Fractional Aiming - Analysis of Houlian Adjustment Method

[Da Poet]

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.

CueTable Help

Just threw a fews things up on AutoCad and it's not a straight line. As the object ball gets closer to the pocket as drawn, the "line" that the cueball needs to follow ellipses away from the pocket. Only very slightly, but enough to mess it up.

 

[CueAndMe]

Just threw a fews things up on AutoCad and it's not a straight line. As the object ball gets closer to the pocket as drawn, the "line" that the cueball needs to follow ellipses away from the pocket. Only very slightly, but enough to mess it up.

That's great that you were able to show that. Something accurate like a CAD program is what I think is necessary to show where the object balls need to be placed in order to be pocketed by the same CB line.
Thanks for doing that.

 

[av84fun]

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

Well, if your misleading misuses of the language were not so frequent then you would not have to be corrected so often.

This thread contains MASSIVE misconceptions foisted upon us by some who have never even spoken to either Hal or Stan and by others who have spoken with or met Hal who STILL don't understand the system due to some combination of Hal not explaining himself perfectly or the student simply not understanding what may have been presented quite clearly.

IMHO, the controversy on this subject will soon come to an end when Stan Shuffett rolls out his Pro One version of the center-to-edge method pioneered by Mr. Houle.

At least the controversy is CAPABLE of being brought to a conclusion assuming there is a sufficient number of people who are not so stoneheaded as to reject a method based on rumor, hearsay and convoluted half truths which is EXACTLY the state of affairs regarding Mr. Houle's method.

Only fools and simpletons would believe that Stan Shuffett is anything other than an EXCEPTIONALLY talented teacher...an extremely astute student of the game over several decades and about as level-headed a man as anyone could have the pleasure of meeting.

While giving credit to Mr. Houle, Stan has IMMERSED himself in the intracasies of the system and has smoothed any rough edges that there may have been in the system itself or the way it has been taught.

This level-headed CAREER TEACHER is doing nothing less than staking his own son's future career in billiards on this system.

Why? Because it WORKS...and Stan KNOWS that it works.

Jim

 

[Cuemaster98]

Just threw a fews things up on AutoCad and it's not a straight line. As the object ball gets closer to the pocket as drawn, the "line" that the cueball needs to follow ellipses away from the pocket. Only very slightly, but enough to mess it up.

I guess it depends if you're playing on a tight pocket table or not? The pivot with this system can be adjusted depending on where you find your center line I believe. Basically, I'm told you have at least 3 point of contact that a ball can be sinked on any of the pocket. Depending on the distant of the Oball to CB, choosing the center line of aim to any of these points will make adjustment. I wonder if this can be drawn out in the CAD system for illustration. Similar diagram as the one shown but point of aim will adjust the line...making it straight I think. Don't know if this is true . LOL...Just hit the balls...muscle memory and repetition will adjust your mind eventually.

Regards,
Duc.

 

[av84fun]

I guess it depends if you're playing on a tight pocket table or not? The pivot with this system can be adjusted depending on where you find your center line I believe. Basically, I'm told you have at least 3 point of contact that a ball can be sinked on any of the pocket. Depending on the distant of the Oball to CB, choosing the center line of aim to any of these points will make adjustment. I wonder if this can be drawn out in the CAD system for illustration. Similar diagram as the one shown but point of aim will adjust the line...making it straight I think. Don't know if this is true . LOL...Just hit the balls...muscle memory and repetition will adjust your mind eventually.

Regards,
Duc.

Duc...respectfully...your above comments do not conform to the CURRENT version of the aiming system that has been called "center to edge" for quite a while and that Stan Shuffett has refined and calls Pro One.

Part of the problem is that Mr. Houle has taught NUMEROUS systems over the years...one of which is called shishkabob of all things...and has made revisions even in the center to edge system.

Your comments above bear no resemblance to Pro One which, as Stan readily agrees is BASED on the newest version of center to edge developed by Mr. Houle.

Put briefly, in Pro One there is only ONE hand position based on ONE line which extends from the top center of the CB to the edge of the OB.

As the line of centers between OB and the pocket changes with the cut angle, so too does the "approach angle" or "line of aim" that the system FORCES the player to adopt (when executed correctly).

My best suggestion is that this thread be put to bed or that it should be labelled to refer to some other system because there is little in this thread that has anything to do with the Current Center To Edge or Pro One systems and is just confusing the issue.

Regards,
Jim

Regards,
Jim

 

[ljmoss]

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)

As the 1st Houligan, many years ago now,I can still shoot the system with confidence and believe in it, as i was told by Hal-you either believe or you dont! I BELIEVE AND STILL POST IN CAPS ALSO!
( nice to see ya Pat!)

LJ Moss







9

 

[CueAndMe]

Put briefly, in Pro One there is only ONE hand position based on ONE line which extends from the top center of the CB to the edge of the OB.

As the line of centers between OB and the pocket changes with the cut angle, so too does the "approach angle" or "line of aim" that the system FORCES the player to adopt (when executed correctly).

So Pro One doesn't have the cue to one side of center like Hal's before the pivot? It's lined up directly from the center of the cueball to the edge of the object ball before the pivot?
Interesting. In order for this to work for most or all shots, the pivot point has to change.

 

[whitewolf]

The brown line represents a parallel line to the black line after the bridge adjustment. The player needn't aim along this line, but if he does, he needs to pivot back to the center of the CB before taking the final stroke. The important aspect here is that the bridge needs to shift right in order to cut the object ball further to the right.

Colin

Now this is complete insanity. Why don't players just put the cue down where it belongs as they walk into the shot?

I want to interject here something Joe Tucker's backhand english. I tried it and it worked wonderfully, but there is just something I don't like about moving the shaft and butt once you setup. I am so used to using the method Joe hates for applying english and I like it better.

Thanks for the analysis Colin!

 

[Cuemaster98]

Duc...respectfully...your above comments do not conform to the CURRENT version of the aiming system that has been called "center to edge" for quite a while and that Stan Shuffett has refined and calls Pro One.

Regards,
Jim

Regards,
Jim

I guess the aiming system that I'm learning is different. On the shot in the diagram...I would put my bridge hand on the right sight of the cue ball and my cue tip (Ferrule) edge of cue ball (Inside cue ball). I will then sight the the edge of the cue ball to aim at the Middle of the OB then pivot the cue tip from the edge back to the center of the cue ball with my backhand.

The second way to make this ball is to put the tip in the center of the cue ball (bridge hand aligned for this shot), then pivot the tip to the left of the object ball (1 tip).

Basically, I use this aiming system to find my line of aim. Once I'm comfortable with the line of aim..I can use english to get the shape that I want. Now...I'm new at this system and been adjusting it to how it works for me in practice.

To get shape for the 4 ball, I would probably use the second method and once I found my line.. I just would shoot at 7 o'clock (maybe 6 o'clock) to get shape or shoot 1 O'clock (maybe 3 O'clock) depending on distance to hold the cue ball to center of the table.

Again.. this is how the aiming system work for me. Ron V...showed me only the basic and answer my questions in my lesson with him. He explained very clear..but too much information to absorbed...so probably will learn more as I take more lessons from him. The concept of this aiming is very simple and there are only so many shots and adjustment that need to be made.

One benefit of this type of aiming is that once you get it....you don't think as much..you just shoot. Like everybody say..you just have to be comfortable with whatever methods you're learning and if it works for you then great.

Hopefully this help guys out...if you need to learn more...You'll have to contact the real deal "Ron V.".

BTW, anybody have any information on the Clock System for aiming and shape? This aiming technique is pretty cool tool (hoping to learn more). I've been using this new aiming system and then used the clock system for shape...work out good so far. Hmm...I might be the first to combine both of these systems LOL!!

Regards,
Duc.