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