Good to see you, Nick. You still look exactly like Archie Bunker.
Giving The Man The Bird is fundamentally American. More people should do it.
AzB is the box. Banning isn't much of a price to pay for speaking my mind.
pj
chgo
CTE/Pro One - Why Not Build a Physical Model?
- Thread starter Filibogado
- Start date
Giving The Man The Bird is fundamentally American. More people should do it.
AzB is the box. Banning isn't much of a price to pay for speaking my mind.
pj
chgo
Thanks.
Did I read your other post wrong? I jumped to the conclusion that you were trying to explain how perspective could fine tune CTE, but maybe you were describing your own system.
One thing I like about your approach is that the apparent size of the OB (and therefore the size of your prepivot cue shift) is directly proportional to the distance.
pj
chgo
Welcome back, dude. I see that you drew the usual pack of hyenas as soon as you walked through the front door. Be cool.
Lou Figueroa
Check it out, they're getting the band back together:grin:
(As good old JR used to say, "business is about to pick up")
I'm actually looking forward to it. It's been a little dull between CW episodes lately.
your leader is back! lol and he went looking for the first cte thread he could find, too bad theres nothing for him to debate about any more lol
Those that can't find something to debate have artificially stopped learning. Never give that up.
The mechanics of physics suit us just fine, but if not for someone thinking they could be understood a little better we never would have been enlightened with the theory of relativity and all of the modern conveniences such thought processes have blessed us.
If not for people examining aiming in billiards in the past, but simply accepting what was available as the best it will ever be then there wouldn't be a CTE at all.
Thanks for the info and the red rep you gave me too :thumbup:
I agree with PJ that using the apparent size of the OB to determine the pre-pivot cue shift could offer an improvement to the current versions of CTE.
Utilizing the contact point (or some other way to measure or characterize the amount of cut needed), as you have suggested in the past, could also help, but this would be "out of the spirit" of the CTE approach.
Regards,
Dave
LOL. You mean those cute little doggies weren't just happy to see me?
pj <- fresh meat
chgo
Although I like the concept in the abstract, I don't know how well it can work at the table. It's a "perceptual trick" that I suspect different people will perceive very differently.
Using the contact point directly is a quantum leap improvement over "indirect approximation" systems like CTE. Those who like systems like CTE probably have trouble "seeing" the contact point.
pj
chgo
this is getting interesting as well as amusing watching you guys miss read lamas pictures and not having a clue if he is talking about cte or not. (guess what that tells me 
) I never look at the contact point, no need for it. Cte/pro1 has taught me to just see the shot without needing to find the exact contact point and keep wasting your time and amusing me talking about the small ob ball stuff.
Look at Pj trying to stir up the pot with the "Using the contact point directly is a quantum leap improvement over "indirect approximation" systems like CTE" comment lol you will find out shortly there is nothing left to debate. Its all been put out there lol
) I never look at the contact point, no need for it. Cte/pro1 has taught me to just see the shot without needing to find the exact contact point and keep wasting your time and amusing me talking about the small ob ball stuff.Look at Pj trying to stir up the pot with the "Using the contact point directly is a quantum leap improvement over "indirect approximation" systems like CTE" comment lol you will find out shortly there is nothing left to debate. Its all been put out there lol
Last edited:
delmari001
Registered
I could use some helpful criticism from everyone here. I have an opp to take lessons from either stan shuffett (individual lessons) or tim simpson(pool school). After 7 years of playing I'm transitioning to 9' tables from bar boxes. Yeah, long distance shots suck and I'm finding flaws in my stroke. I can get away with this stuff on a bar box. On big tables I'm a fish again. What do you guys think is the best way to go? I'm serious about the game. I need improvement. Thanks in advance.
i would always go with the individual lesson over the class lessons, 100% of the instructors time will be focused just on you. (how many students are involved in this pool school during the same lesson?)
You will get more out of any training if you perfect your stance, dominant eye/s over the cue and stroke.
Shoot a series of straight in shots into the corner pocket with the OB farther and farther from it and with the CB farther and farther away from the OB until you don't miss (almost) - then go to school.:smile:
i have been tinkering with a visual thing and if i get it to work, i will share it with you lamas.
The contact point is strong.Maybe you should spend awhile shooting at it.this is getting interesting as well as amusing watching you guys miss read lamas pictures and not having a clue if he is talking about cte or not. (guess what that tells me
Look at Pj trying to stir up the pot with the "Using the contact point directly is a quantum leap improvement over "indirect approximation" systems like CTE" comment lol you will find out shortly there is nothing left to debate. Its all been put out there lol
Give it a chance and thank me later ok.
I think LAMas's pivot-adjustment system is different from CTE in another major way: it ignores the vague "visual" that's supposed to be "acquired" by using the "aimpoint" alignment (CB-edge-to-aimpointA/B/C). Instead LAMas simply shifts the cue parallel to the CTE line until it's pointing at the "reduced-by-perspective" aimpoint on the OB.
Do I have this right, LAMas?
pj
chgo
