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

[Neil]

Yes, I did read over what you said about "hitting the center" being what I thought was tough....so let me address this point.

I have a proposition for you....you find any player you want and I'll shoot against him....we'll both put the cue ball in the center of the table (the closer to the end rail the more I think it favors me) and we'll both shoot down to the OTHER head end rail and make the cue ball come straight back to where it started with a firm "game like" speed....now YOU are going to bet that your player can make the cue ball come back straight every time and I am going to bet that I can make it come back slightly to the left or right of center (you can pick) .... each time he doesn't make it come back straight you owe me one BET....and each time I don't make it come back to the side you designate you win one BET.....and we'll see how long this lasts before you see what I'm referring to as far as "if it's easier to hit a hair off center in a consistent way OR is it easier to hit the exact center in a consistent way (AND NOT BE ABLE TO PREDICT WHICH WAY THE CUE BALL WILL DEFLECT)....this, if you think about it effects "margin for error" and how you can effectively play the pocket as a ZONE, not just an opening.

Over time this makes a big difference IF both players are playing on tough equipment with cloth that is NOT extremely fast and new. That's one of the reasons I don't think fast, new cloth conditions bring out the best play , because it minimizes off center hits on the cue ball......and this really DOES MATTER when it comes to determining who the best player is with all other things being equal.....I know it may appear I'm going out on a limb making these type statements, but don't hold it against me - THE GAME IS THE TEACHER

LOL at your gaff bet. You get half the cb to hit, and I get one spot.

I understand your premise, but I also believe it is flawed. Here's why...yes, you can acurrately predict which way the deflection is. However, you cannot get a consistent amount of deflection and squirt unless you hit the cb in the same spot everytime and at the same speed and distance everytime.

I think it is more of a mental thing that helps you in this regard than an actual physical thing. To show this, let's make your proposition a little fairer. Instead of you just having to go to the left or right each time, you have the same parameters as I do. That is, you have to hit the same spot on the second rail each time. Now, each shot, the other gets to say "soft, medium or fast" speed. Let's see just how accurate you really are using a little english vs. a no english shot.

Now, just to be clear, I am not advocating not using english in a game situation. You want to play as near center as possible, and at a uniform speed as much as possibloe, but english and speed will vary from shot to shot depending on the demands of the shot.

So, after my little "test" for you, which is actually more accurate?? While CIT does exist, I can't personally recall a single time over 35 years of playing that I have allowed for it and adjusted my aim accordingly.

Basically, while I might hit left or right and miss my target, you will consistently miss to the side you put english on. Either way, both still miss. So, it boils down to which way your mind is more at ease. Not really that one is better than the other. You can argue that you know which way you will deflect and squirt, but you can't control the amount any better than with no english. So, I don't see where it really helps other than mentally.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

CJ:
...each time he doesn't make it come back straight you owe me one BET....and each time I don't make it come back to the side you designate you win one BET

This is only a fair test if you have to hit a target as small as your opponent's. That's Neil's point and it has been mine too.

Being able to predict which side you'll miss on isn't the same as being less likely to miss.

pj
chgo

 

[CJ Wiley]

The Root of Consistency

LOL at your gaff bet. You get half the cb to hit, and I get one spot.

I understand your premise, but I also believe it is flawed. Here's why...yes, you can acurrately predict which way the deflection is. However, you cannot get a consistent amount of deflection and squirt unless you hit the cb in the same spot everytime and at the same speed and distance everytime.

I think it is more of a mental thing that helps you in this regard than an actual physical thing. To show this, let's make your proposition a little fairer. Instead of you just having to go to the left or right each time, you have the same parameters as I do. That is, you have to hit the same spot on the second rail each time. Now, each shot, the other gets to say "soft, medium or fast" speed. Let's see just how accurate you really are using a little english vs. a no english shot.

Now, just to be clear, I am not advocating not using english in a game situation. You want to play as near center as possible, and at a uniform speed as much as possibloe, but english and speed will vary from shot to shot depending on the demands of the shot.

So, after my little "test" for you, which is actually more accurate?? While CIT does exist, I can't personally recall a single time over 35 years of playing that I have allowed for it and adjusted my aim accordingly.

Basically, while I might hit left or right and miss my target, you will consistently miss to the side you put english on. Either way, both still miss. So, it boils down to which way your mind is more at ease. Not really that one is better than the other. You can argue that you know which way you will deflect and squirt, but you can't control the amount any better than with no english. So, I don't see where it really helps other than mentally.

Yes indeed, however, you may be missing something....I really DON'T have to hit the same part of the cue ball every time because the pocket is at least 80% bigger than the object ball and it will never deflect/squirt/veer more than the size of the pocket IF I AIM AT THE SHORT SIDE OF THE POCKET....and of course if I don't hit the ball extremely hard....on the other hand if someone tries to hit center ball and aim at the center of the opening (pocket) they effectively have approximetely 70% of the margin for error that I have created....the point of my first example wasn't the fact you pointed out of having half the cue ball to your player only having the center...my point is I will NEVER hit the other side of the cue ball and your player will....thus, there will be times your players cue ball will deflect in BOTH directions and mine will ALWAYS deflect in the same direction...this is a key component of consistency in ball pocketing at the Championship level.....at least from my experience

 

[CJ Wiley]

A "Fair Test"

This is only a fair test if you have to hit a target as small as your opponent's. That's Neil's point and it has been mine too.

Being able to predict which side you'll miss on isn't the same as being less likely to miss.

pj
chgo

Who said anything about "a fair test"....if players want to learn to make their pool game into a "fair test" they can find that information in many different places, posts and forums ... this information is not "fair" because it gives those that understand it an "unfair" advantage... this isn't something one can simply intellectualize....they will actually have to understand it ON THE POOL TABLE, not from their computer seat....I have a suspicion that is what some would like, however, that wouldn't be a "fair test" now would it? ...

 

[LAMas]

CJ,
By short side of the pocket, I presume that you are referring to the side closest to the OB.

Often, that is the side closet to the closest rail. On most tables, on can kiss the raill and make the shot. The tables here all have tight pockets and live rails and shots that normally would kiss and go in will not and rattle - adjustments must be made.

Thanks.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I really DON'T have to hit the same part of the cue ball every time because the pocket is at least 80% bigger than the object ball

This is true for centerball too.

CJ, I still don't see how hitting the CB offcenter reduces the effect of hitting it left or right of where you intend to hit it. The CB will go just as far offline either way - and if your margin of error is less than the pocket width, then that should also be the same either way.

I'm still listening, but not hearing the explanation yet.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Who said anything about "a fair test"

I assumed you proposed the test to fairly test the technique you're espousing.

pj
chgo

 

[peteypooldude]

I assumed you proposed the test to fairly test the technique you're espousing.

pj
chgo

PJ, If u don't agree just forget it. CJ is offering his experiences from a CHAMPIONS perspective . I for 1 would like to get deeper in it without your constant heckling. U don't care to understand u just choose to disagree. That is cool and you have a right to your opinion , but we have heard your opinion ..... Let it go so we can move on. You disagree... I got it

 

[CJ Wiley]

No magical download in sight?

This is true for centerball too.

CJ, I still don't see how hitting the CB offcenter reduces the effect of hitting it left or right of where you intend to hit it. The CB will go just as far offline either way - and if your margin of error is less than the pocket width, then that should also be the same either way.

I'm still listening, but not hearing the explanation yet.

pj
chgo

Hold on for a minute and I'll send the info telepathicallyoke:

 

[CJ Wiley]

No magical download in sight?

This is true for centerball too.

CJ, I still don't see how hitting the CB offcenter reduces the effect of hitting it left or right of where you intend to hit it. The CB will go just as far offline either way - and if your margin of error is less than the pocket width, then that should also be the same either way.

I'm still listening, but not hearing the explanation yet.

pj
chgo

You don't really think you can learn without doing....I can tell if you're applying this this on the table or just trying to pick holes in it by how you frame your responses..there's one question you should be asking already....so, with all due respect, if you're looking for me to magically explain it so you somehow get "enlightened" you probably already know too much ... you may need to empty your tea cup LoL :scratchhead:

 

[lfigueroa]

You don't really think you can learn without doing....I can tell if you're applying this this on the table or just trying to pick holes in it by how you frame your responses..there's one question you should be asking already....so, with all due respect, if you're looking for me to magically explain it so you somehow get "enlightened" you probably already know too much ... you may need to empty your tea cup LoL :scratchhead:

PJ and a couple of others are asking legitimate questions that deserve legitimate answers beyond, "Well, this is what I know from the "championship level,'" or some dismissive Zen mumbo jumbo.

From Mosconi to Sigel, *champions* have put out erroneous information. And, that is the beauty of these forums: you come here and your arguments stand or fall on their merits -- not because you've won the US Open or can run X number of balls.

Look, I like you being around here and offering your perspective as much as the next guy. But your arguments do not get a free pass "just because." I know you're a smart guy, so why not explain with logic and/or science what you mean, "with all due respect." And if you can't do that... you wouldn't be the first.

Lou Figueroa

 

[peteypooldude]

FTR CJ, your Championships and accomplishments r enough merit 4 me to go on. This is very typical of a few members of the forum. It's free advice. Take it or leave it. No one should demand you prove anything. It's a never ending back an forth with a few. Worst case we do have an ignore feature on the forums

 

[BeiberLvr]

PJ and a couple of others are asking legitimate questions that deserve legitimate answers beyond, "Well, this is what I know from the "championship level,'" or some dismissive Zen mumbo jumbo.

From Mosconi to Sigel, *champions* have put out erroneous information. And, that is the beauty of these forums: you come here and your arguments stand or fall on their merits -- not because you've won the US Open or can run X number of balls.

Look, I like you being around here and offering your perspective as much as the next guy. But your arguments do not get a free pass "just because." I know you're a smart guy, so why not explain with logic and/or science what you mean, "with all due respect." And if you can't do that... you wouldn't be the first.

Lou Figueroa

I'll only add this one little post because I don't want to interrupt the conversation/debate.

I've seen people shoot down some posts of others because they can't explain "scientifically" how something is done. That's how it is though. Almost all of your world class players probably won't meet the standards expected from the pool nerds (no offense) when it comes to explaining something.

 

[Mikjary]

Hold on for a minute and I'll send the info telepathicallyoke:

Got your message. :smile: This simple idea is like a primer for consistency. The idea of the bet is really a way of looking at hitting the largest available part of the pocket. We always think we're trying to do this when we aim. But we should be looking at our thinking process we use before we aim.

The idea is obvious about being able to hit one side of the cue ball consistently while hitting dead center is infinitely harder. That is the simple lesson. You will not be able to hit dead center on the cue ball every time. You will eventually hit a touch left or right of center.

Applying this way of thinking and accepting its possibility gives the subconscious mind another tool to employ in its calculations. So simple and obvious, yet possibly overlooked by most.

CJ, please tweak this post as needed. If you care to continue, I would be interested.

Best,
Mike

PS This is pretty deep stuff for a guy from Green City!

 

[cookie man]

Who said anything about "a fair test"....if players want to learn to make their pool game into a "fair test" they can find that information in many different places, posts and forums ... this information is not "fair" because it gives those that understand it an "unfair" advantage... this isn't something one can simply intellectualize....they will actually have to understand it ON THE POOL TABLE, not from their computer seat....I have a suspicion that is what some would like, however, that wouldn't be a "fair test" now would it? ...

I wasn't sure at first by i understand what CJ is saying now. Have to try it at a table first, but it does make sense.

 

[peteypooldude]

This kind of reminds me of the NASCAR commercial where Ryan Newman was trying to tell Jimmy Johnson what he was doing wrong. Jimmy replied ... Sorry I didnt here you my trophy was in the way lmao. Some may know the commercial and some prabably only watch modern marvels . Doubt they've seen it lol

 

[LAMas]

"...but probably know BETTER than to try to explain it in writing.....I'm just slow to learn how difficult it is to explain different perceptions in writing and look at it as a challenge Even in a personal lesson it takes a couple of hours to truly communicate ..."
CJ

Many here know what you are talking about, but the words get in the way. I hope that you continue to post and reply to honest questions.:smile::thumbup:


"If you stop learning, you might as well be dead".:frown:

 

[Razor]

PJ and a couple of others are asking legitimate questions that deserve legitimate answers beyond, "Well, this is what I know from the "championship level,'" or some dismissive Zen mumbo jumbo.

<snip some other meaningless mumbo jumbo>

Lou Figueroa

Well, Lou, that is where you are wrong. No one is deserved or owed anything. Get that mentality out of your head right now, open your mind (or empty your tea cup) and you might learn something about actually pocketing balls or performing at a "Championship" level.

Luckily, CJ has been willing (not obligated) to post here, and would much rather hear from CJ than you.

This also goes for one line questions to every post from pj in chgo. Anyone can write simplistic one line questions ad nauseam where you mainly parrot back part of the OP in a single sentence or two posed as a question ~ usually in the vein of a math question or in an exercise of a mental hand jerk.

You, and/or anyone else, may choose to skip his (or any) content. Again, if you are going to be condescending and disrespectful ~ SKIP THE THREAD and get out of the way.

I have not seen anything useful from you. Actually, I haven't seen anything from you regarding aiming other than dismissing others ideas with references to late night television infomercials and other condescending speak and something about hitting a million balls. Outside of aiming, you might provide a fairly well-written story about going two and out again at a "major" tournament. But admittedly, I don't have any reason to search your posts for a little gem I might file away for later use.

There are many lurkers like myself who are following along. Anyway, I believe everyone is capable and responsible for choosing what information is helpful, accurate, useful, etc. by giving it an honest shot; and from there distilling it down in a fashion that matches their experience and understanding and finally incorporating as appropriate.

Thanks for your understanding in this matter.

~Razor
"With All Due
Respect"

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You don't really think you can learn without doing...

You don't seem to think you can learn here (at least you haven't tried to respond to the points I and others have raised), so I guess we'll just call it even.

Nice to hear from you, whether we can learn from each other or not.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The idea is obvious about being able to hit one side of the cue ball consistently while hitting dead center is infinitely harder.

Sure, that's obvious. What isn't obvious is how it reduces the margin of error.

Since it's apparently crass to question an actual pro, maybe you'll take a stab at an explanation.

pj
chgo