Hi Monte:
A couple things:
1. You seem to me to be a level-headed guy. I wouldn't use the "flat-earther" analogy, for that is not only a religious-extremist point of view, but is also the tact that "ENGLISH" used in his "anti-pendulum stroke" anti-instructor rants. As per the "$200 for a diploma" thread, we all know what happened with that (we won't be hearing from him for quite a while), and I don't think you want to associate yourself with that off-the-charts extremist analogy. The world has *enough* extremists -- people who can't distinguish between varying shades of gray and instead cling to either the "100% black" or "100% white" signposts. Given the fact that it takes only a modicum of effort to "see" those shades of gray, I just don't see you as one of those lemmings who clings to a signpost extreme because "it's easier."
2. I'm late to this thread, but I'm gathering someone said something about Hal Houle "leaving things out of the explanation of his systems on purpose." Sort of like a
Loss Leader, but in knowledge-sharing form. Like Lou says (and I know neither of these guys, except on here), I don't think Hal was/is that type. He gave me the impression that he really, truly, honestly believes in and stands behind his systems, and wanted *everyone* to know about them and use them. Using
Loss Leader tactics would be counterproductive to that goal, because Loss Leader tactics are used for
financial gain only.
3. You sing the praises of Stan Shuffett, and rightfully so -- this is a guy who's done an incredible amount for the understanding of pool execution by focusing on the aiming aspect, and furthering Hal's systems. However -- and this is a HUGE "however" -- you need to remember the "furthering" aspect. That is to say, Stan himself is still making discoveries, adding things, discovering / coming up with exceptions to the "rules," etc. -- and coming out with a new DVD to show and share the progress he's making in defining the system. In other words, CTE/Pro-1 is an airplane that is still being built while in flight. It is far, FAR from being a "de facto" standard as you seem to cheerlead.
4. Remember that pool is only one of the various cueing sports in the world today. Snooker is the top cue sport by both numbers and prize monies, and I'll go out on a limb and say
none of its top-flight (or even just merely accomplished) players use any exotic aiming system like pivot-based aiming (e.g. CTE/Pro-1). And if you compare the playing ability of today's top-flight/accomplished players to yesteryear's players, you'll see that the sheer execution level of today's players has increased over those of yesteryear. In other words, I'd pitch Steven Hendry, or Ronnie O'Sullivan, or Judd Trump, against *any* of yesteryear's players like Joe Davis, Jimmy White, Cliff Thorburn, etc. when they were in their prime. This didn't happen because these new players "found a new way to aim." Nope, the increased skillset came through better understanding of the science of playing the game (i.e. break building) and most importantly, of better fundamentals. Today's snooker players just have better form, and cue better than yesteryear's players. That is what made the difference. And oh yes, talent always comes into play here as well.
Pool will need to have a renaissance like this as well. Aiming is important, yes, but it's not the thing that will suddenly set one player apart from the other. The one with better [practiced] fundamentals will, in the end, prevail. And yes, we know the argument of "what good does having perfect fundamentals do if you can't aim correctly." That is a non-sequitur, because good fundamentals means practice. The more regimented the practice and focus on delivering the cue ball where you intend, the more you hone in, and the more honed in you are, the more accurate your aim. The aim part fixes itself, as long as you practice some kind of system -- whether that be ghostball, fractional aiming, back-of-ball [snooker's "aiming system" if you want to call it that], or the pivot-based aiming systems. In other words, horse (fundamentals) before the cart (aiming).
Just wanted to lean in on this a little,
-Sean
. Reminds me of a true story from my army days of someone stepping on a landmine from ww2. Luckily it was corroded and the explosives had been compromized. It went off but did almost no damage. To this day I don't know if this guy was mostly lucky or unlucky? :shrug::
