double-the-distance aiming method (PIM: Pocket Intersection Method)

[lfigueroa]

Your wit is appreciated. I suspect that observer bias may be the term for which you are searching (see http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Observer bias ). Perhaps the theory related to the resolution of cognitive dissonance (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance ) may be relevant to your statements. While these topics may not have been specifically addressed in the pool hall curriculum, you seem to have a grasp of the underlying ideas. I have long held that reposts should be commensurate with that which is given and do not of course attribute any malevolence to your written word.

On the other hand if you suspect something less than open honest dialog is in the offing perhaps a review of cathexis and anticathexis as related to interpersonal relations might be more appropriate as some of the followers of Freud would have it (see http://www.enotes.com/psychoanalysis-encyclopedia/anticathexis).

Yes -- that would be my tongue firmly planted in my cheek.

BTW what you perceive as inferred (implied?) justification is nothing more than an attitude which espouses a belief in the goodness and integrity of man and his attempts at honest dialog.

Thank you berry much -- it is good to know that the occasional bonny mot, beyond the frat boy level (you know who you are can be appreciated here.

As far as attitudes, it's going to be pretty hard to sing a hearty chorus of Kumbaya with your tongue in your cheek.

And no. Inferred is what I meant:

http://sociology.buffalo.edu/documents/hoffmansocinquiryarticle_000.pdf

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Oh and for your personal edification, I have known several truly world renowned scientists in my career. Nearly all of them were modest in their statements and did not hold themselves out to be experts. They could always point to someone else who taught them the ideas and principles they held dear. Taking a lesson from these people I too attempt to show that many of the best ideas I present are not original with me and that it is polite to cite the source of one’s education.

Well yeah?! But how about the truly world renown pool players you've known in your career?!

Lou Figueroa
has know (and played)
one or three

 

[lfigueroa]

My first wife, a fine Scottish lass, said to me on more than one occasion. Why say “marmalade” when “jam” will do? The only answer I could come up with is that the use of language is an art and a pleasure shared by some people. I suspect that Lou might be one of the “some.” The creation of a double entente (dual meanings) is an art form in itself. The attempt to be precise in the use of language contributes to a better understanding of what was intended. And so much more can be said with the “right” words. However, the use of language to simply impress is offensive and I only resort to it as needed. In the present case the words were needed for the creation of double, in one instances triple, entente. But like any good joke if you have to explain it, it loses its humor.

For those who don’t get it. I have implied that I have caught a highly articulate man who pretends to admit his lack of formal education in the use of inarticulate language. Not only did I proceed to school him, I handed him the petard he could use to blow me up. A petard is a bomb not a knife. Like any, in my opinion, good humor there is a bit of a bite to it. The final bit of humor you have to figure out for yourself.

There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar; and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
When in one line two crafts directly meet.
Billy S.


Lou Figueroa
to the moon, Alice

 

[Robert Raiford]

Hi Spidey, I rewatched your CTE pivoting video from last December recently and you seem to express some different opinions there than in this thread. I'm wondering what changed?

For example, in the video introduction you said:

I'm not trying to say I'm a guru or wizard at pivoting or anything - believe me, I'm not. I don't even know how this stuff works, or why it works - I'm not a mathematical wizard...

But in this thread you say this:

I do know all of this info inside-out, around and through and then some----hell, I might even know it all with this stuff, who knows.

and

I'm just saying CTE is geometrically correct --- and I'm on record as saying just that

What new insights into pivoting and the math behind it have you had in the past few months that have deepened your understanding of CTE so much? I'm surprised you have such strong opinions about its geometrical correctness considering you strongly expressed the following very practical viewpoint in the video:

As far as I'm concerned, pool is outcome-based. You either make the ball, or you don't. The hows or whys of how the OB gets there - I don't give a shit.

Has something changed your mind recently that has motivated you to establish the geometrical correctness of CTE since making the video? I know you said you've been thinking about these issues a lot. Did you actually develop a mathematical proof, or is your proof simply the fact that balls are going in the hole so it must be geometrically correct?

Robert

 

[Bohemian]

Pool & Billiard Great Jimmy Reid describes & demonstrates double the distance in detail at least as early as 1991 in his Videos...

 

[Robert Raiford]

Pool & Billiard Great Jimmy Reid describes & demonstrates double the distance in detail at least as early as 1991 in his Videos...

And Marvin Chin diagrammed double-the-distance aiming in his 1982 book Billiards Accuracy as part of what he called the "Chin 2-Point Equal Portion System". (It's actually misprinted as "Double the Distant" in one of the paragraph headings.) He claims to have created it -- and may very well have independently discovered it -- but the idea was around long before that.

Here's an excerpt from p.9:

Until now, people have shied away from billiards because it was so hard to learn. Now, with my writings, we are in a new era of learning, instant billiards. This is the definitive book of billiards as far as shooting accurately is concerned. No skills are required -- only a good pair of eyes and a little coordination. Your boring hours will soon melt away with self fulfillment. You are about to be involved in a new world, the world of winners.​

Considering how often he mentions the "new era of learning", "instant billiards" and "no skills are required", I found it a bit surprising to see him caution the reader that "because it's an instructive [sic] manual, don't expect to absorb all the material in one reading."

Robert

 

[dr_dave]

And Marvin Chin diagrammed double-the-distance aiming in his 1982 book Billiards Accuracy as part of what he called the "Chin 2-Point Equal Portion System". (It's actually misprinted as "Double the Distant" in one of the paragraph headings.) He claims to have created it -- and may very well have independently discovered it -- but the idea was around long before that.

Agreed. Double-the-distance (i.e., the fact that the contact point is in the middle of the ball overlap) is so obvious, it must have been known (AKA "independently discovered" by many) even in the infancy of cue sports (many hundreds of years ago).

Regards,
Dave

 

[Palmerfan]

That would be great. Thanks. When you find it, please let us know the year and title of the tape and whether or not he mentions where he learned it.

Thanks,
Dave

Heres a youtube video of aim the tip called the "Ultimate Aiming System:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OER4gVV8ei4&feature=related