Pivoting systems and their relationship to CTE

Vorpal Cue

Just galumping back
Silver Member
Pivoting systems and their relationship to CTE

With your help maybe we can discover some solutions and identify the misconceptions about pivoting systems to which CTE belongs. When blanket claims are made that CTE is hocum, it brings into question the validity of the mechanism behind the system. I'm willing to discuss the working parts of pivoting systems and how I see they function to compute the correct shot line.

I've been playing with quarter ball aiming using 'standard' cte 'visuals' with a 1/2 ball hip pivot to CCB. I get my visuals over the center of the cue ball unlike Stan's method, and my pivoting 'style' isn't the same. I've used a pivot triangle for shooting and found an equal and opposite contact point on the object ball to the cue ball face with pivot to CCB works too. The systems are different but I believe they use the same fundamental mechanisms to arrive at a shot line. I'm not here to defend Stan's work or methods but rather hope to find some similarities between the systems and points we can agree on.

Maybe we can iron out and eliminate some of the main objections. If you're up for a discussion, I'll state that all the reasons I've seen so far are invalid and I hope to be able to explain my viewpoint. The main objections are:

1. It isn't mathematically correct
2. It isn't geometrically correct
3. It defies physics
4. Produce a diagram
5. Prove it with math
6. Impossible to have the same visuals for different angle shots
7. Everything visually still requires FEEL
8. Just see the shot, Nobody really needs to aim
9. PITH
10.HAMB
11. It's impossible to make all shots from 0-90 degrees with only 3 aim points
12. The stroke is swooping to correct for misalignment


1-5 can be explained by use of a pivot triangle and how the contact point or the pivot point opposite it through CCB, is related to the sine of the shot angle. If you want to discuss these points, please read my post on the pivot triangle first and I'll be happy to answer you in that thread or here.

6 is false and can be explained by correlating the change in table position with the rotation of the cue ball edge which adjusts the angle to the shot line.

7 might be harder to prove due to the 'unconscious adjustments' argument. I get my shot line through the CCB and sometimes my 'feel' tells me the shot is wrong. If I ignore that feeling and trust the line produced by the pivot I shoot better. I try very hard not to let my 'lyin' eyes' confuse me.

8 and 9 assume that after a period of playing the process of aiming is unimportant. You should have developed the correct angle to the shot line by practice and playing experience after a certain amount of time. Some players are able to leap that hurdle but I'm not one of them. I need a contact point or a cue ball edge to aid me when I aim. When using CP I'm pretty close when I get over the shot but I'm rarely aimed perfectly.

10 requires more time devoted to practice than I'm willing to give. If you want to make money on the game it's the only way to go. I just shoot with my friends on the weekend and don't lust after the Championship. It's just a fun sport I enjoy playing but it's not a game I plan to pursue to excellence.

11 I agree with. From a set perspective there's only a finite number of shot angles present. The point most people gloss over is that one of those lines point straight to the heart of a pocket if you select the correct visual. Some of the other lines may lead to a bank shot in a different pocket with a different visual of the shot.

12 sounds like it would be a counter productive element to add to the process. A player should use a straight stroke when playing with a pivoting system, it's a vital part of the shot execution. It would be much easier to introduce inside and outside english application to the process. I'm tempted to remove it by using the Occam's Razor argument.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer so I may not be able to respond right away but I'll try to come up with an answer eventually. It may be simply, I don't know or it may be, I see your point. I also belong to other forums and I like to spend time there too.

Let's not invite Mr. Wilson to swing in here with his fire retardant hat, mask and cape. (Ever see an asbestos guitar?) I got kabonged by my older brother a number of years ago and have no desire to repeat the experience.
 

Arete

Registered
Does your system only work on a 2x4 surface?

Am I suppose to believe that all of these pros that Stan says uses CTE, even though they are perhaps not aware of it, can't make a ball if the table was square?
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
6 is true if the distance between the cb and ob are the same on two different shots.

Could you explain your thinking here a bit further.

If the angle of the two shots is significantly different...

then how can the visual be the same even if the balls are the same distance apart?

Balls 6 diamonds apart...

one is less that 5* to the pocket...

the other is 85* to the pocket.

How can they both have the same visual?

Thanks in advance,
Rick
 

Arete

Registered
Could you explain your thinking here a bit further.

If the angle of the two shots is significantly different...

then how can the visual be the same even if the balls are the same distance apart?

Balls 6 diamonds apart...

one is less that 5* to the pocket...

the other is 85* to the pocket.

How can they both have the same visual?

Thanks in advance,
Rick

6 says it's impossible to have the same visuals for two different angled cut shots.(assuming the pivots and all else are the same)

Op said that was false.

I said it is impossible if the cueball and objectball on both shots are the same distance apart from each other.
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
6 says it's impossible to have the same visuals for two different angled cut shots.(assuming the pivots and all else are the same)

Op said that was false.

I said it is impossible if the cueball and objectball on both shots are the same distance apart from each other.

I guess I am reading more into what you're saying than is there.

Assuming the pivots and all else are the same...

Are you saying that the same visual can yield 2 or even 5 different outcome angles... depending on the distance between the balls?

Thanks in advance.
Rick
 

Arete

Registered
I guess I am reading more into what you're saying than is there.

Assuming the pivots and all else are the same...

Are you saying that the same visual can yield 2 or even 5 different outcome angles... depending on the distance between the balls?

Thanks in advance.
Rick

No, if the distance between the balls are different then the visuals will produce different angles but that's not what I was saying.
 
Last edited:

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
No, if the distance between the balls are different then the visuals will produce different angles but that's not what I was saying.

Sir,

I certainly do not see us a "arguing". I am merely trying to clarify your statement.

That was my original intent when I asked if you could explain your thinking a bit further which was to clarify just what you ARE saying.

The thing is that, shots with different distances is not the point of #6 as I see it.

I see #6 as referring to the same visual getting perhaps 5 or more different outcome angles from the same visual on balls that are the same distance apart... without using any subjective interpretation or influence. In other words the SAME visual taking the shooter to 5 or more different physical positions that would then result in different outcome angles... without the use of any subjectively learned interpretations or influences.

It that how you see what is meant by #6?

The OP has condensed rather much into each short phrase.

Thanks Again for any clarity that you might provide.
 

Arete

Registered
Sir,

I certainly do not see us a "arguing". I am merely trying to clarify your statement.

That was my original intent when I asked if you could explain your thinking a bit further which was to clarify just what you ARE saying.

The thing is that, shots with different distances is not the point of #6 as I see it.

I see #6 as referring to the same visual getting perhaps 5 or more different outcome angles from the same visual on balls that are the same distance apart... without using any subjective interpretation or influence. In other words the SAME visual taking the shooter to 5 or more different physical positions that would then result in different outcome angles... without the use of any subjectively learned interpretations or influences.

It that how you see what is meant by #6?

The OP has condensed rather much into each short phrase.

Thanks Again for any clarity that you might provide.

Yes, do you agree with me?
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Yes, do you agree with me?

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying as your words were limited & that is why I asked for an elaboration on your part.

Text only communication is not the best means, especially when only a few words are used in trying to give a picture.
 
Last edited:

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying as your words were limited & that is why I asked for an elaboration on your part.

Text only communication is not the best means, especially when only a few words are used in trying to give picture.

Poolchump,

Yes you agree with him.
 

Vorpal Cue

Just galumping back
Silver Member
Yes, English! is correct in that I was only able to add a brief comment for each objection in order to keep the post manageable. I appreciate Arete's restraint in that he only inquired about one topic. I was hoping I wouldn't look at the thread and see too many objections and become overwhelmed with questions.

6. Impossible to have the same visuals for different angle shots

I interpret 6 as stating that it's only possible to get one angle out of a visual regardless of table position. That a 15 visual will output the same angle every time. I'm stating that a 15 visual will produce angles between 0 and 15* depending on the CB / OB alignment. I think that's Arete's position. Is that correct?

A statement can be hard to interpret if the wording isn't specific and a double meaning is possible. If I ask for a question to be restated in a different way it's because I see more than one way to read the statement.

@ BieberLvr: Man, I love some of the comments you make with your posts. They're witty and entertaining and you state the facts well. The balloon animal comment tickled my funny bone so much I'm still chuckling over it. Forgive me for copycatting it but I couldn't resist. But I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to anyone as haters. I'd like to keep the thread insult free. I appreciate any comments you have regarding the question and perhaps you can explain things better than me. Everyone has their own opinion on how the objections can be refuted and if you see a better answer than mine or you can explain in more detail or clearer than me I hope you post it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'd like to ask all posters the same thing. Please no name calling. I know there's bad blood between the different factions surrounding CTE. I'd like to get all the Hatfields and McCoys together to examine their position and see if some misunderstandings can be cleared up. Please leave your shootin' irons at home.
 

Arete

Registered
Yes, English! is correct in that I was only able to add a brief comment for each objection in order to keep the post manageable. I appreciate Arete's restraint in that he only inquired about one topic. I was hoping I wouldn't look at the thread and see too many objections and become overwhelmed with questions.

6. Impossible to have the same visuals for different angle shots

I interpret 6 as stating that it's only possible to get one angle out of a visual regardless of table position. That a 15 visual will output the same angle every time. I'm stating that a 15 visual will produce angles between 0 and 15* depending on the CB / OB alignment. I think that's Arete's position. Is that correct?

A statement can be hard to interpret if the wording isn't specific and a double meaning is possible. If I ask for a question to be restated in a different way it's because I see more than one way to read the statement.

@ BieberLvr: Man, I love some of the comments you make with your posts. They're witty and entertaining and you state the facts well. The balloon animal comment tickled my funny bone so much I'm still chuckling over it. Forgive me for copycatting it but I couldn't resist. But I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to anyone as haters. I'd like to keep the thread insult free. I appreciate any comments you have regarding the question and perhaps you can explain things better than me. Everyone has their own opinion on how the objections can be refuted and if you see a better answer than mine or you can explain in more detail or clearer than me I hope you post it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'd like to ask all posters the same thing. Please no name calling. I know there's bad blood between the different factions surrounding CTE. I'd like to get all the Hatfields and McCoys together to examine their position and see if some misunderstandings can be cleared up. Please leave your shootin' irons at home.

Yes different distances will change the alignment. However if the shooter is standing the same distance from the cueball every time, as Stan does, and the cueball and objectball are the same distance from each other, as in the five shots video, then the cut angle results will be the same for all five shots if nothing else varies.
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Yes different distances will change the alignment. However if the shooter is standing the same distance from the cueball every time, as Stan does, and the cueball and objectball are the same distance from each other, as in the five shots video, then the cut angle results will be the same for all five shots if nothing else varies.

I think we are in basic agreement... but...

in your first sentence you say..."different distances will change the alignment."

Firstly, did you mean alignment & not visual.

Secondly...

if the OB is on the spot & the CB is at the same cross point line on the table as the ghost ball...

how will different distances between the balls change the "alignment"?

Thanks iin Advance,
Rick
 
Last edited:

Arete

Registered
I think we are in basic agreement... but...

in your first sentence you say..."different distances will change the alignment."

Firstly, did you mean alignment & not visual.

Secondly...

if the OB is on the spot & the CB is at the same cross point line on the table as the ghost ball...

how will different distances between the balls change the "alignment"?

Thanks iin Advance,
Rick

Can you elaborate on what you mean? In all seriousness, I have no idea what you mean by cross point line.
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Can you elaborate on what you mean? In all seriousness, I have no idea what you mean by cross point line.

Not on the center line of the spot but where the Ghost Ball would be...

then pull the CB back parallel to the rails & center line for all of the different distances.

How do the different distances yield a different alignment for the same angle shot?

The OP PMd to thank me for trying to clarify matters.

Typed language is all that we have here & sometimes we 'mis-type' or use a word in the wrong context or what ever.

Mis-communication is one of the most serious problems in the world.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick
 

Arete

Registered
Not on the center line of the spot but where the Ghost Ball would be...

then pull the CB back parallel to the rails & center line for all of the different distances.

How do the different distances yield a different alignment for the same angle shot?

The OP PMd to thank me for trying to clarify matters.

Typed language is all that we have here & sometimes we 'mis-type' or use a word in the wrong context or what ever.

Mis-communication is one of the most serious problems in the world.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

Due to CTE having two visual lines that are not parallel, assuming the players position when viewing the visuals is directly centered between the two lines. The further the cb and ob are from each other the thicker the hit.
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Due to CTE having two visual lines that are not parallel, assuming the players position when viewing the visuals is directly centered between the two lines. The further the cb and ob are from each other the thicker the hit.

I understand that the different distances between the balls slightly changes the angle of the lines & where one would need to be to see them equally & simultaneously but... that is NOT the "alignment" of the shot... & what you speak of is why IT as a "system" does not work purely on an objective basis.

What we have just 'discussed' is the same shot with merely different distances between the balls... & by your explanation... would it not put the shooter in a different position & on a different line for the same shot?

Regards & Best 2 Ya,
Rick
 
Top