Could Stan clarify this statement in his video

Status
Not open for further replies.
Colin Colenso

Colin Colenso

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
From a video posted a few days ago by Stan, he says that, and I'm slightly paraphrasing, but you can watch the relevant part of the video here to get his exact phrasing:

http://youtu.be/37FHSCVQbb8?t=10m26s

...that his pivot takes him to where the cue aligns to the contact point.

It's known that the center of cue, through center CB actually needs to align with double the distance of the contact point offset from center object ball to align with the line of centers for pocketing a ball, which when played as demonstrated, will make the shot a little thick, due to throw. Aligning the cue through center CB to the contact point results in disastrous undercutting for any shot over 5 degrees when the OB is more than 18 inches from a pocket.

So I'm curious if Stan could clarify what he means by aligning the cue to the contact point. Does he mean aligning to double distance of the contact point? And how would this connect with earlier statements that CTE Pro 1 takes us to a slight overcut, which accounts for slight thickening of the pot angle for throw, allowing most shots to travel to center pocket?
 
ENGLISH! said:
Hi Colin,

I don't think Stan uses a teleprompter or even a memorized script or outline notes, but instead simply talks about the subject matter & may mis speak quite a few times & I think that could be, & I say could be, the croot of much of the turmoil surrounding CTE. I just sent a PM to a proponent & said that IF Stan were to come out & say that it takes some subjectivity to fill in between the different visuals that all or most all of the turmoil would simply go away. But if CTE requires subjectivity then it is not THAT special even if it is better than other methods.

If you think this post will start a 'war' & derail your thread, please let me know & I will remove it.

Best to Y'a,
Rick
Click to expand...

Sometimes people discuss their methods and the success it has brought them. In their enthusiasm or for marketing, they may make big claims.

It's nice when the discussions remain respectful and the motivations are to understand and learn other peoples methods. Things can get ugly when the motivation is to solely poke a hole or disprove the claims/marketing.

If many people are having success with a method, then clearly the method is valid, regardless if it does or doesn't meet the marketing claim.
 
Colin Colenso said:
From a video posted a few days ago by Stan, he says that, and I'm slightly paraphrasing, but you can watch the relevant part of the video here to get his exact phrasing:

http://youtu.be/37FHSCVQbb8?t=10m26s

...that his pivot takes him to where the cue aligns to the contact point.

It's known that the center of cue, through center CB actually needs to align with double the distance of the contact point offset from center object ball to align with the line of centers for pocketing a ball, which when played as demonstrated, will make the shot a little thick, due to throw. Aligning the cue through center CB to the contact point results in disastrous undercutting for any shot over 5 degrees when the OB is more than 18 inches from a pocket.

So I'm curious if Stan could clarify what he means by aligning the cue to the contact point. Does he mean aligning to double distance of the contact point? And how would this connect with earlier statements that CTE Pro 1 takes us to a slight overcut, which accounts for slight thickening of the pot angle for throw, allowing most shots to travel to center pocket?
Click to expand...

Why not just give Stan a call if you have a question. Rick has already shown what will happen if anyone responds in this thread. He will nitpick every little detail to try and make himself feel superior. Impossible to have decent discussion as long as he is allowed to destroy everything with his ignorance.
 
Neil said:
Why not just give Stan a call if you have a question. Rick has already shown what will happen if anyone responds in this thread. He will nitpick every little detail to try and make himself feel superior. Impossible to have decent discussion as long as he is allowed to destroy everything with his ignorance.
Click to expand...
Hi Neil,

I don't have Stan's contact details and suspect he may not want to hear from me anyway. I'd have made the same point on youtube to make it lower profile if comments were allowed.

I hope this single issue could be addressed, not for it to devolve into arguments made many times without conclusion. The same point was basically made 3 times in the video, the later time, which he made the most clearly, is the one I linked to.

Cheers,
Colin
 
ronscuba said:
Sometimes people discuss their methods and the success it has brought them. In their enthusiasm or for marketing, they may make big claims.

It's nice when the discussions remain respectful and the motivations are to understand and learn other peoples methods. Things can get ugly when the motivation is to solely poke a hole or disprove the claims/marketing.

If many people are having success with a method, then clearly the method is valid, regardless if it does or doesn't meet the marketing claim.
Click to expand...

True that we make mistakes... as I have done in my videos a couple of times, and true that arguable claims don't necessarily make other aspects less useful.
 
Last edited:
Colin Colenso said:
From a video posted a few days ago by Stan, he says that, and I'm slightly paraphrasing, but you can watch the relevant part of the video here to get his exact phrasing:

http://youtu.be/37FHSCVQbb8?t=10m26s

...that his pivot takes him to where the cue aligns to the contact point.

It's known that the center of cue, through center CB actually needs to align with double the distance of the contact point offset from center object ball to align with the line of centers for pocketing a ball, which when played as demonstrated, will make the shot a little thick, due to throw. Aligning the cue through center CB to the contact point results in disastrous undercutting for any shot over 5 degrees when the OB is more than 18 inches from a pocket.

So I'm curious if Stan could clarify what he means by aligning the cue to the contact point. Does he mean aligning to double distance of the contact point? And how would this connect with earlier statements that CTE Pro 1 takes us to a slight overcut, which accounts for slight thickening of the pot angle for throw, allowing most shots to travel to center pocket?
Click to expand...

If you look at the full circle videos, I believe you may hear the same thing. When you're using CTE, your eyes aren't on the aim line but rather, on the line you get from whatever perception you used. Stan does not advocate moving your head when you pivot as that can lead to an over pivot. So when you're down on the shot and pivot to ccb with CTE, you actually have a visual perception of the tip of the cue pointed at the contact point. Keep in mind this is a "skewed" visual as the actual line of the cue at that point is the aim line.

I'm not sure if Stan will explain it this way or if I'm 100% correct, this is how I understand it. If you've been keeping up with Stan's youtube releases, you'll know his system had evolved a bit. As an option to Pro One, you can move in based upon the CTE visual and then "fine tune" the visual perception once you're down on the shot, prior to the mechanical 1/2 tip pivot. Once you've worked with this, it allows you to get in a more comfortable stance than previously with CTE where you kind of tried to move everything in on a straight line. To get to this point, you have to have gotten to where you see the visual (say cte, eta) as an image rather than actually looking for the two lines and fidgeting around. This is what allows the advanced users like Stan, Landon, Stevie, mohrt, Gerry, dtl, etc to seem to use the system so smoothly. So when you're down in your shooting position, you're no longer trying to see the two points/lines, you're fine tuning that image and then pivoting. It is, imho, the most accurate approach.

I now use pro one for the simpler shots where it is easy to move into the shots (the table doesn't impede you from establishing a comfortable stance). For more difficult shots, and where the table is in the way, I use this newer approach. I'm no where close to as accomplished and smooth as Stan is at moving in, so I have to fine tune a little more on most shots to re-establish the "image" visual. This keeps improving though as I continue to work with it.

I suspect this won't make much sense unless you really understand the CTE visual concept and precisely how it works. Even though you see the identical visual image, the line you establish from that image is different based upon the relative positions of the cb and ob. If you understand how the "five shots"can be made with the same visual and pivot, you'll understand what I just described. If you don't, it'll probably just muddy up the waters more.
 
Last edited:
Colin Colenso said:
From a video posted a few days ago by Stan, he says that, and I'm slightly paraphrasing, but you can watch the relevant part of the video here to get his exact phrasing:

http://youtu.be/37FHSCVQbb8?t=10m26s

...that his pivot takes him to where the cue aligns to the contact point.

It's known that the center of cue, through center CB actually needs to align with double the distance of the contact point offset from center object ball to align with the line of centers for pocketing a ball, which when played as demonstrated, will make the shot a little thick, due to throw. Aligning the cue through center CB to the contact point results in disastrous undercutting for any shot over 5 degrees when the OB is more than 18 inches from a pocket.

So I'm curious if Stan could clarify what he means by aligning the cue to the contact point. Does he mean aligning to double distance of the contact point? And how would this connect with earlier statements that CTE Pro 1 takes us to a slight overcut, which accounts for slight thickening of the pot angle for throw, allowing most shots to travel to center pocket?
Click to expand...

Colin, I believe Stan is right. I think the clarification comes from not coming straight through center cue ball to contact point, but coming straight through center cue ball from the offset position to contact point. That is achieved with the angled cue.
 
cookie man said:
Colin, I believe Stan is right. I think the clarification comes from not coming straight through center cue ball to contact point, but coming straight through center cue ball from the offset position to contact point. That is achieved with the angled cue.
Click to expand...

At least you are trying to discuss the matter.

However, what does it matter whether you come straight into that line where the cue lines up through the center of the cue ball to the contact point or you move into that same line from any amount of offset? The cue is still aligned through the center of the cue ball to the contact point & that will not pocket any balls that are outside the margin of error of the pocket as Colin has stated.

To me this appears to be a 'melt down'.
 
cookie man said:
Colin, I believe Stan is right. I think the clarification comes from not coming straight through center cue ball to contact point, but coming straight through center cue ball from the offset position to contact point. That is achieved with the angled cue.
Click to expand...
Can this affect the aim line, or perception thereof post pivot, which is where he says the cue is aligned to the contact point?

Keep in mind that on a 1/4 ball cut, the cue actually needs to align to miss the edge of the OB by a half ball distance (over half an inch from edge OB, and nearly an inch from the contact point).
 
nobcitypool said:
If you look at the full circle videos, I believe you may hear the same thing. When you're using CTE, your eyes aren't on the aim line but rather, on the line you get from whatever perception you used. Stan does not advocate moving your head when you pivot as that can lead to an over pivot. So when you're down on the shot and pivot to ccb with CTE, you actually have a visual perception of the tip of the cue pointed at the contact point. Keep in mind this is a "skewed" visual as the actual line of the cue at that point is the aim line.

I'm not sure if Stan will explain it this way or if I'm 100% correct, this is how I understand it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for trying to explain it to me Nob. It seems an unlikely coincidence to me that the perceptions that bring about CTE also bring about a perception to contact point instead of point to line of centers, which have a double distance relationship. On thin cuts, I can't imagine this to be possible.

Food for thought none the less. Will be interested to see Stan's explanation.
 
Colin Colenso said:
Thanks for trying to explain it to me Nob. It seems an unlikely coincidence to me that the perceptions that bring about CTE also bring about a perception to contact point instead of point to line of centers, which have a double distance relationship. On thin cuts, I can't imagine this to be possible.

Food for thought none the less. Will be interested to see Stan's explanation.
Click to expand...

Colin, I don't think it is a coincidence at all. Obviously, the tip of the cue isn't pointing at a spot on the ob with thin cuts.

I'm not sure Stan will bother responding, perhaps he will. He's pretty fed up with the trolls nitpicking at select wording or esoteric aspects of CTE. Stan has done everything possible to help people that truly wish to learn and are willing to put in the table time to learn.
 
ENGLISH! said:
At least you are trying to discuss the matter.

However, what does it matter whether you come straight into that line where the cue lines up through the center of the cue ball to the contact point or you move into that same line from any amount of offset? The cue is still aligned through the center of the cue ball to the contact point & that will not pocket any balls that are outside the margin of error of the pocket as Colin has stated.

To me this appears to be a 'melt down'.
Click to expand...

Then go "melt down"
 
Colin Colenso said:
Can this affect the aim line, or perception thereof post pivot, which is where he says the cue is aligned to the contact point?

Keep in mind that on a 1/4 ball cut, the cue actually needs to align to miss the edge of the OB by a half ball distance (over half an inch from edge OB, and nearly an inch from the contact point).
Click to expand...

I'd have to get to a table to look. I based my conclusion by studying the clip you posted.
 
Colin Colenso said:
Thanks for trying to explain it to me Nob. It seems an unlikely coincidence to me that the perceptions that bring about CTE also bring about a perception to contact point instead of point to line of centers, which have a double distance relationship. On thin cuts, I can't imagine this to be possible.

Food for thought none the less. Will be interested to see Stan's explanation.
Click to expand...

We don't necessarily use CTE on thin cuts.
 
ENGLISH! said:
At least you are trying to discuss the matter.

However, what does it matter whether you come straight into that line where the cue lines up through the center of the cue ball to the contact point or you move into that same line from any amount of offset? The cue is still aligned through the center of the cue ball to the contact point & that will not pocket any balls that are outside the margin of error of the pocket as Colin has stated.

To me this appears to be a 'melt down'.
Click to expand...

No, one is straight through the center to contact point and the other is angled through. Watch the video and you will see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top