Does it Make Any Sense?

So we are assuming the side spin is intentional...? If he's a developing player w/ strong potting, maybe he's merely figured out how to compensate for squirt his poor mechanics are producing.

CJ's TOI was officially described as a "twist" of inside by the creator. Defined as so little side english that the CB doesn't fully rotate as it travels to the CB. Which is complete horse crap. The level of precision required in both tip placement and stroke speed based on CB/OB distance is beyond what a human could possibly produce consistently... One of the reasons I don't pay much heed to CJ's "insights".

Personally I get a little annoyed at myself when I see slight rotation after completing what should be a complete stop shot. That said, I don't chase that perfection by practicing it out. I do see value in resigning one's self to erring toward a known applied spin, rather than a random occurrence of either. Even if that 'known spin' is of a random amount. I don't follow that methodology however.
 
The_JV said:
So we are assuming the side spin is intentional...? If he's a developing player w/ strong potting, maybe he's merely figured out how to compensate for squirt his poor mechanics are producing.

CJ's TOI was officially described as a "twist" of inside by the creator. Defined as so little side english that the CB doesn't fully rotate as it travels to the CB. Which is complete horse crap. The level of precision required in both tip placement and stroke speed based on CB/OB distance is beyond what a human could possibly produce consistently... One of the reasons I don't pay much heed to CJ's "insights".

Personally I get a little annoyed at myself when I see slight rotation after completing what should be a complete stop shot. That said, I don't chase that perfection by practicing it out. I do see value in resigning one's self to erring toward a known applied spin, rather than a random occurrence of either. Even if that 'known spin' is of a random amount. I don't follow that methodology however.
Click to expand...

Hitting center ball accurately is a little easier than hitting with a touch of this or twist of that. Not only that, any error has less effect than the same amount of error when you aren't hitting center to center. Simply the physics some love so much!

Speed and angles are easier to control than speed and spin. Admittedly, most focusing strongly on speed and angles have already went through the spin almost everything stage. I think we all go through the lots of spin and watch the cue ball zing around stage. Then most use less spin learning what is needed. Some go a step further and almost quit using extreme spin. I think those that see the entire runout are better at this.

I think the "three balls ahead" people are skimping on the first part, planning the run first. Once you plan the run I see no reason to break it down into the three balls ahead program. Of course, the plan can be revised with either technique if the cue ball is uncooperative!(grin)

If the young man is still in the "spin is cool" stage then he will probably grow past it. A little nudge might speed the process, might not.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
Hitting center ball accurately is a little easier than hitting with a touch of this or twist of that. Not only that, any error has less effect than the same amount of error when you aren't hitting center to center.
Click to expand...
The argument used by the 'touch of spin' guys is that hitting dead center is actually really tough and you are likely to get a touch of this or that anyway so they choose which side spin will be on the ball and can better predict ball interactions. Both Ronnie and Sigel lay this out in interviews. Funny enough, Cliff Thorburn also teaches high level snooker players to use a bit of side on most shots but he didn't mess around with reasoning other than, 'use a little spin because you're an artist' lol. Love it.

Some may say it's placebo effect or confirmation bias, but these top players employ a touch of spin because they believe it makes their shots higher percentage. Certainly did help Cliff's already high level student attain a new level of artistry and higher potting percentage so there's def something to it imo.
 
WobblyStroke said:
The argument used by the 'touch of spin' guys is that hitting dead center is actually really tough and you are likely to get a touch of this or that anyway so they choose which side spin will be on the ball and can better predict ball interactions. Both Ronnie and Sigel lay this out in interviews. Funny enough, Cliff Thorburn also teaches high level snooker players to use a bit of side on most shots but he didn't mess around with reasoning other than, 'use a little spin because you're an artist' lol. Love it.

Some may say it's placebo effect or confirmation bias, but these top players employ a touch of spin because they believe it makes their shots higher percentage. Certainly did help Cliff's already high level student attain a new level of artistry and higher potting percentage so there's def something to it imo.
Click to expand...
I agree completely with this...

A touch of this reacts differently than a touch of that. Whereas a slight variant in the amount of either 'this' or 'that' has a more predictable effect.

Myself... Early on I had the tendency to miss thick on blind cuts. So, I opted a 'touch of outside' to my aiming methodology. Nothing so delusional as a mere 'twist', but outside english with purpose. The only time I don't apply it, is when the shot requires something different.
 
WobblyStroke said:
The argument used by the 'touch of spin' guys is that hitting dead center is actually really tough and you are likely to get a touch of this or that anyway so they choose which side spin will be on the ball and can better predict ball interactions. Both Ronnie and Sigel lay this out in interviews. Funny enough, Cliff Thorburn also teaches high level snooker players to use a bit of side on most shots but he didn't mess around with reasoning other than, 'use a little spin because you're an artist' lol. Love it.

Some may say it's placebo effect or confirmation bias, but these top players employ a touch of spin because they believe it makes their shots higher percentage. Certainly did help Cliff's already high level student attain a new level of artistry and higher potting percentage so there's def something to it imo.
Click to expand...

I have read what the touch of guys say but this is one time where geometry isn't their friend. Start with center ball. For starters, part of your tip is still hitting center if you are slightly off. The second thing is that being slightly off from center has less effect than being slightly off when aiming for one side or the other.

I do use outside sometimes just to reduce the danger of throw. Depends on the shot and the condition of the balls and hall. If there is little margin for error and the conditions are right for throw and there is no reason not to use outside I will use it. Quite a bit of outside though, well past touches and twists and such.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
I have read what the touch of guys say but this is one time where geometry isn't their friend. Start with center ball. For starters, part of your tip is still hitting center if you are slightly off. The second thing is that being slightly off from center has less effect than being slightly off when aiming for one side or the other.
Click to expand...
I disagree here. I think TheJV said it correctly that a slightly variable degree of a known side spin is more predictable than a slightly smaller amount of either left or right. In other words,, let's say a player has a 1/4 tip dispersion on their cb contact... going for center ball and ending up with upto 1/8tip left OR right spin will make it harder to predict ball interactions and the path of the cb than a dispersion range from dead center to 1/4tip of a chosen side.
 
no as then 1/4 off on the chosen side is worse. you cant have it only go one way.
 
yes but 1/8 off center isnt going to miss most shots. but 1/4 tip certainly can.

in any case he needs to learn to shoot straight not try to make up for it with aiming changes.
 
I love sidespin. It has many uses and is required for advanced play. Too many people shy away from learning and mastering its applications. Sidespin can solve many problems that would be more difficult with center ball hits.

On the other hand, I am a minimalist. I believe in doing things the simplest way possible. On a straight in shot there are no problems to solve, so I think sidespin is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

I understand the concept "Well, none of us hit the cue ball where we intend, and on a straight in shot you might hit off center and twist the ball away from the pocket, so by budgeting to hit off center and throw the ball in slightly you will avoid this. You will take away the chance of unwanted spin, since you are planning on it."

But this argument doesn't hold water to me for two reasons. One, you can still mishit the cue ball and end up with more or less twist than you wanted. And two, I don't see any of the top players doing this on straight shots.

So in the end, I highly doubt this player you're talking about is some future world beater using a secret approach to pool that has never been discovered by the other top players, and he will be the first to reach 900+ Fargo Rate because he has found a better way to build a mousetrap. He's probably just a bar banger with poor technique trying to justify not wanting to learn to cue correctly.
 
ChrisinNC said:
Does it make any sense for a highly motivated and improving player to always be applying significant off center axis spin on the cue ball on an absolutely straight in shot?
Click to expand...
It depends on where the shooter wants CB to land after potting the ball.
ChrisinNC said:
Would CJ Wiley who advocates his touch of inside aiming system recommend this and if so, why?
Click to expand...
Better action off the rails, less chance to nip the tip of the pocket with OB.
 
The issue is that some in this thread are working with false assumptions. A quarter tip dispersion an eighth inch out from center isn't the same as a quarter tip dispersion from center. You will get a wider dispersion in the resting place of the cue ball after the shot if you start with the aim slightly to the side of center than if you start with centerball aim.

One thing, despite the claims of hard to hit exact center, if your center of vision is in place it is harder to hit anywhere else than center.

The other myth concerns the horror of crossing center line. What happens when you hit center line or the other side of the ball than planned? Less than what happens when you hit the same distance further out than planned.

I had an almost instinctive fear, maybe an intuitive fear, of hitting the cue ball on the opposite side of the center line than intended. What happens when you do that? Very little as is found when it is put to the test as I did way back when. Buried that bit of bad juju. Dispersion around centerline will be smaller than any other place you attempt to hit, and it will matter less. Win-win.

Hu
 
straightline said:
Crossing over happens. Hence, more accurate technical development and/or leaving out micro english entirely.
Click to expand...

Crossing over happens. What few seem to realize is that it has less effect than an error of the same distance in the other direction.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
Crossing over happens. What few seem to realize is that it has less effect than an error of the same distance in the other direction.

Hu
Click to expand...
How does that work? Usually what happens is the ball runs instead of dying or vice versa or you get the wrong angle and no position.
 
ShootingArts said:
Crossing over happens. What few seem to realize is that it has less effect than an error of the same distance in the other direction.

Hu
Click to expand...
Ah ha... Food for thought.

The other night I was explaining to a 'weaker' player how I manage to rifle shots into the side pockets from what they consider steep angles. My 'trick'...? I play to hit the inside point and throw the OB with a 'touch of', (yes done on purpose...lol) outside. I bank on that CB english to throw the OB just beyond the point. This gets the OB as deep into the pocket as possible and minimizes the chances of rattle.

I could do the same with ever so lightly corrected aim and a center ball hit. However if I did cross the center line a tiny amount I end up throwing the OB into the point. I need ever thousandth of an inch (americanized for easy reading) of that pocket to accept the OB at a high rate of speed. Better to aim to hit and throw to miss. Then aim to just miss and hope I hit the CB correctly.

Again, we don't play this game with absolutes. Success is directly linked to minimizing risk.
 
Tin Man said:
I understand the concept "Well, none of us hit the cue ball where we intend, and on a straight in shot you might hit off center and twist the ball away from the pocket, so by budgeting to hit off center and throw the ball in slightly you will avoid this. You will take away the chance of unwanted spin, since you are planning on it."

But this argument doesn't hold water to me for two reasons. One, you can still mishit the cue ball and end up with more or less twist than you wanted. And two, I don't see any of the top players doing this on straight shots.
Click to expand...
I won't say I play straight in shots (this assumes we're speaking in line of sight) with english. I'm going to ignore your use of the dreaded word "twist"..lol.

However I do use SIT when extreme shot accuracy is required. As I mentioned earlier with the high speed, steep angle, side pocket shot. I find it more reliable to aim to hit and throw to miss.
 
Last edited:
The_JV said:
I won't say I play straight in shots (this assumes we're speaking in line of sight) with english. I'm going to ignore your use of the dreaded word "twist"..lol.

However I do use CIT when extreme shot accuracy is required. As I mentioned earlier with the high speed, steep angle, side pocket shot. I find it more reliable to aim to hit and throw to miss.
Click to expand...


I used to play on a fiendishly tight old snooker table. Old even fifty years ago. That table taught me about helping spin. Funny thing, you had to consider which inside wall you were going to pocket the ball off of. Helping english reversed considering if you were hitting one inside rail or two so speed was always a consideration.

I always jack up on cross side banks when the cue ball and object ball are close together. Easy to see the shot and the balls are just bouncing along the cloth instead of rolling so not much chance of bad things happening. Another shortstop asked me why I shot those shots like that. I had no real answer except, "works for me". We get in the habit of doing something one way because it works for us. After awhile it works best for us.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
I always jack up on cross side banks when the cue ball and object ball are close together. Easy to see the shot and the balls are just bouncing along the cloth instead of rolling so not much chance of bad things happening. Another shortstop asked me why I shot those shots like that. I had no real answer except, "works for me". We get in the habit of doing something one way because it works for us. After awhile it works best for us.
Click to expand...
I do the same... My purpose is to generate the vertical CB movement to allow additional breathing room for the CB to clear the OB path.
 
ShootingArts said:
Hitting center ball accurately is a little easier than hitting with a touch of this or twist of that. Not only that, any error has less effect than the same amount of error when you aren't hitting center to center. Simply the physics some love so much!

Speed and angles are easier to control than speed and spin. Admittedly, most focusing strongly on speed and angles have already went through the spin almost everything stage. I think we all go through the lots of spin and watch the cue ball zing around stage. Then most use less spin learning what is needed. Some go a step further and almost quit using extreme spin. I think those that see the entire runout are better at this.

I think the "three balls ahead" people are skimping on the first part, planning the run first. Once you plan the run I see no reason to break it down into the three balls ahead program. Of course, the plan can be revised with either technique if the cue ball is uncooperative!(grin)

If the young man is still in the "spin is cool" stage then he will probably grow past it. A little nudge might speed the process, might not.

Hu
Click to expand...
Speed and angle. Boring to many, but gets the job done every time. You're not gonna impress anybody watching bcuz you're always making those 'easy shots.' 😂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top