Hal Houle
- Thread starter eze
- Start date
Pushout said:
If I was interested in learning any of these systems for my own use I'd do that. But I'm not interested in spending hours on the phone and days or weeks on the table learning something that I'm not interested in using - my own aiming is coming along fine without a system (not that there's anything wrong with using systems).
I already spend lots of time on AZB talking about pool, so it costs me nothing to try to learn something about these systems here. I'm just trying to understand them from an academic perspective - call it recreational learning. Who knows, the knowledge might even make the systems more effective for those who use them.
What do you (or anybody else here) have to lose by simply describing the systems you use?
Trying to understand how the brain works doesn't make using it complicated - should neuroscientists stop trying because you're not interested?
pj
chgo
Ok, Ok!
here's the system...
u sight center to edge, put your cue on one side, pivot back to center for nearly every shot in pool.
the part that hasn't been discussed is....
..... are u a boob guy or an ass guy? LMFAO
here's the system...
u sight center to edge, put your cue on one side, pivot back to center for nearly every shot in pool.
the part that hasn't been discussed is....
..... are u a boob guy or an ass guy? LMFAO
av84fun said:
How do I demean something by trying to learn how it works?
No need to yell, Jim. As I've said, my understanding of the center-to-edge system is that placing the bridge hand in the correct position so that the pivot works is the most important step - and the part of it that seems to rely substantially on feel.
Please explain how this is mechanically done without relying on feel. I'm not interested in how confident you are that it works or how many top players use it or how much better you think you might play than me or in your (increasingly loud) assertions that "FEEL HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE SYSTEM"; I'm interested in how it's done without feel.
From what little you've been willing or able to describe about the system, the feel factor seems to be substantial. You can "correct my misconception" about that by simply explaining how the bridge hand is placed mechanically.
But if all you're going to do is rant about how your system is being "demeaned" by those trying to understand how it works, then save both of us the trouble because I'm not interested.
pj
chgo
SpiderWebComm said:
How far to one side? How do you make that decision?
pj
chgo
SpiderWebComm said:
Dave,
How far to put the cue to the side, and from which point to pivot would seem to be the 2 most important variables in this system.
That is the crucial aspect which would appear to make the difference between CB Center to OB Edge sighting a reference point for an intuitive aiming system, rather than a comprehensive system.
Jim alluded to bridge hand adjustments relative to the aiming line in earlier posts. I guess he was referring to stage 2. Does ths concur with your understanding? Or could you explain it in deeper detail?
Thanks,
Colin
Colin, I will review the thread you directed me to asap. In the meantime, I can easily explain why the system works without any feel, intuition etc.
I think all would agree that A) the ball is round and B) that the bridge hand can be placed at any position around the CB as he chooses.
We can also agree that there is a precise hand position from which, if the cue is pointed to the center of the CB, a correct line of aim would be achieved. (of course, it requires a proper stroke to actually move the CB along the correct line but that is a different discussion).
Since there IS a correct hand position it is irrefutable that such a position is subject to being determined systematically.
It is also irrefutable that since we have already agreed that the hand can be placed in almost infinite positions around the CB, it MUST be true that the correct line of aim FOR ANY GIVEN CUT can be determined systematically.
It is also true that correct alignment of the body and shooting arm mechanism is highly related to successful shot making.
In really quite brilliant SIMPLICITY, the CTE method and Stan Shuffett's creation of a Level 3 aspect of the system that he calls Pro One, the method involves a systematc and infinitely variable means of achieving correct body/shooting arm alignment and determining the correct line of aim for center ball shots. (the use of english involves a less systematic approach but permits adjustments to be made from a KNOWN baseline which is a meaningful benefit.)
At its heart, the system involves visualizing the line intersecting the top center of the CB and the appropriate edge of the OB and therefore, has nothing to do with "fractional" aiming...and then positioning the body and the bridge hand in the correct relationship to the "CTE" line.
If you do that AND you point the cue to the center of the CB AND if you don't screw up the shot with a faulty stroke...the OB does dead center...assuming there is a pocket realistically available.
If there is no realistically available pocket, then the system becomes a banking method.
There are a FEW exceptions where "CTE 101" doesn't work but they are blatantly obvious and there are SYSTEMATIC and not INTUITIVE adjustments so it is utterly incorrect to suggest that the system has "flaws". Rather, the system as a FEW rules to address the dynamics of a few variations.
I am not going to get into the exact details because they were given to me by a professional, Stan Shuffett and I would consider it to be a violation of confidence to post the details of HIS system on a public forum.
It is my understanding that Stan has completed the final elements of Level 3 which he calls Pro One and it is up to Stan to decide how to go about making that information available.
I hope all will understand my position on this matter but if not, it will remain my position. (-:
But I will say this. The visualization of the CTE line...and KEEPING it visualized and the EXACT placement of the bridge hand is what the system is all about.
To that...add the following. In the system, there is ONE variable...(hence Stan's Pro One name) and one constant.
The variable is the CTE line...i.e. move either the cb or the ob and you will get a different line.
The constant is the pocket which never moves...at least not in the eyes of the reasonably sober player.
Regards,
Jim
I think all would agree that A) the ball is round and B) that the bridge hand can be placed at any position around the CB as he chooses.
We can also agree that there is a precise hand position from which, if the cue is pointed to the center of the CB, a correct line of aim would be achieved. (of course, it requires a proper stroke to actually move the CB along the correct line but that is a different discussion).
Since there IS a correct hand position it is irrefutable that such a position is subject to being determined systematically.
It is also irrefutable that since we have already agreed that the hand can be placed in almost infinite positions around the CB, it MUST be true that the correct line of aim FOR ANY GIVEN CUT can be determined systematically.
It is also true that correct alignment of the body and shooting arm mechanism is highly related to successful shot making.
In really quite brilliant SIMPLICITY, the CTE method and Stan Shuffett's creation of a Level 3 aspect of the system that he calls Pro One, the method involves a systematc and infinitely variable means of achieving correct body/shooting arm alignment and determining the correct line of aim for center ball shots. (the use of english involves a less systematic approach but permits adjustments to be made from a KNOWN baseline which is a meaningful benefit.)
At its heart, the system involves visualizing the line intersecting the top center of the CB and the appropriate edge of the OB and therefore, has nothing to do with "fractional" aiming...and then positioning the body and the bridge hand in the correct relationship to the "CTE" line.
If you do that AND you point the cue to the center of the CB AND if you don't screw up the shot with a faulty stroke...the OB does dead center...assuming there is a pocket realistically available.
If there is no realistically available pocket, then the system becomes a banking method.
There are a FEW exceptions where "CTE 101" doesn't work but they are blatantly obvious and there are SYSTEMATIC and not INTUITIVE adjustments so it is utterly incorrect to suggest that the system has "flaws". Rather, the system as a FEW rules to address the dynamics of a few variations.
I am not going to get into the exact details because they were given to me by a professional, Stan Shuffett and I would consider it to be a violation of confidence to post the details of HIS system on a public forum.
It is my understanding that Stan has completed the final elements of Level 3 which he calls Pro One and it is up to Stan to decide how to go about making that information available.
I hope all will understand my position on this matter but if not, it will remain my position. (-:
But I will say this. The visualization of the CTE line...and KEEPING it visualized and the EXACT placement of the bridge hand is what the system is all about.
To that...add the following. In the system, there is ONE variable...(hence Stan's Pro One name) and one constant.
The variable is the CTE line...i.e. move either the cb or the ob and you will get a different line.
The constant is the pocket which never moves...at least not in the eyes of the reasonably sober player.
Regards,
Jim
Colin Colenso said:
nothing really matters, anyone can see...
nothing really matters...nothing really matters...to meeeeee
nothing really matters...nothing really matters...to meeeeee
nothing really matters, anyone can see...
nothing really matters...nothing really matters...to meeeeee
nothing really matters...nothing really matters...to meeeeee
Patrick Johnson said:
WHOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHHH!
(the sound of Patrick trying to set the world land speed record in reverse by professing interest in undertsanding a system that he has been BASHING repeatedly).
You wanna learn about Hal's system? Call Hal. You wanna learn about Stan's system? Call Stan.
You ask ME to help YOU...when you have been slashing at me for years and JUST posted that you have played "grudge matches" with others in a friendly atmosphere but couldn't do it with me?
LOL
Last edited:
av84fun said:
I don't see how this follows at all, unless this is just a tautology to mean there is a correct position so therefore there must be a way to find the correct position. If the bridge position is infinitely variable (or in practice, highly variable) as you admit, then that's precisely what people mean when they say there is a "feel" aspect.
I understand that you don't want to reveal Stan's secrets (and by the way I'd love to take a lesson with him if I could), but you're not really explaining anything here.
I don't claim any expertise as I know nothing about CTE aiming but I am only skeptical because I've heard a lot of people make claims about S.A.M. that it seems to me are just not possible.
Absolutely and well stated, and also what I have learned about the system so far.av84fun said:
It is an entirely different argument from that of fractional aiming systems, which unfortunately, some proponents claimed to be infallible without adjustments off the prescribed lines. Hence a lot of scepticism with systems, that at first glance resemble them.
Obviously this system has a different approach, though even a few years ago I heard testimonials about adjustments to SAM type systems. Hence the thread I linked to earlier where I suggested possible adjustment systems.
All I can say is that it seems like one hell of a clever adjustment system, especially if it is relatively easy to place the bridge hand to and incorporates the nearest (or natural, or however it is explained) pocket.
I hope to investigate it. Shame I can't take a short trip to visit Stan to find out more. Anyway, thanks for the summary Jim.
Colin
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
You're having a few beers tonight aren't you Dave? ;-)
Having a few myself. Didn't quite win the main event but picked up $280 for the weekend:grin:
Colin
Which of your personalities posted this, Jim?
I haven't been on this board for years, Jim.
Wonder why that would be...
pj
chgo
This isn't irrefutable, and in fact I refute it. It's also the part that nobody seems able or willing to explain. All the rest of this yodeling and tapdancing is just "sound and fury, signifying nothing".
I guess I should be careful to say, once again, that the fact there's some feel involved in this system doesn't make it useless and doesn't make those who use it bad players.
pj
chgo
NOTICE: No eggs were harmed in the making of this post.
I think it means, that if there is a required bridge position, that can make any angled shot, that its position can be described in some way mathematically or systematically.PKM said:
Such a system could be unbearably complex, but it could be accurate. But a good system would make it simplistic and not too difficult to execute.
In this thread, from almost 3 years ago, I describe a quite complex system. http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=21113
The suggestion is that Pro One uses a simpler, more practical system to achieve similar ends.
Colin
PKM said:
First, I am offended by your accusation that I engaged in a "tautology"...but not until I looked up its meaning..."Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy."
Just kidding. No offense taken. But with respect, your premise about my premise is a sophism.
In fact, if a datapoint exists, it is theoretically amenable to calculation.
If, for example, you were playing pool on a ship on the high seas and could not see outside so there was no way for you to predict the swells, there would be no correct line of aim and therefore none would be amenable to calculation.
But since pool table surfaces do not undulated randomly, there IS a correct line of aim and it CAN be calculated.
Given that, the line of approach of the cue to the CB can also be calculated.
Given that, the position of the hand in order to facilitate the delivery of the cue along the above line can be calculated.
Finally, your reference to SAM is a non sequitur because SAM is a fractional system and CTE/Pro One is not.
Regards,
Jim
Last edited:
In referring to a "correct bridge position" for any pot angle, I would say that there is a correct line, along which the bridge position can lie, in order to make any angle.Patrick Johnson said:
That is assuming no english and no/or same throw.
Colin