Cte

[LAMas]

I agree with this wholeheartedly; that is the real question of interest.

The annoying part is that the tools needed to determine what really happens have been around for over 40 years. Almost any decent Biomechanics department will have somebody with the tools needed to record, analyze, and display the body motions. No trying to interpret what people say, no staring at fuzzy YouTube videos, none of that; just nice clear results. Even eye tracking shouldn't be a problem, though it'd probably mean tracking down a CogSci type with the right equipment. Eye tracking at distances we care about seems to use much larger time intervals between samples than we would want, but I'm not real knowledgeable about that stuff, certainly not current, and I suspect that's more a function of what they're studying than any limitations in modern equipment.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any reason some funding agency might care about this or something similar enough that we'd get the data we want.

I have been diagramming CTE and now Pro 1 with more difinitive results. I believe that it is a tribute to the human mind. Those that master it and it's derivatives have to commit to memory so many aspects of CTE.

The have to memorize cut angles.
Relate those angles to solutions that include:

- Parallel shift of the cue to say 1/2 tip or more or less shift for the distance between the CB and OB.

- Or, adjust the bridge distance behind the CB.

- Now with Pro 1, be able to equate those solutions to the secondary aim points.

- Be able to assume a stance without the shift or pivot in line with the GB.


I cannot fathom that high level of recalling from ones memory of these elements.

I am fortunate to be able visualize the GB and effect DD aiming and run racks of 9 ball. These aiming methods are predicated on being able to see the contact point on the OB that sends the OB to the pocket/target.

Why one would choose to do otherwise escapes me for they are more parsimonious, but some must use CTE to accomplish the same results or better.

I believe that the mind and a great memory makes CTE work and is geometrically diagrammable - I have done it.

CTE and it's derivatives are tools to advance one's game for those that can't or won't embrace GB and DD aiming.

If it works for you - kudos.:thumbup:

 

[theUBC]

pivot aiming

Hi guys,
I do air pivot. I don't pivot manually at the table-only 10% of the time i do that. Yeah it seems as if I am a "clost pivoter" shit :wink:.
Pivoting has nothing to do with the movement of my cue before my set up- its just the rotation of my torso (upper body) when I go down to the shot.
I used my own system that is close to ProOne in many aspects but it has different visuals. It is not Center to edge + line to A or B or C.
But my system has as well 2 reference lines on each shot.
What was statet though was right: I have to know the angles! Within 0° and 30° the first (line) visuals are always the same. The second (line) visual depend on if I have to compensate for throw, which is the case when you play slowly (less than lag speed) or you use stun or when the cueball and the objectball are close together (distance of two diamonds or less) on angles > than 14 °.
For the other angles I have to know what angle it is and what reference points I need to take , which is "kind of finding the line" but before I shoot. On thinner cut shots I go along my "lines" with my cue in the air and move into center (cue)ball then-that's right too.
Actually ProOne and my system helps me to
1) not rush even on "easy shots
2) to look like I am sitting on the loo and therefore to be underestimated by my opponents :thumbup:
3) to always have the same preshot routine
4) to align my body and my head the same each time and therefore to see all the shots the same each time
5) to have done 95%-100% of my aiming while I am sitting on the loo
6) have more confidence that I will make the shot and therefore to have a better stroke and don't choke anymore
7) to have done more for my game because when I worked on ProOne or my system I thought about the game and practically worked on it.
8) ...and to finally have found enemies and even a few
(online)-friends:grin-square:

So it changed my live:thumbup:

Best from Bavaria

 

[pablocruz]

That's the whole idea behind CTE/Pro-1 or any other way you aim. There is no effort. When you use it and use it properly it's no different than any other way you line up a shot. Meaning that it becomes so natural that it's part of what you do to line up a shot! It becomes just a natural extension of your overall aiming process! You don't have to see a pivot in order for someone to say that someone is using CTE/Pro-1!

 

[lfigueroa]

I'm not questing his word. It's not about anybody misrepresenting themselves or anything like that.

I'm just trying to discern where the REAL effort is in the alignment process. What is the step that really determines the line? I look at folks over and over again trying to figure that out.

I think the key to what Ekkers is doing is finding the line with the stick out of the picture, and then placing the bridge hand right under that visual line.

I think the details of the way the stick comes into the picture--part pivot...part parallel--is not so important. What is important is he has THE LINE, and he sets his bridge right on it.

And yes, he does need to know where the pocket is in the first step --finding the line. Then in subsequent steps he can ignore the pocket.

I just think the countless diagrams with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining relationship between the center-to-edge-line and the geometry of the pivoting and the like just don't have much to do with what's going on here.

I could be wrong; I've been wrong before. But I don't think so.

lol, who knew? Mike is an AR fan.

Lou Figueroa

 

[jsp]

Now it?s time to go into a proper stance and physically shoot. In PRO ONE a player uses a simple technique involving 2 variables that brings tip postition to center cueball. The practice strokes are next??Perhaps 3 practice strokes. The aim and tip position is dead on?or maybe a 1% tweak can be made. Yeah, that may involve a little feel.

1% tweak? Involves feel? Ridiculous!

Aim is easy and not complicated. There?s not much feel or guess work at all with aim.

"Not much" feel involved with aiming? He didn't say absolutely no feel involved with aiming.

Seems like somewhere a long the way the past two years, he and many of his advocates have changed their tune regarding the true nature of Pro One. I don't know about you guys, but a system that may involve "1% tweaking" and "a little feel" cannot be regarded as an "exact" or "center pocket system".


Thanks eezbank for digging up that post.

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

When CTE was for the most part, simply aiming the center of the cue ball at the edge of the object ball, I even called it an alignment system but I think with all of the new components that Stan put together, it is much more than an alignment system.

I think it is an aiming system because it not only gets my body and eyes into the correct position to shoot the shot, it eventually gets me to aim the cue ball where it needs to go in order to make the object ball. That's an aiming system, at least it is for me.

JoeyA

For me, an aiming system determines the shot line. Alignment means to align the cue (and your body) with the shot line. This is where the controversy comes from. Because if CTE was an aiming system it should be able to determine the shot line. And it would do so clearly for every shot, demonstrable on paper - like GB or CP, if you ignore friction. And it wouldn't need a debate over 50 threads each longer than 50 pages that only seems to makes us all look silly.
But as an alignment method, it makes much more sense. It would explain the pivot as it helps you to align your cue with the shot line. The pivot is always the one part that is open to creativity. It would also explain, why some people use slightly different methods like edge-to-center, edge-to-edge or center-to-center(?) and they all seem to work as well. Pro One is different from CTE with its reference points, but both are supposed to work. CTE isn't suddenly considered to be a mistake that Pro One has now corrected. As aiming systems they can't all be right. But as alignment methods they all share the pivot. What is easier to execute: Air pivot or table pivot?

 

[jsp]

For me, an aiming system determines the shot line. Alignment means to align the cue (and your body) with the shot line. This is where the controversy comes from. Because if CTE was an aiming system it should be able to determine the shot line. And it would do so clearly for every shot, demonstrable on paper - like GB or CP, if you ignore friction. And it wouldn't need a debate over 50 threads each longer than 50 pages that only seems to makes us all look silly.
But as an alignment method, it makes much more sense. It would explain the pivot as it helps you to align your cue with the shot line. The pivot is always the one part that is open to creativity. It would also explain, why some people use slightly different methods like edge-to-center, edge-to-edge or center-to-center(?) and they all seem to work as well. Pro One is different from CTE with its reference points, but both are supposed to work. CTE isn't suddenly considered to be a mistake that Pro One has now corrected. As aiming systems they can't all be right. But as alignment methods they all share the pivot. What is easier to execute: Air pivot or table pivot?

Aiming systems and alignment methods don't have to be mutually exclusive. Actually, I believe CTE/Pro1 is both.

But there is no absolute rule saying that all aiming systems must be "exact" or must line you up exactly with the GB aim line. There are many decent aiming systems out there that are "ballpark" systems that get you pretty darn close to the true aim line, and you simply need a bit of feel to fine tune it to the GB line in order to make the shot. It seems that is how Stan described his system over two years ago. No where did he claim "exactness", or "center-pocketness", or "absolutely no feel" like many of the advocates here claim.

 

[stan shuffett]

1% tweak? Involves feel? Ridiculous!


"Not much" feel involved with aiming? He didn't say absolutely no feel involved with aiming.

Seems like somewhere a long the way the past two years, he and many of his advocates have changed their tune regarding the true nature of Pro One. I don't know about you guys, but a system that may involve "1% tweaking" and "a little feel" cannot be regarded as an "exact" or "center pocket system".


Thanks eezbank for digging up that post.

My quote references PRO ONE in 2008 and you know there are new advancements; CTE/PRO ONE. What's ridiculous is that you could even remotely think that my quote references my new material.

Also, what you quoted is out of context just to suit your purposes...... For the record, I was quite happy with where PRO ONE was in 2008.


Stan Shuffett

 

[jsp]

My quote references PRO ONE in 2008 and you know there are new advancements; CTE/PRO ONE. What's ridiculous is that you could even remotely think that my quote references my new material.

Hi Stan. Thanks for the correction. I'm not aware of the entire history of the system, so my apologies.

Also, what you quoted is out of context just to suit your purposes...... For the record, I was quite happy with where PRO ONE was in 2008.

I wasn't the one who dug up the quote. I was just replying to the quote I saw. And from the quote, you did say that feel is involved, at least in the 2008 version of CTE/Pro1. So just to be clear, are you claiming that absolutely no feel is necessary (with aiming) for the newest version of your system?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

LAMas:
I believe that the mind and a great memory makes CTE work and is geometrically diagrammable - I have done it.

I doubt that any CTE user has the vaguest idea what any of your drawings show, and I don't believe any of them memorize and account for all the variables you've identified when shooting. They don't work the system that way; they work it by feel. That's as it should be - the only thing wrong is that they're being misled to believe otherwise.

pj
chgo

 

[pablocruz]

I doubt that any CTE user has the vaguest idea what any of your drawings show, and I don't believe any of them memorize and account for all the variables you've identified when shooting. They don't work the system that way; they work it by feel. That's as it should be - the only thing wrong is that they're being misled to believe otherwise.

pj
chgo

PJ. Make sure you copy and paste those drawings and keep them for your own reference, because what I can see they don't pertain to CTE/Pro-1!!

 

[stan shuffett]

Hi Stan. Thanks for the correction. I'm not aware of the entire history of the system, so my apologies.


I wasn't the one who dug up the quote. I was just replying to the quote I saw. And from the quote, you did say that feel is involved, at least in the 2008 version of CTE/Pro1. So just to be clear, are you claiming that absolutely no feel is necessary (with aiming) for the newest version of your system?

Apology accepted, thanks.


My thoughts are on my DVD and there are written comments on my website. Quotes from the DVD and from my website have been placed on AZ many times.

STan

 

[Maniac]

1,000 hours of practice on the pool table = better shotmaking.

Continuous typing on CTE threads = more WPM's keyboard abilities.


You guys ought to be qualified for secretarial jobs by now!!!



Maniac (do you know shorthand?)

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I doubt that any CTE user has the vaguest idea what any of your drawings show, and I don't believe any of them memorize and account for all the variables you've identified when shooting. They don't work the system that way; they work it by feel. That's as it should be - the only thing wrong is that they're being misled to believe otherwise.

pj
chgo

pablocruz:
...those drawings ... don't pertain to CTE/Pro-1!!

Bet you can't explain one specific way they don't pertain to CTE.

pj
chgo

 

[pablocruz]

Bet you can't explain one specific way they don't pertain to CTE.

pj
chgo

I'm pretty sure John Pierce shot holes in all that material and you all went into hiding! I think it's just you and JSP still waddling around!!

 

[JoeyA]

Joey: I went back and found this post from Stan talking about CTE and feel.

08-24-2008, 01:31 PM

PRO ONE and Feel

As a player approaches the table for a turn there are at least three variables to mentally consider: angle and speed and spin. Angle is mostly about making the ball while speed and spin largely determine cueball positioning. In PRO ONE the sightline angle is constant. It?s center-to-edge. There?s no guess work at this point. A player is freed up to put more energy into the variables of speed and spin.

After a player?s initial mental work concerning angle, speed and spin are complete, it?s time to prepare to shoot. Preparation for shooting is largely a sensory function. In PRO ONE alignment the eyes see center-to-edge. No guess work yet. 99% of the aiming is over. During the center-to edge-visual the PRO ONE player is also visualizing and feeling the speed and spin aspects of the shot. Yes, there are systems for speed and spin but feel is a must. The aim aspect is easy. Getting the speed and spin correct is ultimately the greatest challenge. There?s a lot of feel in speed and spin especially during the preparation phase of shooting as one must absorb the precise feeling that is necessary for that speed and spin required for successful shot execution.

Now it?s time to go into a proper stance and physically shoot. In PRO ONE a player uses a simple technique involving 2 variables that brings tip postition to center cueball. The practice strokes are next??Perhaps 3 practice strokes. The aim and tip position is dead on?or maybe a 1% tweak can be made. Yeah, that may involve a little feel. Is it time to shoot yet? I think, no!! The aim is so good at this point that it actually allows a player to have more practice strokes to actually connect with the proper speed and spin feeling that is necessary to pinpoint the cueball.

PRO ONE gets a player aimed-up correctly shot after shot so there?s more time to actually feel the speed and spin during the practice strokes. This is one of the key elements to a pro level game. Aim is easy and not complicated. There?s not much feel or guess work at all with aim. Pros spend their feel time with the all important aspect of controlling the cueball.

Stan Shuffett

Last edited by stan shuffett; 08-24-2008 at 02:39 PM.

Maybe this is the feel the Naysayers are talking about.....feeling the "spin" and "speed". That would make more sense.

I sure don't think that I am aiming by feel unless they are referring to spin and speed which I've already offered.

Keep in mind, this is a very old post by Stan and was made in the formative stages of CTE/Pro One which is a unique and refined form of CTE by Stan Shuffett.

Interested parties can order CTE/Pro One, by far, the most talked about aiming system in the world by clicking here.
JoeyA

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I doubt that any CTE user has the vaguest idea what any of your drawings show, and I don't believe any of them memorize and account for all the variables you've identified when shooting. They don't work the system that way; they work it by feel. That's as it should be - the only thing wrong is that they're being misled to believe otherwise.

pj
chgo

pablocruz:
...those drawings ... don't pertain to CTE/Pro-1!!

Bet you can't explain one specific way they don't pertain to CTE.

I'm pretty sure John Pierce shot holes in all that material and you all went into hiding! I think it's just you and JSP still waddling around!!

Yeah, didn't think so. Just part of the CTE noise.

pj
chgo

 

[jsp]

Maybe this is the feel the Naysayers are talking about.....feeling the "spin" and "speed". That would make more sense.

No Joey. The feel the "naysayers" are talking about is exactly what Stan described in that post about the small amount feel involved in aiming and what I outlined here.

According to Stan's clarification, he claims the feel component is now completely gone in the newest version of CTE. The "naysayers" simply think that it's still there, despite the improvements. The amount of feel could have been reduced, but it does not completely go away (unless contact points are part of the system).

 

[pablocruz]

Yeah, didn't think so. Just part of the CTE noise.

pj
chgo

From what I understand, you haven't said anything new for the past 10 years!! Blah, blah, blah!!!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

From what I understand, you haven't said anything new for the past 10 years!! Blah, blah, blah!!!

That's pretty much true about the x-angle systems like CTE. But the reason is that the system users are still making the same wrong claims they made all those years ago.

These systems are not "exact". They've been falsely advertised (probably not purposely) for more than a decade and it continues today right here on AzB.

pj
chgo