Another video from Stan: The How vs. The Why

[BC21]

You're not listening. And are missing the whole picture staying focused on one little piece. The actual degrees you pivot is really immaterial. It's not how far you pivot, but what one is pivoting to. CCB is ccb, period.

Math is correct.

You have your perception, which gives you a fixed CB and a known CCB. If this CCB doesn't look right, looks thick or thin, then you come in at a 1/2 tip offset from CCB, then pivot to CCB, that's a 1.5° pivot. This little angle change gets added or subtracted to the original fixed CCB shot line, depending on which direction you pivoted.

 

[Neil]

Math is correct.

You have your perception, which gives you a fixed CB and a known CCB. If this CCB doesn't look right, looks thick or thin, then you come in at a 1/2 tip offset from CCB, then pivot to CCB, that's a 1.5° pivot. This little angle change gets added or subtracted to the original fixed CCB shot line, depending on which direction you pivoted.

NO! That is not how it is done. Like I've said several times already, you want to post a lot against it, and don't even know what the basic steps are.

Why don't you get the DVD, or watch all of Stan's videos on it so you can at least have an intelligent discussion about it. Rather than arguing against a bunch of nonsense that you made up.

 

[BC21]

NO! That is not how it is done. Like I've said several times already, you want to post a lot against it, and don't even know what the basic steps are.

Why don't you get the DVD, or watch all of Stan's videos on it so you can at least have an intelligent discussion about it. Rather than arguing against a bunch of nonsense that you made up.

Ok. But I did have dvd1. And I've watched all of his videos, a few of them several times. Then I checked out Mohrt's website and read through his instructions. I'm not arguing or posting anything negative or "against" it. I'm just describing the math involved in one of the primary elements of the system. I can't help it if you don't understand the pivot angle and how it affects the shot. How else do you suppose a pivot or sweep would thin or thicken the shot?

 

[Neil]

Ok. But I did have dvd1. And I've watched all of his videos, a few of them several times. Then I checked out Mohrt's website and read through his instructions. I'm not arguing or posting anything negative or "against" it. I'm just describing the math involved in one of the primary elements of the system. I can't help it if you don't understand the pivot angle and how it affects the shot. How else do you suppose a pivot or sweep would thin or thicken the shot?

:banghead::banghead:

 

[BC21]

:banghead::banghead:

You know..... ancient Vikings believed rainbows were stairways for the gods.

So I'll leave you with something Stan Shuffett posted to me once: "Believe what you want."

 

[Neil]

You know..... ancient Vikings believed rainbows were stairways for the gods.

So I'll leave you with something Stan Shuffett posted to me once: "Believe what you want."

You sure do. Which is a big part of the problem. You won't listen to anyone else. No matter how many people tell you that you have it all wrong. You have your mind made up, and everyone, including the guy that invented the system, are all wrong.

You are one of those we call "unteachable". You don't want to learn, you only want to be proven right.

 

[BC21]

You sure do. Which is a big part of the problem. You won't listen to anyone else. No matter how many people tell you that you have it all wrong. You have your mind made up, and everyone, including the guy that invented the system, are all wrong.

You are one of those we call "unteachable". You don't want to learn, you only want to be proven right.

I wonder how I manage to learn so much about everything else. ? Good teachers I guess.

The trick to learning is to keep your mind open and ask probing questions. Failure to do that leads to a one-track knowledge based on subjective bias, which is close-minded. Another trick is to not be so open-minded that your brain falls out.

Anyhow, you keep steering into personal attacks, when I've been very civil and respectful with my questions. I thank Mohrt for his honest replies, and I suggest you read a few of them. I also think you should watch Stan's videos again. Maybe instead of being so negative you can learn to provide something positive.

 

[BC21]

When deciding which perception and which pivot/sweep you need, you should use experience and judgement as your guide. You have to know if you are on the intended pocket, or a bank to some other pocket. Once you know the perception and pivot, the rest is a pretty robotic approach to the shot. Use the aim lines and CCB to execute the shot. Of course any additional variables (spin, speed) are judgement calls as well. Stan looks at a shot, and by examining its orientation on the table between the rails he can conclude with great accuracy which perception/pivot to use. Even with a curtain. Determining perception/pivot becomes automatic, instant, and even subconscious. Maybe every once in a while if you get it wrong, you'll know by seeing it in full stance. You can stand up and try again.

This is what I thought, thanks.

 

[Neil]

I wonder how I manage to learn so much about everything else. ? Good teachers I guess.

The trick to learning is to keep your mind open and ask probing questions. Failure to do that leads to a one-track knowledge based on subjective bias, which is close-minded. Another trick is to not be so open-minded that your brain falls out.

Anyhow, you keep steering into personal attacks, when I've been very civil and respectful with my questions. I thank Mohrt for his honest replies, and I suggest you read a few of them. I also think you should watch Stan's videos again. Maybe instead of being so negative you can learn to provide something positive.

I haven't made any personal attacks. Rather telling that you feel anyone that tells you you don't know what you are talking about is making a personal attack. Truth hurts, I guess. Fact is, you don't even know the system well enough to understand what the basic steps are.That's on no one but you. Yet, you feel more than qualified to go into detail about the basic steps, and what is wrong with them.

You talk about an open mind, but yours is so closed that you can't even hear it when others point out where your whole premise is in error from the get-go.

Have fun in your own little world there where CTE is the system that just can't be. While you are there working out the math on a wrong premise, we will be pocketing balls from all over the table.

 

[Neil]

This is what I thought, thanks.

I'm sure you still don't get it, but got lost when you heard "experience and judgement" stated.

You get your visuals. That gives you a fixed cb. You then look through center cb to the ob. You then ask yourself "if I shot straight down that line, would I hit the ob too full or too thin?". Nothing subjective about it at all. The answer is really quite obvious. While experience can help, it's not even required to answer that question.

Your answer then determines which way you sweep or pivot from. The half tip from center is nothing more than to teach you where to place your bridge hand for each shot. You place it a little off from ccb.

If you would take some of your posting time to actually take it to the table, you then might at least understand the basic steps.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

Math is correct.

You have your perception, which gives you a fixed CB and a known CCB. If this CCB doesn't look right, looks thick or thin, then you come in at a 1/2 tip offset from CCB, then pivot to CCB, that's a 1.5° pivot. This little angle change gets added or subtracted to the original fixed CCB shot line, depending on which direction you pivoted.

And where in your calculations do you account for the angles associated for the third dimension? Perspective works in 3D and is difficult to express on a plane. You don't account for eye distance from end of cue for instance. That alone would make the 'lever' larger or smaller and affect final cut angle.

 

[BC21]

I'm sure you still don't get it, but got lost when you heard "experience and judgement" stated.

You get your visuals. That gives you a fixed cb. You then look through center cb to the ob. You then ask yourself "if I shot straight down that line, would I hit the ob too full or too thin?". Nothing subjective about it at all. The answer is really quite obvious. While experience can help, it's not even required to answer that question.

Your answer then determines which way you sweep or pivot from. The half tip from center is nothing more than to teach you where to place your bridge hand for each shot. You place it a little off from ccb.

If you would take some of your posting time to actually take it to the table, you then might at least understand the basic steps.

Finally a good post from you! Thanks. What you described, exactly, right up until the part where you place your bridge hand and pivot, is 100% what I've described as understanding fully. It's not difficult. The perceptions are easy to pick up. CCB is easy to see when I drop the perception visuals and focus straight-in to the CB. I have enough subjective experience to make a reasonable judgement as to if that CCB alignment looks dead on or is too thin or thick for the shot. There is no objective criteria here to guide the way -- it's pure judgement. I don't understand what's so difficult about acknowledging that fact.

Like I've said many many times, I know all of these steps....and I've taken it to the table. . It's that final step, the pivot or sweep that is not obvious. The bridge hand placement and bridge distance are factors that I do not know or understand. So I probe around and use a little pivot math trying to figure it out, trying to see exactly how much thinning or thickening is happening, trying to reverse engineer the process, and you act like I'm spitting on the system. When in reality I know the exact steps right up to that tweaking pivot. The instructions for placement of the cue shaft prior to the pivot are ambiguous, and they vary depending on who is giving the instruction. One almost has to figure it out on their own, through rote learning.

 

[BC21]

And where in your calculations do you account for the angles associated for the third dimension? Perspective works in 3D and is difficult to express on a plane. You don't account for eye distance from end of cue for instance. That alone would make the 'lever' larger or smaller and affect final cut angle.

I do account for depth perception and eye distance. I measured from my eyes to the CB in both full stance and ball address. I measured height also. Then I realized height didn't matter because we can view every aim line or visual as a vertical plane. And my sketch is 3D.

But I consider the sphere language as smoke and mirrors, and irrelevant. You can do CTE with hockey pucks or disks or bottles, any circular objects. It's the outer circumference portion, the equators, that we reference for every visual and for CCB. The top and bottom of the balls aren't used when aiming. So that whole "mystery of aiming with spheres" is the true red herring here. But I could be proven wrong, someday, if anyone actually figures out the math for this stuff.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

That's strange. I just did a half tip pivot and I got at least a 5 -7* cut out of it. Couldn't shoot, wife's snoozing. There's no way I could do a half tip and only get < 2* out of it. I'm more of a half baller though.

Could you do a few screenshot of your setup at different perspectives and post them? I'd be interested in seeing your 3D take of pivoting.

 

[Neil]

Finally a good post from you! Thanks. What you described, exactly, right up until the part where you place your bridge hand and pivot, is 100% what I've described as understanding fully. It's not difficult. The perceptions are easy to pick up. CCB is easy to see when I drop the perception visuals and focus straight-in to the CB. I have enough subjective experience to make a reasonable judgement as to if that CCB alignment looks dead on or is too thin or thick for the shot. There is no objective criteria here to guide the way -- it's pure judgement. I don't understand what's so difficult about acknowledging that fact.

Like I've said many many times, I know all of these steps....and I've taken it to the table. . It's that final step, the pivot or sweep that is not obvious. The bridge hand placement and bridge distance are factors that I do not know or understand. So I probe around and use a little pivot math trying to figure it out, trying to see exactly how much thinning or thickening is happening, trying to reverse engineer the process, and you act like I'm spitting on the system. When in reality I know the exact steps right up to that tweaking pivot. The instructions for placement of the cue shaft prior to the pivot are ambiguous, and they vary depending on who is giving the instruction. One almost has to figure it out on their own, through rote learning.

Way to go. By your post above, you just proved that you have been trolling. Your thick and thin is totally different than what you have been claiming it was in the past. Given enough rope, you guys always hang yourselves because you can't remember your past bogus claims.

Oh, there is nothing ambiguous about placement of the shaft either.

As far as objective, it's clear you still haven't done a study on the word. Just because you want to give it a very narrow definition doesn't mean you are right.

 

[BC21]

Way to go. By your post above, you just proved that you have been trolling. Your thick and thin is totally different than what you have been claiming it was in the past. Given enough rope, you guys always hang yourselves because you can't remember your past bogus claims.

Oh, there is nothing ambiguous about placement of the shaft either.

As far as objective, it's clear you still haven't done a study on the word. Just because you want to give it a very narrow definition doesn't mean you are right.

You make so many false accusations it's hard to take you seriously. Please provide PROOF if you insist on slandering me. My thin/thick viewpoint hasn't changed one bit. You just read what you want and ignore the rest, then accuse others of doing the same thing without providing any evidence for justification to backup your accusations.

 

[BC21]

That's strange. I just did a half tip pivot and I got at least a 5 -7* cut out of it. Couldn't shoot, wife's snoozing. There's no way I could do a half tip and only get < 2* out of it. I'm more of a half baller though.

Could you do a few screenshot of your setup at different perspectives and post them? I'd be interested in seeing your 3D take of pivoting.

Screenshots... Yes, when I can. I calculated a half tip pivot angle like so:

10" bridge length, 6.5mm (or 0.256") half tip length from CCB. These are two legs in a triangle, so...

arctan (0.256/10) = 1.47°

How'd you come up with your 5-7 degrees? I'm going to bed, but will post a pic tomorrow.

 

[Neil]

You make so many false accusations it's hard to take you seriously. Please provide PROOF if you insist on slandering me. My thin/thick viewpoint hasn't changed one bit. You just read what you want and ignore the rest, then accuse others of doing the same thing without providing any evidence for justification to backup your accusations.

You show me one false accusation. I'm not the only one that has told you that were wrong in the past about it. The post are there for anyone to go back over if they are that bored.

So typical, you get busted, and then try to accuse me for what you got busted for.

 

[BC21]

You show me one false accusation. I'm not the only one that has told you that were wrong in the past about it. The post are there for anyone to go back over if they are that bored.

So typical, you get busted, and then try to accuse me for what you got busted for.

Here, you just posted it a few minutes ago. Lol...


"Way to go. By your post above, you just proved that you have been trolling. Your thick and thin is totally different than what you have been claiming it was in the past."

Your turn.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

Screenshots... Yes, when I can. I calculated a half tip pivot angle like so:

10" bridge length, 6.5mm (or 0.256") half tip length from CCB. These are two legs in a triangle, so...

arctan (0.256/10) = 1.47°

How'd you come up with your 5-7 degrees? I'm going to bed, but will post a pic tomorrow.

I think I see your problem. Your concentrating on the wrong thing. The right angle through the cue stick doesn't mean anything. Think of putting a dot on the CB where the edge of the tip ends at .256. Move your cue so the spot and CCB are on a straight line. Since .256/1.125 =.228, the new angle has increased (or decreased) by the arc sine of .228 or about 13*. I guess 7* is my 'natural' half tip pivot rotation due to how I built my pivoting mechanics.

You're assuming that the pivot is using the V of the bridge as the center of pivot rotation. Mine is more towards the center of the cue stick. The V is only a 'rest' for the stick and not the pivot 'fulcrum'. This has been discussed before but you may not have seen the info.

There's a reason Stan recommends using a half ball pivot in the beginning. It's easier to build and check their accuracy. Get a 15 perspective on a straight in shot and adjust your pivot until you get back to center OB. If you try to use the system without putting in some hours developing and keeping a repeatable pivot you're on a path to frustration.