Depends what you mean by "reading".
pj
chgo
diagrams pertaining to pivot-based aiming systems
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Depends what you mean by "reading".
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
See, PJ? If you re-read your post, you'll understand why most ppl view you as a douche du jour. You just can't help but be condescending (even when you have no reason to be).
I'll try to be as clear as possible:
In Pool, there will ALWAYS be situations where a bit of "feel adjustment" may be necessary. Not always, but it does come up, regardless of how you aim.
I use Hal Houle's "3 aim line" method, which I use CTE as a double check to see if I'm aligned right. You can learn it by calling Hal. This is an EXACT aim. NO ADJUSTMENT IS NECESSARY unless you have situations like sticky/dirty balls or highly polished balls. Even then, the adjustment is minimal. Very minimal.
The ironic thing is...you know all this already. You've been around. For whatever reason, you just can't seem to grasp it. Oh well, maybe it ain't for you.
Question- have you ever had a conversation with Hal Houle to learn it from the source?
p.s.- Colins post asked for ppl to demonstrate what you know/can do so posting vids ARE pertinent. Unfortunately for you, PJ, Pool is not played on paper.
Eric
Last edited:
He said reading ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.Patrick Johnson said:
Eric. said:
I believe you do need to adjust, but don't know (or want to believe) you're doing it.
Question: if it's a simple system that gets you to an "exact aim", why do I have to learn it from Hal? Why can't you just describe it?
pj <-- this road seems strangely familiar
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
The only familiar path here is you, PJ, not answering the question directly.
All I can say is that if you truly are interested in Hal's aiming systems, why wouldn't you talk DIRECTLY with Hal?
I'm assuming you spoke to Hal in the past, otherwise, your retorts and arguments over the years would make you eligible for a Darwin award.
Eric
Eric,Eric. said:
Could you explain briefly in words how you apply the "3 aim line" method?
I think people mean different things by "adjustment." Let's forget about throw effects for now. With one line of alignment and/or aim, you need to place the bridge hand in slightly different places to make shots at slightly different angles (assuming center-ball hits for now). This is a fact! I think for some people the "adjustment" comes in when they place their bridge hand. For some people (e.g., air-pivot aimers), the initial alignment is "exact," but the "adjustment" for different shots within a limited range occurs with slight changes in the effective point point (or bridge length, or bridge shift) during the "pivot" stage.
I hope you don't think I am writing this to be disrespectful or arrogant. I honestly want to know what different people do when using these systems effectively. When I strictly follow some of the instructions I have gotten from Hal, Stan, Ron, and others, the systems don't work well for me for all shots within a certain range unless I visualize the required line of aim as I am dropping down into my stance (and make fine adjustments with my cue alignment where necessary). People have claimed I just don't understand how the systems are supposed to work. Please (to you or others) help me understand better what is missing in the basic descriptions of the systems. I'm not looking for long paragraphs or complicated diagrams, just a basic description of the important steps, along with an explanation of where and how "adjustments" for slightly different shots are made during the process. The description I have heard to date have been incomplete, IMO. If I follow the instructions precisely, I will be able to make many shots without "adjustment," but I will also miss many shots (e.g., those shifted slightly so the angle to the pocket is slightly different, especially shots where the OB is far from the pocket) if I don't make changes to where I place my bridge or what I use for a bridge length (if there is a pivot). I know this might sound like a broken record to some people, but I still think we have not heard complete answers to some of the important and basic questions.
I know we don't always see eye to eye, but please try to respond in a thoughtful and meaningful way (i.e., I don't want to get into a pissing match again).
Thanks,
Dave
If you adjust, even without having to consciously figure out how, then your system is not "exact" - the system gets you close to your final aim and then you "adjust" to get to the exact aim. This is how all these systems work.
The misunderstandings in these aiming threads are created because system users make these adjustments unconsciously, but they've apparently been taught the systems are "exact", so they don't (or don't want to) believe they're adjusting.
I lay the blame for much of this misunderstanding and controversy at the feet of the system teachers, who are evidently teaching that their systems are "exact" even though that's impossible. Maybe they do this because they don't know any better themselves, or maybe it's because they don't think anybody will bother to learn their systems if they aren't perceived to be exact, or maybe they think their systems work better if their students don't know they're inexact.
Whatever the reason, one fact is indisputable: these systems are not exact without "user input". I'm sure it won't take more than a few more years of unnecessary internet arguments for that to become common knowledge, and I'm sure these systems will be better for it.
pj
chgo
I apologize if my last sentence offended you.Eric. said:
I will try again:
Eric,
Could you explain briefly in words how you apply the "3 aim line" method?
I think people mean different things by "adjustment." Let's forget about throw effects for now. With one line of alignment and/or aim, you need to place the bridge hand in slightly different places to make shots at slightly different angles (assuming center-ball hits for now). This is a fact! I think for some people the "adjustment" comes in when they place their bridge hand. For some people (e.g., air-pivot aimers), the initial alignment is "exact," but the "adjustment" for different shots within a limited range occurs with slight changes in the effective point point (or bridge length, or bridge shift) during the "pivot" stage.
I hope you don't think I am writing this to be disrespectful or arrogant. I honestly want to know what different people do when using these systems effectively. When I strictly follow some of the instructions I have gotten from Hal, Stan, Ron, and others, the systems don't work well for me for all shots within a certain range unless I visualize the required line of aim as I am dropping down into my stance (and make fine adjustments with my cue alignment where necessary). People have claimed I just don't understand how the systems are supposed to work. Please (to you or others) help me understand better what is missing in the basic descriptions of the systems. I'm not looking for long paragraphs or complicated diagrams, just a basic description of the important steps, along with an explanation of where and how "adjustments" for slightly different shots are made during the process. The description I have heard to date have been incomplete, IMO. If I follow the instructions precisely, I will be able to make many shots without "adjustment," but I will also miss many shots (e.g., those shifted slightly so the angle to the pocket is slightly different, especially shots where the OB is far from the pocket) if I don't make changes to where I place my bridge or what I use for a bridge length (if there is a pivot). I know this might sound like a broken record to some people, but I still think we have not heard complete answers to some of the important and basic questions.
Thank you,
Dave
I don't expect the people I piss off to get much from these threads. They're the system users who are solidly entrenched in their misconceptions and won't (or can't) be persuaded by any amount of reason. I think plenty of others get the message.
It's too bad about the entrenched system users, though. I think they too could benefit from knowing how these systems really work.
pj
chgo
Lord, have mercy !!
How can the combined reading of posts number 179, 185, 235, and 238, not put an end to the ongoing @&%$##%^&%*@* BS, that is a recurring theme in all the "aiming system" threads we AZB members have endured ???
And for you John B., The reason Lou F. stops his ball so good is, he uses just the exact amount of low english, to where that english has dissapated at the point of contact with the object ball. Viola, rocket science at work.
But all you "AS" guys allready know that, don't you?
I suggest when Lou passes on, you autopsy his brain to find out what system he used for THAT !!!
Just tryin' to save the number cruncher's brain some cell's
Dick ( I coulda been a Phd too. NOT)
How can the combined reading of posts number 179, 185, 235, and 238, not put an end to the ongoing @&%$##%^&%*@* BS, that is a recurring theme in all the "aiming system" threads we AZB members have endured ???
And for you John B., The reason Lou F. stops his ball so good is, he uses just the exact amount of low english, to where that english has dissapated at the point of contact with the object ball. Viola, rocket science at work.
But all you "AS" guys allready know that, don't you?
I suggest when Lou passes on, you autopsy his brain to find out what system he used for THAT !!!
Just tryin' to save the number cruncher's brain some cell's
Dick ( I coulda been a Phd too. NOT)
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
I agree. And an important point is that pointing this out is not a criticism of the aiming approach. I think we get off track because some people conflate criticism of an incorrect statement about a system with criticism of the system itself.
It's as plain as the nose on their face they're adjusting. I'm thoroughly baffled by any suggestion otherwise.
Are you trying to make a point???Patrick Johnson said:
LOL. Are you trying to learn English?
pj
chgo
mikepage said:
I think these two things stem from the same thing: these systems seem to attract people who are more "intuitive" than logical.
pj
chgo
SJDinPHX said:And for you John B., The reason Lou F. stops his ball so good is, he uses just the right amount of low english to where that english has dissapated at the point of contact with the object ball. Viola, rocket science at work.
But all you "AS" guys all know that, don't you?
I suggest when Lou passes on, you autopsy his brain to find out what system he used for THAT !!!
hmmmm, not so sure I'm good with this, Dick
You know, I caught a bit of the trick shot stuff on TV just the other day and was reminded of all this aiming system(s) folderal. What I was thinking was: well yes, if everything is just so -- say for instance, you just want to blast balls into a pocket while the triangle blocks scratches
-- an aiming system of some sort might somehow be useful.But come game day, when you have to hit the ball with just a tad of fade right, to ensure the CB drifts past another ball; or you're up on the rail and you have to shoot a power draw with some left english; or you're shooting a shot with inside english to make the CB track straight between two other balls; or even if just the balls are dirty and the cloth old and unclean... well then, you can throw all your cute little aiming systems out the window.
Part of the problem is that there are folks out there that want to sell the systems and/or have staked their reputations to, for lack of a better word: baloney. And the other side of that equation is that there are people who want to believe. I mean, they want to "click their heels together three times want to believe."
They want the magic bullet.
They want the "solution."
They most certainly don't seem to want to hear: you've got to hit a million balls; you've got to do the reps; you've got to put in the time.
Lou Figueroa
did I mention developing
a well-tuned PSR
When I use to aim by feel I just pot balls. I never think about throw, CIT and all that garbage. The only thing I worry about is squirt but now I use back hand english. People think too much about the physics behind it, time should be better spent practicing.
When you use an aiming system, forget about how it works. Just use the aiming system and make the ball. In the end that is all that really matters.
When you use an aiming system, forget about how it works. Just use the aiming system and make the ball. In the end that is all that really matters.
Patrick Johnson said:
PJ,
I would rather be "entrenched in misconceptions and won't (or can't) be persuaded by any amount of reason," and shoot like Spidey, then be unpersuaded like yourself and never improve my shooting ability. I don't really know how electricity works but I use lights! If it works just do it, man and quit nit picking every comment that someone makes. From everyting I have read and seen on this issue, you are an unpersuaded jerk! "It works, you said yourself, but it is not for you." Is that total stupidity or are you too proud to say your original opinion is wrong? More consistent works for me! Hope you see the light some day.