What do you aim at?

[Koop]

I'll tell you folks what I think. I've been waiting. There have been 2000 reads on this thread. I was going to complain that none of the people out there that agree with me had the balls to come in hear and back me up on this. They just sat on there asses and got entertained by me being in this thread getting beat up by a half dozen people.

Changed my mind about that. That just couldn't be the case. So, I must be wrong. I mean that. Sorry to have bothered you all. Take care and good luck.

Hey Captain,

I hope you don't think I was jumping your shit because I wasn't. Just challenging your argument, that's all.
I would however recommend calling Hal and speaking with him. It may or may not be your cup of tea but I guarantee you will enjoy the conversation. He really is a great guy. Give it a shot, you may be pleasantly surprised.

Regards,
Koop

 

[Colin Colenso]

Then we are at an impasse. No way can you work things out off the table. If working things out on paper worked, then we'd never have to shoot a single shot, we'd simply draw out a ghost ball, hand it to our opponent and say, "there you go, I would make this shot like this. You lose."

This is a very result orientationg game. I've been saying all along that there is an optics issue in aiming. You are drawing things geometrically correct in 2D. The world is 3D with real optical issues.

You cannot work out this system on paper. You are just giving yourself false proof. If this was simply a case of disproving this system geometrically on paper, as a degreed engineer, I would have abandoned these systems before taking a single shot. But I didn't, and I would think the results should speak for themselves. Balls go in the hole, and my opponents are calling me a great shotmaker, something I simply have never been.

I really don't need to see another diagram. You won't be the first nor the last to try those diagrams. Diagrams decieve whay. Wouldn't you rather see it on a table?

Fred

Fred,
I have thousands of hours on the table to estimate the relevance of your theory, but even that is irrelevant.

None of you seem willing to put your words into pictures or comments.

My diagram clearly contradicts your theory. It cannot work on all distances and angles. I didn't say it wasn't useful. I'm quite sure I can use that alignment method tomorrow on a pool table and it will work on most shots.

But I believe none of the people using this method, unless they break the fundementals and compensate, can be nearly as accurate at potting as snooker players who never use this system.

I'm quite dissappointed that you choose not to face direct evidence that the Hal Houle system or the Contact and Pivot system has limitations, and instead launch an illogical assult on my credibitly.

I believe the only reason your students get the balls in using your method, is that they usually align to the contact point and hence aim to thick, as most average players do. The system you use creates a deviation that improves their success rate.

For whatever its worth, I have just been out playing and tried your system and came to the exact same conclusions that I suspected. You cannot deny physics, sooner or later you have to confront it. Fact is, the contact and pivot method is an approximation, useful for standard lengths and angles. Beyond those conditions your own alignment capacities have to step in.

 

[Joe T]

I'll tell you folks what I think. I've been waiting. There have been 2000 reads on this thread. I was going to complain that none of the people out there that agree with me had the balls to come in hear and back me up on this. They just sat on there asses and got entertained by me being in this thread getting beat up by a half dozen people.

Changed my mind about that. That just couldn't be the case. So, I must be wrong. I mean that. Sorry to have bothered you all. Take care and good luck.

Capt, the post was how do you aim. I answered it and tried to move on till he directly tried to sway people away from cp to cp by telling them they're invisible, which is not true. I'm not really interested in trying to prove Hals sytems to be right or wrong or argueing with anyone about it. I'm sure all his methods are in the ball park (not as accurate as mine but there in the ball park).
I really hate all that flaming sh**. The thread, as usual got out of hand, don't sweat it. If you want to tell someone how you aim or offer them help then do it but don't worry about all this other stuff. You'll never win a war with words, that's why when I felt he was downgrading my method I offered a teaching challenge to anyone teaching Hals method (that I'm sure works) against me teaching mine and that offer is open to all. BCA certified, Master or not.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Fred...IMO you totally blew it. Yes, you learned from the Master...but you didn't learn enough. As soon as you try to put it down in writing as you have, every math major in geometry, trig, calculus...every physics geek and rocket scientist, or Coriolis devotee is going to try to tell you why it DOESN'T work or won't work. It's not worth the responses and time explaining it.
Let them call and be at a table...fuck 'em. (remember when you were a science geek and challenged everything?)

Hey DM,
It may seem like I'm a physics nerd, which I guess I kind of am in some ways, but to me this whole aiming system is far more complex than what I believe in doing as far as aiming.

When it comes to aiming, in recent years I have learned to do it almost completely by feel. ie. It looks and feels like the ball will go in x part of the pocket then hit.

I used to analyze the crap out of angles and contact points and ghost ball centres but whatever temporary success it had, it never compared to my consistent accuracy when I just decided to stop thinking about that at make the object ball and cue ball go to where I wanted based on feel.

With all that said, there is still a perfectly rational physics explanation for whatever happens and understanding these gives me a better understanding of how to allign, how to use english and how to tuck and roll or use backhand english if need be.

It's a fight for ideas, but I must say it is a pleasure to have people to fight it out with rather that simply fighting it out in my own mind. There're always things to learn. however painful that is to admit

 

[TheConArtist]

Yes, you're as hard headed as I think you are. BRKNRUN said exactly the same thing. You are a rock headed old coot.

In all of the months you've posted on here about aiming, it's been all about contact point with you. NOW, it's feel. (something you can't teach) Yeh...right!! Change those gears real fast before you show how much stupider you can get. It's hard to debate feel, right?

I also like how you throw something in about what "good players" do and you lump yourself into that category. LMAO When you played the piano for entertainment...did you also have a comedy routine going in-between songs? Maybe some light banter to juice it up? You're a funny guy!

No doofus....aiming is, and always will be a VISUAL part of the game. You have to use your EYES. FEEL is for the stroke...you feel with your hands and fingers and they do what the eyes tell you to do. You DON'T FEEL AIMING!
You SEE AIMING. Now if you're blind...you might have to FEEL your way around the balls to figure out what to do...that's about it. There are different ways to visualize shot setup AND coordinate the stroke to minimize deflection, apply english, and maximize performance. That's what this is about, NOT just locating a spot on the friggin' OB or CB. WHIRRRRRrrrrrrr
That just went zinging over your rock head like all the rest of it

You're right...I am in the minority when it comes to what instructors teach. But contact point is easy to teach and that's the way it's been done for decades. Doesn't mean it's the most effective way to do things though OR to make balls.

I agree with you DM i use the feel part for my alignment on shots but i use a aiming system on all shots. Cole

 

[woody_968]

I'm rambling... whole point of this is... I personally know and consider myself friends with 9 other BCA Instructors, ranging from Certified to Master. All 9 of those have abandoned teaching Ghost Ball or Contact Point to Contact Point and are either teaching one of Hal's systems or their interpretation of one of Hal's systems.

YOU MAY NOT BE IN THE MINORITY MUCH LONGER!!!

Later,
Bob

Bob, you can add me to that list.

Woody

 

[DaveK]

Changed my mind about that. That just couldn't be the case. So, I must be wrong. I mean that. Sorry to have bothered you all. Take care and good luck.

I sincerely hope that the above is not a 'goodbye' Captain. If it was, please reconsider. I meant what I said about you fellows being entertaining, hopefully you did not take that to imply that I was laughing at you or DM. I was enjoying the banter, that's all.

Dave

 

[drivermaker]

When it comes to aiming, in recent years I have learned to do it almost completely by feel. ie. It looks and feels like the ball will go in x part of the pocket then hit.

With all that said, there is still a perfectly rational physics explanation for whatever happens and understanding these gives me a better understanding of how to allign,

OK Colin...if what Fred was saying failed the physics test on paper as well as on the table...give me the physics explanation of how "feel" works so great.
Remember, nothing else. Just how physics relates to FEEL.

 

[pete lafond]

You're right...I am in the minority when it comes to what instructors teach. But contact point is easy to teach and that's the way it's been done for decades. Doesn't mean it's the most effective way to do things though OR to make balls.

How to aim?

When my 9 year old decided to start playing pool this past xmas I started him out as follows;

1. Hit balls (w/o cb) into pockets. When he was able to run racks consistently I would then move to step 2. The reason for this was not only to align the ball to the pocket but also so that his stroke would follow through. And I emphasized that with him. A ball was not counted unless it went into the pocket perfectly clean.

2. With the cb now. I told him to see the object ball into the center of the pocket then go to the cueball and keep the visual of the ob to the pocket. Next as he is stroking he is to absolutely see the object balls path from the point on the ob to the back of the center of the pocket. One moment before he pulls the trigger he is to take a quick look to see if he is hitting the center of the cue ball.

3. We then went to simple position play (after path of the cb after contact) using high, low and middle. We added consideration to speed to meet our expectations of the cue balls destination.

.. this is were we are today.

He plays once or twice a week and is progressing quite well. He sees the entire shot each time. He plays in a league with all adults and is in the top 15% after the 6th week (not a strong league). Last week he scored a total of 57 points out of a possible 60 points for 6 games. He only had one eight ball run but scratched after making the eight.

The only reason I am stating this is that I believe I am teaching him correctly as proof of his current game. He has developed very good visual skills and I believe this is the most important part of aiming.

If anyone disagrees or can tell me that my teaching method is bad, I'm interested in listening. I am not an instructor, just self taught (except for the year I used to play Auther "Babe" Cranfield" on a regular basis).

 

[drivermaker]

I sincerely hope that the above is not a 'goodbye' Captain. If it was, please reconsider. I meant what I said about you fellows being entertaining, hopefully you did not take that to imply that I was laughing at you or DM. I was enjoying the banter, that's all.

Don't worry...just as he boog-a-lood out, he'll come waltzing back in. He's just out tap dancing to his own tune right now, and seems a little beat up from me and others doing a Flamenco on his butt. At least nobody did a Mexican Hat Dance and stomped on his cap.

 

[DaveK]

At least nobody did a Mexican Hat Dance and stomped on his cap.

There's always a silver lining if you know where to look ... I didn't even think of looking to Mexico !

Dave

 

[Fred Agnir]

A while back there was a link to an article that ask several pro how they aim. I think that there were three categories. The ones that wouldn't tell. The ones that mention ghost ball or contact point. And the ones that said by feel.
.

This is the second time in this thread that you show that somehow you missed the very proof that you are denying. That article clearly pointed out several pros that aimed by ball-to-ball relatios. Why do you continue to not acknowledge it?

Fred

 

[Fred Agnir]

Fred,
I have thousands of hours on the table to estimate the relevance of your theory, but even that is irrelevant.

frankly, you've not said anything that proved this. Why would I think you tried any of it for one second when you admitted that you hadn't????

None of you seem willing to put your words into pictures or comments.

This borders on a downright idiotic lie. I diagrammed as you frickin' asked, and I already told you that you can't diagram it in 2D.

My diagram clearly contradicts your theory.

Are you that nutty? Goodbye Colin. I obviously cannot communicate it enough. You did not contradict anything with diagrams. You only prove that you can't understand or won't understand that 2D diagrams are worthless. If it was all about diagrams, I would simply draw a diagram for my opponent and declare myself the winner at any tournament. But I can't. I have to actually shoot balls. Thank god I can do that.

If you tried it and it didn't work, don't bother asking me about it. It's not for you, and frankly you're not interested in it working. Be honest. You don't want it to work. I'm telling you it works. How it works, I don't care. I don't care how it works. YOu can't tell me how you're proving it doesn't work. It works. That's not up for debate. If you suggest with your questions that it doesn't work, you're not getting any answers from me because you aren't open to any answers I'll give.

Take your diagrams and throw them away. They are irrelevant. Only the balls and the holes are relevant. You're missing some key point. Good luck finding it.

And don't give me your crap about shooting in snooker. That is also irrelevant. I won't tell you how to shoot snooker. I'm not that arrogant. My system, you can shoot centerball or heavy firm english. Don't even try to tell me about you using heavy english in snooker. Puuuuuhhhhhleeeeeze.

Fred

 

[Fred Agnir]

For whatever its worth, I have just been out playing and tried your system and came to the exact same conclusions that I suspected.

It's worth nothing to me. You already made up your mind on paper. Why would you get any other results?

You cannot deny physics, sooner or later you have to confront it.

Colin, with all due respect, bite me. I've studied the physics of this game possibly longer than you. Understanding the physics is a different world than shooting.

Fact is, the contact and pivot method is an approximation, useful for standard lengths and angles. Beyond those conditions your own alignment capacities have to step in.

Fact is, you dismissed it. I don't care, but don't tell me anything about my system when you've already dismissed it. If you''ve dismissed it, then you have no reason to comment on it's worth. So, goodbye. It doesn't work for you. Too bad. YOu apparently don't need it. I hope you make every difficult shot. Of course, if I ever see you miss, I'm going to give you shit.

Fred

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin,

I've been told the same thing many times... this won't work! You must be making compensations, BUT when I teach 3 lines, or Small Ball or Pivot, or Shiskabob or whatever, I have something that I do to convince them before they even start talking "compensation". I have a metal frame, made from an old clothing rack, that has a curtain hanging from it. I put this frame across the table so that the curtain is just an inch or two in front of the footstring. The curtain is just high enough off of the table that the ball can pass under it without interference, but there's NO WAY I can see the side pockets or the far corner pockets. I then put a ball just anywhere near the footspot and the cue ball just anywhere behind it towards the foot rail... then, I let the students call my shots... cuts to any of the upper 4 pockets, which I cannot see because of the curtain, or long rail banks back to the corners that I can see. Now, there is no way I can compensate if I can't see the target. Compensation is not necessary... neither is hypnosis, which I've been accused of! LOL

I cannot explain this on paper. Like Fred, I'm a degreed engineer and I did my level best to disprove the validity of these systems when I first learned them... well, I could do it on paper, but I just never could NOT make them work on the table. It's like Fred said, you have to take it to the table to see how it works.

Quoting Nelsi O'Hare, from an Article in the July 1995 issue of Pool and Billiards Magazine, on How the Pro's Aim.


Now, if Efren Reyes teaches people to aim on only the 4 quarters of the object ball, then there just might be something to it... seems I heard he plays a pretty fair game of pool!

Later,
Bob

Thanks for your well written missive Bob.

To get straight to the point. Efren can't pot well as far as I'm concerned. I'd rank him outside the top 10,000 snooker players as a potter.

You pool guys are best when it comes to banks, caroms, strategy, masse, but when it comes to potting you are levels behind the snooker players. Why not listen to what the snooker players have learned about potting?

I don't think Efren really knows what he's doing when it comes to potting and I know that most the snooker players don't know much either. A lot of them will tell you they aim at the contact point, but if they did they would miss. Fact is they just pot by feel. And the top players pot a lot better that Efren or any of you here, I guarantee you.

If you doubt it, get a copy of the World Snooker Championships and watch 30 frames, then go play some snooker and compare. They are 90% on shots that are 50% chances for most pro pool players.

 

[Jimmy M.]

Sweet! A flame war!

 

[Colin Colenso]

OK Colin...if what Fred was saying failed the physics test on paper as well as on the table...give me the physics explanation of how "feel" works so great.
Remember, nothing else. Just how physics relates to FEEL.

DM,
I would say physics relates to feel as an autopsy relates to death.

You can't do a good autopsy without an understanding of the sciences of death.

Maybe not the perfect analogy, but my point here is that every shot abides by the rules of physics, and can be interpreted after the fact. And that these facts can be useful in recognizing the true paths of balls for future imagination of shots.

When it comes to potting and aligning, the best potters just feel that they will make the shot, and hit it, and it goes perfect.

Let me move to the metaphysical....

I'm looking down my cue at the cueball, and to the object ball and pocket with the aim of making the pot. I ask myself, does this feel like it will work? Is it right? Like the flicker of a candle in my heart I get the answer. If calm I am right, if I feel that flicker then it is not right.

So be feel, I mean that sense of calm, no flicker, not that sense of awkwardness that preceeds so many of our misses. It just feels right.

It is like that feeling you get when the shopkeeper gives you an extra $20 in your change. When you think of keeping it you feel the flicker, a warning of wrongdoing. When you do right and give it back, calm is achieved.

It is much ado about honesty to one's self. Ask yourself the question, is that ball going in, and let yourself feel the answer.

That's about the best way I can describe feel at the moment.

{edited addition}
I will add one more thing. That without practice, which increases the stores of memorization, the signals of feel are weak. They are increased by regular experience with carefull attention to cause and effect. In other words, be highly observant of what happens in practice. It programs the senses that communicate their messages to feeling which store this for later use.

 

[drivermaker]

Let me move to the metaphysical....

I'm looking down my cue at the cueball, and to the object ball and pocket with the aim of making the pot. I ask myself, does this feel like it will work? Is it right? Like the flicker of a candle in my heart I get the answer. If calm I am right, if I feel that flicker then it is not right.

So be feel, I mean that sense of calm, no flicker, not that sense of awkwardness that preceeds so many of our misses. It just feels right.

That's about the best way I can describe feel at the moment.

YES...YES...I suddenly see what you mean now. I've been missing this my entire pool life!

It's like...I see this ultra hot chick that is just so gorgeous it's like looking up directly into the sun and seeing sun spots and losing your vision for a few minutes. You can't believe what you've just looked at.

I ask myself, does this feel like it will work? Is it right? Like the flicker of a candle in my heart (and loins) I get the answer. If calm, I am right. If I feel that flicker, then it is not right.

So I feel ultra calm and take my shot, thinking that all is well with the world and everything will work out...she then says..."Hey, you've gotta be kidding me...hit the road asshole and don't ever try again".

Yeh, Colin...sometimes those metaphysical thoughts and answers that come back to you just don't strike of reality.

BTW...must not work all the time.
Didn't THEONE stomp your butt into the ground like an Italian stomping grapes during wine season?

If you're now into this metaphysical crap...don't bring up physics or snooker ever again for any other comparison unless it has to do with feel or intuition.
I'm still waiting for the correlation on that.................

 

[pete lafond]

YES...YES...I suddenly see what you mean now. I've been missing this my entire pool life!

It's like...I see this ultra hot chick that is just so gorgeous it's like looking up directly into the sun and seeing sun spots and losing your vision for a few minutes. You can't believe what you've just looked at.

I ask myself, does this feel like it will work? Is it right? Like the flicker of a candle in my heart (and loins) I get the answer. If calm, I am right. If I feel that flicker, then it is not right.

So I feel ultra calm and take my shot, thinking that all is well with the world and everything will work out...she then says..."Hey, you've gotta be kidding me...hit the road asshole and don't ever try again".

Yeh, Colin...sometimes those metaphysical thoughts and answers that come back to you just don't strike of reality.

BTW...must not work all the time.
Didn't THEONE stomp your butt into the ground like an Italian stomping grapes during wine season?

If you're now into this metaphysical crap...don't bring up physics or snooker ever again for any other comparison unless it has to do with feel or intuition.
I'm still waiting for the correlation on that.................

I am not saying I understand completely, so sorry if I'm wrong. When I am shooting a cut shot into the side pocket and the side pocket is to the far corner of my eye. (the full path of the OB to the pocket is not completely visible) I will shoot the shot based upon prior experience because I just know where the center of the side pocket is in relation to where the object ball is. This does work to a point, except when the pocket is reduced because of an obstructing ball. Maybe feel could be replaced with "Confidence" in my aim. I think "feel" applies better to my adjusting to the speed of the cloth and rails as I play position and such.

 

[Colin Colenso]

YES...YES...I suddenly see what you mean now. I've been missing this my entire pool life!

It's like...I see this ultra hot chick that is just so gorgeous it's like looking up directly into the sun and seeing sun spots and losing your vision for a few minutes. You can't believe what you've just looked at.

I ask myself, does this feel like it will work? Is it right? Like the flicker of a candle in my heart (and loins) I get the answer. If calm, I am right. If I feel that flicker, then it is not right.

So I feel ultra calm and take my shot, thinking that all is well with the world and everything will work out...she then says..."Hey, you've gotta be kidding me...hit the road asshole and don't ever try again".

Yeh, Colin...sometimes those metaphysical thoughts and answers that come back to you just don't strike of reality.

BTW...must not work all the time.
Didn't THEONE stomp your butt into the ground like an Italian stomping grapes during wine season?

If you're now into this metaphysical crap...don't bring up physics or snooker ever again for any other comparison unless it has to do with feel or intuition.
I'm still waiting for the correlation on that.................

Well I don't know how to answer that last part other than to say you get it or you don't...but as Pete's post above says, he would replace feel with confidence and that's not too bad a way to decribe it.

And, The One, certainly got the better of me, but what would you expect from a guy just coming from a 3rd in Korea against me who hasn't played serious competition for 4 years and was getting by with a rack cue.

But 7-8 years ago I was playing with his contemporaries and giving as good as I got, and with a few weeks practice I'd give myself a chance best of 15.

Yes, my dick is 36 inches long too