CTE - Pro1 - RonV 90/90: All the same system (Long)

Bambu:
... Could someone explain why these systems could be considered any better than say, the clock system? Or ghost ball aiming? Fractional ball aiming? All of those seem alot less confusing, but thats just me.
AtLarge:
One argument that proponents of the pivot-aim systems would make is that such systems are superior because they are based on reference points that are easy to see, such as the edge of a ball or the center of a ball.

Here's what I think confuses people - there's a leap from the "easy to see reference points" to the actual aim alignment that's described in undefined jargon ("hip pivot", "pivot along the shot arc", "air pivot", "outermost edge", "bridgehand spot", "turn to center", etc., etc.). This undefined leap is, of course, the heart of the system, and also the "proprietary" part of the system which can't be disclosed, but it frankly makes me think that it might be more of a psychological system than a geometric one, one that really can't be described rather than can't be disclosed.

But that's me. More power to those who find ways to understand and use it.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Thanks...

The thread was just an FYI that these systems are the same "core" system. It wasn't my intention to do an instructional on here with each individual system. I'm not an instructor.

Thanks for the thread.

You bought a little more clarity to a subject I've been obsessing over for a few months now!

-T
 
Pat we do understand it. As Hal said are you making all the balls? [yes] I quess thats all that matters. Dave is trying to help you people become much better. If everyone knows how to aim this way. There isn't going to be any easy money!

Put Hal Houle In The Hall Of Fame!
 
Put Hal Houle In The Hall Of Fame!

Eventually, someday....someone smarter than me will make a better argument than me.... and it will happen. His information is so game-changing that he has to get in (imo). Forget the fact he's given lessons to THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of people over the past 60 years.

I hope whoever is in charge of the meritorious service hall-of-fame award reads azb. No one on planet earth deserves it more. No one. CTE is just so innovative, he has to get in with that alone.
 
breakin8:
Pat we do understand it.

I'm sure that each person who uses one of these pivot systems understands it in his own way. But I'm also convinced that nobody can describe them so "outside" observers can understand. I also know that it's impossible to define a series of moves that will result in precise aim alignments for more than a handful of cut shots, no matter what "reference points" you start from.

These means to me that these systems are not really systematic physical moves that get your stick pointed in the right direction, but are more like systematic mental moves that get you in the right frame of mind to successfully add the necessary "feel ingredient" to aiming each shot. Here's where I always have to say that's not a criticism of these systems, just a description intended to clarify our understand of them.

pj
chgo
 
My name is John Barton and I am a system junkie. Hal Houle changed my life. I don't understand half of Spidey's post but I compeletly understand what he means.

The fact is that all systems which work will end up with the player in the SAME place which is lined up correctly. There are only two ways to be lined up on a shot, either on the correct aiming line to make the shot or on the incorrect line where the shot will be missed. There is ONLY ONE correct line and many incorrect ones.

The whole point of the system is to put the player onto the correct line and IF there is some small "feel" adjustment that happens subconsciously then so be it.

I think that this subject is hard to explain in simple terms. I honestly truly believe that this is why Ghost Ball became the preferred way to explain aiming. It's way easier to describe. I think that Robert Byrne, for all the good he did with his books, also imprinted Ghost Ball firmly on the consciousness of a generation and thus made it harder for people to accept and try other methods.

I will NEVER forget the time in 2002ish at the Super Billiards Expo when Fred Agnir and I were horsing around with Hal's systems (Fred knows more of them than me) on the table we rented. An old man mid 60's I'd say, came up to the table and said that he had learned similar systems as a young man. This was all teh confirmation I needed to know that they have been around in some form or another for a long time.
 
Here's what I think confuses people - there's a leap from the "easy to see reference points" to the actual aim alignment that's described in undefined jargon ("hip pivot", "pivot along the shot arc", "air pivot", "outermost edge", "bridgehand spot", "turn to center", etc., etc.). This undefined leap is, of course, the heart of the system, and also the "proprietary" part of the system which can't be disclosed, but it frankly makes me think that it might be more of a psychological system than a geometric one, one that really can't be described rather than can't be disclosed.

But that's me. More power to those who find ways to understand and use it.

pj
chgo

I think the primary benefit to this system is that it forces the player to aim with their cue, so there is an ingrained alignement tool of sorts. All others it seems to focus on finding the point on the ob with which to aim at. Many players often forget that you aim your cue, not your eyes.

For the record, I'm not a systems guy. This is only my theory.
 
Spidey:

pj..you're wrong. i can describe in sick detail what is happening, but i'm not online because of promises i made. my next thread on this subject will be the geometric proof u want...but i'm not ready yet.

it's circle and square geometry. a circle fits inside a square and touches at 4 pts. a table is two squares. it's a 2:1 ratio based on where the circle makes contact with the square compared to where the corners/pockets are. when u identify the outermost edge req to make the ball...your angle of attack to the ob changes, but your address angle to the cb never changes. from there the pivot arc must match the circle of the shot. thats why u get a different result with diff angles.

sorry for the format of my post...i'm making it from my phone.

dont hem yourself in and say impossible unless u know whats happening...and i dont think u do. if we meet in person, i'll bring ya up to speed because i'm cool like that

My advice is don't bother if you're going to channel Hal in Mathemagic Land. Trust me (fat chance), that numerology stuff won't fly.

Anyway, I don't think the value of these systems depends on whether they work totally geometrically as you say or they "enable your intuition" like I say - either way they're just as valuable to those who find them useful, right? I just want to explore the question in order to raise the general understanding of the systems and maximize their potential usefulness.

pj
chgo
 
Cameron Smith:

I think the primary benefit to this system is that it forces the player to aim with their cue, so there is an ingrained alignement tool of sorts.

I'm a big proponent of aiming with the cue, but I advocate a much simpler way. If all the ritual and jargon in these systems is just window dressing for aiming with the cue, then they're way overcomplicated. I think there are other purposes for all of that (including some plain old salesmanship).

pj
chgo
 
Anyone ever aim like this? Discovered this a while back...works very well

I think the primary benefit to this system is that it forces the player to aim with their cue, so there is an ingrained alignement tool of sorts. All others it seems to focus on finding the point on the ob with which to aim at. Many players often forget that you aim your cue, not your eyes.

For the record, I'm not a systems guy. This is only my theory.

no brother thats spot on, its even easier when you have a real visual POINT to aim the cue at. As opposed to using the imagination to "see" the point.


Some one said something about an aim point on the back side of the ball. Thats hard to imagine that point. If you set up a cut shot say at 30deg angle, when you get down you will see the dark shadow around the OB. On the side directly away from the object pocket follow the shadow untill it visually meets and then disappears back into the OB.

Where the radius of the OB and the radius of the shadow under it meet, AT THAT EXACT POINT....aim your stick right there. Its a VISUAL POINT, NOT AN IMAGINARY POINT.

Now of course it doesn't work for straight ins, and a few other shots (tighter cuts you end up lining up the inside edge of the CB with the same shadow/ball intersect point and CTE)...but most any basic cut shot will go using that technique and just aiming the stick right at that point.

Some talk about the lights and such....I use the shadows it marks a clear definite point of aim. It is the Natural CP on the back side of the ball and dropped directly down as an visual aim point onto the table surface.

If anyone understands this try it out and let me know your results. Of course you want centered lights on the table...but if they are not then you should find another place to play pool lol. I use it as a backup when i need it, as i very much like that i have a distinct point to reference off of.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if anyone has ever discussed this in any detail, so I thought I would try. If nothing else, those who pivot-aim will find it interesting.

It's obvious no secret on here that I'm a pivot aimer. People PM me all the time asking in private which system is the best. I always try to tell people that it depends on how they perceive and how they learn. Some people pick up CTE/Pro1 right away and others can't get comfortable. The same people try Ron's 90-90 and voila - they pick it up right away (or vice-versa).

I think I'm lucky in the fact that I picked up all of them fairly quickly and have spent thousands of hours over the past four years mastering them and figuring out why/how they work. The conclusion I'm come to is: they are all identical at their core. Only the pivot direction and base reference changes from system to system.

Personally, I think learning how to pivot aim has been the single strongest thing I ever learned in pool - and there really isn't a close second.

First, some basics:

CTE:

Center-to-edge (CTE) is a pivot aim system that uses the CB center to OB outside edge line as it's base reference. While sighting this line, the shooter bridges from an offset position and pivots back to the CB center. When executed properly, the result is the solution for the shot.

Pro1:

The same as CTE, but allows the shooter to always pivot from the same side. For right-handers, this includes left-to-right pivots and for left-handers this would be right-to-left pivots.

Ron Vitello's 90-90:

Ron's system uses three sighting reference lines: CB inside edge to OB inside edge (called 90-90 alignment), CB inside edge to OB center (called 90-half alignment), and CB inside edge to OB outside edge (called 90-reverse-90 alignment). The shooter aligns their cue to an above reference line and hip-pivots their way to the center of the CB.

Therefore, the core difference between the systems is that CTE/Pro1 is based on visual references such as the center-to-edge line (CTEL) and identifying the outermost edge; whereas Ron's system is based on cue alignments (I would call it stick-aiming with a pivot).

Let's talk about a thicker cut to the left (more than a 1/2 ball hit). With Pro1, the shooter probably sees the shot something like this:

shotgridleft.jpg


I put these balls on a grid so you can get a feel for the table rotating as you move around the CB - NOT because it's "part of the system."

A mistake a lot of players make is to look straight down the CTEL. One really must accurately identify the CTEL by looking across it slightly. When you move your body to the outside (technically, moving your head to the outside), your vision of the shot rotates around the OB as the center. Your new view of the shot is this:

shotgridleft2.jpg


As you step into the shot as a right-hander, your cue is at the left edge of the CB and you're pivoting to center (blue line):

shotgridleft3.jpg


When you look at the 90-90 cue alignment, you'll see they're nearly identical (edge-to-edge).

Let's check out a thin cut to the right - something less than a half-ball hit.

With CTE, the shooter sees something like this:

shotgridright1.jpg


The shooter's body/cue is positioned on the right-side of the CTEL at the CB edge (blue line) prior to pivoting. It's also a 90-half alignment with Ron Vitello's system.

The pivot motion was never really discussed in detail until a year or two ago. One would quickly figure out that you can't rotate the cue in your bridge (as if there were a nail through the wood and into the table where the cue touches your skin-- a true rotation). By doing so, you either miss the ball completely or end up hitting the OB square.

With CTE/Pro1, the distance of the shot determines how one pivots along the shot arc (the arc of a circle formed with the bridge as the center and OB as the edge). With Ron's system, one would "hip-pivot." When you get within a diamond or so, the shooter will sometimes have to go from a 90-90 alignment to a 90-half alignment when hip-pivoting. The reason for this is when you hip pivot, you're performing a flatter arc - which is in fact a CTE pivot for a longer shot. Because you'll undercut a close-quarters 90-90 shot, the 90-half alignment is required to pocket the ball with a hip-pivot.

Hip pivoting is really repeatable and is a super technique--- I use it with "this system" except in close quarters. Instead, however, of making a sighting adjustment, I simply pivot my back hand and hip at the same time (I like to keep eye/cue alignment) and make a "harder/curvier" turn to center--- paying close attention to the shot arc. Once you understand the proper bridge placement (bridgehand spot - a Jim Scott term) and understand how to arc your pivot - many don't pivot at all----they "air pivot" by rotating along the shot arc from the bridge point while standing up and slide up to the CB along this line.

I'm not going into all of the other overlaps because this post would take me all day to make and all day to read. I'm merely throwing it out there for those who may not know - and letting them experiment on their own.

In conclusion, they're all the same system. Their methods might differ slightly and they're taught differently; but they are the same. After all of this, I'm in awe of guys like Ron and Stan for really innovating when it comes to this stuff.

With Ron, he didn't even know CTE before he made his system which is really, really amazing to be able to come up with that on your own. Not to mention coming up with the "hip pivot."

With Stan, to recognize that it was possible to always pivot from one side is amazing as well. However, even though he was the first (from what I know) American to pivot from the same side - guys like Bustamante were doing it all along.

How Hal came up with this core information is mind boggling (just my humble opinion).

Hal used to always tell me to poke my head out to see the outermost edge... and I never really understood what he was trying to tell me until a year or so ago. That's what clued me into looked across the CTEL rather than down it. Interestingly enough, if any of you play with Perfect Aim and are knowledgeable with the above-mentioned systems, you'll discover his eye placements are equal to the CTE head position required to sight the outermost edge. Gene is finding his overlap from this position --- he just finds the solution in a different manner.

All in all, each method is almost like a limit to a core equation. Or, a dialect to the same language. The more dialects you know, the better you can communicate on the table - if that makes sense.

I understand there is a large group of people who would read this and say "why?" Just put it in the hole. The answer is because the foundation is a repeatable pre-shot routine that sinks every shot. The foundation is formed by identifying perceivable points instead of using intuition (which can sometimes fail). Over a period of time, the foundation manifests from something mechanical-feeling (when new) to something quite natural and second nature (feel). The difference being that the feel you experience with this information is less fallible because it's based on definitive points that are easy for all to perceive.

Anyways, it's late now and I've been typing for a while. I hope those who are experimenting with this type of stuff find it useful. Sadly, I'm sure the usual suspects will derail the thread. I'm not interested in debating the systems, I'm not interested in instructing on the hows/whys of the systems, I'm not interested in arguing in general. I may not even post anymore in the thread because I know how I get. Just wanted to put out some good info since I haven't in a while.

Spidey

very informative post..we have the same conclusion regarding perfect aim eye placements the same with cte head alignment. Good post!!!
 
My advice is don't bother if you're going to channel Hal in Mathemagic Land. Trust me (fat chance), that numerology stuff won't fly.

Anyway, I don't think the value of these systems depends on whether they work totally geometrically as you say or they "enable your intuition" like I say - either way they're just as valuable to those who find them useful, right? I just want to explore the question in order to raise the general understanding of the systems and maximize their potential usefulness.

pj
chgo

We agree here, Pat. There is solid geometry behind what is going on here. It's not "the force" that is making the balls.

If you and I were at a table together, you'd identify the math behind it.

I've broken these systems down to quadrants, circles, arc starting and end points.
 
Just as an example.....

A standard CTE shot:

ctefeet5.jpg


What's frustrating is that you think people are making balls through pure intuition... and the ironic thing is I think I'm pocketing a ton of balls because I'm not needing it.

There's a lot more math going on here that you give credit for--- and that's ok. You and Dr. Dave would have a little eggs benedict on your face if you would admit that there is a geometry foundation to CTE.

It's too bad politics and hatred trump progress and knowledge. :(

I'd love to extend the same invitation to Bob Jewett - since his position is the same as yours. If I could get all three of you together at the SBE --- I think that'd be educational for all of us. I'll leave it at that. :)
 
Last edited:
Help a brother out

A standard CTE shot:

ctefeet5.jpg


What's frustrating is that you think people are making balls through pure intuition... and the ironic thing is I think I'm pocketing a ton of balls because I'm not needing it.

There's a lot more math going on here that you give credit for--- and that's ok. You and Dr. Dave would have a little eggs benedict on your face if you would admit that there is a geometry foundation to CTE.

It's too bad politics and hatred trump progress and knowledge. :(

I'd love to extend the same invitation to Bob Jewett - since his position is the same as yours. If I could get all three of you together at the SBE --- I think that'd be educational for all of us. I'll leave it at that. :)
;)
I am always up for learning something new and I do believe that these systems work, just by watching Bustamante, he is definitely doing some type of pivot.

I guess one of the many parts that I dont understand is how do you decide how much you offset your initial addressing of the CB before the pivot. How do you decide how much depending on the angle of the cut.

Like I said before, I am dying to learn but have trouble grasping this stuff over the phone as I did talk to Hal a couple of times years ago, or by diagrams on the internet, it's confusing.

If anyone is going to be at the DCC this weekend and would not mind helping a brother out, let me know. I get there tonight and will be leaving on Sunday some time.

Joey
 
;)
I am always up for learning something new and I do believe that these systems work, just by watching Bustamante, he is definitely doing some type of pivot.

I guess one of the many parts that I dont understand is how do you decide how much you offset your initial addressing of the CB before the pivot. How do you decide how much depending on the angle of the cut.

Like I said before, I am dying to learn but have trouble grasping this stuff over the phone as I did talk to Hal a couple of times years ago, or by diagrams on the internet, it's confusing.

If anyone is going to be at the DCC this weekend and would not mind helping a brother out, let me know. I get there tonight and will be leaving on Sunday some time.

Joey

1/2 ball with the OB being the focal point of your rotation (it's a rotation, rather than a side-step).

Have fun at the Derby. I don't want this thread to get side-tracked into instruction, but since you asked for someone to help a brotha out - I figured I would.
 
A standard CTE shot:

ctefeet5.jpg

What do you think this shows? To me it simply shows a pivot being made at the bridge, as anybody would expect. The implication is that the bridge must be placed in a different place for each different shot - just as with any aiming method, with or without a "pivot". What you don't show or explain (as usual) is how the system defines that spot.

What's frustrating is that you think people are making balls through pure intuition...

I think intuition is a necessary final step, as I've said over and over.

... and the ironic thing is I think I'm pocketing a ton of balls because I'm not needing it.

I agree that's what you think.

There's a lot more math going on here that you give credit for---

Judging from your diagram and descriptions there's nothing intelligible going on.

You and Dr. Dave would have a little eggs benedict on your face if you would admit that there is a geometry foundation to CTE.

Why? We don't have any stake in the answer to that question; we just know that geometry is simple and your explanations and diagrams are muddled and complicated.

It's too bad politics and hatred trump progress and knowledge. :(

It's too bad you feel you need to accuse others of politics and hatred to excuse your inability to communicate your own system.

pj
chgo
 
Dave,

Thanks for trying to help me understand. Unfortunately, I still don't really understand, I guess I'm going to need some time on the table with someone that can show me.

I do really appreciate your trying to help a brotha out though. It's hard to get through this thick skull sometimes, at least my wife says so.

Thank you!
 
I think intuition is a necessary final step, as I've said over and over.

pj
chgo

How does your intuition on any shot make it better than 100 others intuition regardless of the method used? Is everybody's intuition on the same wavelength? Is intuition transferrable or teachable? Years ago on RSB when you were dispensing information as the guru of pool forums just as today, you preached something else to win your arguments, which is NOT what you've said over and over. Here's what you said:

Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net>
Date: 1998/05/20
Subject: Re: Last Second Adjustments to Aim
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Ron Shepard wrote:
> I think the ultimate goal is to have both sides of your brain telling you
> the same thing, all the way from lining up the shot to the follow through.
> Think of it as a choir with everyone singing in tune. It may take a few
> weeks, but your intuition will eventually adjust to reality. Sometimes it
> just needs a prod in the right direction from your rational brain.


===

This is a good description, and helps illuminate what I don't like about the
"intuitive" game. Trusting your intuition (or "left brain" or "instinct" or
being "in stroke" or whatever) too often means you're just letting these
unconscious mini-corrections cancel out other unconscious errors (in your
choir, some off-key singers are cancelling out some other off-key singers).

The short term result may be that you're making shots, but it's limiting (it only works with the shots you "know" and doesn't give you a knowledge base on which to build), unreliable (if you hit a slump, what caused it and how do you recover?), unteachable and probably some other things I haven't thought of today.

There's a complete sense of confidence when your choir's all singing the same tune that you just don't get otherwise.

Pat Johnson

And PLEASE don't tell me this was 12 years ago and you've since learned differently and have evolved to be the "Great" player you are today because of intuition. This is 180 degrees from what you post today and was the final word back then from you.
 
Back
Top