Does a touch of outside...

[Banks]

You say it doesn't matter if someone goes about incorrectly telling others how to do things as long as they themselves can make a ball?

Shamalan couldn't make this stuff up.

Then people go on to say that an aiming system that depends on estimating swerve is not going to break down, but spin will.

Who needs Fox News when you have azb.

 

[ENGLISH!]

You say it doesn't matter if someone goes about incorrectly telling others how to do things as long as they themselves can make a ball?

Shamalan couldn't make this stuff up.

Then people go on to say that an aiming system that depends on estimating swerve is not going to break down, but spin will.

Who needs Fox News when you have azb.

Banks,

I could be wrong, & if so I'm sorry, but, I think you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

Your first sentence in particular. I never said anything like that. That is an assumption on your part of what I meant & that is not what I said nor meant.

You seem to not have a good understand of TOI.

First it is NOT an 'aiming system'. One can use whatever method of aiming that they now use but I do not think it would work with CTE unless a modification was made in some manner.

The intention of TOI is to take the swerve out of the 'equation' by negating it with the speed of the shot.

Both using english & TOI (& I use both) is very much speed sensitive.

Hit too softly with TOI & yes swerve can ruin the shot.

Hot too firmly with english & the speed of the ball can negate the spin throw.

How does that saying go...Speed Kills. That is unless one has good control over it.

Neither CJ nor I is trying to force you or anyone else into playing any way other than the way you want to play.

CJ put it out knowing that it would probably only be for about 30% that would accept it.

If you don't accept it then that's fine & you're in the majority.

Best Wishes.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The friction induced throw is about 1/8 of a ball.

Nope - and it's easy to show:

The difference between cut angles for a half ball hit vs. a 3/8 ball hit (1/8 ball greater cut) is almost 1 diamond over a distance of 6 diamonds.
So if an OB on the head spot is aimed at a corner pocket on the foot rail with a half ball hit, then a 3/8 ball hit from the same CB position will be aimed almost a full diamond away from that.

But maximum contact-induced throw over 6 diamonds is only about 1/2 diamond, so overcutting by 1/8 ball (from half ball to 3/8 ball) overcompensates for throw by at least 1/2 diamond over that distance. In other words, if the half ball hit misses the pocket by 1/2 diamond because of throw, then the 3/8 ball hit will miss the pocket by 1/2 diamond on the other side of the pocket.

I don't care what some books might say or a video might say.

I'll bet your students would rather know the real adjustment.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What one thinks they are doing or what they think is happening on the table does not make one bit of difference if the balls are going into the hole & the cue ball is getting shape & the player is getting the wins.

So if you think invisible leprechauns are pushing your shots into the pockets because you say a little green prayer before each shot, that's what should be taught to your students?

Telling them that what they think is wrong & it's actually this or that can ruin that player

Yeah, the truth would be much worse for them than your invisible leprechauns story...

2 x 2 = 4 but... negative 2 x negative 2 also = a positive 4

And yet your leprechauns still don't exist...

I basically have 3 years of physics education, 2 H.S & one college.
...
I almost never give one thought to ANY of that science.

No kidding.

pj
chgo

 

[Neil]

I don't have one, I don't believe you can dig up any posts from me calling people idiots either, something that can't be said for you or Neil or several others that tear down other people's styles of play when it doesn't agree with your philosophies.

For instance CJ is a friend. He markets a style of play he calls TOI. He didn't "invent it". He marketed it as a style of play as it was shown to him.

It was shown to me by my father, who in turn was shown by Vernon Elliot, a former road partner of his, he could dab it a little. It's a style that is unobtrusive, looks vanilla when witnessed by all but those that understand the different style of pattern play it employs. It's the same shot, same speed every time.

Is it unorthodox? Yes it is. Is it for everyone? No it's not. Are there a plethora of nuances in the way it is applied that you develop when utilized for period of time? Yes there are.

In a nutshell it's a style that in long sessions, 18+ hours, doesn't have the pitfalls of those that spin balls. While at 20 hours in the spin player starts going long or falling short due to fatigue, the inside player is still hitting the same shot unperturbed by the fatigue.

Many here call my friend a charlatan, you, Neil, a host of others. I know first hand that not only was he a great tournament player, but an even better road warrior for the cash before that. I know that first hand.

What I find interesting is he doesn't claim his way is the "only way", even going so far as to say, "it isn't for everyone", because it's not. Those that decry his method do tell everyone that "their way is the only way", and cast aspersions and name calling about. It kind of detracts from your argument a little, that's all.

Before you go accusing others of things, maybe you should actually read what has been written and understand what has been written first.

First off, no one has said that TOI does not work, or is not a viable way to play. What I and many others have said, is that CJ's way of describing it was a bunch of nonsense. As far as name calling, maybe you should go look at your buddy for that, he has done quite a bit of it on here.

 

[Neil]

What one thinks they are doing or what they think is happening on the table does not make one bit of difference if the balls are going into the hole & the cue ball is getting shape & the player is getting the wins.

Telling them that what they think is wrong & it's actually this or that can ruin that player to the point where they might hardly ever win again or take a whole lot of time before they get winning again. Simply changing a set of irons has ruined quite a few Champion Golf Pros.

2 x 2 = 4 but... negative 2 x negative 2 also = a positive 4

There is more then one combination or method of doing something to the same conclusion.

The knuckle ball pitcher does not think about the science of what is going on, he just implements the bio-mechanics to get the ball to knuckle. A curve ball pitcher does the same thing.

I would hazard a guess that the older pitchers had NO idea of what the science was while some of the newer ones might, but they certainly do not think of it when throwing the ball.

I basically have 3 years of physics education, 2 H.S & one college.

I know very much of what actually goes on on the table & in the stroke & with the hit of the cue ball. I almost never give one thought to ANY of that science.

To shove science down an athlete's 'throat' can be the worse thing a coach or teacher can do. All it does is impress the student with the coach's book knowledge.

It is like Butch Harmon has said, 'I may not know how to build a Championship Swing... but if I am not very careful, I certainly know I can ruin one.'.

To continually just throw out scientific 'facts' (some of which are actually inconclusive & may actually be wrong because there has simply not been enough good scientific study in the area of pool) is reckless with no regard for the 'student' & borders on just selfish gratification of one's ARROGANT EGO, in the vein of 'look, see, I know more than you....you idiot'.

Colonel is correct in what he said. How something is put forth is as important as what is being put forth. I'm not speaking of any ONE in particular but am speaking toward an attitude that seems to run a bit rampant here on AZB.

The movement to have all instructors teach the same thing would ultimately give us a cloned society of mediocre players except for the fact that the truth will out for those players that are serious about getting to the upper levels. They will get there IN SPITE of the science & mediocre methods taught to them. A bit of tit for tat there, sorry.

Put up an athlete & a book worm & if I want to win, I'll challenge the book worm. They generally know all the info but have no idea how to implement it bio-mechanically to an upper level of actual performance.

Sorry for the rant...

but the war on athletes gets to me sometimes & to call the best athletes savants or that they are at a Championship level in spite of their non text book method & not because of them is insulting at best & shows how little those that say such know about the individuality of the human mind & body.

How does that saying go, Those that can... do & those that can't... teach.

That is NOT a knock on all instructors or teachers or coaches. Such are honorable endeavors or professions IF done for the right reasons, but... some have a good understanding while others have no clue.

An example is classes to teach baseball coaches how to teach youth hitting. I disagreed with what was being taught. The next year they bring in Randy Bush as a guest speaker. I ask him a question regarding my disagreement with what was being taught. He answers & confirms what I had been saying all along. He, the athlete, knows & the prescribed 'manual' approved for teaching was wrong. I received quite a few apologies & a change of what & how was being taught took place.

Naturally all of the above are just my opinions. There is no need to dissect what I've said & attack it to promote an argument.

If anyone disagrees, just say so & then express YOUR opinion.

Everyone have a great Sunday. There's Pro Football!

So, just your opinion is supposed to be correct. Maybe you should try facts once in a while.

The part in red, well, it's just amazing. No need to dissect, but feel free to say your opinion. WOW! Why are you so afraid of it being dissected? Maybe because you know it's a bunch of hooey? Not worth dissecting, because you have already claimed any other opinion will be viewed as an attack, like you always do.

I will say this though, if all you have is an opinion, and no facts, or even want to go so far as to outright dismiss the facts, you have NO business telling anyone how to play. But, that won't stop you at all, will it?

 

[ENGLISH!]

So if you think invisible leprechauns are pushing your shots into the pockets because you say a little green prayer before each shot, that's what should be taught to your students?


Yeah, the truth would be much worse for them than your invisible leprechauns story...


And yet your leprechauns still don't exist - doesn't seem fair, does it?

pj
chgo

It's this kind of attitude to which I think Colonel was referring & I tried to avoid in the closing of my post. I should have known better.

Who said anything about leprechauns or prayers to leprechauns.

Do you know anything about real prayer?

It seems to me that you know very very little about coaching or teaching any physical or athletic performance.

If someone thinks that he has to wear the same socks to win & they continue to win when doing so, one does not make them NOT wear those socks or preach to them that the socks have nothing to do with their performance.

Superstitious? Yes. But is there a need to make them take off those socks? No, none at all & a Good Coach Knows That, but also knows that if the player shows up one day without those sock they do not point it out by asking, 'where's your socks?'

Earl almost forfeited a match because he realize that he was wearing the wrong shoes & had to go back to his room to change shoes.

What can shoes have to do with what's going to happen on the table?

It seems that you know very little about athletic performance.

Sometimes what one thinks is more important than the reality of the situation & unless you can get into their minds you have no idea of what is important & what is not.

My wife had a knee replacement a year ago. We did not pick a doctor out of the phone book even though they all have medical licenses. Her replacement went hitch free & with Zero Pain.

Her doctor does something that others do not do & the ones that do do it do not do it as well as he does. He had to leave a Hospital because they would not allow him to do what he does at that hospital.

It is not in their 'manual'.

Have a Great Sunday.

 

[ENGLISH!]

So, just your opinion is supposed to be correct. Maybe you should try facts once in a while.

The part in red, well, it's just amazing. No need to dissect, but feel free to say your opinion. WOW! Why are you so afraid of it being dissected? Maybe because you know it's a bunch of hooey? Not worth dissecting, because you have already claimed any other opinion will be viewed as an attack, like you always do.

I will say this though, if all you have is an opinion, and no facts, or even want to go so far as to outright dismiss the facts, you have NO business telling anyone how to play. But, that won't stop you at all, will it?

You Have a Good Sunday.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Who said anything about leprechauns or prayers to leprechauns.

Do you know anything about real prayer?

lol

OK, you don't understand analogies - no big surprise there.

If someone thinks that he has to wear the same socks to win & they continue to win when doing so, one does not make them NOT wear those socks or preach to them that the socks have nothing to do with their performance.

OK, you also don't understand the difference between somebody's superstitious fantasies and what should be represented as fact on this public forum - no big surprise there either.

But with so little understanding, maybe you should be more careful about giving advice.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

lol

OK, you don't understand analogies - no big surprise there.


OK, you also don't understand the difference between somebody's superstitious fantasies and what should be represented as fact on this public forum - no big surprise there either.

But with so little understanding, maybe you should be more careful about giving advice.

pj
chgo

I understand what analogies are & I also understand when they do not apply & when they are intended as insults & trolling for an emotional response.

I understand the difference between superstition & fact.

I also know when one matters & when one doesn't.

Do you call what you do giving 'playing' advice? Playing Advice?

Your criticism of what Gene said he's teaching is a good example.

If what he teaches his students get them pocketing the ball then that is all that matters to them & your 'facts' are meaningless when it comes to actually playing the game for those individuals.

You Have a Great Sunday.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Nope - and it's easy to show:

The difference between cut angles for a half ball hit vs. a 3/8 ball hit (1/8 ball greater cut) is almost 1 diamond over a distance of 6 diamonds.
So if an OB on the head spot is aimed at a corner pocket on the foot rail with a half ball hit, then a 3/8 ball hit from the same CB position will be aimed almost a full diamond away from that.

But maximum contact-induced throw over 6 diamonds is only about 1/2 diamond, so overcutting by 1/8 ball (from half ball to 3/8 ball) overcompensates for throw by at least 1/2 diamond over that distance. In other words, if the half ball hit misses the pocket by 1/2 diamond because of throw, then the 3/8 ball hit will miss the pocket by 1/2 diamond on the other side of the pocket.


I'll bet your students would rather know the real adjustment.

pj
chgo

PJ,
In my charts that Dr. Dave provided the throw data for, the maximum throw occurs at around 70% tip offset, sliding CB at slow speed on a straight shot and is around 5 inches per yard of throw. That's about 8 degrees, a little more than 1/8th ball.

This of course is an exceptional case. In most cases throw is significantly less. It's handy to know when we need to turn a ball a long way when we can't hit the contact point we'd like to.

Colin

 

[ENGLISH!]

PJ,
In my charts that Dr. Dave provided the throw data for, the maximum throw occurs at around 70% tip offset, sliding CB at slow speed on a straight shot and is around 5 inches per yard of throw. That's about 8 degrees, a little more than 1/8th ball.

This of course is an exceptional case. In most cases throw is significantly less. It's handy to know when we need to turn a ball a long way when we can't hit the contact point we'd like to.

Colin

I was thinking of you when he said what he was saying.

What day is it there? Whatever, You have a Good One.

 

[Banks]

Yes, it does matter what somebody thinks they know. If they have to change something in that process, they'll be off and not know why. I guess if it's okay to just stay where you're at, then it's not a problem. Same with trying to teach somebody.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

PJ,
In my charts that Dr. Dave provided the throw data for, the maximum throw occurs at around 70% tip offset, sliding CB at slow speed on a straight shot and is around 5 inches per yard of throw. That's about 8 degrees, a little more than 1/8th ball.

This of course is an exceptional case. In most cases throw is significantly less. It's handy to know when we need to turn a ball a long way when we can't hit the contact point we'd like to.

Colin

Thanks. I'd guess that's the most exceptional case (maximum throw possible). I believe maximum cut-induced throw is achieved with about half ball and a spinless sliding ball. Testing with a nearly-frozen combo I get about 5 degrees of throw (half a diamond over 6 diamonds).

pj
chgo

 

[Colin Colenso]

Thanks. I'd guess that's the most exceptional case (maximum throw possible). I believe maximum cut-induced throw is achieved with about half ball and a spinless sliding ball. Testing with a nearly-frozen combo I get about 5 degrees of throw (half a diamond over 6 diamonds).

pj
chgo

Yeah, that's about maximum possible and hard to actually reproduce as a bit of top or too little or too much outside or just hitting too hard, reduces the max throw significantly.

You may have clean balls or you might need to play that touching half ball slower to get nearer 8 degrees, which I think it can achieve. My testing shows similar to your 5 degrees, but I was playing firm enough for the OB to travel about 14 feet I think.

Cheers,
Colin

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You may have clean balls or you might need to play that touching half ball slower to get nearer 8 degrees, which I think it can achieve.

Maybe, but remember that's the minimum 1/8 ball adjustment - as the cut angle increases, so does the amount of each 1/8 ball adjustment. Your adjustment from straight on to 1/8 ball may only make a difference of 8 degrees, but adjusting from 1/4 ball to 1/8 ball makes a difference of more than 12 degrees - a much bigger mismatch.

pj
chgo

 

[Colin Colenso]

Maybe, but remember that's the minimum 1/8 ball adjustment - as the cut angle increases, so does the amount of each 1/8 ball adjustment. Your adjustment from straight on to 1/8 ball may only make a difference of 8 degrees, but adjusting from 1/4 ball to 1/8 ball makes a difference of more than 12 degrees - a much bigger mismatch.

pj
chgo

Good point, and a good reason to avoid english for the squirt and swerve effects alone, on finer cuts unless they are hangers or the CB is pretty close.

Colin

 

[ENGLISH!]

Colon,

What do you think about post # 26?

 

[ps611846]

"CIT" is an issue only for players who play a "dead" cue ball.

For the players who play an "alive" cue ball, there is no such thing. They bring the cue ball to life with proper stroking technique. And after contact with the object ball, the ob is also "alive" and goes where it should go.

So, stop doing stupid things like cleaning the pool balls every two shots, or spitting on the pool balls to make experiments with cb-ob contact.

Learn how to stroke the f....ing cue ball to make it play like it's alive.

Ok, I know..... You like playing dead..... So keep going straight to ccb and keep that "pendulum" stroke as straight as possible !!!!!!!!!!!

Omg, there is no hope for this wonderful game.......

 

[ENGLISH!]

"CIT" is an issue only for players who play a "dead" cue ball.

For the players who play an "alive" cue ball, there is no such thing. They bring the cue ball to life with proper stroking technique. And after contact with the object ball, the ob is also "alive" and goes where it should go.

So, stop doing stupid things like cleaning the pool balls every two shots, or spitting on the pool balls to make experiments with cb-ob contact.

Learn how to stroke the f....ing cue ball to make it play like it's alive.

Ok, I know..... You like playing dead..... So keep going straight to ccb and keep that "pendulum" stroke as straight as possible !!!!!!!!!!!

Omg, there is no hope for this wonderful game.......

Hi Panos,

I'd like your opinion on this.

I played with outside english first at 13 & then inside for spin purposes.

Then 40+ years later when CJ introduced TOI here, I became interested as it was still not playing, or trying to play, on the center axis.

When experimenting with TOI, my grip or connection to the cue gravitated to a more firm connection.

My question for you is, when using english, have you found that a loose or firm connection to the cue affects the liveliness of the CB with the same speed of stroke?

I hope you understand what I'm asking.