Unless it's from Popeyes.
How long a backstroke?
- Thread starter dquarasr
- Start date
Unless it's from Popeyes.
you evidently do *not* represent "we"
you represent "you"
as for "me"
fran made a post that I agreed with, so I said so
I'm sure you know well, that this is a "forum"...
Keep posting facts--or ask me questions and let me answer--and we're good. I do respect your right to free speech and I know you respect mine, but we should also speak with respect to one another.
I commented as to what I most appreciated about fran's post.
to find truth, we must discuss
as to *what* we discuss, I don't think we can, nor should we, limit that to "facts"
you claim to respect free speech
and I appreciate that
but what does "free speech" mean to you?
you insinuated my comments weren't "needed" here
you said my comments would be "good" if I did this and that
so, how free is free? and what does "respect" mean to you?
I like free speech. Respectful speech addresses people directly.
I left this thread a few days ago and immediately thereafter sent a PM to the OP apologizing for my part in disrupting their thread.
Hopefully they'll reconsider and won't leave.
Unfortunately there've been many other threads like this, some much worse. Regular visitors to this subforum will probably remember
the one titled "Why did Jose hit the 9 this way" which went on for 21 pages. https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=496232 This came to mind when I saw a post by Evergruven.
He's the author of that thread, where he asked a very simple question. People chimed in and everything was going along fine. Great, no problem, would have been a one page thread, maybe two, which is fine.
After about 10 posts it went off on a slight tangent (swooping) which was fine because it was legitimately related and deserved to be included in the conversation. Might now expand to 5 or 6 pages and people might learn something they were previously unaware of.
So everything's still fine.
I keep saying fine. It kind of reminds me of a scene in the movie Roadhouse. When Swayze has the meeting with all the employees at
the bar and keeps emphasizing that they should "be nice". Just be nice he keeps saying, until it's time not to be nice.
That's the movie, this is the pool forum and everything is fine--until it's not.
When do things become not fine? I think everyone already has an idea but I'll say it out loud. It's when Billiards About decides he's goingto fire up his keyboard and enlighten us ignorant heathens.
That's when this thread, the "Why did Jose hit the 9 this way" thread and many, many, many others go south. I'll admit that I and others are partly to blame. We could choose to ignore him. So why don't we? And would that accomplish anything?
I'm in Fran's camp, she said it best. When erroneous info is thrown out it's important to dispute it. Beginning players are likely to be set back and it's just not right. Misleading people to advance your own agenda is wrong, period.
I've got into it with Fran, PJ, Scott Lee, Tin Man and others, but it's almost always about opinions, which is fine. I recently made a couple posts on one of Tin Mans threads in the main forum. I prefaced my remarks saying I mostly agreed with what he was saying but had a little different viewpoint on a couple things.
He came back and said that he differed somewhat and gave some reasons why his opinion on the subject was better. I read that and thought about it and decided to let it end there. I could have replied and tried to explain why my opinion was more valid than his and we could have gone on and on. Why didn't I? It's very simple, I thought that his points and my points were of similar and equal value and people
could read them and take whatever appealed to them from either or both of us.
That is not something you can do with Matt Sherman. It's his way or the highway--facts be damned. Any questions and/or criticism will be challenged (as Fran said) up, down and sideways. It won't stop, it goes on--forever.
So far it's been going on for 8 years. The doublespeak, justifications, convoluted arguments, refusal to answer questions started from
his 2nd and 3rd threads and have never stopped.
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=283252
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=283832
I'm going to make two suggestions:
1) To myself and others who waste our time on here fruitlessly attempting to combat this guy with logic based reasoning--I suggest just
completely ignoring him. Doubt if it will work but who knows, it might.
2) To Billiards About I'm recommending a career change from Pool Instructor to Politician--you'd be a major superstar in that arena.
If I'm excommunicated for this post...so be it.
If answering your questions and that of other students is a problem, I will keep being a problem.
You don't have to like my answers.
Thanks for the nod and thanks for speaking the truth. As you well know, there's a dilemma there in ignoring certain posters (and there isn't just one.There are a few.) due to the potential for harming other players with bad info. I think there's another solution, which I've done before but not consistently enough, and that's to address the readers regarding the bad post and not engage with the poster. Yes, they'll probably try to do the same and explain and reexplain. But although that whole reexplaining thing they do is tedious, it exposes their flawed thinking to the readers. After a couple of re-explanations, it's usually obvious. I think that's the best we can offer the players who read the forum looking for answers to their issues.
dquarasr
Registered
I've returned to see what's been up on this post (I am the OP).
Here's what I observed, as a relative newbie (yes, my join date is very long ago but I've only started coming here regularly since fall of '19).
1) I was having some very frustrating fundamental problems. I worked on my game during my (continuing) furlough.
2) I had taken a lesson last year with the intent of helping me with shot-making. That lesson, while full of valuable information, did not address my fundamental problem.
3) Scott Lee and I had a conversation via phone. His input and request for me to document what I do when I approach a shot was valuable to see which of my steps (automatic or thoughtfully) I may be neglecting when my shot making starts going sideways. This input and cerebral approach fits my style.
4) Matt volunteered to help me via a remote session. He definitely identified the root cause of my inconsistency, having to do with aligning my shot line and stroke with my vision center (I am right-handed but my center is just left of the bridge of my nose).
5) Matt provided me a way to approach a shot in such a way as to ensure I am aligned. This was the "silver bullet" I had been looking for. Now, when I start missing, I can analyze my stance and alignment and correct when I start to get lazy or distracted from ensuring I am aligned (mostly having to do with keeping my head square to the shot). This was the part that previously was missing. I'd play, and play, and play, and I'd simply continue to miss - and not know why. Aim? Stroke? Stance?
At least now I can make the necessary correction. For this I will always be thankful to Matt.
6) Matt also provided an alternative aiming system, which I have yet to fully understand how it can be effective, so for now, I am working only on my shot making using my traditional ghost-ball method. (Please, no replies suggesting this or that aiming system. CTE makes my head hurt and when ready, I'll research and adopt an alternate system - maybe some day, but not right now.) In this respect, I find Matt's suggestions for aiming and stroking dubious. Not saying it's not legit, just saying it's not for me right now. And no, I will not divulge what Matt suggested. I'll leave it up to him to decide whether he discloses it.
7) Other posters' responses have been appreciated.
8) I still find the overall tone of this site, as I mentioned a few pages ago, to be geared toward the very serious player (and at times, to my eye, condescending even if not intentional), not the hobbyist such as myself. As such, I find a lot of the content to be irrelevant or confusing.
I'll try visiting this site again, but with a more jaundiced eye. There are tremendous resources available, if one can be willing to ignore that which is irrelevant to the user.
Thanks for the discussion.
Here's what I observed, as a relative newbie (yes, my join date is very long ago but I've only started coming here regularly since fall of '19).
1) I was having some very frustrating fundamental problems. I worked on my game during my (continuing) furlough.
2) I had taken a lesson last year with the intent of helping me with shot-making. That lesson, while full of valuable information, did not address my fundamental problem.
3) Scott Lee and I had a conversation via phone. His input and request for me to document what I do when I approach a shot was valuable to see which of my steps (automatic or thoughtfully) I may be neglecting when my shot making starts going sideways. This input and cerebral approach fits my style.
4) Matt volunteered to help me via a remote session. He definitely identified the root cause of my inconsistency, having to do with aligning my shot line and stroke with my vision center (I am right-handed but my center is just left of the bridge of my nose).
5) Matt provided me a way to approach a shot in such a way as to ensure I am aligned. This was the "silver bullet" I had been looking for. Now, when I start missing, I can analyze my stance and alignment and correct when I start to get lazy or distracted from ensuring I am aligned (mostly having to do with keeping my head square to the shot). This was the part that previously was missing. I'd play, and play, and play, and I'd simply continue to miss - and not know why. Aim? Stroke? Stance?
At least now I can make the necessary correction. For this I will always be thankful to Matt.
6) Matt also provided an alternative aiming system, which I have yet to fully understand how it can be effective, so for now, I am working only on my shot making using my traditional ghost-ball method. (Please, no replies suggesting this or that aiming system. CTE makes my head hurt and when ready, I'll research and adopt an alternate system - maybe some day, but not right now.) In this respect, I find Matt's suggestions for aiming and stroking dubious. Not saying it's not legit, just saying it's not for me right now. And no, I will not divulge what Matt suggested. I'll leave it up to him to decide whether he discloses it.
7) Other posters' responses have been appreciated.
8) I still find the overall tone of this site, as I mentioned a few pages ago, to be geared toward the very serious player (and at times, to my eye, condescending even if not intentional), not the hobbyist such as myself. As such, I find a lot of the content to be irrelevant or confusing.
I'll try visiting this site again, but with a more jaundiced eye. There are tremendous resources available, if one can be willing to ignore that which is irrelevant to the user.
Thanks for the discussion.
Most people here are pretty respectful of others when they are looking for advice. What happened in this thread is really not typical, especially not typical of the instructor's forum. However, this is a pool forum not a knitting forum so you have to have a little tougher skin sometimes.
Don't pay any attention to the BS. Just ask your questions and focus on that. Same thing happened to me in a tiling forum awhile back. It was clear that two guys had it out for each other and my thread turned into a pissing contest. I ignored them and continued to post what I needed to and got the help I was looking for.
If you have the ability to video yourself it can do wonders for your game. You may find things you had no idea you were doing, and it gives instructors here a better idea of what is going on. I don't recall if you mentioned anything about that previously. Apologies if you did.
How about addressing the facts I've posted, instead of slinging mud (yet again)?
I spoke correctly about bridging and stroking in this thread, answered your questions, and posted facts that are consistent with logic and physics. My methods work and my students improve.
Last edited:
Thanks for your honesty. As you'll recall, I wanted to continue our aim discussion--you hit just a shot or two using it--but time was short for you, so I'll gladly work with you again--free of charge--after your stance is better locked in, after a brief time.
Your review was balanced and is appreciated.