Why do those have to be different things?
pj
chgo
PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions
- Thread starter stan shuffett
- Start date
pj
chgo
FYI, here's a direct link to Stan's version:
Regards,
Dave
Scott,
I assume that was in response to my question to Patrick asking for a reference to the portion of the DVD that mentions an "air pivot". If that's the case, I apologize for misleading you. However, I did like the rest of your post and I'm quite glad you took the effort to contribute it. I'm very interested in how people learn to use Stan's system - what stages they go through, what they perceive more clearly at various stages, what portions of the "mechanics" they find can be elided or modified, etc. I think that's all very relevant to a better understanding of the system as a whole.
In so far as I remember, the phrase "air pivot" originated with some videos (I believe by John Barton, though I could easily be wrong) that demonstrated an "aim and pivot" method that is considerably different from both Stan's basic CTE and his Pro One system. There is no way that the eye shift used in Pro One could be confused with an "air pivot" of the cue; that's especially true since the beginning of Chapter 13 of the DVD explicitly states that there is no physical pivoting of the cue in Pro One.
What I was really doing was poking at Patrick a little since I suspect he's well aware that Stan doesn't use the phrase "air pivot" at all, and I wanted to let him know that at least one person recognized that he was conflating differing systems. This is a fairly common debating technique. It's useful when you want to shift the subject of discussion from one you find difficult to another seemingly similar subject that's easier for you to handle.
This could, of course, become the subject of another debate: Is the "eye shift" that Stan says is Pro One's equivalent of basic CTE's manual cue pivot really an "air pivot", even though the physical cue is not physically pivoted?
I'm not quite sure where you're headed with that. What I referring to was that in past debates, the sticking point against CTE was that no one could prove it or even describe it geometrically. If it is a true aiming system, then there must be a way to prove & diagram it geometrically. This can even include visual perspective where farther objects appear smaller.
The plain fact is that we, our eyes, the balls on the able and everything else exists in the physical world. Thus, there should be a way to diagram and prove, geometrically, what CTE is and if it actually works.
:yikes:
I stand corrected. How did I miss that one? I suppose I only remembered the shorter 40-50 page CTE threads :grin:
It could (and can) be described geometrically very easily - the problem is that the result isn't what system users want to hear.
I guess you mean "prove the system shows how to aim without feel". I don't think aiming systems have to do that in order to be "true aiming systems" or even to be good aiming systems.
That's simple, and in fact has been done many different ways - we have known without a doubt for years that x-angle systems like CTE/Pro One cannot "work" without feel. But we have to be careful with words like "work" - systems can "work" by enhancing the player's ability to use feel.
pj
chgo
So are you saying that CTE/Pro One enhances a player's ability to use feel?
JoeyA
I thought we all were just going to ignore him?
Maybe you're simply overanalyzing what I said. "Air pivot" is a common way that system users refer to the difference between CTE and ProOne, and it's an apt description of the swooping motion Stan shows for putting the stick online with ProOne.
LOL. Do you find these discussions difficult?
pj
chgo
Do you think that will work?
One of the difficulties in discussing CTE/Pro One is that people seem to be extremely reluctant to use the terms that Stan uses with the definitions he assigns to them. Or to pay much attention to what he actually says at all.
Let's see... Does the Pro One swooping motion differ from that of basic CTE? Well, not much. The basic CTE motion is a little slower, but it's a very similar motion. In fact, if you look closely, in Chapter 4 of the DVD where Stan first demonstrates how to move into position for basic CTE, you can actually see the cue pivot more or less around the joint area as he moves into position.
Hmmm... I believe you've made a real breakthrough in the study of CTE/Pro One, Patrick. Despite what Stan says, you've discovered that there are two pivots in basic CTE, and a physical pivot of the cue in Pro One. Excellent, another piece of information for the puzzle.
Difficult? Scarcely. Amusing? Generally. Informative? Sometimes.
I don't put anyone on ignore although I do ignore some people from time to time by choice and because I overlook their posts. We'll see how he answers the question whether or not I put him in the corner.
JoeyA
Yes John it was.
By the way, love the way you write, and glad I could at least inform or entertain you with the rest of my verbose response...
Scott
I don't either but thought it would be amusing to send him into a rage lol
Last time he got upset he kicked a puppy. This time he might take it out on his pc again. You remember how that turned out??
Attachments
I do. Feel is feel, an aiming system is concrete and definitive as to where you must aim. No two ways about it.
That wouldn't be a true aiming system in my opinion. The placebo effect has already been mentioned. Also, Dr. Dave described how using any system - whether true or not, has a positive effect in that it generates more focus on the task at hand. There are many byproducts of Pro One / CTE, but that doesn't prove that it is a true aiming system that produces a definitive aiming point and way to aim.
I don't believe any "breakthroughs" are necessary to understand x-angle systems like CTE/ProOne. I believe we've understood them very well since we had the first (and exactly the same) arguments about them on the internet more than ten years ago. The addition of a second reference line, pivots, and some vague instructions about how to use them has only given new life to the old idea that there's "magic" in there.
However, the second reference line has done one useful thing: it has brought alignment consistency to the forefront of discussion, which is what the "naysayers" have been "yeasaying" all these years.
pj
chgo
So what do you call a system that's concrete and definitive about how to get close to the true aim, but you just have to finish the job by feel? That's what x-angle systems do, and they do it quite systematically (although I think CTE/ProOne has slipped a little in the systematic department).
The word "true" is a blanket value judgement that I don't believe is useful or warranted.
pj
chgo