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

[duckie]

I used to think that this thread had gotten way off the topic, but I realized this whole thread is a very good example of that aiming systems are overrated for any long term use in anyone's game.

That no matter what, you got to HAMB, there is no way around.

In Zen Buddhism there is the phrase "Great function clearly manifest knows no rules". Clearly manifest means that the Great Function of a man of Great Potential appears right before ones eyes. Know no rules means that a man of Great Potential and Great Function does not adhere to practice and drills. Rules means practice and drills and regulations. In all disciplines there is practice, drills and regulation but the man who has reached the deepest principle of his discipline can dispense with them as he pleases. This is the complete freedom, and a man of Great Potential and Great Function has a freedom beyond the rules.

In other words All vague notions must fall before a pupil can call himself master.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I used to think that this thread had gotten way off the topic, but I realized this whole thread is a very good example of that aiming systems are overrated for any long term use in anyone's game.

That no matter what, you got to HAMB, there is no way around.

In Zen Buddhism there is the phrase "Great function clearly manifest knows no rules". Clearly manifest means that the Great Function of a man of Great Potential appears right before ones eyes. Know no rules means that a man of Great Potential and Great Function does not adhere to practice and drills. Rules means practice and drills and regulations. In all disciplines there is practice, drills and regulation but the man who has reached the deepest principle of his discipline can dispense with them as he pleases. This is the complete freedom, and a man of Great Potential and Great Function has a freedom beyond the rules.

In other words All vague notions must fall before a pupil can call himself master.

I have not studied ZEN. But... how did Bruce Lee say it? 'Be like water, my friend, become the tea pot'. I know I probably botched that but I understand.

You can not get locked into any DOGMA, cte, spf, see, etc. If so, you are limited by that dogma. You can however take the effective good from each of them & dispell the bad ineffective & build toward becoming your own master. Like water, you will be able to adapt to any situation & win...or lose on your own terms knowing that you have done your best & are not dependent on someone elses accessments of a performance system for your success or failure.

I hope that is a fair paraphrase, Mr. Duckie

PS Are you from the New Orleans area?

 

[CJ Wiley]

The player with the most flexibility, will also have the most control

I used to think that this thread had gotten way off the topic, but I realized this whole thread is a very good example of that aiming systems are overrated for any long term use in anyone's game.

That no matter what, you got to HAMB, there is no way around.

In Zen Buddhism there is the phrase "Great function clearly manifest knows no rules". Clearly manifest means that the Great Function of a man of Great Potential appears right before ones eyes. Know no rules means that a man of Great Potential and Great Function does not adhere to practice and drills. Rules means practice and drills and regulations. In all disciplines there is practice, drills and regulation but the man who has reached the deepest principle of his discipline can dispense with them as he pleases. This is the complete freedom, and a man of Great Potential and Great Function has a freedom beyond the rules.

In other words All vague notions must fall before a pupil can call himself master.

This should be well known to anyone who has programmed a non-trivial strategy game. Successful algorithms often include a bonus for keeping your options open whilst minimising those of an opponent. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is Reversi (also known as Othello) where the best strategy for the beginning of the game is counter-intuitive because it emphasises minimising the opponent's options, in other words......become as the bamboo tree, not the oak tree.....the oak is big and powerful, and when the wind comes up the oak is uprooted while the bamboo bends to allow the air to pass....the flexibility of the willow is ultimately more powerful in it's flexibility...pocket billiards is like that, the more you understand what's NOT apparent, the more you understand what is....and such is life :wink:

 

[CJ Wiley]

If not I'll give you a FREE LESSON in Dallas.

CJ, im interested in exactly where on the pocket you are initially aiming at before you move to the bridge position? are you purposely aiming for a miss in the standing position and throwing/deflecting/whatever it in?

When cutting a ball to the right, aim for the left side and when cutting a ball to the left, aim for the right side.

There are people that have grasp this concept and sent me private messages and this makes it ALL WORTH WHILE, but let me emphasize, if you want to experience the "zone of the pocket", do this one simple thing for ONE HOUR - Hit ALL shots, getting down slightly on the inside of the ball, stroke straight through the cue ball and ACCELERATE.....make yourself play for ONE HOUR hitting EVERY shot with the touch of inside, and still trying to play shape on the next ball by using high/low and speed to do it......when you do this I Guarantee you at some point during the hour you will understand what I've said in this past thread....if not I'll give you a FREE LESSON in Dallas.....that's how confident I am, I will put up an hour of my time to help you.....will you put up an hour to help yourself? Remember, ONE HOUR using ONLY a touch of inside WITHOUT SPINNING the ball....just go Straght through it and you will be Amazed at what happens to your perception....Give it a try, and learn how to REALLY play this game like a PRO....no if's, and's or but's....:wink:

 

[ENGLISH!]

CJ,

AZB'ers have heard 'forever' (from the physics side) that whenever you hit the CB off center it will squirt to the opposite side & then swerve, curve back due to the spin unless hitting the CB on the exact horizontal axis of the CB with a level cue.

Can you explain exactly what you mean when you say 'WITHOUT SPINNING the ball'?

I think this may be holding some back from even trying your one hour challenge as it is contrary to the physics they have heard & seen from Dr. Dave & others for so long.

My $0.02 assumption of your meaning is that because you are hitting with such a firm accelated stroke & with such a slight tip offset, that the spin caused has 'no' time to take affect & does not effect the OB path, no spin induced throw.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so to speak. Your thoughts may very well be different.

Thanks,
Rick

PS Thanks for the 'authorization'. I've often thought of trying to go by RJ, but it's probably too late in my life.

 

[CJ Wiley]

Thanks Rick, I need to hear that kind of input to tailor my descriptions

CJ,

AZB'ers have heard 'forever' (from the physics side) that whenever you hit the CB off center it will squirt to the opposite side & then swerve, curve back due to the spin unless hitting the CB on the exact horizontal axis of the CB with a level cue.

Can you explain exactly what you mean when you say 'WITHOUT SPINNING the ball'?

I think this may be holding some back from even trying your one hour challenge as it is contrary to the physics they have heard & seen from Dr. Dave & others for so long.

My $0.02 assumption of your meaning is that because you are hitting with such a firm accelated stroke & with such a slight tip offset, that the spin caused has 'no' time to take affect & does not effect the OB path, no spin induced throw.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so to speak. Your thoughts may very well be different.

Thanks,
Rick

PS Thanks for the 'authorization'. I've often thought of trying to go by RJ, but it's probably too late in my life.

Thanks Rick, I need to hear that kind of input because the cue ball does what I "think"....This squirt/veer/deflection is something I try to do and I can "feel it" when it happens. I can cue it to the inside and spin it or cue to the inside and not spin it by how I go through the ball.

I honestly don't have any way of telling who can do what I can do and who can't that's reading this. In person it's a whole lot easier and I know I can communicate effectively in person, but there's more information available.

A while back I said I can hit the center and spin it with either right or left english....I know a lot of people cringed when I said that, but it's true. I can go STRAIGHT through the center of the cue ball and twist the cue counterclockwise for left english and clockwise for right english....I'm not sure what a sophisticated camera would see, but I will tell you I can cue it a hair to the left of center, then go through and twist it quickly clockwise Exactly as I go through the ball and to the naked eye it will look like I hit it on the left and put right english on it (you see it react after it hits the cushion).

This freaks people out when I show them because it makes NO LOGICAL SENSE, but neither does David Copperfield or any stage magician. I'm not saying I do this stuff to deceive people, I (and many top players) just know how to get results from the cue ball that looks like magic because of technique and knowledge, nothing else.

So when I'm talking about a Hair of inside, I'm saying Cuing it to the Inside, but going straight through the cue ball without "trying" to spin it....if it has any spin it should be VERY minimal, because your cue is going so straight.

 

[JB Cases]

I used to think that this thread had gotten way off the topic, but I realized this whole thread is a very good example of that aiming systems are overrated for any long term use in anyone's game.

That no matter what, you got to HAMB, there is no way around.

In Zen Buddhism there is the phrase "Great function clearly manifest knows no rules". Clearly manifest means that the Great Function of a man of Great Potential appears right before ones eyes. Know no rules means that a man of Great Potential and Great Function does not adhere to practice and drills. Rules means practice and drills and regulations. In all disciplines there is practice, drills and regulation but the man who has reached the deepest principle of his discipline can dispense with them as he pleases. This is the complete freedom, and a man of Great Potential and Great Function has a freedom beyond the rules.

In other words All vague notions must fall before a pupil can call himself master.

So just to make it clear you think that hitting a million balls is the only way to learn to play?

In other words, all one needs to play at world class level is a pool table and decent equipment? No instruction, no systematic methods, no mentoring? No training aids, no diagrams?

So your position is that a person doesn't need anyone or anything else, simply get on the table and play and the world class game will appear?

If this is your position then I would highly suggest that you save any money you had planned to spend on tournaments or had planned to put up for gambling matches. Theoretically you COULD get good by locking yourself in a basement with a pool table. At the end of the day if you have exhausted all possible ways to hit the cue ball and mastered them you should be good.

But to assume that no other man has anything to teach and that no other man is capable of discovering methods that are valuable and useful in actual play is frankly delusional. What I find funny is that you advocate HAMB as if those of us who promote aiming systems say that HAMB is not needed. None of us have said that.

To use your own logic one learns an aiming system that is good and solid and then hits enough balls with it to make it a natural flowing part of their game. You keep telling people not to mess with aiming systems (except your beloved Arrow-GB Trainer method) and just hit balls.

You keep saying that there is no way around working hard. In fact there is a way around working hard. While you are expending a lot of energy placing paper arrows on the table in order to attempt to train your mind to see imaginary ball I am using the very real balls to train my body to align properly and I am hitting many more balls than you are in the same amount of time. My energy efficiency is much higher and I honing a skill that serves me the same with any shot I have to face, including ones that I have practiced seldom or not at all.

So again using your statement, when I am in a game with the money ball slightly off the end rail and the cue ball all the way at the other end nine feet away with no where to duck facing a shot I have neither practiced or faced before in my life the solution APPEARS in the form of an aiming system prescription that allows me to line up properly. Thus I have at least a 50/50 shot at making that shot and probably a better chance than that if I am proficient and comfortable with the aiming method.

Aiming systems are UNDERRATED.

People like you seem to want to try very hard to influence others not to even try them. Why you would want to prevent someone from trying something that might help them is beyond me. Especially since your own personal path to improvement, using the arrow template and hitting balls has not resulted in any significant improvement since you first started sharing your views on how to get better.

Now maybe you are now approaching world class speed but I doubt it. I think that you aren't much better than you were two years ago. Of course you won't do or show us anything to prove otherwise.

Well, good luck in your quest. Seems to me that it's silly to spout Buddhist principles and then at the same time dismiss aiming systems as if they are also not part of the all. I suppose you didn't consider that perhaps these methods are one of the solutions that appear?

 

[ENGLISH!]

So when I'm talking about a Hair of inside, I'm saying Cuing it to the Inside, but going straight through the cue ball without "trying" to spin it....if it has any spin it should be VERY minimal, because your cue is going so straight.

CJ,

I can't remember where or who, but I saw a gentleman on You Tube giving instruction on how to employ english & his final example, to which he dd not elaborate, seems sort of similiar.

He lined up with back hand english & then stroked back toward center. To be honest I never experimented with it because at the time I just did not see the point. As I said he did not elaborate.

I do not empoly any twisting, but I know what you mean about 'feeling' the ball. There are certain inside english shots that I shoot softly with an open
bridge that I 'have' to move, flex, the bridge up & down timed with the stroke. I've tried shooting them with a still bridge but can not execute the shot that way. I now 'know' or 'feel' when I have to shoot the shot that way. I also sometimes use a 'swipe' type stroke.

The physics (I have 2 yrs. high school & 2 college semesters) & the math guys might chime in, but I 'feel' you. You hit me with your best shot. That's Pat Benetar I believe.

Thanks again for giving your time & insightful knowledge here on AZB.
RJ AKA Rick

 

[Patrick Johnson]

CJ:
I can go STRAIGHT through the center of the cue ball and twist the cue counterclockwise for left english and clockwise for right english....I'm not sure what a sophisticated camera would see

It would see your tip hitting the cue ball off center because you "steered" it off center by twisting your wrist.

I'm saying Cuing it to the Inside, but going straight through the cue ball without "trying" to spin it....if it has any spin it should be VERY minimal, because your cue is going so straight.

If it has minimal spin it's because you hit it minimally off center. How straight your stroke is has nothing to do with how much spin you produce - that's all about where you hit the ball, not how you hit it.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

PJ,

What is yor opinion of my $0.02 in my post to CJ?

My $0.02 assumption of your meaning is that because you are hitting with such a firm accelated stroke & with such a slight tip offset, that the spin caused has 'no' time to take affect & does not effect the OB path, no spin induced throw.

RJ aka RICK

 

[SUPERSTAR]

How straight your stroke is has nothing to do with how much spin you produce - that's all about where you hit the ball, not how you hit it.

pj
chgo

Actually, an addendum of some form is needed.

Speed is a determining factor in how much spin is produced.

So a distinction for "HOW" is needed in the future, to distinguish between actual speed, and "where" a stroke is delivered on the cueball.

2 shots with the cue delivered to the exact same spot on the cueball, will have 2 different spin productions if they are at 2 different speeds. (for example, the difference between a drag draw shot that stops the cueball when it hits the object ball, and a power draw shot, that zips the cueball back)

Even though i know what you meant, I'm sure that there are people on here that probably would get confused if they were to take your statement literally.

Maybe the blanket, "All things being equal, where you, how you, blah blah blah" would eliminate the ambiguity in the future.

 

[CJ Wiley]

Systems underlie every phenomenon, and are everywhere one looks for them.

So just to make it clear you think that hitting a million balls is the only way to learn to play?

In other words, all one needs to play at world class level is a pool table and decent equipment? No instruction, no systematic methods, no mentoring? No training aids, no diagrams?

So your position is that a person doesn't need anyone or anything else, simply get on the table and play and the world class game will appear?

If this is your position then I would highly suggest that you save any money you had planned to spend on tournaments or had planned to put up for gambling matches. Theoretically you COULD get good by locking yourself in a basement with a pool table. At the end of the day if you have exhausted all possible ways to hit the cue ball and mastered them you should be good.

But to assume that no other man has anything to teach and that no other man is capable of discovering methods that are valuable and useful in actual play is frankly delusional. What I find funny is that you advocate HAMB as if those of us who promote aiming systems say that HAMB is not needed. None of us have said that.

To use your own logic one learns an aiming system that is good and solid and then hits enough balls with it to make it a natural flowing part of their game. You keep telling people not to mess with aiming systems (except your beloved Arrow-GB Trainer method) and just hit balls.

You keep saying that there is no way around working hard. In fact there is a way around working hard. While you are expending a lot of energy placing paper arrows on the table in order to attempt to train your mind to see imaginary ball I am using the very real balls to train my body to align properly and I am hitting many more balls than you are in the same amount of time. My energy efficiency is much higher and I honing a skill that serves me the same with any shot I have to face, including ones that I have practiced seldom or not at all.

So again using your statement, when I am in a game with the money ball slightly off the end rail and the cue ball all the way at the other end nine feet away with no where to duck facing a shot I have neither practiced or faced before in my life the solution APPEARS in the form of an aiming system prescription that allows me to line up properly. Thus I have at least a 50/50 shot at making that shot and probably a better chance than that if I am proficient and comfortable with the aiming method.

Aiming systems are UNDERRATED.

People like you seem to want to try very hard to influence others not to even try them. Why you would want to prevent someone from trying something that might help them is beyond me. Especially since your own personal path to improvement, using the arrow template and hitting balls has not resulted in any significant improvement since you first started sharing your views on how to get better.

Now maybe you are now approaching world class speed but I doubt it. I think that you aren't much better than you were two years ago. Of course you won't do or show us anything to prove otherwise.

Well, good luck in your quest. Seems to me that it's silly to spout Buddhist principles and then at the same time dismiss aiming systems as if they are also not part of the all. I suppose you didn't consider that perhaps these methods are one of the solutions that appear?

You are right, there's people that hit balls for 30 years and never get any better. Of course they do the same things over and over and over. I used to try to help these types, but then I "real eyesed" they were happy where they were at. Fear of success is as destructive to them as fear of failure.


"Systems underlie every phenomenon, and are everywhere one looks for them. They are limited only by the observer’s capacity to comprehend the complexity of the observed entity, item or phenomenon."

I like this definition of a system because it does exist "everywhere one looks for them". If you're unable to look for anything new I would venture to guess you'll find nothing new.

I played a lot of my best matches subconsciously and to explain some of the shots I was able to pull off in that state does sound like magic. I can't even try to explain some of the phenomenal things I've seen in the midst of a 20 hour session, but there are people that have witnessed these things and even to them it seemed "supernatural".

I guess it's comparable to some of the things people can do under the influence of a deep hypnotic trance. I just think it's better to learn to do it than try to learn how to explain it. I've had to learn how these phenominons occur and it's easier to do than to explain. I know one thing that's sure in my mind, there's a system for dong anything difficult, consistently. That goes for driving, sailing, golfing, or picking up women.:wink: If you don't have a system or technique you're screwed (or not screwed when it comes to the latter example) :groucho:

If you're really struggling to improve and you don't believe in systems, then I would think you actually don't believe in improving. The mind can pretty much achieve what you can conceive and whether you think I'm correct or incorrect, I'd say you're always going to think you're right.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Actually, an addendum of some form is needed.

Speed is a determining factor in how much spin is produced.

So a distinction for "HOW" is needed in the future, to distinguish between actual speed, and "where" a stroke is delivered on the cueball.

2 shots with the cue delivered to the exact same spot on the cueball, will have 2 different spin productions if they are at 2 different speeds. (for example, the difference between a drag draw shot that stops the cueball when it hits the object ball, and a power draw shot, that zips the cueball back)

Even though i know what you meant, I'm sure that there are people on here that probably would get confused if they were to take your statement literally.

Maybe the blanket, "All things being equal, where you, how you, blah blah blah" would eliminate the ambiguity in the future.

Thanks for the clarification. In this case I'm talking only about straightness of stroke, so speed isn't directly at issue - but yes, speed is among the three factors (spot, angle, speed) that determine cue ball action (as I've pointed out so often I'm sure people are tired of hearing it ).

But I have to take exception to the statement that "speed is a determining factor in how much spin is produced." Speed determines how many RPMs are on the cue ball, but RPMs don't determine how much "spin effect" is produced - that's determined by spin/speed ratio, which is determined by tip offset from center of cue ball and isn't affected by speed of stroke.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

post # 1312

CJ,

Been there, obviously not @ your level & not for a 20 hour session.

My best pool advice, from my Dad: 'there's always a shot...you just have to find it'

I've looked, I've found them, I've shot them, and I've made more than my fair share of them.

Spin knowledge (English) is a very valuable tool. Especially when combined with a subconscious mind & and a 'dead stroke'.

RJ

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Thanks for the clarification. In this case I'm talking only about straightness of stroke, so speed isn't directly at issue - but yes, speed is among the three factors (spot, angle, speed) that determine cue ball action (as I've pointed out so often I'm sure people are tired of hearing it ).

But I have to take exception to the statement that "speed is a determining factor in how much spin is produced." Speed determines how many RPMs are on the cue ball, but RPMs don't determine how much "spin effect" is produced - that's determined by spin/speed ratio, which is determined by tip offset from center of cue ball and isn't affected by speed of stroke.

pj
chgo

"How MUCH spin is produced..."
Much = rpms. A quantity of spin.

Type of spin would be. Left, right, 10 o'clock, 2:30, etc, etc.
A quality of spin.

I don't see how you can have a statement where you say spin/speed ratio being the determining factors for "spin effect", and then say how that isn't affected by the speed of stroke.
If speed of stroke determines rpms of the cue ball, please explain what speed you are talking about in spin/speed ratio.


Where does that speed come from?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

SUPERSTAR:
I don't see how you can have a statement where you say spin/speed ratio being the determining factors for "spin effect", and then say how that isn't affected by the speed of stroke.

If you hit the cue ball on the same spot at the same angle, and only change the speed of your stroke, the ball's speed across the table will change and it's RPMs of sidespin will change, but the number of revolutions per foot of travel (it's spin-to-speed ratio) won't change, because you change both the RPMs and the speed in the same proportions as they already have (determined by tip offset from center).

Revolutions per foot of travel determines the effect of sidespin, not revolutions per minute.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

If you hit the cue ball on the same spot at the same angle, and only change the speed of your stroke, the ball's speed across the table will change and it's RPMs of sidespin will change, but the number of revolutions per foot of travel (it's spin-to-speed ratio) won't change, because you change both the RPMs and the speed in the same proportions as they already have (determined by tip offset from center).

Revolutions per foot of travel determines the effect of sidespin, not revolutions per minute.

pj
chgo

PJ,

Since you're doing such an excellent job of expanation, why not finish it off with explaining the variants concerning the angle of the cue, 'level' (near) vs a raised butt with different cue stroke speeds. I know that's a bit ambiguous, but I know you know what I mean.

Thanks,
Rick

 

[SUPERSTAR]

If you hit the cue ball on the same spot at the same angle, and only change the speed of your stroke, the ball's speed across the table will change and it's RPMs of sidespin will change, but the number of revolutions per foot of travel (it's spin-to-speed ratio) won't change, because you change both the RPMs and the speed in the same proportions as they already have (determined by tip offset from center).

Revolutions per foot of travel determines the effect of sidespin, not revolutions per minute.

pj
chgo

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Mikjary]

The key to this shot is really speed. In order to learn how the effects of the stroke play out on variable distances, the speed is critical. This method is designed to develop consistency. With a consistent accelerating stroke, the player can understand the squirt and aim accordingly.

Without the consistent speed, factors such as swerve and CIT come into play and change the basic simplicity of letting your stroke out and putting the cue ball on the same line every shot.

The cue ball reacts like a dead ball with natural spin coming off of the object ball. The collision between the balls would normally impart outside spin to the cue ball, but because of the touch of inside cueing, the cue ball floats off of the object ball with little side spin and kills nicely.

I use to watch Dave Yeager run multiple racks with the cue ball rarely travelling more than a foot or three. I've always tried to match his strokes, but couldn't get it. This is what he was doing.

I've been working with it and find that the game's become a lot simpler. I was an outside spin guy and this is pissing me off because it is so easy to use. Stroke straight through the ball. Who knew? I'll be within a tip of center from now on.

Best,
Mike

 

[Patrick Johnson]

PJ,

Since you're doing such an excellent job of expanation, why not finish it off with explaining the variants concerning the angle of the cue, 'level' (near) vs a raised butt with different cue stroke speeds. I know that's a bit ambiguous, but I know you know what I mean.

The more you raise the butt, the greater curve you get with any offcenter hit. Higher speed "stretches" the curve over a longer distance, so it has less effect on the shot.

Is that what you mean?

pj
chgo