PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions

[Mikjary]

I don't even think there is anything magic about Stan's A/B/C alignment points on the quarters and his pivot being 1/2 tip. I think CTE mechanics could be defined using OB thirds or fifths or eights, for example, instead of quarters. And the pivot could be of a different size. But to make any such method work with great proficiency at all cut angles for all CB-OB distances takes considerable experience to ingrain the needed "feel" adjustments, to make it subconscious, to make it continuous.

Using tighter or more frequent references on the object ball could be done. My thoughts are that the system will more closely resemble a contact point or fractional aiming system that really isn't necessary. We would be losing what the visuals creatively accomplish. This is the evolution of the aiming system even after we figure out the correct physical visual alignment.

IOW, a gap in the control we try to assume by using less reference points allows our mind to move to the next step or more automatic control of our aiming. A constant set of directions by a system user creates no rhythm or feedback for the brain to learn and become independent of rational thought. A player striving to consistently get into dead whack isn't going to do it by continuous conscious adjustment of his aiming. Less is more.

I'm glad to see contributors like yourself are providing information that is not hell bent on geometric proofs. They math is there, but accomplished after some physical things are more clearly understood, first.

Best,
Mike

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Complete is a tough standard and subjective

It's not subjective at all. Complete means instructions that can be followed to the end without "user input" and that define enough cut angles to make substantially all shots.

...now we have possibly enlarged the scope of angles to more than 5,6,8,9,11 or 12. Without getting too crazy, we could even say 20-25 more angles?

Nothing has been "enlarged" - we're just getting more and more explicit about the need for aiming by "feel". Another ten years and some system users may even start admitting it openly without waterboarding.

Our brains don't have the capability to control our bodies to pocket balls without our directing them with a geometrically proven, diagrammable, used by NASA, aiming system. But what do I know?

That seems to be the x-angle system idea, alright.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

AtLarge:
It has often been said in the past that CTE just gets the user in the ballpark and then he adjusts as needed. That's just one way of adjusting. I think it can also become built-in to the alignment process -- shade something a little here or there, wind up at a slightly different cut angle.

I don't see any difference.

pj
chgo

 

[drpjr]

IF You can find the center of the Cue Ball you CAN MAKE any shot that the cb to the ob has a clear path. CTE !!!
donny

 

[AtLarge]

I don't see any difference.

It has often been said in the past that CTE just gets the user in the ballpark and then he adjusts as needed. That's just one way of adjusting. I think it can also become built-in to the alignment process -- shade something a little here or there, wind up at a slightly different cut angle.

pj
chgo

I was just trying to distinguish between some sort of feel or adjustment being introduced prior to the pivot versus after the pivot.

With the former, the player could adjust something in the alignment process prior to the pivot (or, I guess, even during the pivot), then pivot and shoot -- conceivably without even looking up at the OB after the pivot.

With the latter, the method could have been robotic to Stan's prescription up through the pivot, and the adjustment then occurs as the result of looking up at the OB after the pivot.

 

[LAMas]

Did you visit this site?
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE

 

[Mikjary]

I was just trying to distinguish between some sort of feel or adjustment being introduced prior to the pivot versus after the pivot.

With the former, the player could adjust something in the alignment process prior to the pivot (or, I guess, even during the pivot), then pivot and shoot -- conceivably without even looking up at the OB after the pivot.

With the latter, the method could have been robotic to Stan's prescription up through the pivot, and the adjustment then occurs as the result of looking up at the OB after the pivot.

Like John said, what you see is what you get. :wink:

Best,
Mike

 

[LAMas]

I was just trying to distinguish between some sort of feel or adjustment being introduced prior to the pivot versus after the pivot.

With the former, the player could adjust something in the alignment process prior to the pivot (or, I guess, even during the pivot), then pivot and shoot -- conceivably without even looking up at the OB after the pivot.

With the latter, the method could have been robotic to Stan's prescription up through the pivot, and the adjustment then occurs as the result of looking up at the OB after the pivot.

If you know the cut angle (in degrees) to the pocket/target and can relate that angle to the fractional secondary aim line - from the edge of the CB to the points on the OB and get down on the shot from that stance, you don't have to look at the OB again.

I hold that one can use his normal bridge distance behind the CB and vary the offset of the cue tip, to the side of the center of the CB, to compensate for the distance between the CB and OB.

For me on paper, at 2 feet separation the offset is 1/2 tip and over 3 feet you need no offset from the center (stroke to the center of the CB) of the CB for you are on the stroke/shot line to the GB without knowing where the GB is.

This is usefull to those that cannot visualize where the GB is or want another data point before firing.:thumbup:

 

[Palmerfan]

No problem. I do use a diff offset (half Ball) Pivoting left to right every time And I sight my ETC first. But a lot of people have trouble arcing correctly while using this method but it fits my style.

"Half Ball" pivot rather then a half tip pivot is Ron Vitello's 90/90 system even though you only use it from left to right. The systems are very similar, Stan's is a half tip pivot and Ron's is a half ball pivot (90/90 or ETE)..and they both work. I take weekly lessons with Ron and bought Stan's DVD and spoke to Stan regarding a part that confused me, he talked me right through it.

 

[jwpretd]

An interesting result

First, the result: If the cut angle of a 16 degree shot is changed to 27 degrees by moving the OB directly along the table's long axis, then even though the CTE/ProOne alignment specification is the same for both shots, it appears to be possible for the player to perceive the CTE and Edge-to-B lines of the 27 degree shot as not being extensions of those belonging to the 16 degree shot. If this is the case, then in order to acquire proper alignment (CTE and Edge-to-B) for the 27 degree cut angle, the player would have to move to some position different from that he would use for the 16 degree cut angle (the movement might be any or all of lateral, longitudinal, or rotational).

I qualified my statements above because I haven't thought of a way to physically test them, and I don't have enough confidence in my ability to use SketchUp to be willing to be more positive.

The procedure:

Using SketchUp, I drew a CB on the head string and an OB at mid-table, with the OB placed such that the cut angle to the left corner pocket was a bit over 16 degrees. I then drew a line from center pocket under the center of the OB and extending up table. A second line was drawn from the center of the left corner pocket such that it represented a 27 degree cut angle, and it was extended well past where the 16 degree line ran under the OB.

I then drew a beam 30" long with a 2.25" square cross section. This was placed vertically about 18" past the player's end of the table, with its base in the plane of the table (i.e., the top of it was 30" above the table). It was offset laterally to the left somewhat from the line connecting the CB-OB centers and rotated to face the right long rail at about a 40 degree angle.

With the camera very near the top right corner of the beam, the CTE line was drawn as vertically to the screen as I could manage (i.e., as straight along that "eye's" sight line as I could get it), running from the top right corner of the beam across the top center of the CB and to the right edge of the equator of the OB. (Given my limited abilities with SketchUp, this was very fiddly work and yet again made me regret retirement a little.) The camera was then shifted to the top left corner of the beam and the Left-edge-to-B line was drawn in the same fashion (and with even more pain). Both lines were then rotated downard around their point of intersection with the OB until they reached their appropriate positions on the CB.

The point of all of this was to simulate binocular vision in 3D perspective in as accurate way as I could think of. It is possible that the method is flawed.

The OB and sight lines were then copied as a single unit (so that they would remain fixed relative to each other) and the copy was moved directly down the table's long axis away from the CB until the center of the OB rested on the 26 degree cut angle line.

The camera was then repositioned to the top of the beam representing the player's eyes. From that position, the sight lines of the 26 degree cut angle appeared to be distinctly offset to the left of those of the 16 degree cut angle. (The separation distance was about 1/2" when measured from a position perpendicular to the table's plane, but the actual accuracy of that is unclear, at least to me.)

Both visually and as reported by the SketchUp tools, the pairs of similar lines were parallel respective to each other. Also, if the copy of the OB and its sight lines were moved away from the CB along the line connecting the OB and CB centers (rather than along the table's long axis), then the distance between the 16 degree cut angle sight lines and the 26 degree cut angle sight lines was increased much more (as one would expect).

Note that this is concerned only with a change in distance along the table's long axis (or along the CB-OB line). It does not attempt to address the other parts of jsp's "moving target" question, which are (1) moving the CB and OB laterally and (2) horizontally, without changing the CB-OB separation. I won't be able to test those for a few days.

It would be good if someone with better 3D drawing tools, and more skill at using them than I have with SketchUp, would try drawing this out to see if they obtain the same result.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I was just trying to distinguish between some sort of feel or adjustment being introduced prior to the pivot versus after the pivot.

With the former, the player could adjust something in the alignment process prior to the pivot (or, I guess, even during the pivot), then pivot and shoot -- conceivably without even looking up at the OB after the pivot.

With the latter, the method could have been robotic to Stan's prescription up through the pivot, and the adjustment then occurs as the result of looking up at the OB after the pivot.

Neither the "alignment process prior to the pivot" nor the "prescription up through the pivot" are defined well enough to follow robotically. So the distinction is meaningless for purposes of deciding at what point feel is "introduced" - it's already there.

pj
chgo

 

[jsp]

It does not attempt to address the other parts of jsp's "moving target" question, which are (1) moving the CB and OB laterally and (2) horizontally, without changing the CB-OB separation. I won't be able to test those for a few days.

jwpretd, you don't need to "test" it. It's simply an exercise in logic.

 

[DrGonzo]

I'm finished...

trying to figure this system out. To complicated for me. $30 shipped to who ever wants a like new copy.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

jwpretd:
It does not attempt to address the other parts of jsp's "moving target" question, which are (1) moving the CB and OB laterally and (2) horizontally, without changing the CB-OB separation. I won't be able to test those for a few days.

jsp:
jwpretd, you don't need to "test" it. It's simply an exercise in logic.

Yes. Claims of the "exactness" and sufficiency of x-angle systems don't pass the test of simple logic, so they never really need to be tested geometrically or "mathematically". Of course, logic seems to be even more of a foreign language around here than geometry or math...

pj
chgo

 

[LAMas]

First, the result: If the cut angle of a 16 degree shot is changed to 27 degrees by moving the OB directly along the table's long axis, then even though the CTE/ProOne alignment specification is the same for both shots, it appears to be possible for the player to perceive the CTE and Edge-to-B lines of the 27 degree shot as not being extensions of those belonging to the 16 degree shot. If this is the case, then in order to acquire proper alignment (CTE and Edge-to-B) for the 27 degree cut angle, the player would have to move to some position different from that he would use for the 16 degree cut angle (the movement might be any or all of lateral, longitudinal, or rotational).

I qualified my statements above because I haven't thought of a way to physically test them, and I don't have enough confidence in my ability to use SketchUp to be willing to be more positive.

The procedure:

Using SketchUp, I drew a CB on the head string and an OB at mid-table, with the OB placed such that the cut angle to the left corner pocket was a bit over 16 degrees. I then drew a line from center pocket under the center of the OB and extending up table. A second line was drawn from the center of the left corner pocket such that it represented a 27 degree cut angle, and it was extended well past where the 16 degree line ran under the OB.

I then drew a beam 30" long with a 2.25" square cross section. This was placed vertically about 18" past the player's end of the table, with its base in the plane of the table (i.e., the top of it was 30" above the table). It was offset laterally to the left somewhat from the line connecting the CB-OB centers and rotated to face the right long rail at about a 40 degree angle.

With the camera very near the top right corner of the beam, the CTE line was drawn as vertically to the screen as I could manage (i.e., as straight along that "eye's" sight line as I could get it), running from the top right corner of the beam across the top center of the CB and to the right edge of the equator of the OB. (Given my limited abilities with SketchUp, this was very fiddly work and yet again made me regret retirement a little.) The camera was then shifted to the top left corner of the beam and the Left-edge-to-B line was drawn in the same fashion (and with even more pain). Both lines were then rotated downard around their point of intersection with the OB until they reached their appropriate positions on the CB.

The point of all of this was to simulate binocular vision in 3D perspective in as accurate way as I could think of. It is possible that the method is flawed.

The OB and sight lines were then copied as a single unit (so that they would remain fixed relative to each other) and the copy was moved directly down the table's long axis away from the CB until the center of the OB rested on the 26 degree cut angle line.

The camera was then repositioned to the top of the beam representing the player's eyes. From that position, the sight lines of the 26 degree cut angle appeared to be distinctly offset to the left of those of the 16 degree cut angle. (The separation distance was about 1/2" when measured from a position perpendicular to the table's plane, but the actual accuracy of that is unclear, at least to me.)

Both visually and as reported by the SketchUp tools, the pairs of similar lines were parallel respective to each other. Also, if the copy of the OB and its sight lines were moved away from the CB along the line connecting the OB and CB centers (rather than along the table's long axis), then the distance between the 16 degree cut angle sight lines and the 26 degree cut angle sight lines was increased much more (as one would expect).

Note that this is concerned only with a change in distance along the table's long axis (or along the CB-OB line). It does not attempt to address the other parts of jsp's "moving target" question, which are (1) moving the CB and OB laterally and (2) horizontally, without changing the CB-OB separation. I won't be able to test those for a few days.

It would be good if someone with better 3D drawing tools, and more skill at using them than I have with SketchUp, would try drawing this out to see if they obtain the same result.

I don't do SketchUp and I don't have time to do ACAD 3D. Try changing the bridge disance behind the CB. For me, in ACAD and accomodating the smaller appearing OB, the 16 degree cut angle is 5.4 inch. behind and the 27 degree is 8.0 inch. With 1/2 tip to the right side of the CB center and pivot left back to center of CB.

 

[scottjen26]

Hate to jump in the fray, but instead of trying to figure out if or how it works seems like things just keep going in circles, and I for one find it difficult to peruse the multiple simultaneous (and large!) threads looking for valid information that I too am still trying to figure out or confirm.

Some of the diagrams that have been posted, especially from the DVD, are incorrect. I forget which thread or page they were on now, as I was just speeding through trying to catch up, but some of the descriptions or shot angles were not correct therefore the associated arguments were also not valid.

That being said, as near as I have figured out and verified the sight points and pivots vary as the cut angle goes from 0 to 90 degrees with a logical progression. Within those certain ranges of angles, say from 0 - 10 degrees, or 15 - 30 degrees, the same alignment and pivot DOES make the ball with no adjustment needed. One would think that the alignments would just get it to within 10 or 15 degrees and feel would take over from there, but I've been very careful when experimenting with this to not look up at the object ball or pocket so as not to introduce feel or steering. When I take care to sight the ball properly, and allow my body and eyes to get in the proper position, it seems that from there I can look directly at the cue ball, get down in my stance and pivot to center ball, and when I look up again I'm locked in and ready to shoot.

Do I understand how or why this works yet? No. Also haven't had much time at the table recently to practice or ponder it. I'm leaning toward the thought that it is a visual system as Stan himself says, and there may not be "exact" math to it, but for me that remains to be proven to the negative. But somehow by visualizing these points and executing the pivot (manual or Pro One), my body and bridge hand seem to end up in perfect position to make the shot, I think that's what the CTE proponents mean when they say it doesn't matter where the pocket is etc.

I know that defies logic, I'm with y'all on that, and if I wouldn't have broken out of my math/science/logic shell and given it a whirl I wouldn't believe it either. I also get how some people find it confusing (as I did initially) or just think it's simpler to aim where you want to aim and be done with it, and that's great. I'm sort of at the point now where it doesn't matter to me if there is a geometric basis to this or not, I'm firing in shots, including banks, with confidence that I've never had before.

Looking forward to more productive discussions - and I guess the unproductive ones as well, they are just fun to read...
Scott

 

[jwpretd]

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....

It's difficult to see what could beneficially be modified after the pivot, except perhaps moving the pivot point and pivoting again, or maybe shifting the cue laterally because it wasn't really pointed at the center of the cue ball.

On the whole, I think far too much attention is focused on pivot points and bridge lengths. If we're to believe Stan, the bridge hand is placed and establishes the bridge point (e.g., the 'V' of an open bridge). The cue is pivoted about that point to center CB and the shot is performed without further changes. If that's the case, then the bridge point (equiv. pivot point) must be on the CB-GB line. If the pivot point (equiv. bridge point) is on the CB-GB line, then the bridge length is moot with respect to pivoting; it could be two inches, two feet or two furlongs. (If it's two furlongs, you have to be playing on quite fast cloth and have a really good stroke to make the shot, but at least the cue ball will start off in the right direction.)

.... I think [adjusting] can also become built-in to the alignment process....

I think that's right. In fact, the point of the alignment process is to "adjust" the player into proper position for the shot at hand. This is especially evident in the ProOne methodology. (And in that sense, it's Lou's emphasis on preshot routine taken to its logical conclusion. ).

 

[AtLarge]

It's difficult to see what could beneficially be modified after the pivot, except perhaps moving the pivot point and pivoting again, or maybe shifting the cue laterally because it wasn't really pointed at the center of the cue ball.

You could also just slightly tweek the pivot -- a little more, a little less.

On the whole, I think far too much attention is focused on pivot points and bridge lengths. If we're to believe Stan, the bridge hand is placed and establishes the bridge point (e.g., the 'V' of an open bridge). The cue is pivoted about that point to center CB and the shot is performed without further changes. If that's the case, then the bridge point (equiv. pivot point) must be on the CB-GB line. If the pivot point (equiv. bridge point) is on the CB-GB line, then the bridge length is moot with respect to pivoting; it could be two inches, two feet or two furlongs. (If it's two furlongs, you have to be playing on quite fast cloth and have a really good stroke to make the shot, but at least the cue ball will start off in the right direction.)

No, the "V" would be on the CB-GB line only if the bridge length is of the correct size prior to the pivot. That's why Stan prescribes different bridge lengths for different CB-OB distances. Try pivoting with a 2" bridge length versus a 14" bridge length. It's only if the initial "V" placement is properly on the CB-GB line prior to pivot that you could then change the bridge length after the pivot and remain on the CB-GB line.

 

[JAW725]

Hate to jump in the fray, but instead of trying to figure out if or how it works seems like things just keep going in circles, and I for one find it difficult to peruse the multiple simultaneous (and large!) threads looking for valid information that I too am still trying to figure out or confirm.

Some of the diagrams that have been posted, especially from the DVD, are incorrect. I forget which thread or page they were on now, as I was just speeding through trying to catch up, but some of the descriptions or shot angles were not correct therefore the associated arguments were also not valid.

That being said, as near as I have figured out and verified the sight points and pivots vary as the cut angle goes from 0 to 90 degrees with a logical progression. Within those certain ranges of angles, say from 0 - 10 degrees, or 15 - 30 degrees, the same alignment and pivot DOES make the ball with no adjustment needed. One would think that the alignments would just get it to within 10 or 15 degrees and feel would take over from there, but I've been very careful when experimenting with this to not look up at the object ball or pocket so as not to introduce feel or steering. When I take care to sight the ball properly, and allow my body and eyes to get in the proper position, it seems that from there I can look directly at the cue ball, get down in my stance and pivot to center ball, and when I look up again I'm locked in and ready to shoot.

Do I understand how or why this works yet? No. Also haven't had much time at the table recently to practice or ponder it. I'm leaning toward the thought that it is a visual system as Stan himself says, and there may not be "exact" math to it, but for me that remains to be proven to the negative. But somehow by visualizing these points and executing the pivot (manual or Pro One), my body and bridge hand seem to end up in perfect position to make the shot, I think that's what the CTE proponents mean when they say it doesn't matter where the pocket is etc.

I know that defies logic, I'm with y'all on that, and if I wouldn't have broken out of my math/science/logic shell and given it a whirl I wouldn't believe it either. I also get how some people find it confusing (as I did initially) or just think it's simpler to aim where you want to aim and be done with it, and that's great. I'm sort of at the point now where it doesn't matter to me if there is a geometric basis to this or not, I'm firing in shots, including banks, with confidence that I've never had before.

Looking forward to more productive discussions - and I guess the unproductive ones as well, they are just fun to read...
Scott

Good post Scott. I pretty much feel the same regarding the argument of whether or not feel is involved, for me the results are there and pool is outcome based. A funny thing though, once I have locked in my CB/OB visuals all my focus is on crossing the CTEL and finding the new CB center, once that has been established I don't even have to look at the OB again. So for myself I would have to say that if any subconsious adjustments are made it's pre pivot.

 

[jwpretd]

You could also just slightly tweek the pivot -- a little more, a little less.

Then either it would not have been pointed at the CB center before the tweak, which is contrary to where we're told it should be pointed after the pivot, or it would not be pointing at the CB center after the tweak which again is contrary to what we're told, and which would put English on the cue ball. It's certainly possible that either could be the case, but that would deviate significantly from what we've been told explicitly and emphatically.

No, the "V" would be on the CB-GB line only if the bridge length is of the correct size prior to the pivot. That's why Stan prescribes different bridge lengths for different CB-OB distances.

That's correct if the point of the tip's initial offset with respect to the OB vertical axis is to help you get the 'V' onto the CB-GB line. That's certainly possible, and perhaps quite probable. But I don't much like it . I don't find it to be a very elegant solution to the problem, especially when there are perfectly good CTE and Edge-to-Whatever lines loafing about that really should be put to use before they run amok (idle end points and all that).