Hal Houle

[av84fun]

]"Adjustments" are an acknowledged part of this system:[/B]

I don't know anyone who suggests that there are no adjustments ever needed. Of course, I said precisely that there were such adjustments and so did bluepepper so I don't know why you felt the need to repeat the repeated...but there are VERY, VERY few adjustments required for the BASELINE aiming method.

But as for the details of the method to which I refer...Pro One...how much time have you spent with Stan Shuffett to learn his approach to the aiming method?

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.

That statement is UTTERLY INCORRECT and demonstrates that you have no idea about the fundamentals of Pro One...regardless of whether anyone ever attempted to teach them to you or not.

There is only ONE bridge hand position relative to the center-to-edge line
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.

The very ESSENCE of Pro One is the rote, automatic and completely systematic achievement of the correct bridge hand placement and cue alignment.

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

No, sophistry just as you have engaged in above by commenting on the dynamics of a system that you have either never been taught by its creater*** or were not competent to understand, is what has caused the heated debates to which you refer.

***Pro One, EVOLVED from the center-to-edge method pioneered by Mr. Houle as Stan never hesitates to mention...but has been substantially refined by Stan both in terms of its dynamics and the way it is taught.

The ONLY adjustments required are when the CB/OB are extremely close together...or when there IS no realistic pocket such as the cross-side banks I mentioned an d when certain forms of english are used.

But as for shots with english, it is FAR better to determine the necessary adjustments from the CORRECT baseline aim (i.e. center ball) and not guess about BOTH the base aim AND the adjustment required.

You should really take the time to become knowledgable about the CORRECT method before you jump in to criticize that about which you are not well informed.

Jim

 

[ShootingArts]

think something is wrong with your cyphering

PJ,

Not trying to stir things with you but your percentages seem very low. Back when SAM was being discussed on the forum I played with the number of cuts SAM is divided into, less than eight per side if I recall correctly, and using a pool program so that there was no human error or unconscious fudge factor involved I tested a half table worth of shots moving the cue ball one ball width at a time along the rail on the top half of the table and putting the object ball on the foot spot. I discovered that the vast majority of shots did go with one of the SAM positions, which seems like they might have been only five to each side for a total of eleven positions. I think that you will find that the vast majority of shots will fall if you divide the object ball into seventeen parts as you are describing. Adding to the accuracy is that in actual play we usually select the easiest shot.

Any player that could accurately hit center ball and eight positions on either side of it consistently would be an absolute monster on a table. However even top players don't hit their contact points consistently with that fine of accuracy.

Hu

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 = 48% of shots
from 2 feet = 24% of shots
from 3 feet = 16% of shots
from 4 feet = 12% of shots
from 5 feet = 9% of shots
from 6 feet = 7% 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 = 19 cut angles
from 2 feet = 38 cut angles
from 3 feet = 56 cut angles
from 4 feet = 75 cut angles
from 5 feet = 104 cut angles
from 6 feet = 125 cut angles

pj <- too much caffeine
chgo

 

[av84fun]

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.

Jeff...I said "ALMOST irreparably damaged" and posts such as Patricks that bear no relationship to Pro One is just one case in point.

If there are lots of people not to closed minded to learn the ACTUAL dynamics of the system that's fine with me. But any review of the several hundred of not a thousand or more posts on the "center-to-edge" aiming method proves that my statement was not far off the mark.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

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

When the fog lifts to some extent, you show up to blow more over the landscape.

And I have not been referring to "THESE SYSTEMS."

I have been referring to ONE SYSTEM...only RECENTLY evolved to its present state and only given the name Pro One within the past couple of months...by a man who has unimpeachable credentials as a pool instructor and as a professional educator.

You have ZERO credentials in either of the above and your pontifications concerning that about which you are entirely uninformed, misinformed or incapable of grasping suggests the value of your opinions on the subject...which is zero.

Jim

 

[av84fun]

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.

Jim...Pro One has NOTHING to do with a "fractional" or "overlapping aiming system.

I don't dispute the contents of your post necessarily...just that it has nothing to do with Pro One or any other version of the "center-to-edge" method in general.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

Absolutely Hu. Patrick's post is just caffeine-induced slide rule mania and nonsense. And as YOU know...the use of english,for example can massively reduce the number of required angles since the line of departure of the OB can be massively adjusted from ANY ONE of Patrick's cut angles.

Regards,
Jim

PJ,

Not trying to stir things with you but your percentages seem very low. Back when SAM was being discussed on the forum I played with the number of cuts SAM is divided into, less than eight per side if I recall correctly, and using a pool program so that there was no human error or unconscious fudge factor involved I tested a half table worth of shots moving the cue ball one ball width at a time along the rail on the top half of the table and putting the object ball on the foot spot. I discovered that the vast majority of shots did go with one of the SAM positions, which seems like they might have been only five to each side for a total of eleven positions. I think that you will find that the vast majority of shots will fall if you divide the object ball into seventeen parts as you are describing. Adding to the accuracy is that in actual play we usually select the easiest shot.

Any player that could accurately hit center ball and eight positions on either side of it consistently would be an absolute monster on a table. However even top players don't hit their contact points consistently with that fine of accuracy.

Hu

 

[CueAndMe]

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 = 48% of shots
from 2 feet = 24% of shots
from 3 feet = 16% of shots
from 4 feet = 12% of shots
from 5 feet = 9% of shots
from 6 feet = 7% 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 = 19 cut angles
from 2 feet = 38 cut angles
from 3 feet = 56 cut angles
from 4 feet = 75 cut angles
from 5 feet = 104 cut angles
from 6 feet = 125 cut angles

pj <- too much caffeine
chgo

Patrick, I'm sure you have the equations to back up your numbers, but thinking practically take a look at the illustration below. It isn't perfectly accurate, but pretty close to the 9 shots available with 1/8 ball aiming points.
I think you'd agree that there is no way it's possible to miss as much as you're saying one should miss with 1/8 ball fractions.

Also, keep in mind that the ghost ball is moving for each shot, compressing the angles somewhat from shot to shot. For example, a half ball aim is only about 27 degrees away from a full ball aim.

If a person can visualize these angles, see that a shot is closest to one of them, make a tiny sideways adjustment from that particular shot's aim and/or adjust spin and/or speed, all shots are there.

CueTable Help

 

[Patrick Johnson]

PJ,

Not trying to stir things with you but your percentages seem very low.

I don't mind the skepticism, Hu. I think this diagram might help you visualize this - it shows an object ball in the middle of the table with lines going to the pockets to show the size of the contact areas that need to be hit to pocket the object ball into each of the pockets. Where the lines pass through the edges of the object ball is the size of the contact area - the "magnified" ball shows the same thing in a size that's easier to see.



The center of the object ball is 25 inches from the side pockets and 60 inches from the corner pockets. Look at the contact areas and imagine how many of them it would take to cover 1/4 of the object ball's circumference. That's how many cut angles you need at that distance to make every possible shot into a chosen pocket.

pj
chgo

P.S. This diagram has 4.5-inch pockets. Each contact area would be ~25% bigger for 5-inch pockets (2.75 vs. 2.25 inches of "slop"), so you'd need ~20% fewer of them.

 

[av84fun]

Nonsense

You just keep worrying about all those cut angles for a 1 foot shot...while your opponents beat your brains out.

TOO FUNNY!

Paralysis by analysis.

(-:

I don't mind the skepticism, Hu. I think this diagram might help you visualize this - it shows an object ball in the middle of the table with lines going to the pockets to show the size of the contact areas that need to be hit to pocket the object ball into each of the pockets. Where the lines pass through the edges of the object ball is the size of the contact area - the "magnified" ball shows the same thing in a size that's easier to see.


The center of the object ball is 25 inches from the side pockets and 60 inches from the corner pockets. Look at the contact areas and imagine how many of them it would take to cover 1/4 of the object ball's circumference. That's how many cut angles you need at that distance to make every possible shot into a chosen pocket.

pj
chgo

P.S. This diagram has 4.5-inch pockets. Each contact area would be 25% bigger for 5-inch pockets (2.5 vs. 2 inches of "slop"), so you'd need 20% fewer of them.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

the use of english,for example can massively reduce the number of required angles

In other words, you can adjust from the system to make more shots - if you're really accurate at throwing shots in with spin - and if the position you need on your next shot happens to work with the spin and speed you need to throw this shot in.

But that doesn't sound like the "does it all" system you've been advertising.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You just keep worrying about all those cut angles for a 1 foot shot...while your opponents beat your brains out.

TOO FUNNY!

Paralysis by analysis.

(-:

Don't get yourself all worked up again, Jim. We're just talking here.

pj
chgo

 

[av84fun]

In other words, you can adjust from the system to make more shots - if you're really accurate at throwing shots in with spin - and if the position you need on your next shot happens to work with the spin and speed you need to throw this shot in.

But that doesn't sound like the "does it all" system you've been advertising.

pj
chgo

One, I have NOT been "advertising" a system.

Two, I commented on the BASELINE Pro One method which requires CENTER BALL...which means zero english Patrick.

My comment about english that you quoted had to do with your preposterous assertion about the number of cut angles required and had nothing to do with Pro One.

About english and Pro One I correctly stated that SOME forms of english are outside the SYSTEMATIC aspects of Pro One and must be determined by rote practice....DID YOU READ THAT PART?????

I also stated that it is a WAY better deal to begin to adjust from a KNOWN (at least knowable) baseline of aim than to guess about both the baseline and then the adjustment as well.

But are you ducking my question? How many hours have you spent in person with Stan Shuffett and/or how many on the telephone???

I'll go first...about 19 hours in person and maybe an hour, in total on the phone.

How many hours have YOU spent with Stan learning about Pro One Patrick?

And for that matter, how many hours have you spent with Mr. Houle in person or by phone?

Or do you just like opining on subjects about which you are unfamiliar so as to maintain your status as the Poobah of Pontification and Preposterous Pooh Pooh?????

Jim

 

[av84fun]

Don't get yourself all worked up again, Jim. We're just talking here.

pj
chgo

I'm not worked up. Just trying to keep you from polluting the well on this subject.

And BTW a day or two ago you said that you hardly ever read my posts. How I wish that were actually true!

(-:

Jim

 

[Cuemaster98]

Scott,

I know there are many ready to defend Hal, he's almost untouchable.

But take a look through all his posts, these are not the responses of a polite and informative gentleman. He acts gruff and irrelevant most the time.

Of course, what I write is my opinions. It gets a bit tiresome to add that bit of political correctness to every statement.

When I say fact, I say it in the same way that 2+2=4 is a fact. Certain claims, such that center to edge aiming is sufficient for angles 22-37 degrees are just impossible.

Good luck with your video. I hope someone can do some justice to Hal's so called depth of knowledge. I and many others have been waiting a long time for it. No one seems to be able to explain it in a way that doesn't break the laws of physics.

Colin

Colin, you may need to give Ron Vitello a shout...he's one of the best out there that can explain and teach this aming system to anyone.

The system definitely works but like all systems you will need to still learn and adjust the concepts to condition that are specific to your knowledge and understanding of this game. This system isn't going to help anyone instantly improve their game...without praticing the concepts. When you practice this system for say 10 years..plus...you brain will automatically account for all the little gravitational effects on the cue ball and OB..BS..BS.. The main thing is the system will work only if you want it to work for you and that mean practicing and leting your mind absord the thousands of iteration and little details of this games.

I think to a good players, this system will probably throw off their games a bit as most good players have played for years and their mind already knows how to aim. When you introduce this system to such a player...their games will be a mess for a while until their brain start to understand the system (incorporate this new aiming technique)and it will be beautiful when the brain finally connects. This aming technique, IMO, will be great for beginers but maybe not so much for the better players. The system definitely has it place in a player's tool bag....you just have to know what will work for you and when to use it. The more ideas and concept your mind is able to absorbed the better. ) Just my opinion on this aiming system.

Ron Vitello's actually has a book that's pretty cool on this aiming technique and he's been teaching this systems for a while now I believe. I know he's been quite busy teaching players as well as billiards trainers since this aiming technique has been introduce to the public, etc. Anyone who wants to learn should give him a shout.

Regards,
Duc.

 

[av84fun]

In other words, you can adjust from the system to make more shots - if you're really accurate at throwing shots in with spin - and if the position you need on your next shot happens to work with the spin and speed you need to throw this shot in.

But that doesn't sound like the "does it all" system you've been advertising.

pjchgo

PS: Not only did I NOT say it is a "does it all" system but rather specifically pointed out that it was NOT any such thing!!!

There's that old reading comprehension problem that so often jumps up to bite you.

(-:

 

[CueAndMe]

Patrick, your diagram makes sense, but it just doesn't feel right. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because the vast majority of shots we actually choose to shoot are under about 45 degrees. If not, we try a different pocket. And since the shots over 45 degrees, especially those approaching 90, contain most of the contact points that are actually available, in practice we eliminate most of the problem you present.

So, with 5 aims within the 30 degree range, we have a ton covered especially with minor adjustments.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

PJ,

Not trying to stir things with you but your percentages seem very low. Back when SAM was being discussed on the forum I played with the number of cuts SAM is divided into, less than eight per side if I recall correctly, and using a pool program so that there was no human error or unconscious fudge factor involved I tested a half table worth of shots moving the cue ball one ball width at a time along the rail on the top half of the table and putting the object ball on the foot spot. I discovered that the vast majority of shots did go with one of the SAM positions, which seems like they might have been only five to each side for a total of eleven positions. I think that you will find that the vast majority of shots will fall if you divide the object ball into seventeen parts as you are describing. Adding to the accuracy is that in actual play we usually select the easiest shot.

Any player that could accurately hit center ball and eight positions on either side of it consistently would be an absolute monster on a table. However even top players don't hit their contact points consistently with that fine of accuracy.

Hu

You're right that my numbers were low, Hu. I was using old figures for 1/2 a ball's circumference rather than for 1/4 a ball's circumference, so the numbers were about half what they should be (I've corrected them above). Still, the conclusion is the same: they don't come close to covering all the needed shots.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick, I'm sure you have the equations to back up your numbers

LOL. Actually, my equations don't back up those numbers; I grabbed some calculations I had done awhile ago for the number of cut angles needed to cover a half a ball's circumference rather than the 1/4 circumference we're talking about. I've corrected them above, but the new numbers don't change the conclusion: these systems don't come close to covering all the shots they need to.

pj
chgo

 

[av84fun]

Duc...first...I think the post you quoted from Colin was from quite a few pages ago. I rarely miss opportunities to sing Colin's praises so I mean no disrespect when I reiterate what I posted earlier to Colin...that being that he does not understand the basic dynamics of the system...either Hal's version or Stan's Pro One version.

Colin even referred to the method as a "fractional system" but Pro One has nothing to do with fractional aiming. (see his thread http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=106630)

As I have stated, Colin and MANY others have fallen victim to the massive amout of misinformation posted here and eleswhere purporting to explain the method but personally, I have not seen a SINGLE post that does justice to an explanation.

Regarding whether Pro One/Center-to-Edge can more readily help beginners than amateurs, I would most strongly disagree. When explained correctly the better the player the more readily they will SEE POINT BLANK that the method is extremely sound.

It is also common knowledge that several top speed pros are now using the method...including Bustamante as Spiderwebcomm verified in an earlier post.

Stevie Moore uses it...as taught by Stan Shuffett...and there are MANY others who are taking instruction from Stan and Ronnie but who those "students" are is their business.

And it takes nowhere near 10 years to adopt the method. Ironically, the most difficult aspect of it is that some shots LOOK wrong vs. your old aiming method and it takes a while to get your brain to TRUST the new look because it is CORRECT.

As I have mentioned, it also takes some time to acclimate to the use of certain types of english but ramping up to full compliance with the system should take no more than a matter of months...not years.

Much of the method will be accommodated almost instantantly. It is the "finer points" that can take some time.

So, IMHO the better the player the FASTER they will ramp up to full performance...not the other way around.

Regards,
Jim

Colin, you may need to give Ron Vitello a shout...he's one of the best out there that can explain and teach this aming system to anyone.

The system definitely works but like all systems you will need to still learn and adjust the concepts to condition that are specific to your knowledge and understanding of this game. This system isn't going to help anyone instantly improve their game...without praticing the concepts. When you practice this system for say 10 years..plus...you brain will automatically account for all the little gravitational effects on the cue ball and OB..BS..BS.. The main thing is the system will work only if you want it to work for you and that mean practicing and leting your mind absord the thousands of iteration and little details of this games.

I think to a good players, this system will probably throw off their games a bit as most good players have played for years and their mind already knows how to aim. When you introduce this system to such a player...their games will be a mess for a while until their brain start to understand the system (incorporate this new aiming technique)and it will be beautiful when the brain finally connects. This aming technique, IMO, will be great for beginers but maybe not so much for the better players. The system definitely has it place in a player's tool bag....you just have to know what will work for you and when to use it. The more ideas and concept your mind is able to absorbed the better. ) Just my opinion on this aiming system.

Ron Vitello's actually has a book that's pretty cool on this aiming technique and he's been teaching this systems for a while now I believe. I know he's been quite busy teaching players as well as billiards trainers since this aiming technique has been introduce to the public, etc. Anyone who wants to learn should give him a shout.

Regards,
Duc.

 

[av84fun]

LOL. Actually, my equations don't back up those numbers; I grabbed some calculations I had done awhile ago for the number of cut angles needed to cover a half a ball's circumference rather than the 1/4 circumference we're talking about. I've corrected them above, but the new numbers don't change the conclusion: these systems don't come close to covering all the shots they need to.
pj
chgo

Nonesense. You don't even understand the system being referred to so your opinions on the limitations are worthless. I hereby call you out to publish a step-by-step explanation of what you think EITHER Pro One or Center-to-edge calls for. If you are criticizing an aiming system, you ought to be able to describe it in detail. Please do.

Jim