Now I know you're a wack job.
BHE vs FHE
- Thread starter slach
- Start date
Yeh, you're right but I made a mistake. I am a whack job... for thinking YOU had your shit together and knew what you were talking about. Oh, how wrong I was!Now I know you're a wack job.
You could have a judge on the US Supreme Court tell him that (even one of his own political choice even though he's a
fur-in-er) and he's not going to believe it. He knows all, sees all, and is all when it comes to pool. A legend in his own mind.
I wonder how many individuals on this forum have been to as many professional tournaments up close and personal as you have to see what they do and have talked to some of the pros? I'd put you in the top five.
Last edited:
Great find! U-DA-MAN!!
But here's what's going to happen. The deniers will continue to be the deniers even though Shaneverbally said what he does and then performed it as clear as can be. The ONLY things I can come up with for better proof that he doesn't pivot is a 2D drawing, Einsteinian math formulas (which prove jack sh*t) and deny, deny, deny.
As far as both of their warmup strokes go, it's hard to tell where they're going to strike the CB. It's all over the place and fast.
Last edited:
Well....Honestly....I don't necessarily think anyone was wrong....except maybe those that said no top pros use DHE....and/or should take up Tidly Winks......(Sorry...That to me was a short sighted and stubborn derogatory comment that struck me the wrong way I guess)..... and even they were not 100% wrong as Shane even said for a specific side he prefers to pre-set the contact point prior to the final stroke as he is more comfortable doing it that way (on that specific side).................And even though Efren applied DHE on one shot and was (looked to be) pre-set off to the side on the other (or perhaps that was just camera angle)....I think he does it both ways.....I have also watched a video of Alex P. saying he does whatever he feels comfortable with that day......many ways to skin a cat........and all of them result in the same thing....a skinned cat.Great find! U-DA-MAN!!
verbally said what he does and then performed it as clear as can be. The ONLY things I can come up with for better proof that he doesn't pivot is a 2D drawing, Einsteinian math formulas (which prove jack sh*t) and deny, deny, deny.
I refer back to my POST #227....You will never get a full agreement on which way is the right/best way.
I also post in a Vintage Muscle Bike Forum........Best/Correct Aiming and English debates are akin to Best Oil Debates.....You will never never ever get full agreement........and the debate will go on forever.......cause you all know....we forum jockeys are experts at debates.
Pretty sure we have a better chance of proving String Theory than proving best/proper English application.
Lol. I feel better now.Yeh, you're right but I made a mistake. I am a whack job... for thinking YOU had your shit together and knew what you were talking about. Oh, how wrong I was!
You're so much more diplomatic than most (especially me) for not wanting to offend or step on any toes. Too many years on here for me to be that way.
If Shane and Efren did BHE for inside spin, I'd sure like to know how because ain't no way I can. For me, it has to be preset.
Outside is a different story. It's not only English but combines with the actual aiming process based on where the tip/shaft is
aligned on the OB as well as amount of tip offset from CCB.
Especially on THIS forum!
And or arguments. (debate is too mild)
I've proved it for myself, the most important person that needs something to be proven and all that matters. It was a lot of table time and experimentation as well as one of the wisest men I've ever known...Hal Houle! RIPPretty sure we have a better chance of proving String Theory than proving best/proper English application.
Ron Vitello, an extremely good player in NYC and gambler at anything, created a method of aiming and playing called 90/90.
Nobody on here would want a piece of his action for cash because it would be an instant loss. Here he is aiming off center with no regard for contact points, fractions or whatever. It's alignment...pivot...shoot. I saw it in person and blew me away.
Unfortunately, Ron passed away from cancer.
Nobody on here would want a piece of his action for cash because it would be an instant loss. Here he is aiming off center with no regard for contact points, fractions or whatever. It's alignment...pivot...shoot. I saw it in person and blew me away.
Unfortunately, Ron passed away from cancer.
Last edited:
IIRC you have spoken to Hal so he may have shared this with you.....IDK.......Thing is....you actually don't even need all the pivot stuff.....I have seen a couple references to this online....This was something Hal and I talked about during one of our hour plus long conversations many years ago.....He talked about how the vertical horizon (of the ball) moves as the angle changes.......I am not sure what the degree# is this works up to but for all of those shallow angle shots....you can almost not even know where the pocket is and make the shot.....Here is a video of me rapid firing where I only look at where the bottom of the ball meets the cloth as my aim point.....as the angle changes....so does the bottom of the ball in relation to the slight angle change....no pivot, no twist, turn or anything....just center CB to the bottom of the ball where it meets the cloth......Yes I miss a few...My damn chair gets in the way on one......and...well.....I am not an extremely good player....I suck at pool and have a crappy stroke.....so...there you go........but you get the idea.
You can see I am not really even looking at the where the pocket is.....I am just setting up to center CB to the bottom of the ball where it meets the cloth.........You basically ignore the 3D aspect of the ball and look at it in 2d.....It kind of forms a little triangle on each side......(On the right side cutting to the left and left cutting to the right)....If the shot were dead straight you shoot to the center of the OB I am not promoting NOT looking at where the pocket is....or taking time to align.....but...what I am getting at is......you "almost" don't have to for many shots.
Ahhhh, I don't think so. LMAO
Excellent video as well as shooting. I wonder what math genius is going to be the first one to come on here and say you were only "claiming" to be aiming at the base of the ball when you were actually doing something else. THE MATH JUST DOESN'T
WORK OUT!" WAAAAH, WAAAAH, WAAAAH....
What's the "vertical horizon"?
Isn't "the bottom of the ball where it meets the cloth" and "the center of the OB" the same thing? What's different?
pj
chgo
Here is a picture example of the vertical horizon, Left bottom, Center Bottom and Right Bottom. The picture is helpful as it kind of makes it easier to view in 2D..... As the CB-OB relationship changes.....the vertical horizon and bottom of ball reference points also change.
For this shot since it is obviously a cut to the left....you simply aim center CB to the cut left point where the cloth and ball meet.....(you can see the triangle that forms between the cloth and the ball)
Thanks. Here's an old post about the same thing (I think).
Greyghosts aiming method.......come step into the darkness
First off I want to say that I happened upon this some time ago while having problems seeing the shots on the table.... Its completely possible that I didn't invent this at all, just stumbled upon old knowledge....I've spoken with a few older players that have been around and one told me he had...
forums.azbilliards.com
pj
chgo
I think it is a very similar concept.....Now I am going to blow the whole thing up.....so to speak.
I made a GBC tool that I thought would help me see (or identify a method to see) those sharper "off" angles....those "tweeners" that you are just not sure.......Theoretically I can slide it on and it will identify the center of the ghost ball....I made it so that you can slide the tip of your shaft up to the cut out and pivot over the CB and see the track line the CB should take...(throwing out CIT)
Now here is a couple "examples" of that similar angle shot in the clip I posted.
The 1-ball was not moved between the two pictures.....If I were to use the GB center for both shots....I will overcut the second one....The GBC makes it hard to see but I would (based on the bottom of the ball method) would be aiming slightly inside the GBC (basically the left edge of the tip cut out)
I can make the ball all day using the bottom of the ball track line....but have zero consistency using a track line to the GBC.....(I don't get it).....It seems like mathematically it should be reversed....I should be able to make the ball using the GBC mark anywhere on the table up to a 90 degree cut.
What I have found from experimenting with the GBC is that as the cut gets sharper and sharper.....the margin of error gets smaller and smaller....(I don't know if that is mathematically correct or not...I will let guys smarter than me figure that out).
What I have concluded from all this.....and which is why I don't knock anyone's method for aiming, english , stroke application etc. etc.....(or even the guy that insists he just goes by feel........Is....I think.....visual perception and comfort level of a method are different for everyone.....
Kind of the...Does an orange (to me) actually taste like and orange to someone else?
This however is probably a whole nother thread
I love it! That triangle point where the ball meets the cloth is what I call “the crook,” like the crook of an elbow. I use both the OB and CB crooks as reference points. This was one of those things that I also spoke to Hal about, and he said, “yeah, yeah, you could use that point.”
Yes, it's geometrically correct.
For a shot to one pocket from one OB position, you can think of the margin for error as a "wide" OB contact point, the same width for any cut, full or thin. It's widest when you look at it straight on (for a straight shot), but as it moves around the ball toward the ball's edge it becomes a smaller and smaller target because it's "tilting" more and more away from straight on.
pj
chgo
I remember in previous conversations about this it was suggested that the shadow likely moves as the ball changes position on the table - or from table to table with different lights. Does it always look/work the same for you?
pj
chgo
The allowed error in where the cue ball lands left-right of the perfect spot is proportional to the cosine of the cut angle. That means:
A 60-degree cut shot has half the allowed error as a straight-in.
A 75-degree cut shot has about 1/4 the allowed error as a straight-in.
If you set up the 60-degree shot, it seems much more than twice as hard as the straight-in but I think that's because we have less practice shooting the thinner cuts.