Aiming ain't Easy, Angles ain't so Hard!

[Colin Colenso]

Sheesh. Give it up Colin. You can't read. Only I have been talking about Contact Point and Pivot. Hal doesn't teach this system often.

Ok, Only you, not HH, but he does not teach it often. Should I give it up or should you take your foot out of your mouth?

He teaches other related systems (pivoting) as well as ball-to-ball relation systems. It's this type of oversight and generalization that has me disgusted in these threads. You're proving that you don't have the decency to read everything, yet you've certainly put a lot of answers out there.

I read all the links you gave that purportedly explained your system. Hal is still too busy working out how to use the CAPS LOCK key to ever put his theory down in writing. At least, despite mine and other requests you cannot direct us to a page online that explains this multi-facited yet somehow simplistic system.

It's obvious you guys confuse the hell out of people, cause you somehow expect them to have read every Houleian post ever made or to have listened in on his phone calls. If it's so hot, find or make a decent explanatory link, rather than sheeshing intelligent inquiries.

No kidding. THat's the beauty of the Houle systems. It makes aiming easier because you're using finite point to align and aim. I'm sure you missed all of that.

Fred

What system? Does he have a player using his system who can pot as well as any snooker player in the top 1,000?

I put out my ideas clearly and with diagrams, outlining the error of your system (which HH doesn't often teach, according to your words) yet you ignore them. I believe that's because you don't know how to answer them.

I'd prefer you'd just stick to the substance of the technical issues rather than sheesh me and complain how disgusted you are about these threads that don't accept a bunch of aiming ideas that are not presented anywhere clearly and in detail.

 

[bruin70]

Interesting you used the ghost ball Bruin.

Tell me, when you're watching a game and you see a cue ball travelling toward an object ball. Do you predict where the angle of the object ball will go intuitively, or do you see a ghost ball and draw a line through it in your mind to establish that angle.

I grant, my ideal image would have been to have a video image of a cue ball traveling toward the object ball. My guess is most of you could have predicted the deflection line accurately without any thought of contact points or ghost balls.

in real life, i see angles intuitively. but the diagram made me see a ghost ball. i think if you flipped the diagram 90 degrees and facing north, similiar to how a player sees, instead of a sideways diagram, i would have seen it intuitively.

which all goes to say, the diagram, for me, did not convey what you were driving at......nothing more

 

[pete lafond]

It seems that everyone who clings to anti-Houle systems can't seem to get past this point.

Fred

I do not know what the Houle is the Houle system. But I do know that aiming is all about seeing the absolute path of the object ball to the pocket. Regarding the cue ball, well that's just plain experience, you just know where you are hitting it. In nine ball especially you need to sometimes apply a little more or a little less stroke with english. The result is the point on the object ball just changed. Also consider excess humidity or dirty balls, again all is lost. It is so much easier to see the entire path of the OB to the part of the pocket you are playing and then send the cue ball to enable that path. All adjustments are easy and simple. Most importantly, much less to think about.

I played golf on a snooker table and found myself shooting with the same system , only I spent a little more time being more exacting.

 

[Boro Nut]

What system? Does he have a player using his system who can pot as well as any snooker player in the top 1,000?

You're wasting your time Colin. They have no idea what a good potter looks like and it wouldn't occur to them to ask one what aiming system they are never using.

Home truths.

If you ever had to be told which way to turn the steering wheel of the car, you just haven't got what it takes.

If you ever had to be told how to aim to make a ball go in a pocket, you just haven't got what it takes.

If you still need to use an aiming "system" to make balls go in a pocket, you just haven't got what it takes.

Old men can't pot.

Billiards players can't pot.

Old Billiards potting systems repackaged as many ways as you like, are crap.

If you are happy with the way your old repackaged billiards potting system has transformed your game, I'm very happy for you. But don't presume to tell a potter how to pot. Just accept that you haven't got what it takes.

Boro Nut

 

[Hal]

The illustration at the beginning of this thread is completely irrellevant. It has no bearing on what people use as an aiming method. It's an overhead view. The way I view it is: Where the cueball is going to be at contact (which is the same place it would be for ghost ball) will send the 9ball towards the black dot. I don't see how you can compare that illustration to ANY aiming system.

 

[Colin Colenso]

The illustration at the beginning of this thread is completely irrellevant. It has no bearing on what people use as an aiming method. It's an overhead view. The way I view it is: Where the cueball is going to be at contact (which is the same place it would be for ghost ball) will send the 9ball towards the black dot. I don't see how you can compare that illustration to ANY aiming system.

It was an illustration intended to demostrate that aiming is better done intuitively than by using lines through certain points.

While you're here Hal, can you direct me to any links which comprehensively explain your system/s?

[edited] - Oh, your're not the HH Hal right? That's Sonia?

 

[LastTwo]

Colin when you used the diagram to disprove the aiming system working, you have to understand that showing something in 2-D is not the same as being down on the shot in real life. In 2-d you view both balls as the same size, yet in real life 3-d when you are down on the shot, the cueball looks bigger and the object ball looks much smaller because of your distance from it. There is absoloutely no way to use a 2-D diagram to disprove something that only works in 3-D.

 

[Hal]

It was an illustration intended to demostrate that aiming is better done intuitively than by using lines through certain points.

While you're here Hal, can you direct me to any links which comprehensively explain your system/s?

[edited] - Oh, your're not the HH Hal right? That's Sonia?

If you're suggesting that I'm HH I'm not. My name is Hal Turner. This can be verified with AZMarketplace. I have purchased several items from them using paypal with a VERIFIED address. If you're not suggesting I'm HH, then what's your point?

 

[vapoolplayer]

The thing I pay most attention to is the angle the object ball must take to the pocket. The line I select for the cue ball is intuitive.

if you can't describe how YOU aim YOURSELF...........then quit bringing up aiming.

you don't even know how you aim........you just do it "intuitively".

VAP

 

[Hal]

I can't describe how I aim either. If I had to pick one, I'd choose ghost ball I guess. I look at the object ball and picture the cue ball frozen to it in line with the pocket. That's where I want the cue ball to be at contact. Whatever you want to call it, that's what I use.

 

[vapoolplayer]

question for colin

colin, if i told you that i aim any and all shots using THREE lines on my CUE, at only ONE spot on the object ball.........for EVERY SHOT ON THE TABLE, no matter WHAT ANGLE............would you believe me???? would you say it defies physics?

if you don't think it can be done, you're actually the idiot i thought you were.

VAP

 

[vapoolplayer]

colin, if i told you that i aim any and all shots using THREE lines on my CUE, at only ONE spot on the object ball.........for EVERY SHOT ON THE TABLE, no matter WHAT ANGLE............would you believe me???? would you say it defies physics?

if you don't think it can be done, you're actually the idiot i thought you were.

VAP

and i actually mean the CUE that is in my hands.

VAP

 

[Fred Agnir]

Fact is I disproved the theory you put forth diagramatically, and on the table which is what you requested.:

How can you possible "disprove it" when people report it works? Are you that arrogant?

 

[Fred Agnir]

Seems you have multiple systems of aiming. Not that that is necessarily wrong, but I'd rather confront one at a time....for clarity's sake.


.

Over 20. Maybe you need to call Hal rather than try to confront anything.

Fred <~~~ uses part of 3 or 4 depending on the shot at hand

 

[Fred Agnir]

i used the ghost ball because the diagram demanded it of me.

Interesting you used the ghost ball Bruin.

Why would it be intersting Colin?

 

[Fred Agnir]

If you ever had to be told how to aim to make a ball go in a pocket, you just haven't got what it takes.

All good stuff. If you haven't got what it takes, is there something wrong with learning a system then? If a system is available and is being taught, shouldn't those that "haven't got it" try a system?

When you snooker players play pool like Karen and Allison did, and they needed help with creative play, kick shots, and overall position play, they went to work with pool players. Pete Fusco put hours in with Corr. Allison toured with Grady. Do you think they learned some tricks that had nothing to do with potting snooker balls on snooker tables? Do you think they learned any "systems"? Or would you and Colin be so arrogant to think that they're potting skills is the only thing that got them anywhere.

And BTW, I was there at Karen Corr's very first WPBA event. She missed many easy pots. Why? Cuz it's pool, not snooooker. If it was the same game, then there'd be no discussions. You and Colin obviously don't have it to understand that.

If you are happy with the way your old repackaged billiards potting system has transformed your game, I'm very happy for you.

Thank you. And that's from everyone whom it helped.

But don't presume to tell a potter how to pot. Just accept that you haven't got what it takes.

Is this the problem? READING COMPREHENSION by snooker players or EGO PROBLEMS? .I NEVER presumed to tell a potter how to pot. The friggin' title of the thread was "What do you aim at?" And the question wasn't a general "you." It was specific to the individual. And many of us said what "we" aimed at. The anti-system people came out yet again in full force with paper and pencil to discredit us. Sheesh.

Everything you wrote was good and true. It's too bad that it was misplaced.


Fred

 

[Fred Agnir]

I suggest you print this and absorb it first

Ok, Only you, not HH, but he does not teach it often. Should I give it up or should you take your foot out of your mouth?

If this makes you feel good, go for it. Know however that the balls are going in on the table, but they aren't going in on the paper. Funny how your "logic" works.

At least, despite mine and other requests you cannot direct us to a page online that explains this multi-facited yet somehow simplistic system.

I've described several of the systems, and several people have commented on these threads of their positive experience. Maybe it's just you.

It's obvious you guys confuse the hell out of people, cause you somehow expect them to have read every Houleian post ever made

Well, if you're going to post contradictory crap that shows you didn't read, then I have to point it out. There have been numerous posts, the majority of them saying to guys who continue using paper and pencil to put them down. If you don't want to understand or believe the system, why do you continue on putting it down? Drop it and move on. This system isn't for you.

What system? Does he have a player using his system who can pot as well as any snooker player in the top 1,000?

Arrogant. I'll take Bustamante and Efren on a pool table. THis is pool. For those that can't make balls, and they need a system, they can either say "poof, make me a snooker player," or they can try any of the available systems that instructors are teaching (I'm not an instructor). I'll vote for the latter, LOGICALLY.

I'd prefer you'd just stick to the substance of the technical issues rather than sheesh me and complain how disgusted you are about these threads that don't accept a bunch of aiming ideas that are not presented anywhere clearly and in detail.

Nope. You deserve a 'sheesh.' I'm as technical as anyone, but on this, there's obviously something going on beyond my simplistic understanding.At some point, if it works (and it WORKS), there's no reason to get to the minutia. None. If it doesn't work (for YOU), then there's no reason to get to the minutia. Why then discuss the minutia, Colin? Is there any logic to it? No, Mr. Logic, there's none.

I'll continue to show how to aim and execute the systems. That is my charter, to which I have been given permission. It is not my charter to get to the technical details. It is, however, in my nature to respond in kind to anyone who gives negative posts without the decency to read and comprehend, show arrogance against the system that they've never worked with, or think for one second that physics and science supercede playing on a table.

If it is your intention to learn why it works, we've got a good discussion. If it's your intention to why it doesn't work, you've already been proven wrong.


Fred

 

[Hal]

Colin Colenso you have not responded to the suggestion that I'm actually HH. Please explain yourself.

 

[Fred Agnir]

It was an illustration intended to demostrate that aiming is better done intuitively than by using lines through certain points.

While you're here Hal, can you direct me to any links which comprehensively explain your system/s?

[edited] - Oh, your're not the HH Hal right? That's Sonia?

Talk about Foot in Mouth. This "Hal" is from Tennessee. He is not Hal or Sonia Houle.

Note to Colin: every person in the states who is named Hal is not Hal Houle. That is, someone else, who has nothing to do FA, HH, DM, or VA has pointed out the errors of you logic.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

Fred

 

[Fred Agnir]

Colin Colenso you have not responded to the suggestion that I'm actually HH. Please explain yourself.

That's cuz he's a snooker player. He only knows how to pot. He has no idea that two people can be named Hal. He's confusing you with Hal Houle (HH).

Fred