How did Ralph Greenleaf "Aim"?
- Thread starter Pangit
- Start date
Since you're being smart (and I was just being straight), answer this for me:
Let's say you have an ETE visual required for a shot (shown below):
Is this the alignment? >>>
The reason why I ask is because that's what you have on your site.
That's why I said what I did... and that's also what's holding me back with my document. I have the CTE solutions diagrammed in 2D with variable offsets from the CTEL, but I think shots can all be made with the same offset from the CTEL, using perspective as the variable (but, the math is beyond me).
So, answer my question above since you know everything you need to know (according to you).
I didn't mean to be "smart," whatever you mean by that. I honestly want to know the status of your document, because I know you have been working on it for a long time, and you seem to know a lot about how CTE is applied effectively at the table. I really do want to know if you plan to release or publish the document some day. As I said, I'm sure many people would be interested to see it.
Yes, that is an accurate 2D depiction of an ETE visual.Let's say you have an ETE visual required for a shot (shown below):
Is this the alignment? >>>
The reason why I ask is because that's what you have on your site.
I'm not sure what statement you are referencing here. If it is important, please let me know.
At the table, we see things in 3D with perspective, and this can also be depicted in 2D diagrams (with perspective projection); however, this doesn't result in a different edge-to-edge line. There is only a single line that connects the outside (or inside) edges of the CB and OB. This line can be depicted in 3D, with perspective, or in 2D (with an orthographic projection); but regardless of how you depict it, there is only one line. Now, if you shift your vision center relative to the actual edge-to-edge line, your perception of the line might be inaccurate or different, as described and demonstrated on my vision center resource page, and the error or difference in perception might vary with the amount of shift; but this might not be the case, or it might not happen to the same degree, with all people ... some people seem to be able to perceive the straight line of the cue or a shot or an edge-to-edge line regardless of the exact position of their head, or at least I have observed this with some students. This certainly isn't the case with me or other students I've worked with ... when I shift my head even a little to the left of right of my vision-center position, my perception of a shot changes.
I certainly don't know everything about visual alignment and sighting effects; although, I do find these topics very fascinating, and I think they are extremely important in pool. That's why I wrote a series of articles dealing with these topics for Billiards Digest recently. If you haven't seen them yet, check them out:
"Aim, Align, Sight - Part I: Introduction and Ghost Ball Systems" (Billiards Digest, June, 2011).
"Aim, Align, Sight - Part II: Visual Alignment” (Billiards Digest, July, 2011).
"Aim, Align, Sight - Part III: Sighting” (Billiards Digest, August, 2011).
"Aim, Align, Sight - Part II: Visual Alignment” (Billiards Digest, July, 2011).
"Aim, Align, Sight - Part III: Sighting” (Billiards Digest, August, 2011).
Supporting information and additional resources can be found here:
I hope you or others don't think these resource links are "just me selling stuff."
Regards,
Dave
They are now not disusing Stans cte/pro1 but either hal houles 1/2 pivot system or 90/90 for the record. This is why i have been trying separate all the systems and its user form all the versions out there... but what do i know
It's all the same thing --- I just used that as an example. What makes these work is perspective.
well i didn't know where you were going and im trying to help these other people understand
Yea, but see now he's using purple, which is the secret color JAM and I use
Lou Figueroa
That's not an accurate 2D depiction of an ETE visual. That's why you need to work on this some more and why you haven't put in enough time.
If you were standing behind the CB with a center to center orientation and looking straight down the CB edges, you'd see this:
The first image posted earlier.... your body must move to the left of the line of centers, while rotating around the OB center at the same time in order to achieve that visual.
While you're correct in saying there's one physical line---- that's not the line that comes into play when executing these offset / pivot systems (cte, 90/90, pro1). The line that's critical is the "line perceived" (corrected perspective).
Anyways, your understanding of this stuff needs a lot of work. It's a shame we're even talking about this stuff years later because if you (as you suggested) REALLY REALLY put in the time, you wouldn't be making false assumptions in nearly every post you make (and you probably would have been the one to get to the bottom of it mathematically).
Last edited:
Yea, but see now he's using purple, which is the secret color JAM and I use
Lou Figueroa
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to lfigueroa again.
:thumbup:
No, maybe I missed something. You mean that stuff about BHE being an aiming system? Just looked like some word games but I dunno if thats what you meant.
Thanks Dave, that I can understand. I pretty much do the same thing in my own way. The further away I am from an object ball, the smaller that ob looks to me. So to compensate for this visual effect, I hit it a little fuller than it looks.
Maybe that stuff was in another thread, I never try to waste anyones time. So what was the big boo boo Dr. Dave made?
sorry guy, i believe i wasted my time already with you! BHE aiming system? wtf, were did you get that from? i also have a feeling your trying to bait into a little flame war, i made the mistake thinking your were sincere on the first question i wont make another mistake
Champ, this is why even though i'm interested I try to stay out of these threads. Too many hotheads like you. Have a nice day sir.
Dave,
I'm totally on record as trying to prove that the real "controversy" over CTE is about how it has been marketed in these forums, and not about how it actually works.
Everyone knows that branding is a function of marketing. Any time anyone thinks they have a marketable product or idea, they must first come up with a brand name to call it before they are able to advertise it. "CTE" has become just such a brand name.
As I said, advertising is the next step, and these AZB forums have been CTE's main source for advertising.
The third step is sales. There must be someone constantly pitching the product in order to gain sales. CTE has had you and a few others peforming that function.
The fourth step is distribution. CTE can now be ordered in DVD form, or through a couple different sources of instructional classes.
Now it's in the "sales" category that the real controversy began, and has remained. You have argued that you cannot be accused of selling CTE when you don't make a dime off of it. Well, as Sean has already explained in another post, you don't have to be collecting money in order to be selling something. If you're pushing something, you're trying to "sell" it, and selling is a function of marketing. And the problem I, and others, have had with you, Dave, is that you utilize a high-pressure, in-your-face type of sales pitch.
Furthermore, you have now butted into a discussion that I was having with Neil and charged that I am the one who is guilty of causing my students of having a "ho-hum" attitude about CTE. I take that to mean my sales pitch is no good. I must not be enthusiastic enough. I guess I should change my marketing strategy if I want to be successful at selling CTE. No, I don't think that's going to happen. I'm not the high-pressure type.
But I will thank you Mr. Dave Segal, AKA SpiderWebbCom, for finally coming out with the truth and proving that CTE, and most of the real controversy surrounding it, has been about marketing. You have now given me my freedom to leave these acidic threads feeling fully assured that everything I said in my series of articles on CTE was accurate and true.
And that's the way THAT works, Davie Boy!
Roger Long
Dave,
I'm totally on record as trying to prove that the real "controversy" over CTE is about how it has been marketed in these forums, and not about how it actually works.
Everyone knows that branding is a function of marketing. Any time anyone thinks they have a marketable product or idea, they must first come up with a brand name to call it before they are able to advertise it. "CTE" has become just such a brand name.
As I said, advertising is the next step, and these AZB forums have been CTE's main source for advertising.
The third step is sales. There must be someone constantly pitching the product in order to gain sales. CTE has had you and a few others peforming that function.
The fourth step is distribution. CTE can now be ordered in DVD form, or through a couple different sources of instructional classes.
Now it's in the "sales" category that the real controversy began, and has remained. You have argued that you cannot be accused of selling CTE when you don't make a dime off of it. Well, as Sean has already explained in another post, you don't have to be collecting money in order to be selling something. If you're pushing something, you're trying to "sell" it, and selling is a function of marketing. And the problem I, and others, have had with you, Dave, is that you utilize a high-pressure, in-your-face type of sales pitch.
Furthermore, you have now butted into a discussion that I was having with Neil and charged that I am the one who is guilty of causing my students of having a "ho-hum" attitude about CTE. I take that to mean my sales pitch is no good. I must not be enthusiastic enough. I guess I should change my marketing strategy if I want to be successful at selling CTE. No, I don't think that's going to happen. I'm not the high-pressure type.
But I will thank you Mr. Dave Segal, AKA SpiderWebbCom, for finally coming out with the truth and proving that CTE, and most of the real controversy surrounding it, has been about marketing. You have now given me my freedom to leave these acidic threads feeling fully assured that everything I said in my series of articles on CTE was accurate and true.
And that's the way THAT works, Davie Boy!
Roger Long
Just like a two year old to get their feelings hurt, storm out and then declare victory while rushing out.
The only person who read your articles was you, believe that.
Sounds like a lot of hating and jealousy since your more successful colleagues all teach CTE, Pro1 and 90/90 and understand the technique well. The "buzz" or "marketing" (as you put it) is the natural result of people wanting to learn more because people they know (or read about) use it successfully.
If you think I'm marketing because I participate in threads with the sole purpose of contributing content --- well, that's like saying you're a marketer when you post in a thread about...say....applying english. It makes zero sense.
So, while I appreciate your effort to connect my participation with marketing, the masses know that (between you and I) you're the ONLY one who makes a living in the pool industry between cues, pro shop crap and giving lessons (even though nobody knows ONE of your alleged students). I don't make a penny.
Sounds like other instructors are stealing your students and you're puss is sour about it so you cry "marketing! marketing!" To say these offset/pivot systems are marketing-only further proves your ignorance to the more intelligent readers. Now, take your marbles and go home.
P.S.
Seems like you were mentioned in a certain other "Dumbest ___ of all dumb...." threads a little bit ago. Looks like I'm the not the only one who thinks that.
Last edited:
