HAL HOULE aiming system to be taught be Master BCA instructor
JOEY AGUZIN
well know and RESPECTED Master BCA instructor will be teaching one of Hal
Houle's aiming system to his students in the future.
If this is true, there must be something VERY, VERY POSITIVE (AND SOUND) to
this particular HAL HOULE aiming system. The Master BCA instructor is quite
competent and has provided cueing instruction to all levels of pool players.
I also don't know how Hal feels about this or if he even knows about this.
Hal, have you approved this?
Regards,
JoeyA
Play4aBuck
Many months ago Hal emailed me and said I should call him if I wanted to
know more about aiming systems. A couple of weeks later I called him and we
talked for about 50 minutes. He explained his 3 point aiming system, which
only took about 5 minutes. I tried it during league and when playing some
practice games during the week. The system worked great, I was impressed
with it. As the days passed I used it more often, mostly with success but I
grew concerned about the occasional missed shot. I made a lot of shots on a
9-ft table without looking at the pocket; it was FUN and rather mindless to
use. After about a week of use I had some time to practice by myself. I
was able to reset the balls and try the missed shots again thinking that I
had miss aimed, but I came to the conclusion that the system was missing the
shots and not me. I have stopped using the system but it pops back into my
mind's eye from time to time just because of the way you look at the cue
ball to object when aiming.
I emailed Hal thanking him for the information. I also gave him a lengthy
update on how well it worked for me but I thought it had flaws. I asked him
about known flaws, when the system would work and when it would not, and
about adjustments to it, but he never replied back. I can only assume that
I insulted him since I think he truly believes that the systems works 100%
of the time.
Since then, I have developed my own system for cut shots. I have been using
my system for about 3 weeks now and so far I am very pleased. It works
excellent but I am finding it also has its weaknesses.
I think Hal's 3 point system is a great tool for beginners to maybe
intermediate players since it could increase their shot making percentage.
Cheers,
Jim
Steve Ellis
>of the time.
>
>Since then, I have developed my own system for cut shots. I have been using
>my system for about 3 weeks now and so far I am very pleased. It works
>excellent but I am finding it also has its weaknesses.
Are you going to wrap your system in mythical mathematics and sell it like IMMSHARMA does? ;-)
Frank G
> I think Hal's 3 point system is a great tool for beginners to maybe
> intermediate players since it could increase their shot making percentage.
>
>
>
to use when you are not sure of what to do, or just want a backup
opinion). The ones that work at all, that is. They all break down
eventually because all tables play differently, and the same table
plays differently on different days. Humidity makes the table slower,
dirt makes it slower and changes throw. Dirty balls play different from
clean balls, etc. Really good players learn to adjust. The better they
are, the quicker and easier it is for them to adjust. The Pro players
adjust almost instantly. They also have a much better ability to focus
than the average player. If you know that it is raining (or that bar x
never cleans the cloth, or...), and you don't adjust to the slower
speed automatically, you lack focus and understanding of what is
required to play at a high level. Complaining about the speed will not
help. The guy beating your brains out has adjusted, and he is playing
on the same table with the same balls you are. (Just my opinion, I have
never played professionally).
--
Frank G
Play4aBuck
Steve Ellis wrote in message <72735vgnvjnhl2hdv...@4ax.com>...
>On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:55:32 GMT, "Play4aBuck" <Play4...@NoSpamYahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>>of the time.
>>
>>Since then, I have developed my own system for cut shots. I have been
using
>>my system for about 3 weeks now and so far I am very pleased. It works
>>excellent but I am finding it also has its weaknesses.
>
>Are you going to wrap your system in mythical mathematics and sell it like
IMMSHARMA does? ;-)
>
>
Only for you grasshopper! :-)
Have much are you willing to pay? It slices, it dices, ....... etc.
How much did you pay IMMSHARMA? LOL!
Cheers,
Jim
Jim Wyant
ELd4a.57580$zF6.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Play4aBuck"
<Play4...@NoSpamYahoo.com> wrote:
A few important aspects regarding the missed shots. In my experience, I
miss these shots for one of three reasons:
1) I simply muffed the shot - either aim or stroke. Sounds like you
discounted that problem.
2) Insufficient speed on the cue ball. Hal is adamant that the cue ball has
to be hit hard enough to send it to the next rail. Granted, stop and draw
shots can control whether you actually use the rail, but that is the speed
minimum. (I still don't know why, I just know it to be true).
3) On slow shots, despite what you want to do with the cue ball after
contact with the OB, you have to put a touch (about a tip) of outside on the
CB to negate the throw on the OB.
In my experience, I don't think Hal can be insulted regarding this aiming
system, it isn't some proprietary voodoo, it is something he learned from
Ralph Greenleaf. He teaches it for free and is anxious to share this with
anyone willing to listen. He likes to chuckle at those that attempt to
over-analyze it as the biggest problem most of us have is that are brains
are "too" wired in that we just can't accept that this is a simple game.
> I emailed Hal thanking him for the information. I also gave him a lengthy
> update on how well it worked for me but I thought it had flaws. I asked him
> about known flaws, when the system would work and when it would not, and
> about adjustments to it, but he never replied back. I can only assume that
> I insulted him since I think he truly believes that the systems works 100%
> of the time.
>
> Since then, I have developed my own system for cut shots. I have been using
> my system for about 3 weeks now and so far I am very pleased. It works
> excellent but I am finding it also has its weaknesses.
>
> I think Hal's 3 point system is a great tool for beginners to maybe
> intermediate players since it could increase their shot making percentage.
Funny how right you are; most top players are already using this - either by
design or by accident (read: some other method that provides the same
results). The thing is, they've learned how to compensate for when they
need to break the rules.....and that seems to be the big difference in
players....that, and learning ball control.
--Jim
>
> Cheers,
> Jim
>
>
>
Patrick Johnson
> plays differently on different days.
I don't think of a system as "breaking down" under different conditions. It's
just a reference (an "ideal"), and like any aiming method, whether you call it a
system or not, it has to be adjusted for conditions.
Take the simple one rail bank, for example. If for every bank shot you could
somehow project bright lines on the cloth to show the "ideal" angle in = angle
out path, would it do you any good? The ball hardly ever follows it, and it's
off by different amounts from table to table.
But yes, I think it's clear that having lines like that for every shot would be
very helpful as a reference to aid in visualizing the ball's actual path.
That's what any system, or no system, gets you. They all have to be adjusted
for conditions, including the player's idiosyncracies.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Frank G
> I don't think of a system as "breaking down" under different conditions. It's
> just a reference (an "ideal"), and like any aiming method, whether you call it a
> system or not, it has to be adjusted for conditions.
>
>
rely on the system too much and forget (or don't know how) to
compensate. I find that almost nothing is absolute. YMMV
--
Frank G
frank_at_quick-clean.com (replace _at_ with @)
Steve Ellis
>On 2/17/03 5:55 PM, in article
>ELd4a.57580$zF6.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Play4aBuck"
><Play4...@NoSpamYahoo.com> wrote:
>
>In my experience, I don't think Hal can be insulted regarding this aiming
>system, it isn't some proprietary voodoo, it is something he learned from
>Ralph Greenleaf. He teaches it for free and is anxious to share this with
When I spoke to Hal he told me he approached Greenleaf about instructions, Greenleaf said okay,
handed him the cueball and told him to come back in 3 months when he had mastered that at which time
he would get a second ball. Greenleaf said that was the way he had learned and was the way he
taught. Hal said he didn't have time to spend years adding one ball at a time and therefore didn't
take lessons from him. He's not young, maybe he mixes up his stories now and again.
I don't think Hal's "system" is voodoo, but neither is it foolproof nor is it a substitute for
taking tons of shots and learning to shoot by sight. No system is a substitution for just shooting
enough balls that you can see the angle and know how to line up.
I also agree there is no reason to insult the man.
JMHO. Steve.
Play4aBuck
Jim Wyant wrote in message ...
>
>A few important aspects regarding the missed shots. In my experience, I
>miss these shots for one of three reasons:
>
>1) I simply muffed the shot - either aim or stroke. Sounds like you
>discounted that problem.
I marked the table to allow me to repeat the same shot many times. I tried
shooting soft, hard, with draw/follow, and center ball hits but everything
failed. I would miss the same shot in the same manner with some
consistency. When the system was off, it just didn't work without adjusting
the aiming point. The system will not produce the angles needed to pocket
every shot IMO. Believe me I tried, I wanted it to work.
>
>2) Insufficient speed on the cue ball. Hal is adamant that the cue ball
has
>to be hit hard enough to send it to the next rail. Granted, stop and draw
>shots can control whether you actually use the rail, but that is the speed
>minimum. (I still don't know why, I just know it to be true).
He said nothing about speed in our conversation, but I did try varying the
speed on at least one trouble shot but found it still failed.
>
>3) On slow shots, despite what you want to do with the cue ball after
>contact with the OB, you have to put a touch (about a tip) of outside on
the
>CB to negate the throw on the OB.
Or cut the ball a little thinner. Yes, I understand this, I like to call it
CLING.
If it works 100% of the time for you (other than notes 1-3 above) then I'm
jealous and I must be doing something different. I'm not challenging your
results, I'm just saying I had a different results.
>
>In my experience, I don't think Hal can be insulted regarding this aiming
>system,
Well, I never intended to insult him and I'm not sure if I did, but I never
heard from him again, perhaps we had email server problems. Here is some of
what I wrote to him:
"I want to thank you for your time and your knowledge of the aiming system."
and
"I need to find out if this system has any flaws, traits, or oddities that I
should know about. Like when shooting from head end to foot end, (cross
table cuts)" and
"Even thought I have not proved to myself that this works 100% of the time I
still think it's an amazing system. I'd like to send you a gift, but if
you're like my father, then you probably already have two or three of
everything and will never run out of anything
except maybe coffee."
>it isn't some proprietary voodoo, it is something he learned from
>Ralph Greenleaf. He teaches it for free and is anxious to share this with
>anyone willing to listen.
I also wrote to him:
"I'm curious about the history of this system, how did you acquire this
knowledge, was it something you discovered or was it passed on to you?", but
he never replied.
Cheers,
Jim
nos...@nospam.prodigy.net
wrote:
>I think most systems fall in this category (good tool for beginner or
>to use when you are not sure of what to do, or just want a backup
>opinion). The ones that work at all, that is. They all break down
>eventually because all tables play differently, and the same table
>plays differently on different days. Humidity makes the table slower,
>dirt makes it slower and changes throw. Dirty balls play different from
>clean balls, etc. Really good players learn to adjust. The better they
>are, the quicker and easier it is for them to adjust.
You know, this really got brought home to me the other day. I went to
practice on the 9-footer at my local, and it happened to be a day when
they had just cleaned the table. They also gave me a perfectly clean
set of balls. Never had that experience before, and I was really
surprised by the difference it made. I shot much better than usual,
especially when it came to cut shots and combinations (where dirty
balls and dirty cloth can affect things most). I do learn to adjust to
different conditions, but it usually takes me a little time to do it.
Too bad I can't play under those conditions all the time.
Rob
Bob Jewett
>> 3) On slow shots, despite what you want to do with the cue
>> ball after contact with the OB, you have to put a touch (about
>> a tip) of outside on the CB to negate the throw on the OB.
We've discussed this several times before here. It may be that
you can negate throw, but the shot becomes very sensitive to
exaclty how much outside spin you have on the ball. Trying to
exactly cancel throw is the worst thing possible for accuracy.
Personally, I think that any aiming system that dictates what
side spin you have to use is suitable only for raw beginners,
and not for long at that. You must learn to aim with all speeds
and spins or you are crippling your game.
Play4aBuck <Play4...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> Or cut the ball a little thinner. Yes, I understand this, I
> like to call it CLING.
No. Cling is a synonym for skid (in the UK, kick) and is a very
different phenomenon. See the FAQ. It helps if everyone in the
conversation uses the same vocabulary.
> "I need to find out if this system has any flaws, traits, or
> oddities that I should know about. Like when shooting from
> head end to foot end, (cross table cuts)" and
All aiming systems have faults. None, except those equivalent
to the compensated ghost ball system, is accurate enough to make
long shots. And the compensated ghost ball system has its own
problems.
I've lost track of exactly which system is being discussed, but if
it's the one that divides the ball into thirds or quarters, it's
equivalent to the standard fractional ball system, and can only
accurately produce a few cardinal angles. The shooter is left to
use intuition to produce the other angles, usually by feel. Like
many systems, the main benefit is to get the shooter to focus on
the shot within a standard framework, which gives some hope for
consistency and progress.
--
Bob Jewett
Jim Wyant
on the phone trying to "acquire" this knowledge. It seemed to work when I
was on the phone but a day or so later I was more confused than ever. I
finally put it on the shelf until this past August when I (and my 12 yo son)
spent the best part of a week in S.F. and spent two long days with Hal. I
got it. My son got it. But still, immediately after returning home I spent
about a week just practicing it trying to unwire my brain from the garbage
and make it permanent. Even now, periodically I find myself not applying
the right speed or outside English or ignoring what I know to be the right
aim point.
Hal told me he first met Ralph when he was about 10 and was visiting a pool
room where there was a ping-pong table. He asked his father to come down
and his father thought he was interested in pool and took him to an
exhibition including Ralph Greenleaf that weekend. He said Greenleaf blew
him off (after all, he was 10). Ten years later at age 20 he was an up and
coming pool player and went seeking Greenleaf. He found him in some NYC
flop-house (ugly details omitted) and ended up staying with and supporting
Ralph for almost 2 years while learning from Ralph. He said that one of
Greenleaf's favorite gambling activities was to have someone lay down a 4"
square of paper on the table, make the called shot and have the CB end up on
the paper square.
I, nor I doubt anyone else, can diagnose why you're having the problems you
are based on the info here. Hal's email is periodically awash, generally
computer problems. If you want to email me directly I'll forward you his
phone number and you can give him a call. He is planning to move from
Hayward, CA to PA in a couple of months and has said he wants to stop and
teach at many locations as he makes the trip. Perhaps you are near enough
to his route to make the connection.
--Jim
On 2/18/03 3:41 AM, in article
Rkm4a.40459$rq4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Play4aBuck"
Jim Wyant
"Bob Jewett" <jew...@sfbilliards.com> wrote:
>> Jim Wyant wrote
>
>>> 3) On slow shots, despite what you want to do with the cue
>>> ball after contact with the OB, you have to put a touch (about
>>> a tip) of outside on the CB to negate the throw on the OB.
>
> We've discussed this several times before here. It may be that
> you can negate throw, but the shot becomes very sensitive to
> exaclty how much outside spin you have on the ball. Trying to
> exactly cancel throw is the worst thing possible for accuracy.
>
> Personally, I think that any aiming system that dictates what
> side spin you have to use is suitable only for raw beginners,
> and not for long at that. You must learn to aim with all speeds
> and spins or you are crippling your game.
Sooooo, the alternative is what? To hit all shots hard to negate throw? Or
to aim for the point expecting throw to carry it into the pocket? Seems if
I can aim the same points and, when shooting hard not have to worry about
throw, and when shooting soft remember to give a touch of outside, it
greatly simplifies the options. From watching top players, I can assert
that their actual aim and hit does reflect the same result that this system
provides.
--Jim
Leonard Small
Dan White
news:BA787806.EF71%jwy...@columbus.rr.com...
I had to chime in... not to seem presumptuous about your goals, but I get
the impression that you are putting more energy into honing a beginner's
aiming system and less energy into developing your intuitive ability to aim.
Once you play enough, you will not need a system or crutch to guide you to
the contact point (not to confuse system with pre-shot routine). When you
learned to read, you had to spell out every syllable...now you just look at
words and understand them without trying.
Somebody had a great saying, "The difference between a pro and an amateur is
that the amateur practices the same shot until he makes it, while the pro
practices it until he never misses." Pick out a few key types of shots -
straight in, 45 degree angle, rail shot, etc. and shoot say 150 (10 racks)
of each kind. Once you have programmed your mind with these shots, you can
interpolate or extrapolate many other shots. There is no substitute for
repetition. The crutch or system may help when you are learning something
new, but eventually the system will disappear and you will have the
knowledge of the shot.
When you ask what the alternative is, I think it is to shoot shots over and
over until they become a part of you, where throw isn't thought of a bad
thing, but just another variable that you are intuitively aware of and are
able to adjust for without thinking. If you stick with a system that tells
you to aim hard and hit this point, or aim soft with outside and hit the
same point, then what do you do when you need inside english for cue ball
control? What do you do when cue ball position requires a shot some speed
in between? After all, that is the ultimate point of all this...cue ball
control. You need to be able to put the object ball into the center, left
or right parts of the pocket with different cue ball speeds and spins. Of
course, some combinations would rarely be needed and aren't worth
practicing, but you get the point.
I'm not saying systems like Hal's are bad, you just have to recognize when
your ability is beyond what the system can offer. By the way, did anybody
on the net ever succeed in describing Hal's system?
regards,
dan
Jim Wyant
We need to first agree on the importance of the ghostball effect in CB to OB
interaction. There is a finite range of potential angles that the ghostball
can be at to allow the OB to be pocketed. So, the real problem is "How do
we effectively aim to place the CB into one of those possible locations?"
Intuitive aiming systems are compromised by a number of things such as:
- Visual perception
- Distance
- Emotional state of mind
- Fatigue
- Physical environment
At 6' distance to the OB, your perception of the ghostball size is probably
different than at 2'. At 6', if you mis-perceive by only 1/8th inch on the
size of the ghostball and the distance to the pocket is more than a foot or
so away, you'll likely miss the shot. Add in things like being tired or not
perfectly pristine conditions and the result is again modified.
If you can aim in such a way that every shot splits the pocket in the
middle, the circumstances which you can't control may still cause a bit of
variance, but if the natural result of the shot is center pocket then a 1"
end result variance won't hurt you.
The key to the system is that there are two alignment points, one on the CB
and one on the OB. These form a completely repeatable mechanism, achieving
the desired ghostball position without requiring you to visualize something
that isn't there.
While I completely respect the idea of the intuitive shot maker, they got
that way through having a system that gave them repeatable precision.
To bring the impact/benefit home..... I regularly play with a BCA Master
Instructor. He's been playing for almost 40 years and has taught hundreds
of students. A little over 4 years ago he taught me to play. Last August
(before my trip to CA and visit with Hal), he routinely spotted me 30 in a
race to 100 in 14.1 (and he won) and races of 9 ball and 1P were almost
always won by him. Since about October those trends have been completely
reversed.
In the beginning, it was a mechanical system, but after a few months it has
become intuitive. 80-90% of the shots I take I don't even need to look at
the pocket (in fact, I had to have the pockets hidden from me to initially
learn to trust the system); can you say the same?
--Jim
Patrick Johnson
>>and spins or you are crippling your game.
> Sooooo, the alternative is what? ...
> to aim for the point expecting throw to carry it into the pocket?
Even if you use "throw-negating" outside english, you have to aim for a
particular spot, so it's not like you have to aim MORE accurately
without it. The aiming challenge is the same -- except that with
english you have to allow for squirt & swerve as well as calibrate the
spin exactly so you don't over/under do it.
> ... Seems if
> I can aim the same points and, when shooting hard not have to worry about
> throw, and when shooting soft remember to give a touch of outside, it
> greatly simplifies the options.
Seems to me it greatly complicates things.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
> straight in, 45 degree angle, rail shot, etc. and shoot say 150 (10 racks)
> of each kind. Once you have programmed your mind with these shots, you can
> interpolate or extrapolate many other shots.
I believe that's Hal's system in a nutshell, except he has memory aids
built in.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
He must have "departed" pretty recently, since I got an email from him
yesterday.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
lfigueroa
an/or english?
Lou Figueroa
"Dan White" <dwh...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:b2v7vp$773$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Mike Page
<jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
> Hal told me he first met Ralph when he was about 10 and was visiting a pool
> room where there was a ping-pong table. He asked his father to come down
> and his father thought he was interested in pool and took him to an
> exhibition including Ralph Greenleaf that weekend. He said Greenleaf blew
> him off (after all, he was 10). Ten years later at age 20 he was an up and
> coming pool player and went seeking Greenleaf. He found him in some NYC
> flop-house (ugly details omitted) and ended up staying with and supporting
> Ralph for almost 2 years while learning from Ralph.
I spoke to someone a few years ago from the same area as Hal who knew
him from the poolroom and was familiar with his stories and his advice.
Let's just say that when somebody posted something here about Hal
learning from Greenleaf, the person I spoke to said, 'learned from
Greenleaf?, we haven't heard *that* one before...'
--
mike page
fargo
Patrick Johnson
> Greenleaf?, we haven't heard *that* one before...'
Well, Hal told me exactly the same story a coupla years ago, so at least
he's being consistent. I believe him.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Gideon Forrest
> If you can aim in such a way that every shot splits the pocket in the
> middle, the circumstances which you can't control may still cause a bit of
> variance, but if the natural result of the shot is center pocket then a 1"
> end result variance won't hurt you.
What does Hal's system say you are to do if you only have half a pocket -
i.e., shooting to split the pocket will result in a miss?
Also, what do you do when, say, you need to shoot softly with inside
english, no english, or with a lot (rather than a "touch") of outside?
Regards,
Gideon
Jim Wyant
AtM4a.41759$rq4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "lfigueroa"
<lfig...@att.net> wrote:
> Good post. Why would you want any system that only works at a certain speed
> an/or english?
Either I mis-explained or you didn't get it, so let me try again. Keep in
mind that the purpose of this is to allow you to pocket balls effectively,
managing your way around the table - deciding English and speed to control
CB action after the shot is made, is still your responsibility.
The ghostball contact point is going to impart a specific initial direction
to the OB, that is a given fact regardless of the angle off the
perpendicular line of the OB to the pocket center.
Throw and transferred spin can cause the OB to leak away from that line.
Everybody pretty much knows that there are two ways to negate the throw: #1
is to hit it hard. #2 is to use a bit of outside English.
#1 can eliminate up to a full diamond of throw on a long rolling shot, but
unfortunately not all opportunities are best suited to simply hitting it
hard.
#2 does at best a half pocket (a couple of inches) of negating.
If you need to make a long shot and move the ball around the table
significantly, hitting it hard enough to negate the the throw allows you to
use any English you want. OTOH, if I don't want to release the CB to go
caroming all about, a softer shot using some outside to negate the throw is
preferable.
Obviously that begs the question "but what about when outside English is the
exact opposite of the CB resulting action that you want, but everything else
screams that you need to hit it soft?" Well, the problem is not the system,
but rather the shot selection you have and the results you are looking to
obtain. No system can account for continued bad CB position. Hal was quick
and repetitive in pointing out to me that this works for 80-90% of all
shots, specifically pointing out which shots should not be taken using these
methods. These include:
#1) For lack of a better way of saying it, basically anything beyond about a
75 degree cut.
#2) When you don't have a clear path from the OB to the center of the pocket
(as this method has you splitting the pocket consistently). If you need to
wiggle it in the side as part of the intended line, this method doesn't work
(period, no question marks, accept that and go on).
These are two (main) types of shots he identifies as the shots that many
amateurs take when instead they should look for another shot or play a safe
(the others are banks, especially on unfamiliar tables and played at varying
speeds). At the bare minimum, on these types of shots, you either play by
intuition or you spend enough time becoming firmly rooted in the method that
you can make slight adjustments (akin to a marksman adjusting for wind or
humidity), purposely misaligning just a bit to achieve the desired result.
Top players have spent enough time on the foundational aspects and have
taught themselves how to handle the 10-20% problem shots.
To sum it up, the limitations of speed and English are consistent regardless
of you shot aiming method. This is an artifact of friction (cleanliness of
the balls, type of cloth, etc.). Speed and English become almost a compete
non-entity on fairly straight (+- 15 degrees) but as you go beyond that
point you need to follow some basic guidelines to compensate for your lack
of good position.
And BTW, this same method works for banking, albeit rail quality, cloth
(friction) and speed) play a bigger part in allowing it to work.
--Jim
Smorgass Bored
Gideon Forrest axed:
pocket - i.e., shooting to split the pocket will result in a miss?
Also, what do you do when, say, you need to shoot softly with inside
english, no english, or with a lot (rather than a "touch") of outside?
Regards,
Gideon
(*<~ Play safe....
Doug
~>*(((>< Big fish eat Little fish ><)))*<~
Mike Page
<jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> To bring the impact/benefit home..... I regularly play with a BCA Master
> Instructor. He's been playing for almost 40 years and has taught hundreds
> of students. A little over 4 years ago he taught me to play. Last August
> (before my trip to CA and visit with Hal), he routinely spotted me 30 in a
> race to 100 in 14.1 (and he won) and races of 9 ball and 1P were almost
> always won by him. Since about October those trends have been completely
> reversed.
So if I offer to back that "BCA master instructor" getting, say, 15
balls in a race to 100 from you, would you take that bet?
On another issue, do you understand why Bob Jewett says that putting
throw-cancelling outside spin can be exactly the worst thing you can
do? I'm not asking if you agree with it. But I am asking seriously if
you understand the argument.
I think this argument comes from Ron Shepard, and it is one of those
important things that I believe more-or-less nobody outside this
newsgroup knows about.
--
mike page
fargo
Patrick Johnson
> CB action after the shot is made, is still your responsibility.
If every shot requires a little outside english, how is it your choice?
> Throw and transferred spin can cause the OB to leak away from that line.
Well, throw does. Transferred spin is a side effect.
> Everybody pretty much knows that there are two ways to negate the throw: #1
> is to hit it hard. #2 is to use a bit of outside English.
I don't think hitting hard *negates* throw, although it can greatly
reduce it. I think the amount of reduction might also change with the
cut angle.
> #1 can eliminate up to a full diamond of throw on a long rolling shot, but
> unfortunately not all opportunities are best suited to simply hitting it
> hard.
>
> #2 does at best a half pocket (a couple of inches) of negating.
I think this is backwards. You can negate all throw with #2 (but it's
risky and wags the dog) but only some of it with #1 (but it's risky and
wags the dog).
> ... "but what about when outside English is the
> exact opposite of the CB resulting action that you want, but everything else
> screams that you need to hit it soft?" Well, the problem is not the system,
> but rather the shot selection you have and the results you are looking to
> obtain.
You have to change your objectives and shot selection to suit the aiming
system?
This sounds like yet another case of someone who wants to be positive
about Hal's system but doesn't really understand it (or can't explain
it). Since these misleading half-explanations are all we ever hear
about it here, it leads me to suspect that only those who don't fully
understand it really believe in it wholeheartedly. That's not a
particularly good sign for the system, but it doesn't mean it's
necessarily worthless, just that it probably has limitations like all
systems that aren't fully understood by its users (and maybe that its
usefulness reduces as your game and understanding advances).
It also means, unfortunately, that we have yet to hear a coherent
description of it. Hal himself has never offered one here, even though
I know he listens in on these discussions. Maybe that's the right
choice on his part.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Jim Wyant
LdN4a.13839$b8v1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com, "Gideon Forrest"
<gideonTHES...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> "Jim Wyant" <jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:BA78A333.EF81%jwy...@columbus.rr.com...
>
>> If you can aim in such a way that every shot splits the pocket in the
>> middle, the circumstances which you can't control may still cause a bit of
>> variance, but if the natural result of the shot is center pocket then a 1"
>> end result variance won't hurt you.
>
> What does Hal's system say you are to do if you only have half a pocket -
> i.e., shooting to split the pocket will result in a miss?
Don't shoot it. Kind of a bad answer, but the problem is that the method
generates OB to center-of-pocket results. If you need to stray away from
the center of the pocket, you need to spend enough time at the table making
slight adjustments that you feel confident with them. For example, if to
hit the OB to CP (Center Pocket) uses the center of the CB to the outside
left edge of the OB (cutting to the right) but you need to get to the left
of CP, you may want to align from center of the CB to about 1/2" in from the
left edge. Of course the problem with that thought process is twofold:
#1) What is the distance between the OB and he pocket? At 1' your OB may
only be 1/2" off the CP line, but at 3' it may be 1.5" off the CP line. And
of course this needs to correlate to how far of the OB to CP line you need
to be to avoid the ball in between. In essence, you are defining a new line
to a CP that the is actually the left half of the pocket.
#2) You no longer have a firm reference point to use in your shot selection.
In normal shot selection, I have 5 clear reference points for alignment,
left edge, 1/2 the distance between left edge and center, exact center, 1/2
the distance between right edge and center and right edge. And, while using
2 or 3 reference points that are on the curve of the ball (left 1/2, center
and right 1/2) take a little bit of practice and clearly see on all shot
setups, it gels pretty fast and simply becomes part of the thought process.
> Also, what do you do when, say, you need to shoot softly with inside
> english, no english, or with a lot (rather than a "touch") of outside?
See above. The problem is not the shot, the problem is the result you want
to achieve with the CB. The OB and the pocket don't care about the CB, you
do. You are in the position you are because of a previous CB positioning
mistake. If you fail to pocket the OB because you're trying to do too much
with the CB resulting action, then it really doesn't matter because you
aren't shooting next anyway.
When the situation you described happens to me now, I don't try to go from
bad to perfect in one shot. I accept that I'm in a bad position and the
goal of this shot it to get into an adequate position for the next shot that
will then allow me to get (back) into a good position for the shot after
that. Breaking the problem down into a two or three step resolution makes
more sense (to me) than tossing out the rules and going for the perfect
result.
In fact, the "going for the perfect result scenario" player is (IMO) exactly
what separates the A players from the rest. They know they can
(potentially) pot any ball on the table, so they're not quite as obsessed
about trying to manufacture something that doesn't quite make sense for the
shot they are selecting to shoot. They can accept the less than perfect
result and use it to develop their next, better result.
--Jim
>
> Regards,
>
> Gideon
>
>
Jim Wyant
"Mike Page" <mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
> In article <BA78A333.EF81%jwy...@columbus.rr.com>, Jim Wyant
> <jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> To bring the impact/benefit home..... I regularly play with a BCA Master
>> Instructor. He's been playing for almost 40 years and has taught hundreds
>> of students. A little over 4 years ago he taught me to play. Last August
>> (before my trip to CA and visit with Hal), he routinely spotted me 30 in a
>> race to 100 in 14.1 (and he won) and races of 9 ball and 1P were almost
>> always won by him. Since about October those trends have been completely
>> reversed.
>
> So if I offer to back that "BCA master instructor" getting, say, 15
> balls in a race to 100 from you, would you take that bet?
Ha ha ha ha. Good one Mike. Well, going from -30 to +15 over the last 4-5
months is a pretty big swing, but I might be willing. I'd have no problem
with going even up which in itself is a 30 point swing (hey, we all want a
game we feel confident we have the opportunity to win at, right?),
especially if it was over a series of games.
> On another issue, do you understand why Bob Jewett says that putting
> throw-cancelling outside spin can be exactly the worst thing you can
> do? I'm not asking if you agree with it. But I am asking seriously if
> you understand the argument.
I believe I do. But since I'm sure I agree with it; and considering that
consistently applied logic should only have one consistent result, I'm left
thinking that there may be some disconnects (read: not sure if we are all
speaking the same language with the same reference points). In my mind I
often wonder if those disconnects may be one some other aspect of the shot
that is not being referenced in these limited discussions.
--Jim
lfigueroa
>You are in the position you are because of a previous CB positioning
> mistake.
and
> When the situation you described happens to me now, I don't try to go from
> bad to perfect in one shot.
Well, what about every time you come to the table? I play one pocket, and
usually the guys I'm playing have done everything in their power to make
sure I come to the table with the worst position imaginable. And if I do
have a shot, I usually don't have several shots to go from really bad to a
little better to good. There may only be one other ball that goes to my
pocket and I have to play precision shape to get there, or I go home with a
few less dollars in my pocket. I think this same premise is true for other
games. You've still gotta be able to come with it, regardless of whether it
was a mistake, or the other guy's defensive play, or just bad luck.
Lou Figueroa
"Jim Wyant" <jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BA79220F.EFC8%jwy...@columbus.rr.com...
Jim Wyant
Johnson" <patrick...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> ... deciding English and speed to control
>> CB action after the shot is made, is still your responsibility.
>
> If every shot requires a little outside english, how is it your choice?
Outside english is done to negate throw where the speed of the shot allows
throw. You are confusing shot making with CB positioning. If the OB is the
last ball you need to make to win the game and the resulting CB roll
wouldn't cause a scratch, what is the natural shot to make considering both
english and speed? EVERY shot does not require outside english; EVERY shot
that can allow throw to take effect does require outside english.
>> Throw and transferred spin can cause the OB to leak away from that line.
>
> Well, throw does. Transferred spin is a side effect.
True on a cut shot. But if the CB to OB to pocket are nearly dead straight
such that throw would be negligible, and you opt to put english on the CB
and hit the OB softly, transferred spin - albeit a minimal effect - is still
a friction factor.
>> Everybody pretty much knows that there are two ways to negate the throw: #1
>> is to hit it hard. #2 is to use a bit of outside English.
>
> I don't think hitting hard *negates* throw, although it can greatly
> reduce it. I think the amount of reduction might also change with the
> cut angle.
Perhaps negate wasn't an appropriately precise term, it was meant to mean
'reduce' just as you stated. Hitting it hard can reduce throw down to a
millimeter over the course of 7-8', hitting it soft (depending on cut angle)
can result in over a foot of throw on the same shot.
>> #1 can eliminate up to a full diamond of throw on a long rolling shot, but
>> unfortunately not all opportunities are best suited to simply hitting it
>> hard.
>>
>> #2 does at best a half pocket (a couple of inches) of negating.
>
> I think this is backwards. You can negate all throw with #2 (but it's
> risky and wags the dog) but only some of it with #1 (but it's risky and
> wags the dog).
Not sure what you mean here. #2 talked about using outside english to
'reduce' throw. I can't say that I'm comfortable with saying you can
eliminate all throw using outside english, but if you say it is so I'll take
that at face value. IMO, using outside reduces throw from a couple of
inches to a couple of millimeters.
>> ... "but what about when outside English is the
>> exact opposite of the CB resulting action that you want, but everything else
>> screams that you need to hit it soft?" Well, the problem is not the system,
>> but rather the shot selection you have and the results you are looking to
>> obtain.
>
> You have to change your objectives and shot selection to suit the aiming
> system?
Yes. Every time you shoot regardless of the method of aiming. Again, I go
back to the point that the is about the potting of the OB; CB results are
controlled by english, spin (top/draw), speed, rebound of the rails
(resilience of the rubber and friction of cloth).
If you can aim in a manner that is consistent in achieving the potting of
the OB, factors such as english, speed, squirt, etc., are all artifacts you
have consider regarding where you want the CB to end up. If a slow rolling
shot and CB roll is what is desired coming off the tangent line, you have
two choices: account for the throw or pick some other aiming point.
AND this is where the naysayers come in - yes, you have virtually an
infinite number of alignment possibilities based on what you opt to do with
the CB (english, speed, squirt, tip hardness, etc., etc.). To some of us it
makes more sense to boil the alignment possibilities down to a few distinct
reference points using an alignment line of which the endpoints are precise
locations on both the CB and OB, then we can make adjustments on the stroke
and impact position on the CB based upon an aiming reference that we know to
be correct.
Therefore, if I know the aiming line, and I know I want to slow roll the CB
after contact, I've essentially dictated what the english needs to be.
Conversely, if I know the aiming line and am willing to stroke hard enough
to negate the throw, my options for english are huge.
In essence there are three variables that affect every (non straight) shot
making decision; aim, speed and english. A consistent aiming methodology
allows you to focus on speed and english variables. If you choose to select
a speed and english that render the aim useless you need to devise a new
method of aiming. AND THAT is the precise hurdle so many amateurs have to
conquer, they are trying to discern the aim after deciding on speed and
english.
> This sounds like yet another case of someone who wants to be positive
> about Hal's system but doesn't really understand it (or can't explain
> it).
I disagree. I have explained it to a number of people. One strong A player
after just 15 minutes said "Sheesh, this is like cheating.". I think the
real problem (at least mine) was in learning to un-wire my brain regarding
the complexities of the shot options.
For example; Tom Simpson was consistently making shots without seeing the
pocket within about 5-10 minutes of showing him what to do. Within 30
minutes he was complaining (much as I did last August) that his head was
hurting because he needed to assimilate how it was working. When he missed
shots due to speed and/or english changes he felt much as you do in that he
thought the system was breaking down. That's not the case. The aim point
didn't change, but the latent effect that speed or english had was outside
the boundaries of what that aim point can and will allow.
To sum it up, if you want to call it a flawed system because the aiming
method dictates a limited set of variables for speed and english that you
are unwilling to respect, then you will always be correct. If you want to
call it a perfect system because the same aiming method dictates the same
limited set of variables for speed and english that you will respect then
you are always correct.
From my perspective, it is a good system because it provides a baseline
reference. Whenever I step up to a shot, I simply look at the aim and
consider my options with speed and english. If I don't like any of them and
need to juice the CB outside of natural shot parameters to achieve my next
shot position, then I need to deal with the aim issue.
The bottom line is the purpose of the system is to provide concrete
reference points at both the CB and OB to achieve absolutely correct
ghostball position. What you opt to do with it from there is up to you.
> Since these misleading half-explanations are all we ever hear
> about it here, it leads me to suspect that only those who don't fully
> understand it really believe in it wholeheartedly. That's not a
> particularly good sign for the system, but it doesn't mean it's
> necessarily worthless, just that it probably has limitations like all
> systems that aren't fully understood by its users (and maybe that its
> usefulness reduces as your game and understanding advances).
Agreed and that is what I believe I articulated above.
> It also means, unfortunately, that we have yet to hear a coherent
> description of it. Hal himself has never offered one here, even though
> I know he listens in on these discussions. Maybe that's the right
> choice on his part.
I have in excess of 6 hours of videotape, pages of notes and a couple of
reference drawings (for one aiming method) which Hal and I reviewed and he
agreed were correct interpretations. Another important point to remember is
that there are multiple aiming methods (he showed me 5, I strongly grasped 1
and moderately grasped another, the remaining 3 I won't even begin to
comment upon). These other methods do provide means to accomplishing things
that method #1 doesn't allow, such as using english and speed that don't
compliment #1's aiming method. To me these 5 methods account for an overall
system, which in this forum is always referenced poorly and discussed in
fragmented terms.
Communicating, elaborating and assimilating information on even just 3 of
the 5 isn't something that translates into newsgroup postings. It requires
the listener to have some empirical evidence on the table, emotional (as
well as intellectual) acceptance and dialogue with the person imparting the
information; not to mention time spent in just making it part of their
thought process. It isn't that it is so tough, it is more that our past has
wired us to believe this is difficult and un-wiring that behavior is the
difficult part.
--Jim
> Pat Johnson
> Chicago
>
Mike Page
<jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
> If you can aim in a manner that is consistent in achieving the potting of
> the OB, factors such as english, speed, squirt, etc., are all artifacts you
> have consider regarding where you want the CB to end up.
But you've used up this freedom for potting the object ball. Suppose
you're hungry and you have $10 in your pocket. If you pay $10 to park
your car at the restaurant, you can't eat!
--
mike page
fargo
Jim Wyant
regarding this. It is game in which choices are extremely limited and as a
result I had to change my thought process to more/better safeties and
learning how to create traps for my opponents. I will continue to use these
until such time as I can effectively assimilate some of the other aiming
methods which will allow me more options. OTOH, it wasn't until I started
using these methods that I did achieve my first run-the-table rack (he
broke, I make the resulting tough shot and ran out from there). But
strategic misses are as much a part of 1P as making shots, and that was a
tough one to wrap into a method that is based on making shots.
Ditto this for safety battles in 14.1.
--Jim
On 2/19/03 12:16 PM, in article
d_O4a.60825$zF6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "lfigueroa"
Jim Wyant
left. Everything has its price. If you want to have all the speed and shot
options available to you at every shot, you either need to learn to control
the CB very, very well or learn a different way to aim.
I'm learning to make what I can and when CB position fails me, to work for
as aggressive a safety as possible leaving them to make the miracle shot.
The difference in who I can beat has narrowed based on (a) their ability to
make the really tough shot and (b) their ability to run balls following that
shot; whereas it used to be always (a) how many stupid misses did I make
where I left them shape.
--Jim
On 2/19/03 2:05 PM, in article 190220031305417176%mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu,
lagniappe
I too went through a similar exercise with Hal's system. Out of respect
for Hal (a nice guy to talk with, by the way), and his desire to provide
his own explanations of his "system", I won't got into great detail but
I'll provide my own observations.
Being an engineer, I naturally had to diagram the actual "geometric" cut
angles of the fixed aimpoints. As you would suspect, for such a simple
set of fixed aimpoints, the aim is "geometrically correct" for only a small
portion of shots encountered. Yet, when I tried it on the table, I made
a greater portion than I would have predicted.
For example, you can set up a shot where Hal's aimpoint "center of cueball
to right edge of object ball" would just miss the pocket. Yet, when I
shoot the shot unconsciously, it goes in. Also, if I move the entire setup
so as not to disturb the actual cut angle for this aimpoint, so that it
should miss a little to the other side, I still shoot it in. Why? Because,
as an experienced player, I am automatically "fixing" Hal's system by hitting
a little off from his aimpoint. My subconscious knows where to hit the
ball to make it, even when the system is wrong. The difference is slight,
and might lead you to thing that somehow the system is magically doing it all.
So, most moderately-experienced players will have greater success using the
system than beginners, but then they are the ones who need it less. Perhaps
it is an appropriate system for those who need a beginning reference point,
but are sufficiently experienced that their compensation skills will adjust
out the system's errors.
The system might also help rank beginners who haven't a clue where to aim.
By putting their aim somewhere in the vicinity of the pocket, they will make
a few balls simply because of the randomness in their own execution (shotgun
analogy).
Martin
>
> Many months ago Hal emailed me and said I should call him if I wanted to
> know more about aiming systems. A couple of weeks later I called him and we
> talked for about 50 minutes. He explained his 3 point aiming system, which
> only took about 5 minutes. I tried it during league and when playing some
> practice games during the week. The system worked great, I was impressed
> with it. As the days passed I used it more often, mostly with success but I
> grew concerned about the occasional missed shot. I made a lot of shots on a
> 9-ft table without looking at the pocket; it was FUN and rather mindless to
> use. After about a week of use I had some time to practice by myself. I
> was able to reset the balls and try the missed shots again thinking that I
> had miss aimed, but I came to the conclusion that the system was missing the
> shots and not me. I have stopped using the system but it pops back into my
> mind's eye from time to time just because of the way you look at the cue
> ball to object when aiming.
>
> I emailed Hal thanking him for the information. I also gave him a lengthy
> update on how well it worked for me but I thought it had flaws. I asked him
> about known flaws, when the system would work and when it would not, and
> about adjustments to it, but he never replied back. I can only assume that
> I insulted him since I think he truly believes that the systems works 100%
> of the time.
>
> Since then, I have developed my own system for cut shots. I have been using
> my system for about 3 weeks now and so far I am very pleased. It works
> excellent but I am finding it also has its weaknesses.
>
> I think Hal's 3 point system is a great tool for beginners to maybe
> intermediate players since it could increase their shot making percentage.
>
> Cheers,
> Jim
Frank G
> You can negate all throw with #2
>
is a lot of #2 in here. :)
--
Frank G
frank_at_quick-clean.com (replace _at_ with @)
Mike Page
Frank G <nob...@quick-clean.com> wrote:
> patrick...@attbi.com says...
> > You can negate all throw with #2
> >
> then there should be almost no throw in this newsgroup, because there
> is a lot of #2 in here. :)
Gross! Fetch me some quick-clean!
--
mike page
fargo
Jim Wyant
when I zoomed in on my "to scale" drawings of different scenarios was that
the concept Hal refers to as Rotating Centers was indeed there. As you move
the balls down the table, maintaining alignment, there is a finite point in
which the aim point snaps from using the center spot to using the left (or
right spot) for aiming. I attribute this to the fact that your outside edge
reference point (as an example) modifies as you move the CB from side to
side. Moving the balls in tandem down the table has a barely perceptible
difference in aim point until it is changing to the next one, then it is
dramatic, so you change your aim point and go on.
I'm not sure I buy the subconscious adjustment part. What I really think is
necessary is some high speed cameras, Iron Willie and a very well gridded
out table. My sense is with that you will see variations of about 1/2" on
either side of perceived dead-center of the pocket. But considering that a
pocket's center (and the center between the jaws) is a reference point from
the OB and changes constantly as you move the balls down the table, that
1/2" may be an interpretation of the data.
I do agree that it is a good system to teach beginners. But when I started
discussing it with a couple of road players, one looked at the other and
said "This sounds exactly like the system you've been trying to describe to
me for the last couple of years". In watching them shoot, they both
achieved the same results (maining CB to OB alignment) regardless of their
method of setup and aiming.....which all goes back to my point, this is
simply a way to get the CB to where the ghostball is.
--Jim
On 2/19/03 3:04 PM, in article
d02d4ac7.03021...@posting.google.com, "lagniappe"
Patrick Johnson
> ... If the OB is the
> last ball you need to make to win the game and the resulting CB roll
> wouldn't cause a scratch, what is the natural shot to make considering both
> english and speed?
For me it would be a centerball shot (no sidespin) with natural roll.
The natural roll would make the throw a little more forgiving than stun.
No sidespin would mean that I'd have to aim to compensate for throw,
but I wouldn't have to estimate and compensate for squirt and swerve or
get my "compensating outside spin" just right.
> ... EVERY shot
> that can allow throw to take effect does require outside english.
I strongly disagree with the wisdom of this. Throw can be more
effectively and less problematically compensated for by aiming differently.
> ... transferred spin - albeit a minimal effect - is still
> a friction factor.
I guess we're using the phrase "transferred spin" to mean different
things. You seem to be saying that "transferred spin" is the rubbing
friction between the spinning cue ball and the still object ball. I
think of "transferred spin" as the small amount of spin that the object
ball picks up from the cue ball as a result of this friction. The
object ball also gets "thrown" off line by this same friction, but
"transferred spin" (my definition -- but also, I think, the common one)
isn't the cause; it's another effect of that same friction.
> ... Hitting it hard can reduce throw down to a
> millimeter over the course of 7-8', hitting it soft (depending on cut angle)
> can result in over a foot of throw on the same shot.
> ... IMO, using outside reduces throw from a couple of
> inches to a couple of millimeters.
You can reduce it more with outside english than with more speed. With
outside english you can even make it throw the opposite way.
> ... To some of us it
> makes more sense to boil the alignment possibilities down to a few distinct
> reference points using an alignment line of which the endpoints are precise
> locations on both the CB and OB, then we can make adjustments on the stroke
> and impact position on the CB based upon an aiming reference that we know to
> be correct.
This is what the "naysayers" have guessed is the useful principle in
Hal's "ball fractions" aiming system: it gives you a fixed reference
system from which you can make small adjustments for reality. This is
what all systems do for you -- with one important exception: most
systems (such as the ghost ball aiming method and many diamond systems)
give you a reference that shows the "ideal" result that you then must
adjust for the realities of ball/cloth condition, etc., but this ball
fractions aiming system does the opposite -- it gives you a set of
*usually incorrect* aiming angles that you then have to adjust to be
correct, on top of having to adjust for the usual reality factors like
throw, ball/cloth condition, etc.
> ... I have explained it to a number of people.
Now that you've gone farther with your explanation, I can see that you
understand more about this system than I first thought. However, it
still appears that you have an incomplete picture of its limitations and
drawbacks.
> ... if you want to call it a flawed system because the aiming
> method dictates a limited set of variables for speed and english that you
> are unwilling to respect, then you will always be correct.
I want variables for speed and english to not be limited by the method I
use to aim my shots. I have that now without the ball fractions system.
Yes, I have to adjust for things, but I never have to abandon my "system".
> If you want to
> call it a perfect system because the same aiming method dictates the same
> limited set of variables for speed and english that you will respect then
> you are always correct.
I wouldn't call any aiming system perfect that imposes its own
limitations on what shots you can take or what position you can get.
> ... Whenever I step up to a shot, I simply look at the aim and
> consider my options with speed and english. If I don't like any of them and
> need to juice the CB outside of natural shot parameters to achieve my next
> shot position, then I need to deal with the aim issue.
By "deal with the aim issue" do you mean aim without using the system?
> The bottom line is the purpose of the system is to provide concrete
> reference points at both the CB and OB to achieve absolutely correct
> ghostball position.
Your own description contradicts this. If you have to adjust your aim
with spin and speed, then you're not achieving the absolutely correct
ghostball position. For that matter, it's impossible for a ball
fractions system to do that except occasionally by accident. By its
nature it's an approximation.
> ... these 5 methods account for an overall
> system, which in this forum is always referenced poorly and discussed in
> fragmented terms.
5 methods?!? Never mind...
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
> then there should be almost no throw in this newsgroup, because there
> is a lot of #2 in here. :)
I think we throw a lot of it around...
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
> when I zoomed in on my "to scale" drawings of different scenarios was that
> the concept Hal refers to as Rotating Centers was indeed there. As you move
> the balls down the table, maintaining alignment, there is a finite point in
> which the aim point snaps from using the center spot to using the left (or
> right spot) for aiming. I attribute this to the fact that your outside edge
> reference point (as an example) modifies as you move the CB from side to
> side. Moving the balls in tandem down the table has a barely perceptible
> difference in aim point until it is changing to the next one, then it is
> dramatic, so you change your aim point and go on.
This is the part of the system's explanation that I like to call "bull
dookie". It makes absolutely no geometric sense.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Jim Wyant
<patrick...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>> If every shot requires a little outside english, how is it your choice?
>
>> ... If the OB is the
>> last ball you need to make to win the game and the resulting CB roll
>> wouldn't cause a scratch, what is the natural shot to make considering both
>> english and speed?
>
> For me it would be a centerball shot (no sidespin) with natural roll.
> The natural roll would make the throw a little more forgiving than stun.
> No sidespin would mean that I'd have to aim to compensate for throw,
> but I wouldn't have to estimate and compensate for squirt and swerve or
> get my "compensating outside spin" just right.
By natural I would think medium (comfortable) speed, centerball hit. With
that speed you negate most, if not all the issues with throw. Therefore
compensation for squirt, swerve, etc., isn't necessary.
>> ... EVERY shot
>> that can allow throw to take effect does require outside english.
>
> I strongly disagree with the wisdom of this. Throw can be more
> effectively and less problematically compensated for by aiming differently.
Sure it can, but if someone feels more comfortable using half a tip of
outside to reduce the throw down to a couple of millimeters on a slow shot,
to me that is preferable to changing my aim angle. It sounds like you are
more comfortable adjusting the aim angle to account for the throw.
Personally, I don't like aiming for edges of the pocket....especially when I
end up rattling the side. Some people are more comfortable offsetting throw
either through the use of outside or the use of speed.
>> ... transferred spin - albeit a minimal effect - is still
>> a friction factor.
>
> I guess we're using the phrase "transferred spin" to mean different
> things. You seem to be saying that "transferred spin" is the rubbing
> friction between the spinning cue ball and the still object ball. I
> think of "transferred spin" as the small amount of spin that the object
> ball picks up from the cue ball as a result of this friction. The
> object ball also gets "thrown" off line by this same friction, but
> "transferred spin" (my definition -- but also, I think, the common one)
> isn't the cause; it's another effect of that same friction.
>
>> ... Hitting it hard can reduce throw down to a
>> millimeter over the course of 7-8', hitting it soft (depending on cut angle)
>> can result in over a foot of throw on the same shot.
>> ... IMO, using outside reduces throw from a couple of
>> inches to a couple of millimeters.
>
> You can reduce it more with outside english than with more speed. With
> outside english you can even make it throw the opposite way.
Agreed, but we're rarely talking more than a full tip of outside.
>> ... To some of us it
>> makes more sense to boil the alignment possibilities down to a few distinct
>> reference points using an alignment line of which the endpoints are precise
>> locations on both the CB and OB, then we can make adjustments on the stroke
>> and impact position on the CB based upon an aiming reference that we know to
>> be correct.
>
> This is what the "naysayers" have guessed is the useful principle in
> Hal's "ball fractions" aiming system: it gives you a fixed reference
> system from which you can make small adjustments for reality. This is
> what all systems do for you -- with one important exception: most
> systems (such as the ghost ball aiming method and many diamond systems)
> give you a reference that shows the "ideal" result that you then must
> adjust for the realities of ball/cloth condition, etc., but this ball
> fractions aiming system does the opposite -- it gives you a set of
> *usually incorrect* aiming angles that you then have to adjust to be
> correct, on top of having to adjust for the usual reality factors like
> throw, ball/cloth condition, etc.
This is a ghostball aiming system. It simply uses concrete reference points
as opposed to visualizing something that isn't there.
>> ... I have explained it to a number of people.
>
> Now that you've gone farther with your explanation, I can see that you
> understand more about this system than I first thought. However, it
> still appears that you have an incomplete picture of its limitations and
> drawbacks.
I think I have a far better picture than those that haven't absorbed it but
are quick to attempt to extrapolate and criticize. Yes, any method/system
has constraints otherwise it wouldn't be a method.
>> ... if you want to call it a flawed system because the aiming
>> method dictates a limited set of variables for speed and english that you
>> are unwilling to respect, then you will always be correct.
>
> I want variables for speed and english to not be limited by the method I
> use to aim my shots. I have that now without the ball fractions system.
> Yes, I have to adjust for things, but I never have to abandon my "system".
Cool. Works for you. I'm not sure I disagree with your approach, but as I
said, there are 4 other methods he teaches which comprise his overall
approach. It sounds to me like you may already be using one of the other
ones.
>> If you want to
>> call it a perfect system because the same aiming method dictates the same
>> limited set of variables for speed and english that you will respect then
>> you are always correct.
>
> I wouldn't call any aiming system perfect that imposes its own
> limitations on what shots you can take or what position you can get.
Nor would I. I called it good.
>> ... Whenever I step up to a shot, I simply look at the aim and
>> consider my options with speed and english. If I don't like any of them and
>> need to juice the CB outside of natural shot parameters to achieve my next
>> shot position, then I need to deal with the aim issue.
>
> By "deal with the aim issue" do you mean aim without using the system?
Yup.
>> The bottom line is the purpose of the system is to provide concrete
>> reference points at both the CB and OB to achieve absolutely correct
>> ghostball position.
>
> Your own description contradicts this. If you have to adjust your aim
> with spin and speed, then you're not achieving the absolutely correct
> ghostball position. For that matter, it's impossible for a ball
> fractions system to do that except occasionally by accident. By its
> nature it's an approximation.
Occasionally by accident doesn't describe how my game has popped up a couple
of balls in just the last few months. I'd prefer if you'd just call it
magic pixie dust (credits to IBM). If you feel comfortable shooting at
pockets that you can't see (hang a drape just above the table and start
taking shots) you are probably doing it based on burned in memory of where
the pocket is in relation to where you OB is so you can establish your
ghostball position of the moment. I do it by picking the appropriate aiming
reference and can do this repeatedly from various angles without even
thinking about where the pocket is. Granted, I do need to calibrate speed
and throw and make sure I don't chunk the stroke, but the stroke part is
true on any shot.
>> ... these 5 methods account for an overall
>> system, which in this forum is always referenced poorly and discussed in
>> fragmented terms.
>
> 5 methods?!? Never mind...
Yes, 5. That is why these discussions are so moot. I sincerely believe
what you are describing (at least the end effect) is exactly what Hal told
me about 3rd or 4th. The only difference being that he didn't have to
revert to a center pocket to OB reference line, but instead had a different
mechanism of using a slight bridge reposition and sometimes backhand
(carabo) english. Hal admitted that in his prime, he used different methods
depending on the needs of the shot he was making. There's no magic here,
just a defined set of parameters based on what you want to do with the CB
after contact.
--Jim
> Pat Johnson
> Chicago
>
Jim Wyant
<patrick...@attbi.com> wrote:
OK.
--Jim
> Pat Johnson
> Chicago
>
lfigueroa
with his followers that want to revive these theories from the dead with
voodoo incantations :-)
Lou Figueroa
"John Barton" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message
news:XfT4a.401$kY6....@news.uswest.net...
> Just jumping in the middle here.
>
> One of the things that Hal showed me was how the systems were especially
> good for one-pocket where getting the ball to the hole is often almost as
> good as making it. He showed me one and two rail banks using the ball to
> ball aiming that work and continue to work for me whenever I play
> one-pocket.
>
> I personally think that the stuff Hal teaches is good. Most of it works
> without knowing really why but it does. It's hard to explain
geometrically
> although I am sure if someone had the time and inclination then they could
> do so by documenting all of the systems Hal teaches.
>
> Will this system or any other make anybody a world-beater? Not by itself
> but they are a good foundation if learned and applied properly. Will it
> correct bad habits, no.
>
> I think that if there are instructors out there willing to learn them then
> we are closer to explaining what about them works and why they are
appealing
> to some and what about them does not.
>
> Whether Hal actually learned from Greenleaf is kind of irrelevant, the
point
> is does his stuff work and I think it does. I also learned some things
from
> guy who said he did the road with Buddy Hall and the information he was
> giving me was Buddy Hall's system. I don't know whether he learned it
from
> Buddy or not, all I know is the things he showed me work - for me and
that's
> enough. Jimmy Reid also taught me a technique for shooting off the rail
> that I have NEVER seen in one book anywhere. Almost everytime I do it and
> make the shot, which is fairly often, someone asks me what I was doing and
I
> explain it to them and they go, oh that makes sense.
>
> So, the point is that the jury is still out IMO on Hal's systems. I hope
> that someone does document them for future study though. I for one am
> convinced that his knowledge has helped my game and am proud to be a
> "Houlite".
>
> John
>
>
>
> "lfigueroa" <lfig...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:d_O4a.60825$zF6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Frank G
> Gross! Fetch me some quick-clean!
>
>
LMoss18701
i just spoke to him on the phone yesterday and im today----He is not going
anywhere!
Linda Moss
LMoss18701
>From: "Play4aBuck"
I have been a student of Hal Houle for 6 or more years. Please don' tell me
these systems do not work after all the hours if have put in on them-----went
from an APA four to a high 6 with them. Guess if they had worked i would be a 7
by now, though wouldn't i?
LINDA MOSS
p.s. i have missed this thread, uh? PAT!
Ron Shepard
> If the OB is the
> last ball you need to make to win the game and the resulting CB roll
> wouldn't cause a scratch, what is the natural shot to make considering both
> english and speed?
I think this is a crucial question. The answer, for most players at
least, is to shoot the shot without sidespin. Consider a spot shot,
for example. If you are betting money with someone (so the results
are important) and shooting spot shots over and over, how do you
shoot them? Do you shoot them with sidespin trying to eliminate the
throw, or do you shoot them straight and compensate for the throw by
hitting a little thinner? Sidespin introduces several problems, it
is harder to aim in the first place, you must account for squirt,
you must account for swerve, and small variations in the tip contact
point and shot speed mean that squirt and swerve are always a little
different from shot to shot. These problems are minimized when you
shoot the shot straight with no sidespin, and the only problem is
how much to compensate for throw. Most players have determined
empirically for themselves that the no sidespin shot is more
consistent.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Play4aBuck
LMoss18701 wrote in message <20030220003424...@mb-me.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: HAL HOULE aiming system
>
>>From: "Play4aBuck"
>
>I have been a student of Hal Houle for 6 or more years. Please don' tell me
>these systems do not work
Hmm, .......did you read my posts before you wrote this? :-)
I wrote earlier, "The system worked great, I was impressed with it.", but I
don't believe it works 100% of the time.
Note, I'm talking about a system (the 3 point system), and not system(s).
I have no comments or knowledge about any other system of Hal's.
>after all the hours if have put in on them-----went
>from an APA four to a high 6 with them. Guess if they had worked i would be
a 7
>by now, though wouldn't i?
Congratulations! :-)
I also wrote earlier, "I think Hal's 3 point system is a great tool for
beginners to maybe intermediate players since it could increase their shot
making percentage."
Cheers,
Jim (AKA Play4abuck)
Dan White
> I'm not sure I buy the subconscious adjustment part. What I really think
is
> necessary is some high speed cameras, Iron Willie and a very well gridded
> out table. My sense is with that you will see variations of about 1/2" on
> either side of perceived dead-center of the pocket.
I've made some autocad drawings with scale ball and table sizes before.
Seems to me this is all that is needed, along with knowledge of the system,
to see if the geometry works out.
I'm interested though...take a look at this situation on the Wei table.
http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~wei/pool/pooltable2.html
START(
%AN7O5%BN5Q4%Qf9S2%Rf9U2%UC7F2%VM9P5%WO9P6%Xg0S7%YD3D5%ZN0N6
%]O9R3%^g0U6
)END
In situation A, the cue ball is at A and you are shooting the 1 ball from
the spot to the corner pocket. This happens to be a shot where you can aim
from the center of the CB to the left edge of the OB and you will split the
pocket (kind of like Hal's system). Situation B is the same shot, except we
have moved both the OB and CB to the left about 3 inches. If you maintain
the same "center cue ball" to "left edge object ball" on shot B, you will
miss the shot to the left of the pocket. How does Hal's system account for
this?
thanks,
dwhite
Jim Wyant
the OB to the next one. These may be on either side of that transition
point.
This discussion degrades when people attempt to mathematically debunk the
method without bothering to take the time and effort to learn and apply it.
And before the math-kiddies go ballistic, I'm not disparaging the
mathematics of it, but simply requesting that if they are so interested in
spending the time debunking it to spend just a bit of time observing it,
learning it, and applying it.
If beyond that you want to work geometry side, get a laser pointer that will
emit a line and an Elephant Balls Aim Trainer. Put the OB on the table and
align the Aim Trainer such that the ghost ball is in the ideal position.
From that position, you can take the cue ball and place it on the table and,
start looking at the aim to get the CB to the ghostball position. For about
70% of the shots on the table, if you draw a straight line between the edge
of the OB and one of the three dots on the CB, the CB will achieve the
ghostball position. About 15-20% are extreme cut shots (right edge of CB to
near the left edge of the OB) and should be shot using other means (such as
a safety unless you're feeling really froggy). The other 10-15% are
straight in which you should align your aim left-edge to left-edge (or right
to right), don't use center-top to center-top.
If you're going to take the time to attempt to intellectually debunk it, at
least consider taking the time to learn and apply it. From that point at
least you can say (with practical experience) "I've learned it and here is
what is good and what isn't good". The method does work, but I've seen some
very, very smart people utterly confused by why it works (as am I
sometimes). Does that make it voodoo or simply something that we don't yet
have enough information to allow us to comprehend or perhaps whomever has
suggested that we are all making subconscious adjustments is correct?
--Jim
Ron Shepard
"Dan White" <dwh...@erols.com> wrote:
> START(
> %AN7O5%BN5Q4%Qf9S2%Rf9U2%UC7F2%VM9P5%WO9P6%Xg0S7%YD3D5%ZN0N6
> %]O9R3%^g0U6
> )END
>
> In situation A, the cue ball is at A and you are shooting the 1 ball from
> the spot to the corner pocket. This happens to be a shot where you can aim
> from the center of the CB to the left edge of the OB and you will split the
> pocket (kind of like Hal's system). Situation B is the same shot, except we
> have moved both the OB and CB to the left about 3 inches. If you maintain
> the same "center cue ball" to "left edge object ball" on shot B, you will
> miss the shot to the left of the pocket. How does Hal's system account for
> this?
The proponents say that it just works. You aim the shot the same
way, and the ball knows it is supposed to go to the pocket so it
just does. They also claim that the balls don't have to be 3 inches
apart, they can be, for this particular shot, all the way over about
a diamond from the footspot; when you get to a diamond or so to the
side, then you do pick another set of reference points.
I don't believe this, of course, I think what happens is that the
shooter makes the necessary unconscious adjustments in order for the
shot to succeed. Here is a challenge to the proponents. Consider a
shot like this, where the distance from the object ball to the
pocket is longer so that angles are more important.
START(
%A`0I0%B`0E3%Ca7H2%Da5D5%Pa2I4%Qf7N7%Rf8J2%UR9C6%V^7E3%Wb3J7
%Xf8O1%YD2D2%Z^5H8%]b0F0%^g1J6
)END
Take a cut angle that works for shot A for a half ball hit (e.g.
where the center of the cue ball lines up with the outside edge of
the object ball) such as the 1-ball in the above diagram. Place the
cue ball in the ghost ball position, and then set another object
ball right next to the cue ball like the 3-ball in the diagram.
Leave the 3-ball in place, roll the cue ball back to position A
without moving either the 1-ball or the 3-ball, and shoot the shot.
It should succeed because the 3-ball does not prevent the cue ball
from going anywhere other than where it needs to.
Now, move all three balls over to the side 6 or 8 inches. According
to the Houle system, the shooter should line up this shot exactly
the same way as the first shot: center of the cue ball to the
outside edge of the object ball. When a proponent shoots this shot,
he says he is aiming the same way, he shoots it, and it (often) goes
into the pocket. But now add the other ball like you did before.
Place the cue ball in the ghost ball position corresponding to the
half-ball hit, place the 4-ball against it, and then move the cue
ball back to position B. You now have something like the 2-ball and
4-ball setup in the above diagram. The 4-ball position does not
prevent the cue ball from hitting at the half-ball angle, just like
the 3-ball did not prevent it in shot A. But the 4-ball does
prevent the shooter from making unconscious angle changes on his
last stroke. With the 4-ball in the position indicated, the 2-ball
shot WILL NOT SUCCEED. It will be driven into the rail as shown in
the above diagram.
Why does the shot work without the 4-ball there? I think it is
because the player has shot these shots millions of times, and he
knows subconsiously that he is aiming too thick, so on his last
stroke he changes the angle and hits the ball in the right place.
Sure, they may claim to "aim" for the half-ball hit, but that's not
where the cue ball ended up. With the 4-ball in the correct
position, it is impossible to make that subconsious change of angle
and hit the object ball thinner, so the shot fails.
What does this have to do with aiming systems? If it "works," for
whatever reason, isn't that enough? In my opinion, no. Aiming
isn't that complicated, and if players want to use a system there
are dozens of methods that are correct that can be used instead of
these incorrect methods.
"This, above all else, to thine own self be true."
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Patrick Johnson
> method without bothering to take the time and effort to learn and apply it.
Actually, this discussion degrades when proponents of the system are
unable to understand the simple mathematical truths that debunk what
they're saying, so they're left with saying, "well, it just works and
you just have to try it to see that."
> And before the math-kiddies go ballistic, I'm not disparaging the
> mathematics of it, but simply requesting that if they are so interested in
> spending the time debunking it to spend just a bit of time observing it,
> learning it, and applying it.
How do you propose that we do that? We've "observed" descriptions of it
from several proponents right here on RSB and have gotten nowhere.
We've invited Hal himself to describe it correctly here and have gotten
nowhere. Hal and his proponents say the only way to "understand" the
system is to spend time with Hal himself.
Beyond that, any "system" that can only be successfully described by one
person is suspect on its face. That's not a system -- it's a
personality cult.
> If beyond that you want to work geometry side, get a laser pointer ...
The very basic geometrical principles that have been described here are
all that's needed to show what the system can and can't do. Suggesting
that we have to get complicated and sophisticated with our analysis only
shows that this fact isn't understood.
> ... Does that make it voodoo or simply something that we don't yet
> have enough information to allow us to comprehend or perhaps whomever has
> suggested that we are all making subconscious adjustments is correct?
We have enough information to know what we've said so far. If it isn't
obvious to you that subconscious adjustments are being made, then it's
obvious that it isn't the "naysayers" that don't get the system -- it's
the proponents of the system that don't get the simple geometry that
proves the system's limitations.
As for the "just try it" mantra: If you told me I could see around
corners, I wouldn't have to try it to "prove" it isn't true. The claims
made for this system are just about equally unbelievable. Besides, how
can anybody try this system short of having Hal himself come over for
the weekend? We don't have to go farther than a piece of paper to "try"
what you've described.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Mike Page
<jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
[...]
> If you're going to take the time to attempt to intellectually debunk it, at
> least consider taking the time to learn and apply it.
Jim, nobody's debunking anything because there is nothing to debunk.
You said in another post that the jury is still out on this system. I
disagree. The jury is not out; it is in the box waiting for opening
arguments.
This is the situation we were at years ago. With that in mind, you
went to CA to spend time with Hal and record your experience. You
videotaped him teaching you, didn't you? Then you were going to
transcribe what you learned. I may have missed it, but I don't
remember you doing that. Soon after you got back, you taught the
system to Tom Simpson. I thought perhaps he could describe what he
learned from you. So far as I know he hasn't.
I don't even know what you do! There's something about three angles.
Is this half-ball, quarter-ball, and three-quarter ball? Do you
start by picking one of these as a reference and adjust from there? Is
there a mechanism to determine which one of these to pick and which way
to adjust?
Without trying to argue how or why the procedure you follow works for
you, perhaps you could just give us a step-by-step of what you think
and what you do when you approach the table to take a shot.
Here's a shot
START(
%IX5L4%Pj7K5%WE3D4%XW4K9%]Z7M1%^i6K7
)END
Perhaps you could describe step-by-step what you would do and think to
pot this ball.
--
mike page
fargo
lagniappe
> My first reaction was the same (also being an engineer), but my assessment
> when I zoomed in on my "to scale" drawings of different scenarios was that
> the concept Hal refers to as Rotating Centers was indeed there. As you move
> the balls down the table, maintaining alignment, there is a finite point in
> which the aim point snaps from using the center spot to using the left (or
> right spot) for aiming. I attribute this to the fact that your outside edge
> reference point (as an example) modifies as you move the CB from side to
> side. Moving the balls in tandem down the table has a barely perceptible
> difference in aim point until it is changing to the next one, then it is
> dramatic, so you change your aim point and go on.
>
Jim,
In order to better understand it, think about moving the pocket instead of
the balls. If there is an orientation that makes the shot, and you slide
the pocket just a little, the shot now misses because the object ball path
does not change since the aimpoint and hit are the same. Now you have
a pocket, CB, and OB orientation that doesn't go in, and it could be
set up on any table.
Same would be true for "Iron Wille". Set him up where he makes a cut shot,
then move the pocket slightly. He repeats the shot and, of course, misses,
yet the next "Houle Aimpoint" is too much of a correction. If a human were
shooting instead of Iron Willie, the shot would probably still go in because
the human player would make the correction subconsciously.
best regards,
Martin
Dan White
> There is a point at which the aim point moves from one of the 3 points on
> the OB to the next one. These may be on either side of that transition
> point.
>
> This discussion degrades when people attempt to mathematically debunk the
> method without bothering to take the time and effort to learn and apply
it.
> And before the math-kiddies go ballistic, I'm not disparaging the
> mathematics of it, but simply requesting that if they are so interested in
> spending the time debunking it to spend just a bit of time observing it,
> learning it, and applying it.
First of all, I never said anything about debunking. You are being too
defensive. I said "I'm interested..." and "How does Hal's system account
for this?" and, earlier, "Is there any place on the web where this system
is described?" Now it isn't so easy to spend time observing the system if I
have to go across the country to do it. I have learned so far that there
are spots on the OB and CB, when used in combination, can account for many
possible angles. My first question, I guess, is how do you know which
combination to use? How do I know when to switch from CB left 1/2 and OB
left 1/2 to CB left 1/2 and OB left edge? Does it have something to do with
the position of the balls relative to the rails?
>
> If beyond that you want to work geometry side, get a laser pointer that
will
> emit a line and an Elephant Balls Aim Trainer. ...snip>
Well this was my point about the autoCAD drawings on my pc. I can create
any geometry, I can aim any part of the CB to any part of the OB and see
what the resulting OB path would be (aside from throw). Why mess with all
the rest of that stuff, unless you are saying that the geometry in 3D works
differently from a 2D drawing.
> If you're going to take the time to attempt to intellectually debunk it,
at
> least consider taking the time to learn and apply it.
I'm tryin' hard. I like systems that can teach you something, maybe help
you improve even one type of shot. This helps you get to that point where
you do it subconsciously more quickly imo.
I don't think many people in this NG are trying to catch you in a lie or
anything like that. I think we are all eager to see something new, but I
personally don't buy that the system can't be put down on paper. Stephen
Hawking can even explain "The Universe in a Nutshell!"
dwhite
Dan White
"sheldoncue" <sheld...@XYZhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93289ACCB1E17si...@140.99.99.130...
> "Dan White" <dwh...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > I had to chime in... not to seem presumptuous about your goals, but I
> > get the impression that you are putting more energy into honing a
> > beginner's aiming system and less energy into developing your intuitive
> > ability to aim. Once you play enough, you will not need a system or
> > crutch to guide you to the contact point (not to confuse system with
> > pre-shot routine). When you learned to read, you had to spell out every
> > syllable...now you just look at words and understand them without
> > trying.
> >
>
> Very well said...
>
> systems are fine for learning, or for trouble shots, but no substitute for
> simply recognizing the shot, the angle and the line for shape.
Thank you, Mr. Sheldoncue. nice to get feedback from some of the old
masters. Oh, wait, who are the master cuemakers again? :)
dwhite
Mark0
Why not show your system(s) to Bob Jewett, Ron Shepard, Mike Page, or even
Tony Matthews? Not that JDub isn't doing a good job describing what he
'learned.'
Mark0 <--PREsuming Hal is reading these
"Patrick Johnson" <patrick...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E538D43...@attbi.com...
> >>... You must learn to aim with all speeds
> >>and spins or you are crippling your game.
>
> > Sooooo, the alternative is what? ...
> > to aim for the point expecting throw to carry it into the pocket?
>
> Even if you use "throw-negating" outside english, you have to aim for a
> particular spot, so it's not like you have to aim MORE accurately
> without it. The aiming challenge is the same -- except that with
> english you have to allow for squirt & swerve as well as calibrate the
> spin exactly so you don't over/under do it.
>
> > ... Seems if
> > I can aim the same points and, when shooting hard not have to worry
about
> > throw, and when shooting soft remember to give a touch of outside, it
> > greatly simplifies the options.
>
> Seems to me it greatly complicates things.
>
> Pat Johnson
> Chicago
>
Patrick Johnson
> Is this half-ball, quarter-ball, and three-quarter ball? Do you
> start by picking one of these as a reference and adjust from there? Is
> there a mechanism to determine which one of these to pick and which way
> to adjust?
If you'd like to know how many angles can be created by aligning the various
fractions of the cue ball and object ball (in 1/4 ball increments), take a look
at this graphic:
http://www.omniscium.com/pbsa/Tips.asp
You can see that only THREE cut angles (other than straight and 90 degrees) can
be defined by all the combinations: 14 degrees, 30 degrees and 49 degrees.
Obviously (to me) the majority of available shots are NOT at one of these three
angles. It also seems obvious to me that if you can (1) decide which of these
angles is closest to your shot and (2) estimate the adjustment from there to
make the actual shot, then (C) you're already able to do what this system "adds"
to your ability.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Jim Wyant
projected early on. The main issue is that I don't want to assemble it in
such a way that it becomes a disjointed collection of thoughts. Plus, one
of the key things I've learned is that there is need to accept some aspects
of what you are trying without first overanalyzing this.
When I first explained, with diagrams, the 3 dot method to Tom Simpson he
bluntly stated it couldn't work. As he tried shots using the method he
missed repeatedly. When I covered up the pockets and just asked him to
shoot what I was asking without worrying about where the pocket was, the
shots started dropping with regularity. After 10-15 of those it is easier
to keep doing it with the pocket uncovered, but you still have the
"acceptance factor" all around the table when playing.
One guy spent about 15 minutes with it, was vastly impressed, then wanted to
stop because some potential action came into the room. We didn't get back
to it and then he tried to incorporate the little he knew of it into his
game. He resulted in playing absolutely horrible for two weeks. When he
complained to me about that I reminded that when we started I told him he
would have to stay with it until he got over the indecision hurdles and
continued to take some input on it. I recommended he completely put it out
of his mind until he had time and resolve to go back to it. When he found
the time he did go back to it and now is completely settled in.
The point is, lack of effort and follow-thru can be more disastrous than
never learning it at all. How can that be accomplished in a book? It is
damn tough to accomplish in person, but at least in person you can commit to
2-3 hours the first time and then follow up with dialogue later.
I'm really not trying to bail on this Mike, but I had exactly the same
problem when I "first" tried to learn this via a phone conversation with
Hal. It seemed to work great while he was on the speakerphone and we were
talking our way around with it. But the next day it started to degrade in
my mind and within a couple of days I was completely hosed. I spent the
time in CA and a few days upon my return cementing this into my shot making
process. Think of it this way, if you ever changed your shooting style from
CB last to OB last, it took a bit to get used to the change. Ditto for
learning a second and third bridge or a significant change in stance.
Now consider doing that to your primary setup and aiming process. Your
brain will fight you the whole way. The entire purpose of have Tom, Bill,
Jerry, Keith and several others shoot at a pocket they can't see is to allow
them to try the aiming method without letting their past experience cloud
the effort.
Hal and I discussed at length the idea of a book and video, but that takes
time and money. Beside, IMO, such a book should ONLY be available as a
reference material AFTER some introduction and table time.
--Jim
On 2/20/03 2:33 PM, in article 200220031333346898%mike...@ndsu.nodak.edu,
Jim Wyant
<dwh...@erols.com> wrote:
But Hawking doesn't have to worry about people going out, half-applying it
and causing themselves more problems than solutions.
There are people all over the country that have learned and are using what
Hal has taught them. I have the general sense that a significant percentage
of them are willing to demonstrate, teach and in general help someone who is
genuinely interested. I also believe the 98% of them feel as I do that the
way to begin this process in through person-to-person sessions. I spent 2
days with Hal and he did this for free. At the very minimum I will do the
same for anybody interested and willing to:
a) Spend at least a few hours on it the first day
b) Agree to work on it for a at least a couple of weeks
c) Is willing to keep in contact via phone conversations regarding
progress, issues, concerns, etc..
Aside from that, I'm concerned about providing response "sound bites"
without a cohesive foundation.
--Jim
> dwhite
>
>
John Doe
says...
> If you're going to take the time to attempt to intellectually debunk it, at
> least consider taking the time to learn and apply it.
Jim, Do you care to explain it to us on RSB? No? Didn't think so. We
went through the same thing with John Collins a while back and other
posters as well over the years. Its VERY frustrating! It always goes
the same way. Someone claims the system is amazing and "like cheating"
or "splits the pockets like magic", etc. We get intrigued. We get
excited. But then you will NEVER explain what it is. Then people chime
in and try to debunk the system which hasn't even been explained. The
advocate says, no no you just don't understand it, that second shot is a
different aim point bla bla bla. Well of course we don't understand it
(you haven't told us what it is), but we would like to try. The only
method we are given to get the system is to fly to California and take
lessons from Hal. Is it rocket science? If not, please make an attempt
to explain it on RSB. We want to give it a try but might not be able to
afford the time or money to fly to California. Thanks.
Jim Wyant
MPG.18bff50b2...@news.houston.sbcglobal.net, "John Doe"
<joh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Y'know, you're absolutely right. But I didn't kick off a thread of "let me
tell you about ......". I was responding to Jim (Play4ABuck)'s followup to
Joey Aguzin's post. Jim mentioned that he had begun the process, had some
problems, tried to contact Hal via email and when he didn't hear back
adopted into something else.
I responded with a few points and suddenly this turned into another anti-Hal
feeding frenzy. Sheesh, it's no wonder most of the people that have learned
this method are reluctant to write about it in here. Every time I do I have
to take a boatload of bashing for not being able to explain it effectively.
Here's the Net:Net. If I tell you enough about how to fly an airplane
(assuming you don't know how already) to get you off the ground and maintain
flight even though you are all over the sky, is that a success? Did I teach
you about landing? Better question, can I teach you about landing simply
through words and pictures AND assume that you are going to grasp it enough,
apply it in practice enough, etc., that when you try to land you don't crash
and burn?
There's three big issues with trying to provide enough sound bites to cover
this topic, especially in this forum.
1) Varying degrees of skill, commitment and awareness on the part of the
readers. Somebody jumps into the dialogue late and they need to be caught
up to speed. A "mechanical" player versus a "feel" player has different
perceptions and ability to apply what is heard. Perhaps what is being said
isn't being heard in the right context and the communicator has to adjust
the pitch to the ability of the reader to grasp it. That takes a very
skilled writer.
2) Varying degrees of acceptance to trying something new by readers of the
forum. Some are willing to dive right in, others are highly resistant and
will spend plenty of time criticizing everything from the info to the
sentence structure, all of which detracts from the ability to continue to
build upon a consistent message.
3) There is no substitute for being on the table and doing this. I'd wager
that 95% of the readers would want to respond to a post before taking the
info, going to a table and spending time doing exactly what is requested of
them. Even for the 5% that do and assuming they print this out and take it
to the table with them, they are still disconnected from the source of the
info and as such, frustrations abound when things don't jive right off the
bat.
There is no magic pixie dust to shot making. I, and I'm sure many others,
will be willing to take the time to show people. I'm reluctant to write an
incomplete document that may screw up more people than it helps.
And flying to CA isn't the only option. I'm in central Ohio. I know of at
least a half-dozen others around the country that would probably afford the
time if asked.
--Jim
lfigueroa
Lou Figueroa
and he took up a lot of bandwidth to do it too :-)
"Jim Wyant" <jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BA7BDAE7.F1FE%jwy...@columbus.rr.com...
tony mathews
Mark0 wrote:
> Hey Hal!
>
> Why not show your system(s) to Bob Jewett, Ron Shepard, Mike Page, or even
> Tony Matthews? Not that JDub isn't doing a good job describing what he
> 'learned.'
I've talked to Hal and am familiar with at least two of his systems, including
the "3 dot" system described (sort of) here.
What do you want to know?
Tony
Patrick Johnson
Explain "Rotating Centers".
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Dan White
>
> Tony
How do you decide on the correct combination of CB and OB aim points for any
given shot?
After determining the above, how do you readjust your aim if you move the OB
to the left by 1 inch?
thanks,
dwhite
Gregory
> I've talked to Hal and am familiar with at least two of his systems,
including
> the "3 dot" system described (sort of) here.
>
> What do you want to know?
Why do you call it the "3 dot" system?
--
Gregory
[Delete one five three for email.]
Jim Wyant
<dwh...@erols.com> wrote:
>> What do you want to know?
>>
>> Tony
I know I'm going to hate myself in the morning for doing this, but......I'm
going to answer 4 direct questions (these two, Gregory's "what is the three
dot system" and PJ's "Explain rotating centers" which is encapsulated in the
response to your second question. Gentlemen (and the occasional lady),
don't shoot the messenger! This isn't everything you need to grasp but
straight questions warrant as straight an answer as I can provide.
First off, "What is the three dot system?" Imagine your cue ball (or OB, it
really doesn't matter which) has a dot/vertical-line at the exact center of
the ball (highest point). That is the Center Dot. Similarly, imagine
another dot/vertical-line half-way between the Center Dot and left edge of
the ball. That is the Left Dot. Ditto for the Right Dot. Now, you have
three fixed, consistent reference points on one the two balls (CB and OB).
On the other ball your reference points are the Right Edge (far outside) and
Left Edge. For any shots from about 3 degrees angle to about 75 degrees you
will align an Edge with one of those three dots.
So, how do you decide which ones....
> How do you decide on the correct combination of CB and OB aim points for any
> given shot?
Take a ball and put it where the ghostball (GB) would ideally contact the OB
to split the pocket. Now, go back to behind the cue ball and look at the
path the CB would have to take to arrive at that GB position. (NOTE: it
would help if you'd pull down the PDF from
http://www.tribalknowledge.cc/pool/ThreeDot.pdf which illustrates left cut
shots and I'll use as a reference point from here on out).
Consider in that drawing the gray "path" the CB will take to arrive at the
GB position. If you draw a line from the outside edge of the OB (let's call
it the Horizon because it is the last part of the OB you can see before it
starts sloping away from you) and that line is parallel to the line the CB
must take to reach the GB position. You will see that line intersects one
of the three dots on the CB (and GB for that matter).
> After determining the above, how do you readjust your aim if you move the OB
> to the left by 1 inch?
This relates back to PJ's request to explain Rotating Centers.
When you move the CB 1" to the left, the Horizon on the OB rotates a
fraction back towards you. And even though the Horizon change is barely
perceptible, the contact point of the CB and the OB moves somewhat too.
This change in the contact point varies based on distance from the CB to the
OB.
Now, here's the sticky part and I'm not sure I can properly explain it so
bear with me. A 1" change in the CB at 3' distance may result (and these
aren't scientific numbers here) in a 1mm change in the Horizon. And with
that, as you keep the GB in line with the CB path it would seem to shift the
GB back around the curvature of the OB to track with you. But the effect of
the GB apparently needing to slide back the to left is negated by the fact
that what was your (and I'll use Left Dot as an example) Left Dot position
on the CB has now rotated slightly to the right and there is, in essence, a
new Left Dot. Lining up the new Left Dot to the Right Horizon shows that
the GB has barely moved at all, and this appears to be attributed to the
fact that the ball is round and the bulge of the curvature of the ball is
managing (and I know that is a horrible word to use in this context) to keep
the ball:ball collision contact point consistent. This appears to hold true
while moving the CB sideways until such time the alignment line dramatically
moves from one dot to the next....and I honestly can't explain why the
switch is so dramatic.
How do you decide which dot to use for alignment? Well, in the beginning I
had to take a moment to look at where the GB would be and then look at the
CB line and it was pretty obvious. After a while it just makes sense and I
don't even have to look at the pocket and GB position except on rare
occasion when it appears that the CB is straddling that transition point
line. The funny thing is, even when it is in the dead-in-between location,
what you're really opting for is just left of center pocket or just right of
center pocket.
On all of these shots your stick should be directly parallel to the CB to GB
line. You can go left or right english, etc., but bear in mind that the
more cut the more throw, which can only be reduced/negated by speed or by
applying a bit or outside english (we're talking a half-tip or so).
Do I believe this all makes sense as I write it? Nope. But based upon my
understanding, perceptions and doing it for several months now this is close
to the best I can explain it without being at a table.
--Jim <-- Hell with the morning, I'm hating myself now......Preparing to don
the Asbestos suit.
>
> thanks,
> dwhite
>
>
Play4aBuck
later today. :-)
It works, it can't work, it doesn't work, it's works but I'm confused,
etc.....LOL!
Cheers,
Jim (Play4abuck)
Jim Wyant wrote in message ...
>I know I'm going to hate myself in the morning for doing this, but......I'm
>going to answer 4 direct questions ..........
>
Geoff Clark
Ok, I'm chiming in. First let me say that I have met Hal over the course of
a couple of days when I was in SF a few years ago, and I talk to Hal on the
phone occasionally. Nice guy. Very much a gentle man and a gentleman.
I use one of Hal's systems and I can't stop. It is the way I play and has
become my natural system of aiming. I still miss shots.
About his systems:
The aim points of all the systems coincide with each other. They are all
interchangeable. And what the systems does is to put the cb into the space
occupied by the ghost ball, and do it more simply and accurately than the
infinite number of aim points of the "ghost ball" aiming system.
The systems only work because the ratio of the table is 2 to 1. If it was
4'6 1/2 " by 9' they would not work. If the pockets were not in the corners
and half way between on the long sides, the systems would not work.
Third and equally important is that it is all related to the fact that the
balls are spherical and the relationship of this to our vision. I have no
idea how this is so, Pythagoras would know I am sure. I know that the two
balls are two dimensional on the plane at which they collide, but the effect
I am talking about is the one it has on our vision and the process of
aiming.
I have run this post by Hal. He agrees and that's why it is posted.
tony mathews
Jim Wyant wrote:
> >> What do you want to know?
> >> Tony
>
> I know I'm going to hate myself in the morning for doing this, but......I'm
> going to answer 4 direct questions (these two, Gregory's "what is the three
> dot system" and PJ's "Explain rotating centers" which is encapsulated in the
> response to your second question.
Which proves that if you wait long enough to respond here, someone will do the
dirty work for you!
Tony
-Jim saved me a lot of typing!
Jim Wyant
obvious should have been said. Again, as I said, this is not a good forum
for completely relaying tthis info because it is many sound bites.
--Jim
On 2/22/03 8:54 AM, in article
CiL5a.505197$HG.88...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net, "Geoff Clark"
Jim Wyant
mathews" <tony.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Not trying to usurp you, Tony. I felt guilty for leaving you to clean up
what I probably shouldn't have kicked off. Please feel free to
augment/correct my notes as appropriate.
--Jim
Jim Wyant
31a882d7.0302...@posting.google.com, "charlie edwards"
<charlese...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Geoff Clark" <gwc...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:<CiL5a.505197$HG.88...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> I'm lost. Why is there more than one system? If this thing can be
> explained
> and I can understand it, I will (with an open mind) try it. But with
> all due respects, I can't see how any aiming sysyem will work, mainly
> because most
> shots are speed sensitive. Even center ball hits must be adjusted for
> various
> speeds. When english is used, the variation becomes even more
> depentant on
> speed control. When using outside english, the aim must change when
> you vary
> the speed of the shot. And more of my 2 cents: I find it hard to
> believe that
> anything as important as a full-proof aiming system wouldn't be widely
> known, by almost everyone, by now. And if it is not fool-proof, IMO,
> it
> would be worthless. Also, IMO, there are no aiming 'secrets' out
> there, waiting to be discovered.
>
>
> Charlie Edwards
And here we go with one of the problems I related...... Paralysis by
analysis.
Go back and read the notes to catch up. The three dot method is but one way
of providing systematic aim and alignment. I already discussed, at some
length, how the speed and english issues map into this.
For the record, you are the first one to use the term "fool-proof aiming
system".
If there are no aiming "secrets" waiting to be discovered, why don't you
tell us all that you know so we can put these issues to bed.
--Jim
Patrick Johnson
> obvious should have been said.
After reading both of your posts carefully, I have only one remaining question:
Are you guys speaking Esperanto or Vulcan or what?
(Is it the Hal Club Secret Language?)
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Geoff Clark
unlike another language.
And like another language, you can a) learn to speak it and then decide if
it is better than the one you use, b) gives you a better understanding of
the one you use and compliments it, but doesn't warrant wholesale change c)
you can try it and drop it completely as totally inferior to your own
personal system of aiming, or lastly, d) you can decide that you are quite
happy with the language you speak and just stick with that and not even
bother to learn the new language.
All the people using Hal's system's do so because they were looking for a
better way. The way we were using either did not measure up to our
expectations - we sucked compared to our image of what we could be, or, we
were just plain looking for a way to get better. No one is using the system
that doesn't want to, but rather, anyone using it does so because they think
they are better player for it. I would think that no one is using it because
they are now a worse player and they like it that way.
Geoff
"Patrick Johnson" <patrick...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E580E42...@attbi.com...
Patrick Johnson
> happy with the language you speak and just stick with that and not even
> bother to learn the new language.
OK. I'll go with that one.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
LMoss18701
>Besides, how
>can anybody try this system short of having Hal himself come over for
>the weekend?
He came to my house for the weekend and stayed 6 weeks! (of course we loved
every minute of it) Stock up plenty of rice
pudding.
Linda Moss
Jim Wyant
CNV5a.513607$HG.90...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net, "Geoff Clark"
<gwc...@optonline.net> wrote:
> You are actually closer than you think Pat. The aiming systems are not
> unlike another language.
>
> And like another language, you can a) learn to speak it and then decide if
> it is better than the one you use, b) gives you a better understanding of
> the one you use and compliments it, but doesn't warrant wholesale change c)
> you can try it and drop it completely as totally inferior to your own
> personal system of aiming, or lastly, d) you can decide that you are quite
> happy with the language you speak and just stick with that and not even
> bother to learn the new language.
>
> All the people using Hal's system's do so because they were looking for a
> better way. The way we were using either did not measure up to our
> expectations - we sucked compared to our image of what we could be, or, we
> were just plain looking for a way to get better. No one is using the system
> that doesn't want to, but rather, anyone using it does so because they think
> they are better player for it. I would think that no one is using it because
> they are now a worse player and they like it that way.
>
> Geoff
Tap tap. Nicely said.
--Jim
Jim Wyant
<patrick...@attbi.com> wrote:
Obviously you weren't trying to surprise us with that answer.
--Jim
Jim Wyant
> Besides, how can anybody try this system short of having Hal himself come over
> for the weekend?
The moment you stop thinking of this as purely "Hal's System" you'll open
yourself up to the opportunity to answer that question. There are many
people that can relate it. Call Hal up and ask him who lives in or around
Chicago that can spend some time with you at Chris's to show it to you.
--Jim
Geoff Clark
"Patrick Johnson" <patrick...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E5829F4...@attbi.com...
Jim Wyant
31a882d7.03022...@posting.google.com, "charlie edwards"
<charlese...@msn.com> expressed clearly why putting this information
out on the newgroup is a bad idea:
> Jim Wyant <jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<BA7D70B7.F2B7%jwy...@columbus.rr.com>...
> OK, Jim, I'll tell you all I know about aiming. You get down on a
> shot.
> When it looks right, shoot. Shoot it several times. Practice,
> practice, practice. After
> awhile, when it looks right, it WILL be right. Try it.
>
> Charlie Edwards
Sheesh, why didn't I think of that. OK everybody, turn off your computers.
There's absolutely no need to do anything other than hit a couple of million
balls until you become a consummate "feel" player.
--Jim
Jim Wyant
so I'm going to take one last try at this and then call it a day.
FIRST MAJOR POINT
=================
I learned to shoot using your simple approach. It's major flaw is that
it is totally a "feel" approach to making shots, which you emphasized with
"when it feels right, shoot it".
The real question/issue with becoming a 'feel' shooter is, "what do you
use as a frame of reference to achieve success you can correlate to the
effort you take being the right feel? Your answer doesn't use any frame of
reference other than "when if feels right".
The purpose of a method is to have reference points that provide
effective feedback leading to success so that the 'feel' becomes ingrained
quickly. Any method that affords consistent results is valid, even yours
when you get to a point that when the shot feels right you take it AND you
are potting the ball every time.
The problem is that what feels right may not always be right, so if I
keep shooting what feels right and it keeps missing, obviously the 'feels
right' relationship is wrong and adjustments have to be made. But by making
that adjustment you have just rendered invalid your basic premise of "When
it feels right, shoot it". Granted, any rational being will recognize the
futility of continuing to hammer the OB off the back rail and should make
adjustments....but again, what do you do for your frame of reference in
making the adjustment.
SECOND MAJOR POINT
==================
I repeatedly balked at trying to explain this method in this type of
disconnected forum precisely because of responses like yours. Just because
you can't / are unwilling to attempt to comprehend what is written is as
much an indictment of your own abilities as it is my ability to effectively
communicate it in writing (which I said repeatedly was a very, very
difficult thing to do). Interestingly, the only response from others that
know the Three Dot method was to augment some perceptual points or to agree
with what was said. I'm fairly certain if I didn't understand it and
communicated it wrong, a few of them would have jumped in to correct what I
put into text.
THIRD MAJOR POINT
=================
In your original post about "....there are not aiming 'secrets' out
there waiting to be discovered." you've already set the expectation that
this can't work. You used one sentence to say "if I can understand it I
will try it" and then spent the rest of your post saying it wouldn't work.
That pretty much negates the value of the text "...with all due respects.."
With all due respect, you can either come to the discussion with an open
mind, or you can come with preconceptions that need to be addressed --- you
can't do both. I don't have a problem with either approach and am willing
to dialogue in either mode, but don't tell me you're open-minded as you are
bolting the door shut.
If you have an aiming method which works for you, allows you make shots
all over the table and run dozens and dozens or balls / racks, then I have
no idea why you are interested in this. I wouldn't be. At that point my
skills need to improve in other things, cue ball positioning, safety play,
etc.. If someone can't string balls/racks together like that, I have no
idea why someone wouldn't be completely open-minded to properly evaluating
another way of doing what they are trying to get better at.
FOURTH MAJOR POINT
==================
As to why this method isn't widely known.......well, you're not going to
like this answer because I know I didn't. Hal states (and yes, I'm going
back to Hal's words on this for the moment) is that a great majority of the
top players do know these methods and use them consistently. He cites many
top pros (Efren, Parica, etc.). He goes on to say that these guys don't
like to discuss it much because (a) to them it is so intuitive it's almost
like asking them how they grip the cue and (b) why teach others who may come
back to beat you with it.
I felt this was BS (my apologies Hal if you're reading this, but that's
the way I felt at the time) until I started talking to some very good road
players when they were hanging out waiting for some action. It seems that
almost everyone of them I've talked to about it know about it, use it (when
that was the right shot), and didn't see a great need to talk about it.
The net:net is that I really don't care how anyone takes this and what
they do with it. And, because I am limited in my ability to explain it in a
text format that everybody here seems to demand does not diminish the method
as a whole. I'd have just as hard a time explaining how to waterski or fly
a plane in this format. There's some things you just have to get out there
and do.
--Jim
On 2/23/03 9:02 AM, in article
31a882d7.0302...@posting.google.com, "charlie edwards"
<charlese...@msn.com> wrote:
> Jim Wyant <jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<BA7DE347.F301%jwy...@columbus.rr.com>...
>> On 2/22/03 11:44 PM, in article
>
>>
>> Sheesh, why didn't I think of that. OK everybody, turn off your computers.
>> There's absolutely no need to do anything other than hit a couple of million
>> balls until you become a consummate "feel" player.
>>
>> --Jim
>
> You didn't think of it because it is too simple. And if you tried hitting
> a couple of million balls and still don't get it, maybe a system would be
> helpful to you. Hal's systems may work. But for them to be understood,
> they need to be explained by someone who actually understands them. The
> sysyem would be better served if you let someone else undertake that
> chore. IMO, of coarse. You have a disrespectfull and patronizing attitude,
> and you would be better served to work on that problem, before trying to
> tell people how to aim a cue ball. IMO, of coarse.
>
>
> Charlie Edwards
John Barton
"charlie edwards" <charlese...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:31a882d7.03022...@posting.google.com...news:<BA7D70B7.F2B7%jwy...@columbus.rr.com>...
> shot.
> When it looks right, shoot. Shoot it several times. Practice,
> practice, practice. After
> awhile, when it looks right, it WILL be right. Try it.
>
> Charlie Edwards
Charlie,
In the first eighteen years of my pool playing I have hit a million balls.
I used to practice to the 9th degree. Then when I met Hal three years ago
and started using the system he taught me I started making more balls,
especially on the shots that I used to have trouble on. The aiming felt all
wrong. It felt awkward. Most of the time I would have bet that I would
miss the ball using Hal's system. Then I met a road player who used to run
around with Buddy Hall and he showed me essentially the same thing in a
simplified manner. Now I am consistently able to split the pocket at any
speed. Shots that before were always trouble have now become routine. I
have shown this to my playing friends and they are almost always amazed.
And most of these are good run out players.
My old diving coach used to tell me "if it feels wrong then it's probably
right". What he meant was that in the transition between the wrong way to
do something and the right way the right way will often feel awkward.
I think that you can practice a shot until the end of time and still not get
it right. Some people have an innate talent for seeing the right way while
others need some form of enlightenment. I am one of those that needs help
and I got it in the form of coaching from Hal, and a few pros. I could have
practiced and hit another million balls and still not been able to do the
things I can do now after getting some insight from those who "know" more.
Has the new way to aim made me a world beater? Not hardly. I still have
bad habits like jumping up, choking up on my stroke and so on. But I can
credit the aiming systems with making a lot more shots and getting out quite
a bit more. I can honestly say that I play at least two balls better now
than I did two years ago and this is with almost no routine practice.
John
tony mathews
Gregory wrote:
> Why do you call it the "3 dot" system?
See Jim's post that describes the 3 discrete aiming points on the cueball
for the answer.
Tony
Glenn Godsey
years and I want to thank Jim Wyant, Geoff Clark, and John Barton for
undertaking the thankless task of defending and explaining Hal.
I have been lucky enough to have known a bunch of very famous people in my life
and Hal Houle ranks right up there with the most distinguished of them. Just
having the opportunity of talking with Hal is a privilege, but only those who
have done so will understand why. The systems are of secondary importance to the
character of the man. Even those who have been ridiculed by Hal respect him and
his ideas.
Thanks, Hal, for sharing your insights, your observations, and your wit with us.
Glenn
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." George Bernard Shaw
Patrick Johnson
> undertaking the thankless task of defending and explaining Hal.
Thankless indeed. I bet even Hal doesn't want to thank them. By making a
completely incomprehensible mishmash of it AGAIN and attributing all that
gibberish to Hal AGAIN, all they've done is make Hal seem even more like a snake
oil salesman than the last batch of Hal's "champions" did (and they did a pretty
good job of it a year ago -- and a year before that).
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Jim Wyant
Johnson" <patrick...@attbi.com> wrote:
Funny, that's not what Hal said in the email he sent me this afternoon
regarding these dialogues.
Your endless sniping is getting tedious, Pat.
--Jim
Geoff Clark
last word in.
Not one of us has spoken for Hal, to my recollection, except for me. And as
I stated, I had run my post by Hal and received his ok to post it. Last
thing I wanted to do in front of a sage such as you is get my technicals
wrong.
And to think, you know what Hal is thinking. Geeeeze I feel like a fool.
That's ok, because when all is said and done, your right Pat. The aiming
systems are bullshit. Me, Jim, John, Tony, Linda, Glenn, we are all
bullshit. Just like 3/4 of the guys where you play your pool and 99% of the
guys at that other pool hall you hate to go to are all bullshit. And the
guys at the 7 eleven? we're bullshit like them too. In fact, we're bullshit
just like the 99.9 % of the people you have ever met in your life. Your
absolutely right, system doesn't work. Put it to sleep, it should have been
left in the bunker with Hitler and his hussy Eva.
Uht oh, I said Hitler. Godwin's Law of Usenet. Threads dead. Look it up on
Google. Godwin's Law of Usenet.
Peace everyone, til the next captivating thread, I bid you all adieu ;)
Geoff
"Patrick Johnson" <patrick...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E598E66...@attbi.com...
Dan White
I just got back and have read all the replies that your post generated (the
post below). Two comments and a question come to mind in reading these
posts (this is a long post!):
1) Apparently this topic has been around the block in this NG awhile back,
and some folks are fed up with the esoteric nature of the Hal proponents.
I'm not jaded (yet :) ) and I think you are making a good effort to explain
things, so I applaud you for that.
2) Somebody mentioned to hit a lot of balls and you will become a feel
player. You had something a little confusing to say about reference points,
and things "looking right." I mentioned this once before and its worth it
again: If you hit a lot of the same shot (at least 150) and you pay
attention to what happened (hit fat, hit thin, made shot), eventually what
"looks right" is what puts the ball in the pocket. Your brain remembers
this and when you are in a game situation, what just "looks right" is what
will sink the shot. I think the closest thing to a reference point is
putting the ghost ball in the "just right" spot, and hitting it.
Now, you provided exactly what I was looking for...an explanation of how to
shoot with this system. The explanation is not complete, but what you did
explain, you did well. I want to recap one or two key points, and hopefully
you will answer further questions below so I can understand to the next step
(correct me where I am wrong):
In answering how to know which dot to use, you are basically saying that
when you get down on the shot and look at the pocket the OB has to go into,
it becomes obvious which dot you need (I know you can do this without the
pocket, but you have to know where you want the OB to go). If you tried to
line up the right dot to the right edge of the OB, which will only give you
a small angle for the OB path, and you can see that you need a sharp cut to
sink the OB, then you will see quickly that you need either the center or
left dot...right?
In answering how you are able to sink shots that are similar, like 1"
different, without changing your aim, you give an example of hitting the CB
with the left dot (say we are cutting the ball to the left as in your pdf
file). You say, correctly, that as the CB is moved over to the left more
and more, that the right edge of the OB will also move across the OB to the
left. This seemingly would cause you to hit the ball too fat. However, you
counter that the left dot changes when you move the CB and when you aim this
new dot to the edge of the OB, it still seems to work. You don't seem to
really understand why, but it looks like it does work up to the point where
you realize that you need to use another dot to make the shot work.
Assuming this is a reasonable recap of what you've said, I have a couple of
things to ask:
1. If you are using the left dot, for example, am I reading that you can
still use any english you want, provided that you maintain that line up of
left dot on CB to the edge of the OB? and that the cue alignment has to be
parallel to this left dot line? If so, do you sight over the left dot line,
or over the position of the cue stick?
2. From what I can see so far, the crux of the issue is whether Hal's
method really just gets you to aim in the right general direction of the
pocket, and then your brain takes over through the repetition and makes you
do the right thing, or whether the slight changes in CB-OB position can be
taken into account by Hal's method. I'm not sure I buy the idea that having
the red dot "angle" change on the cue ball is able to readjust the aimpoint
so that it is still on the correct ghost ball position. Consider this
scenario...use your pdf file http://www.tribalknowledge.cc/pool/ThreeDot.pdf
and look at the center drawing where you are using the center dot on the CB
(using the left dot as in your example introduces more confusion, I think).
If you change the original position of the CB over to the left by one inch,
you will still probably want to use the center dot, agreed? But, the aim
method says to align the right edge of the OB with the center dot on the CB.
You just said that the right edge of the OB will rotate in the same
direction as the CB. Now, if you are still aiming the center of the CB to
the (new) right edge of the OB, it is conclusive that you must be hitting
the OB to the left of the original contact point (since the edge/horizon
point also moved to the left). This will cause the OB to be hit fat.
Depending on the shot, the ball may still go in the pocket, or it may not.
Do you agree that this is what happens? If the OB is only 1' from the
pocket, it will probably always go in, but if it is 6' away, it may never.
Whew...let me know what you think.
thanks,
dwhite
"Jim Wyant" <jwy...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BA7C993C.F272%jwy...@columbus.rr.com...
> On 2/21/03 9:30 PM, in article b36nas$p3s$1...@bob.news.rcn.net, "Dan White"
> <dwh...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >> What do you want to know?
> >>
> >> Tony
>
> I know I'm going to hate myself in the morning for doing this,
but......I'm
> going to answer 4 direct questions (these two, Gregory's "what is the
three
> dot system" and PJ's "Explain rotating centers" which is encapsulated in
the
> response to your second question. Gentlemen (and the occasional lady),
> don't shoot the messenger! This isn't everything you need to grasp but
> straight questions warrant as straight an answer as I can provide.
>
> First off, "What is the three dot system?" Imagine your cue ball (or OB,
it
> really doesn't matter which) has a dot/vertical-line at the exact center
of
> the ball (highest point). That is the Center Dot. Similarly, imagine
> another dot/vertical-line half-way between the Center Dot and left edge of
> the ball. That is the Left Dot. Ditto for the Right Dot. Now, you have
> three fixed, consistent reference points on one the two balls (CB and OB).
> On the other ball your reference points are the Right Edge (far outside)
and
> Left Edge. For any shots from about 3 degrees angle to about 75 degrees y
ou
> will align an Edge with one of those three dots.
>
> So, how do you decide which ones....
> > How do you decide on the correct combination of CB and OB aim points for
any
> > given shot?
>
> Take a ball and put it where the ghostball (GB) would ideally contact the
OB
> to split the pocket. Now, go back to behind the cue ball and look at the
> path the CB would have to take to arrive at that GB position. (NOTE: it
> would help if you'd pull down the PDF from
> http://www.tribalknowledge.cc/pool/ThreeDot.pdf which illustrates left cut
> shots and I'll use as a reference point from here on out).
>
> Consider in that drawing the gray "path" the CB will take to arrive at the
> GB position. If you draw a line from the outside edge of the OB (let's
call
> it the Horizon because it is the last part of the OB you can see before it
> starts sloping away from you) and that line is parallel to the line the CB
> must take to reach the GB position. You will see that line intersects one
> of the three dots on the CB (and GB for that matter).
>
> > After determining the above, how do you readjust your aim if you move
the OB
> > to the left by 1 inch?
> This relates back to PJ's request to explain Rotating Centers.
>
> When you move the CB 1" to the left, the Horizon on the OB rotates a
> fraction back towards you. And even though the Horizon change is barely
> perceptible, the contact point of the CB and the OB moves somewhat too.
> This change in the contact point varies based on distance from the CB to
the
> OB.
>
> Now, here's the sticky part and I'm not sure I can properly explain it so
> bear with me. A 1" change in the CB at 3' distance may result (and these
> aren't scientific numbers here) in a 1mm change in the Horizon. And with
> that, as you keep the GB in line with the CB path it would seem to shift
the
> GB back around the curvature of the OB to track with you. But the effect
of
> the GB apparently needing to slide back the to left is negated by the fact
> that what was your (and I'll use Left Dot as an example) Left Dot position
> on the CB has now rotated slightly to the right and there is, in essence,
a
> new Left Dot. Lining up the new Left Dot to the Right Horizon shows that
> the GB has barely moved at all, and this appears to be attributed to the
> fact that the ball is round and the bulge of the curvature of the ball is
> managing (and I know that is a horrible word to use in this context) to
keep
> the ball:ball collision contact point consistent. This appears to hold
true
> while moving the CB sideways until such time the alignment line
dramatically
> moves from one dot to the next....and I honestly can't explain why the
> switch is so dramatic.
>
> How do you decide which dot to use for alignment? Well, in the beginning
I
> had to take a moment to look at where the GB would be and then look at the
> CB line and it was pretty obvious. After a while it just makes sense and
I
> don't even have to look at the pocket and GB position except on rare
> occasion when it appears that the CB is straddling that transition point
> line. The funny thing is, even when it is in the dead-in-between
location,
> what you're really opting for is just left of center pocket or just right
of
> center pocket.
>
> On all of these shots your stick should be directly parallel to the CB to
GB
> line. You can go left or right english, etc., but bear in mind that the
> more cut the more throw, which can only be reduced/negated by speed or by
> applying a bit or outside english (we're talking a half-tip or so).
>
> Do I believe this all makes sense as I write it? Nope. But based upon my
> understanding, perceptions and doing it for several months now this is
close
> to the best I can explain it without being at a table.
>
> --Jim <-- Hell with the morning, I'm hating myself now......Preparing to
don
> the Asbestos suit.
>
>
>
> >
> > thanks,
> > dwhite
> >
> >
>
Patrick Johnson
> last word in.
Am not.
> And to think, you know what Hal is thinking. Geeeeze I feel like a fool.
He has told me, in fact, but I don't try to speak for him. It's my own opinion
that your feeling is appropriate.
> ... Your absolutely right, system doesn't work.
You're absolutely wrong. I never said that. You don't have a clue what I
object to. It's not Hal or his systems. I've never hear a description of them
that I could believe. I object to Hal's "friends" who go crazy about once a
year, speak in tongues and put all their feet in his mouth while grinning and
slapping each other's backs because they think they're doing him a favor. And
try to blame it on the hapless newsgroup witnesses.
(Is it a side effect of Hal's hipmotizm?)
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Jim Wyant
<dwh...@erols.com> wrote:
> Jim -
> I just got back and have read all the replies that your post generated (the
> post below). Two comments and a question come to mind in reading these
> posts (this is a long post!):
>
> 1) Apparently this topic has been around the block in this NG awhile back,
> and some folks are fed up with the esoteric nature of the Hal proponents.
> I'm not jaded (yet :) ) and I think you are making a good effort to explain
> things, so I applaud you for that.
>
> 2) Somebody mentioned to hit a lot of balls and you will become a feel
> player. You had something a little confusing to say about reference points,
> and things "looking right." I mentioned this once before and its worth it
> again: If you hit a lot of the same shot (at least 150) and you pay
> attention to what happened (hit fat, hit thin, made shot), eventually what
> "looks right" is what puts the ball in the pocket. Your brain remembers
> this and when you are in a game situation, what just "looks right" is what
> will sink the shot. I think the closest thing to a reference point is
> putting the ghost ball in the "just right" spot, and hitting it.
I agree that the opportunity to hit a couple of hundred balls is a good
thing, but that could equate to thousands of different potential positions.
And a key issue is a method that gives you consistent feedback. If I know
my aim point is X and my speed is medium and I'm hitting centerball....and I
miss, perhaps I should be looking at my stroke. Am I jerking the cue in by
tightening up my grip at the last second? Do I have a floppy forearm
hanging down? Is my hand taking a path to avoid my hip? That is
information the red-dot laser gave me which confirmed that when I used the
method and stroked properly, and aimed according to the method, it works.
Can I do that hitting hundreds and hundreds of balls - I guess, but it
wasn't a very fruitful experience for me.
>
> Now, you provided exactly what I was looking for...an explanation of how to
> shoot with this system. The explanation is not complete, but what you did
> explain, you did well. I want to recap one or two key points, and hopefully
> you will answer further questions below so I can understand to the next step
> (correct me where I am wrong):
>
> In answering how to know which dot to use, you are basically saying that
> when you get down on the shot and look at the pocket the OB has to go into,
> it becomes obvious which dot you need (I know you can do this without the
> pocket, but you have to know where you want the OB to go). If you tried to
> line up the right dot to the right edge of the OB, which will only give you
> a small angle for the OB path, and you can see that you need a sharp cut to
> sink the OB, then you will see quickly that you need either the center or
> left dot...right?
>
> In answering how you are able to sink shots that are similar, like 1"
> different, without changing your aim, you give an example of hitting the CB
> with the left dot (say we are cutting the ball to the left as in your pdf
> file). You say, correctly, that as the CB is moved over to the left more
> and more, that the right edge of the OB will also move across the OB to the
> left. This seemingly would cause you to hit the ball too fat. However, you
> counter that the left dot changes when you move the CB and when you aim this
> new dot to the edge of the OB, it still seems to work. You don't seem to
> really understand why, but it looks like it does work up to the point where
> you realize that you need to use another dot to make the shot work.
I'd love to have a high speed camera overhead and be able to dissect
precisely what is happening during the impact, but alas......so I explain it
the best way I can understand it.
>
> Assuming this is a reasonable recap of what you've said, I have a couple of
> things to ask:
>
> 1. If you are using the left dot, for example, am I reading that you can
> still use any english you want, provided that you maintain that line up of
> left dot on CB to the edge of the OB? and that the cue alignment has to be
> parallel to this left dot line? If so, do you sight over the left dot line,
> or over the position of the cue stick?
You can use any english when the speed of the shot will sufficiently negate
the throw. As I sain in one post, if you decide to hit soft and aim
correctly, then you had better use outside english. Pat Johnson complained
that he didn't want to be restricted on the english, he'd rather change his
aim. That works, just not in the Three-Dot method. That is purely an
intuitive alignment.
> 2. From what I can see so far, the crux of the issue is whether Hal's
> method really just gets you to aim in the right general direction of the
> pocket, and then your brain takes over through the repetition and makes you
> do the right thing, or whether the slight changes in CB-OB position can be
> taken into account by Hal's method. I'm not sure I buy the idea that having
> the red dot "angle" change on the cue ball is able to readjust the aimpoint
> so that it is still on the correct ghost ball position. Consider this
> scenario...use your pdf file http://www.tribalknowledge.cc/pool/ThreeDot.pdf
> and look at the center drawing where you are using the center dot on the CB
> (using the left dot as in your example introduces more confusion, I think).
> If you change the original position of the CB over to the left by one inch,
> you will still probably want to use the center dot, agreed? But, the aim
> method says to align the right edge of the OB with the center dot on the CB.
> You just said that the right edge of the OB will rotate in the same
> direction as the CB. Now, if you are still aiming the center of the CB to
> the (new) right edge of the OB, it is conclusive that you must be hitting
> the OB to the left of the original contact point (since the edge/horizon
> point also moved to the left). This will cause the OB to be hit fat.
> Depending on the shot, the ball may still go in the pocket, or it may not.
> Do you agree that this is what happens? If the OB is only 1' from the
> pocket, it will probably always go in, but if it is 6' away, it may never.
> Whew...let me know what you think.
>
Unfortunately this is where table time and having someone hide the pockets
seems to get past this question much more quickly. I'll give this some more
thought and try to come up with a better way to explain this. As I said
early on, this is a very difficult thing to just put into text.
--Jim
Dan White
> Unfortunately this is where table time and having someone hide the pockets
> seems to get past this question much more quickly. I'll give this some
more
> thought and try to come up with a better way to explain this. As I said
> early on, this is a very difficult thing to just put into text.
>
will end a lot of the bickering and skepticism...and you will win a lot of
converts.
thanks,
dwhite
tony mathews
Dan White wrote:
> 1. If you are using the left dot, for example, am I reading that you can
> still use any english you want, provided that you maintain that line up of
> left dot on CB to the edge of the OB? and that the cue alignment has to be
> parallel to this left dot line?
All of Hal's systems are based on a method that achieves the correct ghost ball
position using the center of the cue ball (ie: no sidespin) as the starting
point. Hal is a proponent of the Back Hand English (BHE) school of squirt
compensation. So his methods require that you always first find the correct
centerball stick alignment, and then pivot the cue to add any sidespin that you
want.
So no, if you add ANY sidespin to the initial alignment position, the cue will
NOT be parallel to the dot alignment by definition. It will be skewed away from
the direction of applied sidespin.
> If so, do you sight over the left dot line,
> or over the position of the cue stick?
Well this is a good question, and one that Hal and I had several heated debates
over. I think that Hal contends that one should basically sight over the dot
line on every shot. So if you sight with your dominant eye (let's not start
another debate on that now, o.k.?) and you are using the center dot (the middle
of the cueball) then you put the D.E. over the center dot. If the next shot
calls for you to use the right dot, then you put the D.E. over the right dot.
I had a real problem with this as it implied that you should use a different
head position for every shot! And I just don't see the top players doing that.
Hal claimed that perhaps they do, but it is subtle and I might not see it. Well
I've still got a problem with that statement.....
Now I prefer to always maintain the same head position and sight over the cue
stick each time like a Snooker player.
But Hal's argument against this (at least for this 3-dot system) was that while
the cue stick alignment and the dot alignment should be parallel (at least
before any sidespin is applied) if you sight down the cue stick only, the dot
alignment will be to the side and cause a parallax error.
Now my argument was that if you sight over the dots, how do you confirm that the
stick is indeed truly parallel to the dot line? Because if you are sighting over
the dot line, the stick line is shifted to the side of the sighting, and can
cause it's own parallax error.
I don't think that we ever settled this argument. But it's essentially the same
argument for people that sight using the contact point to contact point method
(like Pat) and have to confirm that the stick is also parallel to that line. Pat
suggested some time ago that you could shift your head over both "lines" to
confirm that it looks correct. Again, while in theory this seems like a way to
do it, I just don't see the top players doing this sideways "head-bob" thing.
Perhaps some do.
But the concept of the system is essentially sound. A concrete set of points to
align on most shots with the cue ball points being the variable (and always at
the same distance from your eyes, and close enough that it is easy to see a 1/4
of a ball width adjustment) and a fixed reference point on every object ball
(the outer edge).
It's the mechanics of actually using it that I had a problem with.
Tony