PDA

View Full Version : Another Aim System



Fred Agnir
07-23-2005, 04:30 PM
Hell, it's been a week, so I might as well bring up another aim system. This one is another combination of a couple of different systems, that again I sort of stumbled upon after my discussions with Mr. Houle. Again, this one isn't specifically one of his systems, but it's so similar that I would be remiss in not giving him credit for my observation.

Anyway, in one of the systems that has been discussed over the years, one that was for squirt compensation was so simple that I could hardly believe it. So, with that system, combined with Backhand English (Houle version, no swiping or sweeping), I am able to aim shots without using ghost ball systems.

Here's the first part.

Squirt Compensation for normal squirt shafts: Tip to Contact Point

For many, most, or possible all inside english shots where squirt is dominant due to speed and/or distance (low swerve affect), simply aim the tip through the desired amount of english to the contact point of the object ball. Fire away with your best straight through stroke. I think people have seen this system before:

START(
%DQ4J9%EO1^7%P[5S4%QA6A6%WS1L1%X`1W6%eA5a2

)END

The Houle Twist: Incorporating Backhand English

If you don't need english, simply pivot your stick about your bridge (which should be in the 8 - 12" range, or theresabouts) to the center of the cueball. That new line should be such that you can fire straight ahead and still pocket the ball (no cheating).

START(
%DQ4J9%EO1^7%P[5S4%QA6A6%WR9L1%X`1W6%YS2L1%Z`0W6

)END

The continuation is that if the balls are dirty, and you need to start using Outside English to "relieve the cut," you would simply continue to rotate such that you had a little outside english. Fire on that new line.

START(
%DQ4J9%EO1^7%P[5S4%QA6A6%WR9L1%X`1W6%YS2K9%Z_9W6%eB9a5

)END

This, IMO, is a very powerful system for firm, natural stroke and firmer strokes (3 speed and up) where again the swerve isn't as much of an issue. This is not for the slower strokes where swerve may affect the cueball line.

For this one, I actually encourage people to graph it out so that I have a better understanding on why it would work. For those that want to ask, I use this system succesfully on some of the tightest, most unfair tables I know. Cheating will punish you.

Fred

Fred Agnir
07-23-2005, 04:51 PM
As an addendum, these are two shots I tried out with my wife (who is not a player). I used the number of the ball as the aimpoint by aligning the object ball number as the contact point. She made the shots without touching anything but the bottom of the cup.

START(
%E_2E5%Pf8K4%QA6A6%YD7D2%Z]9E1%eB9a5

)END

START(
%EL8L3%Pb7M0%QA6A6%YD7D2%ZK9K4%eB9a5

)END

Then I had her try it without using my method. Both shots, she never made, hitting both shots thick every time.

Fred

Alfie
07-23-2005, 10:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> This, IMO, is a very powerful system for firm, natural stroke and firmer strokes (3 speed and up) where again the swerve isn't as much of an issue. This is not for the slower strokes where swerve may affect the cueball line.<hr /></blockquote>Do you find this works for all cut angles and all tip offsets?

Fred Agnir
07-24-2005, 04:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alfie:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> This, IMO, is a very powerful system for firm, natural stroke and firmer strokes (3 speed and up) where again the swerve isn't as much of an issue. This is not for the slower strokes where swerve may affect the cueball line.<hr /></blockquote>Do you find this works for all cut angles and all tip offsets? <hr /></blockquote>

Yes, but there is some refinement to what I've mentioned. Obviously, on a straight in shot (zero degree cut?), the tip offset is zero. On a very thin cut, the tip offset starts near the edge. So, by intuition or shear luck, the offset is proportional to the cut angle.

That being said, similarly to most of Hal's teachings, I think there's a finite number of starting tip offsets that will work. Discounting the zero offset, I normally only use three per side. This might coincide with a 1/4, 1/2, and 1/8 of the cueball.

Fred

Jal
07-24-2005, 02:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>...
For many, most, or possible all inside english....<hr /></blockquote>

I think this should read "For some shots (and not very many at that)...".

(Sorry to be so direct, but I'm pretty sure your proposition isn't a typo and says exactly what you mean).

One way of seeing this is to first note that the direction the cueball takes off is along a line drawn from the stick's pivot point through the center of the cueball. Regardless of how much english, you want this line to point in the same direction, which is the one you would want to pocket the ball if you were applying no english at all (with some adjustment perhaps for different amounts of throw).

I'm not saying of course that you should aim this way, but only that when you are aiming correctly, with any amount of english the above condition will apply.

So for some shot let's imagine that you've set up just right (to pocket the ball) with a certain amount of english and are aiming at the contact point. The proper direction of the line between the pivot point and the center of the cueball is thus established. Now, if you change the english in any way, you'll have to pivot about the stick's pivot point in order to maintain this direction. But clearly, when you do this you will no longer be aiming at the contact point.

You simply cannot aim at the contact point for any arbitrary offset and expect to make the shot. If I'm reading your post wrong, Fred, please clarify.

Jim

Fred Agnir
07-25-2005, 05:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
(Sorry to be so direct, but I'm pretty sure your proposition isn't a typo and says exactly what you mean).<hr /></blockquote> I don't mind direct. But if you didn't try it, then I'd mind.


[ QUOTE ]
If I'm reading your post wrong, Fred, please clarify.<hr /></blockquote> I liked Alfie's response, and my response to Alfie. I've refined the system, but even before adding my refinements, it's a system that gets far better results than rote (for firm english shooting). If you can honestly say that you have no problems using inside english and pocketing balls at firm speed, blind back cuts (my nemesis for years) then there's no need to look at this system. I'm going to guess, however, that you and most people on this board could use some help in these specific areas. If you (general) find yourself excusing your misses on poor stroke mechanics, you definitely should look at these systems in addition to looking at help with stroke mechanics.

I think of all the systems that I've encountered, I like this one the best. Probably because the end product I feel I developed (had a hand in developing). If anyone ever wants to see this system up close and personal, just give me a jingle. Maybe that DVD is overdue.

And finally, many people on this board have seen me shoot. I would never share an aiming system on these boards without truly believing in their worth.

Fred

Fred Agnir
07-25-2005, 06:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> That being said, similarly to most of Hal's teachings, I think there's a finite number of starting tip offsets that will work. Discounting the zero offset, I normally only use three per side. This might coincide with a 1/4, 1/2, and 1/8 of the cueball. <hr /></blockquote>I'm not sure what I mean here. I think I mean 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 the distance from the center of the cueball to the edge.

I've chosen shots that, IMO, give everyone fits, so as not to misunderstand what type of shots I'm talking about:




So, for narrow shots, my initial tip offset is 1/4 ( of the distance from the center of the cueball ball to the edge of the cueball):

START(
%Ab7D4%CJ5O4%GK6N8%JK6M5%LJ5N2%OJ5M0%Pg8E2

)END



For "regular" or sharper cuts (to pocket A), I go to 1/2.

START(
%Af0U2%CJ5O4%GK6N8%JK6M5%LJ5N2%OJ5M0%Pm0V8%QA5[3

)END



And for thinner cuts, I go to 3/4:

START(
%Aq9N7%CJ5O4%GK6N8%JK6M5%LJ5N2%OJ5M0%Ph9K4%Qs1[2

)END

You could go further into refining, since the initial offset is at the cueball, and therefore much easire to find optically. But, as I said previously, breaking down the initial offsets to 3 finite points seems to take care of most if not all normal shots.

Fred

Jal
07-26-2005, 12:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> That being said, similarly to most of Hal's teachings, I think there's a finite number of starting tip offsets that will work. Discounting the zero offset, I normally only use three per side. This might coincide with a 1/4, 1/2, and 1/8 of the cueball. <hr /></blockquote>I'm not sure what I mean here. I think I mean 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 the distance from the center of the cueball to the edge.

I've chosen shots that, IMO, give everyone fits, so as not to misunderstand what type of shots I'm talking about:




So, for narrow shots, my initial tip offset is 1/4 ( of the distance from the center of the cueball ball to the edge of the cueball):

START(
%Ab7D4%CJ5O4%GK6N8%JK6M5%LJ5N2%OJ5M0%Pg8E2

)END



For "regular" or sharper cuts (to pocket A), I go to 1/2.

START(
%Af0U2%CJ5O4%GK6N8%JK6M5%LJ5N2%OJ5M0%Pm0V8%QA5[3

)END



And for thinner cuts, I go to 3/4:

START(
%Aq9N7%CJ5O4%GK6N8%JK6M5%LJ5N2%OJ5M0%Ph9K4%Qs1[2

)END

You could go further into refining, since the initial offset is at the cueball, and therefore much easire to find optically. But, as I said previously, breaking down the initial offsets to 3 finite points seems to take care of most if not all normal shots.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

I agree that the difference between the aim line and the line from the center of the cueball to the contact point on the object ball increases with increasing cut angle. And that this difference can be made up with more squirt by striking at a greater offset (if the balls aren't too close). So the greater the cut angle the more offset that will be necessary.

But how is it that a small finite number of offsets are sufficient for the entire range of possible cut angles? Or are these just starting points with adjustments required (explicitly or otherwise)?

Jim

pigbrain
07-26-2005, 01:10 AM
hello.
is there any introduction about you?
i have not read this carefully, if i have time i will study this. you know i read English is not as efficient as my own language.
i have read some of your posts, i found them very helpful.

Fred Agnir
07-26-2005, 05:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> But how is it that a small finite number of offsets are sufficient for the entire range of possible cut angles? Or are these just starting points with adjustments required (explicitly or otherwise)? <hr /></blockquote>That's been the question of all finite aimpoint systems. I don't have a good answer. Not a paper answer. I don't even know if I'm at those exact points. For narrow cuts, I'm about here, and for sharper cuts, I'm about there. Esoteric, huh?

All I know is that with the combination of geometry, physics, and optics, the balls are undeniably going in the hole at a better rate. And because the aimpoints aren't "somewhere in space," I daresay this is a system beneficial to anyone who cannot make balls consistently using the ghostball method. And, it has a built in method for squirt compensation. Very powerful, IMO.

Did you get a chance to give it a try? I seem to ask this question of others on other systems. I'm always stunned to see how much questioning there is without trying it. And no followup questions when the same questioners had ample time to try it. Give it a try. If balls go in for you, then you can tell me why it works.


Fred

Jal
07-26-2005, 11:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pigbrain:</font><hr> hello.
is there any introduction about you?
i have not read this carefully, if i have time i will study this. you know i read English is not as efficient as my own language.
i have read some of your posts, i found them very helpful.
<hr /></blockquote>
Hi pigbrain. Your use of English is remarkably good. Wish I could return the favor with some Chinese. But I don't understand the question about the introduction?

Jim

Jal
07-27-2005, 12:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> But how is it that a small finite number of offsets are sufficient for the entire range of possible cut angles? Or are these just starting points with adjustments required (explicitly or otherwise)? <hr /></blockquote>That's been the question of all finite aimpoint systems. I don't have a good answer. Not a paper answer. I don't even know if I'm at those exact points. For narrow cuts, I'm about here, and for sharper cuts, I'm about there. Esoteric, huh?

All I know is that with the combination of geometry, physics, and optics, the balls are undeniably going in the hole at a better rate. And because the aimpoints aren't "somewhere in space," I daresay this is a system beneficial to anyone who cannot make balls consistently using the ghostball method. And, it has a built in method for squirt compensation. Very powerful, IMO.

Did you get a chance to give it a try? I seem to ask this question of others on other systems. I'm always stunned to see how much questioning there is without trying it. And no followup questions when the same questioners had ample time to try it. Give it a try. If balls go in for you, then you can tell me why it works.


Fred <hr /></blockquote>
Fred, I haven't tried it yet. One reason is that I haven't been at a table. Another is that my motivation is low. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I'm completely convinced that it won't work unless some adjustment is made, consciously or unconsciously. But maybe that unconscious part will produce some interesting results, so I may give it a go, I'm not sure. (I only play a few hours a week and I think a fair hearing might take up a big chunk of that time, or more.)

I do think there is merit in the discrete systems as means of establishing firm reference points. If you take the time, for instance, to burn into your mind by repetition the direction the object ball travels for a relatively small set of precisely defined and executed cueball/object ball offsets, then estimating where it will go for the in-between offsets should be all that more effective. (At least this should be of help for those of us that aim by essentially pure feel, i.e., memory.)

I don't know if this is the "magic" of the Houle systems along with your extensions to them. It seems to me that you would have to miss a lot of shots before this begins to have any beneficial effect, and I haven't gotten the impression that this is a part of the program.

So I am guilty as charged, for now.

Jim

Fred Agnir
07-27-2005, 05:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> Fred, I haven't tried it yet. One reason is that I haven't been at a table. Another is that my motivation is low. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I'm completely convinced that it won't work unless some adjustment is made, consciously or unconsciously. But maybe that unconscious part will produce some interesting results, so I may give it a go, I'm not sure. (I only play a few hours a week and I think a fair hearing might take up a big chunk of that time, or more.)

I do think there is merit in the discrete systems as means of establishing firm reference points. If you take the time, for instance, to burn into your mind by repetition the direction the object ball travels for a relatively small set of precisely defined and executed cueball/object ball offsets, then estimating where it will go for the in-between offsets should be all that more effective. (At least this should be of help for those of us that aim by essentially pure feel, i.e., memory.)

I don't know if this is the "magic" of the Houle systems along with your extensions to them. It seems to me that you would have to miss a lot of shots before this begins to have any beneficial effect, and I haven't gotten the impression that this is a part of the program.

So I am guilty as charged, for now.

Jim <hr /></blockquote> Great honest post. I hope others will read it, really read it, print it, absorb it, and go from there.

So here's the question. For the three or four shots that I diagrammed, are those shots easy or challenging for you? Do you think they are easy or challenging for the average player?

Fred

Jal
07-27-2005, 12:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> ...
So here's the question. For the three or four shots that I diagrammed, are those shots easy or challenging for you? Do you think they are easy or challenging for the average player?<hr /></blockquote>

In increasing order of hardness (1-10, with 1-2 being routine), and without english:

#1: 2.5-3.5 (almost routine but requires extra care - mildly challenging)
#2: 7-8 (tough - pretty challenging)
#3: 4-5.5 (not too hard but easily missed - somewhat challenging)

I would avoid english (particularly inside) on all three, especially with the last two if at all possible. I would guess that the average player would put them in the same relative order, but their absolute ratings might be different. If you include those who play just a few times a year, I think that even shot #1 would be considered pretty challenging. If I had to use inside, I would consider shot #1 to be fairly challenging.

Jim

dr_dave
07-27-2005, 01:32 PM
Jim,

Excellent post!

FYI, in case you have not seen some of the recent pertinent threads, many of these issues have been more than beaten to death already. When you have some spare time, check out some of the links under "Hal Houle aiming system" in the "aiming" section of my online discussion threads summary page (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html). Happy reading,

Dave

PS: FYI, you might be particularly interested in my posting and analysis concerning the number of required lines of aim (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=199023&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=&amp;PHPSESSID=). Fred, I'm not posting this to start a fight again. I just want to share the information with Jim.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>Fred, I haven't tried it yet. One reason is that I haven't been at a table. Another is that my motivation is low. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I'm completely convinced that it won't work unless some adjustment is made, consciously or unconsciously. But maybe that unconscious part will produce some interesting results, so I may give it a go, I'm not sure. (I only play a few hours a week and I think a fair hearing might take up a big chunk of that time, or more.)

I do think there is merit in the discrete systems as means of establishing firm reference points. If you take the time, for instance, to burn into your mind by repetition the direction the object ball travels for a relatively small set of precisely defined and executed cueball/object ball offsets, then estimating where it will go for the in-between offsets should be all that more effective. (At least this should be of help for those of us that aim by essentially pure feel, i.e., memory.)

I don't know if this is the "magic" of the Houle systems along with your extensions to them. It seems to me that you would have to miss a lot of shots before this begins to have any beneficial effect, and I haven't gotten the impression that this is a part of the program.

So I am guilty as charged, for now.<hr /></blockquote>

Alfie
07-30-2005, 09:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> Here's the first part.

Squirt Compensation for normal squirt shafts: Tip to Contact Point

For many, most, or possible all inside english shots where squirt is dominant due to speed and/or distance (low swerve affect), simply aim the tip through the desired amount of english to the contact point of the object ball. Fire away with your best straight through stroke. I think people have seen this system before:[snip]<hr /></blockquote>Just to be clear- we point the cue at the contact point on the OB and not one of those fractional aim points?

theinel
07-31-2005, 01:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>All I know is that with the combination of geometry, physics, and optics, the balls are undeniably going in the hole at a better rate.

Fred<hr /></blockquote>
Fred, doesn't that amount to "feel"? This sounds like the ghost ball adjusted system that many players use. It's not truly a system; it's a process of choosing a starting point (ghost ball) and applying all of the knowledge and experience gathered over ones pool career to determine a solution to the problem at hand.

A blend of left brain and right brain operating in concert, or at least not at odds, produces optimal results. I know it's not an easy thing to explain in text but it boils down to something like visualize and execute enhanced by practice, practice, practice.

Fred Agnir
07-31-2005, 05:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alfie:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> Here's the first part.

Squirt Compensation for normal squirt shafts: Tip to Contact Point

For many, most, or possible all inside english shots where squirt is dominant due to speed and/or distance (low swerve affect), simply aim the tip through the desired amount of english to the contact point of the object ball. Fire away with your best straight through stroke. I think people have seen this system before:[snip]<hr /></blockquote>Just to be clear- we point the cue at the contact point on the OB and not one of those fractional aim points? <hr /></blockquote>Correct. That's a big reason this isn't one of Hal's systems.

Fred

Fred Agnir
07-31-2005, 05:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote theinel:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>All I know is that with the combination of geometry, physics, and optics, the balls are undeniably going in the hole at a better rate.

Fred<hr /></blockquote>
Fred, doesn't that amount to "feel"? This sounds like the ghost ball adjusted system that many players use. It's not truly a system; it's a process of choosing a starting point (ghost ball) and applying all of the knowledge and experience gathered over ones pool career to determine a solution to the problem at hand.<hr /></blockquote>Uh, no. With the ghost ball, you have to imagine a point in space or a ball in space. With my system you don't imagine anything, but rather you point directly at the contact point. Your starting point on the cueball is only one of three start point. So, that's only four points to worry about, and each one is easily seen as real targets, rather than a point in space or worse.

If you actually try this system, you would never equate it to ghost ball.

Fred

theinel
07-31-2005, 02:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>Uh, no. With the ghost ball, you have to imagine a point in space or a ball in space. With my system you don't imagine anything, but rather you point directly at the contact point. Your starting point on the cueball is only one of three start point. So, that's only four points to worry about, and each one is easily seen as real targets, rather than a point in space or worse.<hr /></blockquote>
Thanks Fred, you just pointed out to me how poorly I think and communicate these days. I don't actually aim at the ghost ball I just use it to pick a starting contact point. I imagine a line from my target through the cue ball to get that point. I call that ghost ball because I still see the ghost ball in my visualization, I guess as a leftover from my early days of playing, but I don't actually use it for anything. After getting my initial contact point I adjust for CIT and SIT and then aim contact point to contact point.

I know that there are many very good players that use systems with limited aiming points but I still struggle trying to wrap my mind around them. I may just have to break down and go see RandyG this year.