Hal Houle
- Thread starter eze
- Start date
More than I'd like...
Oh, I miss many more than just a few. I just learned this way first and I don't cycle back and forth I keep the spot in view and walk behind the shot and then place my bridge and glance at the cue ball to check alignment and then shoot the shot. I miss sometimes when I do this but if I focus it will go in. Mostly for long cuts and when I get out of shape. Pool is a work in progress. Some days the pool gods smile on me and other days I can hear them laughing. lol
Dwight
av84fun said:
Oh, I miss many more than just a few. I just learned this way first and I don't cycle back and forth I keep the spot in view and walk behind the shot and then place my bridge and glance at the cue ball to check alignment and then shoot the shot. I miss sometimes when I do this but if I focus it will go in. Mostly for long cuts and when I get out of shape. Pool is a work in progress. Some days the pool gods smile on me and other days I can hear them laughing. lol
Dwight
Scott Lee said:
When have I ever badmouthed SAM or center-to-edge aiming? This is the first time I've heard that they're even related. It's like pulling teeth to get any information about either of them, and that secretive mentality is what I'm inclined to badmouth.
I think you're a little sensitive about this topic because you have reason to be - as somebody with an apparent economic motive to perpetuate mystique around aiming principles that you should, as in instructor, be trying to simplify rather than mystify, especially on forums like this.
As I've said before, you're an excellent instructor, but your value as an instructor is not that you have another aiming system to sell - we know from experience that they're all variations on similar themes and none are foolproof. Repackaging one with a cute acronym doesn't really add value. Your value as an instructor is in your talent for the game and for teaching it and inspiring the enthusiasm that you feel for it in your students (I've been one; I know), not in having another aiming system "product" to hawk.
When you guys wise up to that fact and start reflecting your true dedication as teachers (which I know you have) by freely sharing these (after all, pretty basic) aiming techniques and selling instead your ability to integrate them effectively into a comprehensive learning experience, you'll stop seeing these kinds of threads and finding yourself on the defensive in them.
pj
chgo
Pat...It's sad that you have such a short memory (which was evident when I asked you, the last time time we met, if you had even READ the info I gave you, or practiced the stuff I showed you)...
Here's what you posted earlier in this thread:
I'm with Colin, Blackjack, Dave, etc. Hal, his systems and those who defend them get flack because they deserve flack.
Hal deserves flack for (1) being an online curmudgeon simply for the joy of it (if being old is his excuse, why is he such a charmer to all who meet him?) and (2) refusing to share his systems openly and thereby perpetuating the "controversy" surrounding them. Frankly, I think he does all this purposely for the attention.
Hal's systems deserve flack because they can't work as described by Hal's defenders and Hal himself refuses to correct any misrepresentations made by his defenders, so we can only conclude that the systems themselves are flawed or Hal wants them to be misrepresented.
Hal's defenders deserve flack because they overestimate their own understanding of Hal's systems, as shown by their universal inability to describe them coherently or even understand the simple geometric inconsistencies in them - and then attack others as being "closed minded" for pointing it out to them.
Hal and his systems are treated very much like a cult religion by his apostles: revelations handed down personally by the prophet, incomprehensible except to the chosen, exempt from logical critique, heretics attacked for questioning the divine word, etc., etc. As I've said frequently before, I think the parts of Hal's systems that are known (fractional aiming, for instance) can be very valuable to many players. But the whole blind cultish defensive dynamic of the thing leaves a bad taste in peoples' mouths for obvious and good reasons.
pj
chgo
So...that's where you badmouthed the concept. It is NO secret. I have described SAM here many times (as well as on other forums). Some anal retentives simply cannot believe that there can be so few angles (that go to a pocket) on the pool table (that is certainly not my problem)...in our case 6; in Hal's case, only one. You asked to learn SAM the last time we got together. I told you sure, but you have to practice enough to have a repeatable stroke first (which you have not done...so far!
). I have shared this information with 100's of people WHO DID NOT HAVE TO PAY ME! Some choose to take lessons to learn it. That is their prerogative. It is a part of every 3-day pool school that we do, whether in Dallas, or in a road show, around the country. I'm not defensive at all (nor do I EVER perpetuate 'mystique')...simply stating a strong point that we believe in, teach on a daily basis, and offer as information to anyone that is interested. I can't speak for Hal's computer 'etiquette', but he is certainly friendly, knowledgeable, and interesting in person...and REFUSES to be paid (usually people find a way to compensate him, though!). Hal did share with me, that 20 years ago, Puyat sent a small group of Pinoy players to spend some time with Hal (Efren was in that group).
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Here's what you posted earlier in this thread:
I'm with Colin, Blackjack, Dave, etc. Hal, his systems and those who defend them get flack because they deserve flack.
Hal deserves flack for (1) being an online curmudgeon simply for the joy of it (if being old is his excuse, why is he such a charmer to all who meet him?) and (2) refusing to share his systems openly and thereby perpetuating the "controversy" surrounding them. Frankly, I think he does all this purposely for the attention.
Hal's systems deserve flack because they can't work as described by Hal's defenders and Hal himself refuses to correct any misrepresentations made by his defenders, so we can only conclude that the systems themselves are flawed or Hal wants them to be misrepresented.
Hal's defenders deserve flack because they overestimate their own understanding of Hal's systems, as shown by their universal inability to describe them coherently or even understand the simple geometric inconsistencies in them - and then attack others as being "closed minded" for pointing it out to them.
Hal and his systems are treated very much like a cult religion by his apostles: revelations handed down personally by the prophet, incomprehensible except to the chosen, exempt from logical critique, heretics attacked for questioning the divine word, etc., etc. As I've said frequently before, I think the parts of Hal's systems that are known (fractional aiming, for instance) can be very valuable to many players. But the whole blind cultish defensive dynamic of the thing leaves a bad taste in peoples' mouths for obvious and good reasons.
pj
chgo
So...that's where you badmouthed the concept. It is NO secret. I have described SAM here many times (as well as on other forums). Some anal retentives simply cannot believe that there can be so few angles (that go to a pocket) on the pool table (that is certainly not my problem)...in our case 6; in Hal's case, only one. You asked to learn SAM the last time we got together. I told you sure, but you have to practice enough to have a repeatable stroke first (which you have not done...so far!
). I have shared this information with 100's of people WHO DID NOT HAVE TO PAY ME! Some choose to take lessons to learn it. That is their prerogative. It is a part of every 3-day pool school that we do, whether in Dallas, or in a road show, around the country. I'm not defensive at all (nor do I EVER perpetuate 'mystique')...simply stating a strong point that we believe in, teach on a daily basis, and offer as information to anyone that is interested. I can't speak for Hal's computer 'etiquette', but he is certainly friendly, knowledgeable, and interesting in person...and REFUSES to be paid (usually people find a way to compensate him, though!). Hal did share with me, that 20 years ago, Puyat sent a small group of Pinoy players to spend some time with Hal (Efren was in that group).Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Patrick Johnson said:
This might be a stupid question but i got to ask.
I kind of understand a little bit how hals system
works but not enough to get it.Center ball cb to edge
of object ball correct?Then the cue would be placed
on either side of center depends on which way your
cutting the ball then pivot back to center.If this is
the process of hal,s system wouldnt a shot that is
a half ball hit be over cut due to the pivot?
I kind of understand a little bit how hals system
works but not enough to get it.Center ball cb to edge
of object ball correct?Then the cue would be placed
on either side of center depends on which way your
cutting the ball then pivot back to center.If this is
the process of hal,s system wouldnt a shot that is
a half ball hit be over cut due to the pivot?
Roger Long said:
Roger,
You aren't alone with your perspective. The aiming system requires terminology that is still being coined or familiarized as I write this.
In the past, I dismissed a lot of what many had to say about this aiming system because I quite candidly didn't understand the terminology and it appeared to be confusing. There are many aspects of the system that I am trying to assimilate and my opinions about the system are very positive except that as I make progress with it, I am struggling to explain why I don't make every shot.
If you stick with trying to understand what they are saying, you will get it too. I'm still trying to get it and making some progress which I try to articulate when it seems appropriate that I can offer a decent explanation.
Once you start getting familiar with the terms, the discussions become much easier to follow and the questions are more easily expressed as well.
JoeyA
Scott Lee said:
Link/s please.
Colin
eze said:
I think it's a great question and the answer is very telling. It would most certainly be either over cut or undercut depending upon which side the stick is placed before the pivot.
But, something to keep in mind is that those who use the system well never have a half ball hit/aim. They just use the system the way it was meant to be used.... without regard for angle. Where you would see a half ball, they would see and do what would be necessary to make the shot.
Now a question for you to ponder, Grasshopper:
What is the sound of one ball clacking?
Colin Colenso said:
See this page from an old thread (scroll down for the attached file).
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=57805&page=8
And a page from Dr. Dave, scroll all the way to the bottom for an explanation (from an instructor teaching it).
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html
The "strong" version of SAM (my terminology) claims that six aim points will always find a pocket (and the center of the pocket). The "weak" version is that these are reference aims that must be adjusted. Only the latter can possibly be justified it seems to me, and there is clearly nothing wrong with it if it helps you.
It is just amazing how much ink Hal's systems get even though none of them are really inked in the first place.
I can't recall ever seeing so much back and forth of how the Diamond Stystem works or does not work vs how a mirror system works or does not work.
The bottom line is that some will like one over another...(for instance) if you are a numbers type person you may prefer the more statistical Diamond system...If you are a more image visual person you may prefer the mirror system....For some...they may have a hard time with one or the other since it does not fit thier mind makeup....For me I am a more visual so I have to rely on the mirror. I don't have the patience to learn the math behind the diamond system...(even though it is probably very simple math)....The bottom line is neither of the two systems are 100% accurate becuase there is ALWAYS other factors involved that will have an effect on the angles.
I think the very same thing goes for aiming.....Some people will just find one easier than another to comprehend and use in thier processes.
Some will be able to identify with a system exactly as it is described...Some will find a need to slightly adapt a system to fit thier needs...
I use the HH 3-line as a base, but I have come up with other methods that work with it that Hal probably does not teach...and may not even approve of...(so what...it works for me)
I can not absorb the center to edge method becuase it does not fit "my" particular make up.....I have to rely on a center to center method that converts into one of the 3-line shots ...or very very close.
Nothing is perfect...It simply boggles my mind that people take the attitude of "this system sucks and you suck for using it...or this is the best system you suck if you don't use it"
That always seems to be the tone when people discuss Hal's systems...
It may very well be spurred by Hal himself since even though he is very nice in person, some..(many) of his post come accross in that fashion that whatever else you do in the game sucks compaired to his systems....I guess people feel the need to defend themselves and fire back at Hal...(by discrediting his methods)
JMO
I can't recall ever seeing so much back and forth of how the Diamond Stystem works or does not work vs how a mirror system works or does not work.
The bottom line is that some will like one over another...(for instance) if you are a numbers type person you may prefer the more statistical Diamond system...If you are a more image visual person you may prefer the mirror system....For some...they may have a hard time with one or the other since it does not fit thier mind makeup....For me I am a more visual so I have to rely on the mirror. I don't have the patience to learn the math behind the diamond system...(even though it is probably very simple math)....The bottom line is neither of the two systems are 100% accurate becuase there is ALWAYS other factors involved that will have an effect on the angles.
I think the very same thing goes for aiming.....Some people will just find one easier than another to comprehend and use in thier processes.
Some will be able to identify with a system exactly as it is described...Some will find a need to slightly adapt a system to fit thier needs...
I use the HH 3-line as a base, but I have come up with other methods that work with it that Hal probably does not teach...and may not even approve of...(so what...it works for me)
I can not absorb the center to edge method becuase it does not fit "my" particular make up.....I have to rely on a center to center method that converts into one of the 3-line shots ...or very very close.
Nothing is perfect...It simply boggles my mind that people take the attitude of "this system sucks and you suck for using it...or this is the best system you suck if you don't use it"
That always seems to be the tone when people discuss Hal's systems...
It may very well be spurred by Hal himself since even though he is very nice in person, some..(many) of his post come accross in that fashion that whatever else you do in the game sucks compaired to his systems....I guess people feel the need to defend themselves and fire back at Hal...(by discrediting his methods)
JMO
Last edited:
You have not done it here (unless your definition of "described" is very different from mine). Colin is making a valiant effort to describe center-to-edge aiming in another (very interesting) thread today - maybe that'll give you some idea of how I define it.
pj
chgo
Scott, I don't believe your impression of my stroke is on topic here. But since you seem to think it's important, I seem to recall my stroke beating yours the only time we played.
Oh, mustn't forget the smiley:
pj
chgo
Stan Shuffett - The Pro One Aiming System
I don't think Colin is attempting to defend himself or fire back at Hal. (Others may be but I don't think Colin is trying to trade barbs with Hal or anyone else) He may be a little ambitious to have the system written in letters and numbers and maybe it will be one day. I predict that even if the system is written down from Alpha to Omega, put into video or any other medium, it will not be the perfect aiming system as there are none.
This system may require more hands on instruction by instructors who understand it well and have the ability to communicate the nuances of what you are experiencing as you travel through the different stages.
The bottom line is it is simply another aiming system that some people find useful in their attempt to pocket balls more consistently. Is it perfect for every shot? No. Are there modifications that can accomodate those shots? Sure. Is it one of the best aiming systems out there? Maybe.
Can everyone learn it? Yes. Can everyone use it and play at the level of a Stevie Moore or a Landon Shuffett? NO.
The amount of benefit one receives from this system or any other is the level of which they understand the system and the level of their competency in MANY OTHER AREAS of playing pool.
Let there be no mistake: The Pro One Aiming System is real and is used by PROFESSIONAL POOL PLAYERS (and yes, they will admit to it.:smile: )
(Yes, the Pro One Aiming System is built upon the foundation that Hal Houle teaches)
JoeyA
BRKNRUN said:
I don't think Colin is attempting to defend himself or fire back at Hal. (Others may be but I don't think Colin is trying to trade barbs with Hal or anyone else) He may be a little ambitious to have the system written in letters and numbers and maybe it will be one day. I predict that even if the system is written down from Alpha to Omega, put into video or any other medium, it will not be the perfect aiming system as there are none.
This system may require more hands on instruction by instructors who understand it well and have the ability to communicate the nuances of what you are experiencing as you travel through the different stages.
The bottom line is it is simply another aiming system that some people find useful in their attempt to pocket balls more consistently. Is it perfect for every shot? No. Are there modifications that can accomodate those shots? Sure. Is it one of the best aiming systems out there? Maybe.
Can everyone learn it? Yes. Can everyone use it and play at the level of a Stevie Moore or a Landon Shuffett? NO.
The amount of benefit one receives from this system or any other is the level of which they understand the system and the level of their competency in MANY OTHER AREAS of playing pool.
Let there be no mistake: The Pro One Aiming System is real and is used by PROFESSIONAL POOL PLAYERS (and yes, they will admit to it.:smile: )
(Yes, the Pro One Aiming System is built upon the foundation that Hal Houle teaches)
JoeyA
Pat...Actually, it is quite on topic...if you want to learn an aiming system that requires a VERY repeatable stroke...which you simply do not have. That doesn't mean you can't pocket balls...it just means you can't strike the CB the exact same way, on demand, under pressure, several times in a row. That is what we teach people to do...no smiley necessary!
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Patrick Johnson said:Scott, I don't believe your impression of my stroke is on topic here. But since you seem to think it's important, I seem to recall my stroke beating yours the only time we played.
Oh, mustn't forget the smiley:
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
Carl Oswald has described it (S.A.M.) before. It appears in a nutshell it is fractional ball aiming. The shots are numbered for easy reference.
S.A.M # 1: full hit
S.A.M # 2: three quarter-ball hit
S.A.M # 3: half-ball hit
S.A.M # 4: quarter-ball hit
S.A.M # 5: one-eighth-ball hit
S.A.M # 6: thin hit
And of course these are references; you must interpolate inbetween.
(note: I'm using "half-ball hit" the conventional way, meaning center-to-edge, the same way Carl Oswald uses it when he describes S.A.M.)
They discuss I believe aim points to achieve these (like for the full hit they suggest aiming for the base of the object ball rather than its center). Other than that aim points are I suppose like those I discuss From 2:35 to the end of my "aiming 2" video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg2_b2NpvnM
And of course those who teach it or use it, feel free to add to this or correct it or whatever...
Last edited:
Mike...Good explaination, except the numbers are AIM points, on the OB, not "hits". Hence a SAM 3 (a 30 degree cut, the most common shot in pool) is a 1/2 ball aim, not a half ball hit (they are not the same). A true half ball hit is a SAM 4, or 45 degree cut angle.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
mikepage said:
Last edited: