Here's one player's view on how pivoting systems can help...
A video on pivoting systems
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
You watched that whole thing?
pj <- could barely stand 4 minutes
chgo
pj <- could barely stand 4 minutes
chgo
A little at a time.
I think he has some good points, but it's mostly about his personal journey.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Good story teller for sure.
Pivoting ( unless it's BHE )is a gimmick
Because it doesn't really take you to the exact shot line without tweaking by feel? That describes all kinds of aiming.
pj
chgo
Exactly. Fact is, we could all incorporate a pivot to arrive at the correct aim line, if we wanted to of course. But knowing exactly where to begin the pivot, and where to stop, is 100% dependent on our individual/subjective experience or estimation.
If subjective experience weren't required, then all pivot-based systems would work for every shot right out of the box for any user. Instead, pivot aimers have to work at getting the method to work, which is another way of saying they actually have to develop the hand-eye coordination and visual skills required to recognize exactly how to make the pivot land on the correct aim line.
For some shots, it might seem very objective at first, especially when you follow the instructions with machine-like accuracy and the ball hits the pocket. But that's no different than me telling someone to aim every cut shot with one of 7 eighth of ball fractional aim lines. Sure, many times one of those aim lines will work perfectly, but for all the in-between shot angles the player will have to rely on their own subjective visual experience to pocket the ball.
In this video I tried to STRICTLY apply a manual half-ball pivot for each shot.
I didn't practice this before making the video. It was in response to someone who said that the CTE method COULD NOT work if the same steps were followed with parallel shots a diamond apart.
I disagree that CTE and other methods like 90/90 are not OBJECTIVE. I have demonstrated this more times than I can count in person and to the amazement of those whom I was demonstrating it for. I have set up shots that were ridiculous and that no one would normally attempt and nailed them. The fact is that the OBJECTIVE-steps part of the systems is far more important than the possible teeny tiny unconscious subjective part that MIGHT be there at the very end.
What I wrote back then:
18,517 views Apr 7, 2011
This is a video I did to show that the motions using CTE are nearly identical shot for shot. Many of the opponents of CTE have put up diagrams of these shots and claimed that it's impossible to do the SAME motions on different shots and make the balls. The reality is that from the shooter's perspective every shot done here looks exactly the same. I use the CTE line as the starting point, put my bridge hand down with the tip pointing to the left side of the cue ball and pivot to center cue ball and shoot. Every shot done the same way.
This is one of the strongest advantages to using the CTE method of aiming. Even if there are some "adjustments" from shot to shot they are so small as to not be noticeable by the shooter. This gives the shooter a tremendous sense of confidence on each shot with the feeling that he is lined up perfectly and then can focus on the stroke. For a CTE user none of these shots is any tougher than any of the others.
If you are not a CTE user try these shots and see how you do.
I didn't practice this before making the video. It was in response to someone who said that the CTE method COULD NOT work if the same steps were followed with parallel shots a diamond apart.
I disagree that CTE and other methods like 90/90 are not OBJECTIVE. I have demonstrated this more times than I can count in person and to the amazement of those whom I was demonstrating it for. I have set up shots that were ridiculous and that no one would normally attempt and nailed them. The fact is that the OBJECTIVE-steps part of the systems is far more important than the possible teeny tiny unconscious subjective part that MIGHT be there at the very end.
What I wrote back then:
18,517 views Apr 7, 2011
This is a video I did to show that the motions using CTE are nearly identical shot for shot. Many of the opponents of CTE have put up diagrams of these shots and claimed that it's impossible to do the SAME motions on different shots and make the balls. The reality is that from the shooter's perspective every shot done here looks exactly the same. I use the CTE line as the starting point, put my bridge hand down with the tip pointing to the left side of the cue ball and pivot to center cue ball and shoot. Every shot done the same way.
This is one of the strongest advantages to using the CTE method of aiming. Even if there are some "adjustments" from shot to shot they are so small as to not be noticeable by the shooter. This gives the shooter a tremendous sense of confidence on each shot with the feeling that he is lined up perfectly and then can focus on the stroke. For a CTE user none of these shots is any tougher than any of the others.
If you are not a CTE user try these shots and see how you do.
I have taught 90/90 to my daughters and they both improved their pocketing IMMEDIATELY. They had virtually no subjective experience and barely any aiming instruction before I taught them 90/90. Conversely I have taught 90/90 to decent players who just couldn't "get it" until I found something that made them "see" the line and the connection between their cue placement and the edges.
I have proposed experiments hundreds of times over the years to test this and not a single person has offered to take me up on them even when I offered to pay all the expenses.
The whole point of the objective aiming methods is that the "correct" SHOT line isn't known and the system leads to it. If it were all about subjectively and subconsciously finding the aiming line then no systems would ever be needed, not even ghost ball.
This video was done 13 years ago. It tests the proposition using marked lines for the CTE line and the ball placement. I missed 3 of 7 shots, one because I accidentally placed the object ball in the wrong place after it was inadvertently moved and the second because a pure CTE line plus half ball pivot was not the right way to aim such a thin cut. At the time of this video I didn't know about CTE with 15,30,45 and 1/8th overlap perceptions to start the aiming process.
What I wrote at the time:
6,976 views Dec 22, 2010
Center to Edge demonstration for AZB Forum User JSP. All of these balls are lined up with the same center to edge line. As you can see I shoot all of them with a bridge distance that is about the same. On all shots I start my tip pre-pivot at the left edge of the cue ball and pivot to center ball and then I shoot. I make 4 of 7 shots - barely miss two and the one I miss by more than half a ball is the 4 ball which I inadvertently rolled out of position and didn't put back in it's place in line.
This demo was shot in one take only - as of this video posting I have only done it ONE time only. It has not been edited at all.
Wrong.
Wrong.
You got a video deleted from YouTube BY LYING TO YOUTUBE where I merely mentioned your name in regards to this claim. I did a video where I strictly pivoted manually for a semi-circle of object balls to show that I was not "tweaking by feel" to reach the shot line. Each shot was done with exact same OBJECTIVE steps.
You cried to youtube and claimed that you were bullied when in fact all I did is reference your claims and with ZERO malice at that time. You straight up lied.
lol
Your own video demonstrates it.
pj <- maybe another 13 years
chgo
Last edited:
Hi John. What's the latest on Stan's plan to sweep the nation with CTE and become a HOF inductee? Any progress yet?
I don't recall that Stan has such plans. He is however quite busy teaching cte and selling books.
I doubt that he will ever be considered for the hall of fame but he ought to be alongside Hal Houle imo because of their dedication to helping players learn to aim objectively. Both of them have helped thousands of people enjoy pool to a deeper level.
What they put out is constructive and instructive. What folks like you put out is destructive.
Stan has been instrumental in the topic of aiming being discussed in a deeper way than it was before he dedicated so much effort towards cte aiming.
Almost everyone who participates in the forum is here because of Hal and Stan's work.
I am pretty sure that those who have developed other aiming systems post Hal/Stan would likely not have gone down that road without their efforts to promote the concept of objective aiming in pool.
In my pool room I see people constantly who are using cte and other systems that didn't learn them from me. They picked them up on you tube from Stan's free videos and other's free videos. The amount of free instruction on aiming systems on YouTube and on websites is amazing and all due to Hal and Stan inspiring so many of us to learn and promote the idea of objective aiming.
There have been others before Hal and Stan that have promoted objective aiming systems. The Mullen Method and 90/90 for example. And Mike Eufemia, who reportedly ran 625 balls, had a method called the swivel. He put it down in a paper that my friend has.
As well there are others who have developed objective aiming methods based on Hal's work who are actively teaching them to students.
But none of these guys were/are as prolific as Hal and Stan.
So yeah, the "plan" is proceeding quite well. Lots of teachers, lots of students, small group of dedicated haters to keep the conversation going. Glad to see that I can leave for months and years and come back to find the same small group of haters actively keeping the conversation going. Give yourself a pat on the back for being a consistent part of getting people interested in objective aiming systems.
Thank you. Without the haters this topic would have never had as much traction as it has achieved. And it's ok that you challenge the claims. You never had to be nasty but that's just the nature of the Internet that allows some people to safely say things that would get them popped in the mouth in person. All of your rebuttals and your fake videos have been adequately addressed so at this point the only useful function you provide is to keep the conversation going. Other than the nasty comments you and others have engaged in all these years I am thankful for the questions that have forced me to think deeper about how and why these systems work.
No actually it doesn't. Nowhere in my videos do you see me "tweaking the aim" to "find" the shot line.
You, on the other hand, do fidget your way into the shot line. In fact you didn't even realize how much you fidget until I pointed it out to you when we were together in Chicago.
I am glad that you have found purpose in life being a hater all these years. You have been a huge part in the proliferation of objective aiming systems just because of your consistent, but inaccurate, objections in this small part of the Internet.
I would make a video thanking you but you will probably lie to youtube again and claim you were harassed by the mere mention of your name. So you can live here in obscurity and provide the platform for Google and other search engines to consume the content written in response to your constant negativity. Thank you.
We don't have to see anything - your video demonstrates it all (thanks to your careful setup).
The CB is always on the "half ball shot line" for each OB, so either...
1. Your bridge is also always on the "half ball shot line", so shooting center ball, no matter where you pivot from, would have to produce a half ball hit on every OB (and miss all but maybe one of them). Obvious geometry.
Or...
2. You tweak your bridge position each time so each center ball shot is aimed off the "half ball shot line" at the correct angle to pocket each non-half ball shot.
Care to explain your way that's neither of those?
pj <- did I mention lol?
chgo
Last edited: