Taiwan TOI
- Thread starter HawaiianEye
- Start date
You claim it is false info even though you have not proven it to be such on a table at any point. In your world, we should just take your word over someone with a proven track record of success. The beauty of the internet....
That's the critical thinking part Pat was talking about that you missed. You only look at who says what, instead of what is being said. Many of the claims have been proven on the table, but you missed that part because of who said it.
Instead of using critical thinking, you assume that whatever a great player says is the truth. That often is not the case. Mike Sigel is one of the greatest players ever. Yet, he teaches that spin cannot be transferred to the ob. That has been proven false many times over, yet, he still believes and teaches it.
That's the critical thinking part Pat was talking about that you missed. You only look at who says what, instead of what is being said. Many of the claims have been proven on the table, but you missed that part because of who said it.
Instead of using critical thinking, you assume that whatever a great player says is the truth. That often is not the case. Mike Sigel is one of the greatest players ever. Yet, he teaches that spin cannot be transferred to the ob. That has been proven false many times over, yet, he still believes and teaches it.
Actually I did not miss anything. What is ridiculous is how some will spend so much of their time debating against something they do not believe in. If it works for people based on actual results, who is someone else to come in to question it. To each their own but this forum seems to be filled with these types.....
I don't say everything about it is false, but the things I say are false are obvious (not to all, unfortunately), like 2+2=5 - no "proof at the table" needed (in fact, "proof at the table" as you mean it usually isn't proof of anything). I understand that not everybody can see that - that's why I point it out.
In "my world" you should believe things that are demonstrable and sensible, not things claimed by an "authority" (trying to sell you stuff) that defy logic and have no real factual support (hint: "I play real good" isn't factual support).
Of course if you can't (or maybe don't bother to) understand the claims and their lack of support, you'll naturally assume a pro "knows best" - not unreasonable, but unfortunately often wrong.
pj
chgo
They used to call Mike Sigel, Dr "N" for Knowledge. LolThat's the critical thinking part Pat was talking about that you missed. You only look at who says what, instead of what is being said. Many of the claims have been proven on the table, but you missed that part because of who said it.
Instead of using critical thinking, you assume that whatever a great player says is the truth. That often is not the case. Mike Sigel is one of the greatest players ever. Yet, he teaches that spin cannot be transferred to the ob. That has been proven false many times over, yet, he still believes and teaches it.
I don't go by what people claim but what I see when I take something to the table. So continue to spend your time going back & forth about it, that is all on you.
lol
Never heard that one - pretty good.
Sigel isn't the only pro (by FAR) who has believed silly stuff.
pj
chgo
Well, unless you're doing the back & forth with me... then it's on both of us, right?
pj
chgo
P.S. When you "take something to the table" and see a result you like, don't you think it would be useful to know the real reason for it - so, for instance, you could apply it to other situations? For example, when TOI helps you shoot some shots better, is it because the "margin of error" has magically changed or because you're focusing more on tip/CB accuracy? If it's the margin of error thing, then you've learned one way to shoot a certain kind of shot - but if it's tip/CB accuracy, that can be applied to every way of shooting every shot. Which is the more valuable lesson?
Last edited:
Click this link to see how strong the subconscious is for shooting
Earl Strickland, Efren Reyes, and I all use the 3 Part Pocket System. Earl likes to throw the balls, using outside, where Efren and I do it with the "touch" of inside.
Remember, TOI is about touch and feel for the pocket. No human mind can understand this UNTIL they can do it.......not before. Sorry scientists you are too smart for TOI.
For the rest of us "TOI is the Teacher' (isn't it great to have an edge on them)
CLICK THIS LINK TO SEE HOW STRONG THE SUBCONSCIOUS IS FOR SHOOTING
Earl Strickland, Efren Reyes, and I all use the 3 Part Pocket System. Earl likes to throw the balls, using outside, where Efren and I do it with the "touch" of inside.
Remember, TOI is about touch and feel for the pocket. No human mind can understand this UNTIL they can do it.......not before. Sorry scientists you are too smart for TOI.
For the rest of us "TOI is the Teacher' (isn't it great to have an edge on them)
CLICK THIS LINK TO SEE HOW STRONG THE SUBCONSCIOUS IS FOR SHOOTING
One thing that is useful, for me, is to apply a touch of inside (TOI) while aiming the center of the shaft at the contact point on the OB for very thick cuts.
The small deflection of the CB makes it travel toward the OB a bit outside of the OB contact point that I am aiming at, and thus achieving the geometrically correct CB path for it to hit the OB contact point that sends it to the desired target/pocket.
If I employ TOI on a straight in shot, instead of center CB, with top, the CB will not follow the OB into the pocket and scratch. The CB instead veers away from the straight in line at a small angle allowing it to hit the rail and not scratch - cheating the pocket.
Again on a straight in shot, if I hit the CB center below it's equator, I can make the CB stop when it hits the OB, but if I employ TOI, the CB will travel a bit to the side instead of stopping which can be used to get shape for the next shot.
Observing what the CB does after impacting the OB with TOI, I notice that the CB reacts differently than if I use a center CB hit. This can be/is useful to get shape for the next shot.
Just saying and sharing.
:thumbup2: Yes!
But now you're actually talking about playing pool as a player...
& not just arguing beliefs or 'science' or just arguing to argue.
Good on You, as Colin might say.
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
Earl Strickland, Efren Reyes, and I all use the 3 Part Pocket System. Earl likes to throw the balls, using outside, where Efren and I do it with the "touch" of inside.
Remember, TOI is about touch and feel for the pocket. No human mind can understand this UNTIL they can do it.......not before. Sorry scientists you are too smart for TOI.
For the rest of us "TOI is the Teacher' (isn't it great to have an edge on them)
CLICK THIS LINK TO SEE HOW STRONG THE SUBCONSCIOUS IS FOR SHOOTING
I think any reasonably good players plays differant parts of the pocket ,,
1
I know you might have been talking about a table situation, or...
maybe not.
And.... English is not your 1st. language but...
What you say here is rather profound & so true...
At least it is to me.
The thing is...some of us recognise it while others just can't seem to see it.
It's like open minds & closed minds.
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
Last edited:
Banks
Banned
Yes, but only one likes to make things up.
Hi CJ,
I'm addressing the bold blue part of your post obviously not so much for you but for others.
I've said elsewhere that when I when went to using english when I was 13 my focus was on the swerve aspect. I had no recognition or knowledge of that dreaded S word that I'll know call CB deflection.
I think the reason is that I was a CB looker when shooting & did not look at the CB when stroking the shot so that I & my minds eye saw the swerve but not the CB deflection.
I would surmise that my subconscious became aware of the CB deflection because I quickly was pocketing balls...
But... I was totally consciously unaware of the CB deflecting in for outside english nor out for inside english.
Just like TOI opens up an awareness I think the use of both outside & inside english can too, even if that 'awareness' is only subconsciously.
My point is that IMHO one should venture out to see what's there.
Just think how crowded the European & Asian continents would be if Columbus had not 'Ventured Out'.
There's a whole world of discovery out there if one is not afraid to leave their comfort zone & just Venture Out.
Best 2 All,
Rick
Greg,
Would the word 'most' instead of 99% satisfy you?
You really seem to have become the type that at one time you seemed to rightfully not take to.
I THINK that 'most' of us 'know' when one is 'not' 'speaking' literally.
Some address the subject matter while others nit pic the language.
Some clarify the vague or technically incorrect language while others 'attack' the individual, their character, their motive, or whatever.
I've been one in the past to sort of take up for you when others 'attacked' you.
What's happened to you lately?
Best 2 You,
Rick
Ah yes, the old "us vs. them" rabble rousing tactic... guess you gotta go with your strengths.Sorry scientists you are too smart for TOI.
For the rest of us "TOI is the Teacher' (isn't it great to have an edge on them)
pj
chgo
Hi Coilin,
While I can agree, I'll just say that there are times (rare) when certain shots come up that what Lamas said is applicable & nearly the only way to get the job done, like when a ball is blocking the part of the pocket that one would use to cheat the pocket. I've seen it much in just the short time that I have recently been playing a bit of one pocket.
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
Last edited: