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

[CJ Wiley]

the "Touch" of Inside perception you will find you are playing a different game

Or you could try it out for a few hours like everyone else has.

You remind of someone who won't eat broccoli because they don't like asparagus. "Well asparagus is a vegetable, and I didn't care for it, therefore I know I won't like broccoli." :wink:

In all seriousness though, is there a reason you haven't tried it out yet? If you have, and I missed it, I do apologize.

As you start to get the "Touch" of Inside perception you will find you are playing a different game than these other players. They won't understand because they can't "see"....it's the strangest phenomenon when someone has eyes but can not see and ears, but can not hear.

At this point the ones that refuse to try the system will never get it. I'm not sure why, it's like we only get so many chances to change and if we don't take it ...well....I guess it just vanishes.

They're still trying to say we are spinning the ball, like that matters. When you experience this new perception you "Real Eyes" how irrelevant some questions and comments are. When you see the game with "different" eyes it's hard to believe everyone else doesn't see the same thing. But believe me they don't, so welcome to the new pool world.

This is why we can spot those guys the 5/7/9/ and even the break and win. We are playing a completely different game than everyone else. It's nothing other than our perception of the game is different. 'The Game is the Teacher'

 

[Mikjary]

How has this technique fixed your stroke so it's never off by more than a hair in the direction of center ball (but potentially more in the other direction)?

pj
chgo

This is an extremely good question. I wouldn't calling it fixing my stroke as much as I would say defining my stroke. I don't have to be concerned about tip position because my mind isn't torn between steering the cue straight through the ball. It feels like I can relax and not worry about a poor stroke. IOW, the confidence of not miss hitting the cue ball has made the subconscious accept the fact I won't miss hit the cue ball...it seems.

I showed this to a pro friend and he said he feels like he's hitting more solid on the cue ball. He said the more he uses it, the more confident he feels with his stroke. I'm letting the placebo effect run its course and in a week or two I'll come to terms with it.

Best,
Mike

 

[Mikjary]

As you start to get the "Touch" of Inside perception you will find you are playing a different game than these other players. They won't understand because they can't "see"....it's the strangest phenomenon when someone has eyes but can not see and ears, but can not hear.

At this point the ones that refuse to try the system will never get it. I'm not sure why, it's like we only get so many chances to change and if we don't take it ...well....I guess it just vanishes.

They're still trying to say we are spinning the ball, like that matters. When you experience this new perception you "Real Eyes" how irrelevant some questions and comments are. When you see the game with "different" eyes it's hard to believe everyone else doesn't see the same thing. But believe me they don't, so welcome to the new pool world.

This is why we can spot those guys the 5/7/9/ and even the break and win. We are playing a completely different game than everyone else. It's nothing other than our perception of the game is different. 'The Game is the Teacher'

You're right and I don't know why. I've been a center and outside player for years. It was a stretch for me to try this technique. I kept putting too much inside spin on the ball and wanted to quit. But I've stuck with it and found something strange happened to my game.

I can still hit outside spin for my pos, but every time I line up on a shot I line up with inside spin naturally. My brain is confused, but my stroke likes it. At least that's the feedback I'm getting. My eyes are looking for tracks I never used before and I'm wondering where it's coming from. LOL Schizo, for sure!

The game's become fun, again. It's a challenge to figure out better ways of getting around the table. I can honestly say my perception has changed and I'm still not sure why.

Best,
Mike

 

[Patrick Johnson]

This is an extremely good question. I wouldn't calling it fixing my stroke as much as I would say defining my stroke. I don't have to be concerned about tip position because my mind isn't torn between steering the cue straight through the ball. It feels like I can relax and not worry about a poor stroke. IOW, the confidence of not miss hitting the cue ball has made the subconscious accept the fact I won't miss hit the cue ball...it seems.

I showed this to a pro friend and he said he feels like he's hitting more solid on the cue ball. He said the more he uses it, the more confident he feels with his stroke. I'm letting the placebo effect run its course and in a week or two I'll come to terms with it.

Best,
Mike

How is it only "fixed" in one direction at a time?

If it's fixed in both directions, is the only continuing use for the technique to counteract contact-induced spin?

pj
chgo

 

[CJ Wiley]

you have experienced the perception shift no one can take it away

You're right and I don't know why. I've been a center and outside player for years. It was a stretch for me to try this technique. I kept putting too much inside spin on the ball and wanted to quit. But I've stuck with it and found something strange happened to my game.

I can still hit outside spin for my pos, but every time I line up on a shot I line up with inside spin naturally. My brain is confused, but my stroke likes it. At least that's the feedback I'm getting. My eyes are looking for tracks I never used before and I'm wondering where it's coming from. LOL Schizo, for sure!

The game's become fun, again. It's a challenge to figure out better ways of getting around the table. I can honestly say my perception has changed and I'm still not sure why.

Best,
Mike

I respect your diligence, Mike, even with these other players desperately trying to keep you from the Truth. Now that you have experienced the perception shift no one can take it away.

Just make sure you continue to reinforce it for 3 more weeks and I'd say your game will look completely different to anyone who's watched you play. You can now PM me if you have any questions and I'll do my best to help keep your progress continuous.

 

[Mikjary]

How is it only "fixed" in one direction at a time?

If it's fixed in both directions, is the only continuing use for the technique to counteract contact-induced spin?

pj
chgo

Fixed is a subjective word and it was never really broke. Maybe my mind was a little warped or my eyes didn't do their job, but my stroke was okay.
It's like less things to think about make the gremlins and spasms go away.

The technique makes the balls hit the pocket with a spin that the pocket accepts better. If you hit a rail on the way in, it doesn't leave the rail and jar. Also, I like the idea of a firmer hit instead of nursing my way through a rack. Counteracting the contact with the object ball just adds a new dimension to position play and the ability to kill the cue ball speed. The fast cloth we play on makes this a nice tool to have.

Best,
Mike

 

[Mikjary]

I respect your diligence, Mike, even with these other players desperately trying to keep you from the Truth. Now that you have experienced the perception shift no one can take it away.

Just make sure you continue to reinforce it for 3 more weeks and I'd say your game will look completely different to anyone who's watched you play. You can now PM me if you have any questions and I'll do my best to help keep your progress continuous.

Thanks for the props, CJ.

Best,
Mike

 

[mattp]

Back cuts?

I have been following this thread and have enjoyed it thoroughly. I do agree with PJ that math-wise the technique has no advantage. It is a fact and easily proven. However, I have been experimenting with this thought process for a week or so and for the most part I really like it. It really FEELS like I have more margin for error:idea2:.
My question concerns back cuts in to the corners. I don't like this technique for them because it puts the wrong spin(non-helping English) on the OB. Also, back cuts at shallow angles do not like to be hit that firm. I seem to have similar issues with the side pockets. I am curious as to what CJ and others thinks about this???

Ps thanx CJ, PJ, RJ, Dr. D and everybody else for a fine read.:smile:

 

[LAMas]

I have been following this thread and have enjoyed it thoroughly. I do agree with PJ that math-wise the technique has no advantage. It is a fact and easily proven. However, I have been experimenting with this thought process for a week or so and for the most part I really like it. It really FEELS like I have more margin for error:idea2:.
My question concerns back cuts in to the corners. I don't like this technique for them because it puts the wrong spin(non-helping English) on the OB. Also, back cuts at shallow angles do not like to be hit that firm. I seem to have similar issues with the side pockets. I am curious as to what CJ and others thinks about this???

Ps thanx CJ, PJ, RJ, Dr. D and everybody else for a fine read.:smile:

Good observation and question.

With the OB close to the rail and the pocket down table on that rail, inside english would cause the OB to accept a helping english. CCW rotation if the OB is close to a rail on the right and CW rotation on the OB if it is close to a rail on the left.

For a backcut, inside english would not be helping. If you use a bit of inside on a backcut, you will need to aim for the far facing of the pocket in order to apply helping english to the OB. If you apply too much inside, the OB will squirt (more) and be overcut and be sent to the center of the pocket and not glance off of the far facing.

What do you think?

This may not be what CJ would say, but what works for me.

 

[CJ Wiley]

"pocket acceptance english"

Good observation and question.

With the OB close to the rail and the pocket down table on that rail, inside english would cause the OB to accept a helping english. CCW rotation if the OB is close to a rail on the right and CW rotation on the OB if it is close to a rail on the left.

For a backcut, inside english would not be helping. If you use a bit of inside on a backcut, you will need to aim for the far facing of the pocket in order to apply helping english to the OB. If you apply too much inside, the OB will squirt (more) and be overcut and be sent to the center of the pocket and not glance off of the far facing.

What do you think?

This may not be what CJ would say, but what works for me.

This type shot puts what I've always called "pocket acceptance english" when going down the rail. These shots I hit, from what I'm told, as good or better than anyone, and you will too, just keep developing your inside.

The pocket zone is much larger aiming at one side and forcing it in the center. The advantages are considerable and it's still difficult for amateurs to believe that I hit the center, and never aim at the center (unless the ball's straight in).

 

[CJ Wiley]

I have been following this thread and have enjoyed it thoroughly. I do agree with PJ that math-wise the technique has no advantage. It is a fact and easily proven. However, I have been experimenting with this thought process for a week or so and for the most part I really like it. It really FEELS like I have more margin for error:idea2:.
My question concerns back cuts in to the corners. I don't like this technique for them because it puts the wrong spin(non-helping English) on the OB. Also, back cuts at shallow angles do not like to be hit that firm. I seem to have similar issues with the side pockets. I am curious as to what CJ and others thinks about this???

Ps thanx CJ, PJ, RJ, Dr. D and everybody else for a fine read.:smile:

"math-wise"...that's an understatement

 

[LAMas]

This type shot puts what I've always called "pocket acceptance english" when going down the rail. These shots I hit, from what I'm told, as good or better than anyone, and you will too, just keep developing your inside.

The pocket zone is much larger aiming at one side and forcing it in the center. The advantages are considerable and it's still difficult for amateurs to believe that I hit the center, and never aim at the center (unless the ball's straight in).

Your use of a bit of inside english to create a bit of helping or "pocket acceptance english" makes the pocket larger for a pure center hit on the CB will not create "pocket acceptance english" and if the shot is miss-hit, the OB might rattle in the "jaws".

It makes all the sense in the world to make the poket effectively larger by allowing it to accept more cut angles aimed at it.

Thanks again.

 

[CJ Wiley]

"Inside Information"

This is an extremely good question. I wouldn't calling it fixing my stroke as much as I would say defining my stroke. I don't have to be concerned about tip position because my mind isn't torn between steering the cue straight through the ball. It feels like I can relax and not worry about a poor stroke. IOW, the confidence of not miss hitting the cue ball has made the subconscious accept the fact I won't miss hit the cue ball...it seems.

I showed this to a pro friend and he said he feels like he's hitting more solid on the cue ball. He said the more he uses it, the more confident he feels with his stroke. I'm letting the placebo effect run its course and in a week or two I'll come to terms with it.

Best,
Mike

Your "pro friend" is hitting the cue ball more solid because through using the "Touch" of Inside his eyes are aiming at the cue ball more than before. The fact is the cue ball is the primary target in pocket billiards, not the object ball. With all the talk of "is there an aiming system or isn't there" you will start unconsciously aiming at the object ball when it's the cue ball you should be concerned with.

The 3 Part Pocket System becomes apparent ONLY when you start aiming at the cue ball, not the object ball. You can tell players about this over and over (I have more experience with this than anyone) and they will not understand until they experience it for themselves.

This will take dedicating practice using the "Touch of Inside System" for a period of 2-3 straight hours using it to play shape on ALL shots (unless straight in). Touch of Inside and accelerate through the ball (no further than you bring the cue back). This is the Enlightenment many players have been looking for. Don't let your ego keep you from this key discovery.

Once you get the hang of this there's another "layer" you will want to start adding and for anyone interested I'll start getting into that in the next few days. I hope you're finding enjoyment using this "Inside Information". Aloha

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Your "pro friend" is hitting the cue ball more solid because through using the "Touch" of Inside his eyes are aiming at the cue ball more than before.

"Aiming small" at the CB is a benefit of this technique that I can believe. Another similar benefit is "aiming small" at the pocket. In fact, I believe these are the benefits that players who try this are really seeing, and the "greater margin of error" they're experiencing is really just an overall "magnification" of the things they're looking at because they're focusing more closely.

This is similar to the real benefits of using fractions/pivot aiming systems like CTE, 90/90, etc. Those systems also tend to focus the player on more precise body/stick/ball alignments. I believe these are the real benefits of these systems too.

Obviously, players can train themselves to focus more precisely on the elements of aiming and stroke without adopting all the other trappings of these techniques. It isn't necessary to be a "believer", but it seems to help in lots of cases.

pj
chgo

 

[JoeyA]

It depends upon the definition of "is"! LOL

If "aim" means where the OB would go if squirt didn't exist, then neither of us "aims at the center of the pocket". If "aim" means where we hope the OB will go because of squirt, then both of us do.

However you describe it we both end up with precisely the same stick/CB/OB/pocket alignment. If we don't and we both have the same stroke and I'm the one aiming at center pocket, then he misses more often.

pj <- running out of different ways to say it
chgo

Patrick,
In regards to CJ's technique, what you do and what CJ does are two different things.

He's aiming at one side of the pocket and you're aiming at the center of the pocket.

 

[West Point 1987]

"Aiming small" at the CB is a benefit of this technique that I can believe. Another similar benefit is "aiming small" at the pocket. In fact, I believe these are the benefits that players who try this are really seeing, and the "greater margin of error" they're experiencing is really just an overall "magnification" of the things they're looking at because they're focusing more closely.

This is similar to the real benefits of using fractions/pivot aiming systems like CTE, 90/90, etc. Those systems also tend to focus the player on more precise body/stick/ball alignments. I believe these are the real benefits of these systems too.

Obviously, players can train themselves to focus more precisely on the elements of aiming and stroke without adopting all the other trappings of these techniques. It isn't necessary to be a "believer", but it seems to help in lots of cases.

pj
chgo

There's some validity to what you say...aim small, hit small, miss small. What I think you're missing is that the purpose of this technique is to anchor your shot to one side of the pocket, with ALL your margin of error in one direction, toward the center of the pocket. Doing this, you have to aim/stroke it very badly to miss it...all you have to do is cinch the shot to get past the near point of the pocket. Hitting it with a touch of inside ensures the ball can only move in one direction. Aiming it at the center of the pocket (with a touch of inside) automatically ensures that you only have half a pocket to miss/hit, instead of the whole pocket...in that case you're starting at the center line of the pocket and moving past it toward the outside point...ignoring the other half of the pocket. Beyond that explanation, I can't express myself any clearer. If I was the only person in the world that understood this (and benefited with the increased confidence and consistency) then I'd be perfectly happy. :embarrassed2:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick,
In regards to CJ's technique, what you do and what CJ does are two different things.

He's aiming at one side of the pocket and you're aiming at the center of the pocket.

I explained in detail how they're the same. Either that went past you or you're just saying "are not".

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What I think you're missing is that the purpose of this technique is to anchor your shot to one side of the pocket, with ALL your margin of error in one direction, toward the center of the pocket.

I haven't missed that. It just doesn't really work that way.

Hitting it with a touch of inside ensures the ball can only move in one direction.

Trying to hit it with a touch of inside doesn't ensure that. Your stroke didn't suddenly become one-sided.

Disagreeing with the explanations doesn't mean I've misunderstood them. I think you've misunderstood me.

But I'm glad it's helping you.

pj
chgo

 

[sfleinen]

Patrick,
In regards to CJ's technique, what you do and what CJ does are two different things.

He's aiming at one side of the pocket and you're aiming at the center of the pocket.

Joey:

I agree with your synopsis.

But, if I may, the point PJ's making, that I think is being missed, is that CJ's technique hedges all your bets to one side of the pocket. Meaning, you're placing all your margin of error on one side of the pocket. You have no margin of error on the other side of the pocket. If the slightest thing wrong happens where you end-up hitting the object ball too full -- say you get too full of a hit for whatever reason, not aiming where you think you're aiming, etc. -- you end up undercutting the pocket, possibly hitting the knuckle or the rail just before the pocket.

Like any aiming technique, it depends on how accurately you can aim at what you intend to aim at. If you can aim reliably at the near side of the pocket (notice the key operative word "reliably"), you don't have a problem. But there are some that'd rather have half the margin of error on each side of the point of aim (i.e. on either side of the center of the pocket), rather than lump all that margin of error to one side of the pocket and have nothing in reserve for the other side.

Just my thoughts,
-Sean

 

[JoeyA]

Joey:

I agree with your synopsis.

But, if I may, the point PJ's making, that I think is being missed, is that CJ's technique hedges all your bets to one side of the pocket. Meaning, you're placing all your margin of error on one side of the pocket. You have no margin of error on the other side of the pocket. If the slightest thing wrong happens where you end-up hitting the object ball too full -- say you get too full of a hit for whatever reason, not aiming where you think you're aiming, etc. -- you end up undercutting the pocket, possibly hitting the knuckle or the rail just before the pocket.

Like any aiming technique, it depends on how accurately you can aim at what you intend to aim at. If you can aim reliably at the near side of the pocket (notice the key operative word "reliably"), you don't have a problem. But there are some that'd rather have half the margin of error on each side of the point of aim (i.e. on either side of the center of the pocket), rather than lump all that margin of error to one side of the pocket and have nothing in reserve for the other side.

Just my thoughts,
-Sean

Thanks Sean!

I'm not debating the user-friendliness of CJ's technique as it relates to accomplished players versus not so accomplished players.

I was just making the point that Patrick said CJ was aiming at the center of the pocket. Patrick might be aiming for the center of the pocket but CJ is not aiming at the center of the pocket.