Another video from Stan: The How vs. The Why

[cookie man]

Ok. I thought recognizing think or thin was something you do by comparing what "looks" right for the shot to what the actual perception is giving you. Some CTE users use the GB or just look at the angle of the shot to do this comparison. The exact same CB/OB relationship could easily appear in multiple places across the table, at multiple angles toward any given pocket. There's more to look at than the simple relationship between the balls. For accuracy, the shot must be analyzed by your brain and then compared to the alignment that your perception is giving you. That's the only way to know if it's dead on or needs to be thinned/thickened. So a "general" idea of pocket location doesn't seem to be precise enough to make this determination.

I can see how some who are not fully versed in CTE say you would need a precise pocket location, but that's just not true. You really don't. However while playing the game we use everything available to us, it would be stupid not to.
The same CB/OB relationships do appear all over the table at different angles, I agree. But we don't deal in angles with CTE, just perceptions. And our perceptions give us different angles off of similar relationships. This is just rehashing the same old stuff and i know you don't believe it. Problem is it's true and until you commit to fully learning CTE all you are doing is beating a dead horse.

 

[cookie man]

It's the same way with players that say we play by feel. However we first learned (gb, fractions, contact points, etc...) has become so natural feeling and so automatic that we don't know what else to call it other than "feel".

I know Stan considers "feel" to be a bad word when it comes to playing pool, but like it or not we all incorporate a sense of feel when we play, despite any system or lack of system we elect to learn.

I really don't think Stan is opposed to feel. We all use it. We all play with it. But no feel is used or is necessary to use CTE as a center pocket ball pocketing system.

 

[Neil]

I remember one of Stan's youtube clips where he uses a strip of masking tape to show where/how to determine bridge placement for the sweep or pivot. The masking tape is the basic shot line given by the particular perception used for the shot, as seen from the perspective (focusing on CCB) from where your head happens to be in order to first see the perception lines.

He refers to an offset alignment, placing your cue/bridge hand either left or right of that tape line then pivoting to CCB. Left or right is the process of making the shot thick or thin I suppose, as needed. He says it's a 1/2 tip pivot. Well, that creates a precise angle that depends on bridge length and tip diameter. For example, using a 10" bridge with a 13mm shaft creates a 1.5° pivot, which would either thicken or thin the shot by that exact amount, depending on which side of that tape line your pivot originated.

With a 13mm shaft and 10" bridge distance, a 1/2 tip pivot will always be 1.5°, regardless of perceptions. So that confuses me....a constant pivot that doesn't change with the perceptions or actual shot angle.

CTE seems like an improved version of the Quarters fractional system, where the perceptions sometimes get you aligned dead on a CCB shot line, and other times get you very close, and then you fine tune left or right as needed, based on experienced judgement. But the fine tuning (this 1.5 degrees with a 10" bridge length) only gives a left/right fractional adjustment of approximately 1/32. What if the shot perception is 1/16 thick, not 1/32? You'd have to shorten your bridge hand to create a larger pivot angle. Maybe all of this stuff is in the book. Or maybe it's not relevant, but it sure seems relevant.

The thing is, Stan does his curtain shots without being able to see the pocket or precise shot line, which tells me he uses years of instinct/feel to pocket the balls through the curtain. How else could he know whether or not any of those perceptions are dead on or need to be thickened or thinned?

Sure is easy to spot those that think they can learn pool without a pool table.

 

[mohrt]

I remember one of Stan's youtube clips where he uses a strip of masking tape to show where/how to determine bridge placement for the sweep or pivot. The masking tape is the basic shot line given by the particular perception used for the shot, as seen from the perspective (focusing on CCB) from where your head happens to be in order to first see the perception lines.

He refers to an offset alignment, placing your cue/bridge hand either left or right of that tape line then pivoting to CCB. Left or right is the process of making the shot thick or thin I suppose, as needed. He says it's a 1/2 tip pivot. Well, that creates a precise angle that depends on bridge length and tip diameter. For example, using a 10" bridge with a 13mm shaft creates a 1.5° pivot, which would either thicken or thin the shot by that exact amount, depending on which side of that tape line your pivot originated.

With a 13mm shaft and 10" bridge distance, a 1/2 tip pivot will always be 1.5°, regardless of perceptions. So that confuses me....a constant pivot that doesn't change with the perceptions or actual shot angle.

CTE seems like an improved version of the Quarters fractional system, where the perceptions sometimes get you aligned dead on a CCB shot line, and other times get you very close, and then you fine tune left or right as needed, based on experienced judgement. But the fine tuning (this 1.5 degrees with a 10" bridge length) only gives a left/right fractional adjustment of approximately 1/32. What if the shot perception is 1/16 thick, not 1/32? You'd have to shorten your bridge hand to create a larger pivot angle. Maybe all of this stuff is in the book. Or maybe it's not relevant, but it sure seems relevant.

The thing is, Stan does his curtain shots without being able to see the pocket or precise shot line, which tells me he uses years of instinct/feel to pocket the balls through the curtain. How else could he know whether or not any of those perceptions are dead on or need to be thickened or thinned?

You are getting this a little backwards. Once you get down into full stance for the given offset, CCB is the target. The manual pivot is a means to an end. The manual pivot is a good learning tool and double checking tool. You can omit the manual pivot altogether and just slide your bridgehand, cue tip, and everything right into CCB. That is basically what the Pro 1 sweep is. Measuring how many degrees a pivot would be is a red herring. Just pivot to CCB.

 

[mohrt]

Ok. I thought recognizing think or thin was something you do by comparing what "looks" right for the shot to what the actual perception is giving you. Some CTE users use the GB or just look at the angle of the shot to do this comparison. The exact same CB/OB relationship could easily appear in multiple places across the table, at multiple angles toward any given pocket. There's more to look at than the simple relationship between the balls. For accuracy, the shot must be analyzed by your brain and then compared to the alignment that your perception is giving you. That's the only way to know if it's dead on or needs to be thinned/thickened. So a "general" idea of pocket location doesn't seem to be precise enough to make this determination.

When deciding which perception and which pivot/sweep you need, you should use experience and judgement as your guide. You have to know if you are on the intended pocket, or a bank to some other pocket. Once you know the perception and pivot, the rest is a pretty robotic approach to the shot. Use the aim lines and CCB to execute the shot. Of course any additional variables (spin, speed) are judgement calls as well. Stan looks at a shot, and by examining its orientation on the table between the rails he can conclude with great accuracy which perception/pivot to use. Even with a curtain. Determining perception/pivot becomes automatic, instant, and even subconscious. Maybe every once in a while if you get it wrong, you'll know by seeing it in full stance. You can stand up and try again.

 

[sixpack]

Dramatic? Listen to the first 10 seconds or so:

https://youtu.be/ERJ-bZJTGfE?t=5m30s

I stand by my post. I haven't seen any other system that does what CTE does as well as it does. It doesn't seem outrageous to me.

 

[BC21]

You are getting this a little backwards. Once you get down into full stance for the given offset, CCB is the target. The manual pivot is a means to an end. The manual pivot is a good learning tool and double checking tool. You can omit the manual pivot altogether and just slide your bridgehand, cue tip, and everything right into CCB. That is basically what the Pro 1 sweep is. Measuring how many degrees a pivot would be is a red herring. Just pivot to CCB.

Yeah, that's what Stan does in that masking tape video.....he sweeps. But he also says the sweep is doing the same thing a manual pivot does, but the sweep is more natural than the pivot. To me, the exact thin or thick sweep is a judgement call/feel based on memory recognition. That would explain the unexplainable, like a feel player not being able to explain how he or she aims, only to say "I just see the shots."

I appreciate the civil reply. A polite, "you're wrong here" is always more productive than some of the more colorful, derogatory replies.

 

[Neil]

Yeah, that's what Stan does in that masking tape video.....he sweeps. But he also says the sweep is doing the same thing a manual pivot does, but the sweep is more natural than the pivot. To me, the exact thin or thick sweep is a judgement call/feel based on memory recognition. That would explain the unexplainable, like a feel player not being able to explain how he or she aims, only to say "I just see the shots."

I appreciate the civil reply. A polite, "you're wrong here" is always more productive than some of the more colorful, derogatory replies.

No, you are again showing you don't know what you are talking about with the thick or thin. But go right ahead with your "book reviews" on a book you haven't even read.

Mohrt clearly explained the thick and thin, but you are so dead set in your thinking that you don't even hear it.

There will never be anything productive with snowflakes like you and Dan. You both feel Stan used a term you don't agree with, and are now out to make him stop saying it at any cost. You both have many protest posts against CTE. It's a guarantee that if someone says CTE, you two will be right there to protest.

And I'm sure, that like Dan, years from now you will still be doing and saying the exact same nonsense. "He used a term I find offensive, make him stop, make him stop"

 

[Dan White]

No, you are again showing you don't know what you are talking about with the thick or thin. But go right ahead with your "book reviews" on a book you haven't even read.

Mohrt clearly explained the thick and thin, but you are so dead set in your thinking that you don't even hear it.

There will never be anything productive with snowflakes like you and Dan. You both feel Stan used a term you don't agree with, and are now out to make him stop saying it at any cost. You both have many protest posts against CTE. It's a guarantee that if someone says CTE, you two will be right there to protest.

And I'm sure, that like Dan, years from now you will still be doing and saying the exact same nonsense. "He used a term I find offensive, make him stop, make him stop"

What Stan does is essentially a "for profit" business no matter what anybody says. Apparently Neil is opposed to truth in advertising laws, the Better Business Bureau, free speech, and probably even the Easter Bunny.

 

[BC21]

No, you are again showing you don't know what you are talking about with the thick or thin. But go right ahead with your "book reviews" on a book you haven't even read.

Mohrt clearly explained the thick and thin, but you are so dead set in your thinking that you don't even hear it.

There will never be anything productive with snowflakes like you and Dan. You both feel Stan used a term you don't agree with, and are now out to make him stop saying it at any cost. You both have many protest posts against CTE. It's a guarantee that if someone says CTE, you two will be right there to protest.

And I'm sure, that like Dan, years from now you will still be doing and saying the exact same nonsense. "He used a term I find offensive, make him stop, make him stop"

The exact instructions from Stan's youtube clips concerning inside and outside pivots, and from Mohrt's website giving similar data, provide enough information to illustrate CTE as exactly described with the pivots. The visual lines, perception, shot alignment to CCB, and the effects of a 1/2 tip pivot, are all possible to illustrate on paper. Not the sweep because it's more of a feel -- the player just knows where to sweep from and to in order to adjust for a perfect overcut alignment. Mohrt has already posted that it's a players individual judgement that determines the sweep. That's always been obvious, though never acknowledged until recently.

And I'm not offended by any term Stan has used. It's like when I hear someone use prepositional pronouns incorrectly.....I cringe a little, but it doesn't offend me.

And snowflakes are beautiful! :grin-square:

 

[Neil]

What Stan does is essentially a "for profit" business no matter what anybody says. Apparently Neil is opposed to truth in advertising laws, the Better Business Bureau, free speech, and probably even the Easter Bunny.

News flash for you- before you go talking about truth, you should first find out what that means. Because you sure don't know. Second, no one appointed you to anything, so get off your high horse and soapbox. Third, you have been crying for years now. Like someone else said- where's that lawsuit at you are so sure of winning?

That's right, there isn't one and never will be one because you know you would be laughed right of court.

 

[Dan White]

News flash for you- before you go talking about truth, you should first find out what that means. Because you sure don't know. Second, no one appointed you to anything, so get off your high horse and soapbox. Third, you have been crying for years now. Like someone else said- where's that lawsuit at you are so sure of winning?

That's right, there isn't one and never will be one because you know you would be laughed right of court.

Oh you're right. I hadn't thought of that. I never tried to sue Stan. I'm so embarrassed!

 

[lfigueroa]

You are getting this a little backwards. Once you get down into full stance for the given offset, CCB is the target. The manual pivot is a means to an end. The manual pivot is a good learning tool and double checking tool. You can omit the manual pivot altogether and just slide your bridgehand, cue tip, and everything right into CCB. That is basically what the Pro 1 sweep is. Measuring how many degrees a pivot would be is a red herring. Just pivot to CCB.

And what happens to your stroke setup/mechanics with either the pivoting/sweeping or all this sliding?

Lou Figueroa

 

[BeiberLvr]

What Stan does is essentially a "for profit" business no matter what anybody says. Apparently Neil is opposed to truth in advertising laws, the Better Business Bureau, free speech, and probably even the Easter Bunny.

2nd time asking.

Why haven't you started a class action suit against Stan?

You are, after all, the voice of the people. Are you not?

 

[azhousepro]

Dan, I have asked you nicely to drop this feud with Stan. You want to drive it into the ground though. You have made it very clear how you feel about CTE. Bring it up again and you can expect a long vacation.

Oh you're right. I hadn't thought of that. I never tried to sue Stan. I'm so embarrassed!

 

[Dan White]

Dan, I have asked you nicely to drop this feud with Stan. You want to drive it into the ground though. You have made it very clear how you feel about CTE. Bring it up again and you can expect a long vacation.

I understand. I thought your last warning was about mentioning banned members. Most of my posts today have been responding to Neil and Vorpal about little things.

I appreciate the leeway over the last week or so.

 

[azhousepro]

Thank you.

I understand. I thought your last warning was about mentioning banned members. Most of my posts today have been responding to Neil and Vorpal about little things.

I appreciate the leeway over the last week or so.

 

[BC21]

.......... Measuring how many degrees a pivot would be is a red herring. Just pivot to CCB.

It's not really a red herring. I'm talking about a 1/2 tip pivot as described in many of Stan's YouTube clips, new and old. The offset pivot or sweep actually changes the shot angle. This is easily calculated, and the exact degree of angle change depends on bridge length. With a 13mm shaft and a 10" bridge length, a 1/2 tip pivot creates a 1.5° change in shot angle. At 6" it's a 2.4° change. At 4" it's 3.7°.

I was just curious if this info was part of the system. Knowing the shot could have to be thickened or thinned, it would really make for an accurate adjustment if the amount of thickening or thinning was adjustable. If it's not even considered, then the exact amount of thickening or thinning would mainly depend on the player's bridge length, but would always be somewhere in the range between about 1 and 3 degrees. That's the difference between a 12" and 6" bridge length. The same perception played by varying players would have to produce varying results, unless there's a standard bridge length specified.

I realize most players probably use a 8 to 10 inch bridge, so the adjustment remains fairly consistent around 1.5 to 1.8 degrees. But being able to fine tune that would be a great enhancement.

 

[Neil]

It's not really a red herring. I'm talking about a 1/2 tip pivot as described in many of Stan's YouTube clips, new and old. The offset pivot or sweep actually changes the shot angle. This is easily calculated, and the exact degree of angle change depends on bridge length. With a 13mm shaft and a 10" bridge length, a 1/2 tip pivot creates a 1.5° change in shot angle. At 6" it's a 2.4° change. At 4" it's 3.7°.

I was just curious if this info was part of the system. Knowing the shot could have to be thickened or thinned, it would really make for an accurate adjustment if the amount of thickening or thinning was adjustable. If it's not even considered, then the exact amount of thickening or thinning would mainly depend on the player's bridge length, but would always be somewhere in the range between about 1 and 3 degrees. That's the difference between a 12" and 6" bridge length. The same perception played by varying players would have to produce varying results, unless there's a standard bridge length specified.

I realize most players probably use a 8 to 10 inch bridge, so the adjustment remains fairly consistent around 1.5 to 1.8 degrees. But being able to fine tune that would be a great enhancement.

You're not listening. And are missing the whole picture staying focused on one little piece. The actual degrees you pivot is really immaterial. It's not how far you pivot, but what one is pivoting to. CCB is ccb, period.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

And what happens to your stroke setup/mechanics with either the pivoting/sweeping or all this sliding?

Lou Figueroa

I had a bit of trouble with my bridge placement when first starting. I think it was due to my casual placement doing CP aiming. I would move my bridge around and tweak it a little this way and then that... you get the idea. After you do some work on your pivoting and learn CCB it becomes automatic (at least in my case) to put the bridge down. I have my stick over CCB and drop straight down and my hand finds it's position under it. After that, a stroke is just a stroke. I'm using a manual half ball pivot, can't say anything about the sweeps.