Advise to Dr. DAVE From Ron V.

[SJDinPHX]

Well, have you tried using the cueball first?

Oh, Oh, Here they come with the diagrams again. I feel another migrain coming on. Bye guys.

 

[dr_dave]

It's never been a "personal" issue between us. You seem like a like-able guy (through your postings). If I met you, I'd probably think you were a good guy, so it's never been a like/dislike issue.

That is kind of you.

The only issue I've had is the constant referrals back to your self promotional website, and your disingenuous positioning as a "Pool authority".

Others and I have responded to this sort of message from you many times over the years. I won't ever again.

Dr. Dave

 

[Cornerman]

It's obvious to me that we are talking about the same thing. Why are you trying to convince me we aren't?

Considering Dave asked you the same thing I asked you, it's obvious you're not.

If it's obvious to you that you're talking about the same thing, yet he is pretty adamant that you aren't talking about the same thing, then isn't it time you admit that this is one reason that you can't have this explanation on the forum and that it's better served on the table?



Fred

 

[Eric.]

There's nothing disingenuous about Dave's "positioning himself as a 'pool authority'". He is a pool authority. He knows more about pool than almost anybody here.

pj
chgo

On the physics side of it? If we're talking about physics, then I agree.

Unfortunately, a higher understanding of physics does not always equate to useful, applicable real life Pool knowledge or playing better.

*add- for that matter, you, PJ can be another example. Don't you have a science background? Aren't you another one that knows a ton of theory but doesn't have the skill to "prove/disprove" the theories?

Eric >needs to be an authority on something

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

There's nothing disingenuous about Dave's "positioning himself as a 'pool authority'". He is a pool authority. He knows more about pool than almost anybody here. Top pool pros know far less than Dave. Are they "pool authorities"?

pj
chgo

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority

We have to be more careful with the use of the word "authority" here. I understand what you mean but that doesn't make it the same as the experiences of an expert pool player. "POOL Authority" suggests that he is an acceptable source of information and advice on all things related to pool. I think most would agree, that description is a little deceiving. That does not mean what Dr. Dave has to say is wrong. It does not mean he isn't well studied on the subject or that his claims are unsubstantiated. Call it semantics but sometimes semantics are critical.

I would have no problem if Dr. Dave called himself an authority on the physics of pool but a "pool authority" would need a bit more validation, IMO.

 

[Eric.]

Others and I have responded to this sort of message from you many times over the years. I won't ever again.

Dr. Dave

You state your opinions, I'll continue to state mine. Whether you respond or not is your perogative.


Eric

 

[dr_dave]

Eric >needs to be an authority on something

I could suggest a few things, but some people might think I was un-professor-like if I did.

 

[Eric.]

Originally Posted by Eric.
Eric >needs to be an authority on something

I could suggest a few things, but some people might think I was un-professor-like if I did.

Nice shot. You feel better? :shakehead:


Eric >calls it like I see's it

 

[dr_dave]

Nice shot. You feel better? :shakehead:

Yes I do. Thank you for the concern.

Regards,
Dr. Dave

 

[dr_dave]

FYI to all, I decided to start a new thread, hoping it might help us get beyond all of the "baggage" in this thread. Here it is:

new thread​

Please don't participate unless you promise to be nice.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Excellent post. I think some people might actually agree with you on this.

Regards,
Dave

Well Dave, I agree with you on a lot of things. However, there is also a plausible argument FOR systems. Pool isn't just math and physics. It's also psychological. I'm sure you've read that under stress, some people's eye-sight will worsen. The "quiet eye" is difficult to maintain. Even if the system isn't mathematically right, it may help the shooter achieve a quiet eye, especially under stressful situations.

If everybody always knew what they were aiming for then nobody would ever miss but the fact is, everybody DOES miss so how does that happen? Instead of discrediting these systems by proving their lack of mathematical merit, why not examine the opposite? Why is it then these systems are so popular? Are there professional players that use systems? I understand you meant no disrespect to these instructors but truthfully, you paid them no respect and your argument leads the reader to believe these systems simply don't work.

With that said, I happen to be a player who relies heavily on "feel" or "intuition" so much of what you have to say I do agree with however, if "disrespect" was an issue, perhaps you should have considered writing a bit about their advantages even if like me, you are not in agreement with them.

 

[dr_dave]

Instead of discrediting these systems by proving their lack of mathematical merit, why not examine the opposite? Why is it then these systems are so popular? Are there professional players that use systems? I understand you meant no disrespect to these instructors but truthfully, you paid them no respect and your argument leads the reader to believe these systems simply don't work.

Jude,

IMO, the only disrespect in my recent articles was directed toward the outlandish claims some people sometimes make about some cut-shot "aiming systems." I certainly didn't have RonV or anybody else in particular in mind when I wrote the articles. The articles simply illustrate and describe the basic geometric principles that contribute to making aiming difficult. I don't have any regrets about what was published.

I know the systems work for many people ... we have read many testimonials here. I have no reason to disbelieve those testimonials. My goal in much of this thread has been to better understand how and why the systems do work. I and others have suggested some pretty good reasons already (IMO). Many of these reasons can be found in the numerous responses to the 2nd question here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#aiming​

Regards, with respect,
Dave

 

[RiverCity]

There's nothing disingenuous about Dave's "positioning himself as a 'pool authority'". He is a pool authority. He knows more about pool than almost anybody here. Top pool pros know far less than Dave. Are they "pool authorities"?

pj
chgo

Are top players pool authorities????? Most definitely. They may lack the mathmatics education and technical writing skills needed to clearly express what they know..... JMO, I would wager that they "know" more than Dave, otherwise Daves knowledge would raise his skill set to a level where he would be a world champion himself, barring any physical handicap that would affect his vision or muscle control.
Getting into semantics debates and throwing up strawman arguments are a waste of time.
What this topic needs is the discussion of THE ADJUSTMENTS.
Chuck

 

[Patrick Johnson]

[pros] "know" more than Dave, otherwise Daves knowledge would raise his skill set to a level where he would be a world champion himself

This is probably the most common mistake made on these pool discussion forums. Skill does not = knowledge. Knowledge does not = skill.

If you had to do without knowledge or practice, you'd better skip knowledge. But there's no reason to do without either.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

If you had to do without knowledge or practice, you'd better skip knowledge. But there's no reason to do without either.

Awesome! I only wish I had read it in a fortune cookie instead.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Don't you have a science background?

I don't have a science degree or a science-related job. I know a fair amount about it because I'm interested.

Aren't you another one that knows a ton of theory but doesn't have the skill to "prove/disprove" the theories?

What skill is necessary to "prove/disprove" the theories? Why do you assume I don't have it?

pj
chgo

 

[RiverCity]

This is probably the most common mistake made on these pool discussion forums. Skill does not = knowledge. Knowledge does not = skill.

If you had to do without knowledge or practice, you'd better skip knowledge. But there's no reason to do without either.

pj
chgo

I dont know about you, but I define skill has having the knowledge to to perform a task.
American Heritage dictionary defines skill as
skill (skl) KEY

NOUN:

Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience. See Synonyms at ability.

They define knowledge as:
knowl?edge (nlj) KEY

NOUN:

The state or fact of knowing.
Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.

Seems the definitions are strikingly similar with skill being based on knowledge.

Chuck

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Spidey,

I know you were referring to PJ's diagram (from a previous thread), but I wanted to add to the discussion.

Here are the diagrams from my November '08 article that show what happens when you use a fixed pivot without changing your bridge length (see the article for the detailed explanation of the diagram):

Here's a diagram from my December '08 article that shows what happens when you vary your bridge length or effective pivot length (see the article for the detailed explanation of the diagram):

Obviously, to make pivot-based aiming systems work for a wide range of shots you need to vary either your bridge length or your effective pivot length (e.g., by shifting the top of your bridge hand, as you demonstrated in your video). You are correct. A fixed bridge and fixed effective pivot length won't get the job done. I think you are making the exact point I and others have been trying to make all along. The systems obviously work for many people. We are just trying to explain why so they might work for others also.

Regards,
Dave

It's all in the pivot, grasshopper

 

[mikepage]

Well Dave, I agree with you on a lot of things. However, there is also a plausible argument FOR systems. Pool isn't just math and physics. It's also psychological. I'm sure you've read that under stress, some people's eye-sight will worsen. The "quiet eye" is difficult to maintain. Even if the system isn't mathematically right, it may help the shooter achieve a quiet eye, especially under stressful situations.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE, imo.

But the truth of this statement doesn't make it unacceptable to examine with logic the claims of the "system." Let's take--just as a strawman to make a point--a claim that we'd all agree clearly is bogus.

Bogus claim: All cut shots are half-ball hits, i.e., SAM # 3 shots


Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that a strong player with a lot of experience who has been around the block and who Jude respects walked up to a group of C-players and said with conviction,

Here is the secret to pool. There is only one angle. Line up for the edge of the object ball on EVERY cut shot. Ignore the pocket (perhaps he puts a drape over the pocket) and TRUST the aim. Though it's not written in any books , all the top pros know this..."

Suppose then, for whatever reason, the students seem to start making many more cut shots than they did before.

So now we have a dilemma. If followed literally, the results would be poor. Yet as followed in practice, some students get improved results.

OK, suppose that's the situation.

Here's my question. Is it somehow unacceptable to examine whether and under what circumstances the literal advice gets to the correct aim?

Is it really somehow arrogant or inappropriate to point out the claim about this being the correct aim for every cut shot is incorrect?

I don't get the animosity towards logic and reason. It's not logic VERSUS experience! It's not mathematics VERSUS real world!

Examining honestly and thoroughly whether and under what circumstances the specific prescriptions get you to the right aim is a perfectly reasonable thing to do--regardless of how many students have been helped, regardless of how deep is the experience of the claimant, regardless of whether the examiner has ever touched a pool cue in his life.

There is, imo, a misplaced sensitivity here that leads some to some pretty unwarranted attacks.

Instead of discrediting these systems by proving their lack of mathematical merit, why not examine the opposite? Why is it then these systems are so popular? Are there professional players that use systems?

I think the latter are worth addressing. What I don't get is your "instead." Why does it have to be one OR the other. Why can't we actually examine the claims to see where--taken literally--they work and don't work, examine the prescriptions to see where the judgment/feel is involved, and THEN examine why perhaps for some people changing where their judgment comes into the picture seems to help them.

It's like we never get to part B of the discussion because people get indignant in part A. And I don't get this. Part A should be the easy part.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

This is probably the most common mistake made on these pool discussion forums. Skill does not = knowledge. Knowledge does not = skill.

If you had to do without knowledge or practice, you'd better skip knowledge. But there's no reason to do without either.

pj
chgo

Knowledge trumps everything. You can make balls like Efren but with the smarts of an APA5 player, you're getting killed by a wizard-guru who shoots balls like a 5.

That's why a good friend of mine beat a 250+ ball runner 10-and-stop in a 150 ball 14.1 game (my friend ended the inning at each 10 - not the 250+ runner). Shooting can't beat smarts at the highest level.