Analysis of Stan's 1/2 tip pivot

Colin Colenso

<-- My Kids
Silver Member
This video of Stan's (Phoney Pocket Part 2) provided about the best view I've had thus far of the half tip pivot, which is usually obscured by the CB or too low res in other videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wQysSywOxU

I recall previous suggestions over the years that this pivot does not actually take place with a fixed bridge, such that the axis or fulcrum is at the distance of the bridge V.

I overlapped the before and after pivot positions from both shots in the video. Note that there is a little distortion on shot 1, as the cue dropped, hence altering the perception of the cue line a little from that angle.

However, my estimation is that it is near to a parallel cue movement to CCB on the first shot, or at least a 25+ inch pivot axis.

On the second shot, which requires more cut, the pivot axis is about twice as long as the bridge, or approx 15 inches.

If the original perceptions were the same, the shorter pivot axis would explain a larger resultant cut on the second shot than achieved on the first cut shot.

I think this type of analysis is helpful in trying to replicate the system.

Note: This would be best presented as a 2 image gif, with cue lines overlaid for the before and after. I didn't have the time to do that. Perhaps others can attempt such from screen grabs and see what results they get.

Colin
 

Attachments

  • Stan-half-tip-pivot-combined-shot-1.jpg
    Stan-half-tip-pivot-combined-shot-1.jpg
    26.8 KB · Views: 392
  • Stan-half-tip-pivot-combined-shot-2.jpg
    Stan-half-tip-pivot-combined-shot-2.jpg
    24.6 KB · Views: 383
Last edited:

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This video of Stan's (Phoney Pocket Part 2) provided about the best view I've had thus far of the half tip pivot, which is usually obscured by the CB or too low res in other videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wQysSywOxU

I recall previous suggestions over the years that this pivot does not actually take place with a fixed bridge, such that the axis or fulcrum is at the distance of the bridge V.

I overlapped the before and after pivot positions from both shots in the video. Note that there is a little distortion on shot 1, as the cue dropped, hence altering the perception of the cue line a little from that angle.

However, my estimation is that it is near to a parallel cue movement to CCB on the first shot, or at least a 25+ inch pivot axis.

On the second shot, which requires more cut, the pivot axis is about twice as long as the bridge, or approx 15 inches.

If the original perceptions were the same, the shorter pivot axis would explain a larger resultant cut on the second shot than achieved on the first cut shot.

I think this type of analysis is helpful in trying to replicate the system.

Note: This would be best presented as a 2 image gif, with cue lines overlaid for the before and after. I didn't have the time to do that. Perhaps others can attempt such from screen grabs and see what results they get.

Colin

The perceptions are 15 for each shot and the pivot is 1/2 tip (identically)for each set-up based on the fixed cue ball center...........
Anyone that would like to come and see this first-hand and film it and analyze the shots, my door is open.
The 2 shots are as I prescribed and IF they are not perfect enough to satisfy Colin's standards.....i would add that instructional demos for teaching and video demos do not lend to perfection because of the conscious actions inherently associated with presenting the subject matter.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Colin,

Many have said that the pivot must be different or a subjective perception input changes the initial line. One or the other.

I'll just say that it is extremely difficult to produce conclusive proof from a video such as this.

It can be suggestive but probably not definitive proof.

That said it would certainly explain much in certain aspects & situations of past presentations.

Cheers.
 

Colin Colenso

<-- My Kids
Silver Member
The perceptions are 15 for each shot and the pivot is 1/2 tip (identically)for each set-up based on the fixed cue ball center...........
Anyone that would like to come and see this first-hand and film it and analyze the shots, my door is open.
The 2 shots are as I prescribed and IF they are not perfect enough to satisfy Colin's standards.....i would add that instructional demos for teaching and video demos do not lend to perfection because of the conscious actions inherently associated with presenting the subject matter.

Stan Shuffett
Stan,
If someone were to do this, or if you wanted to film some shots so some measurements could be obtained, I'd suggest setting up the camera near to in line with the shot and higher above it, to reduce perception errors due to raising and lowering the cue, and for establishing the center of the cue.

Cheers,
Colin
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Stan,
If someone were to do this, or if you wanted to film some shots so some measurements could be obtained, I'd suggest setting up the camera near to in line with the shot and higher above it, to reduce perception errors due to raising and lowering the cue, and for establishing the center of the cue.

Cheers,
Colin

Really and truly, CTE is a visual system......CTE is a ton and a half about the eyes and a smidgen about an angled cue.

Stan Shuffett
 

Colin Colenso

<-- My Kids
Silver Member
Really and truly, CTE is a visual system......CTE is a ton and a half about the eyes and a smidgen about an angled cue.

Stan Shuffett
Such measurements of pivot axis for various shots could provide quantifiable data that would give deeper insights into how the system works, if it is objective and the 1/2 tip pivot is being performed repeatedly in some way.

Even if it's working on another plane, it ought to show trends in 3D that are not random I'd imagine. Whereas, if the pivot axis jumps all over the place, and even varies on the same shot, then it's evidence of intuitive adjustments during the pivot.

Surely you'd agree that on the same exact shot, the visual and the pivot will be the same, albeit with some minor variation for human imperfections?

Colin
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
The perceptions are 15 for each shot and the pivot is 1/2 tip (identically)for each set-up based on the fixed cue ball center...........

Stan -- I don't recall anything on either of your DVD's that would indicate that the pivot with manual CTE is from anywhere other than the "V" of your bridge hand. Indeed, the DVD's give recommended bridge lengths, varying with the distance between the CB and OB.

Can you confirm that, with your version of manual CTE, the cue should pivot around the bridge-hand "V," not from some point farther back on the cue.
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Stan -- I don't recall anything on either of your DVD's that would indicate that the pivot with manual CTE is from anywhere other than the "V" of your bridge hand. Indeed, the DVD's give recommended bridge lengths, varying with the distance between the CB and OB.

Can you confirm that, with your version of manual CTE, the cue should pivot around the bridge-hand "V," not from some point farther back on the cue.

Yes, confirmed!

Stan Shuffett
 

Colin Colenso

<-- My Kids
Silver Member
Colin,

Many have said that the pivot must be different or a subjective perception input changes the initial line. One or the other.

I'll just say that it is extremely difficult to produce conclusive proof from a video such as this.

It can be suggestive but probably not definitive proof.

That said it would certainly explain much in certain aspects & situations of past presentations.

Cheers.
I think it definitively proves bridge V movement and strongly indicates differing pivot axis lengths for the 2 shots, even though there are a couple of variables introduced making the lines imperfect.

That doesn't disprove the system, but it raises alarm bells. I accept that it's not so easy to do demonstrations perfectly while trying to complete an instructional.

A useful test would be to repeat 2 similar angles, with say 3 degrees difference in pot angle but both using 15 inside, shoot each shot 5 times, to see if there is considerable variation in the pivot axis between attempts on the one shot and between the 2 shots.
 

Colin Colenso

<-- My Kids
Silver Member
Really and truly, CTE is a visual system......CTE is a ton and a half about the eyes and a smidgen about an angled cue.

Stan Shuffett
I can't accept that accurate potting can only be a smidgen about an angled cue... inferring that the cue angle is determined by the final bridge V position and the line from here through CCB.

It's pretty simple math do demonstrate that a 2mm lateral change in bridge V on an 8 inch bridge, leads to a line through CCB that will contact an OB 16 inches from the CB 2mm away from a non-changed bridge V.

Over 32 inches there will be a 4mm error, over 7 feet (84 inches) the error will be 10.25mm, that's missing aim by nearly 1/4 ball width.

Hence, the nature of the placement of the bridge at 1/2 tip off center and the nature of how that bridge is affected by the pivot is highly significant in determining the shot line.

It's less important on short CB to OB distances, as is every facet of aiming, but once the balls get a few feet apart, and the OB has a few feet to the pocket, the margin for error on the final bridge V positioning reduces to around 1mm.

So being either 1mm off on the 1/2 tip placement or letting the bridge shift 1mm laterally during the pivot to CCB, will make the difference between making or missing the shot.

Colin
 

Neil

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Colin, I put this in the other thread, and will copy it here:

Actually, Colin, it is explicit instructions. It's just that you are so focused on other irrelevant material that you totally miss the actual instructions. You say that you have seen and heard different people pivot differently. For starters, forget about the pivot. What you are doing is planting your bridge hand 1/2 tip from center according to the visuals you obtained. Then, you look back at center cb, and line up your cue on the center line of the cb which is the shot line. The half tip just gives one the proper bridge placement for putting the cue on the shot line.
 

Colin Colenso

<-- My Kids
Silver Member
Colin, I put this in the other thread, and will copy it here:

Actually, Colin, it is explicit instructions. It's just that you are so focused on other irrelevant material that you totally miss the actual instructions. You say that you have seen and heard different people pivot differently. For starters, forget about the pivot. What you are doing is planting your bridge hand 1/2 tip from center according to the visuals you obtained. Then, you look back at center cb, and line up your cue on the center line of the cb which is the shot line. The half tip just gives one the proper bridge placement for putting the cue on the shot line.
If Bobby Fischer was trying to explain the King Indian Defense to you, I'd imagine you interrupting him to explain how the pieces moved.
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
I think it definitively proves bridge V movement and strongly indicates differing pivot axis lengths for the 2 shots, even though there are a couple of variables introduced making the lines imperfect.

That doesn't disprove the system, but it raises alarm bells. I accept that it's not so easy to do demonstrations perfectly while trying to complete an instructional.

A useful test would be to repeat 2 similar angles, with say 3 degrees difference in pot angle but both using 15 inside, shoot each shot 5 times, to see if there is considerable variation in the pivot axis between attempts on the one shot and between the 2 shots.

Colin,

I hear you.

I know you know this but it must be concrete that the initial line is also exactly the same.

We humans can combine two changes of varying proportions to arrive at the same outcome conclusions.

the human Mind IS an amazing Entity.

Best 2 Ya.
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
I can't accept that accurate potting can only be a smidgen about an angled cue... inferring that the cue angle is determined by the final bridge V position and the line from here through CCB.

It's pretty simple math do demonstrate that a 2mm lateral change in bridge V on an 8 inch bridge, leads to a line through CCB that will contact an OB 16 inches from the CB 2mm away from a non-changed bridge V.

Over 32 inches there will be a 4mm error, over 7 feet (84 inches) the error will be 10.25mm, that's missing aim by nearly 1/4 ball width.

Hence, the nature of the placement of the bridge at 1/2 tip off center and the nature of how that bridge is affected by the pivot is highly significant in determining the shot line.

It's less important on short CB to OB distances, as is every facet of aiming, but once the balls get a few feet apart, and the OB has a few feet to the pocket, the margin for error on the final bridge V positioning reduces to around 1mm.

So being either 1mm off on the 1/2 tip placement or letting the bridge shift 1mm laterally during the pivot to CCB, will make the difference between making or missing the shot.

Colin

Colin,

:thumbup2:

That's only in the real world & why the Human Mind & 'feel' are amazing Entities & can do things that an objective robot can not do without sufficient programming. The sufficient part is the difficult part.

Best.
 
Last edited:

Colin Colenso

<-- My Kids
Silver Member
Colin,

I hear you.

I know you know this but it must be concrete that the initial line is also exactly the same.

We humans can combine two changes of varying proportions to arrive at the same outcome conclusions.

the human Mind IS an amazing Entity.

Best 2 Ya.

Rick,

If the balls were placed on dots, and the camera is fixed and looking down at a decent angle, say 30-40 degrees (doesn't need overhead), and near to in line with the shots, it would be easy to spot differences in pre-pivot bridge positioning and post pivot bridge positioning for each shot and to establish the pivot axis for all shots executed.

And it would be useful to track the OB direction on each shot.

I think such a test is crucial to support the claims of instructional methods as well as theoretical claims.

I'm guessing it will be avoided and the days of the mechanical pivot will disappear into the ether, to be replaced by the air pivot entirely, as did the old CTE system, which was claimed to pivot with a fixed bridge and could make any shot, before A, B and C were ever thought of. The claims back then were the same as they are now, but it required so much forced visualization and bridge shifting that it got split up into fractions.

Colin

Edit: I'm Attaching a Diagram of the Test Concept of 2 shots a few degrees apart. Both should be within the same category of shot such as 15 inside.
 

Attachments

  • CTE TEST CONCEPT.jpg
    CTE TEST CONCEPT.jpg
    60.8 KB · Views: 234
Last edited:

Neil

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If Bobby Fischer was trying to explain the King Indian Defense to you, I'd imagine you interrupting him to explain how the pieces moved.

And you would be right there explaining why the King Indian Defense could never, ever, work for anyone. That he is just fooling you with it. :wink:
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Rick,

If the balls were placed on dots, and the camera is fixed and looking down at a decent angle, say 30-40 degrees (doesn't need overhead), and near to in line with the shots, it would be easy to spot differences in pre-pivot bridge positioning and post pivot bridge positioning for each shot and to establish the pivot axis for all shots executed.

And it would be useful to track the OB direction on each shot.

I think such a test is crucial to support the claims of instructional methods as well as theoretical claims.

I'm guessing it will be avoided and the days of the mechanical pivot will disappear into the ether, to be replaced by the air pivot entirely, as did the old CTE system, which was claimed to pivot with a fixed bridge and could make any shot, before A, B and C were ever thought of. The claims back then were the same as they are now, but it required so much forced visualization and bridge shifting that it got split up into fractions.

Colin

Edit: I'm Attaching a Diagram of the Test Concept of 2 shots a few degrees apart. Both should be within the same category of shot such as 15 inside.

Colin,

I may have missed something 'somewhere'.

I thought you intended to show 2 different outcomes from the exact same shot due to pivot & points of pivot variations.

At least that is how I saw it in my head.

That way the camera line would be totally consistent.

I've only had one cup of coffee & was moving furniture last night.

So, I could be a wombat.:wink:

Cheers
 

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Rick,

If the balls were placed on dots, and the camera is fixed and looking down at a decent angle, say 30-40 degrees (doesn't need overhead), and near to in line with the shots, it would be easy to spot differences in pre-pivot bridge positioning and post pivot bridge positioning for each shot and to establish the pivot axis for all shots executed.

And it would be useful to track the OB direction on each shot.

I think such a test is crucial to support the claims of instructional methods as well as theoretical claims.

I'm guessing it will be avoided and the days of the mechanical pivot will disappear into the ether, to be replaced by the air pivot entirely, as did the old CTE system, which was claimed to pivot with a fixed bridge and could make any shot, before A, B and C were ever thought of. The claims back then were the same as they are now, but it required so much forced visualization and bridge shifting that it got split up into fractions.

Colin

Edit: I'm Attaching a Diagram of the Test Concept of 2 shots a few degrees apart. Both should be within the same category of shot such as 15 inside.

We got a hiccup, Houston!

1st shot. 15 inside or 30 outside
2nd shot. 30 inside

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
Top