C J Wiley

D

DrCue'sProtege

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was watching an Accu-Stats video a couple of nights ago from a match between Efren and CJ at the US Open back around 1994. I had seen CJ play in Las Vegas years ago but this video was the first time I had seen him play on tape.

Man oh man, that guy can play. He hit some shots against Efren that made me wonder how in the world did he make that shot. Hats off to him and a tip of the cap as well.

r/DCP
 
Big pocket Brunswicks compared to today’s tournament tables- you could master most shots if you played enough pool with a good stroke and proper focus. Tough tables today are more challenging.
 
7stud said:
This match ???
Click to expand...
Man I hope not...
7stud said:

You got any timestamps for any shots in particular???
Click to expand...
4:00
18:25
24:50
46:27
53:15

Feel generous by labelling it solid 700 play. Would have been a landslide for Efren if his break was working for him.

I know some just love CJ, but if I had to seriously consider how my life "as a pro" would have gone. It probably would amount to CJ's. One of the greatest of the not so great.

Flame on...

Every time CJ comes up and I go digging. That '96 ESPN "world championship" comes up. Keeps reminding me I need to organize an event at my local room during the work week and get myself a world title to my resume.
 
Last edited:
mikemosconi said:
Big pocket Brunswicks compared to today’s tournament tables- you could master most shots if you played enough pool with a good stroke and proper focus. Tough tables today are more challenging.
Click to expand...
Tired old argument tbh. You can only play on what's around at the time. CJ would have played great if little pockets were the standard at the time. I've seen him in action and he shot as straight as any living human in his prime.
 
8intheside said:
I agree. the “pockets we’re too big” is getting tiresome
Click to expand...
I am definitely not making any arguements saying that CJ was not a straight shooter- however back at that time you could have a very high % success rate on shots where your cue ball location relative to the shot was less than ideal.
Simply not the case today - the precision strokes required to position the cb for a super high success rate on shots is much greater today on top flite tournament tables. Every modern great pro agrees to this fact.
I will never take away from past pros - they would be pros today too - but would they have their old shotmaking success on these newer conditions - some would and some would not - lots of people share my opinion on this.
 
garczar said:
Tired old argument tbh. You can only play on what's around at the time.
Click to expand...
8intheside said:
I agree. the “pockets we’re too big” is getting tiresome
Click to expand...
If people are going to hang their hats on pocket size, then they need to give credit for how tough it was to move the ball around the table. Even in that posted vid. Both CJ and Efren pumped some shots hard to get shape that are slow rolls with today equipment.
 
The_JV said:
If people are going to hang their hats on pocket size, then they need to give credit for how tough it was to move the ball around the table. Even in that posted vid. Both CJ and Efren pumped some shots hard to get shape that are slow rolls with today equipment.
Click to expand...
Bottom line is great players would be great players on any table that was the standard at that time. I've watched Buddy play quite a bit and he could shoot the damn ball into a thimble when he was 'on' which was basically everyday. He used to toss balls out on a snooker table and with bih would run racks. And racks.
 
mikemosconi said:
I am definitely not making any arguements saying that CJ was not a straight shooter- however back at that time you could have a very high % success rate on shots where your cue ball location relative to the shot was less than ideal.
Simply not the case today - the precision strokes required to position the cb for a super high success rate on shots is much greater today on top flite tournament tables. Every modern great pro agrees to this fact.
I will never take away from past pros - they would be pros today too - but would they have their old shotmaking success on these newer conditions - some would and some would not - lots of people share my opinion on this.
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying, but the greats of yesteryear would adjust to the modern tables of today’s game. I’m not saying you,but there are those who think the opposite ,and say players back in the day only played that good because of how big the pockets were.
 
8intheside said:
I understand what you’re saying, but the greats of yesteryear would adjust to the modern tables of today’s game. I’m not saying you,but there are those who think the opposite ,and say players back in the day only played that good because of how big the pockets were.
Click to expand...
This same topic comes up in golf ALL the time. Believe me, if Hogan, Nelson, Snead, Jones played today with modern equip. they'd be just as dominate as they were back in the day. You can't compare eras and say that so-n-so couldn't play today on tight tables. Of course they would.
 
8intheside said:
I understand what you’re saying, but the greats of yesteryear would adjust to the modern tables of today’s game. I’m not saying you,but there are those who think the opposite ,and say players back in the day only played that good because of how big the pockets were.
Click to expand...
This is an era thing that really shouldn't be discussed. However since we are. I think the blanket statement that "great players will be great players" no matter what, a little misguided.
 
The_JV said:
This is an era thing that really shouldn't be discussed. However since we are. I think the blanket statement that "great players will be great players" no matter what, a little misguided.
Click to expand...
Why is it misguided? You can only play on the equipment of the time. If 4" were standard back in the 80's the champions would still have been the champions.
 
It can be surprising how often you see bad misses in old matches, but I think a lot of those misses were due to players just having a faster and looser mindset. The tourney money wasn't great and most of these guys just played night and day -- gambling while traveling the country from tourney to tourney. So they just maintained their gambler's mindset. McCready was the poster boy for this approach. Yeah some of the greats could bare down back then but the truly mechanical, life or death approach to every shot didn't really start to take hold until Souquet started doing it. You can see the evolution of this with Archer's game. When he started out he played fairly quickly. By the end of his prime, he was picking 17 pieces of lent off of the table in between shots.
 
The_JV said:
Man I hope not...

4:00
18:25
24:50
46:27
53:15

Feel generous by labelling it solid 700 play. Would have been a landslide for Efren if his break was working for him.

I know some just love CJ, but if I had to seriously consider how my life "as a pro" would have gone. It probably would amount to CJ's. One of the greatest of the not so great.

Flame on...

Every time CJ comes up and I go digging. That '96 ESPN "world championship" comes up. Keeps reminding me I need to organize an event at my local room during the work week and get myself a world title to my resume.
Click to expand...
They were big pockets, just not 12" pockets
 
garczar said:
Why is it misguided? You can only play on the equipment of the time. If 4" were standard back in the 80's the champions would still have been the champions.
Click to expand...
You've changed the criteria... originally it was "great players would be great players". Now it's champions... etc.

There is a difference between the very best and great. CJ for instance was great, but no where near one of the best. Would Segal, Varner, Mizerak still have been champs...?..., yep.
 
BasementDweller said:
It can be surprising how often you see bad misses in old matches, but I think a lot of those misses were due to players just having a faster and looser mindset. The tourney money wasn't great and most of these guys just played night and day -- gambling while traveling the country from tourney to tourney. So they just maintained their gambler's mindset. McCready was the poster boy for this approach. Yeah some of the greats could bare down back then but the truly mechanical, life or death approach to every shot didn't really start to take hold until Souquet started doing it. You can see the evolution of this with Archer's game. When he started out he played fairly quickly. By the end of his prime, he was picking 17 pieces of lent off of the table in between shots.
Click to expand...
Like everything else in this era driven comparison. The money was relative. It can just as easily be said that back in the day players should have taken the small money (compared to today) more seriously because there wasn't another $50k payday next month.
 
The_JV said:
You've changed the criteria... originally it was "great players would be great players". Now it's champions... etc.

There is a difference between the very best and great. CJ for instance was great, but no where near one of the best. Would Segal, Varner, Mizerak still have been champs...?..., yep.
Click to expand...
CJ was a ball maker….but didn’t have a lot of finesse…that 5-ball that he scratched on was a typical ball makers mistake at 8 all.
…..the shot was to load it with inside english and catch the second rail before the side pocket….and make it pocket weight.

The knowledge in pool is much greater now…like most disciplines….but the equipment is better too….some of those misses could be blamed on inferior balls.
 
Last edited:
The_JV said:
Like everything else in this era driven comparison. The money was relative. It can just as easily be said that back in the day players should have taken the small money (compared to today) more seriously because there wasn't another $50k payday next month.
Click to expand...
Maybe. It's just my impression anyways. Today's standard is quite a bit higher and its changed in 20 to 30 years. I don't think the players have physically evolved all that much in this time period. So what gives?

The gambling culture was driving pool in the U.S. and the Philippines way more than Professional pool was. I think that's flipped now. Just something to consider when evaluating players of past generations. Heck -- 9 ball was considered a gamblers game for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top