WE all know exactly which one you are talking about. My fault for assuming you had more integrity then you are showing with your posts.
My Touch of Inside Experience
- Thread starter mjdoutdoors
- Start date
WE all know exactly which one you are talking about. My fault for assuming you had more integrity then you are showing with your posts.
And it's still very much objective. If it has an objective description, and can be performed in an objective manner, then it really doesn't matter how long it takes to learn it. It just matters that the end result is because of the description. You might then commit it into your subjective memory so you can perform the task easily, but it's still based on the objective description and any problems that arise you will still go back to that description to correct them.
I see what you are saying. Many things are like learning to juggle. You can read objective instructions but still never learn how to do it, or struggle for a while until you begin to make it work. It takes a lot of practice, where you must develop you're own feel for the height and trajectory of each object. The instructions could be objective, but in order to make it work well you have to rely on experienced judgement (subjectivity) until you develop the hand-eye coordination needed to make it work. And even then you won't be doing it exactly like others are doing it....you'll have developed your own personal feel for it based on individual perceptions, timing, and muscle memory.
Poolology depends on the user to use basic math. If someone doesn’t have math skills they would first need to learn those skills. It is only simple because virtually all of us speak that language and have that skill.
In the case of something completely different it can be objective and systematic but users have to learn quite a bit to get to the point that they can use it effectively. A good example is pointers in computer programming. They are an objective paradigm which work exactly as they are supposed to. Yet many programmers take a lot of time to ‘get’ how to create a simple linked list.
Good point. Many things we learn how to do involve other skills we already know, or else we have to develop those skills first.
Ahh, that's the rub. The two are not necessarily related.
I'm sure the "pool scientist" doesn't have anywhere near the stroke CJ has. Maybe he is incapable of using TOI.
And your "usual".
The old, "it won't work for ME, so it doesn't work approach".
Every Sunday I practice with some "inside" shots where I hit the cue ball with what I call "inside stun", making an object ball near the end rail at a shallow angle, that sends the cue ball up the center of the table and then it hits the opposite end rail and then the opposite side rail and then brings the cue ball back 3 or 4 rails to within a couple inches from where the cue ball started out at for position for the next object ball on the end rail.
Lots of players, who have played for "years" come over and ask me what kind of "spin" I'm using and how I do it, and make it look so "effortlessly". They also ask what kind of cue I'm using and what kind of tip.
I then tell them to stand behind me and watch and I do it over and over. I then hand them my stick and tell them to try it. 90% of them can't do it, even trying it over and over numerous times.
Does that mean what I'm doing "doesn't work" after I've show them over and over and over?
NO.
It means it doesn't work for those who don't have enough stroke to make it work.
When you beat CJ, I'm buying your instructional video and jumping line to get into your classes.
In your mind
Yes! All alignment and aiming is done in the stance.
Any english picked up by TOI of canceled out by the friction between the OB and CB. This provides a neutral cue ball that is predictable. Its is strange but I can use quite a bit of TOI(max 1/2 tip) and get the angle off the CB to be the same as using center. Even when I get down with extra TOI its seems like the angle off a cushion will want to act like inside English but it doesn't. It seems that with the cue parallel, not pivoted, the CB acts like it has no english after the hit. The accelerating cue strike just seems to deflect the CB and puts very, very little spin on the CB, all which is canceled out at CB/OB contact. Let me be clear TOI is not about applying English!
1. Of course the cue is pivoted, not parallel, or you'd miss the shot because of squirt. "Seems" is the key word here.
2. The CB only has no rotation after contact with the OB if you hit it with just the right combination of tip offset and speed for the shot at hand. There's no universal hit that works for all shots. Again, it might "seem" like that, but isn't really.
My guess is that "seeming like" it's the same hit every time helps you "surrender control" to your subconscious, which does the actual fine tuning without your conscious mind "getting in the way".
pj <- mythbuster
chgo
Last edited:
So, nobody should take a golf lesson from Hank Haney or Butch Harmon because they can't beat Tiger?
Makes no sense whatsoever.
Science and teaching are both radically different skills than an athletic move such as a golf swing or a pool stroke.
This is a sucker punch means of argument that has no place in an objective discussion of the science of pool.
I'm just glad the 2018 Mosconi Cup team does not agree with you. They can all beat Johan Ruijsink in a pool match but his teaching and coaching skills led them to defeat the Europeans. He probably knows how a pool stroke works and how to teach the game better
then all of them put together.
Last edited:
Welcome to the Magical Aiming Forum. We don't need your stinking "knowledge".
pj
chgo
I thought TOI relied on that squirt in order for the method to work.