My Touch of Inside Experience

Patrick Johnson said:

1. Of course the cue is pivoted, not parallel, or you'd miss the shot because of squirt. "Seems" is the key word here.

Click to expand...

Dan White said:

I thought TOI relied on that squirt in order for the method to work.

Click to expand...

For TOI's aiming method, squirt (and the corrected cue line to compensate for it) are essential.

For TOI's CB control method (killing contact-induced CB spin) squirt is just the usual drawback with any tip offset.

Of course, no matter which you're using TOI's tip offset for (or both), squirt and aim compensation are present as usual. TOI doesn't change the laws of physics.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson said:

For TOI's aiming method, squirt (and the corrected cue line to compensate for it) are essential.

For TOI's CB control method (killing contact-induced CB spin) squirt is just the usual drawback with any tip offset.

Of course, no matter which you're using CTE's tip offset for (or both), squirt and aim compensation are present as usual. TOI doesn't change the laws of physics.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

I'm confused on the context of your post about parallel aiming. Wouldn't TOI work with either method, just requiring different amounts of adjustment?

Patrick Johnson said:

Of course, no matter which you're using CTE's tip offset for (or both), squirt and aim compensation are present as usual. TOI doesn't change the laws of physics.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

Leave CTE out of this. It has nothing to do with TOI and your referencing it here is kinda embarrassing for you.

cookie man said:

Leave CTE out of this. It has nothing to do with TOI and your referencing it here is kinda embarrassing for you.

Click to expand...

lol

That's an embarrassing braintypo.

Fixed.

pj <- mea culpa
chgo

Dan White said:

Wouldn't TOI work with either method, just requiring different amounts of adjustment?

Click to expand...

The "methods" are simply two different reasons for using TOI, one for aiming and the other for CB control. I assume it can be used for either reason or both, and the amount of aim adjustment will be determined by the amount of tip offset, as always.

Not sure I read your question right...

pj
chgo

Dan White said:

I'm confused on the context of your post about parallel aiming. Wouldn't TOI work with either method, just requiring different amounts of adjustment?

Click to expand...

TOI inherently is geared around parallel english.

I've thought about your question a bit since you posted it and I think it probably would work with pivot in terms of imparting a little inside and the benefits that that confers. (consisted english, soft CB contact on the rail, etc...) But the deflection of the CB is a big part of it. If you remove the deflection via BHE then you lose the pocketing consistency.

Then you are just aiming normally and putting a little inside on it.

mechanically they *might* be the same although I'm not sure. Philosophically they are miles apart.

I think the main benefit from committing to and using TOI is that you really focus on your aim point and really, really get good at visualizing CB deflection. Those two factors alone will improve most players' consistency by leaps and bounds. If you add in the benefit of really being able to predict the CB reaction after rails you have a great framework for playing better.

My self-taught system was 'touch of outside' and I aimed everything thick and then threw it in or used some swerve to help it in.

Added TOI to that and now I am much more consistent with any kind of spin than without spin!

If I really, really need to make a ball I use either TOI or TOO.

I am now focusing on using the center vertical almost exclusively during long parts of practice. Then my plan for world domination will be complete!

sixpack said:

If you remove the deflection via BHE then you lose the pocketing consistency.

Click to expand...

TOI "removes the deflection" via aiming fuller before offsetting the tip. There's no practical difference.

Then you are just aiming normally and putting a little inside on it.

Click to expand...

Yep. With or without TOI's "philosophy".

I think the main benefit from committing to and using TOI is that you really focus on your aim point and really, really get good at visualizing CB deflection. Those two factors alone will improve most players' consistency by leaps and bounds. If you add in the benefit of really being able to predict the CB reaction after rails you have a great framework for playing better.

Click to expand...

Yes, I've said the same thing. But I think it's better to simply focus more on your aim point (and the real reasons that works) than to dress it up with superpowers.

pj <- buzzkiller
chgo

Patrick Johnson said:

TOI "removes the deflection" via aiming fuller before offsetting the tip. There's no practical difference.


Yep. With or without TOI's "philosophy".

Yes, I've said the same thing. But I think it's better to simply focus more on your aim point (and the real reasons that works) than to dress it up with superpowers.

pj <- buzzkiller
chgo

Click to expand...

No buzz killed here. I just think if you use BHE then it really isn't TOI even if it mechanically ends up the same.

sixpack said:

No buzz killed here. I just think if you use BHE then it really isn't TOI even if it mechanically ends up the same.

Click to expand...

TOI is a system or framework. Not a result.

If that makes sense.

sixpack said:

TOI is a system or framework.

Click to expand...

In my view it's neither. Its two main selling points, (1) killing contact spin and (2) "doubling the aiming margin of error", are (1) unremarkable and (2) nonsense.

I like some things about it, like the focus on tip/ball accuracy - I don't like burying the nuggets of real info in exaggerated salespeak.

pj
chgo

sixpack said:

Then my plan for world domination will be complete!

Click to expand...

LOL. I know the feeling. Somehow it doesn't seem to work out that way.

If you go back over what CJ has said about this over the years it is like a blind man describing an elephant. He has described a parallel shift. But I believe that is only a teaching method to illustrate how deflection can be used to change the angle.

He has described what amounts to a pivot as well, when he is describing how he actually addresses the ball when he is shooting (not when he is teaching).

Member imac007 has discussed this in several posts but the description is perhaps so technical that not many have picked up on the essence of it. I reviewed his information, corresponded with him, looked back at much of the data Dr. Dave has produced related to the impact of inside vs outside spin on object ball throw (CJ essentially removes both squirt and swerve from the equation by exactly repeating the former and shooting with enough velocity reduce the impact of swerve).

But there is an additional thing that he does. Based on all this, I came up with a drawing to describe what imac calls "convergent side", and after much study and review of the many conflicting statements by CJ, we think it is what is being applied when properly addressing using TOI. I have not seen this described before and would hope that some of the more technically, mechanically inclined members might chime in with thoughts about how "convergent side" might impact the outcome of a shot.

The cue ball is struck slightly inside the reference line (CB center to GB center), but does not cross the reference line inside the CB, but rather down the shot line between the CB and OB. The distance between shot line and the reference line determines the magnitude of the applied English, NOT the parallel distance from center to cue contact point on the surface of the cue ball.

Patrick Johnson said:

TOI "removes the deflection" via aiming fuller before offsetting the tip. There's no practical difference.

Click to expand...

No. Aiming fuller corrects for deflection but does not remove it.

Nor does BHE remove deflection, it simply is a different method to adjust the line to offset it.

Nothing "removes" deflection.

sixpack said:

If you remove the deflection via BHE then you lose the pocketing consistency.

Click to expand...

Patrick Johnson said:

TOI "removes the deflection" via aiming fuller before offsetting the tip. There's no practical difference.

Click to expand...

bioactive said:

No. Aiming fuller corrects for deflection but does not remove it.

Nor does BHE remove deflection, it simply is a different method to adjust the line to offset it.

Nothing "removes" deflection.

Click to expand...

That's correct. I was just answering sixpack in his own terms (hence the quotes around "removes the deflection").

Not only does nothing "remove" deflection - TOI adjusts for it exactly like every other method.

pj
chgo

bioactive said:

"Length of torque line determines deflection and spin, not the offset of the tip"

Click to expand...

In your diagram it appears you assume the stick is parallel with the "reference line" and the "TOI line" is the stick's force "vector" including squirt (parallel with the CB's squirted path). If that's your assumption, then the "reference line" for measuring tip offset should be parallel with the "TOI line" and the "torque line" should be on a slightly different CB radius that's at a right angle to the "TOI line".

In other words, the "length of torque line" is the amount of effective tip offset, if measured correctly.

I'm not sure what your point is, though. None of this changes the way squirt typically happens or is measured or adjusted for. There doesn't appear to be anything new about "Convergent English" except the name.

pj
chgo

P.S. Here's a diagram to illustrate what I mean by "the reference line should be parallel with the TOI line". The simplest way to visualize the tip's "effective offset" is to visualize the CB's "center" as if you're shooting the shot with a squirtless cue angled parallel with the CB's squirted path. This is almost, but not quite, what you said - it results in a slightly larger tip offset than you describe.

Patrick Johnson said:

In your diagram it appears you assume the stick is parallel with the "reference line" and the "TOI line" is the stick's force "vector" including squirt. If that's your assumption, then the "reference line" for measuring tip offset should be parallel with the "TOI line" and the "torque line" should be on a slightly different CB radius that's at a right angle to the "TOI line".

In other words, the "length of torque line" is the amount of tip offset, if measured correctly.

I'm not sure what your point is, though. None of this changes the way squirt typically happens or is measured or adjusted for. There doesn't appear to be anything new about "Convergent English" except the name.

pj
chgo

P.S. Here's a diagram to illustrate what I mean by "the reference line should be parallel with the TOI line". The simplest way to visualize the tip's "effective offset" is to visualize the CB's "center" as if you're shooting the shot with a squirtless cue angled parallel with the CB's squirted path. This is almost, but not quite, what you said - it results in a slightly larger tip offset than you describe.

Click to expand...

Nope. The torque line is always shorter than the tip offset. Imac's concept is exactly as I illustrated it. Operationally, tip offset is up to 2mm and the torque line is somewhat less than that. You illustrated a parallel English situation with something in the neighborhood of a 10 mm offset.

bioactive said:

Nope. The torque line is always shorter than the tip offset.

Click to expand...

It's always shorter than the tip offset as you're thinking of it - i.e., measured on a line perpendicular to the stick. But to be a reliable measure of spin and squirt, it must be measured on a line perpendicular to the stick's "squirted force vector" (which is parallel with the CB's intended path).

Your measurement is close to accurate - I'm just pointing out a small error I methodology.

More importantly for TOI, recognizing this well known fact and giving it a new name doesn't change anything. Tip offset, squirt and squirt correction work as usual.

You illustrated a parallel English situation with something in the neighborhood of a 10 mm offset.

Click to expand...

It's exaggerated for clarity. The actual distances don't matter - how they're measured is the topic.

pj
chgo

Here's the same diagram rotated so the CB's path is straight ahead and the stick is angled for squirt (how we usually visualize it). Now the distance from the "visual center" of the CB to the actual tip/ball contact point is equal to the "torque line" from the CB's center of mass to the stick's "squirted force vector" - and correlates with the amount of spin and squirt created, as before.

pj
chgo

This might illustrate better what this nomenclature is aiming at distinguishing. My guess is that you will argue that to determine the amount of English being applied you would simply run a line parallel with the stroke line through the center of the ball. And you might be right. But I keep wondering if there is something else to this.

bioactive said:

My guess is that you will argue that to determine the amount of English being applied you would simply run a line parallel with the stroke line through the center of the ball.

Click to expand...

No, as I diagrammed above, it's measured to a line parallel with the CB's intended path - the blue line in the diagram below (assuming your "reference line" is the path you want the CB to take). This is what I've been calling the "stick's squirted force vector".

pj
chgo