Advise To Dr. Dave From Ron V.
I read with great interest Dr. Dave's obvious indictment of my aiming system... and his not so obvious replacement with his own near-impossible to understand aiming system.
The good doctor should realize that those of us that earned our stripes on the corporate battlefield are not easily fooled by well-argued propositions that misinform and ultimately misdirect .
Those of us in the real world can distinguish between self-serving, self-promotion and a genuine academic contribution. The transparency of his article to sell his own aiming system was glaringly obvious. Quite frankly, I was amazed at his belief that his audience would be so gullible.
It's time to tell the good doctor that " The emperor has no clothes. Put differently, we must now distinguish between science and science fiction. And while I'm at it, we all should inform him that the era of " one- to- many communications" is being replaced, and with good reason, by today's " many-to many " communication vehicles such as A-Z Billiards.
Before the advent of social media connective technologies that now enable peer-to- peer communications, we were at the mercy of people like Dr. Dave who gave us answers in the form of neatly engineered formulas, strategic paradigms, and finely honed analytical techniques.
To be blunt:The academic stuff Dr. Dave traffics in, very few can comprehend. And even fewer can use in some productive way to improve their level of play.
Mass collaboration via social networking changes everything
Now we can all learn from each other. We can find out what works, what doesn't work, and why. We can learn real systems that have met the concrete test of application. Evidence-based results far outweigh mathematical niceties for serious-minded pool players.
In short, much of the concepts of aiming are simple and generalize easily; yet the mathematical jargon, numerical tables, and graphs so favored by Dr. Dave give the impression of being extremely scientific. Quite frankly, in my opinion, it's academic nonsense disguised as " analysis, " "concepts, " and "scientific theories."
My system really works. Hundreds of e-mails/postings validate my assertion. I, for one,do not need a self-important academic attempt to condemn a great system & the work of countless others to the scrap heap, and in the process claim his system is better.
Worse, I am astonished that Dr. Dave really believes anyone accepts his self-appointed position as judge and jury. The court holding tactic may have worked in yesterday's " one-to-many " era. But in today's world it's the people with familiarity with the system and the ability to implement it who are the real judges.
In the final analysis it's results that count. My system enables users to quickly obtain extraordinary results. What are the validated results of Dr. Dave's system? I can validate my results with a dozen or more testimonials.
Would Dr. Dave be willing to subject himself to a real experiment to test the validity of both systems? Perhaps one of the big three publications in the world of pool would be willing to fund a properly designed statistical experiment? Just an idea.
The criteria for such a test would be based on real world usage of the system and measurable results obtained. I provide a step-by-step methodology for aiming that extends into banking and diamond systems. From my reading of Dr. Dave's aiming system, he provides no such principle-based methodology.
Dr. Dave is a young man. In time, he will, hopefully, learn the true meaning of the the term innovation. Peter F. Drucker, reminded us, that innovation can be defined as: " The missing link between a number of disconnected elements, each marginally effective by themselves, and an integrated system of great productive power. "
That's what my system is about. I've brought together a number of disconnected elements, each marginally effective, and put them together into a systematic, well-organized learning program. Dr. Dave would be well-advised to follow my example and stop trying to complicate simple procedures via questionable mathematics.
My objective is ,and always has been, to put accumulated aiming knowledge into a form that makes it accessible to those that need it. My material is organized, explicit, portable, and is easy to understand and execute.
I believe Dr. Dave with his elegant mathematics, impressively packaged materials, and promised solutions was brilliantly conceived, but suffers from the low correlation between pseudo-knowledge and playing effectiveness. He's isolated himself in meaningless abstractions, far from the realities players must endure when engaged in actual play.
Dr. Dave has a significant contribution to make. But that will take hard work backed by student feedback through results in place of elegant, but quite irrelevant,mathematics.
I strongly advise Dr. Dave to accept the notion that pool must be made into a discipline. The foundation in a discipline gives today's competent pool player a capacity to perform well beyond competent pool players of yesteryear. That's where we need his efforts and intelligence.
I further advise him to learn more about measurement and codification procedures. But that's for another day.
I read with great interest Dr. Dave's obvious indictment of my aiming system... and his not so obvious replacement with his own near-impossible to understand aiming system.
The good doctor should realize that those of us that earned our stripes on the corporate battlefield are not easily fooled by well-argued propositions that misinform and ultimately misdirect .
Those of us in the real world can distinguish between self-serving, self-promotion and a genuine academic contribution. The transparency of his article to sell his own aiming system was glaringly obvious. Quite frankly, I was amazed at his belief that his audience would be so gullible.
It's time to tell the good doctor that " The emperor has no clothes. Put differently, we must now distinguish between science and science fiction. And while I'm at it, we all should inform him that the era of " one- to- many communications" is being replaced, and with good reason, by today's " many-to many " communication vehicles such as A-Z Billiards.
Before the advent of social media connective technologies that now enable peer-to- peer communications, we were at the mercy of people like Dr. Dave who gave us answers in the form of neatly engineered formulas, strategic paradigms, and finely honed analytical techniques.
To be blunt:The academic stuff Dr. Dave traffics in, very few can comprehend. And even fewer can use in some productive way to improve their level of play.
Mass collaboration via social networking changes everything
Now we can all learn from each other. We can find out what works, what doesn't work, and why. We can learn real systems that have met the concrete test of application. Evidence-based results far outweigh mathematical niceties for serious-minded pool players.
In short, much of the concepts of aiming are simple and generalize easily; yet the mathematical jargon, numerical tables, and graphs so favored by Dr. Dave give the impression of being extremely scientific. Quite frankly, in my opinion, it's academic nonsense disguised as " analysis, " "concepts, " and "scientific theories."
My system really works. Hundreds of e-mails/postings validate my assertion. I, for one,do not need a self-important academic attempt to condemn a great system & the work of countless others to the scrap heap, and in the process claim his system is better.
Worse, I am astonished that Dr. Dave really believes anyone accepts his self-appointed position as judge and jury. The court holding tactic may have worked in yesterday's " one-to-many " era. But in today's world it's the people with familiarity with the system and the ability to implement it who are the real judges.
In the final analysis it's results that count. My system enables users to quickly obtain extraordinary results. What are the validated results of Dr. Dave's system? I can validate my results with a dozen or more testimonials.
Would Dr. Dave be willing to subject himself to a real experiment to test the validity of both systems? Perhaps one of the big three publications in the world of pool would be willing to fund a properly designed statistical experiment? Just an idea.
The criteria for such a test would be based on real world usage of the system and measurable results obtained. I provide a step-by-step methodology for aiming that extends into banking and diamond systems. From my reading of Dr. Dave's aiming system, he provides no such principle-based methodology.
Dr. Dave is a young man. In time, he will, hopefully, learn the true meaning of the the term innovation. Peter F. Drucker, reminded us, that innovation can be defined as: " The missing link between a number of disconnected elements, each marginally effective by themselves, and an integrated system of great productive power. "
That's what my system is about. I've brought together a number of disconnected elements, each marginally effective, and put them together into a systematic, well-organized learning program. Dr. Dave would be well-advised to follow my example and stop trying to complicate simple procedures via questionable mathematics.
My objective is ,and always has been, to put accumulated aiming knowledge into a form that makes it accessible to those that need it. My material is organized, explicit, portable, and is easy to understand and execute.
I believe Dr. Dave with his elegant mathematics, impressively packaged materials, and promised solutions was brilliantly conceived, but suffers from the low correlation between pseudo-knowledge and playing effectiveness. He's isolated himself in meaningless abstractions, far from the realities players must endure when engaged in actual play.
Dr. Dave has a significant contribution to make. But that will take hard work backed by student feedback through results in place of elegant, but quite irrelevant,mathematics.
I strongly advise Dr. Dave to accept the notion that pool must be made into a discipline. The foundation in a discipline gives today's competent pool player a capacity to perform well beyond competent pool players of yesteryear. That's where we need his efforts and intelligence.
I further advise him to learn more about measurement and codification procedures. But that's for another day.
and the laws of physics must be obeyed. No matter how you explain it, with math or intuition, the ball only goes in the pocket if you somehow hit it there. 
