TOI: Why it can work, by Neil

N

Neil

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This is a quote from CJ- I know it's challenging, especially if you've always played by trying to hit the cue ball into the object ball's "contact point" (ghost ball) and make the shot.....you have to change that way of thinking.

Pool at the highest level is about creating angles, not pocket balls. When I'm training someone to use TOI, the first thing I usually have to do is take the pocket OUT of the equation. Sometimes I have to take the object ball out of the equation too.

It's about the Cue Ball, that's your target and that's the only thing you physically touch. Sounds simple, yet very few really understand how the TOI Technique is utilized to create a situation that you can make any shot by aligning Center to Center (cue ball to object ball) or Center to Edge on every shot, no matter what the angle is.

Sounds SO easy, yet there's players that will argue to the bitter end that it doesn't work. Yet I can beat the ghost and run 29 balls in one pocket using AND explaining the system as I play. Doing it is pretty tough, let's see anyone else in the world describe, in detail, how they're doing it as they play.

They may be able to describe what they're doing, but I'm explaining HOW I'm DOING IT.....that's "the difference that makes the difference," and I'm glad it go the light to go fully on, Mike.....I knew you were getting close, sometimes it help to actually see it being done, and that's what I was doing for those that "have pool eyes that can see and pool ears that can hear"....'The Game is the Teacher'

There is a lot of truth in that post, but yet, things missing. If the mods don't ban me for mentioning TOI, but read on, I think they will be pleasantly surprised by my take on it.

This will be quite long, probably several posts, so if you are of the short attention span type, don't bother reading it. If you want to learn how to make TOI work for you, read on....

First, one has to ask, what is TOI? According to CJ, it is a "system" of play, not an aiming system. Altogether, I agree. However, part of it is an aiming system, which I will go into further later, and as a whole it is a style of play. Does it have any merit? Yes! I have always said that, despite what some of you want to read into what I have actually said on here.

Just like CJ says that you have to forget what you think you know, and try something new, some of you have to learn to read and work on your reading comprehension so you know what is actually being said, instead of just what you think is being said. Now, if that offends you as a reader of this, then it probably applies to you, sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts. Read with an open mind to what is said, not just who says it, and you just might learn something here.

CJ has said himself that he has had a large learning curve in learning how to write out what he is thinking. That is true. Same as it has been for all of us on here. Where he and I had our "big problems" was mainly at the beginning when he had a lot of trouble explaining things correctly and got called on it. Through his thousands of posts on the subject, and actually reading what he is saying, and getting better at writing what he is saying, he has finally gotten across what he is trying to say to those that are able to truly comprehend what his system is. And, the system has a lot of merit. I know that goes against what I have said in the past, or at least seems to. It really doesn't. The system has merit, the way it has been described various times doesn't necessarily have any merit.

What actually is the TOI part of the TOI system? According to CJ, it is aligning to either center to center, or center to edge (depending on the cut angles) and then using a touch (not tip) of inside english to pocket the ball. Several have asked how this correlates to CTE PRO 1. And, have been told that it does't because CTEPro 1 uses to lines, and CJ uses 1 line.

Go on to next post...
 
Here, a little background is in order.. a while back, quite a while back, there was a "pool genius" that studied the top players to see what they were doing that others weren't doing. He picked up on a number of things that the pros were consistently doing, whether they realized it or not. From that, he went on to dissect those things, and come up with a way to play the game that was much easier. He told parts of the whole story to some, paragraphs to others, and only sentences to yet others. Another "pool genius", who listened to chapters of the story, went on to dissect it even further and came up with a system of aiming that was called CTE, and then perfected it even further to a system called CTE Pro 1. The first guy is Hal Houle, the wrote the story, and the second guy is Stan Shuffet, that refined it and came up with an accurate system of play.

Well, there was a third "pool genius", he did the same thing Hal Houle did, he studied the pros, and came up with what they had in common, and devised a way of play from what the pros were doing. His name is Ron Vitello, and he came up with the aiming system known as 90/90. Another very viable, easy once learned, way of aiming that works extremely well when one learns to "real eyes" it.

Now, how does this tie in with TOI? TOI is actually the "crude" version of 90/90! I say "crude", not as demeaning in any way, but as "not complete".

What CJ has accomplished, and I give him a lot of credit for accomplishing it, was to realize that doing certain things the same way everytime worked, and there was no longer any need to "aim" the conventional way. Without realizing it, CJ had something going for him that few have...that one word would be "consistency". And, by consistency, I mean extreme consistency. Because of that, he was able to refine the system to HIMSELF and make it work perfectly for HIM. Where he went off the tracks was in trying to describe what he thought he was doing, and not realizing certain things about what he was actually doing.

I'm rather surprised that others on here that are familiar with 90/90 never made the connection to TOI. In TOI, you align cte or ctc and a little to the inside of the shot. In 90/90, you align a little inside the edge to center, or a little inside the edge to a little inside the edge, then pivot to center. They are the exact same thing, except Ron says to use a pivot, and CJ says there is no pivot. Ring any bells yet guys? What is manual CTE to CTE pro 1? One uses a manual pivot to actually learn the system, and the other uses no pivot to actually play with the system. Same thing here, Ron Vitellos version of 90/90 teaches the mechanical way to aim, so one can actually learn the aiming system. CJ stumbled across it himself using the (to use a term that is understood and coined by Stan) Pro 1 version of 90/90.

The basics of 90/90 work, the manual version. I evolved from the manual version to the pro 1 version (meaning no mechanical pivot) myself, and therefore know the actual basics behind it. Whereas CJ never knew the mechanical portion of it, and tried to work backwards to explain what he was actually doing so as to describe it. He went off track in a few key areas. The main one being the "inside english". What CJ doesn't realize, is that it is not the inside english that makes the shot, it is the inside english that actually gives him the correct "air pivot" that aligns him properly to the shot.

Where the "power" of TOI, 90/90, and CTE/Pro1 lies, is in the alignment. Are they actually aiming systems or alignment systems? Both are true. They properly consistently align you to the proper shot line to make the shot. CJ has repeatedly said he doesn't aim. From one perspective, he is perfectly correct. To view this in a clearer way, just watch Stan's you-tube clips of him pocketing balls with a curtain across the table. Is he actually "aiming", or is he actually "aligning" to the proper shot line? Both are true.

CJ says that he doesn't need to look at the object ball to make it. That he never looks for a contact point on the ob. True, he doesn't. He doesn't need to. While there are perfectly great aiming system out there that do use the cb and ob, such as Jimmy Reid's Equal/Opposite method, CTE Pro 1, 90/90, and TOI don't. Instead, using those aiming systems, as CJ states, you have to make a connection to the ob and cb. That connection is actually aligning properly to the shot. Aligning properly can be done several ways, TOI and the other two aiming systems mentioned do it in a rather unique way that goes against what many think they need to do to make a shot.

Now, where CJ went a little off track in trying to figure out what he is actually doing was with the inside english. His theory came out to be that it is the deflection of using inside that actually "makes" the shot. I contend that it is not the deflection, but the inside actually is nothing more than the exact same alignment 90/90 gives you. 90/90 starts out a little inside on the initial alignment, CJ starts out at the very edge and ends up a little inside. Same alignment.

Go to next post...
 
I too eagerly await the next post. I hope this will be enlightening.

But... I already see 'misrepresentations'. Inside english is spin & TOI is not focused on spin to pocket balls but is focused on squirt/deflection & CJ uses two(2) alignments not one.

To start off with insults, is not a very effective means of communication.

Perhaps it is not reading comprehension on our part that is lacking but writing skills to effectively communicate one's points that is lacking.

What does it mean when one brings up keeping an open mind & not focusing on who the author is?

I was taught in middle school to always consider the source & possible bias & motives.

Regards,
 
All viable aiming methods lead to the invisible GB alignment before or after adjustments.

You are on a roll.:thumbup:
 
I explained what the inside is actually doing for TOI, now I will explain where you went a little "haywire" CJ. You came to believe that because you were using inside a little, that it was the deflection that was actually making the shot, and not the actual alignment. This is also why so few are able to actually make the "system" work for them beyond an initial trial period, and why they have no consistency with it, but await further instruction from you on it.

CJ, you have stated that if you miss the shot, you know how to adjust to make it. True, yet not true. I'll explain why in a bit, but first I'll explain why your corrections are working for you. What you are doing when you adjust, according to you, is you add a hair more or a hair less inside. What that is actually doing, is it changes your alignment ever so slightly because you have the pivot on the end of the aiming system instead of in the beginning where it should be. The key to Ron's system, and the way he uses it, is in the placement of the bridge hand. Same as in the mechanical version of CTE by Stan, same as in how snooker players teach to align the shot. It is all in where your bridge hand goes down on the table. Mechanical 90/90 and CTE teach you to place your bridge hand in a precise spot. Without that precision, the systems do not work, you will be off a little to a lot. But you, CJ, didn't "real eyes" that part, and assumed that it was the deflection from the inside that was getting you the connection to the shot.

So, when you would miss a shot, you would simply look which way you missed, and then adjust your deflection accordingly. By doing that, ever so slight adjustment in your "english", you effectively adjusted to where your bridge hand is slightly out of place. The adding or subtracting of the deflection is nothing more than a compensation for something else you had wrong, the bridge hand.

To many on here, when you say add a little or subtract a little english, they don't really realize just how little you are actually changing. To them, they are going all the way out to two tips of english to try and get enough deflection to make the shot! As you have stated, it is always only a hair of adjustment. And, you are correct in that statement, but not in why. When you key in deflection as your aiming preference, and that is what is actually making the shot, you introduce the very same variables that you want everyone to stay away from. That is, acutally using english.

You have stated that using english is a viable, yet unreliable and much harder way to play the game. You are very correct in that statement, as every top player has learned over time. The reason it is not a good way to play, is because of deflection. The very same thing you think you are using to aim! Here is why- each cue will deflect the cb , or squirt the cb, (the cue deflects, the cb squirts, then over time and distance, the cb will curve back on line or even past the original line{masse' shot} and this is called swerve.) a different amount. Speed of the shot does not affect how much the cb squirts. Speed does affect how much the cb swerves.

This is another area you went off the tracks, deflection. You state that you have to find the right speed for the right amount of deflection. Yet,speed does not affect how much the cb squirts.

Back on topic- When you say to add a little more deflection to make the shot, for that to actually work, you will need a cue that deflects a TON. If you have a short distance between the ob and cb, say a foot, you say to add more deflection to make the cut. If you have a longer shot, say 5' separation of cb/ob, you say to lessen the amount of deflection. Do you "real eyes" what you are actually saying here? You are saying to aim by deflection, the same thing you say not to do using english because it is not a consistent way to play! And, still, at the same time, you say to stay very close to center cb!

At any amount off the vertical center of the cb, the cb will squirt a reliable amount per cue. Speed has no effect on the amount of squirt. Over distance, swerve will come into play, which is the friction of the cloth against the spinning cb causing the cb to curve back towards the direction of the english applied. In essence, you are saying to add deflection without going farther out on the cb. Sorry, but impossible to do.

next post...
 
LAMas said:
All viable aiming methods lead to the invisible GB alignment before or after adjustments.
Mr. Mas,

Yes, the several ghost ball locations that will pocket the ball is the ultimate target.

That is why, IMHO, TOI is not an 'aiming' method, because one is aligned & the cue stick is aligned to different points than the reguired contact points on the OB. It is similiar to fading & drawing the ball in golf or throwing a curve ball or hooking a bowling bowl, or spinning in a tennis serve. The target objective is not where the projectile starts & is not where one 'aims'.

TOI is a shooting or playing method.

Is shooting with outside english an 'aiming method'? Is back hand english an 'aiming method'?

Regards,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
ENGLISH! said:
I too eagerly await the next post. I hope this will be enlightening.

But... I already see 'misrepresentations'. Inside english is spin & TOI is not focused on spin to pocket balls but is focused on squirt/deflection & CJ uses two(2) alignments not one.

To start off with insults, is not a very effective means of communication.

Perhaps it is not reading comprehension on our part that is lacking but writing skills to effectively communicate one's points that is lacking.

What does it mean when one brings up keeping an open mind & not focusing on who the author is?

I was taught in middle school to always consider the source & possible bias & motives.

Regards,
Click to expand...

There have been no insults whatsoever. That you think there have been shows your thinking process. Try again.
 
I say let Neil finish his piece. Then debate it. That way it won't be all discombobulated.

See I just added to that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
 
I am sure CJ will chime in.

But, Mr. Neil is putting words into CJ's mouth that I do not recall were ever said by CJ. 'Misrepresentation' again IMHO, either intentional or by mistake or by misunderstanding.

It is rather obvious to me that either Mr. Neil does not fully understand how TOI is actually being utilized or he has other issues.

So far, IMHO, this thread is totally useless to anyone that understands how squirt & swerve actually work. For those that don't, it probably has been confusing & therefore again useless.

I have been shooting rather well with english, both outside & inside for many years. English utilizes swerve to arrive at the OB at a speed where the spin has an effect on the OB. TOI is no where near the same thing as shooting with inside english spin. TOI utilizes squirt/deflection at a speed to limit the swerve so the ball arrives at the OB so the bit of spin has little to no effect on the OB.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
The 3 part pocket system. ... Years ago, many if not all of the instructors, Byrne, ect., advocated using the "effective" pocket, and not just the "real" pocket opening. What that meant was this- you have a "real" pocket opening- the actual physical space between the points of the pocket. You also have an "effective" pocket, meaning that if you take a line from the back of the rails, and extend that, you can hit the ob in that pocket and still make the ball at table speed. Meaning, at the right speed, you can hit the rail before the pocket, and the ball will still go in the hole.

With today's cloth, and tighter pockets, and new rail designs (Diamond tables), the effective pocket no longer exists a lot of times, and you only have the actual pocket to utilize to make a shot. With older cloth (worn or dirtier than new) the effective pocket size is also reduced. That's why you hear some say that a newly recovered table plays easy, but will tighten up on you with use.

Years ago, we were all taught to aim such that if you miss, you will hit the rail and the ball will still go in. If you miss the other way, what some call the "pro side", you will just flat out miss but will probably leave a tougher shot than if you miss hitting the rail first. At the right speed, you could miss the pocket opening by a diamond and a half, and still make the ball. On a valley, I have seen misses by 3 diamonds and still go in at times. So, what did this actually teach us? Aim at the outside, or the rail side, of the pocket. If you are a little off, you will still make the ball.

What else were we taught? Use inside english because it is "helping" english and will transfer spin to the ob that will aid in pocketing it. Well, contrary to manys beliefs, that has been largely discounted as just not true. But, what can we derive from using inside on cut shots that are near the rail? And, why do we normally miss them by hitting the rail first? We normally miss by hitting the rail, because of two things- one is what we were taught, so it is ingrained into our subconscious to hit to the rail side, and because of the mere fact that the rail is even there.

What happens on a shot that we say "don't miss it"? Yes, it usually is missed. It is missed because all the subconscious hears is "miss", and it obliges nicely an causes us to miss. Now, that same principle applies to rail shots. We can't help but see the rail right there. Now way to get it out of our vision. We are told to forget the rail, and just shoot the ball into the real pocket opening. Easy to say, hard to do. When our mind hears "rail", our subconscious tends to force us to hit the rail with the shot because that is what it thinks we want to do.

So, how can we compensate for that? We know that if we add inside english, the cb will squirt to the outside and make the cut thinner. Thereby, cancelling out the hitting the rail, and actually making the ball. We didn't actually correct what was wrong in the first place, which was actually mis-aiming, but added something to compensate for the mis-aiming that worked.

Now, if we aim at the rail portion of the actual pocket, and add inside, what happens? Assuming we actually aimed correctly to start with, we will squirt the cb a little bit, thereby changing the aim line, and make the ob in the center of the pocket. In effect, this works, and in reality this works. But, we are actually talking about a very small amount of deflection here. To show this, just line up the cb to cut a ball of the rail in the ghost ball position. Then adjust the "ghost" cb to make the ob to the center of the pocket. See how little you actually moved the cb? Very small amount of squirt required.

next post-
 
ENGLISH! said:
I am sure CJ will chime in.

But, Mr. Neil is putting words into CJ's mouth that I do not recall were ever said by CJ. 'Misrepresentation' again IMHO, either intentional or by mistake or by misunderstanding.

It is rather obvious to me that either Mr. Neil does not fully understand how TOI is actually being utilized or he has other issues.

....... English utilizes swerve to arrive at the OB at a speed where the spin has an effect on the OB. TOI is no where near the same thing as shooting with inside english spin. TOI utilizes Squirt/deflection at a speed to limit the swerve so the ball arrives at the OB so the bit of spin has little to no effect on the OB.

Regards,
Click to expand...

Hello English. I totally get that part and agree. I have been using TOI and I have a new much more consistent game!

Just saying to let Neil finish his thesis. Then debate!
 
Neil you do realize that every ones going to have a somewhat a different TOI.
Our shafts are a little different.
I dont have CJ toi dvd so Im not sure what he's teaching on it but i do know this,my 314 shafts play a whole lot different then just standard ones.
Now I can basically can do 90/90 with any shaft without any worries.

Anthony
 
Neil said:
There have been no insults whatsoever. That you think there have been shows your thinking process. Try again.
Click to expand...

You inferred that some have deficient reading comprehension skills.

It may not appear as an insult by you, the one handing out the insult.

I say that you have difficient writing kills that do not convey your intended meaning. I do not intend to insult you, so it is not an insullt.

How did you take it.

Must we go into a vernacular word war?

Apparently you do not know the definition of 'communication'.
 
Last edited:
RobMan said:
Hello English. I totally get that part and agree. I have been using TOI and I have a new much more consistent game!

Just saying to let Neil finish his thesis. Then debate!
Click to expand...

Sorry, we do not know how the audience will be participating. If incorrect or misinformation exsists it should be pointed out before anyone makes an ill informed decision.
 
8pack said:
Neil you do realize that every ones going to have a somewhat a different TOI.
Our shafts are a little different.
I dont have CJ toi dvd so Im not sure what he's teaching on it but i do know this,my 314 shafts play a whole lot different then just standard ones.
Now I can basically can do 90/90 with any shaft without any worries.

Anthony
Click to expand...

Read Neil's posts again. I believe you just reinforced one of the points he is making.
 
Now, knowing that, what can we surmise from it? Where you go wrong, CJ, is in saying that only inside allows you the proper amount of error. In reality, if you align to center ball, and actually add a touch of inside or outside, you don't change the amount of squirt anymore than you did before. If you aimed for center pocket, you will miss center by a hair and still pocket the ball the same as if you align to the edge of the pocket, and misshit the cb by too much inside and then pocket the ball in the middle or the other side. Same principles apply.

Where people have trouble with this, is that they don't realize just how accurate you have to be in either case. Most amateurs, when trying to hit center ball, can be a whole tip off center. Their fundamentals are not good enough to reliably even hit the cb where they think they are. That is also why some have so much trouble with the aiming systems. You HAVE to hit the cb accurately, and they can't. So, they blame the aiming system instead of the real problem.

Using speed and a TOI. This, as a number on here have said many times that was totally dismissed by so many, is an easier way to play, just as CJ says. Buddy Hall advocated years ago to try and use the same speed on each shot whenever possible. It simplifies the game, and adds to consistency in a big way. The inside does one thing that helps consistency. It, as CJ has said, cancels the contact induced spin that the cb picks up on contact with an ob at an angle. This enables one to better judge the angle that the cb will rebound off a rail with. It keeps the tangent line to the rail consistent with the angle off the rail. If you don't utilize a rail, it falls into the 3 part pocket system, for which I described earlier that inside is not required. The amount of squirt you get using just enough inside to cancel the CIS (contact induced spin) is in reality, neglible to the shot. Almost nonexistent. It takes just a hair of inside to produce enough spin to negate CIS.

Hopefully, this cleared up some questions on TOI, and showed CJ where he can go to properly learn TOI "aiming or non-aiming". Just contact Ron Vitello, and he will fill you in on the gaps. 90/90 is another great way to "aim", and, as CJ says, you are really not aiming, but making a connection between the cb and ob. The key to it is in foot and bridge hand placement, and learning to visualize what you want to visualize without reverting back to visualizing actual true aiming of the ob to the pocket.
 
As to the "real eyes" that CJ states often. He is correct in it for this type of aiming. It is a visual thing, an alignment thing that makes it work, and the other systems work. Some ask for the math, to them, I ask them if they know in intimate detail just how and why an internal combustion engine and transmission work before they drive a car.

These "aiming systems" are akin to driving a car. Certain things you have to know what they do, and how they work. Such as the key to start the car, the gear shift lever for what direction to go, the gas and brake to go forward and stop, and the steering wheel to be able to turn. Just knowing those things, you can become a master driver. You don't need to know how or why the rest of the car actually works and enables you to use the things you do use. You don't need the math or even paper diagrams to be able to use the aiming systems to their fullest potential. You just need to see what you need to see, and learn how to use that effectively.
 
Neil said:
As to the "real eyes" that CJ states often. He is correct in it for this type of aiming. It is a visual thing, an alignment thing that makes it work, and the other systems work. Some ask for the math, to them, I ask them if they know in intimate detail just how and why an internal combustion engine and transmission work before they drive a car.

These "aiming systems" are akin to driving a car. Certain things you have to know what they do, and how they work. Such as the key to start the car, the gear shift lever for what direction to go, the gas and brake to go forward and stop, and the steering wheel to be able to turn. Just knowing those things, you can become a master driver. You don't need to know how or why the rest of the car actually works and enables you to use the things you do use. You don't need the math or even paper diagrams to be able to use the aiming systems to their fullest potential. You just need to see what you need to see, and learn how to use that effectively.
Click to expand...

Then why this dissertation to make yourself appear more knowledgeable than CJ & to make CJ appear to not know what he is doing?

TOI works, by what you have said above, why does one need to know why & how it works? IMHO you have 'misrepresented' exactly how it works. As I have said before either by lack of full understanding, which seems unlikely, mistake, or for some other reason.

I'll stop there.

If you choose to answer why this dissertation, that should be telling, if some have not figured it out already.

Also, Why did you post this in the 'aiming' section? I & many others do not consider CJ's TOI an 'aiming method'. Is back hand english an aiming method? Is 'parallel' english an 'aiming' method? Is shooting a masse an 'aiming' method?

I think this thread should be moved to the Ask the Instuctor Sub Forum. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Neil,

Congratulations for this. Meaning taking the time to write out a well-reasoned, detailed explanation of how you see this system.

I appreciate the effort, and the civility. Hopefully you and CJ, and the rest of the gang, can have a continued "civil" discussion regarding the subject matter.

I cannot and will not speak to whether I agree with you on this, or CJ, or anyone else, as I don't have the experience nor the perspective to make any such comment. I do enjoy reading about this, and other systems and/or styles of play, in order to continue learning.

Hopefully this will remain a good thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top