I agree with you pablocruz. I edited my post.
PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions
- Thread starter stan shuffett
- Start date
I agree with you pablocruz. I edited my post.
Dave: Here's the slightly longer version of this from your web site:
While standing, sight through the center of the CB and the outside edge of the OB (i.e., sight along the CTE line). Then, based on the amount of cut needed (see the table below), shift your sight line from a given edge or point on the CB to a certain point on the OB. Then, guided by this line, drop straight into your stance, aligning the cue 1/2-tip off the CB's center. Then pivot the cue to the center of the CB with a fixed-bridge pivot.
Your descriptions of this seem, to me, a bit vague as to how to find the proper line for placement of the bridge. You seem to say one should shift his sight line off the CTEL to the secondary line (edge to A/B/C) and then, "guided by this line," somehow drop into the proper offset position.
The way I interpret what Stan says is that, essentially, one needs to find the sighting position where he can simultaneously view both the CTEL and the secondary alignment line (to A/B/C). This sighting position will be between those two alignment lines, and this sighting position will define the relevant edges of the cue ball and, therefore, the relevant face (now think of it as a flat disk) of the cue ball. From this sighting position, move straight in toward that cue-ball face (perpendicular to the flat disk) with the 1/2-tip offset needed.
Do you read what I am saying as any different from what you understood and wrote?
One more thing for now. A couple of the recommended bridge lengths you gave are different from what Stan has in his Glossary. Any reason for that?
with a cut to the right you line up cte, now depending on the cut angle, you will be a half tip off set left on thick cuts or a half tip off set right for thinner cuts of the vertical axis of the cb.
you will be referencing b,c with a L to R pivot on thick cuts and a R to L pivot on thinner cuts. This is basic cte.
For really thin cuts to the right u will be cte, a right side half tip off set of the vertical axis of the cb a R to L pivot and your reference will be 1/8 from right side cb to 1/8 from left ob.
Last edited:
I'll fix that. Thanks. my bad.
Yes, you are correct. My bad. It's fixed now.
I thought Dr. Dave was going to give Stan a little more time than a few weeks before he started publishing Stan's work on his web site but I guess the truth is that if anyone gets serious about learning CTE/Pro One they should get the video or better yet, take a lesson with Stan to get it right. JoeyA
Some of us who use CTE notice that the bridge position behind the CB remains constant like 12.0" for the same cut angle as the OB is farther away from the CB. The smaller appearing OB makes the included angle made by the CTE line and the secondary aim line (like "B") get narrower/smaller. This narrowing of the included angle prevents the CB hitting the OB too thin.
What this does is that the shift of the eye/body into the new stance is smaller when the OB appears smaller as the OB is
farther away from the CB - pre-bridge down, pre 1/2 tip to the side of the center of the CB and pre-pivot..
This is just me and a few others who concur.
Just sayin.:wink::thumbup:
Last edited:
The secondary aim point (1/2 or B in this case) causes the eye and body to move to the side to effect a new stance - pre-bridge down, pre- 1/2 tip shift and pre-pivot. The movement to the side will be smaller when the OB is down table and farther away from the CB which results in a smaller/narrower included angle.
Hey, I concur.
But different strokes for different folks...what works for one won't work for another. Some may benefit from CTE and others from GB aiming.
There are so many that can't visualize the GB, but can look to/for CTE and the secondary points of aim easier than GB.
Besides instructors need to help those that can benefit from CTE ... sometimes at a cost.
I am a double distance aim shooter myself and find CTE arduous, but I can analize it although it's academic to me.
Be well.:thumbup:
Nothing difficult about it. Unless you are trying to document the WHY factor. Easy as 1 2 3
People are making this harder than it is. Sight,Pivot and pull the trigger,
Nothing to think about
LAMas,
Great diagrams, by the way! I'm curious to see how introducing perspective would alter the visual alignment points. A ballpark visual I've noticed is at about four diamonds the object ball is reduced to approximately half the size of the cue ball. About a 2:1 ratio.
I think the variance in the setup /alignment of the shooter is even smaller than what you've shown. This enables the player to make even tighter adjustments resulting in a more precise targeting of the contact point as the distance increases between the balls.
Best,
Mike
That's what I was getting at in my previous post yesterday, although my post wasn't as elegant.
Some people get it and some people don't.
You apparently do get it.
The truth is that any professional player could learn this system in 15 minutes, imo, because they already have the experience of looking/aiming in different ways in addition to being able to stroke straight and all of the other necessary skills that is needed to pot balls and make shape.
Personally speaking, CTE/Pro One is very easy to use but it wasn't always so for me. At first, I didn't have all the pieces of the puzzle, then after I was exposed to all the pieces of the puzzle, I still didn't carefully place the pieces where they went, then after I realized how precise you have to be with the reference points, it got a WHOLE LOT easier to pot balls using it.
There are others who get it and they aren't ALL rocket scientists.
As you said, different strokes for different folks. It's kind of funny comparing two ways of aiming, such as CTE/Pro One to say contact point to contact point. Often times the shot looks far more accurate when using CTE/Pro One. That must mean that I am not always lining up as well as I think I do with contact point to contact point.
Anyway, I've been reading your posts and looking at your diagrams and appreciate your efforts.
JoeyA
Mike,
Thanks for your help and others in making me see the CB edge to quarters of the OB months ago before the DVD (that I don't have) came out.
I created the diagrams in Powerpoint and it's grid/Cartesian coordinates are gross and I can't show more accuracy with it as in Acad.
Be well.
Agreed. That is a lot easier to understand. However, it covers only a small portion of the examples shown on Stan's DVD, and it offers absolutely no guidance concerning which sighting/alignment/pivot to use for different shots! Also, to convert my complete summary to the A/B/C and left/right notation, it would be twice as long! And even then, it wouldn't include some of the "special cases" included on Stan's DVD.After viewing Stan's DVD several times, and after reading many of the posts in recent CTE and Pro-One threads, I've done my best to try to summarize this version of CTE on my CTE resource page (see version 4). I've also tried to use general terminology (e.g., inside/outside instead of A/B/C and left/right) to make the summary as concise as possible. I've also listed names and cut-angle ranges for the different lines of aim, in the spirit of previous versions of CTE. Again, this is my interpretation of the method. Other people might see it differently. Anyway, here it is:
While standing, sight through the center of the CB and the outside edge of the OB (i.e., sight along the CTE line). Then, based on the amount of cut needed, shift your sight line, bring your cue into alignment as you drop straight into your stance, and pivot as described below:
- For a "straight-in" shot (very little or no cut), sight along the inside edge of the CB and the inside 1/4* of the OB. Guided by this line, place the cue 1/2-tip outside of the CB center, and then pivot to the center of the CB.
- For a "very thick" cut (more than about 3/4-ball hit), sight along the inside edge of the CB and the inside 1/4* of the OB. Guided by this line, place the cue 1/2-tip inside of the CB center, and then pivot to the center of the CB.
- For a "medium thick" cut (about 1/2-to-3/4-ball hit), sight along the inside edge of the CB and the center of the OB. Guided by this line, place the cue 1/2-tip outside of the CB center, and then pivot to the center of the CB.
- For a "medium" cut (about 1/2-ball hit), sight along the inside edge of the CB and the center of the OB. Guided by this line, place the cue 1/2-tip inside of the CB center, and then pivot to the center of the CB.
- For a "medium thin" cut (about 1/2-to-1/4 ball hit), sight along the inside 1/8 of the CB and the outside 1/8 of the OB. Guided by this line, place the cue 1/2-tip outside of the CB center, and then pivot to the center of the CB.
- For a "very thin" cut (less than 1/4-ball hit), sight along the inside 1/8 of the CB and the outside 1/8 of the OB. Guided by this line, place the cue 1/2-tip inside of the CB center, and then pivot to the center of the CB.
inside: on the side of the ball toward the cut (i.e., the left side for a cut to the left, the right side for a cut to the right)
outside: on the side of the ball away from the cut (i.e., the right side for a cut to the left, the left side for a cut to the right)
Note - On the CTE resource page, the information above is summarized even more concisely in tabulated form.
You develop a feel for the alignment and pivot required for a given cut based on lots of practice and experience.
*: If the CB-OB distance is less than about 1', sight to "inside 1/8" instead of "inside 1/4."
You also need to adjust your bridge length based on CB-OB distance: about 8-9" when several feet apart, about 7-8" when about 2' apart, about 6-7" when about 1' apart, about 5-6" when less than about 1' apart, and very short when the balls a very close.
The DVD doesn't provide much guidance on how to decide which alignment and pivot to use for a given shot; although, all of the examples are useful to help figure out how the amount of cut influences the decision.
I'll be curious to hear whether or everybody thinks this is an accurate and fair description of the method. Again, this is my interpretation and opinion, based on what I have learned so far.
Concerning "Pro One," to me it seems less like an "aiming system" and more like a "level of ability" that one can develop through lots of practice with CTE, where bridge hand placement and accurate center-ball alignment come naturally without a mechanical fixed-bridge pivot.
As I point out on my CTE resource page, I think Stan's version is potential better than the other quoted versions because it has more lines of aim and because the pivot amount is small (which limits bridge length and CB-OB distance effects).
I hope the summaries on the resource page help people better understand and compare the different versions of CTE.
WOW!
That wording for reference points A, B & C make it difficult to grasp.
First align center of cue ball to outer edge of object ball, THEN:
For cuts to the right, aim the right edge of the cue ball at B or C only!
For cuts to the left, aim the left edge of the cue ball at A or B only!
This might be a little easier to understand???
FYI, I've added a reference-point diagram and definitions of "inside" and "outside" to the CTE resource page to make things more clear.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
What I wrote is my interpretation of what I saw and what I've read, but I can see how different people would interpret it differently.
I think the only change I made was to write "12.5 inches" as "about 1 foot." I also added "about" in several places, because this stuff isn't exact. Again, my summary is "my interpretation." When I get some time, I'll look at the glossary again to make sure I haven't made any gross misrepresentations.
Thanks,
Dave
There can only be one C T E / Pro One method.
I have known about CTE for a very long time and I talked with Hal for many years about it but didn't really "get it". I didn't get it because the system was incomplete.
This post is about giving credit where credit is due. Stan Shuffett is the ONLY PERSON who has defined and REFINED CTE and has made it into an ACCURATE and EFFECTIVE method of aiming.
The rest of the instructors and authors have had bits and pieces of CTE but none of them have ever put all the pieces of the puzzle together. I've talked to many CTE students over the years and they all lacked the additional visual coordinates and information that Stan discovered and provided to the pool world in his one of a kind video, Pro One.
People may want to refer to this as CTE but STAN is the ONLY PERSON who has defined CTE/Pro One with the A,B & C coordinates along with the anomalies of using it on extreme cuts and unusual shots.
CTE has it has been called in the past was a crippled system which desperately needed refining.
That refining deserves to be called CTE/Pro One after the person who defined and refined the old CTE and that is Stan Shuffett.
The rest of the people who want to copy and teach his hard work and discoveries should not suggest that CTE is the same thing as CTE/Pro One.
CTE/Pro One is a well defined, accurate aiming system refined by Stan Shuffett.
To assume that CTE is the same as CTE/Pro One is no more than petty theft in my opinion.
To attempt to morph CTE into what Stan has created is tantamount to thievery.
CTE has never been what Stan has refined and it never will be. To suggest otherwise is deceiving.
These are merely my opinions but I feel strongly that Stan deserves the BRANDING CREDIT for what is known about CTE/Pro One.
If people want to use CTE, let them use the old instinctive "alignment" system of CTE without Stan's A,B & C coordinates and without the rest of Stan's information.
CTE/Pro One is the ONLY aiming system that uses the A,B & C coordinates along with the 1/8 ball information. That is not CTE. That is CTE/Pro One and that credit belongs to Stan Shuffett, NO ONE ELSE.
I have known about CTE for a very long time and I talked with Hal for many years about it but didn't really "get it". I didn't get it because the system was incomplete.
This post is about giving credit where credit is due. Stan Shuffett is the ONLY PERSON who has defined and REFINED CTE and has made it into an ACCURATE and EFFECTIVE method of aiming.
The rest of the instructors and authors have had bits and pieces of CTE but none of them have ever put all the pieces of the puzzle together. I've talked to many CTE students over the years and they all lacked the additional visual coordinates and information that Stan discovered and provided to the pool world in his one of a kind video, Pro One.
People may want to refer to this as CTE but STAN is the ONLY PERSON who has defined CTE/Pro One with the A,B & C coordinates along with the anomalies of using it on extreme cuts and unusual shots.
CTE has it has been called in the past was a crippled system which desperately needed refining.
That refining deserves to be called CTE/Pro One after the person who defined and refined the old CTE and that is Stan Shuffett.
The rest of the people who want to copy and teach his hard work and discoveries should not suggest that CTE is the same thing as CTE/Pro One.
CTE/Pro One is a well defined, accurate aiming system refined by Stan Shuffett.
To assume that CTE is the same as CTE/Pro One is no more than petty theft in my opinion.
To attempt to morph CTE into what Stan has created is tantamount to thievery.
CTE has never been what Stan has refined and it never will be. To suggest otherwise is deceiving.
These are merely my opinions but I feel strongly that Stan deserves the BRANDING CREDIT for what is known about CTE/Pro One.
If people want to use CTE, let them use the old instinctive "alignment" system of CTE without Stan's A,B & C coordinates and without the rest of Stan's information.
CTE/Pro One is the ONLY aiming system that uses the A,B & C coordinates along with the 1/8 ball information. That is not CTE. That is CTE/Pro One and that credit belongs to Stan Shuffett, NO ONE ELSE.