Hal Houle...
Michael A.
I thought he was just some kind of a nut. Apparently,
I was wrong, judging by many of the RSB posts.
So please tell me -- who the hell is Hal Houle? And what
does he have to say about pool? Are there any specifics
about his methods or knowledge that can be shared here?
-- Mike
George McBane
>I received an e-mail from him a month or so ago, but
>I thought he was just some kind of a nut. Apparently,
>I was wrong, judging by many of the RSB posts.
I got that email too. Maybe it's good pool pedagogy - I'm reserving
judgement until I see it in person - but it definitely had some
flat-out wrong statements in it. He gave an aiming
system that implicitly claimed that you never have to worry about an
error of 7 1/2 degrees or less. That's an error of over a foot for a 9 foot shot,
and on the tables I play on that's a miss. So this aiming system
can only work with small (possibly unconscious) corrections made by
the player, that his email did not admit were necessary.
A system that gets you "in the ballpark" with consistency may
well be worthwhile. Like I said, I'm reserving judgement. But I
definitely found it annoying that such patently incorrect statements
were made in such an absolute style.
-George.
John Collins
"George McBane" <mcb...@chemistry.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:39f46bb3.3173516875@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu...
Hopefully you will get the chance to have him explain it to you in person.
So far I have shown beginners and advanced players alike this system and
they are all pocketing balls in the center of the pocket almost every time.
The advanced players are going, wow this simplifies things and the beginners
are going wow, I am able to make shots I have never been able to make
before. I had a C player doing almost 90 degree cuts into the side pockets
for a half an hour. I had an advanced player do ten shots to the same side
and he made three of them. After I demonstrated how to aim he made seven
out of ten.
The systems work. The variable is as always the human powered component.
John
Bob Jewett
> ... He gave an aiming
> system that implicitly claimed that you never have to worry about an
> error of 7 1/2 degrees or less. That's an error of over a foot for a 9 foot shot,
George, you're making a major mistake. Hal's systems are not based
on or about geometry, and shouldn't be judged as such.
--
Bob Jewett
Michael A.
You say Hal's system is not based on geometry.
What is it based on?
-- Mike
George McBane
Bob,
I can see you smiling back there behind the screen, but I'm not sure everyone can.
-George.
George McBane
>> So this aiming system
>> can only work with small (possibly unconscious) corrections made by
>> the player, that his email did not admit were necessary.
>Hopefully you will get the chance to have him explain it to you in person.
>So far I have shown beginners and advanced players alike this system and
>they are all pocketing balls in the center of the pocket almost every time.
>The advanced players are going, wow this simplifies things and the beginners
>are going wow, I am able to make shots I have never been able to make
>before. I had a C player doing almost 90 degree cuts into the side pockets
>for a half an hour. I had an advanced player do ten shots to the same side
>and he made three of them. After I demonstrated how to aim he made seven
>out of ten.
>
>The systems work. The variable is as always the human powered component.
John,
I see two ways "the system can work". One is you use example shots
that either happen to require exactly one of Hal's aiming points, or that
have built-in slop big enough to accomodate the errors. Shots with
an object ball anwhere within about a foot of a side pocket, straight out
from the pocket, fit the second category.
The other is, the player initially lines up on one of
Hal's reference points, but consciously or unconsciously makes
changes in his aim to correct for their inaccuracies.
I don't deny that the "divide the balls up into segments" approach might
be a useful starting point or even a good way to teach someone to aim.
But statements like
>The systems work. The variable is as always the human powered component.
bring sounds of beating drums and rustling grass skirts to my ears.
Is no proponent of Hal's system (which, mind you, I only know from
a single email he sent me in a bulk mailing) willing to admit that these
small corrections are a necessary part of them? I have not seen such
an admission in the recent threads.
-George <-- keepin' the faith
Mike Page
mcb...@chemistry.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>
>
> John,
>
> I see two ways "the system can work". One is you use example shots
> that either happen to require exactly one of Hal's aiming points, or that
> have built-in slop big enough to accomodate the errors. Shots with
> an object ball anwhere within about a foot of a side pocket, straight out
> from the pocket, fit the second category.
>
> The other is, the player initially lines up on one of
> Hal's reference points, but consciously or unconsciously makes
> changes in his aim to correct for their inaccuracies.
>
I suspect Hal gave to John the ability to pocket balls in much the same
way OZ gave to the Tin Man the ability to think.
Although I still leave open the possibility that the Houlitites convinced
John to join in and have a little fun --to promote the Halitour-2000
--and that John is having a good laugh.
--
mike page
fargo
John Collins
"Mike Page" <mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:mike_page-231...@page.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu...
> In article <39f4ba6d....@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
> mcb...@chemistry.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > I see two ways "the system can work". One is you use example shots
> > that either happen to require exactly one of Hal's aiming points, or
that
> > have built-in slop big enough to accomodate the errors. Shots with
> > an object ball anwhere within about a foot of a side pocket, straight
out
> > from the pocket, fit the second category.
> >
I don't know the geometry or necromancy involved well enough to comment
scientifically, mathmaticlly or magically. What I do know is that for six
days I am making shots split the pocket no matter where they lay. For five
days I have been showing this to anyone who will listen and they have been
splitting the pockets, beginners and advanced players alike. Whatever the
reason these systems are helping people to understand how to aim better.
> > The other is, the player initially lines up on one of
> > Hal's reference points, but consciously or unconsciously makes
> > changes in his aim to correct for their inaccuracies.
> >
You have to line up the points almost exactly to make the shot. When I line
up my two points I can look away and change my english any way I want to and
still make the ball. I am cognizant enough of my own actions to know
whether I am adjusting or not. There are several times when I "feel" as
though I am going to miss the shot and it goes right in.
>
>
> I suspect Hal gave to John the ability to pocket balls in much the same
> way OZ gave to the Tin Man the ability to think.
>
Not true. I have played for 18 years and I have never been able to discover
this on my own. These are simple ways to aim that achieve exact results. I
thought that this might be something that only good players could benefit
from until I started showing it to relative beginners. Watching them
suddenly develop the ability to make shots that they were previously unable
to make no matter how often they tried was proof enough for me. What if
players were taught to aim this way from the beginning? I had become a very
good, but not championship caliber, player by the trial and error/best
guess/instinct/repetition method. Still there were shots that always gave
me trouble to pocket the ball and get shape. Now there is no shot that I
have trouble with. There is no bank that I am not 100% sure of. Does this
mean that I will become a champion? Probably not because I still have bad
stroking habits that I have to correct. But at least now I am absolutely
sure about my shotmaking and I can concentrate on my english and position.
> Although I still leave open the possibility that the Houlitites convinced
> John to join in and have a little fun --to promote the Halitour-2000
> --and that John is having a good laugh.
>
Not at all. I had a real life revelation. I wish someone would've shown me
this earlier - I could've saved years of frustration. Besides Hal is giving
this information away for free so what does it matter whether I promote the
trip or not. I suspect that the more RSB/ASP'ers that Hal meets the more
"converts" we will have.
John
John Collins
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:11:09 -0600, "John Collins" <inst...@instroke.com>
wrote:
>
> >> So this aiming system
> >> can only work with small (possibly unconscious) corrections made by
> >> the player, that his email did not admit were necessary.
>
> >Hopefully you will get the chance to have him explain it to you in
person.
> >So far I have shown beginners and advanced players alike this system and
> >they are all pocketing balls in the center of the pocket almost every
time.
> >The advanced players are going, wow this simplifies things and the
beginners
> >are going wow, I am able to make shots I have never been able to make
> >before. I had a C player doing almost 90 degree cuts into the side
pockets
> >for a half an hour. I had an advanced player do ten shots to the same
side
> >and he made three of them. After I demonstrated how to aim he made seven
> >out of ten.
> >
> >The systems work. The variable is as always the human powered component.
>
>
>
> I see two ways "the system can work". One is you use example shots
> that either happen to require exactly one of Hal's aiming points, or that
> have built-in slop big enough to accomodate the errors. Shots with
> an object ball anwhere within about a foot of a side pocket, straight out
> from the pocket, fit the second category.
>
I don't know, I line up the shots and they go. If I miss the shot then it
is by inches which I attribute to my stroke or my focus. My old way I would
sometimes miss shots by as much as a diamond or more which I also attributed
mostly to my stroke and my focus. One day I am inconsistent and the next
day I am firing balls in from everywhere. The only difference is that I am
lining up on the balls differently. You explain it. All of the sudden I
can shoot balls down the rail and never hit the side points, all of the
sudden I can do single rail and double rail banks within one inch of the
pocket every time. Yeah I know within one inch isn't good enough but it's
better than the two inches, whole diamond that I was before. Explain the
geometry, I can't I slept through math in high school.
> The other is, the player initially lines up on one of
> Hal's reference points, but consciously or unconsciously makes
> changes in his aim to correct for their inaccuracies.
Possibly, but I can testify that this isn't the case with me. I use the
reference points exactly as taught to me and my object balls split the
pocket. They split the pocket, not rail first, they don't wobble, they
split the pocket down the middle. I have at least a dozen witnesses who can
report that this is true.
>
> I don't deny that the "divide the balls up into segments" approach might
> be a useful starting point or even a good way to teach someone to aim.
> But statements like
>
> >The systems work. The variable is as always the human powered component.
>
> bring sounds of beating drums and rustling grass skirts to my ears.
>
I agree. But doesn't it seem logical that a "system" by definition is
designed to produce consistent and reproduceable results? And if a system
really does provide for consistent results then what variable is there that
could provide for inconsistent results? I would guess that in a hand/eye
coordination endeavor it would be those using the hands and eyes. Why is it
that some people cannot draw a straight line while others can do it without
a ruler? I learned how to lay carpet from a mastercraftsman this last
weekend. I hate to think how my room would've looked without the benefit of
him sharing his systems and techniques. When the carpet guy said that edge
lines up because these are already lined up I believed him and voila' all
the edges lined up.
> Is no proponent of Hal's system (which, mind you, I only know from
> a single email he sent me in a bulk mailing) willing to admit that these
> small corrections are a necessary part of them? I have not seen such
> an admission in the recent threads.
Hal did tell me that on some shots it is neccesary to add about a tips worth
of english to "relieve" the hit but I didn't quite understand it and I am
still working on it. Up until now though I haven't seen the use except for
extreme cuts 90 degrees or more. As I said I am not qualified enough yet to
really teach everything he showed me. It was so much information in eight
hours that I am only just now remembering a lot of what he said. That's why
I haven't opened up here in the NG with specific instructions until I am
absolutely sure of what I say.
Gettin spirtual - when you meet him you will understand........
John
J Dub
for what it was intended. Fargo was developed to have a straightforward way
to measure yourself and your progress. For those that have done the 10
inning Fargo matches, what were your scores then, and what are they after
this session with Hal. Everybody's talking about splitting the pockets with
great results, so let's toss 'em up on the table.
Like any other endeavor, I'd argue that a 10% or less improvement is nice,
but not major as their are other factors such as increased focus, etc. And
a 50% improvement is astounding merely because of sheer magnitude. Anything
above 20% is worth taking a long, hard second look at.
So how 'bout it, John and others. What were your pre-Hal and post-Hal Fargo
scores?
--Jim
"John Collins" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message
news:C44J5.3429$xL1.3...@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Mike Page" <mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
> news:mike_page-231...@page.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu...
> > In article <39f4ba6d....@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
> > mcb...@chemistry.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > I see two ways "the system can work". One is you use example shots
> > > that either happen to require exactly one of Hal's aiming points, or
> that
> > > have built-in slop big enough to accomodate the errors. Shots with
> > > an object ball anwhere within about a foot of a side pocket, straight
> out
> > > from the pocket, fit the second category.
> > >
>
> I don't know the geometry or necromancy involved well enough to comment
> scientifically, mathmaticlly or magically. What I do know is that for six
> days I am making shots split the pocket no matter where they lay. For
five
> days I have been showing this to anyone who will listen and they have been
> splitting the pockets, beginners and advanced players alike. Whatever the
> reason these systems are helping people to understand how to aim better.
>
> > > The other is, the player initially lines up on one of
> > > Hal's reference points, but consciously or unconsciously makes
> > > changes in his aim to correct for their inaccuracies.
> > >
>
> You have to line up the points almost exactly to make the shot. When I
line
> up my two points I can look away and change my english any way I want to
and
> still make the ball. I am cognizant enough of my own actions to know
> whether I am adjusting or not. There are several times when I "feel" as
> though I am going to miss the shot and it goes right in.
>
> >
> >
> > I suspect Hal gave to John the ability to pocket balls in much the same
> > way OZ gave to the Tin Man the ability to think.
> >
>
> Not true. I have played for 18 years and I have never been able to
sam
more than pocketing balls. FARGO would be an unfair test of whether someone
is able to benefit from the Houle aiming systems. Just a thought. :o)
Sincerely, Sam (Try a preset pattern. Ha Ha)
J Dub wrote in message <8t2l6...@news2.newsguy.com>...
John Collins
"Bob Jewett" <jew...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:B05J5.29$4a.2...@nntp.labs.agilent.com...
> Michael A. <mich...@qadas.com> wrote:
>
> > You say Hal's system is not based on geometry.
> > What is it based on?
>
> because he doesn't do geometry. If he did understand sines and cosines
> and derivatives and allowed errors and such, the system could not work
> for him.
>
Absolutely correct.
> Just look at the people who find the system useful and those who just
> criticize it. Where are the geometers? Where are the intuitive players?
>
> Even though John has had good luck getting others to use the system, he
> still hasn't gotten around to explaining it here. I suspect that it is
> impossible to put down on paper -- it must be demonstrated in person to
> work.
>
I haven't explained the one that works best for me in this forum because I
don't feel as though my written explanation is sufficient to withstand the
newsgroup yet. I have explained it in private emails with some people being
able to grasp it immediately and others not so quickly. I think that
anything physical can be explained on paper but the method must be such that
it is relatively easy to follow the instruction. Since this is so different
than "conventional" wisdom when it comes to teaching how to aim I feel
obligated to mastering and understanding this a bit more before I open
myself up to criticism and questions that I may not be prepared to answer.
John
sam
was my ability to break out clusters and knowing when to flip the coin. I
have an average of about 117 to 122 in FARGO. Basic ball sinking was not my
problem, that is why I suggested that FARGO is much more than a ball sinking
game. If you want to test Hal's methods, set up ONE ball at a time with a
given (or various) cut angles. See if you can sink the OB almost everytime.
Hal's methods are purely for sinking balls. They do not take the break,
cluster breaking, or coin flipping into consideration. Just a thought. :o)
Sincerely, Sam
J Dub wrote in message <8t31t...@news2.newsguy.com>...
>"sam" <s...@lasercom.net> wrote in message
>news:8t2oo...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> JDub, While I know that you are making an honest request here, FARGO is
>much
>> more than pocketing balls. FARGO would be an unfair test of whether
>someone
>> is able to benefit from the Houle aiming systems. Just a thought. :o)
>> Sincerely, Sam (Try a preset pattern. Ha Ha)
>
>Why would it be unfair? I think most of us are interested in methods that
>make us better. Frankly, I don't care if my stroke has 3 wobbles and a
duck
>hook, if my tip is a dime, nickle, quarter or dollar bill, of if my cue
>squirts apple juice.... IF I can consistently pocket balls and allow myself
>to just focus on cue ball position. From my previous conversations with
>Hal, that is the crux of what makes a talented amateur versus an Efren. As
>such, the pocketing capability of one of the recent converts should be an
>excellent measure.
>
>Another note, Sam, I'm not a Fargo 'lover' as it is purely about the
>offensive side of the game. When playing straight pool, safeties and
careful
>breakouts of clusters are crucial. In Fargo these are meaningless.
>Therefore, it seems to me that Fargo is the best test of whether people are
>pocketing more..... and I guess here I'm referring to the players that
don't
>spend too much time in the rotation phase. I couldn't expect someone who
>has a mature game with careful cue ball positioning to all of the sudden
>expecting to have the same positioning with a new shooting paradigm.
>
>--Jim
>
>
Bob Jewett
> You say Hal's system is not based on geometry.
> What is it based on?
Focus and self-confidence. I suspect the system works for John Collins
because he doesn't do geometry. If he did understand sines and cosines
and derivatives and allowed errors and such, the system could not work
for him.
Just look at the people who find the system useful and those who just
criticize it. Where are the geometers? Where are the intuitive players?
Even though John has had good luck getting others to use the system, he
still hasn't gotten around to explaining it here. I suspect that it is
impossible to put down on paper -- it must be demonstrated in person to
work.
--
Bob Jewett
Bob Johnson
about it being hypnotism, and that when he snaps his fingers, or leaves, you
will lose the ability to pocket balls. I hope you get the opportunity to
try it with Hal. You're right, John C. is having a good laugh, but not for
the reason you imply!
--
Bob Johnson, Denver, Co.
Home of the 1997/1998 World Champion Broncos!
bo...@cris.com
"Mike Page" <mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:mike_page-231...@page.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu...
> In article <39f4ba6d....@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
> mcb...@chemistry.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > I see two ways "the system can work". One is you use example shots
> > that either happen to require exactly one of Hal's aiming points, or
that
> > have built-in slop big enough to accomodate the errors. Shots with
> > an object ball anwhere within about a foot of a side pocket, straight
out
> > from the pocket, fit the second category.
> >
> > The other is, the player initially lines up on one of
> > Hal's reference points, but consciously or unconsciously makes
> > changes in his aim to correct for their inaccuracies.
> >
>
>
> I suspect Hal gave to John the ability to pocket balls in much the same
> way OZ gave to the Tin Man the ability to think.
>
> Although I still leave open the possibility that the Houlitites convinced
> John to join in and have a little fun --to promote the Halitour-2000
> --and that John is having a good laugh.
>
> --
> mike page
> fargo
Bob Johnson
it's much easier to catch on to with Hal standing there guiding you. I'm
going to get with John and see if we can't come up with a good way to
demostrate it, (with Hal's approval, of course).
--
Bob Johnson, Denver, Co.
Home of the 1997/1998 World Champion Broncos!
bo...@cris.com
"Bob Jewett" <jew...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:B05J5.29$4a.2...@nntp.labs.agilent.com...
frank howe
There are a bunch of us that read and post here that haven't
seen the man or his systems so I can understand our skeptism
and enthusiam. How many of the skeptics here have actually
been with Hal? I have learned a lot from second or third hand
sources and usually its not the same as from the first party.
Next i was just curious about why people are very skeptical
in the first place. I know the there are people out here that
can be easily persuaded but it seems that there are more
that are close-minded or very cautious. I have read alot
about a Dr. Casey. Some of you may be familar with him.
He was thought of as a total farce or "weirdo" but now
almost everything he said is studied and has been proven.
He still has skeptics. There have been many people that
have revolutionalized their field in the past and most seem
to have been thought of as a little looney. People used to
think that the earth was round. Flight was thought to be
impossible. Im sure Einstein's theories still have their doubters.
In sports Mo Norman was thought to be just a curiosity now his
swing style is being taught nation-wide. I know one person that
uses his style and it changed his game completely. Maybe this
Hal Houle is full of "it" or maybe he full of good useful info
for some but not all people. I would like to find out for myself
before passing the judgement. Hopefully I will get the chance.
The diamond system is confusing to me and doesnt seem to
work but others love it. I personally think Grady's kick systems
are easier to use and show immediate results. If I dont get the chance
to meet the man maybe someone can find a way to put it in to words.
frank howe
Btw I was fortunate enough to see and talk to Eddie Taylor and
Jr. Goff (a friend of mine) and I could not understand have of what
they said their systems were. I think I could have with in depth lessons
but I had to accept the fact that it worked VERY WELL for both.
Bvinco
I know a little bit about angles, ratios, triangles, sines and cosines - I just
don't understand everything I know about it. I remember Hal explaining a bit
of geometry and I think the angle "system" part works precisely because of it.
IMO.
Becky
>> Michael A. <mich...@qadas.com> wrote:
>>
>> > You say Hal's system is not based on geometry.
>> > What is it based on?
>>Bob Jewett:
Otto
I think for a sub 100 Fargo player the results should be immediate. My racks
frequently ended because I missed pocketing a very makeable ball. In fact,
given the fact that Fargo has no safety dimension, I think it is ALL about
pocketing balls. You either make a ball or you rack--no hiding the cue ball
allowed.
I would take the test but I vowed to never play that game again.
Otto
J Dub
news:8t2oo...@news2.newsguy.com...
> JDub, While I know that you are making an honest request here, FARGO is
much
> more than pocketing balls. FARGO would be an unfair test of whether
someone
frank howe
"People used to think that the earth was round."
Feel like an idiot cant believe I made such a stupid typo.
frank howe
frank howe <gf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Qt7J5.4304$UL.2...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Michael Page
"frank howe" <gf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I just have a couple of questions for the skeptics out there.
> There are a bunch of us that read and post here that haven't
> seen the man or his systems so I can understand our skeptism
> and enthusiam. How many of the skeptics here have actually
> been with Hal? I have learned a lot from second or third hand
> sources and usually its not the same as from the first party.
I've been with him, but he didn't teach me any aiming systems. He started
out by saying that there is a secret system that all the top pros use that
explains why they are so good. He said they were not about to let this get
out to the masses. He talked about how many or most of the top pros were
students of his and so forth. His "style" is to be the revered authority
doling out great truths a little at a time. He had certain meters of mine
pinging at the high end. He really enjoys being in teacher mode, and as I
said several times, he seems like a nice guy.
>
> Next i was just curious about why people are very skeptical
> in the first place.
That's my normal starting place for such claims.
I know the there are people out here that
> can be easily persuaded but it seems that there are more
> that are close-minded or very cautious.
There's an important distinction between closed minded and cautious. I
frankly have not heard closed mindedness wrt Hal either now or last lear or
the year before. A closed mind would be characterized by not inviting any
more information that might change it. On the contrary, there have been
countless requests for information that can be analyzed and judged.
Unbelievably that information hasn't come--or it has come in incomplete
dribbles. The great revealed truth a few years ago was that "there are
only three angles in pool." I still don't understand what people were
really saying here.
> [...]. Im sure Einstein's theories still have their doubters.
The doubt and skepticism is a normal, healthy part of science. And a
wonderful thing about science is that you can feel a particular person is
an absolute nutcase, but if what he says is consistent with the known laws
of physics and makes predictions that are borne out by experiment, then
that nutcases idea will be accepted.
Maybe this
> Hal Houle is full of "it" or maybe he full of good useful info
> for some but not all people.
He's been teaching for a long time. I suspect there is a lot of useful
information inbedded in what he tells and shows people.
William Miller
gullability.)
On the other hand; I know I'm not a hopeless case. Give me the
secrets!
Moohaha!
Frank howe: <snip>
Fred Agnir
John Collins wrote in message ...
>Not true. I have played for 18 years and I have never been able to
discover
>this on my own. These are simple ways to aim that achieve exact results.
I
>thought that this might be something that only good players could benefit
>from until I started showing it to relative beginners.
Just so that I have a good clue as to your previous ability level, John, can
you give us some idea? I've seen you post that you've been playing for 18
years and that in your area, you are ranked such and such. Can you give us
something with a little more meat like a straight pool high run, or a
consecutive rack run, or a FARGO score? I just want to have some kind of
understanding of whether you're learning from Hal as a semi-pro or as an
advanced intermediate.
Fred <~~~ just played an "A" player who was barely a "C"
Bert M.
>"People used to think that the earth was round."
>Feel like an idiot cant believe I made such a stupid typo.
>frank howe
I can't believe no one called you on it before you corrected it . Hehehe
Bert M <-- C=:-)
Deno J. Andrews
----------
In article <C44J5.3429$xL1.3...@news.uswest.net>, "John Collins"
<inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
> You have to line up the points almost exactly to make the shot. When I line
> up my two points I can look away and change my english any way I want to and
> still make the ball. I am cognizant enough of my own actions to know
> whether I am adjusting or not.
So are you saying that once the shot is lined up, you can put left or right
english on the cue ball and still make the shot without adjusting?
Deno J. Andrews
Bert M.
>So are you saying that once the shot is lined up, you can put left or right
>english on the cue ball and still make the shot without adjusting?
>
According to Hal, yup thats the idea. he advocates using backhand english
Deno J. Andrews
----------
In article <20001024101258...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
This is where the system really loses me. I find it hard to believe that a
shot can be lined up one way...and be made with all sorts of english
without an adjustment. I will state an example for my case, as I hope you
will state a shot for your case.
On the line between diagonal corner pockets, place the cue ball 14" away
from one of the corner pockets. Place the OB 3" from the cue ball on the
same line, so that the balls line up for the long straight in shot to the
opposite corner pocket. Line the cue stick up through the centers of both
balls and hit the shot. If both balls' centers are on the line, and the
cue stick is lined up in the center of the cue ball aiming at the center of
the OB, and struck with no english, the OB will pot in the corner. Pretty
basic right? Now do the same thing and add two tips of english to the
shot. There is only one way to pot the ball, and that would be to use the
aim-and-pivot method to add english to the ball, hence using an adjustment.
If the cue stick is parallel to the line, there is no way the ball is going
into the pocket with two tips of english. So if it is indeed the
aim-and-pivot method, in reality, a big adjustment is being made, because
the cue is no longer parallel to the shot line, therefore, you are no
longer aiming to pot the ball, you are adjusting to make the shot. There
is a big difference.
The only way I can see your argument, of shot making with no adjustment,
working is with the aim-and-pivot method of adding english. And if this is
the case, I hope you will not fall into the trap of thinking that by using
the aim-and-pivot method that you are not adjusting, because that is
exactly what it is.
So I think if you shoot the shot above, you will see how impossible it is
to make the shot with english, and without an adjustment.
Now, will you propose a shot to me with instructions that will show me how
a shot can be made with no adjustment using english? Oh, and it should be
at least a half-table length away from a pocket so that there is less
margin of error in the results. I will say that I have a very open mind,
and am a strong believer that if something works for you, than Mazeltov.
However, it bothers me when people take something to a level higher than it
should be. So if Hal's methods give people more confidence, than it is a
great system. But when people say it is the greatest thing and try to make
it some sort of magical, mathmatical miracle, and can not give one example
of why it is so, I doubt it's relevance. I don't think anyone here is
against Hal's methods. There are a few of us who doubt his methods are as
miraculous as hs been reported over the last year or so.
Who are some of the pros that use his system? I may be wrong, but I don't
remember seeing any names of top players reported here that were/are
students of his. I remember someone saying he taught Don Feeney things.
Well when I asked Feeney about it, he said Hal wanted to and did show him
some things while in town once, but what Hal showed him was nothing new,
nor was it anything he would use.
I hope to get together with Hal when he comes through Chicago. I would
love to see what he has to say. Plus, I have a lot of respect for him
because of his dedication to teaching those who want to learn. And yes,
even if the system doesn't quite work mathmatically, if it works it works,
and if people are more confident and more accurate, then he did his job and
raised the level of play. So I am not one who wants to bring Hal's systems
down. I only want to understand them as exactly what they are. And if
they are useful as what they are, I will be happy to admit it too.
Deno J. Andrews
JoeyA
Gather round brothers and sisters. You have a chance to visit the Promise
Land.
Just remember that you only have this one chance.
Won't you click those heels together and follow me to the Promise Land?
And so what if the wizard simply made John aware of what he already had.
Can that be considered a bad thing?
Mike, if John is pulling our leg, I wouldn't want to play poker with him.
Waiting to visit the Promise Land! HALleluiah! HAL LE LUIAH!
JoeyA
"John Collins" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message
news:C44J5.3429$xL1.3...@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Mike Page" <mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
> news:mike_page-231...@page.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu...
> > In article <39f4ba6d....@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>,
> > mcb...@chemistry.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > I see two ways "the system can work". One is you use example shots
> > > that either happen to require exactly one of Hal's aiming points, or
> that
> > > have built-in slop big enough to accomodate the errors. Shots with
> > > an object ball anwhere within about a foot of a side pocket, straight
> out
> > > from the pocket, fit the second category.
> > >
>
> I don't know the geometry or necromancy involved well enough to comment
> scientifically, mathmaticlly or magically. What I do know is that for six
> days I am making shots split the pocket no matter where they lay. For
five
> days I have been showing this to anyone who will listen and they have been
> splitting the pockets, beginners and advanced players alike. Whatever the
> reason these systems are helping people to understand how to aim better.
>
> > > The other is, the player initially lines up on one of
> > > Hal's reference points, but consciously or unconsciously makes
> > > changes in his aim to correct for their inaccuracies.
> > >
>
> You have to line up the points almost exactly to make the shot. When I
line
> up my two points I can look away and change my english any way I want to
and
> still make the ball. I am cognizant enough of my own actions to know
> whether I am adjusting or not. There are several times when I "feel" as
> though I am going to miss the shot and it goes right in.
>
> >
> >
> > I suspect Hal gave to John the ability to pocket balls in much the same
> > way OZ gave to the Tin Man the ability to think.
> >
>
> Not true. I have played for 18 years and I have never been able to
discover
> this on my own. These are simple ways to aim that achieve exact results.
I
> thought that this might be something that only good players could benefit
> from until I started showing it to relative beginners. Watching them
> suddenly develop the ability to make shots that they were previously
unable
> to make no matter how often they tried was proof enough for me. What if
> players were taught to aim this way from the beginning? I had become a
very
> good, but not championship caliber, player by the trial and error/best
> guess/instinct/repetition method. Still there were shots that always gave
> me trouble to pocket the ball and get shape. Now there is no shot that I
> have trouble with. There is no bank that I am not 100% sure of. Does
this
> mean that I will become a champion? Probably not because I still have bad
> stroking habits that I have to correct. But at least now I am absolutely
> sure about my shotmaking and I can concentrate on my english and position.
>
>
> > Although I still leave open the possibility that the Houlitites
convinced
> > John to join in and have a little fun --to promote the Halitour-2000
> > --and that John is having a good laugh.
> >
>
JoeyA
Sorry : comatose.
How you like it Frank? The correctors are having their way with us.
JoeyA
"Bert M." <sxyre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001024091100...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
> >From: "frank howe"
>
> >"People used to think that the earth was round."
> >Feel like an idiot cant believe I made such a stupid typo.
> >frank howe
>
> I can't believe no one called you on it before you corrected it . Hehehe
>
>
JoeyA
JoeyA
"Bob Jewett" <jew...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:B05J5.29$4a.2...@nntp.labs.agilent.com...
Bert M.
>From: "Deno J. Andrews" de...@ix.netcom.com
>The only way I can see your argument, of shot making with no adjustment,
>working is with the aim-and-pivot method of adding english. And if this is
>the case, I hope you will not fall into the trap of thinking that by using
>the aim-and-pivot method that you are not adjusting, because that is
>exactly what it is.
>
No that is exactly what I meant. I understood you to be asking if there is no
adjustment in the aiming points. But i see what the distinction you are making
and I must agree with what you are saying.
Deno J. Andrews
----------
In article <20001024120128...@ng-ci1.aol.com>,
sxyre...@aol.com (Bert M.) wrote:
>
> No that is exactly what I meant. I understood you to be asking if there is no
> adjustment in the aiming points. But i see what the distinction you are
making
> and I must agree with what you are saying.
OK, so let me re-ask, once lined up, can the shots be made with no
adjustment if adding english? And if so, how? Or do you agree that the
shots can not be made without adjusting?
Deno J. Andrews
barenada
Deno J. Andrews asked...
> OK, so let me re-ask, once lined up, can the shots be made with no
> adjustment if adding english? And if so, how? Or do you agree that the
> shots can not be made without adjusting?
It's my understanding that you line your shot up using whatever method you like,
then use the bridge-pivot method to select your english. At this point, of
course, you're no longer lined up the way you were, so there is indeed an
adjustment being made for the english. The adjustment is built into the method
of english application.
In other words, Deno, you were right the first time.
--
Dave
Deno J. Andrews
----------
In article <svbqm5l...@corp.supernews.com>, "barenada"
<bare...@aye.net> wrote:
> then use the bridge-pivot method to select your english. At this point, of
> course, you're no longer lined up the way you were, so there is indeed an
> adjustment being made for the english. The adjustment is built into the
method
> of english application.
So basically, one finds the point on the ball where they want the cue ball
to hit, and then uses the A-A-P method to add english. Is this what all
the hype is about? I hope there is more to it. And remember, even if the
adjustment is built in, it is still an adjustment. In fact, as I have said
via email to someone else, when all these things come together in symphony
in one system, when the pressure is on, things have a habit of falling out
of time. On the other hand, if this system can get all these things
working together with little worry, then it is good. But I wanted to
clarify that the shots can not be made by adding pure english (parallel to
the original aim point), instead, the AAP method must be used and in turn
means that the original aim point is gone, because after pivoting, the aim
is now different. So it is not as miraculous as led to believe, in fact,
it is something quite old with a new facade.
Deno J. Andrews
Mike Page
> Deno J. Andrews asked...
> > OK, so let me re-ask, once lined up, can the shots be made with no
> > adjustment if adding english? And if so, how? Or do you agree that the
> > shots can not be made without adjusting?
>
> It's my understanding that you line your shot up using whatever method
you like,
> then use the bridge-pivot method to select your english. At this point, of
> course, you're no longer lined up the way you were, so there is indeed an
> adjustment being made for the english. The adjustment is built into the
method
> of english application.
>
> In other words, Deno, you were right the first time.
>
Of couse if any person did suggest that for any shot and any stick, you
can correctly add english by pivoting about your bridge whatever it
happens to be, that person would be Wrong (<--with a capital W).
--
mike page
fargo
John Collins
"Michael Page" <pa...@plains.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:page-ya02408000R...@news.nodak.edu...
> In article <Qt7J5.4304$UL.2...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "frank howe" <gf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > There are a bunch of us that read and post here that haven't
> > seen the man or his systems so I can understand our skeptism
> > and enthusiam. How many of the skeptics here have actually
> > been with Hal? I have learned a lot from second or third hand
> > sources and usually its not the same as from the first party.
>
> out by saying that there is a secret system that all the top pros use that
> explains why they are so good. He said they were not about to let this
get
> out to the masses. He talked about how many or most of the top pros were
> students of his and so forth. His "style" is to be the revered authority
> doling out great truths a little at a time. He had certain meters of mine
> pinging at the high end. He really enjoys being in teacher mode, and as I
> said several times, he seems like a nice guy.
>
That's too bad. I don't know if he intended to teach me or just prove my
assertions wrong. I think that after we got to know each other and he could
see that I was amazed by what he was showing me that he really started in
with all the different systems.
John
John Collins
"Deno J. Andrews" <de...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8t448m$jcs$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
> ----------
> In article <C44J5.3429$xL1.3...@news.uswest.net>, "John Collins"
> <inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
>
line
> > up my two points I can look away and change my english any way I want to
and
> > still make the ball. I am cognizant enough of my own actions to know
> > whether I am adjusting or not.
>
right
>
> Deno J. Andrews
Yes. When I line up the shot I can move the tip to the right or the left,
high or low and make the shot. I don't move my bridge hand. I pivot the
cue so that the tip will hit the ball with the spin I need for shape. When
I stroke straight through the cueball the object ball goes in and my cueball
takes off the intended way.
John
sam
ever met Hal Houle was when you came out to play me at Danny K's about a
year and a half ago. Hal spent a lot of time with Don Martin that day, but
said very little to you and I, because we were involved in our match (he did
tease me for missing balls). I could be wrong, but if I am not, his very
few words would not be anything to judge him on. Just a thought. :o)
Sincerely, Sam
Michael Page wrote in message ...
>In article <Qt7J5.4304$UL.2...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>"frank howe" <gf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> I just have a couple of questions for the skeptics out there.
>> There are a bunch of us that read and post here that haven't
>> seen the man or his systems so I can understand our skeptism
>> and enthusiam. How many of the skeptics here have actually
>> been with Hal? I have learned a lot from second or third hand
>> sources and usually its not the same as from the first party.
>
>I've been with him, but he didn't teach me any aiming systems. He started
>out by saying that there is a secret system that all the top pros use that
>explains why they are so good. He said they were not about to let this get
>out to the masses. He talked about how many or most of the top pros were
>students of his and so forth. His "style" is to be the revered authority
>doling out great truths a little at a time. He had certain meters of mine
>pinging at the high end. He really enjoys being in teacher mode, and as I
>said several times, he seems like a nice guy.
>
>>
>> Next i was just curious about why people are very skeptical
>> in the first place.
>
>That's my normal starting place for such claims.
>
>
>I know the there are people out here that
>> can be easily persuaded but it seems that there are more
>> that are close-minded or very cautious.
>
>There's an important distinction between closed minded and cautious. I
>frankly have not heard closed mindedness wrt Hal either now or last lear or
>the year before. A closed mind would be characterized by not inviting any
>more information that might change it. On the contrary, there have been
>countless requests for information that can be analyzed and judged.
>Unbelievably that information hasn't come--or it has come in incomplete
>dribbles. The great revealed truth a few years ago was that "there are
>only three angles in pool." I still don't understand what people were
>really saying here.
>
>> [...]. Im sure Einstein's theories still have their doubters.
>
>The doubt and skepticism is a normal, healthy part of science. And a
>wonderful thing about science is that you can feel a particular person is
>an absolute nutcase, but if what he says is consistent with the known laws
>of physics and makes predictions that are borne out by experiment, then
>that nutcases idea will be accepted.
>
> Maybe this
>> Hal Houle is full of "it" or maybe he full of good useful info
>> for some but not all people.
>
John Collins
"barenada" <bare...@aye.net> wrote in message
news:svbqm5l...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Deno J. Andrews asked...
> > OK, so let me re-ask, once lined up, can the shots be made with no
> > adjustment if adding english? And if so, how? Or do you agree that the
> > shots can not be made without adjusting?
>
> It's my understanding that you line your shot up using whatever method you
like,
> then use the bridge-pivot method to select your english. At this point,
of
> course, you're no longer lined up the way you were, so there is indeed an
> adjustment being made for the english. The adjustment is built into the
method
> of english application.
>
> In other words, Deno, you were right the first time.
>
> Dave
>
If you don't move your bridge hand then you are lined up on the object ball
the same way no matter what spin you apply to the cue ball. At this point
your contact point on the object ball does not change regardless of the spin
applied. Once you are lined up and if you don't move then how are you
adjusting and what are you adjusting?
I don't understand that the adjustment is built into the method of english
application as applies to an immobile bridge hand.
John
John Collins
> >From: "Deno J. Andrews"
>
> >> No that is exactly what I meant. I understood you to be asking if
there is
> >no
> >> adjustment in the aiming points. But i see what the distinction you
are
> >making
> >> and I must agree with what you are saying.
> >
> >
> >adjustment if adding english? And if so, how? Or do you agree that the
> >shots can not be made without adjusting?
>
>
> "ADJUSTING" the stroke plane. When you asked your original question, I
said
> thst I thought you meant aiming point. Well in answer to your question,
yes
> you adjust the plain that the stick goes through the cueball. But this is
done
> after establishing the aim point with a centerball hit.
>
> Bert M <-- C=:-)
When the bridge hand does not move and the tip does then you are changing
only the vertical plane wherin the cuetip contacts the cueball, not the
horizontal plane. That's why I don't understand what adjustments to the
contact point are being made when the bridge, (pivot point?) does not move.
I think that to adjust for a different contact point I need to move my
bridge hand somehow. But according to me it is possible to make the
straight in shot with centerball, right spin, left spin, high right, high
left, low left and low right without moving my bridge hand after aiming tip
center to cueball center to object ball center.
Try it with a half tip's worth of english and see how long the cueball
spins. You will also find out that it is possible to generate lots of spin
without being on the verge of a miscue.
John
barenada
John Collins wrote...
> I don't understand that the adjustment is built into the method of english
> application as applies to an immobile bridge hand.
I worded it that way because Mike had asked about applying english the regular
way - by moving the entire stick sideways. That would certainly require some
kind of aiming adjustment if you still wanted to make the shot. For most people
an aiming adjustment means "change the angle of the cuestick."
Pivoting at the bridge automatically changes the angle of the cuestick, so from
the perspective of someone not used to backhand english the aiming adjustment is
built-in to that method. You don't have to select your cueball contact point
then adjust the angle of the stick because one directly determines the other.
--
Dave
sam
am still attempting to hit the same spot on the OB, I am simply stroking my
cue through a different plane. Where is the adjustment? Just wondering.
:o) Sincerely, Sam
John Collins wrote in message ...
>
>"barenada" <bare...@aye.net> wrote in message
>news:svbqm5l...@corp.supernews.com...
>If you don't move your bridge hand then you are lined up on the object ball
>the same way no matter what spin you apply to the cue ball. At this point
>your contact point on the object ball does not change regardless of the
spin
>applied. Once you are lined up and if you don't move then how are you
>adjusting and what are you adjusting?
>
>I don't understand that the adjustment is built into the method of english
>application as applies to an immobile bridge hand.
>
>John
>
>
Bert M.
LMoss18701
>Mike, In all fairness, unless I'm wrong of course, the only time you have
>ever met Hal Houle was when you came out to play me at Danny K's about a
>year and a half ago. Hal spent a lot of time with Don
>Martin that day, but
>said very little to you and I, because we were involved in our match (he did
>tease me for missing balls). I could be wrong, but if I am not, his very
>few words would not be anything to judge him on. Just a thought. :o)
>Sincerely, Sam
>
>
THANK YOU , SAM! these words are my understanding from hal himself, as he came
here to florida to stay with jack and i for 6 weeks right after, and spoke of
the meeting, or possibly on the phone before.
LINDA MOSS
Bert M.
>
>When the bridge hand does not move and the tip does then you are changing
>only the vertical plane wherin the cuetip contacts the cueball, not the
>horizontal plane. That's why I don't understand what adjustments to the
>contact point are being made when the bridge, (pivot point?) does not move.
>I think that to adjust for a different contact point I need to move my
>bridge hand somehow. But according to me it is possible to make the
>straight in shot with centerball, right spin, left spin, high right, high
>left, low left and low right without moving my bridge hand after aiming tip
>center to cueball center to object ball center.
>
>Try it with a half tip's worth of english and see how long the cueball
>spins. You will also find out that it is possible to generate lots of spin
>without being on the verge of a miscue.
>
Thanks John. you explained it much better than I ever could.
barenada
Remember when you were a novice and somebody showed you how to apply english?
If you're like most people you were taught that the cue must still point
parallel to where you want the cueball to go. So if you want left english you
move the whole cue, parallel, to the left until it's pointing at the spot on the
cueball that you want to hit.
Then, several months or years later, someone tells you about squirt, and says
that this is the main reason that shots using english are so much harder to make
than centerball shots. They tell you that to compensate for the squirt you have
to aim your cue like your going to miss the shot, trusting that the squirt will
put the cueball back on the right track. The cueball is not going in the same
direction that your stick is pointing, but that's okay because now you know
about squirt.
At this point you know that when you use english you must make an adjustment,
changing the direction your cue is pointing, or the cueball won't go where you
want it to. This may go on for years, and eventually you may get pretty good at
making the proper adjustment for all the various english shots. Position the
tip, adjust the cue's direction, position the tip, adjust the cue's direction,
ad infinitum.
Now along comes Hal, or whoever, and they tell you about backhand english. When
you think about it you realize that you're still positioning the tip and
adjusting the cue's direction. You're just doing them both in a single step.
The change in tip position is obviously necessary, or it wouldn't be english.
The squirt adjustment is still necessary, or the cueball wouldn't go where you
want it to go. The only thing that's different about backhand english is that
by the time you've positioned your tip the cue's direction has been changed as
well. That's what I meant by the adjustment being built into the backhand
english method.
Of course, whether the adjustment being automatically made is the correct one
has been debated a lot. I'm finding it to be less than ideal with my Predator
shafts, and swerve is the dominate force I have to deal with. I'm looking
forward to handing my cue to Hal and seeing if he can get backhand english to
work consistently.
--
Dave
sam wrote (referencing John's answer to my earlier statement)...
Mike Page
> Mike, In all fairness, unless I'm wrong of course, the only time you have
> ever met Hal Houle was when you came out to play me at Danny K's about a
> year and a half ago.
I had a conversation with him about aiming systems and about who he has
worked with and so forth on that day.
Then about a year later I spoke to him even more at Family Billiards in
San Francisco.
Once again, I like Hal. He's a very nice fellow generous with his time.
--
mike page
fargo
Deno J. Andrews
When speaking of tips of english (refer to my challenge shot for John
Collins a a few posts back), a tip of english is placing the center of the
tip where the edge of the tip used to be. So in reality, it is a half-tip
over. FOr example, if you place the cue tip in the center of the ball
(using a 12mm tip), the edge of the tip is 6mm on either side of center.
So one tip of english means moving that cue tip over 6mm.
I was asked via email if pivoting the cue is really an adjustment, because
the bridge hand is still in the same place. Well, no matter how stationary
the bridge hand is, if you pivot the cue stick, the aim point is no longer
on the original aim line. And depending on how short your bridge is, the
new aim line (the center of the cue) can be several degrees off the
original aim line. So there is actually a huge adjustment when adding lots
of english. The problems with this sort of method are the following:
If you pivot the cue without pivoting the body, the tendency is for the cue
stick to want to straighten out during the stroke. This is because your
body is lined up for one aim point, and if you just move your arm, as you
stroke, your body fights to bring the arm back to the original position.
To me, this is very dangerous, and is a bad habit. And when the pressure
is on, that is the first thing to fail. Nothing beats total body alignment
on the proper aim point. By using the AAP method, you are tricking
yourself into thinking you are aiming at one point, when in reality you are
aiming at spot that is blind to you. The reason that is bad is because if
you ever need to really figure out where you are aiming, you have no idea
how to "really" aim. So if you change cues or shafts that have different
pivot points, your entire game is based on the performance of one cue
stick, and there are no good mechanics to fall back on that can expose a
cues playing habits in order to adjust quicker. So I think the AAP method,
while it may work great, doesn't really give the player a firm
understanding of the mechanics of the game, which are vital when the
pressure is on.
As Laura challenged, it sounds to me like Hal is teaching how to aim with
no english and then advocates the AAP method for adding english. So in
reality, he is teaching very old stuff with a new name. Not to say the
stuff has no merit, because I have seen it work, but not at a high level.
And, I have had several conversations with top players both in 3 cushion
and in pool (list available upon request), and the HEAVY majority view is
that the AAP method can only hurt in the long-run, for the reasons I stated
above.
I want to go back to the adjustment part, because one person who emailed me
really doesn't understand the concept of adjustment. He believes that if
you pivot, the contact point on the cue ball does not change nor does the
aim point. I will try to explain how exactly the adjustment happens and
how big an adjustment it really is. Imaging a line perpendicular to the
center line of the cue stick. On the challenge shot I layed out, this
imaginary line would also be perpendicular to the center lines of the
balls. Well if you add english, let's say max just to make it obvious.
Once the english is applied, freeze and note the angle of the cue stick,
then draw that imaginary perpendicular line across the center line of the
cue stick. By doing so, you will notice that that line is no longer
perpendicular to the center lines of the balls. In fact, it will be
several degrees off the original perpendicular line. If you draw it out on
papaer, you can actually calculate the degrees for different bridges, and
trust me, the diffeenc is extremely significant. I hope this makes sense.
There is no doubt that Hal's systems work to a certain point. And I am
sure they also make it easier for novice players to make more shots without
having to worry about too many things. But I beg of any player who wants
to really learn the game to forget about the AAP method, it will only cause
headaches in th future. And if anyone thinks any of the pros support the
AAP, I will give ten names against it for every one who supports it...and
my players will be better players ;)
Deno J. Andrews
Patrick Johnson
> ... I think the AAP method ["backhand english"], while it may work great ...
It may work great for some sticks, but it's VERY limited without some
unconscious compensation. If your stick's actual pivot point isn't
within about 25% of your bridge length, then the aiming error
introduced by AAP is AT LEAST 1/8 inch for every foot of cue ball
travel. This means that, even assuming 1/8 inch per foot is small
enough error for you (it isn't for me!), you can only use the
AAP/backhand method (without unconscious compensation) with sticks
that have PPs of 10-12 inches or less (assuming your bridge length is
8-10 inches). With any longer PPs, you're compensating unconsciously.
If this "science" stuff is against your pool religion, I apologize for
bringing it up. Please go on about your faith-based business, and
we'll try to be quiet over here.
> ... I beg of any player who wants
> to really learn the game to forget about the AAP method, it will only cause
> headaches in the future.
I agree with this, and I think it's mostly the casual
beginning/intermediate player looking for shortcuts who really buys
into the AAP/backhand method (except those with the right sticks).
They won't abandon their religion of convenience on our say-so. You
have to either convince them that the long run improvement is worth
the extra effort, or kidnap and deprogram them.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
John Collins
"Fred Agnir" <oha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QSfJ5.15191$1S5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> John Collins wrote in message ...
>
> discover
> >this on my own. These are simple ways to aim that achieve exact results.
> I
> >thought that this might be something that only good players could benefit
> >from until I started showing it to relative beginners.
>
can
> you give us some idea? I've seen you post that you've been playing for 18
> years and that in your area, you are ranked such and such. Can you give
us
> something with a little more meat like a straight pool high run, or a
> consecutive rack run, or a FARGO score? I just want to have some kind of
> understanding of whether you're learning from Hal as a semi-pro or as an
> advanced intermediate.
>
> Fred <~~~ just played an "A" player who was barely a "C"
>
>
I have run 78 in straight pool. Lot's of 50's. I once ran a 105 in
snooker, mostly 20s to 40s on average. I have run six racks of nine ball
once, five several times, two to three on average. I am a fair one pocket
pocket player. I often am able to shoot eight and out. In banks I have run
five and out twice. In eight ball I have run five racks once. I can
ususaully run out in eight ball without disturbing any of the opponent's
balls. I once made eight points in three cushion and I can often make twos
and threes but I can also go ten turns without making a point. I don't have
any fargo scores.
I hope this helps to determine the caliber of player I am.
John
John Collins
>
>
> ----------
of
> > course, you're no longer lined up the way you were, so there is indeed
an
> method
> > of english application.
>
> So basically, one finds the point on the ball where they want the cue ball
> to hit, and then uses the A-A-P method to add english. Is this what all
> the hype is about? I hope there is more to it. And remember, even if the
> adjustment is built in, it is still an adjustment. In fact, as I have
said
> via email to someone else, when all these things come together in symphony
> in one system, when the pressure is on, things have a habit of falling out
> of time. On the other hand, if this system can get all these things
> working together with little worry, then it is good. But I wanted to
> clarify that the shots can not be made by adding pure english (parallel to
> the original aim point), instead, the AAP method must be used and in turn
> means that the original aim point is gone, because after pivoting, the aim
> is now different. So it is not as miraculous as led to believe, in fact,
> it is something quite old with a new facade.
>
> Deno J. Andrews
Hal did not say that these techniques are new. I am sure that when someone
plays runout pool then the balls that are aimed at would line up exactly
with the points that Hal teaches. My question is if these techniques are so
old then why don't more people teach them. Is it that the ghost ball/line
up through the pocket method coupled with repetition is supposed to be a
springboard wherin the player will find the right way when in the air?
Going back to my first post on this subject I contend that what Hal teaches
is pool truth. Do this and this will result every time. That's it.
I don't agree that the aim point is gone when the bridge hand does not move.
I think the aim point stays the same, the object ball goes to the same place
and the only difference is the reaction of the cue ball.
John
John Collins
>
> John Collins wrote...
> > I don't understand that the adjustment is built into the method of
english
> > application as applies to an immobile bridge hand.
>
regular
> way - by moving the entire stick sideways. That would certainly require
some
> kind of aiming adjustment if you still wanted to make the shot. For most
people
> an aiming adjustment means "change the angle of the cuestick."
>
I understand.
> Pivoting at the bridge automatically changes the angle of the cuestick, so
from
> the perspective of someone not used to backhand english the aiming
adjustment is
> built-in to that method. You don't have to select your cueball contact
point
> then adjust the angle of the stick because one directly determines the
other.
>
> --
> Dave
>
I think that the conclusion that I am coming to for me is that "aiming" and
executing are seperate things with this system. I used to just lay down on
what I thought was the correct side of the cueball with my stick slicing the
vertical plane parallel to my body. Now I aim first and decide on english
later and I don't change my aim based on my english.
John
John Collins
> > > OK, so let me re-ask, once lined up, can the shots be made with no
the
> > > shots can not be made without adjusting?
> >
> > It's my understanding that you line your shot up using whatever method
> you like,
of
> > course, you're no longer lined up the way you were, so there is indeed
an
> method
> > of english application.
> >
> > In other words, Deno, you were right the first time.
> >
>
> can correctly add english by pivoting about your bridge whatever it
> happens to be, that person would be Wrong (<--with a capital W).
>
> --
> mike page
> fargo
That's what I used to think as well until I started sinking what I used to
consider tough shots with a tipless jump cue. Also I grabbed a house cue
off the wall and was able to repeat the shots with english and without
moving my pivot point. So far I have been able to accurately sink balls
using any cue I pick up. It completely goes against what I have been
"taught" throughout my pool playing life. I don't understand it but when I
look at the results I am forced into belief.
John
John Collins
> In response to a couple of emails I received, I will answer here.
>
> When speaking of tips of english (refer to my challenge shot for John
> Collins a a few posts back), a tip of english is placing the center of the
> tip where the edge of the tip used to be. So in reality, it is a half-tip
> over. FOr example, if you place the cue tip in the center of the ball
> (using a 12mm tip), the edge of the tip is 6mm on either side of center.
> So one tip of english means moving that cue tip over 6mm.
>
That clarifies thing so that we are at least on the same parameters.
> I was asked via email if pivoting the cue is really an adjustment, because
> the bridge hand is still in the same place. Well, no matter how
stationary
> the bridge hand is, if you pivot the cue stick, the aim point is no longer
> on the original aim line. And depending on how short your bridge is, the
> new aim line (the center of the cue) can be several degrees off the
> original aim line.
This is assuming your aim line depends on your tip placement. I maintain
that with the system I now use that the aim line stays the same despite the
english. I know this probably flies in the face of science but somehow it
works. I hope that when I get the time to video tape what I am doing that I
will get more clarity here.
So there is actually a huge adjustment when adding lots
> of english. The problems with this sort of method are the following:
> If you pivot the cue without pivoting the body, the tendency is for the
cue
> stick to want to straighten out during the stroke. This is because your
> body is lined up for one aim point, and if you just move your arm, as you
> stroke, your body fights to bring the arm back to the original position.
> To me, this is very dangerous, and is a bad habit. And when the pressure
> is on, that is the first thing to fail. Nothing beats total body
alignment
> on the proper aim point.
Unless you are trained to stroke straight through the cueball no matter what
vertical plane your cue is addressing the ball at. I notice in my game that
my total body alignment fails me when the pressure is on as well so I don't
believe that any one way of shooting can fix the human variable as I have
stated many times. I do agree that switching from a total vertical
alignment to a pivot point type of address causes me to "pull" the cue back
into a straight line parallel with my body. I am retraining myself not to
do this and as a result I am able to make more shots with more accuracy than
ever before and still achieve the desired cueball position that I need.
By using the AAP method, you are tricking
> yourself into thinking you are aiming at one point, when in reality you
are
> aiming at spot that is blind to you. The reason that is bad is because if
> you ever need to really figure out where you are aiming, you have no idea
> how to "really" aim. So if you change cues or shafts that have different
> pivot points, your entire game is based on the performance of one cue
> stick, and there are no good mechanics to fall back on that can expose a
> cues playing habits in order to adjust quicker. So I think the AAP
method,
> while it may work great, doesn't really give the player a firm
> understanding of the mechanics of the game, which are vital when the
> pressure is on.
I disagree. I think that the methods that Hal teaches which I suspect are
similar to the AAP methods teach player to aim correctly first and then to
apply english rather than making it one step. I also think that by learning
to aim in this way it gives a player a greater understanding because it
teaches people that the first thing is to form a proper relationship between
the cueball and the object ball. And the results are perfectly reproducable
regardless of the stick used. I will use your straight in shot with many
different cues to prove my point on video.
>
> As Laura challenged, it sounds to me like Hal is teaching how to aim with
> no english and then advocates the AAP method for adding english. So in
> reality, he is teaching very old stuff with a new name. Not to say the
> stuff has no merit, because I have seen it work, but not at a high level.
> And, I have had several conversations with top players both in 3 cushion
> and in pool (list available upon request), and the HEAVY majority view is
> that the AAP method can only hurt in the long-run, for the reasons I
stated
> above.
I don't know about whether the pros really use some form of these systems or
not. I can tell you that on a purely metaphysical level when this stuff
clicked for me I flashed back to all the time I have watched Bustamante play
and I felt that this is what he does.
>
> I want to go back to the adjustment part, because one person who emailed
me
> really doesn't understand the concept of adjustment. He believes that if
> you pivot, the contact point on the cue ball does not change nor does the
> aim point. I will try to explain how exactly the adjustment happens and
> how big an adjustment it really is. Imaging a line perpendicular to the
> center line of the cue stick. On the challenge shot I layed out, this
> imaginary line would also be perpendicular to the center lines of the
> balls. Well if you add english, let's say max just to make it obvious.
> Once the english is applied, freeze and note the angle of the cue stick,
> then draw that imaginary perpendicular line across the center line of the
> cue stick. By doing so, you will notice that that line is no longer
> perpendicular to the center lines of the balls. In fact, it will be
> several degrees off the original perpendicular line. If you draw it out
on
> papaer, you can actually calculate the degrees for different bridges, and
> trust me, the diffeenc is extremely significant. I hope this makes sense.
>
If that is the case then it should be impossible to shoot the straight in
shot with a lot of sidespin and make it. I have done it - not every time
but even once prove the reality of the concept. Perhaps someone with better
control of their stroke could do it more consistently than I can but I have
proven to myself using your example that Hal's methods work.
> There is no doubt that Hal's systems work to a certain point. And I am
> sure they also make it easier for novice players to make more shots
without
> having to worry about too many things. But I beg of any player who wants
> to really learn the game to forget about the AAP method, it will only
cause
> headaches in th future. And if anyone thinks any of the pros support the
> AAP, I will give ten names against it for every one who supports it...and
> my players will be better players ;)
>
> Deno J. Andrews
Roger Griffis.
Paul Potier.
Earl Strickland
Francisco Bustamante
Johnny Archer
Efren Reyes
Nick Varner
Jimmy Wetch
These are names that Hal says use backhand english which I am assuming is
similar to AAP. You owe Hal eighty names.
John 8->
John Collins
"Patrick Johnson" <REMO...@21stCentury.net> wrote in message
news:39F70D6A...@21stCentury.net...
> "Deno J. Andrews" wrote:
>
> > ... I think the AAP method ["backhand english"], while it may work great
...
>
> It may work great for some sticks, but it's VERY limited without some
> unconscious compensation. If your stick's actual pivot point isn't
> within about 25% of your bridge length, then the aiming error
> introduced by AAP is AT LEAST 1/8 inch for every foot of cue ball
> travel. This means that, even assuming 1/8 inch per foot is small
> enough error for you (it isn't for me!), you can only use the
> AAP/backhand method (without unconscious compensation) with sticks
> that have PPs of 10-12 inches or less (assuming your bridge length is
> 8-10 inches). With any longer PPs, you're compensating unconsciously.
>
Hal addresses this point as well. To make the point he bridges with the
joint of the cue resting on his bridge hand. He aims and fires according to
his system and the ball splits the pocket. I can't explain it. I would
suggest that the concept of unconcious compensation borders on the religious
as well. You are doing it but you don't know that you are. I prefer
subconcious adjustment based on experience and repetition.
> If this "science" stuff is against your pool religion, I apologize for
> bringing it up. Please go on about your faith-based business, and
> we'll try to be quiet over here.
>
> > ... I beg of any player who wants
> > to really learn the game to forget about the AAP method, it will only
cause
> > headaches in the future.
>
> I agree with this, and I think it's mostly the casual
> beginning/intermediate player looking for shortcuts who really buys
> into the AAP/backhand method (except those with the right sticks).
> They won't abandon their religion of convenience on our say-so. You
> have to either convince them that the long run improvement is worth
> the extra effort, or kidnap and deprogram them.
>
Pat, please explain how it is possible to achieve exactly the same results
over and over with the same setup, the same aiming system wherein the only
variables are the person shooting and a different cue for each try?
John
Mike Page
<inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
> >
> > Of couse if any person did suggest that for any shot and any stick, you
> > can correctly add english by pivoting about your bridge whatever it
> > happens to be, that person would be Wrong (<--with a capital W).
> >
> > --
> > mike page
> > fargo
>
> That's what I used to think as well until I started sinking what I used to
> consider tough shots with a tipless jump cue. Also I grabbed a house cue
> off the wall and was able to repeat the shots with english and without
> moving my pivot point. So far I have been able to accurately sink balls
> using any cue I pick up. It completely goes against what I have been
> "taught" throughout my pool playing life. I don't understand it but when I
> look at the results I am forced into belief.
John, I don't know what you're experiencing or what kind of adjustments
your 18-years of experience is giving you, but I do know that I have done
this particular experiment many times myself, and I know what the results
are.
If I hit a ball at a 22 degree angle versus a 30 degree angle, the object
ball goes a different place, and the difference is predictable. If I aim
a sidespin shot in the same direction with my predator and my scruggs, the
cueball goes in different directions, and that difference too is
predictable.
--
mike page
fargo
Patrick Johnson
> ... I would suggest that the concept of unconcious compensation
> borders on the religious as well. You are doing it but you don't
> know that you are. I prefer subconcious adjustment based on
> experience and repetition.
OK, let's use your terminology.
> Pat, please explain how it is possible to achieve exactly the same results
> over and over with the same setup, the same aiming system wherein the only
> variables are the person shooting and a different cue for each try?
I guess you're asking how AAP can work consistently with different
cues? I'd say it can't, unless all the different cues you're trying
just luckily happen to have pivot points very near your bridge
length. Or unless you're adding something to the equation
(subconscious adjustment based on experience and repetition?). But if
what we think we know about squirt is true, then AAP can't work as
advertised with very many sticks. That much I do know.
Something you're doing is working very well, John, I don't dispute
that. And having seen your game, I'm impressed with the degree of
improvement you're reporting. I just can't find a way to believe it's
all an objective "system" that can be learned by anybody and doesn't
also include a lot that you're adding subconsciously. If Hal helps
you tap into that personal reservoir of know-how, more power to you
and to him. I just don't think an "aiming system" is the sole source
of your improvement.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Ron Shepard
>Roger Griffis.
>Paul Potier.
>Earl Strickland
>Francisco Bustamante
>Johnny Archer
>Efren Reyes
>Nick Varner
>Jimmy Wetch
Is the claim that these players ALWAYS use aim-and-pivot when applying
sidespin? In other words, they NEVER address the ball directly with sidespin,
they always line up straight on and then pivot at the bridge to get sidespin?
This should be fairly obvious to see now that we know what to look for. In
fact, you can probably see this just from video tape, you probably don't even
have to see them play close-up in person.
$.02 -Ron Shepard <--waiting for the results to come in
John Collins
Cool. Then we should agree to leave it at that. I am more confident in my
skills than I have ever been. I have learned something that helps my game.
I will attempt to diagram it and explain it as best I can after I have
mastered it because that's what the teacher asked me. Unitl then all other
discussions are really pointless for me. I can't prove what I can't
explain.
John
"Mike Page" <mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:mike_page-251...@page.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu...
John Collins
"Ron Shepard" <ron...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20001025154826...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> [players who use aim-and-pivot...]
>
> >Roger Griffis.
> >Paul Potier.
> >Earl Strickland
> >Francisco Bustamante
> >Johnny Archer
> >Efren Reyes
> >Nick Varner
> >Jimmy Wetch
>
> sidespin? In other words, they NEVER address the ball directly with
sidespin,
> they always line up straight on and then pivot at the bridge to get
sidespin?
>
> This should be fairly obvious to see now that we know what to look for.
In
> fact, you can probably see this just from video tape, you probably don't
even
> have to see them play close-up in person.
>
> $.02 -Ron Shepard <--waiting for the results to come in
Thats what I intend to do is to look at the videos again to try and
determine if the players are using this method.
John
Michael Page
<inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
> Cool. Then we should agree to leave it at that. I am more confident in my
> skills than I have ever been. I have learned something that helps my game.
> I will attempt to diagram it and explain it as best I can after I have
> mastered it because that's what the teacher asked me. Unitl then all other
> discussions are really pointless for me. I can't prove what I can't
> explain.
>
fair enough.
mike page
fargo
Michael Page
ron...@aol.comNOSPAM (Ron Shepard) wrote:
> [players who use aim-and-pivot...]
>
> >Roger Griffis.
> >Paul Potier.
> >Earl Strickland
> >Francisco Bustamante
> >Johnny Archer
> >Efren Reyes
> >Nick Varner
> >Jimmy Wetch
>
> Is the claim that these players ALWAYS use aim-and-pivot when applying
> sidespin? In other words, they NEVER address the ball directly with sidespin,
> they always line up straight on and then pivot at the bridge to get sidespin?
>
> This should be fairly obvious to see now that we know what to look for. In
> fact, you can probably see this just from video tape, you probably don't even
> have to see them play close-up in person.
>
> $.02 -Ron Shepard <--waiting for the results to come in
Yes. I use aim & pivot too. But that's not really the issue here.
mp
f
Smorgass Bored
Re: Hal Houle...
[players who use aim-and-pivot...]
Roger Griffis.
Paul Potier.
Earl Strickland
Francisco Bustamante
Johnny Archer
Efren Reyes
Nick Varner
Jimmy Wetch
(*<~ Oh yeah ? Well, when I have this Houle method down 100%, I will
kick those player's asses....... ( and a few more..... imo)
NEXT,
Doug
~>*(((>< Big fish eat Little fish ><)))*<~
Ron Shepard
Dang it. I was hoping that we finally, after months of discussion, had
something concrete that we could look for.
So, what is the issue? I still don't know even what is the question, much less
what are the possible answers.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Collins
"Patrick Johnson" <REMO...@21stCentury.net> wrote in message
Could be very true. As far as the system goes I have seen that it is
learnable by beginners and advanced players alike. Anyway as I said to Mike
I think that further discussion on the merits is pointless until I can
explain the system and for that I need to master it first.
John
Poolplayer
John Collins wrote:
> "Patrick Johnson" <REMO...@21stCentury.net> wrote in message
> news:39F70D6A...@21stCentury.net...
> > "Deno J. Andrews" wrote:
> >
> > > ... I think the AAP method ["backhand english"], while it may work great
> ...
> >
> > It may work great for some sticks, but it's VERY limited without some
> > unconscious compensation. If your stick's actual pivot point isn't
> > within about 25% of your bridge length, then the aiming error
> > introduced by AAP is AT LEAST 1/8 inch for every foot of cue ball
> > travel. This means that, even assuming 1/8 inch per foot is small
> > enough error for you (it isn't for me!), you can only use the
> > AAP/backhand method (without unconscious compensation) with sticks
> > that have PPs of 10-12 inches or less (assuming your bridge length is
> > 8-10 inches). With any longer PPs, you're compensating unconsciously.
> >
>
> Hal addresses this point as well. To make the point he bridges with the
> joint of the cue resting on his bridge hand. He aims and fires according to
> his system and the ball splits the pocket. I can't explain it. I would
> suggest that the concept of unconcious compensation borders on the religious
> as well. You are doing it but you don't know that you are. I prefer
> subconcious adjustment based on experience and repetition.
To expand on your examples, John, Hal showed it those to me by holding the cue
in the groove caused by the elbow, top of his knuckles, holding the cue like a
shovel ie palm up with clinched fist, left handed, and even with the cue at his
back. Every time he did it, the ball would go in.
>
>
> > If this "science" stuff is against your pool religion, I apologize for
> > bringing it up. Please go on about your faith-based business, and
> > we'll try to be quiet over here.
> >
> > > ... I beg of any player who wants
> > > to really learn the game to forget about the AAP method, it will only
> cause
> > > headaches in the future.
> >
> > I agree with this, and I think it's mostly the casual
> > beginning/intermediate player looking for shortcuts who really buys
> > into the AAP/backhand method (except those with the right sticks).
> > They won't abandon their religion of convenience on our say-so. You
> > have to either convince them that the long run improvement is worth
> > the extra effort, or kidnap and deprogram them.
> >
>
> Pat, please explain how it is possible to achieve exactly the same results
> over and over with the same setup, the same aiming system wherein the only
> variables are the person shooting and a different cue for each try?
>
> John
Poolplayer
will want to teach something that will get a player to come back for more and
more lessons, etc. I think Hal also told me that these systems are what the BCA
makes makes their instructors teach and I believe that the BCA has the biggest
collection of pool teachers so people would naturally go to a BCA certified
instructor.
John Collins wrote:
> "Deno J. Andrews" <de...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:8t4quo$q76$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > In article <svbqm5l...@corp.supernews.com>, "barenada"
> > <bare...@aye.net> wrote:
> >
> > > then use the bridge-pivot method to select your english. At this point,
> of
> > > course, you're no longer lined up the way you were, so there is indeed
> an
> > > adjustment being made for the english. The adjustment is built into the
> > method
> > > of english application.
> >
Patrick Johnson
> 100% precise geometry: No.
>
> Useful: Yes.
Will you use it?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Smorgass Bored
My told me I was. That 'should' have read, My ________ told me I was.
Fill in the blank with ;
neighbor
friend
coach
wife
cuemaker
lawyer
physic hotline friend
tarot card reader
doctor
as the next vice-president might say, oy-vey
Smorgass Bored
In other words, there's enough "slop" inherent in the system -- because
we're not achines --
(*<~ Hey Lou, speak for yourself. I *AM* an achine. My told me I was.
suspects there are a few more achines,
lfigueroa
This is truly half baked (particularly after a cabernet or two), but I've
got to confess that I've been playing around with the Hal Houle Aiming
System (five cut angles) the last couple of days and have found:
that it works.
But, IMO, it works because: I'm human.
I'm not Iron Willie whom you can set up to execute exactly 15, 30, 45, 60,
and 75 degree hits. If you could do that, the system would fail and all you
geometers could continue in celebration.
But "it works" because, though I shoot at what I *perceive* to be those
angles, I automatically adjust/allow for the pocket location, cloth, balls,
the characteristics of my stick, etc. Tiny variances. In other words,
there's enough "slop" inherent in the system -- because we're not
achines -- to allow for all the conscious and subconscious allowances we
all make on every shot (if we've been playing for any time at all) to make
the system appear to *work.*
100% precise geometry: No.
Useful: Yes.
Lou Figueroa
"Ron Shepard" <ron...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20001025182113...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
Otto
You are on a roll tonight. I'm sitting here damn near in tears.
Is this 'physic hotline friend' Ron Shepard?
Otto
Keep'em coming
"Smorgass Bored" <Smorga...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2975-39F...@storefull-125.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> (*<~ Smorg wrote :
> physic hotline friend
Bob Jewett
> Bob, have you personally witnessed Hal's teaching session?
Yes.
--
Bob Jewett
LMoss18701
> That's what I meant by the adjustment being built into the backhand
>english method.
remember--the starting point is the "key".
LINDA MOSS
Rupert Ward
> > Hal addresses this point as well. To make the point he bridges with the
> > joint of the cue resting on his bridge hand. He aims and fires according to
> > his system and the ball splits the pocket. I can't explain it. I would
> > suggest that the concept of unconcious compensation borders on the religious
> > as well. You are doing it but you don't know that you are. I prefer
> > subconcious adjustment based on experience and repetition.
>
> To expand on your examples, John, Hal showed it those to me by holding the cue
> in the groove caused by the elbow, top of his knuckles, holding the cue like a
> shovel ie palm up with clinched fist, left handed, and even with the cue at his
> back. Every time he did it, the ball would go in.
Yes but hasn't Hal been practising this for decades? What about when
*you* try those things?
Rupe.
--
Ru...@arseweb.com
http://arseweb.com (the original Arsenal website)
http://arseweb.com/rupe/pool/ (UK 8-ball rules)
Stoney
>
> <Snip>
> I've been playing around with the Hal Houle Aiming
> System (five cut angles) the last couple of days and have found:
>
> that it works.
>
> But, IMO, it works because: I'm human.
>
> I'm not Iron Willie whom you can set up to execute exactly 15, 30, 45, 60,
> and 75 degree hits. If you could do that, the system would fail and all you
> geometers could continue in celebration.
>
> But "it works" because, though I shoot at what I *perceive* to be those
> angles, I automatically adjust/allow for the pocket location, cloth, balls,
> the characteristics of my stick, etc.
I spent over 15 hours with Hal, almost all of it table time. Because I
am so thick headed and stubborn I spent a good percentage of that time
shooting "blind" - that is Hal completely blocked my visual reference to
the pocket to at least one diamond on either side and I shot using one
of six ball-to-ball methods he described. Result dead center on ALL
shots I did not personally screw up by bad mechanics.
> Tiny variances. In other words,
> there's enough "slop" inherent in the system -- because we're not
> achines -- to allow for all the conscious and subconscious allowances we
> all make on every shot (if we've been playing for any time at all) to make
> the system appear to *work.*
I agree with inherent "slop". It is the same with any system played on
a table, stick, balls and human beings. At at this point I can neither
agree nor disagree with "conscious and subconscious allowances" except
to say that if you are using any of the systems and fail to pocket the
ball dead center there is an element of error somewhere in the shot and
it is not likely in the system.
> 100% precise geometry: No.
No comment here as I am math impaired.
> Useful: Yes.
Regards,
Stoney <-----A closet Houlegan
lfigueroa
banks.
Lou Figueroa
"Patrick Johnson" <p...@21stCentury.net> wrote in message
news:39F79020...@21stCentury.net...
> Lou wrote:
>
> > 100% precise geometry: No.
> >
> > Useful: Yes.
>
Warren Lushia
lfigueroa wrote:
> Not for aiming cut shots. But some of it may stick around to assist on da
> banks.
hey, lou "bank good, miss straight in", am i reading this correctly?!?!?!?!!?
warren..<-- "miss everything"
QuantumDot
I've never tried back-hand english before.
First, I used the FAQ instructions to find my pivot point. I use a
Richard Black cue with 12.5mm shafts, an ivory ferrule with the special
Richard Black tip and a pad behind it. 15" pro taper. The pivot point
was 15". I lines up the shot as described in the ball-to-ball method,
then used AAP to apply english, after AAP'ing, I slid my bridge hand up
to a comfortable bridge length and pulled the trigger. Made every shot
(at the defined angles). I haven't tried any other angles as yet. I
also used AAP with the light spot system, and never missed.
FWIW,
Steve
Deno J. Andrews
----------
In article <hHEJ5.1461$EA3.1...@news.uswest.net>, "John Collins"
<inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
> Hal did not say that these techniques are new. I am sure that when someone
> plays runout pool then the balls that are aimed at would line up exactly
> with the points that Hal teaches. My question is if these techniques are so
> old then why don't more people teach them.
Maybe because they are only good up to a certain point and then fail when
one really wants to understand what's going on.
> I don't agree that the aim point is gone when the bridge hand does not move.
Have you ever seen a bridge over a river that pivots in the middle of the
river, which allows the bridge itself to rotate from perpendicular to
parallel in relation to the water? Well now imaging that the middle point
where the bridge pivots as your bridge. Then imagine the big bridge as the
line of your cue stick. Now you can clearly see that by pivoting, the
point of aim changes ALOT. If you were to put a laser on your cue stick,
then aim to the point on the object ball while aiming throught the center
of the cue ball, and then pivot to add english, the laser will no longer
point to the same point on the object ball. So the original aim point is
no longer being aimed at. Instead, you are aiming at something else while
looking at the original aim point. This is like looking out of the
driver's side window while trying to drive straight. It's just not a good
place to look, because you are not really looking at where you are aiming.
> I think the aim point stays the same, the object ball goes to the same place
> and the only difference is the reaction of the cue ball.
Just because the ball goes to the same place does not mean you are aiming
there. If you shoot a gun in high wind, the bullet will react, so if you
aim straight, then pivot the gun a little to the right to compensate for
the wind, the bullet can still hit the original aim point, but does not
mean you are still aiming there.
Your argument is proving that the technique is not healthy, mainly because
you are convinced your aim is not changing. That's my point, I have made
it very clear in trying to explain and show how much "off" the aiming
really is. Anyone that can not see it has their eyes, or minds, closed.
As I have said before, if the system works for you, and you are bliss not
knowing what exactly is happening, then keep using it. If it helps you
pocket balls and you are happy, then who am I to tell you any different...I
just want to make sure you understand the shortfalls of the system and to
know that there are many mechanical faults in the method which can easily
make you miss shots just as if doing it the "right" way. But again, if
your game has gone up to a point where you are happy, then just tell me to
shut up :)
Deno J. Andrews
Deno J. Andrews
----------
In article <OGFJ5.1528$EA3.1...@news.uswest.net>, "John Collins"
<inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
> Roger Griffis.
> Paul Potier.
> Earl Strickland
> Francisco Bustamante
> Johnny Archer
> Efren Reyes
> Nick Varner
> Jimmy Wetch
>
> These are names that Hal says use backhand english which I am assuming is
> similar to AAP. You owe Hal eighty names.
I am sorry, but Hal is throwing some names into the hat whom he has had no
influence on, nor do they use his methods. And the gaff of backhand
english as proof they use the system is easily proved wrong by just
watching some of these players. I have not seen some of the players on the
list, but many I have seen, and:
Paul Potier
Earl
Johnny
Nick
Jimmy
All of whom line up and execute the shot without a skewed cue stick. The
cue stick is aiming at the same point their eyes are looking at. Just
watch them, it's that easy. If the cue is aiming at the point they are
looking at then backhand english is a myth. If you notice the cue is
angled severely from the aim point of their eyes, then they are using the
AAP method. With regard to Reyes and Bust, I know they have crooked
strokes, so it is important to analyze only their final stroke at the point
the ball is hit. If the cue is perpendicular to their eyes at the point
the tip is hitting the balls, then AAP method is not being used. And I
would almost guarantee their cues are straight when they hit the ball.
Now only a few on my list who hit the ball without AAP method:
Raymond Ceulemans
Torbjorn Blomdahl
Dick Jaspers
Frederic Caudron
George Ashby
Nobuaki Kobayashi
Yoshio Yoshihara
Allison Fisher
Gerda Hofstatter
Karen Corr
Mike Sigel
Jon Kucharo
Me :)
Roberto Rojas
Semih Sayginer
Danny Sanchez
Arturo Bone
Luis Aveiga
The list goes on for a long time... I have seen no proof to what Hal
claims of his list of players who use his methods. I will look again over
time, but I am a study of mechanics and is the first thing I notice when
watching players. And when a player uses the AAP method, they stick out
like a sore thumb to me, and usually play at a much lower level than they
are capable of.
Deno J. Andrews
JoeyA
pocket.
Now, you naysayers, what say ye now.
IF any of you have two good ears, you had better listen.
This is my point. I don't care if it can't be proven mathematically or not.
If it helps improve my consistency, it is a good thing, one to be praised
and admired. Exalted might be a better word. It seems that many have tried
to prove how inaccurate the system is and now we have ANOTHER player who
says that the system "works".
It doesn't make any difference WHY it works. It will be nice to experience
this for myself and I will. It would be nice too as good players like Lou
continue to explain why it does work. I like the "human" explanation. It
is what makes us better than Iron Willie.
Don't wipe those tear streaked eyes Mario. Celebrate the joy, shout it from
the roof tops, Hal Houle is here to release you from bondage.
Waiting for my turn.
JoeyA
P.S. "Anyone here with two ears had better listen!"
"lfigueroa" <lfig...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:VCLJ5.6886$UL.4...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Patrick Johnson
> ... Result dead center on ALL
> shots I did not personally screw up by bad mechanics.
"If I missed, it had to be me, not the system." You're free, of
course, to make that assumption, but don't you see it's
self-fulfilling? If you use that qualification with everything you
try, every system works!
BTW, I wonder how many testimonials we've heard about "splitting all
the pockets" using the system actually contain this underlying
qualification?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
> I tried AAP with my limited understanding of the ball to ball system.
> I've never tried back-hand english before.
We're using conflicting terms. Lately, the term AAP has been used
here (by Houligans, I believe) to mean backhand english: aim and then
pivot at the bridge, without regard to the actual PP. Since the AAP
label doesn't specify where you're pivoting, I suppose it can be used
for either method, but it's confusing. I suggest using something like
"Pivot Point Pivot" (PPP) vs. "Bridge Pivot" (BP). "Backhand english"
is clearly BP, but "AAP" could be either.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
> It doesn't make any difference WHY it works.
I disagree strongly with this (as does Deno, evidently). If you don't
know why it works, then you won't know why it stops working (as
everybody who's tried Hal's methods so far has reported) or how to
prevent that.
(And there are lots of other reasons, too...)
Pat Johnson
Chicago
QuantumDot
Ahhhhhhhhhhh. Now I understand a lot of the confusion people have about
backhand english. To me, AAP is BE, because I put english on the cue
ball by moving my back hand, and my bridge is stationary. I assume,
IRCC, that "backhand english" as preached by the disciples of the
prophet Bert, has nothing to do with the pivot point. So I guess they
are all BE "systems", and need to be differentiated. Anyhow, my
original post still stands as far as my experiences.
Also, I am starting to see why there are only 5 angles. For example, a
135 deg cut shot is really a 45, etc. etc.
Question for you: is a 15" pp a lot of squirt? I've never paid it any
mind before, but I've suddenly taken a new interest in squirt, BE,
deflection, and aiming systems in general. I really am starting to like
the parallel aim 2-rail kick system.
Steve <- still doesn't miss his Predator shaft, though they look cool on
the inside (oops).
QuantumDot
>
> BTW, I wonder how many testimonials we've heard about "splitting all
> the pockets" using the system actually contain this underlying
> qualification?
>
> Pat Johnson
> Chicago
It wasn't me, it was the one-armed man.........
S
sam
Deno J. Andrews wrote in message <8t9gfa$fim$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>
>----------
<Snipped Bridge Example)
Deno, Thank you for putting this in simple terms so my pea brain could
understand your point. I agree with what you are saying concerning WHERE
the PLANE of the cuestick is aiming. On the other hand, we do NOT use a
cuestick in the same manner as a rifle. My eye is not laying down on the
barrel of the cuestick. In any shot you perform with a cuestick, your EYE
and your MIND is the aiming device isn't it? I would think that the back
and forth motion of a cuestick is merely the PHYSICAL EXECUTION of what your
EYE and MIND are telling it to do. Here is what I mean. The eye of the
shooter is anywhere from 4 inches to 18 inches above the stick and the stick
is being retracted from the CB (on backstroke) 3 to say 7 inches. How is it
possible for us to call the STICK, the actual aiming device. When I get
down on a shot, my MIND and my EYE knows where the CB must strike the OB in
order to pocket the ball. My EYE is not looking down the barrel of the
stick (in a rifle type manner). I thought my MIND was relaying what my EYE
sees, to my arm muscles, in order to make the shot work. When I pivot my
stick without moving my bridge hand, my EYE is still firmly focused on my
original aim point, but my muscles are stroking through on a different
plane. My EYE has made no adjustment in the contact point or ball segment I
wish to hit. At first, I had to learn to trust that when pivoting the cue
without moving my bridge hand, that by stroking through on this new plane,
the CB would still contact the OB in the desired spot, but after doing it
for a while my trust was affirmed. I played a lot of table tennis as a
youth. I learned that I could trust my EYE, MIND and MUSCLE reactions when
hitting a shot from 10 feet away from the table. I did not expect to AIM
the shot with my paddle. I looked at the opponents side of the table where
I wanted the ball to go and my EYE and MIND told my muscles what to do. By
golly it worked. Just a thought. :o) Sincerely, Sam
JoeyA
explain how it works and why it works. I am not against knowledge and hope
that you will be able to fill in the blanks to everyone's satisfaction.
I guess Lou hasn't been using the system for that long of a time. Lou
hasn't even met Hal if I am not mistaken. John is a recent believer and I
didn't notice any posts that indicated that "it" stopped working. I thought
he said that he performed better when Hal was there which is understandable.
But I would like to see you become a believer, because you might be able to
help us understand why it works a little better.
Regards,
JoeyA
"Patrick Johnson" <REMO...@21stCentury.net> wrote in message
news:39F85CE...@21stCentury.net...
JoeyA
the World Championship Nine ball tournament just recently?
His cue seemed to go offline on almost every cut shot that he made or
missed.
JoeyA
"Deno J. Andrews" <de...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8t9ias$ov8$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Warren Lushia
JoeyA wrote:
> This coming from the man who almost annihilated Efren Reyes playing one
> pocket.
hey joey, weren't you the one who started getting a little miffed at the
"cannon killer" nicknames, as you didn't want to destroy your action?!?!?!
poor lou, imagine how he feels!
warren..
JoeyA
Are you trying to make Lou "miffed" at me? I would think HE would let me
know if that tongue in cheek bothered him.
Or are you trying to resurrect an old heal spur on me?
Or were you just saying hello?
Regards,
JoeyA
"Warren Lushia" <wal...@SPAMmeANDdie.pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
news:39F876ED...@SPAMmeANDdie.pop.uky.edu...
JoeyA
"JoeyA" <agu...@cmq.com> wrote in message
news:gQ_J5.19791$Q8.40...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net...
Deno J. Andrews
----------
In article <8t9mk...@news1.newsguy.com>, "sam" <s...@lasercom.net> wrote:
> is being retracted from the CB (on backstroke) 3 to say 7 inches. How is it
> possible for us to call the STICK, the actual aiming device.
Simple, because it is the cue stick that is demanding that the ball travel
in a certain direction. So if you do not aim the cue stick, you do not
aim. It is the cue line that MUST be aimed, even in the first place, to
make sure the ball goes where you want it to go.
> When I pivot my
> stick without moving my bridge hand, my EYE is still firmly focused on my
> original aim point
At this point, you can be reading the daily news, the point you are looking
at is meaningless, because you are no longer aiming there.
> but my muscles are stroking through on a different
> plane.
Without guide, thus being unreliable over time.
> for a while my trust was affirmed. I played a lot of table tennis as a
> youth. I learned that I could trust my EYE, MIND and MUSCLE reactions when
> hitting a shot from 10 feet away from the table. I did not expect to AIM
> the shot with my paddle. I looked at the opponents side of the table where
> I wanted the ball to go and my EYE and MIND told my muscles what to do. By
> golly it worked. Just a thought. :o) Sincerely, Sam
I play a lot of TT also, and it is quite different when a ball is coming at
you at high speeds. plus, the contact point on the bat is over 15 times
the size of the ball. The game would be different if the bat were smaller
than the ball, as it is in cue games. There would be a lot more aiming
going on than you may think.
Deno J. Andrews
Warren Lushia
JoeyA wrote:
> Which is it Warren?
>
> Are you trying to make Lou "miffed" at me? I would think HE would let me
> know if that tongue in cheek bothered him.
>
> Or are you trying to resurrect an old heal spur on me?
>
> Or were you just saying hello?
you forgot:
d) all of the above
e) none of the above
warren..<-- the real answer is F, just trying to have some Fun...
lfigueroa
Lou Figueroa
"Warren Lushia" <wal...@SPAMmeANDdie.pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
news:39F82ED6...@SPAMmeANDdie.pop.uky.edu...
lfigueroa
readout on our little peepers like Arnold did in "The Terminator." I mean,
when you look at the ball, who's to say if you're really seeing a15 degree
angle or a 17 1/2 degree angle!!?
Lou Figueroa
almost crushed Efren like a ripe grape :-)
"JoeyA" <agu...@cmq.com> wrote in message
news:weYJ5.19420$Q8.40...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net...
lfigueroa
Besides, the people I play already know about how I steamrolled Bata :-)
Lou Figueroa
"Warren Lushia" <wal...@SPAMmeANDdie.pop.uky.edu> wrote in message
news:39F889B7...@SPAMmeANDdie.pop.uky.edu...