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

[Slide Rule]

John McChesney was my original partner at Champs Billiards and did a lot of research on these subjects. We talked about several of them in the early morning hours over a few cups of coffee, and sooner or later we all draw the same conclusion. It's all in the matter that you individually process the information. It's neither a blessing or a curse, it's in the way that you use it.

When you look at things from a physical or physics perspective you may discover something that simplifies a prior process. That is something which can be briefly stated and thus recalled that replaces rote or even numerical methods. I call them first principles. And once they are seen, your game can accelerate to another level.

Having a scientific perspective can greatly assist. If your mind is commanded to pursue detail, you must leave it be during performance play.

 

[Jal]

Can you elaborate on the squirt thing, Jim?

pj
chgo

Patrick, I took some liberties with the term "squirt," using it to mean any sideways motion away from the direction of the long axis of the cue at the moment of impact. I think the following diagram will illustrate what I meant and why you get much more "squirt" (and in the opposite direction) when swiping across the ball close to center.



The cueball takes off in the direction of the applied force, which in the swiping case is more angled to the cue's long axis for the equivalent offset. (The offsets may not look exactly equal, but I tried ) Of course, it's the offset of the force (from centerball), not the axis of the cue or contact point, that produces the torque, and thus the same right english in both cases.

Edit: Altered the bottom figure in the diagram to show the direction of force parallel to the line from the pivot point through the center of the CB.

Jim

 

[Jal]

That's right, that's why David Copperfield was used as an example. We call it "slight of cue". The old timers call it "wrist rolling".

Mr. Wiley, my apology for the sarcastic remark earlier. Like Stan Shufflet, whom I strongly disagree with on the CTE stuff, you're a gentleman as well. It's just that whenever someone suggests that players can do things that defy logic/math/physics, I get upset. Again, sorry, and thanks for not responding in kind.

Jim

 

[Living Legend]

Mr. Wiley, my apology for the sarcastic remark earlier. Like Stan Shufflet, whom I strongly disagree with on the CTE stuff, you're a gentleman as well. It's just that whenever someone suggests that players can do things that defy logic/math/physics, I get upset. Again, sorry, and thanks for not responding in kind.

Jim

im curious as to what you strongly disagree with Stan about on cte stuff?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick, I took some liberties with the term "squirt," using it to mean any sideways motion away from the direction of the long axis of the cue at the moment of impact. I think the following diagram will illustrate what I meant and why you get much more "squirt" (and in the opposite direction) when swiping across the ball close to center.

Thanks for going to all the trouble to explain with a diagram and everything, Jim. You're saying exactly what I have always said about "swiping": that it's equivalent to hitting the CB from a slightly different angle with a straight stroke. Twisting the wrist during the stroke seems like another way of doing the same thing.

This is an example of how "science" (actually just paying attention to details) can help your game - if this technique can be duplicated with a straight stroke at a slightly different angle, maybe spending time learning a more difficult and less reliable "trick" can be avoided.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Thanks for going to all the trouble to explain with a diagram and everything, Jim. You're saying exactly what I have always said about "swiping": that it's equivalent to hitting the CB from a slightly different angle with a straight stroke. Twisting the wrist during the stroke seems like another way of doing the same thing.

This is an example of how "science" (actually just paying attention to details) can help your game - if this technique can be duplicated with a straight stroke at a slightly different angle, maybe spending time learning a more difficult and less reliable "trick" can be avoided.

pj
chgo

Maybe however the "trick" is easier than the conventional way.

Maybe perceptually adding a little flick accomplishes the goal more accurately. Since you have no sample to base your comment on and we have testimonial from a bonafide champion as to the effectiveness perhaps we can simply agree that there is merit in it.


www.jbcases.com

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...you have no sample to base your comment on

Neither do you or anybody else touting these trick strokes. Nobody has carefully compared their effectiveness with normal strokes. We can't even get a description of the kinds of shots they're good for - must be over our amateur heads.

But my opinion has one extra thing going for it: it stands to reason.

...we have testimonial from a bonafide champion as to the effectiveness

We have a claim that it does something that doesn't make sense (spins the CB with a centerball hit...?) - I guess that's a testimonial of some kind.

...perhaps we can simply agree that there is merit in it.

Maybe, if you or anybody can describe some "merit" that doesn't defy common sense and established fact.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

Question ?

Can a slightly elevated cue stick that is spinning in a clockwise direction as viewed from behind the stick, that strikes the cue ball directly on the vertical axis & somewhat below the horizonatal axis cause any spin on the cue ball other than in direct line with the stick? i.e. any 'side' spin?

Inquiring minds want to know.
RJ

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Can a slightly elevated cue stick that is spinning in a clockwise direction as viewed from behind the stick, that strikes the cue ball directly on the vertical axis & somewhat below the horizonatal axis cause any spin on the cue ball other than in direct line with the stick? i.e. any 'side' spin?

No. Not with any direction of spin or elevation of cue, above, below or on the equator. And the law of gravity is still in effect too.

By the way, how would it get spinning? Don't you mean twisting maybe a quarter turn at most?

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Neither do you or anybody else touting these trick strokes. Nobody has carefully compared their effectiveness with normal strokes. We can't even get a description of the kinds of shots they're good for - must be over our amateur heads.

But my opinion has one extra thing going for it: it stands to reason.


We have a claim that it does something that doesn't make sense (spins the CB with a centerball hit...?) - I guess that's a testimonial of some kind.


Maybe, if you or anybody can describe some "merit" that doesn't defy common sense and established fact.

pj
chgo

The merit would be that it's something done in high caliber competition by world class players, a standard of competition in which neither you, nor Dr. Dave, nor myself has any experience. Other than perhaps being rack boys for pros occasionally.

When it comes to lessons on how to walk through fire I prefer to listen to people who have walked through many times safely rather than someone who only can tell me the heat exchange ratio between skin and burning coals. The information science gives is 100% correct on the physics of fire/skin reaction. Despite that people have been walking through fire for thousands of years before high speed video cameras came along to film and attempt to explain why a person can walk through fire without being harmed.

The good thing is that you are free to make the comparison and show everyone your results. No one is saying that you can't or shouldn't do that. But sometimes it's just wise to listen to the guy who has the vast experience and suspend the analysis for a bit in order to at least absorb what the champion is trying to tell you.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JB Cases:
...sometimes it's just wise to listen to the guy who has the vast experience and suspend the analysis for a bit in order to at least absorb what the champion is trying to tell you.

Absolutely. So far I've absorbed the jargon. Be sure to let me know when the explanation starts.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Absolutely. So far I've absorbed the jargon. Be sure to let me know when the explanation starts.

pj
chgo

Cinch. There you go.

 

[ENGLISH!]

No. Not with any direction of spin or elevation of cue, above, below or on the equator. And the law of gravity is still in effect too.

By the way, how would it get spinning? Don't you mean twisting maybe a quarter turn at most?
pj
chgo

PJ,

Correct, twisting about a quarter turn. I tried it this afternoon as I never have in the past. You would have to use a high speed camera to show me that I'm hitting off center. In any case, it moves the ball about one(1) diamond going longways on the table from middle to middle & back a little over one diamond to the side. I was hitting above the horizontal axis so as to get the ball 'rolling' asap.

Are there any high speed vids on this?

Just wondering,
RJ

 

[Patrick Johnson]

RJ:
You'd have to use a high speed camera to show me that I'm hitting off center.

All you have to do is use a marked ball with the mark carefully centered (the number on an OB or the dot on the CB will do) and check the chalk mark afterwards.

By the way, how do you think it's possible to turn your hand inward or outward and not move it offline?

pj
chgo

 

[CJ Wiley]

The key to playing at a high level is simplicity.

Mr. Wiley, my apology for the sarcastic remark earlier. Like Stan Shufflet, whom I strongly disagree with on the CTE stuff, you're a gentleman as well. It's just that whenever someone suggests that players can do things that defy logic/math/physics, I get upset. Again, sorry, and thanks for not responding in kind.

Jim

Everything can be explained by math and physics of course...I'm not so sure about logic, sometimes, since we are only picking up a finite bit of information through our senses, what's logical to one may not be to another.

The key to playing at a high level is simplicity. Develop a shot that you like and use it every time. When you take the deflection, squirt, swerve, veer, and spin OUT of your Game it becomes much more effective. The less "Variatables" the Better is the rule.

Trying to play the Game and use those variatables randomly is the root of all pool suffering. Yet most players want to hold on to those things so tightly because they've bought into believing the Game is complicated, and if it was, complicated people would play better....but they don't.:wink:

 

[JB Cases]

All you have to do is use a marked ball with the mark carefully centered (the number on an OB or the dot on the CB will do) and check the chalk mark afterwards.

pj
chgo

Seems like a perfect spot to inject an ad:

The CuesSight training ball is the perfect ball to settle all your debates about pool. Simply use the graduated markings and target lines to orient your ball perfectly to the table bed and hit it with any technique you desire. Easy to see the spin and easy to check the exact position of the chalk mark after the shot.

 

[Living Legend]

Everything can be explained by math and physics of course...I'm not so sure about logic, sometimes, since we are only picking up a finite bit of information through our senses, what's logical to one may not be to another.

The key to playing at a high level is simplicity. Develop a shot that you like and use it every time. When you take the deflection, squirt, swerve, veer, spin OUT of your Game it becomes much more effective.

Trying to play the Game and use those thing randomly is the root of all pool suffering. Yet most players want to hold on to those things so tightly because they've bought into believing the Game is complicated, but if it was, then complicated people would play better....but they don't. :wink:

i really like that line!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JB Cases:
Seems like a perfect spot to inject an ad:

Well played.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

All you have to do is use a marked ball with the mark carefully centered (the number on an OB or the dot on the CB will do) and check the chalk mark afterwards.

By the way, how do you think it's possible to turn your hand inward or outward and not move it offline?
pj
chgo

Personally, I could not do it well turning counter CW, but clock wise my elbow seemed to come into my body. A counter action I would say.

RJ

 

[iusedtoberich]

Jonni Fulcher. won at least one Eurotour stop I believe.

Yes, that's him, thanks. Here is the article I remembered about him. A nicely written article, imo. The last section relates his theories on mixing brains with pool execution :

http://www.azbilliards.com/heyjoe/heyjoe7.php