Illustration of BHE....

[Colin Colenso]

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.

Yeah, all those variables come in to play on various shots whatever you use.

BHE does make some shots, especially when CB and OB are within 2 feet, almost automatic though. That's probably where the method shines for most users.

That said, I use it for all shots now, and as I get better at predicting the adjustments, it's only gonna get stronger. The biggest problem is playing enough so that I can actually see where I'm aiming pre-pivot.

Colin

 

[Patrick Johnson]

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.

Communicating with you is quite a challenge when you continuously misconstrue, if not outright misstate, what I say. Here's what I said (you can look it up in this thread):

Me:
I wouldn't want to use it because it might limit my range of sidespin shots

Me:
I suspect that, like aiming systems, it tends to encourage the learning of a selection of "standard settings"

Me:
I could be wrong about the limiting nature of BHE and aiming systems - I'm just saying why I won't try them, not that nobody should.

Maybe it's because there are no pictures...

SpiderDave:
...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.

I think you like video so much precisely because you can say one thing and do another. If it could actually prove what you think it can you'd have proved yourself wrong in the first aiming thread.

SpiderDave:
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.

Misconstrued/misstated again. Here's what I actually said:

Me:
I think BHE (or any system) might tend to promote a certain laziness and imprecision - like hitting the CB with "high left" rather than "1/8 inch high and 1/4 inch left".

Maybe you should stick to videos.

SpiderDave:
BHE has nothing to do with english accuracy.

Obviously, I think that might not be true.

SpiderDave:
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?

No, but you'll never understand why.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Communicating with you is quite a challenge when you continuously misconstrue, if not outright misstate, what I say. Here's what I said (you can look it up in this thread):





Maybe it's because there are no pictures...



I think you like video so much precisely because you can say one thing and do another. If it could actually prove what you think it can you'd have proved yourself wrong in the first aiming thread.



Misconstrued/misstated again. Here's what I actually said:



Maybe you should stick to videos.



Obviously, I think that might not be true.



No, but you'll never understand why.

pj
chgo

Let's not split hairs - you won't try those techniques because you BELIEVE they don't work...your word choice means nothing in this discussion. If you believed "maybe and suspect" you'd be exploring these techniques to find the answers, but you don't.

So stop talking sht. You don't NOT try a technique because you suspect stuff doesn't work ... it's because you believe stuff doesn't work.

Communicating with you is easy because I know what you're made of. I'm not intimidated by you in the slightest. If playing pool was only about posting and projecting about knowing everything, you'd be in the HOF. Unfortunately for you, pool is played on a table and not a cuetable diagram. You can't possibly fathom all of the variables and everything that's happening between your brain/perception, the table and the environment. That's why your diagrams are theory and not practice - and why video is good.

You're awfully against video when your team mates Dr. Dave and Mike Page have built awesome video libraries of techniques. Are you saying they're both jokes as well - and that their videos are crap? Is Mike Page saying one thing and doing another????????????????????? Is Dr. Dave????

PJ, the basis of this video discussion isn't that I can hide behind video.... people know I have a LITTLE speed at least. It's about people like you who hide behind posts---- who are likely to have no speed at all.

So.......

Sit down, and STFU

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Communicating with you is easy

Was this an example of communicating with me?

SpiderDave:
Can you prove [BHE is] limiting? Otherwise, stop with the matter-of-fact posts that aren't fact at all.

Tell me again in which post I stated as fact that BHE is limiting.

I'm not intimidated by you in the slightest.

Do you think I'm trying to intimidate you?

...video is good.

Some video is. Some people can tell the difference.

You're awfully against video when your team mates Dr. Dave and Mike Page have built awesome video libraries of techniques. Are you saying they're both jokes as well - and that their videos are crap? Is Mike Page saying one thing and doing another????????????????????? Is Dr. Dave????

The problem isn't with their videos; it's with yours.

Sit down, and STFU

Classy as usual.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

How about you and I play and we'll make a video of that? I'll use BHE the entire time....even on straight in shots.

 

[JB Cases]

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.



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.

I didn't claim that all side pocket shots were half-ball hits. I said that two c-players showed me a little trick to make side pocket shots that works. They came up with this AFTER I showed them Hal's aiming system.

The trick is to sight through the cueball to the object ball's edge when facing a side pocket shot. I don't know why this works but it does and with it I can make some outrageous shots into the side pocket.

However, when you diagram what you think I am seeing then you come to the conclusion, clearly and succinctly, that not all shots to the side pocket CAN BE half-ball hits. I agree. However what I see as I approach the shot may not be a half ball hit, in fact it can't be, but the technique works so a video of me making all sorts of crazy shots to the side alongside a testimony by me that the WAY I approach these shots is to aim a certain way will at least show that I can do what I claim.

Then people can watch the video and dissect it and see if they can figure out how it works or what I am possibly subconsciously doing that allows me to make balls in the side from everywhere.

I don't know how people can walk across hot coals without being burned (of course I can look it up) but I know that it can be done because I can watch people doing it. Observing a behavior is the first step towards understanding it.

I am certain that I can find plenty of old theories about how things work that were later proven to be wrong once the ability to observe the action in the right level of detail became available.

So, on paper, you're right, there is no way that all side pocket shots are half ball hits, (I didn't make this claim), and you obviously can't diagram what actually is happening because there is a way to aim side pocket shots that makes them ridiculously easy.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I suspect that, like aiming systems, it tends to encourage the learning of a selection of "standard settings"

This won't necessarily be true for how some players use BHE, which appears to be ballpark + intuitive adjustments, but it is kind of true for how I use BHE, which follows a more complex system.

In the system, it is easier to make calculations accoring to ordinal units of speed and spin, perhaps divide these into halves or quaters but then the math starts getting tricky.

Though I can get it down to a pretty accurate ball park and then play the exact speed and spin that I think is necessary by feel. That said, I understand where pj is coming from and agree that this a reason one may not want to go into totally systematic BHE methods.

Colin

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The trick is to sight through the cueball to the object ball's edge when facing a side pocket shot.

...However what I see as I approach the shot may not be a half ball hit

In other words, it doesn't work "as advertised".

pj
chgo

 

[SJDinPHX]

In other words, it doesn't work "as advertised".

pj
chgo

God love 'em. They're at it again. Stupid me, its so much more fun to just sit back and watch, than it is to critisize !
I'll take Patrick against the field, and lay 2 to 1 they can't knock him out with one punch.

Dick

PS. I'll lay another 10 to 1 it goes over 200 posts with no clear winner !!!

 

[JB Cases]

In other words, it doesn't work "as advertised".

pj
chgo

In other words, it defies description.

 

[Thunderball]

My first few attempts were not half hearted,but they were short lived.I'll redouble the effort as they say.Thanks again.

Well just in case anyone might be wondering about the findings of the "one guy" who don't know squat,but is taking it to the table for a honest look,here ya go:

First off,I'm doing no fancy math.I was not looking at bridge length vs ball seperation vs ball to pocket length ect ect...

Simply, I address the shot as per always.Simple short cut shots that are three to four feet long total from cb to ob to pocket.I shoot em at a pace that brings another rail into play for the cb after contact to better see the "spin" result or difference as it were from my "normal" english application.

I get down,see the shot with a simple centerball hit in mind,practice stroke ect then I pivot.One half to one full tip either right or left considering and ignore the fact that this shot now "looks" like a miss and stroke it out.
Presto blamo!! Off it goes!!

I need to qualify that last statement by saying that for a full tip left or right of english on these same shots I would have some pretty serious and conscience aim point adjustments made in my head to pocket the ball considering squirt,swerve and the like.In this instance I made no such adjustments.None.Centerball hit pre shot,pivot,stroke and daaaaammmnnnn.

A few more things I observed:
The english is mo' better.That is to say that action off the rails is more acute then my normal application.The angles are shortened or widened by larger margins. (thats my early,but repeatable finding)This will take some retraining.

Also,the longer the shot the more this seems to fail.At least for me anyhow....now the same could be said for english application of any type from longer distances I know,I just wanna be clear to others who may wanna give this a go for the first time like I have been...it's not a magic feather that will let you put a full tip of right on the ball from eight feet out with out some other compensation.

But close shots...say 4 feet or less,for me and my cue....I say holy shayt.

I have much work to do to fully get all of "it" but I think I have most of "it" already.It really is a very cool and in some ways sureal given my usual way of going about these shots.

So thanks for all the arguing,beaching,and keyboard cowboying between those who love it and those who say it can't work lol.You've got this ol banger on a different path for the moment and perhaps forever.

Any other BHE noob reading this.... do yourself a favor and watch the vid (s) and read the instruction and give it an honest try.You may be as surprised as I am.

(edited to add..this may be be biggest post here ever,I hope you arseholes read it lol. (( bet you would if you knew how slow I typed)).

 

[Terry Erdman]

Pat Johnson/Fast Larry

God love 'em. They're at it again. Stupid me, its so much more fun to just sit back and watch, than it is to critisize !
I'll take Patrick against the field, and lay 2 to 1 they can't knock him out with one punch.

Dick

PS. I'll lay another 10 to 1 it goes over 200 posts with no clear winner !!!

You can't knock him out or shut him up. He is worse than Fast Larry! Fast Larry was all knowing and hung up on himself because he felt he could really play pool, but Pat (seems to know that he can't really play) but is all knowing also and he just continues to argue and nit pick what other people are saying to the point of ad nauseum. Please Pat, go over your thousands of posts and re-read them all to really impress yourself because nobody else gives a shit what you say. My personal opinion is that you were the kid that everybody beat up in grade school and now you are getting back at everybody with arguementative keyboard clutter!

 

[dr_dave]

Please Pat, go over your thousands of posts and re-read them all to really impress yourself because nobody else gives a shit what you say.

I also don't like the frequent and childish posts between PJ and Spidey. I think the immature posts waste Internet bandwidth and people's time, even if they are sometimes entertaining (on very rare occasions).

As far as "nobody else gives a shit what you say," you are terribly wrong. PJ is a long-term poster that is very knowledgeable. His posts (when he's not being childish responding to other immature children) are often very insightful and useful. He has also shared many excellent diagrams over the years which take lots of time to create. These diagrams are useful resources that have helped clarify questions and focus debate. I thank him for that.

There are not many posters on this or other forums who truly contribute as as much as PJ has. I personally think PJ deserves thanks and kudos for his many contributions over the years. I think it is insulting and in bad taste to imply otherwise.

Sincerely,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I also don't like the frequent and childish posts between PJ and Spidey. I think the immature posts waste Internet bandwidth and people's time, even if they are sometimes entertaining (on very rare occasions).

As far as "nobody else gives a shit what you say," you are terribly wrong. PJ is a long-term poster that is very knowledgeable. His posts (when he's not being childish responding to other immature children) are often very insightful and useful. He has also shared many excellent diagrams over the years which take lots of time to create. These diagrams are useful resources that have helped clarify questions and focus debate. I thank him for that.

There are not many posters on this or other forums who truly contribute as as much as PJ has. I personally think PJ deserves thanks and kudos for his many contributions over the years. I think it is insulting and in bad taste to imply otherwise.

Sincerely,
Dave

To call PJ "insightful" when the guy doesn't even TRY the techniques he posts about cheapens your opinion on anyone else you might refer to as insightful in the future.

 

[eezbank]

I also don't like the frequent and childish posts between PJ and Spidey. I think the immature posts waste Internet bandwidth and people's time, even if they are sometimes entertaining (on very rare occasions).

As far as "nobody else gives a shit what you say," you are terribly wrong. PJ is a long-term poster that is very knowledgeable. His posts (when he's not being childish responding to other immature children) are often very insightful and useful. He has also shared many excellent diagrams over the years which take lots of time to create. These diagrams are useful resources that have helped clarify questions and focus debate. I thank him for that.

There are not many posters on this or other forums who truly contribute as as much as PJ has. I personally think PJ deserves thanks and kudos for his many contributions over the years. I think it is insulting and in bad taste to imply otherwise.

Sincerely,
Dave

Is it possible that the posters won't contribute because PJ goes into attack mode everytime someone presents a system or technique that he doesn't agree with? It's funny you always come out to defend this guy when he's the one that instigates this stuff. A little respect goes a long way. I think what Terry is saying, a good portion of the AZ community is thinking but they just don't stand up and say it. If you disagree that's fine but take the time and go back and review PJs posts in any aiming thread. Any technique thread. That is if you have the ability to see things from an objective point of view.

 

[dr_dave]

To call PJ "insightful" when the guy doesn't even TRY the techniques he posts about cheapens your opinion on anyone else you might refer to as insightful in the future.

I usually try all of the techniques I discuss, but I usually don't need to try them to know when they will and won't work based on how they are described. I can see PJ's point sometimes: Why should he try something that is obviously flawed as described? Instead, he first tries to get a complete and accurate description to the point where the method shows promise. Then maybe he thinks it would be worth trying it out. I'm not sure this is how he or others think; but if they do, I don't fault them for that. I also like to understand and believe in something before I dedicate time and effort to work with it. Now, with some things, you might need to try it to fully understand the intricacies of when and where it does and doesn't work and why, but I think this is the case with many of the topics we discuss and debate here.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

... take the time and go back and review PJs posts in any aiming thread. Any technique thread. That is if you have the ability to see things from an objective point of view.

I think I have participated in and read almost all of the postings in all of those past threads (even though Cornerman thinks this is impossible). If you look back, you will see that I often asked PJ and others to stop their immature and childish responses to the immature and childish attacks from PJ and others. In fact, I think PJ once responded to me telling me to stop trying to be his mother.

I'm not always "on PJ's team" ... only when he is reasonable, logical, insightful, and helpful (which he is sometimes).

Regards,
Dave

 

[Colin Colenso]

Well just in case anyone might be wondering about the findings of the "one guy" who don't know squat,but is taking it to the table for a honest look,here ya go:

[Edited - Read Above]

So thanks for all the arguing,beaching,and keyboard cowboying between those who love it and those who say it can't work lol.You've got this ol banger on a different path for the moment and perhaps forever.

Any other BHE noob reading this.... do yourself a favor and watch the vid (s) and read the instruction and give it an honest try.You may be as surprised as I am.

(edited to add..this may be be biggest post here ever,I hope you arseholes read it lol. (( bet you would if you knew how slow I typed)).

Thunderball,
That's pretty similar to how I experienced my early trials of BHE.

It does some pretty magical stuff on shots that are not particularly easy.

Then comes the realization that it doesn't work for all distances etc. That's fine, they can be worked out, though it takes time and knowledge to expand that effectiveness to an even wider array of shots.

Thanks for you testimonial!

Colin

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Dr. Dave...

In all due respect, you KNOW I've always attempted to be nice to PJ and respectful.... only to have him c0ck-off and become insulting and belligerent.

To call me a child when you've even commented on how you respected my 'nice' responses to him is uncalled for.

If you want to call me a child just because I wont take his smart attitude anymore, I'm an embryo.

 

[Cornerman]

So thanks for all the arguing,beaching,and keyboard cowboying between those who love it and those who say it can't work lol.You've got this ol banger on a different path for the moment and perhaps forever.

Any other BHE noob reading this.... do yourself a favor and watch the vid (s) and read the instruction and give it an honest try.You may be as surprised as I am.

Would you rather see more bickering or less bickering? Have those who most people view as "detractors to the systems" push you to trying the systems or to staying away from the systems?

Personally, I hate the detractor-speak. IMO, it serves no purpose to the greater good. This game isn't so politcal or religious to merit detractor-speak. Try or don't try. That's all it takes.

Fred <~~~ often guilty of detractor-speak