John Schmidt's and Corey Deuel's comments on aiming systems

[Patrick Johnson]

PJ, consider if you will, how you might respond to a complete stranger walking up to you in a poolhall and "questioning" you.

You mean if I joined an ongoing discussion about aiming and proclaimed that I knew a better way to do it, right?

What would be your response to that person...not just initially but after several attempts by yourself to convey your answer politely and accurately?

If that person was asking sincerely I'd try again - and remind myself that a good teacher can explain himself in more than one way. Who knows, I might even give a little thought to whether or not their question has merit - stranger things have happened.

And if somebody else chastised that person for "questioning" me, I'd tell them in no uncertain terms that questioning, even sincere pointed questioning, is welcome and encouraged - and I'd think the person doing the questioning is most likely to learn something and the one trying to squelch questions is least likely to.

pj
chgo

 

[Mr. Wilson]

You mean if I joined an ongoing discussion about aiming and proclaimed that I knew a better way to do it, right?


If that person was asking sincerely I'd try again - and remind myself that a good teacher can explain himself in more than one way. Who knows, I might even give a little thought to whether or not their question has merit - stranger things have happened.

And if somebody else chastised that person for "questioning" me, I'd tell them in no uncertain terms that questioning, even sincere pointed questioning, is welcome and encouraged - and I'd think the person doing the questioning is most likely to learn something and the one trying to squelch questions is least likely to.

pj
chgo

I'm not suggesting that you're being less than sincere in your query...but stranger things have occured here on the interwebs.

With only text as our media, it is much harder to sort antagonist from protagonist.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'm not suggesting that you're being less than sincere in your query...but stranger things have occured here on the interwebs.

With only text as our media, it is much harder to sort antagonist from protagonist.

And I know that, because I'm allergic to groveling, I can be a particular challenge in that regard. Thanks for your patience, however long it lasts.

pj
chgo

 

[justadub]

Maybe you can help me understand the difference by quoting me "questioning" and showing how I could have instead "asked a question".

pj
chgo

To me, "questioning" someone or something is to doubt its accuracy or veracity.

"Asking a question" would be more if an inquiry, an attempt to get better understanding.

Seems like picking nits (a poor phrase choice here on AZB, to be sure ) but that's how I see it. As Mr. Wilson alluded to, tone can be difficult to determine in this text only format.

To be fair, I have enjoyed your posting lately. I simply feel that the difference between "questioning" and "admit.g a question" could make many of these threads proceed more smoothly. But that's just me, and my extremely humble opinion.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

To me, "questioning" someone or something is to doubt its accuracy or veracity.

Well, I've definitely questioned the accuracy (not the veracity) of CJ's claim for his technique, but I've been unfailingly polite to him in the process. He made an extraordinary and counterintuitive claim - surely he and this forum can stand a little probing of it?

By the way, I'm not the only person to raise the question in this thread, and, by the way, it still hasn't been addressed directly. I can live with that - readers have probably heard enough about this.

pj
chgo

 

[Mikjary]

IMO, I think we should sit back and try to absorb what he's saying. Asking questions is fine, but let CJ give us a little more schooling so we can ask the right questions. Not question him about every detail as he tries to get us to think a little differently about our games. He's leading us and it will fit together if we give it a chance.

A lot of people don't know much about CJ and his mentors. He was lucky enough to run with Buddy Hall in his younger days. Buddy mentored a few other players you might have heard of, too, like Johnny Archer and Dave Yeager. Who's Dave Yeager? Guess who Jesse Bowman hung around when he was younger?

CJ is loaded with knowledge and is giving it back to pool. He's feeding the fish. Let's open our minds (my head is always empty, no prob) and give the guy some support. He's a bonafide champion and we're giving him pressure because we don't understand. HMMMM? IMO, no more passive aggressive sarcastic posting, please. If it's not happening for you, take the high road and let the rest of us move on while you re-read the thread. His avatar should be the first clue. :smile:

Best,
Mike

 

[Patrick Johnson]

IMO, I think we should sit back and try to absorb what he's saying. Asking questions is fine, but let CJ give us a little more schooling so we can ask the right questions. Not question him about every detail as he tries to get us to think a little differently about our games.

OK with me. In closing, I'll just remind you that increasing the margin of error isn't a "detail" - it's the purpose of the technique.

Absorb away.

pj
chgo

 

[CJ Wiley]

News Release....No Humor Allowed - Serious Pool "gurus" Only

Well, let me give you an example.

PJ (and I believe Neil) asked you about the test for hitting the CB off center. You responded “Hold on for a minute and I'll send the info telepathically.” To me, that would not be very logical. But maybe that was you just making a funny.

But then, in your next post you went on to say, “You don't really think you can learn without doing....I can tell if you're applying this this on the table or just trying to pick holes in it by how you frame your responses..there's one question you should be asking already....so, with all due respect, if you're looking for me to magically explain it so you somehow get "enlightened" you probably already know too much ... you may need to empty your tea cup LoL” Once again, not a particularly logical or scientifically based response. (And that last part was the Zen thing I was referring to.)

Your “argument” was about how hitting the CB off center reduces the effect of hitting it left or right of where the player intends to hit it.

Lou Figueroa

My "argument" as you call it was not " hitting the CB off center reduces the effect of hitting it left or right of where the player intends to hit it."

It was "if you intentionally hit the cue ball to one side of center it prevents you from hitting the other side unintentionally and therefore squirting/deflecting/veering the ball the wrong way by accident....thus, giving you the ability to aim at the UNDERCUT side of the pocket and deflect/squirt/veer it INTO THE MIDDLE OR OVER CUT SIDE ....that's what I've been calling the 3 PART POCKET SYSTEM (ref. www.cjwiley.com) which is in my DVDs that I made after getting to the ESPN Championship FINALS 3 years in a row.....do I think this helped me become World Champion? ABSOLUTELY....am I trying to convince you it works? .....Why would I, you may not even be a pool player or want to improve ...I'm merely trying to help someone that may be reading this right now that's stuck and can't move on to the next level....because I can actually relate to how someone feels BECAUSE I HAD TO START OVER again 3 years ago after taking over 10 years off.....I'm not charging or taking any hand outs for this, I'm just "sharpening my skills" so that I can teach on my new DVD better.....and again, this is to help thousands of people play better pool so they enjoy it more and talk positively about it.


Do you really believe I think I can send things telepathically or did you secretly KNOW I WAS JOKING? I doubt if I'm out of line to ask someone to try what is being discussed before asking questions that are more about challenging someone than expanding your own pool knowledge..and if you can't do that I have every right to say "you already know to much". If this offends you it reflects on you not even understanding the "argument", or what I thought it was "a topic of discussion"....be careful how you label your discussions.

You did see that I put "LOL" after the tea cup/enlightened remark..THIS MEANS I WAS JOKING.....you need to relax, unwind and learn how to take a joke....I don't take this stuff obviously as serious as you..I can perform the techniques I speak of as good as anyone ...can you perform yours? I would think if you were comfortable in your own "pool skin" you would have laughed at my post instead of puffing up like an alpha male turkey on a buzzard rock ...and if you want to hold this against me personally it's your God given right to do so, I know better than to interfere ...so take a breath, notice the the feeling of your chair, blink, feel your pulse, breath one more time....now you feel better and your game may have improved in the process.....you're welcome :thumbup:

 

[CJ Wiley]

Purpose of my Technique

OK with me. In closing, I'll just remind you that reducing the margin of error isn't a "detail" - it's the purpose of the technique.

Absorb away.

pj
chgo

Wow, you are in a deep level of confusion ....The Three Part Pocket System isn't about reducing margin for error, it's about Increasing the Target Pocket by shifting your focus away from aiming at the center (where you can only miss the shot by a half a ball to either side) AND INSTEAD Aiming at the side of the pocket closest to the object ball.....then hitting the cue ball off center to INTENTIONALLY over cut it into the CENTER OF THE POCKET.....if it doesn't do that it will go where your aiming and if if does it TOO MUCH you will hit the outside of the pocket......thus, I call it the THREE PART POCKET SYSTEM....because you have 3 parts, instead of just two....and this is similar, like I said to how a golfer aims at the right side of the fairway or green and draws the ball to the target......OR aims at the left side of the fairway or green and fades it towards the target (the center of the fairway/green) .... THIS IS ONLY DIFFICULT TO GRASP IF YOU DO NOT TRY IT ON A POOL TABLE>>>I assure you if you try this for an hour or so and keep doing as I said in previous posts you will understand it and benefit from it....and if you have any questions I WILL HELP YOU FOR FREE.....but if you don't try it and just sit there and "argue" with me about it I am going to poke funny jokes at you.....and you will feel what you're feeling now, because you know I'm telling the truth and you know it's effecting your ego for some reason....I'd suggest you figure that out on your own and allow your self and your game to mature.

 

[lfigueroa]

My "argument" as you call it was not " hitting the CB off center reduces the effect of hitting it left or right of where the player intends to hit it."

It was "if you intentionally hit the cue ball to one side of center it prevents you from hitting the other side unintentionally and therefore squirting/deflecting/veering the ball the wrong way by accident....thus, giving you the ability to aim at the UNDERCUT side of the pocket and deflect/squirt/veer it INTO THE MIDDLE OR OVER CUT SIDE ....that's what I've been calling the 3 PART POCKET SYSTEM (ref. www.cjwiley.com) which is in my DVDs that I made after getting to the ESPN Championship FINALS 3 years in a row.....do I think this helped me become World Champion? ABSOLUTELY....am I trying to convince you it works? .....Why would I, you may not even be a pool player or want to improve ...I'm merely trying to help someone that may be reading this right now that's stuck and can't move on to the next level....because I can actually relate to how someone feels BECAUSE I HAD TO START OVER again 3 years ago after taking over 10 years off.....I'm not charging or taking any hand outs for this, I'm just "sharpening my skills" so that I can teach on my new DVD better.....and again, this is to help thousands of people play better pool so they enjoy it more and talk positively about it.


Do you really believe I think I can send things telepathically or did you secretly KNOW I WAS JOKING? I doubt if I'm out of line to ask someone to try what is being discussed before asking questions that are more about challenging someone than expanding your own pool knowledge..and if you can't do that I have every right to say "you already know to much". If this offends you it reflects on you not even understanding the "argument", or what I thought it was "a topic of discussion"....be careful how you label your discussions.

You did see that I put "LOL" after the tea cup/enlightened remark..THIS MEANS I WAS JOKING.....you need to relax, unwind and learn how to take a joke....I don't take this stuff obviously as serious as you..I can perform the techniques I speak of as good as anyone ...can you perform yours? I would think if you were comfortable in your own "pool skin" you would have laughed at my post instead of puffing up like an alpha male turkey on a buzzard rock ...and if you want to hold this against me personally it's your God given right to do so, I know better than to interfere ...so take a breath, notice the the feeling of your chair, blink, feel your pulse, breath one more time....now you feel better and your game may have improved in the process.....you're welcome :thumbup:

Go back and read what I wrote -- the only one "puffing up" is you -- I was very polite to you (take a breath ;-)

As we've previously discussed, we all have our own personal realities when it comes to pool. In your case, your interpretation of what happens as a part of your pool game helped you. Whether it can help anyone else is the question being asked and that's why there have been requests for further explanation (that, still, has not been forthcoming).

I will point out that, on one hand you say, "I'm not charging or taking any hand outs for this" yet in the same sentence you advertise, "I'm just "sharpening my skills" so that "I can teach on my new DVD..." which, presumably, you will be charging for "to help thousands of people..." Nothing wrong with that, it just seems that you're talking out of both sides, if you know what I mean.

As you put it: "take a breath... breath one more time" -- no one is out to hurt you -- it'd just be nice to have some sort of explanation beyond "it works for me."

Lou Figueroa

 

[BeiberLvr]

As we've previously discussed, we all have our own personal realities when it comes to pool. In your case, your interpretation of what happens as a part of your pool game helped you. Whether it can help anyone else is the question being asked and that's why there have been requests for further explanation (that, still, has not been forthcoming).


Lou Figueroa

That's the point I was trying to make earlier. Maybe CJ can't or is having a hard time explaining it the way certain people want.

I think his explanation along with the idea that it should be tried on an actual table should be good enough. It really is that simple. Just try it, and see if it works.

 

[LAMas]

My take away:
When shooting the center of the CB at the center of the OB, the shot may go straight in and the CB will follow it into the pocket unless you slow, stop or draw the CB. How often does the OB travel a couple of degrees to the right or left - often. This means that you didn't hit the CB at it's center, but a bit to the side.
I usually hit the CB a bit to the right side and squirt causes the OB to travel a couple of degrees to the right.

This is a constant for me until I correct for this by finding my "vison center". I also place the tip of my cue at the bottom of the CB where it touches the cloth to center the tip on the verticle centerline of the CB and try to raise it on that line with my bridge.

I know that a bit of outside english will netralize CIT and gets the OB to travel along a more geometrically correct line to the pocket.

So, if I am absorbing what you are proffering, then I will conciously aim all shots with a bit of outside english to prevent me from hitting the CB on the inside of the center of the CB - if my stroke is off the worse that can happen is that I will hit the center of the CB without english - no biggiie.

The "3 parts of the pocket" is usefull, for if one aims at the side closest to the OB, one will pocket the OB on that side or kiss the tit or rail (not for the side pocket) so close to that side of the pocket, or send the OB to the center of the pocket and in both cases, it will still go into the pocket.

I like it...even if I'm wrong.:thumbup:
Thanks.

 

[BeiberLvr]

View attachment 240198

Wow, you are in a deep level of confusion ....The Three Part Pocket System isn't about reducing margin for error, it's about Increasing the Target Pocket by shifting your focus away from aiming at the center (where you can only miss the shot by a half a ball to either side) AND INSTEAD Aiming at the side of the pocket closest to the object ball.....then hitting the cue ball off center to INTENTIONALLY over cut it into the CENTER OF THE POCKET.....if it doesn't do that it will go where your aiming and if if does it TOO MUCH you will hit the outside of the pocket......thus, I call it the THREE PART POCKET SYSTEM....because you have 3 parts, instead of just two....and this is similar, like I said to how a golfer aims at the right side of the fairway or green and draws the ball to the target......OR aims at the left side of the fairway or green and fades it towards the target (the center of the fairway/green) .... THIS IS ONLY DIFFICULT TO GRASP IF YOU DO NOT TRY IT ON A POOL TABLE>>>I assure you if you try this for an hour or so and keep doing as I said in previous posts you will understand it and benefit from it....and if you have any questions I WILL HELP YOU FOR FREE.....but if you don't try it and just sit there and "argue" with me about it I am going to poke funny jokes at you.....and you will feel what you're feeling now, because you know I'm telling the truth and you know it's effecting your ego for some reason....I'd suggest you figure that out on your own and allow your self and your game to mature.

CJ,

So in the picture below, our main line of aim is the blue line. When we hit the cue ball off center, it could overcut the object ball but then it would follow either the red or white line, and still go in depending on how the big the overcut is.

Is that correct? If so, I guess my only question would be when you say off center, would it be inside or outside english, or does it depend on other factors?

 

[Mikjary]

I tried it and Mikey likes it! It's a mental exercise where you let the fresh air in and the old way of thinking take its leave. I'm experimenting with left, center and right english on shots I've shot thousands of times. I find myself absorbed by the new way of looking at the pocket and the possibilities. Thanks, CJ for the insight. :thumbup:

Best,
Mike

 

[LAMas]

View attachment 240198


CJ,

So in the picture below, our main line of aim is the blue line. When we hit the cue ball off center, it could overcut the object ball but then it would follow either the red or white line, and still go in depending on how the big the overcut is.

Is that correct? If so, I guess my only question would be when you say off center, would it be inside or outside english, or does it depend on other factors?

Nice picture...like PJ's.

That's the idea but if I might add...

The blue line should represent the OB path to the right side of the pocket and not the tit - 1.125" (1/2 ball) to the left of the tit.

The same holds for the white line so the OB goes in the pocket.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Yeah, that's what I was trying to do, but I'm no pro in Microsoft Paint.

 

[lfigueroa]

That's the point I was trying to make earlier. Maybe CJ can't or is having a hard time explaining it the way certain people want.

I think his explanation along with the idea that it should be tried on an actual table should be good enough. It really is that simple. Just try it, and see if it works.

OK, so I tried it and it didn't work (forgetting for the moment that the basic idea is, to be polite, counterintuitive).

The table I play on, as well as many triple shimmed GCs and Pro-cut Diamonds I've competed on, you really don't have three parts of a pocket to work with. You have the heart of the pocket and that's it -- it's not like back in the day when you had a lot of 5" pockets out there. Nowadays, you touch the rail, even at slow speed and you're a dead duck. Hell, on some tables today, you hit the wrong side of the inside of the pocket facing the ball will not go.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Neil]

I tried it and Mikey likes it! It's a mental exercise where you let the fresh air in and the old way of thinking take its leave. I'm experimenting with left, center and right english on shots I've shot thousands of times. I find myself absorbed by the new way of looking at the pocket and the possibilities. Thanks, CJ for the insight. :thumbup:

Best,
Mike

Just curious... and this really has nothing to do with the pros or cons of what CJ is saying, but how many of you trying this are for the first time really looking at the pocket as parts instead of just as a hole for the ob to go in?? In other words, how many of you, instead of just trying to pocket the ball, are actually fine tuning your aim more than you did in the past so that you can go for a part of the pocket??

 

[BeiberLvr]

I can definitely understand it not working as well on tighter pockets. Makes sense for the reasons given.

I usually practice on pro-cut diamonds, so I might give it a try the next time I play.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

CJ:
Wow, you are in a deep level of confusion ....The Three Part Pocket System isn't about reducing margin for error, it's about Increasing the Target Pocket by shifting your focus away from aiming at the center (where you can only miss the shot by a half a ball to either side)

Sorry, I meant to say it's about increasing the margin for error. And I think that's the same as "increasing the target pocket", isn't it?

pj
chgo

(I edited my previous post to correct my misstatement.)