Scores indicate which methods produce better results. The SIMPLEST of experiments here would be to create FOUR groups of people who have never played pool and train them to a standard of acceptable stroke proficiency without any shots being aimed at. You could do this for example on a board set up at the right table bed height with a single rail at the end. With that apparatus you could train each person in the proper mechanics such that the majority of decent pool players and instructors would agree that the fundamentals are solid.
Then you teach each group how to aim. Each group is then given a test that has shots from short and easy to long and hard. Each person is tested without getting any aiming instruction and without ever having even had a second ball to aim at. Those scores form the initial baseline for each group based on the average of their scores. You have both the individual data and the group data. You have a progression chart that details the instruction methodology and exposure to knowledge that tracks with each individual's progression from no knowledge and no skill to sufficiently proficient. Each group is allowed to practice for four hours a day for 30 days with testing each day. Practice is limited to shooting centerball shots only and only shots that go directly to a pocket. Some practice will be drills and some will be free-choice of what shots to set up.
1. Group 1 learns no method of aiming. They are given the test daily and instructed to do the drills and the free practice each day.
2. Group 2 learns ghost ball. They are trained to an acceptable understanding of how to apply ghost ball. Once each individual in the group shows that then they continue to the practice and daily testing.
3. Group 3 learns CTE. They are trained to an acceptable understanding of how to apply the CTE method. Once each individual in the group shows that then they continue to the practice and daily testing.
4. Group 4 learns ghost ball and CTE. They are trained to an acceptable understanding of how to apply ghost ball and CTE. Once each individual in the group shows that then they continue to the practice and daily testing.
Doing that experiment should show which of these approaches produces the best average for pocketing proficiency. Since the only variables would be aiming methods known and used and individual aptitude as indicated by the benchmark test scores it should be fairly easy to draw reasonable conclusions from the resulting data.
For a bonus there could be a fifth group that is only taught "contact geometry" and see how they do agains the other five. I predict that they would better than group one and worse than the others.
As long as the behaviors are controlled, i.e. no participant practices outside of the study or seeks outside instruction, then this format can be used in a non-conconcurrent fashion and applied to any method of aiming. In other words it is preferable that the test subjects ARE not familiar with any other aiming methods or concepts other than the one being tested. So any of us could do this now, next month, five years from now, and the conditions would still be the same.
So, no, shotmaking doesn't PROVE the inner mechanics of any method actually work as described by anyone are true because the application of those methods involves visual activity and neural cognition whereby no one knows what multitude of variables exist in the mind which are used to decide to direct the body to perform an action. All shot making can prove is the proficiency of the person making the shots. However if you are certain that the person only knows one method of aiming with a clear set of instructions to consciously follow and that they can demonstrate an agreed-upon standard of fundamentals then you certainly can test that person's shot-making proficiency and make a rational and reasonable inference that the aiming system usage caused an improvement in shot making ability and by how much. In other words you demonstrate that it WORKS or doesn't for the task by controlling for the other variables.
And really isn't that what you are doing every time you bring up a video where you claim I missed more shots than I made? You are clearly inferring if not outright saying that CTE doesn't work as evidenced by particular series of shots that I have shot in some of my videos where more were missed than made. But, above you claim that such scoring does not prove CTE. So if scoring cannot prove CTE then it cannot disprove it either. I tend to agree with you though that missing shots while demonstrating a method that is supposed to increase shot making proficiency is not a strong indicator that the method works. Especially missing more than one makes. And that is regardless of the context in which the video was made. I accept that criticism.
And with it I accept that scoring IS important as a measure of efficacy. In pool it always comes down to shot making.
/pool-tables-in-hall-543205009-5b4a231b46e0fb00378dd715.jpg)
