Yes, up to a point. He might say "this shot won't go if you hit it with draw" but not why that's true.
Still good stuff.
pj
chgo
How Fractional Aiming Systems Help
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
Still good stuff.
pj
chgo
Sure, and methinks the reason for that is there's an expected "knowledge baseline" on the part of the viewer. (And I myself am mostly likely making that assumption as well.) When he says, "this shot won't go if you hit it with draw," us knowledgeable pool players buying John's DVD kind of suspect why -- that draw imparts follow on the object ball, and therefore the object ball will bank long, past the pocket. These are well-known, well-documented principles that we tap into.
Pat, I know you play one pocket (banks too?), so I know that you're able to fill-in the missing gaps -- the stuff that John doesn't go over.
But the point here -- and thanks to Monte for agreeing -- is that there's no "knowledge baseline" on the geometry/math of CTE that one can even tap into to fill-in those missing gaps. It's just missing/undiscovered knowledge. Hopefully this thread will be among the first to disclose it, as long as *both sides* suddenly don't go mutantly haywire and take this thread into the ground.
-Sean
Seriously. You stand still looking at ob and qb you see 2, move an inch to the right you see 2 more. another inch 2 more. The balls don't move but you can see different ctel's.
Well like I said I was just commenting on the coincidence... probably a coincidence that Ray Martin, Dallas West, and John Schmidt all said pretty much the same thing to me too.
Quite the shame to wear the same "badge" as them guys ;-)
Lou Figueroa
If you move your eyes to the side then the CTE line must get disconnected from either the CB center or the OB edge. This isn't multiple choice.
pj
chgo
I wear my badge, just like Busty, Shane, Stevie, Hillbilly, CJ Wiley, etc, etc...
Just because you cite good players who don't use aiming systems, doesn't mean there aren't equal and better players who do.
Citing great players who don't use aiming systems and knock them doesn't mean anything. Just like saying the fact that Shane uses one doesn't mean anything either.
I think there's a bigger reason, but I know this isn't your point.
Both almost every day (along with some others).
Yes, which broadens the applicability of his lessons.
Agreed. The knowledge I'm after is simply the understanding that these fractional systems aren't "prescriptive" from beginning to end. If that's an argument every time the subject comes up (especially if it's central to the topic), then everything else gets drowned out.
pj
chgo
One little tid bit about CTE that might help shed some light: the starting tip offset should not matter. You can slide in with a 1/2 tip offset like Pro1/CTE, or slide in 1/2 ball offset like the hybrid system I describe, or somewhere else if you prefer. So long as the initial setup is correct, the pivot will take you to the same shot line.
Maybe a way to help understand this is to reverse-engineer it. Start with the cue tip at center cue ball on the shot line and pivot away from center. Stop anywhere you like: 1/2 tip offset, 1/2 ball offset, or elsewhere. No matter where you stop, you can pivot the cue right back to center.
Wherever you decide your starting tip offset is, you need to learn how to slide in correctly for that offset. That comes with practice. The Pro1/CTE 1/2 tip offset minimizes the pivot, which is the hardest part of the system. This also makes for more reference lines and starting tip placements to recognize. The 1/2 ball offset uses the exact same pivot for any shot on the table, and only requires 6 reference lines. However, the pivot is longer so there is more to go wrong on the hardest part. Both systems accomplish the same thing with different approaches.
Maybe a way to help understand this is to reverse-engineer it. Start with the cue tip at center cue ball on the shot line and pivot away from center. Stop anywhere you like: 1/2 tip offset, 1/2 ball offset, or elsewhere. No matter where you stop, you can pivot the cue right back to center.
Wherever you decide your starting tip offset is, you need to learn how to slide in correctly for that offset. That comes with practice. The Pro1/CTE 1/2 tip offset minimizes the pivot, which is the hardest part of the system. This also makes for more reference lines and starting tip placements to recognize. The 1/2 ball offset uses the exact same pivot for any shot on the table, and only requires 6 reference lines. However, the pivot is longer so there is more to go wrong on the hardest part. Both systems accomplish the same thing with different approaches.
I think where the waters tend to part is that the system is seemingly prescriptive from an execution point of view. We all know that the visual of each shot has an influence on the outcome of the execution, but this is not something that needs conscious awareness. Through practice the prescriptive execution brings in the shot line again and again. CTE minimizes the shot variations to a minimal, repeatable subconscious effort by way of its procedure.
Last edited:
..........
Last edited:
You might want to rethink this.
Oh really? That's an interesting perspective.
mohrt -- If you use the same bridge length with a 1/2-tip offset and a 1/2-ball offset, and you pivot from the bridge, you'll get different final stick alignments, i.e., you'll send the CB to different places.
I agree that it is possible to make CTE work with different offsets, but you need to pivot from different points. With Stan's CTE (1/2-tip offset), we pivot from the bridge, which varies somewhat in length as the distance between the CB and OB varies. With a 1/2-ball offset the pivot point is longer, as we learned a couple years ago from a visual of Spidey doing a mechanical pivot -- the effective pivot point was well behind the bridge.
But you already understand that; do you mean that you won't rest easy until everyone else agrees?
Let's be sure we understand each other:
If we anchor the middle of a straight line so that it pivots at the CB's center, and then we pivot the line around like a compass needle until it meets the right edge of the OB, that's the only right edge of the OB that it can possibly meet. There is one and only one center-to-right-edge line for that CB/OB. If your eye isn't somewhere on that same unmoved line, then you cannot see through the CB's center directly to the OB's right edge.
Please don't tell me you disagree with this, or we'll simply be unable to discuss any of this rationally.
pj
chgo
I mean I think it's necessary to understand this in order to understand how the "reference angles" in fractional systems work and might be useful to non-system users.
pj
chgo
To be sure you understand what I mean by that, read my explanation in post #275 (a couple above this one).
pj
chgo
Not if the bridge hand lands in the same place. Once the bridge hand is down the shot line is exactly where the cue points to center cue ball.
Assuming that the body position is right in the first place.
I can come down into the shot with a short bridge length or a longer bridge length and get on the same shot line because my body is already into position, similar to how snooker players walk into the shot.
Pivoting should be called settling-in as long as we are making up terms. Because that's how it feels to me. I come into the shot from the side and settle in to the shot line. When I use Hal's method I don't think about bridge distance and use whatever bridge distance is right for the shot.
I understand what your trying to say but tell me this. You have or had Stan's dvd, how do you get from one reference point to another? If your cutting a shot left you start at the ctel, move your head a little left to the first reference point. If that doesn't make the ball you move it a little farther to the left to the next reference point. Your still using a ctel for both reference points.
And an even bigger coincidence that in the last several big events the top finishers are all aiming system users.