My day with Hal Houle and his aiming system
- Thread starter Subsonic2u
- Start date
Yes it could. And there has certainly been no shortage of "mystery" surrounding these systems. From the people like me who do not have a readily available and easy explanation of why they work, to Hal's admonishment not to publish his systems, and also from the Hallelujah aspect of the results people get. I can't deny my own experience however and am enough of a player to know when I get better. When I say that learning this has made me a better then it's true. Nothing I read in a book or saw on a tape has had such an impact on my game. So even though I can't break it down and explain exactly why it works, I have to stick with it just does.[/QUOTE]
well, like I said, John, if it helps, mazel tov.
Lou Figueroa
well, like I said, John, if it helps, mazel tov.
Lou Figueroa
Scott Lee said:Pat...Your comments make you out to be a nit!
This was uncalled for.
I've already come on here and expressed my ideas on how to get out of a slump...and I've detailed everything else I teach, including SAM. If you're too lazy to find it, and too cheap to find out more one-on-one, then to heck with you! Why don't you stick a crowbar in your wallet, and take a lesson. Then you can come on here and tell EVERYONE all the secrets! LOL
Instead of making folks wade through your 1600 posts, why don't you just post a link? You probably know where it is, or can find it easier, than anyone else.
Lou Figueroa
Tempest in a Teapot
Thanks for all the help, guys. Looks like this isn't a new topic around here, and it seems to generate heat every time (we could use this in Chicago during the winter!).
The link posted by PKM (thanks) is very helpful - about 9 posts down on that page txplshrk posts some flash cards that he says are from the Cue Tech school and describe some of the central concepts of S.A.M. DISCLAIMERS: (1) I believe txplshrk, but can't verify that this is "official" Cue Tech teaching material. (2) These are flash cards, not a complete description, and maybe not even a complete set of flash cards.
I see no substantive difference between this brief description of S.A.M. and Hal's "6-angle system" that many of us have been familiar with (and questioned the claims of) for years, including Hal's claim that 6 angles (15, 30 and 45 degrees plus straight shots and thin cuts) are all that are needed to pocket every possible shot. But, surprisingly, it goes even further out on that limb than Hal does (to my knowledge), seeming to claim that those 6 angles are the only angles that *can* make a shot: "the only angles that will find a pocket are these six (6) REFERENCE points".
To be fair, the description emphasizes the word REFERENCE when talking about the 6 points (angles), but this bold central statement, obviously wrong from a geometry standpoint, is apparently intended to be the "take home message" from these cards, because no mention of adjustments from the 6 angles or what is intended by the word "reference" is to be found anywhere on the cards. Maybe it's on other cards not included in this post or maybe it's explained in the class - but the fact that this most central point of clarification isn't made upfront suggests to me that this description, like Hal's descriptions of his own system, avoids any suggestion of fallibility or inexactness in the use of these 6 angles.
As has been said before, this "sleight of hand" may be what makes the system useful to players who can feel overwhelmed by the possibility of infinite aiming choices, so I'm not saying it's inherently bad.
I only wonder why promoters of Hal's system and others like it feel they shouldn't discuss this aspect openly, especially when their "don't ask; don't tell" policy always creates such negative public reaction (take a look at the March 2007 thread this came from or any of the RSB threads on the topic over several years). At the very least, the promoters of this stuff should get some public relations advice.
I have nothing against Cue Tech, Scott, Randy, or Hal. I've spent time talking with Scott in person about his lessons and have always made positive comments about him, his knowledge and no-nonsense teaching style. He and Cue Tech seem to be cut from the same cloth in this way. Even if this is really Cue Tech's stuff, I haven't changed my positive view of the school or any of the teachers like Scott who tirelessly crisscross the country giving expert instruction and patient assistance to players who need it. They do an invaluable service to pool and its players, beginners and pros alike. In fact, I've always intended to buy some coaching from Scott and this only reminds me that I still want it - I hope he'll still take me up on it. This Hal/SAM stuff is a tiny part of that larger picture, and I hope it will one day become the topic of friendly, productive discussion and we'll all laugh about the unnecessary noise it used to create.
pj
chgo
Thanks for all the help, guys. Looks like this isn't a new topic around here, and it seems to generate heat every time (we could use this in Chicago during the winter!).
The link posted by PKM (thanks) is very helpful - about 9 posts down on that page txplshrk posts some flash cards that he says are from the Cue Tech school and describe some of the central concepts of S.A.M. DISCLAIMERS: (1) I believe txplshrk, but can't verify that this is "official" Cue Tech teaching material. (2) These are flash cards, not a complete description, and maybe not even a complete set of flash cards.
I see no substantive difference between this brief description of S.A.M. and Hal's "6-angle system" that many of us have been familiar with (and questioned the claims of) for years, including Hal's claim that 6 angles (15, 30 and 45 degrees plus straight shots and thin cuts) are all that are needed to pocket every possible shot. But, surprisingly, it goes even further out on that limb than Hal does (to my knowledge), seeming to claim that those 6 angles are the only angles that *can* make a shot: "the only angles that will find a pocket are these six (6) REFERENCE points".
To be fair, the description emphasizes the word REFERENCE when talking about the 6 points (angles), but this bold central statement, obviously wrong from a geometry standpoint, is apparently intended to be the "take home message" from these cards, because no mention of adjustments from the 6 angles or what is intended by the word "reference" is to be found anywhere on the cards. Maybe it's on other cards not included in this post or maybe it's explained in the class - but the fact that this most central point of clarification isn't made upfront suggests to me that this description, like Hal's descriptions of his own system, avoids any suggestion of fallibility or inexactness in the use of these 6 angles.
As has been said before, this "sleight of hand" may be what makes the system useful to players who can feel overwhelmed by the possibility of infinite aiming choices, so I'm not saying it's inherently bad.
I only wonder why promoters of Hal's system and others like it feel they shouldn't discuss this aspect openly, especially when their "don't ask; don't tell" policy always creates such negative public reaction (take a look at the March 2007 thread this came from or any of the RSB threads on the topic over several years). At the very least, the promoters of this stuff should get some public relations advice.
I have nothing against Cue Tech, Scott, Randy, or Hal. I've spent time talking with Scott in person about his lessons and have always made positive comments about him, his knowledge and no-nonsense teaching style. He and Cue Tech seem to be cut from the same cloth in this way. Even if this is really Cue Tech's stuff, I haven't changed my positive view of the school or any of the teachers like Scott who tirelessly crisscross the country giving expert instruction and patient assistance to players who need it. They do an invaluable service to pool and its players, beginners and pros alike. In fact, I've always intended to buy some coaching from Scott and this only reminds me that I still want it - I hope he'll still take me up on it. This Hal/SAM stuff is a tiny part of that larger picture, and I hope it will one day become the topic of friendly, productive discussion and we'll all laugh about the unnecessary noise it used to create.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
tap tap tap.
I'm preparing a little video type thing about aiming similar to what I did for my discussion on draw.
I am not an expert on aiming and aiming systems and I don't want to present myself that way. Instead I'd like to provide a common framework for discussion through which we might use the same words the same way and have some of the same pictures in mind when we discuss this stuff. Though there are many many different "aiming systems," there's really not a lot of variation in what you can do to get a reasonably productive aim. That means many of these "systems" are invented and then reinvented many times over, with some detail that is different or some terminology that is different.
Anyway I want to point out that substantive discussion is what we're here for. This is not a chat-room. It's an archived on-topic discussion forum. That means like the tongue probing the small chip in one tooth, we spend the most time on the areas where we disagree. That doesn't mean we don't have a lot of nice smooth teeth!
What I'm trying to say is it's perfectly possible to disagree with someone here, even disagree vehemently, on an issue, and still hold that person in high esteem and agree with that person on far more things that there's no need to talk about.
U must b talking about one of Hal's old systems. What Hal taught me was one aim on all shots. No 6 points, no 15, 30, 45 degrees, etc. No feel, no trust and it will happen, no vodoo, no magic. It is aiming, pure and simple. Just one aim point, on every shot, every time. Exactly the same aim, no deviation, no matter where the balls are on the table. U pick the pocket to shoot at, and use his aiming system.
Charlie
Charlie
Patrick Johnson said:
while im by no means an expert on SAM, i have been using it very successfully for 2 years, so i cant vouch for why it works, i just know it does. One thing on the angles and the geometry, i too thought it didnt make sense how there are only those 6 angles (which is what i was taught), but then what did make sense was the fact that the pockets are twice as big (or almost twice as big in most cases) as the ball, which allows some degree of error on the aiming and still make the ball (i believe randy said it was 4 to 6 degrees allowable error). Im not here to debate the geometry, just offering that up as a tidbit that might help it make sense if its correct.
i must say, a thread with so many posts must have something interesting.
i read most posts, and my curiosity is triggered just because im curious and open minded person.
now i have some questions. many systems have been discused (not in detail) but people refer to them, many times on the forum.
now im not a shortstop or A level player, and i havent got any lessons of a pro. but living in europe i have a question.
i think many can agree that the germans poolplayers and english snookerplayers are part of the best potters in the world. i wouldnt want to make a poting-contest vs sulivan, white, or ortmann, hohmann, ralf, etc...
i dont think europe has people like ralf, hal, etc that teach systems. I havent folowed a german training camp so i can't be sure, but i havent heard of any magic system in europe. (maybe they want to keep it secret, or maybe there just isnt)
what i do know, that correct body aligment, repeatable strokes, natural rhitme, concentration leads to consistency, and i'm sure that a player who takes training seriously with no system, has just AS much chance to pocket a ball then a player with a system has....
if there is a system, either the secret is VERY well kept in europe, or we don't know of any systems. still europe has as good and many players as the states have..
im curious and ready to spend time on learning the system, im open minded, and ive got the time to test it, but i see europeans with no system get just as good results as players with a system.
i'd like to resume it this way:
this conversation reminds me of religion vs science debates.
and believing in a system , and training the system is probably 95% of the system. the actual math/sience behind it, is only 5%.
if u train a system 24/7 u will get better... but hard to define if you got better because of the system, or because you trained for 24/7. the main part is, that you DO get better, and we always get better.
even by training something BAD, you still get better, because your brain now knows what NOT to do, aka he knows WHAT to do. no matter if it works or not, ANYTHING (good OR bad) will get you better, then sitting down and doing nothing. hence why ANY system works, because even a system that doesnt works, will still teach you things.
ps im a european player, i'll never get the chance to learn ANY system (financial, traveling distance, time) but i do know that if I would spend twice the time im spending now on the table, i would get better. thats it the ONLY 100% truth.
i read most posts, and my curiosity is triggered just because im curious and open minded person.
now i have some questions. many systems have been discused (not in detail) but people refer to them, many times on the forum.
now im not a shortstop or A level player, and i havent got any lessons of a pro. but living in europe i have a question.
i think many can agree that the germans poolplayers and english snookerplayers are part of the best potters in the world. i wouldnt want to make a poting-contest vs sulivan, white, or ortmann, hohmann, ralf, etc...
i dont think europe has people like ralf, hal, etc that teach systems. I havent folowed a german training camp so i can't be sure, but i havent heard of any magic system in europe. (maybe they want to keep it secret, or maybe there just isnt)
what i do know, that correct body aligment, repeatable strokes, natural rhitme, concentration leads to consistency, and i'm sure that a player who takes training seriously with no system, has just AS much chance to pocket a ball then a player with a system has....
if there is a system, either the secret is VERY well kept in europe, or we don't know of any systems. still europe has as good and many players as the states have..
im curious and ready to spend time on learning the system, im open minded, and ive got the time to test it, but i see europeans with no system get just as good results as players with a system.
i'd like to resume it this way:
this conversation reminds me of religion vs science debates.
and believing in a system , and training the system is probably 95% of the system. the actual math/sience behind it, is only 5%.
if u train a system 24/7 u will get better... but hard to define if you got better because of the system, or because you trained for 24/7. the main part is, that you DO get better, and we always get better.
even by training something BAD, you still get better, because your brain now knows what NOT to do, aka he knows WHAT to do. no matter if it works or not, ANYTHING (good OR bad) will get you better, then sitting down and doing nothing. hence why ANY system works, because even a system that doesnt works, will still teach you things.
ps im a european player, i'll never get the chance to learn ANY system (financial, traveling distance, time) but i do know that if I would spend twice the time im spending now on the table, i would get better. thats it the ONLY 100% truth.
Patrick Johnson said:
Pat...I'm not exactly difficult to find! LOL I have always had constructive discussions with you about anything regarding pool, whether we were playing or not. I don't even mind if you want to disagree...I just take offense when you try to paint a picture of us 'keeping secrets' that can only be answered by paying for a lesson. We can give you every little detail in writing, but it still doesn't have anywhere near the same effect as having a one-on-one opportunity to learn first hand. I've offered to work with you on numerous occasions. The ball's in your court!
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Last edited:
charlie
One aim point, the same every time, and you can't or won't try to describe it beyond that? We are 9 pages into this discussion, with lots of references, lots of thread searching having been done ... seems you would try to clarify what you are referring to just a little bit more.Subsonic2u said:
another short thing im thinking:
IF you miss a shot, 99% chance (unless you had a kick on contact) something wrong happened before the contact.
so what is the point of finding the right contactpoint,if 99% of shots are missed before the ball made contact with the contactpoint?
99% of your concentration should be on the path , not on the contactpoint itself.
(solly having no idea of hal's system specify's you to aim at a contact point)
IF you miss a shot, 99% chance (unless you had a kick on contact) something wrong happened before the contact.
so what is the point of finding the right contactpoint,if 99% of shots are missed before the ball made contact with the contactpoint?
99% of your concentration should be on the path , not on the contactpoint itself.
(solly having no idea of hal's system specify's you to aim at a contact point)
Subsonic2u said:
I am not sure on other aiming aspects as you noted, but, I will have to admit, I am thoroughly convinced that a half-ball hit, is a majority of all the shots on a table. I have been using this myself as I stumbled on this aiming point over five years ago on my own and have been passing this information along to others since that time.
This came about from the system whereas that "most" banks that are "back-banked" into the pocket are half-ball hits. I extended this to what other shots on a table may carry this same formula.
I was surprised though that Cue-Tech rates it as high in percentage value as they do, (90%). I thought it was lower.
This is from your initial thread post
Subsonic2u said:
My only question to you is, How do you properly line up a shot to be made in a pocket, if you do not know where the pocket is in relationship to the table? I am not questioning the aiming method, as I am not thoroughly knowledgeable on all aspects of the system yet, but you have to have a reference area to line up to, correct?
Yeah, it's been in my court for years now - LOL. The problem is that I can't make appointments very far in advance and when I see you I always forget to ask you to warn me when you'll be passing through Chicago next. If you do that (say within a week of coming) I'll probably be able to set something up with you. Probably more focused on stance/stroke than on aiming. I'm going to PM you my email address now.
pj
chgo
klockdoc said:I am not sure on other aiming aspects as you noted, but, I will have to admit, I am thoroughly convinced that a half-ball hit, is a majority of all the shots on a table. I have been using this myself as I stumbled on this aiming point over five years ago on my own and have been passing this information along to others since that time.
This came about from the system whereas that "most" banks that are "back-banked" into the pocket are half-ball hits. I extended this to what other shots on a table may carry this same formula.
I was surprised though that Cue-Tech rates it as high in percentage value as they do, (90%). I thought it was lower.
This is from your initial thread post
My only question to you is, How do you properly line up a shot to be made in a pocket, if you do not know where the pocket is in relationship to the table? I am not questioning the aiming method, as I am not thoroughly knowledgeable on all aspects of the system yet, but you have to have a reference area to line up to, correct?
Are you reffering to a 1/2 ball AIM or a 1/2 Ball HIT????Sorry...randyg
John Barton
New member
Solartje said:i must say, a thread with so many posts must have something interesting.
i read most posts, and my curiosity is triggered just because im curious and open minded person.
now i have some questions. many systems have been discused (not in detail) but people refer to them, many times on the forum.
now im not a shortstop or A level player, and i havent got any lessons of a pro. but living in europe i have a question.
i think many can agree that the germans poolplayers and english snookerplayers are part of the best potters in the world. i wouldnt want to make a poting-contest vs sulivan, white, or ortmann, hohmann, ralf, etc...
i dont think europe has people like ralf, hal, etc that teach systems. I havent folowed a german training camp so i can't be sure, but i havent heard of any magic system in europe. (maybe they want to keep it secret, or maybe there just isnt)
what i do know, that correct body aligment, repeatable strokes, natural rhitme, concentration leads to consistency, and i'm sure that a player who takes training seriously with no system, has just AS much chance to pocket a ball then a player with a system has....
if there is a system, either the secret is VERY well kept in europe, or we don't know of any systems. still europe has as good and many players as the states have..
im curious and ready to spend time on learning the system, im open minded, and ive got the time to test it, but i see europeans with no system get just as good results as players with a system.
i'd like to resume it this way:
this conversation reminds me of religion vs science debates.
and believing in a system , and training the system is probably 95% of the system. the actual math/sience behind it, is only 5%.
if u train a system 24/7 u will get better... but hard to define if you got better because of the system, or because you trained for 24/7. the main part is, that you DO get better, and we always get better.
even by training something BAD, you still get better, because your brain now knows what NOT to do, aka he knows WHAT to do. no matter if it works or not, ANYTHING (good OR bad) will get you better, then sitting down and doing nothing. hence why ANY system works, because even a system that doesnt works, will still teach you things.
ps im a european player, i'll never get the chance to learn ANY system (financial, traveling distance, time) but i do know that if I would spend twice the time im spending now on the table, i would get better. thats it the ONLY 100% truth.
Actually, German players at least do learn differing methods of aim depending on who they are learning from. In Belgium you can learn all about kicking systems from mid to high level billiard players.
In England some people teach ball coverage methods of aiming - this is a quarter ball cover shot, half ball, 3/4 etc... - you can find that information in books on Snooker.
And European players have come to the United States and trained with US instructors like Jerry Brieseth and Bert Kinister to name a few. There are several BCA Certified Instructors in Germany as far as I know.
Stop calling it a magic system. All of these methods are simply different than the widely published Ghost Ball method of aiming. They work. You can try them yourself as they are published and there are plenty of people who will help you online.
I lived in Germany for ten years, I played on the Oberliga. I coached young players and provided for Pros to come and coach my teammates. We discussed and debated and most importantly - TRIED - all methods we came across and everyone kept the ones that worked best for them.
When you get to talking with the good players you will quickly find that almost all of them have slightly different takes on what aiming is. From "it just comes naturally" to "I aim using three tips to the left and the reflection of the light". And this is in Europe as well as in the USA. The one thing that ALL good players have in common is that when they are down on the shot their cues are on the same line no matter HOW they got there.
Bustamante busted the myth that there is ONE WAY to aim. Part of the legend of Django in Germany is that he was able to bust a lot of great German players not only because of superior play but also because he came to the table with a wild stroke and looked as if he was aiming somewhere out the door. He showed the Germans that one does not have to be like a robot to play top level pool nor does one have to aim in one particular way. I was there - I got to watch it happen.
Bob Jewett said:
Bob,
George isn't very familiar with Greenleaf other than by reputation,
tho the rep was real-time rather than 50 years on.
HE did play Greenleaf one time, an exhibition match, late
in Greenleaf's career. He was somewhere in the South working
a dog show and Greenleaf was in town for the exhibition, so
George was elected oponent-de-jouir. Saddly, once again
Greenleaf was his usual under-the-influence-and-then-some
and didn't make much of a showing.
Dale Pierce
That's What I'm Known For-My Brainstorming & 147 I.Q.
Mike Page waxes poetic:
Anyway I want to point out that substantive discussion is what we're here for. This is not a chat-room. It's an archived on-topic discussion forum. That means like the tongue probing the small chip in one tooth, we spend the most time on the areas where we disagree. That doesn't mean we don't have a lot of nice smooth teeth!
What I'm trying to say is it's perfectly possible to disagree with someone here, even disagree vehemently, on an issue, and still hold that person in high esteem and agree with that person on far more things that there's no need to talk about.
I think that this is the point that I should jump in and offer my contribution to aiming.... (it's loosely based on Hal Houle's system)
It goes like this: You could place an object ball on the table along with the cueball and have a shot at three different pockets. One shot would be a 15 degree shot, while the other two would be 30 degrees and 45 degrees, respectively.
NOW, because the angle of the table is 90 DEGREES (where the sides meet the end), all three angles (15,30 & 45 degrees) are divisible into the 90 degrees of the table. SO, you pick your pocket and shoot REAL hard and if you miss your intended pocket, eventually the object ball will find the 90 degree table angle and drop into one of the six pockets on the table. I mean, how can it NOT find a pocket ?
VIOLA ! Game over..... imo
Doug
( I'm not getting any younger, so I thought that I should share this with you all, before I pass on....... that's why I get the big bucks )
Edited to add: You see, I'm not just a comedian. I have a serious side TOO.
Let them (the naysayers) eat cake.... imo
.
Mike Page waxes poetic:
Anyway I want to point out that substantive discussion is what we're here for. This is not a chat-room. It's an archived on-topic discussion forum. That means like the tongue probing the small chip in one tooth, we spend the most time on the areas where we disagree. That doesn't mean we don't have a lot of nice smooth teeth!
What I'm trying to say is it's perfectly possible to disagree with someone here, even disagree vehemently, on an issue, and still hold that person in high esteem and agree with that person on far more things that there's no need to talk about.
JoeyA. adds said:
I think that this is the point that I should jump in and offer my contribution to aiming.... (it's loosely based on Hal Houle's system)
It goes like this: You could place an object ball on the table along with the cueball and have a shot at three different pockets. One shot would be a 15 degree shot, while the other two would be 30 degrees and 45 degrees, respectively.
NOW, because the angle of the table is 90 DEGREES (where the sides meet the end), all three angles (15,30 & 45 degrees) are divisible into the 90 degrees of the table. SO, you pick your pocket and shoot REAL hard and if you miss your intended pocket, eventually the object ball will find the 90 degree table angle and drop into one of the six pockets on the table. I mean, how can it NOT find a pocket ?
VIOLA ! Game over..... imo
Doug
( I'm not getting any younger, so I thought that I should share this with you all, before I pass on....... that's why I get the big bucks )
Edited to add: You see, I'm not just a comedian. I have a serious side TOO.
Let them (the naysayers) eat cake.... imo
.
Last edited:
My only question to you is, How do you properly line up a shot to be made in a pocket, if you do not know where the pocket is in relationship to the table? I am not questioning the aiming method, as I am not thoroughly knowledgeable on all aspects of the system yet, but you have to have a reference area to line up to, correct?
I may b saying more than I should, but u asked nicely and have a legitiment question.
U choose what pocket u want to shoot in. U do not have to try to memorize the pocket's location or anything else. U are not lining up on the pocket. From that point on the location of the pocket is irrelevent. U could take a piece of cardboard and cover that portion of the table (which I understand is what Hal used to do when teaching). People always said that Hal was simply remembering where the pocket was. Wrong! He didn't care because it didn't matter. U are aiming the Q and the OB. Then u aim according to Hal's system and shoot. The ball will go into that pocket, PROVIDING u remember to remove the piece of cardboard first.
Charlie
I may b saying more than I should, but u asked nicely and have a legitiment question.
U choose what pocket u want to shoot in. U do not have to try to memorize the pocket's location or anything else. U are not lining up on the pocket. From that point on the location of the pocket is irrelevent. U could take a piece of cardboard and cover that portion of the table (which I understand is what Hal used to do when teaching). People always said that Hal was simply remembering where the pocket was. Wrong! He didn't care because it didn't matter. U are aiming the Q and the OB. Then u aim according to Hal's system and shoot. The ball will go into that pocket, PROVIDING u remember to remove the piece of cardboard first.
Charlie