I am sorry but I don't know anyone like this
They live among us.
Perfect aim - review
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
- Status
They live among us.
so dave nelson hated the video...called pj (someone he knew who was smart, articulate, loved to knock gene, and would also hate the video and gave him the video to "review.") pj didn't even get his technique right - that's how close he paid attn. If pj was a student of the game (which he's not), he would have played around with the info before reviewing anything. But, like i said - his understanding of gene's sighting is wrong based on the op. So.... What now about the review? I'll go one step further and ask anyone reading this if they saw the video if they concur with pj's assessment of gene's info? If so -- there's a bunch of people who need to rewatch and re-pay-attn. They prob thought the book animal farm was about cute furry talking animals too.
Pj called gene's system the double-overlap system with a dominant eye--- and that's not even the bloody info. So, the guy you're stroking for a great "review" didn't even know the point of the video -- which is what sent me on tilt earlier in the thread. That proves his focus was to shit on gene for poor editing or whatever and didn't take a moment to understand what he was seeing--- didn't try it (that i'm sure of) -- and then came on here to blast it in front of the world.
So, hopefully the few nonpartisan people on here have a clue what i'm saying--- and you get my drift. Everyone here knows i don't even aim with overlaps so i don't even have a dog in the fight. So, while a few might think i'm biased --- i'm not. I'm just calling bullshit on a bullshit review.
I will say gene's info was never posted here before gene -- that's a fact. Good luck digging up an old thread to quote pj. Better re-watch that video...for real this time, before cocking off.
So, for those who owned the video and thought this review was great---- it tips your hand to show your lack of understanding of the technique (since pj wasn't right). If you were lost, you should have called gene (which i did a few times - because i didn't get it at first either). What gene lacks in delivery or editing (or even linear topics) -- he more than makes up for in personal access with phone calls.
Many of you know pj and i got into it a lot with other aiming threads like cte and ron's 90/90. The reason for that is because your "pool scientist pj" takes cursory looks at things, forms an opinion - and sticks it out without trial & error or even basic education of the techniques. When called out, he throws the ball back into your court to explain what he doesn't understand and i never bring him up to speed because quite frankly --- he's a dick (and this thread proves it).
Gene's info is solid. Is it worth $80? I thought so - but that doesn't mean anyone has to think so (obviously dave nelson thought it wasn't - -- but i question if he got it to begin with). I'm sure he didn't call gene to help him before firing a dvd to pj.
Many of you miss the fact that this site is full of partisan politics. It's not science people against players.... It's a core group of "science-based-guys" against everyone the clique doesn't agree with... A self-appointed board of pool directors. The moment gene came along, the pj clique were immediately bashing the guy. Even when i didn't quite understand what gene was trying to say... I never bashed him nor did i knock him. I was careful in my review of his dvd and even came back 60 days later to re-comment on the dvd (after i put in about 50 hours of practice on his info). Then, when pj posted this scathing review and didn't even get the sighting correct--- i exploded. To me, it was all agenda-based--- and many of you bought it and more.
However, you'll have different types of people on an internet forum.... The students of the game, the players who are natural, players who are students, students who play poorly and the know it alls who can't play. The know it alls that post here are excellent imposters. The post well and talk with conviction. However, every so often they show their panties and that's what happened with this thread. Sadly, the followers latched on to hitch a ride on the moron express without knowing their leader posted a bs "review" and didn't get the content right. Close, but no cigar, pj.
It's unfortunate... If pj were a student of the game, he could have really watched the video to understand the exact eye position, maybe called gene to bounce some questions off him, played with the material for a week and then the outcome could have easily been a review that was accurate and slanted 180 degrees from this one. However, the urge to attack and knock was more than his will to review.
spider
p.s. Joew, sorry you think i'm personally attacking pj without merit. I see things you don't see - no offense. I think you're a good poster.
well said, i agree completly, and i haven't seen the dvd!
who made you the azbiliards advertising watchdog patrick???? And after reading your, and everybody elses bashing, i in good conscience, couldn't scensor myself or keep the rawhide in my mouth that makes me twitch when i read your bs.
Then pj fooled us
I am sorry but I don't know anyone like this
Give me a minute, I'll think of someone.
Lou Figueroa
I wonder if that second batch
of popcorn is ready yet
The posters review is no different than a book or movie review by a critic. It's his/her personal opinion on the material (he purchased by the way). The reader can take the information and either ignore it and buy the material or value the feedback/review and decide not to purchase it. Either way it doesn't constitute theft or poor taste, it's just a pool DVD critics opinion of the material he purchased and reviewed, and now he's providing his opinion to others.
Like a Dinning Critic writing a Review of a Place to Eat.
One of my favorite Billiards Digest quotes.
From a staff writer who also happens to be a poster here, "The overall conclusion here is that most aiming systems will do you more harm than good. I'm surprised that so many pitifully-flawed systems are being promoted when a little simple geometry, or even a careful scale drawing, quickly shows them to be frauds. The only possible benefit is that they may help you to focus on the shot. Next month, I'll describe what I think is a much better way to focus. In the meantime, don't let bogus systems pollute your game."
June 2000 BD
From a staff writer who also happens to be a poster here, "The overall conclusion here is that most aiming systems will do you more harm than good. I'm surprised that so many pitifully-flawed systems are being promoted when a little simple geometry, or even a careful scale drawing, quickly shows them to be frauds. The only possible benefit is that they may help you to focus on the shot. Next month, I'll describe what I think is a much better way to focus. In the meantime, don't let bogus systems pollute your game."
June 2000 BD
I know I am so far late into this banter, but poolpro said something a couple of posts up that I think was grossly overlooked. As a person that has watched Gene's DVDs with the purest intent on getting better, I also had to call Gene personally to garner some additional clarification because the ideas were not presented clearly enough.
Here is what poolpro said that I think is very important...
Here is what poolpro said that I think is very important...
As a note regarding my own interpretation of the DVD... After watching the entire thing 3 times over, I only got ONE thing from the entire video and subsequent phone call to Gene that I thought would be useful to my game. And that one thing was summarized very clearly in PJ's original post. ...to move the correct eye over the aiming line from the CB to OB (whether it be the some part of the cue ball or it's edges). In all fairness, that one thing, while useful, is definately not worth the price of admission.poolpro said:
Last edited:
I've tried it many times, along with all the alternative versions of it that been discussed multiple times right here on AZB. These are common ideas that have been around since long before Gene tried to sell this one as his own.
But the real reason I described it is that a review of the video would be meaningless without some indication of the contents. The fact that my quick and simple description includes so much of the contents of the video is not the result of me overstepping any ethical (or legal) review boundaries; it's the result of there being so little content in the video to begin with.
Empty "testimonials" is what we've had up to now in the hundreds of posts in multiple threads, and it hasn't helped anybody really assess the usefulness or quality of the product. The outpouring of thanks I've received since posting the review shows that people weren't getting the info they needed to know what to expect from the video.
And, by the way, I still haven't heard any specific examples from the complaineers of anything I got wrong or anything important I missed. Are they demonstrating the "biased bashing" they complain of? I'm sure it's just for educational purposes...
pj
chgo
How about this... how about IF I'm able to go into great detail about what you got wrong in your posted technique - you perma ban yourself. If I can't and I'm talking shit --- I'll delete my account.
PJ... I think the part that you might have missinterpreted is that your eyes aren't necessarily over the line formed by the edges of the CB/OB (Unless they are thin cuts to either side) The eyes go over the line of the shot, whether it be through the center of the cue ball to a portion of the OB, or their respective edges.
Last edited:
superstar, i'm not autoflaming. i'm just calling him out on his cockiness like he got nothing wrong. anyone who knows the info knows he didnt even get it right.
i'm a real nice guy - i never post flaming crap about anyone. hell - i even repped pj a bunch of times in the past (which of course, he never returns). so, i'm not an auto-pj-flamer.
i'm just tired of his shit talking.
Should I rep because I got rep? I usually only rep when I like a post. I don't check after I rep to see if they returned, never though to. I know 3 or 4 I'm trying to currently rep and can't until I spread. What is the expected etiquette in received rep?
You're missing the point. I didn't even like his stupid post. I was trying to make nice with him.... just to prove i don't follow him around to bash him.
Everything I say on here I'd say right to his nose. He has an attitude problem.
How about you just say whatever you have to say like the adult you claim to be?
pj
chgo
This was an exceptional post overall, but these paragraphs right here summed up everything for my side of the story.
It seemed like every other post was something about perfect aim, yet in order to get any kind of idea what was on the dvd you had to buy it.
That just screams bs in my ears. I'm sure the dvd has something I don't know about and perhaps then some, but for 80$ i'll wait until i'm at least shortstop level before I consider it.
I said it in my first post. You're an asshole. Re-read it, mr bwains. Me calling you an asshole certainly doesn't make me a child-- it's me stating the obvious. You are what you are. I think you're an ego maniac with an attitude problem... and you're condescending to 99% of all members here. They're scared to say something but I'm not. Maybe that's why we keep butting heads?
Last edited:
Spider;
"So Dave Nelson hated the video..."
Where did I say That?
Here is what I have said; To begin, I stated to Gene that I was skeptical but would buy the dvd anyway, I did. I then stated, after watching the dvd twice and taking it to the table and trying to work with it, that I was disappointed but not surprised, that I had been there before. I said that if I had seen the dvd before buying it I wouldn't have paid 5 bucks for it.
It's not the first one and it probably won't be the last. I fact, if
Gene happened to be real close by some time I would even pay $150.00 for a personal lesson. Hope springs eternal.
Dave Nelson
"So Dave Nelson hated the video..."
Where did I say That?
Here is what I have said; To begin, I stated to Gene that I was skeptical but would buy the dvd anyway, I did. I then stated, after watching the dvd twice and taking it to the table and trying to work with it, that I was disappointed but not surprised, that I had been there before. I said that if I had seen the dvd before buying it I wouldn't have paid 5 bucks for it.
It's not the first one and it probably won't be the last. I fact, if
Gene happened to be real close by some time I would even pay $150.00 for a personal lesson. Hope springs eternal.
Dave Nelson
- Status