Nice try. If you were paying attention I'm saying what I've always said. You have to "make" it work because it does not simply work objectively. If it did then you wouldn't need months of practice simply to see two objective lines and pivot. That should take what, 15 minutes for an experienced player to do?
Don't let me spoil your party. I was merely letting him know that the geometry does not work, which even you admit to. "It can't be diagrammed in 2D" as you guys like to say.
Carry on.
I will say this though.... For experienced players, I do believe it
seems objective. For example, at the end of the 1st 10 foot sermon video (last 3 or 4 minutes), which Spider posted this morning, Stan explains how to determine which perception to use, and which pivot to use. His explanation is very simple. He says, "It's obvious". That's it. He says, "It's obvious, there's no doubt." Because to him, at his level of experience, it is obvious. But that would be like a grand master chess player telling the average student, "You have a checkmate in 5 moves, can't you see it? It's obvious." No, the student can't see it because it's not obvious, not yet. Given enough experience, sure, it'll become obvious, but that's the nature of aquired experience.
When determining whether or not the perception needs a thick or thin pivot/sweep, Stan explains to look straight through the fixed ccb (from a noser perspective) and determine where the ob would go if shot from there. Once again, he says it's "obvious", "no doubt" as to whether the shot requires a thin (inside) or thick (outside) pivot. The example is very easy, small angle and close to the pocket, so maybe for most players it is obvious, though plenty of C players miss shots like this all the time. They miss because when they look down the center of the cb they aren't sure if it needs to be aimed thinner or thicker. Move the ob farther from the pocket and the level of difficulty for recognizing when the cb-ob relationship looks a touch thin or thick becomes even more challenging, certainly not obvious.
It wouldn't matter if that fixed cb view was derived from ghostball, fractions, contact points, or CTE visuals. What matters is the fact the player may lack the experience needed to recognize when a certain alignment looks a little too thin or too thick. That visual knowledge is not objective. It's not "obvious". It's not "visual intelligencence" that anyone can learn in a matter of minutes simply by watching a YouTube clip, reading how to do it from a book, or following verbal instructions. It must be learned through experience.
