Why Pivot?

[Dan White]

Didn't have anything in particular in mind, just curious of your opinion of a sweep.

There may be some people confused about what a sweep is. It is possible I am one of them. From the video Brian posted, Stan's sweep is a VISUAL sweep and has NOTHING to do with the motion of the cue as it lands in shooting position. The eyes are sweeping into the correct position, which causes the cue to be aligned with the eyes. Correct?

 

[SpiderWebComm]

There may be some people confused about what a sweep is. It is possible I am one of them. From the video Brian posted, Stan's sweep is a VISUAL sweep and has NOTHING to do with the motion of the cue as it lands in shooting position. The eyes are sweeping into the correct position, which causes the cue to be aligned with the eyes. Correct?

How many thousands of times has Stan said: "EYES LEAD, BODY FOLLOWS"?

Does this mean there's still some potential you might use it in the future?

If not, the above question seems to be undermining your last post which was:

"Moderators don't want any more arguments about CTE. So if you like it then shut up and use it. If you don't, then shut up and don't use it. Problem solved."


Actually, I like the post. I hope you do it over and over like a human "rubber stamp"
man every time the SHTF with the attack group also. I think you know who I'm referring to.

 

[BC21]

There may be some people confused about what a sweep is. It is possible I am one of them. From the video Brian posted, Stan's sweep is a VISUAL sweep and has NOTHING to do with the motion of the cue as it lands in shooting position. The eyes are sweeping into the correct position, which causes the cue to be aligned with the eyes. Correct?

Yes. Based on the ccb perception (the masking tape line), Stan is visualizing exactly where the bridge placement (bridge V) would be if he were to do a manual offset pivot, then he plants his hand there and naturally brings the cue around to the final ccb. This "sweep" replaces the less natural manual pivot move.

 

[Dan White]

Does this mean there's still some potential you might use it in the future?

Actually I already do visually sweep into shooting position unless it is straight in. For a cut shot I initially look at the two balls and see the line straight through the balls into the rail. As I drop down into shooting stance I "visually sweep" left or right as needed until the shot looks right, based on where the pocket is. For larger cut shots I probably don't do this so much because the amount of sweep would be too large. In that case I just get on the shot line and make sure it looks right as I get down on the shot. It is all so fast I'd have to pay more attention to what I am doing to know for sure when I'm doing that and when I'm not.

If not, the above question seems to be undermining your last post which was:

"Moderators don't want any more arguments about CTE. So if you like it then shut up and use it. If you don't, then shut up and don't use it. Problem solved."


Actually, I like the post. I hope you do it over and over like a human "rubber stamp"
man every time the SHTF with the attack group also. I think you know who I'm referring to.

If there were an all out ban on CTE in the forum then I'd support it. That won't happen, however. My point is that if you want to argue the merits of the system then this isn't the place for it. My comment had nothing to do with that, only about what a CTE sweep actually is.

I haven't taken part in much discussion here lately but I'm reading most of the threads. You just have to let go of the reins a little bit. Not everybody agrees about CTE. Some believe it is "just" another system, one of many, and others believe it is the greatest thing ever. If a guy like Brian lumps CTE in with a list of other aiming systems that require experience to fiddle with them and make little adjustments until you can make them work, then that statement doesn't need to turn into WW3. Just let him have his opinion and ignore it.

ENGLISH! Rick used to get warned to "move on" when he would counter every thread from Stan with something about how CTE is not an objective system. All I'm saying is just move on when someone says something about CTE that you think is wrong. You don't have to correct everybody every time. If you set an example of just letting the arguing go then maybe others will follow your lead. The arguing is what Mr. Wilson said bothered him more than anything else. Just a thought.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Actually I already do visually sweep into shooting position unless it is straight in. For a cut shot I initially look at the two balls and see the line straight through the balls into the rail. As I drop down into shooting stance I "visually sweep" left or right as needed until the shot looks right, based on where the pocket is. For larger cut shots I probably don't do this so much because the amount of sweep would be too large. In that case I just get on the shot line and make sure it looks right as I get down on the shot. It is all so fast I'd have to pay more attention to what I am doing to know for sure when I'm doing that and when I'm not.



If there were an all out ban on CTE in the forum then I'd support it. That won't happen, however. My point is that if you want to argue the merits of the system then this isn't the place for it. My comment had nothing to do with that, only about what a CTE sweep actually is.

I know what you posted. Actually the aiming forum IS the place for DISCUSSING merits as stated by Mike HOWERTON. MERITS shouldn't have to be ARGUED.

Here's what is posted in the "STICKY": If you want to discuss the merits of an aiming system, then feel free. But for now, I don't want any comparisons as we all know that will just turn into bashing.

I haven't taken part in much discussion here lately but I'm reading most of the threads. You just have to let go of the reins a little bit. Not everybody agrees about CTE. Some believe it is "just" another system, one of many, and others believe it is the greatest thing ever. If a guy like Brian lumps CTE in with a list of other aiming systems that require experience to fiddle with them and make little adjustments until you can make them work, then that statement doesn't need to turn into WW3. Just let him have his opinion and ignore it.

ENGLISH! Rick used to get warned to "move on" when he would counter every thread from Stan with something about how CTE is not an objective system.

ENGLISH! Rick used to get warned to "move on' because he was like Public Enemy #1 in EVERY FORUM on this website. NPR might have been the worst and he wasn't too shy in the MAIN FORUM either. It's like he never went to sleep.

All I'm saying is just move on when someone says something about CTE that you think is wrong. You don't have to correct everybody every time. If you set an example of just letting the arguing go then maybe others will follow your lead. The arguing is what Mr. Wilson said bothered him more than anything else. Just a thought.

I can accept what you're saying above and of course it makes sense. But now how about you giving equal time and space to those who do go on the constant attack toward the system with falsehoods and dragging one single little nitpicky aspect of it into a major flame war because of lack of knowledge, lack of any experience with it,
and wordsmithing based on definitions and meanings of words.

I don't need a sermon on how to act, what to say or what to do if it's a one way street.
I'm a grown ass man and damn well know right from wrong.

Make it a TWO WAY STREET including yourself with the others and we'll go from there.

I'll be waiting for your post to them and covering that direction. (But I won't be holding my breath. Surprise me)

 

[Dan White]

I can accept what you're saying above and of course it makes sense. But now how about you giving equal time and space to those who do go on the constant attack toward the system with falsehoods and dragging one single little nitpicky aspect of it into a major flame war because of lack of knowledge, lack of any experience with it,
and wordsmithing based on definitions and meanings of words.

I don't need a sermon on how to act, what to say or what to do if it's a one way street.
I'm a grown ass man and damn well know right from wrong.

Make it a TWO WAY STREET including yourself with the others and we'll go from there.

I'll be waiting for your post to them and covering that direction. (But I won't be holding my breath. Surprise me)

Well the fact that I haven't spoken of CTE or taken part in any of the recent arguments should tell you something. After all, actions speak louder than words.

As to your other part, I'll say this... if some guy comes in here and says "CTE sucks. I tried it and only idiots use it. blah blah" then that is inappropriate and shouldn't happen. In reality, this is a discussion forum and those kinds of things will always happen. If they are ignored then it is done and over with. On the other hand, I disagree with your comment that there is a "constant attack" on CTE. I don't see it that way at all. I see it more of a scientific debate, or simply a matter of studying the physics.

I can see where this is going so I'm done. I stated my opinion that more things should go unchallenged and this would be a more interesting forum if that happened a bit more.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Well the fact that I haven't spoken of CTE or taken part in any of the recent arguments should tell you something. After all, actions speak louder than words.

I was kind of under the impression you were working as a "hall monitor" reporting back to the principal.

As to your other part, I'll say this... if some guy comes in here and says "CTE sucks. I tried it and only idiots use it. blah blah" then that is inappropriate and shouldn't happen. In reality, this is a discussion forum and those kinds of things will always happen.

What should be done? Nip it in the bud and stop it immediately or let it drag on as usual until all hell breaks loose?

If they are ignored then it is done and over with.

Doesn't work that way. They get a sense of bravado so they can continue to be heard and make a name for themselves. They keep pecking away just like one of them who entered here moments ago. Never anything of value to discuss. NOTHING!

IGNORE is a TWO WAY STREET. Why don't the ones who attack simply IGNORE all CTE related threads? How beneficial would THAT be? But, I don't see you even remotely suggesting anything of that nature to them.

On the other hand, I disagree with your comment that there is a "constant attack" on CTE. I don't see it that way at all. I see it more of a scientific debate, or simply a matter of studying the physics.

FOR 20 FRIGGIN' YEARS? That was done decades ago and never did any good. A scientific debate or studying the physics was nothing more than a veiled attempt to come in through the back door and then turned into a full blown blatant onslaught to discredit it. I wasn't around for RSB but I have gone on the Google archives for it and have seen when all of the tricks and full frontal onslaughts took place and then carried over here by the same individuals.

What I did happen to notice is you never got involved in the CTE wars. NEVER! You were a model poster who kept on the subject matter and had good insights and responses to many different subjects. I don't know what the hell happened to you when you came here but it did.

I can see where this is going so I'm done. I stated my opinion that more things should go unchallenged and this would be a more interesting forum if that happened a bit more.

Thank you. Truth be told I did enjoy and like you more when you were quietly remaining behind the scenes.

 

[cookie man]

There may be some people confused about what a sweep is. It is possible I am one of them. From the video Brian posted, Stan's sweep is a VISUAL sweep and has NOTHING to do with the motion of the cue as it lands in shooting position. The eyes are sweeping into the correct position, which causes the cue to be aligned with the eyes. Correct?

I'm not getting into Stan's video. Was merely talking about a sweep with Brian. Personally i don't think the second video is of someone sweeping but that's just my opinion. I think a sweep should be obvious and not just coming in a couple inches away from the shot line

 

[cookie man]

As I drop down into shooting stance I "visually sweep" left or right as needed until the shot looks right, based on where the pocket is.




.

Shouldn't the shot look right before you drop down?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

As I drop down into shooting stance I "visually sweep" left or right as needed until the shot looks right, based on where the pocket is.

This is a good description of how I think pivots are really used in aiming. Also how micro-adjustments are made by virtually everybody - apparently without realizing it.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

This is a good description of how I think pivots are really used in aiming. Also how micro-adjustments are made by virtually everybody - apparently without realizing it.

pj
chgo

This pivot has nothing to do with "when the shot looks right." Also no micro-adjustments. He's aiming center to center and pivoting to a specific spot on the OB.

He can't be any more clear in his verbal description and the camera view shows it.

But I just have the feeling his simplicity and specifics for how it's done are going to become very convoluted and dissected negatively within seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIUy9x_J410

If anyone sets these shots up on the table and actually executes as he states, the balls go in. No spatial intelligence needed or required nor will it be better than actual results by performance.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

This pivot has nothing to do with "when the shot looks right." Also no micro-adjustments. He's aiming center to center and pivoting to a specific spot on the OB.

Which, of course, works exactly for only one cut angle. Every other cut angle requires a (micro-adjusted) different pivot or different starting alignment or both.

Nobody has to "learn the system" (or any pivot system) to know this. It's obvious. That doesn't make it a "bad" system - just misunderstood/misrepresented.

pj
chgo

 

[Vorpal Cue]

This is a good description of how I think pivots are really used in aiming. Also how micro-adjustments are made by virtually everybody - apparently without realizing it.

pj
chgo

For an aiming system that uses feel as it's main focus, that's probably true. For other systems that use a visual offset, that's not true. The pivot is a corrective mechanism that compensates for the error introduced by the offset. In those systems the pivot is the same amount each and every time. You've probably heard this before but forgot it.

If you would try to learn a system like Shish-Kebob you'd soon figure out that a variable pivot will get you nowhere. Each 1/2 tip pivot is back to ccb. Where's the variation it that? Try it, you may like it and actually learn something about pivoting.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

For an aiming system that uses feel as it's main focus, that's probably true. For other systems that use a visual offset, that's not true. The pivot is a corrective mechanism that compensates for the error introduced by the offset. In those systems the pivot is the same amount each and every time. You've probably heard this before but forgot it.

I've heard it many times before, and dismissed it as misunderstanding.

If we had a robot do exactly the things described it would miss a large majority of shots.

pj
chgo

 

[Vorpal Cue]

I've heard it many times before, and dismissed it as misunderstanding.

If we had a robot do exactly the things described it would miss a large majority of shots.

pj
chgo

If you know you're going to fail before you try, I can see where you'd not want to 'waste' your time on it. Funny that you want to know about pivoting but you're unwilling to put in some table time to figure things out. Sometimes I think you're pulling my leg by acting so 'confused' about a simple corrective action.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

If you know you're going to fail before you try, I can see where you'd not want to 'waste' your time on it. Funny that you want to know about pivoting but you're unwilling to put in some table time to figure things out. Sometimes I think you're pulling my leg by acting so 'confused' about a simple corrective action.

He's acting confused and comes up with all of these counter points and arguments
because he figured out a long time ago it was the ONLY way to dismantle the CTE
method of how to visualize and set up the shot with specifics. He really kicked into high gear with it when Stan went beyond what Hal taught in the exactness. Hal never told anyone everything he knew. Not me, not Stan, nobody. Stan dug it out of the ground.

PJ then got into "adjustments", "micro-adjustments", "feel", "subconscious mind", you name it and they're all a part of his arsenal.

I'm not making this up. I'll prove it in my next post. It's what PJ REALLY THOUGHT
and probably still does but he'll never admit it because it's all about destroying CTE
and there's no end to it.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Here's what Pat Johnson posted years ago on RSB and he was ADAMANT that "FEEL" and "ADJUSTMENTS" weren't good and the game shouldn't be played that way. I do believe he hasn't changed for his own game but it's HIS WAY of disproving and destroying CTE. I can't wait for the double talk and denials. But then again, he'll probably claim the other posters were right and he was wrong back then. IMPOSSIBLE!! He's never been wrong in his life and was the foremost authority in pool back then as he is today. Aren't Google RSB archives GREAT?!!


Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net>
Date: 1998/12/08
Subject: Re: Aiming Technique

Dale W. Baker wrote:

> David,
> If this method works for you, so be it. I don't believe there are too
> many players in this forum that will advocate such a method.


Pat Johnson:
This variation on the "ghost ball" method of aiming is discussed fairly
frequently here, and I recall several posters being in favor of it. It
doesn't have a particularly bad reputation that I know of, though it's
not my preferred method because I like to aim more directly at the
object ball contact point.

David:
> The aiming method should be by "feel". You get a sense for the target, and shoot.

Pat Johnson:
I don't agree. It's true that many players aim by "feel," but that
doesn't mean that every player "should" aim this way. And how is
anybody supposed to follow these instructions? "Get a sense for the
target and shoot?" What does that mean to anybody but you? Is it like
"You'll know it when you see it?"

I think a player should have an idea of what he's aiming at, and what
he's aiming at it. For instance, I aim the contact point on the cue
ball (which I have to imagine, because it's on the other side of the cue
ball) at the contact point on the object ball. To help me do this
accurately, I aim the cue stick at the point it would be touching on the
"ghost ball" (this is the imaginary ball sitting in the spot the cue
ball will occupy when it hits the object ball) as if I was shooting the
same shot with the two balls frozen together. (Of course, I adjust all
this for the combined effect of squirt, swerve and throw).


By the way, this isn't a complicated calculation of some kind that I do
while I'm aiming. I just try to point something (my stick and the cue
ball) at something (the ghost ball and object ball), rather than just
"feel" it. It sounds like David's trying to do that, too, and I say
it's the right thing to try to do.


Pat Johnson
Chicago


Ron Shepard wrote: > I think the ultimate goal is to have both sides of your brain telling you > the same thing, all the way from lining up the shot to the followthrough.

> Think of it as a choir with everyone singing in tune. It may take a few > weeks, but your intuition will eventually adjust to reality. Sometimes it > just needs a prod in the right direction from your rational brain. ===

Pat Johnson
This is a good description, and helps illuminate what I don't like about the "intuitive" game. Trusting your intuition (or "left brain" or "instinct" or being "in stroke" or whatever) too often means you're just letting these unconscious mini-corrections cancel out other unconscious errors (in your choir, some off-key singers are cancelling out some other off-key singers). The short term result may be that you're making shots, but it's limiting (it only works with the shots you "know" and doesn't give you a knowledge base on which to build), unreliable (if you hit a slump, what caused it and how do you recover?), unteachable and probably some other things I haven't thought of today. There's a complete sense of confidence when your choir's all singing the same tune that you just don't get otherwise. Pat Johnson ===
More options May 20 1998, 2:00 am

Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net>
Date: 1998/05/20
Subject: Re: Last Second Adjustments to Aim
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Ron Shepard wrote:
> I think the ultimate goal is to have both sides of your brain telling you
> the same thing, all the way from lining up the shot to the followthrough.
> Think of it as a choir with everyone singing in tune. It may take a few
> weeks, but your intuition will eventually adjust to reality. Sometimes it
> just needs a prod in the right direction from your rational brain.

Pat Johnson:
This is a good description, and helps illuminate what I don't like about the
"intuitive" game. Trusting your intuition (or "left brain" or "instinct" or
being "in stroke" or whatever) too often means you're just letting these
unconscious mini-corrections cancel out other unconscious errors (in your
choir, some off-key singers are cancelling out some other off-key singers).
The short term result may be that you're making shots, but it's limiting (it
only works with the shots you "know" and doesn't give you a knowledge base on
which to build), unreliable (if you hit a slump, what caused it and how do you
recover?), unteachable and probably some other things I haven't thought of
today.

There's a complete sense of confidence when your choir's all singing the same
tune that you just don't get otherwise.


Pat Johnson

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Which, of course, works exactly for only one cut angle. Every other cut angle requires a (micro-adjusted) different pivot or different starting alignment or both.

Nobody has to "learn the system" (or any pivot system) to know this. It's obvious. That doesn't make it a "bad" system - just misunderstood/misrepresented.

pj
chgo

Misunderstood/misrepresented by you. Of course this particular set up doesn't cover the entire gamut of cut angles but it covers a much greater range than ONE CUT ANGLE.

Something you've never understood is although you're doing the same thing, each time there's an angle change you're still aiming center to center and then pivoting to 3/4 or 1/4 but it's a different center and different 3/4 or 1/4 than the other one.

Yeah, I know impossible and has no bearing on anything. What's impossible is talking to someone who refuses to get on the table with it and bear it out.

I CHALLENGE ANYONE AND EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM TO TAKE IT TO THE TABLE AND REPORT YOUR RESULTS. Eventually it WON'T work, but if you know where to aim NEXT with a pivot, IT WILL.

HINT: AIM CCB to 3/4 or 1/4 on the OB and pivot the tip to EDGE of OB. BOTH ARE FIXED AIM POINTS WITH NO NEED FOR ALTERATIONS.

Also, you're doing this with an OUTSIDE pivot to those points. It could also be done with an INSIDE alignment on the CB pivoting back to center on the CB.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

Here's what Pat Johnson posted years ago on RSB and he was ADAMANT that "FEEL" and "ADJUSTMENTS" weren't good and the game shouldn't be played that way. I do believe he hasn't changed for his own game but it's HIS WAY of disproving and destroying CTE. I can't wait for the double talk and denials. But then again, he'll probably claim the other posters were right and he was wrong back then. IMPOSSIBLE!! He's never been wrong in his life and was the foremost authority in pool back then as he is today. Aren't Google RSB archives GREAT?!!


Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net>
Date: 1998/12/08
Subject: Re: Aiming Technique

Dale W. Baker wrote:

> David,
> If this method works for you, so be it. I don't believe there are too
> many players in this forum that will advocate such a method.


Pat Johnson:
This variation on the "ghost ball" method of aiming is discussed fairly
frequently here, and I recall several posters being in favor of it. It
doesn't have a particularly bad reputation that I know of, though it's
not my preferred method because I like to aim more directly at the
object ball contact point.

David:
> The aiming method should be by "feel". You get a sense for the target, and shoot.

Pat Johnson:
I don't agree. It's true that many players aim by "feel," but that
doesn't mean that every player "should" aim this way. And how is
anybody supposed to follow these instructions? "Get a sense for the
target and shoot?" What does that mean to anybody but you? Is it like
"You'll know it when you see it?"

I think a player should have an idea of what he's aiming at, and what
he's aiming at it. For instance, I aim the contact point on the cue
ball (which I have to imagine, because it's on the other side of the cue
ball) at the contact point on the object ball. To help me do this
accurately, I aim the cue stick at the point it would be touching on the
"ghost ball" (this is the imaginary ball sitting in the spot the cue
ball will occupy when it hits the object ball) as if I was shooting the
same shot with the two balls frozen together. (Of course, I adjust all
this for the combined effect of squirt, swerve and throw).


By the way, this isn't a complicated calculation of some kind that I do
while I'm aiming. I just try to point something (my stick and the cue
ball) at something (the ghost ball and object ball), rather than just
"feel" it. It sounds like David's trying to do that, too, and I say
it's the right thing to try to do.


Pat Johnson
Chicago


Ron Shepard wrote: > I think the ultimate goal is to have both sides of your brain telling you > the same thing, all the way from lining up the shot to the followthrough.

> Think of it as a choir with everyone singing in tune. It may take a few > weeks, but your intuition will eventually adjust to reality. Sometimes it > just needs a prod in the right direction from your rational brain. ===

Pat Johnson
This is a good description, and helps illuminate what I don't like about the "intuitive" game. Trusting your intuition (or "left brain" or "instinct" or being "in stroke" or whatever) too often means you're just letting these unconscious mini-corrections cancel out other unconscious errors (in your choir, some off-key singers are cancelling out some other off-key singers). The short term result may be that you're making shots, but it's limiting (it only works with the shots you "know" and doesn't give you a knowledge base on which to build), unreliable (if you hit a slump, what caused it and how do you recover?), unteachable and probably some other things I haven't thought of today. There's a complete sense of confidence when your choir's all singing the same tune that you just don't get otherwise. Pat Johnson ===
More options May 20 1998, 2:00 am

Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net>
Date: 1998/05/20
Subject: Re: Last Second Adjustments to Aim
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Ron Shepard wrote:
> I think the ultimate goal is to have both sides of your brain telling you
> the same thing, all the way from lining up the shot to the followthrough.
> Think of it as a choir with everyone singing in tune. It may take a few
> weeks, but your intuition will eventually adjust to reality. Sometimes it
> just needs a prod in the right direction from your rational brain.

Pat Johnson:
This is a good description, and helps illuminate what I don't like about the
"intuitive" game. Trusting your intuition (or "left brain" or "instinct" or
being "in stroke" or whatever) too often means you're just letting these
unconscious mini-corrections cancel out other unconscious errors (in your
choir, some off-key singers are cancelling out some other off-key singers).
The short term result may be that you're making shots, but it's limiting (it
only works with the shots you "know" and doesn't give you a knowledge base on
which to build), unreliable (if you hit a slump, what caused it and how do you
recover?), unteachable and probably some other things I haven't thought of
today.

There's a complete sense of confidence when your choir's all singing the same
tune that you just don't get otherwise.


Pat Johnson

T'was brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimbol in the wabe...

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Here's what Pat Johnson posted years ago on RSB and he was ADAMANT that "FEEL" and "ADJUSTMENTS" weren't good and the game shouldn't be played that way. I do believe he hasn't changed for his own game but it's HIS WAY of disproving and destroying CTE.

Nothing has changed. I still don't think aiming entirely by feel is the best practice (although some are stuck with that). That doesn't change the fact that feel plays a fundamental part in all aiming - even yours.

Whether you're trying to deliberately misrepresent that or just don't get it, I'm not surprised (and don't much care) either way.

Anyway, thanks for being my number one fan and archivist - I hope you're learning something from all my historical posts.

If you publish I get a cut.

pj
chgo