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

JoeyA said:
I hope you don't think I am disagreeing with what CJ said because I'm not.
Click to expand...
Joey,

I thought your post was very supportive and agreeable; althogh it also included the following statements:
"I am not completely sold on using this technique"
"Personally, I believe that many techniques are created to compensate for inadequacies in our game."​
This at least suggests you aren't totally convinced the advice is useful to all people, which is fine. Not everybody benefits from all approaches and techniques.

JoeyA said:
... he is able to do exactly what he says he does (and others can too) including myself.
Click to expand...
I think everybody can agree with this. CJ has definitely exhibited an amazing level of skill at the table.

Regards,
Dave
 
Patrick,
The amount of inside that CJ is speaking of is extremely small. If I were to guess, he is talking about less than 1/8" probably closer to 1/16" or even less. It may be difficult for some to put that small amount of inside on these particular shots. For my Filipino buddy BobbyH, he does this all of the time, even though I have tried to convince him that there are better ways to cue balls. :D

I like what Lee Brett said in his video about shooting straight in shots but lee wasn't referring to using inside to make the shot.

It is not easy to conrtol CIT (collision induced throw), SIT (spin-induced throw), Squirt (cue ball deflection) Swerve (cue ball curve) and still make the object ball but some can do it consistently well. Personally I think the miniscule amount of inside that CJ uses is more to keep from hitting the cue ball on the wrong side of the vertical axis than anything else. The aiming of the object ball at the side of pocket closest to the point does depend upon the position of the cue ball and on which side of the pocket's centerline it is located.

All in all, I give CJ a CYBER-HIGH FIVE for taking the time to share his knowledge with us and hope he will continue to share. I know from reading a lot of his writing that CJ will always continue to learn and expand his knowledge base, especially about pool.
 
dr_dave said:
Joey,

I thought your post was very supportive and agreeable; althogh it also included the following statements:
"I am not completely sold on using this technique"
"Personally, I believe that many techniques are created to compensate for inadequacies in our game."​
This at least suggests you aren't totally convinced the advice is useful to all people, which is fine. Not everybody benefits from all approaches and techniques.

I think everybody can agree with this. CJ has definitely exhibited an amazing level of skill at the table.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

While I may not be completely sold on this technique, it could easily be because of the way I have been taught and the fact that I am set in my ways but more importantly, new things are not always easy to learn and assimilate into your game. I think it takes a bit more time than 30 minutes to make something part of your game. :D
 
JoeyA said:
...although we can slice [CJ's] words with our grammatical academic Ginsu knives, it's not going to alter the fact that he is able to do exactly what he says he does (and others can too) including myself.
Click to expand...
It might prompt him to make his wording more readily understandable to all, maybe helping him reach more players.

Who knows, being more precise with his language might even help him clarify his own thoughts about his technique.

pj
chgo
 
The Renfro said:
...when the cb and ob are straight in to the centerline of a pocket... In that case I can choose either facing and still choose inside accordingly...
Click to expand...
Set that up on the table and you'll see that you have to hit both of those shots with outside in order to "cheat" the OB toward the center of the pocket.

Would love to see diagrams for the shots where this technique won't work
Click to expand...
I'll try to get to that later...

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
It might prompt him to make his wording more readily understandable to all, maybe helping him reach more players.

Who knows, being more precise with his language might even help him clarify his own thoughts about his technique.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

That is always a true statement towards any teacher... Regional dialects and personal preferences sometime lead us to saying things in ways we feel are perfectly clear to us but are a little ambiguous to others.. I have 3-4 ways of describing different situations to clients so if I don't see the light come on when I say it the first time I can reload and say it in a different way to see if it helps......

I think regional even may have an impact on one's ability to accept certain techniques.... here was a comment about the simple act of cinching balls from several years ago..... http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2779538&postcount=16

I am glad CJ brought this technique to light.... You can lead a horse to water...... but.....
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Unless I'm missing something (how unlikely is that?), using inside while aiming at the "closest point" only works sometimes. Here's why:

Draw a line straight out from the center of a foot pocket to the foot spot. Whichever side of that line the OB is on, the pocket point on that same side is "closest". Aiming at that "closest" pocket point, whenever the OB is closer to the pocket's centerline than the CB, you'd have to use outside, not inside, to "cheat" the OB toward center pocket.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

pj -- Apparently you missed or have forgotten that we (this thread) covered this thoroughly earlier in this thread. In post #814 I raised the same point you are raising. Several of us discussed it on September 12 and concluded that the easiest, clearest statement of what CJ meant was to aim for the left side of the pocket when cutting to the right and aim to the right side of the pocket when cutting to the left (with a touch of inside in either case). CJ confirmed this in post #843.
 
JoeyA said:
I hope you don't think I am disagreeing with what CJ said because I'm not.

The real problem is that, again as CJ remarked, it is difficult to express in words what can be so easily accomplished on the table and in person.

I understand exactly what he is saying and although we can slice his words with our grammatical academic Ginsu knives, it's not going to alter the fact that he is able to do exactly what he says he does (and others can too) including myself.
Click to expand...

Lol Joey, Grammatical academic Ginsu knives......... Pretty strong grammar . Makes me feel like a 3rd grader lol
 
PJ I agree that the shot as described, where both balls are on the centerline, can be made using outside and throwing the ball to the hole as you describe. It's a valid technique.......

I choose to use inside tho and let cueball slide out to make the ob as I aimed or hedge to the wide side.... I could over slide it and miss but I have more of a chance to over throw it if I use the outside technique... You may be the opposite.....

In this instance I think it's a personal choice and about each of our comfort levels in as far as what our best percentage chance is....
 
Patrick Johnson said:
It might prompt him to make his wording more readily understandable to all, maybe helping him reach more players.

Who knows, being more precise with his language might even help him clarify his own thoughts about his technique.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Personally speaking, I can live with CJ or any other pro flying by the seat of the pants in this forum, at least as far as spelling and grammar are concerned.

I would rather have their professional knowledge and use my own common sense to sort through any grammatical issues rather than not have them here at all.
 
But I know what you mean.

AtLarge said:
pj -- Apparently you missed or have forgotten that we (this thread) covered this thoroughly earlier in this thread. In post #814 I raised the same point you are raising. Several of us discussed it on September 12 and concluded that the easiest, clearest statement of what CJ meant was to aim for the left side of the pocket when cutting to the right and aim to the right side of the pocket when cutting to the left (with a touch of inside in either case). CJ confirmed this in post #843.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if this is 100% correct either. Lol
 
just to make this clear, you don't always aim at the nearest point. This technique doesn't work like that.

Untitled1%20-%201_zps3c55b4a7.jpg

pool_tablegb%20(1)1_zpsf3dbef1b.jpg
 
Last edited:
swest said:
Since Dr. Dave is here, I'll ask a quick question about something that has come up during this discussion:

Koehler (Science of Pocket Billiards) states that speed has 'no discernible effect' on CIT. I have looked for video on your website that would support the position that speed does have an effect on CIT, but I can't find it. Do you have some?
Click to expand...
For small cut angles (less than about 20 degrees), CIT does not depend on speed. However, for all other cut angles, CIT is very dependent on speed. Slower shots (especially with stun) throw a lot more than faster shots (especially with top or bottom spin). These effects are demonstrated in the following video:

Additional proof (both experimental and theoretical) is provided in the following instructional article:
"Throw - Part II: results" - BD, September, 2006​

And a lot more related info and resources (including videos and articles) can be found here:

I hope that helps,
Dave
 
It's funny when you think about it.

AtLarge said:
Please explain what you mean. Here is CJ's post:
Click to expand...

Take a look at Mike's diagrams. The side pocket shot shows the object ball closest to the left point but he is cutting to the left. If he aimed the object ball toward the side of the closest point and used inside english, he would most likely hit the nearest point with the object ball.

It is difficult to make words that cover everything and every situation. It is far easier to show it in person on a table.

I'm sure most of us know what is meant and it is all good. It's just funny to me that everyone is interpreting CJ's words and we keyboard champions still can't get it right but we want CJ to get it right. :D

(It's funny when you think about it).
 
dr_dave said:
For small cut angles (less than about 20 degrees), CIT does not depend on speed. However, for all other cut angles, CIT is very dependent on speed. Slower shots (especially with stun) throw a lot more than faster shots (especially with top or bottom spin). These effects are demonstrated in the following video:

Additional proof (both experimental and theoretical) is provided in the following instructional article:
"Throw - Part II: results" - BD, September, 2006​

And a lot more related info and resources (including videos and articles) can be found here:

I hope that helps,
Dave
Click to expand...

Wikipedia refers to CIT as "collision-induced throw".
Which is it? Cut-induced throw or collision-induced throw? :thumbup:

If we expect pro players to write so that everyone understands what they mean, then certainly we have to put ourselves to the same standards. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top