Why do those have to be different things?Bola Ochoa:
My question now is, is it an actual system or were the skeptics right in declaring it as an elaborate way to structure "feel" ....???
pj
chgo
Why do those have to be different things?Bola Ochoa:
My question now is, is it an actual system or were the skeptics right in declaring it as an elaborate way to structure "feel" ....???
FYI, here's a direct link to Stan's version:Here's Dr. Dave's summary of Stan's manual CTE (go down to "CTE Version 4"): http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE
Yes, I'm okay with that if you're implying that it's not a center pocket system. After all, aiming directly at the center of the pocket is "an advantage but not a necessity for all shots."
So if you're okay saying...
The system isn't a center pocket system, but that's okay because it's not necessary to have a center pocket system for all shots.
...then I'm absolutely okay with that. We're on the exact same page now.
Air pivoting, or the "Pro One" portion of the system, starts in chapter 10 I believe, with a few chapters of explanation and a few chapters of examples, much like the first part of the DVD. I hope you weren't being facetious, or the rest of this is going to really be overkill...
Why do those have to be different things?
pj
chgo
That's not a record by a long shot. Here's a thread that went 164 pages (2451 posts): http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=204937
It could (and can) be described geometrically very easily - the problem is that the result isn't what system users want to hear.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.Me:Bola Ocho:
My question now is, is it an actual system or were the skeptics right in declaring it as an elaborate way to structure "feel" ....???
Why do those have to be different things?
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.If it is a true aiming system, then there must be a way to prove & diagram it geometrically.
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.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.
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
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.jwpretd:
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.
LOL. Do you find these discussions difficult?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.
I thought we all were just going to ignore him?
Do you think that will work?
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?
I thought we all were just going to ignore him?
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 don't either but thought it would be amusing to send him into a rage lol
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
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.jwpretd:
I believe you've made a real breakthrough in the study of CTE/Pro One
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)....Feel is feel, an aiming system is concrete and definitive as to where you must aim. No two ways about it.
The word "true" is a blanket value judgement that I don't believe is useful or warranted.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.