Objective Points of Aim

I agree....objective points of aim are a must. I just haven't found any that I am comfortable with. At the risk of starting yet another flame thread....which I do not want....can you share your opinion on how to attain these points of aim?

Please...no one nitpik Gerry's opinion. It works for him. I would like to know his thoughts. To argue about HIS opinion would be pointless.

Thanks,

Ken
 
Not sure what you are asking - I have worked with Stan's Pro One DVD for 3 months and spent a day with him. The system is very objective with clearly defined visuals.

I do not wish to go deep into it on a public forum as Stan has put in countless hours and significant cash to develop the system. If you haven't seen the DVD it is well worth the money.

I would suggest that you start there.

Hope this helps.

Gerry
 
Gerry Williams said:
Not sure what you are asking - I have worked with Stan's Pro One DVD for 3 months and spent a day with him. The system is very objective with clearly defined visuals.

I do not wish to go deep into it on a public forum as Stan has put in countless hours and significant cash to develop the system. If you haven't seen the DVD it is well worth the money.

I would suggest that you start there.

Hope this helps.

Gerry
Click to expand...

I was looking for your twist on it. It has not clicked for me.

I guess I am thick headed. I purchased the DVD last year and spoke with Stan on the phone while at the table.

Thanks anyways.

Ken
 
No - it just takes time to become consistent with it - I am still learning.

I put in about 300hrs before I went to see Stan. I worked the reference shots until my cloth was wore out :)

You can't learn this without the table time - it is all about perceptions.
 
Gerry Williams said:
Not sure what you are asking - I have worked with Stan's Pro One DVD for 3 months and spent a day with him. The system is very objective with clearly defined visuals.

I do not wish to go deep into it on a public forum as Stan has put in countless hours and significant cash to develop the system. If you haven't seen the DVD it is well worth the money.

I would suggest that you start there.

Hope this helps.

Gerry
Click to expand...

I have seen the DVD and understand how the system works in theory. The application is the tough part. Getting the visuals is usually pretty easy. It is hard to really understand the 1/2 tip pivot or visual sweeps if you are doing them by yourself. Seems like quite a few people share this opinion. Going to see Stan is not an option for a lot of people. I do not know anybody in my area who si proficient in this so I could get some help with it. I have lots of questions about Pro1 but some of them I am not sure if I could phrase correctly in an online forum.

You play very well Gerry. Glad you are having so much success with the system.
 
Can a template be made out of objective points ?
Or a template and a track or laser from the bridge hand point ?
I think that'd make it a lot easier .
 
nine_ball6970 said:
I have seen the DVD and understand how the system works in theory. The application is the tough part. Getting the visuals is usually pretty easy. It is hard to really understand the 1/2 tip pivot or visual sweeps if you are doing them by yourself. Seems like quite a few people share this opinion. Going to see Stan is not an option for a lot of people. I do not know anybody in my area who si proficient in this so I could get some help with it. I have lots of questions about Pro1 but some of them I am not sure if I could phrase correctly in an online forum.

You play very well Gerry. Glad you are having so much success with the system.
Click to expand...

I was wondering what this means?
 
full splice said:
I was wondering what this means?
Click to expand...

I have been playing for a long time finding the aim line and getting down on center cue ball. A half tip pivot requires moving into the cue ball with a half tip offset from center ball and moving the tip to center ball. I do not completely understand how this is different from moving the tip to center ball in the first place. That is the concept I have the most trouble with understanding.

The visual sweeps make a bit more sense after watching Stan's recent video about visual sweeps. My take away from that is you acquire the visuls then shift your perception of the shot slightly left or right to achieve a new center cueball then move straight into center cueball from there.

It seems like people tend to say it only works with table time using the diagrammed shots. I personally need to have someone there who can see what I am doing and show me exactly how it works.

I hope that clarifies some of my thoughts about this but I am pretty confused in general about CTE. I am hoping DVD2 makes more sense to me because it works very well for people who grasp it. The people I have spoken to in my area gave up on it because they didn't understand it from the video either.
 
I believe he shows how to go from the points of aim to center cue ball in the video below from the 30-second mark to 3:30 mark?

Once he has is points of aim in view, he "locks" that visual and head position and you then focus on the cue ball and you will see a left/right edge of the cue ball (fixed cue ball) you now find the halfway point between those edges which would be center cue ball and then do a manual or pro1 sweep.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2KwI_62Npos#t=31s
 
I think this whole deal of objectivity is taken out of context and frankly, irrelevant. I also don't understand all the arguing over which system is best. Determining the best system is very easy. It's whatever system the individual player thinks works best for them. It's no more objective than who makes the best cue, who makes the best chalk, etc..

The edge of the OB is clearly objective. Frankly, the center of the CB is only somewhat objective IMHO. The A, B and C aim points are most certainly not objective if you want to be technically pure about it. Then you get the 1/4 and 1/8 ball thin cuts with CTE/Pro One that cannot be argued as objective. They're no more objective than if you were aiming at those using fractional SAM. But really, why argue that point? The vast majority of shots taken during the course of playing involve CTE as a primary visual. Having used other aiming systems, I believe that is at least the most objective visual you will find in any aiming system.

IMHO, the biggest challenge with CTE/Pro One is learning the pivot. With Pro One, this ends up involving some precise moves. I believe that is what is consuming the time with most people. Stan shows bending over as one of his pivots. But what does that really mean? I can say for sure by trying it myself, it isn't simply a matter of bending over. Rather, it is a matter of bending over whatever amount is necessary for you, the individual player, that takes you to correct CB position. That, I believe, is what takes the most table time.

CTE/Pro One is no more of a Silver Bullet than any other aiming system. It has some exceptional strong points and advantages but it requires extensive table time, like any other system, to become proficient.
 
nobcitypool said:
I think this whole deal of objectivity is taken out of context and frankly, irrelevant. I also don't understand all the arguing over which system is best. Determining the best system is very easy. It's whatever system the individual player thinks works best for them. It's no more objective than who makes the best cue, who makes the best chalk, etc..

The edge of the OB is clearly objective. Frankly, the center of the CB is only somewhat objective IMHO. The A, B and C aim points are most certainly not objective if you want to be technically pure about it. Then you get the 1/4 and 1/8 ball thin cuts with CTE/Pro One that cannot be argued as objective. They're no more objective than if you were aiming at those using fractional SAM. But really, why argue that point? The vast majority of shots taken during the course of playing involve CTE as a primary visual. Having used other aiming systems, I believe that is at least the most objective visual you will find in any aiming system.

IMHO, the biggest challenge with CTE/Pro One is learning the pivot. With Pro One, this ends up involving some precise moves. I believe that is what is consuming the time with most people. Stan shows bending over as one of his pivots. But what does that really mean? I can say for sure by trying it myself, it isn't simply a matter of bending over. Rather, it is a matter of bending over whatever amount is necessary for you, the individual player, that takes you to correct CB position. That, I believe, is what takes the most table time.

CTE/Pro One is no more of a Silver Bullet than any other aiming system. It has some exceptional strong points and advantages but it requires extensive table time, like any other system, to become proficient.
Click to expand...

Good points Sir :-)
 
nobcitypool said:
CTE/Pro One is no more of a Silver Bullet than any other aiming system. It has some exceptional strong points and advantages but it requires extensive table time, like any other system, to become proficient.
Click to expand...

That bold part is almost an understatement. :) For example, take a CB/OB and place out on the table. Maybe something like this:



Now instead of targeting specific pockets, just move through all the visuals/sweeps for the given CB/OB and you will find paths to all of the pockets. Now repeat the process with ghost-ball. It would all be done completely by estimation. This is an inherent advantage, the objectivity in making any and all shots.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it seems the "pivot" is the holy grail of Pro One, maybe of any pivot-based aiming system. Most people can follow the initial steps and see the visuals with little practice. From there, it's figuring out how to move from that initial alignment or perception to center cue ball along the true shot line required to pocket the ball.

I had a lot of helpful advice from Stan and others here on the forum in the beginning, lately there has been even more discussion and a follow up video from Stan himself which I think at least made the subject much more clear. It's a matter of shooting the reference shots that will go if executed correctly until they are actually correct. Through that exercise, either manual or Pro1-type, you will come to understand the initial offset and the subtle movement required to get to center cue ball properly.

It's not a big sweeping move as some people may think, therefore I think it's easy to repeat once learned and practiced. For me, when moving from the right, I simply look at the center of my fixed cue ball (found by locating the visuals) and begin to bend down to that cue ball center. As I bend toward that point the cue, which is offset to the left somewhat, will also come to center cue ball. To me, it's that bend-then-rotate motion that has you feeling like you are just dropping to center cue ball.

From the left, it's more of a rotate-then-bend motion, and frankly for right handers can feel more natural since you can see the approach more clearly. But it's still not some giant sweeping pivoting motion, just a subtle rotation on the way to center cue ball.

For anyone struggling with this part, watch Stan's latest video submission, a lot of good demonstration and information in that short video. I'm hoping to do some videos as well on various things once I get my table next week and get a camera setup, a lot of good stuff recently that inspired me to attempt to do the same.

Scott
 
I think the pivots are what ties the system alignments into the geometry of the table and allows you to make shots like Mohrt is referring too. Think about it.
 
nobcitypool said:
I think this whole deal of objectivity is taken out of context and frankly, irrelevant. I also don't understand all the arguing over which system is best. Determining the best system is very easy. It's whatever system the individual player thinks works best for them. It's no more objective than who makes the best cue, who makes the best chalk, etc..

The edge of the OB is clearly objective. Frankly, the center of the CB is only somewhat objective IMHO. The A, B and C aim points are most certainly not objective if you want to be technically pure about it. Then you get the 1/4 and 1/8 ball thin cuts with CTE/Pro One that cannot be argued as objective. They're no more objective than if you were aiming at those using fractional SAM. But really, why argue that point? The vast majority of shots taken during the course of playing involve CTE as a primary visual. Having used other aiming systems, I believe that is at least the most objective visual you will find in any aiming system.

IMHO, the biggest challenge with CTE/Pro One is learning the pivot. With Pro One, this ends up involving some precise moves. I believe that is what is consuming the time with most people. Stan shows bending over as one of his pivots. But what does that really mean? I can say for sure by trying it myself, it isn't simply a matter of bending over. Rather, it is a matter of bending over whatever amount is necessary for you, the individual player, that takes you to correct CB position. That, I believe, is what takes the most table time.

CTE/Pro One is no more of a Silver Bullet than any other aiming system. It has some exceptional strong points and advantages but it requires extensive table time, like any other system, to become proficient.
Click to expand...
When a shot is thinner than center of cueball to edge of OB, the only way for it to "objective" I guess is to aim the inside edge of the cueball ( or parts of it ) to the object ball.
Center of cueball to empty space is not objective , I guess. Unless you aim that to a cushion or felt ?
 
JoeyInCali said:
When a shot is thinner than center of cueball to edge of OB, the only way for it to "objective" I guess is to aim the inside edge of the cueball ( or parts of it ) to the object ball.
Center of cueball to empty space is not objective , I guess. Unless you aim that to a cushion or felt ?
Click to expand...

For the thinner cuts there is no CTEL perception, only CB edge to aim point A, C or 1/8 (on the thin side.)
 
mohrt, to be "literally" correct, CTE/Pro One will take you objectively to the near side pocket and corner pocket. All other shots would be banks. CTE/Pro One would take you "near" the other pockets. A subjective decision of a combination of vertical cue position, english and speed would have to be applied to each in order to make the shot. I think the more accurate statement is that Pro One/CTE provides you with a great starting point for applying the subjective parts of the equation.


mohrt said:
That bold part is almost an understatement. :) For example, take a CB/OB and place out on the table. Maybe something like this:



Now instead of targeting specific pockets, just move through all the visuals/sweeps for the given CB/OB and you will find paths to all of the pockets. Now repeat the process with ghost-ball. It would all be done completely by estimation. This is an inherent advantage, the objectivity in making any and all shots.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top