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".
You may be right. Maybe it was beyond 12" or so that it doesn't matter significantly. As you go further and further away from the CB the deviation becomes smaller and smaller.
Edit:The deviation becomes so small that it approaches zero. Example: The deviation from about 12" to 36" is about the same as it is from maybe 6" to 7". That's an estimate to make a point.
Several posters to previous threads and others who have communicated with me have explained that adjustments are necessary and it is part of the teaching of Hal Houle himself for the fractional aiming system.
Or god forbid, someone have the courage to actually attempt to explain the system as they understand it, instead of mocking attempts to represent it.
One last time, Hal doesn't teach the fractional aiming system anymore. Why don't you call Hal and talk to him about it instead of trying to explain it yourself to people who already use it? Most of his detractors have never even spoken to Hal himself. Call him, he could explain it to you, then you could do this with Hal's backing you. I don't understand why people don't take the time and make the effort to call him. You wouldn't believe some of the responses to as to why they won't call him.
484-623-4144 is the number I have. His address may have changed, but I think this number still works. If not, you can check his posts, he's free about giving it out.
There are people in this thread who he will not talk to. You don't need to be one of them.
One last time, Hal doesn't teach the fractional aiming system anymore. Why don't you call Hal and talk to him about it instead of trying to explain it yourself to people who already use it? Most of his detractors have never even spoken to Hal himself. Call him, he could explain it to you, then you could do this with Hal's backing you. I don't understand why people don't take the time and make the effort to call him. You wouldn't believe some of the responses to as to why they won't call him.
484-623-4144 is the number I have. His address may have changed, but I think this number still works. If not, you can check his posts, he's free about giving it out.
There are people in this thread who he will not talk to. You don't need to be one of them.
This thread has gone into the dumper as they ALL do becuase many of the posts involve arguments between people who do not fully understand the method so they become a mish mash of the blind leading the blind.
It is true that much of the reason for the above stems from Mr. Houle's preference to discuss HIS teachings with people personally rather than on the forums but he has a RIGHT to convey HIS information to whomever he chooses however he chooses.
While I greatly respect and admire Mr. Houle for his unselfish willingness to help those who communicate with him directly, his credibility takes a hit whenever he posts his often cranky remarks. But let the perfect among us cast the first stone on THAT subject.
And for Colin, you chastised Spiderwebcomm for being blunt but you have manifested that exact same attitude...review your posts.
I am surprised by that since before you took your sabatical from his forum you were the GREAT MEDIATOR and always went out of your way both avoid controversy and to calm the emotions of others who were engaged in it.
Having said that, and with respect, you DO NOT understand the system as has been made clear for various reasons including your supposition that it is intended to work regardless of the use of varying degrees of english and somehow magically compensate for SIT, sqwerve etc.
There is no one who actually understands the method who has ever said that it did do any such thing.
The POINT is that it is better to make necessary adjustments from an ACCURATE BASELINE AIMING METHOD than to attempt to do so from an less accurate method!
As has been the case in the past, this thread will probably grow to 200 posts or more and accomplish nothing but confusion.
For all those actually interested in LEARNING something...rather than just arguing, I suggest they contact Mr. Houle while he is still willing to do so or Stan Shuffett.
I think in a way it boils down to the type of person that will like a HH system.
You are what is known as a "thinker"...You want specific details, mathamatical equations, graphs, etc in order for you to gain a comfort level of (probably any system)
I suspect many of the people that like the HH system don't really want to think about "why" or "how" it works...they just want a process that "to them" works and be done with it..
Kind of like the question...Why does an Orange tast like an Orange.
The "thinker" will want to break down the elements that make up the orange and determin that specific levels of certain elemnts will produce a slightly different tast of orange.
The HH (aka Houlian) is probably more like the type of person that will say:
Put it in your mouth and taste it.
If it tasts good eat it.
If it tasts bad spit it out and get another orange.
If you ask them why one tasts bad and the other tastes good they probably would answer with who really cares...it just does......If you tried to draw them into a technical explanation they would like just continue with a who cares attitude until the discussion was over.
Ask a (Houlian) why the systems work for them...and likely you answer will be...It just does...(and who cares why)
Edit: For me....I am somewhere in the middle...I like to know why things work for me and at leat "think" I understand the concept of why...Even if I am wrong...(and sometimes I am) as long as it works....as far as I am concerned I am understanding it correctly for my own comfort level...at that point it becomes a "who cares" mentality....(when its not working is when I search for a reason why)
For all those actually interested in LEARNING something...rather than just arguing, I suggest they contact Mr. Houle while he is still willing to do so or Stan Shuffett.
While I enjoyed my day with Hal, I would caution suggesting this to anyone who would want to point out any inconsistencies they may have with the system. From my experience, it's not open for discussion. You either accept it or leave. Just a word of caution.
You may be right. Maybe it was beyond 12" or so that it doesn't matter significantly. As you go further and further away from the CB the deviation becomes smaller and smaller.
Edit:The deviation becomes so small that it approaches zero. Example: The deviation from about 12" to 36" is about the same as it is from maybe 6" to 7". That's an estimate to make a point.
Interesting point, but I don't assume all users of this system are ignorant. Some have said they find other methods to deal with certain shots that don't seem to work with the system for them.
Though the ability to sub-consciously adapt is a valid one for many players. Most enthusiasts I meet learned that correct aiming is done by pointing the cue at the contact point opposite the pocket on the OB, which of course would result in severe undercutting on wider angle cut shots.
They adjust by aiming differently and by swooping, yet most of them would swear they are aiming the cue at that point and even deny that they swoop.
Amazingly, quite a few of them become decent potters. The best way to ruin their game, at least in the short term, is to tell them what is really going on.
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.
So let me ask you this. Do you never miss a ball now? Hal posts up about his systems like they are the do all end all to making balls and if you know the system then you're running out all over the place. At least that's the impression I get. So, if this system is so accurate then you should never miss a shot. If you do miss then it's because you made the wrong adjustment, correct? How does that differ from using the standard contact point method and making the wrong adjustment? I'm not trying to be a doucheface about this. I'm seriously interested.
MULLY
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.
So let me ask you this. Do you never miss a ball now? Hal posts up about his systems like they are the do all end all to making balls and if you know the system then you're running out all over the place. At least that's the impression I get. So, if this system is so accurate then you should never miss a shot. If you do miss then it's because you made the wrong adjustment, correct? How does that differ from using the standard contact point method and making the wrong adjustment? I'm not trying to be a doucheface about this. I'm seriously interested.
MULLY
Nobody has ever, to my knowledge, said that they run out all the time using Hal's system. If you have an aiming system that works, there are whole hell of a lot of other things that can make you miss. All of the basics still have to be taken into account. When I miss, it's usually because I have not focused well enough. And, maybe my bridge, grip, stroke, or something else may be off as well. It's not foolproof and nobody said it was! But, for some of us, it works better than anything we've tried before, and some of us have been doing this for a LONG time.
I posted this in the "Hal Houle" thread. Thought it would be appropriate to post it here as well.
bluepepper said:
I've posted that I believe the center-to-edge pivot-back-center system that Hal teaches works. I've also posted that I don't believe it works the way most people think it works.
If you want to try something that I believe proves that the system is not an aiming system, but rather a visual sweep to help you unlock your innate power to recognize the shot at hand for what it is and make subtle adjustments to pocket it, here ya go.
Every shot in this diagram has the same cue ball center to object ball edge eye alignment. So there's no variation there. Also, shots along the line in the diagram run the gamut of all possible angles to the corner pocket "B". So if a system can pocket all of these balls, I'd concede that the system works for any shots on any table.
Using exactly the same 2 pre-pivot stick alignments and therefore the exact same 2 pivots back to center ball, do those who use this system still believe that no adjustments are necessary to make all 15 shots in pocket "B"?
I realize they can all be made with the system, but wouldn't you agree that they can't be made with the same 2 pivots?
I think in a way it boils down to the type of person that will like a HH system.
You are what is known as a "thinker"...You want specific details, mathamatical equations, graphs, etc in order for you to gain a comfort level of (probably any system)
I suspect many of the people that like the HH system don't really want to think about "why" or "how" it works...they just want a process that "to them" works and be done with it..
Kind of like the question...Why does an Orange tast like an Orange.
The "thinker" will want to break down the elements that make up the orange and determin that specific levels of certain elemnts will produce a slightly different tast of orange.
The HH (aka Houlian) is probably more like the type of person that will say:
Put it in your mouth and taste it.
If it tasts good eat it.
If it tasts bad spit it out and get another orange.
If you ask them why one tasts bad and the other tastes good they probably would answer with who really cares...it just does......If you tried to draw them into a technical explanation they would like just continue with a who cares attitude until the discussion was over.
Ask a (Houlian) why the systems work for them...and likely you answer will be...It just does...(and who cares why)
Edit: For me....I am somewhere in the middle...I like to know why things work for me and at leat "think" I understand the concept of why...Even if I am wrong...(and sometimes I am) as long as it works....as far as I am concerned I am understanding it correctly for my own comfort level...at that point it becomes a "who cares" mentality....(when its not working is when I search for a reason why)
This is hysterical. No advanced student of even the rudiments of the Pro One system would make any such comment.
The explanation is that due to the dynamics and yes, the GEOMETRY of the method, the correct positioning of the bridge hand together with the pivot of the cue, results in the cue being pointed in exactly the correct directionl to pocket the OB assuming a center ball hit AND IMPORTANTLY assuming that the shooter doesn't screw it up with stroke imperfections.
Nobody has ever, to my knowledge, said that they run out all the time using Hal's system. If you have an aiming system that works, there are whole hell of a lot of other things that can make you miss. All of the basics still have to be taken into account. When I miss, it's usually because I have not focused well enough. And, maybe my bridge, grip, stroke, or something else may be off as well. It's not foolproof and nobody said it was! But, for some of us, it works better than anything we've tried before, and some of us have been doing this for a LONG time.
Hey, Pushout, it's all good. I'm seriously wondering about this stuff because like I said, Hal jumps into threads with the caps lock on and being real gruff about how he has the ultimate pocketing system and any of us that don't use it are totally in the dark. He may not say those exact words but that's the impression I get from reading his posts. When I read his posts I see him saying that his method is full proof and any other method is a waste of time. Like I said, this is the impression I get. After reading this thread and looking at the diagrams it confused me so bad that I couldn't even think straight. It just seems to me that any aiming system is going to have it's faults. But reading Hal's posts and the people that put stock in his systems made me wonder if they never missed a ball......and if they did then the system is no better than using the basic ghost ball or contact point. I'm not a mathematical person and seeing 1/3 of the ball just isn't going to work for me. I wouldn't even know where to break off a third of the ball.
But hey, man, like I said, I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm really curious about this stuff because I'm always open to something that will help me be more consistent with long cut shots.
MULLY
Something incredible....
Look at the 3 pages here. On each page, a pivot was determined based on pocketing the 15-ball. For each page, this pivot is slightly different, but only slightly.
I then ran lines from pocket "B" to ghost balls centered along this pivot line in order to place the rest of the balls for pocketing into pocket "B". There may be some cuetable anomalies, but look at how the balls lined up. I don't know why they lined up this way, but I find it VERY interesting. Anyone else think this is interesting?
This is hysterical. No advanced student of even the rudiments of the Pro One system would make any such comment.
The explanation is that due to the dynamics and yes, the GEOMETRY of the method, the correct positioning of the bridge hand together with the pivot of the cue, results in the cue being pointed in exactly the correct directionl to pocket the OB assuming a center ball hit AND IMPORTANTLY assuming that the shooter doesn't screw it up with stroke imperfections.
I am glad I could make you laugh... but apparantly you missed my point.
It had nothing to do with an actual explanation of the process (or if there was one)..Please re-read the quote that prompted me to write that post that you are referring to.
My point was that there are some people the really don't care to know that science behind why something does or does not work...
However...Your explanation is probably correct for that system.:wink:
Here are a couple more pages of lines of balls that go to the pocket for only one pivot for each page.
For those who use the pivot technique and wonder why it may have taken a while to get it, or wonder why you miss on occasion, the balls don't form a perfectly straight line. I don't think the cuetable should be the final say as to what kind of squiggle the balls create, but I do think it's possible to figure this stuff out elsewhere. And knowing the adjustments necessary for different distances may be what's needed to perfect the system.
