right. The distance between the CB and OB is the same for both shots. The 1-ball shot is 0 degrees -- dead straight. The 2-ball shot is a cut of approximately 20 degrees. How is it possible that the same alignment for these two shots produces such a difference in hit on the two OB's?

CueTable Help



P.S. I posted this over 400 posts ago, and no one commented.
Click to expand...



In reference to post 976.

AtLarge, Very good job once again with your work on CTE/PRO ONE. The 2 shots in question demonstrate quite well the visual nature of CTE/PRO ONE.

CTE/PRO ONE is a VISUAL SYSTEM.

If a player's eyes were positioned exactly the same for each shot, A and B, the results would be identical.

For the 1 ball shot, a player's body is behind the CB with the headed tilted to the right to see the visuals.
For the 2 ball shot, a player's body is clearly much more to the right of the cue ball than for the 1 ball.
The eyes are in different positions for each shot. The proper visuals are easily obtained for each shot. The table can dictate body and eye positioning and even the distance that eyes are from the CB. That is the nature of the rectanglular table.

Actually shot 2 could be played as a stop shot safety as I demoed on the DVD or possibly an iffy 4 rail bank. BUT, one must postion the eyes just as if they were shooting the 1 ball.


Just because a CB and an OB share a common distance and the same visuals does not mean the eyes will be postioned the same way for each shot. Perception is altered with varied eye positions. As I mentioned on the DVD the table will often dicate a player's ball address postion.

Very commendable work, AtLarge! The 2 shots you presented represent a great lesson in CTE/PRO ONE.

Stan
-------------------------------------------

The head tilted is a recuring instruction.

If the head is tilted, then the eyes are in a different location and thus the visual is altered to the side; and the secondary aim line is no longer directly on the aim point on the OB, say "B" for example.

If this is all one does without shifting the body to a new stance, then the result will be the same as if one didn't tilt the head.

If one the other hand, one tilts the head and aquires a new visual a bit off of point "B" and then moves the body accordingly to recapture point "B", then the cut angle will be different than if one didn't tilt the head etc..

I guess that one can tilt the head to move the eyes a small bit for a slightly different cut angle than the original aim point "B", and one can tilt the head to move the eyes even more for a larger "slightly" different cut angle.

The results of this progressive tilting of the head can be stored in memory for recalling later for 1/8, A, B, C and 1/8 along with pivoting left or pivoting right.

This is viable, is geometrically diagrammable for each shooter with different visuals i.e., left or right dominant eye or somewhere in between - though not parsimonious.

Viable for those that have mastered CTE/Pro-One.

Just saying without malice.:):thumbup:
 
Last edited:
Bola Ocho said:
I think this gets into the science of how we learn, particularly visual learning.... we recognize the SHAPE....
Click to expand...

People technically concerned with human visual perception (various subfields of psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science) might object to the word "learn" in this context, and would probably replace "SHAPE" with "pattern recognition", but on the whole you're correct about where the real underpinnings of Stan's system lie. I'm fairly certain that these guy's would tell you that if you want to understand the system, then you need to take into account the player and at least the obvious visual clues available to the player. One of the more difficult aspects of designing perception experiments is being sure you know what information is actually being used by the subjects:
From the abstract of "Adaptive design of visual perception experiments" - O'Connor, et al, SPIE proceedings

Meticulous experimental design may not always prevent confounds from affecting experimental data acquired during visual perception experiments.... Visual perception experimentation is vulnerable to unforeseen confounds because of the nature of the associated cognitive processes involved in the decision task.
Click to expand...

And there's a whole lot of information obviously available to the player: the relationship of the CB to the OB and the target; the player's angle to the table; the relationships between various lines: CTEL, CBEdge to Aim Point, CB center to OB center, OB to pocket; the player's angle to those lines (both visually and physically); the edges of the playing surface; the effect of binocular 3D perspective on the player's perception of all of that; and probably more. Stan certainly doesn't mention all of that, but I don't remember him saying you should explicitly attempt to ignore any of it, either. "Attempt" would be the right word, too. The visual system isn't well geared for ignoring visual input without explicit effort to do so, and even that doesn't work all that well.

Understanding this sort of stuff won't help the player at the table trying to make a shot (I don't think it will, anyway). A rough understanding of it might help a person learn the system, though that doesn't seem too likely. There's a better chance that a broad overall understanding of it might help an instructor guide a student as he learns what he personally needs to do to let the system work for him. We don't know what other benefits might derive from better understanding, but we know with certainty that we don't benefit from lack of understanding.

Dismissing that sort of understanding as unnecessary because it's simply "feel" is rather like looking at a large, fully mechanized factory where the only human involvement is trucks dropping off raw materials at one door and picking up finished products at another, and dismissing everything in between as not worth understanding because it's simply "mechatronics". Certainly the product user can safely do that, but equally certainly it's that part in the middle that is interesting and from which useful things might be learned if it was understood.
 
jwpretd said:
... we know with certainty that we don't benefit from lack of understanding.
Click to expand...

It seems like some people do -- the old "ignorance is bliss" thing or intentionally avoiding "paralysis by analysis."

... it's that part in the middle that is interesting and from which useful things might be learned if it was understood.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And it seems like you and I are two people who need to learn about that middle part. Hopefully, on this topic, we're closer now than we were a few months ago.

What's the snack tonight?
 
AtLarge said:
It seems like some people do -- the old "ignorance is bliss" thing or intentionally avoiding "paralysis by analysis."



Agreed. And it seems like you and I are two people who need to learn about that middle part. Hopefully, on this topic, we're closer now than we were a few months ago.

What's the snack tonight?
Click to expand...

Not Crow.:):thumbup:
 
AtLarge said:
Agreed. And it seems like you and I are two people who need to learn about that middle part. Hopefully, on this topic, we're closer now than we were a few months ago.

What's the snack tonight?
Click to expand...

I think so.

Left over cornbread broken up in Foremost Bulgarian buttermilk. It's one of my favorite treats. I can only get the buttermilk in Austin or San Antonio - about a hundred mile round trip so I only get it when I have to go to one of them, and I haven't been able to make it successfully myself. Worse than that, my wife likes cornbread made with lots of wheat flour and ***sugar***. No, I most certainly did NOT know that before I married her.
 
AtLarge said:
I'm guessing you have been schooled by Spidey. I don't recall Stan using the term "outermost edge." If you think that term is useful in trying to learn Stan's CTE, please give us a clear, complete description of what you mean.
Click to expand...

When you get a chance draw those ctel for your two shots.
Thanks
 
LAMas said:
In reference to post 976.

AtLarge, Very good job once again with your work on CTE/PRO ONE. The 2 shots in question demonstrate quite well the visual nature of CTE/PRO ONE.

CTE/PRO ONE is a VISUAL SYSTEM.

If a player's eyes were positioned exactly the same for each shot, A and B, the results would be identical.

For the 1 ball shot, a player's body is behind the CB with the headed tilted to the right to see the visuals.
For the 2 ball shot, a player's body is clearly much more to the right of the cue ball than for the 1 ball.
The eyes are in different positions for each shot. The proper visuals are easily obtained for each shot. The table can dictate body and eye positioning and even the distance that eyes are from the CB. That is the nature of the rectanglular table.

Actually shot 2 could be played as a stop shot safety as I demoed on the DVD or possibly an iffy 4 rail bank. BUT, one must postion the eyes just as if they were shooting the 1 ball.


Just because a CB and an OB share a common distance and the same visuals does not mean the eyes will be postioned the same way for each shot. Perception is altered with varied eye positions. As I mentioned on the DVD the table will often dicate a player's ball address postion.

Very commendable work, AtLarge! The 2 shots you presented represent a great lesson in CTE/PRO ONE.

Stan
-------------------------------------------

The head tilted is a recuring instruction.

If the head is tilted, then the eyes are in a different location and thus the visual is altered to the side; and the secondary aim line is no longer directly on the aim point on the OB, say "B" for example.

If this is all one does without shifting the body to a new stance, then the result will be the same as if one didn't tilt the head.

If one the other hand, one tilts the head and aquires a new visual a bit off of point "B" and then moves the body accordingly to recapture point "B", then the cut angle will be different than if one didn't tilt the head etc..

I guess that one can tilt the head to move the eyes a small bit for a slightly different cut angle than the original aim point "B", and one can tilt the head to move the eyes even more for a larger "slightly" different cut angle.

The results of this progressive tilting of the head can be stored in memory for recalling later for 1/8, A, B, C and 1/8 along with pivoting left or pivoting right.

This is viable, is geometrically diagrammable for each shooter with different visuals i.e., left or right dominant eye or somewhere in between - though not parsimonious.

Viable for those that have mastered CTE/Pro-One.

Just saying without malice.:):thumbup:
Click to expand...

I will mention this again. The only reason there was a solution to Atlarge's question about the 2 shots is because all shots offer a zero angle visual solution. As we all know, zero angle shots are objective. Any CTE/PRO ONE player can shoot straight-ins. Any CB/OB relationship can be thought of as a straight-in shot.
 
Been catching up on missed posts, I'm still confused by the diagrams. For the 1/2 ball diagram, you can't possibly make both shot in pockets with the same edge alignment and pivot, not sure where that information came from. The straight in shot would use either one of the "thick" aim points (A or C) and the same side pivot (if lining up on the left edge, left pivot, or vice versa). Cutting the 2 ball in the side or corner would require the opposite pivot for sure - if lining up on the left edge to cut into the side, you would use a right pivot, if lining up on the right edge to cut into the corner you would need a left pivot. Can't tell if this would be an A/C or B aim point, I think I would use B but would have to be at the table to be sure, it's close.

Very interested in the discussions, but I must have missed something pertaining to these diagrams a few pages back… :)
Scott
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Do you have something to say in defense of "rotating edges" creating more than one CTE line? Or are you just complaining about it being disputed?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

No, and no. Since this is a thread on the PRO ONE dvd, Stan's use of the phrase, "visual intelligence" shouldn't be included in an ongoing debate. No complaint, just the need for clarity about its origin.

Best,
Mike
 
scottjen26 said:
Been catching up on missed posts, I'm still confused by the diagrams. ...
Very interested in the discussions, but I must have missed something pertaining to these diagrams a few pages back… :)
Scott
Click to expand...

Scott, you have the two shots wrong. As stated in post #974, "On mohrt's practice worksheet they are the 6th shot (the 1-ball shot into the upper right pocket with cue ball A) and the 25th shot (the 2-ball shot into the upper left pocket with cue ball B)."

The 1-ball is dead straight; the 2-ball is about a 20-degree cut. The same visuals are used for both shots, but, according to Stan, different eye positions make that possible.
 
Last edited:
Stan:
As I mentioned on the DVD the table will often dicate a player's ball address postion.
Click to expand...
Do you explain on the DVD how to change the address position for different table locations, or is that up to the player to learn from experience?

pj
chgo
 
cookie man said:
When you get a chance draw those ctel for your two shots.
Thanks
AtLarge said:
I'm guessing you have been schooled by Spidey. I don't recall Stan using the term "outermost edge." If you think that term is useful in trying to learn Stan's CTE, please give us a clear, complete description of what you mean.
cookie man said:
The eyes are center QB to the outermost edge of OB.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Here you are cookie -- the two shots and the CTEL for each one. So, please explain "outermost edge" and how that is used to determine the correct eye position, so that both of these shots are handled by an L/C/L menu choice.


CueTable Help

 
Getting back to the tilting head to move the eyes thing.

I lined up CTE and then moved to the side a bit to sight down the secondary aim line from the edge of the CB to, say point "B" on the OB. I then tilted my head and the edge of the CB moved to another visual, say to point "A". I had to move my feet a bit while fixed on "A" to my normal stance from this new position. This did achieve a different cut angle from "B" post pivot.

I was elated at first, but started to wonder if I could have just sighted the edge to "A" without tilting my head??? Then I noticed that if I tilted my head the same angular amount for a OB far from the CB, that the same angular tilt of the head moved my secondary aim line off "B", past "A" and off of the OB altogether.

Is this another adjustment I need to make???:confused:
 
LAMas said:
Getting back to the tilting head to move the eyes thing.

I lined up CTE and then moved to the side a bit to sight down the secondary aim line from the edge of the CB to, say point "B" on the OB. I then tilted my head and the edge of the CB moved to another visual, say to point "A". I had to move my feet a bit while fixed on "A" to my normal stance from this new position. This did achieve a different cut angle from "B" post pivot.

I was elated at first, but started to wonder if I could have just sighted the edge to "A" without tilting my head??? Then I noticed that if I tilted my head the same angular amount for a OB far from the CB, that the same angular tilt of the head moved my secondary aim line off "B", past "A" and off of the OB altogether.

Is this another adjustment I need to make???:confused:
Click to expand...

I plead ignorance on getting the proper eye position. But remember what Stan said: "As I stated on the DVD, thick shots to right, including straight-ins, for right handed players requires a tilting of the head to the right to obtain the visuals." And he reiterated in another post that the head tilt was only for that type of shot. So it sounds like your "B" shot would not qualify for a head tilt.
 
AtLarge said:
I plead ignorance on getting the proper eye position. But remember what Stan said: "As I stated on the DVD, thick shots to right, including straight-ins, for right handed players requires a tilting of the head to the right to obtain the visuals." And he reiterated in another post that the head tilt was only for that type of shot. So it sounds like your "B" shot would not qualify for a head tilt.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your consule but whether it is or isn't the right shot, I am becoming skeptical about the utility of a head tilt for all distances between the CB and OB.:confused:
 
LAMas:
I am becoming skeptical about the utility of a head tilt for all distances between the CB and OB.
Click to expand...
LOL. Becoming?

If you add clicking your ruby red slippers and laying your finger alongside your nose, I don't see why you should ever miss a shot.

pj
chgo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top