Illustration of BHE....

My experience with CTE...

dr_dave said:
Every description and demonstrate of CTE I have ever read, seen, or heard is never complete enough to explain how CTE works for a wide range of shots. Have you read my recent Billiards Digest articles (October-December '08 here) dealing with aiming systems? I think they summarize some of the major challenges fairly well.

I do hope to meet Stan one day. I'm sure I will some day. I learn something new from every instructor I meet and work with.

I didn't say that. I'm not sure PJ did either. Good shooters can make any shot with any system. That's what some of the videos we have seen prove. Now, if you can explain and show exactly how you aim for a series a closely spaced shots, and we can clearly see on the video the subtle changes that are occurring from one shot to the next, then the video would be useful. Here a the link to the description of the series of shots that would be useful to see:


Regards,
Dave

PS: Could you provide links to the videos you mentioned in previous threads you said you would post? I have not seen any of them yet. You sound like a good shooter, but it would be nice to see how your apply the methods in question.
Click to expand...

My experience with CTE is that for several shots it works, but there is variance that would require adjustment.

My experience with another aiming system that I discovered while I was down at GTMO with no decent tables to play on, twiddling around with paper is a whole different story.

i have yet to find a shot that it doesn't work on, although it is possible I'm doing some adjustment without knowing it.

I created a video of it the other night, but had trouble with my adobe premiere in converting it. I got a secondary converter and will post it on youtube tonight when I get home from work.

I hope it might open some eyes.

Jaden.
 
cookie man said:
Post the video,you might be surprised!!!
Click to expand...
If somebody would post a detailed, clear, and complete description of an "accepted" version of the CTE system, and the description is logical and applies to a wide range of shots without "feel-based adjustments," then I would be happy to attempt to write and publish a well-illustrated article and/or post one or more videos for people to discuss and debate.

If somebody wants to volunteers, please do so in a new thread and link to the new thread from here.

Regards,
Dave

PS: Unfortunately, before I can film an videos, I need to wait about 2 months for my shoulder to heal completely because I recently had major surgery.
 
dr_dave said:
I usually try all of the techniques I discuss, but I usually don't need to try them to know when they will and won't work based on how they are described. I can see PJ's point sometimes: Why should he try something that is obviously flawed as described? Instead, he first tries to get a complete and accurate description to the point where the method shows promise. Then maybe he thinks it would be worth trying it out. I'm not sure this is how he or others think; but if they do, I don't fault them for that. I also like to understand and believe in something before I dedicate time and effort to work with it. Now, with some things, you might need to try it to fully understand the intricacies of when and where it does and doesn't work and why, but I think this is the case with many of the topics we discuss and debate here.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Well this is the difference between an engineer and a player. The engineer bases everything on what is "described" and the player bases their game on what is really happening.

This is the essence of the whole premise that high level players can do things that they cannot teach. I submit that also that they do things that lower level players also cannot describe.

To a scientist/engineer the anecdotal evidence of many people using a certain system and reporting great success with it ought to be enough to seek out the teachers/inventors of said systems and get the information captured on video for future analysis. To dismiss it because it doesn't work "on paper" is the same as the snake oil you say that the system teachers teach. And yes, you called them snake-oil salesmen.

It's very easy. Arrange a time to have the systems guys meet you and your camera somewhere. Set up shots and film them from all angles. Have your shots that the systems don't work for on paper and set them up and see how the systems people handle them.

Then discuss amongst yourselves what your findings are and publish them so that the rest of us can know what is really happening.

Until then we will have endless debates that pretty much equate to "yes it does/no it doesn't"
 
dr_dave said:
Every description and demonstrate of CTE I have ever read, seen, or heard is never complete enough to explain how CTE works for a wide range of shots.
Click to expand...

That is BECAUSE when you use a system you APPROACH all shots the same way. So to the player each shot "looks" the same although it's not.

This is the crux of the entire argument.

You say it's not possible to do this and yet people report that they do in fact do it this way.

So apparently there is middle ground that is NOT being covered and that is pretty much all you need to concede at this point until you are able to get with someone who is proficient enough to demonstrate the techniques adequately.
 
JB Cases said:
Well this is the difference between an engineer and a player. The engineer bases everything on what is "described" and the player bases their game on what is really happening.
Click to expand...

JB, will you agree that the laws of physics are never violated? If you re-read many of the "math comments," they are not disputing that the shots are made, but that they are not made on the basis described.

What happens happens. The shots are made. But you cannot properly communicate how to do it to someone else if you are describing something that physics says does not work. The flaw is in the description, not in the execution.

For how many years did pool pros teach that rail shots are made by hitting the rail and the OB at the same time? But,lo and behold, that is not what really happens in a successful rail shot... and many people who believed this myth made many successful shots.

Let's seek a better description. Let's recognize what adjustments are being made.
 
dr_dave said:
Every description and demonstrate of CTE I have ever read, seen, or heard is never complete enough to explain how CTE works for a wide range of shots. Have you read my recent Billiards Digest articles (October-December '08 here) dealing with aiming systems? I think they summarize some of the major challenges fairly well.

I do hope to meet Stan one day. I'm sure I will some day. I learn something new from every instructor I meet and work with.

I didn't say that. I'm not sure PJ did either. Good shooters can make any shot with any system. That's what some of the videos we have seen prove. Now, if you can explain and show exactly how you aim for a series a closely spaced shots, and we can clearly see on the video the subtle changes that are occurring from one shot to the next, then the video would be useful. Here a the link to the description of the series of shots that would be useful to see:


Regards,
Dave

PS: Could you provide links to the videos you mentioned in previous threads you said you would post? I have not seen any of them yet. You sound like a good shooter, but it would be nice to see how your apply the methods in question.
Click to expand...

I could post a video of me shooting those shots but I am not at liberty to explain the system that is Stan's job. Do you want me to post a video?

I use CTE which does not require any adjustments. I really think you should get a lesson with Stan as soon as possible. He will explain it to you and answer any questions you have.
 
devindra said:
I could post a video of me shooting those shots but I am not at liberty to explain the system that is Stan's job. Do you want me to post a video?

I use CTE which does not require any adjustments. I really think you should get a lesson with Stan as soon as possible. He will explain it to you and answer any questions you have.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you say it doesn't require any adjustments, for when I spoke with him about a month or so ago he told me there are 4 variables, which to me means adjustments are needed to deal with the variables.

Did I understand him correctly, or? He also told me he has an advanced aiming section. If it's advanced, that must mean there are some intricacies to his system. Or am I mistaken?

Flex
 
Flex said:
It's interesting that you say it doesn't require any adjustments, for when I spoke with him about a month or so ago he told me there are 4 variables, which to me means adjustments are needed to deal with the variables.

Did I understand him correctly, or? He also told me he has an advanced aiming section. If it's advanced, that must mean there are some intricacies to his system. Or am I mistaken?

Flex
Click to expand...

Ask him about that again. The variables are not adjustments.
 
devindra said:
Ask him about that again. The variables are not adjustments.
Click to expand...

That's cool.

If you'd be able to post up a video showing us a bit of what you know, and explaining what you can about it, I'd be most appreciative.

Flex
 
Shaft said:
JB, will you agree that the laws of physics are never violated? If you re-read many of the "math comments," they are not disputing that the shots are made, but that they are not made on the basis described.

What happens happens. The shots are made. But you cannot properly communicate how to do it to someone else if you are describing something that physics says does not work. The flaw is in the description, not in the execution.

For how many years did pool pros teach that rail shots are made by hitting the rail and the OB at the same time? But,lo and behold, that is not what really happens in a successful rail shot... and many people who believed this myth made many successful shots.

Let's seek a better description. Let's recognize what adjustments are being made.
Click to expand...

Of course I believe in the laws of physics.

Apparently you can communicate to someone how to do certain things that seem to defy the laws of physics however as is the case here.

That is the disconnect. Since we "know" that no physical laws are being broken (or the universe would have already collapsed), what then explains the fact that many people report such success with the systems?

Mass Delusion? We are all idiots? Subconcious Adjustments that we as long time players somehow magically acquired AFTER we started using a system? Some kind of parallax perception correction induced by the system?

It's easy to say that something can't work and ground your reasoning in 2-d drawings and the laws of physics. It's much harder to figure out why something is working even though it "seems" to defy the laws of physics.

I am in complete agreement with you about seeking better descriptions and finding the magic adjustments - I think in the past two months we have come farther than in the past 10 years towards this goal.

So why not go further and find a way for people like Pat Johnson and Dr. Dave to meet people like Stan Shuffet, Hal Houle, and Ron Vitello and "get the bet out of the mud" as they say in the pool room. Then I think we could get some real answers.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
dr_dave said:
But I also worked hard to understand when it does and doesn't work and how to make adjustments when necessary
Click to expand...

Show me one circumstance when BHE doesn't work.

I'll setup the shot and fire it in.

The math people keep thinking BHE is a system. It's merely a technique.
THAT's why it can be demoed on video just fine. Adjustments, as with any l/r english method are based on intuition. It just requires less intuition...fewer mental gymnastics... to make a harder shot. If it was more intuition and mental gymnastics...... no one would be using the technique. Imagine that?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but has anyone ever said "Just use BHE and the ball automatically goes with the correct initial aim 100% of the time under any conditions?"

Just as the scientists knew the earth was round before the sailors, explain how the scientists know BHE can't be used in certain situations (level-cue shots).
Click to expand...
Dave,
I'm pretty sure what Dr. Dave meant here is that he could make certain shots bridging at what he assumed was the cue's pivot point, but there were other shots he could not make pivoting from there, without making adjustments. And he didn't have a method for determining the adjustments, other than by mostly intuition or guestimation.

btw. Spidey, how do you adjust for various lengths, speeds, tip offsets etc. By feel? Do you change your bridge length or just shift the front bridge a little for some shots?

Colin
 
Colin Colenso said:
Dave,
I'm pretty sure what Dr. Dave meant here is that he could make certain shots bridging at what he assumed was the cue's pivot point, but there were other shots he could not make pivoting from there, without making adjustments. And he didn't have a method for determining the adjustments, other than by mostly intuition or guestimation.

btw. Spidey, how do you adjust for various lengths, speeds, tip offsets etc. By feel? Do you change your bridge length or just shift the front bridge a little for some shots?

Colin
Click to expand...

Colin,

Thank you for this post.

One of the things that you have done that has helped me a great deal were those videos that showed the different results in terms of throw on the object ball depending on how the cue ball was struck. That helped me to figure out a great number of things that were always mysterious to me before. That being said, accounting for the differences in outcomes based on the stroke and speed of shot and so on used, makes for some very challenging times at the table.

Part of the confusion about the use of BHE may be due to these important physical differences that stroke and speed and spin effect when the cue ball contacts the object ball.

To some people it's alright to live in a sheltered world, to others the battlefield calls. Some are willing to experiment, others stick with the tried and true and are unwilling to venture out. The problem with this latter breed is they limit their understanding, IMHO.

Thank you for all you do to help make these complicated issues more understandable.

Flex
 
Colin Colenso said:
Dave,
I'm pretty sure what Dr. Dave meant here is that he could make certain shots bridging at what he assumed was the cue's pivot point, but there were other shots he could not make pivoting from there, without making adjustments. And he didn't have a method for determining the adjustments, other than by mostly intuition or guestimation.

btw. Spidey, how do you adjust for various lengths, speeds, tip offsets etc. By feel? Do you change your bridge length or just shift the front bridge a little for some shots?

Colin
Click to expand...

If I told you what I did, it'd start a flame war. Imagine, the combination of an aiming system with BHE. OH MY LORD...imagine that???? Such heresy!

I'd get knocked to death by C players who couldn't hold my jock strap. It'd be called "spreading misinformation" when the filipinos use it to torch us in.

I'm actually growing bored of these bhe/aiming threads. It get the impression I have the info and I dislike the others who post in them.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
If I told you what I did, it'd start a flame war. Imagine, the combination of an aiming system with BHE. OH MY LORD...imagine that???? Such heresy!

I'd get knocked to death by C players (... deleted the rest of this sentence). It'd be called "spreading misinformation" when the filipinos use it to torch us in.

I'm actually growing bored of these bhe/aiming threads. It get the impression I have the info and I dislike the others who post in them.
Click to expand...

Nice post, Spidey.

I particularly like your comment about the combination of an aiming system and BHE. If it's heresy, I suppose I'd also be guilty...

BTW, folks, such a thing exists, and it works, at least a LOT of the time...

Flex

P.S. In the interest of full disclosure... this combo shooting system requires "adjustments." Are they intuitive, or? Feel free to flame or guess away.
 
Last edited:
Cornerman said:
Would you rather see more bickering or less bickering? Have those who most people view as "detractors to the systems" push you to trying the systems or to staying away from the systems?

Personally, I hate the detractor-speak. IMO, it serves no purpose to the greater good. This game isn't so politcal or religious to merit detractor-speak. Try or don't try. That's all it takes.

Fred <~~~ often guilty of detractor-speak
Click to expand...


Fred,since you quoted my post I guess you are asking me? maybe?

If so,in this instance it makes no matter either way frankly.Message boards will be what they be,all personalities included with opinions to match.

What really caught my eye "again" to bhe was first the video and then the stead fast relentlessness of those who swear by this english application and its "benifits" as it were.

If it were not for the detractors,the discussion would end before it gets started,so for me there is upside in the strife I guess lol. It did get me to revisit the method....with much better,if not rather amazing/surpirising results imho.

AND why not try it? at least try it and see just how assinine it actually is...or how much it might actually work...or somewhere in between most likely. There is always something to be learned imo,even in "failed" attempts at new thinking.At least I think so.

I'm sold on bhe for the moment.....but I need to work on expectations.Nice new problem to have I say. ;)

Thanks guys.
 
Flex, you once gave me negative rep because you said I was rude to Spidey. Yet, here is spidey calling PJ a C player who couldn't hold his jock strap, and you say nice post. How has it been determined that PJ is a C player, by the way. You are an interesting character, IMHO.
 
shankster8 said:
Flex, you once gave me negative rep because you said I was rude to Spidey. Yet, here is spidey calling PJ a C player who couldn't hold his jock strap, and you say nice post. How has it been determined that PJ is a C player, by the way. You are an interesting character, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Spidey did not say anything about PJ being a C player. Reread the post!
 
devindra said:
Spidey did not say anything about PJ being a C player. Reread the post!
Click to expand...

Sure, but anyone who's tortured himself reading this thread knows who he's talking about.
 
shankster8 said:
Flex, you once gave me negative rep because you said I was rude to Spidey. Yet, here is spidey calling PJ a C player who couldn't hold his jock strap, and you say nice post. How has it been determined that PJ is a C player, by the way. You are an interesting character, IMHO.
Click to expand...

My apologies, when I hit the quote button I should have read what Spidey said about "C" players and deleted that part of his post.

I don't agree with Spidey's characterization.

Truth be told, PJ plays a pretty good game of pool. A C player he certainly is not. He's a way better player than I am, and so, for me to clock his speed is somewhat fraught with peril. Nevertheless, I've seen him play 9 ball quite well, thank you, and one pocket too. A couple of years ago he played a game of one pocket with a fellow at Chris's in Chicago and I sweated the game. The tension was so thick it could be cut with a knife. I think PJ won that game.

How would I rate his game? Hmmm... "A" player for sure, maybe "shortstop" speed, I don't know.

In any case, his game is VERY respectable.

As far as I know, he doesn't play in tournaments, although I could easily be wrong about that, nor have I any knowledge as to whether he matches up for anything other than a friendly game.

I've been out all day today and just got back in to find some negative rep. Well, stuff happens.

After I post this, I'm going to go back into my post you take me to task on and delete the portion of Spidey's comments I also find objectionable.

Flex

P.S. I hope PJ doesn't take this post as a "knock" on him and his game. It's very respectable. As I mentioned, I don't know that he matches up. If he does, it won't take anyone very long to see he has game. Plus, I don't know how he would rank his own game. Perhaps he considers himself a B player, who knows.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top