Overcutting Balls And Then Not

[Patrick Johnson]

LAMas:
...the OB is affected by CIT that pushes the OB forward a bit before it starts to roll in the intended direction.

Just to pick a bit...

It sounds like you're saying the CB and OB move forward together before the OB separates and then travels on the "shifted" line-of-centers. Actually, they separate instantly and the OB simply goes at a slight angle to the line-of-centers.

pj
chgo

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Just to pick a bit...

It sounds like you're saying the CB and OB move forward together before the OB separates and then travels on the "shifted" line-of-centers. Actually, they separate instantly and the OB simply goes at a slight angle to the line-of-centers.

pj
chgo

Gosh, there's a lot going on this thread now and lots of good feedback.

Patrick, I agree with you 100%. My expression of throw is in lay terms in my book and on my site (and I say so in both places). The "visualization" of the balls "clinging together then releasing" seems to really help people understand--even players who confuse undercut and overcut--and we've all tried to show people 90-degree tangent lines and seen geometry is tough for some, right?

Mristea, I can see what you're saying about my DVD. The three hours that made it to the DVD were filmed in a day, I came up with a list of 150 concepts I wanted to explain then ad libbed and talked the whole time I shot. (I like to talk!) A lot of people get good stuff from it, though. If we meet in person I will play some with you first for 30 minutes before we try to teach other anything. I'd like that. Stan Shuffet rocks, but you and I should ask "Do his systems work?" and then proceed, right? Isn't it silly of you or me if we assume a guy who shoots lights out can tell everyone else how to do it, too?

I've already cited my references on multiple threads and am loathe to do so again, now. Recent assists include a rank beginner (which end hits the ball, Matt?) who led her team to nationals a year later, an aspiring pro who flew from Vietnam to Florida to spend a week with me, students I coached to ACUI nationals, a top three finisher in the U.S. Amateur, and about a jillion players of all levels who send photos, videos and questions to my site. I get mail almost weekly from people who've advanced rankings, win cash and help their teams in league with my work. Has anyone here read my About.com Bio Page?

Now, I share my pro list with select ones for two reasons 1) they don't always want broadcast they are going back for lessons--if I get a referral, great 2) I never post names so that clients aren't stolen. I cringe when websites say who their clients are because clients and students always get headhunted in business or sports endeavors.

Getting back to the meat of the thread, I couldn't sleep this morning, and wanted to express my theory a different way. I trust you'll find Why Dick And Jane Miss Cut Shots to be entertaining and to provoke continued discussion on this thread about this topic.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

About,
I agree with Roadie, you are verbose and lost me a couple of times and illustrations would be helpful to keep the reader on track with what you are proffering - concept to concept.

The thought that if one aims at the GB with the center of the CB without english, he will undercut the shot. In reality, thanks to Dr. Dave and others, the OB is affected by CIT that pushes the OB forward a bit before it starts to roll in the intended direction. It is this forward movement that causes the OB to hit above the intended pocket/target.

This can be overcome with english:
- A bit ouf outside english
- Follow english
- draw english

If the shot requires that you hit the OB with stun in order to get shape, then you must intentionally over cut the shot or aim thin to compensatee for the undercutting described above. The amount of thin will vary depending on the desired cut angle, but with practice can be memorized and commited to a mental look up table for recall as the need arises.

Contact point (CP) on the OB to the contact point on the CB impact is geometrically sound but is given to error due to parallax if you are starting with the cue aimed at the center of CB and visualizing the CP to CP from the side of the cue. this will result in still indercutting the shot.

I use stick aiming with the cue aimed at the CP to CP line and parallel shift the cue back to the center of the CB, but it isn't that easy to effect a perfect parallel shift on a thin cut where the cue is far away from the center of the CB.

Sometimes I will stick aim while standing and holding the cue at arms length in back of the shot and angle the cue from my shoulder back to the center of the CB. I then lay the cue down on the table and drop into my stance and lift the cue up into my bridge and stroke.

This adds a small angle outward from the CP to CP line (resulting in a slight overcut aim line) and compensates for hitting the shot thin due to CIT. The described angle (away from parallel) is very slight. I find this, to me, to be more reliable than the parallel shift described above.

Be well.:smile:

Hi, LAMas:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are three ways to adjust for CIT; slicing the o.b., english, and speed. The problem is compounded because the player who doesn't know CIT exists still makes some balls and ones close to the pocket fall in regardless even if the hit one side of the pocket rather than crossing the center point.

Your comments and AtLarge's, both of which are well-thought out, is addressed in Why Dick And Jane Overcut.

I don't mind when my website, my magazine, my book, my DVD, my readers and students, my playing ability and my very sanity are questioned on this site, but those of you who love to debate should focus on the facts about cutting balls as some are--and then, since I will read what you say, try to understand it, and respond in a Christian and thoughtful manner--we'll all learn some things.

For example, if conventional wisdom says "beginners tend to undercut rather than overcut" then the possible overcompensation made is what? And then I have more overcutters I'm trying to help.

Why try to correct one problem (overcutting) by recommending an approach that, if performed properly, will still result in missing the ball (by undercutting)? Instead, why not diagnose the root cause(s) of the overcutting and recommend appropriate fixes that involve aiming properly?

Yes, sir. My recent articles are about the root causes. And, sir, why do I, and many reading this thread, and many pros, fire at the contact point when it is geometrically inexact--and the ball goes in? We know why and so do the readers on this thread.

In brief, it's geometrically inexact but efficient for sighting. And adjusting is simple for CIT for this method.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

AboutBilliards:
The "visualization" of the balls "clinging together then releasing" seems to really help people understand

I think it "helps" people to misunderstand. Simple facts like this are easily understood by beginners and advanced players alike, and all players benefit most from knowing what actually happens. I don't know of anything about pool that needs to be dumbed down.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Matt-- I like the part in your bio where it says, "... and has brought pool to CIA intelligence officers, etc,..."

You could tell us who they were, but then you'd have to kill us - right?
:grin:

 

[sfleinen]

I think it "helps" people to misunderstand. Simple facts like this are easily understood by beginners and advanced players alike, and all players benefit most from knowing what actually happens. I don't know of anything about pool that needs to be dumbed down.

pj
chgo

Additionally, Matt takes great exception to his About.com pool readership being referred to or known as "babies" (his own term) by AZB readers. But yet he himself proliferates this perception by the dumbing-down to the point of flat-out wrong terminology (or even concepts) in his articles.

-Sean

 

[BilliardsAbout]

I think it "helps" people to misunderstand. Simple facts like this are easily understood by beginners and advanced players alike, and all players benefit most from knowing what actually happens. I don't know of anything about pool that needs to be dumbed down.

pj
chgo

Carl Oswald and Donny Lutz thought it was a nice frame of reference when I discussed it with them.

Did I use the term "dumb down"? I would prefer the term "good teachers simplify understanding for their students and use non-technical terms for students who communicate on a different level."

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Additionally, Matt takes great exception to his About.com pool readership being referred to or known as "babies" (his own term) by AZB readers. But yet he himself proliferates this perception by the dumbing-down to the point of flat-out wrong terminology (or even concepts) in his articles.

-Sean

We have marvelous readers at AZ and at About. We have beginners lurking at both sites. Terms must be defined and they should be friendly as well. Again, someone is confusing "understandable" with "dumb down".

"Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen." - 2 Timothy 2:14

You are oversimplifying the issue. I won't argue with you about terms, merely attempt to define them. A part of the issue is there is no governing body of billiards that defines terms like "CIT". Your very statement that my terms are somehow "wrong" is moot.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Carl Oswald and Donny Lutz thought it was a nice frame of reference when I discussed it with them.

Efren Reyes, Dennis Orcullo, Shane Van Boening, Scott Frost, Jeanette Lee, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama told me (while we were all out having our usual afternoon drink together) that you're a namedropping wannabe.

Did I use the term "dumb down"?

That was my term for what you do. It understates the fact a little - I was trying to be polite.

pj
chgo

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Efren Reyes, Dennis Orcullo, Shane Van Boening, Scott Frost, Jeanette Lee, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama told me (while we were all out having our usual afternoon drink together) that you're a namedropping wannabe.

That's a duck, Patrick. You wrote "I don't know of anything in pool that needs to be dumbed down." I was criticized for using an inexact term, I informed you that I already discussed it with ones who should be immune from untoward criticism.

I don't mind a civilized debate at AZ, but some of you need to make up your mind and stop flip-flopping. First you say, Patrick, About readers are less astute than AZ readers, then you say I dumb down terms for them! Which is it? Others have said I'm too verbose and go over readers' heads shortly before saying I use terms that are too simple.

I'll debate any one of you but am not interested in debating all of you at once. So who is it? Is it you, pj? You, Sean? You, AtLarge? Which one of you is the most knowledgable about pool?

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Matt-- I like the part in your bio where it says, "... and has brought pool to CIA intelligence officers, etc,..."

You could tell us who they were, but then you'd have to kill us - right?
:grin:

Spidey, I've never told you how much I love your CTE extended circle post. I've loved that explanation since I read it. So clever.

With great power comes great responsibility. You know what I'm saying...

 

[sfleinen]

That's a duck, Patrick. You wrote "I don't know of anything in pool that needs to be dumbed down." I was criticized for using an inexact term, I informed you that I already discussed it with ones who should be immune from untoward criticism.

I don't mind a civilized debate at AZ, but some of you need to make up your mind and stop flip-flopping. First you say, Patrick, About readers are less astute than AZ readers, then you say I dumb down terms for them! Which is it? Others have said I'm too verbose and go over readers' heads shortly before saying I use terms that are too simple.

I'll debate any one of you but am not interested in debating all of you at once. So who is it? Is it you, pj? You, Sean? You, AtLarge? Which one of you is the most knowledgable about pool?

Let's back this one up a step further, Matt, to a simple question:

Q.: What is your purpose here?

You come on to the AZB forums, advertising links to "articles" that are already published on a website -- with what some of our readership may think is a dubious name (About.com) -- and you receive swift corrections to what some have found to be erroneous or poorly-phrased/-described concepts. You take exception to this, opening one side of your trench coat to show us your "certifications" (articles, past affiliations, etc.) and are met with either a "so then, what's your excuse?" or outright disbelief. Now you're spinning this as we're just a bunch of ants crawling up your leg.

You *do* have to ask yourself why this is happening. Please don't hide behind the facade that there isn't an established overseer for billiards terms and concepts. There *is* a such thing as "commonly-accepted" terms and definitions -- ones in which the industry in general accept and use on a daily basis -- which you've OBVIOUSLY not done your due diligence towards learning. Instead, you just make up your own concepts and terms as you go, or you offer diagnosis to problems that don't or RARELY exist (e.g. "common problem that most new players have is overcutting balls").

Think about it. We're not here "to get you." What forums are excellent at, is reflecting behavior (or a reaction to that behavior) that the emitter may or may not even know he/she's doing. I'm offering you the "may" part, in case you "may not" know.

-Sean

 

[AtLarge]

... I'll debate any one of you but am not interested in debating all of you at once. So who is it? Is it you, pj? You, Sean? You, AtLarge? Which one of you is the most knowledgable about pool?

Sorry; open discussion forums don't work that way.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Oy vey! I'll answer, Sean, after all, this is the "argue to your hearts content" section of the forums. I hope you take my comments in the sincere and kind spirit in which they are intended.

What is your purpose here?

I've heard there are intelligent reasoners at AZ. I seek their comments. It's been good so far except for several people stuck in neutral--or reverse.

you receive swift corrections to what some have found to be erroneous or poorly-phrased/-described concepts

Huh? There have been nice, reasoning people asking good questions and giving constructive criticism. About three of you (or two of you, I think AtLarge is open minded) are repeating varied and self-contradictory attacks.

You *do* have to ask yourself why this is happening.

I have. Forums are often crowded by vocal minorities. You are VERY intelligent but you seem intent on lecturing me on how to think or how to present myself when the true purpose of this debate is to discuss aiming like gentlemen.

you offer diagnosis to problems that don't or RARELY exist (e.g. "common problem that most new players have is overcutting balls").

I was open to the fact that you lectured me just days ago on not trimming arguments. I was respectful to you and asked you to do the same. I wrote 1,500 words this week alone defending my position that

1. experienced players

2. who have reached a plateau in their games

3. after using ghost ball

4. and reading materials that emphasize geometric aim without even mentioning CIT

5. would benefit from a more direct attack on the contact point (though we all know it undercuts)

Trimming me to "most new players overcut"? Do you read or skim my work? I'm thinking skim.

We're not here "to get you."

Which "we"? The good players and teachers who read my articles and say thanks on AZ? Or the people I've challenged to a debate who are refusing to debate facts, not style?

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Sorry; open discussion forums don't work that way.

Sure they do. But at AZ, can we trust those not invited to the party to lurk responsibly?

So you and Sean are both turning me down for a debate. Interesting. I figured pj knows more about pool when I made the invitation.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

That's a duck, Patrick.

Actually, Matt, you ducked with your "appeal to authority", invoking pool celebrities rather than addressing the issue yourself.

I was criticized for using an inexact term

You were criticized for giving inaccurate and misleading information. You ducked that by claiming you do it to "help people understand".

I informed you that I already discussed it with ones who should be immune from untoward criticism.

Why should they be immune? More to the point, why should you be immune by hiding behind them?

First you say, Patrick, About readers are less astute than AZ readers

Did I say that? Regardless, it's undoubtedly true. If they aren't less astute, what are they doing looking for pool instruction at About.com?

...then you say I dumb down terms for them! Which is it?

Both. I said even beginners (even the ones who don't know any better than to get their pool instruction from About.com) are able to understand the simple realities of pool and shouldn't be misled with inaccuracies.

I'll debate any one of you

Why not save us all a lot of time and just post a list of celebrity pool players you claim agree with you? And, by the way, the "debate" has been underway for some time now - you're not doing so well so far...

pj
chgo

 

[sfleinen]

Oy vey! I'll answer, Sean, after all, this is the "argue to your hearts content" section of the forums. I hope you take my comments in the sincere and kind spirit in which they are intended.

Good. I *am* trying to help you see why you are running into the resistance you are.

I've heard there are intelligent reasoners at AZ. I seek their comments. It's been good so far except for several people stuck in neutral--or reverse.

That's deflectionary reasoning. You are accusing those folks who do not readily accept your articles and concepts as "stuck in neutral -- or reverse." Sorry, but open discussion forums don't work that way. This ain't a website where you're the webmaster, and you single-directionalize information to the masses.

Huh? There have been nice, reasoning people asking good questions and giving constructive criticism. About three of you (or two of you, I think AtLarge is open minded) are repeating varied and self-contradictory attacks.

These are the three (two?) who are vocal enough to let you know that the information / concepts you're proposing have FLAWS. And to be honest, I don't think things started to become aggressive until you started opening your trench coat to try to blind us with the "glistening certifications" -- as if to "smack us down," or tell us "just sit down, shut up, and enjoy the movie." It doesn't work that way. Those of us that've been in this industry a while, can actually play a scrap, and are thinkers in our own right are not going to "bow down" to someone coming out of nowhere flashing credentials.

I have. Forums are often crowded by vocal minorities. You are VERY intelligent but you seem intent on lecturing me on how to think or how to present myself when the true purpose of this debate is to discuss aiming like gentlemen.

Really? Let's take that one in pieces, shall we?

1. Obviously, you haven't spent enough time going through this subforum and becoming familiar with the "players" here. For if you did, you'd see that my interactions with you have BEEN THE MOST ACTIVE I've been here -- in this Aiming Conversation subforum -- in a very long time. Or in any thread related to aiming. Here again, is an example of you throwing out generalizations, without doing your due diligence.

2. You are offering deflectionary reasoning again -- I was responding to your "who's it going to be?" request, and you deflect with a faux concern for the purpose of this thread. You're waffling, Matt.

I was open to the fact that you lectured me just days ago on not trimming arguments. I was respectful to you and asked you to do the same. I wrote 1,500 words this week alone defending my position that

1. experienced players

2. who have reached a plateau in their games

3. after using ghost ball

4. and reading materials that emphasize geometric aim without even mentioning CIT

5. would benefit from a more direct attack on the contact point (though we all know it undercuts)

Trimming me to "most new players overcut"? Do you read or skim my work? I'm thinking skim.

Actually, I did read your article in its entirety. And I try to NEVER comment on anything unless I truly have read/understand/digested it. In this case, I'd read the article, but kept my mouth shut, until I saw you waffling on what DogsPlayingPool and AtLarge pointed out earlier.

Which "we"? The good players and teachers who read my articles and say thanks on AZ? Or the people I've challenged to a debate who are refusing to debate facts, not style?

How many times are you going to keep opening your trenchcoat to show us those shiny badges pinned on the inside? Hasn't it become abundantly clear that some of us are tired of hearing about them, and are more interested in challenging you on the content of your articles, because "we don't need no steenkeeng badges"?

And when you *are* challenged on these facts, it's like a circle -- that trenchcoat opens up again, releasing a beam of light intended to "send us back into our hole."

I propose let's stop with these games. Be prepared that if you publish an article, and then "advertise" it here, that folks are going to read it. And even folks like <gasp!> Patrick or myself, who like to think we know a thing or two about this sport, and will comment on it.

-Sean

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Patrick:

If this is a debate, it's a rather anemic one, wouldn't you say? Let a sleeping dog die, brother. Let us all get on with whether I am right or wrong about aim.

By the way, the first beer is one me when I see you, AtLarge or Sean in person. I wish more pool players would defend and champion the game like you do.

Actually, Matt, you ducked with your "appeal to authority", invoking pool celebrities rather than addressing the issue yourself.

1. I didn't appeal to authority. I answered all your concerns when you and others asked me to cite authority. Jabs like "anyone can be a pool author" were thoughtfully and respectfully answered with comments from BCA and other instructors and master instructors. It’s called defending my honor. The sole appeals to authority have come from uninformed statements like "Why are you posting to AZ? We're smarter here than About's readers."

You were criticized for giving inaccurate and misleading information. You ducked that by claiming you do it to "help people understand".

I'm still waiting for you and others to respond to my five-point thesis above. Or we can debate what you think instead. Either one. Or are you the third person to turn down an offer to debate within the hour?

Why should they be immune? More to the point, why should you be immune by hiding behind them?

I didn't say "immune from criticism" but "immune from untoward criticism". I was also sharing a treasured memory before it got whizzed on. Ones had separate conversations with me in which they affirmed that my lay expression of CIT was adequate for what I was trying to accomplish. I've had the same talk with Tom Simpson if memory serves. The talk was to make sure I had some layer of insulation before going to print. I’m not BCA-certified and I made sure some BCA and other eyes looked at what I was doing to ensure if I was unorthodox, I wasn’t entirely heretical.

I am likewise not immune to any criticism and I'll take it constructive or otherwise. (And then he again types facts for like the 50th time this week.)

Did I say that? Regardless, it's undoubtedly true. If they aren't less astute, what are they doing looking for pool instruction at About.com?

About has over 60 million readers a month. It is perennially one of the top five to twenty most visited sites online. Again, I must say, and don't take this the wrong way, this pride in AZ is a little unwarranted, especially when people cannot behave like gentlemen. They may not be seeking instruction at About but my GuideSite ranks high for many search terms.

Both. I said even beginners (even the ones who don't know any better than to get their pool instruction from About.com) are able to understand the simple realities of pool and shouldn't be misled with inaccuracies.

You started in on me with dozens of such “inaccuracies” in my Aim Primer series. I replied to all of them and then asked for facts. Still waiting on those from you.

Why not save us all a lot of time and just post a list of celebrity pool players you claim agree with you?

Ah, so it is jealousy? Because I work like a dog to help other pros and teachers and so they lend me their aid in collaboration?

Patrick, I live by a higher standard, a Christian standard that God holds men accountable for the words they write and say. I have NEVER, EVER said that ANY pro or teacher agrees with my five-point contact point thesis. I am wide open for you to shred me to bits on my points. What are you waiting for?

I opened the thread with "I'm open for positive and negative comments about this understanding of aim." Still waiting... getting sleepy, sleepy...

 

[BilliardsAbout]

as if to "smack us down," or tell us "just sit down, shut up, and enjoy the movie."

I have said nothing of the kind in any way, shape or form. Where is all the anger and invective coming from?

Patrick knocked some of my ideas and I said, "I got some of them from Varner, Sigel and Martin." But I went beyond appealing to their authority to insisting that some respect be shown them.

Comparing statements like mine to a flasher exposing himself beneath his trenchcoat shows a perversion of mind and spirit. I'll pray for you, Sean.

And when you *are* challenged on these facts

What facts? You don't respond to any of the five points of my thesis and reduced them Reductio ad absurdem.

I propose let's stop with these games.

It's not a game for me to defend my teaching. I am paid to teach. Cite some facts in error and I'll listen to you, I will correct my website or a future edition of my book if I am wrong, and I'll respect your right to an opinion. Still waiting!

 

[8pack]

Lets take a break for a minute.
Time for a quiz,what is the root of all evil?
I know its a tough question and I doubt if any of you know.:grin: