Simplified CTE

[CocoboloCowboy]

Maybe so, but with Toam Chalk and a Jackpot Cue, who needs CTE?

Think that is why Eye of Hawaii is Big Kahuna of green felt in Hawaii.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Summary: CTE is essentially fractional aiming with the center-to-edge reference alignment added for more shot picture detail. CTE's complex instructions are mainly focused on how to visually integrate the added center-to-edge reference into the fractional shot picture. This is not intended to "rebut" CTE, but to suggest a simplified alternate version of it.

CTE and fractional aiming use the same reference alignments (A-B-C or 15-30-45) and the same adjustments (thicker-thinner or outside-inside) to get from the chosen fractional reference alignment to the final aim. With either method (as with all methods) practice builds consistency and confidence in choosing the reference alignment and adjusting from there.

CTE's refinement is to add the center-to-edge reference to the fractional reference to (1) provide a consistent "anchor reference" for each shot and (2) add visual detail to make the shot picture more distinct, recognizable and memorable.

Adding the center-to-edge reference to the picture is an interesting refinement, but I'd simplify its use. Rather than try to describe how to "see" it, I'd just use it as a consistent starting alignment for each shot, which would be enough to keep it in my "mind's eye" while aiming the shot. In other words, start each shot with a center-to-edge "orienting" alignment, then move to the chosen fractional/aimpoint reference alignment + final inside/outside adjustment.

pj
chgo

PJ - hope all is well. Have a quick question for you based on the first line of your summary description:

We all know that fractional aiming is aiming the center of the CB to a target on the OB in order to get a certain percentage overlap that results in a certain cut angle.

Can you explain how using the edge of the CB to sight to a certain OB overlap is fractional aiming? For instance, at any real distance on a pool table, if you sight the edge of the CB to an OB target a strike the CB at the center with the cue being perpendicular to the same 180deg visual face of the CB, you likely won't even hit the OB ---- you're aiming out into the ether if you would.

Therefore, since you need to pivot your cue to even "get on target" and that ultimate overlap is never the original alignment and that final overlap result varies based on the CB-OB distance, I'm curious how you've come to the conclusion that CTE is fractional aiming.

Please do your normal parenthetical citations and answer each question one by one. I'm interested in where this leads, should you decide to have a friendly discussion.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

We all know that fractional aiming is aiming the center of the CB to a target on the OB in order to get a certain percentage overlap that results in a certain cut angle.

Fractional aiming is aligning the center or edge of the CB at one of the fractional divisions on the OB in order to create a fractional overlap from which to estimate/adjust to the actual aim line.

Can you explain how using the edge of the CB to sight to a certain OB overlap is fractional aiming?

Can you explain how sighting edge-to-A/B/C isn't? With both methods it's a starting alignment from which to adjust to the final aim line - for instance, with both methods a 1/4 fractional alignment uses the edge-to-C "system" alignment. The only apparent difference is in how the final adjustment is made from there (even though CTE adds the center-to-edge line as a cross-reference).

...with the cue being perpendicular to the same 180deg visual face of the CB

Is the edge-to-fraction alignment also perpendicular to that line? If so, then they're parallel. If not, then I don't understand your description (or reasoning).

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Fractional aiming is aligning the center or edge of the CB at one of the fractional divisions on the OB in order to create a fractional overlap from which to estimate/adjust to the actual aim line.


Can you explain how sighting edge-to-A/B/C isn't? With both methods it's a starting alignment from which to adjust to the final aim line - for instance, with both methods a 1/4 fractional alignment uses the edge-to-C "system" alignment. The only apparent difference is in how the final adjustment is made from there (even though CTE adds the center-to-edge line as a cross-reference).


Is the edge-to-fraction alignment also perpendicular to that line? If so, then they're parallel. If not, then I don't understand your description (or reasoning).

pj
chgo

Fractional aiming is aligning the center or edge of the CB at one of the fractional divisions on the OB in order to create a fractional overlap from which to estimate/adjust to the actual aim line.

Fractional aiming is not inclusive of CB edge-to-target aiming because that would require the player to shoot with a cue that's angled --- you can't sight down the CB edge line with a straight cue and achieve your goal of intended overlap. The definition of fractional aiming has never been inclusive of CB edge aiming in regards to actual practice -- it's always been based on center CB sighting with the CB edge as a reference from a top-down view. Dr. Dave's diagrams have always been wrong because they convey the concept from the top-down (view looking down on the table) versus from the perception from the CB to the OB target. When it comes to aiming, top-down diagrams in pool always assume shooting with a straight cue (no pivoting, etc.)

So, you either sight down the center of the CB to an OB target, with a cue angle that's congruent with one's line of sight which results in an intended fractional overlap (i.e. fractional aiming), or, one must sight down the edge of the CB and shoot with an angled cue, meaning, the cue is not pointed along your line of sight as you strike through the CB.

Please cite any professionally-written instructional articles about fractional aiming that includes how a player must angle his/her cue in order to achieve their intended overlap when sighting down the CB edge to OB target line. They don't exist. I've never seen an article that outlines the details of fractional aiming cite the requirement to angle one's cue because it's always been understood and assumed it's a center of the CB to OB target process where people stroke their cue, straight, to where they're aiming. Step into the shot, straight cue, eyes square behind the CB aimed at the OB target that results in the desired fraction.

Can you explain how sighting edge-to-A/B/C isn't? With both methods it's a starting alignment from which to adjust to the final aim line - for instance, with both methods a 1/4 fractional alignment uses the edge-to-C "system" alignment. The only apparent difference is in how the final adjustment is made from there (even though CTE adds the center-to-edge line as a cross-reference).

I just did above. Sighting down a sphere's edge to a target on another sphere that's a distance away is radically different than sighting down the center of the sphere. I'm actually surprised you're not understanding the concept. It's a fact of nature and it's a fundamental aspect of our reality - convergence is a hell of an illusion and it can't be overcome. It's a concept that's so incredibly simple but makes pool and billiards so difficult, hardly anyone can play well. Just set up a shot of any distance -- let's just say a 6ft shot. Sight either edge of the CB to the center (base) of the OB where your sight is along that alignment line. From there, without moving your head, simply move your eyes to the center of the CB. Where are you looking? Nowhere is where you're looking. Just take your cell phone and take a photo where the camera is pointing down the CB edge to OB center line. Where is the center of the CB aligned to? No man's land. In order to get the CB "on" target, the player must move his/her eyes to an entirely new CB center which is not a known "adjustment" because the moment you do this, you've disregarded the original alignment (making the original alignment pointless) **OR** the player must angle his/her cue (pivot) to a vector that is not straight down his/her line of sight. This isn't an "adjustment" as you describe it because the player starts from a cue position that's outside of the perspective of his/her sight line and ends at a cue position that's not congruent with his/her sight line.

Therefore, it's hard to logic out how to adjust anything.

One would be adjusting from a black hole, which isn't the case. If an offset to center pivot were a true adjustment, no one would ever make a ball -- it'd be impossible outside of luck.

Is the edge-to-fraction alignment also perpendicular to that line? If so, then they're parallel. If not, then I don't understand your description (or reasoning).

They're not parallel, PJ. Think about that one for a while. The center you see from an edge-to-target perspective is a different vector through the CB center than what's required to hit the OB. If you start with your eyes behind the center of the CB to an OB target, from that perspective, the CB edge is pointing out into space... no man's land.

Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... you can't sight down the CB edge line with a straight cue and achieve your goal of intended overlap.

How does fractional aiming handle a 1/4 ball cut?

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

How does fractional aiming handle a 1/4 ball cut?

pj
chgo

Simple.

If a player intends to shoot with a straight cue, he/she must sight the center of the CB to the equivalent of 1/4 ball off the OB edge and stroke down his/her sight vector.

If a player thinks he/she is visually aligning the CB edge to, say, the OB 1/4 and is shooting straight down that sight line (that corresponding visual CB center)... they're not.... it's impossible to do so within 3D space-time and impossible within nature. While sighting down the CB's edge, the player's cue is never stroking down their sight vector in order to pocket the ball at any meaningful distance.

Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

So, back to the original point.... where is it described within fractional aiming how one must angle their cue while sighting the CB edge to a target in order to accomplish a proper overlap? Is it described in fractional aiming that one must pivot his/her cue to center from an offset position?

The answer is: there is no description because CB edge to target aiming is not fractional aiming. I suppose it could be if we aimed while looking down at the table from the perspective of the table light, where the CB and OB are visually the same size. Since our eyes are behind the CB while aiming at a target at a distance, using anything but a sight vector through the center of the CB to a target requires a stroke line that isn't equal and certainly not parallel to your sight line.

Fractional aiming is a "Stroke straight down your sight line" system just like ghost ball is a "Stroke straight down your sight line" system.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If a player intends to shoot with a straight cue, he/she must sight the center of the CB to the equivalent of 1/4 ball off the OB edge and stroke down his/her sight vector.

So visualizing 1/4 ball away from the OB's edge in space is feasible, but aiming the CB's edge at the 1/4 fraction on the ball and then parallel shifting to center ball isn't?

If a player thinks he/she is visually aligning the CB edge to, say, the OB 1/4 and is shooting straight down that sight line (that corresponding visual CB center)... they're not.... it's impossible to do so within 3D space-time and impossible within nature.

I have no idea what you think that means.

While sighting down the CB's edge, the player's cue is never stroking down their sight vector in order to pocket the ball at any meaningful distance.

If you're saying the cue shouldn't be stroked along the line through the CB's edge at the fractional target on the OB... duh.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

So visualizing 1/4 ball away from the OB's edge in space is feasible, but aiming the CB's edge at the 1/4 fraction on the ball and then parallel shifting to center ball isn't?


I have no idea what you think that means.


If you're saying the cue shouldn't be stroked along the line through the CB's edge at the fractional target on the OB... duh.

pj
chgo

So visualizing 1/4 ball away from the OB's edge in space is feasible, but aiming the CB's edge at the 1/4 fraction on the ball and then parallel shifting to center ball isn't?

Visualizing 1/4 away from OB edge in space is feasible because it's possible.

You can't parallel shift the cue to center without changing your visual perspective. You'll always miss at any meaningful distance. Therefore, what you said isn't feasible because it's not possible.

If you're saying the cue shouldn't be stroked along the line through the CB's edge at the fractional target on the OB... duh.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that you're not paralleling your cue to center from that visual CB edge to OB target perspective. If you think you are...you're not.... you're moving your eyes (changing visual sight lock) or you're angling your cue and shooting across your sight line.

Fractional aiming is a stroke straight, stroke down your sight-line system... no pivots required, no cue angling required. If I didn't know any better, I'd bet you thought you've been shooting along (parallel) to your sight line your entire life.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...you're not paralleling your cue to center from that visual CB edge to OB target perspective. If you think you are...you're not.... you're moving your eyes (changing visual sight lock) or you're angling your cue and shooting across your sight line.

If that's how it goes when you try it, I suggest you stick with Complicated CTE where all you have to do is move your head and eyes around until things "look right" and then realign to a "new center ball".

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

If that's how it goes when you try it, I suggest you stick with Complicated CTE where all you have to do is move your head and eyes around until things "look right" and then realign to a "new center ball".

pj
chgo

I guess the healthy 3D geometry discussion is done. Thanks for the action while it lasted.

 

[Brookeland Bill]

Your ignorance is really showing pj and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.....

....It's 34 videos....2 DVDs.......and a partridge in a pear tree

It’s actually attending MIT for 4 years and getting an advanced degree in physics and then working at White Sands Missile Base for an additional 5 years.

 

[Brookeland Bill]

PJ - hope all is well. Have a quick question for you based on the first line of your summary description:

We all know that fractional aiming is aiming the center of the CB to a target on the OB in order to get a certain percentage overlap that results in a certain cut angle.

Can you explain how using the edge of the CB to sight to a certain OB overlap is fractional aiming? For instance, at any real distance on a pool table, if you sight the edge of the CB to an OB target a strike the CB at the center with the cue being perpendicular to the same 180deg visual face of the CB, you likely won't even hit the OB ---- you're aiming out into the ether if you would.

Therefore, since you need to pivot your cue to even "get on target" and that ultimate overlap is never the original alignment and that final overlap result varies based on the CB-OB distance, I'm curious how you've come to the conclusion that CTE is fractional aiming.

Please do your normal parenthetical citations and answer each question one by one. I'm interested in where this leads, should you decide to have a friendly discussion.

Parental Discretion Advised before reading this post.

 

[Dan White]

It’s actually attending MIT for 4 years and getting an advanced degree in physics and then working at White Sands Missile Base for an additional 5 years.

I'm confused. Who are we talking about here and why?

 

[Dan White]

To me, this concept is pretty weird. I think the problem with what you are describing is that its adds moving parts to the biomechanical equation and is not consistent with how our body & visual processing system naturally works, nor is it consistent with any other sports approach that I'm aware of. Each person's center vision is their center vision and its quite easy to ID that line on our body, align & lock our stance on it consistently. Can you provide any links to anything in visual science or sports cognition/psychology literature that supports such a concept, and/or why it would be more beneficial to so, vs the more standard definition/approach such as the DD link provided above?

Parallax concepts & terms get thrown around a lot - but parallax (basic wikipedia def) is simply the 2 slightly different angles of vision created by our eyes being in different locations when viewing an object, and it's the basis of how we perform depth & distance perception and is what most of us refer to as "center vision". It is affected by each person's ratio of eye dominance and other physiological factors, but basically it's a product of where our eyes sit in our head, same for all creatures or systems which use binocular vision. It's very unclear to me why or how shifting your head will "eliminate parallax errors" - if anything, creating any additional offsets from your body's central stance with small head motions will cause more stereoptic noise & lead to other issues. I'm not attacking you, I'm just finding it pretty hard to understand the CTE guys concept of using head shifting to somehow correct something, and so far I've not seen any technical references (aside from Stan's book) offered up to explain it, but his book seems to be contain his own concepts - can anyone tell me if it provides references to 3rd party literature to support any of his visualization concepts? I've watched his newest videos, confess I find them pretty monotonous and only ref he mentions is Hal and haven't slogged through all of them. I'm not knocking Stan or Hal in any way, I find their stuff interesting but hard to grok, overly complicated, and doesn't align with any modern visual/sports references that I can find.

The fairly standard pool concept of learning how to align our stance to our individual center vision and locking that head/torso position is well documented. Then it becomes a question of align to what? I think the what should be either CTC or CTE, as center and edges of balls are the most clear, objective things we can clearly see on the balls. Defining additional parallel reference lines (ETE for CTC, and ETC for CTE) simply aids the process. Of course we can argue align to different things shotline, contact points, fractions, A, B, C, etc - and that's fine. But this head shifting and stepping the CB stuff is really a pretty vague concept - and so far I've seen no hints thats its rationally explained Stans book, but I don't have the book so I'm genuinely asking - are these head shifting/stepping concepts entirely self defined by Stan, or does he provide any 3rd party references to help us understand the rationale for how/why its said to work and what exact problem is it solving?

Thanks

I'm still skeptical that "vision center" is all that. There's more to delivering a straight stroke than where your eyes are. I abandoned the vision center concept a few years ago and I shoot better than I ever have.

As far as 3rd party references, good luck. Who did Wilbur and Orville reference when they invented flight? It's along those lines, I think.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'm still skeptical that "vision center" is all that. ... I abandoned the vision center concept a few years ago and I shoot better than I ever have.

Vision center = the head position over the cue where straight looks straight. Not all that, but important even if it comes naturally for you.

pj
chgo

 

[Dan White]

Vision center = the head position over the cue where straight looks straight. Not all that, but important even if it comes naturally for you.

pj
chgo

I think there are problems with how vision center is described. For instance, Dr. Dave discusses how Bob Jewett has learned a swoop stroke because he never found his vision center early in life. What looks straight to Bob really isn't. He probably sees the two balls as straight but can't really see the orientation of the cue on that line. He learned to play with the cue in a comfortable position that looked OK as far as his peripheral vision could tell, but really wasn't on line. If Bob did the vision center test where you line up two balls and the cue in a straight line I don't think Bob could find a place where everything is straight AND it all LOOKS straight while holding a cue in shooting position. His brain sees crooked as straight and so he will see straight as crooked no matter where he puts his head. This means the vision center test will not work (and, IMO, it would not be a Herculean task for Bob to reprogram his vision).

What does work is coming at the problem from the other way around. Instead of "finding the spot where straight looks straight" you might have to establish a set up where you can assure that the balls, tip and cue are all on a dead straight line and then realize that this might not LOOK straight at first but your brain will figure it out and eventually make straight look straight. Essentially, you have to "program out" the ingrained perception where crooked looks straight so that you can "program in" what you would call the vision center. The problem is that this spot will not necessarily look right. I think that is a missing ingredient from the vision center discussion. I don't know, maybe it has been discussed as I haven't read everything that's been written on it, but if so this is not a well known aspect of finding that vision center.

I think I might post to the instructor's forum on this. Clearly it is a subject that hasn't been given enough thought... lol.

 

[Ratta]

I think there are problems with how vision center is described. For instance, Dr. Dave discusses how Bob Jewett has learned a swoop stroke because he never found his vision center early in life. What looks straight to Bob really isn't. He probably sees the two balls as straight but can't really see the orientation of the cue on that line. He learned to play with the cue in a comfortable position that looked OK as far as his peripheral vision could tell, but really wasn't on line. If Bob did the vision center test where you line up two balls and the cue in a straight line I don't think Bob could find a place where everything is straight AND it all LOOKS straight while holding a cue in shooting position. His brain sees crooked as straight and so he will see straight as crooked no matter where he puts his head. This means the vision center test will not work (and, IMO, it would not be a Herculean task for Bob to reprogram his vision).

What does work is coming at the problem from the other way around. Instead of "finding the spot where straight looks straight" you might have to establish a set up where you can assure that the balls, tip and cue are all on a dead straight line and then realize that this might not LOOK straight at first but your brain will figure it out and eventually make straight look straight. Essentially, you have to "program out" the ingrained perception where crooked looks straight so that you can "program in" what you would call the vision center. The problem is that this spot will not necessarily look right. I think that is a missing ingredient from the vision center discussion. I don't know, maybe it has been discussed as I haven't read everything that's been written on it, but if so this is not a well known aspect of finding that vision center.

I think I might post to the instructor's forum on this. Clearly it is a subject that hasn't been given enough thought... lol.

Excellent Post Dan-

That is what it s all about- have had several extremly strong players who had *this problem*-
And it works as you have shown up- but it takes time- made some relative "fast fixes" with players- and some went crazy- so you can never say, how long it takes to fix such a problem. It can be a pain in the ass. Nowadays, if a student comes, to fix an issue like this I always explain them, that it will be no walk in the park- and that it can be a pain in the ass over weeks/months. And that they will play like shit for a longer time

Again- very well thought stuff you came up with Dan-

 

[bbb]

so if i freeze the cueball 1 1/2 diamond or so up from the head rail
and freeze 2 object balls to the same side rail a few diamonds apart
or place 3 pieces of chalk spread out over several diamonds placed carefully on the center of the diamond
and get down on that line
being sure the cue stick
parrallel to the side rail or directly over the diamonds
this should assure its a straight line
my brain will learn to "see straight" and my head will learn where it should be?

 

[Ratta]

so if i freeze the cueball 1 1/2 diamond or so up from the head rail
and freeze 2 object balls to the same side rail a few diamonds apart
or place 3 pieces of chalk spread out over several diamonds placed carefully on the center of the diamond
and get down on that line
being sure the cue stick
parrallel to the side rail or directly over the diamonds
this should assure its a straight line
my brain will learn to "see straight" and my head will learn where it should be?

The brain creates *this picture" bbb-- so if you want to really try to attack such a problem, it is a "re-programming"- fact. But noone can promise you, how fast or how long this will last.
I had students who were able to immediatley adjust (were i really was amazed and positivley shocked) on the other side had a really expirienced player (very strong- national champ etc)...and he gave up after about 3-4 months.

it is tough for sure. also a fact from expirience