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

SpiderWebComm said:
I don't think that's been the debate at all -- certainly not the debate you stated in your articles.

I think the debate has been whether or not CTE was "snake oil" or "nothing but marketing" as you so eloquently put in your ground-breaking three part series. Now that your famous conclusion was clearly wrong, now you say the debate was something totally different than what you had previously stated. :rolleyes:

You guys keep chirping about "HAMB" as if it's a method or technique or something. It's merely a destination. I've seen tons of players who played their entire life and probably hit multiple million balls and they STILL suck. HAMB has ZERO RELEVANCE in being a great player. ZERO. Whoever came up with that "concept" is an idiot savant player or an internet forum idiot - hard to say which.

I can hit a million golf balls and that doesn't mean I'm tearing up the PGA tour nor does it mean I'd break 80--- some people don't have it. Repetition is not linearly proportional to success. More than likely, the last 300,000 balls of the HAMB will likely present the player at the same speed assuming no instruction/coaching has taken place. People plateau --- all people plateau. It's as certain as death.

So, this "HAMB" thing being a "goal" makes about as much sense as your conclusion in part III of your series. I've also seen people who could play with probably less than 10,000 balls. Hell, Hopkins ran either 13 or 15 balls the very first time he picked a cue up (literally, the very first time). I think he ran his first 100 at age 13 or something -- no HAMB there.

That Bieber guy was lambasted earlier in the thread but he was correct nonetheless. I'd put my money where my mouth is that I can take 3 APA level 2s and let Roger Long take 3 APA level 2s and see which group has the biggest delta in improvement on a pre-determined shot-test (something like Colenso's).

People tend to skirt the issue and say that doesn't prove anything but it totally does. I could prob take his group afterwards and improve their score a good bit with my info. He prob couldn't show my group anything because as they say -- you can't put the genie back in the snake oil bottle.

p.s. I don't think the above is an infomercial. I'm merely saying I REALLY like my chances at something like that. Heck, we don't even have to bet--- we can just do it for fun and the loser has to upload the avatar of the winner's choice for a month or two. Maybe at the next BCA Vegas show? Even if my team dumps me, I'd swap out Sgt. Hartman w/ pride.
Click to expand...

Outstanding post
 
I like this test.

Player A uses CTE and can only use the DVD to learn about CTE, no out side instruction and can only practice 1 hour a week.

Play B uses ghost ball, no outside instruction, can practice 5 hours a week using the arrow.

At the end of 6 month, see who really has improved the most. If HAMB is not a factor and CTE is the shits, then player a would be playing at or above the same level as player b.

In a recent 12 month period, I put in over 1850 hours of play. I was getting a monthly deal for 100 bucks for unlimited table time. So, that year, my hourly rate for pool was $1.50 per hour. If I had paid the daily rate of $6, then I would have paid $11,100 in table time, for the year but I only paid $1200 for the year. Best money ever spent. It doesn't matter what you read or watch, you still got to put in the table time to really improve. That $100 a month is the best money on pool I ever spent.

One thing that is being greatly over looked is the importance of muscle memory in shot making and there is only one way to build up the proper muscle memory and that is by doing, not reading or watching something.

Ever see someone try to make a closed bridge the first time. No muscle memory, hands not flexible enough because they have not been used in that manner before.

Here is how a real life experience helped be understand the importance of doing something repeatedly and the power of muscle memory. I was in a motorcycle accident about 3 years ago that resulted in one of my injuries requiring a cast on my right hand for my thumb that prevent be from being able to using it. Thumbs are very important BTW. And I am right handed.

Anyway, the value of muscle memory become very apparent the first time I went to bathroom and did #2. I know had to use my left arm from something it had never been used for in 55 years. For 55 years, I had always used my right hand for wiping. My left arm had never did the motion. Uing it felt quite backward, uncoordinated at first. Now, I knew the motions to do, but having never done them with the left, the movement was all new. It took time to get used to using my left arm, but it did become easy as time went by. It quite a eye opener on muscle memory.

Same with shot making. The more you do it, the more you do new shots, the more muscle memory you build, but doing something for 1 hour a week, will take longer than doing something more often.

Phil Capelle has a section on margin of error in his Play You Best Pool. In that section, he list the size of the area based on how far the OB is from the pocket and the using 5 inch pockets. All are straight in shots.

1ft from pocket -1/4" wide
2ft from pocket-1/8" wide
3ft from pocket-3/32" wide
4ft from pocket-1/16" wide

I wish he did a size on 8ft from the pocket.

Now with a smaller pocket opening, these figures decrease. The drawing I have done just illustrate what is in his book. Also the OB entry angle into the pocket affects this area too.

The only time you will be able to hit any part of the area is when the shot is a straight in shot. When the OB/CB angle approaches 90 degrees, the part of the area that can be hit gets smaller because of the angle.

These are facts. If anyone doesn't know this,well, I guess I do know more than them huh.

Why is there this belief that only a"PRO" has been capable of learning the in's and out's of pool and shot making? This is a dangerous fallacy of appeal to authority.

Before a "PRO" became a pro, they had to acquire the skill and knowledge in order from them to go "PRO". They weren't born "PRO".

They just didn't pick up a stick and became a pro.

There are lots of players that can play at the pro level that aren't pros. Does this mean these non pro, but play at pro level players knowledge is any less than that of a pro?

Never underestimate your opponent.

BTW, if you suck at pool after HAMB, maybe you just suck at pool and need to take up basket weaving.
 
Priceless, I have to quote this for posterity sake.

:eek:

duckie said:
I like this test.

Player A uses CTE and can only use the DVD to learn about CTE, no out side instruction and can only practice 1 hour a week.

Play B uses ghost ball, no outside instruction, can practice 5 hours a week using the arrow.

At the end of 6 month, see who really has improved the most. If HAMB is not a factor and CTE is the shits, then player a would be playing at or above the same level as player b.

In a recent 12 month period, I put in over 1850 hours of play. I was getting a monthly deal for 100 bucks for unlimited table time. So, that year, my hourly rate for pool was $1.50 per hour. If I had paid the daily rate of $6, then I would have paid $11,100 in table time, for the year but I only paid $1200 for the year. Best money ever spent. It doesn't matter what you read or watch, you still got to put in the table time to really improve. That $100 a month is the best money on pool I ever spent.

One thing that is being greatly over looked is the importance of muscle memory in shot making and there is only one way to build up the proper muscle memory and that is by doing, not reading or watching something.

Ever see someone try to make a closed bridge the first time. No muscle memory, hands not flexible enough because they have not been used in that manner before.

Here is how a real life experience helped be understand the importance of doing something repeatedly and the power of muscle memory. I was in a motorcycle accident about 3 years ago that resulted in one of my injuries requiring a cast on my right hand for my thumb that prevent be from being able to using it. Thumbs are very important BTW. And I am right handed.

Anyway, the value of muscle memory become very apparent the first time I went to bathroom and did #2. I know had to use my left arm from something it had never been used for in 55 years. For 55 years, I had always used my right hand for wiping. My left arm had never did the motion. Uing it felt quite backward, uncoordinated at first. Now, I knew the motions to do, but having never done them with the left, the movement was all new. It took time to get used to using my left arm, but it did become easy as time went by. It quite a eye opener on muscle memory.

Same with shot making. The more you do it, the more you do new shots, the more muscle memory you build, but doing something for 1 hour a week, will take longer than doing something more often.

Phil Capelle has a section on margin of error in his Play You Best Pool. In that section, he list the size of the area based on how far the OB is from the pocket and the using 5 inch pockets. All are straight in shots.

1ft from pocket -1/4" wide
2ft from pocket-1/8" wide
3ft from pocket-3/32" wide
4ft from pocket-1/16" wide

I wish he did a size on 8ft from the pocket.

Now with a smaller pocket opening, these figures decrease. The drawing I have done just illustrate what is in his book. Also the OB entry angle into the pocket affects this area too.

The only time you will be able to hit any part of the area is when the shot is a straight in shot. When the OB/CB angle approaches 90 degrees, the part of the area that can be hit gets smaller because of the angle.

These are facts. If anyone doesn't know this,well, I guess I do know more than them huh.

Why is there this belief that only a"PRO" has been capable of learning the in's and out's of pool and shot making? This is a dangerous fallacy of appeal to authority.

Before a "PRO" became a pro, they had to acquire the skill and knowledge in order from them to go "PRO". They weren't born "PRO".

They just didn't pick up a stick and became a pro.

There are lots of players that can play at the pro level that aren't pros. Does this mean these non pro, but play at pro level players knowledge is any less than that of a pro?

Never underestimate your opponent.

BTW, if you suck at pool after HAMB, maybe you just suck at pool and need to take up basket weaving.
Click to expand...
 
Toyed with the idea of "Dr. Duckie"

Tony_in_MD said:
Priceless, I have to quote this for posterity sake.

:eek:
Click to expand...

Tony, thanks for quoting that for posterity (and nostalgia) sake.

I know I probably blew the idea now by letting the cat out of the bag, but I was thinking of creating a screenname called "Dr. Duckie" -- where the ridiculousness (like e.g. the one you quoted) is combined with pitches for "resource pages." :p :D What killed the idea was that it would be plainly obvious who was behind it (me) and I'd get a ban on both screennames.

Ah well. I guess instead of taking material and poking fun at it, something is to be said for the material to poke fun at itself just by how ridiculous it is.

-Sean
 
OMG, I can't stop laughing at duckie's post. Really? The importance of "muscle memory" and wiping one's own rear with T.P. using the opposite hand?

I think Dr. Duckie has a "resource page" for this:


This resource page is rated "five steamers" for content, just like duckie's post.

:p
-Sean
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I don't think that's been the debate at all -- certainly not the debate you stated in your articles.

I think the debate has been whether or not CTE was "snake oil" or "nothing but marketing" as you so eloquently put in your ground-breaking three part series. Now that your famous conclusion was clearly wrong, now you say the debate was something totally different than what you had previously stated. :rolleyes:

You guys keep chirping about "HAMB" as if it's a method or technique or something. It's merely a destination. I've seen tons of players who played their entire life and probably hit multiple million balls and they STILL suck. HAMB has ZERO RELEVANCE in being a great player. ZERO. Whoever came up with that "concept" is an idiot savant player or an internet forum idiot - hard to say which.

I can hit a million golf balls and that doesn't mean I'm tearing up the PGA tour nor does it mean I'd break 80--- some people don't have it. Repetition is not linearly proportional to success. More than likely, the last 300,000 balls of the HAMB will likely present the player at the same speed assuming no instruction/coaching has taken place. People plateau --- all people plateau. It's as certain as death.

So, this "HAMB" thing being a "goal" makes about as much sense as your conclusion in part III of your series. I've also seen people who could play with probably less than 10,000 balls. Hell, Hopkins ran either 13 or 15 balls the very first time he picked a cue up (literally, the very first time). I think he ran his first 100 at age 13 or something -- no HAMB there.

That Bieber guy was lambasted earlier in the thread but he was correct nonetheless. I'd put my money where my mouth is that I can take 3 APA level 2s and let Roger Long take 3 APA level 2s and see which group has the biggest delta in improvement on a pre-determined shot-test (something like Colenso's).

People tend to skirt the issue and say that doesn't prove anything but it totally does. I could prob take his group afterwards and improve their score a good bit with my info. He prob couldn't show my group anything because as they say -- you can't put the genie back in the snake oil bottle.

p.s. I don't think the above is an infomercial. I'm merely saying I REALLY like my chances at something like that. Heck, we don't even have to bet--- we can just do it for fun and the loser has to upload the avatar of the winner's choice for a month or two. Maybe at the next BCA Vegas show? Even if my team dumps me, I'd swap out Sgt. Hartman w/ pride.
Click to expand...

Your analysis and conclusion of Roger's article was incredibly flawed and lacking in objectivity.

Among other things, Spidey failed to mentioned which of Roger Long's articles he was referring to so I'll provide it here:
http://www.azbilliards.com/rogerlong/roger4.php,
http://www.azbilliards.com/rogerlong/roger5.php
http://www.azbilliards.com/rogerlong/roger6.php

Next, Spidey dedicates a full three paragraphs of his analysis to discussing HAMB, which isn't what Roger's article is about at all.

Then Spidey proposes to "take 3 APA level 2s and let Roger Long take 3 APA level 2s and see which group has the biggest delta in improvement on a pre-determined shot-test (something like Colenso's)." Most people have no clue how complicated this type of multi-variable analysis actually is. With the APA 2 players that Spidey is proposing in his test, you have no way of knowing if someone missed due to the aiming system or to poor fundamentals. Heck, you could make the same comment about more advanced players at the APA 5 level. In addition, a small study with just 6 subjects would have no statistical relevance. You would need at least 30 subjects, as another poster mentioned. It's details like this that make this type of multi-variable test so difficult to design and control.

Roger's conclusion that "CTE is the first aiming method ever contrived to be marketable as a system" still has merit. "It (alone) will not turn anyone into a champion. It will not be exact on every shot. And it will not be simple to learn."
 
Last edited:
duckie:
Phil Capelle has a section on margin of error in his Play You Best Pool. In that section, he list the size of the area based on how far the OB is from the pocket and the using 5 inch pockets. All are straight in shots.

1ft from pocket -1/4" wide
2ft from pocket-1/8" wide
3ft from pocket-3/32" wide
4ft from pocket-1/16" wide

I wish he did a size on 8ft from the pocket.
Click to expand...
Those are close, but not quite accurate. Here's a chart of OB contact area sizes (and degrees of arc) for pockets from 4" to 5" and distances from 1' to 6'. "Average" shots are highlighted in yellow.

OB Contact Area Chart.jpg

The only time you will be able to hit any part of the area is when the shot is a straight in shot. When the OB/CB angle approaches 90 degrees, the part of the area that can be hit gets smaller because of the angle.
Click to expand...
You can hit any part of the contact area from any cut angle up to almost 90 degrees, it's just a smaller target (even when the cut is 90 degrees to the center of the pocket, you can still hit half the contact area). And it starts getting smaller as soon as there's any cut angle, not just when it's close to 90 degrees.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
I feel as though you're over-generalizing what works for you.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I take it you'd be betting on Team Roger. You can find Team Spidey by the bar--- we'll all have on fluorescent green shirts (so you can easily spot us) sitting at the bar about T-minus 45 minutes from go-time, laughing about what Team Roger is doing in their final 15 minutes.
 
Not Dead Ted said:
Three? You would need to have more like thirty subjects to make such a study meaningful. Furthermore, their other fundamentals would have to be matched as equal prior to introducing the aiming technique AND remain unchanged throughout the study. Otherwise it would be impossible to determine whether positive outcomes were due to the improvement in aiming, or other fundamentals.

It is not by mistake that Stan's courses address stroke mechanics prior to introduction of aiming.

If you want to examine the effects of aiming, you will need populations whose strokes have been corrected and are at an equal level. But guess what? With good fundamentals, they are no longer skill level 2 or 3, and the incremental improvement with subsequent aiming correction is likely to be moderate, at best.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. 3 is just fine and then maybe swap the teams and retest. By saying 30 you're saying a little test would NEVER take place. Do something doable.
 
PoolSharkAllen said:
Your analysis and conclusion of Roger's article was incredibly flawed and lacking in objectivity.

Among other things, Spidey failed to mentioned which of Roger Long's articles he was referring to so I'll provide it here:
http://www.azbilliards.com/rogerlong/roger4.php,
http://www.azbilliards.com/rogerlong/roger5.php
http://www.azbilliards.com/rogerlong/roger6.php

Next, Spidey dedicates a full three paragraphs of his analysis to discussing HAMB, which isn't what Roger's article is about at all.

Then Spidey proposes to "take 3 APA level 2s and let Roger Long take 3 APA level 2s and see which group has the biggest delta in improvement on a pre-determined shot-test (something like Colenso's)." Most people have no clue how complicated this type of multi-variable analysis actually is. With the APA 2 players that Spidey is proposing in his test, you have no way of knowing if someone missed due to the aiming system or to poor fundamentals. Heck, you could make the same comment about more advanced players at the APA 5 level. In addition, a small study with just 6 subjects would have no statistical relevance. You would need at least 30 subjects, as another poster mentioned. It's details like this that make this type of multi-variable test so difficult to design and control.

Roger's conclusion that "CTE is the first aiming method ever contrived to be marketable as a system" still has merit. "It (alone) will not turn anyone into a champion. It will not be exact on every shot. And it will not be simple to learn."
Click to expand...

"So, I'll say it again: CTE is, and always has been, a marketing tool."
Roger Long

Don't make me tear apart that article sentence by sentence in an unrelenting PJ-style massacre.

I threw HAMB in there because I was tired of reading about HAMB as if it were a milestone in pool. HAMB a joke, plain in simple. It's embarrassing to read adults even suggest that's a real notch in their pool case.

Dukie's post was hilarious --- I guess he's saying he wants Team Duckie and wants to hand out paper Cranfield arrows to his 3-person squad? Sure, why not. Fair is fair.

Just text me when it's supposed to happen since Team Spidey will need enough time to clear our bar tab.
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
I take it you'd be betting on Team Roger.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't bet on either "team". As others have said, there are lots more variables than what aiming method you're taught. There's also the variable of whether the method you're taught is the right one for you - the systems you like aren't necessarily best for everybody.

Most people don't have much of a sense of how carefully tests must be done in order to actually demonstrate something. The several tests you've proposed on this topic show that.

pj
chgo
 
My opinion (again :p)

No matter which world class player- it doesn t matter which systems he uses. Every top player has to hit a million balls, some may need 700.000 ^^ some may have to hit 1.100.000 --
To discuss about the number of balls is anyway completly stupid!

no snake oil, no system on this planet can keep you away from spending the great amount of time at the table.

Usually i was close to upload another thread/posting. But if i see, that the same old shit comes up again, after *some more* civilized weeks/days.....can t get it into my head.

So many adults with such a intolerant attitude- on both sides.
Very sad. No wonder that more and more are leaving. And imo some here are smiling like a drunken horse the more ppl leaving or quit to post.
 
Ratta said:
My opinion (again :p)

No matter which world class player- it doesn t matter which systems he uses. Every top player has to hit a million balls, some may need 700.000 ^^ some may have to hit 1.100.000 --
To discuss about the number of balls is anyway completly stupid!

no snake oil, no system on this planet can keep you away from spending the great amount of time at the table.

Usually i was close to upload another thread/posting. But if i see, that the same old shit comes up again, after *some more* civilized weeks/days.....can t get it into my head.

So many adults with such a intolerant attitude- on both sides.
Very sad. No wonder that more and more are leaving. And imo some here are smiling like a drunken horse the more ppl leaving or quit to post.
Click to expand...

I personally know a few guys who just became great players VERY VERY soon. Statistically speaking, you're correct--- a lot of table time is required, no one is debating that. The "1 million ball thing" is no measure of that -- some might be 10 million (never) others might be 200,000.

The last thing I remember is we were all having a super awesome conversation with CJ Wiley when Duckie came in and pretty much destroyed that for everyone - taking it upon him self to try to stick it to CJ and speak as a subject matter expert when he's clearly not. Once Duckie was the spoiler for this forum, then that opened the door for digression.

Let's be frank--- no one cares if any of us leave. People care when CHAMPIONS like CJ leave.
 
If I could give you more green, I would.

It is a shame really the number of Pro's who have been run off this board. I am really hoping that is not the case for C.J.

So now we are left with why playing pool is like driving a boat or using your opposite hand to wipe your bum.

Sad.


SpiderWebComm said:
I personally know a few guys who just became great players VERY VERY soon. Statistically speaking, you're correct--- a lot of table time is required, no one is debating that. The "1 million ball thing" is no measure of that -- some might be 10 million (never) others might be 200,000.

The last thing I remember is we were all having a super awesome conversation with CJ Wiley when Duckie came in and pretty much destroyed that for everyone - taking it upon him self to try to stick it to CJ and speak as a subject matter expert when he's clearly not. Once Duckie was the spoiler for this forum, then that opened the door for digression.

Let's be frank--- no one cares if any of us leave. People care when CHAMPIONS like CJ leave.
Click to expand...
 
PoolSharkAllen said:
Your analysis and conclusion of Roger's article was incredibly flawed and lacking in objectivity.

Among other things, Spidey failed to mentioned which of Roger Long's articles he was referring to so I'll provide it here:
http://www.azbilliards.com/rogerlong/roger4.php,
http://www.azbilliards.com/rogerlong/roger5.php
http://www.azbilliards.com/rogerlong/roger6.php

Next, Spidey dedicates a full three paragraphs of his analysis to discussing HAMB, which isn't what Roger's article is about at all.

Then Spidey proposes to "take 3 APA level 2s and let Roger Long take 3 APA level 2s and see which group has the biggest delta in improvement on a pre-determined shot-test (something like Colenso's)." Most people have no clue how complicated this type of multi-variable analysis actually is. With the APA 2 players that Spidey is proposing in his test, you have no way of knowing if someone missed due to the aiming system or to poor fundamentals. Heck, you could make the same comment about more advanced players at the APA 5 level. In addition, a small study with just 6 subjects would have no statistical relevance. You would need at least 30 subjects, as another poster mentioned. It's details like this that make this type of multi-variable test so difficult to design and control.

Roger's conclusion that "CTE is the first aiming method ever contrived to be marketable as a system" still has merit. "It (alone) will not turn anyone into a champion. It will not be exact on every shot. And it will not be simple to learn."
Click to expand...
Reader's Digest Version:

"And there you have it, dear readers. CTE is, and always has been, a marketing tool. I won't even call it a product. The product is still pool, and CTE is just one of the newer tools being used to help sell more pool."

"So, I'll say it again: CTE is, and always has been, a marketing tool. And the biggest reason it has continually been surrounded in controversy is because many of its detractors already suspect the marketing angle, but every time they bring that subject up, CTE's most vocal supporters sidestep the issue. And even today, with advocates finally admitting that they do plan to market a DVD; they claim it is not meant so much for profit as it is to exonerate Hal Houle and prove how precise the system really is. But then the critics counter-claim that neither can be done, and so the battle rages on."

"So, there you have it: CTE is the first aiming method ever contrived to be marketable as a system. And right now that "system" is being heavily marketed on the AZB forums. What's it worth? That's up to you to decide for yourself."
 
SpiderWebComm said:
...no one cares if any of us leave. People care when CHAMPIONS like CJ leave.
Click to expand...
I care much more when people who actually know a lot - people like Mike Page, Bob Jewett, Dave Alciatore, etc. - post less (or not at all) because AzB has become "lightweight", caring more about celebrity and gossip than the exchange of good information.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I care much more when people who actually know a lot - people like Mike Page, Bob Jewett, Dave Alciatore, etc. - post less (or not at all) because AzB has become "lightweight", caring more about celebrity and gossip than the exchange of good information.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

You can duct-tape all of those guys together and you don't have 10% of CJ's knowledge when it comes to playing good pool. CJ is one of the most knowledgeable pros on earth. To suggest otherwise is a circle jerk of ignorance.

P.S.

Let me clarify my comment. CJ's philosophies on pool deal with the simplification of pool down to workable levels... not the opposite. Guys like Dr. Dave, Bob Jewett and in some cases you, PJ, deal with degrees down to the hundreth decimal place, cosines and parabola curves showing math that really doesn't matter. What they do is cement your place in pool-math history to break things down to levels that don't apply in real game play.

Guys like Ralph Greenleaf likely couldn't carry the "1" to the ten's column but would put 200 on you from the break in a heartbeat. In fact, I'd bet most super-great players were/are so bad at math they couldn't do long-division with a pencil and paper if bet to do so.

Guys like CJ have found workable methods to take an infinite game to a workable and objective level. The REAL genius isn't excel charts showing degree variances in making shots from different diamond distances. That's nothing but a science fair project. The REAL genius is the opposite>>>>>>> How to take pool and compact it to a level that PHYSICALLY MAKES THE BALL without the need for post-graduate math.

I know you guys are all fans of advanced math and using it to post facts that to the average player doesn't mean anything when down on a key ball. If you've ever spent the time to read CJ's Facebook page (going back months of posts), you'd see he is a TRUE genius at execution and problem solving at the very, very simplest level--- which happens to be the most repeatable level. We never had a chance to pick his brain on his concentration techniques, his martial-arts and how it applies to his "zone" -- anything like that. It's a shame.

So we all have our heroes--- outside of a title Bob won 30 years ago, none of the guys you mentioned have accomplished anything in regards to playing. CJ has a laundry list of titles, championships and TV appearances. THAT'S the guy I want to learn from -- not the B-level academics.

Not a knock on those guys--- I'm just in a frank mood today. We need those guys too--- but they serve a different role.
 
Last edited:
Yes Pat, this is a loss for all of us.

I will still include C.J. in that mix, not because of him being a celebrity, but for his accomplishments as a player.



Patrick Johnson said:
I care much more when people who actually know a lot - people like Mike Page, Bob Jewett, Dave Alciatore, etc. - post less (or not at all) because AzB has become "lightweight", caring more about celebrity and gossip than the exchange of good information.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top