Experience or science?

[JB Cases]

Removing the names mentioned, the coach using a scientific approach will do better. Baseball changed a lot several years back when some front-office guys had the bright idea to hire a statistician to help in selecting players to hire. It worked so well all the clubs changed their practices. They've also caused rethinking of decisions managers make in game situations because they had analyzed thousands of similar situations from the past - baseball keeps good records:grin: - and knew the probability of the various outcomes - and that some traditional choices made by managers was not the best. A scientific approach is not physics alone. You can apply it to all parts of the game, starting, for example, with how to most efficiently use 30 days of training time with an arbitrary beginner to get the best outcome.

Dave Pelz, for another example, has had impact along similar lines in golf. He slogged around the course following pros, recording shots and outcomes of thousands of rounds, until he figured out some things no one else had noticed, and ways he could help. Collect data, analyze data, detect trends, hypothesize, test. Science.

If that's the case then the scientific method should have produced a lot of top players by now.

After all we have had plenty of books that define the science behind pool for two decades.

I think it would be an interesting experiment. I would be willing to bet 10,000 on the champion's player to beat the scientist's player in an all-around competition after one month of coaching.

Let me put this another way and say it again, you do not need to know the science to excel in pool. You can take the most uneducated person who plays championship pool and odds are that person will be able to communicate how to play championship pool to the student. He will be able to teach the student how to stand, stroke, bridge, shoot, bank, kick, and most importantly WHEN to use all the different techniques that they know.

Do you think that the Filipinos playing in the open air pool rooms who can run racks of rotation have learned the science of pool? I would bet that 99 out of 100 players in those places have never seen any of Dr. Dave's videos, read Jack Koehler's work, or trained with anyone using the scientific methods.

I am not arguing with you about whether science plays a great role in advancing human performance. There is no doubt that in big-time sports science has advanced the state of the sport and the performance of the athletes tremendously.

The point I am trying to make though is that when it comes to pool at what point does science not help any more?

Science has certainly helped in the making of the equipment. But how does it help in the making of the player?

Can Dr. Dave explain any better than Buddy Hall how to draw a ball? I don't think so. In fact even Dr. Dave had to recruit a top player in order to help him demonstrate the shots he wanted to explain because the top player has the skill and experience to execute the shots.

Scientifically you could say that there is most likely a minimum number of hours a person needs to gain basic competence at the basic like draw, follow and side spin. Call that ten hours of focused practice with good instruction.

So Dr. Dave and Buddy can both get their student to basic competence in 10 hours. (hypothetically) What happens AFTER that 10 hours?

What in your opinion can Dave do scientifically that will build a better player in 30 days than Buddy can do in the same time frame?

 

[duckie]

The problem is no standardized terminology used in describing shot making. Case in point half ball hit.

Which is one of those things you can experience visually in shot making but doesn't really exist.

Even when the answer is given, there are those that still do not see.

The closest you can get to true aiming in pool is to practice with the arrow by Babe Cranfield and aim the top of the CB to roll over the point on the arrow.

Is simple, yet too simple for most.

 

[JB Cases]

The problem is no standardized terminology used in describing shot making. Case in point half ball hit.

Huh?

Which is one of those things you can experience visually in shot making but doesn't really exist.

Even when the answer is given, there are those that still do not see.

The half-ball hit exists just like the quarter-ball hit and the 3/4 ball hit exists. You know it when you see it.

The closest you can get to true aiming in pool is to practice with the arrow by Babe Cranfield and aim the top of the CB to roll over the point on the arrow.

No, there is no such thing as "true" aiming. There is only aiming. Either you are aiming along the right line or you aren't. Using a device such as your template or the hundreds of other ghost ball trainers out there does give you a physical object to aim at but since you can't use it in a game it's use is limited.

Is simple, yet too simple for most.

How long have you been using the "arrow"? Are you ready to bet something in a shot making contest yet?

I will put up a system user of my choice against you using Colin Colenso's potting test. Since you are so convinced that using Ghost Ball trainers is the way to go let's see what you have learned in the time you have been using it. You should score the highest on the potting test given your stated approach to learning to play.

Then we can see who can "see" and who can understand.

 

[derangedhermit]

If that's the case then the scientific method should have produced a lot of top players by now.

After all we have had plenty of books that define the science behind pool for two decades.

I think it would be an interesting experiment. I would be willing to bet 10,000 on the champion's player to beat the scientist's player in an all-around competition after one month of coaching.

Let me put this another way and say it again, you do not need to know the science to excel in pool.

Oh, I agree the pool player doesn't need to know the science, any more than the NFL lineman or the Eastern European female gymnast or the German weightlifter...but the people putting together their training do.

I wouldn't bet on such an event since I think the outcome depends so strongly on the student - natural physical aptitude for the game, ability to perform under pressure, ability to learn quickly - after only 30 days. The first thing any organized program does is look for talent. If you ran 1000 students through each program, the results should be clearer, and you could make a surer bet on that.

As for why no great products of science-based programs, my guess is simply because there is no money in it, unlike some other sports.

I am not arguing with you about whether science plays a great role in advancing human performance. There is no doubt that in big-time sports science has advanced the state of the sport and the performance of the athletes tremendously.

The point I am trying to make though is that when it comes to pool at what point does science not help any more?

The player performs as taught, in either case, right? That ends when the coach is finished coaching (for that tournament). But the general answer is, it doesn't end. Like in other sports, you would attempt to totally control a player's diet, exercise program, workouts, psychology, companions, etc. Just like any other sports - peaking for certain tournaments, intense practice in off-season, etc.

Science has certainly helped in the making of the equipment. But how does it help in the making of the player?

Can Dr. Dave explain any better than Buddy Hall how to draw a ball? I don't think so. In fact even Dr. Dave had to recruit a top player in order to help him demonstrate the shots he wanted to explain because the top player has the skill and experience to execute the shots.

Scientifically you could say that there is most likely a minimum number of hours a person needs to gain basic competence at the basic like draw, follow and side spin. Call that ten hours of focused practice with good instruction.

So Dr. Dave and Buddy can both get their student to basic competence in 10 hours. (hypothetically) What happens AFTER that 10 hours?

What in your opinion can Dave do scientifically that will build a better player in 30 days than Buddy can do in the same time frame?

First, probably, know how to best spend the 30 days (or at least spend it better than Buddy's student). Buddy knows what works for him, and some of his friends, but he should be up against a well-documented record and analysis of what has worked well (and not so well) for tens of thousands of students over a period of decades. That single advantage should be enough to use the remaining 110 hours of training productively enough to beat Buddy's student. Of course, that should just be the start.

Have you noticed how a lot of the color, the individualism, has gone out of pro sports, in both style and in interviews over the last 30-40 years? From a physical skills standpoint, golfers swing more alike (and are stronger and more fit), NFL coaches coach more alike (not in style but in substance, in their "messages" to players), etc. They are honing on on the most effective practices they can find anywhere. So that would be the second advantage I would have, if it were me: I'd pick the top 100 or so world champions for whom significant playing film footage was available. I'd have people study their stance/form/stroke, their table routines, their other habits. I'd interview them (pool champions' time is cheap compared to most other sports champions) and see what they thought made them champions. I'd try to pull out the key factors that were consistent across most of the players, and integrate those into my training program. Now instead of one champion, I've got 100 on my side.

One specific example I'll go out on a limb with, since IIRC it has come up in this thread, or at least a contemporary thread, as an issue: Buddy may want to teach a little wrist flip to increase English - it's worked for him, and many of his opponents. But ScienceGuy knows that a fundamental rule is to always simplify all motion, to confine motion to large muscles and joints with restricted hinges, and to eliminate any motions that require fine timing, as much as possible. So he knows that even if (and he's not sure, since the data is not in), if one could get more spin that way, he is not going to allow it in his students. It's a move that requires additional fine timing at the key point of contact in the stroke, it requires additional wrist movement (and the wrist allows too many degrees of freedom of motion), and the small muscles in the forearm aren't the ones he prefers to see active in the stroke. So even if it works well most of the time, it will let you down just when you need it most: under pressure, or when fatigued. The cost of incorporating it is much higher than any potential gain.

 

[JB Cases]

Oh, I agree the pool player doesn't need to know the science, any more than the NFL lineman or the Eastern European female gymnast or the German weightlifter...but the people putting together their training do.

I wouldn't bet on such an event since I think the outcome depends so strongly on the student - natural physical aptitude for the game, ability to perform under pressure, ability to learn quickly - after only 30 days. The first thing any organized program does is look for talent. If you ran 1000 students through each program, the results should be clearer, and you could make a surer bet on that.

Actually the science points more and more towards inner desire being the real key between people when it comes to learning a sport. A person who desires to practice deeply learns more than someone who doesn't even if both put in the same amount of time. "Natural ability" is pretty much a myth according to some books which have tracked studies about performance.

As for why no great products of science-based programs, my guess is simply because there is no money in it, unlike some other sports.

My thought is that there is money in it. Why not? What better way to sell the books and videos which reveal the science behind pool than to build a successful player using scientific methods?

The player performs as taught, in either case, right? That ends when the coach is finished coaching (for that tournament). But the general answer is, it doesn't end. Like in other sports, you would attempt to totally control a player's diet, exercise program, workouts, psychology, companions, etc. Just like any other sports - peaking for certain tournaments, intense practice in off-season, etc.

Actually this is my point. The science coach can teach based on observation. The champion coach can teach based on real world experience. I.e. there is a big difference between Dr. Dave showing the student a video of Buddy Hall making a shot and trying to explain why Buddy did it, and Buddy Hall explaining to a student why he chose that shot and demonstrating it in person, with alternatives.

So my point is that I feel that after thirty days both players should have about the same level of ability to make shots but the player who trains with a champion might have a better ability to reason and adapt. And thus he can literally get better by the game.

First, probably, know how to best spend the 30 days (or at least spend it better than Buddy's student). Buddy knows what works for him, and some of his friends, but he should be up against a well-documented record and analysis of what has worked well (and not so well) for tens of thousands of students over a period of decades. That single advantage should be enough to use the remaining 110 hours of training productively enough to beat Buddy's student. Of course, that should just be the start.

Possibly. IF the science guy had all that data and the student could absorb it in 110 hours then perhaps it would make a difference. But my opinion is that a proven champion has that same data in his head. And his head is still a more powerful computer than all the data Dr. Dave could gather and present.

Have you noticed how a lot of the color, the individualism, has gone out of pro sports, in both style and in interviews over the last 30-40 years? From a physical skills standpoint, golfers swing more alike (and are stronger and more fit), NFL coaches coach more alike (not in style but in substance, in their "messages" to players), etc.

I have not noticed that because I don't really follow those sports. However I can seen why it would be so. Why woudn't businesses that depend on winning to make the billions they do not use every possible technique they can. I think in any endeavor the highest performance always gravitates to a similar set of techniques. Every once in a while someone discovers a method that revolutionizes the way it's done and then everyone migrates that direction. That's basic evolution.

They are honing on on the most effective practices they can find anywhere. So that would be the second advantage I would have, if it were me: I'd pick the top 100 or so world champions for whom significant playing film footage was available. I'd have people study their stance/form/stroke, their table routines, their other habits. I'd interview them (pool champions' time is cheap compared to most other sports champions) and see what they thought made them champions. I'd try to pull out the key factors that were consistent across most of the players, and integrate those into my training program. Now instead of one champion, I've got 100 on my side.

And again if you had that on your side then you could innundate your player with it clockwork orange style for 30 days while Buddy coaches Mr. Miyagi style and then we could see if data beats experience.

One specific example I'll go out on a limb with, since IIRC it has come up in this thread, or at least a contemporary thread, as an issue: Buddy may want to teach a little wrist flip to increase English - it's worked for him, and many of his opponentsion, to confine motion to large muscles and joints with restricted hinge. But ScienceGuy knows that a fundamental rule is to always simplify all mots, and to eliminate any motions that require fine timing, as much as possible. So he knows that even if (and he's not sure, since the data is not in), if one could get more spin that way, he is not going to allow it in his students. It's a move that requires additional fine timing at the key point of contact in the stroke, it requires additional wrist movement (and the wrist allows too many degrees of freedom of motion), and the small muscles in the forearm aren't the ones he prefers to see active in the stroke. So even if it works well most of the time, it will let you down just when you need it most: under pressure, or when fatigued. The cost of incorporating it is much higher than any potential gain.

But Buddy may know something that science doesn't. And that something might be that the wrist-flip helps to cinch the shot. Since science can't describe the hit or the quality of the stroke as felt by the player no amount of "movement reduction" is going to help the student to develop the type of quality in a stroke that Buddy understands. A house full of hardware proving he is a great champion is proof that his technique does not in fact break down under pressure.

In fact Buddy might understand innately, without having a degrees in kinesthetic biology, that freedom of motion allows for a much greater degree of of control and artificially restricting an otherwise free moving part of your body, leads to tightness in the shot and makes it harder to get the "juice" one needs.

So what might happen could be the exact opposite of your theory. What might happen is that the student who is taught to minimize motion by locking in their wrist might lose that ability when they are under pressure and fatigued, whereas the student taught by Buddy to hold a relaxed wrist that can be flipped or firm as needed for the shot never loses that ability.

 

[JoeW]

When placed on equal footing the conclusion is obvious in our pragmatic culture, science wins because of the way in which it is conducted. We, as a culture, tend to be pragmatists and we place a high value on logically organized experience (one of the definitions of science).

When discussing matters that science has not studied the experienced player probably has the better insight for a solution. When discussing the wrist flip problem, science has nothing to say because the problem has not been studied. This is where the disagreements begin. There are people not well trained in the sciences who will say, “Based on prior work in another area such and such will happen.” Any scientist worth his salt would not make such a statement. The scientist would say, “based on work in another area here is an idea to test…”

I would suggest that any statement or set of statements should be accompanied by a set of data or references to the literature where the data can be found before the statement is considered a scientific conclusion. Any scientist can point to the source of his conclusions. If the data can not be referenced the statement is nothing more than a recommendation by any other person.

My wife picked up this train of thinking many years ago and says to me, usually at the worst of times, "How do you know that?" Sometimes infuriating, but very effective with me.

If he can't tell you how he knows that, he is not a "science guy," he is just another guy.

 

[JoeW]

To take this argument to its logical conclusion. The scientist well versed in the pool playing and related literature would probably conclude that Buddy Hall’s experience merits further study because his personal observable results seem to indicate that a wrist flip is useful.

Now the problem becomes, how do we study the wrist flip and only the wrist flip to isolate the idea that a wrist flip contributes to a better game. We will probably find that the wrist flip assisted by (interacting with) other variables are the source of improved playing. But we need to get Buddy Hall out of the results so anyone can do it.

Buddy's experience may contribute to the science of playing well.

 

[Mikjary]

Until there is enough money in the pool and billiard world, we will be debating science versus experience. Experience is a singular concept that is strictly anecdotal. It is what the body needs to physically fine tune its game.

Science contains many facets including physics, mathematics and kinesiology. Despite all the current research, advanced players rely on experience. The simple reason is the cost involved to fund any programs like pro sports do. How much would a coach charge us to help with our game?

I have studied the kinesiology of other sports because the info is readily available. There is some room for personal interpretation such as, "Do this and visualize ending up here". But not in the advanced level training. The science encompasses all individual techniques ending up in a generally accepted way of accomplishing the swing, stroke, kick, etc.

We are not at this point and spend more time downplaying our information than trying to figure out how we can further the sport. Smaller, compact movements on a mechanical basis are simpler. That's great for a novice or for the player looking to improve their stroke. What about the bigger dogs?

After that we search for answers from elite level players because the science hasn't progressed where we can draw any new information. We also have to suffer the ridicule of all who read any possibly new information as fanatical hearsay. This coming from posters on this forum who are admittedly not top pros. They can run a rack, so any chance of raising the bar has to get past them first.

I say to them, let the science investigate the information and further the game. To the scientists who are stuck in their field of expertise, branch out and explore. If you do not participate in the kinesiology research, we will not advance and we will be stuck with rigid rules and pool players not trusting completely, your solid advice.

I noticed after posting previously in another thread about a stroke I was shown, that the stroke has been equated to a wrist flip. It is not a wrist flip, but rather has loose wrist movement which if you read between the lines (as JB did<<gold star>>), increases the ability to stroke straighter. There is also a big difference in a locked wrist and a wrist that is locked in a position that allows it to move freely in a straight forward and back motion. This doesn't mean wet noodle loose. Think about that for a minute or two or even longer. I didn't describe all the subtle nuances and instead waited to hear from the experts before I elaborated. So much for that!

Again, I was shown the stroke by a pro who occasionally posts here and later, a variation of the same stroke by a US Open winner. It's been called magical and mystical, but this where the communication breaks down. Instead of looking to debunk a piece of information from a source, let's investigate it with science. If you don't agree, fine. State your opinion, sit down and let the others do the work. I know you've run a rack before. Duly noted.

There are a few who cross the line between science and experience. I commend JAL (Jim), JoeW, and others that have posted in this thread. The experience guys have spoken. We want the science to catch up with the anecdotal evidence. Take the information and expand on it. Don't sit in the ivory tower and pass judgement based on plugging variables into an equation. The word variable is just that...changing. Review the claims, look for common factors and keep an open mind if your results find a different conclusion. You may just have to plug in a different variable. What if?

Best,
Mike

 

[Bob Jewett]

This one is actually pretty easy..

Science can proofs the maximum that can be achieved (that is, if the question is provable). ...

Well, no. Science can prove nothing nor does it try to. Here is the current idea for how science works:

1. Observations are made.
2. A theory is developed for how those observations fit together. Among other things, a "valid" theory has to include a way to be tested, which usually is some kind of prediction that can be tested with further observations (experiments).
3. The experiment is done and reported. The experiment may be repeated by others and one requirement for any experiment is that it be repeatable.
4. If the new observations show errors in the theory, the theory is modified to handle the new observations or is discarded and an entirely new theory is developed.
5. Lather, rinse and repeat.

This does not arrive at a proof of any theory. It does eventually establish some theories as "solid" or "dependable" but never as absolute truth.

At one time the theory of gravity (from Aristotle) said that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter objects. Galileo tested this theory and showed it was wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo's_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment for details. Later Newton (with the apple, or so the story goes) found a better theory which explains gravity very well. Eventually Einstein came up with a different explanation that covers the results of certain experiments that Newton probably couldn't have done and that have very subtle effects. In fact, Einstein predicted things that could not be verified experimentally until recently. For more on that see http://www.gravityforthemasses.com/Page2.html

I think that few (good) scientists would claim that Einstein has it perfectly right, but as far as I know, there are no unresolved observations related to gravity.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... We want the science to catch up with the anecdotal evidence. Take the information and expand on it. ...

What evidence are you referring to? The video of a badly played shot with a quirky stroke that we saw before does not qualify as useful evidence.

The main theory for applying spin is that the further you hit from the center of the ball the more spin the ball will have. Can you point to any observation that contradicts that theory?

 

[ShootingArts]

good explanation

Well, no. Science can prove nothing nor does it try to. Here is the current idea for how science works:

1. Observations are made.
2. A theory is developed for how those observations fit together. Among other things, a "valid" theory has to include a way to be tested, which usually is some kind of prediction that can be tested with further observations (experiments).
3. The experiment is done and reported. The experiment may be repeated by others and one requirement for any experiment is that it be repeatable.
4. If the new observations show errors in the theory, the theory is modified to handle the new observations or is discarded and an entirely new theory is developed.
5. Lather, rinse and repeat.

This does not arrive at a proof of any theory. It does eventually establish some theories as "solid" or "dependable" but never as absolute truth.

At one time the theory of gravity (from Aristotle) said that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter objects. Galileo tested this theory and showed it was wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo's_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment for details. Later Newton (with the apple, or so the story goes) found a better theory which explains gravity very well. Eventually Einstein came up with a different explanation that covers the results of certain experiments that Newton probably couldn't have done and that have very subtle effects. In fact, Einstein predicted things that could not be verified experimentally until recently. For more on that see http://www.gravityforthemasses.com/Page2.html

I think that few (good) scientists would claim that Einstein has it perfectly right, but as far as I know, there are no unresolved observations related to gravity.

Bob,

That is a pretty fine explanation of the scientific method. As you indicate a critical part of the process is setting up controlled experiments and getting the feedback from them to put back in the loop. That is where the scientific process breaks down in pool, transfering the theory to a properly set up and controlled experiment and transfering the data from that experiment back to the theoretical side for it to be digested and refined.

Much of the proto-type testing I witnessed or reviewed wasn't valid because either the testing wasn't designed properly to test what the researcher was interested in or the researcher failed to consider the multiple possible causes of the result, assuming the cause was the one he sought.

We see both of these issues constantly in efforts to document aiming methods. Because of the huge human element in shooting pool we have very little valid test data. I did study some of your testing with instrumentation and found some interesting things in the graphs that weren't related to what you were testing. True scientific data is like that, we have things we can measure and record for future study.

Much of the information we have about pool today is so subjective as to have little meaning. "we know what you think you did but we doubt you did what you thought" No real answer to that except what we see in multi-page threads. "Did to" "Did not" "DID TO" "DID NOT" "DID TO, I KNOW WHAT I DID!" "DID NOT, IT ISN'T POSSIBLE TO DO IT LIKE THAT AND ONLY A MORON WOULD THINK THEY DID IT LIKE THAT!!" "DID TO AND YOUR MOMMA AND DOG ARE BOTH UGLY ENOUGH TO MAKE A FREIGHT TRAIN TAKE A DIRT ROAD!!!"

Until and unless we can properly apply the scientific method to pool the science is of more interest from an academic standpoint. It would be very interesting to test things like coefficients of friction between cue tips and cue balls under various conditions for example. Definitively answer if hard tips or soft are better, if one chalk is better, even which ferrules are better. Even if we demonstrated these things in the lab though pool players would stick to what worked for them. I have been that way about a few things myself. Worked better for me in the real world, science be damned!

Hu

 

[Bob Jewett]

... It would be very interesting to test things like coefficients of friction between cue tips and cue balls under various conditions for example. Definitively answer if hard tips or soft are better, if one chalk is better, even which ferrules are better. ...

This has already been tested some on Iron Willie. I don't know if Kamui has been tried yet.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... That is where the scientific process breaks down in pool, transfering the theory to a properly set up and controlled experiment and transfering the data from that experiment back to the theoretical side for it to be digested and refined. ...

Actually, a lot of that has already been done.

 

[ShootingArts]

here I'm talking about testing aiming systems and such

Actually, a lot of that has already been done.

Bob,

Here I'm talking about trying to apply the scientific method to aiming systems and such. I could see building equipment that could be set up with a mini-cam for video feedback to the operator to take the issues of visual perception and subconscious corrections out of the discussion.

I knew of some robotic testing being conducted but what I had read about was testing shafts. I wasn't aware of the testing of tips and chalk. I would appreciate a link to that if it is available somewhere.

Thanks,
Hu

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Here I'm talking about trying to apply the scientific method to aiming systems and such. ...

I'm trying to think about a suitable hypothesis (= starter theory) for this. The geometry and physics is well understood as far as telling us where the cue ball has to arrive. The perception part is really tricky. Can you state an aiming hypothesis that you would like to see tested? What observations is it based on?

 

[JoeW]

How about Joe Tucker’s aiming method in which he recommends (hypothesis) –

The simultaneous use of front and back hand off set yields less cue ball deflection.

I am putting words in Joe T’s mouth but that is probably close to his unstated hypothesis. The player visualizes the cue ball line of travel but the front and back of the cue stick cross this line.

Apparently this yields better control of cue ball deflection and object ball throw when there is a need for the use of English to obtain position.

This could be an interesting set of studies that could be tested from both the physical and psychological perspectives.

edited for clarity.

 

[Mikjary]

What evidence are you referring to? The video of a badly played shot with a quirky stroke that we saw before does not qualify as useful evidence.

The main theory for applying spin is that the further you hit from the center of the ball the more spin the ball will have. Can you point to any observation that contradicts that theory?

Case in point. Despite numerous postings and observations that have started threads with many responses, you dismissively respond with, "quirky stroke". This is really interesting for the thousands of readers in this forum and puts to rest our fears of pool knowledge moving forward in the near future.

Let's analyze the theory of moving out on the cue ball for more spin. Wait...we already have. So everything is now known about spinning the cue ball. What about the stroke and cue ball contact? All known, too. In THEORY, everybody should have an equal stroke because there is nothing you can do to the cue ball different in that 1 millisecond of tip contact that effects the amount of spin achieved. Send out a memo.

I'll stop here. I have to make a bunch of phone calls to Dallas West, Gerry Kanov, Don Feeney, Bobby Cotton, Dave Yeager, George Michaels, Mark Jarvis, Wendell Weir, ad infinitum that what they showed me was wrong. They'll have to pick up the pieces and start over, too.

Looks good on paper!

Best,
Mike

 

[ShootingArts]

SAM seems like a system that would lend itself to testing

I'm trying to think about a suitable hypothesis (= starter theory) for this. The geometry and physics is well understood as far as telling us where the cue ball has to arrive. The perception part is really tricky. Can you state an aiming hypothesis that you would like to see tested? What observations is it based on?

SAM seems like a system that would lend itself readily to testing but what I would really like to see tested are the ones all the furor is about, CTE and it's close companions. Another thing that could probably be tested is a part of Geno's Perfect Aim that I had very little success with, alternating dominant eye depending on which direction the cut was in. Since this is basically monocular vision shifting a camera should work.

I don't understand CTE or the like well enough to try to set up an experiment, someone would have to coordinate with a successful practitioner of the system. Very possibly Stan and Pro One might be the best system to try to test simply because Stan seems to be both an intelligent and reasonable man with a real desire to understand things himself.

Hu

 

[Bob Jewett]

Case in point. Despite numerous postings and observations that have started threads with many responses, you dismissively respond with, "quirky stroke". This is really interesting for the thousands of readers in this forum and puts to rest our fears of pool knowledge moving forward in the near future. ...

But I saw nothing useful in that example that you pointed to. What do you think I should have seen?

Your hypothesis seems to be that because good players sometimes do things that look unorthodox, there are unorthodox techniques that other players should adopt. Well, OK. Specifically which unorthodox techniques, for which purpose and exactly what are they supposed to accomplish? If you are not willing to be specific it's hard to respond to you in any "scientific" way.

 

[Bob Jewett]

SAM seems like a system that would lend itself readily to testing but what I would really like to see tested are the ones all the furor is about, CTE and it's close companions. Another thing that could probably be tested is a part of Geno's Perfect Aim that I had very little success with, alternating dominant eye depending on which direction the cut was in. Since this is basically monocular vision shifting a camera should work.

I don't understand CTE or the like well enough to try to set up an experiment, someone would have to coordinate with a successful practitioner of the system. Very possibly Stan and Pro One might be the best system to try to test simply because Stan seems to be both an intelligent and reasonable man with a real desire to understand things himself.

Hu

I think it's better to have a specific hypothesis rather than say, we should study more about X. An example would be:

In a trial comparison of the Mix System and the Overlap Lens System, novice players will learn cut shots between 20 and 80 degrees significantly faster with the Overlap Lens system. (The suspicion is that this is true because the OLS is geometrically more accurate than the MS for cut shots around half-ball hits and thinner.)​

Such a test is not so easy to devise, but it could be done and presumably repeated.

Can you propose a more specific hypothesis that could be tested?