Illustration of BHE....

[dr_dave]

... none of you post videos on so called "bad information" showing why it doesn't work which prevents people who can use the systems very well from seeing what you're doing wrong...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, but IMO it honestly sounds quite ridiculous. It would be easy to create videos showing all the cases where certain systems (as described) don't work, but I don't think that would be very useful, and I'm sure I would only create even more enemies in the process.

Regards,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I think I made my point, and I expected the usual suspects: pj, mike, dr. dave to reply the way they did--- but the world ultimately decides.

I'll quote a HOF player who mocks many of the instruction methods (no one in particular) he sees. He says,

"Many of these guys show you how to aim, bridge or hold a cue - but none of them teach you how to win. Why pay someone who has never won in their entire lives when they can spend some time with me and learn from a winner???"

You can shun "XYZ" or "ABC" techniques all you want, but people use them to win like hell.

So, there's theory and practice - and the difference is human perception. If a practice that may not, hypothetically, be theoretically correct helps people better perceive shots and WIN....disagree with what you want - but WINNING is the winning side of this debate.... and you're not the decider of that.

EDIT:
I'm off topic with my video post above.... but the entire point of this post and the one above is that more videos are a good thing. Mike made a good point in his earlier post, but PJ saying BHE is limiting is a false statement. MAKE A VIDEO SHOWING WHY IT IS. More video on this site is a good thing. Those who can't post videos, type. End of story. I can type and post videos. I can post a video making a great run with 100% BHE but people expect that. Let's see a PJ video showing why BHE sucks. NEVER happen because the world would see some old C player looking stupid.

 

[devindra]

They say a picture is worth a 1000 words...... i wonder how many words a video is worth

 

[JB Cases]

I don't believe this is true.

I've been around this game and its structure and the way it is learned and the way it is perceived enough to know that there is frequently little relation between what a player actually does and what a player thinks he's doing.

These videos are often someone saying, "see every shot is blah blah blah" while firing balls in doing something other than blah blah blah.

Demonstrations conceal all sorts of stuff the demonstrator often isn't even aware of. And they can't be examined carefully enough to back out the actual details.

Simple, clear, unambiguous, communication with words and diagrams is the way to go for understanding the advice.

The thing is that in a video you can hear the description of what the shooter thinks that they are doing and compare it to what you see and analyze that. If the two things correspond then you can take that info and use it. If they don't then you can question it because it's there to question - EVERYONE can see the same thing and can come to their own conclusions, even the author of the video.

So if someone gets on here and say ABC System is the Dead Nutz and by using it you will become a champion (just ribbing you SJD) then they ought to be able to show it in action. That way everyone can see what is happening and the scientists can dissect it and the players can absorb it.

And IF the scientists say that what is happening is NOT what the player thinks is happening then they should be able to replicate the action and SHOW the world what is REALLY happening.

There is a very good reason why actions speak louder than words. For years we all subscribed to the idea that balls react a certain way off the cushions because that's what the books told us and people repeated what they read. Dave's (Dr.) high speed videos showed otherwise complete with the lines showing "expected" outcome based on "conventional" wisdom and then the real outcome based on the results or another way - what really happened.

I bet I can go back through books and articles and find plenty of diagrams that talk very clearly about what "happens" when a ball comes off a rail. However Dave's videos proved that a lot of those diagrams and descriptions are wrong.

So Mike I do disagree with you on this one. Diagrams and descriptions are necessary but not to be taken as the gospel truth. This is the age of video where it's getting really easy and relatively inexpensive to simply record that which you want to impart and let the world review and decide based on the performance shown rather than the theory that is written.

 

[Flex]

What's the difference between a "stun stroke" and a "smooth stroke"?

pj
chgo

That's for me to know and you to find out.

Perhaps you might ask Adrian Vigueira, the "champion three-cushion and artistic billiard player" about it. He showed me; unfortunately I can't describe it adequately.

Flex

 

[JB Cases]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, but IMO it honestly sounds quite ridiculous. It would be easy to create videos showing all the cases where certain systems (as described) don't work, but I don't think that would be very useful, and I'm sure I would only create even more enemies in the process.

Regards,
Dave

No, it would be helpful as then we can move forward in the discussion.

That's the whole point isn't it? To find out the truth?

This is like me going to India and seeing people walk across hot coals, on beds of nails, on beds of broken glass without getting harmed and reporting on it and you writing a paper telling me why it's medically impossible due to skin tension not being enough to resist objects of certain heat and sharpness.

The whole idea here is to come to some sort of consensus as to WHY what people are observing and experiencing does work and HOW it works rather than to simply discount it with a diagram and claim it's impossible.

I find it funny that a person who has built a small empire based on his findings through high speed video (THANK YOU FOR THOSE) would discount the need for video evidence to prove/disprove one's contentions when it comes to what happens on a pool table.

Enemies? This is not a war unless you make it one. I can't speak for anyone but myself but the reason I personally am interested in this stuff is because I want to be a better player and I find it fascinating. I don't want to be "right" just to win an argument, I want to be right because I know that what I am saying is true.

If I were to say that a ball comes off the cushion short ALL the time when hit hard then I wouldn't be the least bit upset if you posted a link to one of your existing videos proving me wrong. I'd go, huh? I never thought that is what is really happening, thanks for the info.

The ONLY way you will make enemies is if you fabricate your evidence or use some sort of trickery to skew the results. Otherwise it's all just honest exercises from both sides to try and reach the common goal of mutual understanding of what's really happening when we play pool.

 

[JB Cases]

That's for me to know and you to find out.

Perhaps you might ask Adrian Vigueira, the "champion three-cushion and artistic billiard player" about it. He showed me; unfortunately I can't describe it adequately.

Flex

I agree with you here. When Rafael Martinez did a clinic for us years ago - nearly 15 now with all the video lost in many moves, one of the things he showed us was many different stroke types. And these were things that are not really covered in books very much that I have seen. And if they are/were it's MUCH more effective when someone like Rafael is able to demonstrate them with his professional touch.

People like Jose Parica, Danny Medina, and Buddy Hall have also instructed me along these lines in the intervening years. One time in particular I was getting a lesson from Parica and he told me how to hit a shot and I said, "I understand what you are saying but I cannot do it." I literally could not duplicate the stroke he was using to get the same result he was.

Once in a while when I am playing really well - those lessons will come back to me and then my arm seems to loosen up and I develop a really fine touch and for a brief time I feel like I know what Rafael and Jose and Danny and Buddy must feel most of the time they step to the table.

So Flex I know what you mean. No need to express it further.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...what if "ABC" system helps a person feel a shot better than setup & guess?

LOL. What if we've been saying that for months?

Is it time now for message #2? Will we have to repeat this one for months before you finally think you thought of it?

Here goes: Systems and "set up and guess" aren't the only alternatives.

pj
chgo

Baby steps...

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
What's the difference between a "stun stroke" and a "smooth stroke"?

Flex:
That's for me to know and you to find out.

Perhaps you might ask Adrian Vigueira, the "champion three-cushion and artistic billiard player" about it. He showed me; unfortunately I can't describe it adequately.

Oh, another of those "I know it's real but I can't describe it" deals. Pool isn't that subtle, Flex.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Oh, another of those "I know it's real but I can't describe it" deals. Pool isn't that subtle, Flex.

pj
chgo

Actually it is. This is why SJD says learning pool with a slide rule and a scientific calculator won't make you a champion.

Believe me you can think you "know" every way to hit a shot and along comes a seasoned pro who shows you something you have never seen before.

But then again, maybe I just haven't studied the game enough in 25 years. Maybe my experiences along these lines are all just an LSD inspired fantasy.

Maybe pool is really just so cut and dried that all we need is Byrne's book. After all it is the Standard Book of Pool and Billiards.

 

[Flex]

Oh, another of those "I know it's real but I can't describe it" deals. Pool isn't that subtle, Flex.

pj
chgo

Tough cookies, Pat.

I'm not going to go into the mud with you on this. Adrian showed me the difference, and that's that.

Your argument isn't with me, it's with Adrian.

 

[cookie man]

Tough cookies, Pat.

I'm not going to go into the mud with you on this. Adrian showed me the difference, and that's that.

Your argument isn't with me, it's with Adrian.

Pat knows, but his standard arguement is it doesn't work, that's that, thank you Pat. He also uses all this stuff but he's not going to let us know that. Lets face it, a C player tries anything and everything, right Pat, or should I say wrong Pat so you will agree with me.

 

[mikepage]

[...]

So Mike I do disagree with you on this one. Diagrams and descriptions are necessary but not to be taken as the gospel truth.

I'm not saying that if you communicate in words and diagrams it must be true. I'm just saying that clear unambiguous communication is what it is. It may be right; it may be wrong, but either way it CAN be evaluated.

This is the age of video where it's getting really easy and relatively inexpensive to simply record that which you want to impart and let the world review and decide based on the performance shown rather than the theory that is written.

Let the world decide what? That is the problem. You once claimed, if I remember correctly, that all cuts into a side pocket were half-ball hits. If you had a video of you firing shot after shot into the side pocket, would that somehow lend credence to the claim?

No. It wouldn't. It obscures the issue instead.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Oh, another of those "I know it's real but I can't describe it" deals. Pool isn't that subtle, Flex.

pj
chgo

JB:
Actually it is. This is why SJD says learning pool with a slide rule and a scientific calculator won't make you a champion.

No, actually, it's not. And "learning pool with a slide rule and calculator" not only has nothing to do with this, it isn't what anybody ever tries to do.

You (and other system proponents) seem to miss the meaning of many posts - could that be why you think videos are so much better?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

cookie man:
Pat knows, but his standard arguement is it doesn't work

Maybe you can tell us what it is that I'm saying "doesn't work" in this case. You know, just to verify that we're all talking about the same reality.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

No, actually, it's not. And "learning pool with a slide rule and calculator" not only has nothing to do with this, it doesn't describe anything that anybody tries to do.

You (and other system proponents) seem to miss the meaning of many posts - could that be why you think videos are so much better?

pj
chgo

We're not discussing aiming systems in this thread.

BHE isn't a system, it's a technique in applying english. You mentioned it's limiting, I say it's not. I can prove it's not by running out with it from everywhere (that's the ultimate proof --- outcome-based, remember?).

Can you prove it's limiting? Otherwise, stop with the matter-of-fact posts that aren't fact at all.

I think people are confusing BHE with aiming systems. If you show it on video (pivoting from the back hand) and you're snapping the ball into the pocket - it's a proof-based video. You can't say blah blah blah and do something different on video with BHE - it is what it is... it's a clearly visible technique.

You mentioned that users of BHE don't apply english as accurately as you (the 1/4" and 1/8" comment), which is so presumptuous, I have to ignore the comment. BHE has nothing to do with english accuracy.

EDIT:

How about if Colin posts an "English / position test" and PJ, Mike, Dr. Dave, and I post videos on how we position. Everyone can use their own technique and I'll use BHE. Let's see how the BHEer does so we can see how legit it is.

Good outcome-based test, no?

*cricket* *cricket* *cricket*

 

[duckie]

Oh, how I wish you were correct.

BHE is often the easiest way to spin the rock, not always, but often.

But I am correct. If BHE was the ONLY way to put spin on a ball, than I would be incorrect. By your own statement, you admit that BHE is not the only way to put spin on the ball, just seems to be easier, but not always, but often.

 

[Flex]

But I am correct. If BHE was the ONLY way to put spin on a ball, than I would be incorrect. By your own statement, you admit that BHE is not the only way to put spin on the ball, just seems to be easier, but not always, but often.

What you said in your earlier post was "It isn't BHE that gets you out of sticky situation, its the use of english. How it gets applied doesn't matter" to which I replied "Oh, how I wish you were correct. BHE is often the easiest way to spin the rock, not always, but often."

Putting spin on the ball really isn't the question, IMHO. It's what you have to do to figure out what the effect of doing it will have on the outcome of the shot. And there's no doubt, at least in my mind, that for many shots it's the easiest way to achieve what you have in mind when shooting.

I use "parallel english" and BHE and also a combination of them as well as slight bridge shifts with BHE to hopefully achieve a particular result.

All those ways of applying spin are basically the same, that is the production of the spin on the cue ball. However, the results and ease of use vary.

Hope that clarifies it a bit

Flex

 

[Colin Colenso]

We're not discussing aiming systems in this thread.

BHE isn't a system, it's a technique in applying english. You mentioned it's limiting, I say it's not. I can prove it's not by running out with it from everywhere (that's the ultimate proof --- outcome-based, remember?).

Can you prove it's limiting? Otherwise, stop with the matter-of-fact posts that aren't fact at all.

I think people are confusing BHE with aiming systems. If you show it on video (pivoting from the back hand) and you're snapping the ball into the pocket - it's a proof-based video. You can't say blah blah blah and do something different on video with BHE - it is what it is... it's a clearly visible technique.

You mentioned that users of BHE don't apply english as accurately as you (the 1/4" and 1/8" comment), which is so presumptuous, I have to ignore the comment. BHE has nothing to do with english accuracy.

EDIT:

How about if Colin posts an "English / position test" and PJ, Mike, Dr. Dave, and I post videos on how we position. Everyone can use their own technique and I'll use BHE. Let's see how the BHEer does so we can see how legit it is.

Good outcome-based test, no?

I've lost track of who's arguing about what in this thread now.

I do hope to make a, or maybe a few position based tests, but not right now. There are a few drills around but they tend to focus on one particular positional skill at a time, rather than something that tests a full range of positional skills. There probably should be a specific test for english shots.

Re: Limiting. If that's the word pj actually used then I disagree with that term, but I think he meant that there are limits to what BHE can provide, without the user becoming very familiar with the various adjustments for speed, tip offset, table stickiness, cut thickness, CB-OB distance etc.

I don't think it is a given that BHE pivoting is better, even though I think it has a lot of potential and works well for some players who try it out. Still, I wouldn't be in a rush to convert someone who's spent 10 years learning to sight for english a more traditional way, unless they were determined to put a LOT of work into it.

The video debate is kind of pointless. Yes, videos are great. Multi-media can be a powerful teaching / learning tool. Not all videos or diagrams prove what someone may think they are proving. That said, video away everyone. I hope to do a lot more soon.

It's also a bit unfair to criticize the maths guys, or whatever some people call this assumed clique of system analysts. Dr. Dave's been putting up great vids for yonks. Mike Page also has some great videos up and I've done a few too.

Anyway, that's all I've got to say about that.

Colin ~ Goes back to eating chocolates.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

there are limits to what BHE can provide, without the user becoming very familiar with the various adjustments for speed, tip offset, table stickiness, cut thickness, CB-OB distance etc.

These are variables any human being must consider when hitting a point that is not on the vertical axis of the CB... no matter what the technique.

No one is saying BHE eliminates the need to consider those variables.

My feeling is BHE makes the consideration/calculations of these variables easier and more consistent. I didn't always use BHE. I used to shoot with more traditional techniques. I've found over the past decade that BHE is the most repeatable way to make awkward inside english, Buddy-hall-style-"whippin'-action" shots. Anything outside of the difficult/awkward range doesn't matter---- people make those shots no matter what technique.

It's only with the tougher position shots, under pressure, do you really see the "repeatable" difference between techniques.

I'll quit this thread forever once PJ admits BHE isn't limiting. I'm against "misinformation" too - that's why I'm flogging this to death.