C.J.'s touch of inside

Bob Jewett said:

Which leads to an interesting point. People often say that fast cloth makes it easier to play -- you can send the ball anywhere without a stroke. I find the opposite is more true. I would rather slow the cue ball down and control it. If I was going for a high run record I'd try slow cloth.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. I remember when Simonis first showed up. All they had was 760 and it was like playing on ice. It was more "tapping" than stroking. I for one hated it. 860 is still pretty fast but not like 760. I loved the old Mali/Stevens directional stuff. You HAD to have a stroke to move whitey around.

skipbales said:

Dr. Dave explains why we tend to over cut back cuts and I believe he is correct.

Click to expand...

For those interested:

back cut resource page

Enjoy,
Dave

skipbales said:

Inside goes with a rail first hit where you are coming off the rail and spinning the ball down the rail. I have done that shot for over 40 years and it is a fun shot if you don't scratch after making the ball. You have to balance the amount of inside spin with where you want the cue ball to end up. Dr. Dave demonstrates it with a more than 90 degree cut. He jacks up a little so the curve is accentuated to achieve the extreme approach angle coupled with the off the rail spin to get the extreme angle.

Click to expand...

For those interested, this and related shots can be found in the videos here:

"impossible" cut shots resource page

Enjoy,
Dave

Patrick Johnson said:

The "3 part pocket" part of TOI isn't about side spin - it's about favoring side over centerball in order to avoid stroke errors in the "non-side" direction (using a little left, for instance, supposedly makes stroke errors to the right ineffective). This is the part that's most nonsensical.

The rest of TOI is about negating contact-induced side spin with intentional inside spin - which of course works, but isn't new or special and shouldn't be habitually preferred.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

It seems nonsensical to you because you are considering only the mechanical information, concluding that a miss to the left or right on an effort at a straight hit is equivalent to a miss straight or to the deflection side of an inside hit. While that may be true, how the human brain processes those misses is much different. If a pool player or golfer wants to make a straight shot the pleasure centers of the brain process a shot that is not straight as a failure. If the pool player or golfer wants to deflect or fade the ball to the right, and it goes to the right, it may be processed by the brain as a success, even if it is off incrementally, (with the same magnitude of error as the straight shot effort), as long as it went in the right direction. It is for this reason that most golfers "make the fairway bigger" by repeatedly producing a fade or draw and aligning their aim with that outcome in mind. You would point out the fairway is not bigger, and you would technically be right, but that player is still going to be more successful if he can fool his primitive brain into viewing as if it is bigger.

Similarly, in pool, the pocket may not be physically bigger based on your measurements, and the misses may not be smaller when using TOI or some other mechanism, but it may be very much bigger (more accessible) to a shot being processed by a human brain.

The human brain often sees the world very differently than it really is, as needed to accomplish evolutionary survival. Watch just one episode of the TV show called "Brain Games" and you might get what I am saying.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/tv/brain-games/season-1/

Patrick Johnson said:

The "3 part pocket" part of TOI isn't about side spin - it's about favoring side over centerball in order to avoid stroke errors in the "non-side" direction (using a little left, for instance, supposedly makes stroke errors to the right ineffective). This is the part that's most nonsensical.

The rest of TOI is about negating contact-induced side spin with intentional inside spin - which of course works, but isn't new or special and shouldn't be habitually preferred.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

Not to take sides or even express an opinion on the validity of the concept, an opinion I don't actually have, here is what I believe CJ is talking about.

The analogies to golf have been used and this is a good one. I had a golf instructor who said "do you want to work the ball right to left or left to right?" I said I would just like to hit it straight down the middle." He said "WRONG ANSWER". I thought that was a rude comment and did not take well to his teaching but did get his message. To him you always set up for one type of shot and learned to master it. A draw or a fade. Then if you missed it was a more predictable miss. You drew too much, too little or not at all but you never hit a slice.

The part of TOI I understood the least was applying this to make the pocket "play bigger". The idea was if he hit with too much inside it went in one part of the pocket and too little or none it went in the other side. To me that is the same as a slight miss to the inside, straight hit, or slight to the outside. The pocket is larger than the ball so there is some tolerance there. I got the part about the rebound angle and slower shot speed, or flatter action, on the cue ball but not so much about the larger pocket idea.

While I don't see the concept the way CJ does, I do believe it is how he visualizes it and that gives him a confidence level which probably does help him. If you think the pocket is large it probably is to you, for whatever reason you have that confidence.

skipbales said:

The analogies to golf have been used and this is a good one. I had a golf instructor who said "do you want to work the ball right to left or left to right?" I said I would just like to hit it straight down the middle." He said "WRONG ANSWER". I thought that was a rude comment and did not take well to his teaching but did get his message. To him you always set up for one type of shot and learned to master it. A draw or a fade. Then if you missed it was a more predictable miss. You drew too much, too little or not at all but you never hit a slice.

Click to expand...

Seems to me the golf theory has the same hole TOI does: it doesn't really do anything. Whether you're trying to send your ball on a straight line or a curved line toward your target, miss-hits result in identical misses. The curve only makes things harder.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson said:

Seems to me the golf theory has the same hole TOI does: it doesn't really do anything. Whether you're trying to send your ball on a straight line or a curved line toward your target, miss-hits result in identical misses. The curve only makes things harder.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

There is a better golf analogy I think. If you are a right handed golfer and you are hitting a short putt that breaks left, you should play the putt a little off the toe instead of the sweet spot. The further from the sweet spot you hit it, the more to the right the ball will start. But because the hit will be less pure, the ball will have less speed and break more. Hopefully into the hole. If you miss hit and hit the ball on the sweet spot it will go firmly into the cup.

Basically you are using two errors to cancel each other out.

I believe there are cases in pool where you can do this as well. Backhand English is along the same lines but only using deflection.

TOI as I understand it - admittedly I could be wrong - does this for certain shots. You are using deflection to create the angle to make the shot. Instead of aiming straight at the ghost ball center, you are aiming at CB center using parallel English to deflect the CB to the correct line. If you hit closer to CCB you will have less deflection but your cue will be pointed further away from the original aim line so you won’t need as much deflection to make the shot.

It’s kind of like pre-loading BHE to try and find a sweet spot where the errors cancel out. This is extremely useful at times because for shots in that sweet spot you can Mishit by quite a bit and still make the shot and still get relatively good position.

When we were playing the other day I was tempted to show you this but I was tired and sure I’d screw it up. Lol. This is the basis for my inside English aiming I was trying so wretchedly to explain.

Patrick Johnson said:

Seems to me the golf theory has the same hole TOI does: it doesn't really do anything. Whether you're trying to send your ball on a straight line or a curved line toward your target, miss-hits result in identical misses. The curve only makes things harder.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

You and I are not far apart in our understanding of things here. I was mostly trying to explain how I believe CJ looks at it and why it might work for him.

6 pack has another take on why it might be of value. For me I think that is more analysis than is profitable for me. I still hit the golf ball straight unless I have to shape it and use TOI sometimes for some of the other reasons than the 3 part pocket system. I am not going to be writing any books about either and they would not sell if I did.

Bob Jewett said:

What you say about the brain is true to an extent. On the other hand I think that for pool it is best to see the world as it is. Unfortunately the snake-oil peddlers are happy to have people go in a different direction, and not just in pool.

I think people who are trying to learn anything should proceed by a fact-based testable method. Others feel unknowable magic is better.

Click to expand...

But we do not see the world "as it is". Our brains constantly interpret the incoming information to give us only a representation of what it thinks we need or can handle. A simple example; A substantial fraction of males cannot see "red". You could write a post on here telling him to just hit the "red" ball, and he will not know what you are trying to get him to do, unless you point at it or change your message to shoot the one with the 3 on it. Neither you nor he are really seeing the world as it is, you are seeing it as your brain interprets it, and he is missing some needed hardware (cones) to see it the way you do. The "world" is reflecting the very same wavelengths into the eyes of two people, but they perceive it differently.

I have been following these threads for quite a while, trying to understand the source of the dissonance. I am a scientist so I "get" that the pocket is not made bigger with TOI, and I "get" that when CJ hits a shot his wrist is not releasing as if he were hitting a hammer. But I also know that when I incorporate the "feeling" that by favoring the inside of the cueball the pocket feels bigger and more accessible, and I pocket balls more consistently, and if I have the "feeling" that my wrist is moving as if I am hitting a hammer (a terrible analogy for what is actually happening IMO), my stroke is more compact and more straight (as verified by Digicue Blue) as I push the stick rather than pulling it as I do when my wrist is cocked back during address.

I think CJ is conveying a "feeling" for the stroke but unfortunately the mechanics of it do not fit his descriptions, as many on here have pointed out. I believe people are validly being helped by adopting the "feeling" being described even if the mechanics of what is actually happening are misunderstood.

The world as it is...and what goes on in these threads...

If you take the following image and show it to anyone, and ask them to point at the darker gray image, they will point at the top of the object.



Meanwhile, along comes a scientist or engineer and tells you you are wrong, the top part is not darker. He puts his finger across the seam in the middle and shows you that you are wrong.



He then declares that your statement that the top part is darker is invalid. But is it invalid just because it is perception rather than reality?

If I were to put a link on the top of the image and put it online, telling you that I will give you a reduced price on something I am selling if you hit the darker link, and pay full price if you hit the lighter link, am I misleading you? No, because people would choose the right link, because their perception is real and valid. Reality does not trump perception except in limited cases, like perceiving a train coming at you vs. a real train coming at you.

This illustrates where I think the discord in these threads come from. Someone is conveying a perception that is real and valid. Someone else comes along and says the perception is not reality, and therefore the person conveying the perception is trying to mislead you.

In case you think this is an isolated example, it isn't. We do not see the world as it really is, we see it as our brains interpret it. And perceptions have as much validity in many cases as reality.

bioactive said:

This illustrates where I think the discord in these threads come from. Someone is conveying a perception that is real and valid. Someone else comes along and says the perception is not reality, and therefore the person conveying the perception is trying to mislead you.

In case you think this is an isolated example, it isn't. We do not see the world as it really is, we see it as our brains interpret it. And perceptions have as much validity in many cases as reality.

Click to expand...

This is perhaps a better way of explaining my position. My main point is that I don't think CJ intends to mislead to make a profit selling cds. Whether a person finds value in his 3 part pocket or not, I believe he is sincere. People present their ideas and it is up to us to pick and choose the ideas that benefit us.

I played with a partner in a Scotch Doubles tournament who had been playing on a 9' table with tight pockets. We were on a 7' Diamond. He said "these pockets look like garbage cans to me". Even moving from my 7 1/2' Beach to the 6 1/2' Valley tables at our local bars I feel like I can' miss. Maybe it is just a confidence builder but the people who never see anything different sure have a different feeling about them.

I have two friends who seem to be "into" positive thinking. One team finished 4th out of ten and the captain says "we are going to win state". My team finished 1st. He asked me who I thought was going to win. I said "I don't know. Robert Berry's team is undefeated in their division and it is the toughest division so I would say they are the favorite." I think saying you are going to do something then not doing it makes you appear weak but he thinks it is all about speaking it into reality. One of my players does that. It may build him up but it just annoys me. :wink:

In general, I am a peacemaker and I recognize that. Forums and Social media are places where a lot of discord can happen even when no one means for it to. That's what the emoticons are for but they are a poor substitute for voice inflection.

sixpack said:

When we were playing the other day I was tempted to show you this but I was tired and sure I’d screw it up. Lol. This is the basis for my inside English aiming I was trying so wretchedly to explain.

Click to expand...

Did we play recently? I don't remember (but that's a less and less reliable indicator ).

pj
chgo

skipbales said:

You and I are not far apart in our understanding of things here. I was mostly trying to explain how I believe CJ looks at it and why it might work for him.

6 pack has another take on why it might be of value. For me I think that is more analysis than is profitable for me. I still hit the golf ball straight unless I have to shape it and use TOI sometimes for some of the other reasons than the 3 part pocket system. I am not going to be writing any books about either and they would not sell if I did.

Click to expand...

I know about shaping shots in golf and, like you, I try to hit it straight anyway. . Although I do use the putting trick I described above.

Although to be fair to that viewpoint modern golf equipment makes it far easier to hit the ball straight. Maybe LD shafts do the same for pool.

bioactive said:

...is it invalid just because it is perception rather than reality?

Click to expand...

I think most agree it can be "valid" as a helpful system - the arguments begin when its users insist it's also literal reality (because it seems so to them).

I believe the most beneficial way to describe these subjective perceptions is that they're not literal reality, but that they may nonetheless be helpful.

In fact, I suspect that we all see things "subjectively" to some degree, even those like me who insist on knowing what's actually happening.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson said:

I think most agree it can be "valid" as a helpful system - the arguments begin when its users insist it's also literal reality (because it seems so to them).

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

You have it. MANY great players believe things to be true which guys like Dr. Dave have proven are not reality. They insist because they believe, not to deceive.

I watched an instructional video where Willie Mosconi left a ball left of the rack as a break out ball in straight pool. He said he then hit it with low right into the rack. Watching a lot of well made technical presentations of side spin effects it is clear that the right spin did little or nothing crashing into the rack. From his position so near the rack, the low may not even have had time to grab. The ball simply deflected off the object ball, traveled 4 inches down the tangent line and crashed into the pack.

At the time I don't think nearly as much information was available to players as it is today. I think Mosconi thought the low right had a much bigger influence than it actually did. I am guessing the average pool player today thinks putting right spin on the cue ball causes it to move right after collision with the object ball. This was WIDELY believed 40 years ago and is probably still the most common opinion of the average bar player today.

Mosconi wasn't really teaching how things worked. He was teaching what he did and how he played. I believe it was Tiger Woods who refused to write a book on "how to play golf", instead opting for "how I play golf" for this very reason. He recognized his perception of what he was doing might not have matched the reality of what he actually did. Not everyone is that objective about themselves.

skipbales said:

I am guessing the average pool player today thinks putting right spin on the cue ball causes it to move right after collision with the object ball.

Click to expand...

There's some reality to this - just not as much as some might think. I think a pretty good estimation is that the CB is thrown in one direction about the same distance the OB is thrown in the opposite direction (i.e., not very far).

Mosconi wasn't really teaching how things worked. He was teaching what he did and how he played. I believe it was Tiger Woods who refused to write a book on "how to play golf", instead opting for "how I play golf" for this very reason. He recognized his perception of what he was doing might not have matched the reality of what he actually did.

Click to expand...

Sounds like Tiger got it. I think other instructors should do the same (if they're aware of the difference).

Not everyone is that objective about themselves.

Click to expand...

To be fair to them, it's not all that obvious what really happens - and believing what they think happens can be an important confidence builder. I often hesitate before posting "corrections" for this reason - I don't want to undermine anybody's confidence in what they do. But on the other hand I don't want to mislead developing players - what's a guy to do?

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson said:

I often hesitate before posting "corrections" for this reason - I don't want to undermine anybody's confidence in what they do. But on the other hand I don't want to mislead developing players - what's a guy to do?

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

You have a good attitude about it. Sometimes the technicalities of exactly what happens are not really significant enough to make any difference in the lifetime achievement of a player. Where the confidence in a process, even if not technically correct, can.

Dr. Dave teaches the specifics of exactly what happens with side spin. Jerry Briesath teaches 99% of the time you are hitting hard enough that squirt correction is all that matters and swerve and throw are only for long slow shots as they will not be enough to make you miss the ball. I like to understand it a lot better than that but if most players got that much they would improve substantially.

skipbales said:

Sometimes the technicalities of exactly what happens are not really significant enough to make any difference in the lifetime achievement of a player. Where the confidence in a process, even if not technically correct, can.

Click to expand...

Understanding the technical details has helped me to learn faster and to apply what I learn in new areas. But I recognize I'm not everybody, and that without a natural knack for the technicalities it can be more confusing than helpful.

pj <- different strokes
chgo