............................
Last edited:
PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions
- Thread starter stan shuffett
- Start date
Well I have taken some shots at him since with no response so I assume that I am indeed a member of the illustrious club.
I will still post here and point out the flaws of his or others downplay of the system.
My main argument (and others') is that he claims to understand the system with ZERO hours of table time with it. That cannot be so. There is no way anyone can understand how this system can work without trying it, no matter how smart or whitty they think they are.
Until he tries it, then everything he says is just a waste of time.
I don't consider that a "logical" thing to do. The "logical" thing to do is to try to find out what's really going on. But then I grew up in an environment where neither argument through undefined terms (e.g., "feel") nor simple rejection of the data (e.g., "you don't know what you're actually doing") isn't considered acceptable. If the data doesn't fit the theory, you make a conscientious effort to find out why there's a discrepancy. (That's the moral ideal, anyway; I'd be the last one to say it's always followed in practice.)
Personally, I assume that, since the only data we have isn't in accord with your "logically obvious answer", we don't really know what happens. I grant that personal testimony isn't the best data we could ask for, but it is all that we have. It would seem reasonable to test it as well as possible. That isn't "logically backwards", nor is it indicative of a prejudice against the idea that "feel" (however defined) is involved. What I find odd is the reluctance those who don't accept the data presented by CTE/ProOne users to themselves conduct physical experiments to gather data they trust.
I also note that acceptance of the "logically obvious answer" kept people believing that the sun rotates around the earth for quite a long period of time.
On a 2-D drawing, with the OB the same size as the CB, they are the same -- the line you would draw from the left edge of the CB to the right 1/4 point on the OB would be parallel to the line you would draw from the left 1/8 point on the CB to the right 1/8 point on the OB.
But visually, on a pool table, things don't look like that. Suppose you sight from CB left edge to OB left edge with some distance between the two balls. From that sighting position, if you glance at the right edge of the CB, it does not appear to be in line with the right edge of the OB. The CB appears larger, and you can't simultaneously see two parallel lines running between the left and right edges of the two balls.
Similarly if you sight CB left edge to OB right 1/4, you don't (in theory) simultaneously see a parallel line for CB left 1/8 to OB right 1/8. And vice versa if you sight in the reverse manner. But these two sighting positions (behind the CB left edge vs. behind the CB left 1/8) are so close together, that using one versus the other isn't much of a difference to me.
I think that is a good question. Rephrased, we might ask, how many DVD's and lessons have been sold because of these arguments?
Roger
Patrick,
OK, I must be quote challenged, I'm unable to multi quote things properly and keep all of the context, so I'll just try to answer your recent questions and add comments…
As far as 1/8-1/8 being the same as edge to 1/4, that is not true. With edge to 1/4 (the "C" point for left cuts that you aren't supposed to use), the CB edge is aligned to the 1/4 mark on the object ball. With 1/8 alignment, you visualize the left edge of the CB aiming at 1/8 of the OB, and at the same time visualize the edge of the OB overlapping the 1/8 point on the CB. I believe that was sort of a visual "trick" so you still had 2 lines to visualize as opposed to one. But you are still sighting down the edge of the CB to 1/8 of the OB, not 1/4, so is does result in a different aim point and alignment. The lines are parallel in paper but not on the table, although probably very close on some shots.
I know you don't believe the transition between the aim points is possible, and you stated the illogic behind the assumed finite cut angles and the ability to make all shots from all angles. If you read my response, I wasn't arguing how or why it works, just stating it does. I'm still open to the possibility that it might be purely visually based, and I don't know that even Stan himself denies that. As Mike recently said Stan refers to it as "visual intelligence". I'm sure that seems like religious nonsense to you and some others, and probably would have been me as well had I not worked with this on the table, but there may just be something to it. If the alignment steps and visuals allow you to get locked into a certain repeatable position from which you can pivot and be on the correct aim line, and can do this reliably from all angles with a few points of reference, then it must "work", whether it's visually based or geometrically based. I think feel is a bad word, because we all use feel to decide how hard to shoot to get position, how to adjust for english, fine tune the aim once we get over the shot, etc.
After reading literally hundreds of pages of posts about the proof of this, and watching people argue over semantics or make personal attacks, I'm actually not as interested as I once was in whether this is geometrically provable or not. I certainly would entertain any accurate proof one way or the other, and I really do want to understand it so I don't feel at odds with myself, but for me right now I don't know that it matters. I'm a very logical person, my wife and others would say too logical at times, and I will agree that on paper the concept makes no sense. Why go through all this trouble to find the aim line when you can just align to the aim line to begin with and skip all the extra steps?
I'm just speaking from personal experience that as well as I play, I've never been a super strong shot maker, a shoot anything from anywhere kind of guy. Not saying I couldn't make shots, and probably better than the average bear, and certainly had days or periods of time where I shot lights out, but it just wasn't my strong suit, my strong suit was always using (or abusing) my stroke, spin, and knowledge of the game to get from place to place on the table. Where I fell short was missing seemingly simple shots sometimes, just having an uncomfortable feeling over some shots, and never really feeling locked in on the more difficult shots (long, thin cuts, nasty backcuts, etc.). Maybe I'm just not a visual person (no pun intended) and visualizing that ghost ball or track was challenging at times.
Already this system has made improvements in that part of my game, as I said before I KNOW that I'm on the right line when shooting, and the results show that I'm right and give me added confidence for the next similar shot. It's allowing me to shoot with more conviction and pound balls when needed for position that I would have never dreamed of hitting that way before. I am employing a repeatable approach and pivot to every shot, I in no way feel that I'm varying my alignment or pivot to suit each shot between the supposed 6 or 8 or 10 defined cut angles. What I do "feel" is that the steps are allowing my body and bridge hand/cue to get into the proper position to make all shots from everywhere, including banks which is weird but makes sense when you think about the 90 degree angles of the table and how the bank is just bisecting those. But that's another discussion…
Anyway, I know, another long post from me. Hard for me to just post "it works" or "it doesn't work" and leave it at that.
Scott
OK, I must be quote challenged, I'm unable to multi quote things properly and keep all of the context, so I'll just try to answer your recent questions and add comments…
As far as 1/8-1/8 being the same as edge to 1/4, that is not true. With edge to 1/4 (the "C" point for left cuts that you aren't supposed to use), the CB edge is aligned to the 1/4 mark on the object ball. With 1/8 alignment, you visualize the left edge of the CB aiming at 1/8 of the OB, and at the same time visualize the edge of the OB overlapping the 1/8 point on the CB. I believe that was sort of a visual "trick" so you still had 2 lines to visualize as opposed to one. But you are still sighting down the edge of the CB to 1/8 of the OB, not 1/4, so is does result in a different aim point and alignment. The lines are parallel in paper but not on the table, although probably very close on some shots.
I know you don't believe the transition between the aim points is possible, and you stated the illogic behind the assumed finite cut angles and the ability to make all shots from all angles. If you read my response, I wasn't arguing how or why it works, just stating it does. I'm still open to the possibility that it might be purely visually based, and I don't know that even Stan himself denies that. As Mike recently said Stan refers to it as "visual intelligence". I'm sure that seems like religious nonsense to you and some others, and probably would have been me as well had I not worked with this on the table, but there may just be something to it. If the alignment steps and visuals allow you to get locked into a certain repeatable position from which you can pivot and be on the correct aim line, and can do this reliably from all angles with a few points of reference, then it must "work", whether it's visually based or geometrically based. I think feel is a bad word, because we all use feel to decide how hard to shoot to get position, how to adjust for english, fine tune the aim once we get over the shot, etc.
After reading literally hundreds of pages of posts about the proof of this, and watching people argue over semantics or make personal attacks, I'm actually not as interested as I once was in whether this is geometrically provable or not. I certainly would entertain any accurate proof one way or the other, and I really do want to understand it so I don't feel at odds with myself, but for me right now I don't know that it matters. I'm a very logical person, my wife and others would say too logical at times, and I will agree that on paper the concept makes no sense. Why go through all this trouble to find the aim line when you can just align to the aim line to begin with and skip all the extra steps?
I'm just speaking from personal experience that as well as I play, I've never been a super strong shot maker, a shoot anything from anywhere kind of guy. Not saying I couldn't make shots, and probably better than the average bear, and certainly had days or periods of time where I shot lights out, but it just wasn't my strong suit, my strong suit was always using (or abusing) my stroke, spin, and knowledge of the game to get from place to place on the table. Where I fell short was missing seemingly simple shots sometimes, just having an uncomfortable feeling over some shots, and never really feeling locked in on the more difficult shots (long, thin cuts, nasty backcuts, etc.). Maybe I'm just not a visual person (no pun intended) and visualizing that ghost ball or track was challenging at times.
Already this system has made improvements in that part of my game, as I said before I KNOW that I'm on the right line when shooting, and the results show that I'm right and give me added confidence for the next similar shot. It's allowing me to shoot with more conviction and pound balls when needed for position that I would have never dreamed of hitting that way before. I am employing a repeatable approach and pivot to every shot, I in no way feel that I'm varying my alignment or pivot to suit each shot between the supposed 6 or 8 or 10 defined cut angles. What I do "feel" is that the steps are allowing my body and bridge hand/cue to get into the proper position to make all shots from everywhere, including banks which is weird but makes sense when you think about the 90 degree angles of the table and how the bank is just bisecting those. But that's another discussion…
Anyway, I know, another long post from me. Hard for me to just post "it works" or "it doesn't work" and leave it at that.
Scott
Last edited:
What I find odd is the blind acceptance of such "data" considering the claims they're attempting to support (that the system is exact and absolutely no feel necessary) are built on one big logical fallacy. That fallacy is pointed out here.
Aiming at a target without knowing the precise location of that target is a blatant logical fallacy. Therefore, any "data" provided that supposedly supports a logical fallacy can be immediately discarded as coming from flawed experiments.
It's not that simple. As I've said several times -- if performed robotically, Stan's CTE is a discrete aiming method ("x-angle system" in pj's terms) rather than a continuous aiming method. That means, on paper, that it offers only a limited number of cut angles for any given distance between the CB and OB. If the CB-OB distance changes, you get another set of cut angles.
In use, however, I believe many players actually convert it into something more flexible (more cut angles) by slightly modifying something either before or after the pivot, based upon their knowledge of where the pocket is. I think those "feel" adjustments can become so routine and ingrained that the method starts to seem like a continuous method (unlimited cut angles at any CB-OB distance).
I'll say again what has been said many times about why it is an "x-angle" system. Let's say we're talking about cuts to the left. Stan's method calls for sighting the CB center to the OB right edge. That's the CTEL. Now, we have a secondary alignment line and a pivot direction to choose. But the menu offers only 6 choices for these: A with right pivot, A with left pivot, B with right pivot, B with left pivot, 1/8 to 1/8 with right pivot, and 1/8 to 1/8 with left pivot.
Assume the CB and OB are 3 feet apart. Place them anywhere on a flat surface. Forget about any pocket for now. Stan's method, if performed robotically for the two balls 3 feet apart, offers just 6 ways to align yourself, i.e., 6 ways to determine the final direction of aim of the cue stick. You could run through the entire menu of 6 ways to cut the OB to the left, replacing the two balls identically each time. You'll get 6 different lines of travel for the OB, i.e., 6 actual cut angles. Repeat the drill as many times as you want to with a 3-foot separation between the balls. You have only 6 menu items or 6 sets of instructions. If you do each of them the same way each time, you'll get the same cut angle each time for each of the 6 alignment-menu selections.
Now transfer the two balls to a pool table, but keep them 3 feet apart. You have the same 6 menu items or sets of instructions. If you perform them the same way, you should get the same 6 cut angles. But now, you have an intended pocket for the OB. This, at last, means you must choose just one of the 6 menu items for alignment. If you choose the best of the 6, and perform your alignment exactly as you did on the flat surface with no pockets, you should get the same cut angle that you did on the flat surface with no pockets. That actual cut angle may or may not be the cut angle necessary to pocket the shot. What increases the likelihood that the shot will be pocketed is that the player now knows precisely where the pocket is. His "visual intelligence," as some have called it, allows him to slightly modify something in his visuals, or in his stance, or in his approach to the table, or in his offset, or in his pivot, or ... in something. And that adjustment, be it conscious or subconscious, converts the 6-angle system into a more continuous system (far more cut angles for that 3-foot CB-OB distance).
AtLarge, your fellow CTE advocates should start listening to you more. You seem to be one of the very few CTE advocates who actually has sound logical reasoning. Kudos to you.
EDIT: emphasized the good stuff in bold
Last edited:
I think I'm okay with that. But only if that "visual intelligence" has something to do with the exact location of the pocket.
No, Scott. Not 2 lines to visualize, just one: the line or plane that passes through the inside eighth of the CB and the outside eighth of the OB. No sighting of the CB edge; no sighting of the CB center. Just 1/8 to 1/8.
Obviously they're not made by the system; they're made by you (yep, by feel).
Is this really the best you can come up with after all this discussion?
pj
chgo
P.S. 87 degrees does not equal 87 cut angles.
Last edited:
True. The number of cut angles is infinite. But we don't need quite that many to pocket pool shots.
Excellent post!
IMO, this is the best description and summary to date of the crux of the matter concerning all fractional-ball or align-and-pivot aiming systems, including Stan's version of CTE. FYI, I've added your quote to my CTE resource page.
IMO, in addition to one's "visual intelligence" allowing CTE to be applied effectively over a wide range of cut angles (for a given CB-OB distance), CTE also offers many additional potential benefits to players who use it effectively.
BTW, I especially like that your post is free from personal attacks, defensiveness, and childish banter, all of which appear far too frequently in these sorts of threads, IMO.
Good job,
Dave
OK, maybe I have something wrong here, which could very well explain why I've been telling Stan that I've been having trouble with long thin cuts...
I guess I understood the 1/8 point to be as I described, i.e. CB edge to 1/8 of the OB, and OB edge to 1/8 of the CB, so a 1/8 overlap total. The way you describe it, the edge of the CB would technically (if the CB and OB were the same visual size) be pointing at the 1/4 point on the OB, which makes Patrick's question make a lot of sense. However I can still see how because of the visual size differences that the 1/8 overlap as you describe could still be slightly different than the 1/4 alignment. Wow, I'll have to watch that part of the DVD again, I must have had it wrong this whole time, explains a lot...
Also, kudos on your recent post, it really did make a lot of sense no matter which side of the fence you are on. I agree that for a given set of positions of the balls, there would be 6 finite alignments or angles as I see it for a given side (to the left or right).
Since I don't feel like I'm making corrections or changing my pivoting technique to accomodate any angles in between those 6 finite angles, I wonder if the relationship of the offset position to the CTE line or some other visual or geometric part of the system is auto-adjusting for those angles in between the finite 6 positions? Or our brains are just that good at interpreting seamlessly between them? Or there's something else at work that I don't currently understand?
Scott