How Fractional Aiming Systems Help

Me:
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.
Click to expand...
cookie man:
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.
Click to expand...
If you understand what I said above, then what does "still using the ctel" mean? Once you move your head your eyes can no longer see along the ctel, so it must mean something else.

I think it probably means something different to everybody. This is where the "non-system" part of the system begins - the part that I think the system makes easier for you but doesn't tell you exactly how to do it. I keep pointing this out because how the system makes the non-system part easier without telling you exactly how to do it is what I'm interested in.

pj
chgo
 
AtLarge said:
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.
Click to expand...

You do not pivot from different points, the systems work the same. With Pro1/CTE the pivot length is so short it doesn't hurt to think that the pivot always happens at the bridge, but if you pay attention to shots longer than 1 diamond you may notice that there is actually a very slight shift happening at the bridge hand.
 
JB Cases said:
And an even bigger coincidence that in the last several big events the top finishers are all aiming system users.
Click to expand...

Lou is now out of all this cte stuff, he false started and never joined back in with us and we are just to far ahead for him now to take him seriously. Soon PJ will give cte/pro1 a :thumbup: and Lou will be left with that embarrassing review he did which is a reflection of his character.
 
champ2107 said:
Lou is now out of all this cte stuff, he false started and never joined back in with us and we are just to far ahead for him now to take him seriously. Soon PJ will give cte/pro1 a :thumbup: and Lou will be left with that embarrassing review he did which is a reflection of his character.
Click to expand...
Please leave me out of your imaginary war.

pj
chgo
 
you guys have to remember the cte/pro1 dvd was not made for a specific type of pool player but for all pool players in general. I may make something work a little differently than another person will make it work. That is why the dvd was made the way it was. It left space for the user to figure out what exactly works for him within guide lines.
 
mohrt said:
You do not pivot from different points, the systems work the same. With Pro1/CTE the pivot length is so short it doesn't hurt to think that the pivot always happens at the bridge, but if you pay attention to shots longer than 1 diamond you may notice that there is actually a very slight shift happening at the bridge hand.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that on Stan's DVD he instructs us to use a bridge length of about 7" to 9" for shots longer than 1 diamond, and to pivot from the bridge, but that the actual video of shots shows the bridge hand deforming somehow to create a longer effective pivot point?

I certainly don't remember that, but at some point I'll go back and view the DVD again.
 
champ2107 said:
you guys have to remember the cte/pro1 dvd was not made for a specific type of pool player but for all pool players in general. I may make something work a little differently than another person will make it work. That is why the dvd was made the way it was. It left space for the user to figure out what exactly works for him within guide lines.
Click to expand...

I swore to stay out of CTE discussions but I didn't swear off DVD reviews... I just think that Stan has CTE/Pro1 ingrained to the point that he erroneously believed that it is way more intuitive to anyone than it truly is.....

I think given the chance a version 2 of the DVD would be done with more emphasis on the areas which are vague....

I do not think this was a shotgun approach where it was aimed at all pool players so it was to be merely a simple primer for the student to be introduced to theory and then left to themselves.. I think it was intended to be the DVD that would teach the masses what Stan teaches in lessons.....
 
AtLarge said:
Are you saying that on Stan's DVD he instructs us to use a bridge length of about 7" to 9" for shots longer than 1 diamond, and to pivot from the bridge, but that the actual video of shots shows the bridge hand deforming somehow to create a longer effective pivot point?

I certainly don't remember that, but at some point I'll go back and view the DVD again.
Click to expand...

I am familiar with Pivot based system and I will state this fact....at different distances if you are doing a halfball pivot you either have to alter the amount of pivot or you have to alter the bridge length....

If you master a consistent pivot then the bridge length change will always be more consistent than staying at a certain bridge length and altering the amount of pivot....

The reasoning behind this is that the pivot is a moving part while the bridge length is merely a base.... Having a consistent movement in a moving part with a variable base is much easier to reproduce than a static base with an ever adjusting moving part (pivot)........
 
JB Cases said:
Not if the bridge hand lands in the same place. ...
Click to expand...

I'm talking about a manual, on-the-table pivot after the bridge hand is placed on the table. So I don't see that a 1/2-tip offset from the center of the CB and a 1/2-ball offset from the center of the CB will result in placing the bridge hands in the same place.
 
AtLarge said:
Are you saying that on Stan's DVD he instructs us to use a bridge length of about 7" to 9" for shots longer than 1 diamond, and to pivot from the bridge, but that the actual video of shots shows the bridge hand deforming somehow to create a longer effective pivot point?

I certainly don't remember that, but at some point I'll go back and view the DVD again.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty confident that (technically) the pivot happens behind the bridge for shots longer than 1 diamond. However, Stans system has such a short pivot (1/2 tip) that this difference becomes so slight that it isn't necessary to acknowledge. Especially if you are using a 7-9" bridge and not a 10-12" bridge, which you can get away with on a 1/2 tip pivot. His system is very solid.
 
The Renfro said:
I am familiar with Pivot based system and I will state this fact....at different distances if you are doing a halfball pivot you either have to alter the amount of pivot or you have to alter the bridge length....

If you master a consistent pivot then the bridge length change will always be more consistent than staying at a certain bridge length and altering the amount of pivot....

The reasoning behind this is that the pivot is a moving part while the bridge length is merely a base.... Having a consistent movement in a moving part with a variable base is much easier to reproduce than a static base with an ever adjusting moving part (pivot)........
Click to expand...

So would this fact not carry through to a 1/2 tip pivot system, but at a much smaller margin?
 
The Renfro said:
Absolutely..... Make the movement consistent even if it is a small movement... and adjust the pivot point
Click to expand...

Which is what Stan does -- 1/2-tip offset with the bridge length (pivot point) varying from about 5" to 9" depending on CB/OB separation.
 
Cutting the OB to the left with my bridge hand 12" behind the CB:

If I start at CTE and shift the tip of my cue say one tip and the butt the same distance to the left pre-pivot, do I visualize the left edge of the CB at the 1/8, A, B and C points on the equator of the OB? Do I get consistent cut angles of W for 1/8, X for A, Y for B and Z for C - I think so.

Now if I shift the tip and butt farther out to say 1/4 CB and visualize the left edge of the CB at 1/8, A, B and C, will I get consistent but different cut angles than those above for the one tip offset/shift?
 
champ2107 said:
Lou is now out of all this cte stuff, he false started and never joined back in with us and we are just to far ahead for him now to take him seriously. Soon PJ will give cte/pro1 a :thumbup: and Lou will be left with that embarrassing review he did which is a reflection of his character.
Click to expand...

You hard core group of ASS guy's can rant on and on, (as per this thread) about the marvels of aiming systems. It must be frustrating for you all, that try as you might, you still can't beat the old, amateur Lou, or a REALLY old has been (like me)...at an actual, real live game of pool...Especially a game like one pocket, where you have to do a little more than just "pivot" your brains out, and worry about where your eyeballs are.

The game requires the "touch" and "feel" that all of you are searching in vain for... It just seems strange, to see grown men so infatuated with a concept that you can't even explain it to each other...Wouldn't it be more productive, to constantly argue about how all the Pro's, now touting "aiming systems" actually ALL learned the old fashioned (million ball) way", and also had natural talent, from the womb.

But thats OK, if you really 'master' one of the 40 or 50 "secrets of aiming"... you MAY actually be able to accurately pocket the LAST ball on the table. Providing of course, it's not a 'scratch shot'...as I don't see where thats covered in your "lessons"

PS..You might check with m'bud, JoeyA..He's tried all 50 of 'em,...and he STILL can't beat Lou..;)
 
Last edited:
Some CTE users have told me to not address the shot with my stance square but at a 45 degree angle. Another told me to tilt my head to achieve a new visual.

When I do either, the CTE line moves and causes me to move my bridge hand to get back to the CTE line pre-pivot. I wonder if this is a component of CTE?
Is this how to achieve a new visual when sighting at 1/8, A, B or C?

If one changes his head position and the eyes follow then the perception of the CTE line must change. Is this a tool to modify the discrete sighting of say the edge of the CB at 1/8, A, B or C? How much must one move his head/eyes?

When one recognizes the resultant cut angles of 1/8, A, B or C, is the movement of the head and eyes a way to modify those angles a few degrees thinner or thicker?

If one knows the resultant cut angles described above, then when one sees that the cut needs to be a bit thinner or thicker, does one move his head/eyes a bit to the side to get that new visual?

How different is this from fractional aiming - the origin of this thread? If one recognizes the cut angles achieved by aiming the center of the CB to the fractions of the OB for cut angles less than 30 degrees, and realizes that the shot at hand is a bit thinner that those that one achieves when aiming at the fractions, then one moves the bridge hand a bit to cut a bit thinner.

As long as the fractions or reference points be it 1/8, A, B or C are used on the OB, then, as the OB is farther away from the CB and appears smaller and the distances between 1/8, A, B or C get smaller, then this is a self correction method of aiming for it reduces the included angle of the aim line and the line from the center of the CB and OB. Otherwise, the CB will roll away from the OB and never hit it.

If one cannot see/visualize the contact point on the OB that sends it to the pocket/target, then one can correlate the cut angle at hand to 1/8, A, B or C to those cut angles by rote.
 
SJDinPHX said:
You hard core group of ASS guy's can rant on and on, (as per this thread) about the marvels of aiming systems. It must be frustrating for you all, that try as you might, you still can't beat the old, amateur Lou, or a REALLY old has been (like me)...at an actual, real live game of pool...Especially a game like one pocket, where you have to do a little more than just "pivot" your brains out, and worry about where your eyeballs are.

The game requires the "touch" and "feel" that all of you are searching in vain for... It just seems strange, to see grown men so infatuated with a concept that you can't even explain it to each other...Wouldn't it be more productive, to constantly argue about how all the Pro's, now touting "aiming systems" actually ALL learned the old fashioned (million ball) way", and also had natural talent, from the womb.

But thats OK, if you really 'master' one of the 40 or 50 "secrets of aiming"... you MAY actually be able to accurately pocket the LAST ball on the table. Providing of course, it's not a 'scratch shot'...as I don't see where thats covered in your "lessons"

PS..You might check with m'bud, JoeyA..He's tried all 50 of 'em,...and he STILL can't beat Lou..;)
Click to expand...

Something like this?? @ 1:15 seconds....Hahahaha!!!! Natural talent , my ass!! He probably should have stayed in the womb!!
http://youtu.be/wJH_Q-GgnCY
 
Last edited:
SJDinPHX said:
You hard core group of ASS guy's can rant on and on, (as per this thread) about the marvels of aiming systems. It must be frustrating for you all, that try as you might, you still can't beat the old, amateur Lou, or a REALLY old has been (like me)...at an actual, real live game of pool...Especially a game like one pocket, where you have to do a little more than just "pivot" your brains out, and worry about where your eyeballs are.

The game requires the "touch" and "feel" that all of you are searching in vain for... It just seems strange, to see grown men so infatuated with a concept that you can't even explain it to each other...Wouldn't it be more productive, to constantly argue about how all the Pro's, now touting "aiming systems" actually ALL learned the old fashioned (million ball) way", and also had natural talent, from the womb.

But thats OK, if you really 'master' one of the 40 or 50 "secrets of aiming"... you MAY actually be able to accurately pocket the LAST ball on the table. Providing of course, it's not a 'scratch shot'...as I don't see where thats covered in your "lessons"

PS..You might check with m'bud, JoeyA..He's tried all 50 of 'em,...and he STILL can't beat Lou..;)
Click to expand...

Around here people switch to 1hole when they start missing... I would hazard a guess that since that is the game you mention you and Lou started missing early in life because you had no systems so you decided to play the game where missing didn't hurt so much........

If you wanna back Lou against JoeyA in 9ball or 10ball where misses matter I think the rail will match whats in your pocket....

No disrespect intended but we were actually making some progress this time without someone trying to set the thread on fire....

At this point I am neither a naysayer or a yeasayer so I am not quite an ASS guy... I am more like and AS guy.... in AS if I care what a cynic thinks about systems....

Your mind has been closed by years of doing it your way.... The id and the ego no longer are relevant... And the critical part of the Super-Ego is all that's left so it rails at anything that might even hint at the fact there was a different or perhaps better way to get "where" you ended up or that those methods would have changed exactly "where" is.....
 
Patrick Johnson said:
If you understand what I said above, then what does "still using the ctel" mean? Once you move your head your eyes can no longer see along the ctel, so it must mean something else.

I think it probably means something different to everybody. This is where the "non-system" part of the system begins - the part that I think the system makes easier for you but doesn't tell you exactly how to do it. I keep pointing this out because how the system makes the non-system part easier without telling you exactly how to do it is what I'm interested in.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

If you set 2 balls up and do a slight, 1/2 inch movement (estimate) with your eyes the ctel just rotates around the ob slightly. Put the balls straight up and down the table and just move your head a little.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top