$2000 Bank Bend Challenge

Neil said:
dr_dave said:
I admit that, at first, I was disappointed by cleary's dishonesty, attempted cheat, and attempted slander; but now I am glad, because Bob and I have both learned some valuable lessons about video editing and how to detect cheats. It has also been interesting (and scary) to see how many people cleary was able to deceive.
Click to expand...
The problem I have with you and Bob, and that you both devised the test thinking that a ball could not be bent at all.
Click to expand...
Neil, even if I may have seemed skeptical at times in the past, I honestly always believed that bending a bank short was "possible." In fact, for many years, I have had on my website physical explanations for how and why it should be possible (although, I never had convincing videos available until fairly recently). And for those who still might doubt it, check out the demonstrations of banks being bent on the bending a bank resource page and in the $2000 Bank bend Challenge introduction video.

What I did always doubt is that a bank could be banked short a "useful" amount in a consistent and accurate way to make it a valuable technique at the table in a real game situation (even if it can happen). BTW, the goals for our challenge are stated very clearly on the $2000 Bank Bend Challenge page:

1. To see how much bend is possible.
2. To find out what types of shots and equipment are most suitable for bending.
3. To assess the difficulty and practicality of using bank bend effectively in a game situation where both accuracy and consistency are required.


Neil said:
you devised a test, that while I think that you devised it in good faith, the test was flawed to start with. Too many stipulations that essentially make it where you had to be able to repeat the bend to have it valid, or you had to go through all the filming prerequisites on each and every attempt at the shot. Hardly anyone was going to be willing to do that.
Click to expand...
I agree that the shot setup does take some care and time, but we thought it was necessary to achieve the challenge goals. However, once you set up the layout, you can quickly attempt the shot over and over until you get one that works well, and then you can complete the ruler-measurement procedure. It didn't take much time at all to create the example submission videos currently on the $2000 Bank Bend Challenge page, and the examples do satisfy all of the challenge rules and requirements (although, the bend achieved was admittedly not very good). I am still very surprised nobody has beaten them yet for the guaranteed $200.

Regards,
Dave
 
Neil said:
dr_dave said:
I admit that, at first, I was disappointed by cleary's dishonesty, attempted cheat, and attempted slander; but now I am glad, because Bob and I have both learned some valuable lessons about video editing and how to detect cheats. It has also been interesting (and scary) to see how many people cleary was able to deceive.
Click to expand...
if you two had stated that you didn't think the video was legit, and left it at that, it would be one thing. But, you didn't.
Click to expand...
We were trying to get cleary to admit it on his own first; but that obviously wasn't going to happen, and we started getting tired of his slanderous abuse, and we didn't appreciate him misleading so many apparent "believers" with his deceit.


Neil said:
You used your "technicality" clause to get out of paying on it.
Click to expand...
Neil, I know you and some others do not like the way we wrote the rules for the contest; but again, we thought they were necessary to achieve the goals of the challenge. But even if you or other don't like the rules, that doesn't mean they should be ignored. Cleary's video clearly violated SEVERAL of the challenge rules, AND he clearly did not meet the requirement necessary to win the $2000 prize (even if his video were legitimate, which it was not). I strongly encourage you and others to watch the videos and read all of the rules and requirements on the $2000 Bank Bend Challenge page. If you or others don't want to follow the rules, you and and others should not participate in the challenge.


Neil said:
In reality, the science says it CAN be done. Problem is, nobody seems to be able to do it on command because the science parameters are so tight for it to actually happen with any kind of frequency.
Click to expand...
Again, I agree.

Regards,
Dave
 
So, I believe he offered, and Bob took him up on going by his home next week......the saga continues?
 
dr_dave said:
I still didn't appreciate his dishonestly, his apparent desire to sabotage the challenge, and his disrespectful, mean-spirited, and slanderous tone
Click to expand...

Well, I hope I didn't hurt your feelings Dave. Any science jokes were just that, jokes. That's what I do. I simply stated a long time ago that I didn't think anyone would win this money because it's too easy for you to back out. Your detailed setup makes it simple to always have an out. And, I was right. Regardless of what you felt about how legitimate my video was or wasn't, it was DQ'd by Bob for not being setup correctly. Which is fine, it just means I was right. That's not slander. I was disrespectful, absolutely, but because I felt the whole challenge was disrespectful to us all.
 
dr_dave said:
We were trying to get cleary to admit it on his own first; but that obviously wasn't going to happen, and we started getting tired of his slanderous abuse, and we didn't appreciate him misleading so many apparent "believers" with his deceit.


Neil, I know you and some others do not like the way we wrote the rules for the contest; but again, we thought they were necessary to achieve the goals of the challenge. But even if you or other don't like the rules, that doesn't mean they should be ignored. Cleary's video clearly violated SEVERAL of the challenge rules, AND he clearly did not meet the requirement necessary to win the $2000 prize (even if his video were legitimate, which it was not). I strongly encourage you and others to watch the videos and read all of the rules and requirements on the $2000 Bank Bend Challenge page. If you or others don't want to follow the rules, you and and others should not participate in the challenge.


Again, I agree.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, I really don't think I worded what is in my mind very well. Let me try again.

I looked at the test as an opportunity for you two, and all of us, to learn something. The money was a way to get others to participate to get as much input as possible. I understand why you made the rules the way you did, and agree that is was pretty much a necessity.

Given that, I took it as the primary goal was to see some good bends. Given the bend in Cleary's video, my take was that this is what we all are looking for. Yes, he didn't follow the rules to the letter, but it was clear that even if he had, the bend would have been quite large. Which is what "we" were after. Therefore, if it was my money, I would have stated something along the lines of "well, that is extremely impressive. However, a few things look fishy to me, so after checking out the video, we will determine if you are in the lead for the money or not. Right now, it appears that you may well be in the lead. "

Instead, you two took the opposite track, and went with the rules weren't followed, so no payout.

To me, and I know to others also, that appears big time like you never had any intention of paying out. Now, I know you and Bob are very honest guys. And, in my heart I believe you would or will pay out on a winner video. But, the way you two went about this video just plain smelled real bad. And definitely gave an impression that I'm sure you two never intended.
 
Dave,

Yes Cleary was disrespectful and yes he did accomplish a magical bend in the banked object ball shot that John Brumback couldn't do (without Cleary's secret weapon).

I won't attempt to explain why Cleary was so hell bent on painting you in such a poor light. It's hard to explain such madness.

However, you should consider sending Cleary a basket of fruit for Christmas or some other token of your appreciation. He has singly probably brought more attention to you and your website than any one person to date, imo.

You have lots of great pool DVDs that you can sell to people trying to learn more about pool due to the increased buzz of this thread.

JoeyA
 
cleary said:
Kamui chalk and tips :)
Click to expand...

Those have nothing to do with the last bank. It's in the wrist. Notice how he never showed what his wrist was doing. More deception. For that last shot you have to roll your knuckles up, thumb down, just at contact. Try it.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Those have nothing to do with the last bank. It's in the wrist. Notice how he never showed what his wrist was doing. More deception. For that last shot you have to roll your knuckles up, thumb down, just at contact. Try it.
Click to expand...

I've been blessed with many things in this life: a stroke like a damn rocket, a c*ck like a burmese python, and the mind of a f*cking scientist.
 
I really wish I could see the bitter look on the faces of some people posting in this thread when they watch that last video.
 
cleary said:
Look, I can't give away all the secrets... But let's just say this shot doesn't go on a Brunswick
Click to expand...

Hate to pop your bubble, but it does go on a Brunswick. It's nothing more than a reverse bank. All you need to do is use force follow on the cb which then becomes force reverse when the ob hits the rail. (ob did have a nice little bend at the end there though)

To those that are now looking at where he hit the cb, it doesn't matter. It's all about using the "force" properly. (it's an old trick that the Jedi's picked up from the old pool hustlers)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top