Dominant Eye-another view

[dr_dave]

It's pretty clear that this guy's articles on pool haven't had much (or any) critical review by knowledgeable players. I'd avoid them if I was you.

Pat,

That is a bit harsh ... don't you think. Matt may have a different approach and describes things in a non-mainstream way at times, but he is obviously very passionate and enthusiastic about the game and works hard to share his perspectives.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Pat,

That is a bit harsh ... don't you think. Matt may have a different approach and describes things in a non-mainstream way at times, but he is obviously very passionate and enthusiastic about the game and works hard to share his perspectives.

Regards,
Dave

I respect your view, Dave, but I also think Matt doesn't just "describe things in a non-mainstream way" - he gives lots of poorly considered "homemade" advice while (I think disingenuously) claiming to know it's "how the pros do it". I get the impression he's much more interested in promoting his image as an expert than in making the effort to learn to give quality guidance to developing players. I think his articles (at least the few I've seen) should have warning labels for the unaware, and since he's advertising them here I feel it's important to point that out to AzB readers.

I was harsh, maybe more than necessary when I really just intended to be unapologetically frank, but I think frankness is warranted.

pj
chgo

 

[BilliardsAbout]

I respect your view, Dave, but I also think Matt doesn't just "describe things in a non-mainstream way" - he gives lots of poorly considered "homemade" advice while (I think disingenuously) claiming to know it's "how the pros do it". I get the impression he's much more interested in promoting his image as an expert than in making the effort to learn to give quality guidance to developing players. I think his articles (at least the few I've seen) should have warning labels for the unaware, and since he's advertising them here I feel it's important to point that out to AzB readers.

I was harsh, maybe more than necessary when I really just intended to be unapologetically frank, but I think frankness is warranted.

pj
chgo

Patrick,

Do you read my replies to you at all? My endorsements include Top 20 Pool Teachers, pro teachers and players, and Instructors and Master Instructors from BCA, PBIA, ACS, WBIA, etc.

Some of my "homemade" advice I received from "pros I'm disingenuous about" like Ray Martin, Mike Sigel and Nick Varner, in person. If you received help from these Hall of Fame members and shared what you learned with the public, would you tolerate anyone else being rude to them?

I've collaborated with InsidePool and Pool & Billiards instructional staff, and numerous pool writers, pros and teaching pros. I'm also doing current projects with some of the most respected teachers who post here at AZ Billiards. Would you allow someone else to degrade their work the way you are attempting to do?

You wrote, "I get the impression he's much more interested in promoting his image as an expert than in making the effort to learn to give quality guidance to developing players."

Is that why I've contributed hundreds of instructional articles online and in print, so that people can get for free what I charge hundreds of dollars for in person?

Why do you keep insulting me, and the many readers and teaching pros at About.com, InsidePool and here at AZ Billiards?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick,

Do you read my replies to you at all? My endorsements include Top 20 Pool Teachers, pro teachers and players, and Instructors and Master Instructors from BCA, PBIA, ACS, WBIA, etc.

So you repeatedly say.

Some of my "homemade" advice I received from "pros I'm disingenuous about" like Ray Martin, Mike Sigel and Nick Varner, in person. If you received help from these Hall of Fame members and shared what you learned with the public, would you tolerate anyone else being rude to them?

I'm not being rude to them; I'm criticizing your articles. You're trying to give yourself credibility by association with them.

I've collaborated with InsidePool and Pool & Billiards instructional staff, and numerous pool writers, pros and teaching pros. I'm also doing current projects with some of the most respected teachers who post here at AZ Billiards. Would you allow someone else to degrade their work the way you are attempting to do?

I'm not degrading their work; I'm degrading yours. You're trying to use their reputations as your shield.

Why do you keep insulting me, and the many readers and teaching pros at About.com, InsidePool and here at AZ Billiards?

I'm not insulting anything but your articles. You're trying to rally support with false accusations.

Your constant need to "appeal to authority", here and in your articles, speaks volumes about the lack of real substance in what you say.

pj
chgo

 

[champ2107]

Patrick,

Do you read my replies to you at all? My endorsements include Top 20 Pool Teachers, pro teachers and players, and Instructors and Master Instructors from BCA, PBIA, ACS, WBIA, etc.

Some of my "homemade" advice I received from "pros I'm disingenuous about" like Ray Martin, Mike Sigel and Nick Varner, in person. If you received help from these Hall of Fame members and shared what you learned with the public, would you tolerate anyone else being rude to them?

I've collaborated with InsidePool and Pool & Billiards instructional staff, and numerous pool writers, pros and teaching pros. I'm also doing current projects with some of the most respected teachers who post here at AZ Billiards. Would you allow someone else to degrade their work the way you are attempting to do?

You wrote, "I get the impression he's much more interested in promoting his image as an expert than in making the effort to learn to give quality guidance to developing players."

Is that why I've contributed hundreds of instructional articles online and in print, so that people can get for free what I charge hundreds of dollars for in person?

Why do you keep insulting me, and the many readers and teaching pros at About.com, InsidePool and here at AZ Billiards?

I hope you have the balls to continue and you don't let the anal guy chase you off of here! He is just a local pool room guy who maybe teaches a few kids the fundamentals of the game. He also has an extreme obsession about the technical part of pool.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

So you repeatedly say.


I'm not being rude to them; I'm criticizing your articles. You're trying to give yourself credibility by association with them.


I'm not degrading their work; I'm degrading yours. You're trying to use their reputations as your shield.


I'm not insulting anything but your articles. You're trying to rally support with false accusations.

Your constant need to "appeal to authority", here and in your articles, speaks volumes about the lack of real substance in what you say.

pj
chgo

Not at all, Patrick:

Your arguments are circular. You insulted my articles without facts in evidence and I cited the facts.

You insulted my associations with no justification and I cited the facts.

You insulted me saying I have no oversight and no pro backing and I cited the facts (again).

You accuse me of wanting to appear an expert, yet you keep forcing me to cite credentials and successes on AZ that I wouldn't need to otherwise. The result? You're helping me draw more students for paid lessons. Can I pay you cash to keep insulting me and my teaching?

 

[BilliardsAbout]

I hope you have the balls to continue and you don't let the anal guy chase you off of here! He is just a local pool room guy who maybe teaches a few kids the fundamentals of the game. He also has an extreme obsession about the technical part of pool.

[[I hope you have the balls to continue and you don't let the anal guy chase you off of here! He is just a local pool room guy who maybe teaches a few kids the fundamentals of the game. He also has an extreme obsession about the technical part of pool.]]

Hi, Champ:

Thanks for the encouragement. Patrick knows MUCH about pool and I wish more players were like him, except when he insults readers' intelligence without citing any facts.

I do wonder how many sincere students he's scared away from posting at all at AZ. These forums are getting a reputation for reducing otherwise intelligent discussions into flame wars.

 

[champ2107]

[[I hope you have the balls to continue and you don't let the anal guy chase you off of here! He is just a local pool room guy who maybe teaches a few kids the fundamentals of the game. He also has an extreme obsession about the technical part of pool.]]

Hi, Champ:

Thanks for the encouragement. Patrick knows MUCH about pool and I wish more players were like him, except when he insults readers' intelligence without citing any facts.

I do wonder how many sincere students he's scared away from posting at all at AZ. These forums are getting a reputation for reducing otherwise intelligent discussions into flame wars.

he has annoyed and chased off many on here! You will notice he will be relentless against you and not discuss things like a normal person. he will answer questions with questions, try and get you to answer your own questions, he will ignore your points,he will pick words or sentences and use them out of context,he will debate common sense as a last resort,etc. Honestly, there is no winning in the way he chooses to debate things on this kind of format, it favors him and he uses it to his advantage

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...you keep forcing me to cite credentials and successes

LOL. Who "forces" you to constantly blow your own horn on About.com?

Can I pay you cash to keep insulting me and my teaching?

That sounds like a reasonable compromise.

pj
chgo

 

[BilliardsAbout]

[[LOL. Who "forces" you to constantly blow your own horn on About.com?]]

A reasonable question. I used to shy away from certain terms, and you can see me changing over time by article date. I'd found in billiards teaching, as in my other instruction, citing one's own authority and credentials helps ease student fears.

I don't want this to be taken the wrong way, but I am an amazingly good pool teacher and all my students improve.

Thanks again.

 

[sfleinen]

Folks:

(Specifically Pat and Matt.)

If you'll allow me, I'd like to offer some observations and thoughts:

1. Credentials and other sliderule-measuring aside, the [pool] difference between focused forums (like AZB) and a generic "all purpose" website like About.com is STAGGERING. It's like comparing the raw Internet against, oh, say, America Online. The former is where all the think-tankers go, while the latter is for the average Joe and Jane Does looking for a friendly packaged and thumb-tabbed version of the morning paper's headlines. If you're a pool nut, you don't go to "About.com" -- you go here instead. If one is becoming an enthusiast for a particular sport (like pool), one quickly finds out about these "advanced resources" (like AZB), and will start to grow out of these AOLs / About.coms, towards these more focused and advanced resources. It's just a natural progression, like riding a bike. At some point, you start to take the training wheels off, and then comes the time when you don't need the training wheels ever again.

2. Additionally, as an instructor or information purveyor on these AOLs, it BEHOOVES those said people to, before they publish "articles" to those AOLs, that they first check the facts with the knowledge found on the think-tanks first. Remember, people visiting those AOLs are either rank beginners, or just plain lack the experience to know / be able to use the more advanced resources. They need to be presented CORRECT information. All too often -- and I'm not talking specifically about (or even about) Matt here -- there are some BONEHEADED "articles" published to those AOLs. I can't recall the exact link, but I recall there was an "article" published to one of these AOLs (e.g. About.com? or was it eHow.com?) that described how to make a pool cue out of a piece of plywood, by cutting a strip out of it, and sanding that strip down into the shape of a pool cue. It was the laughing stock of the cue maker's forum for a good long time. I think that kind of article "snake oilry" is what gives those AOLs their reputation for incorrect / unreliable information. In order to avoid or "right the ship" to that kind of reputation, it BEHOOVES the information purveyor to check his facts first, *before* publishing the article. Not afterwards, as an "advertisement" here for the article, or the information purveyor's credentials.

3. Those of us in the information publishing business learn, very quickly, to put our prides away. The information is number one, not our reputation or pride. By the time a writer graduates to a think-tank forum, he/she has matured to the point of realizing there's a bigger world out there than this prophylactic-wrapped version of information presented on those AOLs. If you come here, be ready to have your information (and even your knowledge) questioned and put up for debate. It is a public forum, and in particular, a point-purpose forum -- where information about very specific topics is discussed and debated.

4. To further illustrate my point, I'll use myself as an example. Folks know that my "other life" (life outside of pool) exists in the information technology business -- specifically information security. I wouldn't *DARE* start publishing articles to, say, About.com, on the topic of, say, "How to secure Internet routers against threats" unless I've done my double-time in those targeted think-tanker forums. To do otherwise is completely backwards, and *WILL* attract uninvited negative criticism, especially if my material is erroneous. Let's be right about this -- I do know what I'm doing (been doing this stuff for almost 30 years), but I always *double check* and vet my facts against public think-tanker knowledge before I wrap my packaging around the information and present it in another venue.

Humbly, Matt, I don't want to get between you and Pat. But in the spirit of open-source knowledge, you got the process backwards. You published an article to an AOL, and then "advertised" it here. *Of course* you drew criticism from a think-tanker, because there are parts of your article I can easily see disagreement with. (In fact, you may recall one article of yours that I'm particularly "enamored" with, where you try to describe how to aim by aiming directly at the contact point on the object ball, which conventional wisdom shows you will undercut the ball every time.)

You do have a wonderful, polished writing style, Matt. But it's the backend "information pipes" I think you need to take a second look at.

Anyway, those are my observations from a wannabe think-tanker, who just happens to be known for taking down a regional tournament or two. ;-)

Respectfully,
-Sean

 

[SpiderWebComm]

PJ--

You're overly critical. You look at things with a hyper-sensitivity to technical detail (not that that's bad); however, Matt's articles aren't bad. I think if you re-read them from the perspective of a total novice player, you'd find they'd definitely help more than hurt. You're positioning his articles as gnostic writings that contradict your gospel of hyper-technicality -- that should be avoided at all costs or face crucifixion.

Did I find a few things that could be worded better? Sure - of course. That doesn't mean people can't find useful things in his articles. I recall one of your RSB articles where you said you rock your head back and forth like a lizard to see the point right and then pretend your cue ball path extends to the OB like a "Light saber." So, although your writings/posts are usually technically great now, they weren't always. Neither were mine or anyone's.

It almost seems as though you're pissing on his shit just to mark your territory as the "high supreme commander of allied technical forces in pool."

Relax and re-read Dr. Dave's post (for once, I agree w/ him).

Matt--- super job, btw. If you can wither PJ's shit-storm, you'll be a fine member here. If you can fade that, you can fade most things here on azb. Keep up the good work - your stuff is fun to read.

Dave

 

[Mirza]

Back to the thread topic - dominant eye weird situation!!!

First of all, I must say I'm into aiming systems, learned a lot of them, but could never be consistent enough as I would like too with either.

Last night when I played, for the first time, after that night, I thought that it mighnt not be because I'm doing something wrong.

After 3 hours of play, when I went home, I did the test of eye dominance (look at distant object, close your hands arround it, close one eye then the other) and I was really surprised - result was that I'm left eye dominant?!? Of course I did this test long before, when I first read how to do it here on the forum and I was right eye dominant.

This morning, when I woke up, I did the test again, and I'm right eye dominant again.

I'm really confused. Was I left eye dominant last night because I tested myself just after playing. Can I be left eye dominant just for playing pool? I'm really confused about this, can anyone help?

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Sean:

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

I met with some About.com Guides about a month ago in person, including a leading opthalmologist, the writer of over 30 books, and some top businesspeople and marketing and entertainment talent. Many of our readers are equally articulate.

Yes, there are many content mills online where the stupidest articles imaginable, like the one you mentioned, are churned out to draw ad revenue. That's not About at all. We go for quality of content and not grabbing SEO terms.

Also, and as demonstrated by readers' posts here at AZ, it's untrue that my site is for babies while the grownups are here. There are lurkers at both sites and strong intellectuals at both, like anywhere else. The nature of most any forum is that some small number of dedicated posters do a lot of threads while About in sheer, vast numbers alone has thousands of excellent pool shooters reading it, even if you insist most are "babies", which they are not. I get e-mails constantly from strong players who want to ask questions or debate a point.

PS. You are discounting my articles (and the very thread you're citing at AZ!) where I've explained, patiently, (sigh) how some top players consciously aim at the contact point while subconciously going for the ghost ball and/or otherwise adjusting for CIT, etc.

We both know contact point aim undercuts balls. I've said so at my site and it's on my Aim Primer, which inspired the latest debate.

Shari Stauch has a diagram in Pool Player's Edge showing contact point undercut, and her teaching is always sound--don't misunderstand me--we discussed Edge when we spoke in Atlanta--but it is she who collated pro comments in her famous article polling pro aim that shows a plurality of pros aim right at the contact point.

The argument could be, "Contact point undercuts--it's a fact!" yet it should be "Then why do so many strong players aim at the contact point?"

I'll go with the geometry of a Patrick Johnson (yes, I said that despite the need for an Internet restraining order) or a Dr. Alciatore any day, and would insist the player is merely making an unconscious adjustment if they disagree.

But why can AZ readers admit ghost ball players can adjust aim for CIT, Sean, but cannot admit contact players adjust to score balls? They can and do. I don't get it.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

PJ--

You're overly critical. You look at things with a hyper-sensitivity to technical detail (not that that's bad); however, Matt's articles aren't bad. I think if you re-read them from the perspective of a total novice player, you'd find they'd definitely help more than hurt. You're positioning his articles as gnostic writings that contradict your gospel of hyper-technicality -- that should be avoided at all costs or face crucifixion.

Did I find a few things that could be worded better? Sure - of course. That doesn't mean people can't find useful things in his articles. I recall one of your RSB articles where you said you rock your head back and forth like a lizard to see the point right and then pretend your cue ball path extends to the OB like a "Light saber." So, although your writings/posts are usually technically great now, they weren't always. Neither were mine or anyone's.

It almost seems as though you're pissing on his shit just to mark your territory as the "high supreme commander of allied technical forces in pool."

Relax and re-read Dr. Dave's post (for once, I agree w/ him).

Matt--- super job, btw. If you can wither PJ's shit-storm, you'll be a fine member here. If you can fade that, you can fade most things here on azb. Keep up the good work - your stuff is fun to read.

Dave

Rock on, brother.

You hit the nail. I try to embrace beginners on up in understandable terms. Patrick is often correct, but could get more flies with honey, you know?

If Patrick read between my lines, he'd stop attacking me. I keep posting here to cover his slander. The more he attacks me, the more I post to AZ.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

First of all, I must say I'm into aiming systems, learned a lot of them, but could never be consistent enough as I would like too with either.

Last night when I played, for the first time, after that night, I thought that it mighnt not be because I'm doing something wrong.

After 3 hours of play, when I went home, I did the test of eye dominance (look at distant object, close your hands arround it, close one eye then the other) and I was really surprised - result was that I'm left eye dominant?!? Of course I did this test long before, when I first read how to do it here on the forum and I was right eye dominant.

This morning, when I woke up, I did the test again, and I'm right eye dominant again.

I'm really confused. Was I left eye dominant last night because I tested myself just after playing. Can I be left eye dominant just for playing pool? I'm really confused about this, can anyone help?

Thanks for getting the thread back, Mirza.

Most people are somewhat ambiocular, meaning their "vision center" is not directly under one eye or the other. For example, someone might play best with the cue stick a bit closer to their nose (or vice versa before someone accuses me of stance issues) then their eye.

It's debatable whether sticking one eye over the stick, or a chin, or a copy of a debate between me and pj printed from this thread, will make you pocket balls better.

What will help you are other things:

1. A strong eye/body alignment system like Perfect Aim Billiards. Nice stuff in there.

2. Getting Joe Tucker's Third Eye trainer for just $14 or so including ship and teaching yourself better head/eye positioning and aim.

3. Getting Tony Mattina's CueTrack stroke trainer--it's a powerful aim and stance device as well. I endorse this item because it is the Rolls Royce of aim, stance and stroke trainers. Everyone I've let shoot with one wants to buy one.

4. Get into your aim system a bit and let's make sure you are using a sound method to aim in general. Post here and tell us more. Or come to my site and read dozens of articles about stance, aim and stroke. (Sorry, fellas, couldn't resist that sweet plug!)

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I don't want this to be taken the wrong way, but I am an amazingly good pool teacher

I doubt anybody misunderstands your opinion of yourself.

pj
chgo

 

[BilliardsAbout]

I'm understating--you don't get it!

I told my wife this week, when she asked about my dreams and aspirations--that my dream of becoming one of the best and most successful pool instructors in the world has come true!

Amazingly good pool teacher is an understatement. Thanks, Patrick, again!

 

[Mirza]

Thanks for getting the thread back, Mirza.

Most people are somewhat ambiocular, meaning their "vision center" is not directly under one eye or the other. For example, someone might play best with the cue stick a bit closer to their nose (or vice versa before someone accuses me of stance issues) then their eye.

It's debatable whether sticking one eye over the stick, or a chin, or a copy of a debate between me and pj printed from this thread, will make you pocket balls better.

What will help you are other things:

1. A strong eye/body alignment system like Perfect Aim Billiards. Nice stuff in there.

2. Getting Joe Tucker's Third Eye trainer for just $14 or so including ship and teaching yourself better head/eye positioning and aim.

3. Getting Tony Mattina's CueTrack stroke trainer--it's a powerful aim and stance device as well. I endorse this item because it is the Rolls Royce of aim, stance and stroke trainers. Everyone I've let shoot with one wants to buy one.

4. Get into your aim system a bit and let's make sure you are using a sound method to aim in general. Post here and tell us more. Or come to my site and read dozens of articles about stance, aim and stroke. (Sorry, fellas, couldn't resist that sweet plug!)

Thank you for your answer, but it isn't an answer to my question, I am familiar with all the posibilities of cue/eye placement and I do think it matters, but that is not what I was asking.

Thanks anyway..

Anyone else?!

 

[sfleinen]

Sean:

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

I met with some About.com Guides about a month ago in person, including a leading opthalmologist, the writer of over 30 books, and some top businesspeople and marketing and entertainment talent. Many of our readers are equally articulate.

Yes, there are many content mills online where the stupidest articles imaginable, like the one you mentioned, are churned out to draw ad revenue. That's not About at all. We go for quality of content and not grabbing SEO terms.

Matt:

I think the issue is that "About.com" is not recognized as a source of vetted pool information. To be honest, I'd not heard of it until a few years ago, and I'd long been an AZB member by then. I think I was searching for something one day, using very targeted Google searches, and some article of yours came up. I was like, "hmph. Didn't know this generic information site had a pool corner. I'll have to check it out one day." It was only until I saw a few Google searches turn up more articles that I perused your area for a while to become familiar.

Also, and as demonstrated by readers' posts here at AZ, it's untrue that my site is for babies while the grownups are here. There are lurkers at both sites and strong intellectuals at both, like anywhere else. The nature of most any forum is that some small number of dedicated posters do a lot of threads while About in sheer, vast numbers alone has thousands of excellent pool shooters reading it, even if you insist most are "babies", which they are not. I get e-mails constantly from strong players who want to ask questions or debate a point.

We're not going to agree on this, Matt, so I'll leave it to you if you want to burn CPU cycles trying to "convince" me otherwise.

PS. You are discounting my articles (and the very thread you're citing at AZ!) where I've explained, patiently, (sigh) how some top players consciously aim at the contact point while subconciously going for the ghost ball and/or otherwise adjusting for CIT, etc.

We both know contact point aim undercuts balls. I've said so at my site and it's on my Aim Primer, which inspired the latest debate.

Shari Stauch has a diagram in Pool Player's Edge showing contact point undercut, and her teaching is always sound--don't misunderstand me--we discussed Edge when we spoke in Atlanta--but it is she who collated pro comments in her famous article polling pro aim that shows a plurality of pros aim right at the contact point.

The argument could be, "Contact point undercuts--it's a fact!" yet it should be "Then why do so many strong players aim at the contact point?"

I'll go with the geometry of a Patrick Johnson (yes, I said that despite the need for an Internet restraining order) or a Dr. Alciatore any day, and would insist the player is merely making an unconscious adjustment if they disagree.

But why can AZ readers admit ghost ball players can adjust aim for CIT, Sean, but cannot admit contact players adjust to score balls? They can and do. I don't get it.

Good grief. We were once on the topic of this site compared to the AOLs of the Internet (e.g. About.com, eHow.com) and how articles should be vetted against "conventional wisdom" in think-tanks before being published. But, a passing mention of an article that I, to this day, still disagree with (a single sentence mention -- to use as an example of the point I was trying to make), inspired all this? It's not going to work, Matt. For one thing, that Shari Stauch article is 3 years short of being 20 years old. That article has long, l-o-n-g been discussed here on these forums, if you'll care to look. It's old, dead fodder -- no need to resurrect it. That is, unless, via your new-ish membership here, you're thinking it's "valid ammo" to bring to a discussion of aiming, not realizing it's already old fodder? I'll give you a hint: that article has already been identified for what it is -- a collection of quoted anecdotes from pro players, and not really a de-facto description of "how the pros aim." I don't know about anyone else, but back then -- and even now -- I didn't "learn" anything by reading that article. Rather, I came away with a, "hmph, that's interesting" notion. That's it. No, "Ooo! I'll have to go try that!" light bulb illumination or anything like that. Just, "Hmph. Ok, that's an interesting way Buddy puts it." Just like when reading the morning paper.

Let's get back on topic with the original topic of this thread -- dominant eye, and the OP's misuse of the scenario he describes.

-Sean