Experience or science?

[C.Milian]

Why is it there so much debate on cte? It seems there is quite a bit or rivalry between those that believe it is pools answer. Where does AZ stand on this subject? I hear it so much that I want to know what it is now.

 

[LAMas]

Why is it there so much debate on cte? It seems there is quite a bit or rivalry between those that believe it is pools answer. Where does AZ stand on this subject? I hear it so much that I want to know what it is now.

Do a search on CTE on the tool bar.

 

[C.Milian]

Too much work. I'm sure an expert can give me a brief.

 

[Jal]

I know that you can create a spread sheet for CTE to tabulate for a given bridge length behind the CB and distance between the CB and OB for a given cut angle - how much one needs to offset the tip/ferrule from the center of the CB - pre pivot back to center. Would that spread sheet be science if it works at the table?:thumbup:

Lamas, I'm not sure if this is rhetorical question or not. I would call it high-school math. Whether that is science, in the sense of applied science (e.g., engineering), might be a matter of taste. To me, laying either of the terms "engineering" or "science" on matters concerning billiards seems a bit grandiose.

But maybe I didn't get the drift of your query?

Jim

 

[C.Milian]

Lamas, I'm not sure if this is rhetorical question or not. I would call it high-school math. Whether that is science, in the sense of applied science (e.g., engineering), might be a matter of taste. To me, laying either of the terms "engineering" or "science" on matters concerning billiards seems a bit grandiose.

But maybe I didn't get the drift of your query?

Jim

So this system basically says you can find the location of where you're suppose to be by pivoting around on the cueball?.....and that anyone can do it?

 

[Jal]

So what exactly is your logic as to why CTE doesn't work as an aiming system?
Do you have sufficient experience with CTE to know it doesn't work?
What exactly are these feel adjustments you talk about?

Cookie man, I reached my quota of fools' errands for a while. Besides, this is not the place. I only posted that as a counterpoint to some other comments that were made.

Jim

 

[Jal]

So this system basically says you can find the location of where you're suppose to be by pivoting around on the cueball?.....and that anyone can do it?

It says a little more than that. If you follow the link in Dr. Dave's post (#143 of this thread), you can find a good deal of information about it. (The proponents might prefer to point you somewhere else.)

If we tried to discuss it further here, the next 1000 posts would be about CTE. And any description I ventured would almost certainly be assailed as sacrilege by the advocates.

Jim

 

[JB Cases]

So this system basically says you can find the location of where you're suppose to be by pivoting around on the cueball?.....and that anyone can do it?

No. But by following the instructions and with a little practice you can use various versions of non-standard aiming methods to land on the shot line consistently. Makes an awful lot of "hard" shots much much easier.

Exactly how this happens is a major beef between some of the science people on the forum and the experience people.

And yes anyone can do it.

The person who posted the highest score on a set shot-making drill proposed here is a major proponent of this system. None of the scientists in opposition to the aiming systems on here even bothered to try the drill and post their score.

So in this case you definitely have an experience vs. science issue. The experience side says making balls is what counts. The science guys say that being able to explain it using simple math and geometry is what counts.

 

[SJDinPHX]

Physicists have a lot in common with Stand Up Philosophers.(obscure reference to History of the World Part I) Most of this stuff is over their heads too but they have well paying careers just thinking and talking about it. Great gig if you can get it!

Back when I was young and dumb I learned to snap my wrist sometimes, swoop on a few shots, and jack up sometimes when I didn't need to in order to avoid a double hit or to get over an obstruction. After I came back to pool after about twenty years of only a little casual play here and there I decided to rebuild my game from scratch the right way, one thing that brought me to AZB.

I took out the things that weren't needed and learned how to shoot pool "right". Haven't gotten near my old speed since then on a big table and I watch old road players and scuffers that ain't nearly as smart as me use all of those silly strokes and unneeded motions while beating me like a rented mule. There are times when I wish I wasn't so damned smart! Can't help wondering if I wouldn't have been miles ahead trying to get my old game back instead of trying to build a new one. Or in udder words, "I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then"!

Hu

Excellent point Hu...I also undewent a 20 year hiatus, and found upon my return (after I scraped the rust off) that I was playing better than I was in my 30-40's...I also never subscirbed, to an "aiming system' and operated on "pure feel"

The 'science guy's' will never be happy until they can put a 'number' or an 'equation' on the game of pool. That is fine, except that I can make most of them look like an APA 2, for the cash.. (and I am well over 70)
Not boasting, (well mabe a little, :wink just being realistic...This could be why, I am being inducted into the One Pocket "Hall of Fame"..and they are not, and probably never will be..(Tough love is great.. isn't it ?)...

Pool is NOT a science, it is a skill...Anyone can disect a frog...but what are they proving...All they really did, was kill a poor frog)

 

[SJDinPHX]

No. But by following the instructions and with a little practice you can use various versions of non-standard aiming methods to land on the shot line consistently. Makes an awful lot of "hard" shots much much easier.

Exactly how this happens is a major beef between some of the science people on the forum and the experience people.

And yes anyone can do it.

The person who posted the highest score on a set shot-making drill proposed here is a major proponent of this system. None of the scientists in opposition to the aiming systems on here even bothered to try the drill and post their score.

So in this case you definitely have an experience vs. science issue. The experience side says making balls is what counts. The science guys say that being able to explain it using simple math and geometry is what counts.

John old buddy...Please see post #189...

Don't be like this...it is not very becoming.

 

[eezbank]

John old buddy...Please see post #189...

Don't be like this...it is not very becoming.

View attachment 206547

Here we go again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LMLGuOkK6w

 

[JB Cases]

John old buddy...Please see post #189...

Don't be like this...it is not very becoming.

View attachment 206547

I am not sure what you want me to see. Even if we disagree about systems I think we both agree that either you make the balls or you don't. if you don't you go home broke. If you go home broke you can wallow in misery and run through the reasons and if one of them is some system then you should change it.

I think pool at the highest level is pure feel. Getting in the zone is when all the science, all the drills, all the "advice", all the videos, and all the battles you have had on the table all melt together and you just play.

I think that the bottom line is that there are millions of decent players in the world who couldn't describe the science behind what they do if there was a gun to their head. Yet they can run a rack and the better ones can run many racks.

If I am in the pool room and some guy comes up tells me to try this or that method and I do and it clicks for me then I don't really need to know WHY it works. It's enough that I feel good enough about it to step up and gamble using it. And I think that this is what the majority of people think about the science of pool. It's nice to read about but rarely makes a difference in whether you get to eat at the McDonald's dollar menu or whether you get to make it rain while eating ribeyes.

No offense to Bob Jewett but if I have the opportunity to take lessons from him or you then I am choosing you. I am certain that Bob knows way more than you about WHY pool balls do what they do. But you know a lot more about HOW to make them do what you want them to do.

 

[cookie man]

Cookie man, I reached my quota of fools' errands for a while. Besides, this is not the place. I only posted that as a counterpoint to some other comments that were made.

Jim

Jim, its just that people like to make their points by bashing CTE even though they don't have the proper experience to base those opinions on. How about we just leave CTE out of this thread and learn more about swiping and whether or not it can be a useful stroke technique. Experience tells me I use it on some shots for additional spin. Don't know the science on it, but if it works I am using it.

Dave

 

[Jal]

... How about we just leave CTE out of this thread and learn more about swiping and whether or not it can be a useful stroke technique. Experience tells me I use it on some shots for additional spin. Don't know the science on it, but if it works I am using it.

Dave

Wow, something we can absolutely agree upon! I would like to know if additional spin is possible too. What physics does say, if I may, is that in order to realize that, the maximum coefficient of friction between tip and ball must increase (compared to a straight stroke). I don't believe that's going to happen and we have Dr. Dave's video (NV B.34 on this page for a demonstration). But I don't think that even he considers it the last word.

Jim

 

[C.Milian]

No. But by following the instructions and with a little practice you can use various versions of non-standard aiming methods to land on the shot line consistently. Makes an awful lot of "hard" shots much much easier.

Exactly how this happens is a major beef between some of the science people on the forum and the experience people.

And yes anyone can do it.

The person who posted the highest score on a set shot-making drill proposed here is a major proponent of this system. None of the scientists in opposition to the aiming systems on here even bothered to try the drill and post their score.

So in this case you definitely have an experience vs. science issue. The experience side says making balls is what counts. The science guys say that being able to explain it using simple math and geometry is what counts.

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

 

[Cornerman]

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?

I believe in experience. I also believe the explanation of the experience can be given by the science guy (physical and non-physical science).

I only wish that more science guys put the effort on "why it happens" rather than "why it doesn't." I think we'd all be better players if we start with the premise that the what the seasoned pro is saying has truth in it (flipping the wrist gets more spin, e.g.)

Freddie <~~~ would rather be a seasoned pro

 

[sfleinen]

Sean,

I'm in a bit less agreement when he hammers the value of experience a little harder.

Question: If the entire engineering department of an aircraft manufacturer top to bottom was on an airliner they built and also a pilot with 20 years experience who didn't know a thing more than any typical pilot knows, who would they pick to fly the airplane? Who would you want flying it?

Microsoft was trying to improve efficiency so they cut a deal with Uncle Sam to send one of their top engineers to army boot camp. Things worked fair to middling until it came time to go to the shooting range. Try as he might, the engineer couldn't hit the target. Finally he put the end of his finger over the muzzle of his rifle and fired, blowing the end of his finger off. He shouted to the score keepers in the pit, "Everything is working perfectly on my end, must be an error on your end!"

Hu

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

 

[Mikjary]

I believe in experience. I also believe the explanation of the experience can be given by the science guy (physical and non-physical science).

I only wish that more science guys put the effort on "why it happens" rather than "why it doesn't." I think we'd all be better players if we start with the premise that the what the seasoned pro is saying has truth in it (flipping the wrist gets more spin, e.g.)

Freddie <~~~ would rather be a seasoned pro

Zsackley! :thumbup: We chase most of them away because we know it all.

Best,
Mike

 

[LAMas]

Lamas, I'm not sure if this is rhetorical question or not. I would call it high-school math. Whether that is science, in the sense of applied science (e.g., engineering), might be a matter of taste. To me, laying either of the terms "engineering" or "science" on matters concerning billiards seems a bit grandiose.

But maybe I didn't get the drift of your query?

Jim

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:

 

[ShootingArts]

Congratulations!

Excellent point Hu...I also undewent a 20 year hiatus, and found upon my return (after I scraped the rust off) that I was playing better than I was in my 30-40's...I also never subscirbed, to an "aiming system' and operated on "pure feel"

The 'science guy's' will never be happy until they can put a 'number' or an 'equation' on the game of pool. That is fine, except that I can make most of them look like an APA 2, for the cash.. (and I am well over 70)
Not boasting, (well mabe a little, :wink just being realistic...This could be why, I am being inducted into the One Pocket "Hall of Fame"..and they are not, and probably never will be..(Tough love is great.. isn't it ?)...

Pool is NOT a science, it is a skill...Anyone can disect a frog...but what are they proving...All they really did, was kill a poor frog)

Dick,

I haven't been keeping up with much in the pool world lately, this thread just happened to coincide with a rainy week here.

Gotta stop right here and give you a very warm and sincere congratulations on getting into the hall of fame. A real honor when you look at the company you are in and those that still wait to be inducted, if ever.

Taking frogs apart is easy, I used to do it in high school biology. Putting them back together and getting them to work again is a whole lot harder!!

Hu