PDA

View Full Version : I need an aiming system!



Thunderduck
09-26-2005, 10:04 PM
Despite the cut shot drills Ive been working on for a few months, I cant figure out where to aim on most shots I come across in normal play. Imagining hitting through the center of a ghost ball just doesnt work for me.

Can someone point me to a thread or website with a simple and effective aiming system?

Tduck

Combinator
09-26-2005, 11:12 PM
For years I used a silhouette system -- viewing each shot like the moon passing in front of the sun and learning what angle the ball would travel when hit at each silhouette. I missed too much with 15 or greater degree shots. I've improved much by picking a point on the object ball and concentrating on hitting that point with the cue ball. After a while you don't even look at the pocket. Your percentage should go up with practice.

Thunderduck
09-26-2005, 11:34 PM
I tried to invent a system similar to what youre describing, but Im really never sure just what angle the OB will go... Im always wrong these days... I think "oh, I just need to hit it there and it will go in", and then I turn out to be wrong, usually by small margins...

Billy
09-27-2005, 12:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Thunderduck:</font><hr> Despite the cut shot drills Ive been working on for a few months, I cant figure out where to aim on most shots I come across in normal play. Imagining hitting through the center of a ghost ball just doesnt work for me.

Can someone point me to a thread or website with a simple and effective aiming system?

Tduck <hr /></blockquote>

Give Hal Houle a call - no harm in listening anyway

jmo

Leviathan
09-27-2005, 04:56 AM
I feel your pain! Let me make it worse by offering a couple of suggestions you won't like.

First, you may be aiming okay and missing partly because you have stroke problems or alignment problems. Do you make all of your long straight-in shots? If you don't, what makes you think you have an aiming problem? The best way to diagnose and correct aiming and alignment problems is to take lessons with a good teaching pro.

Second, I think the ghost ball method is okay for typical cut shots until you get to the "I just see the angles" level. However, you may find it hard to locate the ghost ball correctly if you don't let yourself see the pocket at the same time you're viewing the ob and visualizing the ghost ball. If all of your visual attention is focused on the ob and ghost ball you can't tell exactly where the pocket is, and you probably won't put the ghost ball in exactly the right place.

Hang in--it all takes time. Good luck!

AS

randyg
09-27-2005, 04:57 AM
THUNDERDUCK: I'm receiveing rave reviews on the system we teach called S.A.M. Wish you were closer to us as I would share S.A.M. with you....SPF-randyg

SplinterHands
09-27-2005, 07:29 AM
Aiming systems are over-rated. You just need to hit thousands of balls until you figure out how "you" see them.

wolfdancer
09-27-2005, 08:19 AM
Until you hit those thousands of balls, aiming systems can be a very useful tool....and the system that RandyG is teaching, would be one that I'd look into.
And let's not forget Hal Houle's contributions along those lines.
When your game has advanced to where you just "see" the shot, it's easy to knock any aiming system...until you reach that milestone though, you can use a little help with your aim, and stroke. For the record...I'm somewhere in between

Bob_Jewett
09-27-2005, 11:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Thunderduck:</font><hr> ...
Can someone point me to a thread or website with a simple and effective aiming system? ... <hr /></blockquote>
Lots of books have lots of aiming systems in them. Maybe one of them will work for you. Stauch and Kanov cover a bunch, and Randy Kukla has a book about nothing but aiming systems. Some systems are actually technically correct but hard to apply, as the ghost ball seems to be for you, and some systems are totally bogus physically and geometrically, but seem to work for some people.

But I think you have no idea what your problem really is, and neither do we. Maybe you miss because you always have your left foot up on the bed of the table. We can't know, because we can't see you play. Most beginners feel that their fundamentals are good when in fact they are lousy. How are your fundamentals?

Are you sure you're not after the three magic words which, when whispered in your ear will make you a champion?

Leviathan
09-27-2005, 12:06 PM
Sorry, Tduck--there's a stupid typo in my earlier post. I wrote that "The best way to diagnose and correct aiming and alignment problems is to take lessons with a good teaching pro." I meant to write that the best way to diagnose and correct stroke and alignment problems is to take lessons with a good teaching pro. Yes, a pro can help you with aiming, but he or she may want to check your stroke and alignment fundamentals first.--AS

randyg
09-27-2005, 03:31 PM
""Aiming systems are over-rated. You just need to hit thousands of balls until you figure out how "you" see them. ""

Another one of the many myths in pool!....SPF-randyg

Leviathan
09-27-2005, 04:40 PM
'Lo, Randy. It wasn't I who said that.--AS

SplinterHands
09-27-2005, 05:42 PM
There is only one true way to aim. You find the point on the object ball that will make the ball go to the pocket. Then you make the cue ball hit that point. Every other system is derived to sell books and lessons. I know a so-called Master instructor who says he just came up with a new aiming system. Bogus!!

pooltchr
09-27-2005, 06:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SplinterHands:</font><hr> There is only one true way to aim. You find the point on the object ball that will make the ball go to the pocket. Then you make the cue ball hit that point. <hr /></blockquote>

GREAT!!! Now tell me what to aim at so all that happens! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve

SplinterHands
09-27-2005, 06:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SplinterHands:</font><hr> There is only one true way to aim. You find the point on the object ball that will make the ball go to the pocket. Then you make the cue ball hit that point. <hr /></blockquote>

GREAT!!! Now tell me what to aim at so all that happens! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Finding the point of contact is elementary. Execution is where most people fail. You aim to the point where the cue ball will strike the contact point. Not that difficult. I just summed up in a few sentences what has been written in countless books and articles. Take my advice folks and hit those ten thousand balls, and then get back with me. You'll see what I mean.

Cane
09-27-2005, 08:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SplinterHands:</font><hr>Take my advice folks and hit those ten thousand balls, and then get back with me. You'll see what I mean. <hr /></blockquote>

OK SH... I hit about 200 balls a day. That's at least 1000 a week, so every 10 weeks, I've hit 10,000 balls. That just don't get it! Sure, you can trial and error shoot until you know the shots (of course, that makes the learning curve 10 times longer than it does if you learn a more methodical method of pocketting the balls) but how long does it take to learn every shot doing it that way! What if a player used a system to learn how to make every shot easily, then they could spend that 10,000 balls learning position play? Wouldn't that be easier?

There are countless aiming systems out there. Some are good, some are bad, some are GREAT, some are TERRIBLE, but they all are better than just trial and error.

Now, having said that, I absolutely agree that once you learn shots, that you start shooting intuitively. You don't "aim" per se (or most people don't, although I know a couple of "champions" that do aim every shot and every safety), rather you KNOW the shot. Well, if someone can learn to make a particular shot immediately, using a system, then they can committ that shot to memory and it will always be there for them. Same way with trial and error, EXCEPT, when you use trial and error, or shoot 10,000 balls to learn the shots, you've wasted unnecessary time that might have been better spent elsewhere.

OK, Now, Thunderduck... Bob Jewett is absolutely right. Have someone check your fundamentals and alignment. It may not be your aiming that's out of whack, but a rather it could be a small stroke or position problem that could be easily corrected with a simple change. Always look to your fundamentals first.

Later,
Bob

mybreak
09-28-2005, 06:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SplinterHands:</font><hr> Aiming systems are over-rated. You just need to hit thousands of balls until you figure out how "you" see them. <hr /></blockquote>


I guess that same advice applies to everything. All you have to do is hit thousands of golf balls and you too can become a PGA tour player.

Splinterhands...are you a pro pool player? What's your tournament record? Are you a certified instructor? No flames or smart remarks are necessary...just some background info will do.

Godzilla
09-28-2005, 09:56 AM
I am in a similar boat to you I think. I've been having difficulty in cut shots and thinking it was due to an error in aiming. I am now firmly convinced that it is an error in my stroke and I've been working really hard to correct it. The difference in me now and two weeks ago is huge, I ran 3 racks of 9 ball last night in the single match that I played. I think the biggest help to me has been the pause before my final stroke and really focusing on narrowing my aim during the pause. I find if you visualize the shot standing up before you commit to shooting your aim will be almost automatic (some crazy thing your brain works out without you I think) but it is very important to pause and really focus in the last few seconds to be exact and not missing by a half-ball on some shots. I hope this helps, I would really look at fundementals before thinking it is an aiming issue. There are lots of threads on the pause, and anything else you need about fundementals here from some great teachers. good luck

Thunderduck
09-28-2005, 11:00 AM
The SAM method, is that shoot-and-miss? Hahaha, just kidding.

My fundamentals are average... basically, I have two major problems...

1. I will miss easy cut shots because I just have no clue where to aim. I dont want to measure each shot analytically with a protractor, so I try to use the feel method and fail.

2. The farther away the shot, the worse my stroke accuracy becomes. This is probably due to bad fundamentals more then aiming.

I will post my problem shots on a wei table later today and you will see what I mean.

Tduck

Scott Lee
09-28-2005, 12:23 PM
T-Duck...The things Godzilla described are part of what we teach at poolschool, and are strictly fundamentals. They have nothing to do with S.A.M. (Supplemental Aiming Method), ghost ball, or any other aiming system. Without sound fundamentals, and a clear understanding of the concepts of what a stroke is, no aiming system will work repeatedly or efficiently. Enroll in poolschool, or seek out the personal attention of a qualified instructor.

Scott Lee

SplinterHands
09-28-2005, 06:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr>
Splinterhands...are you a pro pool player? What's your tournament record? Are you a certified instructor? No flames or smart remarks are necessary...just some background info will do. <hr /></blockquote>

I am semi-pro.

mybreak
09-29-2005, 03:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SplinterHands:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr>
Splinterhands...are you a pro pool player? What's your tournament record? Are you a certified instructor? No flames or smart remarks are necessary...just some background info will do. <hr /></blockquote>

I am semi-pro. <hr /></blockquote>


Hmmm...sounds like that last missing link to aiming is what's holding you back in the semi's. Open up your mind and one day you might be a full fledged pro.

randyg
09-29-2005, 05:17 AM
SplinterHands: There are many self-proclaimed Master Instructors. Only a few BCA Master Instructors exist......SPF-randyg

caedos
09-29-2005, 03:43 PM
About your 2nd point: Does your "stroke accuracy" (or shot accuracy) get worse with greater distance, or does it remain the same and what is seen is the result of the same level of error magnified by greater distance?

c

randyg
09-29-2005, 04:42 PM
Carl. What the heck did you say????....SPF-randyg

pooltchr
09-29-2005, 04:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote randyg:</font><hr> Carl. What the heck did you say????....SPF-randyg <hr /></blockquote>

In plane English, I think his question is "is it possible you having the same problem on most shots, but getting away with it on shorter shots because there is a greater margin for error?" or something like that.

caedos
09-29-2005, 09:15 PM
Yeah! That thing that pooltchr just said! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

c

Qtec
09-29-2005, 09:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm...sounds like that last missing link to aiming is what's holding you back in the semi's. Open up your mind and one day you might be a full fledged pro. <hr /></blockquote>

I dont know makes you think that he has a problem with aiming. If the guy plays semi-pro, then he plays at a high level and if he didnt know where to aim or what to aim at, he would never have reached that level in the first place!

In Cane,s post above, he said this,
"... I hit about 200 balls a day. That's at least 1000 a week, so every 10 weeks, I've hit 10,000 balls. That just don't get it!"
Cane has been playing 30/40 years [ so he has enough experience], he is a BCA instructor [ so he has a lot of knowledge] and he hits 1000 balls a week[ so he is not lacking practice or table time] and as far as I know, he hasnt turned pro.
He has the same problem that we all do [ from beginner to pro] and that is, hitting what we are aiming at. Aiming systems are fine for beginners or anyone who has a problem with aiming or even anyone who thinks they have a problem, but I dont think players who can run racks dont know what to aim at.

The difference, IMO, between a semi-pro and a pro is that one performs under pressure and the other doesnt. Its usually nothing physical [ because they can both run racks and play at a high standard], its a question of a players mentality.

Qtec

pooltchr
09-30-2005, 04:13 AM
Q,
Good point!
OMG, I'm agreeing with Q!!!!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Steve

wolfdancer
09-30-2005, 05:20 AM
Carl, are you a speechwriter for Pres. Bush?...lol
Actually I understood what you were saying...which is scary...maybe I've been listening to GWB too much
I wish someone had posed that question to me, a few years back. My own "aiming error" that got worse as the distance increased, turned out to be mostly an alignment error.

mybreak
09-30-2005, 06:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

I dont know makes you think that he has a problem with aiming. If the guy plays semi-pro, then he plays at a high level and if he didnt know where to aim or what to aim at, he would never have reached that level in the first place!

In Cane,s post above, he said this,
"... I hit about 200 balls a day. That's at least 1000 a week, so every 10 weeks, I've hit 10,000 balls. That just don't get it!"
Cane has been playing 30/40 years [ so he has enough experience],
Aiming systems are fine for beginners or anyone who has a problem with aiming or even anyone who thinks they have a problem,
Qtec
<hr /></blockquote>

And I don't know what makes you think that Splinterhands is really a semi-pro or anything close to that. If you believe everything someone tells you on a pool forum, then believe me when I tell you the tooth fairy is coming to visit you tonight.

If anybody who is supposedly that good says that all you have to do is hit 10,000 balls and aim at a contact point and you've got it made, then it's also a person that NO ONE should listen to. That's absurd.

I know for a FACT, that Cane uses aiming systems and just doesn't wing it. I know what he uses and it's not guesswork or contact point aiming either.

Your statement about aiming systems being for beginners or someone having problems with their aim is even more absurd and ridiculous. I can see that your posts aren't to be taken seriously and have much merit if this is representative of other things that'll come out of you. LOL

caedos
09-30-2005, 06:47 AM
Do you mean the tooth fairy isn't real?

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

caedos
09-30-2005, 06:54 AM
Yeah... When I have to deal with that (every day), I keep track of where the cue ball "shows up" on my target (object ball), and what the shot result was (good, too thick, too thin, off to the right, off to the left, etc.). I have a drill I do where I just spend time shooting the cue ball over the chalk spots on the table to make sure I can send it where I want to, whenever I want to do so.

It's who I am. It's what I do. (IWIA-IWID)

Carl

Qtec
09-30-2005, 07:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

I dont know makes you think that he has a problem with aiming. If the guy plays semi-pro, then he plays at a high level and if he didnt know where to aim or what to aim at, he would never have reached that level in the first place!

In Cane,s post above, he said this,
"... I hit about 200 balls a day. That's at least 1000 a week, so every 10 weeks, I've hit 10,000 balls. That just don't get it!"
Cane has been playing 30/40 years [ so he has enough experience],
Aiming systems are fine for beginners or anyone who has a problem with aiming or even anyone who thinks they have a problem,
Qtec
<hr /></blockquote>

And I don't know what makes you think that Splinterhands is really a semi-pro or anything close to that. <font color="blue"> ..because he said so. I have no reason not to believe him. </font color> If you believe everything someone tells you on a pool forum, <font color="blue"> I dont think anyone can accuse me of that! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color> then believe me when I tell you the tooth fairy is coming to visit you tonight.

If anybody who is supposedly that good says that all you have to do is hit 10,000 balls and aim at a contact point and you've got it made, <font color="blue"> I dont remember him saying, "you've got it made". </font color> then it's also a person that NO ONE should listen to. That's absurd. <font color="blue"> I didnt even say that I agreed with him! </font color>

I know for a FACT, that Cane uses aiming systems and just doesn't wing it. I know what he uses and it's not guesswork or contact point aiming either. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> I am well aware of that, belive me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif</font color>

Its not the aiming system that makes the player, its certainly not the difference between semi-pro and pro level.

Qtec......PS. I think you will find that a LOT of good pool and snooker players would describe how they pocket balls ,in a similar fashion as Splinter Hands. For them, aiming isnt a problem.

mybreak
09-30-2005, 07:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Qtec......PS. I think you will find that a LOT of good pool and snooker players would describe how they pocket balls ,in a similar fashion as Splinter Hands. For them, aiming isnt a problem.
<hr /></blockquote>

Sure they'll describe it as such because many of them don't want to bother telling others what they do.

Then you also have guys like Efren, Varner, Robles, CJWiley, Grady, and a whole host of others that use them and also have the ability to articulate it.

If snooker players supposedly don't use aiming systems, why are there so many different methods of doing it when you do a search on "snooker aiming systems" on the internet just like for pool?

Aiming is ALWAYS a problem for everybody at all levels. If you get out of line one way or another by just 1/2", you can have the straightest stroke in the world and all it will cause you to do is hit straight shots that miss.

Did you ever stop to think that after hitting 10,000 or 50,000 balls that maybe you don't have to think about the STROKE any more and IT becomes automatic? I mean how much does it take to ingrain a back and forth motion that goes a few inches either way?

dr_dave
09-30-2005, 08:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote randyg:</font><hr>I'm receiveing rave reviews on the system we teach called S.A.M.<hr /></blockquote>
Randy,

Could you describe in words (and/or post some diagrams that show) how the S.A.M. aiming system works? When I was at your pool school this past summer, you didn't say much about S.A.M. I have a rough idea what S.A.M. is, but I don't think I know it good enough to do it justice by trying to describe it myself. Please share your system with the board.

Thanks,
Dave

PS: I promise I won't draw any diagrams or try to contest your system. I don't want to start another huge debate on fixed-point aiming systems. That's already been done (see the infamous HAL thread and other aiming system discussions under "aiming" in the threads summary section of my website (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html)). I just want people to know what S.A.M. is.

Fran Crimi
09-30-2005, 09:26 AM
I think your problem in missing easy cut shots is that you don't register the results in your brain. You have to pay attention to how you miss every shot. Did you overcut that shot or undercut it? By a little? By a lot? Then the next shot you shoot, make an adjustment. Aim fuller or thinner depending on how you missed the last shot.

You need an aiming reference point to start out with. If you've been using the ghost ball method, that's fine. Start with that. Doesn't matter what you use, as long as you're consistent. Then adjust your aim from there.

Shooting shots one after another without paying attention to the results is a guaranteed way to get nowhere fast.

But if you do pay attention and keep making adjustments in your aim, you will succeed. It's simple common sense. And you won't even need a protractor. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran

Bob_Jewett
09-30-2005, 10:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> I think your problem in missing easy cut shots is that you don't register the results in your brain. You have to pay attention to how you miss every shot. Did you overcut that shot or undercut it? By a little? By a lot? ... <hr /></blockquote>
One of the amazing things about some of the top players is their memory for shots. They might remember a particular shot from a match years before, and the situation, and the outcome. I think the ability to remember things like this is one of the strengths that sets the champions apart from the rest of us. It's also something the average player can work on.

Cane
09-30-2005, 11:05 AM
Bob, I agree about great players ability to remember shots, but actually, I think any of us, with normal neurologial function, have that capability. The difference is that the top players know how to recall that memory. Actually, that's something that isn't so difficult to train your brain to do.

I believe that every time you make a shot, play position, or a bank, or kick, or anything you do on a pool table, that is stored in memory. I don't think you EVER forget it. Problem is, I don't think you ever forget shots you missed, or blown position plays. The trick is to bring out the CORRECT memory of every scenario. Not a big deal to do, I don't think.

Later,
Bob

Thunderduck
09-30-2005, 12:02 PM
Here are some of my "problem" shots...

START(
%Id8Z1%Po8Y8%WE1Z7%Xc2Z0

)END


START(
%If6Z9%Pp5N5%WE1Z7%Xc2Z0

)END

START(
%Ii3X2%Po1Y7%WE1D7%Xh4W7

)END

START(
%IU1O4%Po1Y7%WE1D7%XS1N6

)END

Mostly falls into 3 categories... close to rail shots, cue ball and object ball close together but pocket far away, and cue ball and object ball far apart.

tduck

randyg
09-30-2005, 03:53 PM
Dr. Dave: I would love to try to explain S.A.M on this board. I'm very sorry but I am unable to put S.A.M into the proper words that would not be misunderstood.

Maybe Carl or Caneman could do better justice to a great aiming system. They not only use this system but both teach it......SPF-randyg

SplinterHands
09-30-2005, 05:03 PM
If you own another cue ball, line it up with the object ball to the pocket. Then go back to where you'd be shooting from and see where the cue ball needs to be to pocket the ball. Once that's burned into your memory, shoot it 10,000 times using a center ball hit. Ok, Ok, Ghost ball.

Alfie
09-30-2005, 07:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote randyg:</font><hr> I would love to try to explain S.A.M on this board. I'm very sorry but I am unable to put S.A.M into the proper words that would not be misunderstood.<hr /></blockquote>Do you communicate it to your classes? Just use the same words you use there.

rukiddingme
10-01-2005, 05:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alfie:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote randyg:</font><hr> I would love to try to explain S.A.M on this board. I'm very sorry but I am unable to put S.A.M into the proper words that would not be misunderstood.<hr /></blockquote>Do you communicate it to your classes? Just use the same words you use there. <hr /></blockquote>
$650 check is in the mail
ruk

randyg
10-01-2005, 07:06 AM
Sounds simple, right? In Pool School we spend a fair amount of time between Instructor &amp; Student in understanding the language spoken. This is not the case on this board. It's not my explanation but the misinterpretation or misunderstanding of words in print.

Here's what I will do! I will talk to my Instructors who use S.A.M. If Carl, Cane &amp; Jerry think we can explain S.A.M in a manner that would fit all viewers, I will attempt to do so.

Hang tight, more to follow......thanks..randyg

Fran Crimi
10-01-2005, 07:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr> Bob, I agree about great players ability to remember shots, but actually, I think any of us, with normal neurologial function, have that capability. The difference is that the top players know how to recall that memory. Actually, that's something that isn't so difficult to train your brain to do.

I believe that every time you make a shot, play position, or a bank, or kick, or anything you do on a pool table, that is stored in memory. I don't think you EVER forget it. Problem is, I don't think you ever forget shots you missed, or blown position plays. The trick is to bring out the CORRECT memory of every scenario. Not a big deal to do, I don't think.

Later,
Bob <hr /></blockquote>

True, the mind does take pictures of everything you do, however, the unconscious mind doesn't make judgements. It's the input from the conscious mind at the time of the occurrence that gives the memory value.

For example: If you miss a shot, get all angry about it and go stomping off, your recall of that memory will be just that. But if you miss a shot and consciously analyze what happened, such as: I hesitated in my stroke, or I didn't take enough time to aim, or I overcut it and missed the pocket one inch to the right, that's what you will recall.

Better players obviously have more knowledge so they can stock their observations with lots of helpful information. However, one's ability to observe doesn't come strictly from knowledge. I think that players who eventually become advanced are maximizing their observation skills right from the beginning and are creating helpful memories. The player who allows his emotions to rule his behavior will not store nearly as many helpful memories. The memory that will surface will be more about his emotional state at the time, rather than an objective assessment of what actually occurred.

Fran

wolfdancer
10-01-2005, 09:35 AM
Randy, I had a good book some time ago, authored by a Harvard Prof. It was about how we communicate, exchange info, and the problems, thereof.
While the book was completely over my head....I got enough out of it, that your reply here, fits in exactly with his observations. We each filter words a little differently....and your explanation could be digested correctly by some; completely misunderstood by others.
I'd fall somewhere in between....get about half of it right, just enough to have me believe I'm ready to get to the next level...SL-3 That's why the teacher/student works so much better then learning by book/tape.
I'm looking forward to your dissertation...................

randyg
10-01-2005, 09:57 AM
Wolfdancer: You are wise beyond your years....THANKS...randyg

Fran Crimi
10-01-2005, 10:19 AM
Randy, just a suggestion. Don't give it away for free. You have obligations to your paying customers.

Maybe just a slap on the wrist to your instructors for months of posting S.A.M. with the "Neh neh, we know something you don't know," attitude.

Fran

wolfdancer
10-01-2005, 01:49 PM
Sounds like you know enough about aiming already.....but missing the easy shots...you might need to work on your focus a bit. I also keep falling into that trap of..."I'll just hit it here, and it'll go in"
Try walking around the table, and looking at the shot backwards, even the easy shots....just changing your preshot routine, without learning a new aiming system, may get you concentrating a little better, and back on track.

wolfdancer
10-02-2005, 11:50 AM
[backwards."
<hr /></blockquote> [ QUOTE ]
The trick is to bring out the CORRECT memory of every scenario. Not a big deal to do, I don't think. <hr /></blockquote>
Unless, of course, the Red Queen is your pool instructor


[ QUOTE ]
"It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards."
-- The Red Queen in Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

heater451
10-02-2005, 11:55 AM
Assuming that you have your stroke dialed-in pretty well, try practicing your (posted) problem shots, and try these things:

For the 'down the rail shots', concentrate on hitting the OB parallel to the rail. It seems the same as using the contact-point-to-pocket line, but it may give you a better feel for where the CB needs to hit the OB--where the CB equator will strike. It's the same idea that you would use when bowling, and you are consciously sending the bowling ball to an "outside point" on the headpin (aiming for a strike ball).

I'm guessing that you will be hitting the ball into the rail "early" quite a bit (hitting too full), and having it rebound out. Since it is much easier to undercut the rail shot, than overcut it, it should happen more often. Also, don't be confused, by accidentally hitting the CB into the rail first, and getting a good cut out of it. You may want to do this when the OB is only 1-2 ft out of the pocket, but for the shots you have posted, it might confuse you, because to looks like an overcut.

When the OB is a little further from the rail, like an inch, think about the parallel line to the rail, and then adjust a little fuller, to run the angle towards the pocket. Pretty much the same thing, when the CB is more in-line to the shot: Aim almost full on the OB, then "just a hair" to the outside (of course, this differs more, the farther away from the rail the OB is).

For both the rail shots, and the long-distance, cut shots that you have posted, concentrate on striking the OB just hard enough to run past the pocket about 6-8 inches (15-20 cm). Hopefully, that speed will give you a good idea of where your aim "goes off". It may show you a stroke flaw as well.

In a game situation, shooting with that speed, or maybe a little less, should leave the OB close enough to the pocket, that it's easier for the next shot at it. However, in practice, I think it's better to keep it to one side of the center-pocket line--with my preference being to the side of the table, as opposed to the end (overcut). Of course, this greatly depends on the original, OB-to-pocket location, but again, in the shots you posted, I would error to the long-rail side.

Anyway, by nailing your speed/power variable down, you may have better results in diagnosing aim and execution flaws. And, if you can hit with a consistent speed, you will probably find that your stroke becomes more consistent, and so will your aiming errors. Then, it's a matter of fine-tuning.

As always: Remember to breathe.



======================================

Fran Crimi
10-02-2005, 02:24 PM
Geez. I have to learn to cut the fat outa my posts. That was damn good, Wolfie.

Fran

Leviathan
10-02-2005, 03:51 PM
Thunderduck: Just looked at your shot diagrams and have a few comments.

Shot 1: It's straight in, so aiming shouldn't be a big problem. Alignment and side-to-side cue movement could be problems. You're shooting off the rail--is your rail bridge okay? Is your stance for rail-bridge shots okay?

Shot 2: Very tough shot, and you're shooting off the rail again. I wonder whether it would be more productive to start with an easier version of this one. For example, you could put the cb in the center of the table and freeze the ob to the cushion two diamonds away from the target pocket. You could graduate to progressively harder shots after mastering easier ones.

Shot 3: I wonder whether you see the pocket as you visualize the ghost ball. I find it easier to locate the ghost ball correctly if I see the pocket at the same time I visualize the ghost ball. Tunnel vision is incompatible with ghost ball aiming, IMO.

Shot 4: See comments about Shot 3. Also, you're shooting off the rail again. Also, the distances between the balls and the pocket in this shot will magnify the effects of aiming error, alignment error, and side-to-side cue movement. If you substituted a spot shot for this one you wouldn't have to consider problems caused by shooting off the rail and aiming would be simplified. This is the half-ball-hit spot shot I'm thinking of:

START(
%Ag6O5%BL7P8%CJ5O4%DL7N1%EM7P1%FK6P1%GK6N8%HM7N8%I L7O4%JK6M5
%KJ5P7%LJ5N2%MK6Q4%NJ5R0%OJ5M0%PN2W9%Wr6D3%Xh2N8%Y r7M0%ZC7[0
%eB4a3
)END

--AS

dr_dave
10-03-2005, 08:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote randyg:</font><hr> Dr. Dave: I would love to try to explain S.A.M on this board. I'm very sorry but I am unable to put S.A.M into the proper words that would not be misunderstood.

Maybe Carl or Caneman could do better justice to a great aiming system. They not only use this system but both teach it......SPF-randyg <hr /></blockquote>
Randy,

Thank you for being willing to share your system with the board. I'm glad you are open to having Carl or Cane share it with us. Please contact them to encourage them to post a brief description.

Thanks,
Dave

Fran Crimi
10-03-2005, 01:15 PM
Do you teach college for free?

dr_dave
10-03-2005, 02:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> You are way out of line, Dave.<hr /></blockquote>
I'm sorry you think that. I repectfully disagree.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>And you call yourself a professional?<hr /></blockquote>
Yes, I do.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>Do you teach college for free?<hr /></blockquote>
You make a good point here. My university does charge for courses, and I do charge companies when I do consulting. However, I never refuse to answer questions from students, colleagues, and forum participants. I'm on the CCB to share information and to learn. The only time I would refuse to answer a question is if I didn't know the answer (and even then I might go out on a limb and take an educated guess).

I can't see how Randy briefly describing SAM would hurt his business any. In fact, I think the opposite is true. If people know about all the things he teaches, they might get excited about the prospect of attending one of his classes to learn and experience the techniques and coaching in person.

Fran, I know we haven't always gotten along on this board. I wish I could take back some of the comments I have made that might have been disrespectful of you. I apologize for any of my past insensitivities. I don't always scensor my postings as well as I should. I certainly have a great deal of respect for you, and I greatly appreciate the contributions you make to the board. You always seem willing to share what you know. I thank you for that.

Dave

PS: I attended Randy's school last summer and thought it was awesome. I would certainly encourage people to attend schools like Randy's, yours, Tom's, etc. Nothing beats personalized instruction from a knowldgable and experienced instructor.

Fran Crimi
10-03-2005, 02:52 PM
If I didn't believe in sharing, I wouldn't be posting here.

However, there are professional ethics and courtesies involved when you have paying customers. You have to know when to draw the line.

I don't blame people for asking Randy to describe SAM because his instructors have been taunting everyone with it for months. None of them have made any attempt to explain it. Doesn't that mean something to you? It sure does to me.

It means that it's something that Randy developed exclusively for his school and his students and his instructors.

Randy's a nice guy. If you keep pressuring him, maybe he'll give in. I hope he doesn't.

Fran

dr_dave
10-03-2005, 03:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>If I didn't believe in sharing, I wouldn't be posting here.<hr /></blockquote>
We certainly have the same philosophy here.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>However, there are professional ethics and courtesies involved when you have paying customers. You have to know when to draw the line.<hr /></blockquote>
Are you implying that past customers of Randy would be upset if he shared a brief description of SAM with nonpaying customers? I'm sorry if I misunderstood your implications.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>I don't blame people for asking Randy to describe SAM because his instructors have been taunting everyone with it for months. None of them have made any attempt to explain it. Doesn't that mean something to you? It sure does to me.<hr /></blockquote>
I'm not sure what it means; but, honestly, I think it is unfortunate and disappointing.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>It means that it's something that Randy developed exclusively for his school and his students and his instructors.<hr /></blockquote>Does that mean his students can't share their knowledge with others? I don't remember students having to sign anything to that effect when I sat in at his school.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>Randy's a nice guy.<hr /></blockquote>
We certainly agree here. I really enjoyed my time with Randy in Dallas this past summer. We had a great time together and I have lots of fond memories. I also learned a lot about the BCA instruction methods and approaches.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>If you keep pressuring him, maybe he'll give-in. I hope he doesn't.<hr /></blockquote>
Again, I don't think I'm pressuring him. If he thinks I am, I hope he calls me and sets me straight. Why do you "hope he doesn't" share? I've asked only for a brief description so people will know what he and others are talking about. Why do you think that is unethical or inappropriate? I'm sorry if you think I'm dense regarding these questions.

Regards,
Dave

Fran Crimi
10-03-2005, 03:19 PM
Please excuse me while I go bang my head against a brick wall. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran

dr_dave
10-03-2005, 03:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Please excuse me while I go bang my head against a brick wall. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif<hr /></blockquote>
Well, I guess I'm from Mars and you're from Venus. I also need a brick wall against which I can bang my head. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Dave

Sid_Vicious
10-03-2005, 04:10 PM
Nothing personal Fran but Dave has his points about what nonsense it makes not to share an approach to playing, even in the paid for P-schools. Besides, don't you think that many of those students out there would feel they were free to openly share their paid for knowledge as well? I'm fairly sure that I can get an explanation over a cold beer and one of my next visits to play where ex-students frequent. I never knew there was a proprietary nature to public billiards instruction. Why the hesitation, this is the CCB remember...sid

Fran Crimi
10-03-2005, 04:35 PM
The only thing that's important to me is whether Randy knows what I'm saying here. I believe that he does. He will be the one who makes the final decision as to the significance of SAM to his school and his students. Whichever way he decides to go is A-OK with me. It's his system and his choice.

...just a fellow master instructor who knows what it's like to be in his shoes.

Fran

recoveryjones
10-03-2005, 05:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote randyg:</font><hr> Sounds simple, right? In Pool School we spend a fair amount of time between Instructor &amp; Student in understanding the language spoken. This is not the case on this board. It's not my explanation but the misinterpretation or misunderstanding of words in print.

Here's what I will do! I will talk to my Instructors who use S.A.M. If Carl, Cane &amp; Jerry think we can explain S.A.M in a manner that would fit all viewers, I will attempt to do so.

Hang tight, more to follow......thanks..randyg <hr /></blockquote>


OK, you guys, I admit it......I'm Jonesing to learn about SAM. All this teasing is driving me nuts!!!!...LOL.

Although I already know 3 systems (two of them Hal Houle)I'm really curious about SAM.Although teaching it person to person on a table is the best, systems CAN be taught with words and a few simple diagrams.I know this is true because that's how I already learned all three systems that I currently know.

Not everyone is geographically located or finacially able to attend pool school.

Also I do agree that any system taught will not be totally effective without a straight stroke so I don't think that posting SAM will lose or gain anyone any bussiness for lessons.

Someone PM me or please post SAM. Thanks, RJ

wolfdancer
10-03-2005, 06:47 PM
I hope you guys don't do that....I tried it once, and while it probably rearranged some neurons, it just gave me a major headache.
I was pretty smart in school, although not as smart as a first engineer (merchant marine) that I worked under, who bragged about being valedictorian of his H.S. class....Port Arthur, Tx , 12 students ...don't know how many didn't graduate, and went on to become pro pool players. Anyway this budding genious rebuilt a starting control board for a DC motor....which blew up when we applied a current, and old Bernouli wouldda been proud when he decided it was safe to open a live steam line, which was under a vacuum, thinking that atmospheric pressure would contain the steam....I think he got third, or second degree burns as a result...Like I say, i'm jes not that smart.
Well, that's getting away from my point, which was....I never got as much out of book readin' as I did from asking too many questions from the instructor. Getting the info "live" did it for me.
Seeing a brief outline of S.A.M. here on the board, might pique my interest enough to, rob the local convenience store, to get the $$ needed to attend Randy's school.
On the other hand....why should he even give away one of his
proprietary "products" fer free.
I can see both sides of this issue....but it ain't worth you two "guys" butting heads about......that might be better though then beating yer head against a wall

caedos
10-04-2005, 08:56 AM
Thank you for compliments on your visit with us and the class!

There are pieces of S.A.M. in several different messages in the archives. I started to write a more complete explanation last night and went to sleep with the intention of finishing it this morning and then deciding about posting the thing. There are plenty of people on this board who know the system besides Randy and myself. Most of them paid time and yes, money to come learn many things including S.A.M. It's a very special tool for those who understand, and a small percentage of our students throw it out and if we're lucky they pick it up again later.

Pool is physical, mental, and psychological. For me to post my files, diagrams, and notes would be to disregard and disrespect Randy, the school, and the many hours of my life I've invested in making sure it's a sound system. It is sound. It has time proven and mathematically proven known concepts applied with two or three extra steps. The student drop rate on S.A.M. at the school is less than 20%. On this board it would would be astronomical by comparison. Maybe I'm just in an off mood this morning.

Dave: "When I was at your pool school this past summer, you didn't say much about S.A.M. I have a rough idea what S.A.M. is, but I don't think I know it good enough to do it justice by trying to describe it myself. " I'm sorry that you didn't get what you feel was a fair shake on S.A.M.; we spent over an hour on the system on Day 2, and again on Day 3 of the school. Check in with Randy, and when you come back and audit we'll go through it. Or give me a call.

S.A.M. is not only the aiming points for the Ghost Ball, it is a method of getting to that aiming point. It is that simple. "If I shoot this, I get that" is the root of all good aiming systems, and we build our memories on that. The two constants in the system are the straight shot and the half-ball hit as foundation references and the other aim points are measured from that baseline structure. Pick your point and shoot. Shoot the point, not the ball. Stroke the cue, ignore the cue-ball. If a successful result as a mental image is not part of the process, this is a short and haphazard attempt for the shooter to learn something new.


That's all I'm willing to post for now. If anyone has an issue with that, it's more than Randy is comfortable with me posting and it's far less than what you get if you come to school. Just remember that part of what a customer is paying for is my continued ability to spend time teaching and studying how to be a better instructor, with the best information available, and training other people to improve how our sport is received by the rest of the world. It has to start somewhere. Otherwise I'll be working a full time job, able to post nothing, and losing my certification and knowlege applications. As a sidenote, we are only paid by our students at the current time. We have no financially active sponsors. We have a relationship with Iwan Simonis for the best cloth on the planet, and Olhausen was kind enough to provide a table. Other equipment is provided by instructors who paid for the facilities and equipment by teaching players (hopefully you) and by their other jobs and spousal support. At a university the instructor can teach whatever and however within a wide range, wider if they have tenure. Their students need their degree and an instructor has a huge amount of leverage over the behavior of their students if they want to pass. University instructors do not have to market or do the financials of their business except as regards their paycheck. My brother is a prof at MSU in Lansing, MI. He teaches (lecture survey course and a grad class), researches, and gets grants on department related projects. It's a very regular and cush way to be an educator if you can handle the political pressures whether you are tenured or not. I'm not a hobbyist instructor. After my wife, family, and friends; my career or occupational efforts revolve around pool instruction. There is more than enough information on this board and in its archives to self-train almost any aspect of the game to a decent intermediate level. If you're an information hound and have to have the latest system (newest cue, the 'magic cue' that hits just right), it will never be enough. The answer will never be in print. When it's all done, the answers are at the table. The rest are primers or enhancements.

Maybe we'll put it on a video set and market the thing. It won't be personalized to an individual's needs, we won't be there to answer the unique questions a person has when learning, and there won't be another person to switch from observer to shooter to observer. Maybe we'll just keep it in school where we can live up to our responsibilities in making sure it's taught well and learned as best the student knows how.

umma gumma webop BLAM! My head just exploded. Time for lunch!


Rule #1: Have fun.


Carl

IWIA-IWID

dr_dave
10-04-2005, 09:34 AM
Carl,

Thank you very much for your reply.

First of all, you are very welcome for the compliments concerning your school. I've shared my impressions several times in the past, and all of my comments have been sincere. You guys run a top-notch operation.

I appreciate your fear of disclosing valuable resources you guys have developed for your school. However, I still think it wouldn't hurt to share a more complete definition of SAM. IMHO, the true value added by your school is not buzzwords, acronyms, and secret formulas ... it is the wonderful individualized attention you guys provide to help individuals with their technique, attitude, focus, game, etc. IMO, that's what good instructors do ... they observe, analyze, and diagnose on an individual basis and provide individualized instruction, advice, feedback, coaching, and encouragement (and psychotherapy where appropriate). This can't be done with printed material alone. Reading a definition of SAM is one thing, but having somebody help you understand it, embrace it, and incorporate it into your game with success is another.

Honestly, I am disappointed you could not provide a more complete (but concise) definition of SAM. I think a few sentences could give at least the essence of SAM without disclosing all of its magical secrets. So far, this is all we know (paraphrased from your response below):

SAM = a very special tool based on several fixed points of aim (e.g., the half-ball hit reference).

It sounds similar to Hal Houle's basic aiming method (see the links under "aiming" in the threads summary section of my website (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html) for a description of that system). Is that the case? Maybe you guys have a better way to define aim points in between the easy-to-visualize references? Maybe SAM also helps one compensate for those in-between shots?

Thanks again for your thought provoking message,
Dave

PS: BTW, what does SAM stand for? I assume it is "Simple Aiming Method," but I'm not sure. The only guess I've seen in this thread is "Shoot And Miss." /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote caedos:</font><hr> Thank you for compliments on your visit with us and the class!

There are pieces of S.A.M. in several different messages in the archives. I started to write a more complete explanation last night and went to sleep with the intention of finishing it this morning and then deciding about posting the thing. There are plenty of people on this board who know the system besides Randy and myself. Most of them paid time and yes, money to come learn many things including S.A.M. It's a very special tool for those who understand, and a small percentage of our students throw it out and if we're lucky they pick it up again later.

Pool is physical, mental, and psychological. For me to post my files, diagrams, and notes would be to disregard and disrespect Randy, the school, and the many hours of my life I've invested in making sure it's a sound system. It is sound. It has time proven and mathematically proven known concepts applied with two or three extra steps. The student drop rate on S.A.M. at the school is less than 20%. On this board it would would be astronomical by comparison. Maybe I'm just in an off mood this morning.

Dave: "When I was at your pool school this past summer, you didn't say much about S.A.M. I have a rough idea what S.A.M. is, but I don't think I know it good enough to do it justice by trying to describe it myself. " I'm sorry that you didn't get what you feel was a fair shake on S.A.M.; we spent over an hour on the system on Day 2, and again on Day 3 of the school. Check in with Randy, and when you come back and audit we'll go through it. Or give me a call.

S.A.M. is not only the aiming points for the Ghost Ball, it is a method of getting to that aiming point. It is that simple. "If I shoot this, I get that" is the root of all good aiming systems, and we build our memories on that. The two constants in the system are the straight shot and the half-ball hit as foundation references and the other aim points are measured from that baseline structure. Pick your point and shoot. Shoot the point, not the ball. Stroke the cue, ignore the cue-ball. If a successful result as a mental image is not part of the process, this is a short and haphazard attempt for the shooter to learn something new.


That's all I'm willing to post for now. If anyone has an issue with that, it's more than Randy is comfortable with me posting and it's far less than what you get if you come to school. Just remember that part of what a customer is paying for is my continued ability to spend time teaching and studying how to be a better instructor, with the best information available, and training other people to improve how our sport is received by the rest of the world. It has to start somewhere. Otherwise I'll be working a full time job, able to post nothing, and losing my certification and knowlege applications. As a sidenote, we are only paid by our students at the current time. We have no financially active sponsors. We have a relationship with Iwan Simonis for the best cloth on the planet, and Olhausen was kind enough to provide a table. Other equipment is provided by instructors who paid for the facilities and equipment by teaching players (hopefully you) and by their other jobs and spousal support. At a university the instructor can teach whatever and however within a wide range, wider if they have tenure. Their students need their degree and an instructor has a huge amount of leverage over the behavior of their students if they want to pass. University instructors do not have to market or do the financials of their business except as regards their paycheck. My brother is a prof at MSU in Lansing, MI. He teaches (lecture survey course and a grad class), researches, and gets grants on department related projects. It's a very regular and cush way to be an educator if you can handle the political pressures whether you are tenured or not. I'm not a hobbyist instructor. After my wife, family, and friends; my career or occupational efforts revolve around pool instruction. There is more than enough information on this board and in its archives to self-train almost any aspect of the game to a decent intermediate level. If you're an information hound and have to have the latest system (newest cue, the 'magic cue' that hits just right), it will never be enough. The answer will never be in print. When it's all done, the answers are at the table. The rest are primers or enhancements.

Maybe we'll put it on a video set and market the thing. It won't be personalized to an individual's needs, we won't be there to answer the unique questions a person has when learning, and there won't be another person to switch from observer to shooter to observer. Maybe we'll just keep it in school where we can live up to our responsibilities in making sure it's taught well and learned as best the student knows how.

umma gumma webop BLAM! My head just exploded. Time for lunch!

Rule #1: Have fun.

Carl

IWIA-IWID<hr /></blockquote>

Fran Crimi
10-04-2005, 10:29 AM
Shortened version:

Carl: Sorry, no can do. We ain't in this business for free. We wuz jest advertising.

Dave: Waaaaaaaahhh! Waaaaaaaahhhh! I want my lollipop!

Let's tell it like it is, guys.



<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Carl,

Thank you very much for your reply.

First of all, you are very welcome for the compliments concerning your school. I've shared my impressions several times in the past, and all of my comments have been sincere. You guys run a top-notch operation.

I appreciate your fear of disclosing valuable resources you guys have developed for your school. However, I still think it wouldn't hurt to share a more complete definition of SAM. IMHO, the true value added by your school is not buzzwords, acronyms, and secret formulas ... it is the wonderful individualized attention you guys provide to help individuals with their technique, attitude, focus, game, etc. IMO, that's what good instructors do ... they observe, analyze, and diagnose on an individual basis and provide individualized instruction, advice, feedback, coaching, and encouragement (and psychotherapy where appropriate). This can't be done with printed material alone. Reading a definition of SAM is one thing, but having somebody help you understand it, embrace it, and incorporate it into your game with success is another.

Honestly, I am disappointed you could not provide a more complete (but concise) definition of SAM. I think a few sentences could give at least the essence of SAM without disclosing all of its magical secrets. So far, this is all we know (paraphrased from your response below):

SAM = a very special tool based on several fixed points of aim (e.g., the half-ball hit reference).

It sounds similar to Hal Houle's basic aiming method (see the links under "aiming" in the threads summary section of my website (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html) for a description of that system). Is that the case? Maybe you guys have a better way to define aim points in between the easy-to-visualize references? Maybe SAM also helps one compensate for those in-between shots?

Thanks again for your thought provoking message,
Dave

PS: BTW, what does SAM stand for? I assume it is "Simple Aiming Method," but I'm not sure. The only guess I've seen in this thread is "Shoot And Miss." /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote caedos:</font><hr> Thank you for compliments on your visit with us and the class!

There are pieces of S.A.M. in several different messages in the archives. I started to write a more complete explanation last night and went to sleep with the intention of finishing it this morning and then deciding about posting the thing. There are plenty of people on this board who know the system besides Randy and myself. Most of them paid time and yes, money to come learn many things including S.A.M. It's a very special tool for those who understand, and a small percentage of our students throw it out and if we're lucky they pick it up again later.

Pool is physical, mental, and psychological. For me to post my files, diagrams, and notes would be to disregard and disrespect Randy, the school, and the many hours of my life I've invested in making sure it's a sound system. It is sound. It has time proven and mathematically proven known concepts applied with two or three extra steps. The student drop rate on S.A.M. at the school is less than 20%. On this board it would would be astronomical by comparison. Maybe I'm just in an off mood this morning.

Dave: "When I was at your pool school this past summer, you didn't say much about S.A.M. I have a rough idea what S.A.M. is, but I don't think I know it good enough to do it justice by trying to describe it myself. " I'm sorry that you didn't get what you feel was a fair shake on S.A.M.; we spent over an hour on the system on Day 2, and again on Day 3 of the school. Check in with Randy, and when you come back and audit we'll go through it. Or give me a call.

S.A.M. is not only the aiming points for the Ghost Ball, it is a method of getting to that aiming point. It is that simple. "If I shoot this, I get that" is the root of all good aiming systems, and we build our memories on that. The two constants in the system are the straight shot and the half-ball hit as foundation references and the other aim points are measured from that baseline structure. Pick your point and shoot. Shoot the point, not the ball. Stroke the cue, ignore the cue-ball. If a successful result as a mental image is not part of the process, this is a short and haphazard attempt for the shooter to learn something new.


That's all I'm willing to post for now. If anyone has an issue with that, it's more than Randy is comfortable with me posting and it's far less than what you get if you come to school. Just remember that part of what a customer is paying for is my continued ability to spend time teaching and studying how to be a better instructor, with the best information available, and training other people to improve how our sport is received by the rest of the world. It has to start somewhere. Otherwise I'll be working a full time job, able to post nothing, and losing my certification and knowlege applications. As a sidenote, we are only paid by our students at the current time. We have no financially active sponsors. We have a relationship with Iwan Simonis for the best cloth on the planet, and Olhausen was kind enough to provide a table. Other equipment is provided by instructors who paid for the facilities and equipment by teaching players (hopefully you) and by their other jobs and spousal support. At a university the instructor can teach whatever and however within a wide range, wider if they have tenure. Their students need their degree and an instructor has a huge amount of leverage over the behavior of their students if they want to pass. University instructors do not have to market or do the financials of their business except as regards their paycheck. My brother is a prof at MSU in Lansing, MI. He teaches (lecture survey course and a grad class), researches, and gets grants on department related projects. It's a very regular and cush way to be an educator if you can handle the political pressures whether you are tenured or not. I'm not a hobbyist instructor. After my wife, family, and friends; my career or occupational efforts revolve around pool instruction. There is more than enough information on this board and in its archives to self-train almost any aspect of the game to a decent intermediate level. If you're an information hound and have to have the latest system (newest cue, the 'magic cue' that hits just right), it will never be enough. The answer will never be in print. When it's all done, the answers are at the table. The rest are primers or enhancements.

Maybe we'll put it on a video set and market the thing. It won't be personalized to an individual's needs, we won't be there to answer the unique questions a person has when learning, and there won't be another person to switch from observer to shooter to observer. Maybe we'll just keep it in school where we can live up to our responsibilities in making sure it's taught well and learned as best the student knows how.

umma gumma webop BLAM! My head just exploded. Time for lunch!

Rule #1: Have fun.

Carl

IWIA-IWID<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
10-04-2005, 10:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>Shortened version:
Carl: Sorry, no can do. We ain't in this business for free. We wuz jest advertising.<hr /></blockquote>
Now I think I know where you were coming from. Sorry I was so dense before.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>Dave: Waaaaaaaahhh! Waaaaaaaahhhh! I want my lollipop!<hr /></blockquote>What flavor would you like? /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Carl,

Thank you very much for your reply.

First of all, you are very welcome for the compliments concerning your school. I've shared my impressions several times in the past, and all of my comments have been sincere. You guys run a top-notch operation.

I appreciate your fear of disclosing valuable resources you guys have developed for your school. However, I still think it wouldn't hurt to share a more complete definition of SAM. IMHO, the true value added by your school is not buzzwords, acronyms, and secret formulas ... it is the wonderful individualized attention you guys provide to help individuals with their technique, attitude, focus, game, etc. IMO, that's what good instructors do ... they observe, analyze, and diagnose on an individual basis and provide individualized instruction, advice, feedback, coaching, and encouragement (and psychotherapy where appropriate). This can't be done with printed material alone. Reading a definition of SAM is one thing, but having somebody help you understand it, embrace it, and incorporate it into your game with success is another.

Honestly, I am disappointed you could not provide a more complete (but concise) definition of SAM. I think a few sentences could give at least the essence of SAM without disclosing all of its magical secrets. So far, this is all we know (paraphrased from your response below):

SAM = a very special tool based on several fixed points of aim (e.g., the half-ball hit reference).

It sounds similar to Hal Houle's basic aiming method (see the links under "aiming" in the threads summary section of my website (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html) for a description of that system). Is that the case? Maybe you guys have a better way to define aim points in between the easy-to-visualize references? Maybe SAM also helps one compensate for those in-between shots?

Thanks again for your thought provoking message,
Dave

PS: BTW, what does SAM stand for? I assume it is "Simple Aiming Method," but I'm not sure. The only guess I've seen in this thread is "Shoot And Miss." /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote caedos:</font><hr> Thank you for compliments on your visit with us and the class!

There are pieces of S.A.M. in several different messages in the archives. I started to write a more complete explanation last night and went to sleep with the intention of finishing it this morning and then deciding about posting the thing. There are plenty of people on this board who know the system besides Randy and myself. Most of them paid time and yes, money to come learn many things including S.A.M. It's a very special tool for those who understand, and a small percentage of our students throw it out and if we're lucky they pick it up again later.

Pool is physical, mental, and psychological. For me to post my files, diagrams, and notes would be to disregard and disrespect Randy, the school, and the many hours of my life I've invested in making sure it's a sound system. It is sound. It has time proven and mathematically proven known concepts applied with two or three extra steps. The student drop rate on S.A.M. at the school is less than 20%. On this board it would would be astronomical by comparison. Maybe I'm just in an off mood this morning.

Dave: "When I was at your pool school this past summer, you didn't say much about S.A.M. I have a rough idea what S.A.M. is, but I don't think I know it good enough to do it justice by trying to describe it myself. " I'm sorry that you didn't get what you feel was a fair shake on S.A.M.; we spent over an hour on the system on Day 2, and again on Day 3 of the school. Check in with Randy, and when you come back and audit we'll go through it. Or give me a call.

S.A.M. is not only the aiming points for the Ghost Ball, it is a method of getting to that aiming point. It is that simple. "If I shoot this, I get that" is the root of all good aiming systems, and we build our memories on that. The two constants in the system are the straight shot and the half-ball hit as foundation references and the other aim points are measured from that baseline structure. Pick your point and shoot. Shoot the point, not the ball. Stroke the cue, ignore the cue-ball. If a successful result as a mental image is not part of the process, this is a short and haphazard attempt for the shooter to learn something new.


That's all I'm willing to post for now. If anyone has an issue with that, it's more than Randy is comfortable with me posting and it's far less than what you get if you come to school. Just remember that part of what a customer is paying for is my continued ability to spend time teaching and studying how to be a better instructor, with the best information available, and training other people to improve how our sport is received by the rest of the world. It has to start somewhere. Otherwise I'll be working a full time job, able to post nothing, and losing my certification and knowlege applications. As a sidenote, we are only paid by our students at the current time. We have no financially active sponsors. We have a relationship with Iwan Simonis for the best cloth on the planet, and Olhausen was kind enough to provide a table. Other equipment is provided by instructors who paid for the facilities and equipment by teaching players (hopefully you) and by their other jobs and spousal support. At a university the instructor can teach whatever and however within a wide range, wider if they have tenure. Their students need their degree and an instructor has a huge amount of leverage over the behavior of their students if they want to pass. University instructors do not have to market or do the financials of their business except as regards their paycheck. My brother is a prof at MSU in Lansing, MI. He teaches (lecture survey course and a grad class), researches, and gets grants on department related projects. It's a very regular and cush way to be an educator if you can handle the political pressures whether you are tenured or not. I'm not a hobbyist instructor. After my wife, family, and friends; my career or occupational efforts revolve around pool instruction. There is more than enough information on this board and in its archives to self-train almost any aspect of the game to a decent intermediate level. If you're an information hound and have to have the latest system (newest cue, the 'magic cue' that hits just right), it will never be enough. The answer will never be in print. When it's all done, the answers are at the table. The rest are primers or enhancements.

Maybe we'll put it on a video set and market the thing. It won't be personalized to an individual's needs, we won't be there to answer the unique questions a person has when learning, and there won't be another person to switch from observer to shooter to observer. Maybe we'll just keep it in school where we can live up to our responsibilities in making sure it's taught well and learned as best the student knows how.

umma gumma webop BLAM! My head just exploded. Time for lunch!

Rule #1: Have fun.

Carl

IWIA-IWID<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

caedos
10-04-2005, 11:23 AM
Dr.Dave: "Reading a definition of SAM is one thing, but having somebody help you understand it, embrace it, and incorporate it into your game with success is another." Thank you for making my point

Dr.Dave:"So far, this is all we know (paraphrased from your response below):

SAM = a very special tool based on several fixed points of aim (e.g., the half-ball hit reference)."

That is not all that was posted. That short paragraph is actually quite a bit of what the system is about. The line you shoot the cue ball down has to go to an aim point, your landmarks are the same from your point of reference every time starting where the OB touches the table. As long as you can reference the same aim point every shot, the contact point is moot. It's fractional aiming on steroids because it's more specific. Yes it's base on a Houle system and that's been made abundantly clear in a previous thread that was a mile long. It's similar to Joe Tucker's 'Aiming by the Numbers Method'. It's similar to the 'silhouette' or overlap ball method. I can't write a 'tidbit' that explains it to you; to write it so that it's understandable would take pages. There is no quick and clean answer that everyone will get. Beyond this my hands are tied.

FRAN: Someday I would like to meet you in person just to say 'hi'. I wasn't 'jest advertising', although it's possible to interpret that as an undercurrent. I don't think this board generates any appreciable business for me via the school or otherwise. Maybe for Randy, but he doesn't need my help to strengthen the presence of the school. I speak to things I believe in, and his school happens to be one of them. So does this supplement to the other methods I use to aim. Lately I've been teaching pocket billiards to high-school kids who don't know this board exists, and I'm putting together a package for a table retailer. My demographic is the middle class working family, not the ccb who needs no motivation or inspiration to see how wonderful our game is to play. I've worked this system for free in person several times, where the questions and misunderstandings can be cleaned up more easily. Cane was supposed to do a demo and explanation at Spetty's for free when we did the chili contest. I was there and gladly would have participated... for free. I teach because I love doing so, but I tend to withdraw when the learning process is heavily distracted or the wrong environment. Especially when I'm volunteering minutes of my life. That's something we never get back. As for publishing the diagrams and documents that make this system: I know you understand where I'm coming from. Thank you for your support.



DAVE:" PS: BTW, what does SAM stand for? I assume it is "Simple Aiming Method," but I'm not sure. The only guess I've seen in this thread is "Shoot And Miss." "

When you assu... It could be "Shoot And Make" but it's "Supplementary Aiming Method". I thought you received the handout or that it was in your book. Again, contact Randy if you need a copy. It should have been mentioned a few times in previous threads. Or were you taking a shot?

dr_dave
10-04-2005, 01:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote caedos:</font><hr>DAVE:" PS: BTW, what does SAM stand for? I assume it is "Simple Aiming Method," but I'm not sure. The only guess I've seen in this thread is "Shoot And Miss." "

When you assu... It could be "Shoot And Make" but it's "Supplementary Aiming Method". I thought you received the handout or that it was in your book. Again, contact Randy if you need a copy. It should have been mentioned a few times in previous threads. Or were you taking a shot? <hr /></blockquote> I checked my CueTech binder before I posted my message. There is nothing at all on SAM in the binder. The little I know is from casual conversations we had in Dallas. I would love to have copies of the handouts. Please send them to me if it is Ok with Randy. I promise to not post any descriptions here without your permission.

Thanks,
Dave

PS: I did not intend to "take a shot" with the invalid (but cute) SAM interpretation. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I was just quoting a previous message (posted by somebody else).

Qtec
10-04-2005, 02:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
PS: BTW, what does SAM stand for? I assume it is "Simple Aiming Method," but I'm not sure. The only guess I've seen in this thread is "Shoot And Miss." <hr /></blockquote>
Quote S Lee,[ on the first page of this thread !][ QUOTE ]
They have nothing to do with S.A.M. (Supplemental Aiming Method) <hr /></blockquote>

One thing I dont understand is this, if SAM is such a good system ,how is it possible that you went to poolschool and came back not knowing the system and not even knowing what it's called? That really baffles me.

RandyG wrote [ QUOTE ]
THUNDERDUCK: I'm receiveing rave reviews on the system we teach called S.A.M. Wish you were closer to us as I would share S.A.M. with you....SPF-randyg <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec

dr_dave
10-04-2005, 02:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>PS: BTW, what does SAM stand for? I assume it is "Simple Aiming Method," but I'm not sure. The only guess I've seen in this thread is "Shoot And Miss." <hr /></blockquote>
Quote S Lee,[ on the first page of this thread !]They have nothing to do with S.A.M. (Supplemental Aiming Method) <hr /></blockquote>
Sorry, I stand corrected.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>One thing I dont understand is this, if SAM is such a good system ,how is it possible that you went to poolschool and came back not knowing the system and not even knowing what it's called? That really baffles me.<hr /></blockquote>
As I have written, they did not cover SAM when I was there.

Regards,
Dave

Qtec
10-04-2005, 02:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I checked my CueTech binder before I posted my message. There is nothing at all on SAM in the binder. <hr /></blockquote> LMAO /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Dave, the guys have already said that SAM cannot be adequately explained with the written word nor be demonstated by using 2D diagrams. That doesnt leave a lot to put down on paper! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec

Qtec
10-04-2005, 03:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Shortened version:

Carl: Sorry, no can do. We ain't in this business for free. We wuz jest advertising.

Dave: Waaaaaaaahhh! Waaaaaaaahhhh! I want my lollipop!
<hr /></blockquote> LMAO. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec........wish I could write like that /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

dr_dave
10-04-2005, 03:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>I checked my CueTech binder before I posted my message. There is nothing at all on SAM in the binder. <hr /></blockquote> LMAO /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Dave, the guys have already said that SAM cannot be adequately explained with the written word nor be demonstated by using 2D diagrams. That doesnt leave a lot to put down on paper! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec <hr /></blockquote>
Qtec,

IMHO, I think you are a little out of line here. They meant to cover SAM, but there just wasn't enough time. If they had covered it, I would have had some reference material and/or drills in my binder. It is as simple as that.

I think we should just put this whole thing to rest. It is leading nowhere; although, it has been interesting to see how different people on the CCB have responded. That alone has been very educational.

Regards,
Dave

ras314
10-04-2005, 03:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>
I think we should just put this whole thing to rest. It is leading nowhere; although, it has been interesting to see how different people on the CCB have responded. That alone has been very educational.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>
Dr Dave, I find all the information on the different aspects of pool available today fascinating and, at the same time irritating. 40, 50 years ago this was not the case, at least not where I started playing. There were no instructors, let alone a system for training instructors. There were no books to speak of that could help improve your skills. More or less you had to put up your money and keep your stakes cheap until you moved up the food chain. If you were very lucky someone might take you under his wing and teach you how to play the game.

Some of that old attitude occasionally shows up on the boards. I will guarantee you it is much cheaper to pay for a teacher by the hour rather than by the game LOL. However it is done it does take personal attention and a lot of time and practice. Seems to me like the younger generation is more than a little spoiled. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Jal
10-04-2005, 05:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I checked my CueTech binder before I posted my message. There is nothing at all on SAM in the binder. <hr /></blockquote> LMAO /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif<hr /></blockquote>
What's so funny? The only thing I've found entertaining here are the usual song and dance routines any good snake oil salesman performs when someone threatens to shine some light on their dubious products.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Dave, the guys have already said that SAM cannot be adequately explained with the written word nor be demonstated by using 2D diagrams. That doesnt leave a lot to put down on paper! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif<hr /></blockquote>
You're easily amused, aren't you.

There are many things far more subtle than sticks and balls colliding with each other that can be explained perfectly well with written words and diagrams, trust me. Or better yet, make a trip to the library and find out for yourself. You'll be amazed at what you discover there.

If they choose not to explain SAM because they don't want to offer it for free, fine, that's their perogative.

If they can't explain SAM because they don't have the technical backgrounds, that's also fine...you aren't born with it.

But don't offer up these lame excuses that it can't be explained using normal tools found in any textbook, and then mock someone who has offered up detailed descriptions of many pool phenomena, for free, and at considerable expenditure of time and effort on his part. Frankly, it makes you look like an ass, not him.

Jim

Qtec
10-04-2005, 05:13 PM
Lighten up Dave, I was just 'pulling your leg'. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I thought it was pretty funny.
Am I the only one who can see the humour in this?

Its been pretty obvious for a long time that Randy doesnt want SAM splattered over the internet and thats his perogative. If you want 'the bones' on SAM, all you need to do is enrol in CueTech pool school- or in your case TWICE! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

wolfdancer
10-04-2005, 05:44 PM
Jal, I respect the people at the heart of this controversy...RandyG, Fran, Dr.Dave,.....and I know a little about the system, which is only a part of what I understand can be learned at the school.
I think the system is best demonstrated live....period.
Hal Houle offered his systems on here, for free....and got nothing but grief, well, very little support....and Dr. Dave never could get them to work on paper....but some folks swear by them. If Randy outlined the system here....there would be the usual detractors, who would find fault with it, and he'd spend even more of his time defending it. for example without knowing him, you have made an allusion to a snake oil salesman.
The proof though, that he is for real....I've only seen praise from his former students, and no complaints. Even Dr. Dave, who didn't have it shown to him, has remarked on the professionalism that he saw, when he attended the school.
Since SAM though is now part of the present curriculum; I see no real reason for Randy to offer it here for free.
It's hard enough just to express an opinion around here, let alone explain a new concept..without someone questioning the legitimacy of your birth, or worse.... you could even be labeled a liberal

Qtec
10-04-2005, 06:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I checked my CueTech binder before I posted my message. There is nothing at all on SAM in the binder. <hr /></blockquote> LMAO /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif<hr /></blockquote>
What's so funny? <font color="blue"> You would need to have a sense of humour to understand. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif</font color> The only thing I've found entertaining here are the usual song and dance routines any good snake oil salesman performs when someone threatens to shine some light on their dubious products. <font color="blue"> Ok guys, jump in anytime. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Dave, the guys have already said that SAM cannot be adequately explained with the written word nor be demonstated by using 2D diagrams. That doesnt leave a lot to put down on paper! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif<hr /></blockquote>
You're easily amused, aren't you.

There are many things far more subtle than sticks and balls colliding with each other that can be explained perfectly well with written words and diagrams, trust me. Or better yet, make a trip to the library and find out for yourself. You'll be amazed at what you discover there. <font color="blue"> Books? </font color>

If they choose not to explain SAM because they don't want to offer it for free, fine, that's their perogative. <font color="blue"> I said that. </font color>

If they can't explain SAM because they don't have the technical backgrounds, that's also fine...you aren't born with it. <font color="blue"> You obviously havn't read the Hal Houle thread! </font color>

But don't offer up these lame excuses <font color="blue">These are not my excuses. </font color> that it can't be explained using normal tools found in any textbook, and then mock <font color="blue"> Mock? I never mocked Dave. If you cant take a joke, you wont last long in a poolhall.</font color> someone who has offered up detailed descriptions of many pool phenomena, for free, and at considerable expenditure of time and effort on his part. <font color="blue"> I often visit Dave's site and I think he has done a great job. </font color> Frankly, it makes you look like an ass, not him.

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

Actually , I think you jumped into this thread feet first and read me all wrong. You dont know where I stand on any of these issues.

Qtec /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

pooltchr
10-04-2005, 06:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote randyg:</font><hr> Dr. Dave: I would love to try to explain S.A.M on this board. I'm very sorry but I am unable to put S.A.M into the proper words that would not be misunderstood.

Maybe Carl or Caneman could do better justice to a great aiming system. They not only use this system but both teach it......SPF-randyg <hr /></blockquote>

Randy,
Maybe between you, Bob and myself, we can come up with something while you are here in Charlotte that explains the Sam concept with some clarity. That being said, I know it won't be easy. Bob spent a good 30-45 minutes trying to explain it to me with no headway. But 5 minutes with him on a pool table, and the light came on for me.
Anyway, I will work on it from here and hopefully we can put our heads together and come up with something. The students I have shown it to seem to grasp it fairly quickly. Those I have tried to explain it to seem to have a more difficult time. We can give it a shot if you are willing.
Steve

dr_dave
10-05-2005, 06:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Lighten up Dave, I was just 'pulling your leg'. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I thought it was pretty funny.
Am I the only one who can see the humour in this?<hr /></blockquote>
Thanks for clarifying. I'm glad you were pulling just on my leg. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Its been pretty obvious for a long time that Randy doesnt want SAM splattered over the internet and thats his perogative. If you want 'the bones' on SAM, all you need to do is enrol in CueTech pool school- or in your case TWICE! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif<hr /></blockquote>
Even I can get that one. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
10-05-2005, 07:16 AM
Jim,

Thanks for the support. Although, Qtec is not as bad-intentioned as you probably think he is. He just has a sometimes-awkward sense of humor. You and I are still relatively new to the board, and I think we still have a lot to learn about personalities and protocols that can sometimes be non-intuitive (and maybe even involve "CCB baggage" from the past that we are unaware of).

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Dave, the guys have already said that SAM cannot be adequately explained with the written word nor be demonstated by using 2D diagrams. That doesnt leave a lot to put down on paper! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif<hr /></blockquote>
You're easily amused, aren't you.

There are many things far more subtle than sticks and balls colliding with each other that can be explained perfectly well with written words and diagrams, trust me. Or better yet, make a trip to the library and find out for yourself. You'll be amazed at what you discover there.

If they choose not to explain SAM because they don't want to offer it for free, fine, that's their perogative.

If they can't explain SAM because they don't have the technical backgrounds, that's also fine...you aren't born with it.

But don't offer up these lame excuses that it can't be explained using normal tools found in any textbook, and then mock someone who has offered up detailed descriptions of many pool phenomena, for free, and at considerable expenditure of time and effort on his part. Frankly, it makes you look like an ass, not him.

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

Bob_Jewett
10-05-2005, 10:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>... Although, Qtec is not as bad-intentioned as you probably think he is. He just has a sometimes-awkward sense of humor. ... <hr /></blockquote>
He's Dutch for God's sake!! Have you ever met a Dutch person who didn't have a strange sense of humor? And the Belgians are about the same.

Fran Crimi
10-05-2005, 10:52 AM
Jim, as you know, we're members of two different groups. That's cool...it's what makes the world go 'round and all that good stuff.

I think I've shown that I'm willing to step up to the plate and call out Randy's instructors on their non-advertising- advertising tactics. I think it's sleezy. We know they never had any intention of describing SAM. Randy stands behind his guys. I think he ought to smack 'em upside the head and tell them to quit it. I don't know...maybe they think they're being smart. How smart is it really, if you go and get yourself trapped in your own web?

I haven't seen you step up and call out a member of your own group for acting like a horse's rear end.

Here's an example: You challenged Qtec's post. Your post seemed legit to me...his joke could have been clearer. He posted back and explained. Case closed, right? Nope. The next morning we find this:

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Jim,

Thanks for the support. Although, Qtec is not as bad-intentioned as you probably think he is. He just has a sometimes-awkward sense of humor. You and I are still relatively new to the board, and I think we still have a lot to learn about personalities and protocols that can sometimes be non-intuitive (and maybe even involve "CCB baggage" from the past that we are unaware of).

Regards,
Dave

<hr /></blockquote>

So, this is okay?

Fran

dr_dave
10-05-2005, 10:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>... Although, Qtec is not as bad-intentioned as you probably think he is. He just has a sometimes-awkward sense of humor. ... <hr /></blockquote>
He's Dutch for God's sake!! Have you ever met a Dutch person who didn't have a strange sense of humor? And the Belgians are about the same. <hr /></blockquote>
Your point is well taken. I would also add Brits (or anybody else that plays lots of Snooker) to the list.

Dave

dr_dave
10-05-2005, 11:04 AM
Fran,

If you have a problem with me or my posts, I wish you would bring it up with me directly. I know I have rubbed you the wrong way a couple of times in the past. I'm sorry if I have offended you. However, I would like to move past all of that and redevelop a respectful tone again. I would love to talk to you about this if you are interested. If you are, please PM me and we can set up a phone call.

Respectfully,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Jim, as you know, we're members of two different groups. That's cool...it's what makes the world go 'round and all that good stuff.

I think I've shown that I'm willing to step up to the plate and call out Randy's instructors on their non-advertising- advertising tactics. I think it's sleezy. We know they never had any intention of describing SAM. Randy stands behind his guys. I think he ought to smack 'em upside the head and tell them to quit it. I don't know...maybe they think they're being smart. How smart is it really, if you go and get yourself trapped in your own web?

I haven't seen you step up and call out a member of your own group for acting like a horse's rear end.

Here's an example: You challenged Qtec's post. Your post seemed legit to me...his joke could have been clearer. He posted back and explained. Case closed, right? Nope. The next morning we find this:

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Jim,

Thanks for the support. Although, Qtec is not as bad-intentioned as you probably think he is. He just has a sometimes-awkward sense of humor. You and I are still relatively new to the board, and I think we still have a lot to learn about personalities and protocols that can sometimes be non-intuitive (and maybe even involve "CCB baggage" from the past that we are unaware of).

Regards,
Dave

<hr /></blockquote>

So, this is okay?

Fran
<hr /></blockquote>

Fran Crimi
10-05-2005, 01:18 PM
Everybody has their "horses-rear-end" moments, Dave...you, me, everybody.

You may not like my vernacular but I don't like your "Please forgive them for they know not what they do" post to Jim, and I thought your sugar-coated, stubborn refusal to accept "No, we're not sharing," was just plain childish.

If that fits your definition of "Fran has a problem with Dr. Dave," then cool. That's your definition.

As for me, I don't see it that way. I don't see myself having a problem with you. I just would rather cut out all the scantimonious bulldoggy and cut to the chase.

Feel free to rant and rave at me if you don't like something I've said in any of my posts. I won't think that you have a problem with me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this, Dave. This is all I have to say.

Fran

Cane
10-05-2005, 01:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> I think I've shown that I'm willing to step up to the plate and call out Randy's instructors on their non-advertising- advertising tactics. I think it's sleezy. We know they never had any intention of describing SAM. Randy stands behind his guys. I think he ought to smack 'em upside the head and tell them to quit it. I don't know...maybe they think they're being smart. How smart is it really, if you go and get yourself trapped in your own web? <hr /></blockquote>

Fran,
I'm sorry that you feel we were doing some kind of underhanded advertising for RandyGs Pool School. Yes, I've brought up SAM on here, along with a plethora of other aiming methods, but anytime ANYONE has personally asked me for help with aiming, I've PM'd them, talked to them on the phone (usually my phone at my expense) or emailed them and helped them in every way I can. MANY of those are on this board. I will not name their names out of respect for their privacy, but if they want to confirm this, I have no problem with them doing so.

As for SAM or any of Hal's 20 something aiming systems, I am hesitant... no, let me rephrase, I REFUSE to post them on CCB or AZ or anywhere else. The only time I mentioned even one description of a shot using one of these methods, I was skinned alive by the "22 million angle" crew. I will not post anything publicly in a place where there are people whose egos prompt them to degrade an attempt to try to share what MANY consider to be valuable information. Am I being oversensitive... yeah, maybe a little, but for the most part, I won't post anything on here that COULD be of value if that concept, whether it's SAM, Small Ball, Shish-ka-bob, pivot, contact point or whatever, is setting me, or that system, up to be berated by those who can fire their keyboards at a much higher percentage rate then they can a 45 shot. Not that I care if they don't believe an idea has merit, but there might be ONE guy out there that the idea would have helped, that will never ask for it now, because someone said it JUST WON'T WORK. That's why I'm more than willing to help anyone who will ask me personally, in a PM or email or on the phone, about an aiming system, kicking system, banking system, diamond system, stroke, bridge, grip, whatever, but not on a public forum. I think the number of people that I've shared aiming methods and drills with will bear this out.

Now, if that's advertising, then I should be getting paid, right? Well, I've never asked anyone for a solitary dime for anything I've shared with them, and I won't. Lessons are a different issue. Want to spend 3 hours or 3 days with me, it'll cost money, but just helping people with targetted specific problems and DOING IT FOR FREE, is not, IMO, advertising.

Fran... This old southern boy ain't mad at ya! You have never berated me or any idea I've posted on this forum. However, I did want to make it clear to you, and everyone else, why I don't now, nor ever will, detail things like SAM or Hal's systems on CCB.

My best,
Bob

dr_dave
10-05-2005, 02:46 PM
Fran,

Thank you for responding. I appreciate your candor. Again, I am sorry if I have offended you. That was certainly never my intention. It is clear to me now that we were just thinking on different planes on some of these issues.

I have respect for you and hope to meet you some day.

Regards,
Dave

Fran Crimi
10-05-2005, 03:06 PM
Okay, Bob. Got it. You were just mentioning SAM and if anyone was interested, you'd share it with them privately for free.

I humbly take back that smack....and then give you another smack...DON'T DO THAT! LOL!

You're a good guy with a good heart. I always wish you well.

Fran

Cane
10-05-2005, 06:39 PM
Oh, Smack me harder... Ooops... Wrong chat board! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sincerely, I do love teaching and I do love to help people out with their games. I guess sometimes I'm a little more free with information than I should be, but I just can't tell someone that I won't share if I sincerely feel that they want to learn. Only two things will prevent that at this stage in my Teaching Career. 1. Insincerity. If I feel someone just wants it for the sake of having it, they will not possess it, at least not through my hands; and 2. Profiteers. If I feel that someone might publish or distribute what I offer them for nothing more than a "thank you", in a way that might either enrich their pockets or to bolster their own reputations at Guru's Of Billiard, they will not recieve it from me.

There is one player on here that I've told everything I can in writing about aiming. I don't know how many systems I've shared with him, to be honest. Well, ya know, he has done more than just say "Thanks". He has sent me information on other aiming systems that I've never considered or tried. Enriching his game has enriched my ability to teach.

Hell, I'm rambling! Gonna stop before I write a novel!

Later,
Bob

Qtec
10-06-2005, 03:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
He's Dutch for God's sake!! Have you ever met a Dutch person who didn't have a strange sense of humor? <hr /></blockquote>
Actually I,m not dutch,I,m Scottish! I,ve just lived here for what seems an eternity.

Qtec.......maybe its a result of living below sea level for so long. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec
10-06-2005, 03:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Your point is well taken. I would also add Brits (or anybody else that plays lots of Snooker) to the list.

<hr /></blockquote>

You're out of luck Dave. As I told Bob, I am a Brit, I,ve been playing snooker for 27 yrs, pool for 10 and I,ve worked full time in snooker/pool clubs for 15. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec

Sid_Vicious
10-06-2005, 06:39 AM
I for one am dissappointed that it is difficult to find a snooker table here in the states, the south at least. I can't say I ever got good at that game but I believe that I could, and of the other games we play here in the US(8-9-10ball1-p-14.1) I'd enjoy the opportunity to hit a snooker game.

Glad to know you are ok Q ;-) ...sid

Chopstick
10-06-2005, 06:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
He's Dutch for God's sake!! Have you ever met a Dutch person who didn't have a strange sense of humor? <hr /></blockquote>
Actually I,m not dutch,I,m Scottish! I,ve just lived here for what seems an eternity.

Qtec.......maybe its a result of living below sea level for so long. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

What's this? We're having a Q-bash and nobody called me! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Hey Fran and Dr. Dave, ya'll behave!



http://crackmeup.com/images/shirts/0970004D.jpg

Fran Crimi
10-06-2005, 10:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chopstick:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
He's Dutch for God's sake!! Have you ever met a Dutch person who didn't have a strange sense of humor? <hr /></blockquote>
Actually I,m not dutch,I,m Scottish! I,ve just lived here for what seems an eternity.

Qtec.......maybe its a result of living below sea level for so long. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

What's this? We're having a Q-bash and nobody called me! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

<hr /></blockquote>

LOL! And you should see that sumbich play...I saw him...the man can put a ball through the eye of a needle.

Don't tell him I said so...don't want it to go to his head.

I need to buy me some o' that whoop-a stuff you're selling.

Fran /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
10-06-2005, 01:25 PM
Dave, I know you meant well but you did it again. Fran pointed it out to you but once more but you missed the whole point.
eg, quote, [ QUOTE ]
Although, Qtec is not as- bad intentioned as you probably think he is. <hr /></blockquote> This could still mean that I post with 'bad intentions' which is totally not true.
[ QUOTE ]
(and maybe even involve "CCB baggage" from the past that we are unaware of). <hr /></blockquote>
Now you are practically insinuating that I am carrying some kind of 'baggage' that influences my posts- again, not true.
You see how easy it is for people to see insult where none is intended?

I carry no baggage- baggage wieghs you down.
I hold no grudges- life is too short.
Live and let live. Forgive and forget- those are my motto,s.
If you could read this whole thread with a totally open mind you might see what I,m getting at.
Anyway, I forgive you Dave. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif


Something much more interesting.

Today, just to check my sense of humour /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif, I read through this thread again. Afterwards I was walking the dog and I had a 'Eureka' momment.
I was thinking about the HH thread and suddenly it came to me. I now know the principal and theory behind HH,s aiming systems. If I am correct[ and I am] and SAM is based on the same principal, I can answer your questions.
Reffering to center ball hits only.
1. Q. Can the main principal behind SAM [ the HH part] be explained on this forum? <font color="blue"> Yes it can. In one paragraph. </font color>
2. Can you draw an 'accurate' representation of this theory in 2D? <font color="blue">No you cant. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif You can draw one but it wont be an accurate representation of the system. </font color>
The only reason I got it was because someone on this board gave a clue. At the time, like everyone else [ all of us not in the know], the true significance of the statement was not apparent.
The parradox is that the theory behind the aiming systems actually proves that the ghostball method, [ as long as you can visualise the Qball on the OB], is the best.
If you cant do this, then an aiming system might help and if you are going to use a system, HH,s is a good one and more accurate than most.

Qtec .... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec
10-06-2005, 01:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What's this? We're having a Q-bash and nobody called me!

<hr /></blockquote>
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Chopstick, next time I will PM you.

Qtec.............Q-bash??? what about Bar-B-Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

dr_dave
10-06-2005, 01:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Dave, I know you meant well but you did it again. Fran pointed it out to you but once more but you missed the whole point.
eg, quote, <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>Although, Qtec is not as bad intentioned as you probably think he is.<hr /></blockquote> This could still mean that I post with 'bad intentions' which is totally not true.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>(and maybe even involve "CCB baggage" from the past that we are unaware of).<hr /></blockquote>
Now you are practically insinuating that I am carrying some kind of 'baggage' that influences my posts- again, not true.
You see how easy it is for people to see insult where none is intended?<hr /></blockquote>
I see your points. I'm glad you also know I did not have bad intentions. Also, I was not directing the "baggage" comment at anybody in particular. I meant it as a generality that some people might have past histories of disputes and bad feelings on this board that might affect how they respond in the present. I hope this is not the case with me and Fran, but we are human after all.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> I carry no baggage- baggage wieghs you down.
I hold no grudges- life is too short.
Live and let live. Forgive and forget- those are my motto,s.<hr /></blockquote>
I like the way you think. Well stated!
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>If you could read this whole thread with a totally open mind you might see what I,m getting at.<hr /></blockquote>
Thanks for the suggestion. I think I do get it. I will try to be more careful and sensitive in the future.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Anyway, I forgive you Dave. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif<hr /></blockquote>
Thank you. Now I can sleep tonight. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Regards,
Dave

Qtec
10-06-2005, 01:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
LOL! And you should see that sumbich play...I saw him...the man can put a ball through the eye of a needle. <hr /></blockquote>

Fran, you know flattery will get you anywhere! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif I would be blushing now if it were true. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Let me reciprocate.
You are one of the nicest, kindest, most generous people that I have had the good fortune to know in a long time.
Qtec

Rod
10-06-2005, 11:42 PM
Yes she is Q, I feel the love. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Rod

Jal
10-07-2005, 12:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr>...The only time I mentioned even one description of a shot using one of these methods, I was skinned alive by the "22 million angle" crew....<hr /></blockquote>Hi Cane. I trust the move to the new home went well. You've obviously survived with your sanity intact. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

It's not my intention to raise old wounds or ask you to reveal anything that you don't want to reveal, but can you refute Dr. Dave's TP A13 (it deals with the number of cut angles required for shots at various distances) or explain why it's irrelevant? I know there's been some blood shed over this issue in the past, but I think you're an engineer (isn't that correct?) and I'm sincerley interested in what your take on it is.

Jim

Thunderduck
10-07-2005, 12:52 PM
I love it when I start a thread that spirals out of control like a run-away gigantic snowball, destroying everything in its path /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ive learnt a lot from all these suggestions, thanks...

QUACK! (0)-&gt;

Qtec
10-07-2005, 01:54 PM
Well done. What did you learn?

Qtec

heater451
10-07-2005, 03:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Thunderduck:</font><hr> I love it when I start a thread that spirals out of control like a run-away gigantic snowball, destroying everything in its path /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ive learnt a lot from all these suggestions, thanks...

QUACK! (0)-&gt;
<hr /></blockquote>You have been Thread-jacked.



==================================

Thunderduck
10-07-2005, 10:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Well done. What did you learn?

Qtec <hr /></blockquote>

1. That there are plenty of alternatives to ghost ball
2. That your brain memorizes each shot
3. It is better to start with an aiming system as reference then to just do trial and error
4. Pay attention to where your misses go
5. My stroke might be a big part of the problem
6. All you need is love

TDuck

billiardshark
10-08-2005, 01:35 AM
go to http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/normal_videos/index.html for all kinds of awesome instruction videos by Dr.Dave

theinel
10-08-2005, 01:46 AM
-&gt;-&gt; General thread post (not pointed at Thunderduck) &lt;-&lt;-

This thread has turned and taken the bad road into everything that is bad in the world.

Knowledge is power.

Only one person can keep a secret.

Whatever SAM is, it was likely known long before anyone who has ever posted here was born (not a fact just an opinion with a high likelihood of truth). It will be known long after we are all dead and how can that be a bad thing?

There are at least one hundred books available that teach stance, stroke, and every other aspect of the game yet very few non-professionals do any of them, let alone all of them, very well.

Walt Harris (I do not know him personally) has produced an excellent 4 volume set of highly accurate systems for making billiards yet none of the world class billiard players has attacked him for his efforts, in fact many have contributed.

SPFF, SAM and whatever other systems and techniques that Randy and Co teach should be explained, in passing or in detail by their owners or proponents. To better the sport, to increase advertising, or whatever other reason, such publication would only help, and never hurt, the businesses of those who teach them. If an instructor is no better than his syllabus or textbook then he and his job have little value to anyone but him.

David Leadbetter (and many others), the worlds leading golf instructor has published numerous books and released tools to help people learn aspects of that game. Is he losing money or going out of business? Is he putting (pun intended) other golf instructors out of business? I highly doubt either is the case.

People like Dave, Bob, and Randy, and even Fran (although I grow more dubious about her rationale every day), are all huge benefits to this forum and the game in general, each in his/her own way. Anyone is clearly free to debate with them and agree or disagree but anyone who tries to silence any of them should take a step back and examine their own worth.

pooltchr
10-08-2005, 05:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote theinel:</font><hr> -&gt;-&gt; General thread post (not pointed at Thunderduck) &lt;-&lt;-

This thread has turned and taken the bad road into everything that is bad in the world.

Knowledge is power.
<font color="red">Knowledge is only poser when application is included. </font color>

Only one person can keep a secret. <font color="red"> You may be right, but I haven't met that person yet. </font color>

Whatever SAM is, it was likely known long before anyone who has ever posted here was born (not a fact just an opinion with a high likelihood of truth). It will be known long after we are all dead and how can that be a bad thing? <font color="red"> There is nothing in the world that is new. All things "new" are things that already exist, and are just presented in a new way. </font color>

There are at least one hundred books available that teach stance, stroke, and every other aspect of the game yet very few non-professionals do any of them, let alone all of them, very well. <font color="red"> Books can be a great resource, but people learn better when you combine the written word with the spoken word, demonstration, and application. This is why learning with an instructor works so much better for most students </font color>

Walt Harris (I do not know him personally) has produced an excellent 4 volume set of highly accurate systems for making billiards yet none of the world class billiard players has attacked him for his efforts, in fact many have contributed.

SPFF, SAM and whatever other systems and techniques that Randy and Co teach should be explained, in passing or in detail by their owners or proponents. To better the sport, to increase advertising, or whatever other reason, such publication would only help, and never hurt, the businesses of those who teach them. If an instructor is no better than his syllabus or textbook then he and his job have little value to anyone but him. <font color="red"> Anyone with basic skills could take the workbook from the course we teach by itself and learn a lot. However, it would be no where near what they would learn in the class with an instructor there to guide them through it. The workbook is something for a student to take home and refer back to when they are practicing. </font color>

David Leadbetter (and many others), the worlds leading golf instructor has published numerous books and released tools to help people learn aspects of that game. Is he losing money or going out of business? Is he putting (pun intended) other golf instructors out of business? I highly doubt either is the case. <font color="red"> As I stated above, books are not enough to replace personal instruction. </font color>

People like Dave, Bob, and Randy, and even Fran (although I grow more dubious about her rationale every day), are all huge benefits to this forum and the game in general, each in his/her own way. Anyone is clearly free to debate with them and agree or disagree but anyone who tries to silence any of them should take a step back and examine their own worth. <font color="red"> Thank you! </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Fran Crimi
10-08-2005, 09:06 AM
I don't know about Walt Harris, but last time I checked, people don't publish books to give away for free. I'm sure Leadbetter gets a hefty sum for whatever he publishes. He IS a millionaire, isn't he? Are you saying he became a millionaire by sharing everything he knows, or even his key concepts, for free?

If you want to know about sharing, talk to Steve Jobs and ask him what he thinks about it.

I think you may have missed the point here. This isn't about someone who wants to share something and someone (me) trying to stop them. This is about trying to sneak around the CCB non-advertising policy by throwing around a concept they never intended to share in the first place. You do that, you're liable to get yourself burned.

Now Randy took it over to AZ and is talking about his workshops over there. They don't have that non-advertising policy so he can "share" all he likes over there.

As far as your suggestion to briefly explain SAM, they've already done that. Is it too brief for you?

Fran

Thunderduck
10-08-2005, 10:41 AM
I wouldnt mess with Fran, she knew John Gotti back in the day...

Fran Crimi
10-08-2005, 11:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Thunderduck:</font><hr> I wouldnt mess with Fran, she knew John Gotti back in the day... <hr /></blockquote>

Knew him? LOL! No, I didn't know him. I met him. So did the Queens D.A.

What's that got to do with anything? Do you think I'd shoot you (or make a phone call) if we disagreed?

I know Paul Sorvino, though. I may ask him to sing you operatic arias until you give-in. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif (BTW, He's quite the opera singer...really good.)

This is silly.

Fran

Bob_Jewett
10-08-2005, 12:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Thunderduck:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Well done. What did you learn?

Qtec <hr /></blockquote>

1. That there are plenty of alternatives to ghost ball
2. That your brain memorizes each shot
3. It is better to start with an aiming system as reference then to just do trial and error
4. Pay attention to where your misses go
5. My stroke might be a big part of the problem
6. All you need is love

TDuck <hr /></blockquote>
I think you missed the most important thing about systems: you need to understand their limitations. Most people present systems as if they're perfect. Most system believers are incapable of looking at a system, especially their system, and admitting that in some ways it stinks.

If you can't figure out the stink, you don't understand the system.

Thunderduck
10-08-2005, 02:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Thunderduck:</font><hr> I wouldnt mess with Fran, she knew John Gotti back in the day... <hr /></blockquote>

Knew him? LOL! No, I didn't know him. I met him. So did the Queens D.A.

What's that got to do with anything? Do you think I'd shoot you (or make a phone call) if we disagreed?

I know Paul Sorvino, though. I may ask him to sing you operatic arias until you give-in. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif (BTW, He's quite the opera singer...really good.)

This is silly.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

You know Paul Sorvino? Wow, he is an acting genius, I have a Goodfellas poster on my wall !! Tell him to post here!

Tduck

Scott Lee
10-08-2005, 02:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Thunderduck:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Well done. What did you learn?

Qtec <hr /></blockquote>

1. That there are plenty of alternatives to ghost ball
2. That your brain memorizes each shot
3. It is better to start with an aiming system as reference then to just do trial and error
4. Pay attention to where your misses go
5. My stroke might be a big part of the problem
6. All you need is love

TDuck <hr /></blockquote>
I think you missed the most important thing about systems: you need to understand their limitations. Most people present systems as if they're perfect. Most system believers are incapable of looking at a system, especially their system, and admitting that in some ways it stinks.

If you can't figure out the stink, you don't understand the system. <hr /></blockquote>

Bob...Just because you or Fran don't subscribe to teaching a simple system like S.A.M. doesn't mean it stinks! It's actually a very easy thing to learn, and has benefitted MANY (note I did not say ALL) of our students, who have successfully implemented the technique.

thienel...You're correct that the concept behind S.A.M. was around long before us, or Hal, or anybody here now, and will be around long after. It's no secret, and we have shared it with many many people who have not taken lessons from us.

T-Duck...#5 is the MOST important thing you've learned! Get checked out by SOMEBODY as soon as you can...if for no other reason, than reinforcing that you ARE doing things correctly!

Scott Lee

Bob_Jewett
10-08-2005, 02:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Scott Lee:</font><hr>... Bob ...Just because you or Fran don't subscribe to teaching a simple system like S.A.M. doesn't mean it stinks! .. <hr /></blockquote>
Since the "owners" of SAM refuse to allow it to be described in public, I have no idea what its limitations are, but I'm certain it does have limitations. If you're familiar with SAM, perhaps you could describe it's limitations.

Fran Crimi
10-08-2005, 03:13 PM
A lot of pool players know Paul. He loves the game and plays quite well. If you'd like, PM me with your name and address and I'll make a call (no pun intended ) and ask if he'll send you a personalized autograph.

Not for free, of course. (Just kidding)

Fran

Qtec
10-08-2005, 07:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Bob...Just because you or Fran don't subscribe to teaching a simple system like S.A.M. doesn't mean it stinks! <font color="blue"> Thats not what Bob said. you need to read the post again. </font color> It's actually a very easy thing to learn, and has benefitted MANY <font color="blue"> so you keep telling us! </font color> (note I did not say ALL) of our students, who have successfully implemented the technique.

<hr /></blockquote>

Qtec

recoveryjones
10-08-2005, 07:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>


I think you missed the most important thing about systems: you need to understand their limitations. Most people present systems as if they're perfect. Most system believers are incapable of looking at a system, especially their system, and admitting that in some ways it stinks.

If you can't figure out the stink, you don't understand the system. <hr /></blockquote>

I miss shots with systems and I miss shots trusting my own eyes.Everytime I miss ...it STINKS!!!

Since I've learned some systems, my potting has improved dramatically.I think trusting your eyes (and the optical illusions they SOMETIMES supply) also has limitations.With either option (systems or no systems) you choose there are limitations.
RJ

Bob_Jewett
10-08-2005, 08:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote recoveryjones:</font><hr> ...

I miss shots with systems and I miss shots trusting my own eyes.Everytime I miss ...it STINKS!!!

Since I've learned some systems, my potting has improved dramatically.... <hr /></blockquote>
Do you understand the particular limitations of the systems you are trying to use?

Qtec
10-08-2005, 08:01 PM
Bob,we've had the HH threads and now the SAM threads. Both parties maintain that their systems cannot be described in text nor be shown with 2D diagrams.

Here's my take on this and I may be wrong but here goes.

A 2D diagram is a true representation of reality but its not what the shooter sees.
The shooter sees the shot from behind the Qb and because of perspective, the Qb is always bigger than the OB. The greater the distance between the two balls- the smaller the OB will appear to be.
The distance from the shooters eyes and the QB will also have an effect on what the shooter sees.[ the closer your the bigger it gets]
Basically, I could draw a diagram including perspective and it would be right for me but maybe not for you!

One of Hals sytems involved aiming with the outside edge of the QB. I cant think of any reason for doing that other than to combat perspective.
Lets say you have a 1/4 ball cut. If you aim with the outside edge at a point on the OB halfway between the center and the outside edge, thats 1/4 ball. The problem is that you still have to hit the Qb thru the middle. You are aiming thru one line and hitting thru another!

I,m sure I,ll take some stick for this /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif and really I wasnt even going to mention it but I thought, WTF.



Qtec.......BTW Bob, I read you article on Joe Tuckers aiming sytem. I have used the same system but in a slightly different way. I think my way is better.





............and NO, I,m not telling ANYBODY. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

recoveryjones
10-08-2005, 08:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote recoveryjones:</font><hr> ...

I miss shots with systems and I miss shots trusting my own eyes.Everytime I miss ...it STINKS!!!

Since I've learned some systems, my potting has improved dramatically.... <hr /></blockquote>
Do you understand the particular limitations of the systems you are trying to use? <hr /></blockquote>

One of the limitations of (SOME) aiming systems is that you HAVE TO use back hand english(or tuck and roll) once you've made your cue ball to object ball lineups.Standard (straight through the cue ball)english cannot be used.
RJ

Bob_Jewett
10-08-2005, 08:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote recoveryjones:</font><hr> ... One of the limitations of (SOME) aiming systems is that you HAVE TO use back hand english(or tuck and roll) once you've made your cue ball to object ball lineups.Standard (straight through the cue ball)english cannot be used.
RJ <hr /></blockquote>
I assume that you meant that if you want to use english at all, it has to be backhand. Or did you mean that you cannot pocket the ball unless english is used?

And if it is back hand english, it will not work with all cue sticks or at all speeds, probably.

recoveryjones
10-08-2005, 08:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote recoveryjones:</font><hr> ... One of the limitations of (SOME) aiming systems is that you HAVE TO use back hand english(or tuck and roll) once you've made your cue ball to object ball lineups.Standard (straight through the cue ball)english cannot be used.
RJ <hr /></blockquote>
I assume that you meant that if you want to use english at all, it has to be backhand. Or did you mean that you cannot pocket the ball unless english is used?

And if it is back hand english, it will not work with all cue sticks or at all speeds, probably. <hr /></blockquote>

I meant when you want to use some english.

Here's how I use english with some aiming systems:

I make all my cue ball and object ball alignments with no english applied in the equation. Once those alignments are made, I then move my backhand to set the desired english I may want to use.I then stroke down that new line.

FOR ME: I find that backhand english is adequate to get around the table for most shots. I sometimes prefer to use standard english on some shots and on those shots I hit the object ball either thick or thin (to compensate for deflection) and don't bother with an aiming system on those occasions.

In my game I implement(3 types of english) standard english, backhand english and in some cases tuck and roll.I think all three types of english applications have there merits and perhaps their limitations.

I also vary the length of my bridge with BHE depending on whether I hit it hard or with finesse.I agree with your assessment that BHE needs to be figured out according to the particuliar stick you are using.I wouldn't say for all shots, however, definitly for(ME) some.
RJ

heater451
10-08-2005, 11:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> . . .A 2D diagram is a true representation of reality but its not what the shooter sees. . . .

The shooter sees the shot from behind the Qb and because of perspective, the Qb is always bigger than the OB. The greater the distance between the two balls- the smaller the OB will appear to be. . . .<hr /></blockquote>I spent a fair amount of time with this, the last time the Hal Houle aiming came up on the board. I decided that perspective is moot, as you will be aiming at a smaller target, the further away the ball is, but there are two counters, which are really the same, in a way: 1) the "line of sight" is still to the same point on the ball, no matter how far away it is--if you aim the cb center to the ob edge (1/2-ball), it's still the edge, and 2) by the time the cb meets the ob, perspective is too small to notice--although perspective is just that, **looking at the ball** and not contacting it. (Apologies, as I know this is a little confusing, but I started on this by looking at whether the original aim-line, and the actual contact "line" changed--they don't. The angles from the cb to ob at aim (say, 5ft away), and at contact are differenct, but they only matter to the view. This is basically the "small angle formula", which is used in astronomy.)

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>One of Hals sytems involved aiming with the outside edge of the QB. I cant think of any reason for doing that other than to combat perspective.
Lets say you have a 1/4 ball cut. If you aim with the outside edge at a point on the OB halfway between the center and the outside edge, thats 1/4 ball. The problem is that you still have to hit the Qb thru the middle. You are aiming thru one line and hitting thru another!<hr /></blockquote>Although the HH system and the fractional aiming system(s) have been said to not equate, I think the point of aiming the way Hal describes, is that you obtain the same reference points, and the angles just happen to coincide between the systems.

I'm sure that there's more to it, but I'm just stating a "benefit" that I see.


================================

Chopstick
10-10-2005, 08:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Thunderduck:</font><hr>

1. That there are plenty of alternatives to ghost ball
2. That your brain memorizes each shot
3. It is better to start with an aiming system as reference then to just do trial and error
4. Pay attention to where your misses go
5. My stroke might be a big part of the problem
6. All you need is love

TDuck <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Howdy TDuck. Here are a few things to consider.

The average score in golf is 107 and it has been for over 20 years despite advances in equipment and instructional techniques. You can have the best system and best instruction and not improve at all if you don't have a method to learn, remember, and apply the material.

How you learn depends on what kind of memory you have. Not just good or bad. There are different types of memory. Each individual has a different mix of memory types. For example, a person with good organizational memory can be blind folded and walked all around a room or building and they will always know exactly where they are within a few feet. Another person will become lost after a couple turns. Some people can't remember names but never forget a face.

In music there are two basic memory types that can be applied directly to pool. There are a few rare individuals that have "perfect pitch". They can remember the exact pitch of any note and play it. This has a lot to do with the strength and accuracy of their long term memory.

Most people have relative pitch. If you play a reference tone they can remember that and judge intervals from it. Each new day they have to hear a reference tone to recalibrate. Unless you are one of those rare individuals that can remember the look and feel of a shot exactly day after day, you should consider setting up a series of reference shots to shoot every day to recalibrate your sights.

"Pay attention to where your misses go." Where the eyes go the mind goes. Make sure your eyes are on the object ball at impact and after. Hold you eyes through the impact zone and see the balls moving apart. If you move your eyes to quickly to follow the object ball you will not accumulate impact memories and you will not learn.

One time I got frustrated because I missed a spot shot and lost a game. I went to another table and shot spot shots continously for 8 hours. The next day I got into a game and missed a spot shot. All of this you hear about shoot the shot 5000 times is pure crap. Everyone is born with a certain set of mental tools and if you don't learn how to use yours effectively all of your practice will come to nothing. One day I decided to see how many balls I could make without missing. I scattered 15 balls on the table and took ball in hand and shot them all off. Then I put out another 15 and repeated the process. I shot off 7000 balls without missing and went home. The next day I got in a game and missed balls. Persistance alone is not the answer.

One of the reasons to seek out an instructor is feel ain't real. What it feels like you are doing is not what you are really doing. A qualified instructor can tell you right away if you are on the right track. If you shoot off a thousand balls the wrong way, you are going to have to shoot thirty thousand the right way to undo the bad habits you picked up. </font color>

As far as item number 6 goes, what we need around here is more EVIL!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Fran Crimi
10-10-2005, 02:04 PM
Be careful, Chopstick. Your intelligence is showing. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Great stuff.

Makes me think about myself. I'm a musician. Have been since I was three. I always remember sounds and tones, the sound of the cue hitting the ball, the sound of the ball rolling to the pocket, etc.

You just explained something I never realized. In college I signed up to be a guinea pig for someone's research for extra credit. It was a short-term memory test. They put me in a room with a pair of headphones. Someone said 7 words to me, each word was from one of 7 categories listed on a sheet of paper they gave me. Then I had to repeat back the 7 words, using the paper as my guide. They did this repeatedly.

The first couple of tries were pretty bad. I was trying to remember the words by associating them with the categories. I'd get three or four right.

Then I started just paying attention to the voice intonations, ignoring the list in front of me and simply recalling the sounds. I got every group of 7 right for the next 10 times in a row.

They stopped the test and asked me if I was somehow cheating. I said that in a way, I guess I was. LOL

Fran

silverbullet
10-19-2005, 09:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SplinterHands:</font><hr> Aiming systems are over-rated. You just need to hit thousands of balls until you figure out how "you" see them. <hr /></blockquote>

Why beat your head against the wall, essentially 'honing your errors to perfection' when there are great instructors around who can quickly see what one is going wrong?

Laura

wolfdancer
10-19-2005, 09:50 AM
"People that you meet,
down on the street,
they're singing SAM's song...."

silverbullet
10-19-2005, 10:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Fran,

Thank you for responding. I appreciate your candor. Again, I am sorry if I have offended you. That was certainly never my intention. It is clear to me now that we were just thinking on different planes on some of these issues.

I have respect for you and hope to meet you some day.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Dave,

Do not feel too bad if you did not get this sam method. If I read you correctly, you may well analyze it to death and miss the whole point. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Randy was not using this aiming system when I took his school so maybe he will be back in DC area soon so I can see for sure what you guys are talking about as well as get a refresher. I took Randy's school when I had only been playing pool for 6 weeks and was then an APA sl2, so surely I would learn more the second go around. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Nevertheless, Hal Houle explained a few of his systems to me while he was on the phone and I was at the pool table, so I have an idea of what you are talking about, even if it is not exactly one of the ones he taught me.

Laura

dr_dave
10-19-2005, 10:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote silverbullet:</font><hr>Do not feel too bad if you did not get this sam method. If I read you correctly, you may well analyze it to death and miss the whole point. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif<hr /></blockquote>
You are probably right. In fact, I've already analyzed all fixed point aiming systems (see TP A.13 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-13.pdf)). I analyze to help improve understanding. I know and accept that this is not palatable to everybody, but I don't feel I need to defend myself for trying to develop and share understanding. Now, does that mean I miss the whole point? I don't think so. Various aiming methods (even though they are not perfect) do help some people aim, concentrate, focus on the OB, stay down, and shoot better. I don't think anybody (even me) would say that is a bad thing. On the other hand, people should realize that fixed point aiming systems with a limited number of aiming lines are not perfect and will cause you to miss shots if you don't compensate (consciously or subconsciously). See TP A.13 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-13.pdf) for the details.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
10-19-2005, 10:53 AM
FYI, lots of info, analysis, and discussion concerning aiming and aiming systems can be found under "aiming" in the threads summary area (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html) of my website.

Happy reading,
Dr. Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote silverbullet:</font><hr>Do not feel too bad if you did not get this sam method. If I read you correctly, you may well analyze it to death and miss the whole point. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif<hr /></blockquote>
You are probably right. In fact, I've already analyzed all fixed point aiming systems (see TP A.13 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-13.pdf)). I analyze to help improve understanding. I know and accept that this is not palatable to everybody, but I don't feel I need to defend myself for trying to develop and share understanding. Now, does that mean I miss the whole point? I don't think so. Various aiming methods (even though they are not perfect) do help some people aim, concentrate, focus on the OB, stay down, and shoot better. I don't think anybody (even me) would say that is a bad thing. On the other hand, people should realize that fixed point aiming systems with a limited number of aiming lines are not perfect and will cause you to miss shots if you don't compensate (consciously or subconsciously). See TP A.13 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-13.pdf) for the details.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
10-19-2005, 12:15 PM
First off, thanks for your input, analysis, etc.
My new aiming system seems to be an amalgam of several others.
I use CJ's aim at either the center or edge of the O.B.
Hal Houle's 1/2, 1/4, 9/64's, etc....while also being aware of Hal Mix's parallel points, and combine these with my own stick aiming system, using the inside edge of the cue.
It's a wonder I can actually pocket a ball, and if it wasn't for a generous dollop, or two of this wondrous elixir, of Tangaruay &amp; tonic, that helps clear the head of all these systems, I probably couldn't

dr_dave
10-19-2005, 12:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>It's a wonder I can actually pocket a ball, and if it wasn't for a generous dollop, or two of this wondrous elixir, of Tangaruay &amp; tonic, that helps clear the head of all these systems, I probably couldn't<hr /></blockquote>
Thank you for sharing your secret "aiming system" supplement.

Snake oil can foil, but liquor is quicker. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif I'm not sure exactly what I mean by this, but it rhymes. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Dave

silverbullet
10-19-2005, 02:37 PM
Actually Hal's works fine with the 3 aim method, because since there are too many points on the OB to count, many shots are different but perceptually the same. I have not tried Randy's but it does sound interesting. This, however, is the glitch that I can see on various systems. The infamous long straight in shot. Of course hypothetically, let us assume that the person has a very straight stroke with the SPFF, they are aligned correctly, and there is no 'dominance' problem which makes a person 'see' the center of the CB, while being off by a 1/4 to 1/2 tip, etc.

Let us say that the shot looks perfectly straight in, yet the probability of it being a perfect straight in is low. We can 'perceive' it as straight when it is actually a few degrees of a cut, then wonder why we missed it when aiming center to center. So how does one compensate for this? It is not just knowing that in all likelihood it is really a cut, but if we see it as straight, we also do not know if it is a right or left cut. Now, if you guys think I am crazy, it was Hal who told me this, and he sure knows lots more than I do.:)

For me, I assume it is a cut and shoot a cheat the pocket shot with a tiny bit of outside english. Granted I am not absolutely sure that that method is not slightly flawed, but will say it works most of the time, providing no errors were made with the hypothetical conditions above. But if it is flawed, I would certainly like to know it. Any other ideas from the players or instructors here? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Laura

Stretch
10-19-2005, 03:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote silverbullet:</font><hr> Actually Hal's works fine with the 3 aim method, because since there are too many points on the OB to count, many shots are different but perceptually the same. I have not tried Randy's but it does sound interesting. This, however, is the glitch that I can see on various systems. The infamous long straight in shot. Of course hypothetically, let us assume that the person has a very straight stroke with the SPFF, they are aligned correctly, and there is no 'dominance' problem which makes a person 'see' the center of the CB, while being off by a 1/4 to 1/2 tip, etc.

Let us say that the shot looks perfectly straight in, yet the probability of it being a perfect straight in is low. We can 'perceive' it as straight when it is actually a few degrees of a cut, then wonder why we missed it when aiming center to center. So how does one compensate for this? It is not just knowing that in all likelihood it is really a cut, but if we see it as straight, we also do not know if it is a right or left cut. Now, if you guys think I am crazy, it was Hal who told me this, and he sure knows lots more than I do.:)

For me, I assume it is a cut and shoot a cheat the pocket shot with a tiny bit of outside english. Granted I am not absolutely sure that that method is not slightly flawed, but will say it works most of the time, providing no errors were made with the hypothetical conditions above. But if it is flawed, I would certainly like to know it. Any other ideas from the players or instructors here? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Laura <hr /></blockquote>

I'll jump in here as a player...u bring up a very good question laura. Dead on shots are not always exactly dead on. To begin with you really need to get down and eye the cb ob pocket line closely on these. this gives u the right or left cheat line. The next thing to reolize, and Fran brought this up some time ago, is that hitting a dead centre cue ball as one would do for centre ball to centre ball aiming is VERY hard to do even for pro's. When you "do" something with the cueball your more apt. to do it right. If that makes any sence. If you line up and miss centre ball by so much as a fraction that will throw the ob off true straight line u see.

So this is wut works for me anyway. If say the shot lines up to rub the left pocket edge, i'll aim it up for a full ball hit but use a little low left on the cb. This ensures any movement transfered by the little english will throw it into the heart of the pocket. And learn to control the speed of these shots and a lot more will drop too.

On the rare occation where your lined up perfect for the heart of the pocket, pick as an aiming point the spot on the cloth where the ob is sitting. Cue low on the cb (gives a better feel for cb's verticle axis), and end your stroke pointing at the ob's sitting spot. St.

theinel
10-20-2005, 02:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> I don't know about Walt Harris, but last time I checked, people don't publish books to give away for free. I'm sure Leadbetter gets a hefty sum for whatever he publishes. He IS a millionaire, isn't he? Are you saying he became a millionaire by sharing everything he knows, or even his key concepts, for free? <font color="blue">My point here was that general explanations (or even vague ones) make people aware and often encourage them to learn more thus benefiting everyone.</font color>

If you want to know about sharing, talk to Steve Jobs and ask him what he thinks about it. <font color="blue">I try to avoid megalomaniacs whenever possible. </font color>

I think you may have missed the point here. This isn't about someone who wants to share something and someone (me) trying to stop them. This is about trying to sneak around the CCB non-advertising policy by throwing around a concept they never intended to share in the first place. You do that, you're liable to get yourself burned. <font color="blue">I'll defer on this one. If the CCB has such a policy they don't enforce it very well and I can't speak to the intent of people I don't know.</font color>

Now Randy took it over to AZ and is talking about his workshops over there. They don't have that non-advertising policy so he can "share" all he likes over there.

As far as your suggestion to briefly explain SAM, they've already done that. Is it too brief for you? <font color="blue">I have searched for the mythical SAM (here, and at AZB, and on RSB) and have not found anything very descriptive. If you'd could point me at a thread somewhere I would greatly appreciate it.</font color>

Fran

Chopstick
10-20-2005, 05:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote theinel:</font><hr>
<font color="blue">I have searched for the mythical SAM (here, and at AZB, and on RSB) and have not found anything very descriptive. If you'd could point me at a thread somewhere I would greatly appreciate it.</font color>
<hr /></blockquote>


SAM = Secret Aiming Method.

It would be a secret if they told everybody. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

dr_dave
10-20-2005, 07:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote theinel:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>As far as your suggestion to briefly explain SAM, they've already done that. Is it too brief for you? <font color="blue">I have searched for the mythical SAM (here, and at AZB, and on RSB) and have not found anything very descriptive. If you'd could point me at a thread somewhere I would greatly appreciate it.</font color><hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote>
The most complete description I've seen online can be found here (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=206785&amp;page =0&amp;view=&amp;sb=&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=), but maybe others can provide links to more complete descriptions.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
10-20-2005, 07:49 AM
FYI, links to various postings regarding aiming issues and aiming systems can be found in the threads summary area of my website (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html).

Happy reading,
Dave

theinel
10-21-2005, 01:18 AM
Thanks Dave. Be careful, you may be violating the CCB "advertising policy" /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

dr_dave
10-21-2005, 07:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote theinel:</font><hr> Thanks Dave. Be careful, you may be violating the CCB "advertising policy" /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>
I know you are kidding, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are people out there that would take your statement seriously. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Dave

silverbullet
10-21-2005, 07:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Stretch:</font><hr>
I'll jump in here as a player...u bring up a very good question laura. Dead on shots are not always exactly dead on. To begin with you really need to get down and eye the cb ob pocket line closely on these. this gives u the right or left cheat line. The next thing to reolize, and Fran brought this up some time ago, is that hitting a dead centre cue ball as one would do for centre ball to centre ball aiming is VERY hard to do even for pro's. When you "do" something with the cueball your more apt. to do it right. If that makes any sence. If you line up and miss centre ball by so much as a fraction that will throw the ob off true straight line u see.

So this is wut works for me anyway. If say the shot lines up to rub the left pocket edge, i'll aim it up for a full ball hit but use a little low left on the cb. This ensures any movement transfered by the little english will throw it into the heart of the pocket. And learn to control the speed of these shots and a lot more will drop too.

On the rare occation where your lined up perfect for the heart of the pocket, pick as an aiming point the spot on the cloth where the ob is sitting. Cue low on the cb (gives a better feel for cb's verticle axis), and end your stroke pointing at the ob's sitting spot. St. <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks for the tip. I actually stopped using center to center awhile back. I was missing shots and wondering why. When I started using Hal's 3 line system for aiming that helped a lot, but determining the cheat line sounds like a very good idea. I can remember long ago having trouble telling if the shot was really straight. I would ask my husband to set up a straight. But to me it looked like a cut. Then I would say 'no, the OB needs to be a little this way or that'. Needless to say, I really had a hard time telling if it was perfectly straight or not. I thought I was just an idiot or something until Hal explained it to me. LOL

Laura

wolfdancer
10-21-2005, 10:54 AM
Laura, have you tried this?
set up a ball on the spot....line up the cueball with it for a straight in shot to the corner pocket, and try to follow it in.
While it's not hard to pocket the O.B., getting the CB to follow it in ain't easy.....unless it's league nite, and this is a key match

Bob_Jewett
10-21-2005, 11:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Thunderduck:</font><hr>... Can someone point me to a thread or website with a simple and effective aiming system? ... <hr /></blockquote>
Probably not, but you may find one of the following articles useful. I included the article about finding the center of the pocket because if you don't know where that is, it's pretty hard to aim well.

http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1993-06.pdf -- close ball aiming

http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1996-02.pdf -- frozen ball aiming

http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1996-02.pdf -- finding the center of the pocket

http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1999-11.pdf -- a smorgasbord of systems

http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2000-06.pdf -- analysis of three systems

http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2004-06.pdf -- ferrule system, lights system, overlap system

http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2004-12.pdf -- aiming devices

http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2005-01.pdf -- some more devices

http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2005-06.pdf -- a history of parallel aiming

silverbullet
10-21-2005, 02:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Laura, have you tried this?
set up a ball on the spot....line up the cueball with it for a straight in shot to the corner pocket, and try to follow it in.
While it's not hard to pocket the O.B., getting the CB to follow it in ain't easy.....unless it's league nite, and this is a key match
<hr /></blockquote>

Nice drill overall, but I think I need to do it at our poolhall, cuz our table right now is messed up in several ways. Last time I did that one, I could only do it if I hit it soft. I think that is because if I try to hit the ball too hard sometimes I jerk my stroke. LOL

Laura

wolfdancer
10-21-2005, 03:55 PM
If there is a secret to pool,it's this....on most shots you need a Rolling Rock....and not just that great Pennsy beer. If you were too close, and hit a little too hard, the cueball wouldn't have time to pick up forward roll.....or if you were a little off center, the CB would carom off at an angle, however slight, but enough to defeat the intended shot.

caedos
11-03-2005, 08:13 AM
I tried again. Hopefully this one is a decent explanation.

See: http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=207878&amp;page=0&amp;v iew=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1

Carl

dr_dave
11-03-2005, 04:41 PM
Carl,

Thank you for posting a more detailed explanation of SAM (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=209061&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1). Excellent description! It is very clear and to the point. You also did a good job pointing out some of the mental aspects of using an aiming system.

Regards,
Dave

RonMont
11-03-2005, 09:14 PM
Well, I guess one more idea can't hurt. When I started I tried the Ghost Ball method. Sad to say, I couldn't "see" a ghost ball the same size as the object ball. Bad huh?
I decided to look into the BCA handbook for some help.
Diagrams were shown in which there was a object ball near a pocket and a black spot placed on the table where the center of the cueball would be at the moment of contact with the object ball. I got the idea of putting the cueball on the foot spot and freezing an object ball to it so as to aim into a pocket. Then I moved the cueball a few feet away and, aiming the tip at the black spot I shot the object ball into the pocket (right through the center).
I next moved the cueball to different places and tried again. Each time aiming the tip to the black spot on the table. After a while I was able to move the object ball around the table and I could still see the proper place for the black spot ( now imaginary). That was 10 years ago. I still use the same method although I now see two lines- one from the pocket through the object ball and a second from the cuetip that will cross the object line where the black dot would be. I have tried many methods since the beginning but found this method to work for all angles. In fact, the more severe the angle the easier it is to use. I don't really see black dots any more but rather I see the cue tip angle crossing the object ball angle at a distance from the object angle that would be half a ball thickness.
I'm sorry if this was too wordy but this method is hard to describe in words. One picture is ...
Once you get the hang of it you will find that all cut shots are the same, no one is harder than another.
Best, Ron.

jd_in_iowa
11-04-2005, 03:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote RonMont:</font><hr> Well, I guess one more idea can't hurt. When I started I tried the Ghost Ball method. Sad to say, I couldn't "see" a ghost ball the same size as the object ball. Bad huh?
I decided to look into the BCA handbook for some help.
Diagrams were shown in which there was a object ball near a pocket and a black spot placed on the table where the center of the cueball would be at the moment of contact with the object ball. I got the idea of putting the cueball on the foot spot and freezing an object ball to it so as to aim into a pocket. Then I moved the cueball a few feet away and, aiming the tip at the black spot I shot the object ball into the pocket (right through the center).
I next moved the cueball to different places and tried again. Each time aiming the tip to the black spot on the table. After a while I was able to move the object ball around the table and I could still see the proper place for the black spot ( now imaginary). That was 10 years ago. I still use the same method although I now see two lines- one from the pocket through the object ball and a second from the cuetip that will cross the object line where the black dot would be. I have tried many methods since the beginning but found this method to work for all angles. In fact, the more severe the angle the easier it is to use. I don't really see black dots any more but rather I see the cue tip angle crossing the object ball angle at a distance from the object angle that would be half a ball thickness.
I'm sorry if this was too wordy but this method is hard to describe in words. One picture is ...
Once you get the hang of it you will find that all cut shots are the same, no one is harder than another.
Best, Ron. <hr /></blockquote>

Good advice. A similar method is found in Babe Cranfield's Straight Pool Bible. You use an arrow made out of thin cardboard to ingrain the point of aim in your memory. The point is you have something solid to aim your cue stick at. Kind of hard to see something that just isn't there like the Ghost Ball. SAM sounds like a good method for beginners and people who struggle, but sometimes you will run into situations with balls blocking pockets---and you have to be precise. When I miss, I don't miss by a lot, and the ball catches an edge and rattles, so most people who have played a while probably don't have much use for SAM. In reality there are an infinite number of contact points on an OB. On top of that Babe used the arrow device to sharpen up, and could run balls like no one alive today. I believe that world class accuracy isn't a matter of strange visualizations, or any hocus pocus. It's just a matter of common sense, hitting the same shots over and over until your comfortable with them, focusing on the correct things, and looking at the right places at the right time. But if you want the key: you need to pick out the aim point before you get in your stance. You can make tiny adjustments, but if it looks bad, get back up and start over.

Good Luck ThunderDuck...

RonMont
11-07-2005, 10:16 AM
I too have found that the key is to view the cue ball-object ball from a standing position until I can see both angles, I rarely make a change once down over the shot.
Thanks for your response.
Best, Ron.

supergreenman
11-07-2005, 10:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jd_in_iowa:</font><hr> You can make tiny adjustments, but if it looks bad, get back up and start over.

Good Luck ThunderDuck...
<hr /></blockquote>

Isn't that the truth, I know I've kicked myself many times over the years for not standing up when it doesn't look right and of course missed the shot. I'm a fast player for the most part, but I for the most part will not shoot untill I can visualize the ball going in the pocket and my cb ending up in position for my next shot.

James

HALHOULE
11-11-2005, 07:27 PM
YOU MENTION BOB, RANDY, FRAN, DAVE, AS SHARING. SHARING WHAT IS THE POINT. BOB SHARES MY AIMING SYSTEMS WITH ANYONE. I SHARE MY AIMING SYSTEMS WITH BOB. RANDY SHARES HIS AIMING SYSTEM WITH STUDENTS. WHERE ARE THE OTHERS? THERE ARE FIVE IN THIS POST. WHERE ARE YOURS?

HALHOULE
01-06-2006, 12:16 AM
You are incorrect when you group in Grady Mathews using an aiming system. He does not own an aiming system. But he sure would like to own one when he plays one pocket and loses to Reyes with a big spot.

HALHOULE
01-06-2006, 12:25 AM
Why is it that what you outline has not helped you, and you are an instructor? Inquiring minds would like to know.?

HALHOULE
03-09-2007, 10:57 PM
Thunder Duck, call me at 610 297 0642

hal

Paul_Mon
03-10-2007, 05:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote HALHOULE:</font><hr> Thunder Duck, call me at 610 297 0642

hal <hr /></blockquote>

HAL,

RATHER THAN REVIVE A THREAD THAT IS OVER A YEAR OLD WHY DON'T YOU SEND A PM. I KNOW THAT YOU'RE KINDA OLD BUT GET A CLUE MAN

HALHOULE
03-10-2007, 06:43 PM
And, you can mind your business.