It's amazing you can't understand this stuff.
PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions
- Thread starter stan shuffett
- Start date
It's amazing you can't understand this stuff.
In plain English: "rotating edges" is a myth.
And any "visual intelligence" that includes "rotating edges" is a self-induced illusion based on a myth.
If self-induce illusions help you aim better, I guess that's good for you, but I sure wouldn't teach aiming that way.
pj
chgo
Exactly, Dave. The vertical plane you mention here is exactly what I was describing last night in my post #1001 on "my concept of the CTEL." When users talk about the outermost edge or rotating edges, they must just be referring to viewing that plane, or a line in that plane, from a slightly different angle (the "vision center" isn't in that plane).
After last night's discussion in this thread with Stan Shuffett, I was thinking that I might start a new thread titled something like "CTE Conflict Resolved." But I think I'll do it less dramatically right here and now. I apologize for this post being so lengthy, but so has been the journey.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
For a long time, we seem to have had two camps of people arguing about CTE. It has been a divisive debate, with people from both camps sometimes hurling personal insults.
I hate using the terms yeasayers and naysayers, or proponents and opponents, because I think some people on both "sides" were trying to do far more than just cheer or sneer. Most people on both sides, however, agreed that the method works in some fashion. The key issue was "how does CTE work?"
Some seemed to feel that Hal Houle and Stan Shuffett had discovered geometric magic -- that when you simply sight, offset, and pivot the forces of table architecture and numerology just compel the OB to drop in a hole. Others, more logical types, analyzed Hal's and Stan's teachings and concluded that manual CTE, for any given CB-OB distance, is essentially a discrete, or x-angle, system that, if performed strictly in accordance with the given instructions, cannot produce enough cut angles to play proficiently. Since some people do play proficiently with it, that meant, to those logical thinkers, that modifications, or adjustments, or "visual intelligence," or "feel" were/was being introduced somehow. But they did not know how.
Last night, some of the usual combatants were discussing two shots from Stan's DVD that Stan said required the same set of instructions for each shot (i.e., the same choice from the menu of 6 sets of instructions for cutting in each direction), despite one of the shots being perfectly straight and the other one being a cut of about 20 degrees. Then Stan entered the fray and said the following:
I then asked the following:
Stan responded, in separate posts:
I take this input from Stan as revelatory. He is acknowledging that the basic set of prescriptions, if executed precisely the same way every time, would create only a small number of cut angles for a given CB-OB distance. So that issue should be settled. What, then, creates the additional cut angles; what turns a discrete method into a continuous method -- one with enough cut angles to pocket all shots? Where is the "feel" being introduced? Stan has now answered that question -- it is different eye positions for the same set of visuals. In other words, for any particular shot and alignment-menu choice, such as this:
CB-OB distance = 3 feet
cut to left
secondary alignment line to "B"
bridge length = 8"
cue offset = 1/2 tip
pivot from left to right
multiple cut angles can be achieved by viewing the CTEL and secondary alignment line from different eye positions.cut to left
secondary alignment line to "B"
bridge length = 8"
cue offset = 1/2 tip
pivot from left to right
How does one know where to put his eyes? It is knowledge gained from experience. Stan did not acknowledge that this is "feel," but I'm sure many of us would view it that way, as feel in any aiming method is developed from experience in using the method.
So there we have it. Stan's manual CTE depends upon utilizing multiple eye positions within each of the basic 6 alignments. The feel or additional knowledge is not introduced by varying the offset, or by varying the bridge length (beyond what Stan prescribes), or by fudging the pivot -- it comes from knowing where to place the eyes while still somehow holding to the underlying pair of visuals for each of the prescriptions.
I hope this really puts an end to the squabbles. Manual CTE is not some voodoo hocus pocus. It is not geometric magic. There are no supernatural powers to align-&-pivot methods. It doesn't work because of numerology -- the table being 1x2 or 90 being the sum of 45, 30, and 15. It works by utilizing a small number of reference alignments that the player has learned to fine tune based on his explicit knowledge of where the pocket is and the appearance of the cut angle needed for the shot, i.e., his experience-based knowledge of the shot needed.
Last edited:
As a follow-up to my long post, I would like to ask experienced users of Stan's CTE to go to my "Tips for Students of CTE" thread (http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=226152) and try to give us students any tips about how to more quickly gain the experience-based knowledge needed to find the correct eye positions needed within each of the basic 6 alignments. "Tips for fine tuning" I guess is what I'm looking for.
It's really not. As your eyes offset from the CTEL, you see a new visible OB edge. At the same time, the visual 180 degrees of the CB shift as well. This visual perspective change plays a large part on which vector through the core of the CB you pivot to.
The moment your eyes move a hair, everything changes -- all based on the edges you see.
That's what Hal referred to with rotating edges---- the visual edges shift based on perspective. Take a sharpie and mark the visual edge of a ball and then move your eyes an inch in the opposite direction. The mark disappears. Whaddya know??! Shifting edges!
I myself have wondered if the change in angle naturally creates a change in eye position/body position when approaching the shot. Certainly, any process that gets you to a full ball hit (straight in shot) should always do so when perfomed again, whether the angle of the shot changes or not. However, when I perform the system using the same sight lines and different shots, such as the 2 shots discussed last night, I do not end up with a full ball hit on the 20 degree angled shot, but instead make it center pocket. This seems impossible mathematically, so I have really just assumed the angle of the shot caused the original sight lines to put me in a different position on each shot.
I am not certain exactly how or why I end up correct on each shot, but I do, and very consistently so. I deduce that it is the nature of the system, as I continue to make shots center pocket that have no adjustment after the pivot, and shots where you can't really see the pocket that well once down. I am definatley making more difficult shots more consistently than before, and much more consistently than I did when using feel alone. It makes it feel impossible to be a system of feel when you hit shot after shot consistently that would normally give you trouble. Maybe it is the initial sighting that changes with the angle that causes the necessary adjustment. None the less, it appears to be repeatable and consistent amongst a number of people.
Excellent synopsis!!! I think this finally provides a resolution that should be palatable to most people involved in the CTE discussions and debates over these many years. And regardless of what people think or believe, most must agree with the list of potential benefits that CTE and other cut-shot aiming systems can help provide to its users.
FYI, I've quoted most of your post in the "famous quotes" section of my CTE resource page.
Nice job,
Dave
FYI, I've quoted most of your post in the "famous quotes" section of my CTE resource page.
Nice job,
Dave
AtLarge, I have tried to explain my use of the term "experience" and I guess I did so unsuccessfully. This is one reason I do not post much on AZ. Words are so easily misunderstood. My position is clear about the accuracy of CTE/PRO ONE and that has not changed.
CTE/PRO ONE is based on objectivity. As one learns the system they become proficient. It is through experience that one learns to use the visuals in an objective manner. I did not use the word "experience" to imply the use of "feel'.
I was merely taking an opportunity to explain a simple concept that any CB/OB relationship can result in visuals that produce a zero angle hit. I did this with a safety play on my DVD. No one starts this system with complete knowledge of how it works. Knowledge about CTE/PRO ONE can only be gained over time. Yes, knowledge based on objectivity. And it does take experience to learn things that are objective.
Stan
Last edited:
C'mon, Spidey.... You know that real experiments aren't allowed here.
OK,
So, this whole time, CTE is basically a mechanical system by which a player can replicate head/eye/cue/body alignmenet toward a given shot to replicate a "sight picture" to borrow a phrase from the shooting sports, in other words, the same view of a particular cut angle. Since, at the end of the day - that's the way a person learns to make a shot by 'feel' ...feel is a recollection of that shot as something once experienced to have worked in pocketing the ball.
If that is the case, then CTE is not an aiming system in that it gives you an aiming line, or tells you where you need to send the CB - but it instead helps you set up for shots in a consistent and familiar way. It adds structure to the process of lining up to the shot so that the various cut angles in the spectrum become common and familiar in visual view/sight picture.
That would be valuable. But that doesn't make for an aiming system as was debated in the past. Having a slightly different view of the same 30 degree cut makes that 30 degree cut, to the mind/eyes look like a different angle in terms of sight picture. You can take a 30 degree cut angle, and move it all about - it always stays 30 degrees. However, it appears different to the mind.
I think this gets into the science of how we learn, particularly visual learning. You don't always see the same thing as one thing. If it moves a little, it's a "new thing" the mind remembers. I'm not explaining it very well, but I've read about it. Here's another example - we really don't read words we know in a linear fashion. Instead, we recognize the SHAPE of the word. That's how Japanese works. It's how our language works - unless you don't know the word - at which point the first time you see it you read it linear and sound it out.
This: >
Is identical to this: <
Except turned 180 degrees. But it is the same exact angle. In our mind, we don't learn that angle in both directions because it's say 30 degrees and we knew this one time. We learn it as a whole new thing. When we get down on the shot - we know that either way the shot lays, it's 30 degrees, but our mind does not have that visually learned. Thus, it is critical to have a consistent way by which to place your eyes/head, cue and stance so that these angles are learned as they angles they are, CB to OB relationship.
All the cut angles are 0 to 90 degrees. Let's assume your mind learns and can recall each angle down to 1 degree. That's 90 total. Just assuming here. That's 90 views of a CB to OB relationship your brain learns. However, this can become exponential, because if your head/eye, cue, body, CB to OB relationship alighment changes, each one of those 90 angles the mind learned can have multiple views whereas they appear as different angles. So a 67 degree cut, to your mind's eye, the stored information (experience) on 3 different shots have different views such as they appear to be: 65 degrees, 66, 68, 67, 67....
Keeps changing. This is bad for developing that instinct or "feel" where the spectrum of various cuts becomes second nature and familiar.
When you get down on a shot, and you just can't get comfortable in your view of that angle (we've all been there), it's either because our mind has not learned that CB to OB relationship with the angle that it must be cut. With the feel lost, we must go to spot on the ball, ghost ball or something else. Which is not intuitive at all. It's mechanical. Best play is when your mind body has an "understanding" of the shot and it's easier that way.
Without experience and understanding of a shot - it KILLS natural and automatic visualization of the shot being made. I, like many others, visualize the shot being made or going in. It doesn't reply in my mind like a video - but rather it's an experience or an understanding.
I believe being in the "zone" is related to all that. When one is in the zone, the mind takes over in a way where you aren't analytically thinking things out. You just do. Everything works. Every ball drops. Every shot is clear as day.
If Pro One can make shots familiar, that aren't familiar, by properly positioning yourself, the cue etcetera - then it has value.
If I am properly describing what CTE is accomplishing, let me know. I know I don't write well, it's hard to describe. However, those people in the past that tried to explain it did a horrible job because they weren't even close to getting the idea across and caused mass confusion.
So, this whole time, CTE is basically a mechanical system by which a player can replicate head/eye/cue/body alignmenet toward a given shot to replicate a "sight picture" to borrow a phrase from the shooting sports, in other words, the same view of a particular cut angle. Since, at the end of the day - that's the way a person learns to make a shot by 'feel' ...feel is a recollection of that shot as something once experienced to have worked in pocketing the ball.
If that is the case, then CTE is not an aiming system in that it gives you an aiming line, or tells you where you need to send the CB - but it instead helps you set up for shots in a consistent and familiar way. It adds structure to the process of lining up to the shot so that the various cut angles in the spectrum become common and familiar in visual view/sight picture.
That would be valuable. But that doesn't make for an aiming system as was debated in the past. Having a slightly different view of the same 30 degree cut makes that 30 degree cut, to the mind/eyes look like a different angle in terms of sight picture. You can take a 30 degree cut angle, and move it all about - it always stays 30 degrees. However, it appears different to the mind.
I think this gets into the science of how we learn, particularly visual learning. You don't always see the same thing as one thing. If it moves a little, it's a "new thing" the mind remembers. I'm not explaining it very well, but I've read about it. Here's another example - we really don't read words we know in a linear fashion. Instead, we recognize the SHAPE of the word. That's how Japanese works. It's how our language works - unless you don't know the word - at which point the first time you see it you read it linear and sound it out.
This: >
Is identical to this: <
Except turned 180 degrees. But it is the same exact angle. In our mind, we don't learn that angle in both directions because it's say 30 degrees and we knew this one time. We learn it as a whole new thing. When we get down on the shot - we know that either way the shot lays, it's 30 degrees, but our mind does not have that visually learned. Thus, it is critical to have a consistent way by which to place your eyes/head, cue and stance so that these angles are learned as they angles they are, CB to OB relationship.
All the cut angles are 0 to 90 degrees. Let's assume your mind learns and can recall each angle down to 1 degree. That's 90 total. Just assuming here. That's 90 views of a CB to OB relationship your brain learns. However, this can become exponential, because if your head/eye, cue, body, CB to OB relationship alighment changes, each one of those 90 angles the mind learned can have multiple views whereas they appear as different angles. So a 67 degree cut, to your mind's eye, the stored information (experience) on 3 different shots have different views such as they appear to be: 65 degrees, 66, 68, 67, 67....
Keeps changing. This is bad for developing that instinct or "feel" where the spectrum of various cuts becomes second nature and familiar.
When you get down on a shot, and you just can't get comfortable in your view of that angle (we've all been there), it's either because our mind has not learned that CB to OB relationship with the angle that it must be cut. With the feel lost, we must go to spot on the ball, ghost ball or something else. Which is not intuitive at all. It's mechanical. Best play is when your mind body has an "understanding" of the shot and it's easier that way.
Without experience and understanding of a shot - it KILLS natural and automatic visualization of the shot being made. I, like many others, visualize the shot being made or going in. It doesn't reply in my mind like a video - but rather it's an experience or an understanding.
I believe being in the "zone" is related to all that. When one is in the zone, the mind takes over in a way where you aren't analytically thinking things out. You just do. Everything works. Every ball drops. Every shot is clear as day.
If Pro One can make shots familiar, that aren't familiar, by properly positioning yourself, the cue etcetera - then it has value.
If I am properly describing what CTE is accomplishing, let me know. I know I don't write well, it's hard to describe. However, those people in the past that tried to explain it did a horrible job because they weren't even close to getting the idea across and caused mass confusion.
I think the difference may be mostly semantic at this point, Stan.
When I equate "experience-based knowledge" with "feel," I mean "feel" in quite an elegant, learned manner. It's not guesswork. A snooker player doesn't run a 147 using the 3-angle system plus guesswork. His experience-based knowledge allows him to recognize precisely how much adjustment to make on each of the basic alignment references to pocket each shot. Using your words, he has learned "to use the visuals in an objective manner." He may be using only a single line for his visuals, but the concept is still there.
Similarly, when you used L/C/L on that 20-degree shot, your experience-based knowledge told you exactly where to place your eyes to view the relevant two edges of the CB and to allow you to move straight in from that vantage point for the pre-pivot stick alignment. You, too, were using the visuals in an objective manner, not guesswork.
The hard part for me, now that I know that different eye placements are needed within each of the basic reference alignments, will be to develop that experience-based knowledge while I'm still able to hold a cue and see the balls.
The moving eye placements while viewing the secondary aim line needs clarification.
Does one start at a pure secondary aim line to , say "B", and then the eyes drift away to the side a bit because experience tells you that for the cut angle desired/necessary is not a pure "B" aim line pre-pivot - how much to the side?
A bit toward "A" but short of a pure "A"...could be?
Does one start at a pure secondary aim line to , say "B", and then the eyes drift away to the side a bit because experience tells you that for the cut angle desired/necessary is not a pure "B" aim line pre-pivot - how much to the side?
A bit toward "A" but short of a pure "A"...could be?
this is a good post.
The eyes are center QB to the outermost edge of OB.
Duh. What on Earth makes you think this is news?
The contention is that there can be a new CTE line that uses a different OB "edge".
The fact is that there is only one possible CTE line no matter how or from where you look at it, and your changed viewpoint only means you're not sighting along it any more.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I'm guessing you have been schooled by Spidey. I don't recall Stan using the term "outermost edge." If you think that term is useful in trying to learn Stan's CTE, please give us a clear, complete description of what you mean.
Another drive-by posting from the guy who wonders, "Why all the hostility from the CTE ILK?"
Best,
Mike
Last edited:
