If you have to move your eyes to see another edge of the OB, why doesn't the CB's center have to move to "see" the same thing? Can the CB's center see around corners?
The center-to-edge line (ctel) cannot "rotate" - this is geometry so basic that there's absolutely no question about it. Yet imaginary "rotating edges" have been one of the "go-to" excuses for fractional aiming "exactness" since the systems were first described. This kind of credibility gap is at the heart of much of the ongoing disagreement and acrimony.
pj
chgo
Yep, this is the part that had me turning the DVD off the first 2 times I watched it. Didn't make sense to my mathematical mind at all.
However, in practice, you can start by visualizing the CTE line and simultaneously visualizing the secondary line, say to point A or C (1/4) for "normal" cuts. With a slight movement of your head, body, eyes, etc., you can pick up point B (1/2)
but still see the CTEL, just from a different perspective. This is the part that's the hardest to explain or diagram, but I've now showed 3 or 4 players in the room the system and by them standing behind me while I'm pointing or explaining, or vice versa, they get it.
I'm not sure if it's what Stan intended, but I tend to think of it as for most normal shots I'm starting with the CTEL as a base and looking at about a 3/4 overlap of the ball, since the edge of the cue ball is pointing to the 1/4 point on the object ball. For thinner cuts, I'm still seeing the CTEL but looking at a 1/2 overlap, and I get there by just leaning or moving my eyes slightly. That slight movement gives me a different visual path along which I can move into the shot, pivot and shoot.
Agree with previous posters that while all of the content is on the DVD, it can be difficult to pick it up from a position of zero knowledge. Especially if you have years of experience aiming another way, or like me your analytical mind is screaming at you that it doesn't make sense. You do sort of have to work through it, but once it makes sense then you can see where certain important concepts are covered just not in an in-your-face sort of way. I'm not sure I would have gotten there without help from Stan and several people here on the forum.
I appreciate your openness in the discussion Patrick, you've been very civil even in the face of others not always returning the favor. I wish several other people could get past the point that using CTE/Pro1 or other aiming systems does not mean you are automatically going to beat x person or never miss. There's a lot more to the game as we all should know. What it will do, assuming your previous aiming approach was not working optimally for you, is improve your ball pocketing percentage and perhaps also help with your preshot routine, again assuming that needed refinement.
I wish that certain components of it weren't as nebulous as they are, I think that's where a lot of the disbelief and mystical nature comes in. It's not impossible, just difficult, to discuss visualization on paper as everyone sees things different. That's why I've said many times before that maybe the visualization piece is not geometric in nature but just what Stan says, visual intellligence. Even so, it's using your eyes and your internal computer to find an aim point in a very specific manner, and once you find that point the rest of the shot is very similar to any other aiming approach.
Scott
