Taiwan TOI

CJ opened a thread regarding 'pool science' & 'pool knowledge'.

I'm sure Einstein knew the physics involving a curveball but I doubt that he even knew how to hold the ball in his hand much less what to do with his hand, arm, & wrist to throw one & hence could not actually throw one even though he knew the science.

I have 3 yrs. of physics but I never think physics when playing. Maybe that's because I started playing at 13 which was before any of my physics education.

Just food for thought.
Rick
 
DAVE_M said:
I found this video, from Dr. Dave, in less than 10 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytp3JX5BKAg

I found this video, from CJ Wiley, in less than 10 seconds also.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyTvfeqeh5Y

From an educational standpoint, which would you say is more valuable to someone looking for knowledge?
Click to expand...

I already said it would be prudent to read them both. However, if I want an advanced degree in pool, it would be hard to beat Dr Dave. If I want to learn how to be a world class player, I'd lean toward CJ.
 
one stroke said:
Really and just how in the world do you draw the conclusion ,, do you know both personaly ,,
Click to expand...
Btw, it's p.e.r.s.o.n.a.l.l.y.? Buy a dictionary, take responsibility for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. If you'd like to get personal, take it somewhere else.
 
DAVE_M said:
I found this video, from Dr. Dave, in less than 10 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytp3JX5BKAg

I found this video, from CJ Wiley, in less than 10 seconds also.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyTvfeqeh5Y

From an educational standpoint, which would you say is more valuable to someone looking for knowledge?
Click to expand...

For me it's CJ's, as I already had the knowledge that Dr. Dave's video provided.

My point being that learning new knowledge or methods are individually specific.

Hence what Dr. Dave offers & what CJ offers both have their place.

A problem should only arise when there is something in one that directly contradicts the other.

I'll just stop there.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick
 
Last edited:
DAVE_M said:
I found this video, from Dr. Dave, in less than 10 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytp3JX5BKAg

I found this video, from CJ Wiley, in less than 10 seconds also.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyTvfeqeh5Y

From an educational standpoint, which would you say is more valuable to someone looking for knowledge?
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting these. As to which is most valuable? I'd say it depends on the person processing the information. We all view and process information in different patterns.

Personally, I found both valuable...
 
The difference is one is objective view, Dr. Dave. he offers proofs and explanations on what's happening based on testing.

The other is subjective, CJ. He offers no proof other than what he says.

Those that want to know the truth choose objective.

Those that want to believe whatever suits them choose subjective.

But neither way has anything to do with playing beautiful pool. This aspect seems to have been lost.

Until one realize pool is art form, and not a game where systems are used, you'll never see how to play.
 
Rick:
What you & some others don't seem to understand is if one can increase the odds of hitting on ONE side of the ball & have a plan for the hit on that side then one can use the whole pocket in one direction for any variation of intended hit.
Click to expand...
What you, CJ and those who have jumped on the TOI bandwagon don't seem to understand is that this particular TOI claim is patently false.

Stroke errors cause misses to both sides of where you intend the OB to go (the "target"), not to only one side of where you "aim" it. The only thing you change by avoiding center ball is to add squirt to the aiming equation.

This isn't my opinion; it's obvious fact. Friendly advice to CJ: change your tune about this before the pool world inevitably catches on and you have to retract it.

pj
chgo

View attachment 98816
 

Attachments

  • TOI.jpg
    TOI.jpg
    81.2 KB · Views: 153
Last edited:
duckie said:
The difference is one is objective view, Dr. Dave. he offers proofs and explanations on what's happening based on testing.

The other is subjective, CJ. He offers no proof other than what he says.

Those that want to know the truth choose objective.

Those that want to believe whatever suits them choose subjective.

But neither way has anything to do with playing beautiful pool. This aspect seems to have been lost.

Until one realize pool is art form, and not a game where systems are used, you'll never see how to play.
Click to expand...

Greg,

IMO, you are way more in line with CJ then you are with Dr. Dave.

Also, I would disagree with your assessment of objective & subjective.

I'll just stop there.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick
 
If the playing ability of a person is being used to gauge the value of their input, then I'd go with Babe Cranfield.

Does CJ credentials match his? Or even several other of the greats?
 
duckie said:
If the playing ability of a person is being used to gauge the value of their input, then I'd go with Babe Cranfield.

Does CJ credentials match his? Or even several other of the greats?
Click to expand...

Greg,

Would you go with Babe or CJ regarding Ghost Ball & Babe's Arrow?

Would you go with Babe or CJ regarding TOI?

I don't think anyone has said that one's playing ability alone is the basis of judging the value of input.

The input is either valuable or not independent of the messenger.

However, when a subject is being discussed sometimes experience with the subject lends itself to a degree of more credibility than one with little to no experience regarding the subject.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top