Perfect aim - review

[poolpro]

So I have a question.

Do you believe someone that doesn't understand the material should post to a forum of potential customers and provide incorrect information about what is contained in the DVD?

I see nothing wrong with PJ writing a review for a product that has already been reviewed by many. My issue is that he has appeared to divulge secret information about the contents of the video, but in reality has made a libel claim.

Well I have a question for you then:

As this dvd has been touted to be of help to players OF ALL LEVELS- even IF you assume that Pj did not ( or still does not) have an understanding of what the dvd contains, this should point out a very obvious flaw of the dvd which goes right back into what everyone is so adamently disagreeing with.

Stay with me for a sec. If your position is that PJ is unqualified to make a review of the dvd based on his lack of knowing or having a clear understanding of the material contained on the INSTRUCTIONAL dvd, THEn it follows that the dvd has failed him!

Is a good instructional dvd supposed to be of value only to people who already have a complete understanding of the material? How ridiculously ironic are these claims!!

Is this a better review that you would like to see? -

" In reviewing this instructional dvd it is made quite clear that anyone who has already mastered all of the information that it contains will be comforted in the reassurance that they still understand what they already knew! .... Anyone else, however is in trouble, and should call the author of the dvd for help. "

- The New York Times



Would that review have been better? It really seems like it is more along the lines of what some of you want.



A lot of you are saying he is unqualified to review it or understand it. If the dvd is only of value to people who have top playing credentials and a vast amount of pool knowledge, then I guess we should also thoroughly screen and review ALL potential buyers of this dvd to see if they are qualified to glean its wisdom.

Once more, this one ONE person's experience with the product. RESULTS MAY VARY!!! Pick ANY product that you happen to love and that you would endorse without question. NOW do a search for reviews of that product. See? Not everyone has had the same experience as you have!

Why is this even news? This just in..... different people have different opinions. SOME people may even express them! Get over it.

Why is it SOOO offensive that someone may express their personal opinion on their personal experience of a product. None of you felt the need to get any credentials on those who said they loved the dvd, so why is it required of those on the other side?



Jw

 

[Clark_the_Shark]

Dammit... "You must spread some reputation around before giving it to poolpro again!"

All I can say is... WHAT THE HELL TOOK SO LONG FOR SOMEONE TO GET THE VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT YOU JUST DESCRIBED????

 

[SUPERSTAR]

MY spider sense is tingling now.
Hhhmmmmmmmm.

 

[cookie man]

These are untrue statements - why are they necessary unless you have no real argument? I've rarely posted in any thread about Perfect Aim and I haven't said anything against it before this review because I didn't know anything about it until I saw the dvd (despite the endless threads about it). Doesn't that fact alone mean a factual review was long overdue?

pj
chgo

I'm capable of distinguishing my annoyance about Gene's spamming from my assessment of what he's selling, thank you.

What's preventing me from getting useful knowledge is that there doesn't seem to be any around here. Your descriptions make no sense to me and Gene's descriptions are non-existent. I'm not interested in pursuing "knowledge" that can't be described in a comprehensible way.

I'm glad it's helping you.

pj
chgo


PJ, Bashing Gene and perfect aim since 9/29/09

 

[cookie man]

WOW, you got any facts to the contrary? Or are you just another accuse-and-run driveby poster?

pj
chgo

You have been following info for 2 months, and yet you said you knew nothing about perfect aim. Imagine that.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Wow, we found PJ's brother. Where has info like Gene's been discussed on this forum before? Don't say do a search, PJ said it now prove it.

Fair enough. I took PJ at his word. Though I suppose a link to a post about this specific topic would end that particular debate.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

So I have a question.

Do you believe someone that doesn't understand the material should post to a forum of potential customers and provide incorrect information about what is contained in the DVD?

This seems like a reasonable question to me. So let me try to answer as best I can. Again, I need to point out that this is a public internet forum. I believe the only requirement to expressing your opinions on here is to register and stay within the code of conduct. I guess that answers the question "are they allowed to post". As for whether they *should* post, I would answer that people should express their opinion whenever possible, though hopefully with an attitude of humility, and in such a way as to elicit comments and input from others. I guess the debate is still open on whether the information Patrick posted is "incorrect". Could you perhaps quote a sentence that is specifically false in Patrick's review so we could get on the same page about this incorrectness?

I see nothing wrong with PJ writing a review for a product that has already been reviewed by many. My issue is that he has appeared to divulge secret information about the contents of the video, but in reality has made a libel claim.

On this one I would agree with you. I know this isn't much, but I did a paper on libel in high school. If I'm not mistaken, in order for a statement about someone else to be libel, I believe it must be false but presented as true. Patrick offered the disclaimer that he was offering a *review*. Hence all material following is by definition his opinion. Every statement in the review is *truly* his opinion. As for the specific claims about the content of the DVD, which ones are false? Whether or not Patrick "understands" the material speaks to the *value* he assigns to the DVD. However, no real understanding is necessary in order to directly quote the DVD, and almost no understanding is necessary to paraphrase the content accurately. So again, lets get on the same page. If you could just quote 1 sentence (preferably *only* one, for clarity sake) that Patrick made about the *content* of the DVD which is false, it would help.
Now, if the material that Patrick said was covered at length in previous threads was *not* covered, then I agree with you that he should not be talking about it in the review.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Patrick Johnson]

cookie man quoting me:

I'm capable of distinguishing my annoyance about Gene's spamming from my assessment of what he's selling, thank you.

What's preventing me from getting useful knowledge is that there doesn't seem to be any around here. Your descriptions make no sense to me and Gene's descriptions are non-existent. I'm not interested in pursuing "knowledge" that can't be described in a comprehensible way.

I'm glad it's helping you.

pj
chgo

I'm not bashing Perfect Aim in this quote. As anybody with basic reading ability (and no axe to grind) can see, I'm complaining about the lack of information being presented in the endless threads of praise for Perfect Aim, mostly coming from Gene himself. This is the same thing I said above:

I haven't said anything against [Perfect Aim] before this review because I didn't know anything about it until I saw the dvd (despite the endless threads about it).

Why is it necessary for all you Perfect Aim cheerleaders to pretend that I'm biased about Perfect Aim and even make up criticisms I haven't posted? Why can none of you describe what you say I misunderstood or misrepresented in my review? Do you think you're helping or hurting Perfect Aim's reputation?

pj
chgo

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Well I have a question for you then:

As this dvd has been touted to be of help to players OF ALL LEVELS- even IF you assume that Pj did not ( or still does not) have an understanding of what the dvd contains, this should point out a very obvious flaw of the dvd which goes right back into what everyone is so adamently disagreeing with.

Stay with me for a sec. If your position is that PJ is unqualified to make a review of the dvd based on his lack of knowing or having a clear understanding of the material contained on the INSTRUCTIONAL dvd, THEn it follows that the dvd has failed him!

Is a good instructional dvd supposed to be of value only to people who already have a complete understanding of the material? How ridiculously ironic are these claims!!

Is this a better review that you would like to see? -

" In reviewing this instructional dvd it is made quite clear that anyone who has already mastered all of the information that it contains will be comforted in the reassurance that they still understand what they already knew! .... Anyone else, however is in trouble, and should call the author of the dvd for help. "

- The New York Times



Would that review have been better? It really seems like it is more along the lines of what some of you want.



A lot of you are saying he is unqualified to review it or understand it. If the dvd is only of value to people who have top playing credentials and a vast amount of pool knowledge, then I guess we should also thoroughly screen and review ALL potential buyers of this dvd to see if they are qualified to glean its wisdom.

Once more, this one ONE person's experience with the product. RESULTS MAY VARY!!! Pick ANY product that you happen to love and that you would endorse without question. NOW do a search for reviews of that product. See? Not everyone has had the same experience as you have!

Why is this even news? This just in..... different people have different opinions. SOME people may even express them! Get over it.

Why is it SOOO offensive that someone may express their personal opinion on their personal experience of a product. None of you felt the need to get any credentials on those who said they loved the dvd, so why is it required of those on the other side?



Jw

Excellent post!!

 

[stuckart]

This seems like a reasonable question to me. So let me try to answer as best I can. Again, I need to point out that this is a public internet forum. I believe the only requirement to expressing your opinions on here is to register and stay within the code of conduct. I guess that answers the question "are they allowed to post". As for whether they *should* post, I would answer that people should express their opinion whenever possible, though hopefully with an attitude of humility, and in such a way as to elicit comments and input from others. I guess the debate is still open on whether the information Patrick posted is "incorrect". Could you perhaps quote a sentence that is specifically false in Patrick's review so we could get on the same page about this incorrectness?

In the following section the Underlined Red Text is false!

Perfect Aim is nothing more than Gene’s opinion that we should sight all pool shots by aligning the “inside” edge of the CB with the place on the OB where it should overlap for the cut angle we want, and that we should position the eye nearest that side of the CB directly over this line to get the truest picture of it. For instance:

- for a 30-degree cut to the left (a 1/2 ball hit), sight from the CB’s left edge to the exact center of the OB by positioning the left eye over that line

- for a 49-degree cut to the right (a 1/4 ball hit), sight from the CB’s right edge to the point 1/2 radius in from the OB’s left edge by positioning the right eye over that line

- for a straight shot, sight from the CB’s edge to the OB’s edge by positioning the dominant eye over that line (obviously, using the edges on the dominant eye side)

That’s really all there is to the technique, and it’s obviously nothing new to AZB (and not proprietary intellectual property). Aligning the CB’s edge with the overlap point on the OB is simply the well known “double overlap” or “double offset” system, and positioning the eye directly over this line is one of several possible eye positions that have been extensively discussed and debated here. Gene seems to think that his opinion about the correct answer to this narrow question is worth $80 - I don’t think it’s worth very much at all, but maybe that’s just me.
pj
chgo

On this one I would agree with you. I know this isn't much, but I did a paper on libel in high school. If I'm not mistaken, in order for a statement about someone else to be libel, I believe it must be false but presented as true. Patrick offered the disclaimer that he was offering a *review*. Hence all material following is by definition his opinion. Every statement in the review is *truly* his opinion. As for the specific claims about the content of the DVD, which ones are false? Whether or not Patrick "understands" the material speaks to the *value* he assigns to the DVD. However, no real understanding is necessary in order to directly quote the DVD, and almost no understanding is necessary to paraphrase the content accurately. So again, lets get on the same page. If you could just quote 1 sentence (preferably *only* one, for clarity sake) that Patrick made about the *content* of the DVD which is false, it would help.
Now, if the material that Patrick said was covered at length in previous threads was *not* covered, then I agree with you that he should not be talking about it in the review.

KMRUNOUT

Sorry, for clarity, I had to quote multiple lines to show the snowball effect that the first false line creates in the entire review.

And you are exactly correct in the definition of Libel. (I too did a paper on Defamation in College)

 

[woody_968]

Rather than argue, talk with your GREEN. Anyone who want is FREE to buy the "Perfect Ainin" DVD, anyone who think it is not a good value save your GREEN.

Ya know Coco, I think we can finally agree on something

Now if people could just leave it at that

 

[stuckart]

Well I have a question for you then:

As this dvd has been touted to be of help to players OF ALL LEVELS- even IF you assume that Pj did not ( or still does not) have an understanding of what the dvd contains, this should point out a very obvious flaw of the dvd which goes right back into what everyone is so adamently disagreeing with.

Stay with me for a sec. If your position is that PJ is unqualified to make a review of the dvd based on his lack of knowing or having a clear understanding of the material contained on the INSTRUCTIONAL dvd, THEn it follows that the dvd has failed him!

Is a good instructional dvd supposed to be of value only to people who already have a complete understanding of the material? How ridiculously ironic are these claims!!

Is this a better review that you would like to see? -

" In reviewing this instructional dvd it is made quite clear that anyone who has already mastered all of the information that it contains will be comforted in the reassurance that they still understand what they already knew! .... Anyone else, however is in trouble, and should call the author of the dvd for help. "

- The New York Times

Would that review have been better? It really seems like it is more along the lines of what some of you want.

A lot of you are saying he is unqualified to review it or understand it. If the dvd is only of value to people who have top playing credentials and a vast amount of pool knowledge, then I guess we should also thoroughly screen and review ALL potential buyers of this dvd to see if they are qualified to glean its wisdom.

Once more, this one ONE person's experience with the product. RESULTS MAY VARY!!! Pick ANY product that you happen to love and that you would endorse without question. NOW do a search for reviews of that product. See? Not everyone has had the same experience as you have!

Why is this even news? This just in..... different people have different opinions. SOME people may even express them! Get over it.

Why is it SOOO offensive that someone may express their personal opinion on their personal experience of a product. None of you felt the need to get any credentials on those who said they loved the dvd, so why is it required of those on the other side?

Jw

I never said the DVD itself was perfect. And obviously with some better production and explanation could have came across better to more viewers/players.

I never questioned PJ's credentials, and frankly I could care less as it really has nothing to do with this thread. That must be directed at someone else. All I cared about was that PJ didn't understand the information from the DVD, whether it was his close mind to the subject or the poor production of the DVD or combination of each. And that by seeming to reveal information about the DVD to the forum, it would guide others to believe those bullets as being the entire system, thus turning away numerous potential students of Gene's System.

 

[schon267]

there are mainly two requirements for being a good teacher (instructor): Good knowledge, and good communication skills. Patrick johnson has repeatedly demonstrated that he is in possession of both. And there are no edicts that say he cannot possess and share these qualities without obtaining them from an official certifying agency. I think anyone (including me) could learn a lot from pj if he were to give lessons.

Roger

agreed, and as i said in a previous post, just because your a great player, that doesn't mean you would be a good teacher. But just because you have posted over 7000 times here, does that mean your really qualified to do reviews? Posting 7000 plus times doesn't mean anything other then you sit in front of your computer to long!

So getting back to the qualifications to teach something. I would like to have someone teach me that has #1- been a great player who has a vast amount of experience in the trenches of the subject he is teaching. Or a person who has accredidation from a ruling body of that subject. Just because a person may read a lot of stuff about a given subject, does that make them qualified?

Example, your getting on an airplane, do you want the captain piloting your plane to be someone who has over 7000 posts on an aviation forum? Or do you want a guy that has vast actual experience flying airplanes or a certified aviation instructor with accredidation to teach pilots. I think you know the answer.

So since pj is just another poster like all of us, and has no accredidation through the bca or any other pool organization that i know, why does he take it upon himself to do the official review?

I am not the reviewer of reviewers either like stated a few posts ago, but i feel like pj has been clearly outspoken against gene and his promotion of his dvd, so i responded with my own statement about it. Pj won't answer any questions i have posed to him other asking me a question instead. That's ok, and you pj followers out there like him, and thats ok too. After all you have no shortage of his posts to read. 7000 plus and counting, i guess thats accredidation that he knows what he is talking about.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

stuckart:
In the following section the Underlined Red Text is false!

The text you underlined is true and is exactly what Gene describes in his video. There's no ambiguity or uncertainty - that's what he says and demonstrates. If you didn't understand this much then I can see why you had to call Gene for more explanation.

Or is this more of what you got from Gene on the phone? If he says on the phone that his technique isn't to sight as I describe, then he's saying it isn't as he describes it in his own video - i.e., he's contradicting himself.

I notice you still don't say what you think is true.

pj
chgo

 

[1 Pocket Ghost]

Just to show (and surprise some members) that Pat isn't always contrary, lol...and that he is actually capable of, and willing to, absorb, compliment, and endorse someones teachings...here is a post that he made 2 years ago re. his taking One Pocket lessons from me - lessons by the way, that are still ongoing.


- Ghost

PS, And of course....there was no 'self-love' involved with me re-posting this, lol.

1 pocket is a thinking person's game, so I'm lucky to have a world class one pocket thinker to help me learn it. I've taken lessons with 1 Pocket Ghost a few times now, and I'm always more impressed than before with the depth of his knowledge and insights about the game.

Last night was no exception - as usual, we just went through some games shot by shot, stopping and analyzing each situation's opportunities and risks before taking each shot - sometimes trying out one option to illustrate how it actually worked out (Ghost is uncannily accurate in his predictions) and then replacing the balls to try another.

Ghost could easily go on for 15 minutes or more about each situation, showing me multiple shots and moves each time when I struggled to find one or two. And he doesn't just see the options; he also sees their strengths and weaknesses in great detail and can articulate clearly how to rank them from best to worst and why the situation favors one over another. I don't just learn shots from him (although his shot creativity is one of the most fun things about him); I learn how to think about the game.

Lots of players can play the game well, but it's a rare one who plays well and can also explain the hows and whys of the game to a banger like me. I don't think he particularly wants me promoting him here, but I wanted to point him out to you all for your own education - so that you might pay a little closer attention when he adds his opinion to a 1 pocket thread. It'll be worth your time.

pj
chgo

 

[stuckart]

The text you underlined is true and is exactly what Gene describes in his video. There's no ambiguity or uncertainty - that's what he says and demonstrates. If you didn't understand this much then I can see why you had to call Gene for more explanation.

Or is this more of what you got from Gene on the phone? If he says on the phone that his technique isn't to sight as I describe, then he's saying it isn't as he describes it in his own video - i.e., he's contradicting himself.

I notice you still don't say what you think is true.

pj
chgo

You know what, you must be right! I'm so stupid that I somehow got completely different alignment information out of the video than you did. And the information I got has helped me by adding numerous shots to my arsenal.

Like I've said in previous posts, my phone call to Gene was to ask advanced questions about applying large amounts of spin and how to adjust accordingly.

I was thinking that it was possible, that maybe, just maybe, you could possibly think that what you got out of the video is wrong. But I was wrong again! Sorry to waste your time!

I've said my peace! Off to Perfect Aim some balls in the hole!

Peace

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Casper:
Pat isn't always contrary

Sez you.

pj
chgo

 

[cmbwsu]

Mr. Johnson -

I see someone self promoting on the forum! Get after her!

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=166034

$13 bucks for a piece of plastic. $20 for two of them? OMG, OUTRAGIOUS!!!!

We can't let anyone get away with this!!! How dare them to use a free forum to connect with the customers directly and promote something that they might find useful.

My Review

I got my hands on the Robin Dotson "Cue-It-Up!" so that I could review it. It's apparently the 5th attempt at a Cue Clip - I never saw the first ones.

My Opinion: It's so bad that it doesn't even deserve a serious review, and I wouldn't bother except for the fact that Robin continues to promote it heavily on AZB, makes extraordinary claims for its uniqueness and effectiveness, and asks an outrageous price for it ($13 for 1, $20 for 2).

My advice: save your money and instead reread some AZB threads on the topic.

I reviewed this self proclaiming overpriced object and it didn't work at all. I clipped it onto my cues but they didn't stand by themselves. I can't believe someone of their playing ability would sell such a product and try and promote it here, right if front of our faces. Do not buy this POS as it doesn't work.

.....


ps. Sorry Robin, Just using your post as an example to show how ridiculous this thread is. And I'm buying 2 of them for my team!

I took it to a whole new level and ordered 48 -- one for each person on the league. This is not sarcasm but a fact! :thumbup2: --> Jerry

 

[ChazL]

Schon267,

While I must admit that I do not remember specifically reading any of your posts, I definitely do remember reading many of Patrick's. I remember them because they are among the few on this forum that are intelligent, well reasoned, logical expressions of thought that generally convey quite clearly his ideas on the subject in question.


KMRUNOUT

There are mainly two requirements for being a good teacher (instructor): good knowledge, and good communication skills. Patrick Johnson has repeatedly demonstrated that he is in possession of both. And there are no edicts that say he cannot possess and share these qualities without obtaining them from an official certifying agency. I think anyone (including me) could learn a lot from PJ if he were to give lessons.

Roger

Tap, tap, tap... Tap, tap, tap... And tap some more.

Well said by both of you.