Experience or science?

[PoolBum]

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.

There's no defending to be done. Here's how it works. Suppose we suggest an answer. Next, we test the answer to see if it predicts the correct results. If it does not, then we have to rethink our answer because the results show that we were wrong. We keep at it until we start getting it right. Any way that you can figure out the angle an object ball travels with a half ball hit is also a way that science can figure it out. An experimental/empirical method is nothing more than experience refined and controlled.

 

[ShootingArts]

exactly what is usually done

There's no defending to be done. Here's how it works. Suppose we suggest an answer. Next, we test the answer to see if it predicts the correct results. If it does not, then we have to rethink our answer because the results show that we were wrong. We keep at it until we start getting it right. Any way that you can figure out the angle an object ball travels with a half ball hit is also a way that science can figure it out. An experimental/empirical method is nothing more than experience refined and controlled.

A pool shooter finds the hit that gives the result they think a half ball hit should give and defines that as a half ball hit for themselves, it doesn't matter if they think a half ball hit results in a roughly thirty or roughly forty-five degree angle. That isn't scientific method at all, that is experience.

As a pool shooter I would say a half ball aim results in a roughly thirty degree object ball path and a half ball hit indeed results in something closer to a forty-five degree object ball path.

Looking at it from a scientific standpoint of someone that isn't a pool player I can prove amongst other things:

A. A half ball hit results in a zero degree object ball path.

B. All hits are half ball hits.

These are obviously conflicting statements and both conflict with basic pool terms, never the less both are true. Absolutely nobody can prove either statement false to a significant degree.

Hu

 

[kolaas]

This one is actually pretty easy..

Science can proofs the maximum that can be achieved (that is, if the question is provable). The player can reach the maximum if he does everything exactly right.

However, in close to every subject there is no human (except mr Norris) that can achieve the maximum. One player can have gimmicks to achieve a higher %, closer to the maximum. But those gimmicks are usually very personal. The amount of increase of % it gives him, is not nescessarilly the same for another player.

No matter who the player is, if he would behave exactly like science tells him he would reach the max. The difficult thing in this is that science seldomly can prove stuff 100% certainess.

 

[JB Cases]

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

You would lose. Because even if it's a raw beginner, say two twins. You get one and Buddy gets the other one. Once you get past the baseline of stance/bridge and hitting the ball in a straight line what you know is of no more use to the student.

When it comes to playing the right way and executing the shots under pressure you can't teach that by knowing the science. Even though I KNOW that a half ball hit sends the cue ball and the object ball roughly the same distance in opposite directions I still have to feel it. You can teach the student the prinicples and perhaps you can even demonstrate them somewhat adequately.

But I know with 100% certainly that you cannot move the ball like Buddy Hall can. We can bet on that if you like. And the reason you can't is because for all your knowledge you have not developed the fine motor control that comes from a million hours of high level competitive play. You didn't run the roads and bet the rent on different tables and different opponents for years.

So in 30 days I am certain that you can take a student to about where the Standard Book of Pool by Bob Byrne would take them with a little bit of extra knowledge that perhaps Bob didn't cover.

But Buddy Hall will have taken them there in the first week and for the subsequent three weeks he will take them to places you have never been and will never go. He will describe game situations you can't imagine and explain why he chose to shoot a certain way and then teach the student how to shoot that way. Meanwhile your guy will still be doing center table drills and whatever other drills you have.

So at the end of 30 days I would hope that both players would have a reasonable stroke and shot-making abilities. Then when they play the difference will be experience. When certain situations come up will your guy know what to do?

That would be the difference that gets the cash in my opinion.

 

[8pack]

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

A half ball hit can travel anywhere from about 20 degrees to about maybe 35 degrees.MAYBE Depends on how you hit it and how dirty the ball is..

Now if you shoot the cb into half the the object ball you have a straight in shot.

 

[LAMas]

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

The popular center of the CB aimed at the edge of the OB is "CTE " and gometrically would be a 30 degree cut angle as derived from the line from the center of the CB to the center of the OB.

Put the OB on the spot and shoot a spot shot. I historically shot that shot just behind to top of the kitchen just off of the left or right rail (with center CB), but when I measured that angle to make the OB in the corner pocket, I realized that I was several degrees less than 30 degrees because of cut induced throw (CIT). I didn't know what was happening until Dr. Dave and others that know explained CIT.

To eliminate CIT, I now can shoot the shot with the butt of my cue from near the corner pocket (a bit toward the center of the rail nearest me) which is geometrically a 30 degree cut to pocket the OB into the selected corner pocket, but now with a bit of outside english or top english.

I don't know if a pro could have explained to me that the OB was sliding off of the spot forward a bit on impact with the CB before starting to roll at the 30 degree angle - missing the pocket when I put a chalk line at exactly 30degrees as explained above.

So I was historically compensating for CIT by reducing the angle a few degrees less than 30 degrees - from the side rails in the kitchen. I can now adjust the 30 degree CTE shot from a perfect 30 degee cut angle using outside english or top or more center CB if I want a smaller angle than 30 degrees - if the shot and shape calls for it.

I have learned alot from Dr. Dave for he has demonstrated with high speed vids and diagramed explanations from him and other contributors to his website.

Just sayin.:wink::thumbup:

 

[LAMas]

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

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

You posted:
"PJ where are you B!tch? "

PJ is banned.
Now was that just sarcasm or nice?

 

[C.Milian]

You posted:
"PJ where are you B!tch? "

PJ is banned.
Now was that just sarcasm or nice?

PJ knows I'm just kidding. I just wanted to include him since he's out of action. I like pj..hope he got a laugh. If it is offensive to some I'm truly sorry. My mouth has gotten me beat up many times, but I don't mean anything anything bad. I hope you understand I was just joking.

 

[AtLarge]

The popular center of the CB aimed at the edge of the OB is "CTE " and gometrically would be a 30 degree cut angle as derived from the line from the center of the CB to the center of the OB. ...

Conventionally, cut angles are measured off the line through center CB and center ghost ball (i.e., the pre-contact line of travel of the CB), not the line through center CB and center OB.

 

[kolaas]

A half ball hit can travel anywhere from about 20 degrees to about maybe 35 degrees.MAYBE Depends on how you hit it and how dirty the ball is..

Now if you shoot the cb into half the the object ball you have a straight in shot.

One could make a computersimulation with perfect spheres, a cloth that is flat as a mirror and use nature's law as the system that calculates the new path for the balls.

It wouldnt matter if a player is experienced or not. If they shoot the ball (inside the simulation) with the same amount of force, the balls would allways behave the same.

It wouldnt matter if a player does a wrist flick, throws in his cue, dances around the table. If the ball gets an equal impulse from the cue it behaves the same.

 

[C.Milian]

Ghost ball: Cue ball disappear and re-appear at the object ball. The stroke killed it.

 

[C.Milian]

One could make a computersimulation with perfect spheres, a cloth that is flat as a mirror and use nature's law as the system that calculates the new path for the balls.

It wouldnt matter if a player is experienced or not. If they shoot the ball (inside the simulation) with the same amount of force, the balls would allways behave the same.

It wouldnt matter if a player does a wrist flick, throws in his cue, dances around the table. If the ball gets an equal impulse from the cue it behaves the same.

That won't work at the moment because of insufficient data.

 

[PoolBum]

A pool shooter finds the hit that gives the result they think a half ball hit should give and defines that as a half ball hit for themselves, it doesn't matter if they think a half ball hit results in a roughly thirty or roughly forty-five degree angle. That isn't scientific method at all, that is experience.

As a pool shooter I would say a half ball aim results in a roughly thirty degree object ball path and a half ball hit indeed results in something closer to a forty-five degree object ball path.

Looking at it from a scientific standpoint of someone that isn't a pool player I can prove amongst other things:

A. A half ball hit results in a zero degree object ball path.

B. All hits are half ball hits.

These are obviously conflicting statements and both conflict with basic pool terms, never the less both are true. Absolutely nobody can prove either statement false to a significant degree.

Hu

Yeah, as far as I can tell what you're saying is that "half-ball hit" is not a well-defined term.

It's not that difficult. If there is a question that has an empirical answer, science can find out the answer in principle. So, you asked a question about a "half-ball hit." If the meaning of that term is clear and this is an empirical question, then science can find out the answer.

That's the most sense I can make out of your post.

PS: Science gives the answer that it gives regardless of whether or not one is a pool player. If a pool player makes an empirical claim we can test it, just like any other empirical claim.

 

[ShootingArts]

no complete path between science and application

Yeah, as far as I can tell what you're saying is that "half-ball hit" is not a well-defined term.

It's not that difficult. If there is a question that has an empirical answer, science can find out the answer in principle. So, you asked a question about a "half-ball hit." If the meaning of that term is clear and this is an empirical question, then science can find out the answer.

That's the most sense I can make out of your post.

PS: Science gives the answer that it gives regardless of whether or not one is a pool player. If a pool player makes an empirical claim we can test it, just like any other empirical claim.

Actually the vast majority of the aiming arguments on this forum are precisely because pool doesn't lend itself to empirical testing and proof. Without it being possible to set up well designed tests few agree how the results were arrived at. There is no precise aiming system simply because we have no way to precisely aim or deliver a cue stroke other than by feel and experience. A library full of scientific data concerning shooting pool could not get past these broken links in the scientific process.

Hu

 

[C.Milian]

Somebody got turning stone stream link?

 

[LAMas]

Conventionally, cut angles are measured off the line through center CB and center ghost ball (i.e., the pre-contact line of travel of the CB), not the line through center CB and center OB.

Yes, just send the OB to the target by sending the CB to the GB - no need to even see angles. GB aiming is the most accurate method for all cut angles at all separations betweeen the CB and OB.

I have difficulty in seeing the perfect GB location - sometimes the GB is smaller and at other times it is larger than the OB - just me.

 

[PoolBum]

There is no precise aiming system simply because we have no way to precisely aim or deliver a cue stroke other than by feel and experience. A library full of scientific data concerning shooting pool could not get past these broken links in the scientific process.

I'm not talking about being able to play pool well or being able to execute shots properly, I'm talking about knowing the physics, for example, of the cueball and the other balls and what happens on a given shot. Are you saying that we can't understand the physics?

 

[C.Milian]

I'm not talking about being able to play pool well or being able to execute shots properly, I'm talking about knowing the physics, for example, of the cueball and the other balls and what happens on a given shot. Are you saying that we can't understand the physics?

SAy you are trying to learn how to shoot a basket. If you try learning by yourself you'll end up shooting at the basket. If this is your set tecnique...no matter how much data you gather on this method you'll just be at a certain percentage no mater how much perfection goes into it. Contrast, if you look at a pure shooter like bird, or the kid from indiana, they play different so they are able to make more baskets...easiera nd more effectively under pressure. Of coursre their bodies are different so their mechanics wil be slightly different, but most fundamentals are not broken....if you dissect their shot. I'm not a basketball playe rbut I'm sure a trained babll player can tell.

And that is the difference, its not that Dr dave and the crew won't be able to help improve pool by breaking down the physics of it, its just that there are guy thatknow most of it alreay and they just want to move to the mountains, or beach and sip coconut juicew and watch the pretty girls hula dance.

yesterday after watching jbs explanation of cte I somehow made a shot I usually missed. Maybe it was a coincidence. But it was the experince of learning from some of the old timers that got me to that point. I guess being open minded about things does help. =)

I do believe experience helped my game the most. Without it I would not have been able to understand the info from the science guys. I was able to see what they were talking about and expanded on it. So in essence, the science guys got there and was able to understand the small stuff. If you are to ask the experienced players, they'll be able to tell you from their experience of watching the balls being hit many different ways that the science guys are right about thier findings.

 

[derangedhermit]

Actually the vast majority of the aiming arguments on this forum are precisely because pool doesn't lend itself to empirical testing and proof. Without it being possible to set up well designed tests few agree how the results were arrived at. There is no precise aiming system simply because we have no way to precisely aim or deliver a cue stroke other than by feel and experience. A library full of scientific data concerning shooting pool could not get past these broken links in the scientific process.

Hu

I think what you are saying is that we have no way to reliably reproduce strokes, not that there is some fundamental mysticism going on. So what pool needs is a few Iron Byrons? Is there an Iron Byron for pool yet?

 

[derangedhermit]

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.[...]

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

Removing the names mentioned, the coach using a scientific approach will do better. Baseball changed a lot several years back when some front-office guys had the bright idea to hire a statistician to help in selecting players to hire. It worked so well all the clubs changed their practices. They've also caused rethinking of decisions managers make in game situations because they had analyzed thousands of similar situations from the past - baseball keeps good records:grin: - and knew the probability of the various outcomes - and that some traditional choices made by managers was not the best. A scientific approach is not physics alone. You can apply it to all parts of the game, starting, for example, with how to most efficiently use 30 days of training time with an arbitrary beginner to get the best outcome.

Dave Pelz, for another example, has had impact along similar lines in golf. He slogged around the course following pros, recording shots and outcomes of thousands of rounds, until he figured out some things no one else had noticed, and ways he could help. Collect data, analyze data, detect trends, hypothesize, test. Science.