aiming

JoeW said:
Hal System:

Here Joeya, you might find this published information of use.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/msg/9d491b6392cbd7de?dmode=source&hl=en
Click to expand...

In that description, it sounds like he's saying you should bank the ball if it's not laying on a 15, 30, or 45 degree path directly to a pocket. Is that correct? What about all the complications of banking (see e.g. Freddy the Beard)?

Wouldn't we see pro players, who are supposedly "in the know," shooting bank shots surprisingly often instead of cut shots for those in-between angles?
 
randyg said:
While the AIM POINT on your object ball remains the same the CONTACT POINT on your cueball changes ever so slightly. Mr. Houle can explain it alot better.........SPF=rtandyg
Click to expand...

Well Hal wasn't able to, or didn't want to, explain it while I was talking to him about this in person. That's why I disregarded what he was teaching at that point. Of course there has to be an adjustment & if he talked about it I would have listened.

You just mentioned the/an adjustment is needed, but that would not be the same half ball hit, would it? Hal just simply said it's the same hit and then made it but I hit both shots excactly the same way (half ball hit) with different results than Hal. He made an adjustment but kept it to himself. Sorry, there is no way to hit both shots the same and have the ball made in both instances without an adjustment of some sort.

Coming from a 3 cushion back ground where there are many diamond systems to fall back on when you are not "feeling" the shots, I have yet to find one for pool, and it's not for lack of trying. I kind of understand simplifying the concept of aiming by reducing the options (6 as you say) but there has to be adjustments made along the way. My Hal Houle shot example shows this. And if there are adjustments needed and there are many, isn't that the same as aiming at a ghost ball for most shots?

I would love to find an aiming systems that would work for the times I'm not "feeling" it, which is what I would think aiming systems are used for. I mean, everyone plays well when they're seeing and feeling everything while playing, it's while things aren't going well you (not "feeling" it) that you need something to fall back on you can trust until you get back in stroke. It works for me in 3-cushion, why not pool?

Dave
 
Last edited:
There

is no way to simplify a shot, it is what it is. You can only simplfy how to analyze the shot, perhaps with more consistency than you could otherwise.

It is nice to say there are only 3 cut angles, but that is simply not true.
In fact, when you keep your eyes focused on the contact point (as aiming the ball towards the desired pocket) and hit the contact point, it doesn't matter what angle it is, but yes, sometimes I will analyze a shot, and say to myself, that is about a 65 or 85 degree cut, but most of time I do not.

As long as you have a way to analyze a shot accurately as you can, without getting lost in the details of it internally, you will be okay. If it is Hal's method, more power to you, if it is another method, use that.

But, the most important thing to mention here, is that every real good player, pro or not, has a structured method to how they approach and play the game,and that's why taking lessons from a good instructor is a good idea. They lay the groundwork for this structure, and teaching you different methods to practice that will help you learn much faster.
 
Last edited:
I just want to make clear that I am a big believer in fundamentals and I also believe that most of the time you aim while standing up, before you get down on the shot. And if you're consistant in your approach to the shot via fundamentals while getting into your stance after lining up the shot, you will have success. It's just that sometimes I don't see where to aim clearly enough to be confident in the shot (under extreme pressure or being very tired) & it would be nice to have a system that I trust to fall back on. Hal's didn't do it for me because of what I've already described above.

I agree that whatever works for someone is great and I'm certainly not knocking the learning of systems. I am still searching for the the one for me :o. I will continue to use the ghost ball until that happens.

Dave
 
What I have just learned by reading this thread

I just finished reading the 10 pages of this thread and learned a couple of things. I have learned that "aiming points" are not the same as "contact points," and that while there may be only a few of the former, there are many, many of the latter as one considers the millions of possible shots on a pool table. And I have learned that it makes no sense to deny that one is making "unconscious" adjustments while aiming a pool shot. To say that "I am not making unconscious adjustments," is like saying, "I am not conscious of of making unconscious adjustments," which, while an obvious truism, provides no useful information about the issue. And finally, after doing a little searching, I have learned that if Einstein said anything useful about the game of pocket billiards, it is VERY well hidden.
 
charlieb said:
Hal sure manages to always stir the pot. lol Center to edge is fine with me as there are 100's of degrees of edges. 75-90 degree cuts are obviously edge to edge or better yet safeties. He is a gentleman and accessible and fun to talk to.
Click to expand...

Hal is a gentleman to most but not always to all...lol
Pros and amateurs use his system... Of those that do some will admit to it...some not.
If you don't use them...great...if you don't believe in them... great...
if you want to learn them...great...if you do use them...well you know the rest...lol
ruk
 
Last edited:
randyg said:
I think the number was 6 million....SPF=randyg
Click to expand...
Randy, do you have a reference for the number from Einstein? I've looked for a reference, and even had a research librarian look for one, and it seems that Einstein never had anything to say about billiards or pool

Do you have the title, date and publication?
 
Bob Jewett said:
Randy, do you have a reference for the number from Einstein? I've looked for a reference, and even had a research librarian look for one, and it seems that Einstein never had anything to say about billiards or pool

Do you have the title, date and publication?
Click to expand...
Bob,

I did a search among several collections of Einstein quotations for the following words - pool, billiards, aim, and pocket. I found nothing related to pocket billiards. The closest may be, "A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem.":)

It was the first quotation at this address: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Aiming "systems" are crutches that usually have to be unlearned to unblock your learning curve. They teach fantasy concepts (like "there are only x shots") that limit you. Avoid them.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Why would you not advise people to make judgements for themsleves? If you choose not to use a system DON"T... why would you tell others not to try?
As to a learning curve..if there was something available to you which helped you aim would you not be able to concern yourself with other aspects of the shot...like position, speed control and the like.
I think that what needs to be avoided is people who tell other people to avoid things... we would still be thinking that the earth is flat and not a sphere...
BTW, have you ever sailed?
Did you know that one degree of arc is one nautical mile? Why is that?
The earth is a sphere...billiard balls are a sphere... makes you wonder if there just could be an aiming system to handle something as simple as a pool table...
ruk
 
... why would you tell others not to try?
Click to expand...

I thought I made that pretty clear - because it can limit your advancement.

Did you know that one degree of arc is one nautical mile? Why is that?
The earth is a sphere...billiard balls are a sphere... makes you wonder if there just could be an aiming system to handle something as simple as a pool table...
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input, Hal.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I thought I made that pretty clear - because it can limit your advancement.



Thanks for your input, Hal.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

The only thing that limits someone's advancement is their failure to learn important knowledge.... you're in that category, Patrick. (with all due-respect):)
 
SpiderWebComm said:
The only thing that limits someone's advancement is their failure to learn important knowledge.... you're in that category, Patrick. (with all due-respect):)
Click to expand...
Since none of us know everything, I guess we're all in that category.

But it sounds like you're saying I refuse to learn something. What in particular are you talking about?

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Since none of us know everything, I guess we're all in that category.

But it sounds like you're saying I refuse to learn something. What in particular are you talking about?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I never said I know everything... just more than you when it comes to aiming. Never said you refuse to learn anything, just saying you're failing to find good knowledge. Stop posting, hit the streets, and find someone willing to teach you....and then report back with your opinions. You might surprise yourself.

I mean this respectfully.
 
I never said I know everything... just more than you when it comes to aiming.
Click to expand...

How would you know that?

Never said you refuse to learn anything, just saying you're failing to find good knowledge.
Click to expand...

Such as? And how would you know that I'm failing to find it?

Stop posting, hit the streets, and find someone willing to teach you....and then report back with your opinions. You might surprise yourself.
Click to expand...

Sounds like good advice for both of us.

pj
chgo
 
rukiddingme said:
... Did you know that one degree of arc is one nautical mile? Why is that? ...
Click to expand...
Well, no. I think you mean one minute of latitude, but that's only approximate, now. The Earth is more than 360 nautical miles around.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Well, no. I think you mean one minute of latitude, but that's only approximate, now. The Earth is more than 360 nautical miles around.
Click to expand...


That is what I meant Mr. Jewett...thanks for correcting me.
ruk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top