You're welcome
I can understand saying that I don't get it, or that it's just not for me. I don't understand saying that it's hogwash when multiple ppl say that it absolutely does work.
CTE for Top USA pros
- Thread starter stan shuffett
- Start date
You're welcome
I can understand saying that I don't get it, or that it's just not for me. I don't understand saying that it's hogwash when multiple ppl say that it absolutely does work.
I kind of get the feeling that part of the reason people like to slam Stan is because he charges money for his products. It almost seems like some are offended because they cant get all of the information they want for free. Just an observation.
This is absolutely not true. The CTE war has been going on for near 20 years now and it has never been about selling stuff. Some people believe in it. Others think it is hogwash. Both sides are passionate... if you couldn't tell
Lou Figueroa
The following are not explicit directions:
1. Perceive a visual line from 2 lines that aren't parallel and don't intersect at any point where both may be perceived from a certain position.
2. Pivot from 1/2 tip offset to CCB without a description of the axis point of said pivot, nor of the diameter of the tip.
Colin
Colin, I wonder if a more refined version of your pivot point "block" experiment could be used to fine tune the instruction of CTE? Or, to show if/where it breaks down.
For making a better pivot on the cheap, I'm thinking of something that looks like an eyebolt screw, that is allowed to rotate about its axis easily.
One of the possible issue with a V block as the pivot, is there is slight lifting of the cue when it is pivoted because the cue touches the V at different spots.
For making a better pivot on the cheap, I'm thinking of something that looks like an eyebolt screw, that is allowed to rotate about its axis easily.
One of the possible issue with a V block as the pivot, is there is slight lifting of the cue when it is pivoted because the cue touches the V at different spots.
Hell, I could invision a mobile setup that could be built from 4 or 5mm thick masonite hardboard, have a pivot, make the pivot mount to a long slot (so it can be adjusted for pivot length), and have the whole system calibrated in degrees for how much the pivot is. Even have integrated a "stroke guide" to ensure the stick goes in a straight line (once all the pivoting is done).
Even if I could establish where the visual line should be, I would then need description of where the pivot axis should be, but I'm not aware of any description that can be replicated on the planes or dimensions with which I am familiar.
Eyebolt screw could work, also thought of a V with vertical walls slightly wider than the shaft diameter to prevent creeping up the V walls.
Cheers,
Colin
What if we designed a cue-robot like machine...
1. That had a fixed pivot point length from the CB of lets say 10" (common bridge point)
2. Had a linear bearing that the cue rode on in during its entire travel (ensuring a perfectly straight stroke)
3. It was two plates. A base plate that is stationary relative to the slate, and the top plate, that would pivot with respect to the stationary plate. All of the cue carrying components, such as at the linear bearing, would be attached to the top plate, and move with the top plate.
4. The bottom plate would have hard stops, to limit how many degrees the top plate (and thus the cue) could pivot. The hard stops could be calibrated for exactly 1/2 tip of rotation (for the mounted cue).
5. The cue could be hand powered, and the linear bearing would guide it.
To use it, one start with the top plate against one of the pivot hard stops. Then, they'd eyeball the alignment of the stick with the CTE points on the CB/OB. The would do this alignment by moving the entire lower plate assembly. They would follow the CTE instruction for the given shot, as to what to align with what.
Once the alignment was set, the user would pivot the top plate until it hits the hard pivot stop in the other direction, which would again be 1/2 tip. (or full tip, whatever the CTE instruction is for the test shot).
Then the user would stroke the cue.
This could be tried for small variations in shot angle, that were still within the same instruction set of CTE. (It would be harder to make the jig fully adjustable to allow all shot ranges). Thus, it could be designed to only follow the instruction set for the 15 deg perception shots, for example.
What do you think? Could this prove or disprove if CTE is a sound system?
1. That had a fixed pivot point length from the CB of lets say 10" (common bridge point)
2. Had a linear bearing that the cue rode on in during its entire travel (ensuring a perfectly straight stroke)
3. It was two plates. A base plate that is stationary relative to the slate, and the top plate, that would pivot with respect to the stationary plate. All of the cue carrying components, such as at the linear bearing, would be attached to the top plate, and move with the top plate.
4. The bottom plate would have hard stops, to limit how many degrees the top plate (and thus the cue) could pivot. The hard stops could be calibrated for exactly 1/2 tip of rotation (for the mounted cue).
5. The cue could be hand powered, and the linear bearing would guide it.
To use it, one start with the top plate against one of the pivot hard stops. Then, they'd eyeball the alignment of the stick with the CTE points on the CB/OB. The would do this alignment by moving the entire lower plate assembly. They would follow the CTE instruction for the given shot, as to what to align with what.
Once the alignment was set, the user would pivot the top plate until it hits the hard pivot stop in the other direction, which would again be 1/2 tip. (or full tip, whatever the CTE instruction is for the test shot).
Then the user would stroke the cue.
This could be tried for small variations in shot angle, that were still within the same instruction set of CTE. (It would be harder to make the jig fully adjustable to allow all shot ranges). Thus, it could be designed to only follow the instruction set for the 15 deg perception shots, for example.
What do you think? Could this prove or disprove if CTE is a sound system?
Sorry Stan,
I think maybe it was my post that caused the thread to be moved. I've rarely been over here. I hear these aiming discussions can be heated. Maybe I'm naive and my thoughts In post # 117 have been echoed over here thousands of times.
I think maybe it was my post that caused the thread to be moved. I've rarely been over here. I hear these aiming discussions can be heated. Maybe I'm naive and my thoughts In post # 117 have been echoed over here thousands of times.
I doubt it was due to your post Tim.
It probably should have been moved ASAP after it was started given the reasons for the creation of the Aiming Sub Forum.
If any one post may have been the cause, it may have been the post at 3:39 PM.
Don't blame yourself & don't worry over it. It was just a matter of time.
I hope You're Well & Keep Shooting Well.
I reported the thread last night as being in the incorrect forum. This should be in the aiming forum. Lets get real here, this is an aiming thread, and the whole point of the aiming forum is to keep aiming threads off of the main forum. Why it was started in the main forum is beyond me to begin with.
It could only prove a CTE type system with some added variables such as pivot axis length to vary proportionately within zones of angles.... that's if you can establish a formula to approximate the visual, which would then make it NOT CTE as people are using it now.
I worked on some such formulas for the old type of CTE, based on angle relative to 30 degrees, distance b/w CB & OB, varying tip offset and pivot length. It was laboriously complex and impractical.
Even if we pick a visual perfectly, we're only perhaps as good as the visual we get on a long straight in shot. Go set that shot up, see the line, then try to slide to CCB without looking at the OB and see how easy that is... without any pivot. It's quite difficult to achieve this consistently based on my trialing of it.
Yet, for modern CTE, we're required to do a blind slide (not looking at OB, though if you know your visuals from down low you can apparently look back and forth a bit) to approx 1/2 tip from CCB, along a tricky to find visual, and if we achieve that, then we've gotta perform a pivot from some non-defined pivot axis requiring an undefined amount of bridge V lateral movement of a bridge with no defined length.
Lets keep this conversation polite. Little digs for the sake of getting digs will end up as little vacations.
Mike
Mike
For those who aren't familiar w/ ALL of Stan's instructional work, the DVD, 'CTE-The Final Chapter' makes it very clear that CTE is sensitive to differing bridge lengths which depend on the distance between the CB and OB ball. I keep the chart in my phone as a portable reference. I wouldn't post it here as I would never want to violate the proprietary nature of Stan's good work.
To all the CTE haters; please stop posting. Your negativity in this thread is completely meaningless and usually ignored by those of us who have put a ball in the center of the pocket w/ the help and discipline that CTE offers.
To all the CTE haters; please stop posting. Your negativity in this thread is completely meaningless and usually ignored by those of us who have put a ball in the center of the pocket w/ the help and discipline that CTE offers.
That isn't how the system is described at all. For instance on 15 and 30 perceptions, you have the CTEL line and the A/B/C line. Finding both of those lines for a given shot looks correct from only one eye position for a given shot. The only true way to grasp that is through repetition/practice. From there you take your attention to the fixed cueball. It is this CCB line you must move your cue into at a 1/2 tip offset. Then pivot cue to CCB from there. Your cue is now on the shot line.
The pivot point isn't something you even think about for most shots. That comes into play for shots where CB/OB are < 1 diamond distance, and shortening the bridge is natural with these types of shots anyways. With PRO One there is no pivot point at all, it's about moving to the post-pivot position.
The diameter of the cue is of little significance. The 1/2 tip is just the easiest and most objective place to begin the pivot. If your tip is 11mm or 13mm, you are just starting your arc slightly more/less. You end up on the same CCB.
Yes CTE becomes clearer with practice, much like other aiming systems. No one ever denied that. I don't know of any other system that uses centers and edges of balls to align perceptions, most of the others are estimating invisible contact points. So no, not just like every other way of aiming.
For a 15 degree right thick cut visual, stand so that the inside edge of the CB aligns with the inside quarter of the OB *AND* the centre of the CB to the outside edge of the OB.
Once you have the visual move your focus to the centre cue ball.
Move into the CB 1/2 tip outside of the CB centre.
This is your pivot axis.
Pivot to centre. Shoot.
Rinse and repeat.
I don't see any difference in point 1 about perceiving the 2 lines. Yes, there are different line, but 2 are chosen to get the visual... somehow, with a lot of practice... hence, not a very explicit direction.
While the pivot has been said to be at the bridge V, some have said it doesn't at times and every time I've clipped frames from people's videos demonstrating the manual pivot, they have bridge shifted and had a significantly longer effective pivot axis. Hence, observation indicates this is not explicit.
On the tip diameter, check my analysis in the thread analyzing Stan's pivot, where starting 1mm away will lead to about a full pocket variation of OB on medium long shots.
And the air pivot, is much like the visual perception, not an explicit direction, unless instructing one to practice it a lot is explicit.
Cheers,
Colin