HH 3-line system (HOLE?)

[ridingthenine21]

3 "AIMS" of the HH 3-line system.

Center CB to 1/4 OB
Center CB to Edge OB
1/4 CB to Edge OB





Enzo has come up with a valid experiment that I would like to see some discussion and possible explanations.

I use this system, so this in no way is meant to be a "bash" on the entire system. I have my own "theory" of how shots hit in the "hole" area, but its just a theory and is also based on the way I (specifically) apply the system...

Anyone who uses, has used, or at least has studied the system or just thinks they have a valid theory is welcome to reply..

I would hope this does not turn into a "bash" on the entire system, as that is NOT what it is intended to do. But (especailly since I use the system) would like to see some reasoning behind what happens in the "hole".

I know some specific posters that I would "expect" to see some answers from since they use know and have studied the HH systems.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that there are shots you can't make with the three line system? I think most people on here are a little bit jaded because when you get excited about it working some posters jump on you, as was the case recently with me. So over time people learn to shut up and not talk about it because people start bashing it without trying it. The system itself has been posted on the internet many times. Have you guys tried it (Not directed at you BRKNRUN)? Don't understand it? Think it's crap and refuse to even try it? If people wouldn't bash it, I would happily explain all I know.

 

[BRKNRUN]

I am not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that there are shots you can't make with the three line system? I think most people on here are a little bit jaded because when you get excited about it working some posters jump on you, as was the case recently with me. So over time people learn to shut up and not talk about it because people start bashing it without trying it. The system itself has been posted on the internet many times. Have you guys tried it (Not directed at you BRKNRUN)? Don't understand it? Think it's crap and refuse to even try it? If people wouldn't bash it, I would happily explain all I know.

Yes and No....Personally, I don't have a problem making balls.

At the same time, I see the point of "what about the hole?"

If you have a CB and OB in a specific place on the table, and one aim sends the ball to point "A" on the rail, and the next aim sends the ball to point "B" on the rail. How do you hit the "space" in between point "A" and point "B" if the CB and OB remain in the exact same position on the table?

The obvious answer is you can't if you hit those two aims in the exact same place as you did before....

My thoughts are (as I have posted) is that there is a element of "thickness" to the 1/4 and edge of the OB that is accounted for by some other method...

For me its because I apply the "aim" based from a conversion process from the "contact point" on the OB.......I have bad eyes, so for me...I probably never noticed that I was adjusting the "edge" or 1/4....and since I was always using this system to one point (usually the pocket) I never realized that adjusting if the angle was in the "hole"...

The reason I brought this up was not for a system bash or because I personally was confused. The reason I brought this up is because I wanted to see what "other" people that use the HH system thought...

I happend to be "lucky" in that I came up with a "conversion process" that works (for me at least) even though I thought I was always aiming 1/4 and edge.....(was I really??)

If someone new stumbled on to the 3-line system and was told to hit the 1/4 and edge of the OB (no matter what) and happend to have better eyes than me, would probably miss when in the "hole" area between point A and point B....They would then deem the system a failure (even though its not) and move to another method of "aiming"....I guess some would say "so what"

The problem with "so what" is that these people are the ones that will come back and say..."I tried it, I followed the direction to a "T" and it failed and the system does not work".......and the flame war begins...

Perhaps.......this may just be the thread that puts an end to the continual "bashing" and argument about HH systems.......(Dream On)

 

[ridingthenine21]

There is no hole. That occurs with fractional aiming systems. This is not one of them. Hal's aiming systems are about ball to ball relationships. Some of his systems don't divide the cue ball or the object ball into fourths, thirds, etc.

People hear about the three line system and say "That's been around forever. Fractional aiming has been used by snooker players/Sailor Barge/Moses forever. That is nothing new".

But it isn't fractional aiming. That's why there is no "hole". It has to do with apparent edges and rotating centers. We play pool in a real, three dimensional world. A ball is not flat. That is why you can't draw diagrams and prove or disprove it on paper. The center of a ball depends on where you view it from. Try this: get down, and aim your tip at center on the cue ball. Move to the left two steps, and aim for center of the ball again. You don't aim at the exact same point as you did before do you? Yet you are still aiming at the center of the cue ball. That is becuase your perspective of center has changed. As you move around the table looking at the cue ball, your perception of where center is at moves with you. What you perceive with your eyes as an edge or center depends on where you view it from. Edges of balls are the same way. Your view of an edge changes as you move around the table. You still see the edge of the ball, but it is not the same edge in space as when you were at a different place at the table.
That is my understanding of it. It may or may not make sense to you. Either way, it works.

 

[enzo]

strait from Hal's mouth?

maybe this will be of some help in the process of people understanding better. i found this on an old billiard digest thread. i post it because i agree with 100% of what is said, and it supposedly came from Hals mouth. i can't prove that hal made the below statements, but if you call him this will give you a good few questions to ask him with respect to the topic at hand.

from another post, read highlighted if nothing else:

I posted a problem in another thread with two different shots that were
first proposed by George McBane and subsequently diagrammed on wei's table
by Pat Johnson. The answers I received, from Houle followers, defied the
laws of geometry and, as such, were absurd. I commented that, from my
recollection, Hal Houle was a decent guy and had always been forthcoming in
our prior discussions. I hoped that he would chime in and help explain
away the apparent dilemma. Thankfully, Hal sent a private email inviting me
to call him at home and indicating that he would be happy to answer any
question that I might have.


I took Hal up on his offer, called him tonight, and we spoke about these
matters for about an hour.


First of all, Hal Houle is a delightful gentleman, pleasant, conversational,
responsive, reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable, and insightful. From
all that I can tell, he is not a mystic, magician, charlatan, eccentric, or
otherwise disposed to offer up systems or ideas that defy the laws of
physics or geometry. He is painfully aware of the normal behavior of
ball-to-ball collisions and like matters. Hal was quick to agree with me
when I asserted that his devotees were not helping his cause especially
well. He acknowledged that many of them are beginners and, as a routine
teaching practice, he does not provide explanations for why things behave as
they do. He wishes that many of them would just keep their silence rather
than attempt to explain things that they do not understand.


OK. On to the specific problem...


When presented with the Case A (30 degree shot to a corner) and Case B (36
degree shot to a corner), notwithstanding the contentions of his devotees,
there is a reasonable and relatively straightforward explanation.


1) Hal states unequivocally that for both Case A and Case B, if the
center of the cueball is aimed at the object ball's exterior edge, and
propelled with no spin on the cueball, the object ball will move in a 30
degree angle after contact, collision-induced throw notwithstanding (meaning
that we'll ignore that effect for the sake of the examples). As far as I
understand it, being a non-mathematician, this object ball behavior follows
the laws of geometry precisely.


2) Here comes the only tricky part to describe. Hal explains that,
when shifting from Case A's position to Case B, the focus spot on the object
ball has moved; that is, if we slide the cueball to the right several
inches, leaving the object ball in its original position, the spot (on the
object ball's edge) we are seeking has rotated "n" degrees to the right of
the original spot. This shifting of the relative aiming spot, from one shot
to the next, is what has been termed rotating edges. Similarly, from the
perspective of Shot A, the center axis has also slid to the right in Shot B
when aiming to the edge of the fixed object ball. This is what is meant by
"apparent centers." In other words, all that is being said is that, from
the perspective of one fixed shot, any other shot does not use the same
exact center or precise edge as the reference shot. The centers and edges
will have rotated relative to the original points. Truthfully, I have not
yet figured out the significance of this observation, but I am now quite
certain that this is the explanation of the otherwise mysterious "rotating
or apparent centers" and similar verbiage.


3) Now, having established that each shot (case A and case B from above) has to be aimed the same way,
i.e., center ball axis to outside edge of the object ball, how is it that
the object ball can split the pocket in two different situations (6 degrees
apart), if the cueball is stuck the same way? The answer, according to
Houle, is that "THEY CANNOT." At least not without some adjustment. When I
mentioned that his followers were claiming that they could "split the
pocket" in both cases, he laughed. The truth is that his system is based on
the understanding that the pockets are typically twice as wide as the ball
and that, with a 1/2 ball hit, there is an error allowance (in degrees)
which will accommodate variations up to some limit that depends on the
particular table conditions (pocket width, cut, facings, etc.). When that
limit is exceeded, you have to switch to 1/4 ball up to its allowable error,
and so on... If players are using the fractional ball aiming system and
splitting the pocket for both 30 and 36 degree angle shots, they are
obviously making minor adjustments when aiming/shooting.


Clearly, Hal Houle is NOT CLAIMING TO DEFY THE LAWS OF GEOMETRY. According
to Hal, this particular system is usually provided to beginners because they
need approximate methods. After a while, they learn to make minute
adjustments (a hair this way or that) which allows them to split pockets
with shots that are within the allowable error range.


People -- there is no mysticism, magic, or other voodoo involved here

 

[enzo]

People hear about the three line system and say "That's been around forever. Fractional aiming has been used by snooker players/Sailor Barge/Moses forever. That is nothing new".

i'm looking into many systems right now, anyway, does somebody have a thread, website, or anything i could look at to check out sailor barge's system? or maybe if you know your info is correct, explain it in this thread, or maybe start another one.

thanks in advance.

 

[ridingthenine21]

that is, if we slide the cueball to the right several
inches, leaving the object ball in its original position, the spot (on the
object ball's edge) we are seeking has rotated "n" degrees to the right of
the original spot. This shifting of the relative aiming spot, from one shot
to the next, is what has been termed rotating edges. Similarly, from the
perspective of Shot A, the center axis has also slid to the right in Shot B
when aiming to the edge of the fixed object ball. This is what is meant by
"apparent centers." In other words, all that is being said is that, from
the perspective of one fixed shot, any other shot does not use the same
exact center or precise edge as the reference shot. The centers and edges
will have rotated relative to the original points. Truthfully, I have not
yet figured out the significance of this observation, but I am now quite
certain that this is the explanation of the otherwise mysterious "rotating
or apparent centers" and similar verbiage.

This is exactly what I have laid out to you in my previous post. Your perspective of centers and edges changes as you move around the table.

Sailor Barge divided the cue ball into sixteen fractional aims, IIRC.

 

[enzo]

Sailor Barge divided the cue ball into sixteen fractional aims, IIRC.

i think i'll need a little more info than that, but thanks. i'll just start another thread so it doesn't clutter this one up.

 

[Boro Nut]

We play pool in a real, three dimensional world. A ball is not flat. That is why you can't draw diagrams and prove or disprove it on paper.

Rubbish. There isn't anything I can't draw from any angle to any scale Every major engineering project you can care to name was defined by diagrams drawn in 2D, and the vast majority still are.

Boro Nut

 

[vapoolplayer]

maybe this will be of some help in the process of people understanding better. i found this on an old billiard digest thread. i post it because i agree with 100% of what is said, and it supposedly came from Hals mouth. i can't prove that hal made the below statements, but if you call him this will give you a good few questions to ask him with respect to the topic at hand.

I posted a problem in another thread with two different shots that were
first proposed by George McBane and subsequently diagrammed on wei's table
by Pat Johnson. The answers I received, from Houle followers, defied the
laws of geometry and, as such, were absurd. I commented that, from my
recollection, Hal Houle was a decent guy and had always been forthcoming in
our prior discussions. I hoped that he would chime in and help explain
away the apparent dilemma. Thankfully, Hal sent a private email inviting me
to call him at home and indicating that he would be happy to answer any
question that I might have.


I took Hal up on his offer, called him tonight, and we spoke about these
matters for about an hour.


First of all, Hal Houle is a delightful gentleman, pleasant, conversational,
responsive, reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable, and insightful. From
all that I can tell, he is not a mystic, magician, charlatan, eccentric, or
otherwise disposed to offer up systems or ideas that defy the laws of
physics or geometry. He is painfully aware of the normal behavior of
ball-to-ball collisions and like matters. Hal was quick to agree with me
when I asserted that his devotees were not helping his cause especially
well. He acknowledged that many of them are beginners and, as a routine
teaching practice, he does not provide explanations for why things behave as
they do. He wishes that many of them would just keep their silence rather
than attempt to explain things that they do not understand.


OK. On to the specific problem...


When presented with the Case A (30 degree shot to a corner) and Case B (36
degree shot to a corner), notwithstanding the contentions of his devotees,
there is a reasonable and relatively straightforward explanation.


1) Hal states unequivocally that for both Case A and Case B, if the
center of the cueball is aimed at the object ball's exterior edge, and
propelled with no spin on the cueball, the object ball will move in a 30
degree angle after contact, collision-induced throw notwithstanding (meaning
that we'll ignore that effect for the sake of the examples). As far as I
understand it, being a non-mathematician, this object ball behavior follows
the laws of geometry precisely.


2) Here comes the only tricky part to describe. Hal explains that,
when shifting from Case A's position to Case B, the focus spot on the object
ball has moved; that is, if we slide the cueball to the right several
inches, leaving the object ball in its original position, the spot (on the
object ball's edge) we are seeking has rotated "n" degrees to the right of
the original spot. This shifting of the relative aiming spot, from one shot
to the next, is what has been termed rotating edges. Similarly, from the
perspective of Shot A, the center axis has also slid to the right in Shot B
when aiming to the edge of the fixed object ball. This is what is meant by
"apparent centers." In other words, all that is being said is that, from
the perspective of one fixed shot, any other shot does not use the same
exact center or precise edge as the reference shot. The centers and edges
will have rotated relative to the original points. Truthfully, I have not
yet figured out the significance of this observation, but I am now quite
certain that this is the explanation of the otherwise mysterious "rotating
or apparent centers" and similar verbiage.


3) Now, having established that each shot has to be aimed the same way,
i.e., center ball axis to outside edge of the object ball, how is it that
the object ball can split the pocket in two different situations (6 degrees
apart), if the cueball is stuck the same way? The answer, according to
Houle, is that "THEY CANNOT." At least not without some adjustment. When I
mentioned that his followers were claiming that they could "split the
pocket" in both cases, he laughed. The truth is that his system is based on
the understanding that the pockets are typically twice as wide as the ball
and that, with a 1/2 ball hit, there is an error allowance (in degrees)
which will accommodate variations up to some limit that depends on the
particular table conditions (pocket width, cut, facings, etc.). When that
limit is exceeded, you have to switch to 1/4 ball up to its allowable error,
and so on... If players are using the fractional ball aiming system and
splitting the pocket for both 30 and 36 degree angle shots, they are
obviously making minor adjustments when aiming/shooting.


Clearly, Hal Houle is NOT CLAIMING TO DEFY THE LAWS OF GEOMETRY. According
to Hal, this particular system is usually provided to beginners because they
need approximate methods. After a while, they learn to make minute
adjustments (a hair this way or that) which allows them to split pockets
with shots that are within the allowable error range.


People -- there is no mysticism, magic, or other voodoo involved here

thank your for taking the time to write out what most people don't take the time to think about when something doesn't work perfect for them.

VAP

 

[iacas]

We play pool in a real, three dimensional world. A ball is not flat. That is why you can't draw diagrams and prove or disprove it on paper. The center of a ball depends on where you view it from. Try this: get down, and aim your tip at center on the cue ball. Move to the left two steps, and aim for center of the ball again. You don't aim at the exact same point as you did before do you? Yet you are still aiming at the center of the cue ball. That is becuase your perspective of center has changed. As you move around the table looking at the cue ball, your perception of where center is at moves with you

Nit picking, but you only need two dimensions here. Rarely does the third dimension in pool come into play (no pun intended) except when you're talking about cue elevation and the shots that go with it: massés, jumps, etc. But straight ball-to-ball aim is always in two dimensions.

 

[ridingthenine21]

Rubbish. There isn't anything I can't draw from any angle to any scale Every major engineering project you can care to name was defined by diagrams drawn in 2D, and the vast majority still are.

Boro Nut

Engineering blue prints and aiming systems are two different things. I am a machinist, I make parts from blue prints all the time (mostly we use CAD/CAM now which is THREE DIMENSIONAL) and it is one thing to show a part from three views with lines etc., but it is another thing to take the front view of a part and say "Visualize the finished part". Not many people can. Maybe if I drew three views (front, side and top) of the cue ball and object ball I suppose it might help.
When you draw it on paper people always say that it can't work. But it does. People seem to have a hard time visualizing rotating centers on paper, but it becomes easy to understand in real life on a pool table.

No matter where you move the cue ball or object ball on a table, the centers and edges rotate as you move them. That is why the system works. Everyone knows there are not just half ball shots, or quarter ball shots. The system uses the relation of the centers to the edges to aim the shot. Even though only two dimensions are utilized most of the time on a pool table, that third dimension is important to the system (in my opinion); for reasons too lenghty to iterate here. Can it be drawn on paper? I suspect it can with some explanation to go with it. Will people accept it and try it without just suspecting how it will or will not work? I doubt it. I think that's why threads like this never solve anything. I explained my thinking earlier, but I don't think it will change anyone's mind. This is not a magic system, it is just a way of aiming that allows you to line up shots consistently.

 

[Boro Nut]

Engineering blue prints and aiming systems are two different things.

They certainly are. A trained man has no difficulty describing anything whatsoever on a drawing. Conversely, aiming obviously can't be described in words, as there is clearly no substitue for the word aim when you really mean sighting, cueing, perception, adjustment, correction etc. Count the number of times people say they aim at the contact points.

Boro Nut

 

[ridingthenine21]

They certainly are. A trained man has no difficulty describing anything whatsoever on a drawing. Conversely, aiming obviously can't be described in words, as there is clearly no substitue for the word aim when you really mean sighting, cueing, perception, adjustment, correction etc. Count the number of times people say they aim at the contact points.

Boro Nut

It isn't that simple. Draw a picture of a three dimenstional cone (like those paper cups that are with water coolers) on a sheet of paper. To make people understand that it is a cone and not just a triangle, you have to add additional views, phantom lines, and sometimes more than that to get the actual structure across to them. Draw a top view of the cone with a circular base and some people will understand it is a cone, but many people don't know how to interpret something with several views.
But that is not the point of this thread. The point I was making is how the system works. People say the system can't work, I was just discussing how it works and why it is not a fractional aiming system. The original intent of the thread was to discuss "holes" in the system etc., and maybe discuss why it works/doesn't work whatever. I may try to put it down on paper, but it really would be much easier for people just to call Hal and try it on a table, and it would be less headache for everyone. Do the apparent edges and rotating centers make sense or do you need a diagram of some fashion?

 

[BRKNRUN]

It isn't that simple. Draw a picture of a three dimenstional cone (like those paper cups that are with water coolers) on a sheet of paper. To make people understand that it is a cone and not just a triangle, you have to add additional views, phantom lines, and sometimes more than that to get the actual structure across to them. Draw a top view of the cone with a circular base and some people will understand it is a cone, but many people don't know how to interpret something with several views.
But that is not the point of this thread. The point I was making is how the system works. People say the system can't work, I was just discussing how it works and why it is not a fractional aiming system. The original intent of the thread was to discuss "holes" in the system etc., and maybe discuss why it works/doesn't work whatever. I may try to put it down on paper, but it really would be much easier for people just to call Hal and try it on a table, and it would be less headache for everyone. Do the apparent edges and rotating centers make sense or do you need a diagram of some fashion?

The intent of the thread was not "does it work or does it not work" I know the system works, and I know why it works for me.

The intent was to find out what happens "in between" how do we get there?

We are not talking about moving balls around. We are talking about one position on the table. If the first aim center CB to 1/4 of OB hits point "A". and Center CB to Edge hits point "B". Now you want to hit in between point ""A" and point "B"....BUT the balls have not been moved from thier origonal position. How do you hit in between....or (point "X")

Remember, the balls have not moved at all from where you found point "A" and point "B"

My logic tells me that it would require eithier a A+ aim point or a B- aim point.

I fully understand the "rotating centers". Hal explains that with the rifle and the water tower example....but it does not explain how to get to point X when the balls have not moved. (the centers can not rotate if the balls are not moved)

On a side note...and not directed at you ridingthenine21, but I really don't understand some of the attitude on this board.

It seems like this discussion is "annoying" to some people...I can't figure out thier agenda for being on this board if they find actual discussion of an aiming system so taboo...yet are not willing to post any thoughts of thier own....but would rather take unecessary shots at someone...(yes I AM referring to you VAP)

Thanks to the rest of you that "have" contributed.

 

[ridingthenine21]

Ok I think I see what you are getting at now. I thought the intent was to try and explain why there are no holes etc. If, for instance, you wanted to hit the object ball and play safe and not make the shot, making the ob sit at x spot on a rail, then I suppose you would adjust your aim and not use one of those lines. I don't think Hal's systems do safeties too, but they are good at helping to make more shots. Now if someone says "what about making shots that fall between the lines?" Well there are none. I guess I could see adjusting your aim for a safety. So hopefully I have helped someone rather than just giving myself a bad case of carpal tunnel!

I know it is discouraging that some guys clam up and say nothing more than to call Hal and let him explain it. You have to understand that at one time these guys probably got asked about systems, they mentioned Hal Houle and the systems he developed, and got harrassed. I have read it before on other boards, and even heard of a case where a guy had to change his handle because he was getting so much flack. But since this is a forum I willingly post to, I try to use my knowledge to help other players in any way I can, even if I get blasted for it

 

[enzo]

Now if someone says "what about making shots that fall between the lines?" Well there are none. I guess I could see adjusting your aim for a safety.

you continually say there are no holes, and if you want to believe that it is really and truly ok with me. but the fact is there are holes, and i was rather mystified because you quoted from my earlier long post (post #24), but what you failed to comment on was the lower portion of my post which says that even hal himself states that there are shots that fall inbetween a 1/2 and 1/4 ball hits (ie there are holes). please call him to verify this yourself, i would call him myself but i have already verified for myself there are shots that don't fall into the 3-line system aiming scheme (i say for myself becasue aiming is such a different concept for each individual).

that post also states the reason why there are so many misconceptions about this system imo. i went back and highlighted the most important points in blue to make it more clear. please read it carefully before you respond with some type of rotating edges remark, this just doesn't cover what we're talking about here. again, it mentions this fact (how "rotating edges" theory doesn't cover all agles on a table) in that long post of mine.

 

[ridingthenine21]

"Remember, this system is for any shot on the table; banks, caroms, combinations, and so forth."
I have called Hal quite a few times and he has assure me that his system works with "every blessed shot on the table".
Hal's exact words.

i would call him myself but i have already verified for myself there are shots that don't fall into the 3-line system aiming scheme (i say for myself becasue aiming is such a different concept for each individual).

This sounds like you already made up your mind without even trying it.
My advice to you since it seems you have never spoken with him on the phone is to call him and be by a pool table.

 

[CaptainJR]

I'll finally put my addition to this thread. You all knew it was coming right?

enzo has shown and proven again just like half a dozen others on here in different ways that this system doesn't work on all shots.

I don't think anyone here ever said that Hal's system doesn't work at all. I never said Hal's system doesn't work. I just said it doesn't work on all shots, especially long shots with a small margin of error.

Now that it is known that there are holes (Hal even admits it in that quote). The question BRKNRUN is asking is what do you do then. How do you adjust? Before you can answer how you would adjust you have to address the question of how do you know when you need to adjust.

I read in this thread that Hal's system doesn't address the situation of not wanting to pocket the ball. I think I'll surprise you here by saying, sure it does. If you can look at a shot to the pocket and determine which of these aims to use to get there, than you can look at a spot on the rail and determine the same thing. In the case of a safety I would think there is possibly a little more room for error unless it was a very precise safety, making Hal's system just fine for them. However, what if you are talking about a long rail bank shot? I've said it before and I'll say it again now. The longer the shot the more difficult the shot. Why, because the margin of error becomes less and less. You start looking at a long rail bank and there is so little margin for error that the pro's don't want to play the shot unless they are absolutely forced to. You can't believe that there are only so few angles of aim to determine the aim of a long rail bank.

So this does make BRKNRUN's question valid. When the aim needs to be somewhere in-between one of these aims, how do you adjust? The question above that I'm asking, How do you know when that happens? How do you know you need to adjust?

 

[GStrong]

I use this system and it has worked great for me. I have some observations that I have noticed over the last year of using this system.

A. On a bar box - I really need no compensation. Works great.
B. 8ft - Still very accuarate, however occasionally miss tough shots.
C. 9ft - (Which I play most on) You have to be very careful on tough shots.

What I have been working with recently, to fill in the hole, when playing on 9ft's, I have had to use the ghost ball - just a little - on hard shots.... Pick a spot one inch behind the direct line of the ob to the pocket. When I get down on that shot, it will still be one of the 3 aims. Mentally connect the aim point and stroke straight - I have been making some great shots with this lately. I am only using the 1inch or ghost ball to get on one of the 3 lines, but once I am down, it is just connect the dots.

This has filled in some holes for me and has really helped me with the long tough shots.

 

[enzo]

This has filled in some holes for me and has really helped me with the long tough shots.

that is great and i really think this statement alone shows how useful this system really is. nice post, i like the way you say that you use this system.