Diagram a shot your having trouble with!!!dr_dave said:
diagrams pertaining to pivot-based aiming systems
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't know. I tried the edge to edge or center to edge and pivot as far as I could discern it from Spidey's video and I was slamming balls into the back of the pocket. So whatever. I guess I will have to just be firmly in the camp that says who cares why it works. I did the three shots in Dave's diagram and made them all easily. I was doing the same steps each time on each shot to line up. So I don't know why it works, nor do I care. It works. It's a bit disconcerting that it works but it does.
So whatever. If you say that feel takes over then I agree with you. I can also agree with Colin that a system - however it works - puts you in the right line and then PERHAPS feel takes over to make whatever MINUTE TINY INSIGNIFICANT UNCONSCIOUS NOT DETECTABLE adjustment that MIGHT be needed to make the object ball split the pocket.
I don't care.
It works.
I make balls.
I am happy to make balls.
Making balls gives me a pleasurable feeling.
Making the game ball is even better.
Winning the set and the tournament is even better than that.
Making balls is a lot more fun that not making them.
I like anything that helps me to make more balls.
What I use works.
It's better than what I used before.
That's all I need to know.
Joe T
New member
I think he agrees they work but is just trying to take some of the mysticism out of the way they are presented. I think if the users said I align to here, pivot here and apply a little feel here we would be done with this post.Terry Erdman said:
PJ takes a lot of heat and I don't think it's because he feels like wasting his time trying to be a jerk. He, I believe is trying help form some useful advice for future players and just likes to see things done right (I'm guessing there I really don't know him personally). I feel this game has been set way behind already by sending aspiring players down the wrong path and I'm pretty sure Pat loves the game as much as any of us do and doesn't want to see more of it.
I had been on the phone with Hal around 7 yrs ago and the way it was presenting it to me as a first timer and stranger might have been okay if I had ignored the salesmanship, lies and bad mouthing of others or if the salemanship and bad mouthing wasn't there at all. Why is that needed if you have such a great system? If he would have said to me, "Joe this is one of the most consistent methods for pocketing balls you've ever seen and then told me to align like this, pivot like this and finish with a touch of feel this way or that way for certain angles" I might have become a Houligan myself. I think Stan Shuffet may be presenting this way. At least I hope it's close to that.
Joe T thinks the methods work, can help others, just need to be put forth a little clearer and would like to hear someone say there is some feel involved.
Fred if you're reading this I would love to hook up with you & gladly pay you for a lesson this Sat as to speed up my learning process so I can be a little more sure about what it is I'm talking about or so I can apologize and say there's no feel required you freakin jerk!!!!!!!!
It's tough being pj
Joe T
New member
Cuz of Colin;cookie man said:
Dam it looks easier in the diagram!
Actually I know for sure how to aim it but maybe my perception is off or my stroke is. If it's my perception whatever advice I recieve may help me look at it differently and maybe I can pass that on. I feel like 60% is pretty good right now and can increase it with practice but maybe you can help me look at it or approach it differently in a way that will help me practice it less.
What original opinion?
pj
chgo
Yet you seem to be objecting to something. Is it that others want to know more?
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
I am objecting to the idea that just because you can't explain why something works that it should be dismissed as subconcious adjustment/suggestion.
I am objecting to the fact that people post a diagram and say that a player cannot possibly be approaching three shots the same way when in fact they are.
I am objecting to the fact that the best minds in pool can't figure out how to properly diagram and explain on paper how to use a system and why it works when they know it works.
I am objecting to the fact that the best minds in pool have decided that it's all about subconcious adjustment and yet they won't get on the table and show us exactly how that works. Instead they just that it must be so because their diagrams show that the system can't possibly work.
I want to know WHY when I emulate what Spidey does and the aiming and alignment FEELS wrong and weird and my brain is screaming NO and then I pull the trigger and the ball disappears.
I want to know why when I do the same steps on three different shots as outlined in Dave's diagram that the object ball goes in. Is it because I subconciously adjusted to become a SUPER SHOOTER? Or is it because somehow the approach I am using is forcing me to be on the correct line even though my instincts are telling me that it's not right.
I want to know why this cannot be diagrammed. I am opposed to the best in pool not being able to figure it out. It makes me feel stupid that I can do something without knowing how it works. But it makes me feel good to make those balls.
Joe T said:
We'd be done with the arguing, but that would (finally) be just the beginning of the discussion.
We've never been able to get to the real discussion because we're always derailed by the defensive objections of the system users. The real discussion would be an open exploration of exactly how these systems work to make aiming easier for their users and how they could be more effectively taught and used. As it is they're almost universally misunderstood and inaccessible.
LOL. The heat I get comes mostly from those I've put some heat on, so I'm not surprised by it and it doesn't upset me. But they also tend to be the most aggressive spreaders of misinformation, so I'll keep trying to poke holes in that.
Thanks for the post, Joe. It's good to be reminded that some see these things as clearly as you do.
pj
chgo
JB Cases said:
It's not being "dismissed" as that - that's your defensiveness. It's being described as including that.
In fact they can't be. Why do you insist they must? Is it so painful to even consider the alternative?
Then stop being defensive and help figure it out.
Nobody has said it's "all about" anything. We've said it must have an element of subconscious adjustment. Stop being so defensive.
Don't be silly. You can't show how subconscious adjustments work. You can only show that they're needed.
That's all we can do until others stop sidetracking the discussion with objections. When that stops we might get past that point and get into how the adjustments work or why the systems are useful even with adjustments.
You don't seem to want to know why. You seem to want to silence those trying to figure it out.
Stop insisting that some topics are off limits and we might have a productive discussion about that.
So help out.
pj
chgo
Joe T said:
Joe,
You are my hero! I have all your stuff and it has helped me tremendously, especially the Racking Secrets. People that don't know this stuff are killing themselvels by not learning it. Your inside english practice drill has made a big difference in my game and it is so easy now to pull off, thanks. I am impressed by your humility and interest to learn new techniques and shots yourself by saying you will pay for a lesson to learn something new. That is what floors me by others that say it is not for them without ever trying it out? I felt the same way you did when initially talking to Hal but I put up with his behavior and I guess I wrote it off to "the old man syndrome" . His stories were very entertaining and he became a very likeable man , but he sure was obnoxious on the pool sites. I am a golfer and learning a new pool shot is like learning a golf shot. It all adds up and when the occasion comes up like a "drag/draw stroke to kill the cue ball" or an inside english long rail position shot, it is so fulfilling to execute correctly. I am on my quest also and before I snuff I will get lessons from you, Ron V. and Stan. I hope I live long enough to accomplish this. Thanks for your help so far!
Dave's last try
I have posted these example shots and questions at least three times in responses to several different people, and I don't think anybody has provided any reasonable answers (although, I have gotten lots of unrelated questions and insults in return). I don't think the questions are unreasonable, and IMO 3D vs. 2D perception has nothing to do with the questions. I'll try again, and I hope some people (Spidey, Fred, Eric, Ron, Stan, Hal, you, others) actually try to answer the questions this time in simple terms. This is the last time I will try. Here's the diagram which is similar to what Patrick has offered in the past:
The shots in question are 5 equally spaced shots between setups "A" and "B." The CB-OB relationship (alignment and distance) are the same for all five shots. The only thing different is the angle to the pocket (i.e., the cut angle is slightly different for each shot).
Here are the questions:
How do people that use CTE, 90/90, and other "align&pivot systems" change their aim (i.e., what do they do during the bridge placement and/or pivot step?) for different shots when the CB-OB relationship is the same for those shots (i.e., the CB and OB are just being shifted slightly, and together, so only the required angle to the pocket is slightly different)?
Also, if you are changing your alignment reference with cut angle, how do you make adjustments as you gradually change from one reference to another (for shots that are sort of in between references)?
I thank everybody in advance for do their best to answer these questions in a polite, reasonable, and useful way.
Regards,
Dave
cookie man said:
I have posted these example shots and questions at least three times in responses to several different people, and I don't think anybody has provided any reasonable answers (although, I have gotten lots of unrelated questions and insults in return). I don't think the questions are unreasonable, and IMO 3D vs. 2D perception has nothing to do with the questions. I'll try again, and I hope some people (Spidey, Fred, Eric, Ron, Stan, Hal, you, others) actually try to answer the questions this time in simple terms. This is the last time I will try. Here's the diagram which is similar to what Patrick has offered in the past:
The shots in question are 5 equally spaced shots between setups "A" and "B." The CB-OB relationship (alignment and distance) are the same for all five shots. The only thing different is the angle to the pocket (i.e., the cut angle is slightly different for each shot).
Here are the questions:
How do people that use CTE, 90/90, and other "align&pivot systems" change their aim (i.e., what do they do during the bridge placement and/or pivot step?) for different shots when the CB-OB relationship is the same for those shots (i.e., the CB and OB are just being shifted slightly, and together, so only the required angle to the pocket is slightly different)?
Also, if you are changing your alignment reference with cut angle, how do you make adjustments as you gradually change from one reference to another (for shots that are sort of in between references)?
I thank everybody in advance for do their best to answer these questions in a polite, reasonable, and useful way.
Regards,
Dave
The CB-OB relationship (alignment and distance) are the same for all five shots. (Quote by Dr. Dave)
Dave, The relationship of the CB and OB alignment for each shot is not the same in a very important way. Stand and see CTE for shots A and B and C.
As you look at each shot(A,B,C) you should notice that you are referencing different CB edges. The edges of the OBs change as well.
Stan
Dave, The relationship of the CB and OB alignment for each shot is not the same in a very important way. Stand and see CTE for shots A and B and C.
As you look at each shot(A,B,C) you should notice that you are referencing different CB edges. The edges of the OBs change as well.
Stan
WoW!!!!
This method works, I just found out a while ago. I practiced the system for 5 hours just to figure out how I can make balls using the system. Although I don't know if I am doing it right, I do know that I am pocketing harder shots more. My alignment is better. I don't even have to think if I am aiming right. All I have to do is look for the CORRECT CTE then pivot.
Now, I am a believer, I agree for the people who said that you don't even need to look at the pocket.
For those people who don't believe the system, you're missing a lot.
This method works, I just found out a while ago. I practiced the system for 5 hours just to figure out how I can make balls using the system. Although I don't know if I am doing it right, I do know that I am pocketing harder shots more. My alignment is better. I don't even have to think if I am aiming right. All I have to do is look for the CORRECT CTE then pivot.
Now, I am a believer, I agree for the people who said that you don't even need to look at the pocket.
For those people who don't believe the system, you're missing a lot.
Last edited:
Dave, The relationship of the CB and OB alignment for each shot is not the same in a very important way. Stand and see CTE for shots A and B and C.dr_dave said:
The shots in question are 5 equally spaced shots between setups "A" and "B." The CB-OB relationship (alignment and distance) are the same for all five shots. The only thing different is the angle to the pocket (i.e., the cut angle is slightly different for each shot).
As you look at each shot(A,B,C) you should notice that you are referencing different CB edges. The edges of the OBs change as well.
Stan
Stan, have you noticed that the CB moves forward with the OB in each case so that the distance between CB and OB is the same for all three shots? I don't see how CB/OB alignment (or the cut angle) can change.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Patrick,
The alignment diagram pertains to CTE systems. A first step in CTE is to visually see CTE. Clearly, the CB edges change from shot to shot as well as the OB edges. (I invite everyone to experience this. Just go to a table and set up the shots for A and B and C.) Dr. Dave wrote that the alignment is the same for A,B,C........The only alignment that is common for A, B and C is that they're straight to the center diamond on the end rail. Dr. Dave's alignment statement is in reference to pocketing the balls in the bottom left corner.
Stan
The alignment diagram pertains to CTE systems. A first step in CTE is to visually see CTE. Clearly, the CB edges change from shot to shot as well as the OB edges. (I invite everyone to experience this. Just go to a table and set up the shots for A and B and C.) Dr. Dave wrote that the alignment is the same for A,B,C........The only alignment that is common for A, B and C is that they're straight to the center diamond on the end rail. Dr. Dave's alignment statement is in reference to pocketing the balls in the bottom left corner.
Stan
Last edited:
Foundational to CTE systems is the fact that a CB and an OB has edges. Many edges! In fact, there are 360 edges to a CB and 360 for an OB. Why do edges matter?
Place a CB and an OB on a table touching each other. Rotate either ball by the equivalent of one edge and the shot direction is altered. New edges are touching when the rotation is made.
Stan
Place a CB and an OB on a table touching each other. Rotate either ball by the equivalent of one edge and the shot direction is altered. New edges are touching when the rotation is made.
Stan
Last edited: