Possible Proof that Pivot Systems Need Adjustments

C

CueAndMe

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Colin Colenso, I'm reposting these pictures from the "mathematical aiming system" thread you created, because they are incredibly relevant to resolving the pivot system arguments. If the graph below actually represents the variety of pivots/bridge hand adjustments required to pocket the variety of labelled shots, then way back in November of 2005 you had already proven that one or two pivots do not fit all shots. Thanks for sparing me from having to create my own experiments. I'd rep you up and down, but I did so too recently.

If a system can place the bridge hand in a simpler way than you explain here:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=21113&page=3
then it would certainly be a fantastic system. But looking at your graph and seeing how many subtle adjustments would have to be made, I doubt very much that a simple system could do all of the math on its own.
Adjustment%20Graph.JPG

Adjusted%20Bridge1.JPG
 
Thanks for posting this graph - it's interesting and revealing. But we don't really need proof that no practical aiming system can mechanically define enough cut angles to make all shots. That fact is (or should be) obvious to anybody who thinks about it for a few minutes. It's about as obvious to me as the fact that you can't make all shots with full-ball hits.

I'm interested in another question: Why are some aiming systems taught as if they need no adjustments? Do they work best for some players this way, or is it just an effective promotion by those who sell them? Do the promoters/teachers of these systems actually believe it, or do they think the systems work best with the pretense, or do they just use the pretense to attract students?

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
I'm interested in another question: Why are some aiming systems taught as if they need no adjustments? Do they work best for some players this way, or is it just an effective promotion by those who sell them? Do the promoters/teachers of these systems actually believe it, or do they think the systems work best with the pretense, or do they just use the pretense to attract students?
pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I think it's good promotion to say that a system covers everything and will solve all aiming woes. It may even be believed by those who come up with it. I don't doubt that the systems work when the human element is mixed into the formula. This is why I think it takes living with the system for a while in order for it to really kick in. The subtle adjustments are trained over time. If it were really that easy, pocketing shots would begin right away. It's very easy to see the edge of the object ball. It's very easy to place the bridge hand. It's very easy to pivot to center. It's also very easy to say that the system is flawless, and human error is messing it up.

This isn't knocking the pivot systems. I'm just saying that they work because the minds of the people using them work better on them, like a shot visualization lens cleaner.
 
Dead Crab said:
Sin 30 = 0.25???????

I don't think so.......
Click to expand...

Look more closely. He goes into this in the original thread. It's Sin 30=0.5 then he makes a calculation based on distance from CB to OB. In this case he divides by 2.
 
Blupepper,
Thanks for the Isometric view for it fortifies the system that I use which doubles the distance away from the center of the OB (not shown with a line) to the contact point that goes to the pocket (initial aim line) - that when doubled, results in this case the edge of the OB (final CB travel line). This works well for all but very close shots. Others have said the same thing and use this system for there is nothing that is hidden or not told - save phone calls to H.H..

Can't rep you again.
 
Last edited:
Ah, so it should say:

Distance of Movement = (sine of angle / length of shot in feet) x 15mm.

As written above, it looks to be making the claim that sin 30 = .25
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Ah, ok. So if you bridge 1" or 15" from the CB, you adjust 3.something mm.

Got it.

Thanks:)
Click to expand...

He wasn't suggesting that anyone really use this. I think it was just an exercise he did because he could. He went into depth in the original thread about how to adjust for the pivot distance. Still way too mathematical, but interesting.
 
Lamas, don't rep me. It's Colin who deserves all the credit. All I did was realize that his work was important to this longstanding debate. And I want to go on record to say that I'm not anti-pivot. It seems like a great way to find your aim. The only reason I haven't adopted it yet is because I currently pocket balls better by other methods. Even though I'm not satisfied with my pocketing ability, I find myself having to make adjustments after pivoting. I don't land right on the shot, which by other methods I get closer to doing.
 
Nice graphs Jeff but they don't conform to the principles of CTE and therefore are quite irrelevant.

You are trying to transfer the limitations of FRACTIONAL systems i.e. there are too many potential contact points for any reasonble number of fractions to the CTE system.

CTE does NOT have ANYTHING to do with ball fractions, contact points or angles.

If you move the CB/OB postions, the CTE system will demand a new cue stick direction. Therefore, the directions the system demands the cue to point in or virtually unlimited and are demanded SOLELY by the orientation of the CB/OB.

NO feel...NO intuition. You may not agree with me but am I making my point clearly????

Your mission, should you decided to accept it, is to find out how to go about arriving at the direction in which to point the cue.

Have you called Mr. Houle? In far less time than you have spent in these threads, you could know EXACTLY what you need to know...and then YOU can post it.

Regards,
Jim
 
You are trying to transfer the limitations of FRACTIONAL systems i.e. there are too many potential contact points for any reasonble number of fractions to the CTE system.
Click to expand...

The graph illustrates that there are too many potential contact points for any practical system to mechanically define, no matter how it's done. This is nothing new to people with functioning basic logic circuits - it's the same obvious fact that has been pointed out repeatedly since Hal Houle's "3-angle" fractional system was first discussed on the internet a decade or more ago, but it applies equally well to CTE. You don't have to stand in front of a bus to find out it will hurt if it hits you.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Why are some aiming systems taught as if they need no adjustments?
pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Which aiming system are you talking about that needs no adjustments?
JoeyA
 
av84fun said:
Have you called Mr. Houle? In far less time than you have spent in these threads, you could know EXACTLY what you need to know...and then YOU can post it.

Regards,
Jim
Click to expand...

So now you're saying Hal's method will achieve the same results as Pro One? What happened to Pro One being the one that takes it 2 steps further and accounts for all orientations?
I've met with Hal. I drove 4 hours that day to do so. I learned it from him on his home table.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
The graph illustrates that there are too many potential contact points for any practical system to mechanically define, no matter how it's done. This is nothing new to people with functioning basic logic circuits - it's the same obvious fact that has been pointed out repeatedly since Hal Houle's "3-angle" fractional system was first discussed on the internet a decade or more ago, but it applies equally well to CTE. You don't have to stand in front of a bus to find out it will hurt if it hits you.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Utter, stoneheaded NONSENSE. The CTE method has NOTHING TO DO WITH AIMING AT CONTACT POINTS so however many there are make no difference!

You are now just arguing "religion and politics" on a non-factual basis and inventing straw horse "logic" that is neither based on fact or logic.

You should run for office.

In the other thread, you lied like a politician when you said that you don't demean such systems as being advocated by people without functioning logic circuits.

Everyone knows that you do not understand the CTE system so why do you embarrass yourself by continuing to protest that it does not and cannot work?

Jim
 
bluepepper said:
So now you're saying Hal's method will achieve the same results as Pro One? What happened to Pro One being the one that takes it 2 steps further and accounts for all orientations?
I've met with Hal. I drove 4 hours that day to do so. I learned it from him on his home table.
Click to expand...

I'm not stirring the pot but I am very curious as to what you learned from Hal.

Can you articulate what you learned and/or what he attempted to teach you?

(If you posted this in another thread, please provide a link).
Thanks in advance!

Sincerely,

JoeyA
 
Patrick, in the interest of having a thread that is not thinned out by flames, can you please just ignore Jim's comments. I don't know why, but he seems to have a way of misinterpreting your posts. Maybe he just expects them to be an attack on him personally. I know they're not, and I believe most people here know they're not.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
The graph illustrates that there are too many potential contact points for any practical system to mechanically define, no matter how it's done. This is nothing new to people with functioning basic logic circuits - it's the same obvious fact that has been pointed out repeatedly since Hal Houle's "3-angle" fractional system was first discussed on the internet a decade or more ago, but it applies equally well to CTE. You don't have to stand in front of a bus to find out it will hurt if it hits you.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

PJ....

There was a reason why I asked what your speed was the other day. If I knew you could stroke WELL as-is (straight) and that your body alignment was strong, I was going to put an end to this nonsense once and for all with the ignorant comments like the one above.

I can prove it works. I can prove there are no contact points. In addition, if your ego will allow.... you, the most outspoken opponent of Houligan pool will himself, be our leader.

Tell ya what buddy boy....

Fly out to Harrisburg, PA (HIA) and I'll pick you up. There's a hotel about 300 yards from my house. Spend one day with me (it'll only take an afternoon) and re-evaluate your position and what you "think" you know.

If you think I wasted your time (you can tell me, I'm a big boy), I'll transfer 25,000 frequent flier miles to you (basically paying for 1/2 your trip). If I changed your life in pool, I don't want you to pay me.... but I'm F-ing you into buying us a nice dinner at my favorite place (Mangia Qui).

I'm a smart guy. If you take me up on this, you're gonna QUOTE YOUR STATEMENT ABOVE and retract it. My biggest fear with you is your ego won't allow it because of your "anti-system" position and you'd say it's horseshit..... and then go home and practice it feverishly.

... that scares me with you, honestly.

P.S. Make a video of yourself playing 9-ball (unedited) or 14.1 (unedited) so I can see before I agree to this.
 
Last edited:
bluepepper said:
So now you're saying Hal's method will achieve the same results as Pro One? What happened to Pro One being the one that takes it 2 steps further and accounts for all orientations?
I've met with Hal. I drove 4 hours that day to do so. I learned it from him on his home table.
Click to expand...

Why do you INSIST on making things up out of the thin air? Not only did I never say that the two would achieve the same result but went out of my way to note that they are DIFFERENT and referred to as different levels.

Get a GRIP.

And well, you Hal may have tried to teach you but you obvious haven't LEARNED the system as your comments have made perfectly clear.

But you have chastised me for not posting exact details so avoid being a competely hypocrite, please post the EXACT dynamics of the CTE method as taught to you.

I am sure you would not be unwilling to do what you asked me to do.

Right!

I can't wait.

(-:

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top