John Schmidt's and Corey Deuel's comments on aiming systems

swest said:
Thanks for the insulting reply.
Click to expand...

Your welcome. I was just getting tired of your yes-man posts. You've made devil's advocate posts behind my posts to PJ every time in this thread. I could say Rosanne Barr is a pig and you'd chirp-in behind me saying that you'd still tap it. Go get some pom-poms and yes-man the right way.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I've taken it as pocket facing and forcing the inside. He's said a bunch of times he's cuing only on the inside, so I'm not sure how it wouldn't deflect unless you hit center (regardless of shaft). So, I guess if you're accounting for a possible center ball hit -- that would be fine. If you're eliminating the chance of a center ball hit-- you'd have to align to the facing.
Click to expand...

OK, I can agree with you if you meant to say aim for the facing -- but not if you meant to aim for a point where the ball would fail to drop if hit there. And, for many shots, the angled pocket facing on the full side of the pocket is not accessible to the OB.

[Of course, you could make the initial aim entirely outside the pocket or facing and play with lots of inside. But that's not what CJ has been talking about.]
 
AtLarge said:
OK, I can agree with you if you meant to say aim for the facing -- but not if you meant to aim for a point where the ball would fail to drop if hit there. And, for many shots, the angled pocket facing on the full side of the pocket is not accessible to the OB.

[Of course, you could make the initial aim entirely outside the pocket or facing and play with lots of inside. But that's not what CJ has been talking about.]
Click to expand...

I've aiming for "whatever the first point of a miss is based on the shot" and forcing an inside hit. I think that's equivalent to playing for "the last point of a make" and allowing for a center ball hit (potting wise).

I think you have to play for the forced inside if you want to get the benefit of "cue ball hold-up" with this technique, which is a key benefit that CJ mentioned.

Otherwise, you're only getting that feeling/benefit with 2/3 of your tip strikes.

edit:

I just want to add that I think the aim point differs on table to table and one shouldn't lock themselves to an exact part of the pocket. Otherwise, you're leaving real estate out of the equation that can increase your pot%. That's why I say "first point of a guaranteed miss." You can't say that's "this" part of a pocket on every table. You have to be flexible based on the table type, pocket cut, shot angle and stroke speed.
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
I've aiming for "whatever the first point of a miss is based on the shot" and forcing an inside hit. I think that's equivalent to playing for "the last point of a make" and allowing for a center ball hit (potting wise).

I think you have to play for the forced inside if you want to get the benefit of "cue ball hold-up" with this technique, which is a key benefit that CJ mentioned.

Otherwise, you're only getting that feeling/benefit with 2/3 of your tip strikes.

edit:

I just want to add that I think the aim point differs on table to table and one shouldn't lock themselves to an exact part of the pocket. Otherwise, you're leaving real estate out of the equation that can increase your pot%. That's why I say "first point of a guaranteed miss." You can't say that's "this" part of a pocket on every table. You have to be flexible based on the table type, pocket cut, shot angle and stroke speed.
Click to expand...

Interesting, Dave. I'll experiment with "1st-miss" point versus "last-make" point.
 
cjssecrets4u2 said:
Everyone will have a different opinion on this because a good point is "be comfortable with the whole cue ball".....and my point is yes, comfort is essential, however, I Want to MASTER One Side of the Cue Ball....because spinning with different spins and shooting with different speeds is fine and dandy....But Everyone's Doing It, and Not Everyone is Running Out....Only One Guy Can Be The BEST :wink:
Click to expand...

True, CJ. I didn't word it quite as well as I should have earlier. I was thinking along the lines of you stating that you hardly ever use outside. I think a fair amount of lower level players might take that literally to their detriment. If they, at a lower level, always use inside, they aren't going to learn how or when to use outside enough to get comfortable with it.

There have been discussion on here in the past about inside english, and how most amateurs tend to avoid it. At the upper levels of play, it is used a LOT. For me, and maybe you are right, that it is holding me back, (but I don't think so), I tend to use a lot of inside, but I don't think about it. I look at the shot, and see what I need to do to have the least amount of cb travel to get to the next shot. I feel I'm equally comfortable using inside, outside, hard, or medium. (real soft sometimes gets me, but I'm working on that)
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Your welcome. I was just getting tired of your yes-man posts. You've made devil's advocate posts behind my posts to PJ every time in this thread. I could say Rosanne Barr is a pig and you'd chirp-in behind me saying that you'd still tap it. Go get some pom-poms and yes-man the right way.
Click to expand...

I don't know any of you people out here in real life. All I have is your words on this forum. And the fact of the matter is that most of PJ's arguments persuade, while yours do not. If that hurts your feelings then perhaps you should work on it.

And throwing out an insult is not persuasion. It's weakness.

You made an unsupported, and categorical statement: "Your brain perceives outside english shots DIFFERENTLY than inside english shots." I challenged that statement. You didn't like my challenge. You insult.

Good work.
 
Wow...

I mostly ignored this thread - I saw the first few posts about comments on aiming systems and decided I didn't need to follow it. When I saw the size of the thread, I was intrigued as to where it went, so I've (mostly) caught up now. Just a few comments, to add my 2 cents:

- I immediately understood what CJ was saying, very analagous to golf. Surprised it took so many pages of comments for people to "get it", regardless of whether they agreed with it or not. On the surface it seems like it might be the same thing as aiming center and allowing for small errors on either side, as with golf, but in practice it's not because of the way we are wired to aim and swing

- I'm pretty sure CJ understands that some minimal amount of sidespin is produced no matter how the cue ball is struck off center, but not enough to cause any impact to the shot or have any residual impact once reaching a rail. As has been mentioned, tough to convey everything just in words, and simplifying concepts sometimes leads to inaccuracies from a scientific standpoint

- I will choose to actually play with this (or any other concepts) on the table before commenting on their validity

- Have enjoyed CJ's contributions on this and other threads, great writing style and information regardless of one's particular view on the concepts. Agree that we shouldn't wholeheartedly "bow down" and just accept everything as fact, however most of us will never have the experiences, knowledge transfer, and raw talent in pool that players like CJ have, so some measure of acknowledgement and respect is due. He's not sitting in his chair talking about theory, he's put it into practice and done it


CJ, hope you stick around and continue contributing, I for one appreciate it!

Scott
 
scottjen26 said:
Wow...

I mostly ignored this thread - I saw the first few posts about comments on aiming systems and decided I didn't need to follow it. When I saw the size of the thread, I was intrigued as to where it went, so I've (mostly) caught up now. Just a few comments, to add my 2 cents:

- I immediately understood what CJ was saying, very analagous to golf. Surprised it took so many pages of comments for people to "get it", regardless of whether they agreed with it or not. On the surface it seems like it might be the same thing as aiming center and allowing for small errors on either side, as with golf, but in practice it's not because of the way we are wired to aim and swing

- I'm pretty sure CJ understands that some minimal amount of sidespin is produced no matter how the cue ball is struck off center, but not enough to cause any impact to the shot or have any residual impact once reaching a rail. As has been mentioned, tough to convey everything just in words, and simplifying concepts sometimes leads to inaccuracies from a scientific standpoint

- I will choose to actually play with this (or any other concepts) on the table before commenting on their validity

- Have enjoyed CJ's contributions on this and other threads, great writing style and information regardless of one's particular view on the concepts. Agree that we shouldn't wholeheartedly "bow down" and just accept everything as fact, however most of us will never have the experiences, knowledge transfer, and raw talent in pool that players like CJ have, so some measure of acknowledgement and respect is due. He's not sitting in his chair talking about theory, he's put it into practice and done it


CJ, hope you stick around and continue contributing, I for one appreciate it!

Scott
Click to expand...

You made a point to where I feel I need to say something about it. It wasn't my intention, but I imagine at least a few took it that way. I do not believe in hero worship, and do not take everything anyone says (no matter their credentials) as gospel. However, that does NOT mean that I do not have a great amount of respect for what they have to say. I do, and I listen very intently to what champions say. So, I just wanted to "get it out there" that I do have a lot of respect for what CJ and the other pros have to say.
 
Neil said:
You made a point to where I feel I need to say something about it. It wasn't my intention, but I imagine at least a few took it that way. I do not believe in hero worship, and do not take everything anyone says (no matter their credentials) as gospel. However, that does NOT mean that I do not have a great amount of respect for what they have to say. I do, and I listen very intently to what champions say. So, I just wanted to "get it out there" that I do have a lot of respect for what CJ and the other pros have to say.
Click to expand...

Agreed...

signed,

The Yes Man.
 
swest said:
I don't know any of you people out here in real life. All I have is your words on this forum. And the fact of the matter is that most of PJ's arguments persuade, while yours do not. If that hurts your feelings then perhaps you should work on it.

And throwing out an insult is not persuasion. It's weakness.

You made an unsupported, and categorical statement: "Your brain perceives outside english shots DIFFERENTLY than inside english shots." I challenged that statement. You didn't like my challenge. You insult.

Good work.
Click to expand...
I can statistically prove it. So if you feel confident it's unsupported, don't be shy to make me pay to learn a lesson. I didn't insult, I just said I'd bet otherwise. Sorry you were insulted - you must be a wet noodle. "PJCHGO" is probably the password to your Gmail account.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
...you win something. That's how it usually works.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Is that so? Selective memory? Want to make a REAL bet on the bet you think you made and post with a 3rd party and I'll have Mike pull it out of the locked folder and he'll be the judge? I'd be careful if I were you... that's how THAT works. I don't miss a beat when it comes to people who air barrel me. In fact, Cleary made a cheesy little animation showing you how you'd lose the bet and then you didn't log in for days. I have a photographic memory when it comes to PJ air barrels.

You were wrong, admit it and I'll never bring it up again ever. You can find a few threads where I had to apologize for being wrong. I'm human. You happen to think you're never wrong and when you are, you can't man-up. When that happens, PJ, I'll always be there.... kinda like now.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Is that so? Selective memory? Want to make a REAL bet on the bet you think you made and post with a 3rd party and I'll have Mike pull it out of the locked folder and he'll be the judge? I'd be careful if I were you... that's how THAT works.
Click to expand...
It's your fantasy. Do whatever you want.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Joe T said:
guys, lets play pool.
Click to expand...

OK, PJ's my partner. Who you taking, Joe? You can have CJ :)

We're all in. Don't forget we're meeting up later for a hamburger. :)

I like mine with lettuce and tomatoes Heinz57 and french fried potatoes.
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
OK, PJ's my partner. Who you taking, Joe? You can have CJ :)

We're all in. Don't forget we're meeting up later for a hamburger. :)
Click to expand...

ok, guess I can deal with getting stuck with cj again ;( i'll even play for the burgers this time to show you I have heart!
 
This thread is now the longest ever on the Aiming Conversation forum.

Its length is exceeded only by
  • 8 threads on the Main Forum;
  • 5 threads on NPR;
  • 1 Sticky thread in W/FS; and
  • 1 thread in the Gallery.

[and possibly a thread or two removed from the current listings]

But I think it has been a good lesson in the valuable (and some not so valuable) twists and turns that a thread can take. It was started to highlight a couple pros' off-the-cuff comments that seemed to be anti aiming systems, but has led to even greater awareness of the intricacies of aiming techniques.
 
Last edited:
Now that we have tons to practice w/ CJ's inside move, I wonder what the next lesson is? CJ - start a new thread w/ your next concept! Can't wait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top