TOI: Why it can work, by Neil
- Thread starter Neil
- Start date
Neil,
I read your posts and I thank you for your well thought out opinions. I bolded the last post in a couple of spots to say I agree with them. These are things I figured out years ago when I first learned 90/90 aiming from Ron and Pro One from Stan.
With this background I developed many more questions. I've searched for answers, but didn't find any until a few months ago. I kept an open mind with CJ's posting and liked what I heard.
His first venture to test the waters was the TOI. It's a simple logical process to start a routine of consistency while reinforcing the idea that aiming at the object ball can give you trouble. Some looked at the technique for its physical application and criticized it as reheated info. Most opened their minds and took notice that simple things are staring us in the face, but we choose to ignore them. I made an effort to prove it viable by using it to exhaustion and discovered many things that aren't at face value.
Next, CJ talked about the 3 Part Pocket System and again was met with the same debates while many put it to practical use. The armchair players looked at it with disdain and dismissed it as more leftovers. Too bad. They missed a piece of the puzzle that "connected" his next attempt at explaining his total package for consistency...Center To Center and Center To Edge alignment. The 3 Part Pocket System actually was the missing mental, not physical link, which explained the reason the CTC alignment worked. It is based on the same principle as Pro One and all other pivot systems. But unless you followed the progression, you would find no value or understand the process. You can debate the words he chooses, but the results are legendary.
If you can't have an open mind about what a person tells you, you will never be able to understand their position. You will read into what ever it is they tell you because you have tried it, but couldn't get it to work for you. I have tried it for countless hours. I never said they were mistaken. I just knew I didn't understand what it is they were trying to relate to me.
Your assumptions are peripheral. As a player that has dedicated many hours to exhaust all possibilities from a knowledgeable source and figured it out, I see the flaws in your platform. The physics are fine. Shoot CJ for explaining what he does and thinks he does. We see the results, though. And they are the $hit! Only on our best day could we duplicate part of his videos. That's a clue, but you haven't done the requisite work. You are close and with some dedication you may find out what I've seen in the past few weeks.
CJ's postings were cryptic at first. Then they turned familiar to me. Dave Yeager said the same things to me about the CTC alignment. Dave ran with Buddy like CJ did. I didn't understand because Dave said to look at the top of the balls for alignment and trust what you see even if it looks wrong. It worked for him. He ran 6 packs every turn at the table. I'm a hundred ball runner at straights and he could've given me the 5 and BIH.
Now I know. After many years and countless questions, I know. CJ is giving it up. Whether he gets burned at the stake or hailed as a great teacher, everything he has said has been true. It's taken me several months to figure out the process, but I have.
You have backed up your opinions with factual evidence, but without actual experience and dedication, you are basing your findings on false outcomes. Your final logical conclusion is correct, but you are using opinionated reasoning and not empirical evidence to support it. What other methods were criticized on this forum? Hmmmm?
Best,
Mike
I wanted to take the time to thank Neil for his perspective, consideration, and time however you have stated it far better than I .
Neil, thank you. Your additional information was very helpful.
So far CJ's system works for me (for the most part) but you explained 'why/how'?
So far CJ's system works for me (for the most part) but you explained 'why/how'?
Mike, while Neil's posts may have not been completely worded with the highest level of diplomacy, I didn't see them (on this thread) as being critical. In fact, in Neil's "special way", I thought the majority of it was complimentary.
I purchased CJ's TOI a couple of days ago. After watching it, I had some of the same questions and conclusions Neil has come up with. I believe CJ is revealing some very helpful information. I'm also not sure he has explained all of it in the most understandable manner. BTW, I'm not being critical by saying that in the least. It is an incredibly formidable challenge to translate "feel" into words and step by step instructions. I believe CJ is at the Savant level talent wise in pool and trying to put that into words such that amateurs like myself can try to implement is an unenviable challenge. Perhaps impossible.
I hope CJ takes this properly and uses this to constructively explain his system further. Perhaps through some healthy, respectful discourse, greater understanding of what he's attempting to teach can be gained.
Just MHO.
I purchased CJ's TOI a couple of days ago. After watching it, I had some of the same questions and conclusions Neil has come up with. I believe CJ is revealing some very helpful information. I'm also not sure he has explained all of it in the most understandable manner. BTW, I'm not being critical by saying that in the least. It is an incredibly formidable challenge to translate "feel" into words and step by step instructions. I believe CJ is at the Savant level talent wise in pool and trying to put that into words such that amateurs like myself can try to implement is an unenviable challenge. Perhaps impossible.
I hope CJ takes this properly and uses this to constructively explain his system further. Perhaps through some healthy, respectful discourse, greater understanding of what he's attempting to teach can be gained.
Just MHO.
Neil,
An excellent and cogent thread by a Subject Matter Expert (SME) that understands the math and physics of pool as well as those that rely on visuals.
I agree, with the part about the pockets that are getting closer to 4.00" or less and live rails, many of the paradgms about touching the rail before the pocket do not stand - even with a bit of inside english.
I agree that a bit of inside english will squirt the CB to neutralize CIT and get the CB to the geometrically correct contact point on the OB for the shot...just as a bit of outside english will. In order to get shape on the next ball will determine which.
At the Hard Times, Swanee Tournament, many of the top Pros were trying to use the rail before the pocket to cheat and rattled the OB...they soon stopped trying to use that to their advantage. The game has changed with tight/shimmed pockets. The Pinoys were at the HT weeks in advance to get used to the tight pockets and were rewarded for their due diligence against Jayson Shaw and Scott Frost.
CJ admits that he is getting better at describing what he proffers while posting on AZ and aquanting himself to the various jargons that are used here and I await his comments on Neil's Thread...if ever.:smile:
Thanks again...you are a SME.:thumbup:
An excellent and cogent thread by a Subject Matter Expert (SME) that understands the math and physics of pool as well as those that rely on visuals.
I agree, with the part about the pockets that are getting closer to 4.00" or less and live rails, many of the paradgms about touching the rail before the pocket do not stand - even with a bit of inside english.
I agree that a bit of inside english will squirt the CB to neutralize CIT and get the CB to the geometrically correct contact point on the OB for the shot...just as a bit of outside english will. In order to get shape on the next ball will determine which.
At the Hard Times, Swanee Tournament, many of the top Pros were trying to use the rail before the pocket to cheat and rattled the OB...they soon stopped trying to use that to their advantage. The game has changed with tight/shimmed pockets. The Pinoys were at the HT weeks in advance to get used to the tight pockets and were rewarded for their due diligence against Jayson Shaw and Scott Frost.
CJ admits that he is getting better at describing what he proffers while posting on AZ and aquanting himself to the various jargons that are used here and I await his comments on Neil's Thread...if ever.:smile:
Thanks again...you are a SME.:thumbup:
Mike,
I can't green you again yet, so here it is. :thumbup:
Well said & said with respect. I hope it is taken as you intended it.
Best Regards,
Mark,
I agree with your post and hope CJ finds the right words to help all our games. Working together to further this should be more important than trying to prove him wrong. We can help him and help ourselves at the same time.
Best,
Mike
Thanks, Rick! I repect Neil's opinions and understand his points. I'd like to hope he could help decipher things here a little more often and get this train moving along. I know CJ's got a bunch of advanced info he's holding back on until this first barrage is cleaned up.
Best,
Mike
TOI - Feel
Hi,
ahhh feelings - so tough to describe. I must say that I think CJ done a great job working at it, it has reached in to me. Whatever I/we want to call it, CJ made it "go in" for me anyway.
We communicate in a lot of ways - not just words imo. I can speak to my dog and so can every one that has one - different levels of course but a "word or two" is there anyway. What we have to do though is be willing to be learned ourselves, sometimes we are the teacher and sometimes the pupil.
Without the journey that proceeded this I would not have understand it though. And I mean the journey as full, not just about pool. But speak only of pool I wouldn´t have got it if I had not tried, played with all the different things I have gone true during the years. Every little piece of the puzzle is just as important, TOI according to CJ makes sense to me. I see more and more things that to me gives answers I feel is right. Yes it shows on the table also.
In other words - I thank you all for contributing to my learning, without you all I would not have increase my knowledge of "my game".
Well enough of philosophical stuff:smile:, fun time, - I´m ordering a masse cue for trying that out with TOI, 90/90 or PRO 1 or parallel aiming or pivoting or backhanding or deflecting or squirting - well whatever it takes to make it work:smile:
Stay open minded and the learning curve will speed up imo, trial and error. It´s the road that´s important.
Have a really nice evening everyone, will stick around for a while longer but it´s time to hit the sack soon here in Sweden.
Chrippa
Ps - if anyone can steer me in some directions in increasing some knowledge about masse shots I would be grateful, meaning more towards "real masse shots" but I welcome every part.
Hi,
ahhh feelings - so tough to describe. I must say that I think CJ done a great job working at it, it has reached in to me. Whatever I/we want to call it, CJ made it "go in" for me anyway.
We communicate in a lot of ways - not just words imo. I can speak to my dog and so can every one that has one - different levels of course but a "word or two" is there anyway. What we have to do though is be willing to be learned ourselves, sometimes we are the teacher and sometimes the pupil.
Without the journey that proceeded this I would not have understand it though. And I mean the journey as full, not just about pool. But speak only of pool I wouldn´t have got it if I had not tried, played with all the different things I have gone true during the years. Every little piece of the puzzle is just as important, TOI according to CJ makes sense to me. I see more and more things that to me gives answers I feel is right. Yes it shows on the table also.
In other words - I thank you all for contributing to my learning, without you all I would not have increase my knowledge of "my game".
Well enough of philosophical stuff:smile:, fun time, - I´m ordering a masse cue for trying that out with TOI, 90/90 or PRO 1 or parallel aiming or pivoting or backhanding or deflecting or squirting - well whatever it takes to make it work:smile:
Stay open minded and the learning curve will speed up imo, trial and error. It´s the road that´s important.
Have a really nice evening everyone, will stick around for a while longer but it´s time to hit the sack soon here in Sweden.
Chrippa
Ps - if anyone can steer me in some directions in increasing some knowledge about masse shots I would be grateful, meaning more towards "real masse shots" but I welcome every part.
Welcome,
I hope this helps and you don't need a special cue.:smile:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2011/april11.pdf
Thanks!:smile:. Will read, well I love cues and I have never tried a real masse cue before so as the cue nerd I am - can´t help myself
Chrippa
That was interesting, and long, and full of CJ got this or that wrong. And the best part was when Neil told CJ to go to Ron Vitello to learn how to aim. I love Ron Vitello and think his 90/90 is wonderful but for Neil to say that CJ pretty much needs to go to him to learn aiming is a bit silly IMO.
However I think that CJ could benefit by getting with Stan and Ron to discuss aiming because in CJ's Ultimate Secrets videos he said many of the same things that aiming system proponents have said for the past 15 years or so.
He clearly demonstrated a ball to ball aiming method that had some similarities to Hal's methods and his reasoning for using it was sound. So with that in mind I think a meeting of the minds where CJ learns what has happened with aiming systems in the years since he put out his video would be helpful.
All that said, good for you Neil for putting all your thoughts out there on this. There is no real reason for people to argue violently about how to play pool when everyone's goal is to help others play better pool.
However I think that CJ could benefit by getting with Stan and Ron to discuss aiming because in CJ's Ultimate Secrets videos he said many of the same things that aiming system proponents have said for the past 15 years or so.
He clearly demonstrated a ball to ball aiming method that had some similarities to Hal's methods and his reasoning for using it was sound. So with that in mind I think a meeting of the minds where CJ learns what has happened with aiming systems in the years since he put out his video would be helpful.
All that said, good for you Neil for putting all your thoughts out there on this. There is no real reason for people to argue violently about how to play pool when everyone's goal is to help others play better pool.
Try reading your own post John. You knock me for saying CJ
should get with Ron, then you say he should instead get with Stan. Geesh. And, remember that "reading comprehension part"? I guess you fit in it. Obviously, CJ knows how to aim. I suggested he get with Ron so Ron could explain 90/90 to him, because to me it looks like that is how CJ aims, but thinks it's something else.
Do you even EVER EVER EVER read what I write.
I said that the way you put it, that CJ NEEDS to get with Ron to learn how to aim. - you wrote:
"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."
I said this was silly to tell CJ he needs "properly" learn to aim.
Then I went on to say that I thought it would be a good idea though to get with Stan and Ron and have an aiming conference so that CJ could get up to speed on what aiming systems have come on-line SINCE he introduced his aiming system. I said that I think that this could be a great meeting of the minds on aiming.
Maybe you THINK that you wrote all this with the intention of being honest and nice but in fact there is a huge undercurrent of hostility in your treatise and a lot of "where CJ is wrong" in there. Capped at the end by 'CJ now knows where he can learn to properly aim'.
Um...............wow.
John, I'm not going to go "tit for tat" with you. There was ZERO hostility on my part in the whole thread. That you want to read hostility into it, is on you, not me. That goes back to your prejudices, not what was written. Like I said, try reading it with an open mind. And, that's all I'm going to say to you and English. You both ARE doing what you accuse me of doing even though I'm not. It has a lot to do with intent. Mine is for accuracy, yours and his is for knocking down. I won't participate in it with you two because there would be no end to it.
I have no intention of pointing out the hostility. As I said I feel you wrote it in full faith that you were being nice.
I am glad you got all of your thoughts and objections out there. Let the readers read it and get out of it whatever they can.
'they have eyes but they do not see'
Last edited:
Neil. BJ, English, etc...
I have really enjoyed your comments on TOI and it has given me the understanding I needed to shoot with this technique. After watching CJ's video, you have cleared up a lot of questions. Overall I look forward to your comments on all subjects.
Thanks again but take this thought for whatever it's worth: I hope your comments toward each other are made 'tongue in cheek', if not then it may be a case of winning the battle but loosing the war.
I have really enjoyed your comments on TOI and it has given me the understanding I needed to shoot with this technique. After watching CJ's video, you have cleared up a lot of questions. Overall I look forward to your comments on all subjects.
Thanks again but take this thought for whatever it's worth: I hope your comments toward each other are made 'tongue in cheek', if not then it may be a case of winning the battle but loosing the war.
I don't want to get involved in any tit-for-tat, but I made an almost identical post (except pages shorter) way back saying the center/center and center to edge alignment and using deflection to make the ball was first taught to me by Ron Vitello (he called it 90/90 or 90/half with no pivot). Ron considered this an inside english system and not so much a shooting system like CJ. This was actually part of Ron's DVD that was never released.
There's no doubt that CJ has taken that core concept and evolved it into a new level. NOT saying he stole it or took it or whatever because he 100% didn't. Sometimes, information evolves autonomously with different people and ends up presenting themselves in similar manners.
CJ's approach and Ron's approach are very similar, but they're also different in tip offsets, etc. CJ also suggests to use it on all shots, not just as a tool, hence "shooting system" rather than aiming system. I want to add that I know a core difference (in my humble opinion) is CJ adjusts tip offsets to create angles and maintains a parallel cue whereas Ron keeps a more or less static tip offset while slightly adjusting the cue angle.
I think if CJ and RonV ever got together to share notes, it would be like "crossing the streams" in Ghostbusters. Wow-- I'd love to be a fly on the wall during that session.
There's no doubt that CJ has taken that core concept and evolved it into a new level. NOT saying he stole it or took it or whatever because he 100% didn't. Sometimes, information evolves autonomously with different people and ends up presenting themselves in similar manners.
CJ's approach and Ron's approach are very similar, but they're also different in tip offsets, etc. CJ also suggests to use it on all shots, not just as a tool, hence "shooting system" rather than aiming system. I want to add that I know a core difference (in my humble opinion) is CJ adjusts tip offsets to create angles and maintains a parallel cue whereas Ron keeps a more or less static tip offset while slightly adjusting the cue angle.
I think if CJ and RonV ever got together to share notes, it would be like "crossing the streams" in Ghostbusters. Wow-- I'd love to be a fly on the wall during that session.
Last edited: