Pivoting systems and their relationship to CTE

[LAMas]

Great post and diagrams.

I have used exactly that method in the past and moved on to what I posted earlier. It's been a while since I tried it and will go shoot a few in a minute. Looks like we are on the same page though. Glad to see someone else in the same ballpark. Do you vary your pivot point based on distance between CB and OB?

The diagram is at the same bridge distance for all shots and was why I studied how to shift the cue to the side the correct distance without having to vary that distance of the bridge behind the CB. All shots can be made with the correct cue tip/shaft/cue PARALLEL shift to the side pre-pivot.

Have fun.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

Nice Vorpal and thanks for trying it out. Usually when I miss a shot it is from choosing the wrong edge (3 or 9) because they both are close but my lying eye is too bad to tell which one is correct. When I repeat the shot using the opposite edge the ball usually drops. Hoping I or someone can determine which edge to systematically choose on the close shots. Thanks again I am off to give LAMas variation a whirl again.

I almost took few backwards pivots too, but as you say, it's rather obvious when you choose the wrong ones. Looking back on it, on the 0-15* I didn't try a near straight in.

Just got off my butt and tried one. OB 6 diamonds from pocket, 1/2 diamond from rail, CB 1 diamond from OB. Not quite center pocket but didn't touch the 'ears' of the pocket going in.

Seems to work okay for me.

 

[Elephant Man]

The diagram is at the same bridge distance for all shots and was why I studied how to shift the cue to the side the correct distance without having to vary that distance of the bridge behind the CB. All shots can be made with the correct cue tip/shaft/cue PARALLEL shift to the side pre-pivot.

Have fun.

Yah that would be great to be able to use the same bridge and pivot point every time. I guess the only way I can see that being possible is based on what you mentioned about "foreshortening". Further OB would mean less PARALLEL shift which would make the pivot less and closer OB means more PARALLEL shift and more pivot too so maybe...

Your version: Different shifts that automatically happen due to foreshortening.

Opposed to my version: Half ball shift every shot and pivot point changes based on CB to OB distance, which makes up for the foreshortening I guess.

On paper I like your version better. Off to give it a shot.

 

[Dan White]

Thank you for complimenting my outstanding skills.
Becoming a C level pool player represents the fulfillment of my lifelong dream. At last I have arrived at a well deserved recognition.
I bet my league patch collection is more comprehensive than yours?

I don't care what everybody says about you, you're OK in my book! :thumbup:

 

[Dan White]

I hope he keeps reading the thread. I'm trying to leave some info he can use if he's serious about understanding the inner workings of pivoting systems. He helped out at the start by trying to clarify some questions and he seemed genuinely interested in exploring the different parts. When he discovered the math and science was leading to a conclusion he didn't want to accept, he closed his mind to the facts.

A critic is useful to explore your ideas in more detail. A good critic has an open mind and tries to examine both sides of the point in question with an unbiased view. If he can't open his mind to new concepts, he'll never be a good critic.

Vorpal, I agree about critics being useful. However, and I'm not accusing you of this, but keeping an open mind goes both ways. I tried to have a straight forward discussion with John Barton like what you were having with Rick, but I soon realized he wasn't interested in reexamining his own long held beliefs.

In your discussion with Rick, did you ever start with "find the contact point"? If so, then the discussion is over and Rick was correct. Everything AFTER finding the contact point is more or less mechanics to help you send the cue ball to the cp. Instead of all the pivoting and whatnot, I just use ghost ball, which really becomes "it just looks right" in short order (as I'm sure is the case in your system).

I'm not knocking anything, to be clear. The only reason Rick posted 20 times a day is because he couldn't seem to get anybody to acknowledge that it is impossible to pocket a ball without knowing where the pocket is, and knowing where the contact point is. Stan and his cult disagree yet refuse to explain how it is done. Stan sells his system by saying it is a totally "objective" system, meaning there is no guess work in estimating the contact point at all. His system doesn't require knowledge of the contact point.

I just want fair-minded people to keep that in mind while all this Rick bashing is going on.

 

[cookie man]

Vorpal, I agree about critics being useful. However, and I'm not accusing you of this, but keeping an open mind goes both ways. I tried to have a straight forward discussion with John Barton like what you were having with Rick, but I soon realized he wasn't interested in reexamining his own long held beliefs.

In your discussion with Rick, did you ever start with "find the contact point"? If so, then the discussion is over and Rick was correct. Everything AFTER finding the contact point is more or less mechanics to help you send the cue ball to the cp. Instead of all the pivoting and whatnot, I just use ghost ball, which really becomes "it just looks right" in short order (as I'm sure is the case in your system).

I'm not knocking anything, to be clear. The only reason Rick posted 20 times a day is because he couldn't seem to get anybody to acknowledge that it is impossible to pocket a ball without knowing where the pocket is, and knowing where the contact point is. Stan and his cult disagree yet refuse to explain how it is done. Stan sells his system by saying it is a totally "objective" system, meaning there is no guess work in estimating the contact point at all. His system doesn't require knowledge of the contact point.

I just want fair-minded people to keep that in mind while all this Rick bashing is going on.

It doesn't require knowledge of the contact point. Yes i reference the pocket but only to choose my secondary line. It is objective because Stan clearly outlines what the ctel and secondary lines are. GIVE IT A REST AND LET THESE GUYS CONTINUE WITH THERE VERY GOOD INFORMATIVE DISCUSSION.

PS English was barred because of things he posted in NPR.

 

[Neil]

Vorpal, I agree about critics being useful. However, and I'm not accusing you of this, but keeping an open mind goes both ways. I tried to have a straight forward discussion with John Barton like what you were having with Rick, but I soon realized he wasn't interested in reexamining his own long held beliefs.

In your discussion with Rick, did you ever start with "find the contact point"? If so, then the discussion is over and Rick was correct. Everything AFTER finding the contact point is more or less mechanics to help you send the cue ball to the cp. Instead of all the pivoting and whatnot, I just use ghost ball, which really becomes "it just looks right" in short order (as I'm sure is the case in your system).

I'm not knocking anything, to be clear. The only reason Rick posted 20 times a day is because he couldn't seem to get anybody to acknowledge that it is impossible to pocket a ball without knowing where the pocket is, and knowing where the contact point is. Stan and his cult disagree yet refuse to explain how it is done. Stan sells his system by saying it is a totally "objective" system, meaning there is no guess work in estimating the contact point at all. His system doesn't require knowledge of the contact point.

I just want fair-minded people to keep that in mind while all this Rick bashing is going on.

And, just like Rick, you showcase your total lack of knowledge about Stan's CTE. You keep inserting claims into it and then use those claims to show it doesn't work. You will never understand it, no matter how many times it is explained to you, simply because you do not want to understand it.

The only thing you have actually accomplished with CTE, is to become the new "English!". And, somehow, I think you are actually proud of that.

 

[Elephant Man]

It doesn't require knowledge of the contact point. Yes i reference the pocket but only to choose my secondary line. It is objective because Stan clearly outlines what the ctel and secondary lines are. GIVE IT A REST AND LET THESE GUYS CONTINUE WITH THERE VERY GOOD INFORMATIVE DISCUSSION.

PS English was barred because of things he posted in NPR.

Does it require knowledge of the opposite side of the contact point? The edge facing the pocket?

 

[Neil]

Does it require knowledge of the opposite side of the contact point? The edge facing the pocket?

No, it doesn't.

 

[LAMas]

Does it require knowledge of the opposite side of the contact point? The edge facing the pocket?

If one can see the line going through the 12:00 and exiting at 6:00 like with the cue (stick aiming) and another line going from the center of the OB to the center of the OB, there will be an included angle except for the straight in shot - same line.

One can learn where to offset the shaft/tip to the side that corresponds to cut the OB at the first line to the pocket/target. On the table from behind the kitchen for reference, use the line from the upper right corner pocket to the lower left corner pocket for it is close to 30 degrees. the other side of the line is about 60 degrees.

From the upper right pocket to the center dot to the right of the lower left pocket is close to 15 degrees. the other side is about 75 degrees

From a corner pocket to the side opposite side pocket is 45 degrees. The other side is 45 degrees.

Use this knowledge to aim without seeing the illusive contact point on the OB.

This works for some shooters.

 

[GoldenFlash]

Contact point? You want contact point??

In one of Stan's youtube videos he states....."If you like finding the contact point, you're going to love CTE since the system takes you to it"
(Also it takes care of cling/throw.)
These are the main reasons I fell in love with it.
And, of course, its routined consistency means a lot.
I like routined playing...."that looks about right" stuff isn't for me. Did that for decades.
Money comes too hard now, for me to end up pissing it away guessing.
But, as a C player, just about anything would've helped me. :wink:

 

[Elephant Man]

No, it doesn't.

Thanks for clearing that up. Mind boggling actually. About the time I think I got it down (again) I can't get past that claim, though I have been told otherwise by a cryptic guru. Do you have the DVD? Even if not, it's been out a while, I sorta figured it's been out long enough to not be taboo and try to clear up the details by talking about them. So I guess I will get the DVD and be back to talk details.

 

[Neil]

Thanks for clearing that up. Mind boggling actually. About the time I think I got it down (again) I can't get past that claim, though I have been told otherwise by a cryptic guru. Do you have the DVD? Even if not, it's been out a while, I sorta figured it's been out long enough to not be taboo and try to clear up the details by talking about them. So I guess I will get the DVD and be back to talk details.

Yes, I have both DVD's. And, unlike some others on here, I use it fluently.

The very first thing you have to understand and learn, is to empty your cup to start with. Forget about what you know about aiming, and just do your best to follow the instructions that Stan gives you.

Don't try and second guess it, just follow it and see where that leads you to.

 

[Dan White]

It doesn't require knowledge of the contact point. Yes i reference the pocket but only to choose my secondary line. It is objective because Stan clearly outlines what the ctel and secondary lines are. GIVE IT A REST AND LET THESE GUYS CONTINUE WITH THERE VERY GOOD INFORMATIVE DISCUSSION.

PS English was barred because of things he posted in NPR.

Can you discuss the bold part in a little more detail? What do you mean when you say you "reference" the pocket in order to choose your secondary line?

Oh, and please cut the crap implying that Stan has explained everything so well that even a baby could understand it. Even Neil knows that isn't true. Ask me how I know.

I'm waiting for someone to start calling Elephant Man the next English! because he's questioning how balls can be pocketed without regard to the pocket (according to Stan).

 

[cookie man]

Can you discuss the bold part in a little more detail? What do you mean when you say you "reference" the pocket in order to choose your secondary line?

Oh, and please cut the crap implying that Stan has explained everything so well that even a baby could understand it. Even Neil knows that isn't true. Ask me how I know.

I'm waiting for someone to start calling Elephant Man the next English! because he's questioning how balls can be pocketed without regard to the pocket (according to Stan).

Get over your love affair with English please.
Elephant is not questioning things, he's asking questions and excepting the answers, you should try that.
By referencing the pocket only means that i know which pocket i'm shooting the ball in. Some ball positions CTE allows me to have multiple options of pockets.

PS Stan has put out quite a bit but how would you know. Did you buy a dvd? Did you take a personal lesson? If not then why do you consider yourself qualified to speak on CTE.

 

[Dan White]

Get over your love affair with English please.
Elephant is not questioning things, he's asking questions and excepting the answers, you should try that.
By referencing the pocket only means that i know which pocket i'm shooting the ball in. Some ball positions CTE allows me to have multiple options of pockets.

PS Stan has put out quite a bit but how would you know. Did you buy a dvd? Did you take a personal lesson? If not then why do you consider yourself qualified to speak on CTE.

I didn't buy the DVD but watched a lot of the videos Stan did on Youtube, not to mention endless discussion by you guys on these forums. Oh and about an hour on the phone with Hal. You keep trying to disqualify my opinion as not valid because "I don't know what I'm talking about." That only goes so far before you have to start giving real answers. Example: Stan put out the 5 shot perception video and many of us said that was impossible and how is it done? So people like me question what is being presented and we get brow beat as no-nothings for years, and then guess what happens? Stan finally comes out and discounts the 5 shot video. He said he made a mistake and will present the information differently in his book, so please stop referencing that video. So I guess all us no-nothing idiots had a good point after all, huh?

 

[cookie man]

I didn't buy the DVD but watched a lot of the videos Stan did on Youtube, not to mention endless discussion by you guys on these forums. Oh and about an hour on the phone with Hal. You keep trying to disqualify my opinion as not valid because "I don't know what I'm talking about." That only goes so far before you have to start giving real answers. Example: Stan put out the 5 shot perception video and many of us said that was impossible and how is it done? So people like me question what is being presented and we get brow beat as no-nothings for years, and then guess what happens? Stan finally comes out and discounts the 5 shot video. He said he made a mistake and will present the information differently in his book, so please stop referencing that video. So I guess all us no-nothing idiots had a good point after all, huh?

I've never referenced the 5 shot video.
But for the record i can do the 5 shots exactly how Stan originally explained them. Yes i am aware that he has now changed the way to shoot them but the original way does work also.
Quite obviously CTE hasn't clicked with you yet so yes i can disqualify most of what you say about it. You do realize that there hasn't been a whole lot of real good info actually put on here don't you. Mostly because of guys like PJ LOU and English. Who wants to give them the time of day with how they talk about CTE. Now Stan's youtube videos area different story, plenty of great info there. But if CTE hasn't clicked for you, and it obviously hasn't, then you wouldn't really understand them.

 

[Neil]

I didn't buy the DVD but watched a lot of the videos Stan did on Youtube, not to mention endless discussion by you guys on these forums. Oh and about an hour on the phone with Hal. You keep trying to disqualify my opinion as not valid because "I don't know what I'm talking about." That only goes so far before you have to start giving real answers. Example: Stan put out the 5 shot perception video and many of us said that was impossible and how is it done? So people like me question what is being presented and we get brow beat as no-nothings for years, and then guess what happens? Stan finally comes out and discounts the 5 shot video. He said he made a mistake and will present the information differently in his book, so please stop referencing that video. So I guess all us no-nothing idiots had a good point after all, huh?

Several problems here. You expect a full understanding of CTE from snippets here and there. Never once actually going to the source. You cry and whine because you feel your questions weren't answered to your satisfaction for free. Yet, when multiple do answer your questions clearly and concisely, you instantly refute those answers with next to no attempt to actually understand or even try what was stated. Then you claim, as you still do, that you never got any answers.

You twist what is said to suit your needs. Stan never stated that what he previously released on the five shots was completely wrong and invalid now. Yet, that is what you are stating. Those five shots do work as he described. Which is why so many of us are able to make them all. He has a different way of approaching teaching those five shots, which he will reveal in his book as he stated. He is tired of rehashing the same thing over and over and over just to keep getting the same responses from the same people that don't actually put any real effort into learning it..

 

[stan shuffett]

I never set out to create a system. I look at that as a very dumb idea. I did, however, set to figure out Hal Houle's CTE. DVD1 is a great benchmark in my efforts to do so. DVD2 is also a great milestone for my work with Hal's material.
Sure, there have been some refinements and I am as proud as heck to say that on DVD2 I indicated that any new updates would be placed on YouTube.
GUESS WHAT....I will be putting the whole shebang on YouTube for the whole the world to see. I am a man of my word!
Concerning the 5 shot video: I did not truly discover the corrections until well into my book project when my untold thousands of additional hours kicked In and I saw something I NEVER dreamed that Id see or be able to explain.
I apologize to anyone that is offended by me for having worked my butt off to get to the bottom of CTE.
I have no quit in me.....

Stan Shuffett
I will never have a problem being man enough to admit any mistake that I have ever made whether in life or in pool. I have learned from my errors because ultimately they move me forward with my goals.

 

[mista335]

Thanks for clearing that up. Mind boggling actually. About the time I think I got it down (again) I can't get past that claim, though I have been told otherwise by a cryptic guru. Do you have the DVD? Even if not, it's been out a while, I sorta figured it's been out long enough to not be taboo and try to clear up the details by talking about them. So I guess I will get the DVD and be back to talk details.

Try this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub31XS-bWbI