JB Cases said:
But what about the player who subscribes to the million balls method and practices diligently and still has a lot of trouble with certain shots?
This is a player that can win. A player that plays solid pool but on some shots he just can't get there consistently no matter how much he practices the attempt and adjust method.
What do you say to that player who has a 20-40% success rate whose success rate on those shots jumps to 80% or better the moment he starts using an aiming system?
Without knowing the system he was trialing I'd be pretty confident he'd found something that actually helps him make the shot, and whatever that something is, he ought to keep trying it and refine it if possible.
If such a method continues to get better results over days and weeks, then one would assume some aspect about it is truly very useful and it's not just a temporary focus or confidence issue.
How can you summarize that the player is focusing more on aiming? Sure they are focusing more but it's on the systematic line and approach rather than what they THINK is the right line.
I've observed this tendency in myself many times trying new things and I think many can provide testimonies of the same effect.
I've also said quite a few times that I DON'T think this is the cause of the long term improvements many have made using the systems we are discussing.
Dave has posted that list of 'reasons' I think the systems do work. You're more than welcome to critique any of those. I warmly invite debate or people suggesting other reasons why these systems work so well for some players.
This has been my whole point all along.
Some very good players on these message boards report raising their ball pocketing to new levels. These are people who aren't stupid, people who don't rush out and buy Dr. Jones Patent Snakeoil. They report that by using these methods they are able to make shots that they never could before.
JB, I think you've misundersood my postion here. My reason for bringing up issues of psychology and focus was to make the point that we ought not assume every system or trick that people offer as a solution to some aspect of the HOW of the game, is truly of merit.
Hence, if a few people have the impression that a certain method works for them, I think it is wise to critique that system with a degree of scepticism.
Whatever scepticism I had, regarding the value of these systems we're discussing here have faded over time, though I am still sceptical about certain claims from the proponents from time to time. One good reason for this, is, I believe, that I hear different explanations from people who use these systems, on how they are working. i.e. The holy grail of how the system gets people to the line of aim.
I've offered by own explanation of the holy grail and I think people should be sceptical of that too, and critique it. I know I have some degree of scepticism about those points and their overall relevance, but I think it is a good starting point.
Other 'whys' concerning the holy grail of how it works have not impressed me thus far, hence I ommited them from my list. If you've got some, I'd like to hear them.
When I first learned from Hal I couldn't believe it. I sat there for a whole day thinking about it. I went to my pool table and tried it out for hours trying to find the reason, or a flaw, or something. It was actually several days before I reported it to RSB that I was convinced it works.
So while I can agree that there must be some kind adjustments for various shots I also know that many of them don't SEEM to require conscious adjustment. You line up the SAME way and deliver and the ball goes in. Even today 7 years later I will still get down on those shots that gave me so much trouble pre-Hal and I will try to knock them in without using the system and often I will over or under hit them or try to steer them in. When I use Hal's system I feel "wrong" but the ball goes in.
Till this day no one has been able to explain away this phenomena. Mike Page says that the "aim" is there all along, Pat Johnson says that the person is adjusting subconsciously to the right aim line. Well if the aim was there all along and I subconsciously adjust to it then why does it take an aiming system to bring that out? Why was I never able to subconsciously find the right line aim on those trouble shots before?
I think this kind of thinking and your personal insights are very helpful in trying to assertain the whys.
The best answer I can think of, off the top of my head, to your question above is:
You may see the aim line better because:
a. the reference points that you look at, either directly or peripherally help you to find the aim line much better to your previous reference points, if indeed you had any precise reference points previously.
b. the method helps to get you to a pretty good ball park, from which you can tune into the aim line. Your previous system might have tended to set you up way off line to start with, and hence it was very hard to tune into the aim line from there.
Whatever the correct answer/s is/are, these answers are the key to understanding this system and how it works. Hence we ought to keep asking these questions and critiquing the possible answers.
In practice during the million balls march I was able to find it consciously by missing and adjusting but come game time I had already forgotten which "line" was right for "that" shot.
I know that feeling well, it stinks!
With Hal's system it became easy, line up two points and go between them and pull the trigger and watch the ball go in. And it seemed as though this were the case no matter what the exact shot was.
So I ardently disagree that the rapid improvement in pocketing balls is something that is not important. It's there because that is the whole purpose of the aiming system that really works. The one that really works gives the user a rapid and lasting improvement in pocketing balls even if they can't explain HOW it works.
I submit that the increase in pocketing ability comes through the use of the system and not because they are focusing more. Either the system works or it doesn't and I think that what the systems in fact do is to reduce the need to focus on certain aspects - such as compensation, in favor of other aspects such as proper alignment according to set rules by the system itself and not aligning by feel or with a phantom spherical object making an imaginary tiny point. I think that the systems give people reference points that are the SAME every time and this allows them to get to the right line and therefore increases their pocketing.
I agree with you.
I hope my responses helped to explain and clarify my position.
Colin
lol Seriously I know mine isn?t the best for everyone but I do believe one thing about my method that most other methods don?t offer. My numbered contact points are also a huge asset when it comes to position play, caroms, combos, safeties & kicks because of the exact mathematical answers they give you about the true tangent lines. Hopefully I?ll get around to that instructional video someday.
*waves finger*
