A video on pivoting systems

[JB Cases]

We don't have to see anything - your video demonstrates it all (thanks to your careful setup).

The CB is always on the "half ball shot line" for each OB, so either...

1. Your bridge is also always on the "half ball shot line", so shooting center ball, no matter where you pivot from, would have to produce a half ball hit on every OB (and miss all but maybe one of them). Obvious geometry.

Even though the bridge v is on the half-ball hit line the PERCEPTION is not a direct half ball hit. This isn't a 2d geometry exercise.

Or...

2. You tweak your bridge position each time so each center ball shot is aimed off the "half ball shot line" at the correct angle to pocket each non-half ball shot.

Care to explain your way that's neither of those?

See the video and diagram below of the convergence lines. I think that the use of the CTE line puts the player into a space where the shooter is able to be so close to the actual shot line that the steps taken are as close to objective as can be. IF the subconscious is "adjusting" to the actual (but consciously) unknown shot line then it is doing it in a fraction of a second by virtue of starting only a tiny amount off of the actual shot line. For the shooter this whole process feels very deliberate with no conscious guessing involved.

pj <- did I mention lol?
chgo

Your lol is implied as you have never indicated any serious intent to converse in good faith on this topic. That's why I have no expectation that you are here to learn and explore. I write for the other readers and simply use you as a step to explain my thoughts on the subject.

That said this is the best example of what I have discovered that could explain the visual aspect of how the OBJECTIVE use of the CTE line and the half-ball pivot allows for the cue to end up at the shot line consistently.

188,270 views Feb 7, 2012
In this video I have marked out the Center to Edge lines and the Ghost Ball lines to show that the "pivot" which is so confusing is really just a SLIGHT body movement as the shooter moves to center ball. As the lines come back from the object ball they converge in the center of the cue ball and as they pass out the back of the cue ball they are just a millimeter at most and on top of each other at the least. Which basically means that looking at the shot from the back of the cue ball the SHOT line is never more than 1mm away from the Center to Edge line. Thus a TINY shift is all it takes to get to the shot line. (Edit: when I say tiny shift I mean that it is a super tiny distance at the back of the ball not that one is consciously or subconsciously shifting to that center cueball shot line.)

By following the CTE directions you will land on the shot line every time from almost any angle once you learn to accurately see the CTE line and orient yourself based off of it to come into the shot.

I put up all these lines to prove that following the exact same steps results in landing on the ghost ball line no matter the angle. If you choose you can mark your table in the same way and see it for yourself. THEN go to the other half of the table and do the shots without the lines marked and watch what happens.

---

 

[JB Cases]

Is Bob J. an expert? Is Dr. Dave an expert?

As for the rest of your post, thank you for confirming my point. You are never going to have an open mind on this issue, so what's the use in debating it? This is the kind of thing that makes people conclude you are in a cult or religion.

Bob Jewett has spoken to me maybe once in 30 years.... Dr. Dave has spoken to me a few times and he has never ever TOLD me that I am wrong about CTE. In fact I used his examples to test CTE. I would say that neither of them is an expert in CTE given that neither has demonstrated that that they know the steps or have tried to learn them. Dave, for as much as I love his body of work, has chosen to mock and denigrate aiming system teachers, so I don't hold his comments about aiming systems in high regard. I would still welcome and be willing to pay for a weekend of testing and documentation to gather information and data in a controlled manner with him and some CTE experts.

Not a religion, not a cult. Simply methods that work to bring the shooter to the actual shot line consistently using objective steps.

 

[dquarasr]

I'm sorry, but I can't picture this. If I were to draw a line through the center of the CB to the center of the GB, and place the CB anywhere on that line, 6" or 6' away, how can distance between the OB and the CB create a different shot line? Are you really saying that a shot a different distance from the GB but AT A DIFFERENT ANGLE from the pocket line creates a different shot line? I agree with the latter, but not the former.

For definition purposes, when I hear "shot line", I think the line between the center of the CB and the center of the GB (the line I need to deliver the CB), and the "pocket line" the line through the center of the GB and the center of the OB to the pocket. Are we using these definitions when we say "distance between the cueball (sic) and the object ball can create a different shot line..."?

Never mind. I get it. I just saw your CTEL diagram, the one with the purple, red, and yellow legend at the top.

You’re keeping the CB in one spot, moving the OB, varying the distance from the CB. I thought you meant moving the CB along the shot line, OB position unchanging.

 

[JB Cases]

I'm sorry, but I can't picture this. If I were to draw a line through the center of the CB to the center of the GB, and place the CB anywhere on that line, 6" or 6' away, how can distance between the OB and the CB create a different shot line? Are you really saying that a shot a different distance from the GB but AT A DIFFERENT ANGLE from the pocket line creates a different shot line? I agree with the latter, but not the former.

I agree with you. I was echoing Pat's assertion in hopes of moving past the error in his description. I think he meant the latter but it really doesn't matter. What he really is saying is that different shots cannot have the same shot line produced by the same input. And I agree with that as well and am not saying that the input is the same for different shot positions. I am saying that the steps taken to align one's body are the same and the difference is that the body is relating to the shot with tiny imperceptible differences that resolve to the shot line through the use of objective alignment between the CB and OB.

For definition purposes, when I hear "shot line", I think the line between the center of the CB and the center of the GB (the line I need to deliver the CB), and the "pocket line" the line through the center of the GB and the center of the OB to the pocket. Are we using these definitions when we say "distance between the cueball (sic) and the object ball can create a different shot line..."?

Yes, shot line is the center to center line between the center of the CB and the GB. I misspoke. The main point is that the angle of the shot is not relevant for the objective aiming methods in discussion and it is Pat's assertion that the angle of the shot is extremely important. But the shooter neither knows the exact cut angle nor the CB-GB shot line without guessing at them.

 

[JB Cases]

….AND yet another thread in the Aiming Forum ruined, devolving into the same old debate about CTE, by the same cast of characters.

You simply can’t help yourselves, can you?

(A psychology major could probably write a PhD thesis using the AZB Aiming Forum as a case study.)

Sigh.

Sorry, but I am speaking in general terms about aiming systems. I spoke to the content of the video and to my general take on the topic. I have zero intention of "devolving" into a discussion of CTE. But I have pointed out that the same "cast" of characters has been doing the same denigrating and mocking for decades at this point.

 

[JB Cases]

Never mind. I get it. I just saw your CTEL diagram, the one with the purple, red, and yellow legend at the top.

You’re keeping the CB in one spot, moving the OB, varying the distance from the CB. I thought you meant moving the CB along the shot line, OB position unchanging.

I just didn't want to go into that with Pat. Here is what changes IF the CB is moved back along the shot line, keeping in mind that the shot line is only "known" for the purpose of illustrating the difference in the visual perception of the CTE line, the perception degree changes so that a perception of say 15 degrees at a two foot distance might turn into a perception of a 30 or 45 at 8 feet. I think I have a similar diagram where I mapped out the CB on the halfball hit line with the resulting CTE and GB lines converging but I couldn't find it on this machine or on my webserver before I posted the answer to Pat.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Even though the bridge v is on the half-ball hit line the PERCEPTION is not a direct half ball hit.

You prefer tests on the table, so here's one for you:

- place the CB and OB anywhere
- place your bridge v on the "half-ball hit line" (CB center to OB edge - unless you have another definition?)
- hit the CB dead center (pivoted or not, doesn't matter how you get it there)

Where did the CB go? What cut angle was produced?

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

If the bridge v is on the half-ball hit line and you accurately hit center CB as you describe, the only place the CB can go is to a half-ball hit, resulting in all 30-degree cuts. Obviously (or not, depending on who you are), 30-degree cuts don't work for all (or even most of) the shots you show.

Do you really not see this simple geometry?

pj
chgo

I get it. The pivot however is not a parallel shift to center. The body position changes when the eyes are picking up the center to edge line. When I did the first video using JSPs setup I didn't use CTE correctly and I was doing a strickly half-ball pivot. As the distance increases the body shifts position in relation to the cueball. Thus the input changes with each shot even though the lines are marked. IF the cue had been placed in a dead straight line on the CTE half ball HIT line then I would agree with you that there was no way that the shots would have been close to the pocket.

What I was illustrating however is that the shooter can do two things completely OBJECTIVELY, 1. mentally see a line connecting the center of the CB to the edge of the OB. and 2. Put the cue down from the body position so that the shaft is pointing at the edge of the CB and pivot to center and be on or very close to the actual shot line. So for the shooter the process is OBJECTIVE.

Now with CTE and other systems there are better ways to attach the CB and OB that are definitely objective and which bring the shooter to the shot line consistently though the use of conscious and deliberate steps that don't require guessing.

So in the end if the steps are clear and the result is getting on the shot line consistently I see no problem with calling the method objective aiming. You can say that your 2d diagramming says it can't work and that there must be some kind of wiggle to get to the shot line but IF that wiggle is purely subconscious then it doesn't matter that it exists because the CONSCIOUS and OBJECTIVE steps are what allows the "wiggle" to work to bring the shooter to the accurate shot line. Why is that a problem for you?

Here is another video from way back then when I was doing nothing more than using the CTE line as my initial OBJECTIVE alignment with a half ball pivot. It was nothing more than a "see what happens" exercise.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... the shooter can do two things completely OBJECTIVELY, 1. mentally see a line connecting the center of the CB to the edge of the OB. and 2. Put the cue down from the body position so that the shaft is pointing at the edge of the CB and pivot to center and be on or very close to the actual shot line. So for the shooter the process is OBJECTIVE.

So your "body position" is different for each different cut angle? Please describe the "objective" method for changing it. And how that changes the CB's direction without moving your bridge.

pj
chgo

 

[bbb]

deja vu all over again?????




cant you guys have a cease fire and let each other do their thing??

 

[Patrick Johnson]

deja vu all over again?????




cant you guys have a cease fire and let each other do their thing??

Shots were only fired by one of "us guys", and were duly ignored by the other.

Questionable information should be challenged when it's asserted on this pool discussion forum. Unfortunately, some posters' response to their information being challenged is to "fire shots". Wonder why...

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

So your "body position" is different for each different cut angle? Please describe the "objective" method for changing it. And how that changes the CB's direction without moving your bridge.

pj
chgo

By looking down the CTE line at each shot in the string the body moves slightly to the left in the JSP example. I will eventually make another video to show this more clearly.

Nonsense on this pool discussion forum should go uncorrected because it's somebody's "thing"?

pj
chgo

I am ok with you offering your "correction" as it only gives more reason to rebut your misunderstanding of objective aiming. Maybe you can show us some examples of your "fidget aiming" and your method of hunting for the shot line like a hummingbird on crack will be helpful to some of the readers. You're a slightly above average player who has managed to make a strange set of motions work for you. I think it would be quite entertaining for everyone to see how you aim.

deja vu all over again?????




cant you guys have a cease fire and let each other do their thing??

There is no war. Questions get answered. Snide remarks are just another opportunity to highlight the effectiveness of objective aiming systems. our respective "things" are to be constructive and help people aim better for me and to be destructive and try to keep players from exploring objective aiming methods for Pat and a few others. The great thing is that objective aiming has moved beyond AZB and is being discussed hater-free in many other places on the internet.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I am ok with you offering your "correction"

Yes, you clearly demonstrated that when you posted false accusations about decades old events in response - and continue with silly attempts at insults in this post.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

You prefer tests on the table, so here's one for you:

- place the CB and OB anywhere
- place your bridge v on the "half-ball hit line" (CB center to OB edge - unless you have another definition?)
- hit the CB dead center (pivoted or not, doesn't matter how you get it there)

Where did the CB go? What cut angle was produced?

pj
chgo

Ok I will do that. If the cue lands directly on the half-ball HIT line then a half-ball hit will be produced assuming the stroke is straight. No dispute there. The cut angle is something like 33 degree iirc. Objective aimers don't care about cut angles as there is no need. Ghost ball aimers also don't care about cut angles either.

 

[JB Cases]

Yes, you clearly demonstrated that when you posted false accusations about decades old events in response.

pj
chgo

Where you complained to YouTube claiming harassment to have a video taken down? Are you denying that you did that?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Where you complained to YouTube claiming harassment to have a video taken down? Are you denying that you did that?

What does that have to do with this? That knee jerk attack nonsense is why we can't have frank conversations about aiming here.

pj <- always liked Frank
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

What does that have to do with this? That knee jerk attack nonsense is why we can't have frank conversations about aiming here.

pj <- always liked Frank
chgo

Since the video in the beginning of the thread is about one person's journey with objective aiming methods I felt that sharing part of my story where you lied to youtube to get a video taken down where I was addressing your claims should be mentioned. I took the time to set up a bunch of shots that used your claims and demonstrate that the motions for aiming each shot were identical and objective. Simply because I mentioned your name for reference purposes you claimed you were being harassed and the video was deleted. Unfortunately I had already erased on the camera I used to record it so it was gone forever. You say you want frank discussion but you cried and lied when your name was mentioned with zero malice and absolutely zero harassment at all.

My journey with objective aiming has been marred by your snide and hateful comments. I haven't said anything about past events that is untrue. But the more important point is that because objective aiming methods are useful and effective they have survived all the assassination attempts that you and a tiny handful of others have perpetrated.

Being completely honest, there are a few jerks whom I would like to give a flying knee to. But in the end your quixotic quest to destroy what you refuse to learn has inadvertently been a catalyst to propel objective aiming to greater prominence. Thank you.

 

[JB Cases]

That's right . The Houligans insisted manual pivots was the nuts . Then Dr Dave did some tests. Then pro after pro showed no manual pivot .
Then came the service pack , disguised pivot .

This thread started with the dude showing manual pivot . Nobody mentioned CTE till you came then cried victim right away .
Manual pivots are GIMMICKS.

Where are these tests and when did Dr. Dave learn to do the CTE steps correctly?

 

[JoeyInCali]

Where are these tests and when did Dr. Dave learn to do the CTE steps correctly?

CTE Evaluation and Analysis - Dr. Dave Pool Info

Answers to frequently-asked questions (FAQs) about evaluation and analysis of Center-to-Edge (CTE) aiming systems.

billiards.colostate.edu

I smell a bucket of more arguments

 

[JB Cases]

CTE Evaluation and Analysis - Dr. Dave Pool Info

Answers to frequently-asked questions (FAQs) about evaluation and analysis of Center-to-Edge (CTE) aiming systems.

billiards.colostate.edu

I smell a bucket of more arguments

No, this page has been adequately addressed. Dave has been invited many times to get on the table with cte instructors to clear up the incorrect information.

Dave doesn't know cte and so he can't adequately describe it.

But it does illustrate my point. Critics who don't understand it still try to mock and knock rather than cooperate to clear up all misunderstand for the benefit of the community.