A long comment on "aiming systems" ...

[JoeyInCali]

i have made all kinds of offers to everyone! i challenged dr dave and many others a number of times to just tell me what limits cte/pro1 has and let me take it to a table with a video. i wish one of these guys would list all the cons against cte/pro1 in one post, so i can take it to a table with a video. I dont think any of them have the nuts to do that... but i have the nuts to go on video and do it alone!! so which one of or all of you will post up all the limitations cte/pro1 has? lets see who is man enough! Dr dave are you, Lou F,sandwich guy,nick, anyone? me against all of you, lets see who will come out the winner! i will do all this stuff on a snooker table with 3.5 inch pockets or i will do it on a 9,8 or 7 footer! what ever you guys think is the hardest to play on, i will also do it with a bar cue, use no chalk either,etc , but please have the balls to post it all in one post! im giving you the chance to make me look like a dumbass on video and you can trash me for the rest of my az life.

When do you think a snooker player using CTE will win a major title ?

 

[champ2107]

...............

 

[JoeyInCali]

dunno and don't care, joey from Cali i couldnt give a rats ass either if anyone in this thread uses cte/pro1 either. I do notice a bunch of guys in thread that don't like people using it for some reason?

Some people hate ghost ball.
Some hate aiming line.
Some hate shadows.
Some hate Marvin Chen's.
Some hate overlaps.

Some fool ran 5 racks on video.

 

[champ2107]

................

 

[Grilled Cheese]

When do you think a snooker player using CTE will win a major title ?

LOL, Ronnie shot all those 147's with CTE pivoting systems....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btmB-p_0QFg


Oh wait...maybe he's "air pivoting" ...lol

 

[champ2107]

.......................

 

[Grilled Cheese]

Will someone please diagram the way by which CTE produces the actual line of aim?



Thank you,


Grilled Cheese

 

[LAMas]

Could you diagram this? Thanks.

I have added 2 diagrams but disregard the last one for the arrows were corrected in my original post #656.:thumbup:

 

[champ2107]

.................

 

[pablocruz]

Back to aiming systems including CTE.

I am a "double the distance" outward from the center of the OB to the contact point on same aimer. This serves me well for cut angles less than 30 degrees (CTE) - where the aim point/s is/are on the OB. I was looking for a better way to aim at those cut angles greater than 30 degrees where the aim line is off of the edge of the OB and on the felt and so I studied CTE aiming with the cue being parallel offset to points on the OB and pivot back to center.

If I start at the CTE line, and then parallel shift the cue to aim at the center of the OB and pivot back to the center of the CB, I found that I could make thin cuts i,e.,<90 degrees.

I surmised that if I look at the contact point that sends the OB to the pocket/target on the OB and the distance from that point to the edge of the OB, I could parallel shift that distance from the center of the OB toward the relevant edge of the OB and pivot back to the center of the OB, I would arrive at the double distance point (GB?) that is off of the relevant edge of the OB.

So I can now aim all cut angles by referencing points on the OB rather than off of it to aim lines on the felt for angles greater than 30 degrees.

The parallel offset get smaller as the OB appears to get smaller and the included angle to the GB gets smaller as well - so that the CB is not sent at the same angle as when the OB is closer to the CB which could send the CB sailing past the OB without contact.

Some posters here understand the relevance of the smaller appearing OB down table whereas some are stuck in the 2D diagrams as viewed from above where the CB and OB are the same diameter. Those that understand foreshortening, vanishing point and perspective benefit from that visualization and are successful in utilizing/incorporating it in their aiming.

Diagrams requested.

Please focus on "A" for they are the same distance.

View attachment 213467

Correction for arrow pointing.
View attachment 213469
Just saying.:thumbup:

Disregard this diagram for the arrows are not pointing correctly.

1.) In CTE/Pro-One, There is no Lateral shift!!
2.) In CTE/Pro-One, There is only One bridge placement!!

 

[JB Cases]

Will someone please diagram the way by which CTE produces the actual line of aim?



Thank you,


Grilled Cheese

I did. You have chosen not to respond to what I sent you. Not a peep.

Here is some on-table backup of the diagrams I sent you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nETWcUmJsgs

 

[pablocruz]

Great job John!! Thanks for taking the time to do this!!
I use a half tip rotation to center ball!!

 

[cookie man]

I don't think that statement is appropriate. On the contrary, I have suggested several ways (4 to be exact) how CTE can be used effectively for a wide range of shots (i.e., any shot at the table). They are described on my CTE evaluation and analysis page.

I have also done my best to clearly document all of the tangible benefits that "aiming systems" like CTE can provide. These effects alone can explain how CTE can help many people improve their aiming.

I am not a "Naysayer." I preferred to be called a "Impartial Observer" (or a "Pragmatic Yeasayer" or a "Yeasaying Realist").

Regards,
Dave

As long as you keep saying CTE "will not work on a wide range or angles"
you will definitely be considered a NAYSAYER.

 

[framptonl]

Very nicely explained JB!!!!!!!

 

[cfrandy]

As long as you keep saying CTE "will not work on a wide range or angles"
you will definitely be considered a NAYSAYER.

Dr Dave has studied and published more material, over many years, on aiming systems than any man alive today! Please tell everyone here what YOU have published???

Inflammatory posts like yours are exactly why the experts drop out of AZ forums!:angry:

 

[pablocruz]

Dr Dave has studied and published more material, over many years, on aiming systems than any man alive today! Please tell everyone here what YOU have published???

Inflammatory posts like yours are exactly why the experts drop out of AZ forums!:angry:

That's some funny shit, right there!! Too bad there's no original content!! Dave's motto should be "Originality is the Art of concealing your source."

 

[justadub]

Dr Dave has studied and published more material, over many years, on aiming systems than any man alive today! Please tell everyone here what YOU have published???

Inflammatory posts like yours are exactly why the experts drop out of AZ forums!:angry:

After all the mud slinging that's been done over the years in these threads, and that comment is what drives experts away?

Apply that same logic to how Stan has been treated here. The same argument applies. People on these forums do not act like they would in a face to face situation. It's real easy to fire away at someone from behind a keyboard. And it's sad to see any thread here devolve into the usual playground behavior. Do remember, that it takes (at least) two parties to make this happen. Both sides of any argument create the strife, each side trying to one-up the other. To belittle the other.

It's a shame, because everyone loses. Just to satisfy the few that like conflict, and $hit stirring.

 

[JB Cases]

Dr Dave has studied and published more material, over many years, on aiming systems than any man alive today! Please tell everyone here what YOU have published???

Inflammatory posts like yours are exactly why the experts drop out of AZ forums!:angry:

Oh the irony.

 

[cfrandy]

That's some fuuny shit, right there!! Too bad there's no original content!! Dave's motto should be "Originality is the Art of concealing your source."

I guess you have NEVER taken the time to read ANY of his articles! The DAM is "Dave's Aiming Method".

On page 2 of his aiming article he credits Patrick Johnson, Spiderman, and Bob Jewett.
On page 3 he credits Colin Colenso; page 4 Mike Page; more credits for Mike Page and Joe W. on page 5; more for Patrick Johnson and Colin Colenso on 6; Johnson again on 7; more credits throughout his article to people like Shawn Armstrong, Hal Houle, Dave Segal, and Stan Shufett.
He writes his articles for the most respected magazine in Billiards, Billiards Digest! Your suggestion that he conceals his sources is not just ignorant of the man's work and credentials...it's defamation!

 

[cfrandy]

After all the mud slinging that's been done over the years in these threads, and that comment is what drives experts away?

Apply that same logic to how Stan has been treated here. The same argument applies. People on these forums do not act like they would in a face to face situation. It's real easy to fire away at someone from behind a keyboard. And it's sad to see any thread here devolve into the usual playground behavior. Do remember, that it takes (at least) two parties to make this happen. Both sides of any argument create the strife, each side trying to one-up the other. To belittle the other.

It's a shame, because everyone loses. Just to satisfy the few that like conflict, and $hit stirring.

Some people just can't tell the difference between an expert on ALL aiming sytems, and a salesman who is simply trying to SELL his method of aiming on DVD. Dave is not selling anything here!