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

[CJ Wiley]

Hitting the "MEAT" of the Pocket in Bowling/Pool

I appreciate the response but I'm still not sure what you're saying. In the first part of the above statement, you use the terms "off center" and "throw" and "deflection" and it's not clear (to me) what variable/error you're potentially compensating for.

Say you're cutting a ball to the left. Which side of the pocket do you aim at (bias the pocket), and do you use a touch of inside (left) or outside (right) english? Are you doing this to compensate for possible variations/estimation errors for throw (ball-ball friction), or squirt (I think this is what you mean by "deflection" but I'm not sure), or swerve (i.e., the curved path of the cueball), or a combination of some or all of the above?

Or, is the biasing there because the cue's alignment might be unintentionally parallel shifted off of centerball (i.e., you may have its direction right but could be inadvertently applying english), or the cue's direction may be off as well due to a stroking glitch (i.e., swoop)?

That's a mouthful of questions (sorry). I'm asking because I was gearing up to do some graphs of the cueball's path (intended and unintended) to see if the biasing you're describing does help, but then realized the plethora of possibilities outlined above. Any further clarification would be welcomed.

....I see I'm essentially repeating Dave's request above.

Jim

You virtually always aim at the side of the pocket closest to the object ball.....maybe I should use a bowling analogy next :thumbup: ...they talk about a "pocket" in bowling and you will see EVERY pro curve the ball towards that pocket...starting it on one side and curving it towards the "meat" of the pocket.....just like in pool, if they try to throw the bowling ball directly at the meat of their pocket they chance missing it on either side...they, like I, don't want to do that because it DOES NOT give us the Zone we're looking for.....however, amateurs at both games try to do the straight/center shot .... and the results are obvious [/

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Ok guys, here's how we're going to do this.
I'm not going to chase all over the place and imply warnings and scold adults for being boorish.
I'm going to ban people, if not permanently..then for a long, long time.

If you happen upon an aimng thread and you are prone to argument..cte sucks..etc..etc..etc... you'll be escorted to the door promptly.

If you are to participate in the discussion whether pro or con, you'd better be on topic and adding to the conversation and not just taking pot shots.

You don't like instructors?? So what. Keep it to yourself. Don't like CTE? Start your own thread and stay on topic there. People had better get inline with the program and start playing nice. Add something constructive. If you think saying something negative is going to win you friends...beware.

If you find yourself ready to go on tilt, beware. There will be no further warning.

 

[CJ Wiley]

A GOOD Excuse

Glad to see you are back. The natives were getting restless.

I had a good excuse

 

[Living Legend]

You virtually always aim at the side of the pocket closest to the object ball.....maybe I should use a bowling analogy next :thumbup: ...they talk about a "pocket" in bowling and you will see EVERY pro curve the ball towards that pocket...starting it on one side and curving it towards the "meat" of the pocket.....just like in pool, if they try to throw the bowling ball directly at the meat of their pocket they chance missing it on either side...they, like I, don't want to do that because it DOES NOT give us the Zone we're looking for.....however, amateurs at both games try to do the straight/center shot .... and the results are obvious [/

Hey cj, I was told you and among others were part of group that buddy hall I guess lead and he shared a lot of pool knowledge with guys including aiming, I was wondering if there was any truth to this?

 

[justadub]

Ok guys, here's how we're going to do this.
I'm not going to chase all over the place and imply warnings and scold adults for being boorish.
I'm going to ban people, if not permanently..then for a long, long time.

If you happen upon an aimng thread and you are prone to argument..cte sucks..etc..etc..etc... you'll be escorted to the door promptly.

If you are to participate in the discussion whether pro or con, you'd better be on topic and adding to the conversation and not just taking pot shots.

You don't like instructors?? So what. Keep it to yourself. Don't like CTE? Start your own thread and stay on topic there. People had better get inline with the program and start playing nice. Add something constructive. If you think saying something negative is going to win you friends...beware.

If you find yourself ready to go on tilt, beware. There will be no further warning.

Thank you.

 

[Roger Long]

So glad to see you back here again, CJ. I'm looking forward to more of your great advice.

Roger

 

[CJ Wiley]

Learning from the BEST

Hey cj, I was told you and among others were part of group that buddy hall I guess lead and he shared a lot of pool knowledge with guys including aiming, I was wondering if there was any truth to this?

I used to practice with Buddy in Tampa and he was always helpful....at times I would try to imitate his stroke/grip/tempo and found out that it worked really well for Buddy and really poorly for me....that's the issue, even though we all have common denominators in our games, we still have to find a way to do it our own way.
Buddy has shown me things that don't work for me, but work for other people and I've learned the same type things from Omaha John, Mike Lebron, Efren, Hopkins, David Howard, Earl Strickland, Jr. Weldon, Jersey Red, Eddie Taylor, Big John, Doug Smith, etc... you pay attention around guys like this you'll often pick up key bits of wisdom, especially if you know how to elicit it. Sometimes you can use it directly, and other times you have to tweak it a bit to conform to your own personal style

 

[lfigueroa]

I used to practice with Buddy in Tampa and he was always helpful....at times I would try to imitate his stroke/grip/tempo and found out that it worked really well for Buddy and really poorly for me....that's the issue, even though we all have common denominators in our games, we still have to find a way to do it our own way.
Buddy has shown me things that don't work for me, but work for other people and I've learned the same type things from Omaha John, Mike Lebron, Efren, Hopkins, David Howard, Earl Strickland, Jr. Weldon, Jersey Red, Eddie Taylor, Big John, Doug Smith, etc... you pay attention around guys like this you'll often pick up key bits of wisdom, especially if you know how to elicit it. Sometimes you can use it directly, and other times you have to tweak it a bit to conform to your own personal style

Over the years I've often said something similar: we all have our own personal reality when it comes to pool. What works for one may not work for another. We see the balls differently and our mechanics are all unique. You use what you can, discard the rest and move on.

Lou Figueroa

 

[CJ Wiley]

The Paradox of Pool

Over the years I've often said something similar: we all have our own personal reality when it comes to pool. What works for one may not work for another. We see the balls differently and our mechanics are all unique. You use what you can, discard the rest and move on.

Lou Figueroa

Yes indeed....learning is certainly more of a journey than a destination....and just like travel broadens our horizons, so does understanding how others experience their personal reality, especially at the highest level...and ultimately, we that strive to discover the perfection in the game of pool realize that to achieve this we can not express ourselves through the game, the game {paradoxically} must express its self though us..... and this, in appearance is as unique as a fingerprint.

 

[One Pocket John]

Yes indeed....learning is certainly more of a journey than a destination....and just like travel broadens our horizons, so does understanding how others experience their personal reality, especially at the highest level...and ultimately, we that strive to discover the perfection in the game of pool realize that to achieve this we can not express ourselves through the game, the game {paradoxically} must express its self though us..... and this, in appearance is as unique as a fingerprint.

This is some heavy stuff CJ.

This puts a new light on things. :smile:

Thanks

John

 

[Jal]

You virtually always aim at the side of the pocket closest to the object ball.....maybe I should use a bowling analogy next :thumbup: ...they talk about a "pocket" in bowling and you will see EVERY pro curve the ball towards that pocket...starting it on one side and curving it towards the "meat" of the pocket.....just like in pool, if they try to throw the bowling ball directly at the meat of their pocket they chance missing it on either side...they, like I, don't want to do that because it DOES NOT give us the Zone we're looking for.....however, amateurs at both games try to do the straight/center shot .... and the results are obvious [/

Thanks for the reply and good to have you back.

I can see aiming toward the inside side of the pocket in anticipation of throw, which is highly variable and depends on a number of things, and assuming that you haven't already subconsciously adjusted for it. My impression is that you're referring to a more general principal, but I'm not sure.

If a square hit on the 1-pin yielded the most/best pin action, I think you'd see bowlers striving for a straight path down the center of the lane, unless, of course, the design of the balls and normal release mechanics prevented that. And I don't think drawing or fading a golf ball confers any advantage unless the fairway, green and hazards call for it on a particular shot. A controlled draw and fade are, according to what I've read, among the harder skills to acquire.

Any further explanation would be appreciated.

Jim ...I'm always interested in the ideas of someone that can massacre me

 

[lfigueroa]

Yes indeed....learning is certainly more of a journey than a destination....and just like travel broadens our horizons, so does understanding how others experience their personal reality, especially at the highest level...and ultimately, we that strive to discover the perfection in the game of pool realize that to achieve this we can not express ourselves through the game, the game {paradoxically} must express its self though us..... and this, in appearance is as unique as a fingerprint.

hmmmm, I don't think I've ever said anything like that... but I wish I had.

Lou Figueroa

 

[SpiderWebComm]

And I don't think drawing or fading a golf ball confers any advantage unless the fairway, green and hazards call for it on a particular shot. A controlled draw and fade are, according to what I've read, among the harder skills to acquire.

Any further explanation would be appreciated.

Jim ...I'm always interested in the ideas of someone that can massacre me

Jim -- I'm guessing you don't play a lot of golf. If you go to any driving range throughout the country, you'll see the same thing at all of them>> Amateurs hitting big banana balls with either slices to the right or hooks to the left and they keep repeating it over and over like a plague. Learning to hit a straight ball is the hardest skill to acquire and many of them can't ever achieve doing it. This is a case in point where hitting a million balls gets you nowhere other than to solidify a swing that gets a banana ball really grooved.

At a professional level a PGA pro once told me the hardest shot to hit under huge pressure when your knees are knocking, your entire body feels like jelly and your hand is trembling so badly you can't even tee the ball up without it falling off, is to hit a straight ball. It's obvious from watching it on TV when pros in big tournaments start hitting it sideways into the rough, trees, water, or sand traps. He said the tempo tends to speed up, the muscles are so tight it's almost impossible to have enough flexibility to complete the swing, and the timing to hit it where you want goes out the window and a bad shot is the result. He said it's best to go with the flow and realize what those tendencies are and intentionally hit a "controlled" bad shot either to the right or left and play for it. Then you have the entire fairway to work with on one side or another instead of 1/2 of a fairway by trying to hit a straight ball and it moves too far into trouble.

Three of the greatest professionals ever in golf found that it was easier to move the ball from left to right under pressure and eliminate one side of the course entirely which would be the left side. Jack Nicklaus, Ben Hogan, and Lee Trevino all played a fade for control and developed fail safe methods in their setup and swing which did NOT allow the ball to go to the left. They aimed at the very left side of the fairway knowing it couldn't possibly go left. Therefore if they hit it straight the ball would end up on the left side where they aimed it, or if they hit a slight fade which they were attempting it would end up in the center of the fairway, or if it got away from them and sliced a little it would still end up on the right side of the fairway instead of the rough.

Hope that makes sense to you but that's the way they described it.

That's why I'm fascinating w/ CJ's approach to this and want to learn more about his thought process and how he applies that golf philosophy to pool.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I just read a limited number of posts in this thread, as I generally don't get too involved in the aiming threads. But reading just a few of CJ's posts has me very interested. I'm going to read the whole thing in the next week or two, to put his posts into context.

Thank you CJ for sharing your professional viewpoints on the game.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

[snip golf shot analogy]

This only makes a difference if the on-purpose slice reduces the total "range of potential error". For instance, if a straight shot attempt might go 10 degrees left or 10 degrees right, and an on-purpose slice attempt might go zero degrees left but 20 degrees right, than you haven't gained anything.

I don't know about golf (a flying golfball's aerodynamics are different from a rolling cue ball's physics), but in pool there's no gain in the tradeoff for the reason I described above: the total "range of potential error" is the same whether you're trying to hit centerball or trying to hit a little offcenter.

If you try to hit centerball and your imperfect stroke sometimes makes you miss the pocket by 2 inches to the left or 2 inches to the right, then if you try to aim to one side and hit offcenter, your imperfect stroke will sometimes make you miss 2 inches to the right or 4 inches to the right - you'll have the same number of misses either way.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

This only makes a difference if the on-purpose slice reduces the total "range of potential error". For instance, if a straight shot attempt might go 10 degrees left or 10 degrees right, and an on-purpose slice attempt might go zero degrees left but 20 degrees right, than you haven't gained anything.

I don't know about golf (a flying golfball's aerodynamics are different from a rolling cue ball's physics), but in pool there's no gain in the tradeoff for the reason I described above: the total "range of potential error" is the same whether you're trying to hit centerball or trying to hit a little offcenter.

If you try to hit centerball and your imperfect stroke sometimes makes you miss the pocket by 2 inches to the left or 2 inches to the right, then if you try to aim to one side and hit offcenter, your imperfect stroke will sometimes make you miss 2 inches to the right or 4 inches to the right - you'll have the same number of misses either way.

pj
chgo

I'm guessing a huge (if not all) players on earth have an imperfect stroke - it's just the degree of which that's in question. I'd also guess those imperfections are likely to one side or the other, not both (a hitch or slight curve). I know my stroke goes left 100% of the time, slightly.

I guess you're right in a theoretical sense, but in the real world nobody's cue goes back and forth 100% laser straight. Maybe that's what CJ is alluding to and why I'm interested in learning more.

 

[iusedtoberich]

This only makes a difference if the on-purpose slice reduces the total "range of potential error". For instance, if a straight shot attempt might go 10 degrees left or 10 degrees right, and an on-purpose slice attempt might go zero degrees left but 20 degrees right, than you haven't gained anything.

I don't know about golf (a flying golfball's aerodynamics are different from a rolling cue ball's physics), but in pool there's no gain in the tradeoff for the reason I described above: the total "range of potential error" is the same whether you're trying to hit centerball or trying to hit a little offcenter.

If you try to hit centerball and your imperfect stroke sometimes makes you miss the pocket by 2 inches to the left or 2 inches to the right, then if you try to aim to one side and hit offcenter, your imperfect stroke will sometimes make you miss 2 inches to the right or 4 inches to the right - you'll have the same number of misses either way.

pj
chgo

PJ, I just read a couple posts here, so this might have already been stated. What you say is indeed true if the probability of a stroking error on either side is the same. However, I believe what CJ is saying, is the probability of an error on one side of the shot is much less than the other. THerefore he favors one side over the other.

So the crux of the discussion IMO is why would the error potentially be less on one side than another. Forgive me if this has already been addressed.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Also, I believe, but am not certain, that CJ was not referring to stroking errors causing a bias of one side, but ball interaction phenomenon causing a bias. Whatever he was referring to, I think you can extend this concept to many parts of one's own game.

For example, I routinely hit balls too thick when they are near a rail, but almost never too thin. I don't know the cause. Maybe I'm seeing the pocket wrong, or my eyes play tricks on me, or my stroke veers off, or throw is more prevalent than I realize. But whatever the case, with this knowledge of usually making an error to the thick side, I could probably be much more successful in cutting balls near the rail, if I just aim for a thinner hit than I do now.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

PJ, I just read a couple posts here, so this might have already been stated. What you say is indeed true if the probability of a stroking error on either side is the same. However, I believe what CJ is saying, is the probability of an error on one side of the shot is much less than the other. THerefore he favors one side over the other.

So the crux of the discussion IMO is why would the error potentially be less on one side than another. Forgive me if this has already been addressed.

Agreed- that's pretty much what I said. I think PJ is prob right for a total hack player who is all over the place. However, for a seasoned player of any real level, their stroke is grooved a certain way and favors a certain side for sure.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I believe what CJ is saying, is the probability of an error on one side of the shot is much less than the other. Therefore he favors one side over the other.

If he's saying his stroke tends to be off more often in one direction than the other, the same principle applies. It's not the probable direction of error that matters, but the total magnitude of probable error.

In other words, if your stroke's "hit pattern" on the CB is 1/4 inch wide, it doesn't matter if that hit pattern is centered on the CB's middle or 1/8 inch to the side - the width of the range of potential CB paths (and therefore the number of probable misses) is the same. Aiming another 1/8 inch to that side doesn't change that basic fact.

pj
chgo