Just for the record, the debate has never been about aiming systems vs. non-aiming systems. The debate has been about whether or not any single aiming system is superior to all other aiming systems, and whether or not there exists any single aiming system that can eliminate the need to - or even drastically reduce the need to - "hit a million balls." To those questions, there are some who say, "Yea, such a system exists!" and there are others who say, "Nay, no such system exists!"
Roger
I don't think that's been the debate at all -- certainly not the debate you stated in your articles.
I think the debate has been whether or not CTE was "snake oil" or "nothing but marketing" as you so eloquently put in your ground-breaking three part series. Now that your famous conclusion was clearly wrong, now you say the debate was something totally different than what you had previously stated.
You guys keep chirping about "HAMB" as if it's a method or technique or something. It's merely a destination. I've seen tons of players who played their entire life and probably hit multiple million balls and they STILL suck. HAMB has ZERO RELEVANCE in being a great player. ZERO. Whoever came up with that "concept" is an idiot savant player or an internet forum idiot - hard to say which.
I can hit a million golf balls and that doesn't mean I'm tearing up the PGA tour nor does it mean I'd break 80--- some people don't have it. Repetition is not linearly proportional to success. More than likely, the last 300,000 balls of the HAMB will likely present the player at the same speed assuming no instruction/coaching has taken place. People plateau --- all people plateau. It's as certain as death.
So, this "HAMB" thing being a "goal" makes about as much sense as your conclusion in part III of your series. I've also seen people who could play with probably less than 10,000 balls. Hell, Hopkins ran either 13 or 15 balls the very first time he picked a cue up (literally, the very first time). I think he ran his first 100 at age 13 or something -- no HAMB there.
That Bieber guy was lambasted earlier in the thread but he was correct nonetheless. I'd put my money where my mouth is that I can take 3 APA level 2s and let Roger Long take 3 APA level 2s and see which group has the biggest delta in improvement on a pre-determined shot-test (something like Colenso's).
People tend to skirt the issue and say that doesn't prove anything but it totally does. I could prob take his group afterwards and improve their score a good bit with my info. He prob couldn't show my group anything because as they say -- you can't put the genie back in the snake oil bottle.
p.s. I don't think the above is an infomercial. I'm merely saying I REALLY like my chances at something like that. Heck, we don't even have to bet--- we can just do it for fun and the loser has to upload the avatar of the winner's choice for a month or two. Maybe at the next BCA Vegas show? Even if my team dumps me, I'd swap out Sgt. Hartman w/ pride.
