Patrick Johnson said:
There is a logical and rational reason this stuff works: adjustment.
If there's a "geometric reason", then it can be shown with geometry. This is a free and open forum, so anybody is welcome to show it.
The success of many is only proof that they can make these systems work for themselves. It says nothing about how they do that. (And, by the way, many play very well without them.)
Geometry shows what can't be true about the systems and logic suggests what probably is true about them. System users tend to be unversed in these areas, so communication can be difficult.
pj
chgo
I would agree with except for two experiences I had. I showed Hal's systems to some real beginners, true APA3s. Melody owned a bar in Loveland Colorado and held a weekly tournament with 16 people in it. I was a regular there.
Mel really couldn't play well and would often miss the simplest of shots in her matches. John was about and APA4 or 5 and could run a couple balls.
Anyway I showed this system to Mel and she started making shots that she couldn't possibly have made before learning the system. And making them consistently. She and John were like kids with new toys. Both of them were now able to make just about every shot they tried.
A little while later I was on the way to Vegas and I missed my flight. So I got a hotel room and the hotel had a pool table in the lobby. So I was playing and this elderly lady wandered over and asked if I wanted a partner. I said yes and we began to play. She was an APA1 at best. After a few games I couldn't stand it and asked her if she would like some instruction. She said sure and so I spent an hour or so teaching her how to stroke the cue, how to stand, and so on. Towards the end she was striking the cue ball fairly well and so I decided to teach her this aiming system. It takes her a few minutes to grasp it but when she does she starts pocketing balls from everywhere. No sidespin. And she is wide eyed and saying how does that work? I tell her I am not sure as I have just learned it myself and am working on it.
Were it not for those two experiences where true beginners started making shots well above their skill level then I would totally buy your adjustment argument. But there is no possible way that they can adjust themselves into a higher level of player.
As for the geometry, well I suppose that you can show what can't work using geometry. Of course there is no possible way on Earth that any aiming system is defying physics. However they do work so the answer must be that there is a mathematical reason why they do work.
I use these systems and have beaten very good players. Are you saying that I am unversed in logic as well? How do you think it's possible that so many people are equally unversed in logic?
I mean I'd totally agree with you if there weren't so many others who can and do think rationally who know that they work.
Beyond that why would so many instructors be teaching variations if they didn't work? Wouldn't the students complain? Wouldn't the BCA yank the accreditation if all these instructors were selling snake oil?
To be honest I have never gotten deep enough into all this to know much about the "only 4 angles for all shots" or "works for every shot" claims. Hal made no such claims when he showed me his systems.
If I were in the business of pursuing a complete library of what happens on a pool table then I'd certainly be interested in extracting every bit of reasoning from the people who made such claims as to WHY they made them. I'd want to know what do they see or what have they devised that leads them to believe what they are saying. And if true then I'd be the one who finally got it on tape and if not then I'd have what I needed from the source to be able to dissect the claim.
You're right in that it's a problem of communication. Because the geometry majors and the teachers are probably using different paradigms to reflect their thoughts on the subject. Thus what the people who make seemingly outrageous claims mean may not be what the geometricans think that they mean. At least I think that this might be partially the case.
As for the Houligans and the Vitelites and the Sammies I agree that they all found something that works, like a cheat code as Spidey put it, and that feels good. But like every other cheat code it also becomes a crutch where you can't do it on the natural anymore. Before I ever read a book on playing pool I used aim and pivot. I saw the right line clearly and intuitively compensated for deflection.
Later when I wanted to get better I bought Byrne's book and other books. I learned to aim using ghost ball and compensate for deflection. My game went to shit and became inconsistent.
Now I feel like a kid again and am not afraid of any shot. And when I am on then I am really on. If that makes me illogical and silly then so be it - I am happy making shots that get applause.
Mike is also an instructor who has already published selfless and valuable instruction in various areas of pocket billiards (at least on video).
