My day with Hal Houle and his aiming system
- Thread starter Subsonic2u
- Start date
I'm A Decoder Ring Carrying Houligan
There are people here that are interested in learning Hal's aiming system, so I'm including the link to the ENTIRE 124 posts in that thread....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec....289b/9d491b6392cbd7de?&hl=en#9d491b6392cbd7de
Doug
( always willing to lend a helping hand to those seeking more knowledge )
PKM said:
There are people here that are interested in learning Hal's aiming system, so I'm including the link to the ENTIRE 124 posts in that thread....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec....289b/9d491b6392cbd7de?&hl=en#9d491b6392cbd7de
Doug
( always willing to lend a helping hand to those seeking more knowledge )
I've been shown SAM by a friend who learned it from BCA lessons, so I don't know it firsthand, but I have an idea. My friend loves it. First time he showed it to me, he set up a "2" shot and drilled it. Then I set up the same shot and moved the cueball over an inch and he said it was still a "2" and drilled it again. I said wait this is impossible, you're not actually shooting the same "2" both times but he said yes he was.
So we set up a "2", and marked the locations, and he made it like 5 times in a row. We then set up the second shot with the cueball moved a small amount, and I told him to hit exactly a "2", don't look at the pocket or think about anything, just hit a "2". This time he missed by a few inches (as I expected), and he missed it the same way repeatedly.
But then he set up another "2" somewhere else on the table and drilled it and then moved the cueball a little so it was "still a 2" and made that shot also.
My conclusion: geometrically, the SAM system isn't sound. But it's close enough that you are able to adjust subconsciously without even knowing that you're adjusting. When we tried to do a "scientific" test of SAM, it turns out that the same "2" aiming point can't make two different angle shots, which makes sense. But in non-laboratory conditions, it seems to work psychologically, which is all that matters.
I tried SAM for a bit, and it does seem to work, but then again, the way I usually aim, which is basically "by feel", works also. In some situations, SAM gives you added confidence, since it gives a spot to aim at, and even though you're not really truly aiming at that exact spot, you think you are, which is good enough. It is a little weird that it works, but it does, and you really do think you are shooting a "2" even though you're subconsciously adjusting.
My overall opinion, though, is that aiming is easy, and stroking the ball straight is the key to shotmaking, so there's no real need for an aiming system. I can usually tell when someone has a shot lined up wrong, even if it's a table away -- and I don't see many mis-aimed shots except for beginning players. Personally, I rarely have problems aiming ... I miss like everyone else, but I miss straight shots too, it's not an aiming issue. I can often tell I missed before the CB contacts the OB, because I hit it wrong, not because the aim is wrong.
So we set up a "2", and marked the locations, and he made it like 5 times in a row. We then set up the second shot with the cueball moved a small amount, and I told him to hit exactly a "2", don't look at the pocket or think about anything, just hit a "2". This time he missed by a few inches (as I expected), and he missed it the same way repeatedly.
But then he set up another "2" somewhere else on the table and drilled it and then moved the cueball a little so it was "still a 2" and made that shot also.
My conclusion: geometrically, the SAM system isn't sound. But it's close enough that you are able to adjust subconsciously without even knowing that you're adjusting. When we tried to do a "scientific" test of SAM, it turns out that the same "2" aiming point can't make two different angle shots, which makes sense. But in non-laboratory conditions, it seems to work psychologically, which is all that matters.
I tried SAM for a bit, and it does seem to work, but then again, the way I usually aim, which is basically "by feel", works also. In some situations, SAM gives you added confidence, since it gives a spot to aim at, and even though you're not really truly aiming at that exact spot, you think you are, which is good enough. It is a little weird that it works, but it does, and you really do think you are shooting a "2" even though you're subconsciously adjusting.
My overall opinion, though, is that aiming is easy, and stroking the ball straight is the key to shotmaking, so there's no real need for an aiming system. I can usually tell when someone has a shot lined up wrong, even if it's a table away -- and I don't see many mis-aimed shots except for beginning players. Personally, I rarely have problems aiming ... I miss like everyone else, but I miss straight shots too, it's not an aiming issue. I can often tell I missed before the CB contacts the OB, because I hit it wrong, not because the aim is wrong.
Even then, Pat Johnson was a condescending, know-it-all jerk.Smorgass Bored said:
Glad to see some things never change.
Chill out, man. We're just talking here. You're the only one to use words like "retarded" so far.
LOL. Sure, I'm in. Send me the blinders (they must be collectors items).
pj
chgo
txplshrk said:
WOW!
This is the first time I have read this in print, even if the post wasn't written by the BCA instructors themselves. It would be nice of Randy Goettlicher to confirm what you said.
HAL HOULE should be very proud. (And I'm serious).
Would like for Hal to receive his due accolades. He has already received more than enough heckles.
JoeyA
Does that mean Saturday night's off, Shawn?Shawn Armstrong said:
Here's one of my posts in that 2004 thread. Sounds just like me now too. Some things never change. You certainly haven't.
pj
chgo
Glenn Deneweth wrote:
> ... There is ONLY one way of getting it
> right....and I think we all know what that is.
I assume you mean there's only one contact point to hit -- that's the
physical reality. But there's a psychological reality too that's very
important, and there may be any number of ways that human players "see"
the contact point and align accurately to hit it. So there may be a lot
of different WAYS to "get it right".
I point out the "imaginary" aspects of what Hal says just for the
academic value of knowing that, but I still think even that stuff has
psychological value for many players - and isn't really all that
different from how most players do it. Mostly they don't have a clue
how they line up shots accurately; they "just do it", and their
confidence in the outcome is very important to their success.
This is why I always say I'm not really criticizing Hal's teachings,
even though it almost always (understandably) seems to everybody that I
am. I guess that's inevitable if I want to point out what's objectively
true about this stuff and what isn't.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Exactly. Here is a post from another time and another group....ineedaspot said:
My experience is that the majority of people cannot make the
connection between abstract geometry (such as a half-ball hit)
and what happens while they play pool. It may be true that cut
angle is a continuous function of the fullness of hit, but most
people have neither use for nor understanding of a concept such
as "function of".
For such people, I think it is not helpful to go into any more
detail in a system than is required to draw their attention to
the shot. It is not important what the system is as long as they
believe in it and it sort of gets them into the right ball park.
Their subconscious will do the rest, as it does for all players
who can play a lick, Iron Willie and Virtual Pool excepted.
Ask players what the cut angle is for a half-ball hit and the
majority (or a substantial minority) will say 45 degrees. This
is in spite of their having shot hundreds of half-ball hits and
hundreds of 45-degree cuts but never in the same shot. Many
people need an explanation of what a "right angle" is for the
kiss-line for position play -- people have even built special
fixtures for the pool table to illustrate two perpendicular
lines. Most people are not geometrians.
Aiming is as much psychology as it is physics. Arguing that the
physics of a system is wrong doesn't prevent the psychology from
working, one way or another. On the other hand, it's not clear
to my why people who know a system works for them psychologically
argue it to be valid physically. There's no point.
connection between abstract geometry (such as a half-ball hit)
and what happens while they play pool. It may be true that cut
angle is a continuous function of the fullness of hit, but most
people have neither use for nor understanding of a concept such
as "function of".
For such people, I think it is not helpful to go into any more
detail in a system than is required to draw their attention to
the shot. It is not important what the system is as long as they
believe in it and it sort of gets them into the right ball park.
Their subconscious will do the rest, as it does for all players
who can play a lick, Iron Willie and Virtual Pool excepted.
Ask players what the cut angle is for a half-ball hit and the
majority (or a substantial minority) will say 45 degrees. This
is in spite of their having shot hundreds of half-ball hits and
hundreds of 45-degree cuts but never in the same shot. Many
people need an explanation of what a "right angle" is for the
kiss-line for position play -- people have even built special
fixtures for the pool table to illustrate two perpendicular
lines. Most people are not geometrians.
Aiming is as much psychology as it is physics. Arguing that the
physics of a system is wrong doesn't prevent the psychology from
working, one way or another. On the other hand, it's not clear
to my why people who know a system works for them psychologically
argue it to be valid physically. There's no point.
I Have Another Pair That My Second Wife Wore While We Were Married
Spider Web Comm challenged:
How about we have a shot making competition between the people that know Hal's system, and everyone else? To prove it's not by feel, everyone has to wear blinders so they can't see the pockets. I'm in. Are you in Patrick??
Collector's items ? Man, these blinders were last worn by Ruffian in 1975.
Doug
Spider Web Comm challenged:
How about we have a shot making competition between the people that know Hal's system, and everyone else? To prove it's not by feel, everyone has to wear blinders so they can't see the pockets. I'm in. Are you in Patrick??
Patrick Johnson said:
Collector's items ? Man, these blinders were last worn by Ruffian in 1975.
Doug
Stupid Thread Of The Week
This thread realy takes the CAKE. All these woofing thread are better than this one. So what if someone taught you something. Good for you. Just don't start a thread that this happen, if you don't want to share what you learned. If his request was to tell noone, the STFU.
This thread realy takes the CAKE. All these woofing thread are better than this one. So what if someone taught you something. Good for you. Just don't start a thread that this happen, if you don't want to share what you learned. If his request was to tell noone, the STFU.
Every Time I Try To Get OUT...They Drag Me Back IN
<cough,cough...sputter...gag...cough,cough> solly, No speekie inklish !!!!
JoeyA said:
<cough,cough...sputter...gag...cough,cough> solly, No speekie inklish !!!!
So failures are the shooter's fault but successes belong to the system? That's a pretty good "system" by itself.
pj
chgo
Mmmmmm, Cookies And MILK
Yeah, a belated Happy 83rd Birthday to Hal from me too....
Doug
( it also warms the cookies of MY heart )
JoeyA said:This warms the cockles of my heart.
A belated Happy Birthday to you Hal.
JoeyA
Yeah, a belated Happy 83rd Birthday to Hal from me too....
Doug
( it also warms the cookies of MY heart )
Subsonic2u said:I was very lucky yesterday to spend a day visiting Hal Houle. He has a beautiful 4 1/2 x 9 Diamond table and light. Hal is 83 and has forgotten more about pool than I will ever know. Was great to hear his stories.
First he told me to forget everything I knew about shooting pool. Hal said he could probably teach me his aiming system in 15 minutes. Well I'm a little slo. It took 20 minutes before I understood. I didn't feel too bad as he said there have been some folks that never did understand.
He says it doesn't matter where the object ball (OB) is on the table, or where the cue ball (Q) is, or where the pocket (P) is, u always aim exactly the same.U can even put a piece of cardboard on the table to keep the shooter from seeing the P, and still make the ball.
Sounds crazy. The angles are always different depending on where the OB, Q, or P is. So how can Hal say u always aim the same, no matter what the shot? I was very skeptical to say the least. It was not possible and I thought that this older fellow might have lost a few cards out of the deck.
Hal explained for 20 minutes and I just could not understand how that was possible. As I very slowly rolled a ball on the table using my finger, I realized what he was telling me. Finally it was like someone turned on a light bulb and I got it, I understood what he was saying. In no time I was pocketing balls with out even looking at the P. After my initial aim, looking at the OB and Q, I then looked at only the Q, not even checking the P. Again and again I made different shots. There are no angles, no guessing, no ghost balls, nothing. Just the OB and the Q, forget about the P. His aiming system works. I was shocked and amazed. It works. I'm not a top player, and I was making hard shots with ease without even looking at the P. It even works on bank shots! Before I left, I offered to pay him for his teaching. He said no $ was needed because he knew I was a good person.
Hal did ask me not to tell others about how his system works as there are some who have ridiculed him and his system (those who do not understand how his system works) or want to use his system to take people's $, and he won't give them his knowledge. He has a stack of yellow 8 1/2x11 papers, 36 inches hi with every line filled with a person's name, phone #, and city/state of people asking him to teach them. Some he has taught, some could not learn, and some he refuses to teach.
I was a skeptic, I thought what he was saying was impossible, and now I'm a believer. For those non believers, I can tell u this, It works.
Charlie
ah, I see the Houligans are having their annual outbreak... It sort of reminds me of the San Fermin Festival in Spain, otherwise known as "the running of the bulls." Once a year, they all go running down the street screaming their heads off too
And just so no one gets me wrong -- and since we're all getting all nostalgic and all courtesy of Smorg, Bob, and Pat -- here's something I wrote on this in another group, long ago:
I know a little bit about thinking I've found "the secret" and feeling like I'm playing way better that I was. I guess I would ask "the believers" if they're winning more matches, money, and tournaments and playing as well as they thought they were under those conditions. In other words: are you still consistently splitting the pocket for the cash?
If the answer is yes, then it really doesn't matter what any of us think about the validity of HH's systems...
And while I don't subscribe to the idea that Hal's system is as definitive as some have described, I do believe it could be a huge help to some. I believe that anything that helps you increase your precision and decrease the variables in how you approach the game are a plus. So if you use a system, such as Hal's, that helps you zero in on your objective -- a precise hit on the object ball -- more power to you.
To me, it's sort of like someone saying there are only three points on the vertical axis of the cue ball that you need to know for draw shots. Well, somewhat obviously, there are more, or if you prefer, an infinite number of hits on the cue ball to execute a draw shot. But, if formerly you were a player that executed your draw shot by "hitting the ball below center," using this "three point system" would dramatically increase your draw shot precision. And, by establishing these reference points, you can learn additional ones. The only problem I have with Hal's system, as describe here, is that it seems to claim there are just a handful of hits to learn. That's baloney, and you can slice it any way you want, but it's still baloney.
But in any case, I think it could be a powerful tool for those that choose to use it and could probably be used to make a very nice sandwich
Lou Figueroa
I think it could be a powerful tool for those that choose to use it and could probably be used to make a very nice sandwich
LOL
There I go again, picking on Hal...
pj
chgo
