Oh, also you asked about the 30% cut. It most definitely is not a 30% cut. See my (and, gulp, PJ's diagrams). Stan even seemed to concede the point.
Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?
- Thread starter SamLambert
- Start date
Oh, also you asked about the 30% cut. It most definitely is not a 30% cut. See my (and, gulp, PJ's diagrams). Stan even seemed to concede the point.
I'm just trying to think who is the CTE salesman since the guy who invented it after 10 yrs is still working on it when natural aiming takes like 30 seconds
1
As I said earlier, even an analysis video can be made improperly by design or innocently.
I think you should refer to Colin's video where he DELIBERATELY swoops from a dead nuts perfect shot line and makes the ball anyway. A player can THINK he is shooting dead straight down the line and have cue movement that doesn't really matter to the outcome of the shot.
OR a player can be aimed totally wrong as I demonstrate in this video and deliberately use a body english/swooping technique to gear the object ball in. (what is really happening is that the swooping is throwing the cueball into the ghostball position even though the cue is not aimed anywhere close to the GB line.)
https://youtu.be/TKCDjPgtCwE?list=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9
So while I agree with you that if we do NOT accept the premise that the shooter is telling the truth about using XYZ system then it's impossible to discern that he is or is not. If we accept the premise that he is though then of course we can TRY to analyze the whole process from approach to execution using the video provided. And if a player says his stroke is straight and video shows it's not then that is a flat fact that must be addressed.
But it is NOT proper to automatically assign cause to that. The XYZ method was used and the shooter adopted a line given and the shot was taken and the stroke was not straight is all you know after identifying that fact. You don't know WHY the stroke was not straight. For that we need more data and more people trying to duplicate the setup and aiming using the same method and even other methods.
For example Dan it would be awesome to have the tables marked in such a way that the shooter can't see the markers but the camera can. Say something under the rail that has clear intervals marked like Dr. Dave tapes to the rail in some of his videos.
With this in place we could see clearly where each person's body and bridge hand goes in relation to the table using whatever method they claim to use and overlay them to figure out which method seems to direct the shooter to the shot line accurately most often.
This is the kind of stuff I would love to see instead of the jumping to conclusions based on little data and one person. But it's a great start nonetheless and really productive for the conversation.
I am compiling a list of "knockers" who refuse to do what you have done. I am going to ask Mike Howerton for a section where we can discuss this and put up the diagrams and videos and video analysis without being molested every other post. I respect these people's right to voice their opinion but they have done enough of that over the years and now I'd love it if they kept their non-productive opinions out so that the discussions could turn to a really good dissection of CTE by as many people as possible who will make great contributions in the form of videos and diagrams that offer dialog intended to bring everyone to a better understanding of the actual nuts and bolts and springs that make this method work.
That's said exactly right. Just to augment the point, I considered for awhile that maybe Stan made a mistake in the video. He said he was using the same left pivot in all shots. Could he have meant to say he was using a right pivot on shot 1 and a left pivot on shot 5, with the middle ones some combination of them? I could almost see the 5 shots work if done this way.
But of course there is the other confusion that nobody seems to have an answer to:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5321812&postcount=1615
You still want to rant about the system, saying you never said it doesn't work, yet in this very post you are saying exactly that. You stated that there is only one line to see the two lines. That shows how little understanding you have of the system.
If that were to be true, then one could not decide to cut the ball, or bank the ball, or shoot it into a different pocket as is done in the videos showing the same shot made into several different pockets.
And that brings up another point where all of us who do videos should probably provide layout diagrams to show the ball positions used. That way others can be sure to be starting with the same exact layout.
Without going back to the videos my question would be did Stan make the shot with a center to edge aim as would be expected for a 30 degree shot? If so did he make that shot with a straight stroke or not? If he did then how did he do that?
That might be a bit 'dangerous'. I know this is a private enterprise but censorship in the manner of which you speak might lead to a mass exodus.
Do you know your writings are starting to sound not so much like you.
Last edited:
I think your goal is a good one. But without Stan's willing participation I don't know how far such a project can get. After all, he's the real guru.
Also, I don't think anybody is claiming that Stan or anyone else using method XYZ on video is necessarily lying about what they are doing. Advanced players all know that you can easily fool yourself in this game, and they might not actually be doing what they honestly believe they are. For instance, it is impossible to verify that a shooter is really in the correct ETA visual when they say/think they are.
I haven't made any judgments for or against Stan with the video I made. I merely observed something that I was not expecting and put it out there. I don't remember, maybe I said something negative, I don't know. Stan said he does that sometimes to counter the extra throw effect when stunning the cue ball in to the ob. Hmm, well I may have issues with that idea as it relates to CTE, but again, I haven't put any thought to what an unintentional swoop means.
If we had really open dialog of the sort you discuss, you'd have a much smaller knocker list. When you have mistrust on both sides, mixed in with a little 15 round match with Lou, the debate overheats in a hurry, entertaining as it may be.
I think your goal is a good one. But without Stan's willing participation I don't know how far such a project can get. After all, he's the real guru.
Also, I don't think anybody is claiming that Stan or anyone else using method XYZ on video is necessarily lying about what they are doing. Advanced players all know that you can easily fool yourself in this game, and they might not actually be doing what they honestly believe they are. For instance, it is impossible to verify that a shooter is really in the correct ETA visual when they say/think they are.
I haven't made any judgments for or against Stan with the video I made. I merely observed something that I was not expecting and put it out there. I don't remember, maybe I said something negative, I don't know. Stan said he does that sometimes to counter the extra throw effect when stunning the cue ball in to the ob. Hmm, well I may have issues with that idea as it relates to CTE, but again, I haven't put any thought to what an unintentional swoop means.
If we had really open dialog of the sort you discuss, you'd have a much smaller knocker list. When you have mistrust on both sides, mixed in with a little 15 round match with Lou, the debate overheats in a hurry, entertaining as it may be.
A few very good points, Dan.
Yes, in the video he said it was a precise 30 degree cut but after my critique he said it was approximate and didn't really matter for the purposes of the lesson.
My understanding is that CTE requires that ALL shots be done with a pivot. That's the point, isn't it? He used a pivot as shown here:
https://youtu.be/orMhr2ezftA
It doesn't matter if it was precisely 30 degrees or not because the same visuals are used.
No, but apparently you are.
Once again caught red-handed, and still you deny it. All the posts you have in this thread, and yet not a single one adds to the discussion.
I don't think it's too much to ask that there be a subforum free from those who won't contribute anything productive to a topic.
You would be free to copy and paste whatever you want to argue about in some other section and if anyone wants to rebut you they could. But in the "nuts and bolts" subsection it would ONLY be for people who are willing to dissect CTE with civility and productive diagrams and videos and anything else that helps to understand the underlying WHY of how CTE works.
I get your point and that's probably why Stan said it didn't matter that much, but why say it is a "precise 30 degree cut?" In fact, his first shot was an execution of a standard non-CTE half ball hit which couldn't have been made because it wasn't really a 30 degree cut. Either he didn't really aim at half ball, or he imparted outside english, or did a little of both.
Dan I am going to do a video analysis of your video analysis of Stan's video. I have put all this up on the big screen, his video and yours side by side and in a little bit will get this going. I think you innocently came to the wrong conclusions and your phone-app tool isn't showing the stroke precisely enough to see that Stan strokes straight through the cueball on all the CTE aligned shots that he took.
Would the subforum also be open to civil discussion if the evidence led to the possibility that CTE didn't really work as stated?
If the tip of the cue is ~1/2" diameter then 1/2 tip offset is 1/4" (.25") to the side of the center of the CB and the bridge is 12.00" back from the OB or the offset line, then the pivot at the bridge to the center of the CB results in a 1.19 degree angle on the CB path to the OB line without english...all the way down table as JBs colorful diagram depicts.
Also from his diagram as the OB is moved farther away from the CB, the CB progressively moves away from the offset line and the OB.
If the offset line to the left of the center of the CB 1/4" is aimed at the right edge of the OB (not CTE), and is pivoted to the center of the CB, this could result in cutting the OB at ~30 degrees to the left. After the pivot the new shot line will be aimed a bit to the right of the edge of the OB.
Since CIT normally reduces the geometrically correct cut angle (up to 5 degrees), this bit to the right can compensates for CIT and gets the shot closer to the "desired" 30 degrees.
With the OB in the center of the table and the CB on the spot, the above pockets the OB in the upper left corner pocket...for me.
If I move the CB back one diamond, I found that I need to aim the offset line a tiny bit to the right if the edge of the OB to make it in the pocket....for me.
If I move the OB farther away from the CB on the 30 degree line to the pocket (I marked a line from the upper left corner pocket [target] to the lower right corner pocket}; I found that I needed the offset line to be aimed a bit inside of the right edge of the OB in order to pocket it.
For 4 diamond separation, the offset line needed to be aimed a 1/4 of the OB inside of the right edge of the OB and at 6 diamonds the offset line needed to be aimed at the center of the OB - this was to compensate for the 1.19 degree angle path to the right of the offset line. At 6 diamond separation, the OB was closer to the pocket which increased the margin of error but the larger separation tested my stroke.
Results will vary for shaft diameter difference, distance of the bridge behind the CB of the shooter and skill and...LOL.
My thanks to JB for arousing my curiosity to attempt this academic experiment...I may use it. I normally use the contact point on the OB to aim but this just requires recognizing a 30 degree cut angle and can be adapted for other recognized cut angles as well.
Be well.
Also from his diagram as the OB is moved farther away from the CB, the CB progressively moves away from the offset line and the OB.
If the offset line to the left of the center of the CB 1/4" is aimed at the right edge of the OB (not CTE), and is pivoted to the center of the CB, this could result in cutting the OB at ~30 degrees to the left. After the pivot the new shot line will be aimed a bit to the right of the edge of the OB.
Since CIT normally reduces the geometrically correct cut angle (up to 5 degrees), this bit to the right can compensates for CIT and gets the shot closer to the "desired" 30 degrees.
With the OB in the center of the table and the CB on the spot, the above pockets the OB in the upper left corner pocket...for me.
If I move the CB back one diamond, I found that I need to aim the offset line a tiny bit to the right if the edge of the OB to make it in the pocket....for me.
If I move the OB farther away from the CB on the 30 degree line to the pocket (I marked a line from the upper left corner pocket [target] to the lower right corner pocket}; I found that I needed the offset line to be aimed a bit inside of the right edge of the OB in order to pocket it.
For 4 diamond separation, the offset line needed to be aimed a 1/4 of the OB inside of the right edge of the OB and at 6 diamonds the offset line needed to be aimed at the center of the OB - this was to compensate for the 1.19 degree angle path to the right of the offset line. At 6 diamond separation, the OB was closer to the pocket which increased the margin of error but the larger separation tested my stroke.
Results will vary for shaft diameter difference, distance of the bridge behind the CB of the shooter and skill and...LOL.
My thanks to JB for arousing my curiosity to attempt this academic experiment...I may use it. I normally use the contact point on the OB to aim but this just requires recognizing a 30 degree cut angle and can be adapted for other recognized cut angles as well.
Be well.
Last edited:
If we agree, and I think Stan did, that the first shot was NOT a half ball hit then clearly a straight shot aimed at the half ball fraction would not make it. In that case I agree that Stan threw/geared the cueball to make it. But the subsequent shots all aimed using CTE were not geared and the stroke was as close to straight as humanly possible as far as I can tell looking at it on my 50" screen and with the video slowed down to 25%.
Anyway I will go through this shortly on video.
Well then I'm going to make a video of your video showing my video of Stan's video. What do you think about that? :thumbup:
I'll be interested to see what you come up with. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Just remember that Stan already admitted to stroking with a swoop. He said he did that to counteract excessive throw from stunning the shot.
I can come up with a couple of other examples of the same swoop if the one in my video isn't clear.