Half-ball Hit Experimental Challenge
John Walkup
conditions,
cue ball in centerline of the table, four inches
off the head rail; object ball on the head spot
that all it took was a half-ball hit to sink it.
My assumption of what constitutes a half-ball hit is this:
When the top of the cue ball is in line with
the edge of the object ball.
Well, if that assumption is correct, then there is no
way that that shot is a half-ball hit --- at least not on
a nine foot table --- and anyone can
see it for themselves. Simply get down and aim
the cue so that it passes through the middle of the
ball and is aiming at the edge of the object ball. I did
it about a dozen times, and I hit the long rail about one
and a half diamonds up-table each time (each within a couple
of inches of each other -- so Hal's method is great if you
want to miss by a foot or so).
Those sitting on the sidelines wondering whether the jerk
(that's me) was correct or not can find out for themselves.
Try it.
Now, maybe my definition of half-ball hit is wrong, so
if that is the case what is the definition?
BTW, use a striped ball and aim the number on the ball so
that the cue tip will strike it when center hit. Make
sure to hit the number with the tip when shooting.
The lighter the stroke the easier it is control.
PS: One more thing I did was to take the two balls
and line them up towards the point on the table where the
object ball struck. (In other words, like a ghostball/
object ball.) Not surprisingly, when looking at the
balls from above the center of the ghost ball was line up
with the edge of the object ball. In my book, that is
a half-ball hit. (You can easily prove that under this
circumstance the cue ball hits the object ball exactly
half-way out from the center of the object ball.
This is trivial to show with Virtual Pool, since the
ray tracing allows you to line up the cue perfectly and
apply a perfect stroke. Try it!!
Maybe they are using bar tables. :)
PS: I noticed the lack of precision in my shooting, so
I got a little suspicious. So I moved the two balls until a
legitimate half-ball hit sunk the object ball. The shits of
it is, I still jawed the ball out using this method about half
the time. I adjusted the positions of the balls up and
down a little, but to no avail. Keep in mind
that I used a bridge, and that I made sure to strike
the center of the cue ball each time. In other words,
when I took the fudging out of the system I found that
the human eye simpy cannot gauge a half-ball hit with
any sufficient precision.
And I have damn good eyesight. In fact, aiming is trivial
for me, as long as I am allowed to just knock the ball in.
--
John Walkup The Cue Gallery (http://www.cuegallery.com)
Authorized Dealer: Verl Horn Cues Russ Espiritu Custom Cues
John Walkup
conditions,
cue ball in centerline of the table, four inches
off the head rail; object ball on the head spot
that all it took was a half-ball hit to sink it.
My assumption of what constitutes a half-ball hit is this:
When the top of the cue ball is in line with
the edge of the object ball.
Well, if that assumption is correct, then there is no
way that that shot is a half-ball hit --- at least not on
a nine foot table --- and anyone can
see it for themselves. Simply get down and aim
the cue so that it passes through the middle of the
cue ball and is aiming at the edge of the object ball. I did
it about a dozen times, and I hit the long rail about one
and a half diamonds up-table each time (each within a couple
of inches of each other -- so Hal's method is great if you
want to miss by a foot or so).
Those sitting on the sidelines wondering whether the jerk
(that's me) was correct or not can find out for themselves.
Try it. You may not like me, and you may very well want for
me to be wrong, but try to do it honestly, regardless.
Now, maybe my definition of half-ball hit is wrong, so
if that is the case what is the definition?
BTW, use a striped ball and aim the number on the ball so
that the cue tip will strike it when center hit. Make
sure to hit the number with the tip when shooting.
The lighter the stroke the easier it is control. Use a
bridge as well.
John Walkup
After sending my post, I realized that Sam probably meant
the familiar half-ball hit when the cue ball and object
ball are on opposite sides of the table. This is clearly
a half-ball hit, since the head spot is required to
be equidistance to the long end end rails. (I could have
sworn he wrote that both balls were at the head of the table,
but if I am wrong I apologize.)
So I went ahead and tried it the way I assume Sam meant it
to be done, and a half-ball hit was naturally successful.
(It is supposed to be for that particular shot.)
However, when I placed the cue ball closer to the
object ball and moved both of them down table four inches,
none of the standard 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 ball shots worked.
The problem is gauging what a true 1/4 and 3/4 ball hit
really is.
I would instead suggest attempting the shot I wrote earlier, since the
distance to the object ball is short enough that aiming
is easier. Which of the standard hits works in that instance?
I tried all three, but only the 3/4 ball hit came close and
it wasn't terribly successful --- I only sank two out of seven
attempts. But again, I ruled out fudging as much as possible.
I can easily make that shot 80% of the time if I just use
basic feel. On a bar table the shot is trivial. On my table
no shot is trivial. :)
So, in summary I have a few questions:
1. What exactly is a 1/4 ball hit? (I assumed it was when the
cue ball hit 3/4 of the way from the center of the object ball.)
Or vice-versa.
2. When hitting a 1/4 ball hit, how do you gauge when you have
a perfect 1/4 ball hit lined up? (How do you sight it down with
high precision?) This question is most important, because without
a precise means of gauging the hit the brain takes over and
uses its own judgment (which we call "feel").
3. In the shot I diagrammed (cue ball four inches from head
rail, object ball on head spot), which of the basic shots is to
be used?
4. If the object ball is moved down table by six inches, what
shot is then used?
5. For the two shots I just mentioned, what is considered a reasonable
success rate on a nine foot table?
These are questions that anyone that claims they can use the method
must be able to answer. Whether they will remains to be seen.
Any bets?
Patrick Johnson
> These are questions that anyone that claims they can use the method
> must be able to answer. Whether they will remains to be seen.
> Any bets?
Since it appears that only you and Hal's pals are reading this stuff
anymore, I doubt it. Maybe you should try a new tack -- like trying to
understand how these guys find value in this system. Your usual approach
(beating on the dead horse until it says "uncle") doesn't seem to be
getting results. Rather than insisting ad infinitum that the system as
described doesn't cover all the possibilities, I'd be more interested in
knowing how it helps to use it and what's going on in the minds of its
proponents while they're shooting.
I'd guess it's a convenient way of narrowing the "effective range" of
aiming possibilities in order to make a bewildering task more manageable,
and of working with "reference" aiming points that are visible and
therefore easier to aim at. Find three or four easy-to-aim hits that
produce known angles of cut, choose the one that's closest to the shot you
need to make, and then you're working with a much smaller universe of
possibilities grouped around a visible aiming point. It's similar to using
the diamonds to roughly estimate banking angles and then refining the
actual angle from there, or memorizing "tracks" for 3-cushion play, both of
which are respected methods.
My question to Hal's students is: Do you always visualize hitting exactly
1/4-ball, 1/2-ball or 3/4 ball, and let your subconscious make any
necessary adjustments, or are you consciously "shading" the hit one way or
another? What does Hal say about this? If you look at Robert Byrne's
books, you'll see that he specifically teaches making small adjustments
when using the diamond systems for banking and kicking, so it's a method
that's well-known and accepted by many experts. I just wonder if you guys
do it on "automatic pilot."
Pat Johnson
Chicago
RACKS BOSS
horse beater myself, but maybe your words are easier for him to understand.
Perhaps if JW had asked his questions a little more politely, he might have
gotten better answers in a more timely fashion. Honey as opposed to vinegar
and all that.
Pat wrote <snippage>:
>convenient way of narrowing the "effective range" of
>aiming possibilities in order to make a bewildering task more manageable,
>and of working with "reference" aiming points that are visible and
>therefore easier
I think many of you are still picturing too narrow a field, though. The 1/4,
1/2, 3/4 etc. ball hits make more different hits than four (there are four
ANGLES, not four hits), depending on which part of one ball hits which part of
the other ball -
center of cue ball can aim at 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
1/4 of cue ball can aim at 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
3/4 (or the other side=1/4) of the cue ball can aim at 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 of
the object ball,
the edge of the cue ball can aim at the edges of the object ball or 1/8, 1/4,
1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
then you have the left side or the right side and/or opposite sides and . . .
do you get the idea? or am I still not understanding what you're thinking?
Becky
John Walkup
>
> John Walkup wrote:
>
> > These are questions that anyone that claims they can use the method
> > must be able to answer. Whether they will remains to be seen.
> > Any bets?
>
> Since it appears that only you and Hal's pals are reading this stuff
> anymore, I doubt it. Maybe you should try a new tack -- like trying to
> understand how these guys find value in this system. Your usual approach
> (beating on the dead horse until it says "uncle") doesn't seem to be
> getting results. Rather than insisting ad infinitum that the system as
> described doesn't cover all the possibilities, I'd be more interested in
> knowing how it helps to use it and what's going on in the minds of its
> proponents while they're shooting.
Wasn't that the point of my questions -- to find out exactly what they
were doing?
John Walkup
>
> Ah, Pat, you have gotten it, I think. This is exactly what I said to the dead
> horse beater myself, but maybe your words are easier for him to understand.
> Perhaps if JW had asked his questions a little more politely, he might have
> gotten better answers in a more timely fashion.
Actually, the fact that you guys were so evasive, and defensive, didn't
help.
> Pat wrote <snippage>:
> >convenient way of narrowing the "effective range" of
> >aiming possibilities in order to make a bewildering task more manageable,
> >and of working with "reference" aiming points that are visible and
> >therefore easier
>
> I think many of you are still picturing too narrow a field, though. The 1/4,
> 1/2, 3/4 etc. ball hits make more different hits than four (there are four
> ANGLES, not four hits), depending on which part of one ball hits which part of
> the other ball -
>
> center of cue ball can aim at 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
> 1/4 of cue ball can aim at 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
> 3/4 (or the other side=1/4) of the cue ball can aim at 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 of
> the object ball,
> the edge of the cue ball can aim at the edges of the object ball or 1/8, 1/4,
> 1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
> then you have the left side or the right side and/or opposite sides and . . .
>
> do you get the idea? or am I still not understanding what you're thinking?
In each of those shots, the cue ball is aimed at a particular portion of
the object ball, so that every shot can de described in terms of where
the
center of the cue ball is aimed. And if Pat thinks that not using a
method is bewildering, trying to analyze all the possible combinations
described above will garner a migraine.
John Walkup
>
> John Walkup wrote:
>
> After sending my post, I realized that Sam probably meant
> the familiar half-ball hit when the cue ball and object
> ball are on opposite sides of the table. This is clearly
> a half-ball hit, since the head spot is required to
> be equidistance to the long end end rails.
Bad reasoning on my part. The shot IS a half-ball hit, but
not for the reason I stated. My bad.
John Walkup
> > center of cue ball can aim at 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
> > 1/4 of cue ball can aim at 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
> > 3/4 (or the other side=1/4) of the cue ball can aim at 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 of
> > the object ball,
> > the edge of the cue ball can aim at the edges of the object ball or 1/8, 1/4,
> > 1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
> > then you have the left side or the right side and/or opposite sides and . . .
> >
> > do you get the idea? or am I still not understanding what you're thinking?
>
> In each of those shots, the cue ball is aimed at a particular portion of
> the object ball, so that every shot can de described in terms of where
> the
> center of the cue ball is aimed.
Well, I just realized after hitting the Send button that my comment is
wrong.
But here is an interesting fact that grew out of my late-night
experimention with the shots. Gauging an accurate half-ball
hit was fairly easy, although the results weren't spectacular.
But I found gauging a precise 1/4 ball hit to be very difficult.
I can't imagine how difficult it must be to gauge a 1/4-ball
hit on the cue ball against a 1/4 ball hit on the object ball,
especially if your cue is lined up for a center-hit shot on the
cue ball.
And if you can't gauge it precisely, then at some point the brain
has to take over the controls -- and we are back to basic feel.
I would be willing to bet that is what is happening. I think Hal's
method falls under the term "pathological."
Patrick Johnson
> Ah, [Grasshopper], you have gotten it, I think.
A little early to tell yet, Mistress.
> I think many of you are still picturing too narrow a field, though. [...]
>
> center of cue ball can aim at 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
> 1/4 of cue ball can aim at 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
> 3/4 (or the other side=1/4) of the cue ball can aim at 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 of
> the object ball,
> the edge of the cue ball can aim at the edges of the object ball or 1/8, 1/4,
> 1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
> then you have the left side or the right side and/or opposite sides and . . .
This is new information. So you're aiming more than just the center of the cue
ball at these object ball fractions? That explains a lot. If the targets are
1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 of the object ball and the "bullets" are center, 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4
of the cue ball, then there are at least 12 angles (more if you use 1/8s). I can
imagine how this could be helpful, although the more angles you add, the less
benefit you get from simplification. Somewhere along the line I'd guess you'll
want to stop using "artificial" aiming points and start actually lining up the cue
ball/object ball contact points.
One thing I like about this method is that it focuses on aligning specific aiming
points rather than just "knockin' 'em in" by feel. I think that's a much more
effective approach to learning for most (whether it's done by
dividing-into-fractions or aligning actual contact points or some other method).
It can still evolve into "shooting by feel" if that's what eventually works best
for the individual player. Me, I like to keep those contact points in mind.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
greg miller
RACKS BOSS wrote in message
<19990606135651...@ng69.aol.com>...
>[...]
>I think many of you are still picturing too narrow a field, though.
>1/2, 3/4 etc. ball hits make more different hits than four (there are
four
>ANGLES, not four hits), depending on which part of one ball hits which
part of
>the other ball -
>
>1/4 of cue ball can aim at 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
>3/4 (or the other side=1/4) of the cue ball can aim at 1/8, 1/4, 1/2,
3/4 of
>the object ball,
>the edge of the cue ball can aim at the edges of the object ball or
1/8, 1/4,
>1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
>then you have the left side or the right side and/or opposite sides
and . . .
Mirabile dictu !!!
It was like pulling teeth, but another secret revealed!!
There are only NINE angles in pool.
Now, let's see. I have this tough shot. Hmmm. Looks like I should
aim the cb right 1/4 at the ob left 1/8, no, the cb right 1/8 at the ob
left 1/4, no, the cb right edge at the ob left 3/8, no, I'll just whiff
the ob left edge with the cb right 3/8,.....
sam
and that each of us has spent a different amount of time with him. Do not
go wild over Becky's response. What she has described is several different
ways to come up with 4 angles!! Think about it before you start creating 9
or more. A center cue to object edge is a half ball hit. But right cue
edge to center object is also a half ball hit. Center cue to left quarter
object is a 3/4 ball it. Right edge of cue ball to right quarter object
ball is also a 3/4 ball hit. All you are doing is using a different gage to
determine the same angle hit. Be careful about coming up with all these new
angles. Next, John wonders why we are reluctant to EXPLAIN Hal's method.
The answer for me is simple. I am still working to FULLY understand it
myself. The descriptions I have given so far is what I know with limited
time to prove it out. So far it has proven out. John, I am going back to
the table today to repeat yesterday's experiment. Yesterday it worked as I
described it. I really don't care what you do with a slide rule a
calculator or a protractor, if I am sinking balls, that is all that is
important to me. Furthermore, if you are having a hard time picking out a
quarter ball hit, how the hell are you dividing the object ball into an
infinite amount of contact points. If you can't find a quarter, you surely
can't find 1/100th. Any way I will report back, but please "chill out". I
can't tell you why it is working until I have more time to work with it. I
am not impressed by all your challenges and mathematical formulas. If the
system don't work or I am cheating the system, I will let you know in time.
I will not be rushed into telling you something when I have not had time to
see what is going on. So far it seems to work. I set an object at random
and the cue at random and pick one of the angles and sink the ball.
Sincerely, Sam
greg miller wrote in message <5VA63.17605$eU6....@news2.mia>...
Don M.
wrote:
> Find three or four easy-to-aim hits that
>produce known angles of cut, choose the one that's closest to the shot you
>need to make, and then you're working with a much smaller universe of
>possibilities grouped around a visible aiming point.
>
This is a good explanation.
>My question to Hal's students is: Do you always visualize hitting exactly
>1/4-ball, 1/2-ball or 3/4 ball, and let your subconscious make any
>necessary adjustments, or are you consciously "shading" the hit one way or
>another?
I use the above shots but I was taught not to shade the hit. This is
what creates the miss. Back hand English is used to compensate for
squirt/throw.
Patrick, you pretty much explained the system. Thanks for the
verbiage.
Don >---
sam
Object ball on the head spot, cue ball 4 inches off the rail in line with
the object ball. Half ball hit takes it right to the pocket. I moved both
balls up 4 inches (both balls) and repeated. Direct to the pocket. I moved
4 inches up again same as before. Okay, when the object ball gets to center
table I found that I must use a TOUCH of backhand outside english.
Somewhere just beyond center table this shot goes to a QUARTER BALL hit. It
stays quarter ball for about 12 inches at which point the last quarterball
shot must use a TOUCH of backhand outside english. Then it goes to one
eighth ball down to the foot spot at which point I had to use a TOUCH of
backhand outside english. I don't know how else to tell you this works. I
am not a scientist or mathematician so I don't know the reasons. I can only
tell you that I was very careful NOT to look at the pocket and only hit the
half, quarter and eighth as I was instructed to do. Sorry if this does not
line up with your calculator. It just works. Sincerely, Sam
sam wrote in message <375ad...@news.compuvar.com>...
sam
BTW, I think Claudia just posted that she will not be using this method as
her primary way of aiming, but more for the knowledge. I, at this point
will probably be using this method only for reference. My point here is
that I too have been sinking balls for quite some time and do not feel
uncomfortable with the way I aim, BUT I can tell you that I had a match
today and used it every time there was any question in my mind as to how
thick or thin to hit the shot. I would refer to the system and say to
myself "Oh shit, you were going to cut that too thin" or some such thing.
I have also found that it is a great help with LONG, rail cut shots. I am
capable of over cutting these shots many times. By referring to Hal's
system, it has cut down on my errors. Anyway, I look forward to learning
some of Hal's other systems. Sincerely, Sam
sam
Becky was demonstrating several different ways to come up with the same 4
angles. Good post though. It will help to make the system look sillier.
:o) Sincerely, Sam
Ron Hudson wrote in message <375b29dd...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>On 6 Jun 1999 17:56:51 GMT, rack...@aol.com (RACKS BOSS) wrote:
>
>>I think many of you are still picturing too narrow a field, though. The
1/4,
>>1/2, 3/4 etc. ball hits make more different hits than four (there are four
>>ANGLES, not four hits), depending on which part of one ball hits which
part of
>>the other ball -
>>
>>center of cue ball can aim at 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
>>1/4 of cue ball can aim at 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
>>3/4 (or the other side=1/4) of the cue ball can aim at 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4
of
>>the object ball,
>>the edge of the cue ball can aim at the edges of the object ball or 1/8,
1/4,
>>1/2 or 3/4 of the object ball,
>>then you have the left side or the right side and/or opposite sides and .
. .
>
>Holy shit.
>
>You say you cannot visualize a ghost ball, yet using the above
relationships you
>can compute a hit necessary to send a ball toward a pocket that you don't
even
>need to know the location of and execute a shot into the pocket? And this
is
>your system that only uses only 3 Angles?
>
>Thanks for clearing that up.
>
>Ron
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Take the Survey >>> http://www.localpool.com
>-----------------------------------------------------------
sam
I just received an e-mail from someone who thought I might have confused the
issue by not stating that the cue ball was 4 inches off the rail in line
with the object ball (sitting on the head spot) and the FOOT spot. A direct
line down the center of the table. I appreciate their input. I would also
like to assure everyone that I DO NOT have a CAUSE or AGENDA. I am simply
relating an experience. We do that here you know. If I am somehow
adjusting or cheating the system, then I am doing it TOTALLY subconsciously
and don't understand how I could, when I'm not even looking at the pocket.
If I am adjusting without looking at the pocket, then I'm a better player
than I thought. I'm getting tired of this subject, and I think many others
are also, I'm ready to move on if you are. Sincerely, Sam
Ron Hudson
Bob Jewett
: Object ball on the head spot, cue ball 4 inches off the rail in line with
: the object ball. Half ball hit takes it right to the pocket. I moved both
: balls up 4 inches (both balls) and repeated. Direct to the pocket. I moved
: 4 inches up again same as before.
Sam, from the above description is it clear that you are making major,
major corrections according to where the object ball is on the table,
You are not, in short, shooting half ball. Consider this "thought
experiment":
Imagine an infinite level expanse of pool cloth stretching in all
directions -- I do this to temporarily avoid the problems caused by
thinking of pockets. Now put on that cloth an object ball and a
cue ball, both perfectly smooth. Now cut the object ball to the
left with a half ball shot. Imagine tracing out the path of the
object ball on the cloth with pencil. Now replace the balls but
move them ahead four inches. Shoot the half ball shot, and trace
out the path of the object ball again. Does it go to the same spot
as the first shot? No. The paths of the object ball must be
parallel to each other and they will never meet.
To try something similar on a real table, get a large sheet of paper,
draw an angle of exactly 30 degrees on it, and take it to the table and
see how far from the pocket a true half-ball shot will take many of the
shots you describe.
Sam, I believe you believe in the system. That is not in question.
I'm simply pointing out that the only way the system can work for you
is if you make major corrections subsconsciously. That doesn't make
the system worthless. If you want to really understand what the system can
and can't do you have to come to grips with these horrible facts from
geometry. However, if you do fully understand the geometric basis of
the system, you may stop believing in it. You may not want to run that
risk, and you should not try the experiment I suggested.
Bob Jewett
John Walkup
>
> Gentlemen, I realize that we are all trying to work through Hal's method,
> and that each of us has spent a different amount of time with him. Do not
> go wild over Becky's response. What she has described is several different
> ways to come up with 4 angles!! Think about it before you start creating 9
> or more. A center cue to object edge is a half ball hit. But right cue
> edge to center object is also a half ball hit. Center cue to left quarter
> object is a 3/4 ball it. Right edge of cue ball to right quarter object
> ball is also a 3/4 ball hit. All you are doing is using a different gage to
> determine the same angle hit. Be careful about coming up with all these new
> angles. Next, John wonders why we are reluctant to EXPLAIN Hal's method.
> The answer for me is simple. I am still working to FULLY understand it
> myself. The descriptions I have given so far is what I know with limited
> time to prove it out. So far it has proven out. John, I am going back to
> the table today to repeat yesterday's experiment. Yesterday it worked as I
> described it. I really don't care what you do with a slide rule a
> calculator or a protractor, if I am sinking balls, that is all that is
> important to me.
What we are trying to find out is WHY you are sinking the balls. I sink
them
every bit as well as you do, I imagine. But why? That is an important
question to answer if we hope to get anywhere with this.
> Furthermore, if you are having a hard time picking out a
> quarter ball hit, how the hell are you dividing the object ball into an
> infinite amount of contact points.
You misunderstand. I can resolve a tremendous number of contact points
on the cue ball, but I cannot map each one to a specific label. I can
see the point, but I have no way of precisely determining whether it
will
produce a 1/4 ball hit, or whatever. Furthrmore, your descriptions of
hit require resolving the points on TWO balls simultaneously, whereas
my gut feel method only requires one.
> If you can't find a quarter, you surely
> can't find 1/100th. Any way I will report back, but please "chill out". I
> can't tell you why it is working until I have more time to work with it. I
> am not impressed by all your challenges and mathematical formulas.
if they are not impressive, you should have little trouble meeting the
challenge. I think you meant to say that you are not INTERESTED
in my challenges and math formulas. Fine.
John Walkup
>
> On 06 Jun 1999 09:03:44 PDT, Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Find three or four easy-to-aim hits that
> >produce known angles of cut, choose the one that's closest to the shot you
> >need to make, and then you're working with a much smaller universe of
> >possibilities grouped around a visible aiming point.
>
> This is a good explanation.
What Pat is describing is an old system for beginners. I think it
used to be called the squeeze method, in that you pick out the
boundary edges and then squeeze them in to the desired shot.
It does have some application for kicks and hard banks. I would
be surprised if any player worth his salt really needs to do it
for ordinary cut shots.
It certainly is not new, and I don't see how anyone can make a claim
to greatness for teaching it. I sincerely believe that relying on
it will stunt a player's development in the long run, which is why
I don't teach it. (The ghost ball method is a little better as it
is easier to abandon once the player learns how to aim without a
crutch.)
John Walkup
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen, I set the shot up again this afternoon and it works.
> the object ball.
Is the cue ball on the foot rail or head rail? If it is on the foot
rail
you are shooting the classic half-ball hit which is well-known. If your
cue ball is just off the head rail then I suggest that you are not
hitting
a true half-ball hit. Now the questions become:
1. Did you use two striped balls, with number on the "cue ball" in line
with
the shot so that you can guarantee a center hit?
2. Did you use a bridge?
3. How exactly did you insure that you were hitting a
precise half-ball hit?
> Half ball hit takes it right to the pocket. I moved both
> balls up 4 inches (both balls) and repeated. Direct to the pocket. I moved
> 4 inches up again same as before. Okay, when the object ball gets to center
> table I found that I must use a TOUCH of backhand outside english.
How do you gauge precisely how much touch to use? After all, if this is
a
system it must have some way to precisely incorporate such an
adjustment.
> Somewhere just beyond center table this shot goes to a QUARTER BALL hit.
At that point on the boundary, which hit do you use? Or are you saying
that both a quarter-ball hit and a half-ball hit produce the same
effect?
Systems that have discontinuous changes in a parameter are always going
to
be suspicious. That doesn't rule it out, but it does beg some
questions.
> It
> stays quarter ball for about 12 inches at which point the last quarterball
> shot must use a TOUCH of backhand outside english. Then it goes to one
> eighth ball down to the foot spot at which point I had to use a TOUCH of
> backhand outside english. I don't know how else to tell you this works. I
> am not a scientist or mathematician so I don't know the reasons. I can only
> tell you that I was very careful NOT to look at the pocket and only hit the
> half, quarter and eighth as I was instructed to do.
Not looking at the pocket is meaningless in this experiment. In fact,
it
can fool you into thinking that you are doing an objective experiment,
but
you really do know where the pocket is. I make many shots without
looking
at the pocket when I am heavily concerned with cue ball position (it is
not
a good habit, however). It is rather easy to do. It is very much like
bowling without looking at the pins.
> Sorry if this does not
> line up with your calculator. It just works.
What is important is to find others to try it. I don't think you can
perform the experiment objectively. (I can guess you can say the same
about me, so I don't ask anyone to take my word for it either. They
should try it themselves.)
John Walkup
>
> I just received an e-mail from someone who thought I might have confused the
> issue by not stating that the cue ball was 4 inches off the rail in line
> with the object ball (sitting on the head spot) and the FOOT spot. A direct
> line down the center of the table. I appreciate their input. I would also
> like to assure everyone that I DO NOT have a CAUSE or AGENDA. I am simply
> relating an experience. We do that here you know. If I am somehow
> adjusting or cheating the system, then I am doing it TOTALLY subconsciously
> and don't understand how I could, when I'm not even looking at the pocket.
And that is where I think you are making the mistake. Not looking at
the
pocket is no way of finding out if the system works or not. As I said
in another post, sinking balls without looking at the pocket is rather
easy.
John Walkup
>
> sam (s...@lasercom.net) wrote:
>
> : Object ball on the head spot, cue ball 4 inches off the rail in line with
> : the object ball. Half ball hit takes it right to the pocket. I moved both
> : balls up 4 inches (both balls) and repeated. Direct to the pocket. I moved
> : 4 inches up again same as before.
>
> major corrections according to where the object ball is on the table,
> You are not, in short, shooting half ball. Consider this "thought
> experiment":
>
> Imagine an infinite level expanse of pool cloth stretching in all
> directions -- I do this to temporarily avoid the problems caused by
> thinking of pockets. Now put on that cloth an object ball and a
> cue ball, both perfectly smooth. Now cut the object ball to the
> left with a half ball shot. Imagine tracing out the path of the
> object ball on the cloth with pencil. Now replace the balls but
> move them ahead four inches. Shoot the half ball shot, and trace
> out the path of the object ball again. Does it go to the same spot
> as the first shot? No. The paths of the object ball must be
> parallel to each other and they will never meet.
I asked my daughter to watch me shoot the shot. I shot it about five
times, each time hitting roughly the same spot on the rail. I then
moved
the entire ensemble down the table four inches and asked her to guess
where the object ball would go if I hit it at the same point.
It took her a second or two, but she got the right answer: four inches
farther down the table.
My daughter is SEVEN YEARS OLD.
Patrick Johnson
>
> Sam, from the above description is it clear that you are making major,
> major corrections according to where the object ball is on the table
I'm surprised nobody has suggested the solution to these unconscious
corrections: freeze two object balls in position for the desired
half-ball hit and shoot into that combination with the cue ball. This
would eliminate not only subconscious correction during shooting, but
also any effect from bad strokes or aiming.
Of course, once you've set up the second shot, you only have to sight
along the centers of the frozen object balls to see you won't make the
shot -- you don't even have to shoot it.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
sam
got A's in geometry. (did not go to Trig, or Calc) I know that the ball
should miss the pocket. Since it isn't, I am asking what's going on? Does
the object ball's PERCEIVED edge change as I move both balls forward? I am
aiming the center of the cue ball through the edge of the object ball to get
a half ball hit. Is this correct? BTW, whether Hal's methods work or not,
does not change my life in the least. I wish you and others would stop
saying how much I believe in this system. I am simply working with what I
was given and unless I am doing something unconsciously, the balls are going
in. This is not life and death, I am not DEFENDING a position, I am telling
you what is happening when I do it. John's, 6 year old daughter comments
are uncalled for, so I will not be answering his questions on this subject.
(this subject only, I have nothing against John, other than his Godlike
demeanor). I wish I had someone nearby to see what I am doing, but I don't.
Sincerely, Sam
Bob Jewett wrote in message ...
>sam (s...@lasercom.net) wrote:
>
>: Object ball on the head spot, cue ball 4 inches off the rail in line with
>: the object ball. Half ball hit takes it right to the pocket. I moved
both
>: balls up 4 inches (both balls) and repeated. Direct to the pocket. I
moved
>: 4 inches up again same as before.
>
>You are not, in short, shooting half ball. Consider this "thought
>experiment":
>
> Imagine an infinite level expanse of pool cloth stretching in all
> directions -- I do this to temporarily avoid the problems caused by
> thinking of pockets. Now put on that cloth an object ball and a
> cue ball, both perfectly smooth. Now cut the object ball to the
> left with a half ball shot. Imagine tracing out the path of the
> object ball on the cloth with pencil. Now replace the balls but
> move them ahead four inches. Shoot the half ball shot, and trace
> out the path of the object ball again. Does it go to the same spot
> as the first shot? No. The paths of the object ball must be
> parallel to each other and they will never meet.
>
Patrick Johnson
system: Why does it work at all for its practitioners, and is it
really a useful system for at least some stage in the learning
process?
Moving the shot up-table from the foot spot to the center spot in
4-inch increments, keeping the cue ball even with the object ball
(straight out toward the long side rail), geometry says that all shots
between the foot spot and center spot should miss. You should make
the foot spot shot with a half-ball hit (30 degrees), and the center
spot shot with a quarter-ball hit (48 degrees), but there's no shot in
Houle Pool between these two, so you should miss the five shots in
between (although the one nearest to the center spot might come close
with a quarter-ball hit).
Yet it's been said that no conscious correction is involved, and Sam
says he makes all these shots with greater consistency than he did
without this system.
1. How does this system increase shotmaking consistency?
2. At what stage of development is it useful?
3. Is what's being learned permanently useful, or only bad habits
that will have to be unlearned later (in order not to limit progress)?
4. If bad habits are learned, maybe they'll limit one's ultimate
level in the game, but maybe that's an acceptable trade-off for
quicker learning at earlier stages, or for someone who doesn't need to
go beyond a certain level?
Some of us (including me) wouldn't use this system at any stage in our
game. But others may have other objectives, or a different idea of
how to reach the same objective. I'm interested to know what real
merit folks think this system may have (if any) on whatever level and
to whatever player. I'm particularly interested to hear from
instructors (even though they may be set in their ways).
We've debunked the geometry as advertised, but how about some
exploration into the utility of the system as it exists? Maybe we'll
universally agree it's a complete crock (as if we could universally
agree on anything). But I don't think that's proven yet.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
sam
individual. I have relayed to you what is happening and I don't know why.
I have no AXE to grind concerning this system. I do have an AXE to grind
concerning your ability to communicate without insulting someone who is
simply relating an experience. I will no longer discuss this subject with
you. Not because I don't find it interesting, but I am frankly quite tired
of your insults. I would be happy to match my intellect against yours, but
I can see that you are already in a dead heat with your 7 year old daughter.
If you want to communicate with me, pick another subject. You obviously
don't know how to communicate on this one without continual insults.
Sincerely, Sam
John Walkup wrote in message <375B86...@telepath.com>...
>Bob Jewett wrote:
>>
>> sam (s...@lasercom.net) wrote:
>>
>> : Object ball on the head spot, cue ball 4 inches off the rail in line
with
>> : the object ball. Half ball hit takes it right to the pocket. I moved
both
>> : balls up 4 inches (both balls) and repeated. Direct to the pocket. I
moved
>> : 4 inches up again same as before.
>>
>> Sam, from the above description is it clear that you are making major,
>> major corrections according to where the object ball is on the table,
>> You are not, in short, shooting half ball. Consider this "thought
>> experiment":
>>
>> Imagine an infinite level expanse of pool cloth stretching in all
>> directions -- I do this to temporarily avoid the problems caused by
>> thinking of pockets. Now put on that cloth an object ball and a
>> cue ball, both perfectly smooth. Now cut the object ball to the
>> left with a half ball shot. Imagine tracing out the path of the
>> object ball on the cloth with pencil. Now replace the balls but
>> move them ahead four inches. Shoot the half ball shot, and trace
>> out the path of the object ball again. Does it go to the same spot
>> as the first shot? No. The paths of the object ball must be
>> parallel to each other and they will never meet.
>
sam
Secondly, I don't know why the balls are going in. I have no vested
interest in the system. I am just curious as to why the damn balls are
going in the hole!! Third, I think you should have left this discussion on
ASP. Bringing the topic over here serves no purpose unless everyone here
has read everything on ASP, and if they did, they certainly could have
responded there. Just my opinion. Sincerely, Sam (besides, do you really
want to bring all of JW's insults over here? Ha Ha)
Patrick Johnson wrote in message <375BE374...@concentric.net>...
RACKS BOSS
it quite complicated. I've just read 20 posts and none of them make much sense
- if I had to figure it out from what's been written and answered to so far, I
wouldn't have a clue either. Fault lies on both sides - those who have seen
and tried it and those who haven't.
Hal emailed me about this system way before Sam or I ever met him and I didn't
understand exactly what he was talking about until we actually met and he
showed me.
It's S-I-M-P-L-E.
I'll see what I can do with a diagram or something to make it easier for those
of you who just have to make it complicated. I'll scan the drawing and send it
to one of you, then you can explain it in terms you mathematicians and Phds can
understand.
Until then, I give up.
Becky
RACKS BOSS
>It certainly is not new, and I don't see how anyone can make a claim
I don't think anyone ever claimed this to be new, nor did anyone make a claim
to greatness for teaching it.
I never asked, but Hal is 75 years old (or so) and I figured it's probably
something that's been around for quite some time.
>(The ghost ball method is a little better as it
>is easier to abandon once the player learns how to aim without a
>crutch.)
I don't consider this method a "crutch", but that's just MHO.
Becky
Jeffrey D. Scorsone
I went to the table and tried it...
Here's what I noticed. If I lined up just the 3/4, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 ball
increments, I would sometimes sink, and usually get close (not that
close counts)
But, if I aimed normally, then thought about is this half, quarter, etc...
it would distract my mind enough to make any corrections subconsciously
and the shot would sink great.
I think the system is great for people who don't have the confidence
but have the aim. I've over corrected deliberately because I didn't trust
my "gut feel" That's when I usually miss by a mile!
Jeff
sam (s...@lasercom.net) wrote:
: Pat, I agree with your geometry, John's, Bob's and everyone elses.
Patrick Johnson
I'm not trying to continue the comments about what's wrong with this
system, but to see if we can get some discussion about what might be
good about it (don't know if that came across clearly or not). The
point of cross-posting to RSB is to get more input from those who
might not get ASP or check it every day. If it's of no further
interest, it'll die quickly enough (yeah, right).
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
>
> geometry says that all shots between the foot spot and center spot
> should miss.
Come to think of it, you might be able to make a shot in the side
pocket or the up-table corner pocket using 3/4-ball or 1/8-ball hits,
but the principle still holds that not all shots are accounted for,
especially considering the many shots between the 4-inch increments.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Ron Shepard
[...]
>I think the system is great for people who don't have the confidence
>but have the aim. I've over corrected deliberately because I didn't trust
>my "gut feel" That's when I usually miss by a mile!
There are players on the other side of the fence too. A few years ago
when I started playing regularly again, I kept noticing cases where I
would line up a shot, and then I'd think that it "feels" too thick or too
thin, I would adjust, and then miss the shot. Afterwards, I'd think, if
only I'd trusted my original judgement rather than my last second "feel",
it might have gone. So I put some effort into using a reliable system,
and practicing it enough so that I can execute it correctly when I need
it. I think it paid off in the end, both with increased accuracy (which I
can measure with statistics), and with confidence in the shot (I don't
care how fast my heart is beating and how much my knees are shaking on the
important shots, I know I can line them up correctly). I do miss, of
course, as does everyone. But I'm better off now than I was 10 years ago.
I think systems are fine (i.e. they won't limit your eventual performance
level), and there are a lot of them that are geometrically correct and can
be used in the real situation. Different people like different types of
systems, based in part on their natural abilities (3D visualization,
ability to judge angles, or distances, etc.) and on their experience. But
I would certainly recommend to anyone that they start with something that
actually works. Also, it isn't *necessary* that everyone play with a
system, some people seem to do just fine without one.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Walkup
>
> Not to be in favor of the system one way or another, but yesterday
> I went to the table and tried it...
>
> Here's what I noticed. If I lined up just the 3/4, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 ball
> increments, I would sometimes sink, and usually get close (not that
> close counts)
>
> But, if I aimed normally, then thought about is this half, quarter, etc...
> it would distract my mind enough to make any corrections subconsciously
> and the shot would sink great.
I think you are onto something here. In fact, this is how I interpreted
the "success" of the system. I think those that follow the system
simply lack confidence, but in reality do know how to aim. (After
shooting for two years, how could you not?) What the system does is
it lets you THINK that it has taken over the controls, but in reality
the person shooting is using their gut feel for aiming as always. It is
the
ultimate placebo effect.
Ultimately, I think it is harmful. At some point, a person simply
has to come to grips with using their instinct to make balls.
> I think the system is great for people who don't have the confidence
> but have the aim. I've over corrected deliberately because I didn't trust
> my "gut feel" That's when I usually miss by a mile!
Exactly!! Which is why I abandoned all methods for aiming early on.
There is simply no substitute for hand/eye coordination, which is what
pool is all about.
John Walkup
>
> Bob Jewett wrote:
> >
> > Sam, from the above description is it clear that you are making major,
>
> I'm surprised nobody has suggested the solution to these unconscious
> corrections: freeze two object balls in position for the desired
> half-ball hit and shoot into that combination with the cue ball. This
> would eliminate not only subconscious correction during shooting, but
> also any effect from bad strokes or aiming.
Actually, I thought about that. But if they cannot figure out
Bob Jewett's analysis above, what makes you think they will
understand YOUR analysis? Furthermore, all they are going to
do is claim that when they freeze the two balls the object
ball magically goes where they need it to go, regardless.
> Of course, once you've set up the second shot, you only have to sight
> along the centers of the frozen object balls to see you won't make the
> shot -- you don't even have to shoot it.
Of course. WE know that. But...
What you have shown is that the Hal Houle method, as described, cannot
coexist with the ghost ball method. Both cannot be correct, and you
have shown that there is a paradox if you assume they do.
John Walkup
>
> John, I have nothing against you other than you are a very insulting
> individual. I have relayed to you what is happening and I don't know why.
> I have no AXE to grind concerning this system. I do have an AXE to grind
> concerning your ability to communicate without insulting someone who is
> simply relating an experience. I will no longer discuss this subject with
> you. Not because I don't find it interesting, but I am frankly quite tired
> of your insults. I would be happy to match my intellect against yours, but
> I can see that you are already in a dead heat with your 7 year old daughter.
> If you want to communicate with me, pick another subject. You obviously
> don't know how to communicate on this one without continual insults.
> Sincerely, Sam
Whatever.
John Walkup
>
> In article <mlS63.61$%a7....@news.uswest.net>, j...@therion.net wrote:
>
> [...]
> >but have the aim. I've over corrected deliberately because I didn't trust
> >my "gut feel" That's when I usually miss by a mile!
>
> when I started playing regularly again, I kept noticing cases where I
> would line up a shot, and then I'd think that it "feels" too thick or too
> thin, I would adjust, and then miss the shot. Afterwards, I'd think, if
> only I'd trusted my original judgement rather than my last second "feel",
> it might have gone.
But weren't both cases of "feel"? It just seems that you couldn't
decide
which gut feel was correct, and you chose the wrong one. This is why
I think it is important that a person stand up and get back down on
the shot in those instances.
John Walkup
The frustration with dealing with people who refuse to acknowledge
even the most basic laws of mathematics and physics. It would
have been one thing if they had simply said "Okay, what you say
makes sense --- it is pure mathematics, after all --- but why
does it appear to work?" But that is not what happens.
Instead, I get attacked for being too anaytical and having the
audacity to question their claims. And when I persist, they
get defensive and evasive. After a while, they just want you to
go away so they can make as many grandiose claims that they wish
without any skepticism.
They claim they have no vested interest, but the extremes they go
to protect the method against all anaylsis makes it appear as if
their reputation rests on it.
John Walkup
I can tell:
When a person claims they are using a half-ball hit, are they
really using a half-ball hit?
When I did my experiment, I took extra precautions to make sure
that I was gauging a half-ball hit precisely, and the experiment
failed. And it failed miserably.
So it boils down to this:
What steps do you take to measure a half-ball hit precisely?
I think anyone can see the problem if there is no methodical
means of gauging these hits.
graham...@hotmail.com
cue...@telepath.com wrote:
> John Walkup wrote:
>
> After sending my post, I realized that Sam probably meant
> the familiar half-ball hit when the cue ball and object
> ball are on opposite sides of the table. This is clearly
> a half-ball hit, since the head spot is required to
> be equidistance to the long end end rails.
No, this is clearly a 0.283 ball hit. A half-ball hit gives the object
ball a trajectory that's 30 degrees from the line of fire, plus or minus
curve. You want 45 degrees, so that's 0.717 balls from center, or a
0.283 ball hit. Just take the cosine of the angle you want. That tells
you how many ball widths to hit from center.
I think Sam must have meant the shot where the object ball is on the
spot, and the cueball is at the head of the table, near one of the
corner pockets. (I can't remember how many diamonds, but it's
diagrammed in Byrne's book on Pool and Billiards) THAT is a half-ball
hit. Plus the fact that you're far less likely to scratch doing this
than you would be if you shot it from the center line. (That nasty
split scratch)
See yah!
- GLYPH
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
sam
This experiment was done with all object balls being cut to the RIGHT. (I
have made many balls cut to the left, but the 4 inch off the rail down the
center were cuts to the right). Maybe I should try the same experiment
cutting to the left. The reason I say this is that I only see out of my
left eye (20/20). (almost blind in the right) Maybe if I tried cuts to the
left the result would change. I don't see why, but maybe. Sincerely, Sam
sam wrote in message <375c1...@news.compuvar.com>...
>Okay, Since you sound sincere, I'll answer your question, but don't come
>back with some smart ass degrading remark. What I do is line up the center
>of my cue tip to the center of the cue ball to the right or left edge of of
>the object ball. I assumed this is the correct way to do it. What I have
>in effect is the center of my cue tip going to the right or left edge of
the
>object ball because I am already lined up on center cue ball. Is this the
>way to do it? Sincerely, Sam
>
>John Walkup wrote in message <375C16...@telepath.com>...
sam
Patrick Johnson
>
> Okay, Since you sound sincere, I'll answer your question, but don't come
> back with some smart ass degrading remark. What I do is line up the center
> of my cue tip to the center of the cue ball to the right or left edge of of
> the object ball. I assumed this is the correct way to do it. What I have
> in effect is the center of my cue tip going to the right or left edge of the
> object ball because I am already lined up on center cue ball. Is this the
> way to do it?
This sounds right to me, but I've tried it too, and could feel the
urge to correct my aim when I knew the set-up shot would miss. When
the guy at Chris's was showing me "Don Feeney's Method," I hit a few
shots as he instructed, and when I knew the half-ball hit wouldn't go,
it was very difficult for me to be sure I wasn't correcting somehow.
I could actually feel butterflies in my stomach as I tried like hell
to shoot the shot "wrong." The habit of adjusting to make the ball
seems stronger to me than the will to follow instructions.
This habit/urge has also been discussed here lots of times in threads
about using the "Aim and Pivot" method for measuring squirt. When
you're measuring your cue for squirt, it's almost impossible NOT to
correct as you're used to doing, invalidating your measurement.
I don't know yet what this means about the usefulness of the method in
general.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Ron Shepard
>But weren't both cases of "feel"? It just seems that you couldn't
>decide
>which gut feel was correct, and you chose the wrong one. This is why
>I think it is important that a person stand up and get back down on
>the shot in those instances.
Yes, this is another problem with shooting only by "feel". You can "feel"
one thing about the shot one instant, and "feel" another thing about the
shot the next, and you don't know which is correct. Certainly there are
cases where your last second "feel" helped, but there are also cases where
it hurts. Which "feel" is the one that is right?
If you use a system, one that actually works (and allows more than four
possible cut angles), then you can decide which is right. You can go
through whatever steps are necessary and figure out what is the right way
to shoot the shot, you don't have to guess or flip a coin between your
different "feelings".
By analogy, it is like throwing toothpicks out on the table (this is in
"The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat" book, which was the basis for the
"Rainman" movie). If you throw 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, then most people can
tell you how many are there without counting. Many people can go up to 6
or 7 sticks without error. And a few people can go up to dozens (like the
Dustin Hoffman character in the movie). But everyone can learn to count,
and no matter how many sticks are there, you can count them and get the
right number. One way is "feel" the other way is using an algorithm, or a
"system".
There are many other examples of things like this too, from counting cards
in poker or bridge to learning how to play music "by ear" to learning how
to shoot a basketball through a little hoop 10ft up in the air. It is
remarkable what some people can do with natural ability, but it is even
more remarkable how people without this natural talent can learn to
accomplish just as much, or more, by other means.
Different strokes, for different folks!
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Walkup
>
> Okay, Since you sound sincere, I'll answer your question, but don't come
> back with some smart ass degrading remark. What I do is line up the center
> of my cue tip to the center of the cue ball to the right or left edge of of
> the object ball. I assumed this is the correct way to do it. What I have
> in effect is the center of my cue tip going to the right or left edge of the
> object ball because I am already lined up on center cue ball. Is this the
This is exactly what I do. Yet the ball doesn't come close to going in.
Now my next question is simple: How do you gauge a 1/4 ball hit?
Also, how do you apply your technique to combination shots?
John Walkup
>
> In article <375A33...@telepath.com>,
> cue...@telepath.com wrote:
> > John Walkup wrote:
> >
> > After sending my post, I realized that Sam probably meant
> > the familiar half-ball hit when the cue ball and object
> > ball are on opposite sides of the table. This is clearly
> > a half-ball hit, since the head spot is required to
> > be equidistance to the long end end rails.
>
> No, this is clearly a 0.283 ball hit. A half-ball hit gives the object
> ball a trajectory that's 30 degrees from the line of fire, plus or minus
> curve. You want 45 degrees, so that's 0.717 balls from center, or a
> 0.283 ball hit. Just take the cosine of the angle you want. That tells
> you how many ball widths to hit from center.
POint well taken. I didn't correct my error in time.
> I think Sam must have meant the shot where the object ball is on the
> spot, and the cueball is at the head of the table, near one of the
> corner pockets. (I can't remember how many diamonds, but it's
> diagrammed in Byrne's book on Pool and Billiards) THAT is a half-ball
> hit. Plus the fact that you're far less likely to scratch doing this
> than you would be if you shot it from the center line. (That nasty
> split scratch)
No, sam clearly stated that the cue ball was in the middle of the long
rail,
not near one of the corner pockets.
John Walkup
>
> In article <375C13...@telepath.com>, cue...@telepath.com wrote:
>
> >But weren't both cases of "feel"? It just seems that you couldn't
> >decide
> >which gut feel was correct, and you chose the wrong one. This is why
> >I think it is important that a person stand up and get back down on
> >the shot in those instances.
>
> Yes, this is another problem with shooting only by "feel". You can "feel"
> one thing about the shot one instant, and "feel" another thing about the
> shot the next, and you don't know which is correct. Certainly there are
> cases where your last second "feel" helped, but there are also cases where
> it hurts. Which "feel" is the one that is right?
Actually, if you stand up and take another crack at it, I think you will
find that you will settle on one comfortably. My thinking is that
your second-guessing is caused by discomfort somewhere else, but that is
only my guess. But if I am right, then taking another approach should
take care of it.
> If you use a system, one that actually works (and allows more than four
> possible cut angles), then you can decide which is right. You can go
> through whatever steps are necessary and figure out what is the right way
> to shoot the shot, you don't have to guess or flip a coin between your
> different "feelings".
>
> By analogy, it is like throwing toothpicks out on the table (this is in
> "The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat" book, which was the basis for the
> "Rainman" movie). If you throw 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, then most people can
> tell you how many are there without counting. Many people can go up to 6
> or 7 sticks without error. And a few people can go up to dozens (like the
> Dustin Hoffman character in the movie). But everyone can learn to count,
> and no matter how many sticks are there, you can count them and get the
> right number. One way is "feel" the other way is using an algorithm, or a
> "system".
>
> There are many other examples of things like this too, from counting cards
> in poker or bridge to learning how to play music "by ear" to learning how
> to shoot a basketball through a little hoop 10ft up in the air. It is
> remarkable what some people can do with natural ability, but it is even
> more remarkable how people without this natural talent can learn to
> accomplish just as much, or more, by other means.
I think that in any endeavor, those that excel are those that abandon
systems and go by gut feel. Certainly basketball players do not
have a system to tell them how to shoot, not even at the free-throw
line. A QB would be hard-pressed to tell you what system he uses
to gauge exactly how far to throw a ball. Does a pitcher really
use a system to help him know where to aim and how much spin to put
on the baseball? Keep in mind that the accuracy they require is every
bit as much as required in shooting pool, maybe even more.
In fact, I would think that if accomplished athletes from other sports
heard we were trying to figure out where to aim, they wouldn't think
too highly of our skills.
I think the reason is simple: The human brain has an incredible ability
to gauge from experience, and no system can come close to it. Well,
there
are some exceptions, but those usually involve situations where the
brain
has not had a chance to develop the feel adequately. Kick shots, for
example: We simply don't shoot enough of them to give the brain a
chance,
so we have to create some sort of crutch to help us. (Well, most of us
do.) Also consider bank shots (although I am a good bank shooter and I
don't use any system whatsoever).
We could have Sherm Adamson ask Gary Spaeth what method he uses to line
up
his banks. I would imagine Gary would be puzzled by the question. But
maybe
I am wrong.
One thing about all this that bothers me is this: I am quite proud
of my ability to shoot good pool (not GREAT pool, but good pool).
One thing that impresses people about pool (and maybe the only thing)
is the incredible eye/hand coordination that is developed by playing
many years. In fact, this eye/hand coordination is what impresses
people about most athletes in sports. But if all there is to shooting
is to line up the balls according to some predetermined formula,
then this game doesn't amount to much and we can all go home and
pick up bowling.
> Different strokes, for different folks!
Yes, but some strokes are better than others, IMO.
Fred Agnir
wrote:
>> I think the system is great for people who don't have the confidence
>> but have the aim. I've over corrected deliberately because I didn't trust
>> my "gut feel" That's when I usually miss by a mile!
>
>Exactly!! Which is why I abandoned all methods for aiming early on.
>There is simply no substitute for hand/eye coordination, which is what
>pool is all about.
Another point towards the physical importance of the game.
Maybe I can divert these "Hal Houle" threads to something more
pleasant ;-)
Regards,
Fred Agnir
Templeton, MA
Fred Agnir
wrote:
>
>I think that in any endeavor, those that excel are those that abandon
>systems and go by gut feel. Certainly basketball players do not
>have a system to tell them how to shoot, not even at the free-throw
>line. A QB would be hard-pressed to tell you what system he uses
>to gauge exactly how far to throw a ball. Does a pitcher really
>use a system to help him know where to aim and how much spin to put
>on the baseball? Keep in mind that the accuracy they require is every
>bit as much as required in shooting pool, maybe even more.
I think this is the basis of my opinion that pool is a much more
physical game than people give it credit. Some people do these
physical acts better than others. Especially on the sub-conscious
level. That's what separates pros from amateurs.
RACKS BOSS
>Sorry Sam, but my posts got out of hand based on frustration:
>The frustration with dealing with people who refuse to acknowledge
>even the most basic laws of mathematics and physics.
Maybe we need to start over. I don't know if you're speaking of me, but I'm
sure I'm included, so I'd like to answer. I do NOT refuse to acknowledge the
laws of math and physics. Now, read this next line very carefully -
You have NOT (so far) talked about the same thing I am.
You haven't acknowledged that we may even be talking about different things.
I give you what you've said. My argument is that you have NOT been talking
about the same thing. We're doing apples and oranges.
>Instead, I get attacked for being too anaytical and having the audacity to
question their claims.
You don't get attacked (at least not by me) for being anaylitical or
questioning anything, but for the WAY you do it and ALSO because you are NOT
talking about the Hal method of aiming. You're trying to show why a ball will
not go into a pocket if hit with a 1/2 ball hit. Of course they all won't go
into the pocket with a half ball hit - if you move the damn balls, you have to
use a different hit because you've changed the angle to the pocket. THAT
doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. If we could get on the same
wave-length here and you could remove your head from your butt for a few
minutes, maybe we could get it all straightened out and THEN you could explain
to me and the rest of us what makes this work (or makes us just THINK it
works).
>They claim they have no vested interest, but the extremes they go to protect
the method against all anaylsis makes it appear as if
>their reputation rests on it.
The interest is in getting it RIGHT if you're going to anaylize it.
Reputation? What reputation? I haven't got no damn reputation . . . :o)
Becky
John Walkup
>
> JW:
> >Sorry Sam, but my posts got out of hand based on frustration:
> >The frustration with dealing with people who refuse to acknowledge
> >even the most basic laws of mathematics and physics.
>
> Maybe we need to start over. I don't know if you're speaking of me, but I'm
> sure I'm included, so I'd like to answer. I do NOT refuse to acknowledge the
> laws of math and physics. Now, read this next line very carefully -
>
> You have NOT (so far) talked about the same thing I am.
>
> You haven't acknowledged that we may even be talking about different things.
It is impossible to tell because you are probably the most evasive
of the entire bunch. I get some useful descriptions out of Claudia
and Sam, but with you I get "Just shoot accordingly." Sorry, but
statements like that are impossible to analyze.
> I give you what you've said. My argument is that you have NOT been talking
> about the same thing. We're doing apples and oranges.
> >Instead, I get attacked for being too anaytical and having the audacity to
> question their claims.
> You don't get attacked (at least not by me) for being anaylitical or
> questioning anything, but for the WAY you do it and ALSO because you are NOT
> talking about the Hal method of aiming. You're trying to show why a ball will
> not go into a pocket if hit with a 1/2 ball hit. Of course they all won't go
> into the pocket with a half ball hit - if you move the damn balls, you have to
> use a different hit because you've changed the angle to the pocket.
But how many hits are at your disposal? If you continually refuse
to explain the system in detail, don't go blaming me.
Again, consider the shot that Sam set up: The cue ball four inches from
the head rail (centered along the end rail) and the object ball on
the head spot. Which cut do you use? Once you tell me, I can test
your method. I tried the half-ball hit, and it flat doesn't do the
trick. And I took great care to make sure that I was using a half-ball
hit (which is precisely why the object ball didn't go in).
Now how do *I* know that I was using a true half-ball hit? Simple:
I took the point where the object hit the rail and extrapolated back
using a ghost ball. True enough, the two lined up in a half-ball
hit within very close tolerances. My question would be to
you is "How do you know that you are really hitting the ball with
a half-ball hit?" I have a means to test my precision, and I just
described it.
But I am not going to get any answers, I have a feeling.
> THAT
> doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. If we could get on the same
> wave-length here and you could remove your head from your butt for a few
> minutes,
*I* am the one that always does the insulting? Hmmmmmm.
RACKS BOSS
hit the ball, DEPENDING on the angle needed to make the shot. Linda also wrote
a post about it.
I've been somewhat evasive because my main argument with you hasn't really been
about the method, but your approach to arguing about it and slamming it without
actually knowing or seeing what it really is, then calling those of us who
wrote a post to say we had met Hal, tried what he showed us and were impressed
by the way it worked, names and the system a load of crap BEFORE you really had
the facts.
Now that you seem to be warming up a bit (I'm giving you a LOT of leeway here),
I'll try one more time to describe what Hal showed us and explain to you how I
use it (and remember that I'm just woman and these things are difficult for our
little 'ole brains to figure out).
When I have a shot where the object ball is on or about a 15 degree angle from
the cue to the pocket, I aim the center of the cue ball to the left or right
quarter of the object ball. My tip is in the center of the cue ball (I don't
want any english on this shot - backhand or otherwise) and I stroke straight
through (as you should ALWAYS stroke) with follow through. The ball goes into
the pocket. IF I need to get to the other end of the table for my next shot, I
will use top to hit the rail and go back down the table (depending on where the
ball is in relation to the rails etc., I may hit one of two rails to get
position), using the speed I need for this objective. OR I will use draw and
hit with the speed necessary. IF I have to use english to get where I need on
the table (which isn't very often when you get shape on your balls), I
personally do not use the backhand english (sorry Hal), but still go with the
parallel because it works for me.
As the angles change, so does the aim . . .
There's more than one way to skin a cat, as my grandmother used to say . . .
and for the more detailed scoop, you should just listen to one person and not
all of us who haven't had enough experience with this method to describe it to
you (as in Linda or Hal).
Because I only had a couple of hours with Hal, I don't know EVERYTHING about
this, but what I do use, works for me. Other things work for me as well, and
I use them as needed and it sure doesn't hurt to have knowledge.
I have to pick up my son now, but I shall return (I can hear the groan, so stop
it).
Becky
John Walkup
>
> When I have a shot where the object ball is on or about a 15 degree angle from
> the cue to the pocket, I aim the center of the cue ball to the left or right
> quarter of the object ball. My tip is in the center of the cue ball (I don't
> want any english on this shot - backhand or otherwise) and I stroke straight
> through (as you should ALWAYS stroke) with follow through. The ball goes into
> the pocket.
But now we go back to the shot that Sam and I were discussing. A
half-ball hit
does not sink the ball, and Sam's pro friend couldn't sink it either
unless
he put back-hand English on the ball. In fact, Sam couldn't sink the
ball
without side English. So we have three people (one a skeptic, one
a believer, and one objective) who cannot sink that shot using a true
half-ball
hit.
Even the ghost ball shows that a half-ball hit won't work.
> IF I need to get to the other end of the table for my next shot, I
> will use top to hit the rail and go back down the table (depending on where the
> ball is in relation to the rails etc., I may hit one of two rails to get
> position), using the speed I need for this objective. OR I will use draw and
> hit with the speed necessary. IF I have to use english to get where I need on
> the table (which isn't very often when you get shape on your balls), I
> personally do not use the backhand english (sorry Hal), but still go with the
> parallel because it works for me.
The parallel?
sam
couple of the shots (without applying english). There are at least 8 shots
in this test. I think making 6 is pretty good. I missed one without
english. Don't get carried away. If you could ever become objective, you
would find that a lot of the shots do SINK. Sincerely, Sam
sam
out!! Ha Ha Sincerely, Sam
John Walkup wrote in message <375F24...@telepath.com>...
>What was your actual quote from that post? I don't recall you ever
>saying that he missed two of eight. In fact, I thought you said that
>he tried the shot we were discussing, and missed the first two times,
>but made it when he started applying side English.
>
>I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.
>
>And I will beat any player that can only make six out of every eight
>shots.