Does C.J.'s touch of inside do the same thing as pro one shift? Does a visual sweep do the same thing as a manual sweep? If I have a "C cut to the left as a right handed player, Do I line up center cue ball to the right edge of OB where the center of Q ball intersects the vertical "C" juncture? I know there there is center to edge and edge to A,B, or C. Is that the edge of the left edge of the cue ball to the right edge of OB? Confused. Anybody with useful info. I watched a few videos but can not seem to get a handle on it. Thanks.
C.J.'s touch of inside
- Thread starter tableroll
- Start date
..........
Last edited:
..........
Last edited:
TOI is NOT an aiming system.
Do you know if it will be this month? Sure hope he gets someone to help him with clearly explaining his concepts.
CJ told me "maybe I should have called it a Hair of inside". People seem to get the wrong idea. I know I did. Partly it is because his video also discusses using it to create angles. The thing I missed on the aiming portion was, once the angle is created, he shifts back. He doesn't hit with a large inside offset to create the angle, just to visualize it. He told me "yes, you could hit it with that much offset but that would put a lot of inside English on the ball. I don't do that."
The amount of inside CJ uses is just a tiny bit and the idea is to eliminate accidentally putting outside English on a shot. The "Touch" means if you put too much on you get extra inside, if you hit perfect you get the Touch and if you miss slightly to the outside you get a center hit but you never get outside spin.
The idea is a predictable rebound. Some to the inside, a little less to the inside, or straight but never a totally reverse outside rebound.
The offset is really very small and the misses I describe are tiny. If you are more than 1/8" off in where you hit the cue ball nothing is going to save you. You can probably guess how I know that. :wink:
Very well said. When i saw CJ play way back i was very intrigued how he seemed to just kill/float his cueball around the table. Rarely, if ever, did he spin whitey and run it all over. "HOI" is a really good way to look at it.
If you try to put a "hair" of inside but hit centerball instead, the resulting CB path error is about the same as if you try to hit centerball and hit a "hair" of outside instead.
The same is true of another CJ theory: the mistaken idea that favoring inside reduces squirt errors by "eliminating half" of them - and for the same reason: if you try for a hair of inside but hit centerball instead, the resulting squirt error is about the same as if you tried to hit centerball and instead hit a hair of outside.
In other words, while paying closer attention to where you hit the CB is a good thing, CJ's theory that avoiding centerball reduces the effect of stroke errors is mistaken.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Not to speak for him but I believe his point is that 2 increments of left and one increment would both rebound left and center would rebound straight but non of them would rebound right. So if rebounding to the right is the kiss of death he likes to err on the side of too much left to none vs slight left to slight right. As I mentioned the variations are slight and he is mostly looking for predictability.
So you're talking about only those shots where the CB goes dead straight into the rail? Because otherwise it's just a matter of degree - how far right of the intended path - and that's the same no matter where you're trying to hit the CB.
pj
chgo
I understand your point and am not validating or disputing CJ's perspective, only trying to accurately describe it as I understand it. Since the degrees are so small, I agree it is hard to see where there is a huge difference. He only mentions TOI as a very high end refinement, not a solution to basic play. His comment is that almost all professional players slightly favor inside or outside and he favors inside. He mentioned others who favor outside.
One thing, for myself I notice is the huge variation in rebound speed with a small amount of running English as opposed to a small amount of reverse. In my case I am referring to larger offsets, not TOI. The speed variation in running and reverse is pretty influential in my game and something I misjudge a lot.
In watching his play he does seem to play a more calm cue ball with not a lot of moving around the table. TOI might be some of it but also his shot selection is part of it. He also favors a more consistent speed to a lot of variation. He favors going an extra rail to maintain a consistent speed stroke over a soft hit. I think it all works together for him. Certainly his methods are not the conventionally taught methods. Bert Kinister is the opposite. He favors a LOT of very soft shots and perfect position with very controlled slow hits. I have trouble with the soft slow control. I also play on a lot of less than perfect tables where you can't trust the soft shots as well.
While TOI is not an aiming system, there is one angle it has helped me with a lot. When I have an almost straight in, but not quite, shot, especially a tiny back cut near the rail, I find hitting it with slight inside English will allow the squirt to create the perfect angle to make the shot. When I try to visualize the cut looking at the object ball I invariably over cut it. Dr. Dave explains why we tend to over cut back cuts and I believe he is correct. So aiming straight with a little inside is easier for me to visualize. I don't make any correction to my aim and do not use back hand English. I just do a small parallel shift and let the deflection create the angle. Probably a bad idea but it works for me.
You must have missed the months long promotion of his TOI "playing system" here. His claims about its powers weren't nearly so modest then.
He's a great player - the way he understands things works for him, whether or not it's "scientific".
pj
chgo
What do you do when you need outside English?I just do a small parallel shift and let the deflection create the angle. Probably a bad idea but it works for me.
pj
chgo
I am not married to inside but it is the slight back cut I mess up. A slight front cut seems to be easier for me to visualize. I could use a touch of outside to make that angle and probably have.
If I need a lot of outside to get position I use it and do my best to make the shot. As I mentioned it is a single small shot solution where I use inside to make the angle but it actually comes up quite a lot. I am shooting straight down the rail an inch or two out and almost straight in, but there is a slight back cut. A lot of side spin is going to make the shot very hard and have no impact at all unless I go forward to a rail or draw it hard back to a rail. Mostly I am so straight I am limited to forward, stop and draw so I don't really need a lot of outside. If I do I would have to follow or draw to get to a rail and hitting with a lot of speed and outside on that shot the outcome is not likely to be good anyway. Mostly I need to make the ball and slide out away from the rail and move either a little forward or a little back of straight sideways.
In fact one of the hardest shots for me is a force follow with only a small angle down the rail and a lot of spin to go back down the table. I see the pros do it but I am low percentage to shoot hard with high outside. My stroke is probably not good enough to give me consistency with that shot. I need angle. :smile:
Yes I did miss all that. I think you have hit it on the head. A lot of players try to explain what they do an how it works but may not be technically correct or even do the things they think they do.
I watched a video of Shane Van Boening explaining his aiming system for cuts. It was pretty clear he did not do it that way and he laughed when he could not make a ball the way he claimed he did it. These guys have such natural talent we mortals can only observe.
Consider a pool pocket of 4.5 inches. That is the width of two balls. A player aiming a center ball shot at the middle of the pocket has about a half ball margin of error on each side of center. Now consider a half ball shot of medium speed that you need to put outside side to alter the angle off the rail. We know that outside side will throw the object ball towards the far side of the pocket. A tip of outside side will alter the object ball path up to 5-6°. A single degree of deviation on a 5 foot shot equals an inch. If the shot is 2 ½ feet from the hole the ball path would be altered by a ball width minus some cue ball deflection. So in order to compensate the shooter adjusts the original aim line. By aiming just inside the undercut side of the pocket, the squerve uses the full 4.5" of the pocket to maximize error potential. If the shooter somehow twists his cue and ends up with no outside side the ball would go into the near side. If the ball works as compensated for, the result is a center pocket hit. If the cueist mishits and adds extra side, the deflection will be larger and the wider angle adds undercut to the shot line but additional throw to the shot. The entire pocket is available to catch intentionally applied english. On a center ball shot half of the margin of error is allotted to a mishit to the left and the other half to errors to the right. No compensation for either error is factored into the shot alignment. There is a ball’s width of space in total to be divided between the left or right mishits. In the adjusted aim scenario, if the shot, was a planned left spin scenario, there is no need to allocate any pocket space for a potential right english mishit. The center ball scenario has 2 ¼" plus a half ball or 1 ⅛" which together provide 3 ⅜ " of pocket space to accept the ball, on a left mishit. The intentional choice to put english on the ball and adjust for it ahead of time lets us allocate the entire pocket width, or 4 ½" to a shot with left english.
In golf, pros often use what are called shaped shots. Since golf holes will dogleg either left or right a shaped shot can complement the shape of the hole. Beyond that many pros choose a shaped shot on a straight hole. Since a straight drive is harder to hit than a curved shot they pick a curved shot. Unlike a golfer who tries a straight drive and has half a fairway to either side to catch mishits, the deliberate choice of a shaped shot increases margin of error. The golfer may choose to shape a shot from left to right. First though he compensates for it in his aim. His target is the fairway center and so he aims at the left edge of the fairway visualizing the ball curving into the middle. If he mishits and the ball fails to curve, the ball will be in the left side of the fairway. If he mishits and gets extra curve on the ball there is the entire width of the fairway across which the ball can travel before he misses the fairway to the right. By allocating all landing space to balls hit with a left to right path the error margin previously allocated to right to left mishits can be shifted to a deliberately chosen off center shot.
TOI was CJ’s application of this principle. The concept was to minimize the amount of side, to minimize throw and in fact to make sure the action of the cue delivery was targeted to a firm strike deflecting the ball slightly compensating for the off center hit. In order to minimize the side he started from a compensated ghost ball line. The cue is shifted off the line to the inside side of the shot. So on a cut to the right that means the butt of the cue is shifted to the right followed by the tip, but to a lesser degree. The line the cue is now on, compared to the original is that it points farther left than the original line. The cue line passes just to the inside side of the cue ball center minimizing how much inside torque is applied to the ball. CJ emphasized that there was no effort or intent to spin the ball. He said he simply cued to the inside. His description though emphasized acceleration through the ball and that the chosen compensation for the shot line included adjusting for deflection. CJ compensates for the overcut created by the inside shift. The original starting reference line, before the shift, is a ghost ball line aimed at the undercut side of the pocket. The subsequent shift and repositioning of the cue line to a point farther left of the original ends up targeting the middle of the pocket. This is the pool equivalent of a shaped shot. CJ later tacked on an aiming system. However, any aiming system can adopt the shaped shot concept to maximize allocation of pocket zone shot capture capability. This is the starting point for a much more sophisticated approach to potting a ball.
In golf, pros often use what are called shaped shots. Since golf holes will dogleg either left or right a shaped shot can complement the shape of the hole. Beyond that many pros choose a shaped shot on a straight hole. Since a straight drive is harder to hit than a curved shot they pick a curved shot. Unlike a golfer who tries a straight drive and has half a fairway to either side to catch mishits, the deliberate choice of a shaped shot increases margin of error. The golfer may choose to shape a shot from left to right. First though he compensates for it in his aim. His target is the fairway center and so he aims at the left edge of the fairway visualizing the ball curving into the middle. If he mishits and the ball fails to curve, the ball will be in the left side of the fairway. If he mishits and gets extra curve on the ball there is the entire width of the fairway across which the ball can travel before he misses the fairway to the right. By allocating all landing space to balls hit with a left to right path the error margin previously allocated to right to left mishits can be shifted to a deliberately chosen off center shot.
TOI was CJ’s application of this principle. The concept was to minimize the amount of side, to minimize throw and in fact to make sure the action of the cue delivery was targeted to a firm strike deflecting the ball slightly compensating for the off center hit. In order to minimize the side he started from a compensated ghost ball line. The cue is shifted off the line to the inside side of the shot. So on a cut to the right that means the butt of the cue is shifted to the right followed by the tip, but to a lesser degree. The line the cue is now on, compared to the original is that it points farther left than the original line. The cue line passes just to the inside side of the cue ball center minimizing how much inside torque is applied to the ball. CJ emphasized that there was no effort or intent to spin the ball. He said he simply cued to the inside. His description though emphasized acceleration through the ball and that the chosen compensation for the shot line included adjusting for deflection. CJ compensates for the overcut created by the inside shift. The original starting reference line, before the shift, is a ghost ball line aimed at the undercut side of the pocket. The subsequent shift and repositioning of the cue line to a point farther left of the original ends up targeting the middle of the pocket. This is the pool equivalent of a shaped shot. CJ later tacked on an aiming system. However, any aiming system can adopt the shaped shot concept to maximize allocation of pocket zone shot capture capability. This is the starting point for a much more sophisticated approach to potting a ball.
Last edited:
Here’s the fallacy in this thinking: a “right English mishit” and a “too little left English mishit” produce the same amount and direction of squirt error. You don’t gain any “margin of error” by favoring one side vs. centerball.
This was pointed out when CJ promoted his TOI method here last year - it’s still a fallacy. Maybe next year.
pj
chgo
[EDIT]: Another way to look at this - to hit center pocket with a touch of inside:
With TOI you aim with centerball to hit the far pocket facing, then add a touch of inside so squirt cuts the OB to center pocket.
Without TOI you aim with centerball to hit center pocket, then add a touch of inside and adjust aim enough so you'll still hit center pocket.
In both cases you end up with the cue on exactly the same line with respect to the CB, OB and pocket. How is the margin of error changed? Because you ended up in the same place by different routes? Because you think about it differently? The balls don't know any of this, so they'll act exactly the same way in both cases.
Last edited:
Great explanation. On a slightly different subject, I do have one question. The width of the pocket is only two ball widths from exactly straight on, correct? If I am shooting down the rail I only have about half the pocket to work with don't I?
It seems to me to be very hard to create angle approaching the pocket from the side. I really struggle with "cheating the pocket" to create angle coming straight down the rail (an inch or two off the rail). If I use high running spin I usually spin forward into the pocket. With high reverse spin I have trouble getting to the rail as the object ball is thrown away from the pocket and I have to hit it more fully and the cue ball dies so I have to hit way too hard. Stun doesn't get to a rail. Low doesn't seem to work for me either.
I see pros shoot the shot and it "looks" like the use high running English. The ball comes off the side rail goes to the end rail then spins down table. It may just be a matter of accuracy which brings me back to the smaller pocket size when approached from the side. Is high running English the correct spin for this shot?