Pulled or Pushed

[BilliardsAbout]

Jerry Briesath's "chin lock" terminology can be seen explained in this video snippet from one of Jerry's instructional tapes:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YpbNlnS9GFk

Although this video was posted in mid-2011, one can easily see the age of the original video content via its graininess and audio (looks and sounds like it was dubbed from a VHS tape, although it had to be a good quality tape on a VHS player with clean heads, because I don't see any telltale tracking problems).

Matt Sherman's usage of this terminology is found here:
http://billiards.about.com/od/theclassicstroke/a/BilliardsLesson.htm

Notice Matt's usage is exactly the same as Jerry's, but there's no attribution to Jerry Briesath -- anywhere in the article -- even though both the video and its publishing date on YouTube predate Matt's article. This is very strange, because Matt himself is a self-admitted "non-chinner" (related to placement of the chin on the cue, not to the concept of "chin lock") and even pokes fun at chinning the cue with "needing a chiropractor afterwards" analogies.

Just saying,
-Sean

Hi, Sean:

See my recent response to Fran Crimi. There's no attribution to Jerry Briesath because I coined the term independently and was unaware until today that he employed it in use before I did.

When I say "chin lock" I'm speaking on my website of positioning the head/eyes laterally to see the target well--not to getting vertically low over the cue stick or to placing the chin directly above the cue stick. I guess Briesath and I are using the same two-word term differently?

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Sean...The 'chin lock' concept originated with Jerry long before Matt even began to think about it. It was part of the BCA-produced VHS video (now dvd) titled, "How to Play Pool Right", and was available in the mid-80's. Jerry was teaching it long before that.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Hi, Scott:

I've been playing since 1974, but mainly on the East Coast and I'm not a student of Jerry's.

My use of the term is incidental and coincidental, and if I read Sean's note right, my "chin lock" is different than Mr. Briesath's concept.

 

[sfleinen]

Hi, Sean:

See my recent response to Fran Crimi. There's no attribution to Jerry Briesath because I coined the term independently and was unaware until today that he employed it in use before I did.

When I say "chin lock" I'm speaking on my website of positioning the head/eyes laterally to see the target well--not to getting vertically low over the cue stick or to placing the chin directly above the cue stick. I guess Briesath and I are using the same two-word term differently?

Matt:

In that second paragraph, you are trying to escape through a loophole out of the ire. And unfortunately, I created that loophole for you when I tried to offer additional info that showed the inconsistency in your info and viewpoints.

Let's see if I can now set that straight:

1. Jerry's use of "chin lock" has nothing to do with chinning the cue. Please view the video link I provided.

2. Your use of Jerry's "chin lock" has everything to with what you just said -- using your chin to lock your head/eyes laterally over the shot line. In fact, they are one and the same.

By you trying to use the "chinning the cue" to show some kind of difference in how you use vs. how Jerry uses it, just shows that you merely responded to the posts here, and didn't view the video link *at all*. Please view the Jerry Briesath video link.

-Sean

 

[sfleinen]

Hi, Scott:

I've been playing since 1974, but mainly on the East Coast and I'm not a student of Jerry's.

My use of the term is incidental and coincidental, and if I read Sean's note right, my "chin lock" is different than Mr. Briesath's concept.

Matt:

Concerning the bolded part -- WRONG. Your response here, in this way, says a lot -- that you merely respond to posts here, and didn't view the video link provided at all. I suggest that you view the video link provided.

-Sean

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Matt:

In that second paragraph, you are trying to escape through a loophole out of the ire. And unfortunately, I created that loophole for you when I tried to offer additional info that showed the inconsistency in your info and viewpoints.

Let's see if I can now set that straight:

1. Jerry's use of "chin lock" has nothing to do with chinning the cue. Please view the video link I provided.

2. Your use of Jerry's "chin lock" has everything to with what you just said -- using your chin to lock your head/eyes laterally over the shot line. In fact, they are one and the same.

By you trying to use the "chinning the cue" to show some kind of difference in how you use vs. how Jerry uses it, just shows that you merely responded to the posts here, and didn't view the video link *at all*. Please view the Jerry Briesath video link.

-Sean

Yes, I assumed without watching the video at all when you wrote funny since Matt is against "chinning"--which is why I asked you using a question mark [?] in an earlier post. You aren't "catching" me not watching the video. I asked to begin.

Mr. Briesath is teaching a chin lock from the erect position above the aim line. I teach a different "chin lock" and should use a different term. I teach the chin need not be above the cue at all, as you know, but rather that the eyes should be in the optimum location to see the target--not necessairily on the aim line for the cue stick.

 

[Scott Lee]

Then start DOING it now...and change the wording on your site, to be less misleading. The fact is that Jerry is one of, if not THE originator of organized professional pocket billiard instruction. He has taught MANY champion players, and none of them would dream of disagreeing with what Sean and myself are saying here. Show some respect...

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

I teach a different "chin lock" and should use a different term.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Then start DOING it now...and change the wording on your site, to be less misleading. The fact is that Jerry is one of, if not THE originator of organized professional pocket billiard instruction. He has taught MANY champion players, and none of them would dream of disagreeing with what Sean and myself are saying here. Show some respect...

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Hi, Scott:

My respect for Mr. Briesath has nothing to do with defending against a charge of plagiarism from Fran and Sean! I plan to amend the language on my site but am taking a little extra time with clarification so I need not do it twice.

My chin lock is different. No one has asked me how it's different or looked at other articles of mine on head positioning since Fran found her "hidden treasure".

Respect? I haven't attacked anyone's teaching or any player on AZ. I have been supportive and collaborative, but defensive of some of my unorthodox approaches. That's what pioneers do, they pioneer.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

I've made some clarifications. Please remember to refresh the page if you want to see the amended chin lock article.

Thanks to everyone for their help!

 

[sfleinen]

Hi, Scott:

My respect for Mr. Briesath has nothing to do with defending against a charge of plagiarism from Fran and Sean! I plan to amend the language on my site but am taking a little extra time with clarification so I need not do it twice.

My chin lock is different. No one has asked me how it's different or looked at other articles of mine on head positioning since Fran found her "hidden treasure".

Respect? I haven't attacked anyone's teaching or any player on AZ. I have been supportive and collaborative, but defensive of some of my unorthodox approaches. That's what pioneers do, they pioneer.

Pioneer?!? Is that what you think of yourself as?

Matt, just because you have the ability to think and write well, does *NOT* mean you get to rewrite history, take someone else's (or l-o-n-g industry-accepted) terms and call them your own, or else make up your own terms for something for which the industry has l-o-n-g standardized a term for. (See my reply to you in the "Plow-through breaks" thread in the 14.1 subforum.)

A lot of us see you for what you're doing or trying to do. You're trying to set yourself apart from the industry, but you're cannibalizing that very industry in the process. Best-case scenario, you are NOT doing your due diligence. Worst-case scenario, you are, but are ignoring the industry -- a case of sheer belligerence. In either case, it's par for the course for a content mill such as yours, and there are a lot of us here who do not appreciate what you are doing. If your intentions are just merely best-case scenario, while your aspirations might be admirable, your execution is very POOR.

You get respect in this industry (as with any industry) by earning it. Not by taking it.

-Sean

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Pioneer?!? Is that what you think of yourself as?

Matt, just because you have the ability to think and write well, does *NOT* mean you get to rewrite history, take someone else's (or l-o-n-g industry-accepted) terms and call them your own, or else make up your own terms for something for which the industry has l-o-n-g standardized a term for. (See my reply to you in the "Plow-through breaks" thread in the 14.1 subforum.)

A lot of us see you for what you're doing or trying to do. You're trying to set yourself apart from the industry, but you're cannibalizing that very industry in the process. Best-case scenario, you are NOT doing your due diligence. Worst-case scenario, you are, but are ignoring the industry -- a case of sheer belligerence. In either case, it's par for the course for a content mill such as yours, and there are a lot of us here who do not appreciate what you are doing. If your intentions are just merely best-case scenario, while your aspirations might be admirable, your execution is very POOR.

You get respect in this industry (as with any industry) by earning it. Not by taking it.

-Sean

I'll read your reply in the 14.1 forum next. Thank you.

I'd ask you to direct me so I can do a better job in the future. Some of the terms you're saying I misrepresent appear quite differently from website to website, video to video, and book to book, even among very skilled instructors.

You had formerly recommended I come here to AZ to learn some more standards, and I find that people including yourself are constantly using analogies and even coining new terms. That's okay--it's also okay if someone learns cue ball "curve" from me cue ball "swerve" from Dr. Dave as Dr. Dave and I discussed.

Since curve equals swerve, and Dr. Dave and you use "swerve" and me and Tom Simpson and some other people use "curve", players I've met and discussed it with have no problem recognizing the synonymous terms. Nor do they disrespect Tom Simpson or Dr. Dave in any way.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill IMHO FWIW.

PS. About.com is the opposite of a content mill. You may feel free to define terms with me, but a content mill to me is a place that pulls content from elsewhere to spit it out on a site. About.com was owned by the NY Times and now by Ask.com--plagiarists are subject to immediate dismissal and legal action to boot. I'm asking you again to politely stop slandering me, especially since the notion that I plagiarize from other teachers while simultaneously "doing my own rebellious" thing is an inherent contradiction! At least pick one from among the two--Matt copies other instructors OR Matt doesn't copy other instructors. That way, you will sound like we are discussing or debating, rather than that you have an axe to grind or are mentally unstable or both.

I know that you are both intelligent, of sound, rational mind, and have no axe to grind but simply want the best for pool players everywhere. So please take it down a notch and don't go insane because I use "reverse slip stroke" to describe what Bob Jewett called a "stroke slip". I'm sure you didn't post this rant to Mr. Jewett's attention also.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Mr. Jewett's remarks about what he called a "stroke slip" was his using a term in a publication of limited readership, in which he said, "this is what I call it...".

Whoops. Just revisited the article, and Mr. Jewett used the term without saying he coined it. But you get my gist.

 

[sfleinen]

I'll read your reply in the 14.1 forum next. Thank you.

I'd ask you to direct me so I can do a better job in the future. Some of the terms you're saying I misrepresent appear quite differently from website to website, video to video, and book to book, even among very skilled instructors.

You had formerly recommended I come here to AZ to learn some more standards, and I find that people including yourself are constantly using analogies and even coining new terms. That's okay--it's also okay if someone learns cue ball "curve" from me cue ball "swerve" from Dr. Dave as Dr. Dave and I discussed.

Since curve equals swerve, and Dr. Dave and you use "swerve" and me and Tom Simpson and some other people use "curve", players I've met and discussed it with have no problem recognizing the synonymous terms. Nor do they disrespect Tom Simpson or Dr. Dave in any way.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill IMHO FWIW.

PS. About.com is the opposite of a content mill. You may feel free to define terms with me, but a content mill to me is a place that pulls content from elsewhere to spit it out on a site. About.com was owned by the NY Times and now by Ask.com--plagiarists are subject to immediate dismissal and legal action to boot. I'm asking you again to politely stop slandering me, especially since the notion that I plagiarize from other teachers while simultaneously "doing my own rebellious" thing is an inherent contradiction! At least pick one from among the two--Matt copies other instructors OR Matt doesn't copy other instructors. That way, you will sound like we are discussing or debating, rather than that you have an axe to grind or are mentally unstable or both.

I know that you are both intelligent, of sound, rational mind, and have no axe to grind but simply want the best for pool players everywhere. So please take it down a notch and don't go insane because I use "reverse slip stroke" to describe what Bob Jewett called a "stroke slip". I'm sure you didn't post this rant to Mr. Jewett's attention also.

Thanks.

Let's get something straight right now, before you start thinking you're laying the groundwork for a cease and desist letter, or something more severe. I (or rather "we," because it's not just myself) are not slandering you. Slander involves the telling of an intentional untruth to cause harm to one's reputation. What I (we) are trying to tell you, is to do your due diligence better than you have, to acknowledge the contributions of those who came before you, or to stop attributing industry-accepted terms as having originated from yourself. I find it interesting that you come after *me* with the slander accusation, but others have called you out on your approach with the same ferocity or greater.

Look, you may want to get into the pedantic definition of "content mill," but for most of us, the term means any entity that churns out content -- regardless of whether that content is original or copied. The site in question wants eyeballs. And whatever means is necessary to attract eyeballs -- whether that be the content itself, or advertising, or both -- is what's used to get those eyeballs.

Also, you can try spinning what I (we) say as being from two sides (or worse, the comical "mental instability" thing), but I think you get the message of what we're trying to say. You have demonstrated -- several times already -- that you either have repurposed someone else's terms (accidental or not -- it still falls in the due diligence bucket), or else have published terms and approaches as your own that are known to already exist in the industry. Oh, let me guess -- you're now going to pull the "prove it" card, forcing us to regurgitate those past examples?

As you acknowledge, I don't have an axe to grind, and I do want the best for our readership and the pool playing populace in general. But, think about this: do you notice a pattern here? You come to a site where there are known professionals in the industry for which you publish content in, and you are immediately met with resistance, or even outright criticism of your content. And you think it's "us" and not you? Think about it.

-Sean

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Let's get something straight right now, before you start thinking you're laying the groundwork for a cease and desist letter, or something more severe. I (or rather "we," because it's not just myself) are not slandering you. Slander involves the telling of an intentional untruth to cause harm to one's reputation. What I (we) are trying to tell you, is to do your due diligence better than you have, to acknowledge the contributions of those who came before you, or to stop attributing industry-accepted terms as having originated from yourself. I find it interesting that you come after *me* with the slander accusation, but others have called you out on your approach with the same ferocity or greater.

I'm politely asking you to not tell intentional untruths, which most people call "lies" and I call "slander". When I am corrected on AZ, I apologize, seek conciliation, and move on. How are you resolved to act in this matter going forward?

And I'm not currently planning to bring any legal action against AZ or yourself. You are again making a mountain out of a tiny molehill. And have you considered how you would feel if I called you some of the things you've called me? Tough love is tough, not rude and unfeeling.

Now, you do bring a good point up. If I had merely googled "chin lock" I would have come across the Briesath video long ago, and I need to be careful going forward. Thanks. But by the way, which industry-accepted terms have I claimed to have originated?

Look, you may want to get into the pedantic definition of "content mill," but for most of us, the term means any entity that churns out content -- regardless of whether that content is original or copied. The site in question wants eyeballs. And whatever means is necessary to attract eyeballs -- whether that be the content itself, or advertising, or both -- is what's used to get those eyeballs.

Are you saying that Joe Tucker's or Dr. Dave's or 100 other pool sites are better because they're written in a way to not have people go there to read the articles? Whether or not I'm compensated to do an article online or in print I want a lot of people reading it. How about you? When you wrote a software book were you hoping no one would accuse you of writing in a way to draw the largest possible audience for its pertinent content?

Also, you can try spinning what I (we) say as being from two sides (or worse, the comical "mental instability" thing), but I think you get the message of what we're trying to say. You have demonstrated -- several times already -- that you either have repurposed someone else's terms (accidental or not -- it still falls in the due diligence bucket), or else have published terms and approaches as your own that are known to already exist in the industry. Oh, let me guess -- you're now going to pull the "prove it" card, forcing us to regurgitate those past examples?

Which is it, then? Am I a plagiarist who is incapable of original concepts or a rebel who promotes original concepts? Are you going to address this self-contradictory point you're repeating?

As you acknowledge, I don't have an axe to grind, and I do want the best for our readership and the pool playing populace in general. But, think about this: do you notice a pattern here? You come to a site where there are known professionals in the industry for which you publish content in, and you are immediately met with resistance, or even outright criticism of your content. And you think it's "us" and not you? Think about it.

-Sean

If we were to define "us" as Fran, yourself and pj, you should probably know I get many e-mails in support of my standing up for myself--as well as tales past of your cruelty to other forum members. The difference is other pros and teachers who have commented on mistakes they saw in my teaching responded politely and respectfully during our back and forth.

 

[sfleinen]

I'm politely asking you to not tell intentional untruths, which most people call "lies" and I call "slander". When I am corrected on AZ, I apologize, seek conciliation, and move on. How are you resolved to act in this matter going forward?

That's right -- and is exactly what I said. When I respond to you (or to anyone), I always try to speak in truths. I have not, thus far, spoken in any kind of intentional untruths about you or your content. I speak from what I know, or what I can research. That's all anyone can expect.

I'm a bit confused; what is it I need to resolve in this matter going forward?

And I'm not currently planning to bring any legal action against AZ or yourself. You are again making a mountain out of a tiny molehill. And have you considered how you would feel if I called you some of the things you've called me? Tough love is tough, not rude and unfeeling.

Really? Thoughts of whether I'm making a mountain out of a molemill aside, how have I been rude to you -- especially in the wake of other responses you've received here?

Now, you do bring a good point up. If I had merely googled "chin lock" I would have come across the Briesath video long ago, and I need to be careful going forward. Thanks. But by the way, which industry-accepted terms have I claimed to have originated?

Are you saying that Joe Tucker's or Dr. Dave's or 100 other pool sites are better because they're written in a way to not have people go there to read the articles? Whether or not I'm compensated to do an article online or in print I want a lot of people reading it. How about you? When you wrote a software book were you hoping no one would accuse you of writing in a way to draw the largest possible audience for its pertinent content?

Good grief. Let's get something straight -- we *all* write things because we want people to read them. That's not the point. The point is, what is the purpose of the site hosting the content? Joe Tucker's and Dr. Dave's and... <insert any of hundreds of other self-written sites here> do so because they are personal interests. Compare that to sites like About.com, or eHow.com, or sites along those lines, which use the content as a means to an end -- i.e. ad revenue. I'm not saying that's wrong.

Which is it, then? Am I a plagiarist who is incapable of original concepts or a rebel who promotes original concepts? Are you going to address this self-contradictory point you're repeating?

Nice try -- you are inserting words and twisting what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you're not doing your due diligence -- as I've stated over and over. And, to answer your question (because you're pressing it), it's entirely possible to repurpose content from others and try to distinguish oneself from the industry from which the content was purposed. That is not contradictory.

If we were to define "us" as Fran, yourself and pj, you should probably know I get many e-mails in support of my standing up for myself--as well as tales past of your cruelty to other forum members. The difference is other pros and teachers who have commented on mistakes they saw in my teaching responded politely and respectfully during our back and forth.

Oh, I see what this is really about. "My" cruelty. Interesting. So the fact that I call you out on the originality of your content is cruel, but someone who calls you out on your ability to even play this sport is not, and even polite and respectful?

Look, if I am so cruel as you say, you can easily report me to the moderators. As you can see on this site, if rules are truly being broken (and rudeness/cruelty/ad hominem attacks/et al. are part of the rules), those are dealt with swiftly here by the mods.

Matt, respectfully, I'm done here. I've said my piece, and it's up to you to get the meaning and not dodge or twist it. I also PM'ed you to call a truce. It's up to you, but know that I'm done.

Respectfully,
-Sean

 

[BilliardsAbout]

I appreciate what you're saying and how you're saying it. I know I can very easily provoke a response in others--which actually makes me such a popular writer to follow--I'm not saying that to provoke you, it just is.

I will speak to you privately and I believe I have some strategies for communicating better at AZ. Like I said, I'm wanting to end debates/pour water and not gas on all the fires.

Thanks.

 

[AtLarge]

... It's a kind of cool technique/trick technique but about as important as a hill of beans. ...

For an interesting (my subjective opinion) discussion of the technique of throwing the cue stick (a stroke slip), here's a thread from 2008: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=109237&highlight=throw

 

[One Pocket John]

For an interesting (my subjective opinion) discussion of the technique of throwing the cue stick (a stroke slip), here's a thread from 2008: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=109237&highlight=throw

If you are addressing the shot properly (standing) it really doesnt matter if your pulling the cue thru the stroke, pushing the cue thru the stroke or throwing the cue thru the stroke. The ball is going in.

I guess what really matters is what the player feels comfortable with. Push, Pull, or throw.

Man, that was a long thread. :smile:

John

 

[JolietJames]

Just my personal experience, whatever that's worth. I'm not getting into the physics of the stroke or anatomy for that matter. When I am playing my best and really have the cueball on a string, I FEEL like I'm pushing the cue. It could be caused by my follow through being exaggerated when I'm playing my best. Just my .02...

 

[BilliardsAbout]

It may be pulled forward until it has momentum so that at impact and after there is no push. If you don't need or want extra oomph the stick/hand can go through the ball fairly neutral as far as conscious effort.