aiming

eze said:
I was wondering those of you that use Hal's aiming
method,lets say your cutting a ball to the right,does
the cut angle make a difference where the bridge
hand is place and cuetip before the pivot or is the
cue tip always in the same place?

That was the main reason I posted the diagram. I think it does matter a lot. The further away the cueball is from the object ball the closer to the center you would have to start before the pivot. And alternately, if the amount of pivot for the system were based on a shot where the cueball and object ball are separated by a long distance (where the pivot starting point would have to be just outside of centerball), then a short distance shot would be underpivoted and hit too thickly.

But I still think the system is good. Not for aiming but for waking up your instinct for aiming.

Edit: I just reread your post. If you're asking whether the angle of shot determines where you're supposed to start your pivot, it's not taught that way. You're supposed to not even concern yourself with angles. It's taught that all shots are the same. Except that shallower angled shots pivot from the other side of the cueball. You still line up center cueball to oject ball edge, but you put your cue on the other side before pivoting. But in my opinion it still matters where you put it on that side.
 
Last edited:
bluepepper said:
That was the main reason I posted the diagram. I think it does matter a lot. The further away the cueball is from the object ball the closer to the center you would have to start before the pivot. And alternately, if the amount of pivot for the system were based on a shot where the cueball and object ball are separated by a long distance (where the pivot starting point would have to be just outside of centerball), then a short distance shot would be underpivoted and hit too thickly.

But I still think the system is good. Not for aiming but for waking up your instinct for aiming.
Why not just line up to where the cueball has to be at contact, line up your eye and body to that the bride with your cue already at an angle.
If you go down, and pivot with your arm, on your last stroke, your arm might go back to it's natural angle... miscue.
 
JoeyInCali said:
Why not just line up to where the cueball has to be at contact, line up your eye and body to that the bride with your cue already at an angle.
If you go down, and pivot with your arm, on your last stroke, your arm might go back to it's natural angle... miscue.

Joey, I agree with you. I'm just giving my take on the system in question.
 
bluepepper said:
Joey, I agree with you. I'm just giving my take on the system in question.
OK. my bad.
How about aiming dead center, then moving your rear to the opposite angle of the english. Then freeze on that, and start stroking.
That way your bridged hand is still dead center and that your stroking arm is still at it's natural line.
 
JoeyInCali said:
OK. my bad.
How about aiming dead center, then moving your rear to the opposite angle of the english. Then freeze on that, and start stroking.
That way your bridged hand is still dead center and that your stroking arm is still at it's natural line.

I'm trying to picture this. Are you talking about a backhand english type move?
 
JoeyInCali said:
OK. my bad.
How about aiming dead center, then moving your rear to the opposite angle of the english. Then freeze on that, and start stroking.
That way your bridged hand is still dead center and that your stroking arm is still at it's natural line.

I don't like moving the back hand on this move. I have a guy over that has problems with inside. I show him to get down on line, keep back hand on line, take bridge hand and move it left or right to adjust for English. Moving both back and front hands adds too many variables.

If you are having problems with this, try the following.

Get down on shot normally and take practice strokes middle ball. Move your bridge hand aiming your tip at the edge of CB (maybe 2 tips from middle)... keep back hand still. take a practice stroke looking at the tip hitting edge... move focus to OB and hit Shot.
 
Jason Robichaud said:
I don't like moving the back hand on this move. I have a guy over that has problems with inside. I show him to get down on line, keep back hand on line, take bridge hand and move it left or right to adjust for English. Moving both back and front hands adds too many variables.

If you are having problems with this, try the following.

Get down on shot normally and take practice strokes middle ball. Move your bridge hand aiming your tip at the edge of CB (maybe 2 tips from middle)... keep back hand still. take a practice stroke looking at the tip hitting edge... move focus to OB and hit Shot.
You are not moving your backhand when you move your rear to the opposite of the English.
You are moving your whole body, freeze, practice stroke then shoot.
The bridge hand stays on the table.
Front hand english is another thing. Joe Tucker claims that one adds the most squirt.
 
JoeyInCali said:
Front hand english is another thing. Joe Tucker claims that one adds the most squirt.

For a certain amount of tip offset you have to angle your aim the same amount no matter how you do it (backhand, fronthand, by feel, whatever), so I wonder what that means.

pj
chgo
 
JoeyInCali said:
You are not moving your backhand when you move your rear to the opposite of the English.
You are moving your whole body, freeze, practice stroke then shoot.
The bridge hand stays on the table.
Front hand english is another thing. Joe Tucker claims that one adds the most squirt.

I tried it just now... I never moved my ass before, just hands. (white male thing I guess). For me...it worked the same as moving the front hand...I think it is an easier movement than moving front hand . Going to practice with it a bit. I never messed with my base once I'm set (moving ass)... this will be someting new. Maybe I can get into the pool groove now.
 
Last edited:
I wish i could get all you guys and put you in one room, like you would see a doctor operate and everybody sat in a big circle Like you would see in those old movies...I would just like to let all you people know that there is a real aiming system out and it really works for eneryone...all the people that know or have a similar system should just give it up in stead of beating around the bush...I have the utmost repect for these guys with all that information...Maybe we who have this information should get together and just teach it openly to everyone...Some of you were very critical of my last post...You didn`t get it, this is what i was trying to say... "WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH COACHES OUT THERE AND THE FEW WE HAVE SHOULD GIVE IT UP"...I DO

If you would realy like to talk about this problem...Some of you get on a plane drive or what ever and get here and i will give it to you for freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

RonV. for the serious ones...(h) 212-737-0077 (cell) 917-656-7189 in NYC
 
I bet those 12 yr olds in the Philippines who run out in rotation in those outdoor pool halls know the magic system too.
 
JoeyInCali said:
Front hand english is another thing. Joe Tucker claims that one adds the most squirt.

I think what he meant by that is not that it adds more squirt, but compared to BHE for a given tip offset, the aim will not counteract the squirt as much.
 
As a full professor in a well respected department I got paid pretty darn well for what I did. I would tell you everything I know and then give you books, and leads on the most current information. My colleagues over a period of 25 years in the teaching profession were no different. It seems to me that this is what teaching is about. A "real" teacher's life is about service to others in the pursuit of the truth. In the past I have been responsible for hiring and furthering the education of many teachers and potential teachers.

Seems to me that if a pool instructor is a house pro they are being paid to teach others and should be a teacher in the sense I have outlined above. If they are not a house pro or do not have their own house, they are probably not much of a teacher.

A person who has a sufficient amount of information that will help others learn often places it in a book or on a DVD. Joe Villalpando "free lances." and does a darn good job of it with his instructional materials. Freddy the Beard and Dave Sapolis are apparently among several others who teach well one on one. These "coaches" are often better than a teacher based on their particular style. (I do not personally know any of the people referenced here).

Others who solicit students may need to make a living. None-the-less a teacher, by definition, is willing to share what ever they know with whoever asks and generally speaking in whatever format, Internet, correspondence, live interactions. That is what it means to be a teacher. Based on comments made by the teacher, students will often, not always, seek out their instruction because they have learned that the teacher is willing to share everything and that often times techniques are best learned face to face.

Good teachers have learned that for every potential student who does not come to them, five others will at the end of the day. The student who learns "for free" tells all of his friends and acquaintances that the teacher is great, though they could not afford the service.

I would suggest that people who do not proceed in this manner are not teachers. They are doing something else.

I suspect there are no secrets, but there are some excellent teachers and coaches. If there was a secret, there are simply too many excellent teachers and they would have revealed it.

If there was a secret, Dr Dave has probably already published it. He too comes from the same environment.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top