Possible Proof that Pivot Systems Need Adjustments

[Colin Colenso]

Finally...not addressed to you but to others who demand that the system works only due to subconscious adjustments...that logic is fatally flawed.

Think of it. If a player experiences virtually immediate shot making improvement and becomes SUBSTANTIALLY better in a brief period of time...which I can testify to in my own case...the "subconscious adjustment" theory goes out the window.

If a player gets BETTER it MUST be the method because subconscious adjustments would REVERT the player to his OLD ways!

The "subconscious adjustment" crowd needs to understand that if the player experiences zero improvement it is because....due to subconscious adjustments...he is NOT executing the NEW system but his OLD methods...by definition!

Conversely, if the player improves substantially, IT CANNOT be due to reverting subconsciously to his old methods because the old methods have just been proven inferior!

(except due to the "placebo effect" as one poster suggested but if that is the reason...so what? Gimme a lifetime supply of placebos please)!

(-:

Jim

Jim,
I think the term Subconscious Adjustments is not the best way to describe what is also sometimes referred to as feel. A better term, imho is Intuitive Judgement.
i.e. Intuitive Judgement (IJ) is something different in kind to mechanical, mathematical or geometrical systems as they are applied to aspects of a shot, though such shots can also include one or more IJ aspects.

I don't think it follows logically that improvement, via use of a system proves that IJ isn't involved in that system. I think this happens often.

For example, there used to be a method advised whereby on nearly straight shots (up to around 5 degrees) the player should just aim at the middle of the OB as the brain tends to intuitively find the line of the pot.

Interestingly people reported good results from this. Even I found it to be a useful method provided I didn't try to aim too precisely at the center of the OB. Just look at the OB, slide into the shot toward full ball and the brain intuitively directs you a little off full ball to make the shot. It is really just a reference point system that is poorly explained, but which can work for a lot of players.

You mention that part of the system's success could be due to the Placebo effect. I suspect that is the case, but that infers that the system is not complete, that it relies on Intuitive Judgement.

Personally I think most pre-alignment methods, where there is heavy focus on just shooting straight through after the bridge has been set, do instil a great deal of confidence as one's accuracy in pre-alignment improves. Most players, for all their pool lives swoop their cues and shift their bridges during shot execution rather than to ever develop accurate pre-alignment.

When a system (even if it incorporates Intuitive Judgements), works to remove doubt and second guessing from the execution phase, it will likely lead to consistent improvement.

Colin

 

[Poolplaya9]

Poolplaya9,

Such systems, that include some adjustment methodology certainly can make any cut angle. The first post in this thread has diagrams and a link to a complex system that I developed. Developed, not recommended for use.

The argument here is whether the CTE type systems have a systematic method of adjustment. None has ever been publicly described in detail or convincingly in my opinion.

Colin

Colin, I think we are basically in agreement. I did specifically say practical aiming systems, and there are none. Sure, you can have a system where you divide the object ball into 1000ths and be able to make any shot. This shot here, just hit 362/1000ths of the object ball and it goes right in.

Same thing with your system, it just isn't practical. I think that if you can accurately judge what 6.7 millimeters is, and then actually move your cue over that exact amount, then you were already capable of judging where to hit the object ball and executing the shot to begin with without the need of a "system." And that doesn't even include all the pivoting, complicated math, accuratley judging the cut angle to begin with, accurately judging the length of your bridge, standing on one foot while touching your tongue to your nose, etc.

And even after all that you still have the all the other issues of varying conditions and other variables that the system would have to be able to adjust for, like dirty or clean balls, etc.

The mind is a beautiful thing, and is the most advanced computer ever in existence, capable of doing complicated calculations involving hundreds of variables in a split second. No system will ever come close to it's power and accuracy.

Before a pitcher throws the baseball he doesn't say ok, I'm exactly 50 feet away from the batter, the wind is blowing exactly southeast and I am facing exactly north, it is swirling but blowing an average of 4.3mph, the ball weighs exactly 8.9ozs, and has x coefficient of drag, which means I will need to pull my arm back exactly 17 inches, accelerate these particular arm muscles at 85% of maximum ability, open my hand to release the ball one inch before the arm reaches maximum extention, aim exactly 4 feet 7 inches high and 6 ft 1 1/2 inches to the right of the strike zone to account for wind and drag and weight etc etc etc. He just looks at where he wants to throw and then throws the ball. The mind does it's hundreds of calculations almost instantly and controls everything without much if any conscious thought, and the ball gets there. And the more he throws, the better he will get. The brain fine tunes itself.

Aiming in pool is much the same thing. No system is ever going to replace the brains ability to calculate what to do with all of the dozens of variables. The nice thing about it too, is that the brain is constantly updating it's "software" every time you hit a ball, making you more and more accurate with every ball you hit until your talent and ability has eventually been exhausted.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, I think we are basically in agreement. I did specifically say practical aiming systems, and there are none. Sure, you can have a system where you divide the object ball into 1000ths and be able to make any shot. This shot here, just hit 362/1000ths of the object ball and it goes right in.

Same thing with your system, it just isn't practical. I think that if you can accurately judge what 6.7 millimeters is, and then actually move your cue over that exact amount, then you were already capable of judging where to hit the object ball and executing the shot to begin with without the need of a "system." And that doesn't even include all the pivoting, complicated math, accuratley judging the cut angle to begin with, accurately judging the length of your bridge, standing on one foot while touching your tongue to your nose, etc.

And even after all that you still have the all the other issues of varying conditions and other variables that the system would have to be able to adjust for, like dirty or clean balls, etc.

The mind is a beautiful thing, and is the most advanced computer ever in existence, capable of doing complicated calculations involving hundreds of variables in a split second. No system will ever come close to it's power and accuracy.

Before a pitcher throws the baseball he doesn't say ok, I'm exactly 50 feet away from the batter, the wind is blowing exactly southeast and I am facing exactly north, it is swirling but blowing an average of 4.3mph, the ball weighs exactly 8.9ozs, and has x coefficient of drag, which means I will need to pull my arm back exactly 17 inches, accelerate these particular arm muscles at 85% of maximum ability, open my hand to release the ball one inch before the arm reaches maximum extention, aim exactly 4 feet 7 inches high and 6 ft 1 1/2 inches to the right of the strike zone to account for wind and drag and weight etc etc etc. He just looks at where he wants to throw and then throws the ball. The mind does it's hundreds of calculations almost instantly and controls everything without much if any conscious thought, and the ball gets there. And the more he throws, the better he will get. The brain fine tunes itself.

Aiming in pool is much the same thing. No system is ever going to replace the brains ability to calculate what to do with all of the dozens of variables. The nice thing about it too, is that the brain is constantly updating it's "software" every time you hit a ball, making you more and more accurate with every ball you hit until your talent and ability has eventually been exhausted.

I wouldn't discount the use of systems. In fact, there are certainly systems that are more powerful and predictable than just letting the mind do its thing via its previous experience. Diamond systems and BHE come immediately to mind. But even the very nature of potting a ball becomes systematized to some degree, no matter how much intuitive judgement comes into it. Players reference the CB, the Cue Line, some reference point on the OB, the line to the pocket and the position of the pocket perhaps and even the stance and head position. Some use less or more, but these are systems to some degree and players find them usefull.

The question we face here is whether or not the pivot adjustment methods concerning CTE methods are purely systematic in a geometric or mathematical sense or if they rely on intuitive adjustment for this aspect of the system.

Without having an exact description of the CTE systems is it hard to be sure.

I think that systematic approaches such as visible reference points and strict pre-alignment have advantages for allowing a player to hone their intuitive skills, to train their brains we could say.

If the adjustment is done purely in a systematic way, then it would do away with an aspect of the game that many players have been able to pretty well master intuitively. That is, to just see how to make a pot.

I like the first part of CTE systems as they are described. I don't see that total systematization is necessary, or even that it exists. Rather that it is a kind of ball park starter that allows for fine tuning of the intuitive judgement aspect of aiming.

I do agree that the mind is an amazing tool and can perform many things that we could never replicate with purely systematic approaches. e.g. How to draw back 3 feet. We might systematize such things as a low flat bridge, a smooth accelleration, a set backswing, a slight pause, a loose wrist and wrist flick, finishing with cue tip on the cloth etc, but in the end, there is a great deal of intuitive judgement in the shot and that intuitive judgement can be developed / refined with a lot of repetition.

Colin

 

[CueAndMe]

For those who use Hal's system, if my previous description was in any way inaccurate, please correct it. It seems that, according to Jim, my visiting Hal wasn't the proper way to learn it.

 

[perspicaz]

I see aiming a little bit like cooking... you need knowledge but also lots of touch.

Even if the most precise aiming system could be devised and we had a computer to calculate all variables for us for any given shot... it would still need to compensate for the subtle errors in stroke that we humans incur in (how can the computer predict 'our' stroke?).

I believe that knowing several aiming systems will help "double check" your aim. I usually aim by feel (subconscious ghost ball I guess) but on some shots I will consciously calculate ghost ball contact point and of course I then introduce compensation for throw, squirt, swerve, etc. I can see that knowing this pivoting systems might be helpful to check in case your aim doesn't feel right with your usual "aiming system" or whatever.

I guess our limited "human" precision makes any mathematical aiming system useless unless some experience, practice and subconscious "touch" is also employed to master all variables involved.

Best aiming system imho: knowledge (conscious) + experience (unconscious) -- you need both. :embarrassed2:

 

[CueAndMe]

No...

I'm saying, "not center, not center, not center, CB center....shoot."

Then perhaps you're already lined up before you do any pivoting. The stick pivot is just to place the stick onto your already visually secured shot line.

 

[spoons]

From another thread....

IMHO the bridge hand placement is CRITICAL and has to be learned mechanically at first.

For those interested, first place your bridge hand 4 inches to the left of the CTE line...point the tip to the edge of the CB and pivot to the center. You will see that you will miss the whole OB!

Do the same thing from the right and DITTO.

So, now we have established that bridge hand placement DOES matter. So, where the hell do you place it.

The idea of aiming by using two reference points that are easy to spot and that will be available on every shot makes perfect sense to me. I can find the center of the cue ball, and I can find the edge of the object ball, and every cue ball has a center, and every object ball has an outside edge. Even if (as Dave mentioned), I'm not able to see them or the relationship correctly at first, I'm pretty confident that I can learn to find them every single time.

So, this whole thing is intriguing to me, but like so many other people, I'm hung up on this bit about how bridge hand placement is determined. This is confusing to me, so hopefully one of the Houligans or one of Stan's students can answer it for me. If I'm understanding what I've read so far, this should be a yes or no question.

In CTE, is there a systematic way to learn where to place the bridge hand? I'm not necessarily interested in knowing what that is just yet. I'm more interested in knowing whether Hal or Stan teaches it that way.

Thanks!

 

[SpiderWebComm]

No one understands the dynamics of this stuff better than Hal. I think he simplifies it to the point that may not be believable to some, but his favorite comment is.... "It doesn't matter."

After a year of doing it very successfully, I believe him. Whatever he says, I do, and my game improves. Go figure. Stan is a super source as well. Might as well learn from the creator of the system and then call Stan - I'm sure he'd agree. Why not, right?

If you're reading Hal... THANKS

 

[jay helfert]

Forgive me if I'm missing something here. But does the "pivot system" endorse a player adjusting his cue stick when he is down on the shot? You know, pivoting it slightly to find his aim point?

If that is the case I wholeheartedly disagree with this method. I'm a firm believer that once you get down on the ball, you do NOT adjust your stance or set-up in any way. Without a firm solid stance, you are operating at a big disadvantage.

I could not recommend any system that encourages a player to move around once he gets down.

 

[cookie man]

Forgive me if I'm missing something here. But does the "pivot system" endorse a player adjusting his cue stick when he is down on the shot? You know, pivoting it slightly to find his aim point?

If that is the case I wholeheartedly disagree with this method. I'm a firm believer that once you get down on the ball, you do NOT adjust your stance or set-up in any way. Without a firm solid stance, you are operating at a big disadvantage.

I could not recommend any system that encourages a player to move around once he gets down.

watch bustamonte

 

[Koop]

I could not recommend any system that encourages a player to move around once he gets down.

Jay,

With all due respect, watch the filipino's a little closer next time. I know you have played these guys plenty but if you really look they are adjusting their tip just prior to striking the cueball. Almost every one I have watched does this with their backhand. Now if you said not to adjust your bridge hand I would completely agree with you. Even Parica, who probably has the least noticeable adjustment still does pivot slightly during final stroke. Bustamante and even Reyes are very noticeable.
I watched Gandy Valle a year ago take down the Ocean State Classic in R.I. and I watched him pivot as well. I was probably the only one who noticed because I know what to look for.

Regards,
Koop

 

[halhoule]

Pool

The idea of aiming by using two reference points that are easy to spot and that will be available on every shot makes perfect sense to me. I can find the center of the cue ball, and I can find the edge of the object ball, and every cue ball has a center, and every object ball has an outside edge. Even if (as Dave mentioned), I'm not able to see them or the relationship correctly at first, I'm pretty confident that I can learn to find them every single time.

So, this whole thing is intriguing to me, but like so many other people, I'm hung up on this bit about how bridge hand placement is determined. This is confusing to me, so hopefully one of the Houligans or one of Stan's students can answer it for me. If I'm understanding what I've read so far, this should be a yes or no question.

In CTE, is there a systematic way to learn where to place the bridge hand? I'm not necessarily interested in knowing what that is just yet. I'm more interested in knowing whether Hal or Stan teaches it that way.
HAL HOULE, YOU PLACE YOUR BRIDGE HAND LIKE YOU AND EVERY OTHER PLAYER HAS . THE DEAL IS LOOKING AT THE EDGE OF THE CUE BALL ON EVERY SHOT.

 

[jay helfert]

Jay,

With all due respect, watch the filipino's a little closer next time. I know you have played these guys plenty but if you really look they are adjusting their tip just prior to striking the cueball. Almost every one I have watched does this with their backhand. Now if you said not to adjust your bridge hand I would completely agree with you. Even Parica, who probably has the least noticeable adjustment still does pivot slightly during final stroke. Bustamante and even Reyes are very noticeable.
I watched Gandy Valle a year ago take down the Ocean State Classic in R.I. and I watched him pivot as well. I was probably the only one who noticed because I know what to look for.

Regards,
Koop

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I mean are they actually moving their body (pivoting) to adjust their aiming point? I'm not talking about moving your arm slightly to hit a certain point of the cue ball. That's normal.

I guess I don't understand the "pivot system". Keith hit the cue ball from all kinds of funny angles, but once he was down on the ball, he stayed down and solid.

 

[Koop]

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I mean are they actually moving their body (pivoting) to adjust their aiming point? I'm not talking about moving your arm slightly to hit a certain point of the cue ball. That's normal.

I guess I don't understand the "pivot system". Keith hit the cue ball from all kinds of funny angles, but once he was down on the ball, he stayed down and solid.

Oh, gotcha Jay. No, no body movement, just backhand alignment.

 

[cookie man]

Jay, the pivot usually takes place in the air as you go down on the shot.

 

[jay helfert]

You know I've seen players aim one place on the cue ball and hit it in another. Maybe this is what you mean by the "pivot system".

Jimmy Moore was famous for aiming at the very bottom of the cue ball (I mean right on the cloth) and then hitting it with all different kinds of english. Was he "pivoting"? I don't know.

I've also seen players aim to the left and hit the cue ball on the right side, and vice versa. Kind of weird but it worked for them.

 

[spoons]

I've noticed Bustamante lining up off center in the past, but I never knew why. If I remember correctly, he always lines up, and even takes his practice strokes with his cue tip positioned to hit extreme low left. I'd have to look again, but I think his final stroke through the ball is the first time that he actually puts his cue where he's going to contact the cue ball.

 

[LAMas]

Hal,
Thanks for your comment - for this is the first that I have read this and not from any of your students that "THE DEAL IS LOOKING AT THE EDGE OF THE CUE BALL ON EVERY SHOT".

 

[Colin Colenso]

Follow Up!

Just to follow up on a discussion that was started with Jim yesterday but left unanswered. I believe it is a critical issue, because in this statement by Jim, he claimed to have explained how an aim line, separate to the CTE line is determined.

Here are the relevant parts of the discussion.

The original quote came from post #43 in this thread. Read here for full context: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=1350455&postcount=43

Originally Posted by av84fun
Push up to your normal bridge length keeping that inverted V RIGHT ON TOP of the CTE line...like it was a track while pointing the cue tip to the outside edge of the CB.

When you get to your normal bridge length, stop...and pivot ALONG THE HORIZONTAL CENTER OF THE CB...to dead center.

THAT is your aim line and if you look, you should see that the V formed by your thumb and index finger of your bridge hand is just about 1.4 inch offset from the CTE line.

Jim

My original reply:
Jim,
If the bridge V slides up the track line of the CB to OB Edge line. Then if the cue is pivoted at the bridge hand V to the center of the CB, then the Cue and aim line is directly aligned to the OB edge, or CTE line.

I can't see how the V has become offset at all.

Colin

Jim's follow up
Originally Posted by av84fun
Thanks for the question Colin. If I didn't say so, I should have said that the process I described was for MY closed bridge and that other's may vary.

On my closed bridge, the apex of the inverted V is NOT directly over the center of the shaft but instead slightly to the RIGHT of the shaft.

Therefore, for ME the shaft is offset from the apex of the inverted V.

I have responded to a LOT of posts but somewhere, I stated that the shaft offset from the CTE line should be about 1/4 inch. So everyone has SOME reference on their open and closed bridges that they can determine and use until the hand placement just becomes automatic...in Level 2 or Pro One.

Jim

My reply
Jim,
A slight difference between your bridge V and the center of your shaft does not account for the offset of 1.4 inches you stated in your explanation of how you create and offset in a stage 1 type process. In fact, all that difference would account for is that your shaft always ends up being aligned slightly off the CTE line.

It cannot work the way you explained it.

Care to correct it or re-explain it?

Colin

So can you explain further Jim?

Colin

 

[av84fun]

Just to follow up on a discussion that was started with Jim yesterday but left unanswered. I believe it is a critical issue, because in this statement by Jim, he claimed to have explained how an aim line, separate to the CTE line is determined.

Here are the relevant parts of the discussion.

The original quote came from post #43 in this thread. Read here for full context: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpo...5&postcount=43


Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
Push up to your normal bridge length keeping that inverted V RIGHT ON TOP of the CTE line...like it was a track while pointing the cue tip to the outside edge of the CB.

When you get to your normal bridge length, stop...and pivot ALONG THE HORIZONTAL CENTER OF THE CB...to dead center.

THAT is your aim line and if you look, you should see that the V formed by your thumb and index finger of your bridge hand is just about 1.4 inch offset from the CTE line.

Jim

Quote:
My original reply:
Jim,
If the bridge V slides up the track line of the CB to OB Edge line. Then if the cue is pivoted at the bridge hand V to the center of the CB, then the Cue and aim line is directly aligned to the OB edge, or CTE line.

I can't see how the V has become offset at all.

Colin




Quote:
Jim's follow up
Originally Posted by av84fun
Thanks for the question Colin. If I didn't say so, I should have said that the process I described was for MY closed bridge and that other's may vary.

On my closed bridge, the apex of the inverted V is NOT directly over the center of the shaft but instead slightly to the RIGHT of the shaft.

Therefore, for ME the shaft is offset from the apex of the inverted V.

I have responded to a LOT of posts but somewhere, I stated that the shaft offset from the CTE line should be about 1/4 inch. So everyone has SOME reference on their open and closed bridges that they can determine and use until the hand placement just becomes automatic...in Level 2 or Pro One.

Jim



Quote:
My reply
Jim,
A slight difference between your bridge V and the center of your shaft does not account for the offset of 1.4 inches you stated in your explanation of how you create and offset in a stage 1 type process. In fact, all that difference would account for is that your shaft always ends up being aligned slightly off the CTE line.

It cannot work the way you explained it.

Care to correct it or re-explain it?

Colin

Colin, check my statements. I said 1/4 not 1.4. (-:

If you point the tip at the edge of the CB pre-pivot and swing over to center along the horizontal centerline, that is about 1.125 inches.

But the CUE is offset about 1/4 inch...not 1.4.

Roger that???

Finally, let me say this. I am not a beginner so I can't really testify how this system would work for raw recruits who have no clue how a shot should look.

The really advanced CTE/Pro One players were pretty sporty shotmakers before adopting that method...and like Spidey, they air pivot and can just SEE where to land.

What I'm trying to do is to dumb down that process so the uninitiated have a ROTE way to get down on the shots and the method I've described would GREAT...FOR ME.

In the real world, I say that hand placement is critical but the advanced guys say they don't even THINK about hand placement...and we are BOTH telling the truth...just like my typewriter analogy. At FIRST, you gotta look at the keys and later, you don't but both methods are correct...the latter only being faster.

Same deal here. I am JUST getting into the air pivot but I have to ADMIT that when I land wrong, I can SEE that I have landed wrong whereas a less experienced player might not.

But the way I've described getting into the shot makes it seem impossible (in my mind) that anyone would do what I described...shoot with a straight stroke...and miss.

Hell, I feel like I've done something wrong if the ball doesn't go DEAD CENTER.

But just to be clear...FOR ME...the method breaks down beyond a certain cut angle which I can SEE so I don't even care to calculate it...and B) it breaks down when the CB/OB are very close together...which again, is OBVIOUS.

When those situations happen...you just do what you gotta do but you have not WORSENED your game by having to abandon the system! You have only returned to where you were before adopting the system.

In the meantime, for the VAST majority of shots, aiming is no longer even an issue and you turn your ENTIRE attention to SHAPE which is the #1 skill by FAR.

Instead of being a little proud of yourself for draining a 50 degree cut from 6 diamonds away...you are SHOCKED if you miss it and you KNOW that you put a bad stroke on it.

ALL THE ABOVE HAS TO DO WITH CENTERBALL HITS (actually vertical center). NONE OF THE ABOVE HAS TO DO WITH THE USE OF SIDE.

At this stage of my progress with the system (Level 2) I adjust my aim to account for side-related issues as I always did with above average proficiency...BUT...I am adjusting from what I consider to be a KNOWN reference and doing so has SIGNIFICANTLY improved my shotmaking when using side.

Pro One level guys may be able to explain a systematic adjustment for side but I doubt it. I think the student will be told to practice, practice, practice....with the clear advantage of making adjustments from a known correct reference point.

But I think there would be a WAY to practice in an optimal fashion to incorporate side into the system. All I can suggest is to get instruction on that aspect when you are ready for it.

Regards,
Jim

EDIT: Colin, I now see that I mistyped 1.4 once and correctly typed 1/4 once. Sorry for the confusion