Houle Fractional Aiming System Explained
Ken Bour
first proposed by George McBane and subsequently diagrammed on wei's table
by Pat Johnson. The answers I received, from Houle followers, defied the
laws of geometry and, as such, were absurd. I commented that, from my
recollection, Hal Houle was a decent guy and had always been forthcoming in
our prior discussions. I hoped that he would chime in and help explain
away the apparent dilemma. Thankfully, Hal sent a private email inviting me
to call him at home and indicating that he would be happy to answer any
question that I might have.
I took Hal up on his offer, called him tonight, and we spoke about these
matters for about an hour.
First of all, Hal Houle is a delightful gentleman, pleasant, conversational,
responsive, reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable, and insightful. From
all that I can tell, he is not a mystic, magician, charlatan, eccentric, or
otherwise disposed to offer up systems or ideas that defy the laws of
physics or geometry. He is painfully aware of the normal behavior of
ball-to-ball collisions and like matters. Hal was quick to agree with me
when I asserted that his devotees were not helping his cause especially
well. He acknowledged that many of them are beginners and, as a routine
teaching practice, he does not provide explanations for why things behave as
they do. He wishes that many of them would just keep their silence rather
than attempt to explain things that they do not understand.
OK. On to the specific problem...
When presented with the Case A (30 degree shot to a corner) and Case B (36
degree shot to a corner), notwithstanding the contentions of his devotees,
there is a reasonable and relatively straightforward explanation.
1) Hal states unequivocally that for both Case A and Case B, if the
center of the cueball is aimed at the object ball's exterior edge, and
propelled with no spin on the cueball, the object ball will move in a 30
degree angle after contact, collision-induced throw notwithstanding (meaning
that we'll ignore that effect for the sake of the examples). As far as I
understand it, being a non-mathematician, this object ball behavior follows
the laws of geometry precisely.
2) Here comes the only tricky part to describe. Hal explains that,
when shifting from Case A's position to Case B, the focus spot on the object
ball has moved; that is, if we slide the cueball to the right several
inches, leaving the object ball in its original position, the spot (on the
object ball's edge) we are seeking has rotated "n" degrees to the right of
the original spot. This shifting of the relative aiming spot, from one shot
to the next, is what has been termed rotating edges. Similarly, from the
perspective of Shot A, the center axis has also slid to the right in Shot B
when aiming to the edge of the fixed object ball. This is what is meant by
"apparent centers." In other words, all that is being said is that, from
the perspective of one fixed shot, any other shot does not use the same
exact center or precise edge as the reference shot. The centers and edges
will have rotated relative to the original points. Truthfully, I have not
yet figured out the significance of this observation, but I am now quite
certain that this is the explanation of the otherwise mysterious "rotating
or apparent centers" and similar verbiage.
3) Now, having established that each shot has to be aimed the same way,
i.e., center ball axis to outside edge of the object ball, how is it that
the object ball can split the pocket in two different situations (6 degrees
apart), if the cueball is stuck the same way? The answer, according to
Houle, is that "THEY CANNOT." At least not without some adjustment. When I
mentioned that his followers were claiming that they could "split the
pocket" in both cases, he laughed. The truth is that his system is based on
the understanding that the pockets are typically twice as wide as the ball
and that, with a 1/2 ball hit, there is an error allowance (in degrees)
which will accommodate variations up to some limit that depends on the
particular table conditions (pocket width, cut, facings, etc.). When that
limit is exceeded, you have to switch to 1/4 ball up to its allowable error,
and so on... If players are using the fractional ball aiming system and
splitting the pocket for both 30 and 36 degree angle shots, they are
obviously making minor adjustments when aiming/shooting.
Clearly, Hal Houle is NOT CLAIMING TO DEFY THE LAWS OF GEOMETRY. According
to Hal, this particular system is usually provided to beginners because they
need approximate methods. After a while, they learn to make minute
adjustments (a hair this way or that) which allows them to split pockets
with shots that are within the allowable error range.
People -- there is no mysticism, magic, or other voodoo involved here.
Hal was also quite specific in advising me that the aiming system he taught
to John Collins IS NOT the same fractional ball system that has received all
of the attention in at least one thread (that got me fired up). He taught
John a different "professional" aiming system that he does not use with
beginning players. We did not have enough time to get into those concepts
on this telephone call. Hal has invited me to contact him any time that I
am at my table with a portable phone and he will explain this other system
to me. I plan on accepting his generous offer and will likely do it during
this week.
I sure hope that this report corrects some serious errors that have been
promulgated by a few and helps to assure others that Mr. Houle is a
reasonable guy who DOES understand and accepts the physical principles
involved in billiards.
--
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
http://www.erols.com/kbour
lfigueroa
one, look forward to an explanation of the ball-to-ball system. But if Hal
is such a delightful, pleasant, conversational, responsive, reasonable,
intelligent, knowledgeable, and insightful gentleman, why doesn't he take a
couple of minutes and explain it himself? What's the big deal? Why does he
need a spokesmodel?
Why can't John, who claims to be using the system with great success,
explain it?
Lou Figueroa
"Ken Bour" <kb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:8to281$557$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Deno J. Andrews
> the object ball can split the pocket in two different situations (6 degrees
> apart), if the cueball is stuck the same way? The answer, according to
> Houle, is that "THEY CANNOT."
Thanks for clearing that up for everyone Ken. I hope that convinces
everyone that the system is not magic and does certainly require
adjustments to achieve results.
On another note, I received an email from Hal explaining his involvement
with Potier and Griffis. He told me that Potier teaches back hand
english to his students, and that he has heard that through some of
those students, and that he taught Potier nothing at any time. Griffis
on the other hand approached him and asked him to show back hand english
at a trade show or something like that. Griffis learned it and later
wrote a couple of articles about it. So Griffis must have seen some
advantage to BE (probably if he was having problems making the cue go
straight!), which as I have stated does work, but is mechanically
dangerous. So thanks for clearing that up Hal.
Deno J. Andrews
JoeyA
JoeyA
"Ken Bour" <kb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:8to281$557$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Bert M.
>Ken Bour, you too are a reasonable guy and I like your post.
>JoeyA
>
One of the problems has been that the por side shares their experience and when
forced to explain in the minutest detail the mechanics, they can't. And when
the can't they get dumped on. Ok I can't explain it, and don't fully
understand it. But a less confrontational discussion, would not make people
defensive. it just seems throughout this debate even the most moderate
language has been contorted itno something less benign
Bert M <-- C=:-)
Patrick Johnson
Thanks for the report, Ken. It's good to have our ace pool sleuth on
the case again. However, I think the title of your post is a little
optimistic. While Hal apparently agrees the system has holes (I was
sure he would), we haven't heard any guidance about how to fill them.
Is there also a system for deciding how much adjustment is needed and
how to make it?
As I've said before, all aiming systems try to solve the same
problem: we need to hit the object ball contact point, which we can
see, with the cue ball contact point, which we can't see -- so we're
shooting "half blind". The ball fractions system aligns the cue ball
and object ball so they'll make contact *near* the correct points, and
close enough in a lot of cases (but usually not exactly). But here's
the important caveat: The system only works if you've chosen the
correct "shot angle" in the first place, and made the correct
adjustment(s) from there.
Every "good" aiming method relies on locating the object ball contact
point, and this system is no different. You either have to locate it
and then decide what "system shot angle" is closest (say, 15 degrees
or 30 degrees), or you have to estimate the shot angle and then
"adjust" until you think you're close enough to the contact point.
Either way, you have to find the contact point to within 1/32 inch to
1/8 inch (about 1.5 to 6 degrees), depending on the distance to the
pocket.
I think the ball fractions system can be a useful way to decide (and
maybe to learn) how to align the cue ball and object ball to (almost)
hit the contact point, but I have real doubts about the advisability
of using the "estimated shot angle" to find the contact point. I'd
suggest using some other method for that, like the ghost ball method
or simply sighting to the pocket through the object ball, and then
using the ball fractions system (if you like it) just to find the
approximate alignment of cue ball and object ball for that contact
point. (Then, of course, you have to refine the alignment with some
adjustment.)
For me, it's simpler and much more direct to imagine where the cue
ball contact point is (over there on the "blind" side of the cue ball)
and just point it at the object ball contact point. That's pretty
much the same as imagining I'm looking at some invisible "fraction" of
the cue ball anyway, and I avoid visualizing fractions on the object
ball, estimating angles, making adjustments and worrying if it's all
accurate enough.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Otto
estimate the angle and then getting down on the shot line with the correct
fraction. After several hours of frustration realizing that estimating the
angle was perhaps futile, I spoke with Hal. He laughed. He then instructed
me to approach the shot and get down like I have been doing using ghost ball
and therefore getting in the ballpark. He then advised me to fine tune using
the fractional aiming method. He also advised me to use the edge of the
object ball to fraction the cue ball. I was doing it the other way.
After several hours of trying to internalize this I have to say there has
been improvement in my pocketing. Am I running racks? Nope. Is it a holy
grail? Nope. Does it account for all angles, speeds and spins? Nope. Does it
help me stroke the cue straight in a beautiful throwing motion? Nope.
Here is what it has done. It put a smile on my face because I was pocketing
some shots more regularly than I had been when using ghost ball. It made me
more aware of where the CB and OB were actually meeting(I can see when the
fractional overlap at contact is off due to a bad stroke). It gave me
another way to analyze my stroke performance. It gave me another tool to use
on those shots when I'm not sure. Aligning the right edges on straight in
shots and breaks has helped tremendously(the area of greatest change). All
in all, it gave me a little bit of a boost of motivation to spend more time
at the table because I was a little less frustrated.
Otto
"Patrick Johnson" <REMO...@21stCentury.net> wrote in message
news:3A00433C...@21stCentury.net...
bp
wrote:
>People -- there is no mysticism, magic, or other voodoo involved here.
Damn it ! I could have used some of that.;-)
Jeffrey Weiss
> One of the problems has been that the por side shares their experience and
> when forced to explain in the minutest detail the mechanics, they can't. And
> when the can't they get dumped on.
I beg to differ, Bert. One of the good things has been that the "pro" side
shares their experiences. One of the problems has been that when asked to
explain it in simple understandable terms, even at the most conceptual level,
they can't.
> Ok I can't explain it, and don't fully understand it. But a less
> confrontational discussion, would not make people defensive.
I agree, but this goes both ways. Many on the "pro" side have been fueling the
fire themselves. If everyone who started a post with "Well, I don't really
understand it, but...." would have simply depressed and held down the Delete
key until their screen went blank, there would've been a lot less noise in the
discussion.
Thanks, Ken, and welcome back out of anonymity.
--
jw (Monday's The Day!)
John Collins
"Jeffrey Weiss" <jeffre...@gs.com> wrote in message
news:2000110201...@nhrmdc192.ny.fw.gs.com...
> sxyre...@aol.com (Bert M.) sez:
> > One of the problems has been that the por side shares their experience
and
> > when forced to explain in the minutest detail the mechanics, they can't.
And
> > when the can't they get dumped on.
>
> I beg to differ, Bert. One of the good things has been that the "pro"
side
> shares their experiences. One of the problems has been that when asked to
> explain it in simple understandable terms, even at the most conceptual
level,
> they can't.
>
That's not entirely true. On a conceptual level we have all explained our
interpretations of whichever Hal's methods have been shown to us. It's the
nuts and bolts that has the con side in a tizzy. The con side says the pro
side's concepts are flawed because there is no way that they can hold up to
physic's nuts and bolts.
John
Jeffrey Weiss
>> I beg to differ, Bert. One of the good things has been that the "pro"
>> side shares their experiences. One of the problems has been that when asked
>> to explain it in simple understandable terms, even at the most conceptual
>> level, they can't.
"John Collins" <inst...@instroke.com> differed without begging:
> That's not entirely true. On a conceptual level we have all explained our
> interpretations of whichever Hal's methods have been shown to us. It's the
> nuts and bolts that has the con side in a tizzy. The con side says the pro
> side's concepts are flawed because there is no way that they can hold up to
> physic's nuts and bolts.
My observation is that this was not breaking down due to the "con" side asking
for the "pro" side to explain stuff in the minutest detail as Bert claimed.
Rather, they were asking how the adjustment between the few fixed angles was
made. Rather than simply saying, "yeah, of course there's an adjustment, but I
guess I'm making it by feel, with the added confidence inspired by using a
system that was effectively taught to me," many "pro-ers" clouded the issue by
insisting that no adjustment is being made, and that there "are no in-between
angles." This is at the highest conceptual level, quite far from nuts and
bolts - to me, anyway.
Funny how this was ever so simple for Hal himself to explain, and in one simple
fell swoop, the "pros" and "cons" have been brought together.
The argument about the system you have been taught may be entirely different -
thus far, there has been little information posted here about it. So, we
really haven't had the opportunity to dig in and polarize (in that adorable way
we do here) on that system.
--
jw (Monday Can't Come Soon Enough)
John Collins
Hal very clearly stated in his original post about the five angles that the
five angles take care of all the in between ones. I for one do not adjust
using the system as taught to me which is not the edge to ball part system.
I line up my points and fire. If there is an adjustment then it is built
in, (okay Deno you're right!) but I am not conciously making it.
>
> Funny how this was ever so simple for Hal himself to explain, and in one
simple
> fell swoop, the "pros" and "cons" have been brought together.
>
> The argument about the system you have been taught may be entirely
different -
> thus far, there has been little information posted here about it. So, we
> really haven't had the opportunity to dig in and polarize (in that
adorable way
> we do here) on that system.
> --
> jw (Monday Can't Come Soon Enough)
Righto!
John
Ken Bour
[SNIP]
> Hal very clearly stated in his original post about the five angles that
the
> five angles take care of all the in between ones. I for one do not adjust
> using the system as taught to me which is not the edge to ball part
system.
> I line up my points and fire. If there is an adjustment then it is built
> in, (okay Deno you're right!) but I am not conciously making it.
Yes, Hal does indeed teach that there are only 5 angles; but, I submit, he
is not to be taken literally. Hal is a coach/teachor/mentor. In that role,
he offers students simplified teaching aids and instruction that they need
at a point in time. All competent teachers/coaches use such approaches. I
submit to you that what Hal is communicating is a short-cut phrase intended
to simplify what would otherwise be a complicated mess, esp. for beginners.
What is unstated in his direction, but clearly understood if you talk with
him at any length, is this: "There are only 5 angles [...that you need to be
concerned with initially]." Hal has explained to me that, if you start with
5 angles and learn to recognize them, the pockets are pretty forgiving (on
many tables) and will accommodate the built-in error. The minute
adjustments ("a hair fatter or thinner") that are needed for precision,
within this general framework, come with repetition, time, and practice.
Again, Hal is a player/coach and employs easy-to-follow teaching devices.
When he speaks/writes in this context, he is not laying out a theoretical
system for ball-to-ball collisions.
John, I submit that you are making subconscious adjustments that come from
years of extensive play under a variety of conditions and circumstances.
You could not stop from doing so unless you put yourself in a controlled
experimental environment. I believe that I could prove this to you by
setting up shot making situations and directing you to perform certain
actions where you don't know the goal in advance. When you "know" that the
purpose of an aiming system is to pocket an object ball, your mind takes
over and directs your body to achieve the objective.
Ken Bour
Ken Bour
accurately including the benefits and limitations. The "system" appears
much more believable and useful when it is not cloaked in exaggeration and
mysticism.
Ken Bour
"Otto" <nospamOtt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:nf%L5.14008$UL.8...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Ken Bour
news:3A00433C...@21stCentury.net...
>
> Thanks for the report, Ken. It's good to have our ace pool sleuth on
> the case again. However, I think the title of your post is a little
> optimistic. While Hal apparently agrees the system has holes (I was
> sure he would), we haven't heard any guidance about how to fill them.
> Is there also a system for deciding how much adjustment is needed and
> how to make it?
Sorry for overstating the case. I was merely trying to bring some harmony
to one of the polarizations, certainly not attempting to explain Hal's
entire system.
From my discussions with Hal, he has experienced that most players can learn
to recognize, after some initial practice, which of the 3 or 5 angles is
correct for a given shot. Once the player has selected, say 1/4 ball aim,
the "holes" are filled in by 1) pocket width (meaning that there is an error
rate that will accommodate a range of angles that are initially recognized
by 1/4 ball), and 2) brain-computer adjustment. The latter occurs as a
result of the player perfecting his/her judgment over time.
> As I've said before, all aiming systems try to solve the same
> problem: we need to hit the object ball contact point, which we can
> see, with the cue ball contact point, which we can't see -- so we're
> shooting "half blind". The ball fractions system aligns the cue ball
> and object ball so they'll make contact *near* the correct points, and
> close enough in a lot of cases (but usually not exactly). But here's
> the important caveat: The system only works if you've chosen the
> correct "shot angle" in the first place, and made the correct
> adjustment(s) from there.
Hal finds that players can generally learn to identify and discriminate
between the 5 angles effectively. I'm sure that accurate selection if a
function of practice, natural ability, good eyesight, kinesthetics, and a
host of other traits/characteristics.
> Every "good" aiming method relies on locating the object ball contact
> point, and this system is no different. You either have to locate it
> and then decide what "system shot angle" is closest (say, 15 degrees
> or 30 degrees), or you have to estimate the shot angle and then
> "adjust" until you think you're close enough to the contact point.
> Either way, you have to find the contact point to within 1/32 inch to
> 1/8 inch (about 1.5 to 6 degrees), depending on the distance to the
> pocket.
Agreed.
> I think the ball fractions system can be a useful way to decide (and
> maybe to learn) how to align the cue ball and object ball to (almost)
> hit the contact point, but I have real doubts about the advisability
> of using the "estimated shot angle" to find the contact point. I'd
> suggest using some other method for that, like the ghost ball method
> or simply sighting to the pocket through the object ball, and then
> using the ball fractions system (if you like it) just to find the
> approximate alignment of cue ball and object ball for that contact
> point. (Then, of course, you have to refine the alignment with some
> adjustment.)
As a teacher/instructor, it's clear that you would not prefer this method
for your students. Evidently, after many years of coaching and teaching
amateurs and professionals, Hal likes the results that his students get
using fractional ball aiming. I doubt seriously that he would stick with it
if it didn't work reasonably well for a decent percentage of candidates. He
does know many other systems and uses them in different situations. For
example, John Collins got one that I have not learned yet. I don't sense
that Hal has just one trick in his bag. I don't think that there's more to
the issue than that. One teacher prefers one method in a given context and
another chooses differently. Jerry Briesath has his own set of
instructional tools/aids, some of which worked for me, and others did not.
For example, Jerry's aiming "system or method" (uses contact points) was not
helpful to me and, after trying it for a few hours, I elected to stick with
ghost ball.
> For me, it's simpler and much more direct to imagine where the cue
> ball contact point is (over there on the "blind" side of the cue ball)
> and just point it at the object ball contact point. That's pretty
> much the same as imagining I'm looking at some invisible "fraction" of
> the cue ball anyway, and I avoid visualizing fractions on the object
> ball, estimating angles, making adjustments and worrying if it's all
> accurate enough.
Yes, indeed, we are different creatures with different abilities and
preferences. What is simpler and more direct for one person, doesn't work
as well for another. It sure is neat to be able to share these various
experiences and impressions with each other. It's a shame that we cannot do
so, in this forum, without becoming unnecessarily defensive and impugning
each other's integrity, reputation, intent, motivation, and dignity. We
seem to look for the things that separate us rather than the areas of common
ground that would benefit our own and everyone else's learning.
That last comment was not directed at you, Pay, but is a general commentary
on the way that people interract on RSB (including myself at times) and the
major reason I abandoned posting 6 months ago.
Ken Bour
Patrick Johnson
> > I think the ball fractions system can be a useful way to decide (and
> > maybe to learn) how to align the cue ball and object ball to (almost)
> > hit the contact point, but I have real doubts about the advisability
> > of using the "estimated shot angle" to find the contact point. I'd
> > suggest using some other method for that, like the ghost ball method
> > or simply sighting to the pocket through the object ball, and then
> > using the ball fractions system (if you like it) just to find the
> > approximate alignment of cue ball and object ball for that contact
> > point. (Then, of course, you have to refine the alignment with some
> > adjustment.)
> Ken:
> As a teacher/instructor, it's clear that you would not prefer this method
> for your students.
I'm not a teacher/instructor, but I think I would prefer it because it
directly reflects what is actually necessary to make shots (finding
the contact point and hitting it) rather than a "surrogate"
visualization involving artificial fractions and angles that have no
apparent direct relationship to the objective. For instance, when you
find the contact point first you always know that your goal, even if
you're using ball fractions to achieve it, is to hit that point with
the cue ball and cause the object ball to travel in that precise
direction.
With the ball fractions method alone (as I understand it), you're
given an approximate cue ball/object ball alignment based on an
estimate of the approximate angle of the shot and then expected to
make whatever precision adjustments your "instinct" can provide,
without reference to any particular pre-selected contact point or
precise object ball path.
I think my approach (or one like it) would teach good shotmaking
principles, while the ball fractions system obfuscates them. I also
don't think my approach would be more complicated for the beginning
student. In fact, I'd guess that beginning with techniques that teach
fundamental principles rather than clouds them would shorten the
learning curve, even in the early stages.
Ken Bour
steps to become a teacher/instructor.
BTW, if you could help me figure out how to use actual contact point aiming
successfully, I would appreciate it. Jerry Briesath tried, but I couldn't
quite get comfortable with it. I have a friend who uses a "clock" to help
him figure out the contact points. He will find the spot on the object ball
that is directly opposite to the intended pocket. He fixes 12 and 6
o'clock as running down the length of the table parallel to the long rail.
Now, let's say that, on a clock dial, the object ball spot would be
represented by 7:30. The proper place on the other side of the cueball
(opposite to the tip placement) to hit that object ball spot is 1:30. So,
if you drive the 1:30 cueball spot into the 7:30 object ball spot, the
trajectory will lead directly to the targeted pocket, excluding any
adjustment needed for collision-induced throw. It makes sense, right? I
just don't tell time that well but, then, maybe we can just use 5 hours on
the dial and let the pocket margins handle the rest... (-:
Ken Bour
"Patrick Johnson" <REMO...@21stCentury.net> wrote in message
news:3A01CF49...@21stCentury.net...
Otto
and finding a contact point was the fact that THE CONTACT POINT HAS TO BE ON
THE EQUATOR OF THE OBJECT BALL.
A simple, overlooked fact that makes a huge difference. Sure narrows down
the possibilities.
Otto
"Ken Bour" <kb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:8tsne1$mvu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Ron Shepard
>him figure out the contact points. He will find the spot on the object
>ball
>that is directly opposite to the intended pocket. He fixes 12 and 6
>o'clock as running down the length of the table parallel to the long rail.
>Now, let's say that, on a clock dial, the object ball spot would be
>represented by 7:30. The proper place on the other side of the cueball
>(opposite to the tip placement) to hit that object ball spot is 1:30.
>So,
>if you drive the 1:30 cueball spot into the 7:30 object ball spot, the
>trajectory will lead directly to the targeted pocket, excluding any
>adjustment needed for collision-induced throw. It makes sense, right?
> I
>just don't tell time that well but, then, maybe we can just use 5 hours
>on
>the dial and let the pocket margins handle the rest... (-:
This is equivalent to the method described in one of Mosconi's books and I
explained it in an example a few posts ago of a method that depends on contact
points but I don't think of as a "ghost ball" method. Mosconi did not assign
numbers (clock dial, angle degrees, and compass directions, are all "numbers"
in this context), he suggested using just the angles, and construct parallel
lines, in order to get the contact points on the two balls, but it is the same
method. In other words, it is like using geometry rather than trigonometry to
accomplish the same end result. This method is "correct", but whether you can
use it well depends on how accurately you can judge parallel lines (or assign
numbers to the angles). I personally feel pretty good about doing this for
easy close shots, but it seems scary for me to think of doing this for longer
difficult shots because of the accuracy required. However, for the next guy,
it might be a piece of cake, so try it and see if it is the right method for
you.
$.02 -Ron Shepard <--wondering if digital clocks help or hurt
Patrick Johnson
> ... if you could help me figure out how to use actual contact point aiming
> successfully, I would appreciate it ...
> I have a friend who uses a "clock" to help
> him figure out the contact points.
It makes sense, but once again it would be too indirect for my taste. In this
respect, I'm firmly with the Houlegans -- I want to be able to line up something
visible. So I practice "seeing through" the cue ball as if it's clear, fixing
in my mind's eye where I think the cue ball contact point is in 3-dimensional
space, and just point that sucker at the object ball contact point. Sometimes I
visualize an equator around the cue ball to help me "see" the curve of the
surface on the opposite side. BTW, I also like to visualize an equator on the
object ball, especially if the balls are dull and the surfaces are harder to
see.
I don't see how aiming point-to-point can be beaten for simplicity, directness
and transparency. Once you get the hang of visualizing the cue ball contact
point, *how* you aim becomes obvious and you can concentrate on other things
like getting the cue ball there with the right speed and spin.
But the key, I guess, is being handy with 3-D visualization. That's also
invaluable for understanding and being able to predict ball movement.
> ... maybe we can just use 5 hours on
> the dial and let the pocket margins handle the rest... (-:
That still sounds a little too frantic. How about using a calendar and taking
the rails off the table?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
LMoss18701
>It makes sense, but once again it would be too indirect for my taste. In
>this
>respect, I'm firmly with the Houlegans -- I want to be able to line up
>something
>visible. So I practice "seei
PAT!
does this mean you want your ring now?
LINDA MOSS