Billiard University (BU) playing-ability-exam scores and ratings

TheOneGnat said:
Thanks for doing this Dr. Dave. I just finished with the second exam. I did the fundamentals last night. It was fun and shows what I need to work on for sure!

I was playing on a Pro8 gold crown with the following specs:
4.5 in. Mouth
4 in. Throat
1.6 in. Shelf

I scored a 63 on the fundamentals and a 62 on the Masters exam.

I will be working to better that. Definitely show where some flaws are. Thanks again.
Nat
Click to expand...
I'm glad you liked the exams, and I'm glad they are giving you motivation to practice more.

Please also do several sets of the 10-ball ghost drill and post your median (middle value) score so I can add that for comparison.

Here's what we have so far:

List of AZB'ers who have taken the BU playing-ability exams so far (in ranked order):

BU score, Username, BU Rating, 10-ball ghost rating, Video links (if available):

160, Gerry Williams, semi-pro (A++/AAA), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Setup, Exam I (part 1, part 2), Exam II
141, 12squared (Dave Gross), adv-3 (A+/AA), no 10-ball ghost score yet, no videos (see AZB post)
141, Neil, adv-3 (A+/AA), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Exam (part 1, part 2), Exam II (part 1, part 2, part 3)
135, dr_dave, adv-2 (A/A-), 54 (B+), Exam I, Exam II
132, Gerry Williams, adv-2 (A/A-), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Setup, Exam I, Exam II (part 1, part 2)
132, BRussell, adv-2 (A/A-), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Exam I, Exam II
125, TheOneGnat, adv-2 (A/A-), no 10-ball ghost score yet, no videos (see AZB post)
124, JC, adv-1 (B+/B), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Specs, Exam 1, Exam 2
117, RobMan, adv-1 (B+/B), 46 (B), no videos (see AZB post)
112, RobMan, adv-1 (B+/B), 46 (B), no videos (see AZB post)
87, iusedtoberich, int-2 (C+), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Specs, Exam I, Exam II
78, iusedtoberich, int-2 (C+), 38 (C), Table Specs, Exam I, Exam II
77, SeanChamp, int-2 (C+), 38 (C), no videos (see AZB post)

Here are the details and scores for all official BU graduates.

Thanks again,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
I suggest that everybody who has submitted BU scores also try the 10-ball "playing the ghost" drill so we can see how well a practiced BU score compares to an average "playing the ghost" score. I recommend doing the ghost drill 3 or more times (10 racks of 10-ball each) and using the middle (median) value of the 10-rack scores to help deal with the inherent (and sometimes extreme) variability. I will add these scores and ratings to the BU rating list for comparison and correlation purposes.
Click to expand...
If you haven't done this yet, please do so and submit your score so I can add it to the list.

Thanks,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
If you haven't done this yet, please do so and submit your score so I can add it to the list.

Thanks,
Dave
Click to expand...

I played another set last night and scored 42. That goes along with my 71 and 33.

I have been known to be delusional but not this time. There is no possibility I am a "C"player. I don't trust this rating system.

JC
 
JC said:
dr_dave said:
I suggest that everybody who has submitted BU scores also try the 10-ball "playing the ghost" drill so we can see how well a practiced BU score compares to an average "playing the ghost" score. I recommend doing the ghost drill 3 or more times (10 racks of 10-ball each) and using the middle (median) value of the 10-rack scores to help deal with the inherent (and sometimes extreme) variability. I will add these scores and ratings to the BU rating list for comparison and correlation purposes.
Click to expand...
I played another set last night and scored 42. That goes along with my 71 and 33.

I have been known to be delusional but not this time. There is no possibility I am a "C"player. I don't trust this rating system.
Click to expand...
JC,

Thank you for posting that. I agree with you that the 10-ball ghost sucks as a rating system for such a few number of attempts. For now, I've listed your middle score (42 = C+). I agree with you that this is probably not accurate, based on your BU score. If you do more trials, please post the updated data.

Thanks,
Dave
 
Quite a few participants in this thread have suggested they might try the exams an maybe post scores. If you haven't yet, please consider doing so. I was hoping to get a little more data along with any feedback and suggestions you might have.

Please also consider posting your median 10-ball ghost score per the quote below.

Thanks,
Dave

dr_dave said:
I suggest that everybody who has submitted BU scores also try the 10-ball "playing the ghost" drill so we can see how well a practiced BU score compares to an average "playing the ghost" score. I recommend doing the ghost drill 3 or more times (10 racks of 10-ball each) and using the middle (median) value of the 10-rack scores to help deal with the inherent (and sometimes extreme) variability. I will add these scores and ratings to the BU rating list for comparison and correlation purposes.
Click to expand...
 
Finally was able to finish both exams. Scored 149 - 76 and 73. Performed on a 9' Brunswick Gold Crown 5, tournament edition, 4 1/2" pockets and typical 1 1/2" Brunswick shelf. Definitely a tough table, have to hit the balls pretty clean or at pocket speed to go.

Interesting process. On the first exam, I started off pretty well, achieved pretty much what I thought I should/could, but got to the wagon wheel and just did horrible - only 8 out of 20. When I had practiced it a few times, I scored 12 - 15 consistently. So I gave up 4 - 6 points easy, over and above any other mistakes that were made. So I think 80 - 84 is possible for me if the stars align... :)

On the second exam, doctorate level, I practiced the first drill and second drill a few times, mostly because I messed up and started over. Even so, when I did the second drill (frozen balls), I only scored 9 - a little lapse of concentration, then on the second attempt was interrupted by Thorsten showing up and promptly missed my next shot while he was watching - great... So I feel I gave up 6 points right there.

Gave up a few points on the kicks - I didn't practice them, if I did I'm sure I could memorize the positions and really dial in - just missed the 2 and 3 rail kicks, cloth just slid a bit more than I expected.

Also, I scored 0 (!!!) on the banks. Now they are tough on the doctorate exam, but even so the first 3 or 4 are certainly easily makeable, I scared the pocket on a few but just awful, really. I did okay on the elevated, jump, and break portions, but between the frozen balls and banks I gave up another 6 - 9 points, so 78 - 82 should be possible for me.


So, I think I have a shot at beating 160, especially by being able to redo the exams separately and combining the best of the two. If I had to do them in succession would be very very difficult. Will try again when I have time. But I feel anywhere in the 140 - 160 area is decent for me and given the chart and skill levels pretty much in line with what I would expect. Takes a lot of focus and concentration, that's for sure.


Will post the videos links soon, uploading the first 2 now. I had to do the first video in 2 sections, the practice tables are in a retail store and some crazy customer snuck up on me and I had to stop everything I was doing for 15 - 20 minutes answering questions before I could get back to things. Also check on the second video for a few cameos by Thorsten - I guess I get the first pro cameo appearance!!

Scott
 
scottjen26 said:
Finally was able to finish both exams. Scored 149 - 76 and 73. Performed on a 9' Brunswick Gold Crown 5, tournament edition, 4 1/2" pockets and typical 1 1/2" Brunswick shelf. Definitely a tough table, have to hit the balls pretty clean or at pocket speed to go.
Click to expand...
That's very strong! Thank you for posting.

scottjen26 said:
Interesting process. On the first exam, I started off pretty well, achieved pretty much what I thought I should/could, but got to the wagon wheel and just did horrible - only 8 out of 20. When I had practiced it a few times, I scored 12 - 15 consistently. So I gave up 4 - 6 points easy, over and above any other mistakes that were made. So I think 80 - 84 is possible for me if the stars align... :)

On the second exam, doctorate level, I practiced the first drill and second drill a few times, mostly because I messed up and started over. Even so, when I did the second drill (frozen balls), I only scored 9 - a little lapse of concentration, then on the second attempt was interrupted by Thorsten showing up and promptly missed my next shot while he was watching - great... So I feel I gave up 6 points right there.
Click to expand...
Check out the trisect system video. That system can be very helpful for draw shot aiming, especially if you don't have a good natural feel for this ... most people don't. That can help some with the wagon-wheel drill. Here's another video that might help others with this drill: NV C.5 - Wagon wheel cue ball control drill, from VEPP II

Did you tell Thorsten about the exams, or did he ask what you were doing? If you see him again, ask him to try them out, and let us know how he scores.

scottjen26 said:
Gave up a few points on the kicks - I didn't practice them, if I did I'm sure I could memorize the positions and really dial in - just missed the 2 and 3 rail kicks, cloth just slid a bit more than I expected.
Click to expand...
Yes. It is easy to "cheat" on these. But that's OK. You still learn something during the practice preparing for the "cheat."

scottjen26 said:
Also, I scored 0 (!!!) on the banks. Now they are tough on the doctorate exam, but even so the first 3 or 4 are certainly easily makeable, I scared the pocket on a few but just awful, really. I did okay on the elevated, jump, and break portions, but between the frozen balls and banks I gave up another 6 - 9 points, so 78 - 82 should be possible for me.

So, I think I have a shot at beating 160, especially by being able to redo the exams separately and combining the best of the two. If I had to do them in succession would be very very difficult. Will try again when I have time. But I feel anywhere in the 140 - 160 area is decent for me and given the chart and skill levels pretty much in line with what I would expect.
Click to expand...
Thank you for all of the info. I look forward to seeing an even better score in the future.

scottjen26 said:
Takes a lot of focus and concentration, that's for sure.
Click to expand...
I think that is the most important factor, regardless of a person's skill level.

scottjen26 said:
Will post the videos links soon, uploading the first 2 now. I had to do the first video in 2 sections, the practice tables are in a retail store and some crazy customer snuck up on me and I had to stop everything I was doing for 15 - 20 minutes answering questions before I could get back to things. Also check on the second video for a few cameos by Thorsten - I guess I get the first pro cameo appearance!!
Click to expand...
Sounds good. Please post the links here when the videos are live. I look forward to seeing the Thorsten cameo.

Thanks again,
Dave

PS: Please also post the middle score of a few (or more) sets of the 10-ball ghost drill when you can find some time.

Here's what we have so far:

List of AZB'ers who have taken the BU playing-ability exams so far (in ranked order):

BU score, Username, BU Rating, 10-ball ghost rating, Video links (if available):

160, Gerry Williams, semi-pro (A++/AAA), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Setup, Exam I (part 1, part 2), Exam II
149, scottjen26, adv-3 (A+/AA), no 10-ball ghost score yet, no videos (see AZB post)
141, 12squared (Dave Gross), adv-3 (A+/AA), no 10-ball ghost score yet, no videos (see AZB post)
141, Neil, adv-3 (A+/AA), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Exam (part 1, part 2), Exam II (part 1, part 2, part 3)
135, dr_dave, adv-2 (A/A-), 54 (B+), Exam I, Exam II
132, Gerry Williams, adv-2 (A/A-), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Setup, Exam I, Exam II (part 1, part 2)
132, BRussell, adv-2 (A/A-), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Exam I, Exam II
125, TheOneGnat, adv-2 (A/A-), no 10-ball ghost score yet, no videos (see AZB post)
124, JC, adv-1 (B+/B), 42 (C+), Table Specs, Exam 1, Exam 2
117, RobMan, adv-1 (B+/B), 46 (B), no videos (see AZB post)
112, RobMan, adv-1 (B+/B), 46 (B), no videos (see AZB post)
87, iusedtoberich, int-2 (C+), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Specs, Exam I, Exam II
78, iusedtoberich, int-2 (C+), 38 (C), Table Specs, Exam I, Exam II
77, SeanChamp, int-2 (C+), 38 (C), no videos (see AZB post)

Here are the details and scores for all official BU graduates.
 
dr_dave said:
Quite a few participants in this thread have suggested they might try the exams an maybe post scores. If you haven't yet, please consider doing so. I was hoping to get a little more data along with any feedback and suggestions you might have.

Please also consider posting your median 10-ball ghost score per the quote below.
dr_dave said:
I suggest that everybody who has submitted BU scores also try the 10-ball "playing the ghost" drill so we can see how well a practiced BU score compares to an average "playing the ghost" score. I recommend doing the ghost drill 3 or more times (10 racks of 10-ball each) and using the middle (median) value of the 10-rack scores to help deal with the inherent (and sometimes extreme) variability. I will add these scores and ratings to the BU rating list for comparison and correlation purposes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
... bump for the people who have tried the exams but haven't posted scores yet.

Thanks,
Dave
 
As predicted, when my lovely wife set up the balls for me and kept score my test score on part one rose to 72. Being able to shoot in a rhythm cannot be underestimated as a factor in overall performance.

JC
 
dr_dave said:
JC,

Thank you for posting that. I agree with you that the 10-ball ghost sucks as a rating system for such a few number of attempts. For now, I've listed your middle score (42 = C+). I agree with you that this is probably not accurate, based on your BU score. If you do more trials, please post the updated data.

Thanks,
Dave
Click to expand...

Opinion (from someone who knows statistics just enough to know I don't know what I don't know):

I think the reason we see large variations in 10 ball ghost scores, across the same shooter, is because the standard deviation will vary with skill level. At low levels, the deviation will be very high. At higher levels, the standard deviation will be much tighter. I don't think the test is flawed at all, just the results have to be understood.

When you have a good local player, like a B+ guy, his 10 ball scores will be all over the place. Depending on the layout, and how he is shooting that day, he might average 4 balls per rack, or he might average 7 balls per rack the next day.

A better player, a Pro for example, I would hypothesize will have a much tighter standard deviation across multiple trials. His skill level is so much higher, that when the balls are not in ideal runout positions, he still is able to get out with regularity. The B+ player will have no chance in the same layout. Across routine layouts, the Pro will rarely botch them, while the B+ will botch them with regularity.

One instance of this I can recall is when we had the Hopkins challenge going on here several years ago, and even had a subforum devoted to it. Lots of guys participated. I read many of the posts, and one of the members said they had Parica do it, and he scored 20 consecutive 20's (20 is a perfect score).

So in affect, you can use a players standard deviation across multiple trials of a (choose one: 10 ball ghost, Hopkins test, Dr Dave test, etc) to help gage their skill.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Opinion (from someone who knows statistics just enough to know I don't know what I don't know):

I think the reason we see large variations in 10 ball ghost scores, across the same shooter, is because the standard deviation will vary with skill level. At low levels, the deviation will be very high. At higher levels, the standard deviation will be much tighter. I don't think the test is flawed at all, just the results have to be understood.

When you have a good local player, like a B+ guy, his 10 ball scores will be all over the place. Depending on the layout, and how he is shooting that day, he might average 4 balls per rack, or he might average 7 balls per rack the next day.

A better player, a Pro for example, I would hypothesize will have a much tighter standard deviation across multiple trials. His skill level is so much higher, that when the balls are not in ideal runout positions, he still is able to get out with regularity. The B+ player will have no chance in the same layout. Across routine layouts, the Pro will rarely botch them, while the B+ will botch them with regularity.

One instance of this I can recall is when we had the Hopkins challenge going on here several years ago, and even had a subforum devoted to it. Lots of guys participated. I read many of the posts, and one of the members said they had Parica do it, and he scored 20 consecutive 20's (20 is a perfect score).

So in affect, you can use a players standard deviation across multiple trials of a (choose one: 10 ball ghost, Hopkins test, Dr Dave test, etc) to help gage their skill.
Click to expand...

If what you say is true (which it may well be) then the rating scale should be non linear which it is not.

JC
 
iusedtoberich said:
Opinion (from someone who knows statistics just enough to know I don't know what I don't know):

I think the reason we see large variations in 10 ball ghost scores, across the same shooter, is because the standard deviation will vary with skill level. At low levels, the deviation will be very high. At higher levels, the standard deviation will be much tighter. I don't think the test is flawed at all, just the results have to be understood.

When you have a good local player, like a B+ guy, his 10 ball scores will be all over the place. Depending on the layout, and how he is shooting that day, he might average 4 balls per rack, or he might average 7 balls per rack the next day.

A better player, a Pro for example, I would hypothesize will have a much tighter standard deviation across multiple trials. His skill level is so much higher, that when the balls are not in ideal runout positions, he still is able to get out with regularity. The B+ player will have no chance in the same layout. Across routine layouts, the Pro will rarely botch them, while the B+ will botch them with regularity.

One instance of this I can recall is when we had the Hopkins challenge going on here several years ago, and even had a subforum devoted to it. Lots of guys participated. I read many of the posts, and one of the members said they had Parica do it, and he scored 20 consecutive 20's (20 is a perfect score).

So in affect, you can use a players standard deviation across multiple trials of a (choose one: 10 ball ghost, Hopkins test, Dr Dave test, etc) to help gage their skill.
Click to expand...

This is a great post on how to interpret statistical data.

I don't know why Dr. Dave feels the JT 10 Ball Ghost drill "sucks". Perhaps, it's due to lack of a thorough understanding of it's application?

I mentioned using some kind of dynamic "final exam" to be used in conjunction with the BU tests. Why? Well, in a nutshell, a dynamic test (vs the static/stationary BU drills) lets you demonstrate your offensive skills(shotmaking, position play, problem solving, table management, break skill) in a random and changing environment, rather than a fixed setting. A fixed setting and fixed drills can be "gamed" just by taking a few tries, to figure them out. With a drill like the wagon wheel thing, once you know which english to use via the clock system, you are good to go. But, what if the shot isn't the exact layout of the drill, but a slight variation?

At the end of the day, you need a dynamic test. It could be the JT 10 Ball or Fargo or the Hopkins Q Test or whatever. Regardless which, the test should show that you have mastered the skill/technique and not just mastered a particular set up shot(s).


Eric
 
JC said:
As predicted, when my lovely wife set up the balls for me and kept score my test score on part one rose to 72. Being able to shoot in a rhythm cannot be underestimated as a factor in overall performance.
Click to expand...
Do you also plan to redo Exam II? Will you be posting new videos also? Let me know when you have a new total score to add to the list (even if you reuse you're existing Exam II score).

Regards,
Dave
 
iusedtoberich said:
dr_dave said:
JC,

Thank you for posting that. I agree with you that the 10-ball ghost sucks as a rating system for such a few number of attempts. For now, I've listed your middle score (42 = C+). I agree with you that this is probably not accurate, based on your BU score. If you do more trials, please post the updated data.
Click to expand...
Opinion (from someone who knows statistics just enough to know I don't know what I don't know):

I think the reason we see large variations in 10 ball ghost scores, across the same shooter, is because the standard deviation will vary with skill level. At low levels, the deviation will be very high. At higher levels, the standard deviation will be much tighter. I don't think the test is flawed at all, just the results have to be understood.

When you have a good local player, like a B+ guy, his 10 ball scores will be all over the place. Depending on the layout, and how he is shooting that day, he might average 4 balls per rack, or he might average 7 balls per rack the next day.

A better player, a Pro for example, I would hypothesize will have a much tighter standard deviation across multiple trials. His skill level is so much higher, that when the balls are not in ideal runout positions, he still is able to get out with regularity. The B+ player will have no chance in the same layout. Across routine layouts, the Pro will rarely botch them, while the B+ will botch them with regularity.

One instance of this I can recall is when we had the Hopkins challenge going on here several years ago, and even had a subforum devoted to it. Lots of guys participated. I read many of the posts, and one of the members said they had Parica do it, and he scored 20 consecutive 20's (20 is a perfect score).

So in affect, you can use a players standard deviation across multiple trials of a (choose one: 10 ball ghost, Hopkins test, Dr Dave test, etc) to help gage their skill
Click to expand...
I can see how a top player could crush the Hopkins Q Skills drill almost every time, but I think 10-ball is a different animal. If the wrong ball gets tied up or hidden in the wrong place after a break, even a top player might not be able score well on any given rack using 10-ball ghost rules, and this could happen multiple times in a 10-rack sequence.

Regardless, if a person of any level does enough 10-rack trials of the 10-ball ghost drill, the median (middle value) score should be fairly representative of the person's ability. Under this scenario, a top player would always have a top score, and a less-than-top player won't (although, an average player could get lucky and get a fairly high score in any given 10-rack sequence, if he or she is reasonably good and lucky).

Regards,
Dave
 
Eric. said:
I don't know why Dr. Dave feels the JT 10 Ball Ghost drill "sucks". Perhaps, it's due to lack of a thorough understanding of it's application?
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I did not write that the JT 10-ball ghost drill sucks. I was agreeing with JC that the drill sucks as a player rating system if only three or less trials are being used to assign an overall rating of skill. For the record, here's the full quote:
dr_dave said:
JC,

Thank you for posting that. I agree with you that the 10-ball ghost sucks as a rating system for such a few number of attempts. For now, I've listed your middle score (42 = C+). I agree with you that this is probably not accurate, based on your BU score. If you do more trials, please post the updated data.
Click to expand...

Also, drills like these do not adequately assess several important pool skills (safety play, kicks, banks, and jumps). Regardless, they do provide a good measure of offensive run-out skills if enough trials are done.

Eric. said:
I mentioned using some kind of dynamic "final exam" to be used in conjunction with the BU tests. Why? Well, in a nutshell, a dynamic test (vs the static/stationary BU drills) lets you demonstrate your offensive skills(shotmaking, position play, problem solving, table management, break skill) in a random and changing environment, rather than a fixed setting. A fixed setting and fixed drills can be "gamed" just by taking a few tries, to figure them out. With a drill like the wagon wheel thing, once you know which english to use via the clock system, you are good to go. But, what if the shot isn't the exact layout of the drill, but a slight variation?

At the end of the day, you need a dynamic test. It could be the JT 10 Ball or Fargo or the Hopkins Q Test or whatever. Regardless which, the test should show that you have mastered the skill/technique and not just mastered a particular set up shot(s).
Click to expand...
Eric,

We discussed this before. Again, I agree with you that the 10-ball ghost drill or any other "dynamic test" is a good addition to the BU rating system to help provide context and correlation. I could officially add it as an "Exam III" or a "Final Exam," but I don't think that is necessary. The BU exams are already long enough as it is, without adding multiple trials of 10-racks of 10 ball! However, people can still do both ... that is certainly what I have been encouraging. I think my previous post quoted below summarizes my opinion on this fairly well.

dr_dave said:
Eric,

I agree with you concerning the value of running random layouts, but I still think BU Exam II does a decent job of measuring run-out skills (in a consistent, non-random way, and within a reasonable amount of time).

Of course people can get better with practice, but that's the whole point. However, regardless of how much you practice, you still need excellent run-out skills to be able to score well on the line-of-balls run-out drill (S1), the rail-cut-shot run-out drill (S2), and the 9-ball and 8-ball pattern run-out drills (S3 and S4), especially in the Doctorate version of the Exam II. Even if you know ahead of time what might be a good run-out pattern, you still need the skill to be able to execute the plan and have the ability to change the plan (sometimes multiple times) when things don't work out well (... which is likely if you don't have good run-out skills). Also, a player who has excellent run-out skills would also probably do well on all of the other BU exam drills (in both Exam I and Exam II), because all of the skills tested are important to running out among a wide range of random layouts (e.g., sometimes during run-outs you need to stop the ball nearly perfectly, or draw back a controlled distance, or follow forward a controlled amount to a small target area, know which direction the CB will head fairly accurately with different amounts of top or bottom spin, control speed and ball travel distance well on stun shots, play position off one or more rails to a fairly tight target zone, etc., etc., etc.). The BU exams also assess skills that don't come up often or at all in the "playing the ghost" drills (e.g., safety play, kicks, banks, and jumps).

I suggest that everybody who has submitted BU scores also try the 10-ball "playing the ghost" drill so we can see how well a practiced BU score compares to an average "playing the ghost" score. I recommend doing the ghost drill 3 times (10 racks of 10-ball each) and using the middle value (median) of the three 10-rack scores to help deal with the inherent (and sometimes extreme) variability.
Click to expand...

I look forward to seeing your BU and 10-ball ghost rating results, hopefully with videos documenting a really high BU score. I know you are capable.

Catch you later,
Dave
 
JC said:
dr_dave said:
Do you also plan to redo Exam II? Will you be posting new videos also? Let me know when you have a new total score to add to the list (even if you reuse you're existing Exam II score).
Click to expand...
You just want to see if I'm lying about the loveliness of my wife.:)
Click to expand...
I don't doubt the loveliness of your wife; although, now you've gotten me interested. Let's see some video. :grin:

Actually, even if your wife isn't "lovely," I would still be totally impressed that she is willing to keep score for you while you take the exams. Have you told her yet how awesome she is for doing this for you? She might even deserve flowers for such loyalty.

I've already told my wife about your wife several times. (It hasn't worked yet.) :frown:

Catch you later,
Dave
 
Not that I want to disrupt any... marital activities, but you can always just score yourself while watching the video.
 
dr_dave said:
Just to be clear, I did not write that the JT 10-ball ghost drill sucks. I was agreeing with JC that the drill sucks as a player rating system if only three or less trials are being used to assign an overall rating of skill. For the record, here's the full quote:

....

Also, drills like these do not adequately assess several important pool skills (safety play, kicks, banks, and jumps). Regardless, they do provide a good measure of offensive run-out skills if enough trials are done.

........



I look forward to seeing your BU and 10-ball ghost rating results, hopefully with videos documenting a really high BU score. I know you are capable.

Catch you later,
Dave
Click to expand...

Thats the point. You've bastardized the JT 10 Ball drill. Instead of playing 10 sets, and getting 10 scores, you changed it to "play 3 sets and take the median score". I'm thinking that if you are gonna alter the drill, maybe do something like- play 10 sets, throw out the highest and lowest scores, then use the *mean* calculation of the remaining 8 scores. I feel that mean is a better reflection than median.

Whiel the JT 10 Ball doesnt address the aforementioned safety play, kicking, banking and jumps (altho banking and jumps can come up in some sets), it does cover the skills in Pool that carry the most weight i.e. shotmaking, position play, table management and breaking.

Lastly, as mentioned in our PM's, I will try to find time to at least read through the whole BU program, this weekend. I am interested in these types of drills because they can quantify one's playing skill nicely. Unfortunately, I haven't had time to dedicate towards this, since I first got involved, way back in...Tuesday of this week.

I already know my JT 10 Ball averages, since I do it often. I'll do your BU thing, recording the very first, unpracticed score, then I'll fiddle with the drills that i score poorly on and retake it after I'm real familiar with the BU drill. I expect to see a big gap between first and last scores.


Eric
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top