View Full Version : Hal,s two point aiming system
[ QUOTE ]
I WANT TO TELL YOU A REAL SHOCKER. FRED AGNIR AND I CAN ACCURATELY USE TWO ANGLES FOR EVERY AND ALL MANNER OF SHOTS POSSIBLE ON A TABLE. SO YOU THINK THERE ARE MILLIONS OF ANGLES? NOW HERE IS A CUD FOR EACH OF YOU TO CHEW ON TILL THE COWS COME HOME, AND YOU SOLVE THE PUZZLE. HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE THEM, FRED?
HAL <hr /></blockquote>
I assume you mean 2 aiming points. If I,m mistaken, ignore this.
Straight shot/ middle QB to middle OB.
left edge QB to left edge OB
right edge QB to right edge OB.
Cut to the right,
3-4 ball/ left 1-4 QB to left edge OB
1-2 ball/ middle QB to left edge OB
1-4 ball/ right 1-4 QB to left edge OB.
All the other angles can be made by spin and throw.
07-08-2005, 05:23 PM
All what other angles?????randyg
07-09-2005, 06:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote randyg:</font><hr> All what other angles?????randyg <hr /></blockquote>
The angles in between. This is an old (English) billiards trick for potting that explains why they weren't very good at potting consistently. Joe Davis pioneered snooker and admitted he had to completely change his sighting method to do so. The 'crouch' he adopted at that time was also roundly condemned as a gimic, and you only have to read the Billards magazines of the day which were full of advice to the novice billiard player not to copy the world champion.
One of the most difficult shots for improving players on a snooker table is the just-off-straight long pot. It is reasonably simple to cue up straight, but the eye can't discriminate the fraction of a millimetre from centre required to make the pot, and it will be overcut more often than not. Billiards players were able to consistently be there or there-abouts by simply cueing 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 tip etc. off-centre on the cue ball, while still aiming the cue through the centre of the object ball. It's a small leap to use the same principle for potting angles either side of 3/4, 1/2, 1/4 and fine edge aim points on the object ball they also use.
Unfortunately this system takes no account of the other variables which are distance between the two balls and how hard you hit the shot. Nevertheless it is easy to convince someone who can't make these pots how good the system is because it takes minutes to produce results beyond their current abilities. The downside is you have immediately limited how good you can ever get, and you will never ever match the ability of someone who cues straight throught the correct cue line in the first place, time after time after time. You are also impelled to put side on the ball which may differ from that you need for positional reasons, and you never learn how to hit the cue ball exactly in the centre, which isn't particularly important in billiards.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BoroNut:</font><hr> Billiards players were able to consistently be there or there-abouts by simply cueing 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 tip etc. off-centre on the cue ball, while still aiming the cue through the centre of the object ball. It's a small leap to use the same principle for potting angles either side of 3/4, 1/2, 1/4 and fine edge aim points on the object ball they also use.
<font color="blue">BoroNut, I think that's one of the misconceptions about Hal's systems that I see here. 80% of the shots I execute are vertical center ball, either a little high or a little low. I don't use squirt to make a shot. The only time I'll use any side spin is if it is necessary to go to a cushion and move the cue ball on something other than it's normal path. (a few exceptions, slide draw, masse, jump masse, etc.) </font color>
You are also impelled to put side on the ball which may differ from that you need for positional reasons, and you never learn how to hit the cue ball exactly in the centre, which isn't particularly important in billiards.
<font color="blue">Well, I do have to disagree with that. I think being able to hit center ball is of tantamount importance in pocket billiards. As a matter of fact, IMHO, most shots are missed, NOT because they were misaimed, but because they were misstroked (the player not being able to judge or hit center CB) </font color> <hr /></blockquote>
I still think there are a lot of misconceptions over what Hal's aiming systems really are. Most are assuming that he teaches pure fractional ball aiming, and that just isn't the case. Again, and I know this will draw criticism, but it's something that just can't be taught on paper or in words. Anyone willing to call Hal with an open mind and a willingness to learn will see that.
OK, now, you know that I advocate the use of aiming systems, but when I'm playing, I don't "conciously" use any system, except on difficult shots (which are greatly reduced in number with the use of a good aiming system). I practice with the systems every day, and when I practice, I call the shots outloud. I have a "name" for each shot, and I call it out along with the speed and tip location on the cue ball. When I go to a table and play competitively, I don't have to call it out, I don't have to think about it. I've been using these systems for about a year and a half now, and if I miss, it isn't because my system failed, it's pilot error.
Time for more coffee!
07-09-2005, 12:22 PM
Even having an aim point on the object ball in the first place is self limiting, especially when the object ball is close and the pocket distant. Any minor error at the object ball is magnified the further away you are from the pocket. All the good potters I have ever known knew instinctively where to send the cue ball to pot the object ball from day one. You can ignore the object ball completely, just cue down the line dead straight. Do this and the object ball can't go anywhere but straight to the target, even when it's beyond you periferal vision over 10' away, with an effective target area of about 1/4" (cenreline of object ball) on a tight snooker table.
I have had people laugh out loud when they pot balls they haven't potted in their life. You often have to spot them from behind the shot to start with, because they often can't actually point the cue exactly where their eyes are looking. After that they are away.
One recurring theme I hear is that they think the angle looks wrong when they are down on the shot, and are surprised when the ball goes in. Considering they have spent all their time previously adjusting away from their instincts to the wrong line using systems and missing every time, it's quite funny.
07-09-2005, 12:31 PM
What good is a laser guide if your stroke is crooked?
I do not know of anyone who shoots straight and can't pocket balls.
Hit the contact point, make balls.
07-09-2005, 02:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> What good is a laser guide if your stroke is crooked?
I do not know of anyone who shoots straight and can't pocket balls.
Hit the contact point, make balls. <hr /></blockquote>
Exactly. And the cue must follow your eyes exactly. Do those two things and anything is possible. If you try to hit the contact point, you wont be very accurate. I'm not saying this wont be good enough on pool tables. But you don't have to settle for being good enough, when everyone has the potential to be the best they can be.
07-09-2005, 02:54 PM
Boronut. Its a pleasure to read your posts on billiards. With you coming from where i class as a hot bed for billiards talent. I don't know one snooker or billiards player here in West Yorkshire that uses an "aiming system". I had a couple of hours billiards coaching from Mike Russell last year and he doesn't believe in any system. I'm coached on quite regular basis by Alan Trigg and he makes me pot a diagonal length of table blue from the baulk line wih my eyes closed to get me warmed up, so why does anybody need a system to aim? Plenty of practice and you'll soon start to recognise the potting angles. And i'll bet my house, car and first born child that you don't use a system Boronut. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
07-09-2005, 03:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jason:</font><hr>I had a couple of hours billiards coaching from Mike Russell last year and he doesn't believe in any system. ...and I'll bet my house, car and first born child that you don't use a system Boronut.<hr /></blockquote>
Mike Russell won't mean anything on this board, which is ironic considering pool seems stuck in a billiards time warp. Never got to play Mike (luckilly) but had a few billiards pastings from Chris Shutt in his Norton Workmen's days, and remember the night (as the youngest member) he was nominated to travel locked in the boot of the overloaded car (8 players + one piece cues) for a match we had in Hartlepool. You can't say we don't know how to treat a child prodigy up here.
The only systems I use are when playing billiards. They were designed for billiards and they work for billiards. Pot the red though and you have to put your snooker head back on.
07-09-2005, 08:23 PM
NOPE. THAT'S NOT IT. NO WHERE NEAR IT.
Hey, it was a long shot based on limited information! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
What do you mean by 'two angles'?
07-10-2005, 01:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>What do you mean by 'two angles'?<hr /></blockquote>
Hal uses the terms angle and aim point interchangeably, depending on what you said first. He has a full and complete understanding of his systems, but apparently no grasp of elementary geometry, and a pathological determination to avoid them being spelled out clearly for free on the internet.
He also sees no irony in arguing that a trained man paid good money by the Norwegian State Oil Company to model, identify, & resolve complex three dimensional oil rig vent and derrick riser clashes beyond the capabilities of the then computer software, couldn't easily draw out any 3 dimensional problem to the scale of your choice that you cared to throw at him.
He also believes that 'old coots' know something about potting that young men don't, when 25 years of snooker (and from today the world championship of pool) clearly indicate otherwise. Potting has always been a young man's game, even when young men didn't play it. You gain experience with age, and most of it is of missing pots you used to knock in with your cap.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.