Fractional Aiming - Analysis of Houlian Adjustment Method
- Thread starter Colin Colenso
- Start date
Colin, I don't think this method is properly called "fractional aiming". That's the name for dividing the CB and/or OB into fractions and aligning them with each other.
pj
chgo
pj
chgo
Koop said:
You must place your bridge hand to the side of the center-to-edge line (or pivoting would move your tip offcenter). That placement to the side is what is meant by "bridge adjustment".
pj
chgo
I think there's a misunderstanding here. Colin, I agree with your assessment of what is necessary to sink all balls with "a" center-to-edge system. But what you're illustrating is not the way it is taught by Hal, as Koop is explaining.
Hal's teaching is only the CB center to OB edge eye alignment, the stick somewhere to the side of CB center (thick cuts one side, thin cuts the other side), pivot back to center. There is no taught compensation for the shot at hand.
It's a good system because of it's simplicity. There is virtually no thinking or focusing. Your subconscious takes over from the above basic steps.
I posted this in another thread somewhere, but if you were to build a robot that had a perfectly straight stroke, could align center to edge perfectly and could pivot exactly back to center ball, it would miss most shots. It's the human element that allows it to work so well.
You're going about this scientifically, and I like the way you think, but the problem with convincing people who use it well is that they don't care about the science, and for them it's best if they don't think about it.
Hal's teaching is only the CB center to OB edge eye alignment, the stick somewhere to the side of CB center (thick cuts one side, thin cuts the other side), pivot back to center. There is no taught compensation for the shot at hand.
It's a good system because of it's simplicity. There is virtually no thinking or focusing. Your subconscious takes over from the above basic steps.
I posted this in another thread somewhere, but if you were to build a robot that had a perfectly straight stroke, could align center to edge perfectly and could pivot exactly back to center ball, it would miss most shots. It's the human element that allows it to work so well.
You're going about this scientifically, and I like the way you think, but the problem with convincing people who use it well is that they don't care about the science, and for them it's best if they don't think about it.
Just to add:
When I first learned Hal's systems, 4 to be exact, in the back of my mind I said that if I didn't like any of them I would just revert back to what I did before. Well, I don't even remember what I did before and this has become second nature. You really do get to a point when there is no thought, you just get down and shoot. In the beginning it is fairly tough because it seems like a lot but the more you use it, the more ingrained it becomes until it's second nature.
Good shooting,
Koop
When I first learned Hal's systems, 4 to be exact, in the back of my mind I said that if I didn't like any of them I would just revert back to what I did before. Well, I don't even remember what I did before and this has become second nature. You really do get to a point when there is no thought, you just get down and shoot. In the beginning it is fairly tough because it seems like a lot but the more you use it, the more ingrained it becomes until it's second nature.
Good shooting,
Koop
Ok, I got what you're saying. It would appear to be just another way of getting the bridge to the side to adjust for the shot being a non perfect 1/2 ball angle.Koop said:
The exact method of adjustment should not matter, so long as the player gets a feel for how they execute it.
Colin
Yes, though someone might attempt to systematise this adjustment, I assume most are guessing at the adjustment amount somewhat intuitively.Patrick Johnson said:
Colin
Patrick Johnson said:
I was going to say basically the same thing Patrick. The effect of altering bridge placement, such as to aim the tip right or left of the center of the CB is to effectively change the bridge position.
Colin
Hi Jeff,bluepepper said:
So basically players using this system are looking down the black line and just placing their cue something like the position the cue is show in this diagram. Then the pivot back to center CB. (If a non-english shot is being attempted)?
Do you try to make sure you place the cue parrallel to the line from Center CB to Edge OB in your initial alignment?
btw: I'm actually a believer that much of aiming is an intuitive thing, and so at some level, intuition, developed through repetition is necessary. But there some shots that make doing this difficult and I regularly see top players miss shots when they encounter shots that bring extremes in throw or require english over distances. For these type of shots I think some calculated adjustments can be very useful. The advanced game requires use of a lot of english, and when we move into those areas of aiming we need to develop either further levels of intuitive adjustment or learn some knowledge about what compensations are required or a combination of both.
Colin
Koop said:
Where is the pivot point for this? Does it vary depending on the cue? Does it vary depending on whatever stroke is placed on the cue ball? How far off the center line of the cueball should the offset start? Does that depend on the distance of the cue ball to the object ball?
Thanks.
Flex
Flex said:
Spiderweb Dave showed me that the pivot point surprisingly doesn't matter much as long as it's longer than about 9 inches, which I proved to myself using a long run of masking paper, a few cutout paper pool balls, a yardstick, and a protractor.
It doesn't matter what cue you're using for this aiming technique since it just deals with center ball aims. Once you apply english, I would think it does matter.
The distance from center ball before the pivot, in my opinion, does indeed matter depending on the shot.
The distance from cueball to object ball, in my opinion, does indeed matter.
Refresher - Restatement
It would seem that a lot of confusion has been caused by using the term bridge hand adjustment, rather than bridge hand placement.
In essence, I really can't see a difference in the end result, whether you place the bridge on the line and then shift it left or right, or if you simply place it left or right.
The question still remains as to the how users of this system decide where to place their bridge, how far from the standard position, remembering that they have to consider the following.
1. Distance of CB to OB: (Adjustment Related). The further the CB from the OB, the greater will be the effect of the adjustment compared to the sideways shift in bridge position. eg. If the CB is 6 feet from the OB, it would require about 1/6th the amount of sideways adjustment as for a separation if 1 foot. Do you place the bridge closer to the line for long shots? Has this proven itself a problem in execution of this system?
2. Distance of CB to OB: (Aim Related). As the CB and OB come closer together, the resultant angle of a Center-to-Edge aim becomes increasingly smaller / fuller than a true half ball hit. For 1 foot of separation it is a few degrees fuller, for smaller distances it thickens the angle so much it is basically unusable.
3. Bridge Length: For a shorter bridge length the amount of sideways adjustment is magnified, hence a smaller adjustment is required. A larger bridge length means a larger sideways adjustment will be required. This may help in fine tuning the adjustments. The cue's pivot point won't have any bearing on this unless you intend to use english.
4. Throw: This aiming system does not take into account the very significant effects of throw according to the amounts of speed and spin. i.e. You might have the shot aimed well for a soft roll shot, but if you hit a power follow shot, the pot will be overcut by about 3 degrees. Conversely, you might aim correctly for a firm follow shot, but if you play a soft stun shot you'll undercut by several degrees. Do users of this system aim intuitively differently for soft stun shots verses power follow shots?
5. The player must intuitively estimate how much the pot angle differs from the standard. Is there a method to approximate this, such that an appropriate adjustment width can be made. e.g. 33 degrees will require a smaller off center placement than a 37 degree cut.
Colin
It would seem that a lot of confusion has been caused by using the term bridge hand adjustment, rather than bridge hand placement.
In essence, I really can't see a difference in the end result, whether you place the bridge on the line and then shift it left or right, or if you simply place it left or right.
The question still remains as to the how users of this system decide where to place their bridge, how far from the standard position, remembering that they have to consider the following.
1. Distance of CB to OB: (Adjustment Related). The further the CB from the OB, the greater will be the effect of the adjustment compared to the sideways shift in bridge position. eg. If the CB is 6 feet from the OB, it would require about 1/6th the amount of sideways adjustment as for a separation if 1 foot. Do you place the bridge closer to the line for long shots? Has this proven itself a problem in execution of this system?
2. Distance of CB to OB: (Aim Related). As the CB and OB come closer together, the resultant angle of a Center-to-Edge aim becomes increasingly smaller / fuller than a true half ball hit. For 1 foot of separation it is a few degrees fuller, for smaller distances it thickens the angle so much it is basically unusable.
3. Bridge Length: For a shorter bridge length the amount of sideways adjustment is magnified, hence a smaller adjustment is required. A larger bridge length means a larger sideways adjustment will be required. This may help in fine tuning the adjustments. The cue's pivot point won't have any bearing on this unless you intend to use english.
4. Throw: This aiming system does not take into account the very significant effects of throw according to the amounts of speed and spin. i.e. You might have the shot aimed well for a soft roll shot, but if you hit a power follow shot, the pot will be overcut by about 3 degrees. Conversely, you might aim correctly for a firm follow shot, but if you play a soft stun shot you'll undercut by several degrees. Do users of this system aim intuitively differently for soft stun shots verses power follow shots?
5. The player must intuitively estimate how much the pot angle differs from the standard. Is there a method to approximate this, such that an appropriate adjustment width can be made. e.g. 33 degrees will require a smaller off center placement than a 37 degree cut.
Colin
Last edited:
If you adjust your bridge 1/4" to the side, then a 12" pivot will cause the CB's path to deviate from the center-to-edge line by 1/16" less per 9" of CB travel than a 9" pivot.
If you adjust your bridge more than 1/4" to the side the difference will be greater, and if you change the pivot length by more than 3" the difference will be greater.
These differences (1/16" per 9" of CB travel or more) are enough to miss most shots, so some adjustment must be getting made for different pivot lengths, even beyond 9".
pj
chgo
I don't want to get involved in the scientific breakdown of this system since I am no where near smart enough for that...
But I am not saying the system does not work either..
My main question (and one of the reasons I struggled with this particular method of Hal's) is .....What happens to the CB?
What I mean by that is...If you line up from center to edge (I understand that to be the cue shaft through center of CB to edge of OB)......If you then pivot the cue to whatever it needs to be pivoted to by whatever process based on the shot angle.......does that not put english on the CB?
How do I now remove the unwanted english on the CB????? (pivot back to center)
I have not seen this question (above) posed, and this was one of my biggest struggles with this method....
That....and it still converts back to on of the 3-line aim points anyway where I can pretty much aim center CB to an aim point and apply english as necessry......so why do all this in the first place? The center to edge system (to me) seems almost like a GUI (in computer terms) that runs on top of the 3-line method.......(DOS of aiming)..
But I am not saying the system does not work either..
My main question (and one of the reasons I struggled with this particular method of Hal's) is .....What happens to the CB?
What I mean by that is...If you line up from center to edge (I understand that to be the cue shaft through center of CB to edge of OB)......If you then pivot the cue to whatever it needs to be pivoted to by whatever process based on the shot angle.......does that not put english on the CB?
How do I now remove the unwanted english on the CB????? (pivot back to center)
I have not seen this question (above) posed, and this was one of my biggest struggles with this method....
That....and it still converts back to on of the 3-line aim points anyway where I can pretty much aim center CB to an aim point and apply english as necessry......so why do all this in the first place? The center to edge system (to me) seems almost like a GUI (in computer terms) that runs on top of the 3-line method.......(DOS of aiming)..
We are talking here about an adjustment method that requires having the bridge off the line of the center of the CB to edge OB. From there it is pivoted back to the center, hence no concern about english.BRKNRUN said:
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
No, they must not be synonymous here or anywhere else...for the simple reason that the words are not synonyms to each other.
Colin clearly suggested that the bridge hand should be adjusted from its position on the table in order to achieve the correct aim.
I stated that there is no adjustment of the bridge hand once it is placed on the table.
Colin has since modified his posts on that point in spite of having stated that he had heard the "move the bridge hand" advice from "trusted" advisers.
It seems that the whole topic of this aiming system deteriorates with every thread because of the FACT that few people who care to post here actually understand the method. That problem is compounded by the unfortunate fact that Mr. Houle--who has been amazingly unselfish in sharing his wealth of knowledge on aiming--presents a surly and objectionable persona on the forums.
But for my part, I will cease to use the "center-to-edge" phrase to describe the aiming technique and will from now on use Pro One which is what Stan Shuffett is calling HIS VERSION of the system which he has EXTENSIVELY developed and which addresses the issues many have had...both geometrically and with respect to EXPLAINING the system.
Jim
Don't go off on one of your dictionary rants, Jim - I meant that the effect is the same. Try to focus on the meaning rather than the form and you'll have fewer internet dramas.
pj
chgo
Last edited: