Using "Center Ball" - is it good advice or a hidden disadvantage?

If you really want to hurt a physics man's brain try to explain that the weight of the cueball hitting a cut shot will move it out of the pocket if shot into the dead center of the pocket!
They will say bull that is a load of crap then shoot the thing straight into the rail totally confused. I explained this to a stone cold player and he looked at Tommy Kennedy asking why he missed the same shots over and over. Tommy looked at me amazed and said what he said. It is totally backwords from using spin to hold an angle that you might loose any how because the rock pushes away!
Nick :)
 
nick serdula said:
If you really want to hurt a physics man's brain try to explain that the weight of the cueball hitting a cut shot will move it out of the pocket if shot into the dead center of the pocket!
Click to expand...
Throw is probably the second most-discussed technical topic here - right after squirt/swerve.

pj
chgo
 
straightline said:
Ball control is like driving a car though it can become like flying a helicopter. If you stray too far too soon you will have your hands full; guaranteed. Centerball is the best anchor. It is the "centerpiece" of pool knowledge; guaranteed.
Click to expand...
That's why they say "Center ball is for suckers" - because it's irresistible and most people will never know why.....it's pure pool indoctrination!
 
nick serdula said:
If you really want to hurt a physics man's brain try to explain that the weight of the cueball hitting a cut shot will move it out of the pocket if shot into the dead center of the pocket!
They will say bull that is a load of crap then shoot the thing straight into the rail totally confused. I explained this to a stone cold player and he looked at Tommy Kennedy asking why he missed the same shots over and over. Tommy looked at me amazed and said what he said. It is totally backwords from using spin to hold an angle that you might loose any how because the rock pushes away!
Nick :)
Click to expand...
Yes, that's why when someone mentions "physics" {when describing a pool technique} we know it's nonsense, pool is played at the quantum physics level mentally..... players always perform best in "The Zone" which is a subconscious state, and Very Powerful indeed!
 
They really should rate table cloth in units of "anti-physics" if there is such a thing. It would be good to know how little reality will effect my game play if I buy 860 rather 760.
 
CJ Wiley said:
That's why they say "Center ball is for suckers" - because it's irresistible and most people will never know why.....it's pure pool indoctrination!
Click to expand...
I'm ready for a helicopter ride, driving became boring. It's time to fly.
The_JV said:
They really should rate table cloth in units of "anti-physics" if there is such a thing. It would be good to know how little reality will effect my game play if I buy 860 rather 760.
Click to expand...
As soon as you get the feel of the cloth, numbers don't mean much. ;) :)
 
In New Orleans I trained one of the best snipers in the state and he told me something similar when I was cross referencing what I did in pool with what he did to become a successful marksman. It's fun to draw a bridge between pool and what someone already does best. We all have certain talents and skills which makes life much more interesting and a warehouse of knowledge waiting to be opened.

I used to play for hours and hours without missing a single shot or making a position error. This would be impossible playing the "conventional way" trying to hit contact points and applying different spins and speeds on every shot. What was really interesting to me was that I could do that without being aware of anything other than the centers and edges of the object balls. It took me a number of years to figure out what I was doing subconsciously to make this happen.

When I first started talking about The Touch of Inside technique many people jumped to the conclusion that I was using Inside English, however, that's not true. Another misconception was that I used deflection (veer/squirt) to create the angles, that's not true either. When you target the cueball slightly to the inside it creates a perception that establishes the basis to create the angle. In other words, if I get down on the cueball and target slightly to the right of center on a straight in shot it will give me the visual perception that I'm cutting the object ball slightly to the right. The more I target to the right, the more my visual perception verifies I'm creating more and more of an angle.

There are only 8 total angles we have to create to make any shot on the pool table because the pocket is twice as big as the balls (ideally). When I either use a Center/Center or Center/Edge alignment it cuts the angles down to 4, I just have to be able to tell if the proper alignment is Center/Center or Center/Edge which isn't difficult with some dedicated practice. I'd recommend you approach every shot like it's Center/Center (like a straight in shot) and even before you go down on the shot your mind should alert you if it's the incorrect alignment.

This all may seem backwards from what you are currently doing and it probably is. Prior programming is the biggest roadblock players encounter when shifting their game towards how the champion level players perceive and play the game. I played at some of the highest levels possible and couldn't explain, demonstrate and teach these things like I can now so I can relate to my students personally and have several ways to explain the same technique until they can understand it at a level deep enough to perform it on their own.

Shooting pistols, and a bow/arrow are very similar to shooting pool and I use them as a bridge to connect one skill set to another.

The Game is the Teacher
 
CJ Wiley said:
There are only 8 total angles we have to create to make any shot on the pool table because the pocket is twice as big as the balls (ideally).
Click to expand...
Unless, of course, the object ball is more than a foot from the pocket. At 2 feet it takes 17 angles. At 3 feet (a spot shot) 25. It keeps going up from there.

Of course, that's regular geometry - quantum geometry's probably different.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Unless, of course, the object ball is more than a foot from the pocket. At 2 feet it takes 17 angles. At 3 feet (a spot shot) 25. It keeps going up from there.

Of course, that's regular geometry - quantum geometry's probably different.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
I only use one angle, the one that makes it go in the pocket :ROFLMAO:
 
boogieman said:
I only use one angle, the one that makes it go in the pocket
Click to expand...
That's actually wiser and more accurate than someone trying to play pool using 17+ angles.....anytime someone is trying to make the game that complicated you can be sure of one thing.....they can't play under pressure and refuse to play in tournaments, there's no hiding in the public eye when you have to run out.
 
CJ Wiley said:
That's actually wiser and more accurate than someone trying to play pool using 17+ angles....
Click to expand...
Knowing how many cut angles are needed isn't the same as consciously "using" all of them. I'm happy to let my subconscious do that heavy lifting, same as you.

Maybe you make the common mistake of confusing knowledge with active thinking. Active thinking can be an obstacle to the subconscious - knowledge is fuel for it.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Maybe you make the common mistake of confusing knowledge with active thinking. Active thinking can be an obstacle to the subconscious - knowledge is fuel for it.
Click to expand...
Quite literally the best quote I've seen on this forum in my short tenor here. This can be applied to nearly any of the "best method" threads I've seen.
 
bbb said:
CJ
On a straight in stop shot
Are you TOI on the right or left?
why?
Click to expand...
Since PJ is a load of scientific rhetoric, I will butt in on this instead. IF TOI is to bias the uncertainty of a center ball stroke to a more visually tangible one, then why not? "Which side" might be contingent on which side of the table you're on. I don't know but had to post something I understand. :D
 
straightline said:
IF TOI is to bias the uncertainty of a center ball stroke to a more visually tangible one, then why not?
Click to expand...
Because it introduces variables like squirt, swerve and throw without delivering the reduced error margin it promises.

And what does "more visually tangible" mean?

pj
chgo
 
With the unchalked phenolic tip shooting from head spot through the foot spot I can move off center enough to get the ball one Diamond over back at the head rail. This has no detectable squirt or deflection. Have to wonder if this is a “touch of”.
 
If someone can hit a bunch of long straight in shots and stop the cue ball completely dead each time, aren’t they hitting what is effectively the center of the cue ball? Even if it’s somehow off of the exact dead center by a few nanometers each time, and there’s the equivalent effect of a very, very small amount of deflection that’s so small it can’t be noticed, as long as the effect is the cue ball stopping dead, isn’t that all that matters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top