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

[Neil]

Without reading through countless post. Are we aiming for the side of the pocket nearest the OB?

Cutting to the right, you aim for the left side of the pocket, cutting to the left, you aim for the right side of the pocket.

Here's the summary: You stay very close to center axis on the cb, favoring inside english side. You use a stop, or stun shot. Doing that, you get CIT that throws the ob towards the outside of the pocket. A touch of inside causes squirt which changes the angle of attack on the ob and makes you actually hit it thinner, putting it in the part of the pocket you aimed at.

Slight variations in speed or contact place on the cb will change the squirt and CIT slightly, but still keeping you going into the pocket. These changes largely occur when you need a little draw or follow off the tangent line, so you aren't hitting with an actual stun shot, but at the same speed as a stun shot would be.

In CJ's video of Mizerak and himself, he used a touch of inside 12 times, obvious outside favoring 10 times, more than a touch of inside 3 times, and center ball due to being fairly straight on the shot 11 times in the first 5 racks that he shot balls in. (I think the score was 5-1 CJ)

This is the same thing Dr. Dave, PJ, myself, and others have been saying on here for years. Apparently many only listen when a known pro says it. At least some of you are finally "getting it".

First look what a stop or stun shot does. Many times you only need a little follow or draw from the tangent line to obtain position. If you need some additional english, rarely will you need more than a tip (30% Dr. Dave) of english. When hit with a stun shot, you will get some CIT. That is easily countered with a touch of inside which provides a little squirt. Pick a part of the pocket to shoot at, be specific, not general. Pick an exact spot on the cb to hit, again, be specific, not general. Pay attention to what you are doing. Be as a surgeon, not a scythe user.

What CJ doesn't quite realize yet, is that he plays so great because of his ability to use the subconscious so much better than most are able to. That makes the game so much easier. He has found what works for him, which is also what the "science" has found out. He just is having trouble with the correct terminologies used today and sometimes says things the wrong way.

Since he says his game is just about back to where it was, I believe that if he were to take a look at what others have out there for reference lines, and how to precisely play position, he would be would have a good shot at being the best of all time.

 

[West Point 1987]

Without reading through countless post. Are we aiming for the side of the pocket nearest the OB?

You aim at the side closest to the OB. Using the term "throw" is confusing folks...you're actually using deflection to squirt the CB to hit the object ball thinner than you're aiming, so the OB track moves from the near side of the pocket (thick) toward the center of the pocket (thinner).

THEREFORE, if you're cutting left, you aim at the RIGHT side of the pocket...if you're cutting right, you aim at the LEFT side. The firmer or softer your stroke will impact on how much the cue ball squirts and the resultant movement of the OB track toward the center is affected accordingly.

This is a rather "muscular" way to shoot...although, once you get the hang of it you can still finesse the shots to get better shape if you need to...just have to remember to accelerate the cue through the shot (not slowing as it approaches the CB). That doesn't mean firm, hard or fast throughout, just NOT SLOWING DOWN before/at contact. At first it will seem like you're whacking them kinda hard, though, as you get comfortable with it. I always preferred hitting 'em pretty firm using the conventional method anyway, so it's not that big of an adjustment to me.

OBTW, I love it for back cuts, too...it's made them easier for me. Not sure why some are having different experiences there, but it really cinches that shot for me...and not having to resort to spinning the shot in has kept a nice, tight leash on whitey for me.

 

[Mikjary]

West Point,

This is exactly right.

Best,
Mike

 

[ENGLISH!]

Good Intelligence Report from West Point.

Thanks,
RJ

 

[LAMas]

When do we use "Pocket Speed?"

 

[ENGLISH!]

When do we use "Pocket Speed?"

LAMas,

I think West Point eluded to the fact that you still can use 'pocket speed' for position. A 'soft' stroke can still be an acellerating stroke, from 0 to 1 has acelleration in there somewhere.

I'm a fairly 'soft hitting roller' for the most part other than long stop & draw shots. I can still juice it up for 4 rails when needed. This method is obviously a bit of a reverse from how I am now playing, but I feel it allows a bit more of a 'firmer' stroke & still keeps the cue ball from running loose. I would have normally had to limit the runnng cue ball with less speed.

I think we need to take CJ's descriptions relative to his 'firm' grip & control of the cue as well. Our grip & his grip are probably not the same. Our normal stroke & his normal stroke are probably not the same. I feel that my 'loose' grip delivers an accelerating contact even on softer strokes. It's a bit about perception on how to accomplish the main objective.

I think the main point is that CJ does not want to allow any time for any spin to really come into play & have any affect on the shot that he would then have to somehow calculate, plan for, & then execute properly. This method, done properly, simplifies the shot, not from a center hit, but from a 'to one side' planned hit.

Also, CJ has said there are times when he does not use this method such as when outside is required, etc. I assume
that also means when 'pocket speed' would be more beneficial.

Sorry for the $0.50 rambling on your nickel.
RJ

 

[JB Cases]

When do we use "Pocket Speed?"

When you need to silly.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

peteypooldude:
Without reading through countless post. Are we aiming for the side of the pocket nearest the OB?

Since you use inside to squirt the CB to a thinner hit, you have to aim at the side of the pocket that needs a more full hit - which could be the nearest or farthest side from the OB.

The descriptions have been a little confused...

pj
chgo

Can you expand a little on this? I think it's fair to say you either love it or hate it; but I think CJ has been uber clear on describing this technique. What exactly is still a little confusing (just curious)? One of the guys who get it on here might be able to answer your questions.

Dave

I just mean that the "fuller" side of the pocket isn't always the one closest to the OB. That depends on the layout.

By the way, I don't hate the technique (although I wouldn't use it myself) - I just want it to be described realistically for those who want to assess it that way.

pj
chgo

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

If you're doing it right it looks like this...

...just have to remember to accelerate the cue through the shot

I think I'm finally catching on:

 

[CJ Wiley]

I ALWAYS FIRST look to using my favorite shot

You aim at the side closest to the OB. Using the term "throw" is confusing folks...you're actually using deflection to squirt the CB to hit the object ball thinner than you're aiming, so the OB track moves from the near side of the pocket (thick) toward the center of the pocket (thinner).

THEREFORE, if you're cutting left, you aim at the RIGHT side of the pocket...if you're cutting right, you aim at the LEFT side. The firmer or softer your stroke will impact on how much the cue ball squirts and the resultant movement of the OB track toward the center is affected accordingly.

This is a rather "muscular" way to shoot...although, once you get the hang of it you can still finesse the shots to get better shape if you need to...just have to remember to accelerate the cue through the shot (not slowing as it approaches the CB). That doesn't mean firm, hard or fast throughout, just NOT SLOWING DOWN before/at contact. At first it will seem like you're whacking them kinda hard, though, as you get comfortable with it. I always preferred hitting 'em pretty firm using the conventional method anyway, so it's not that big of an adjustment to me.

OBTW, I love it for back cuts, too...it's made them easier for me. Not sure why some are having different experiences there, but it really cinches that shot for me...and not having to resort to spinning the shot in has kept a nice, tight leash on whitey for me.

Yes, you want to favor the side that's usually closest to the object ball, but not all the time. It's the left side when cutting to the right and the right side when cutting to the left is more accurate....and people on here LOVE accuracy :rotflmao:

Anyway, seriously, no one can tell when I'm using this system. Obviously if it's been kept secret for all these years it's not easy to detect. I used to describe it to my "road partners" that I'm the only one in the room (or in the TV viewing audience) that can tell I'm doing it.

The most important thing is to develop ONE SHOT that you can master instead of trying to hit 4 different types of shots that you will never master. When I need to slow roll a ball, I simply slow roll it, and if I have to use outside english I do that too. However, I ALWAYS FIRST look to using my favorite shot....and if there's no other way, I'll choose what's appropriate to hit. I'm not against hitting the easiest shots, and will do that on the last game on the money ball EVERY TIME. I just choose not to make a habit out of it. :wink:

 

[CJ Wiley]

When the true Road Warriors came through town it was a simple gambling proposition

LAMas,

I think West Point eluded to the fact that you still can use 'pocket speed' for position. A 'soft' stroke can still be an acellerating stroke, from 0 to 1 has acelleration in there somewhere.

I'm a fairly 'soft hitting roller' for the most part other than long stop & draw shots. I can still juice it up for 4 rails when needed. This method is obviously a bit of a reverse from how I am now playing, but I feel it allows a bit more of a 'firmer' stroke & still keeps the cue ball from running loose. I would have normally had to limit the runnng cue ball with less speed.

I think we need to take CJ's descriptions relative to his 'firm' grip & control of the cue as well. Our grip & his grip are probably not the same. Our normal stroke & his normal stroke are probably not the same. I feel that my 'loose' grip delivers an accelerating contact even on softer strokes. It's a bit about perception on how to accomplish the main objective.

I think the main point is that CJ does not want to allow any time for any spin to really come into play & have any affect on the shot that he would then have to somehow calculate, plan for, & then execute properly. This method, done properly, simplifies the shot, not from a center hit, but from a 'to one side' planned hit.

Also, CJ has said there are times when he does not use this method such as when outside is required, etc. I assume
that also means when 'pocket speed' would be more beneficial.

Sorry for the $0.50 rambling on your nickel.
RJ

Trying to calculate spin and deflection is like flipping a coin...there's guessing involved. When you are playing for your next meal (and livelyhood) you can't guess, so you learn to use a "Two Headed Coin" (T.O.I.).

When the true Road Warriors came through town they presented a simple gambling proposition "Heads we win, Tails you lose", those players (hometown champions) could only win if they didn't' play. 'The Game is the Teacher'

 

[SJDinPHX]

Update on thread length.

This thread is the longest ever on the Aiming Conversation forum.

To this point, its length (in number of replies) is exceeded only by

• 4 threads on the Main Forum;
  
• 4 threads on NPR;
  
• 1 Sticky thread in W/FS;
  
• 1 thread in the Gallery;

• 
  
  
  I am not surprised at all !..When this thread was only 300 posts, I gigged some A.S.S. guy, to see if I could get it up to 600 or so..Then, it kinda died out again (slipped to the 3rd or 4th page) I inserted a mild, pro-HAMB post, and lo and behold..It took off again..Now it is almost 1700 posts, with NO end in sight...Amazing !
  
  I think you guys may have already broken new ground, in the following areas, and I commend you.
  
  [1] Longest boring individual posts, consecutively, by the same two people !
  
  [2] The most confusing diagrams, by people who think they are NASA engineers.
  
  [3] Dozens of experts in the physcological behavior patterns, of [sic] pool player's.
  
  [4] Most amount of PRO-A.S.S 'infomercials' per thread.
  
  I am sure there are more records but then, I am only 'scanning' :boring2:...Big thanks to Lou F. and Patrick J, for helping keep the A.S.S. guy's dream alive !..No need to thank me, for keeping this exciting, fact-filled, thread going strong...The guys in the 'Main Forum' have already heaped praise on me, for helping keep the 10 or 12 A.S.S 'regular's' from clogging up THEIR forum.
  
  Carry on men..I'm sure your quest for knowledge, will soon surpass the "Funny Pic" thread..(which is also VERY informative)
  
  PS..Hi JoeyA and JohnB..You guys seem to be losing control of the mob. (aka A.S.S guy's)...By that, I mean the 10 or 12 repeat offender's..

 

[cookie man]

I am not surprised at all !..When this thread was only 300 posts, I gigged some A.S.S. guy, to see if I could get it up to 600 or so..Then, it kinda died out again (slipped to the 3rd or 4th page) I inserted a mild, pro-HAMB post, and lo and behold..It took off again..Now it is over 1600 posts, with NO end in sight...Amazing !

I think you guys may have already broken new ground, in the following areas, and I commend you.

[1] Longest boring individual posts, consecutively, by the same two people !

[2] The most confusing diagrams, by people who think they're NASA engineers.

[3] Most amount of PRO-A.S.S 'infomercials' per thread.

[4] I am sure there are more records but then, I am only 'scanning' :boring2:

So you see, you have ME to thank, for keeping this exciting, fact-filled, thread alive. However, don't bother thanking me..The guys in the 'Main Forum' have already heaped praise on me, for helping keep the 10 or 12 A.S.S 'regular's' from clogging up THEIR forum !!!

Carry on men..I'm sure your quest for knowledge, will soon surpass the "Funny Pic" thread..(which is also VERY informative)

PS..Hi JoeyA and JohnB..You guys seem to be losing control of the mob. (aka ASS guy's)

Yea threads only survive when u chime in.

 

[Neil]

................

 

[JB Cases]

Guys, please chill out. Remember that Mike's rules about discussing these topics with civility still applies. No need for anyone to get banned over this, the discussions are going well let's keep it headed that way.

 

[CJ Wiley]

after playing for 20 or 30 hours I've actually hallucinated doing this a time or two

I think I'm finally catching on:

This is an awesome visual!!!...I think maybe after playing for 20 or 30 hours I've actually hallucinated doing this a time or two. Notice the "TOUCH" of Inside?

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

This is an awesome visual!!!...I think maybe after playing for 20 or 30 hours I've actually hallucinated doing this a time or two. Notice the "TOUCH" of Inside?

Heh, heh... I found that on a snooker site and Photoshopped in a white ferrule. I thought you'd appreciate it. Especially with your martial arts background.

You hear so much in the MA world about visualizing a target on the other side of the opponent and aiming there. Hogwash. If you really want your punches to be devastating, visualize punching into the opponent, imagine penetrating in such a way that the peak power occurs deep inside the body.

I hadn't been making the connection between pool and my MA training until you brought up the idea of extending the tip through the ball, then a light bulb lit over my head and my stroke improved immediately. So did my pocketing, by a large enough factor and over enough days for me to believe it's not a fluke, at least in my case.

As far as the "touch" of inside, it seems to me that CJ is perhaps playing with words to see who gets it. Think about his use of the word "touch" in every instance. I think he means something beyond what a "smidgen" or "wee bit" might convey. There is a definite feel or "touch" to cueing the ball this way. You won't find that feeling in a physics book anywhere I know of.

As far as increasing the margin of error, I think we need to get our heads out of the geometry books and think about what happens to most folks when they try to hit a spherical object directly in the center. It's damn hard to determine exactly where that center is. But by always staying away from that side of the ball - but at the same time trying to get as close to center on the other side - we are less likely to strike the wrong side of the CB because we made that side and that side only "off limits" in our minds. And yes, with the same stroke I can where I want easier by visualizing the target zone on the CB that way. And I agree again, the CB is the target.


It's post-season baseball time, my favorite time of year. I was watching O'Day dominate my beloved Yankees in the extra innings and was struck with the similarities in aiming difficulties. Forget all the "sound mechanics" and physics that are supposedly taught to pitchers at an early age (did Cy Young have that, I wonder?) O'Day is a sidearm pitcher. Not too many out there, so the technique isn't taught in any proper sense. How does a sidearm pitcher aim? And how can he aim while he is putting all kinds of juice on that ball?

Smoltz was commenting about the "frisbees" that O'Day was throwing, each one climbing higher up the ladder and each one seeming to rise up during delivery... even though we all know that the ball is actually being pulled downward by gravity throughout its path to the plate. Yes, you can pull his pitches apart and eventually suss out all the laws of physics that are in place that allow his pitches to behave this way, but you'll never figure out what his arm, wrist, and fingers are doing to execute them to such perfection. That's because it's all in his mind. He has learned to will the ball to go there, that way, and his fingers have learned to obey his will. It is his personal "stroke", and he has refined it to a high degree that he makes the ball do what he wants it to do in his head.

It's all mental - baseball, golf, martial arts, music, even flipping an omelet in a pan. The minds leads, the body follows, the stroke delivers the cue where it needs to go on the CB at the speed it needs to go for the job. What could be simpler? Lol

Maybe CJ will think I'm completely out to lunch on all this, but it's been working for me, so I'm not going to keep overthinking it but just continue doing it. If nothing else, it is a potent visualization technique that allows me to focus better on the task at hand. Which is not to pocket the ball, but to deliver the best possible stroke. If I can learn to do that with great consistency, the balls will eventually find there way down the hole.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

sloppy pockets:
As far as increasing the margin of error, I think we need to get our heads out of the geometry books

"Margin of error" is geometry - you can't change it by changing how you think about aiming.

...and think about what happens to most folks when they try to hit a spherical object directly in the center. It's damn hard to determine exactly where that center is. But by always staying away from that side of the ball - but at the same time trying to get as close to center on the other side - we are less likely to strike the wrong side of the CB because we made that side and that side only "off limits" in our minds.

Eliminating half the cue ball just means all your stroke errors will be hitting too much or too little of the other half - you'll miss your intended target by the same amounts in both directions.

The only way you can decrease the number of stroke errors you make is to improve your stroke. If this technique makes you pay closer attention to stroke accuracy then you'll miss less, but it won't be because you've "increased the margin of error" or magically eliminated half the errors with a Jedi mind trick.

pj
chgo

 

[CJ Wiley]

realizing how margin for error works

Heh, heh... I found that on a snooker site and Photoshopped in a white ferrule. I thought you'd appreciate it. Especially with your martial arts background.

You hear so much in the MA world about visualizing a target on the other side of the opponent and aiming there. Hogwash. If you really want your punches to be devastating, visualize punching into the opponent, imagine penetrating in such a way that the peak power occurs deep inside the body.

I hadn't been making the connection between pool and my MA training until you brought up the idea of extending the tip through the ball, then a light bulb lit over my head and my stroke improved immediately. So did my pocketing, by a large enough factor and over enough days for me to believe it's not a fluke, at least in my case.

As far as the "touch" of inside, it seems to me that CJ is perhaps playing with words to see who gets it. Think about his use of the word "touch" in every instance. I think he means something beyond what a "smidgen" or "wee bit" might convey. There is a definite feel or "touch" to cueing the ball this way. You won't find that feeling in a physics book anywhere I know of.

As far as increasing the margin of error, I think we need to get our heads out of the geometry books and think about what happens to most folks when they try to hit a spherical object directly in the center. It's damn hard to determine exactly where that center is. But by always staying away from that side of the ball - but at the same time trying to get as close to center on the other side - we are less likely to strike the wrong side of the CB because we made that side and that side only "off limits" in our minds. And yes, with the same stroke I can where I want easier by visualizing the target zone on the CB that way. And I agree again, the CB is the target.


It's post-season baseball time, my favorite time of year. I was watching O'Day dominate my beloved Yankees in the extra innings and was struck with the similarities in aiming difficulties. Forget all the "sound mechanics" and physics that are supposedly taught to pitchers at an early age (did Cy Young have that, I wonder?) O'Day is a sidearm pitcher. Not too many out there, so the technique isn't taught in any proper sense. How does a sidearm pitcher aim? And how can he aim while he is putting all kinds of juice on that ball?

Smoltz was commenting about the "frisbees" that O'Day was throwing, each one climbing higher up the ladder and each one seeming to rise up during delivery... even though we all know that the ball is actually being pulled downward by gravity throughout its path to the plate. Yes, you can pull his pitches apart and eventually suss out all the laws of physics that are in place that allow his pitches to behave this way, but you'll never figure out what his arm, wrist, and fingers are doing to execute them to such perfection. That's because it's all in his mind. He has learned to will the ball to go there, that way, and his fingers have learned to obey his will. It is his personal "stroke", and he has refined it to a high degree that he makes the ball do what he wants it to do in his head.

It's all mental - baseball, golf, martial arts, music, even flipping an omelet in a pan. The minds leads, the body follows, the stroke delivers the cue where it needs to go on the CB at the speed it needs to go for the job. What could be simpler? Lol

Maybe CJ will think I'm completely out to lunch on all this, but it's been working for me, so I'm not going to keep overthinking it but just continue doing it. If nothing else, it is a potent visualization technique that allows me to focus better on the task at hand. Which is not to pocket the ball, but to deliver the best possible stroke. If I can learn to do that with great consistency, the balls will eventually find there way down the hole.

You understand because of your golf and martial arts background. It's a huge advantage in realizing how margin for error works to your advantage. 'The Game is the Teacher'

 

[ronscuba]

"Margin of error" is geometry - you can't change it by changing how you think about aiming.


Eliminating half the cue ball just means all your stroke errors will be hitting too much or too little of the other half - you'll miss your intended target by the same amounts in both directions.

The only way you can decrease the number of stroke errors you make is to improve your stroke. If this technique makes you pay closer attention to stroke accuracy then you'll miss less, but it won't be because you've "increased the margin of error" or magically eliminated half the errors with a Jedi mind trick.

pj
chgo

Not wanting to argue. Maybe margin of error is the wrong phrase.

What is the proper phrase describing the results of a technique that doesn't change the quality of stroke, but increases pocketing percentage with most if not all misses on the over cut side of the pocket ?