That's my point - there's no point. If a test is setup where after some practice doing the drills you can score the same as SVB, then - why? Mastering setup shots doesn't point to ability at all nor is the score representative of one's ability. It is to SOME degree if you're only given ONE attempt "on the blind" - but that's not the case.
Hopkins Q-Skill or merely setting up a breakshot to see how many you run until a miss and doing 10-innings of that and averaging those innings -- that's an indicator of ability.
I'm gonna poke out of the thread now because I gave my 2-cents and that's all I have.
Dave, I have to disagree with you here, and I will attempt to explain why.
1. Mastering setup shots does actually point to ability. Someone with lower ability will not get a high score until they improve in those areas. Getting a high score shows that one does have the ability to make those type of shots when needed to do so. Setup shots also apply equally to any shot that is similar in nature.
2. As to only the first attempt is valid- again, not so. For that to be true, it would have to mean that practice is of no value whatsoever. Whatever skill you currently have, must be your top skill attainable. I know you don't believe that to be so. So, then, practicing the shots, one then learns how to make the shot more consistently than he previously did. And, of course, that then translates right over to having a higher skill than previously.
3. The BU exams do highlight a good number of the "tools" needed to play at a higher level. However, they are NOT all inclusive to all the skills needed to be a high level winner. And, no one has claimed that they are. They are a good representative of many of the skills required to play at a higher level.
4. The scores- They are representative of what one is capable of doing in play. They are not necessarily representative of just how well one actually plays. For example, a number of years ago, I played Keith McCready in the Glass City Open. I had him 7-3 when I dogged a very makeable 7 ball. The 8 and 9 where basically "gimmies". Had I not dogged it, the score would have been 8-3 with me breaking. The way I was playing, I just might have ran out the rest of the set to 10. As it was, I lost 10-8.
Seems like a close game to onlookers that didn't know any better. In reality, Keith is WAY, WAY above my playing ability. I am capable of making anything he can, but not as consistently over a long period of time.
In the same way, a person such as myself or Dr. Dave scoring as high or higher than SVB does not really equate to exactly how we play. But, at the same time, it does equate to how we are CAPABLE of playing.
In other words, the test show ones abilities. Someone that scores high is a threat in a low to mid level race against almost anyone. But, being a threat does not equate to being an equal at all. There are still other aspects to actually playing at a high level consistently that are not covered by the exams. And, those areas make a big, big, difference in actually extended play. As SVB ended up showing, scoring high on the exams does take some practice to do. With his initial skill, he scored high, but as was stated by others, it was somewhat surprising the shots he failed at. But, with his abilities, it won't take much practice for him to up his score. As with playing, the higher you go, the closer the scores or matches can seem, but there can still be a great difference in who is going to win most of the time. It then becomes the little things that make the big difference in overall play.
By the same token though, it's a pretty safe bet to state that someone that scores high on the exam is going to beat someone that scores low on the exams.
One other point to make- high score posted is just that. The highest that person was able to achieve over a period of trying. Using me for an example, my first score was what I felt surprising low for me. I knew I could do better than I did, and soon did. So, the first score is not necessarily indicative of exactly how one plays either.
With a decent amount, but not a lot, of practice, I was better able to diagnose what I needed to do to improve. So, I diligently worked on those areas. And, as practice is supposed to do, my overall skill came up. While what is shown is my high score, my average score is only a few points lower. I consistently score in the mid 60's on the masters test. That is due to what I learned from the tests. Essentially what I learned I had to do to become more consistent.
I was just questioning when I saw that you scored the same as SVB. It's like posting the same score as John Holmes or Ron Jeremy when keeping track of "hot women banged" when you're a science geek, wear glasses and dream in trigonometry. Like I said, we're in the same boat but at least I don't wear glasses.....yet. 
