Aiming Systems - The End Justifies the Means

[Mitchxout]

It's amazing how well you can play with very little english and I, personally don't adjust for spin, just the point of the pocket I'm connected to, unless I'm hitting the ball super firm or with extreme, almost masse' type english.....

It's a matter of fact that you have to cut the ball more with centerball than draw or top. Does using a touch of inside make all the aims the same?

 

[CJ Wiley]

You MUST feel this "Overcut" in you hand or you're not comitting to it.

It's a matter of fact that you have to cut the ball more with centerball than draw or top. Does using a touch of inside make all the aims the same?

Try aiming at a cut shot and then move over slightly towards the inside. Keep your cue straight and accelerate quickly and precisely. You'll find the shot will overcut slightly.....this is what the "Touch of Inside" does...then you can aim at the "short" side of the pocket and "cut" it into the Center.

You MUST feel this "Overcut" in you hand or you're not comitting to it. :wink:

 

[CJ Wiley]

This is how I can ALWAYS tell if someone has tried it or not

Are you trying to imply that if I truly learn all of those "unique and advanced techniques" (e.g., by "getting out more" and "actually trying them at the table") that I might not shoot as well as those pros do, even if I pay money to learn the techniques from "instructors that actually know how to play"?

That's just not fair. :frown:

I don't care how or why the techniques work. The techniques obviously do work ... you'd be a fool to think otherwise.

I just want to be like them and play as well as they do without having to think about it. Why can't you understand that? I bet you haven't even tried the techniques at a real table before. I also bet that all of those pros play (or played) way better then you ever will. So there.

Why do you have to be such a "naysaying academic?"

Regards,
Dave :grin-square:

Yes, Dave, to really get this "touch of inside" you must take an hour or three and JUST commit to using it on EVERY shot....still play shape on the next ball, but do it with the touch of Inside (still using high, middle, low, draw, etc.).

This is how I can ALWAYS tell if someone has tried it or not.....when you do as I'm suggesting "Something" happens....your perseption of The Game will change slightly. Then you will want to ask me questions from a completely different perspective....the perspective of understanding what it's like to CONTROL the Game, rather than The Game Controlling YOU! You MAKE the table do what you want it to do using the shot YOU want to use.....rather than just doing the "easiest, most logical" shot.....there's a BIG DIFFERENCE :wink:

 

[Mitchxout]

Try aiming at a cut shot and then move over slightly towards the inside. Keep your cue straight and accelerate quickly and precisely. You'll find the shot will overcut slightly.....this is what the "Touch of Inside" does...then you can aim at the "short" side of the pocket and "cut" it into the Center.

You MUST feel this "Overcut" in you hand or you're not comitting to it. :wink:

This makes perfect sense but I still wonder about draw vs center? Do the aims become the same?

Also, I assume your method won't work with a Predator shaft?

 

[CJ Wiley]

overcutting is acceptable because you can adjust that quickly.

This makes perfect sense but I still wonder about draw vs center? Do the aims become the same?

Also, I assume your method won't work with a Predator shaft?

You use Draw (with a touch of inside) and Center (with a touch of inside)....I can't see you play, so you'll have to calibrate it yourself...if you're undercutting it hit it with more acceleration....and yes, it works with all shafts, (I used an OB Low Deflection Shaft at a friends house last night and played perfectly with it) they all have a slighly different reaction from my experience due to different sizes, materials, tips, and of course your stoke and accuracy is a variatable you have to calibrate as well.

You will find yourself hitting the ball slightly faster than you were before to keep from undercutting. Top Players NEVER want to undercut balls....overcutting is acceptable because you can adjust that quickly.

 

[dr_dave]

You and some others seem to want to believe that anything a pro tells you has to be gospel because they can play better than you. That is nothing more than a poor assumption on your part. If that were true, then you should be holding your cue sideways like Keith, taking a swoop stroke like Hoppe, with a 1" backstroke like Allen Hopkins, one warmup stroke like Earl with a pump action to that warmup like Busty. Maybe then you will play like them.

Are you trying to imply that if I truly learn all of those "unique and advanced techniques" (e.g., by "getting out more" and "actually trying them at the table") that I might not shoot as well as those pros do, even if I pay money to learn the techniques from "instructors that actually know how to play"?

That's just not fair. :frown:

I don't care how or why the techniques work. The techniques obviously do work ... you'd be a fool to think otherwise.

I just want to be like them and play as well as they do without having to think about it. Why can't you understand that? I bet you haven't even tried the techniques at a real table before. I also bet that all of those pros play (or played) way better then you ever will. So there.

Why do you have to be such a "naysaying academic?"

Regards,
Dave :grin-square:

Yes, Dave, to really get this "touch of inside" you must take an hour or three and JUST commit to using it on EVERY shot....still play shape on the next ball, but do it with the touch of Inside (still using high, middle, low, draw, etc.).

CJ,

I was not thinking about your inside English technique at all when I replied to Neil. I was just poking fun at some of the people who have used some of the quoted words/phrases and similar logic in this and other similar recent threads. Again, this was not directed at you. It was in reply to Neil's post.

I think I have a pretty good sense for your method. I'm not convinced it is the best approach for most people, but it will certainly offer advantages to some people. It obviously works for you.

Regards,
Dave

 

[ENGLISH!]

Yes, unless we're getting silly with the definition of "exactly" (you may turn the CB an inconsequential, and likely invisible, amount).

More importantly, even if you could get a significant amount of spin this way, why on Earth would you trade the lost stroke accuracy for something you can do more simply and reliably with a normal stroke? This kind of bad tradeoff is part of the deal with all of these gimmick techniques: they don't really add anything and even if they did the cost is too high.

Another recent example is the myth that squirting the CB can increase the margin of error in the pocket. In that case the positive effect of more precise aiming might complicate the equation - until you realize that you can just do that without the need for gimmicks. As usual, the straightforward answer is the right one. Pool's easy like that.

pjchgo

P.S. This also points out the fallacy of the title of this thread. The end doesn't always justify the means, because the end is often freighted with the hidden costs of gimmicky means. (Not to mention that the expected end itself may not be realistic in the first place.)

PJ,

Thanks for indulging me.

During the course of my 46 yrs. of playing experience I have seen a 'few' guys twisting their cue & I schrugged it off for the same reasons you relay.

After hearing CJ 'explain' it & his 'perception' of it, I went to the table & experimented with it. I understand his 'perceptions' & have seen first hand the results.

Regardless of the actual physics of what causes the results, I'm putting this, new to me, technique in my tool box for further experimentation & implementation when I feel it applicabale.

Thanks again for your indulgance.
Best Regards,
RJ

PS As for 'exactly', I did know know science considered any differential as 'silly'.

 

[CJ Wiley]

DO NOT use Inside English....that's the "kiss of death".

CJ,

I was not thinking about your inside English technique at all when I replied to Neil. I was just poking fun at some of the people who have used some of the quoted words/phrases and similar logic in this and other similar recent threads. Again, this was not directed at you. It was in reply to Neil's post.

I think I have a pretty good sense for your method. I'm not convinced it is the best approach for most people, but it will certainly offer advantages to some people. It obviously works for you.

Regards,
Dave

Just make sure if you ever decide to try my technique DO NOT use Inside English....that's the "kiss of death"...Aloha, and Play Well

 

[dr_dave]

Just make sure if you ever decide to try my technique DO NOT use Inside English....that's the "kiss of death"...Aloha, and Play Well

Sorry, I mean to imply that you method involves more than a "touch of inside English."

Regards,
Dave

 

[CJ Wiley]

I was talking to someone about creating "magic" and "illusions" at the table

PJ,

Thanks for indulging me.

During the course of my 46 yrs. of playing experience I have seen a 'few' guys twisting their cue & I schrugged it off for the same reasons you relay.

After hearing CJ 'explain' it & his 'perception' of it, I went to the table & experimented with it. I understand his 'perceptions' & have seen first hand the results.

Regardless of the actual physics of what causes the results, I'm putting this, new to me, technique in my tool box for further experimentation & implementation when I feel it applicabale.

Thanks again for your indulgance.
Best Regards,
RJ

PS As for 'exactly', I did know know science considered any differential as 'silly'.

RJ, I was talking to someone about creating "magic" and "illusions" (I even mentioned David Copperfield) at the table and the "Slight of Cue" came up from an earlier Private Message. This is something that I do to create an illusion, not something I use as part of my regular game.

I have several different "styles" I use when I play. The "Touch of Inside" is the one I used when I had to play perfectly to win. It sounds funny that I wouldn't do it all the time, but quite frankly it makes the Game kind of boring to me. This is not going to set well with some people that read this because some know it's true and it's kind of brutal when you think someone may have been stalling against you. I can't help it, I lived on the road for 7 years gambling all the time and sometimes you develop unusual habits....this is the one I developed. And before a few years ago I WOULD NEVER tell anyone about the "Touch of Inside" system because I depended on it to make a LOT of money. That was then, this is now....I know longer seek to gamble to win money or use my knowledge of the Game to beat someone. 'The Game' has taken me far and I'm on a New, Better Path.

I played pool and gambled for a living and playing "no mistake" pool wasn't always the wisest thing to do. Some people call it "stalling", I just called it "playing different styles"...and I do it more than you would think. Even in bigger tournaments I'll catch myself doing it. I just NEVER did it against Efren, Johnny, Earl, Sigel, Miz, etc.....because they can do it too. :wink:

Using the "Slight of Cue" is one of those "styles" I'm speaking of and I must be up front about that because it may cause you to take a step back, and I don't want that to happen, it wasn't my intention in bringing it to anyone's attention. Only on "specialty shots" do I use my wrist, however, I do believe hand strenth is a great asset in pool and I teach some ways to build incredible "finger strength"...these I learned in the Shaolin Kung Fu and they involve a 16 pound Shot Put and various other "stuff". :wink:

 

[CJ Wiley]

Sorry, I mean to imply that you method involves more than a "touch of inside English."

Regards,
Dave

I was kidding, just a little "Doctor Humor" :wink: I'm learning from you too:smile:

 

[ENGLISH!]

Bump dat!

pj
chgo

What's up with missing posts? Is this a private joke?

RJ

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What's up with missing posts? Is this a private joke?

RJ

A "bump" is an answer to a post so the thread will go to the top of the list again - in this case it means "I agree."

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

Watch Earl Stickland demonstrate his superior Aiming System against Efren Reyes. EARL's AIMING SYSTEM

He's not the one refered to in the Bible. But he certainly is a Pearl.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The cost is too high? You mean like winning major events? I don't really understand the statement here when a top level pro is saying that he does x-method and it works for him consistently how can you claim that it's a gimmick with no added benefit?

I agree that there is such a thing as textbook stroke and form. But I also KNOW from experience that there are plenty of high level players out there who don't exhibit text book form. Some of those player have techniques that they developed or were taught by other players that they use consistently. And there are high level players that have what we would call textbook perfect form.

You say the cost is too high and I say it's worth trying. I see zero harm to any living human to try anything that any other living human comes up on the pool table. And especially if the person doing the instruction is a champion. So many people here LOVE to say that the only way to greatness is to hit a million balls but they don't want to truly listen to the very few players who have actually and truly hit a million balls.

I don't understand that and in reply I would say that the cost of NOT listening to them and not trying their methods is too high IF you aspire yourself to become a better than average player or even a great player.

John,

I concur. I've learned two(2) things from CJ's short time here that I feel will benefit me & my game. That's 2 things more than the results of the other 4 months that I've been on AZB.

Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

Concerning the"wrist twist".
The movement is often subtle produced by the fingers resulting in the slightest change in the angle of one's wrist. This technique is nothing more than a precisely timed tip movement on the surface of the cue ball.
This is about cue ball control more so than just getting spin and more spin.

Any time a tip contacts the cue ball, as you all know, you get direction, speed and spin.

The techniqie allows for a thicker aim which is friendly to the aim or angle. Rather than just arming the ball for cue ball control, the technique allows the shooter to engage his fingers and related muscles to pinpoint a cue ball for position. This touch or finesse is certainly a big part of this rolling of the fingers that may result in a the slightest wrist turn.

And, yes, it's tied in with spin. This technique primarliy results in a finessing of the cue ball maximizing one's touch by engaging specific muscles to do so.

It's a weapon that can be developed or not.

I chose to develop the technique and I am a better player because of it.

Stan Shuffett

Tap! Tap ! Tap! to you Mr. Shuffett. Well said.

I had discounted it in the past until I heared CJ's 'perception' of it. So.. I tried it & it is now in my tool box.

Best Regards,

Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

Are you trying to imply that if I truly learn all of those "unique and advanced techniques" (e.g., by "getting out more" and "actually trying them at the table") that I might not shoot as well as those pros do, even if I pay money to learn the techniques from "instructors that actually know how to play"?

That's just not fair. :frown:

I don't care how or why the techniques work. The techniques obviously do work ... you'd be a fool to think otherwise.

I just want to be like them and play as well as they do without having to think about it. Why can't you understand that? I bet you haven't even tried the techniques at a real table before. I also bet that all of those pros play (or played) way better then you ever will. So there.

Why do you have to be such a "naysaying academic?"

Regards,
Dave :grin-square:

I thought you were being serious.
RJ

 

[ENGLISH!]

RJ, I was talking to someone about creating "magic" and "illusions" (I even mentioned David Copperfield) at the table and the "Slight of Cue" came up from an earlier Private Message. This is something that I do to create an illusion, not something I use as part of my regular game.

I have several different "styles" I use when I play. The "Touch of Inside" is the one I used when I had to play perfectly to win. It sounds funny that I wouldn't do it all the time, but quite frankly it makes the Game kind of boring to me. This is not going to set well with some people that read this because some know it's true and it's kind of brutal when you think someone may have been stalling against you. I can't help it, I lived on the road for 7 years gambling all the time and sometimes you develop unusual habits....this is the one I developed. And before a few years ago I WOULD NEVER tell anyone about the "Touch of Inside" system because I depended on it to make a LOT of money. That was then, this is now....I know longer seek to gamble to win money or use my knowledge of the Game to beat someone. 'The Game' has taken me far and I'm on a New, Better Path.

I played pool and gambled for a living and playing "no mistake" pool wasn't always the wisest thing to do. Some people call it "stalling", I just called it "playing different styles"...and I do it more than you would think. Even in bigger tournaments I'll catch myself doing it. I just NEVER did it against Efren, Johnny, Earl, Sigel, Miz, etc.....because they can do it too. :wink:

Using the "Slight of Cue" is one of those "styles" I'm speaking of and I must be up front about that because it may cause you to take a step back, and I don't want that to happen, it wasn't my intention in bringing it to anyone's attention. Only on "specialty shots" do I use my wrist, however, I do believe hand strenth is a great asset in pool and I teach some ways to build incredible "finger strength"...these I learned in the Shaolin Kung Fu and they involve a 16 pound Shot Put and various other "stuff". :wink:

CJ,

Thanks for the concern & the expalanation. I totally understand & that is why I said I would have to experiment more & be selective. I had no intention to alter my normal stroke of 46 yrs. It is merely a specialty tool.

I also understand your 'styles' of play. I subconsciously do the same thing. I never intentionally dog it but I can play different 'styles' as well, depending on whom I am playing.

Thanks again,

RJ

 

[ENGLISH!]

A "bump" is an answer to a post so the thread will go to the top of the list again - in this case it means "I agree."

pj
chgo

PJ,

I know that. I was refering to Neil's missing posts. What missing posts?

RJ

 

[dr_dave]

in response to JB Cases: ... If that were true, then you should be holding your cue sideways like Keith, taking a swoop stroke like Hoppe, with a 1" backstroke like Allen Hopkins, one warmup stroke like Earl with a pump action to that warmup like Busty. Maybe then you will play like them.

Are you trying to imply that if I truly learn all of those "unique and advanced techniques" (e.g., by "getting out more" and "actually trying them at the table") that I might not shoot as well as those pros do, even if I pay money to learn the techniques from "instructors that actually know how to play"?

That's just not fair. :frown:

I don't care how or why the techniques work. The techniques obviously do work ... you'd be a fool to think otherwise.

I just want to be like them and play as well as they do without having to think about it. Why can't you understand that? I bet you haven't even tried the techniques at a real table before. I also bet that all of those pros play (or played) way better then you ever will. So there.

Why do you have to be such a "naysaying academic?"

Regards,
Dave :grin-square:

I thought you were being serious.

My post was in response to the "unique and advanced techniques" mentioned in Neil's post above (in bold). These techniques are obviously not generally-recommended "best practices," even though they are (or have been) used quite successfully by some top pros.

I'm sorry if you missed my joke ... or if I offended anybody.

Regards,
Dave