Hal Houle
- Thread starter eze
- Start date
This is only a test...
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?
EDIT: Check these 4 pages out showing 2 possible pivots and the resulting paths of the cueball:
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?
EDIT: Check these 4 pages out showing 2 possible pivots and the resulting paths of the cueball:
Last edited:
bluepepper said:
I'm Sorry sir, no offense, but what the Hell are you talking about ?
Please see post #177, this thread. You guys are being talked into thinking there are foolproof "systems" to make you accurately pocket balls. No such system exists ! You either know where to hit the OB, or you don't. Please work on a sensible approach to practicing, If aiming systems really worked, no one would ever miss a ball.
Dick
Last edited:
av84fun said:
Now, I'll agree with you but just a little bit. :smile: All of the pros you mentioned hawking their services on AZBilliards should pay in cash or trade.
I also agree that the pros could be raking in more money by busting their buns marketing themselves. I'm turning into a yes man rather quickly.
JoeyA
SJDinPHX said:
No offense either but your comment is completely in error sir. Aiming systems DO NOT have anything to do with getting shape so that you have a makable next shot and a reasonable path to shape on the next shot.
Aiming systems cannot lead to a repeatable and CORRECT stroke without which any aiming method is doomed.
Aiming systems cannot be expected to magically compensate for cueing errors or the intentional application of various amounts of english and speed.
THAT is why people miss shots...with sometimes embarassing frequency as was the case with Wiseman and Archer in their recent match.
Don't you think they know how to AIM by whatever method??? Of course, they DO but they still DOGGED IT repeatedly THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR AIMING METHODS!
I don't know why some people are so antagonistic toward innovations in the game from L/D shafts to aiming systems that RESPECTED members of this forum swear to God have improved their games. But many people who haven't even TRIED the methods and still others who don't even understand the methods dump all over them.
My guess is that such people just can't hack the game and are jealous of people who do. Just a guess.
But innovation has been a part of every sport on earth and most often they are not only accepted but generally LEAPED at by the players. Golfers stumble all over themselves to get the newest dimple pattern balls from Titleist or the newest monster driver or putter.
But when innovations such as L/D shafts come along many people say "To hell with L/D shafts...just get your cue and PRACTICE.
The next time I read someone dumping on L/D shafts in general, I think I'll PUKE. Do those people think that the high end custom cuemakers stay awake at night trying to figure out how to make their shafts deflect MORE?
Fine, stay with what you have if that's what you learned on but telling new players that L/D is not the way to go is just STUPID.
Reducing a key variable is FUNDAMENTALLY CORRECT....PERIOD.
Even Joe Tucker who teaches a combined BHE/FHE stroke which tends to reduce squirt RECOMMENDS AND USES PREDATOR SHAFTS!!!!
Jim
It just seems that if these systems were so accurate, MANY top players would be using them, and openly talking about them. To believe anything different is to believe that there is some conspiracy among the top players, and they're all in on it and disciplined enough to keep the secret, to keep everyone else in the dark. If THAT were the case, why would players like John Schmidt spend so much time and effort into teaching people how to play straight pool? Or does the conspiracy end with aiming systems, and everything else is ok to talk about?
As far as back-hand English, or whatever you want to call it, yeah, many people do that. I do it myself (I don't apply the English on the last stroke. I set up with the tip aiming at where I'm going to hit the cue ball). In fact, I think everyone does it to some degree, whether knowingly or unknowingly (I mean, I don't think anyone is *exactly* parallel to the aiming line when applying side English). But back-hand English isn't what we're talking about here, is it?
I could be wrong because, I admit, there are players far better than me, but I believe that, at some point, aiming has to be natural. You either know where to hit the ball to make it go in the hole, or you don't. Even if you used a system, at some point, it would have to be second nature. Now, at the point that it's second nature, are you still actually using the system? Several people, for years, have been taught to aim using the ghost-ball system. It was one of the first things that I learned when I walked into a pool room as a kid. However, out of all the people who ever went on to become good players after starting out with the ghost-ball system, I'd go out on a limb and say that, by the time they were playing good, they weren't actually using the ghost-ball system anymore, but rather aiming on instinct.
So I guess that leads me to another question. For those of you who use systems, and have been using them for a long time, do you still use them when you aim, or do you now just know where to hit the ball to make it?
As far as back-hand English, or whatever you want to call it, yeah, many people do that. I do it myself (I don't apply the English on the last stroke. I set up with the tip aiming at where I'm going to hit the cue ball). In fact, I think everyone does it to some degree, whether knowingly or unknowingly (I mean, I don't think anyone is *exactly* parallel to the aiming line when applying side English). But back-hand English isn't what we're talking about here, is it?
I could be wrong because, I admit, there are players far better than me, but I believe that, at some point, aiming has to be natural. You either know where to hit the ball to make it go in the hole, or you don't. Even if you used a system, at some point, it would have to be second nature. Now, at the point that it's second nature, are you still actually using the system? Several people, for years, have been taught to aim using the ghost-ball system. It was one of the first things that I learned when I walked into a pool room as a kid. However, out of all the people who ever went on to become good players after starting out with the ghost-ball system, I'd go out on a limb and say that, by the time they were playing good, they weren't actually using the ghost-ball system anymore, but rather aiming on instinct.
So I guess that leads me to another question. For those of you who use systems, and have been using them for a long time, do you still use them when you aim, or do you now just know where to hit the ball to make it?
BRKNRUN said:
Jimmy M. said:
John giving straight pool lessons has nothing to do with aiming necessarily. And yes there IS a great deal of secrecy about aiming and other techniques and there always has been.
Willie swears that Greenleaf never taught him ANYTHING...EVER...even though they traveled together for years. Willie only learned by watching and figuring things out for himself.
Just because some pros teach doesn't mean that they teach EVERYTHING they know.
And there is no such thing as "instinctive" pool playing. Those who SAY they aim "by feel" actually don't. They are aiming in a VERY specific way on EVERY shot. As I've said before, I will match up with any "feel player" on the planet if they have to close their eyes before taking their last stroke...and if they're not aiming at anything in particular, why wouldn't they take the bet??
What you are referring to is internalization whereby the mind works with BLINDING speed to peform, in some cases, massive calculations instantly.
Go ahead and build a computer program for cars that would detect when a green light turns amber and decides whether to proceed or stop and then how much pressure to apply to the gas or break pedals depending on that decision.
The code for such a program would be massive but humans do it every day in a second or two without SEEMING to think about it but they DO think about it...big time.
So, it's not "feel" or "instinct" at all. Rather, it is learned, systematic behavior but behavior that occurs in so little time that it appears to be instinctive.
Regards,
Jim
Your level of expertise on every subject never ceases to amaze me.
I am unable to offer a rebuttal.
And yet I will!
I am unable to believe that ALL of the great pool players out there would be so disciplined in their sworn oath to secrecy, that not one would have come out and given credit to Hal Houle's system(s) had they felt they were responsible for their success. You can say what you want, but I doubt it will sway my opinion on that. And John giving straight-pool lessons has everything to do with, and is a prime example of, top players being willing to share information.
Also, I never used the word "feel". Why don't you just offer to play people who think they play on instinct instead of making some gaff game where they have to close their eyes? If your methods are superior, you have nothing to worry about and, to use your own words, why wouldn't you take the bet?
P.S. I don't expect you to have a new opinion after reading my reply.
I am unable to offer a rebuttal.
And yet I will!
I am unable to believe that ALL of the great pool players out there would be so disciplined in their sworn oath to secrecy, that not one would have come out and given credit to Hal Houle's system(s) had they felt they were responsible for their success. You can say what you want, but I doubt it will sway my opinion on that. And John giving straight-pool lessons has everything to do with, and is a prime example of, top players being willing to share information.
Also, I never used the word "feel". Why don't you just offer to play people who think they play on instinct instead of making some gaff game where they have to close their eyes? If your methods are superior, you have nothing to worry about and, to use your own words, why wouldn't you take the bet?
P.S. I don't expect you to have a new opinion after reading my reply.
av84fun said:
Last edited:
Jimmy M. said:Your level of expertise on every subject never ceases to amaze me.
I am unable to offer a rebuttal.
And yet I will!
I am unable to believe that ALL of the great pool players out there would be so disciplined in their sworn oath to secrecy, that not one would have come out and given credit to Hal Houle's system(s) had they felt they were responsible for their success. You can say what you want, but I doubt it will sway my opinion on that. And John giving straight-pool lessons has everything to do with, and is a prime example of, top players being willing to share information.
Also, I never used the word "feel". Why don't you just offer to play people who think they play on instinct instead of making some gaff game where they have to close their eyes? If your methods are superior, you have nothing to worry about and, to use your own words, why wouldn't you take the bet?
P.S. I don't expect you to have a new opinion after reading my reply.
i only read this last post by jimmy (it seems you and i get online at the same time, half my posts are right after yours.... are you a 2am person too?). but i have to agree. i have always wondered when there is a great player that supposedly uses some system, and say this players brother or best friend runs with him, and the guy can't make a ball, haha. why wouldn't he just show the guy the system so he could start making everything in sight and they could now have him in the pit? i dont know, if youre one to chase after one of these elusive, golden systems, i'd say you could spend your time more wisely by repetitively practicing precise cue ball movements. that is something where if you put your time in to it you will actually see results. that one comes with a money back guarantee too!
av84fun said:
whats the key variable???
is it the system?
is it the deflection of the shaft?
is it the hours the player spent on the table perfecting their game
I'm a firm believer in time on the table..
and I think most would agree...
you get good at this game with time on table not time in wallet looking to buy the new gadget
Aiming secrecy among pro players? If there's anything I don't believe, than this is it. What would be the purpose of hiding such information? Very few people can excell at this game regardless of how much information they gather. Extra information on aiming will help many guys of course, but to such an extent that it would make them serious runout monsters? Come on...nothing replaces hard work at the table.
I don't know of any pro who hasn't shot at least a few million balls in practice. Whether they use a concious system or not is irrelevant.
Why would pool be special among sports in that regard anyway? Maybe Nadal and Federer have some secret tricks that other tennis pro players haven't figured out yet?
I don't know of any pro who hasn't shot at least a few million balls in practice. Whether they use a concious system or not is irrelevant.
Why would pool be special among sports in that regard anyway? Maybe Nadal and Federer have some secret tricks that other tennis pro players haven't figured out yet?
av84fun said:
Jim, you sound like the type of guy who would "stumble all over himself" to buy the latest golf gimmick (if you play golf) in hopes of reaching a nirvana
in golf as you are trying to in pool. And, pray tell, what the Hell do low deflection shafts have to do with "miracle" aiming systems ? Methinks as Jimmy M. stated, your level of expertise on any given subject, is truly amazing. And I accept your "aim,look away,and shoot" challange:thumbup:
Save some of the $$$ you are wasting on aiming systems, though, because I DON'T play cheap.
Dick
Last edited:
If instinctive means biologically built-in and not learned, then I think that kind of pool playing exists, but only at low levels - I think we call it "banging". We come pre-equipped with (varying degrees of) the ability to visualize spatial relationships and coordinate our hands with what we see which can be used "out-of-the-box" to play some pool. But once we begin to learn how to play better, then I agree that "instinctive" really means "internalized methodology". However, I don't believe that means "no feel involved".
I disagree with this only because no "specific way" is mechanically foolproof - even "following the rules" of your personal system (whatever it may be) requires some experience and gets more accurate over time and with practice. This is because you get better at "seeing" the various checkpoints, alignments, shot-specific adjustments, etc. that make up your system - this is the same as saying you improve your "feel" for these things. The process can't be strictly mechanical because we're not robots.
pj
chgo
To get an idea what people mean by "feel," think about something Joe Tucker said in one of his videos. If you ask someone which part of the cue ball needs to hit the object ball, not only will they sometimes not know the exact point, sometimes they are not even close, yet they are able to pocket balls. That doesn't mean you're not aiming at something specific, it's just that the shot looks right to you.
That said, I would guess that some "feel" players are actually visualizing something like the ghost ball or contact points. But the ghost ball is not really an "aiming system" which is why you can make the distinction.
That said, I would guess that some "feel" players are actually visualizing something like the ghost ball or contact points. But the ghost ball is not really an "aiming system" which is why you can make the distinction.
bluepepper said:
Thanks for setting up your examples - I agree with you. I contend that the shot alignment that works on the first ball will miss the last ball altogether if not sooner. There must be something that has not been explained to make this work on the last ball as well - I am waiting for that golden nugget.
pbat2751 said:
He's shooting really strong right now. Literally one week after showing it to him he broke and ran his first two racks in a row against a 6. Had to let up a little :grin: but still won the match.
I still beat him in practice most games but I think it's more of an intimidation factor. That is, until he realizes I am nothing special and beats my ass too.
Holy Moly.....
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?
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?