Proofs of the EXACTNESS of Pivot Systems

Patrick Johnson said:
There is no debate. (And it's "you're".)


There is no maybe.


I know it without trying it. It's not rocket surgery.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

So, what did i get, something like a C- on that post PJ? Does that mean i have to stay after school now? lol like i said, i guess thats about all you can do in these cte threads now, since it seems this geometry and the cte/pro1 system ended up being a little too complicated for you to understand. Stay out of the deep end, if you cant swim pj :thumbup:

what is this rocket surgery you speak of? lmao. I think the debate is still on? I think you had a little debate with yourself about whether to use rocket science or brain surgery and you came up with "rocker surgery" :thumbup:

I feel you have disrespected stan and a lot of people in this thread that tried to help you learn the system! they were patient with you and put up with your insults. I honestly dont know what more to say to guy like you :confused:
 
Last edited:
Mikjary,
Mike,
How accurate is 90/90 pivot aiming?
Could be better than CTE?
90-90 shift 1.jpg
 
champ2107 said:
So, what did i get, something like a C- on that post PJ? Does that mean i have to stay after school now? lol like i said, i guess thats about all you can do in these cte threads now, since it seems this geometry and the cte/pro1 system ended up being a little too complicated for you to understand. Stay out of the deep end, if you cant swim pj :thumbup:

what is this rocket surgery you speak of? lmao. I think the debate is still on? I think you had a little debate with yourself about whether to use rocket science or brain surgery and you came up with "rocker surgery" :thumbup:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if PJ's use of irony went completely over your head there or if you were trying to make an attempt at answering PJ's irony with more irony. Posts on the internet often fail to convey the author's original intent. Can you please clarify which it was?
 
I will give you something to talk about :thumbup: The final stage of CTE/PRO1 and its not on the dvd. You are not looking at edges,points,lines. you know the exact body position behind the cue ball, you will know the exact contact point on the ob but you do a pro1/air pivot. This is my opinion because this is how i now shoot cte/pro1 and this is what it evolves too, again this my opinion.
 
Last edited:
well i guess i should start paying attention to your post now, since we all know it will not be about cte, You bring me back to my high school days PJ and i feel young again ! Grading my posts,pop quiz,insults! I had the impression, all these guys thought you were going to be the man to crush cte and its users for them when your ban was lifted, seems you again have let down a lot of people and even the cte users, since you were unable to get past chapter 1 on the dvd. I guess you need a low IQ to figure out how to use the system :confused:
 
Last edited:
jsp said:
Dave, if I simply believe your claim that your final aim lines go straight through the ghost ball centers in the first two shots (5 and 7 balls), then your bridge placement MUST be in two completely different places (in relation to the CB and OB locations). Your bridge must fall on the final aim lines since that's where you're pivoting, and you have two distinct aim lines since there are two different ghost ball locations.

Now, how do you get to two completely different bridge placements (in relation to the CB and OB) given supposedly the exact same "edge to eighth" alignment? How does the system tell you to place your bridge hand differently for those first two shots?
Click to expand...
While we're at it, can you please answer this question too, Dave? Thanks.
 
LAMas said:
Mikjary,
Mike,
How accurate is 90/90 pivot aiming?
Could be better than CTE?
View attachment 174046
Click to expand...

Big E, :)

They are fraternal twins to each other. I see no advantage in accuracy between the two. Cte employs more alignment criteria than 90/90, but both systems use the eyes to do what the math can't.

I think the systems are challenged for exactness in a mathematical setting while the basis for their intended purpose is forgotten and kicked to the curb. The visual presentation is the next best thing for accuracy in our stilted approach to this game. It is often ridiculed and called "feel", stuck in a cage with all the other dead ends and assumptions and never given its chance to be understood.

My answer, I guess, would be with a question to you...if my eyes were lined up in the EXACT position every time to pocket a ball, would a system be accurate? If we, as a group, understand this concept, these discussions will move forward. The math on the table is the result of our own personal super computers getting the correct visual inputs from our eyes. How our eyes work is the physically exact discussion we should be having. Not the geometric pi$$ing contest of simple alignments and angles. These are merely results and not the origin. IMO :idea2:

LAMas...thank you for all your efforts with the diagrams you supply to us. You are a great help in these discussions. Jim (JAL), thank you also! :thumbup::thumbup:

Best,
Mike
 
mikepage said:
ah ..., ... "you're."
Click to expand...
LOL.

Pat asked, "Shouldn't quotes within sentences have their own punctuation?".

"Yes," Mike wisely agreed, "they should, except when that would cause the same kind of punctuation to be repeated."

They left unsaid that quoted material not forming complete sentences should have no punctuation within the quotes, since they're not ordinarily "punctuatable".

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
LOL.

Pat asked, "Shouldn't quotes within sentences have their own punctuation?".

"Yes," Mike wisely agreed, "they should, except when that would cause the same kind of punctuation to be repeated."

They left unsaid that quoted material not forming complete sentences should have no punctuation within the quotes, since they're not ordinarily "punctuatable".

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

It actually depends on if you are using American or British style punctuation. Personally, I feel like the British style of punctuation is easier to read and tend to use it even though I am American.
 
Mikjary said:
Big E, :)

They are fraternal twins to each other. I see no advantage in accuracy between the two. Cte employs more alignment criteria than 90/90, but both systems use the eyes to do what the math can't.

I think the systems are challenged for exactness in a mathematical setting while the basis for their intended purpose is forgotten and kicked to the curb. The visual presentation is the next best thing for accuracy in our stilted approach to this game. It is often ridiculed and called "feel", stuck in a cage with all the other dead ends and assumptions and never given its chance to be understood.

My answer, I guess, would be with a question to you...if my eyes were lined up in the EXACT position every time to pocket a ball, would a system be accurate? If we, as a group, understand this concept, these discussions will move forward. The math on the table is the result of our own personal super computers getting the correct visual inputs from our eyes. How our eyes work is the physically exact discussion we should be having. Not the geometric pi$$ing contest of simple alignments and angles. These are merely results and not the origin. IMO :idea2:

LAMas...thank you for all your efforts with the diagrams you supply to us. You are a great help in these discussions. Jim (JAL), thank you also! :thumbup::thumbup:

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...


Mike,
The visual are key to all aiming systems and requires memorizing the resulting cut angles. If the results are not what is desired, then one must adjust the visual and stance to achieve the desired cut angle. As important as the visuals are, the body position/stance must be natural and comfortable to attain repeatable accuracy.

As the eyes adjust to the aim line (whatever system), the body must accommodate that visual. If the stance is aligned with the aim line, then the shoulder position above the cue must be aligned as well; the bridge is then positioned behind the (center) CB. So when the eyes, shoulder above the stroking arm and the bridge are on the aim line, you can achieve repeatable/reliable results.

The tricky part is to find where to stroke the cue under the eyes – between both or under the dominant eye that results in being on line. This can be verified by shooting several straight in shots perfectly. We all must be able to shoot straight in shots as well as the CTE 30 degree shot that are gimmes.

Since we all don’t stroke under the same eye/s, the results that we achieve using CTE’s secondary aiming points, 1/8s and ¼s on the OB will be slightly different. This is why we can’t say exactly what cut angles these secondary aim point achieve. Once one does know what cut angles these secondary aim points are for him/her – then time at the table will fill in all of the angles in between these points.

I tried aiming at the secondary aim points on the OB with the eye that was nearest to the pocket/target (thanks), but others might aim at these points by splitting the visuals between the eyes or aiming with the dominant eye. Whatever works and can be memorized.

This rant assumes that one can recognize the angle created by the line from the pocket/target through the center of the OB to the CP back to the shooter and the line from the CB to the GB. This angle will prompt the shooter to remember the pre shot position/s stored in his memory.

Thanks for reading.

Be well all.:):thumbup:
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
[...]
They left unsaid that quoted material not forming complete sentences should have no punctuation within the quotes, since they're not ordinarily "punctuatable".

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Yeah...well... OK

So long as you agree that if you were a reporter for the NY Times or Newsweek or Billiard's Digest, or if you were an author writing the "great American novel," and you offered the above sentence, your editors would change it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top