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

[sfleinen]

Well now, set up this little shot below and let me know how you do. Its the 10 ball in the side pocket and yes I made this shot on the first try. This is one pic of a few shots I took yesterday while I practice 14.1 for 4.5 hours. I made it and continued the run from there. 14.1 will stress test any aiming system.

It is just amazing how few real world shots are really discussed when talking about the application of systems.

Greg:

Stop being an extremist. P-u-h l-e-e-z-e.

This is a discussion board. What these folks are *discussing*, is the use of this system for "typical" shots -- like one runs into for short-rack rotation games.

You were on a 3-cushion tear there for a little while. And now you're suddenly a 14.1 advocate? But, come to think of it, at least you are "making your rounds," experiencing the many games/disciplines, so I offer a tip of the hat to you in that regard.

If you truly are a 14.1 advocate, you should know (or begin to find out) that 14.1 and One Pocket are games that many times offer close-in / in-the-pack shots where one has to modify his/her technique to avoid fouling. And that shot you picture is precisely that -- one has to modify his/her "normal technique" (remember, that's what we're discussing here, not special case shots) to make that shot without fouling. So be careful with offering 14.1 or one pocket shots as "proof" that a particular aiming technique we're talking about here is "invalid."

The game of pool is all about ADAPTATION, among other things. What you're proposing, Greg, is an "all or nothing" approach, which, hopefully, you'll soon learn doesn't work. Your QA Tester experience is getting in the way of your success at this game.

-Sean

 

[swest]

This entire train of thought (about hitting off-center to the inside) seems to be based on the premise that hitting center ball perfectly (or at least perfectly enough :smile is so difficult that it is not even worth pursuing as a goal.

I dispute that premise, and I think most snooker players (of which I am not one, alas) would likewise dispute.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I don't use "sidespin"...maybe if you see it happen...check this match out with Steve Mizerak, I was doing it virtually every shot in this match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeDEFlnguDY&feature=youtu.be

A Masterpiece! Two phenomenal Cueists. Bill Incardona comments on Mr. Wiley's playing midway thru the match, "a notch a above world class". The Miz was 1/2 notch above. The Zone? Dead stroke? Certainly, Top Notch!

Thanks for putting that up Mr. Wiley. On that day, you surely did not inhibit the Artist's stroke.

PS Where is this type of playing today? I would love to see Mr. Wiley & Mr. Strickland in a TAR type 'challenge' match. It might only take 15 minutes.

PSS Mr. Wiley's presence on AZB is an invaluable asset. I hope he stays involved here for as long as he can. I hope he does not become intolerant of us, ametuers AND professionals alike.

 

[swest]

Also, I'm curious that no one appears to have challenged the idea that somehow you can hit the cue ball off-center and not induce sidespin... ?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If you touch the "teat", with "helping" inside english should increase your percentage of pots.

Except you've decreased your percentage by using side.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Also, I'm curious that no one appears to have challenged the idea that somehow you can hit the cue ball off-center and not induce sidespin... ?

It's been mentioned, but CJ seems to be saying that any sidespin is inconsequential and not part of the reason for the technique.

pj
chgo

 

[swest]

It's been mentioned, but CJ seems to be saying that any sidespin is inconsequential and not part of the reason for the technique.

pj
chgo

Yes, but even a small amount of sidespin adds another variable to the throw equation that gets left out of the discussion...

 

[sfleinen]

This entire train of thought (about hitting off-center to the inside) seems to be based on the premise that hitting center ball perfectly (or at least perfectly enough :smile is so difficult that it is not even worth pursuing as a goal.

I dispute that premise, and I think most snooker players (of which I am not one, alas) would likewise dispute.

I play snooker, swest. And yes, I'm an advocate of cueing (and hitting) center ball *at will*.

I played with CJ's technique last night while I was waiting for my Monday-night one pocket combatant to show up. I was able to make various shots, from various angles, and I was intrigued.

However, I did find one catch with CJ's system -- and that is this: your "margin of error" is placed entirely on one side of the ball. That is, your margin of error is 100% on one side of the object ball / pocket. So you aim at the "near teat" of the pocket, and the margin of error is the width of the rest of the pocket. If your initial aim is off a bit to the opposite side of the teat (i.e. the rail), you end up either "teating" the pocket (thus hanging up the ball), or hitting that rail -- both of which, on the tables I play on (tight Diamonds and shimmed Gold Crowns) will result in a hung-up ball or a miss.

Additionally, this technique is VULNERABLE to the slip and slide of the cloth, and unless you have that "down," you can be vulnerable to one portion of the cloth causing the cue ball to deflect / slide a bit less than expected, causing you to hit the ball fuller than expected, "teating" the pocket.

Now, in the game of one pocket, this is not as big a deal as in other games, because that hung-up ball is now a "threat ball" to your opponent. But in other games -- 14.1 and rotation games -- that hung-up ball would be disastrous.

Coming from the snooker circles myself, I was always taught to make the center of the pocket my focal target. Snooker aside, in pool you have, depending on the size of the particular table's pockets, up to 50% of the object ball's width as margin of error on both sides.

Still, CJ's technique is intriguing, and being a student of this wonderful game, I'm going to continue to work with it as practice time permits. It indeed compares favorably to an analogy CJ was mentioning -- of "fading" in golf, and I think there's something to that...

-Sean

 

[oscar]

CJ i totally get it

its not hard to understand at all i just never thought of it. it gives you a lot bigger pocket you have to no your speed your cue your table cloth ect just like you do when playing the game anyway and its just a touch off center unless you need to do more with the cb to get postition. i used it last night and won a lot of matches thanks again hope to get lesson in the near future thanks again

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Yes, but even a small amount of sidespin adds another variable to the throw equation that gets left out of the discussion...

I actually added a comment to that effect in my post, but it somehow didn't get posted...?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I did find one catch with CJ's system -- and that is this: your "margin of error" is placed entirely on one side of the ball.

Not really. Hitting intentionally offcenter on the CB adds squirt, which CJ says is intended to send the OB to the center of the pocket. So you're not really aiming at the teat; you're aiming at center pocket as usual, just with some side added (which forces you to adjust your aim toward the teat to compensate for the squirt, as usual).

It indeed compares favorably to an analogy CJ was mentioning -- of "fading" in golf, and I think there's something to that...

I think that's apples and oranges.

pj
chgo

 

[Neil]

Well now, set up this little shot below and let me know how you do. Its the 10 ball in the side pocket and yes I made this shot on the first try. This is one pic of a few shots I took yesterday while I practice 14.1 for 4.5 hours. I made it and continued the run from there. 14.1 will stress test any aiming system.

It is just amazing how few real world shots are really discussed when talking about the application of systems.

That shot, just a hair off straight in, is childs play with several systems. You say you made it on the first try. Sorry Greg, but if you can't make that shot on the first try, or even think it is a tough shot, maybe you should start looking at some other aiming systems. The only thing tricky about it is to not foul. And, I would like to see you shoot this shot without fouling and still follow the cb for your next shot.

 

[ENGLISH!]

PJ:

Actually, that's the cool thing about this...the magnitude isn't as important, as long as it's all in the direction you want. You aim at the teat on the near side of the pocket, put maybe half tip of inside on the cueball...it pushes (squirts) the cue ball thinner than the aim point, which sends the object ball clearing the teat you were aiming at. From there, you've got the whole pocket for the variance of the track...which varies depending on the velocity and if you hit the cue ball with more inside than you wanted, etc. It's A LOT of variance doing it this way.

I have hit many, many shots as Mr. Wiley has premised & it works very well. I have just never considered it as a 'normal' shooting style. After watching the CJ / Miz match, I will consider it as such. It simplifies the 'thought' proceess & promotes confidence.

I may have a little trouble adapting to it as I have always used both sides of the ball for pocketing & position. I will have to refine my speed control a bit more for the different angles I think, for it to be as successful for me. But it is surely a viable style of shooting even if we have not yet defined any pure physics advantages to it. Believe it or not there is more to shooting good pool other then knowing the physics. I mentioned two(2) of them earlier. Just MHO.

 

[LAMas]

Except you've decreased your percentage by using side.

pj
chgo

Side? Please define.

 

[swest]

.
.
.
It indeed compares favorably to an analogy CJ was mentioning -- of "fading" in golf, and I think there's something to that...

-Sean

Agreed. And in golf, like in pool, I played that way (to account for deficiencies in my game) for most of my life. But eventually, I figured that if I were to progress, then I would have to pay the price and practice to convert that fade into a straight shot (or into the elusive slight draw on tee-shots with the driver).

Likewise, I seek to free myself from that automatic off-center strike and get to a pure stroke that only adds the off-center hit when needed.

 

[swest]

.
.
.
I think that's apples and oranges.

pj
chgo

For me the comparison is valid in the sense that both techniques are used to account for a deficiency.

 

[sfleinen]

That shot, just a hair off straight in, is childs play with several systems. You say you made it on the first try. Sorry Greg, but if you can't make that shot on the first try, or even think it is a tough shot, maybe you should start looking at some other aiming systems. The only thing tricky about it is to not foul. And, I would like to see you shoot this shot without fouling and still follow the cb for your next shot.

Agreed. That's a standard "nip top" stroke to get on the four balls above the rack. It's just a basic closing of the grip hand to get that nip/top on the ball. Or, one of my favorites, is to jack up a bit, and get a glancing draw into the 1-ball, which kicks out the 12-ball underneath it for either a shot at it in the lower-left corner pocket, or the 7/14 ball up table (those are your "insurance" balls).

Either way, the trick with this shot is NOT the aiming system -- as much as duckie likes to try to spin it -- but in your technique.

-Sean

 

[sfleinen]

Agreed. And in golf, like in pool, I played that way (to account for deficiencies in my game) for most of my life. But eventually, I figured that if I were to progress, then I would have to pay the price and practice to convert that fade into a straight shot (or into the elusive slight draw on tee-shots with the driver).

Likewise, I seek to free myself from that automatic off-center strike and get to a pure stroke that only adds the off-center hit when needed.

We're on the same page, swest. I'm always in the pursuit of center-axis cueing, and, in fact, one of my favorite practice shots is to freeze the cue ball to the short rail, about half a diamond from one of the corner pockets, and then place the object ball near the center spot on the table, but lined up where it's a straight-in shot to the opposite corner pocket (cater-corner, so-to-speak). Then, cue-up and sink that object ball at varying speeds. The toughest speeds are very low (lag) speeds, because any hitches in your stroke come out in all their glory, and are not "greased over" by speed.

I'm interested in CJ's technique not because I'm "trying to get away from the center-axis pursuit," but rather because I'm always interested in "adding to my bag o' tricks."

-Sean

 

[ENGLISH!]

vernacular

Hi Sean,

You call them your bag of tricks. I call them tools in my tool box. You say tomato...I say how did you make out in your weekly 1-pocket match?

 

[sfleinen]

Hi Sean,

You call them your bag of tricks. I call them tools in my tool box. You say tomato...I say how did you make out in your weekly 1-pocket match?

I killed, buddy. 5 - 1 in the first set; 5 - 0 second set. But to be fair (and I always try to be fair), my combatant was off last night, and he kept leaving me windows at a ball (or a safe/free bank to my hole), or got unlucky in that he left wired-balls in the pack when he played safe. I focus on my success, though, and my measure of this is how well I was able to leverage the opportunities given me. I felt pretty good about my performance last night -- 4 "8 and outs" in total.

It was indeed a good night.
-Sean