System .v.s. Experience

[bbb]

i would put my money on the person with the best mechanics
the hamb player would know where to hit the ball to make it
if his mechanics werent rock solid he could miss under pressure
the system player would know where to hit the object ball to make the ball because of his system
if his mechanics were rock solid he would deliver the cue /cueball to the target
as far as winning a game
i would go for the one with the most experience

my post got overlooked...
your thoughts

 

[The_JV]

I agree completely.

Learning is subjective, which means experience is subjective when it comes to what a player learns through his or her own experience.

Let's take two beginner players as an example. We give each player some thorough lessons on the fundamentals of stroke, stance, etc... Once the players develop their fundamentals they move onto aiming. (I realize this is not typically how we learn to play pool. Usually we learn everything at the same time, working on our fundamentals while also trying to learn how to aim. And that's probably why it takes so long to smooth it all out into a well-rounded game. But for this example it's neccessary to start each player off with everything equal as far as the physical mechanics of playing pool.)

Aiming: One player decides to use a system that allows him/her to know where to aim. The other player elects to use the traditional HAMB method of estimating ghostballs or contact points or fractional aim lines.

The system player spends 6 months hitting 100 shots per day (aiming where they know to aim based on the system), and they build excellent aiming skills through countless hours of repetition during that 6 months.

The non-system player also hits 100 balls per day (aiming where they think they need to aim based on a beginner's estimations or guesswork).
It will likely take a much longer time period before this player reaches the same shot-making skill level as the system player. It's because the system player starts building positive shot experiences and repetition almost immediately, while the non-system player has to gain enough experience to sort through the trial and error of first missing more balls than they're making. And finally, after they've gained some experience, they start making better estimations.

A couple of years down the road, if both players continue to practice, they will probably be pretty equal when it comes to pocketing balls. The only difference is the amount of time each invested in developing that element of their game.

Great assessment... Here's my additional .02 for the HAMB guy.

The system user gains success quickly because he's doing what he's told to do. May not have a full grasp of why what he is doing is working, but it works none the less.

The HAMB guy misses, makes an adjustment and misses, makes an adjustment and drops the shot. The HAMB player now has gained knowledge as to how adjustments and their magnitude alters the shot. IMO, he now has knowledge that the system user doesn't glean from just following orders.

 

[BC21]

Great assessment... Here's my additional .02 for the HAMB guy.

The system user gains success quickly because he's doing what he's told to do. May not have a full grasp of why what he is doing is working, but it works none the less.

The HAMB guy misses, makes an adjustment and misses, makes an adjustment and drops the shot. The HAMB player now has gained knowledge as to how adjustments and their magnitude alters the shot. IMO, he now has knowledge that the system user doesn't glean from just following orders.

Good point. I see how that extra bit of knowledge can become more helpful when adjusting for the effects of spin and learning how to play position. Definitely an advantage there.

Anyway, I believe all players, system or no system, more or less utilize the HAMB method to gain consistency. I mean, table time is inevitable if you want to improve, but I don't think a player needs to hit million balls. That's sort of like the 10,000 hour rule for developing skills and talents. Some people can master things in 1000 hours, while others still struggle after 20,000 hours.

As far as aiming, I doubt any player is 100% system-oriented, because experience itself involves gathering information through our senses that our brain processes and uses to build the networks and synaptic pathways that allow us to perform. We just may not realize the fact that there's more going on in the learning/building process than what we are conciously aware of. And the more you do something, including a systematic aiming process, the more it becomes ingrained in the subconscious. And from then on it's really just a process of association and memory recall.

Sorry to write so much, but I find the topic very interesting, and I've been studying and researching for several years now how we learn and develop skills. It's fascinating stuff.

 

[BC21]

i would put my money on the person with the best mechanics
the hamb player would know where to hit the ball to make it
if his mechanics werent rock solid he could miss under pressure
the system player would know where to hit the object ball to make the ball because of his system
if his mechanics were rock solid he would deliver the cue /cueball to the target
as far as winning a game
i would go for the one with the most experience

I would put my money with yours.

 

[bbb]

this has nothing to do with "potting" balls but is relevant
i kick and play position based on kicking systems
i play several balls above my speed in that area
it taught me how to get around the table much quicker that if i did it by HAMB
but every table is alittle different and there are "corrections" to adjust to how a table play
since i have been playing a while
i can look at a kick via the numbers and my "gut" tells me i have to fudge it
i have learned to trust " the force"
so to answer the question
i would bet on the system player that has hit a million balls.....

 

[Imac007]

So it's big match day. Would you rather be the guy who's been playing for a couple of years using a system (of your choice), or the guy with nothing but HAMB under his belt.

The system guy.
A system is an organized set of procedures combined to produce a particular outcome.
HAMB is an aphorism that says if you do something long enough you will learn something.
The outcome is specified in the expanded “hit a million balls”.
There is no intent in that statement other than hitting.
Add intent and then you can add trial and error at least.
In Outliers, a book by Malcolm Gladwell, he put a number on HAMB, 10,000 hours.
That number was based on research by Anders Ericsson, a cognitive psychologist who determined that on average expert performance required at least that much intensive experience to excel.
Gladwell took the research out of context according to Ericsson himself, saying it’s only one of many criteria for excellence, a starting point.
Paul McCartney, of the Beatles, who Gladwell cited as an example, echoed Ericsson.
He said there were dozens of bands in Hamburg, their HAMB venue, that put in the hours but it didn’t incubate their success.
https://www.goodlifeproject.com/podcast/anders-ericsson/

 

[duckie]

What makes you think that HAMB isnt a organized way to practice?

Why is it assumed that HAMB is just hitting balls around with no purpose, no goals?

 

[duckie]

Oh, a system will not maintain a high skill level once it is achieved.

 

[The_JV]

What makes you think that HAMB isnt a organized way to practice?

Why is it assumed that HAMB is just hitting balls around with no purpose, no goals?

Right on....

I agree that most have just assumed that HAMB must be the polar opposite of the organized (system) efforts of a system user. It's not, not by a long shot. Curious how some are defaulting to that line of thinking though.

I'll always consider myself a HAMB guy in the world of pool. ..and I can tell you, I "practice" with extreme purpose. If I miss something the circumstances are dissected until I fully understand what happened, and then I'll prove out the correction for it.

 

[The_JV]

The system guy.
A system is an organized set of procedures combined to produce a particular outcome.
HAMB is an aphorism that says if you do something long enough you will learn something.
The outcome is specified in the expanded “hit a million balls”.
There is no intent in that statement other than hitting.
Add intent and then you can add trial and error at least.

Thanks for jumping in....

We've had a brief discussion already about the HAMB approach, and the tendency for some to think the player is just some whirling dervish firing his cue at random moments. The thing that needs to be focused on for sake of the conversation is that the dervish is actual you. So if employing only the HAMB method of learning how to aim meant that your efforts would be completely unfocused with zero intent, then fine. Somehow I doubt that's true.

 

[The_JV]

this has nothing to do with "potting" balls but is relevant
i kick and play position based on kicking systems
i play several balls above my speed in that area
it taught me how to get around the table much quicker that if i did it by HAMB
but every table is alittle different and there are "corrections" to adjust to how a table play
since i have been playing a while
i can look at a kick via the numbers and my "gut" tells me i have to fudge it
i have learned to trust " the force"
so to answer the question
i would bet on the system player that has hit a million balls.....

I kick based on HAMB/feel in combination with a decent grasp of geometry. Probably the worst way to do it, but I do have some solid success.

Kicking would be the one aspect of the game wherein I would consider adopting a system.

 

[The_JV]

As far as aiming, I doubt any player is 100% system-oriented, because experience itself involves gathering information through our senses that our brain processes and uses to build the networks and synaptic pathways that allow us to perform. We just may not realize the fact that there's more going on in the learning/building process than what we are conciously aware of.

Completely agree...

The above is why I don't necessarily poopoo on systems, but don't sign on to them being the end all to be all.

Despite what some of the pundits will claim. I firmly believe that systems at best get you 90% of the way there and then subconscious HAMB experience takes over when the minute adjustments are made. Hell, I've had 'discussions' on AZB on just the notion of these adjustments...lol.

This is why I would lean toward the HAMB player in my example. In the end, it all boils down to HAMB.

 

[BC21]

Right on....

I agree that most have just assumed that HAMB must be the polar opposite of the organized (system) efforts of a system user. It's not, not by a long shot. Curious how some are defaulting to that line of thinking though.

I'll always consider myself a HAMB guy in the world of pool. ..and I can tell you, I "practice" with extreme purpose. If I miss something the circumstances are dissected until I fully understand what happened, and then I'll prove out the correction for it.

There are millions of pool players in the US alone. My local BCA 8ball league has a little over 100 players. It's not very big. I know all the players, and only about half of us actually practice. The others just show up on league night and play their games, and on weekends some of them might go out to the poolhall or to a bar and have a few drinks and play a few games with friends. They can do this for 10 or 15 or 20 years, playing a few games every week, and easily hit a million balls in that time. But they never practice or apply deliberate efforts to learn, so their HAMB experience has not provided impressive results. These players remain in the lower ranks throughout their entire pool playing experience.

That, in my opinion, defines the bulk of pool players, at least in the US. We (you and I and many others here) are the exceptions. Pros are the exceptions. Anyone who actually goes to a table alone to figure things out, in order to learn and improve their skills, are exceptions. We actually make HAMB work for us, because simply playing a lot and hitting a million balls isn't good enough, and those lifetime average and below average players are proof of that.

 

[cookie man]

Great assessment... Here's my additional .02 for the HAMB guy.

The system user gains success quickly because he's doing what he's told to do. May not have a full grasp of why what he is doing is working, but it works none the less.

The HAMB guy misses, makes an adjustment and misses, makes an adjustment and drops the shot. The HAMB player now has gained knowledge as to how adjustments and their magnitude alters the shot. IMO, he now has knowledge that the system user doesn't glean from just following orders.

So you think a system user doesn't learn from his misses. This tells me you have little to no experience with systems.

 

[cookie man]

Oh, a system will not maintain a high skill level once it is achieved.

Oh, yes it will, and that has been proven. I'll use Brian Parks as my example.

 

[chefjeff]

Ok so you had a foundation in HAMB and then introduced a system. I'm a little fuzzy on whether or not you managed any gains once you became confident in the system.

Regardless... and I don't know if this is a realistic request, but imagine you didn't have HAMB under your belt prior to the system. Do you think the results of play only with the system would have made you a better player, compared to only the HAMB version of yourself..?

Yes, if I had had the system before my journey of 1,000,000 balls hit, I'd have played better sooner and for longer. Wasting time is ok, but not if you want to be a top player now.

A system is a way to shortcut your eye/brain/hand coordination. It is great for new players so they can start potting balls asap. It is great for old timers like me as my eyes go to hell, my hands shake more, etc. ANY advantage I can muster negates the aging effects somewhat, and if still young, any aiming advantage is, well, a good thing.

When young, it seems so easy and simple. As a guy ages, simple things tend to become complicated because simply doing it has ceased to work.

I give thumbs up to any aiming system if it helps; if it doesn't, try something else.



Jeff Livingston

 

[The_JV]

So you think a system user doesn't learn from his misses. This tells me you have little to no experience with systems.

I've said repeatedly that I don't have experience with systems, so there really wasn't any sleuth like deduction on your part here.

I 'think' that a system user has a preordained method for developing his aim/shot. If that's not the case then I'm struggling to understand what a system is. If a system is followed 'correctly' and all other variables are excluded, should not the subsequent shot result in a potted ball...? So assuming my stroke mechanics are fine, and that the presumption is I followed the system instructions correctly, how do I compute a miss...?

 

[chefjeff]

i would put my money on the person with the best mechanics
the hamb player would know where to hit the ball to make it
if his mechanics werent rock solid he could miss under pressure
the system player would know where to hit the object ball to make the ball because of his system
if his mechanics were rock solid he would deliver the cue /cueball to the target
as far as winning a game
i would go for the one with the most experience

You asked me about my aiming system. Here goes, in spite of my reluctance to post any system here...

I have 6 planes of aim for about 95% of my shots. The 5% outside those 6 are found mostly via the parallel thingy, usually very thin cuts.

Straight on is zero....center of tip is at center of object ball and through the center of the cue ball.
Aim plane #1 The side of the cue tip at the center of ob through the center of cb.
Aim plane #2 is the only one without a specific spot to aim, that is, aimed halfway between the center of the ob and its edge.
Aim plane #3 is the outside edge of the cue at the edge of the ob.
Aim plane #4 is the halfball shot that everyone should know regardless of systems, where the center of the tip is at the edge of the ob.
Aim plane #5 is the inside edge of the tip at the edge of the object ball.

Those will make 95% of shots. Only 5 places of aim!...6 counting the straight on shot.

Learning how to shoot only 6 shots takes much less time than hitting a million balls. It also then really simplifies the playing process so that allows more time and energy to be used for strategy, pattern play, etc., a double win. It also can intimidate an opponent as you easily pot a ball in the middle of the table that requires a so-called back cut, for example. Just determine the aiming number and fire away: plunk!



OK, now take shots at me! Don't use an aiming system, though.


Jeff Livingston

 

[The_JV]

Yes, if I had had the system before my journey of 1,000,000 balls hit, I'd have played better sooner and for longer. Wasting time is ok, but not if you want to be a top player now.

A system is a way to shortcut your eye/brain/hand coordination. It is great for new players so they can start potting balls asap. It is great for old timers like me as my eyes go to hell, my hands shake more, etc. ANY advantage I can muster negates the aging effects somewhat, and if still young, any aiming advantage is, well, a good thing.

When young, it seems so easy and simple. As a guy ages, simple things tend to become complicated because simply doing it has ceased to work.

I give thumbs up to any aiming system if it helps; if it doesn't, try something else.



Jeff Livingston

That's pretty much my take on achieving success sooner with a system. That isn't really the comparison we're trying to draw against HAMB though.

I'm 100% willing to concede that a system user will accelerate faster. What I'm curious about is whether or not the short table time it takes to achieve proficiency in performing a system offsets the experience one would gain by HAMB.

Becoming proficient in performing a task (system) doesn't mean you're performing it subconsciously. It just simply means you are following the steps in the correct order, and performing them as described. It also doesn't mean you're achieving a high potting success rate, just that you're doing what you're told to do. That's the wrinkle, and where I think the HAMB approach has the advantage.

 

[The_JV]

You asked me about my aiming system. Here goes, in spite of my reluctance to post any system here...

I have 6 planes of aim for about 95% of my shots. The 5% outside those 6 are found mostly via the parallel thingy, usually very thin cuts.

Straight on is zero....center of tip is at center of object ball and through the center of the cue ball.
Aim plane #1 The side of the cue tip at the center of ob through the center of cb.
Aim plane #2 is the only one without a specific spot to aim, that is, aimed halfway between the center of the ob and its edge.
Aim plane #3 is the outside edge of the cue at the edge of the ob.
Aim plane #4 is the halfball shot that everyone should know regardless of systems, where the center of the tip is at the edge of the ob.
Aim plane #5 is the inside edge of the tip at the edge of the object ball.

Those will make 95% of shots. Only 5 places of aim!...6 counting the straight on shot.

Learning how to shoot only 6 shots takes much less time than hitting a million balls. It also then really simplifies the playing process so that allows more time and energy to be used for strategy, pattern play, etc., a double win. It also can intimidate an opponent as you easily pot a ball in the middle of the table that requires a so-called back cut, for example. Just determine the aiming number and fire away: plunk!



OK, now take shots at me! Don't use an aiming system, though.


Jeff Livingston

Thanks for posting it. Even though it's not on topic

So if I follow what you're doing. All the "aim planes" are with a center CB strike, but the cue is pivoted to so that the tip is aimed at the specific spot on the OB...?

If I've got that right. How do you then compensate of CB english..? Is the amount of off center aim on the CB, applied as a +/- to the OB aim...?