Of course the bridge is ultimately on the shot line. I was just pointing out the "two-stage" process that Spidey used to get it there. His initial placement of the hand/bridge on the table did not determine one point on the shot line; something else more mysterious did.
NaySayers and YeaSayers
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
Of course the bridge is ultimately on the shot line. I was just pointing out the "two-stage" process that Spidey used to get it there. His initial placement of the hand/bridge on the table did not determine one point on the shot line; something else more mysterious did.
Stan thoroughly answers this question in Chapter 13
Aw, shucks.
I stand by every word of it. He doesn't post any more, but at that time Hal was an internet huckster for his "systems".
There isn't an untrue word in that post, including the description of Hal's hucksterism. Sorry I'm not a personality worshipper like you, Joey.
Here's the part from that old post that should be highlighted - it's still true for me today and explains most of my interest in this topic:
...and AzB readers.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Banks
Banned
How do you find out if the hand is placed correctly on the table? Is there another system for that?
As you're well aware, there is no "I" in team, but there are four in "Platitude-Quoting Idiot."
Actually, it is a pretty good post, Joey and it's an example of why RSB was so good -- your ideas stood or fell based upon their merits and not how much blue ink you used ;-) You should aspire to make your posts as intelligent and honest as Patrick's.
Lou Figueroa
I guess everyone has their own taste, Lou.
Ridiculing older people is not something that I care to do.
JoeyA
You confuse ridiculing a man's ideas vs. the man himself.
Hal is a great guy -- no doubt, and I mean that sincerely. I've spoken to him on the phone and he seems quite pleasant and clearly loves pool.
But, some of his ideas are crazy ca-ca.
Lou Figueroa
Who are you calling platitude-quoting?
pj
chgo
Is Hal's idea about CTE "crazy ca-ca"?
That was a good post Joey.
LOL. I'll bet you love your mother too.
I kicked a puppy today just because CTE crossed my mind.
pj
chgo
Actually, I might change one part of that post now:
"...[CTE] hurts rather than helps your game (because the real mechanics of accurate shooting are obscured by this method, not illuminated)"
I still think systems like this are opaque and anti-educational, but I also recognize that doesn't matter for many players (and maybe even helps some). I also appreciate the value of good setup habits, and I've come to appreciate the way CTE keys the setup to a careful visualization of CB/OB alignment. That part of CTE is good - but you don't necessarily need all of CTE for that part.
Did I mention it's not exact?
pj
chgo
Depends which idea you mean.
The ideas about the numerology of pool tables and aiming are nuts. I guess we don't know whether Hal believed it or it was just carnival barking (I know what I believe), but it's nuts.
The idea that x-angle systems are "exact" is so obviously wrong that it's almost nuts to believe it, but I guess it's really just wrong.
The idea that x-angle systems can make aiming easier is a good idea, even if Hal and the AzB CTE Cell have the reasons wrong (and even if it's not my cup of tea).
The idea that x-angle systems teach good setup habits is a good idea, but there's no evidence that Hal had it.
pj
chgo
Thanks Mike!
I was waiting for you to answer my other good post but you never did. :crying:
JoeyA
It's nice to see somebody agree that CTE/ProOne can't be accurately analyzed with plane geometry. Thank you.
I assume that "bridge hand" means something more specific such as "the point on the hand over which the cue will slide during the stroke." In that case, that's certainly my understanding of the goal of CTE/ProOne. It's unfortunate people have ignored that idea, preferring to concentrate on pivot points (which aren't necessary), initial cue orientation (which is meaningless), etc. I can see reasons Stan Shuffett may have wanted to use pivoting for pedagogical purposes, but I'd rather have had a clear, explicit statement about the goal of locating the bridge point before the mechanics of learning how to get there were discussed.
As for programming a robot to follow the procedure and correctly locate the bridge point.... It certainly is not the way you'd program a robot to "aim" unless having the robot test the procedure was the point of programming it to begin with (or some similar thing such as testing robotic vision systems, etc).
However, I'm not convinced it can't be done. The question rests on what I consider to be CTE/ProOne's fundamental contention:
That once the player is correctly positioned by following the prescripts of the methodology, then the CB-to-GB line is offset a short distance (1/2" or so) from the player-perceived CTE line, at least within some short linear range that falls within what most people would consider a reasonable bridge length.
I have no idea whether Stan would agree with that, or whether he thinks about his system in this way at all. It is, however, what I extracted from the DVD, mostly by watching very carefully what people actually did rather than worrying too much about what was said. If that contention is true, however, then the bridge point is calculable by a robot.
Now that I think of it, the robot can find the bridge point even if the contention is not true. If the distance between the CB-to-GB line and the CTE line varies too rapidly with the shot angle to consider the distance constant, it wouldn't take many tests for the robot to discover the function needed for determining it at some fixed point behind the cue ball based on some useful angle - the perceived convergence angle of the CTE and secondary sight lines seems a likely first candidate.
Last edited: