They have full access to the DVD if they choose to learn it. I will give you a one word answer that you will fail to understand because you didn't even pick up the basics from the DVD or other posts. Perspective.
hard to aim ivisible object ball
- Thread starter westlife
- Start date
They have full access to the DVD if they choose to learn it. I will give you a one word answer that you will fail to understand because you didn't even pick up the basics from the DVD or other posts. Perspective.
RIck there is no you say, I sayyour uninformed and incapable of learning the system others have, you have said this? wouldn't you agree you are speaking with a uninformed opinion?
Explain to me what stan is talking about when he say the system is connected to the table? You claim to be talking from a informed position and your opinions are correct, so I expect an answer, lets hear it.
You say you can make 5 different angled shots with an objective cte & eta with the same 1/2 tip pivot. I asked you to logically & rationally explain how.
I expect an answer, let's hear it.
Your attempt to dictate to me is what got us on the this bad trail.
You now say that I say things I dd not say. I've been down this road with others or perhaps you in another life.
I'm not playing your disingenuous games.
If You & Neil want to leave it unresolved so all the non members out there can decide for themselves whether 5 different outcomes from one procedure is logical then that's fine with me.
Stan has not really explained HOW it connects to the table other than 30 + 60 = 90 & 45 + 45 =90 & since the table is a rectangle with a ratio of 2:1 it is basically 2 squares connected side by side & squares have 4 corners that are 90*. So what? Hit a ball at 30, 45, 60, or '90' degrees hard enough & it will pocket somewhere. What if the angle of the 2 balls on the table is at 38* to the long rail?
Last edited:
all i said was to stay on topic and leave out the personal wise cracks you were starting to bring into the discussion! i didn't dictate anything. Stop babbling about who you think i may be in every other thread on this site already!!
Last edited:
I know what perspective is. When you bring perspective in you bring in subjectivity.
Hasn't Stan said many times or implied that there is only one spot where the CTE & ET A,B, or C can be seen at the same time? SO....how can they be different just because they are at a different angle to the pocket? Is CTE beyond science?
Can you take the balls & the position of the shooter in freeze frame & then move them over parallel & now because the pocket is at a different angle the shooter no longer sees the same lines? The answer is no, but an experienced shooter would know that the ball would no longer pocket so...they have to move into a DIFFERENT perspective based on the new angle to the pocket. The same lines will not pocket both balls. The new lines are dependent on the subjective new line from the pocket to the OB.
IF, there were a different solution for all 5 shots THEN the system would be objective.
per·spec·tive
pərˈspektiv/Submit
noun
1.
the art of drawing solid objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the right impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other when viewed from a particular point.
"a perspective drawing"
a picture drawn in perspective, especially one appearing to enlarge or extend the actual space, or to give the effect of distance.
a view or prospect.
plural noun: perspectives
synonyms: view, vista, panorama, prospect, bird's-eye view, outlook, aspect
"a perspective of the whole valley"
GEOMETRY
the relation of two figures in the same plane, such that pairs of corresponding points lie on concurrent lines, and corresponding lines meet in collinear points.
2.
a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.
"most guidebook history is written from the editor's perspective"
synonyms: outlook, view, viewpoint, point of view, POV, standpoint, position, stand, stance, angle, slant, attitude, frame of mind, frame of reference, approach, way of looking, interpretation
"her perspective on things had changed"
Last edited:
You>THIS SYSTEM TEACHES YOU HOW TO SHOOT/READ ANGLES!!!! BOTTOM LINE..... That is the end result.. no silly ghost ball or shooting a million balls,etc
me >Again, no rational or logical explanations, just a yelling declaration & a put down of ghost ball & subconscious learning. This does not seem like you Timothy Rose...this seems much more like three others I know & I think I know which one you resemble most.
you>Dont get personal RICK! and stay in the discussion
The bold above is the first time I made any reference to you resembling a different entity & I did not even actually suggest or say that you might actually be someone else.
I see, 'Dont get personal RICK! and stay in the discussion' as a Dictate.
Your action & words led to the rest of any dual identity stuff.
Last edited:
Tell you what, Rick. You lost your free chances. You take Dr. Dave's B.U. test, with the tape of it so we know you actually took it, get a score of at least 120, (should be easy for someone that has been playing for 47 years), and I will explain once again in detail how it works. (the five shots with the same visuals) I will explain it to where anyone that wants to understand will understand.
(just because you are trying to imitate C.J. by posting dictionary definitions, doesn't mean you understand them)
Thanks for the laugh Neil. I think everyone can see the fact of the matter.
I can explain why it can't be totally objective & you can explain nothing.
Again, I am going to try to be done with you & your games & misconceptions.
You think that it's me that wants to learn & use CTE. You're wrong. I've decided that I don't want to use it because I have concluded that it is NOT totally objective AND it is much more complex & more difficult to implement than other methods that are much easier & actually work better.
I thought you might want to show all the readers how & why I am wrong but instead you want to punish ALL of them just so in your mind you can punish me.
May God Bless You, Neil.
Last edited:
Not so grasshopper. I have explained it numerous times. I even did in the last few posts as those that understand can attest to.
No surprise that you don't dare share what your 47 years has or has not produced for you. You are wrong about everyone seeing the truth though...everyone but YOU sees the truth. Maybe some day you will face it.
I'd like to make the following very clear.
I am not now saying & never have said that CTE does not work. I think it is rather obvious that it works very well for those that are using it so well.
That said, IMO, it does not work as a 100% totally objective system or method.
I think IMHO that the supposed 5 different shots from CTE/ETA with the same exact pivot indicates such.
Anyone reading all of the discussions past & present can make their own determinations. They can even purchase the DVD & then make their own determination.
I for one & I think others just wanted it known that there are some rather experienced players that just don't see it as a totally objective method.
That said, CTE has not been proven to work as claimed by any unbiased party nor has CTE been proven to not work as claimed by any unbiased party.
Therefore, anyone that has any interest in CTE should check it out for themselves & make their own determinations.
The statement, 'Please make your own determinations.' has been in my signature all along.
I am not now saying & never have said that CTE does not work. I think it is rather obvious that it works very well for those that are using it so well.
That said, IMO, it does not work as a 100% totally objective system or method.
I think IMHO that the supposed 5 different shots from CTE/ETA with the same exact pivot indicates such.
Anyone reading all of the discussions past & present can make their own determinations. They can even purchase the DVD & then make their own determination.
I for one & I think others just wanted it known that there are some rather experienced players that just don't see it as a totally objective method.
That said, CTE has not been proven to work as claimed by any unbiased party nor has CTE been proven to not work as claimed by any unbiased party.
Therefore, anyone that has any interest in CTE should check it out for themselves & make their own determinations.
The statement, 'Please make your own determinations.' has been in my signature all along.
Last edited:
for the invisible object i aim at the table cloth when the ghost ball lay for thin cut shot its guessing shot everytime i hit it because sometime i make a ball but most of the time because estimating the cuthere is my advice
i sent him a pm which asked him how does he "aim the 60 degree cut?"
which as of tonight he hasn't answered me........
i aim with ghost ball/contact point 2 contact point/and fractional aiming
based on the cut angle
for a cut angle of 1/4 ball hit (a little less that 60 degrees)
i line up the the cue ball edge to the shadow of the object ball
and parralell aim to that alignment
for cuts greater than that
i align edge to edge and adjust for the thickness of hit
and aim paralell
if anyone has a better idea
i can always improve on my aiming
:smile:
Neil, why are you wasting your time with this troll? He obviously is incapable of understanding how CTE works so it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with him. He must spend hours per week seeking out female images to post in the NPR. Obviously, he had some serious issues and seeks attention and acceptance. Believe me, ignore is your friend with this sicko.
For each of the different aiming systems, what is the thought process and visualization that tells you the approach angle is correct ?
I respectfully disagree. IMHO, there is a general visualization and thought process for deciding the approach angle for each aiming system. Most have been clearly explained. All the systems obviously have additional steps such as pivoting, shifting parallel, etc.. I am only talking about the establishing the approach angle.
Below is my opinion grossly simplifying the visualization and thought process of the establishing the approach angle.
Ghost Ball: perception of the CB location to pocket OB and focusing on the center of that imaginary CB
Contact Point: perception of the CB & OB contact points to pocket OB and focusing on the precise contact points of the CB & OB collision.
Fractional overlap: perception of the CB & OB overlapping a certain fractional amount to pocket OB and focusing on the % overlap of the CB & OB collision.
CTE: using the rails and possibly the pocket, choose the proper alignment, edge to A for example, then perceive the correct approach angle focusing on edge to A
I know the above is general and simplified versions, but it's how I interpret the different systems methods for establishing the approach angle.
From there some cue pivot, some parallel shift the cue, etc..
I respectfully disagree. IMHO, there is a general visualization and thought process for deciding the approach angle for each aiming system. Most have been clearly explained. All the systems obviously have additional steps such as pivoting, shifting parallel, etc.. I am only talking about the establishing the approach angle.
Below is my opinion grossly simplifying the visualization and thought process of the establishing the approach angle.
Ghost Ball: perception of the CB location to pocket OB and focusing on the center of that imaginary CB
Contact Point: perception of the CB & OB contact points to pocket OB and focusing on the precise contact points of the CB & OB collision.
Fractional overlap: perception of the CB & OB overlapping a certain fractional amount to pocket OB and focusing on the % overlap of the CB & OB collision.
CTE: using the rails and possibly the pocket, choose the proper alignment, edge to A for example, then perceive the correct approach angle focusing on edge to A
I know the above is general and simplified versions, but it's how I interpret the different systems methods for establishing the approach angle.
From there some cue pivot, some parallel shift the cue, etc..
It's posts like these that get under my skin & the skin of a few others.
It implies that CTE is fully understood as to WHY & HOW it works & I think even Stan has said that even after the countless hours that he has spent with it that evan he is not exactly sure WHY it works & that is why he can not explain it logically & rationally & calls it a phenomenon.
Stan says that it is a visual system. Well to me it is a visually based system as is every other system or method but they all require the physical component required to execute them. It's the physical that is in shall we say dispute as well as what on each physical execution is based.
Stan says it is a Three(3) Dimensional System. Well since our head & eyes are above the table surface & the cue is more often than not angled down toward the ball & not level with the equator contact points, would that not make every system or method a 3 Dimensional system.
So..what makes CTE work any better than any other system?
Stan says it connects to the table but other than the fact that it uses the angles that can be associated with the 90* corner angles of the table he does not really explain beyond that.
Well, since the one quarter of the object ball that we send the cue ball to hit is the resulting circumference of the ball given the 90* rotation of the radius of the ball isn't every system or method connected to the table given that that number is 90* of rotation of the radius & any fraction used has a corresponding fraction thereof. Especially if the system or method uses fractions of that 90* such as 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 7/8.
Are not those fractions basically what is Jimmy Reid's equal & opposite fractional overlap system & doesn't it then also connect to the table?
So what makes CTE different?
Is the 1/2 tip pivot that was then changed to a visual sweep. Was this changed to allowed for more versatility & variance than with the manual 1/2 tip pivot, which some have changed to a primal or primary rotation rather then a pivot.
Is it because CTE uses two visual lines instead of one? Perhaps.
During the 'discussions' regarding CTE, I realised something that I had not heard mentioned before. Stan says the system takes the ball to the center of the pockets because it has a built in factor of a slight overcut. Stan does not explain what that is other to say that it exists & hence must be part of the phenomenon. Others argue that that simply can not be, given the different amounts of collision induced throw for the different angles & speeds of shots. I'll leave that alone & out of the picture for now.
But... what I noticed is that by using the TWO visual lines to the points that they go to, the two lines are not on one plane. They are skewed. That is... one goes from the equator height of the ball, the edge of the cue ball to a point on the equator of the object ball, that is A, B, C, Etc. While the other line goes from the the visual top center of the cue ball down to the equator level of the OB for the Center to Edge line. Hence one visual line is parallel & level to the table while the other is angled down from the top of the cue ball to the equator 'edge' of the OB. Now realise this is the visual because one is using the top of the ball, that is, unless one visualises the balls as discs but that would take some rather subjective visualization to use the center of the CB at the equator in one's visual. But I would think that it could be done but certainly better by some than others.
I don't know what that means or has to do, if anything, as to why CTE works. I just noticed it.
So in that regard & by using the two visual lines CTE is a bit different than what I would call the normal 'perception' of an equal & opposite overlap method as Jimmy Reid but forth. Is that the secret to CTE? I certainly do not know & don't even know if it really has any effect has it is only a 1/2 ball height skew to those lines & with the variable distances between the balls the angle would be very slightly different for each different distance between the balls.
So why does CTE work & what makes it work? Stan has referred to it is a phenomenon. So...that says that even STan does not understand the how & why of what he says works so well & that's fine.
but, IF it is a phenomenon that is not yet understood then how can it be said that it is a '100% totally objective system'.
Can we say that equal & fractional overlap is a visual system that is a 100% totally objective system? Yes we can. But is it. Well it could be, but for the reason that one still uses one's subjectivity to choose what fractional overlap one thinks will pocket the ball.
When I was 13, I thought that I had invented equal & fractional overlap, but I did not assign any numbers to the fractions because in my my mind 4 or 5 would not be enough to pocket every ball so instead of using a 3/4 overlap, I may have been actually using a 5/8 overlap. Would that be the same as a 3/4 with a pivot or sweep?
So where are we?
On one side there are those that see CTE as a totally objective system that is connected to the table & requires no subjectivity IF the proper solution to the shot is selected.
On the other hand there are those that see CTE as a viable method that as all other systems or methods has holes that must be filled in by variations from the system or method & that those variations are chosen based on one's subjectivity or is done subconsciously based on one's playing history.
I woke up this morning to nob's post & this what I came up with.
If nob's post had not been there then this would not be here.
Sorry for the very long winded rant but I did not go to bed in the best of moods given the nights occurrences here & I woke up to nob's nonsense.
As has always been in my signature, Everyone should make their own determinations. Don't simply believe me or anyone else.
So... if anyone has any interest or is intrigued, as I was, with CTE, then you should do your own investigations, experiments, trials or whatever & make your own determination if it is what it is said to be & even if not, does it work better for you than what you are now using.
Stan has very many videos on You Tube & naturally the DVDs can be purchased from Stan.
Best Wishes to Everyone & May Everyone Shoot Well, regardless of what method one is employing.
Last edited:
my actions led to the rest of the dual identity stuff that you have fixated on every time we discuss something? 'Dont get personal RICK! and stay in the discussion' you see that as me dictating to you?
I see that as me "trying' to keep you in the discussion and on topic. I know from experience from talking to you that more off topic bs was coming in the posts ahead.
you are showing you are incapable of having a discussion and staying on topic, this is why you have the same end results with everyone in all threads you participate in.
Last edited:
And I'm sorry to say that your words here & at other times now seem to show you to be more than just 'Timothy Rose'.
I think you missed the part of that being my first reference to your, 'Timothy Rose', words not seeming like yourself & that your words & attitude seemed to resemble another.
I did not at that time say that you were another or even suggest that you were another but merely that that 'was not like you' & that type of attitude & comments resembled those of another to me.
You must be confusing my previous remarks to 'another' about 'them' possibly being a dual identity.
The statement you made to me were not statements of asking, they were not statements of exclamation, they were statements of command.
To me a statement of command is a dictate.
This back & forth is not any good. You see it your way & I see it my way. I know... that's not factual, it's how you it really IS, which is the way you see it.
Well, I see it as when at a loss to continue with logic, one attacks the character & abilities of the opponent.
We disagree as to whether or not CTE is 100% totally objective.
Why can't we agree that we disagree on that subject & call a truce as to rest of it. It's not going to be productive for either one of us.
I've already decided yesterday to give you the benefit of doubt as to whether or not it was you that complained to Mike, as I see where I might of misconstrued his statements as being associated with the complaint when it may have been a disassociated statement even though he did not make that clear.
I can't see how anyone would logically think that I want & would enjoy all of the BS.
If one were to do a serious study one would see that I respond. That is my weakness that my 'enemies' know & exploit. Well I'm trying to temper that weakness. Apparently not too successfully.
So..here's my hand in offer of a truce & with it perhaps we could get back to a more civil discussion of better topics.
What do say?
Best,
Rick
Last edited:
Hi Ron,
I've liked some of what you have saying but I have been busy elsewhere.
I went from ghost ball to fractional overlap the later 1/2 of being 13 & went on to other methods or combinations of methods over the resulting 47 years. That's just for reference.
The question I have for you is this... based on what you said in your post regarding CTE...
Are you of the opinion that once you select say the ETA line, that you can then get more than one angle for each 'pivot' for a total of two? Or are you of the opinion that you can get say 5 or perhaps even more from that ETA line?
Thanks in advance should you choose to answer.
Best Wishes,
Rick
Last edited:
i didn't read your post other than the bottom line, i have no problem with a truce and will accept one.
i will talk about the entire pro1 system all day as long as the discussion doesn't get personal.
i will talk about the entire pro1 system all day as long as the discussion doesn't get personal.
here is an idea, why don't you go to stans youtube page and pic a video out, any video and we will discuss it and i will discuss all of them if you want. Relax on the 5 shot thing for now and we will get to it.... up to you
ps...i am here to just to talk and not into winning anything, helps me pass the time