Pivoting systems and their relationship to CTE

If you want to use a pivot then try this:

Put the OB in the center of the table with the CB on the spot. Put your Bridge/hand 12.0” behind the CB.

Drop down with the center of the CB aimed at the right edge of the OB, shoot and mark where the OB touches the far rail. This is approx. 30 degree cut angle.

Drop down on the shot with the tip of the cue ½ of its diameter to the right side with the shaft aimed at the right edge of the OB. Pivot the center of the tip to the center of the CB, shoot and mark where the OB touches the far rail. This is less than a 30 degree cut angle

Drop down on the shot with the tip of the cue 1 diameter to the side with the shaft aimed at the right edge of the OB. Pivot the center of the tip to the center of the CB, shoot and mark where the OB touches the far rail. This is less than the cut angle above.

So if the shot at hand is less than 30 degrees, one can make an adjustment based on the results above.

Do the same exercise above except with the fractions of the tip to the left side of the CB aimed at the right edge of the OB pre-pivot. This will result in cut angles greater than 30 degrees.

Do the same exercise with the fractions of the tip aimed at the center of the OB for cut angles that are not quite a straight in shot.

Do the same exercises above with the tip 2 diameters to the side for even greater cut angles than those above. This is particularly useful for CTE aiming greater than 30 degrees where the final aim line is outside of the right and left edge of the OB where
one can’t use imagined points on the equator around the OB as a reference.

The rub is when the separation between the CB and OB are closer or farther apart but the principles are the same – just different tip fractions. Use smaller fractions for large separations and greater for small separations.

Now repeat the exercise using the quarters on the equator of the OB, then eighths etc..

Have fun or use ghost ball, DD, Cp2Cp or HAMB or…instead.:smile::thumbup:
 
ENGLISH! said:
What erroneous concepts about pivoting 'systems' do you believe that I have?
Click to expand...

If a person can't make a pivoting system work there must be some confusion on it's operation. That means some error of it's operation has been introduced at some point. I'm trying to show the concepts behind mine to give you a baseline knowledge of pivoting to see if you can make other systems work. If you wish to stop the conversation, it's your choice.
 
Vorpal Cue said:
Rick,

The relative rotation concept is the key to the puzzle and crucial to understand the operation. If you can get past that hurdle the rest is mundane. (Mostly) :)
Click to expand...

I think that the problem may be the language that you are using &/or the brevity of language.

Also...

You are taking my posts directed to Stan's version & applying them to your method. It then appears as though you are defending all of the assertions made by Stan as to what that method is supposedly capable. Those apples & oranges are not going to mix well if at all.

You two are basically using the same visual but you are instead using a huge pivot when compared to Stan's. How can they both work on an objective basis?

I understand physics principles & concepts. I have 2 years of H.S. & 3 semesters of College Physics education. It was a long time ago but the principles & concepts remain, even if all of the formulas & math do not.

I understand that as you move... you can then see 'around' the sphere & different points on the sphere...

But...

that is irrelevant as the perspective is set because there are two balls & the points & the lines between them as defined Set & Fix the bisecting line that the shooter MUST be on in order to see both lines equally & simultaneously.

From there with the same amount of pivot & pivot length in the same direction there can be only one outcome from that visual...IF the CB is struck with a straight non twisting stroke & the center vertical axis of the ball is struck.

IF... the shooter moves "up table" or wherever off of that line, then they have left the realm of what was objectively dictated by the defined points & the lines between those points.

If one leaves the realm of the objective then they have gone into the realm of the subjective.

Do you believe that the same visual of the balls objectively yield different bisecting line CCBs depending on where they are on the table REALTIVE to the Two Balls...

AND... I do not mean different because the same angle shot is on a different part of the table

Does ETA/CTE yield a different bisecting line for shot 5 than it does for shot 1?

And if so... then what is the objective cause for that difference.

Stan now seems to be saying that it is some sort of non physical VISUAL Phenomena.

But one that he has yet to explain.

I'm done for this evening as I have to get up rather early tomorrow to sit with my Grandson. I'll be on from time to time though.

Best Wishes for You & Yours.

PS I wonder whatever happened to that Irish guy that said he was going to go under the hood of CTE.
 
LAMas said:
If you want to use a pivot then try this:

Put the OB in the center of the table with the CB on the spot. Put your Bridge/hand 12.0” behind the CB.

Drop down with the center of the CB aimed at the right edge of the OB, shoot and mark where the OB touches the far rail. This is approx. 30 degree cut angle.

Drop down on the shot with the tip of the cue ½ of its diameter to the right side with the shaft aimed at the right edge of the OB. Pivot the center of the tip to the center of the CB, shoot and mark where the OB touches the far rail. This is less than a 30 degree cut angle

Drop down on the shot with the tip of the cue 1 diameter to the side with the shaft aimed at the right edge of the OB. Pivot the center of the tip to the center of the CB, shoot and mark where the OB touches the far rail. This is less than the cut angle above.

So if the shot at hand is less than 30 degrees, one can make an adjustment based on the results above.

Do the same exercise above except with the fractions of the tip to the left side of the CB aimed at the right edge of the OB pre-pivot. This will result in cut angles greater than 30 degrees.

Do the same exercise with the fractions of the tip aimed at the center of the OB for cut angles that are not quite a straight in shot.

Do the same exercises above with the tip 2 diameters to the side for even greater cut angles than those above. This is particularly useful for CTE aiming greater than 30 degrees where the final aim line is outside of the right and left edge of the OB where
one can’t use imagined points on the equator around the OB as a reference.

The rub is when the separation between the CB and OB are closer or farther apart but the principles are the same – just different tip fractions. Use smaller fractions for large separations and greater for small separations.

Now repeat the exercise using the quarters on the equator of the OB, then eighths etc..

Have fun or use ghost ball, DD, Cp2Cp or HAMB or…instead.:smile::thumbup:
Click to expand...

Hi E,

AND one can have the cue on an ever so slight angle, pre pivot, to all of what you said above & get different results, angles, than if the cue was aligned as you stated.

Just sayin.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick
 
ENGLISH! said:
Hi E,

AND one can have the cue on an ever so slight angle, pre pivot, to all of what you said above & get different results, angles, than if the cue was aligned as you stated.

Just sayin.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick
Click to expand...

How about pivoting at impact with the CB?

swoop_experiment.jpg

Swoop anyone?:smile:
 
Vorpal Cue said:
If a person can't make a pivoting system work there must be some confusion on it's operation. That means some error of it's operation has been introduced at some point. I'm trying to show the concepts behind mine to give you a baseline knowledge of pivoting to see if you can make other systems work. If you wish to stop the conversation, it's your choice.
Click to expand...

Or... the supposed system is fallible & does not work for all shots.

You're doing the same thing that many CTEers have done.

Rather good players, such as 8pack Anthony, who has is own method, Dan, Myself, & others...

have shot the 5 shots OBJECTIVELY... & we get the same outcome angle for each. How can that be if the system is supposed to yield different lines from the same visual?

Now... if we go through the prescription & see that there is no way based on our subjectively learned data base & make an adjustment that our subjectively learned data base tells us to do... we pocket or rattle the balls.

The difference is that we were 'testing' the supposed system.

Our focus was not on making the ball at all cost. It was to perform the steps of the prescription OBJECTIVELY.

Look at your own tell tale words above that I put in blue...

"If a person can't make a pivoting system work..."

If it is a "system" & the person has a straight stroke... then it should work right out of the box... & not take a year or more for an individual to MAKE it work.

How do they MAKE it work?

Over time... they subjectively build a data base so as to recognize the shot line based off of the visual that is closest to the actual shot line.

When the word adjustment or variation comes up the CTEers jump to the conclusion that they are meant as after the bridge & cue are set.

That certainly does NOT have to be the case.

The adjustment can be made while in the standing position... or on the way down from the standing position into the shooting position.

That is why the ONLY way to show or prove that it is an objective system is by reasonable, rational, critically thought out, cognitive, logical explanation...

which has never been given.

Perception of a visual IS subjective as soon as one leaves the objectively dictated 'bisecting' line...

And the balls do NOT present themselves differently regardless of where they are in the Universe or on any size or shape table.

It's past my bed time since I'm sitting a 3 year old tomorrow.

Best 2 ya.p
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
I think that the problem may be the language that you are using &/or the brevity of language.

I'm taking small steps to see where we disagree. I don't want to have multiple conflicting views clouding the issues.

Also...

You are taking my posts directed to Stan's version & applying them to your method. It then appears as though you are defending all of the assertions made by Stan as to what that method is supposedly capable. Those apples & oranges are not going to mix well if at all.

We use some of the same parts but there's many differences. Mine's a steam engine his is gasoline. You can put either in a vehicle and get them down the road.

You two are basically using the same visual but you are instead using a huge pivot when compared to Stan's. How can they both work on an objective basis?

Somehow his pivoting method is equal to my half ball pivot. I guess. Not sure how he obtains and interprets his visuals but it's surely different than mine.

I understand physics principles & concepts. I have 2 years of H.S. & 3 semesters of College Physics education. It was a long time ago but the principles & concepts remain, even if all of the formulas & math do not.

I understand that as you move... you can then see 'around' the sphere & different points on the sphere...

The way the tangent points move around the cue ball is the first part of the 'action'. Understanding how they work is 'pivotal' :)

But...

that is irrelevant as the perspective is set because there are two balls & the points & the lines between them as defined Set & Fix the bisecting line that the shooter MUST be on in order to see both lines equally & simultaneously.

From there with the same amount of pivot & pivot length in the same direction there can be only one outcome from that visual...IF the CB is struck with a straight non twisting stroke & the center vertical axis of the ball is struck.

I'll give my view of that problem a bit later but I need to set the background facts we agree on first.

IF... the shooter moves "up table" or wherever off of that line, then they have left the realm of what was objectively dictated by the defined points & the lines between those points.

I believe I can explain that by use of the zero angle line and the offset you're on while considering visuals. Let's touch on this later please.

If one leaves the realm of the objective then they have gone into the realm of the subjective.

I believe that the subjective only comes into play when the determination of a 'set' visual is final. Just as locating a CP is a subjective decision. When you have it, the rest of the shot making is a 'mechanical' process with the subjective playing no part.

Do you believe that the same visual of the balls objectively yield different bisecting line CCBs depending on where they are on the table REALTIVE to the Two Balls...

I can read this different ways. No comment for now but we'll get back to it down the road.

AND... I do not mean different because the same angle shot is on a different part of the table

*****************************************************************

Does ETA/CTE yield a different bisecting line for shot 5 than it does for shot 1?

And if so... then what is the objective cause for that difference.

Stan now seems to be saying that it is some sort of non physical VISUAL Phenomena.

But one that he has yet to explain.

Don't Speak Stanish.

*****************************************************************

I'm done for this evening as I have to get up rather early tomorrow to sit with my Grandson. I'll be on from time to time though.

Best Wishes for You & Yours.

PS I wonder whatever happened to that Irish guy that said he was going to go under the hood of CTE.

Maybe he went looking under rainbows and the leprechauns ate him?
Click to expand...



Best back at ya.
 
Look at your own tell tale words above that I put in blue...

"If a person can't make a pivoting system work..."

If it is a "system" & the person has a straight stroke... then it should work right out of the box... & not take a year or more for an individual to MAKE it work.

How do they MAKE it work?


Substitute the words 'can't make' with ' has trouble with' or whatever. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. I had to MAKE my system, and it works. The other brand comes with complete directions. It's already MADE. The pieces are complex but you don't need to do any cutting or sanding. You must MAKE some effort to get it fully assembled however.
 
Last edited:
Vorpal Cue said:
Best back at ya.
Click to expand...

Larry,

I would rather not participate in this one at a time 'painful teeth pulling' operation.

I see too may 'opportunities' for readers to be misled.

I also see it as a one way operation since you ignore what I say & demand that we proceed with YOUR 'game plan'. That is not a discussion.

I will probably comment from time to time or ask a qualifying question here or there but the 'tooth extraction' makes no sense to me.

I do not know what if anything that you have learned from this thread...

but I think it is rather obvious that either the pivot size or the pivot length must be variable for different lengths of distances between the balls...

if... the lines are not also different on a 1 to 1 basis for the shot angles.

I 'told' you that you would have issues if you associated your method with the acronym of CTE.

Your thread got off track rather soon after Stan started to post. I unsuccessfully tried to get it back onto your method & for your intentions.

IMO it would probably be better if you opened a new thread & started over & made your intentions very very clear.

Best Wishes,
Rick
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
Larry,

I would rather not participate in this one at a time 'painful teeth pulling' operation.

I see too may 'opportunities' for readers to be misled.

I also see as a one way operation since you ignore what I say & demand that we proceed with 'game plan'. That is not a discussion.

I will probably comment from time to time or ask a qualifying question here or there but the 'tooth extraction' makes no sense to me.

I do not know what if anything that you have learned form this thread...

but I think it is rather obvious that either the pivot size or the pivot length must be variable for different lengths of distance between the balls...

if... the lines are not also different on a 1 to 1 basis for the shot angles.

I 'told' you that you would have issues if you associated your method with the acronym of CTE.

Your thread got off track rather soon after Stan started to post. I unsuccessfully tried to get it back onto your method & for your intentions.

IMO it would probably be better if you opened a new thread & started over & made you intentions very very clear.

Best Wishes,
Rick
Click to expand...

You take great joy at thorning me in the side at each and every opportunity. You like your thorn bush, don't you.......good job at irritating the hell out me. Just to let know, I do get fricken tired of your shit.

Stan Shuffett
 
Vorpal Cue said:
Look at your own tell tale words above that I put in blue...

"If a person can't make a pivoting system work..."

If it is a "system" & the person has a straight stroke... then it should work right out of the box... & not take a year or more for an individual to MAKE it work.

How do they MAKE it work?


Substitute the words 'can't make' with ' has trouble with' or whatever. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. I had to MAKE my system, and it works. The other brand comes with complete directions. It's already MADE. The pieces are complex but you don't need to do any cutting or sanding. You must MAKE some effort to get it fully assembled however.
Click to expand...

'Larry',

You did not say "MAKE" in the context of "Build". You said, 'If a person can't make A pivoting system work..." "A" as in any system & MAKE it WORK.

In one breath(post) you basically say that you know almost nothing about that other CTE & yet here you basically give it your full endorsement.

I would say that a year or more for some individuals is "some effort" & especially if it is a SYSTEM that has a 'Phenomena' built into it.

Did you not say that you are basically a rookie with pivot methods & only relatively recently constructed yours?

Now here you're critiquing those that can't MAKE "A" PIVOTING SYSTEM WORK as basically not doing it right or not giving an effort.

How about this... They are not complete 'systems'. They are not "systems" at all. They are merely methods... but they do NOT incorporate any fail proof aiming mechanism.

As I explained the pivot MUST be off of the actual shot line buy the exact amount that the "MOVE" will get it 'back to' the shot line.

If anyone is in 'love' with 'their' pivot method that they employ & are happy with their success level... then I am happy for them...

but... I just do not see or understand any NEED for such. An ETE with a CTC alignment is a straight shot. After that... align the inside edge of the cue ball ALL across the face of the OB & you have every angle shot from 1* to 89*.

Or... use Fractional with varying adjustment.

The bottom line is that one will need to & must build a data base in their brain... or mind... from which to select the proper alignment.

Any REAL SYSTEM will be too expansive for any normal human being to utilize effectively in any consistent manner. I do not think we want slide rules & calculators sitting all over the rails.

I would trust my subconscious mind before my conscious mind when it comes to selecting a shot line regardless of what method I am using.

That said, I do use a shadow method that I find rather objective EXCEPT at the transition angles where once again a subjective decision must be made.

Best Wishes for You & Yours.
 
stan shuffett said:
You take great joy at thorning me in the side at each and every opportunity. You like your thorn bush, don't you.......good job at irritating the hell out me. Just to let know, I do get fricken tired of your shit.

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

Sir,

I can not help it if the Truth irritates you, but I take NO JOY in that you are irritated by it.

Step back & take an Objective Look.

That may be the issue in why you can not explain matters reasonably & rationally regarding your efforts... You may be TOO CLOSE to your work & can not see the forest for the trees.

Inquiring minds want to know & I & Others have asked you to explain WHAT is the 'Phenomena' as you see & understand it in your mind. I did not ask you to explain the how or why of it... but just the what.

You basically ignored & talked around that question. If that subject is what the sale of the book hinges on... then I understand your avoidance... but I can not imagine that 38 chapters are going to be contributed in explaining WHAT it is supposed to be.

Best Wishes for You & Yours.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
Sir,

I can not help it if the Truth irritates you, but I take NO JOY in that you are irritated by it.

Step back & take an Objective Look.

That may be the issue in why you can not explain matters reasonably & rationally regarding your efforts... You may be TOO CLOSE to your work & can not see the forest for the trees.

Inquiring minds want to know & I & Others have asked you to explain WHAT is the 'Phenomena' as you see & understand it in your mind. I did not ask you to explain the how or why of it... but just the what.

You basically ignored & talked around that question. If that subject is what the sale of the book hinges on... then I understand your avoidance... but I can not imagine that 38 chapters are going to be contributed in explaining WHAT it is supposed to be.

Best Wishes for You & Yours.
Click to expand...

The phenomena of CTE has been around since the beginning of pool. Hal Houle uncovered the visual intracasies over a ten year span. It has taken me about the same time frame as Hal but I had his prompts to go on.
So after 200 years, your impatient ass can not wait for free clinics and YouTube videos and for my book release hopefully in 2017
Take your crap and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Your deficient Word Man mind is simply too lacking to figure it out for yourself. You depend on me to smarten you up.......lmao

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
stan shuffett said:
The phenomena of CTE has been around since the beginning of pool. Hal Houle uncovered the visual intracasies over a ten year span. It has taken me about the same time frame as Hal but I had his prompts to go on.
So after 200 years, your impatient ass can not wait for free clinics and YouTube videos and for my book release hopefully in 2017
Take your crap and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Your deficient Word Man mind is simply too lacking to figure it out for yourself. You depend on me to smarten you up.......lmao

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

Can not believe this man.....not one ounce of patience to wait for what I have promised.

The problem of aiming with spheres is that the only time you get to point your cue at what you are aiming at is basically for zero angles.

Hal Houle figured out how to put your tip at an objective overcut line for aiming with spheres.
It was never supposed to be objective. What he learned about using one's vision for this is a phenomena, an outlier....that is on the outside of standard logic for aiming.

I am bringing this to light for the workd to see for free on video. I can not understand for the life of me why an obsessed man can't put it on hold. Hal knew this more than 50 years ago. I am on the verge of sharing what Hal learned about spheres.

I am fed up with the way that I have been portrayed and I wish this crapila would cease.

If he pisses me off enough, I will not share on video, closely guard my clinics and hold my books in storage for a minimum of one year.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
stan shuffett said:
Can not believe this man.....not one ounce of patience to wait for what I have promised.

The problem of aiming with spheres is that the only time you get to point your cue at what you are aiming at is basically for zero angles.

Hal Houle figured out how to put your tip at an objective overcut line for aiming with spheres.
It was never to objective. What he learned about using one's vision for this is a phenomena, an outlier....that is on the outside of standard logic for aiming.

I am bringing this to light for the workd to see for free on video. I can not understand for the life of me why an obsessed man can't put it on hold. Hal knew this more than 50 years ago. I am on the verge of sharing what Hal learned about spheres.

I am fed up with the way that I have been portrayed and I wish this crapila would cease.

If he pisses me off enough, I will not share on video, closely guard my clinics and hold my books in storage for a minimum of one year.

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...
imo
allowing one person to delay the information to get to the people who want it
would punish many because of one
 
bbb said:
imo
allowing one person to delay the information to get to the people who want it
would punish many because of one
Click to expand...

This man has been on the attack against my work and me for many years.

Hal did not want the likes of this man to ever see his work and this guy is the worst of the worst. I am not interested in seeing my life's work attacked by this man.

I am not sure what I will do but I hate feeding Miserella.

Stan Shuffett
 
Don't let this Hugh Hefner wannabe, who has no life outside of AZ cause you to reconsider what you do to advance the sport.

He is only here to feed his own ego.




stan shuffett said:
Can not believe this man.....not one ounce of patience to wait for what I have promised.

The problem of aiming with spheres is that the only time you get to point your cue at what you are aiming at is basically for zero angles.

Hal Houle figured out how to put your tip at an objective overcut line for aiming with spheres.
It was never supposed to be objective. What he learned about using one's vision for this is a phenomena, an outlier....that is on the outside of standard logic for aiming.

I am bringing this to light for the workd to see for free on video. I can not understand for the life of me why an obsessed man can't put it on hold. Hal knew this more than 50 years ago. I am on the verge of sharing what Hal learned about spheres.

I am fed up with the way that I have been portrayed and I wish this crapila would cease.

If he pisses me off enough, I will not share on video, closely guard my clinics and hold my books in storage for a minimum of one year.

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...
 
ENGLISH! said:
Larry,

I would rather not participate in this one at a time 'painful teeth pulling' operation.

I said at the start I only knew of one way to cover the topic. You need convincing at almost every turn. Small post size reduces the number of objections and we must cover the points one by one to get agreement.

I see too may 'opportunities' for readers to be misled.

I'm using science and physics to prove my points. I'm stating facts not conjecture.

I also see it as a one way operation since you ignore what I say & demand that we proceed with YOUR 'game plan'. That is not a discussion.

I will probably comment from time to time or ask a qualifying question here or there but the 'tooth extraction' makes no sense to me.

I do not know what if anything that you have learned from this thread...

But you've learned about relative rotation and how the tangent points on the CB move with a change in table position. These are important concepts and you can't explain pivoting without them.

but I think it is rather obvious that either the pivot size or the pivot length must be variable for different lengths of distances between the balls...

That topic is on the horizon.

if... the lines are not also different on a 1 to 1 basis for the shot angles.

I 'told' you that you would have issues if you associated your method with the acronym of CTE.

The topic is how pivoting systems work. I never claimed to be able to explain other systems like 90/90 either.

Your thread got off track rather soon after Stan started to post. I unsuccessfully tried to get it back onto your method & for your intentions.

IMO it would probably be better if you opened a new thread & started over & made your intentions very very clear.

This thread is my 'home'. I'm comfy here. I'm going to 'keep 'er runnin'.

Best Wishes,
Rick
Click to expand...

My posts are like a short story. If you want to turn it into a mystery, it's your choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top