I think most of the guys here are just aiming system advocates wanting to give input with useful questions, as I (hope) I did. Just to point it out, there are plenty of "aim-by-feel rabid responders" to every CTE thread out there too, no one drop of rain is to blame for the flood.
AIMING BY HALVES - A Fractional Technique
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
- Status
I think most of the guys here are just aiming system advocates wanting to give input with useful questions, as I (hope) I did. Just to point it out, there are plenty of "aim-by-feel rabid responders" to every CTE thread out there too, no one drop of rain is to blame for the flood.
I'll only respond to this thread because this is at the heart of continued misunderstanding of the Hal Houle approach. What Pat has described absolutely has merit. The only issue I see is the old issue of aiming by fractions... you can't see the fractions that are off the ball and it's difficult to find the fraction between full and half.
So, to this post, I don't think this is the best way to see aim lines and angles (and this is purely a personal opinion). For me, using edges and centers is superior for the simple point that you can actually see an edge or center (or the magical point in between for those that ever get into the systems).
But then again, that's what some of the Houle-systems are about (e.g. Small Ball Aiming) - taking the age-old fractional aiming and doing something that no longer makes it fractional aiming and guessing somewhere off the object ball but instead makes it a ball-to-ball relation aiming using centers and edges. Is this new to people? I think so.
And to the point of the post, I firmly believe that if you continue with this method (Aiming by Halves), in the real world on a real table, you will conclude that you have a finite number not infinite number of aim points before you get to a point of diminishing returns or simply diminished perception of half points. I'd say 7 per side and not much more off the top of my head.
Freddie <~~~ went there
Halves is simple and "open" enough that anybody can see without any help whether or not it might be useful for them and then try it without any special "advice". It doesn't really matter why all the negative "reviews" have come only from the usual CTE cult members.
pj
chgo
P.J. you need to put it on a dvd and sell it there just arent enough aiming systems out there. I really think there is a market there. It may the one thing missing in the world of pool instruction. We have banking and kicking systems position systems break instructuon and junping instruction. We have pre shot routines but no aiming methods please help us.
You're right Pat, it's transparent and easy to understand. But it's not "aiming". It's guessing until one gets to the right shot line for a particular shot. Then that shot must be practiced to reinforce the found line. Then it's on to the next shot and another round of guessing and more practice, repeat, repeat, repeat.
By this method any shot line can be found fairly quickly IN PRACTICE SESSIONS where you get unlimited attempts.
But how does it translate to the game?
If you had say two attempts to make a shot or get tasered and you faced ten random shots would you want to take this technique you are (I guess seriously) advocating into the challenge or would you want something more precise that works without guessing?
Or to pacify you I should say would you want something that reduces guessing to almost nothing - reduces the amount of uncertainty to the point that it's a fraction of a second to make a decision?
I know which one I am taking to the taser challenge.
By this method any shot line can be found fairly quickly IN PRACTICE SESSIONS where you get unlimited attempts.
But how does it translate to the game?
If you had say two attempts to make a shot or get tasered and you faced ten random shots would you want to take this technique you are (I guess seriously) advocating into the challenge or would you want something more precise that works without guessing?
Or to pacify you I should say would you want something that reduces guessing to almost nothing - reduces the amount of uncertainty to the point that it's a fraction of a second to make a decision?
I know which one I am taking to the taser challenge.
I know which one im taking also, but i am certain it wont be the same one John does.
Yes, you have to use the CB's edge rather than its center to keep the thinner-than-halfball "aimpoints" on the OB (see my post about that). This is the same old way of coping with that since fractional methods came along.
More difficult for some than for others, but I agree it's harder than finding centerball and it's even harder to estimate accurate smaller fractions. But this method doesn't rely on being completely accurate with your "system alignments" - it's about narrowing the perceived range of possible cut angles to something that isn't so daunting so your subconscious can take over.
Edges and centers by themselves aren't as "fine grained" as the smaller divisions used with Halves, but I agree the systems that use them may be better for some. Halves may be better for others (or a supplemental method for anybody) - since it's so transparent and easy to evaluate I think that choice can safely be left up to the user.
pj
chgo
Would you be willing to let someone you care about use your method? Say a complete beginner.
You get an hour to teach them how to aim and I get an hour as well. Then after one hour we let them each shoot ten random shots with five tries each.
The one who misses more gets tased. That way our own respective experiences are not part of it. We take fresh students who don't know anything and test on them.
Or better yet, the teachers get tased. So whichever student performs worse for each shot gets their teacher tased.
Want to take that bet?
Well said and i agree with you completely. Everyone should be so amiable to people who use other methods. I was really happy with the pith system. It works great now if i could just do it 10 of 10 while loading up with bottom outside and a very firm stroke so i can get from mid table to the long rail and spin back towards the corner pocket for position im all set.
Yep.
LOL. OK, John. We know we can count on you to give your honest, unbiased opinion without showing favoritism to The System You're Sworn To Defend Against All Threats Real Or Imagined (whatever that might be).
pj
chgo
the only way to do that scientificly is to both use the same beginner and alternate on each shot who coaches first otherwise there is way to big a variable in differences of natural ability.
I am sure we can find two suitably similar subjects. We can't coach the same subject because the first instruction influences the second.
However I will be happy to do it that way and let you go first because I can't lose.
The way I see it is that the player who is coached will make x-number of balls using the first method and then later after the second coaching they will the make same amount or more because of having the knowledge of the first method PLUS the second method.
So if the losing instructor gets tased I will be safe doing it your way.
Pretty much what I said all along. Any player can learn by any method and then they have that knowledge with them all the time. With it they can choose what to use and when. But if they are prevented from learning then they do not have all the tools in their box.
People like Pat try to prevent people people from learning any method he doesn't agree with. People like me say learn them all, try them all, keep what you like and are successful with.
I thought my post was equivalent at least a HALVE thumbs-up. It certainly wasn't negative and you calling CTE proponents "cult members" is just downright mean-spirited. :crying:
Oh sorry, you mean to say then to all the people reading this that they should practice using the Aiming by Guessing method and then when they are in an actual game they should ONLY take the shots that they have figured out using the Aiming by Guessing method?
It's not defending Pat. It's contrasting.
Your way, which I am starting to think you are serious about, confines the player to the range of shots that they have "figured out".
My way, which is to use the sytematic approach to aiming, opens up the player to every shot on the table at any time.
That's a pretty big difference to me.
In a tournament game if I come up to a shot which I haven't practiced ever then I have a way better chance to make it by using the systems I know than your student would have using the Aiming by Guessing method you advocate here.
If that's not significant to you then I have to conclude that you honestly do not care whether people reading this get better.
Well, stop acting like Scientologists then. Every post about aiming is not an attack on your religion.
pj
chgo
Correct, by themselves, centers and edges wouldn't be as fine grained. You'll need more cueball points. So, if you use the smaller divisions (and halves) at the cueball in conjunction with centers and edges of the object ball, then you have the same smaller divisions, but your divisions will be at a the close cueball rather than the far away object ball. Plus, you'll be lined up with a center or edge. Then that would be quite Houlian.
Freddie
yes but no 2 will learn at the speed thats why i said one pupil and we alternate who coaches first on each shot.
I'm not sure this improves accuracy the way you think, but no matter - since Halves relies on reducing measurements on the OB, this is irrelevant for it anyway.
But interesting, as usual, Fred.
pj
chgo
Um ok. Since this is not going to go off and you don't really seem to understand the experiment and are obviously dead set against the idea of a systematic approach to aiming how about we drop it.
Let's just leave it at the fact that I will put myself on the line to be tasered to prove that what I say is in fact the way it is.
- Status