Pivoting systems and their relationship to CTE

[Elephant Man]

Try this

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

Thanks for the link.

To be clear on Pro1/CTE terminology, "C" stands for both "Center" and also "Edge C"?

CenterTE
ETA or C (what I refer to as 3 or 9 o'clcok)
Offset Pivot to Center

3 or 9, Left or Right, X or Y, IN or OUT... all would be less confusing to convey than having "C" stand for 2 different things.

Stan really has it broken down... 15, 30, 45, 60... I never use that info to line up with the CTE I have been using, but I am willing to give it a go.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

There's been some opinions that pivoting is more complex than CP aiming, it has too many parts in it and CP shooting is easier and more natural. Let's examine CP shooting as a new player would.

First you have to find the CP on the OB. Then you 'mark' the location as your reference. Next you have to find a spot on the back of the cue ball by using a parallel line drawn through the CCB at the same angle the OB, pocket, and CP line lie on. Then you imagine a line from the CP on the back of the CB to the CP on the face of the OB. You place your cue stick parallel to this new line through CCB and you're aimed to pocket the ball. The process has you imagine two points and two sets of parallel lines to get a shot solution. All lines and points are imaginary and are prone to errors in your subjectivity.

It's easy to explain and easy to imagine how it works. It takes some time to develop and you have to practice to ingrain the idea and MAKE it work. After working with the concept for a while, a player will develop more skills in it's use and the process becomes natural and they'll forget about all the pieces that have to fit together properly.

A pivoting system uses a different way to get to the same shot solution. First you examine the balls' positions and pick a visual. I consider that to be the rough equivalent of finding the CP on the OB. Next you 'set' the visual by lining up the edges and centers of the two balls. Roughly the same as finding the CP on the CB imho. Then you pivot to CCB to get to the shot line. I consider that as similar to finding the parallel line through CCB using CP. There's only three steps involved; select visual, lock in visual, and pivot.

Are the steps underlying pivoting as easy to understand as in the CP method? Not only no, but hell no! You have to look at the CB and OB in a completely different way. It takes more time to develop the skills needed to MAKE the system work. Once you have the pieces together though, it becomes just as easy, or even easier to use pivoting than CP shooting.

The advantage to pivoting is that all your visual references are solid centers and edges that are in plain view. No imaginary lines or parallels are needed and the subjectivity of the shot is eliminated. You have to work your butt off to get the concepts ingrained, but once you 'get' it, it becomes a process that's as natural to use as any aiming system.

 

[Dan White]

There's been some opinions that pivoting is more complex than CP aiming, it has too many parts in it and CP shooting is easier and more natural. Let's examine CP shooting as a new player would.

First you have to find the CP on the OB. Then you 'mark' the location as your reference. Next you have to find a spot on the back of the cue ball by using a parallel line drawn through the CCB at the same angle the OB, pocket, and CP line lie on. Then you imagine a line from the CP on the back of the CB to the CP on the face of the OB. You place your cue stick parallel to this new line through CCB and you're aimed to pocket the ball. The process has you imagine two points and two sets of parallel lines to get a shot solution. All lines and points are imaginary and are prone to errors in your subjectivity.

It's easy to explain and easy to imagine how it works. It takes some time to develop and you have to practice to ingrain the idea and MAKE it work. After working with the concept for a while, a player will develop more skills in it's use and the process becomes natural and they'll forget about all the pieces that have to fit together properly.

How about comparing a pivot system to a ghost ball aiming system? The steps are as follows: Draw a line from the pocket through the ob and note the cp spot opposite the pocket. Keeping your eye on that spot, get behind the cue ball and line up the cue center ball. Shoot at the contact point with a slight over cut to account for the round shape of the balls. If you miss, set up the shot again and hit it 20 times a day for a week. Do this with various angled shots to build a memory of how to aim the shots. Pretty soon, looking at the line from the pocket to the cp will no longer be necessary because your memory will tell you when the shot looks right.

It's very simple and it works. Also, not trying to be negative here, but with the pivot system you spend a lot of brain power getting the pivot amounts and rules figured out so they can work naturally. I think if you take that same brain power and direct it toward observing where the ball goes with ghost ball aiming, you'll come out ahead.

A pivoting system uses a different way to get to the same shot solution. First you examine the balls' positions and pick a visual. I consider that to be the rough equivalent of finding the CP on the OB. Next you 'set' the visual by lining up the edges and centers of the two balls. Roughly the same as finding the CP on the CB imho. Then you pivot to CCB to get to the shot line. I consider that as similar to finding the parallel line through CCB using CP. There's only three steps involved; select visual, lock in visual, and pivot.

The bold part is very important, and can't be glossed over. In fact, it is the most important thing in your pivot system. If you don't know exactly what you are trying to pivot to, the pivoting steps are meaningless, correct? "Picking a visual" sounds an awful lot like Stan's method. Aren't you really just finding the cp in order to make the ensuing pivots meaningful?

Are the steps underlying pivoting as easy to understand as in the CP method? Not only no, but hell no! You have to look at the CB and OB in a completely different way. It takes more time to develop the skills needed to MAKE the system work. Once you have the pieces together though, it becomes just as easy, or even easier to use pivoting than CP shooting.

The advantage to pivoting is that all your visual references are solid centers and edges that are in plain view. No imaginary lines or parallels are needed and the subjectivity of the shot is eliminated. You have to work your butt off to get the concepts ingrained, but once you 'get' it, it becomes a process that's as natural to use as any aiming system.

I have to respectfully disagree with the bold (it's the part that has caused 20 years of arguing). I could say the subjectivity in ghost ball aiming is eliminated because I am shooting straight through center ball every time...nothing is more objective than that. In the pivot system, you are looking at objective targets on the cue ball (edges and centers) but your pivoting is subjective, and more complicated, IMO.

Of course, it has to be said that some people may have trouble with ghost ball aiming due to a bad stroke or whatever, and your pivot system might change their stroke so that they are hitting straight again. You can never figure, but I agree that there are different strokes for different folks, literally. I just wouldn't teach a pivot system to a new player unless it is shown they somehow can't pocket balls with ghost aiming.

Thanks for considering.

 

[cookie man]

"Picking a visual" sounds an awful lot like Stan's method. Aren't you really just finding the cp in order to make the ensuing pivots meaningful?



.

Just for clarity, Stan's method does not rely on finding the cp for visual's or pivots.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

I compared pivoting to CP because that's the way I learned to aim. Never used the GB method so I didn't use it as an example.

First you examine the balls' positions and pick a visual. I consider that to be the rough equivalent of finding the CP on the OB.

The bold part is very important, and can't be glossed over. In fact, it is the most important thing in your pivot system. If you don't know exactly what you are trying to pivot to, the pivoting steps are meaningless, correct? "Picking a visual" sounds an awful lot like Stan's method. Aren't you really just finding the cp in order to make the ensuing pivots meaningful?

Nope, when I used my pivot triangle method to get the angle needed, I didn't consider the CP on the OB in any part of the aiming sequence. Even now I only use the CP to select the visual and nothing is 'indexed' off it's location. It's sometimes easier for me to use the PT method instead of finding the CP. It's a different way to find the shot line and the CP doesn't mean Jack.

In the pivot system, you are looking at objective targets on the cue ball (edges and centers) but your pivoting is subjective, and more complicated, IMO.

My pivots are a mechanical process that adds and subtracts 15* EVERY TIME to get a shot solution. I try to make each one identical. The system won't work if you use different pivot amounts. You have to take the same amount of 'bite' on each shot or the process fails. You can't use a 12* pivot on one and a 17* pivot on the next. They MUST be identical.

The only subjective part with the pivot is when you're first learning to set one up in the early stage of adopting the system. Once you have the correct bridge lengths, cue angles, etc., you use the same pivot on every shot. It was the hardest part of the system for me to build. I had to 'fiddle about, fiddle about' to get one to work, but once found the subjectivity flies out the window with it's use. Once the correct 'gear train' is found it's used exclusively.

I tried to explain a pivoting method to my grandson about a month ago. His eyes became so glazed it made me want a donut. Sure, it takes more time and effort to learn than any of the traditional methods. It was worth the work for me though because it's helped me out with shots I have difficulty making with CP shooting. Is it worth the effort to you? I dunno.

 

[mista335]

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.

Can you pocket a straight in shot using CTE or is all your CTE expertise theoretical?

 

[BeiberLvr]

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?

Hi class, welcome to Relationships and Love 101. Please open your textbooks to page 12.

*raises hand*

Yes, you in the back there.

Uh, hi professor. My name is Beibs. Sorry, but I didn't actually purchase the textbook.

And why is that?

I've actually seen 50 Shades of Gray and I've also watched a few episodes of The Pick Up Artist on VH1. So I think that pretty much makes me an expert.

 

[Dan White]

Nope, when I used my pivot triangle method to get the angle needed, I didn't consider the CP on the OB in any part of the aiming sequence. Even now I only use the CP to select the visual and nothing is 'indexed' off it's location. It's sometimes easier for me to use the PT method instead of finding the CP. It's a different way to find the shot line and the CP doesn't mean Jack.

Regarding the red above, I assume you understand the point I am trying to understand better. At some point, the location of the pocket has to be known, and that information has to impact how you set up to pocket the ball. "Using the CP to select the visual" is pretty vague, although I acknowledge that I didn't read your triangle presentation and maybe the answer is presented there. Can you clarify the steps you take that connect the pocket (if not the cp on the ob) to your shot process?

I also hope you agree that my confusion is not unwarranted. You said you don't use the cp for aiming but also say you do use the cp for selecting the correct visual.

Also, what is the PT method?

 

[Vorpal Cue]

Regarding the red above, I assume you understand the point I am trying to understand better. At some point, the location of the pocket has to be known, and that information has to impact how you set up to pocket the ball. "Using the CP to select the visual" is pretty vague, although I acknowledge that I didn't read your triangle presentation and maybe the answer is presented there. Can you clarify the steps you take that connect the pocket (if not the cp on the ob) to your shot process?

I also hope you agree that my confusion is not unwarranted. You said you don't use the cp for aiming but also say you do use the cp for selecting the correct visual.

Also, what is the PT method?

Too long to get into here. Take a look at the last section in the PT thread and I think you can get the idea without reading the entire text. Any questions about PT, I'd like to keep in that thread.

I went over the topic earlier, you probably missed it. From page 3, post 32.

SNIP:

I've made a mistake on the question by English! and want to correct my last post.

When I've been using the term quarters I've been thinking about dividing half of the object ball into 4 sections. I'll use the term eighths instead to avoid confusion. The object ball contact point will sit in one of four sections.

I see them as the area between center OB and 1/2 the distance to C (for the left cut) as the first section or new 'eighth'. This area is for 0-15* shots and I'd use the A with pivot into pocket for those.

The next area from there to the C line is where the 15-30* shots are. I use a B with an inside pivot for that eighth.

From C to half the distance to the edge or for 30-45* shots I use an A with an outside pivot,

The next eighth is divided into two sections the innermost for 45-60* I align a true quarter ball overlap and reduce the pivot to a half tip pivot out.

The outermost section to the edge are for 60-90* I use a true 1/8 ball overlap with half tip pivot out.

When shooting the last section for 45-90*, I try to imagine a ghost ball with the correct overlap behind the OB. This give a ghost ball center line as an aid for the cue ball edge to help get the correct perspective. Shooting one line shots are tough at first because you don't have a true second reference but must imagine it.

END SNIP

The CP is found by standing behind both ball's centers and finding out which pasture the horse is in, so to speak. I don't need to saddle and ride him.

My system uses the angle of the OB to the pocket. I can use a PT to find and use that angle to select a visual, or check which section of the OB the CP lies in.

 

[Dan White]

I went over the topic earlier, you probably missed it. From page 3, post 32.

SNIP:

I've made a mistake on the question by English! and want to correct my last post.

When I've been using the term quarters I've been thinking about dividing half of the object ball into 4 sections. I'll use the term eighths instead to avoid confusion. The object ball contact point will sit in one of four sections.

I see them as the area between center OB and 1/2 the distance to C (for the left cut) as the first section or new 'eighth'. This area is for 0-15* shots and I'd use the A with pivot into pocket for those.

The next area from there to the C line is where the 15-30* shots are. I use a B with an inside pivot for that eighth.

From C to half the distance to the edge or for 30-45* shots I use an A with an outside pivot,

The next eighth is divided into two sections the innermost for 45-60* I align a true quarter ball overlap and reduce the pivot to a half tip pivot out.

The outermost section to the edge are for 60-90* I use a true 1/8 ball overlap with half tip pivot out.

When shooting the last section for 45-90*, I try to imagine a ghost ball with the correct overlap behind the OB. This give a ghost ball center line as an aid for the cue ball edge to help get the correct perspective. Shooting one line shots are tough at first because you don't have a true second reference but must imagine it.

END SNIP

The CP is found by standing behind both ball's centers and finding out which pasture the horse is in, so to speak. I don't need to saddle and ride him.

My system uses the angle of the OB to the pocket. I can use a PT to find and use that angle to select a visual, or check which section of the OB the CP lies in.

OK I think I understand better. While you are not locating a specific spot on the ob (that is, the contact point) you are locating a 1/8 section of the ob that contains the cp. To me, so far your method is a conventional ghost ball or HAMB method, except you are only looking for the approximate correct contact point. Meaning, by looking at the angle to the pocket, you estimate that the cp is in one of the 1/8th sections from your experience. Once you have that, you do you PT method, which seems to include thickening or thinning the shot based, again, on whether the shot "looks right" in order to successfully pocket the ball.

Is that a fair characterization?

 

[Vorpal Cue]

OK I think I understand better. While you are not locating a specific spot on the ob (that is, the contact point) you are locating a 1/8 section of the ob that contains the cp.

Yes, that's all. Sometimes I don't use the CP and do a PT instead. It's a convenience, not a necessity. Like water and beer.

To me, so far your method is a conventional ghost ball or HAMB method, except you are only looking for the approximate correct contact point.

Tenuous connection at best.

Meaning, by looking at the angle to the pocket, you estimate that the cp is in one of the 1/8th sections from your experience.

Same as first Q. , same answer.

Once you have that, you do you PT method,

It's an either/or pick, sometimes both for a double check but not as a general rule.

which seems to include thickening or thinning the shot based, again, on whether the shot "looks right" in order to successfully pocket the ball.

Definitely no. After pivot I make no adjustments to the shot line if using center ball shots. I adjust for speed, spin, etc. for position, but use the pivoted shot line as a reference.

Is that a fair characterization?

No. I do either the CP or PT on a particular shot to get the correct visual. Once I have the correct visual, I lock it in, and pivot. Then I'm ready to fire. I don't use contact points to aim when using a pivoting method. Sometimes as a visual selection, sometimes not. Look, I can sell you a big box of contact points real cheap, like new condition.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

Hey Dan, just a thought.

I tried using Elephant Man's pivoting technique with his system and I was wondering if you could use it to develop a manual half ball pivot. It feels natural after a few tries. If you're using just a half tip pivot, try going back to a manual one. Then you could see if that would get the visuals and rotation working for you. Got nothing to lose.

Here's where E.M. started explaining his system. Post 361, Page 25.

 

[LAMas]

Dan White,

Here's an example of how Ghost Ball and Double Distance aiming are related:
Illustrations by Patrick Johnson.



Notice the perceived length of the yellow line from the contact point to the center of the GB. It is the same distance from the CP to the center of the OB.

Doubling the Distance or DD takes advantage of this relationship to assist infinding the center of the GB.



Added: It stands to reason that the distance between the center of the OB on the cut line to the pocket/target to where that line exits it's equator can be visualized as a line with a length of "X" and that the same distance reaches the center of the GB ergo the reason to double the distance to the center of the GB.

Pictures are worth several sentences of descriptions..... Simple no?

Have fun.

 

[Dan White]

Dan White,

Here's an example of how Ghost Ball and Double Distance aiming are related:
Illustrations by Patrick Johnson.

@vorpal: Thanks for the comments. It's late so I'll give that some consideration tomorrow.

@LAMas: I've been shooting long enough that I don't think about all that. When it looks right I hit it. If I miss it is most often a stroke problem. Thanks for the pics, though. :thumbup:

 

[Dan White]

No. I do either the CP or PT on a particular shot to get the correct visual. Once I have the correct visual, I lock it in, and pivot. Then I'm ready to fire. I don't use contact points to aim when using a pivoting method. Sometimes as a visual selection, sometimes not. Look, I can sell you a big box of contact points real cheap, like new condition.

It's cumbersome to have a conversation when you nest your comments in blue within my comments the way Spidey does it. I don't think I said things exactly the way I meant. Let me try more specifically after reading your blue comments:

I said you pick a 1/8 section of the ball based on where the pocket is and therefore where the contact point is within 1/8 ball section. To me, this is roughly HAMB but that is not a critical point. Then, I said you thin or thicken the shot with the pivot and you said you do not. However, in your post above you said you choose maybe an A with an inside pivot, a B with outside pivot, etc. The inside pivot thickens the shot while outside thins it, which was what I was trying to say. Once you have made your pivot I understand that you shoot straight through. But, it seems to me what you are doing is essentially aiming at the contact point in a two step process. Step 1: find the 1/8 section where the contact point resides. Step 2: given this location, choose an alignment (what Stan calls a visual) and then either thin or thicken (inside/outside pivot) in order to get you closer to the contact point. This decision is made based on your feel for where the contact point is within that 1/8th section.

If your pivot is always exactly 15* and you have discrete alignments or visuals, then I believe you are relying on either slop in the pocket width or you are fine tuning your pivot more than you realize. After all, these are very small adjustments.

Where did I go off the rails?

 

[Dan White]

Hey Dan, just a thought.

I tried using Elephant Man's pivoting technique with his system and I was wondering if you could use it to develop a manual half ball pivot. It feels natural after a few tries. If you're using just a half tip pivot, try going back to a manual one. Then you could see if that would get the visuals and rotation working for you. Got nothing to lose.

Here's where E.M. started explaining his system. Post 361, Page 25.

Thanks for your suggestions. I've tried Stan's method, tried Hal's method but I believe aiming is not an issue for me, so I don't want to screw that up by tinkering with a pivot aiming system. I originally started reading these threads because I had heard that CTE could help a lot with multiple rail banks. That was really my interest, but well, let's leave it at that.

I've become interested in the idea of why pivot systems seem to work for some and not others, Stan's method in particular. I don't think there is any mystery to EM's method as his first step is to identify the contact point and then go from there. I'm not trying to brow beat you about contact points, but it seems to me you are aiming at contact points in a roundabout way. If there were a way to pocket a ball without knowledge of where the contact point is, I'd call it witchcraft.

Bonus question: Who theorized that small pebbles float, just like a witch?

 

[stan shuffett]

If there were a way to pocket a ball without knowledge of where the contact point it, I'd call it witchcraft. /QUOTE]



Perfect, That is a great quote from a real student of the game. I know how much you believe those words to be true. When I get my new website going next year I will share your wisdom with the whole world. Great for clincs and YOUTUBE as well.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Dan White]

If there were a way to pocket a ball without knowledge of where the contact point is, I'd call it witchcraft. /QUOTE]



Perfect, That is a great quote from a real student of the game. I know how much you believe those words to be true. When I get my new website going next year I will share your wisdom with the whole world. Great for clincs and YOUTUBE as well.

Stan Shuffett

Thanks, Stan. I'd love to be quoted in your book as well, if you don't mind. Just be sure to spell my name right. It's easy enough. You might want to edit your post and add the left bracket at the /QUOTE]. You deleted it by mistake. Oh, and until your book comes out and you explain how your system really works then I remain skeptical. "Trust me" doesn't cut it.

On the other hand, I wish you really could prove that your system works. It think it would be a neat thing.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

It's cumbersome to have a conversation when you nest your comments in blue within my comments the way Spidey does it. I don't think I said things exactly the way I meant. Let me try more specifically after reading your blue comments:

I said you pick a 1/8 section of the ball based on where the pocket is and therefore where the contact point is within 1/8 ball section. To me, this is roughly HAMB but that is not a critical point. Then, I said you thin or thicken the shot with the pivot and you said you do not. However, in your post above you said you choose maybe an A with an inside pivot, a B with outside pivot, etc. The inside pivot thickens the shot while outside thins it, which was what I was trying to say. Once you have made your pivot I understand that you shoot straight through. But, it seems to me what you are doing is essentially aiming at the contact point in a two step process. Step 1: find the 1/8 section where the contact point resides. Step 2: given this location, choose an alignment (what Stan calls a visual) and then either thin or thicken (inside/outside pivot) in order to get you closer to the contact point. This decision is made based on your feel for where the contact point is within that 1/8th section.

If your pivot is always exactly 15* and you have discrete alignments or visuals, then I believe you are relying on either slop in the pocket width or you are fine tuning your pivot more than you realize. After all, these are very small adjustments.

Where did I go off the rails?

I misunderstood your use of thin and thicken. I thought you were speaking of thinning or thickening the pivot.

The step 1 you refer to is completely unnecessary. I used a PT to get the angle I needed months before I noticed the location of the CP in the quarters.

Change step 2 to : After finding the angle needed by use of a PT, choose an alignment (what Stan calls a visual) and then either thin or thicken (inside/outside pivot) in order to get you on the shot line. END!

That's how I shot using my method for the first few months and I still use a PT as the CP gets closer to the edge. The PT method will give better accuracy at the edge than a CP will, so it plays little part in the last section of the OB.

I'll say it again, the CP means nada, squat, Jack, zero, nil, and completely unnecessary for pivoting purposes. I'm starting to feel like John Cleese trying to return a dead parrot. The CP does have beautiful plumage for other styles of shooting though.

The 'fine tuning' is all in the visual. Once you have your visual/pivot mechanism set up to jump 15* (quarter ball), You're locked and loaded. If you mess with the ratio by varying pivot distances etc., you'll just be shooting blanks.

 

[stan shuffett]

Thanks, Stan. I'd love to be quoted in your book as well, if you don't mind. Just be sure to spell my name right. It's easy enough. You might want to edit your post and add the left bracket at the /QUOTE]. You deleted it by mistake. Oh, and until your book comes out and you explain how your system really works then I remain skeptical. "Trust me" doesn't cut it.

On the other hand, I wish you really could prove that your system works. It think it would be a neat thing.

No one has to trust me for anything. It is all on me to present what I have asserted to true. I will do clinic/demo explanations, youtube and text.

Be careful what you wish for.

Stan Shuffett