Experience or science?

[ShootingArts]

Right yet again!

Hu:

I think the main difference here is COMPETENCY -- which is not to be confused with experience. I know the Microsoft engineer blowing his finger off is an old joke, but it does demonstrate the competency issue.

I know guys with decades -- no, make that *scores* -- of experience doing something (even in my field of I.T.), yet they can't make it past the role of HelpDesk desktop support analyst. 30 years experience? Feh! <...sound of me blowing raspberries...>

Yet other guys/gals who started out in the very same position as said HelpDesk desktop support analyst rocketed to the top tiers of enterprise consultancy in 5 or 10 years. Who would I want flying that proverbial plane? I think you know my answer -- the latter guy/gal.

If we're talking about experience to also mean included competency, then that's a winning combination. If we're only talking experience with no insight or competency (i.e. like those little wind-up toys that bump into a wall, back up, go full steam into the wall again, back up, go full steam into the wall again... ...ad infinitum), there's no value there. Just scabs and scars.

-Sean

My friend you are spot on as usual. Once when it meant something I had a MasterCNE behind my name with a buncha other letters. The very best thing the title did was get me past help desks on the telephone in a hurry almost every time! Talking to system engineers is a lot easier than talking to somebody reading answers from a list. "Um it wasn't number 13, how about number 14? Is the plug in the wall?"

Of course when we go to the guys with experience in the pool hall we don't go to the people who are still bangers after twenty years or so, we go to the best who have already proven they have gained knowledge from their experience. When I worked in the nuke I was close to the real time computer techs. One or two of them were like you describe. In twenty years or so they had gotten very good at doing wrong the same things they were doing wrong when they started! I guess consistency should count for something.

One of the genuine no BS real joys of retirement is rarely ever having to give or get phone support.

Seems like the original intent of this thread and the fun has been lost. Guess I'm about done unless it gets fun again.

Hu

 

[JB Cases]

Can you example a shot? cutting from the end rail with cue ball on the spot to the left corner, right hander.

I could, but I prefer not to. I am "out" of these debates these days. There is plenty of information and examples floating around the net these days.

You can see me studying the various methods on my youtube channel jbideastoo.

Others are far better at it than me though and you should seek them out.

 

[JB Cases]

Can you example a shot? cutting from the end rail with cue ball on the spot to the left corner, right hander.

Diagram the shot you want to see using the CueTable and I will do it on video for you.

www.pool.bz go to the table software section. Then you can copy the layout and paste it here using the WEI button above.

 

[C.Milian]

Diagram the shot you want to see using the CueTable and I will do it on video for you.

www.pool.bz go to the table software section. Then you can copy the layout and paste it here using the WEI button above.

I checked it out but didn't get al the way thru it because i was at the poker table. It looks like you explained it 20mins. Are those birkenstocks?

 

[JB Cases]

I checked it out but didn't get al the way thru it because i was at the poker table. It looks like you explained it 20mins. Are those birkenstocks?

Yes, Birks. But don't take my explanation, I am trying badly to explain to someone else what I am seeing when I am shooting.

He wanted to try and map it out graphically. That project went and died like so many others........

 

[derangedhermit]

I'm a "science guy", and of course playing pool is not science, it's a set of skills. Its much more fun to play someone skilled than someone unskilled, whether they have a sound understanding of why what they do works or not. People who clearly have no clue why they are successful at what they do get extra points for entertainment value

But unlike J.B., I'd rather take lessons from someone I believe can correctly explain the "why". "Why" and "how" are not two clearly separated things. If someone is a great player themselves, but tells me I have to trim my nails like they do to play the same, I'm not going there. Great players usually don't make great teachers - they have put too much time into their own skills to become "students of the game" the way great teachers do. Just because Tiger Woods can beat any coach he ever had doesn't reduce the value of what coaches can provide. I'd rather take lessons from his coaches than from him. One problem is most very skilled players think they can coach; good coaches know better their limitations as a player.

And the teaching issue gets to the heart of a real objection I have to those who say hard facts have no place in playing pool. That's fine for your game: shoot while standing on your head if you like. But when people teach others coming into it things that are obviously just wrong, its hard to watch. It's the same as with anything else.

 

[LAMas]

I concur and cannot add anything to your post.

I am curious about how you aim and is it geometrically correct? Can you see angles and apply that knowledge to aim? Aiming center ball (no english) neets to compensate for CIT which is a skill. There are many other skills required to execute a shot to achieve the desired results.

If one makes a birdhouse, he must know about geometry and angles (for a pitched roof); he needs to know how to measure, cut the angled pieces accurately, drive the nail perpendicular to the first surface of the piece being joined to the other and how much force to appy to the hammer - these are required skills that began with geometry.

Welcome to AZ.:thumbup:

 

[duckie]

You could reverse engineer my request for all angles except the straight in shot and the CTE 30 degree cut shot - say in 5 degree increments and then graph that as you are great at, but what the hay, who would study the results and incorporate the data into their aiming.

Rhetorical question.:thumbup:

You never know who finds what useful. You never know what spark of curiosity can be ignited by what you post.

Just for fun, I did a search for celebrity inventors. The results were quite surprising. I'm sure a few may remember Paul Winchell......

Enjoy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_celebrity_inventors

 

[sfleinen]

Hedy Lamarr -- her patent is the core part of today's communications technology

You never know who finds what useful. You never know what spark of curiosity can be ignited by what you post.

Just for fun, I did a search for celebrity inventors. The results were quite surprising. I'm sure a few may remember Paul Winchell......

Enjoy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_celebrity_inventors

Thanks for posting that, duckie. My personal favorite on that list -- and one that I always bring up in my boardroom consultancy discussions on technology -- is the beautiful and extremely gifted Hedy Lamarr. (For those that don't know, Hedy and an accomplice [George Antheil] came up with the idea for today's well-known frequency-hopping, at the time [WWII] intended for use in making communications for radio-guided torpedoes exponentially more difficult to jam, but today used in WiFi [wireless networking] and cell phones.)

And you're right -- Paul Winchell seems to have been a prolific inventor, with that huge list of patents. A lot of those names on the list will definitely surprise the readership, for sure!

Thanks for sharing this,
-Sean

 

[C.Milian]

PJ where are you B!tch?

 

[JB Cases]

I'm a "science guy", and of course playing pool is not science, it's a set of skills. Its much more fun to play someone skilled than someone unskilled, whether they have a sound understanding of why what they do works or not. People who clearly have no clue why they are successful at what they do get extra points for entertainment value

But unlike J.B., I'd rather take lessons from someone I believe can correctly explain the "why". "Why" and "how" are not two clearly separated things. If someone is a great player themselves, but tells me I have to trim my nails like they do to play the same, I'm not going there. Great players usually don't make great teachers - they have put too much time into their own skills to become "students of the game" the way great teachers do. Just because Tiger Woods can beat any coach he ever had doesn't reduce the value of what coaches can provide. I'd rather take lessons from his coaches than from him. One problem is most very skilled players think they can coach; good coaches know better their limitations as a player.

And the teaching issue gets to the heart of a real objection I have to those who say hard facts have no place in playing pool. That's fine for your game: shoot while standing on your head if you like. But when people teach others coming into it things that are obviously just wrong, its hard to watch. It's the same as with anything else.

I guess I should have been more clear. If a person is telling me to do a chicken dance and cast the bones before each shot then I am going to ask them to explain how this helps to play the game.

But ON THE TABLE, I am much more interested in strategy and game situation than I am in the coefficient of restitution. It's clear that not every great player makes a great instructor. Nor is every great instructor also a great player.

But throughout history an awful lot of great coaches were former champions in their sport. The original question was which do you trust more in pool. When it comes to HOW to play the game then I trust the champion more than the scientist. The scientist can tell me what is expected to happen based on known laws of physics and geometry. The champion can tell me what is expected to happen based on thousands of hours of hands-on experience.

The fact of it is that you can become a champion pool player without knowing any of the science behind it.

Dr. Dave has videoed the WHY things happen quite a bit. He has a slow-motion video that explains every shot on the table.

So if you take a raw beginner and lock them in a room with Dr. Dave for one month and another one in a room with Buddy Hall for one month which one do you want to bet your life-savings on if those two play each other.

Scientifically speaking which of those two players is likely to receive the most useful information for playing winning pool in that month?

 

[Ratta]

Hola fellows ^^

Several months ago i tried to contact several guys,where i gotthe feeling, that they could explain me a bit more detailed cte or a cte-based system. I didn t want to use those *online war threads*, because i got sick ofhow some guys (with the same hobby) got so aggressive for each other.
At least John was so nice to start a Skype Session with me. Even if the video quality was not hollywood-quality (lol), he was really able to explain important things, so i got an idea how it works. Even if John thinks he s not an instructor, he did really well and was full of positive enthusiasm.
It was a pleasure how patiently he shared his informations and trying present his knowledge about it.

After talking with John, i was just more sure that he IS a really nice guy with really much knowlede

lg
Ingo

 

[LAMas]

John is a nicer guy now - a good thing.

C Millen is not.

Did John start Instroke Cases?

 

[PoolBum]

People don't always agree about things on AZB, much less in the real world.

For example:

A seasoned pro might say, "You can get more spin with a little wrist flip." His proof is by showing you a shot. A science guy might say, "You don't need the wrist flip. The same thing can be done with a straight wrist." His proof is a bunch of diagrams and equations.

So...in general, who are you more likely to believe?

Science is experimental. It's not the diagrams and the equations that ultimately show you what really works, it's the experimentation. Either it works or it doesn't, and science will show this either way.

If something genuinely works in your experience, then science will show that it works. On the other hand, if science shows that something works experimentally, you may not pick up on this fact in your experience. This is why it makes no sense to prefer experience to science.

 

[ShootingArts]

what angle does the object ball leave a half-ball hit at?

OK, science must be the way to go. So science should be able to tell me something as simple as what angle an object ball travels with a half ball hit right?

Pick your angle, post it, and be ready to defend it with science.

Hu

 

[dr_dave]

... So if you take a raw beginner and lock them in a room with Dr. Dave for one month and another one in a room with Buddy Hall for one month which one do you want to bet your life-savings on if those two play each other.

I honestly would bet on myself, and I would be very confident to win, assuming the two "subjects" were equal in all respects (which is pretty much impossible to guarantee). Buddy is one of the best players of all time, but that doesn't necessary make him a good teacher, especially for a "raw beginner."

Now, if you changed "raw beginner" to "semi pro," I think Buddy would have the edge, and I'd probably wouldn't take your bet.

Regards,
Dave

 

[C.Milian]

John is a nicer guy now - a good thing.

C Millen is not.

Did John start Instroke Cases?

Nice?.......NICE?! you want nice?
:angry::angry::angry:AAAGHHHH!!!!

What would be nice? How do you get that he is nicer than me?

 

[Jal]

OK, science must be the way to go. So science should be able to tell me something as simple as what angle an object ball travels with a half ball hit right?

Pick your angle, post it, and be ready to defend it with science.

Hu

Well, I'm intrigued, and I guess, stupid enough to be sucked into this.

There's been some debate as to the definition of a "half-ball hit," but if we go with the oft used one--propelling the center of the cueball at the edge of the object ball--the angle is 30 degrees +/- the throw angle, with respect to the cueball's pre-impact direction. The amount of throw depends on a few things, but will generally range from less than a degree to as much as five or six degrees.

The "science" part concerns the amount of throw, mainly, plus a small compression effect which increases the cut angle slightly. When throw has been measured, though, the latter has been subsumed into the throw determination. The rest is geometry.

Jim <-- his finger now hovering over the sine button

 

[Jal]

I honestly would bet on myself, and I would be very confident to win, assuming the two "subjects" were equal in all respects (which is pretty much impossible to guarantee)...

And I think you'd be right to do so. Judging from VEPS in particular, you are an excellent teacher with a knack for knowing when to say what, so as to add clarity and not confusion.

Of course, that's not knowing Buddy Hall's capabilities in that arena, but I think you'd present a very tough challenge to anyone.

Jim

 

[duckie]

150 degrees

Scroll down to the SAM 3 illustration.

http://cuemechanics.net/how_do_you_aim

However, there is no such a thing as a half ball hit.