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

Well Joe, I REALLY tried watching that video with a very open mind, and I honestly couldn't see ANYTHING at all that look even remotely like a pivot or CTE method. I was really pulling for you to, especially after your last post. But I have to agree that I don't see anything there.
 
How did you get to view the videos so quickly? I posted at 9:52, you posted at 10:03. I am attempting to watch the video again and I cannot get to the indicated segments. Apparently I have to wait 30 minutes for the down load. How did you do that. With six indicated segments and possibly three or four reruns to stop the action it would take another 20 minutes to perform a minimal review. Perhaps you reviewed it last night?
 
At 10:16 in the video the finish position of the cue stick is clearly on the inside of the CB in accordance with CTE.

At 16:04 he clearly addresses the CB at a low right off set on the CB. The return of the CB after striking the OB has very little right hand spin (relative to what I expected to see based on initial cue tip placement). This too is similar to CTE recommendations.

While there are other explanations for these observations, there is a similarity to CTE propositions.

I have not gone back over the other shots. Once again I have not stated or implied that Reyes is a CTE proponent. I have suggested that he appears to address the CB and at times strokes in accrdance with Hal's suggestions as previously written up in this thread. I think that at times it is necessary to watch his address and then to watch the resulting roll of the CB. There is, in my opinion, a similarity, not an identity, with CTE and these similarities provide some reconciliation for me with regard to Reyes' unique approach to using a cue stick and Hal Houle's comments.

During these observations I note the initial placement of the cue tip and the stick’s angle of approach. The hit of the tip on the CB is often difficult (or impossible) to see and can, at times, be replayed several times to make some estimate. The resulting cue ball roll and return off the OB and off of the rail provides some estimate of the spin that was imparted. The "finish" position of the cue stick also provides some information. All of these are somewhat subjective judgments and there would not be agreement across all observers. The agreement or lack of agreement would be a study in itself.

I was looking for similarities to Hal’s recommendations and this too is a form of bias.
 
Last edited:
JoeW said:
How did you get to view the videos so quickly? I posted at 9:52, you posted at 10:03. I am attempting to watch the video again and I cannot get to the indicated segments. Apparently I have to wait 30 minutes for the down load. How did you do that. With six indicated segments and possibly three or four reruns to stop the action it would take another 20 minutes to perform a minimal review. Perhaps you reviewed it last night?
Click to expand...

I don't know if you have a super slow dial-up connection or what, but I can go to any point on the video I want and it starts playing from right there. I'm at work, but the connection isn't "that" fast. You just move the pointer to the time it says and it works.
 
Clark_the_Shark said:
I don't know if you have a super slow dial-up connection or what, but I can go to any point on the video I want and it starts playing from right there. I'm at work, but the connection isn't "that" fast. You just move the pointer to the time it says and it works.
Click to expand...

I have Comcast DSL at 8MB but must wait for Adobe Player 10.0.32.18 to get to the point I want to review. It will allow me to return and replay but it will not allow me to jump ahead until the file has been downloaded. Do you have some other viewer that could be useful for these reviews?

In the for what its worth catagory, I have found that one can download the free Netflick movies and play them continuously on our 60" plasma TV. So some of the players are pretty good.
 
Last edited:
You shouldn't be using Adobe Player to view YouTube videos. I don't know how you are doing that, if you are downloading the video or what. But you should just be watching the video right on YouTube's website in their own window using their own controls. I don't know how to tell you how to fix that though.
 
JoeW said:
PJ said, “I think the pertinent question is why are you so eager to find such evidence that you'll see things that aren't there?”

One of the things I learned many years ago in graduate school was from a world renowned professor. He told us we had to write a 50 page paper for his class and he would refuse to read papers that were based on finding what was wrong with others' research. He wanted to know what we knew about a subject, not what we did not know. It is easy to find fault with others he said. It is difficult to find, and be able to summarize, what we do know. Far too much time and effort is spent on what is wrong with others research. Real contributions are made by those who bring together and attempt to reconcile apparently opposing points of view.

When you learn to do this well you become a contributor not a detractor in the great conversation of life. One begins with the assumption that people are honest and attempt to further our knowledge base. People may see things differently and may have different goals in their pursuits. When we take these differences into consideration and attempt to advance our knowledge the result is beneficial to all of us.

In psychology we have learned that some people are better observers than others. There are many human factors that contribute to one’s inability to accurately observe and analyze the phenomena that are observed. One person often has part of the solution that is missed by many others because they are more open minded and have less of a need to observe in some particular manner for some particular reason.

I believe that among those who read the pool playing literature, such as is written here on AZB among other places, it is well known that Hal Houle has said something to the effect that all of the pros use the system that he describes. Given my foregoing comments and looking to reconcile his statements -- why would he say that?

One could take any of several positions about Hal, he too can be irritating in his self presentation, none-the-less, the man, in my opinion, has a degree of intensity and his ideas are well thought of by many people as evidenced by his supporters. There must be something to his comments. Rather than think that some particular way is the best or only way it is possibly useful to consider the idea that there is some truth in his statements and to go looking for whatever truth there might be.

It can be difficult to set aside one’s own preconceived notions and try and see things from the other person’s perspective. Perhaps that is why some people have a limited ability to see what is in front of them.
Click to expand...

That's all very nice, Joe, but about that video: there's still nothing there showing Efren does anything like CTE, and it still seems to me you have to want to see it.

pj
chgo
 
JoeW said:
... it is well known that Hal Houle has said something to the effect that all of the pros use the system that he describes. Given my foregoing comments and looking to reconcile his statements -- why would he say that?
Click to expand...
That's funny ... I thought every pro used the DAM system. :confused:

Regards,
Dave
 
JoeW said:
At 10:16 in the video the finish position of the cue stick is clearly on the inside of the CB in accordance with CTE.
Click to expand...

It's "in accordance with" inside english, which would be the expected english for the shot no matter how it's applied.

At 16:04 he clearly addresses the CB at a low right off set on the CB.
Click to expand...

"Clearly"? It looks to me like he addresses the CB at low center.

The return of the CB after striking the OB has very little right hand spin (relative to what I expected to see based on initial cue tip placement). This too is similar to CTE recommendations.
Click to expand...

I disagree on both counts. It isn't an obvious change of tip placement and it wouldn't be "similar to CTE recommendations" if it was.

pj
chgo
 
If I right click on the Youtube window one option is to read about the Adobe Flash Player. It would appear it is the default player at least on on my machine and on my wife's machine both are using Vista.

You asked why I was so eager PJ and I told you. I am eager to find the truth not to defend a point of view.
 
JoeW said:
PJ said, “I think the pertinent question is why are you so eager to find such evidence that you'll see things that aren't there?”

One of the things I learned many years ago in graduate school was from a world renowned professor. He told us we had to write a 50 page paper for his class and he would refuse to read papers that were based on finding what was wrong with others' research. He wanted to know what we knew about a subject, not what we did not know. It is easy to find fault with others he said. It is difficult to find, and be able to summarize, what we do know. Far too much time and effort is spent on what is wrong with others research. Real contributions are made by those who bring together and attempt to reconcile apparently opposing points of view.

When you learn to do this well you become a contributor not a detractor in the great conversation of life. One begins with the assumption that people are honest and attempt to further our knowledge base. People may see things differently and may have different goals in their pursuits. When we take these differences into consideration and attempt to advance our knowledge the result is beneficial to all of us.

In psychology we have learned that some people are better observers than others. There are many human factors that contribute to one’s inability to accurately observe and analyze the phenomena that are observed. One person often has part of the solution that is missed by many others because they are more open minded and have less of a need to observe in some particular manner for some particular reason.

I believe that among those who read the pool playing literature, such as is written here on AZB among other places, it is well known that Hal Houle has said something to the effect that all of the pros use the system that he describes. Given my foregoing comments and looking to reconcile his statements -- why would he say that?

One could take any of several positions about Hal, he too can be irritating in his self presentation, none-the-less, the man, in my opinion, has a degree of intensity and his ideas are well thought of by many people as evidenced by his supporters. There must be something to his comments. Rather than think that some particular way is the best or only way it is possibly useful to consider the idea that there is some truth in his statements and to go looking for whatever truth there might be.

It can be difficult to set aside one’s own preconceived notions and try and see things from the other person’s perspective. Perhaps that is why some people have a limited ability to see what is in front of them.
Click to expand...


One of the things I learned in graduate school (or maybe it was from one of the world renowned professors down at the local pool hall :-) is that sometimes, people are, for whatever reasons, more inclined to believe particular kinds of information (motivated reasoning) and will discredit the source of counter arguments (kind of like the backhanded shots you’ve taken in this post at PJ).

But what bothers me more is when -- talking about Hal and his theories -- you say stuff like “Why would he say that?” and “There must be something to his comments.” That, to me, sounds like inferred justification -- a pretty weak argument for giving his ideas credibility.

I agree we should be able to see what’s in front of us, but let’s make sure to clean the old bifocals first :-)

Lou Figueroa
multifocals
in my case
 
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.
 
Last edited:
That is certainly the biggest collection of "big words" I have ever seen on a pool forum ... ever!

Wow,
Dave

JoeW said:
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.

If 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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
Tennesseejoe said:
Why do people use big words when a simple superlative would suffice?
Click to expand...
This conundrum evades my level of wisdom, but all of this highfalutin discourse certainly conjures many superfluous expletives. :rolleyes:

I had to look some of these up. :sorry:

Dave
 
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 entendre (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 instance triple, entendre. 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.
 
Last edited:
Good one Joe. I don't have enough time or a dictionary handy to figure out what it means, but it sounds like you got me pretty good.

I guess I deserve it.

Regards (with respect),
Dave

JoeW said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top