Hamb
Colin, good choice. Earl Strickland and Jayson Shaw didn't post in this thread.
HAMB guarantees nothing in the way of true success. It could lend itself more to mediocrity if poor fundamentals were ingrained instead of proper fundamentals while hitting those million balls.
I agree that all good players play by feel, but where we don't agree is all good players aim visually with specific ways to tie the tip of the cue to the CB and OB.
Shane uses the ferrule to various parts of the OB and CB, others use contact point aiming, some use fractions or overlaps, centers and edges, and believe it or not there are those now using CTE. Can you imagine?!
I've followed this conversation.
I find it interesting in Politics and many other areas that in the end we are trying to get to the same place but the disagreements are as of how its going to be done.
Hamb is certainly how things were done years back and clues, systems were things you came with yourself.
The world changed and became a busier place and people had a lot less Me Time.
Hamb ceased to be working for people with less time. I know that I've personally witnessed a lot of people that would come to Pool Room and get frustrated because they couldnt produce success in their games so they quit and do something else.
I have seen that happen a lot, and Hamb while it is perfectly Holistic in the sense of nothing has been introduced as a Reductionist mechanism, it does not find favor with a great number of busy people or people who otherwise would not get it.
I am a Feel Player. My reductionist system for me is fairly pure in that I try to maintain some of accepted principles of lining up for the shot, getting down for shot and being in position to play the shot from a visual standpoint.
I know the end result is the same as other systems except that I have an absolute clear picture of what to deliver to based on my reductionist system.
This allows me to apply feel to it in the delivery. What I have not done in my system is dictate delivery points as this is to be done in my system based on what you see and feel by visual clue systems that are there to use for that.
I do not know the system that Dave uses I have a hard time with such for a neurological reason, if I were someone that had trouble learning to play pool I would have no problem with my system. If I were that same person, who got better and wanted more for delivery point application, I might learn the system Dave uses. In that way the rising tide raises all ships.
We all might be trying to get to the same place. One with an apt description to the finest detail and less feel involved and one with a little more feel.
If in the life cycle of pool one does get better at the art the end result is that we do so and learn to spin the ball.
I think in the end the virtuoso hits the dramatic high E crescendo and the player fires in and go 3 rails around to get himself in shape to run out and both get to the end.
If you want to see something done totally by feel. Look up Holland has Talent and see the 9 year old opera singer. I would bet she is a feel singer. What kind of unearthly skill this little girl has is truly a gift. If we all played pool like she can sing we wouldn't argue on how to get there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDqTBlKU4CE
I would guess that what I am trying to say is that reductionist theory and practice is not necessarily a bad thing if it enables people to learn to do something. Especially if the target is Holistic in focus for the person using it. The point is better made when we get there. Everything that I have done and will do I try to remain holistic in my result but I certainly want you to get there.
