Hal Houle

Landon Shuffett ----Hal Houle

I think I am starting to get some perverted sense of pleasure out of this thread as I'm sure Hal is too. I hope the differences of opinion in this thread don't result in personal attacks. Everyone has a right to their opinion and there is no need to denigrate another person because their opinion is so different from yours.

At least for now we don't have to worry about Hal rolling over in his grave.:smile:

I would like to make a few points and Hal and most of the posters on this forum won't agree with all of them and that's OK but I wanted to sign off on this thread as I think it's run it's course.

1. Hal's preferred aiming system works and works well. Is it perfect? No, and neither are any of us.

2. Hal has personally taught Landon Shuffett his aiming system and Landon's game for a 12 year old boy is nothing short of SPECTACULAR and will only get better in time.

3. Hal has also taught Stan Shuffett his aiming system.

4. Stan Shuffett has invested HUGE AMOUNTS OF TIME into learning all of the nuances of the system and he is IMO the best expert on this subject. Stan is an accomplished player himself. He teaches a system based upon the foundation of what Hal teaches for free and it is called The Pro One Aiming System. He teaches it separately and also together with his foundation course and yes he charges a reasonable fee for doing so.

5. Stan has taught his foundation course and the aiming system to professional pool players and they will admit to using it and they play well with it. Stevie Moore has only won the last two Seminole Pro Tour tournaments in a row, after learning Stan's Pro One Aiming System. Stan's original trade was that of a an educator and so his skill's at teaching are second to none. (There are others who teach well)

I've worked with Stan and he has helped my game tremendously and yes I am learning the Pro One Aiming System and it is helping my game.
This comes after years of neglecting Hal's primary aiming system. :embarrassed2:

Will the Pro One Aiming system make you shoot perfectly every time? Not hardly. Could it help most people? I am positive, especially if it is intertwined with Stan's Foundation Course.

I also believe that the Pro One Aiming system needs to be taught one on one, while it is simple and easy to use, there are many questions that arise as you learn and move from stage to stage. Each question can be addressed on an individual basis and dealt with as they come up. No matter who you are teacher or student, it is not that easy to discuss the questions and problems that are being asked and discussed here and unfortunately I am only a student.

If you want to learn the Pro One Aiming System or Hal's primary aiming system you may call either Stan or Hal. Then you can decide for yourself if it is worth investing your time. Their phone numbers and contact information are all over this forum. (Just remember to be nice to Hal or he will let you have it. :grin: :poke: :lol:)

Sincerely,

JoeyA
 
danged warped cue balls

The danged warped cue balls are always my excuse. I can't understand why I am always the one that gets them! :confused:

With my dry delivery of the complaint I often have the other player studying the cue ball so my complaint may be unintentional sharking. :grin: :grin: :grin:

Hu


Smorgass Bored said:
If you drink, you can always blame the booze.
Or, poor health or age.

Doug
(I've even heard some shot missing whiners blame their 'back') :)

*One well known Pro blames the HUMIDITY.
Click to expand...
 
Jimmy M. said:
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?
Click to expand...

I would fully agree that when you are playing good you are playing on instinct....IMO......You (practice) methods and technique so that when it comes game time it is instinct...second nature...aka: (your natural game)

However...I can lose my "instinct"...Weather it be something to do with my vision, lack of abiltiy to handle pressure or distractions, or that I suck or have sporadic amnesia....It happens...It is kind of nice to have a method in that case to help me re-gain my instinct.

At some point the method itself becomes instinct....You apparantly developed your aiming starting with Ghost Ball, and I suspect added bits of other methods here and there and eventually developed your own method that is now so second nature that you do it on instinct.

I have seen you shoot enough to know that you perfrom very specific actions during your shot routine...almost every single time you shoot...I would have to think that it is some kind of instintive method that you do that puts you in proper alignment (aka:aim) for the shot...You have just done it for so long, you probably don't even know your doing it.

Meh....what does it really all matter....You find a method that helps you make balls and get shape...or you don't and end up sucking.

It all goes back on that there are different personalities that view things in different ways. Some people must know why something works and must be able to prove that it works before they will accept it as somethign that works...It is just the way they are.

Others only care that when you push on the gas pedal the car will pick up speed....

All I really care about is that I have a method that pockets balls and gets shape...Once I have the method down "as instinct"...I am good to go.

Hell I don't know (and don't really care) if there is some "secret" out there or not......but if there is....They are doing a pretty good job keeping it secret...:wink:
 
More diagrams

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

 
BRKNRUN said:
Hell I don't know (and don't really care) if there is some "secret" out there or not......but if there is....They are doing a pretty good job keeping it secret...:wink:
Click to expand...

Similar to how the government is doing a good job of keeping Bigfoot a secret, I'm sure. ;)
 
bigfoot

Jimmy M. said:
Similar to how the government is doing a good job of keeping Bigfoot a secret, I'm sure. ;)
Click to expand...
No longer a secret! Saw him on the history channel along with Nellie. TV don't lie. Actually it was one of Rick's photo shop pix of Tres Kane.:D
 
I believe that I saw a couple players using an aiming system this weekend. It was really strange. It seemed they were picking a spot on the waitresses' booty and aiming their shafts at it.

I'm not sure who invented that system, but it didn't seem to be helping anyone make balls.
 
Jimmy M. said:
I believe that I saw a couple players using an aiming system this weekend. It was really strange. It seemed they were picking a spot on the waitresses' booty and aiming their shafts at it.

I'm not sure who invented that system, but it didn't seem to be helping anyone make balls.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the real question is, did they go home with the waitress? That aiming system isn't meant to make balls, it's meant to pick up waitresses :smile:

Koop - knows that siming system too but it's too complicated to discuss here
 
Jimmy M. said:
I believe that I saw a couple players using an aiming system this weekend. It was really strange. It seemed they were picking a spot on the waitresses' booty and aiming their shafts at it.

I'm not sure who invented that system, but it didn't seem to be helping anyone make balls.
Click to expand...
They did slap their booties backhanded or fronthanded?
 
Blackjack said:
Hal has made several comments to several people about my ability to teach. To my knowledge, I have never met Hal, nor do I recall him being present at any class or clinic I have conducted. Despite that fact - he has made these comments to people that I sent to him personally. I did confront Hal about this a while back, and he was very smug about it. Gentleman? Not in my opinion.

IMO...his posts serve no purpose at all in any discussion he has interrupted over the years. If you find any post that he has made on any forum that teaches anybody anything - feel free to post the link here and I will apologize and retract that statement.

Now... I'm sure I could have spoke to you about this privately in a PM, e-mail or a phone call - however I won't sit here quietly as some gather around to put a halo on Hal's head. My experience is quite different, and I would hope that if Hal is gentleman (like you say he is) that I can get a apology from him - privately or publicly - IMO - he gets a kick out of pissing people off with his drivel... so IMO Hal is on the same list as Fast Larry.
Click to expand...

It`s not fair that Hal disrespects UR teaching abilities but he might B judging U on UR playing abilities N how U mislead peeps on how well [really, not well] U play. Definitely not a pro or even a shortstop. :o :rolleyes:

Brian
 
bluepepper said:
Jim, if you would, please look at my diagrams. Do you still believe that all of the shots along that line can be pocketed with the same 2 pivots?
Click to expand...

Jeff, I have looked at your diagrams but the point that you are missing is that you don't fully understand the dynamics of the system...and especially Stan Shuffett's evolutionary additions to it.

I guarantee you that you can search the forum for weeks and not find one single post....or any group of them...that fully and correctly describe the Pro One system.

What most don't understand is that the way the bridge hand and cue alignment are placed according to the system are infinately variable so it is NOT a matter of the method working for some angles and not for others.

There are a FEW, FEW cb/ob positions where the system doesn't work but they are OBVIOUS and there is an EXACT alternative WITHING THE SYSTEM.

One obvious exception is with a CB close/frozen to a long rail and the OB near the opposite long rail so there IS no pocket for the shot to go in (realistically).

The good news on such shots, however, is that if they don't go direct to a pocket, they BANK in using the same method.

Having said all the above, no system results in the player never missing because you have to STROKE the shot...not just aim it...and if the stroke is wrong, you miss regardless of a perfect aim.

What fries my circuits are those (not you) with the attitude that if a method is not perfect, it is therefore, invalid.

Systems don't have to be perfect to be beneficial...they merely have to achieve a better result than the player formerly had!!!!

While the Pro One system cannot save players from poor/inconsistant stroke mechanics, the method is ON for a HUGE majority of shots (like 95%) and when it is not ON it is OBVIOUS and there are systematic adjustments WITHIN THE SYSTEM to aim correctly.

So, to say that the SYSTEM doesn't always work is no more logical than to say that your stick shift car can't go more than 30 mph and is therefore junk because if you simply upshift the SAME transmission, it WILL go faster!

Even though I am a fairly new student of Pro One, I am already to the point that I am surprised NOT to make tough shots vs. being surprised when I do.

And my banking success ratio is through the roof on "not on" angles...at least triple. From almost any place on the table, if the bank doesn't go, it sure scares the hell out of the pocket!!!

Genuinely, because it works so brilliantly, Pro One or whatever other instructors choose to call the same techniques, are already being adopted by more and more top pros as Spidey's comments shows and IMHO will emerge as the aiming STANDARD in the years to come.

NOTE: The use of english, while dealt with systematically in the method, introduces variables dependant on the jack up angle, speed and type of stroke etc. that no method on earth can systematically account for.

THAT is why NO method is a panacea that will make world champions of us all. That is why ONLY practice and rote trial and error will maximize any player's pocketing skills.

BUT I guaranf...ingtee you that is is FAR FAR better to learn how to deal with variables from an accurate BASELINE aiming method
without which it is extremely difficult to deterime whether you missed due to an baseline aiming error or an improper adjustment for cueing variables.

With Pro One you know FOR SURE that you missed, you did so because of imperfect stroke mechanics and/or cueing variables and that is a HUGE learning advantage vs. learning "by guess and by God."

Regards,
Jim
 
av84fun said:
With Pro One you know FOR SURE that you missed, you did so because of imperfect stroke mechanics and/or cueing variables
Click to expand...

This is a statement I've heard from more than one pivot system advocate. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but I'd suggest that it's an extremely important statement to prove if one wishes to convince those who believe that, for the system to work, adjustments must be made along with the pivots.

A simple pivoting machine can be created to do this. Or even better, measurements by one of the many smartypantses here could be done on paper. The angles, pivot points, etc. can all be accounted for. As long as the final aim of the cue, after the pivot system's steps have been followed, splits the ghost ball, we have all the proof we would need. But the statement that human error is the cause of missed shots isn't good enough without this proof.

That doesn't mean the system doesn't work. It just means that the system may work for different reasons.
 
Your post is exactly correct. But please don't misunderstand me when I say that I don't care about "proving" anything to anyone. I'm just trying to contribute by steering people in what I believe to be the right direction.

If they do or do not take the advice is of no importance to me. And I really mean that respectfully and am not being pissy at all.

As for the reason that the Pro One system works...there is only one reason. It places the bridge hand and the cue line into the correct position to pocket the balls from the vast majority of CB/OB positions.

It's not mysterious or occult. It's just much more difficult to explain in paper than in person.

At its heart, it places the bridge hand in the EXACTLY correct position relative to the lines between the CB and OB and the OB to the pocket so that when the tip is aimed at the center of the CB the line of aim is correctly established.

Therefore, the method is infinately variable just as the above angles are variable...but they are variable CONSISTENTLY with each other.

It is therefore quite a "geometric" method but one that is problematic to describe textually or by phone.

I'm not the world's most ignorant person but it was not until I spent time with Stan Shuffett that I was able to say..."Oh...THAT's how it works."

I can say this for sure. That the HUGE body of posts on this general subject has done almost....and I say ALMOST irreparable damage to the whole subject because there has been so much posted the is incorrect and so much omitted that IS correct.

I have nothing to sell so I will just close by saying that there is NO question that absent the variables I wrote about above, the method works BRILLIANTLY...even on extremely difficult shots except in certain instances and in those instances it is OBVIOUSLY off and an alternative must be used or a bank or safety played.

Regards,
Jim

bluepepper said:
This is a statement I've heard from more than one pivot system advocate. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but I'd suggest that it's an extremely important statement to prove if one wishes to convince those who believe that, for the system to work, adjustments must be made along with the pivots.

A simple pivoting machine can be created to do this. Or even better, measurements by one of the many smartypantses here could be done on paper. The angles, pivot points, etc. can all be accounted for. As long as the final aim of the cue, after the pivot system's steps have been followed, splits the ghost ball, we have all the proof we would need. But the statement that human error is the cause of missed shots isn't good enough without this proof.

That doesn't mean the system doesn't work. It just means that the system may work for different reasons.
Click to expand...
 
av84fun:
With Pro One you know FOR SURE that you missed, you did so because of imperfect stroke mechanics and/or cueing variables
Click to expand...

bluepepper:
This is a statement I've heard from more than one pivot system advocate. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but I'd suggest that it's an extremely important statement to prove if one wishes to convince those who believe that, for the system to work, adjustments must be made along with the pivots.
Click to expand...

"Adjustments" are an acknowledged part of this system:

the way the bridge hand and cue alignment are placed according to the system are infinately variable
Click to expand...

Obviously the system itself doesn't specify each of the infinite varieties of bridge hand and cue alignment - these are the "adjustments" required by the system, chosen by the shooter by experience or feel.

There simply is no system that can, just by following its "rules", mechanically specify enough cut angles to sink every possible shot - or even close to it. It's an obvious impossibility that requires no experience with the system to know.

Those who insist this is an unfounded assertion made by those who don't understand the system(s) themselves don't understand the simple, irrefutable logic behind it, and in fact don't fully understand their own system(s). This has been the basis for most of the heated argument about these "aiming simplification" systems since the first ones were described (imperfectly then as now) on the internet years ago.

pj
chgo
 
av84fun said:
Your post is exactly correct. But please don't misunderstand me when I say that I don't care about "proving" anything to anyone. I'm just trying to contribute by steering people in what I believe to be the right direction.

If they do or do not take the advice is of no importance to me. And I really mean that respectfully and am not being pissy at all.

As for the reason that the Pro One system works...there is only one reason. It places the bridge hand and the cue line into the correct position to pocket the balls from the vast majority of CB/OB positions.

It's not mysterious or occult. It's just much more difficult to explain in paper than in person.

At its heart, it places the bridge hand in the EXACTLY correct position relative to the lines between the CB and OB and the OB to the pocket so that when the tip is aimed at the center of the CB the line of aim is correctly established.

Therefore, the method is infinately variable just as the above angles are variable...but they are variable CONSISTENTLY with each other.

It is therefore quite a "geometric" method but one that is problematic to describe textually or by phone.

I'm not the world's most ignorant person but it was not until I spent time with Stan Shuffett that I was able to say..."Oh...THAT's how it works."

I can say this for sure. That the HUGE body of posts on this general subject has done almost....and I say ALMOST irreparable damage to the whole subject because there has been so much posted the is incorrect and so much omitted that IS correct.

I have nothing to sell so I will just close by saying that there is NO question that absent the variables I wrote about above, the method works BRILLIANTLY...even on extremely difficult shots except in certain instances and in those instances it is OBVIOUSLY off and an alternative must be used or a bank or safety played.

Regards,
Jim
Click to expand...

Jim, I really don't think anything here has been damaged irreparably. And I think there are plenty of people here who would truly appreciate learning Stan Shuffet's method if it's as good as you say it is.
 
I really don't think anything here has been damaged irreparably
Click to expand...

I hope we're damaging the myths and misunderstanding that surround these systems. Obviously the fog hasn't completely lifted, but I think a little more light gets in each time we have discussions like this.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
"Adjustments" are an acknowledged part of this system:



Obviously the system itself doesn't specify each of the infinite varieties of bridge hand and cue alignment - these are the "adjustments" required by the system, chosen by the shooter by experience or feel.

There simply is no system that can, just by following its "rules", mechanically specify enough cut angles to sink every possible shot - or even close to it. It's an obvious impossibility that requires no experience with the system to know.

Those who insist this is an unfounded assertion made by those who don't understand the system(s) themselves don't understand the simple, irrefutable logic behind it, and in fact don't fully understand their own system(s). This has been the basis for most of the heated argument about these "aiming simplification" systems since the first ones were described (imperfectly then as now) on the internet years ago.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

It has been my practice to stay away from aiming system threads because I don't have an engineering or physics background and am not an expert player. But this time I'll add my two cents worth.

I agree completely with what you've said here pj.

In my simple way I'll put it this way: in my own simple and flawed practice sessions I've found that in the case of a fractional/overlaping type aiming system.. there will be a cut angle where the shot will be overcut useing one of the specified spots on the cb and will be undercut using the next specified spot on the cb... especially if the pocket is tight.

Each aiming spot in a fractional/overlap system will have it's outside limits and when the shot requires a little more or a little less cut angle using the system will be contraindicated.

That's just the way it works and it's not theory it's life.
 
Last edited:
JimS said:
In my simple way I'll put it this way: in my own simple and flawed practice sessions I've found that in the case of a fractional/overlaping type aiming system.. there will be a cut angle where the shot will be overcut useing one of the specified spots on the cb and will be undercut using the next specified spot on the cb... especially if the pocket is tight.

Each aiming spot in a fractional/overlap system will have it's outside limits and when the shot requires a little more or a little less cut angle using the system will be contraindicated.
Click to expand...

I think it would depend on the number of fractions. If I remember correctly 1/8 fractions yield angles something like 0, 7, 14, 21, 30, 39, 49, 61, and 90ish, with which you'll hit pretty much any pocket from pretty much any distance. Add to that the variety of spins and speeds that can applied when the shots are somewhere in between and you've got the pocket centers covered.

The system discussed in this thread isn't one of the fractional ones Hal Houle used to teach though. And if I understand correctly, av8 Jim is referring to a Hal Houle spin-off pivot system by Stan Shuffett.
 
bluepepper:
If I remember correctly 1/8 fractions yield angles something like 0, 7, 14, 21, 30, 39, 49, 61, and 90ish, with which you'll hit pretty much any pocket from pretty much any distance.
Click to expand...

I calculate that with 5-inch pockets and straight + 8 more cut angles (0, 7.2, 14.5, 22, 30, 38.7, 48.6, 61 & 90ish degrees) you'll be able to sink the following percentage of shots from various distances:

from 1 foot = 91% of shots
from 2 feet = 45% of shots
from 3 feet = 30% of shots
from 4 feet = 23% of shots
from 5 feet = 18% of shots
from 6 feet = 15% of shots

Here's the number of cut angles (including 0 degrees) needed to sink all shots from each of those distances into a 5-inch pocket:

from 1 foot = 10 cut angles
from 2 feet = 19 cut angles
from 3 feet = 28 cut angles
from 4 feet = 37 cut angles
from 5 feet = 46 cut angles
from 6 feet = 56 cut angles

pj <- too much caffeine
chgo

EDIT: CORRECTED FIGURES FOR 1/4 CIRCUMFERENCE (FROM 1/2 CIRCUMFERENCE).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top