double-the-distance aiming method (PIM: Pocket Intersection Method)
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Let's see your little diagrams showing that it IS correct?
It's like GOD... those that do not believe cannot PROVE to those that do that he doesn't exist. Just like I can't PROVE that there isn't a little Teapot floating around the sun (even if I believe wholeheartedly that there isn't one).
Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary PROOF.
We are saying, show us the proof that it IS geometrically correct and then we will believe. In the meantime, we are calling Bullshit untill such time that further evidence is presented.
Last edited:
I think he is simply asking for a "little diagram" or simple description that helps us understand what CTE is, because according to Spidey (and you), we don't. If we don't understand it, how can we illustrate it with a diagram. If you or Spidey or others understand it, you should be able to express the basics and basis of the system with a simple written description and/or simple written procedure and/or simple diagrams. At that point, we would know if it is "geometrically correct" or not (in theory). Again, anything can be made to work in actual implementation. A detailed description has been offered and demonstrated via video, but Spidey claims it isn't true CTE, even though the person on the video claims what he demonstrates is the version of CTE he learned from Hal Houle. If the published and demonstrated procedure is not correct, please provide us with a more correct version.
Regards,
Dave
I was tempted to write an almost identical post over the last several days, but I was worried it would just fan the flames that inevitably erupt in these sorts of threads.
Having said this, brilliant post!!! I also refuse to back down until some of the simple unanswered questions get some simple answers.
Regards,
Dave
Having said this, brilliant post!!! I also refuse to back down until some of the simple unanswered questions get some simple answers.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
Dave:
There's prob only a super small handful of guys in the U.S. who can even make a video that you wanna see--- and no one is going to make it.
That video isn't a detailed description. If after our back-and-forths you think that video is detailed...*rolling eyes* I guess we're back to square one.
Look, CTE is all horseshit - believe it. A hoax. Let's just leave it at that.
Thread over.
Everyone is like: please provide us with....
Here's a thought... "go get it" like the rest of us did
Again, for future reference, and for the record, here are some of the important unanswered questions that still remain:
quoted from dr_dave:
"THICK HIT"
dr_dave:
1. Align the cue 1 tip to the right of the CB center through the right edge of the OB.
Spidey:
Not true.
OK, then what is done instead?
dr_dave:
3. Pivot the cue (without shifting the bridge at all, so the cue rotates about the fixed bridge-pivot point), until the cue is pointed directly through the center of the CB.
Spidey:
Almost never. You almost never turn from the bridge - depends on the length of shot. The edge used can affect your pivot.
Please be more clear on "almost" (when?) and "depends on the length of the shot" (how?) and "edge used" (I thought the OB only had 2 well-defined edges).
dr_dave:
4. Stroke perfectly straight along this line.
Spidey:
True. You can also "crash" the vertical planes together with the turned cue.
Please define "crash the vertical planes together"
"THIN HIT"
dr_dave:
1. Align the cue 1 tip to the left of the CB center through the right edge of the OB.
Spidey:
Not true.
OK, then what is done instead?
dr_dave:
2. Place the bridge hand down with the cue exactly along this line, using a 10-12 inch bridge length.
Spidey:
Mostly; however, it depends on the shot length
OK, how much should the bridge length change, and when?
dr_dave:
3. Pivot the cue (without shifting the bridge at all, so the cue rotates about the fixed bridge-pivot point), until the cue is pointed directly through the center of the CB.
Spidey:
Almost never.
Then how much do you pivot for different shots (i.e., how much before and after "center" do you stop), and when do you pivot exactly to the center?
"GENERAL"
dr_dave:
If you follow the procedures above exactly, you will make shots within certain limited ranges of angles.
Spidey:
True - because you're pivoting "randomly."
I'm not sure what you mean. The procedure above has a clearly defined pivot. How do you define your pivot differently, and how do you change it just the right amount for a wide range of shots?
dr_dave:
Now, you can make the procedures work if you compensate a little as the cut angle changes. For example, you can adjust your bridge length (this has a huge effect on the results of the pivot step per Diagram 4 in my December ‘08 BD article)
Spidey:
Never wanna mess with that unless it's tight quarters
So you agree different bridge lengths will have different effects on any pivot? Sometimes, aren't we required to use different bridge lengths (e.g., because of surrounding balls or rails), and don't some people prefer a shorter bridge length with a softer shot?
What is different about your procedure when you are in "tight quarters"?
dr_dave:
modify the starting tip position a little, pivot slightly less or slightly more relative to the CB center,
Spidey:
Nah - it should always be the same.
OK, if it is not 1 tip, then where should it be?
dr_dave:
and/or you can shift your bridge hand slightly during the pivot (e.g., by pivoting with your hips or body) to create a different effective pivot point farther back or closer up from the bridge.
Spidey:
This happens inside of your bridge--- your bridge hand shouldn't shift - but you SHOULD do the above mentioned technique. That's where people get lost - they always rotate the cue from the bridge (which almost never happens).
I think this is the key to the system ... deforming your bridge just the right amount during the pivot to achieve the exact line of aim required. Does this come only with practice, or are there some guidelines that can help?
1) No one will - not because we don't know--- but because it's not ours to divulge
2) There are no extraordinary claims-- I'm just saying CTE is geometrically correct --- and I'm on record as saying just that. Let's leave it at that and see how things play out in the coming years.
3) There's a big difference between someone who doesn't know CTE and calling it geometrically incorrect and someone who DOES, calling it correct, and then not posting the details for the world to see because they promised others not to. I call it "not my problem." Call bullshit.
I recommend getting a lesson from: Stan, Ron, Tom, and Hal. Each and every one of them. Talking on the phone isn't a lesson.
If you're a instructional author, get instructed so you can author
I tend to agree with your "horseshit" appraisal until somebody provides simple answers to some of the simple unanswered questions that still remain. (BTW, I know you were joking.) I think somebody who knows CTE should be able to provide simple answers to most of these questions without divulging all of the secret implementation details and skills that an instructor can help you learn and develop during a private lesson. Until then, CTE (based on the current descriptions and demonstrations available) can still be perceived as "horseshit," as you jokingly suggest.
I know a mocking tone has entered this thread, from both directions, but I hope we can return to civil and useful discussion again, so we might create a better understanding of and appreciation for the basics and basis of the CTE aiming system. I think this can be done in such a way that no business would be taken away from any of the CTE instructors, who can help individuals develop all of the important implementation skills necessary to use the system effectively.
Regards,
Dave
I would love to meet and learn more from these people in person some day. I honestly wouldn't pay for "CTE lessons" unless I first thought CTE was worth more of my time and energy. Sorry, but you (or them by phone) still haven't convinced me of this. However, if you or others were to answer some of the simple remaining questions, I'm sure I would have more interest. Honestly, the currently available description and demonstration of CTE do not show me enough promise to warrant further study (without answers to the simple questions that remain).I recommend getting a lesson from: Stan, Ron, Tom, and Hal. Each and every one of them. Talking on the phone isn't a lesson.
If you're a instructional author, get instructed so you can author
Sorry, but I am being honest,
Dave
Last edited:
I don't think he was trying to be insulting saying "If you're a instructional author, get instructed so you can author" I think he just meant, get instructed in CTE, then you can write down all of the steps for the rest of us.
Last edited:
Maybe the version of CTE you use is "geometrically consistent" (based on the definition provided earlier in the thread), but we will never know if we don't know how you answer the remaining unanswered questions (i.e., we still don't know the version of CTE you use). The only version we know for sure is the one that has been described and demonstrated.
Even if you answered some of the questions and provide a basic description of the version of CTE you use, don't you think people would still need to work with a CTE instructor to learn how to develop and apply all of the important implementation details and skills necessary to use the system effectively?
Regards,
Dave
I wasn't thinking of any particular statement as an insult, but I can see how what I wrote could be interpreted that way. I will remove the statement.
Thanks,
Dave
Fortunately--- you don't define the image for CTE--- it's already defined. I think I was nice to share what I did, really. The reason why (I'm sure) no one wants to spoon feed you because their knowledge ends up on your website as a resource. Maybe the guys who have the knowledge have future plans to do their own stuff on their own site maybe?
When you're at a carnival--- do you ever spend the $1 to see the freak/midget in the box? I always do. One time, I spent a dollar and saw a freaky little midget that was the size of a cabbage patch doll (no shit). It was real.
You position your little website as a pool resource, yet you won't spend the $$$$ to fill in your gaps. That's insanely irritating (I know I spent my cash whenever I didn't know something). It it's a $$$ issue -- I totally understand. If it's not, I'm confused. Most profs research their area of expertise by traveling the world to get the knowledge. You travel to your keyboard.
The prob is you need to leave your backyard. I mean that from my heart, Dr. Dave. When it comes to this information, you have a very very limited view of the data. I've stated repeatedly I'm not posting the info-- yet you keep asking--- and asking. Go get the info. Do some research. Find out for yourself. AZBilliards.com is not the end-of-the-world as far as knowledge goes. Sometimes, you have to go to the knowledge.
Whenever someone knew something that I wanted to know--- I went to go get it. Each time I went, I went with no up-front guarantees or geometric proofs. I went on my own accord--- for my own research. Sometimes, someone would show me something that was life changing. Sometimes--- someone would tell me something I knew for a fact was bogus. But, that's how it goes. The FUN is the adventure as much as the research.
I travel to Vegas to get 14.1 info about 4x a year. I drove like 10 hours to see JoeT and I WILL SEE HIM AGAIN SOOOOON. I drove COUNTLESS hours back and forth to Hal's house (and I mean COUNTLESS). Sonny was probably getting tired of seeing me. I'm driving hours to New York City AGAAAIN this weekend to see Ronnie V for the umpteenth time. I was going to drive to see Tom Simpson which was about 20 hours round trip but I got tied-up at work. I've never seen Stan for a face-to-face, but we collaborate often-- and I've seen him at the DCC a few times.
The reason why I'm saying this is you're an instructional author who happens to not know EVERYTHING. You have a great understanding of a LOT (I'm very impressed with your knowledge). When you don't know everything, you have to sometimes be a student. As a student, you're the worst possible student in the galaxy: an armchair/computer student.
I do not have a specific video that I can point to that shows Reyes using something similar to Hal Houle’s approach. It is more of an impression over many matches and the odd occasion when you get to see him set up on a shot. Here is one video that has no specific shot but several possible times that he seems to use something like the CTE approach.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2HXlOPziWM&feature=channel_page
I think that all of these video segments are controversial. No one of them leads to a specific “see there it is” kind of statement. However, if you review all of the shots there is a type of consistency in his setup and delivery that appears to be similar to CTE procedures as summarized by Dave.
Some of the possible indicators are listed below by the time markers. At times you have to stop the video, back up and replay to see what appears to be an initial set up per CTE and then what may be a pivot.
10:17, 16:05, 19:18, 20:34, 26:36, 27:22
I am not one to state that Reyes uses CTE per se. I have noted over time that he seems to have an initial cue tip placement that mystifies me, that is how I came to notice it. I now see where it seems to be consistent with CTE. At times he appears to pivot but it is difficult to see. However, on watching some of his positional results it would appear that he has shifted when he struck the cue ball.
Again I am not insisting on anything I simply found his initial set up to be curious. Personally I would not be surprised to learn that Reyes has never heard of CTE and has derived a way of shooting that is only similar to CTE.
If somebody shares something for free on this or other public forums (or on YouTube), and it is useful information, I do provide quotes and links to the information on my non-commercial website (billiards.colostate.edu). I also provide a wealth of my own resources (videos, articles, useful or interesting posts I've made over the years, handouts and resources for instructors and students, etc.), all for free. I don't think there is anything wrong with any of these practices.
If you or others want to provide a basic description of the version of CTE you use, I would be happy to quote it on my website (with credit, which I always provide). Until then, the current descriptions (which I will expand based on the info in this thread) are the only public records we have (that I am aware of) concerning CTE.
I hope you will help me provide better, more accurate information. I'm sure most people would appreciate it.
Regards,
Dave
PS: Here are some of the remaining important unanswered questions that prevent us from having a better understanding of the basics of CTE. If you provide some answers, I would be happy to update the material (and give you credit, unless you don't want me to) so it doesn't misrepresent the version of CTE you use:
quoted from dr_dave:
"THICK HIT"
dr_dave, concerning a "thin" hit:
1. Align the cue 1 tip to the right of the CB center through the right edge of the OB.
Spidey:
Not true.
OK, then what is done instead?
dr_dave:
3. Pivot the cue (without shifting the bridge at all, so the cue rotates about the fixed bridge-pivot point), until the cue is pointed directly through the center of the CB.
Spidey:
Almost never. You almost never turn from the bridge - depends on the length of shot. The edge used can affect your pivot.
Please be more clear on "almost" (when?) and "depends on the length of the shot" (how?) and "edge used" (I thought the OB only had 2 well-defined edges).
dr_dave:
4. Stroke perfectly straight along this line.
Spidey:
True. You can also "crash" the vertical planes together with the turned cue.
Please define "crash the vertical planes together"
"THIN HIT"
dr_dave:
1. Align the cue 1 tip to the left of the CB center through the right edge of the OB.
Spidey:
Not true.
OK, then what is done instead?
dr_dave:
2. Place the bridge hand down with the cue exactly along this line, using a 10-12 inch bridge length.
Spidey:
Mostly; however, it depends on the shot length
OK, how much should the bridge length change, and when?
dr_dave:
3. Pivot the cue (without shifting the bridge at all, so the cue rotates about the fixed bridge-pivot point), until the cue is pointed directly through the center of the CB.
Spidey:
Almost never.
Then how much do you pivot for different shots (i.e., how much before and after "center" do you stop), and when do you pivot exactly to the center?
"GENERAL"
dr_dave:
If you follow the procedures above exactly, you will make shots within certain limited ranges of angles.
Spidey:
True - because you're pivoting "randomly."
I'm not sure what you mean. The procedure above has a clearly defined pivot. How do you define your pivot differently, and how do you change it just the right amount for a wide range of shots?
dr_dave:
Now, you can make the procedures work if you compensate a little as the cut angle changes. For example, you can adjust your bridge length (this has a huge effect on the results of the pivot step per Diagram 4 in my December ‘08 BD article)
Spidey:
Never wanna mess with that unless it's tight quarters
So you agree different bridge lengths will have different effects on any pivot? Sometimes, aren't we required to use different bridge lengths (e.g., because of surrounding balls or rails), and don't some people prefer a shorter bridge length with a softer shot?
What is different about your procedure when you are in "tight quarters"?
dr_dave:
modify the starting tip position a little, pivot slightly less or slightly more relative to the CB center,
Spidey:
Nah - it should always be the same.
OK, if it is not 1 tip, then where should it be?
dr_dave:
and/or you can shift your bridge hand slightly during the pivot (e.g., by pivoting with your hips or body) to create a different effective pivot point farther back or closer up from the bridge.
Spidey:
This happens inside of your bridge--- your bridge hand shouldn't shift - but you SHOULD do the above mentioned technique. That's where people get lost - they always rotate the cue from the bridge (which almost never happens).
I think this is the key to the system ... deforming your bridge just the right amount during the pivot to achieve the exact line of aim required. Does this come only with practice, or are there some guidelines that can help?
Last edited:
Joe,
It is difficult to tell what a player is doing by watching video like this, but I don't there is any evidence that he is using CTE or any other aiming method.
To me, it looks like he just points his cue tip lower on the CB than he hits it (maybe because he can see center-ball better by pointing the top of the tip at the resting point of the cloth). Whatever he is doing, I think it is clear that he brings his tip up during his final stroke for the shots I watched (at the time stamps you provided).
Regards,
Dave
It is difficult to tell what a player is doing by watching video like this, but I don't there is any evidence that he is using CTE or any other aiming method.
To me, it looks like he just points his cue tip lower on the CB than he hits it (maybe because he can see center-ball better by pointing the top of the tip at the resting point of the cloth). Whatever he is doing, I think it is clear that he brings his tip up during his final stroke for the shots I watched (at the time stamps you provided).
Regards,
Dave
The "evidence" (such as it is) is in where he initially sets the cue tip. On cuts less than 30 degrees he appears to set the tip to the outside. On thin cuts he sets it to the inside. At times it appears that he lines up one place but appears to stike center or near center. One way he can get to center from where he sets up is through the use of a pivot. Otherwise he has to go through other mechanations.
While inside and outside english have a place it would appear to me that these are refeence locations from which he begins his aim and I suspect that this is where Hal gets the idea that the pros use the method of sighting that he describes.
While inside and outside english have a place it would appear to me that these are refeence locations from which he begins his aim and I suspect that this is where Hal gets the idea that the pros use the method of sighting that he describes.
I watched each of those segments carefully and didn't see a single instance in which Reyes looked like he was using CTE or any other unusual tip placement routine. I think the pertinent question is why are you so eager to find such evidence that you'll see things that aren't there?
pj
chgo
PJ said, “I think the pertinent question is why are you so eager to find such evidence that you'll see things that aren't there?”
One of the things I learned many years ago in graduate school was from a world renowned professor. He told us we had to write a 50 page paper for his class and he would refuse to read papers that were based on finding what was wrong with others' research. He wanted to know what we knew about a subject, not what we did not know. It is easy to find fault with others he said. It is difficult to find, and be able to summarize, what we do know. Far too much time and effort is spent on what is wrong with others research. Real contributions are made by those who bring together and attempt to reconcile apparently opposing points of view.
When you learn to do this well you become a contributor not a detractor in the great conversation of life. One begins with the assumption that people are honest and attempt to further our knowledge base. People may see things differently and may have different goals in their pursuits. When we take these differences into consideration and attempt to advance our knowledge the result is beneficial to all of us.
In psychology we have learned that some people are better observers than others. There are many human factors that contribute to one’s inability to accurately observe and analyze the phenomena that are observed. One person often has part of the solution that is missed by many others because they are more open minded and have less of a need to observe in some particular manner for some particular reason.
I believe that among those who read the pool playing literature, such as is written here on AZB among other places, it is well known that Hal Houle has said something to the effect that all of the pros use the system that he describes. Given my foregoing comments and looking to reconcile his statements -- why would he say that?
One could take any of several positions about Hal, he too can be irritating in his self presentation, none-the-less, the man, in my opinion, has a degree of intensity and his ideas are well thought of by many people as evidenced by his supporters. There must be something to his comments. Rather than think that some particular way is the best or only way it is possibly useful to consider the idea that there is some truth in his statements and to go looking for whatever truth there might be.
It can be difficult to set aside one’s own preconceived notions and try and see things from the other person’s perspective. Perhaps that is why some people have a limited ability to see what is in front of them.
One of the things I learned many years ago in graduate school was from a world renowned professor. He told us we had to write a 50 page paper for his class and he would refuse to read papers that were based on finding what was wrong with others' research. He wanted to know what we knew about a subject, not what we did not know. It is easy to find fault with others he said. It is difficult to find, and be able to summarize, what we do know. Far too much time and effort is spent on what is wrong with others research. Real contributions are made by those who bring together and attempt to reconcile apparently opposing points of view.
When you learn to do this well you become a contributor not a detractor in the great conversation of life. One begins with the assumption that people are honest and attempt to further our knowledge base. People may see things differently and may have different goals in their pursuits. When we take these differences into consideration and attempt to advance our knowledge the result is beneficial to all of us.
In psychology we have learned that some people are better observers than others. There are many human factors that contribute to one’s inability to accurately observe and analyze the phenomena that are observed. One person often has part of the solution that is missed by many others because they are more open minded and have less of a need to observe in some particular manner for some particular reason.
I believe that among those who read the pool playing literature, such as is written here on AZB among other places, it is well known that Hal Houle has said something to the effect that all of the pros use the system that he describes. Given my foregoing comments and looking to reconcile his statements -- why would he say that?
One could take any of several positions about Hal, he too can be irritating in his self presentation, none-the-less, the man, in my opinion, has a degree of intensity and his ideas are well thought of by many people as evidenced by his supporters. There must be something to his comments. Rather than think that some particular way is the best or only way it is possibly useful to consider the idea that there is some truth in his statements and to go looking for whatever truth there might be.
It can be difficult to set aside one’s own preconceived notions and try and see things from the other person’s perspective. Perhaps that is why some people have a limited ability to see what is in front of them.
Last edited: