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.
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.