Experience or science?

[PoolSharkAllen]

I don't understand CTE or the like well enough to try to set up an experiment, someone would have to coordinate with a successful practitioner of the system. Very possibly Stan and Pro One might be the best system to try to test simply because Stan seems to be both an intelligent and reasonable man with a real desire to understand things himself.

Hu

Stan might be a wee bit biased in testing his own system. Maybe Dr. Dave could do an objective analysis as he's done this many times before? With Dr. Dave's engineering background, knowledge of the sciences and mathematics, and the fact that he has much of the equipment needed to test aiming systems or anything else related to pool, Dr. Dave is the ideal candidate for this.

Oh, wait. Didn't Dr. Dave already perform rigorous testing of CTE and ProOne? Unfortunately, Dr. Dave's scientific analysis and conclusions didn't go over too well with the Yeahsayers' crowd.

 

[dr_dave]

Can Dr. Dave explain any better than Buddy Hall how to draw a ball?

I bet I could, both the science side and the practical side of how to actually do it, in a way that a "raw beginner" (or anybody) can understand, but who cares? For examples and demonstrations, see:

draw shot resource page with technique advice, instructional explanations, physics-based understanding, and practical demonstrations​

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I don't understand CTE or the like well enough to try to set up an experiment, someone would have to coordinate with a successful practitioner of the system. Very possibly Stan and Pro One might be the best system to try to test simply because Stan seems to be both an intelligent and reasonable man with a real desire to understand things himself.

Stan might be a wee bit biased in testing his own system. Maybe Dr. Dave could do an objective analysis ...

I already have. :grin-square: Here it is:

evaluation and analysis of the CTE approach​

I've also summarized many of the positive benefits of aiming systems like CTE. These benefits might be difficult (or impossible) to prove or disprove "scientifically;" although, I personally believe they are reasonable and logical.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Humility is a wonderful thing.

One thing I do know, Buddy would be able to do his own demonstrations.

As for who cares....you must or would not have posted this.

I bet I could, both the science side and the practical side of how to actually do it, in a way that a "raw beginner" (or anybody) can understand, but who cares? For examples and demonstrations, see:

draw shot resource page with technique advice, instructional explanations, physics-based understanding, and practical demonstrations​

Regards,
Dave

 

[ShootingArts]

not with my present knowledge of the systems

I think it's better to have a specific hypothesis rather than say, we should study more about X. An example would be:

In a trial comparison of the Mix System and the Overlap Lens System, novice players will learn cut shots between 20 and 80 degrees significantly faster with the Overlap Lens system. (The suspicion is that this is true because the OLS is geometrically more accurate than the MS for cut shots around half-ball hits and thinner.)​

Such a test is not so easy to devise, but it could be done and presumably repeated.

Can you propose a more specific hypothesis that could be tested?

Bob,

Replied to your PM but to not leave your post in this thread hanging while I could get with a local practitioner of Pro One and probably set up the exact situation to test there is danger in that, particularly with my lack of knowledge. If a system is 50% successful there is an even chance of me setting up a situation in which it works or fails.

Perhaps we could define four categories of shots: Assume that a straight in shot works with any system which isn't a given but better to focus on perhaps a 22, a 45, and 68 degree cut shot with one more shots added to test precision of the system.

We would do the usual:

Proposed:
Givens:
Equipment and set-up:

We would need someone who actually understands the procedure to tell us what steps were needed. We are seeking to demonstrate if the system as they know it is effective or not.

Hu

 

[Bob Jewett]

... If a system is 50% successful there is an even chance of me setting up a situation in which it works or fails. ...

But I think you should not be shooting any shot in a test. You already have years of experience aiming. Whether a ball goes in or not for you depends far more on those 50 years of experience than a one-hour explanation of a system you have not seen before. In any case, to be a good test you will have to worry about lots of other things.

 

[JB Cases]

I bet I could, both the science side and the practical side of how to actually do it, in a way that a "raw beginner" (or anybody) can understand, but who cares? For examples and demonstrations, see:

draw shot resource page with technique advice, instructional explanations, physics-based understanding, and practical demonstrations​

Regards,
Dave

nothing written on the linked page indicates that the explanation given is any better than a bonafide champion could impart to a student.

I would bet really high that after ten minutes buddy's student will know more about drawing a ball than yours will.

you teach blacksmithing from a book. that's like trying to learn case making from a book. you can read about technique but you don't actually learn it until you do it. and you learn it much faster if you have a master to guide you. masters don't rely on books.

don't think I am trying to say that what you have compiled is not useful. it is very very very useful. I am only saying that if my two choices to learn to play were you and your books and videos or Buddy Hall ( or other similar champion) then I am choosing the champion every time.

or to put it another way, if I am going to play a pool match for my life then I want buddy in my corner and not a series of videos.

 

[ShootingArts]

any bias of his wouldn't be a factor

Stan might be a wee bit biased in testing his own system. Maybe Dr. Dave could do an objective analysis as he's done this many times before? With Dr. Dave's engineering background, knowledge of the sciences and mathematics, and the fact that he has much of the equipment needed to test aiming systems or anything else related to pool, Dr. Dave is the ideal candidate for this.

Oh, wait. Didn't Dr. Dave already perform rigorous testing of CTE and ProOne? Unfortunately, Dr. Dave's scientific analysis and conclusions didn't go over too well with the Yeahsayers' crowd.

Got a feeling you have a big wooden paddle in one hand and you are stirring with that hand grinning while typing with the other.

We are just gathering raw data on how to proceed from this consultant so any bias on his part would not have relevance to the test. Stan as the one that developed and refined Pro One has to be accepted as the acknowledged expert on the subject. He and several of his students have displayed a high level of proficiency on a pool table while stating that they used Pro One for these accomplishments.

At the risk of stirring the pot myself Dave has yet to demonstate a clear understanding of Pro One or proficiency in it's use. The first thing we would need is an accurate understanding of what we were testing and how to go about testing it. This is an experiment that gives hard results so ultimately even any bias the tester had would have little effect other than possible spin in the report. The results would be concrete regardless.

Hu

 

[JB Cases]

Oh, wait. Didn't Dr. Dave already perform rigorous testing of CTE and ProOne? Unfortunately, Dr. Dave's scientific analysis and conclusions didn't go over too well with the Yeahsayers' crowd.

no he did not. he has not rigorously or scientifically tested them and said he has zero plans to do so.

 

[ShootingArts]

wouldn't be shooting

But I think you should not be shooting any shot in a test. You already have years of experience aiming. Whether a ball goes in or not for you depends far more on those 50 years of experience than a one-hour explanation of a system you have not seen before. In any case, to be a good test you will have to worry about lots of other things.

Bob,

I assumed the whole idea of the testing was to set up equipment to do the shooting. A human shooting would defeat the purpose of setting up a test. All of us can pocket balls. If we use video or measurements to position a cue supported and guided totally mechanically will balls be pocketed? I would actually suggest measuring the angle more precisely than just if the ball is pocketed or not but ultimately the question isn't if a system is perfect only if it is accurate enough to pocket balls.

Hu

 

[JoeW]

I think that you have that backwards. The person who proposes the idea has the responsibility to state it clearly in a manner that can be tested. We already know that the person with the proposal is biased. It is his theory and he is close to it for whatever reason(s). However he is as honest as he can be, given that it is his idea.

When he tells an independent, objective third party how to do it and it doesn’t work then there is something wrong with the original idea – it can’t be replicated as stated and therefore the instructions or the theory are not useful.

It is assumed that the person who proposes the idea is being honest and that the person who tests it is honest. Therefore the problem must be with the instructions.

To insure that it is not a personal problem for instance the tester has his own different theory, we use multiple sites to test the idea. Eventually we find out. When multiple groups have problems either the theory is not of use or the instructions need to be revised. At this point, and early in the game, the responsibility should be on the person who proposes the idea. Independent testers at least think the idea merits testing that is why they are evaluating it.

BTW if you look at Dave's web site and his prior work you can see that he attempts to be as objective as possible and does not appear to be tied to any particular way of approaching the game. He presents multiple approaches and Stan presents only one. So at this point the ball is in Stan's court.

BTW I don't think that DAM qualifies as a theory of aiming. It is simply a set of recommendations.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

This is the first sentence on Daves DAM page, does this sound objective to you?

"I first came up with Dave's Aiming Method (DAM) as a joke to mock some people that try to promote various aiming systems with outrageous claims and snake-oil-salesman type statements, but I also have some serious and useful recommendations below."

We read another poster use the snake-oil analogy in another discussion regarding CTE

Birds of a feather.....

BTW if you look at Dave's web site and his prior work you can see that he attempts to be as objective as possible and does not appear to be tied to any particular way of approaching the game. He presents multiple approaches and Stan presents only one. So at this point the ball is in Stan's court.

BTW I don't think that DAM qualifies as a theory of aiming. It is simply a set of recommendations.

 

[Bob Callahan]

I'm not sure how I feel about having started this thread. I guess it has engendered some interesting discussion, and that's a good thing, but....

Anyway, how about this:

What bit of science could you learn that would make a marked improvement in your game?

 

[PoolBum]

Anyway, how about this:

What bit of science could you learn that would make a marked improvement in your game?

Learning science doesn't make you a better pool player. There are things you can learn that would help your game, that can no doubt be supported by science, but just learning the science of the game (say, the physics and mathematics) would not improve your game.

 

[JB Cases]

Regarding "non-standard" aiming systems, i.e. those that at present defy being diagrammed and explained in a 2d drawing, Dr. Dave could not teach these to any student because he does not know how.

He can point to the various opinions he has gathered on his site of how they work or why they work but he cannot teach someone to use any of them. Dr. Dave, the scientist, has done no rigorous study, has not tried to learn the steps, has not himself mastered the techniques. To date he has only served up whatever he could glean from the net, put up whatever postulations there have been which he sees fit to publish, and openly ridiculed the systems.

In this respect at the moment the experienced teacher trumps the scientist.

 

[JB Cases]

I'm not sure how I feel about having started this thread. I guess it has engendered some interesting discussion, and that's a good thing, but....

Anyway, how about this:

What bit of science could you learn that would make a marked improvement in your game?

A little bit of geometry helps in figuring angles. Double the Distance works for kicks and banks pretty well. Having that base of knowledge certainly gets you in the right direction when kicking or banking one rail banks.

The diamond system works well to figure multi rail kicks and banks.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Fine tune my powers of observation, and question the things I see. Finally keep an open mind to new ideas and methods.

I'm not sure how I feel about having started this thread. I guess it has engendered some interesting discussion, and that's a good thing, but....

Anyway, how about this:

What bit of science could you learn that would make a marked improvement in your game?

 

[JB Cases]

Dr. Dave,

You have a lot of information on your site. A lot of useful and interesting information. A lot of amazingly good videos.

You also have some stuff on there that would hold a person back a little like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OKxcHCEC8&feature=player_embedded

Whereas Buddy could teach this without needing to use the hands to measure angles in a few minutes.

And you use terms like "good action draw" which you say people will learn by feel. Well if you're teaching to play by feel then doesn't the guy with the most experience have the most experienced and nuanced feel to convey to the student?

This "gem" however from your power-draw clip is something for you and everyone else to remember.

 

[Mikjary]

Buddy Hall would probably be my number one choice as an instructor. It is no secret he has mentored many top players including Dave Yeager, CJ Wiley and Johnny Archer to name a few. If he ever spills the beans I'll be first in line to hear what he has to say about the game. No amount of current scientific information or dvd instruction could match his accumulated knowledge or experience. Maybe in the future, but not now.

Best,
Mike

 

[derangedhermit]

Actually the science points more and more towards inner desire being the real key between people when it comes to learning a sport. A person who desires to practice deeply learns more than someone who doesn't even if both put in the same amount of time. "Natural ability" is pretty much a myth according to some books which have tracked studies about performance.

So anyone with the burning desire to learn can become an NFL lineman, or an NBA 4 spot, or win the Olympic 100m dash, or...? Pull my other leg. I played against NBA players. The overwhelming difference between me and them was not the desire, or lack of same, to learn or excel. It's not clear to me if there are similar physical characteristics that help pool players become world-class. Anyway, you just added another reason I wouldn't bet on the outcome of a single student - desire to learn and succeed varies greatly, and can determine the outcome. Cheers.

My thought is that there is money in it. Why not? What better way to sell the books and videos which reveal the science behind pool than to build a successful player using scientific methods?

Selling books and videos? I wasn't making a personal comment, I was referring in general to the many millions of dollars that would need to be spent to mount programs similar to those in many other sports.

Actually this is my point. The science coach can teach based on observation. The champion coach can teach based on real world experience. I.e. there is a big difference between Dr. Dave showing the student a video of Buddy Hall making a shot and trying to explain why Buddy did it, and Buddy Hall explaining to a student why he chose that shot and demonstrating it in person, with alternatives.

So my point is that I feel that after thirty days both players should have about the same level of ability to make shots but the player who trains with a champion might have a better ability to reason and adapt. And thus he can literally get better by the game.

Maybe you are right. We have differing opinions.

But Buddy may know something that science doesn't. And that something might be that the wrist-flip helps to cinch the shot. Since science can't describe the hit or the quality of the stroke as felt by the player no amount of "movement reduction" is going to help the student to develop the type of quality in a stroke that Buddy understands. A house full of hardware proving he is a great champion is proof that his technique does not in fact break down under pressure.

In fact Buddy might understand innately, without having a degrees in kinesthetic biology, that freedom of motion allows for a much greater degree of of control and artificially restricting an otherwise free moving part of your body, leads to tightness in the shot and makes it harder to get the "juice" one needs.

So what might happen could be the exact opposite of your theory. What might happen is that the student who is taught to minimize motion by locking in their wrist might lose that ability when they are under pressure and fatigued, whereas the student taught by Buddy to hold a relaxed wrist that can be flipped or firm as needed for the shot never loses that ability.

It does happen (e.g. Jim Furyk's golf swing), but it is the exception to the rule. Not many people can maintain the extra sharpness required to keep more complex and difficult-to-execute motions from occasionally falling apart. A common expression is that someone's motion has "too many moving parts". If the motion is a required part of success in the activity, then obviously it has to stay.

I'm new around here. This thread obviously has passion on both sides of the discussion, maybe from previous discussions, and it's getting too close to personal for me to enjoy participating (although no one has been rude to me). From here on I think I'll just read. Regards to all.:thumbup: