What I will say is that you don't know how CTE works and neither did the so-called science guys. They disproved nothing, and about the three balls in the diagram, they go in multiple pockets with CTE.
Coming Soon... the end of all aiming system calculating.
- Thread starter 3andstop
- Start date
What I will say is that you don't know how CTE works and neither did the so-called science guys. They disproved nothing, and about the three balls in the diagram, they go in multiple pockets with CTE.
GMT called, Dinners ready.
IF it's taught realistically as an "approximation" system that gets them close to the correct aim but not exactly on it. It's a system that can help them gain confidence in their own inate ability to estimate the correct CB/OB alignment, but I wouldn't tell them it's a complete or permanent replacement for that.
pj
chgo
The "so-called science guys" know more about how CTE works than you do. By about ten miles.
They disproved (about a hundred times over) that CTE's own users (you) have any idea what they're doing with it.
Sure, with CTE and the shooter's ability to finish the job by feel.
Cookie, you're the last person who should be telling others what they do or don't know. You know less than just about everybody else about this stuff - and that's not an exaggeration. I'm not trying to be mean; that's just the honest truth (that you don't seem to know yourself), and you should know it and try to be responsible about it as you make posts that beginners will read and possibly believe.
pj
chgo
Your right of course Pj, Tell me how it works please.
But they admit they have no idea how it even works. They line there answers with it might, I think, it could. Means nothing.
You made a bet with me and then backed out about this. Many of your posts tell me you have a complete misunderstanding of CTE, keep your mind open and learn from Stan's dvd. Then just be honest and say you were wrong. Not trying to poop on you just friendly advice.
Thank you for helping to make my point. Natural and fluid, just what you need to be striving for. My position is that a person will have to be very hard working talented indeed to use some kind of aiming system and still be natural and fluid under pressure. It's one thing to run a table with it in practice but to play at the highest levels, I think it's a distraction to be avoided.
As another post said, it might be helpful for getting someone brand new into the game as an approximation, but there is no substitute for the judgment that comes from practice.
Last edited:
I can't tell you how Stan's version of CTE works, because I haven't seen it described in detail yet, and I haven't seen the DVD yet. However, I do look forward to viewing it to see if it adds any significant insight to the CTE landscape. I hope it does.
However, for the three versions of CTE that have been described in detail and/or demonstrated, I think I have explained how and why they work, to the best of my ability. Here is my explanation (from the CTE resource page):
If you follow the procedures literally and exactly, you will make shots within certain limited ranges of angles (for more info, see limited lines of aim). However, if you don't vary the alignment or pivot (see more below), you will miss most shots outside of these limited ranges, unless the OB is very close to the pocket (so it can be cheated slightly) and/or the pockets are huge (so the margin for error is larger than normal). The difficulty is in applying the subtle differences necessary from one shot to another. However, even if a person is not good at judging these differences, CTE still might be beneficial for the reasons summarized here.
Many "challenges" relating to "aiming systems" are described and illustrated in my November '08 and December '08 BD articles. These difficulties certainly apply to CTE. Here's a good experiment you can use to test whether or not you understand how to apply CTE (or any pivot-based aiming method) effectively:
Shot "A" is about a 10-degree cut, shot "B" is about a 15-degree cut, and shot "C" is about a 20-degree cut. All three shots fit into the "thick cut" category of CTE. Also, the CB-to-OB distance is the same for all three shots. Here's the CTE aiming procedure for a "thick cut" shot, per the 3rd version of CTE above, as I understand it:
1.) ALIGN: (for thick cuts): Start with your cue parallel to the CB-center-to-outside-OB-edge line (CTEL) with the tip pointing at the outside edge of the CB.
2.) PIVOT: Then pivot your tip toward the pocket until it reaches the CB's center. The "effective pivot length" you use during the pivot should be the distance from the bridge to the OB.
Since all three shots are "thick hits," and since the CB-to-OB distance is the same for each, the "effective pivot length" is also the same for each (assuming the bridge length is the same for all three shots). So the pertinent question is: What do you do differently with the alignment and/or pivot steps of CTE to pocket each of the three shots? There are several possible answers. You can:2.) PIVOT: Then pivot your tip toward the pocket until it reaches the CB's center. The "effective pivot length" you use during the pivot should be the distance from the bridge to the OB.
1.) Change the initial alignment slightly (e.g., by shifting your eye alignment so the perceived cue alignment and/or parallel shift is different)
or
2.) Change the amount of the parallel shift (before the pivot) so you don't quite go all of the way to the perceived CB edge (e.g., shift a given number of "tips" instead)
or
3.) Pivot a slightly different amount (e.g., not quite to center, or just past center).
or
4.) Change the "effective pivot length" slightly (e.g., by adjusting your bridge length or by shifting/tilting your bridge during the pivot).
Options 1 and 4 are probably the most common approaches. The diagram below (from my December '08 article) shows how a change in "effective pivot length" changes the amount of cut. In the diagram, I am showing two different bridge positions, but this could also represent two different "effective cue-pivot-points" created by a non-rigid-bridge pivot method (see more below).or
2.) Change the amount of the parallel shift (before the pivot) so you don't quite go all of the way to the perceived CB edge (e.g., shift a given number of "tips" instead)
or
3.) Pivot a slightly different amount (e.g., not quite to center, or just past center).
or
4.) Change the "effective pivot length" slightly (e.g., by adjusting your bridge length or by shifting/tilting your bridge during the pivot).
If using a "mechanical pivot" (i.e., pivoting after placing the bridge hand down), one way to vary the "effective pivot length" is to vary the bridge length (as implied by the diagram). Another is to shift, rotate, tilt, or deform your bridge hand during the pivot as you shift your body (AKA "hip pivot"). Here's an example of this, posted by Colin Colenso, where the "effective pivot length" is much longer than the bridge length:
Another way is to use an "air pivot," where you pivot the cue and/or entire body before placing the bridge hand down. In this case, you can easily create any "effective pivot length" over an extremely wide range. Sometimes, the "effective pivot length" is referred to as the "shot arc." Here is a demonstration of how some forms of pivoting are used in conjunction with CTE and other pivot-based aiming methods: CTE pivot demonstration. For more info concerning pivoting, "air pivot," and "shot arc," see Spidey's blog.
The difficulty is in judging how much to change the initial alignment or "effective pivot length" to pocket balls requiring similar, but slightly different, amounts of cut. Many of the CTE proponents will say you don't need to know where the pocket is, or take into consideration the necessary amount of cut (other than to judge a "thin hit" vs. a "thick hit"), but this obviously cannot be the case. Maybe people who seem to use CTE effectively must at least sense where the pocket is (even if they don't look at it), or maybe they just have a feel for how much cut they need to pocket the ball. This sense or feel could influence their alignment or "pivot" in intangible ways that are difficult to describe or illustrate.
With all pivot-based aiming methods, the choice for "effective pivot length" must vary with the distance between the CB and OB, as illustrated by this diagram from my November '08 BD article:
As you can see, with a fixed alignment and pivot, the cut angle is radically different for different ball distances. Interestingly, with the exact same initial alignment and pivot, two of the three balls can be potted if the pocket happens to be at points "a," "b," or "c." This would actually be a good proposition shot. Approach somebody who doubts pivot-based aiming systems and bet him or her you can make two radically different shots (e.g., shots "A" and "B" in the diagram) with the exact same initial alignment and the exact same pivot. You can even have the doubter shoot the shots for you, as long as his aim and stroke are reasonably good. If the balls are lined up to take advantage of the effect shown in the diagram (i.e., if the balls are lined up so the corner pocket is at point "a" relative to the balls), both shots will go and you will win the bet.
BOTTOM LINE: All CTE variations require changes in alignment and/or effective pivot length as the cut angle and shot distance change.
Regardless of which "aiming system" you might use (even if you just "see the angle"), you still need to practice to develop and improve your "visual intelligence" and consistency, and you need to actually focus on aiming the shot. Many aiming systems can help some people do this (for more info, see benefits of "aiming systems"). Also, when you use English, you will need to compensate your aim to account for squirt, swerve, and throw.
Regardless of all of this, CTE does work for the people who can use it effectively, and CTE does offer many potential benefits to some people.
Regards,
Dave
Yep, I was on the mic with Shane when he said this and after watching this video I think this is the system he was talking about.
I've never tried it, but I will.
Ask Pj, he knows more than me then by about ten miles. By the way, what exactly do you mean by "it works"?I can't tell you how Stan's version of CTE works, because I haven't seen it described in detail yet, and I haven't seen the DVD yet. However, I do look forward to viewing it to see if it adds any significant insight to the CTE landscape. I hope it does.
However, for the three versions of CTE that have been described in detail and/or demonstrated, I think I have explained how and why they work, to the best of my ability. Here is my explanation (from the CTE resource page):
If you follow the procedures literally and exactly, you will make shots within certain limited ranges of angles (for more info, see limited lines of aim). However, if you don't vary the alignment or pivot (see more below), you will miss most shots outside of these limited ranges, unless the OB is very close to the pocket (so it can be cheated slightly) and/or the pockets are huge (so the margin for error is larger than normal). The difficulty is in applying the subtle differences necessary from one shot to another. However, even if a person is not good at judging these differences, CTE still might be beneficial for the reasons summarized here.
Many "challenges" relating to "aiming systems" are described and illustrated in my November '08 and December '08 BD articles. These difficulties certainly apply to CTE. Here's a good experiment you can use to test whether or not you understand how to apply CTE (or any pivot-based aiming method) effectively:
Shot "A" is about a 10-degree cut, shot "B" is about a 15-degree cut, and shot "C" is about a 20-degree cut. All three shots fit into the "thick cut" category of CTE. Also, the CB-to-OB distance is the same for all three shots. Here's the CTE aiming procedure for a "thick cut" shot, per the 3rd version of CTE above, as I understand it:
1.) ALIGN: (for thick cuts): Start with your cue parallel to the CB-center-to-outside-OB-edge line (CTEL) with the tip pointing at the outside edge of the CB.Since all three shots are "thick hits," and since the CB-to-OB distance is the same for each, the "effective pivot length" is also the same for each (assuming the bridge length is the same for all three shots). So the pertinent question is: What do you do differently with the alignment and/or pivot steps of CTE to pocket each of the three shots? There are several possible answers. You can:
2.) PIVOT: Then pivot your tip toward the pocket until it reaches the CB's center. The "effective pivot length" you use during the pivot should be the distance from the bridge to the OB.
1.) Change the initial alignment slightly (e.g., by shifting your eye alignment so the perceived cue alignment and/or parallel shift is different)Options 1 and 4 are probably the most common approaches. The diagram below (from my December '08 article) shows how a change in "effective pivot length" changes the amount of cut. In the diagram, I am showing two different bridge positions, but this could also represent two different "effective cue-pivot-points" created by a non-rigid-bridge pivot method (see more below).
or
2.) Change the amount of the parallel shift (before the pivot) so you don't quite go all of the way to the perceived CB edge (e.g., shift a given number of "tips" instead)
or
3.) Pivot a slightly different amount (e.g., not quite to center, or just past center).
or
4.) Change the "effective pivot length" slightly (e.g., by adjusting your bridge length or by shifting/tilting your bridge during the pivot).
If using a "mechanical pivot" (i.e., pivoting after placing the bridge hand down), one way to vary the "effective pivot length" is to vary the bridge length (as implied by the diagram). Another is to shift, rotate, tilt, or deform your bridge hand during the pivot as you shift your body (AKA "hip pivot"). Here's an example of this, posted by Colin Colenso, where the "effective pivot length" is much longer than the bridge length:
Another way is to use an "air pivot," where you pivot the cue and/or entire body before placing the bridge hand down. In this case, you can easily create any "effective pivot length" over an extremely wide range. Sometimes, the "effective pivot length" is referred to as the "shot arc." Here is a demonstration of how some forms of pivoting are used in conjunction with CTE and other pivot-based aiming methods: CTE pivot demonstration. For more info concerning pivoting, "air pivot," and "shot arc," see Spidey's blog.
The difficulty is in judging how much to change the initial alignment or "effective pivot length" to pocket balls requiring similar, but slightly different, amounts of cut. Many of the CTE proponents will say you don't need to know where the pocket is, or take into consideration the necessary amount of cut (other than to judge a "thin hit" vs. a "thick hit"), but this obviously cannot be the case. Maybe people who seem to use CTE effectively must at least sense where the pocket is (even if they don't look at it), or maybe they just have a feel for how much cut they need to pocket the ball. This sense or feel could influence their alignment or "pivot" in intangible ways that are difficult to describe or illustrate.
With all pivot-based aiming methods, the choice for "effective pivot length" must vary with the distance between the CB and OB, as illustrated by this diagram from my November '08 BD article:
As you can see, with a fixed alignment and pivot, the cut angle is radically different for different ball distances. Interestingly, with the exact same initial alignment and pivot, two of the three balls can be potted if the pocket happens to be at points "a," "b," or "c." This would actually be a good proposition shot. Approach somebody who doubts pivot-based aiming systems and bet him or her you can make two radically different shots (e.g., shots "A" and "B" in the diagram) with the exact same initial alignment and the exact same pivot. You can even have the doubter shoot the shots for you, as long as his aim and stroke are reasonably good. If the balls are lined up to take advantage of the effect shown in the diagram (i.e., if the balls are lined up so the corner pocket is at point "a" relative to the balls), both shots will go and you will win the bet.
BOTTOM LINE: All CTE variations require changes in alignment and/or effective pivot length as the cut angle and shot distance change.
Regardless of which "aiming system" you might use (even if you just "see the angle"), you still need to practice to develop and improve your "visual intelligence" and consistency, and you need to actually focus on aiming the shot. Many aiming systems can help some people do this (for more info, see benefits of "aiming systems"). Also, when you use English, you will need to compensate your aim to account for squirt, swerve, and throw.
Regardless of all of this, CTE does work for the people who can use it effectively, and CTE does offer many potential benefits to some people.
Regards,
Dave
I tried it fri night on a 9 foot. I didn't try many shots and I missed most.
I didn't put a lot of thought or effort into it.
Sat night I was playing for funsies on a bar box. I put more thought into trying it. Certain shots lent themselves very well to this system.
When I can get down on a shot, I use the edge of the cue ball to the OB. Is that what you guys call Ghost Ball? When I couldn't, I used the Mullen system.
When I tried the Mullen method, I found I was potting the OB smack in the middle of the pockets. Its simple and takes very little set up time or thought and the thought process will become more natural and quicker, proportional to practice.
No english was used but will practice that later.
Some were simple cut shots and others, not so easy.
I believe that with certain shots the Mullen System does warrant some merit. Its up to you whether you want to give it a whack or not. I think that any thing that you can throw into your bag of tricks is worth keeping.
I know that I, as one poster put it, get Shot Anxiety. If a person can step up to a table and have a little trick that can ease the anxiety, whether it has a placebo effect or not, if it works, it works.
Thanks for posting this and thanks to Mr. Mullen. With a little practice, its going to help my game by a notch or two.
Last edited:
OK, let's use the three shots in Dr. Dave's diagram that you keep referring to:
You've said over and over that all three of those shots can be made with the same CTE alignment, without adjustment. The undisputable fact is, that's physically impossible. You don't seem to know this even though anybody with a basic understanding of logic should know that you can't get different results by doing the exact same thing over and over. That's one thing "the science guys" know about CTE that you don't. For that matter, that's one thing you don't seem to know that almost everybody, even non-pool players, does know.
You say you use CTE to make all of those three shots in exactly the same way, but since that's physically impossible you must be using CTE in some way that you're unaware of - i.e., you're making unconscious adjustments. That's another thing "the science guys" know about how you're using CTE that you don't know.
"The science guys" have come up with a few ways that CTE is probably helping you to make all three of those shots using what you think are the exact same alignments - helping you to use your own inate ability to aim "by feel". Those are some more things they know about CTE that you don't (see Dr. Dave's website for explanations).
That's just the most simple stuff for starters. I don't expect you to get any of this, because it's been said to you before, and why would you begin understanding it now? But maybe some of the other readers who might be confused by you will understand and learn to ask more questions. At the very least they might learn that those who promote these "mystery" systems (you, for instance) don't necessarily know much about what they're promoting.
pj
chgo
The Mullen Method -- In Pictures
Back in post #45 of this thread, I tried to show in a very simple way how anyone should be able to analyze the Mullen Method visually and come to the conclusion that it is valid, if followed literally and exactly, only within a fairly narrow range of cut angles. Since pictures always help, I'll do pretty much the same thing here in pictures.
First, I'll state what I heard Mr. Mullen say to define the method:
What follows are eight pictures. I used a half-black/half-red ball to represent the OB. It has a clear line separating the two colors. I aligned this separation line vertically and pointing at a corner pocket. I placed this OB frozen to a CB that is on the head spot. So the necessary contact point (ignore collision-induced throw) is on the equator of the OB on that vertical line where red meets black. The eight pictures below are the following (all cut shots are to the left):
Here is what one can observe from the pictures:
My conclusion, then, is that the Mullen Method, if followed literally and exactly, is really "right on" (to the center of the pocket) for just one cut angle. For the stick I was using (13mm ferrule), that angle was approximately 15 degrees. However, it is approximately "on" for some small range of angles (somewhere greater than zero and less than 30 with my stick), and may pocket many of these shots because of pocket slop. The method may serve as a good approximation method within that range of shots. It may also serve as a good starting point for the player to make further refinements of the aim.
Here are the eight pictures. I hope this presentation is helpful for at least some of the readers.
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
Back in post #45 of this thread, I tried to show in a very simple way how anyone should be able to analyze the Mullen Method visually and come to the conclusion that it is valid, if followed literally and exactly, only within a fairly narrow range of cut angles. Since pictures always help, I'll do pretty much the same thing here in pictures.
First, I'll state what I heard Mr. Mullen say to define the method:
1. Find the intended contact point on the object ball (OB).
2.a. For a cut shot to the left with no english, point the cue stick through the center of the cue ball (CB) with the left edge of the ferrule aimed at the contact point.
2.b. For a cut shot to the right with no english, point the cue stick through the center of the CB with the right edge of the ferrule aimed at the contact point.
3. Stroke straight back and through on this aiming line.
2.a. For a cut shot to the left with no english, point the cue stick through the center of the cue ball (CB) with the left edge of the ferrule aimed at the contact point.
2.b. For a cut shot to the right with no english, point the cue stick through the center of the CB with the right edge of the ferrule aimed at the contact point.
3. Stroke straight back and through on this aiming line.
What follows are eight pictures. I used a half-black/half-red ball to represent the OB. It has a clear line separating the two colors. I aligned this separation line vertically and pointing at a corner pocket. I placed this OB frozen to a CB that is on the head spot. So the necessary contact point (ignore collision-induced throw) is on the equator of the OB on that vertical line where red meets black. The eight pictures below are the following (all cut shots are to the left):
Picture #1. The CB on the spot and the OB frozen to it, with the line of centers pointed at a corner pocket.
Picture #2. The CB removed and the OB left in place. To make the shot without english and ignoring throw, the CB must pass over the center of the white dot in the middle of the black spot (i.e., through the center of the ghost ball).
Pictures #3 through #8. The cue stick placed across the center of the spot, i.e., on the proper line of aim, to make shots at 15-degree intervals: 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75 degrees.
Picture #2. The CB removed and the OB left in place. To make the shot without english and ignoring throw, the CB must pass over the center of the white dot in the middle of the black spot (i.e., through the center of the ghost ball).
Pictures #3 through #8. The cue stick placed across the center of the spot, i.e., on the proper line of aim, to make shots at 15-degree intervals: 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75 degrees.
Here is what one can observe from the pictures:
1. For a straight shot, the edge of the cue stick needs to point to one side or the other of the contact point, not at it. So the Mullen Method is not accurate for straight shots. [But if the shot is a real short one, pocket slop may be sufficient to absorb the angled hit that would result from using the Mullen Method.]
2. For a 15-degree cut, using the cue stick in the pictures, the shot is pretty much "right on," i.e., the left edge of the ferrule is in the same vertical plane as the contact point, and the shot would undoubtedly be pocketed.
3. For a 30-degree cut (half-ball shot), the left edge of the ferrule in the picture is pointing to some point on the OB, but it is to the right (outside) of the contact point. So, using the Mullen Method, if you aimed the left side of the ferrule at the contact point, you would under-cut the shot. [The shot might still "go" if the OB is close enough to the pocket, but probably not if it is a long distance from the pocket.]
4. For properly aimed cut shots of 45, 60, and 75 degrees, the cue stick points entirely outside the right edge of the OB. Using the Mullen Method on these angles would drastically under-cut the OB.
2. For a 15-degree cut, using the cue stick in the pictures, the shot is pretty much "right on," i.e., the left edge of the ferrule is in the same vertical plane as the contact point, and the shot would undoubtedly be pocketed.
3. For a 30-degree cut (half-ball shot), the left edge of the ferrule in the picture is pointing to some point on the OB, but it is to the right (outside) of the contact point. So, using the Mullen Method, if you aimed the left side of the ferrule at the contact point, you would under-cut the shot. [The shot might still "go" if the OB is close enough to the pocket, but probably not if it is a long distance from the pocket.]
4. For properly aimed cut shots of 45, 60, and 75 degrees, the cue stick points entirely outside the right edge of the OB. Using the Mullen Method on these angles would drastically under-cut the OB.
My conclusion, then, is that the Mullen Method, if followed literally and exactly, is really "right on" (to the center of the pocket) for just one cut angle. For the stick I was using (13mm ferrule), that angle was approximately 15 degrees. However, it is approximately "on" for some small range of angles (somewhere greater than zero and less than 30 with my stick), and may pocket many of these shots because of pocket slop. The method may serve as a good approximation method within that range of shots. It may also serve as a good starting point for the player to make further refinements of the aim.
Here are the eight pictures. I hope this presentation is helpful for at least some of the readers.
Last edited:
if i was to say i can make the first shot with a bridge distance 10 inches and the second with 11 inches and the third with a 12 inches but everything else is the same, are you ok with that Pj? i think this is how dr dave explains how these 3 shots can be made using cte?
Attachments
Last edited:
"it works": It can be used to pocket a wide range of shots with varying CB-OB distances and cut angles.what exactly do you mean by "it works"?I can't tell you how Stan's version of CTE works, because I haven't seen it described in detail yet, and I haven't seen the DVD yet. However, I do look forward to viewing it to see if it adds any significant insight to the CTE landscape. I hope it does.
However, for the three versions of CTE that have been described in detail and/or demonstrated, I think I have explained how and why they work, to the best of my ability. Here is my explanation (from the CTE resource page):
If you follow the procedures literally and exactly, you will make shots within certain limited ranges of angles (for more info, see limited lines of aim). However, if you don't vary the alignment or pivot (see more below), you will miss most shots outside of these limited ranges, unless the OB is very close to the pocket (so it can be cheated slightly) and/or the pockets are huge (so the margin for error is larger than normal). The difficulty is in applying the subtle differences necessary from one shot to another. However, even if a person is not good at judging these differences, CTE still might be beneficial for the reasons summarized here.
Many "challenges" relating to "aiming systems" are described and illustrated in my November '08 and December '08 BD articles. These difficulties certainly apply to CTE. Here's a good experiment you can use to test whether or not you understand how to apply CTE (or any pivot-based aiming method) effectively:
Shot "A" is about a 10-degree cut, shot "B" is about a 15-degree cut, and shot "C" is about a 20-degree cut. All three shots fit into the "thick cut" category of CTE. Also, the CB-to-OB distance is the same for all three shots. Here's the CTE aiming procedure for a "thick cut" shot, per the 3rd version of CTE above, as I understand it:
1.) ALIGN: (for thick cuts): Start with your cue parallel to the CB-center-to-outside-OB-edge line (CTEL) with the tip pointing at the outside edge of the CB.Since all three shots are "thick hits," and since the CB-to-OB distance is the same for each, the "effective pivot length" is also the same for each (assuming the bridge length is the same for all three shots). So the pertinent question is: What do you do differently with the alignment and/or pivot steps of CTE to pocket each of the three shots? There are several possible answers. You can:
2.) PIVOT: Then pivot your tip toward the pocket until it reaches the CB's center. The "effective pivot length" you use during the pivot should be the distance from the bridge to the OB.
1.) Change the initial alignment slightly (e.g., by shifting your eye alignment so the perceived cue alignment and/or parallel shift is different)Options 1 and 4 are probably the most common approaches. The diagram below (from my December '08 article) shows how a change in "effective pivot length" changes the amount of cut. In the diagram, I am showing two different bridge positions, but this could also represent two different "effective cue-pivot-points" created by a non-rigid-bridge pivot method (see more below).
or
2.) Change the amount of the parallel shift (before the pivot) so you don't quite go all of the way to the perceived CB edge (e.g., shift a given number of "tips" instead)
or
3.) Pivot a slightly different amount (e.g., not quite to center, or just past center).
or
4.) Change the "effective pivot length" slightly (e.g., by adjusting your bridge length or by shifting/tilting your bridge during the pivot).
If using a "mechanical pivot" (i.e., pivoting after placing the bridge hand down), one way to vary the "effective pivot length" is to vary the bridge length (as implied by the diagram). Another is to shift, rotate, tilt, or deform your bridge hand during the pivot as you shift your body (AKA "hip pivot"). Here's an example of this, posted by Colin Colenso, where the "effective pivot length" is much longer than the bridge length:
Another way is to use an "air pivot," where you pivot the cue and/or entire body before placing the bridge hand down. In this case, you can easily create any "effective pivot length" over an extremely wide range. Sometimes, the "effective pivot length" is referred to as the "shot arc." Here is a demonstration of how some forms of pivoting are used in conjunction with CTE and other pivot-based aiming methods: CTE pivot demonstration. For more info concerning pivoting, "air pivot," and "shot arc," see Spidey's blog.
The difficulty is in judging how much to change the initial alignment or "effective pivot length" to pocket balls requiring similar, but slightly different, amounts of cut. Many of the CTE proponents will say you don't need to know where the pocket is, or take into consideration the necessary amount of cut (other than to judge a "thin hit" vs. a "thick hit"), but this obviously cannot be the case. Maybe people who seem to use CTE effectively must at least sense where the pocket is (even if they don't look at it), or maybe they just have a feel for how much cut they need to pocket the ball. This sense or feel could influence their alignment or "pivot" in intangible ways that are difficult to describe or illustrate.
With all pivot-based aiming methods, the choice for "effective pivot length" must vary with the distance between the CB and OB, as illustrated by this diagram from my November '08 BD article:
As you can see, with a fixed alignment and pivot, the cut angle is radically different for different ball distances. Interestingly, with the exact same initial alignment and pivot, two of the three balls can be potted if the pocket happens to be at points "a," "b," or "c." This would actually be a good proposition shot. Approach somebody who doubts pivot-based aiming systems and bet him or her you can make two radically different shots (e.g., shots "A" and "B" in the diagram) with the exact same initial alignment and the exact same pivot. You can even have the doubter shoot the shots for you, as long as his aim and stroke are reasonably good. If the balls are lined up to take advantage of the effect shown in the diagram (i.e., if the balls are lined up so the corner pocket is at point "a" relative to the balls), both shots will go and you will win the bet.
BOTTOM LINE: All CTE variations require changes in alignment and/or effective pivot length as the cut angle and shot distance change.
Regardless of which "aiming system" you might use (even if you just "see the angle"), you still need to practice to develop and improve your "visual intelligence" and consistency, and you need to actually focus on aiming the shot. Many aiming systems can help some people do this (for more info, see benefits of "aiming systems"). Also, when you use English, you will need to compensate your aim to account for squirt, swerve, and throw.
Regardless of all of this, CTE does work for the people who can use it effectively, and CTE does offer many potential benefits to some people.
Regards,
Dave
Maybe. Remember that the pivot is a combination of how far you shift the stick sideways plus where your pivot point is (how long your bridge is). So at least one of those things has to change in order to make a different cut angle, and depending on the amount of cut angle change, maybe both of them have to change.
But that isn't CTE as we've heard it described, and I don't think it's a version of CTE that can be easily learned because of the many different combinations of shift and bridge distances that would have to be used. The complexity of a system that would make all the necessary pivoting adjustments for you is what leads to the conclusion that CTE can't possibly be an "exact" system that's easy enough to learn.
That doesn't make it a "bad" system - I don't think a system necessarily has to be "exact" to be useful. It's just not (yet) being described accurately.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Nice illustration of exactly how far off this system is for various shots - and exactly how much "feel" must be added to make each of those shots. I wish there was as clear a way to illustrate the same "problem" with CTE.
pj
chgo
Not that it matters, But I shoot all three the same way.
They are just typical shots