mikepage said:
Is it possible to have a clearer statement that shows most of the disagreements here are semantic ones?
Dave - I don't know your "system," so my comments here are not specific to your system. But PLEASE PLEASE try to understand a little different perspective here. I'm not saying adopt it; just please try to understand it.
If something seems to work or to help some people it IS important to many of us to understand WHY it helps. Part of this--most of us are here for fun when it comes down to it--is intellectual curiosity, but a big part of it is understanding what specific problems are solved by a particular approach to be able to incorporate and communicate those things directly and extend them to new situations.
Here's a couple analogies.
Suppose somebody claimed that a diet consisting of only hot chicken wings leads to weight loss and cited several people who have been eating only chicken wings for eight weeks and have lost weight.
Somebody might say they don't care why it works; it just works.
Others might suggest the hot sauce must interact with the fat to dissolve it in some way.
A little examination, though, might reveal it works because people eat fewer calories when all they're allowed to eat is hot chicken wings. This is both because they don't always have hot chicken wings available when they get the urge to eat, and also because they get sick of the chicken wings.
Why does it matter whether the Louisiana hot sauce has some strange metabolic effect, or it's a simple calorie issue? It matters because the people who find the true reason it works are in a position to modify this style of diet to make it more nutritious.
Or here's another:
Someone claims smearing dog poop all over your backyard swing set makes the grass grow. They can show several people who have tried this method with great success. They don't understand why anyone would question the poop-on-the-swing-set method as it clearly works.
A little analysis, though, reveals anyone who smears dog poop on their swing set also spends a nasty afternoon with the garden hose cleaning it off--and it's the water from the garden hose that makes the grass grow. I think it's clear how this understanding would help to suggest a modification of the method.
There are reasons why beginning every shot the same way--looking full on or looking at the half-ball hit for instance--might be useful. The "SEEing it (from manual repetition)" you described above benefits from approaching the same shots the same way every time.
There are other reasons some of these approaches--whether it's one of Hal's methods or S.A.M. or whatever is being discussed here--help people. Get ready, because there's a big secret coming... These approaches cause people to do something they don't usually do. It's such an important thing that we have a name for it. It's called AIM. That's right.
If you look at the QUIET EYE studies, you will find one bit of consistency about the studies of pool, of putting, of basketball free throws, and of other aims involving stationary targets. Consistently a group of experts is compared to a group of wanabees. Consistently the group of experts GAZE at they target on average for a notably longer period of time in the "set" position. I'm talking maybe 2.5 seconds versus 1.5 seconds. It has become increasingly clear that this slightly longer gaze time--locking on your target for enough time-- is crucial for processing the information necessary to aim successfully.
Let's suppose many people suffer from inadequate GAZE time. IF true, then showing them a new method that forces them to lock in on the target (while following whatever the prescription is) will increase their success rate. Like the poop-on-the-swingset, the method might just be a mechanism to bring out the real solution (water/quiet-eye gaze time).
I point out in one of my aiming videos that I think another reason for any success people find with fractional ball aiming techniques is it causes them to sight parallel to the line the stick is moving. Many people don't. Many people sight from above the stick to the object ball contact point. This line is not parallel to the line of the stick or the cueball motion.
Please understand Dave that when someone suggests a method that SEEMS to not have the gaps filled in, that SEEMS to have shots that require two different angles to receive the same aim, that SEEMS to request the exact same aim for two sticks that we know squirt differently, it is like a giant bell going off for many of us.
Then if rather than taking off the system's clothes so that we can examine it honestly, the proponent points out that you really have to learn it in person or that such and such a world-class player uses it, it's like another giant bell going off.
Hi Mike,
I respect the investigation into the WHY factor. I really do. But as Byrne pointed out in one of his books in which he coined the word "squirt" to refer to cue stick induced deflection, he said that when he discussed that subject with numerous championship players, all he got was "blank stares" or words to that effect.
So, many great players had NO IDEA why they had to adjust their aim when using side...only that if they didn't, they missed.
While being very respectful...and in a way, envious of those with advanced math/geometry/physics skills, I am equally convinced that there is a point of diminishing returns known as "paralysis by analysis."
Dave is more right than wrong when he says that he doesn't care WHY it works and IMHO, the average pool player is also no better than an average "math student" and their eyes cross when they read about the "angle of the dangle." (-:
I am NO scientist but the "automatic variability" of the system is CRYSTAL CLEAR to me when I focus on the fact that....as the cut angle changes, the CTE method requires the player to move his bridge hand and the direction the cue is pointing IN EXACT CONFORMITY to the change in the cut angle.
Using the method is sort of like having a computer program in your brain that robotically forces the direction the cue is pointing in to adjust to the changing cut angles.
So, if the system points the cue correctly on a 10 degree cut and then the cut angle goes to 12 degrees, the system BY ROTE causes the cue to be pointed in a slightly different...and equally correct direction.
That process of ROTE changes in cue direction continues until it "runs out of gas" at certain cut angles/distances at which point the shot looks OBVIOUSLY off at which time the shooter adjusts.
The topic of how to adjust when CTE runs out of gas is a WHOLE separate topic. But the IMPORTANT thing to take away is that the limitations of they method are FEW and for better players, may not come up more than 1 rack in 5...if that.
Further, when the limitations are reached, it is HIGHLY likely that a bank or safety is the play anyway.
Regards,
Jim
