How did Ralph Greenleaf "Aim"?

[JB Cases]

Actually John, it BEHOOVES those instructors to teach alternative aiming systems for "course marketability" reasons. As an instructor, you want your course to be packed to the gills with useful information, so that a student walks way with that "Wow!" feeling. If even ONE COMPONENT of that course rings bells with your student, there is a "for that one thing alone, it was money well spent" feeling on the part of the student.

"Pool school" is just that -- teaching anything and everything having to do with improving a student's pool game. It's not just stroke and fundamentals (although these *are* the foundation that everything else is built on -- a weak foundation is a weak pool game, no matter how strong the student can "aim").

It's not so much an endorsement of "this aiming system is important!" as it is making sure the course is chock full of well-rounded information, offering lots of components such that any student that walks through the door has at least something to latch onto, besides the core fundamentals.

I know when I do trade show presentations on information security, I pack it chock full of information from all sides of the fence -- white hat, black hat, and gray hat. Even though I know that some folks walking through the door may be die-hard hackers and phreakers (black hat), information security professionals (white hat), or information security consultants like myself (gray hat). The idea is that *anyone* that walks through my door, gets a chance to walk away with something completely new, besides the well-taught and well-worn information security basics.

I hope this helps,
-Sean

Helps? In what way? Presenting a seminar filled with the latest techniques is very different than having a hands-on course teaching them.

If I were giving a lecture on playing pool then I would mention the various aiming methods and perhaps my opinion of their value.

If I were teaching someone to play pool then I would certainly only teach them the best methods I know of which were commensurate with their ability at the time.

In this very small world of pool it can be the kiss of death to be a professional instructor who gets a bad rep for teaching bogus or confusing information. But beyond that there is also the professional ethics part of it in that no top level instructor is going to teach something that they know does not work.

I firmly believe that the top level instructors in pool who DO teach these methods teach them because they have examined them from every angle and found them to work well AND they have figured out how to teach them to students without confusing the students. To me this validates the methods much the same way as if some unknown hacker developed a new security protocol and you a well known security consultant were to adopt it. Your adoption is the validation I need to sign off on it for all my servers.

Hope this explains my position a little better.

 

[champ2107]

this is an amusing twist in these discussions!

 

[JoeyA]

Helps? In what way? Presenting a seminar filled with the latest techniques is very different than having a hands-on course teaching them.

If I were giving a lecture on playing pool then I would mention the various aiming methods and perhaps my opinion of their value.

If I were teaching someone to play pool then I would certainly only teach them the best methods I know of which were commensurate with their ability at the time.

In this very small world of pool it can be the kiss of death to be a professional instructor who gets a bad rep for teaching bogus or confusing information. But beyond that there is also the professional ethics part of it in that no top level instructor is going to teach something that they know does not work.

I firmly believe that the top level instructors in pool who DO teach these methods teach them because they have examined them from every angle and found them to work well AND they have figured out how to teach them to students without confusing the students. To me this validates the methods much the same way as if some unknown hacker developed a new security protocol and you a well known security consultant were to adopt it. Your adoption is the validation I need to sign off on it for all my servers.

Hope this explains my position a little better.

I think Sean may have meant that instructors should have alternative aiming systems/methods available for students that wish to learn them, not necessarily that they should teach them all in every class.

It wouldn't take but a few hours to show most of the aiming systems to a student but teaching them would be another story. For the student to have proficiency in all aiming systems would take a lifetime.

Like you, if I were an instructor who played at a decent level and could demonstrate the prowess of an aiming system as well as my ability to play at a high level, I would definitely offer my preferred aiming system.

 

[JB Cases]

I think Sean may have meant that instructors should have alternative aiming systems/methods available for students that wish to learn them, not necessarily that they should teach them all in every class.

It wouldn't take but a few hours to show most of the aiming systems to a student but teaching them would be another story. For the student to have proficiency in all aiming systems would take a lifetime.

Like you, if I were an instructor who played at a decent level and could demonstrate the prowess of an aiming system as well as my ability to play at a high level, I would definitely offer my preferred aiming system.

Of course having more items on the menu can be more attractive. But I would not expect a top chef to put deep fried onion rings served in a bowl of cherry jello on the menu just to have something else. I expect that a top chef offers only the items he or she feels are worth offering to the guest and by the same token a top instructor offers to teach methods that they find are of value to the students.

 

[sfleinen]

Helps? In what way?

To clarify [the point about it makes sense for instructors to teach many different methods, for students of all types to have something to latch onto], silly!

Presenting a seminar filled with the latest techniques is very different than having a hands-on course teaching them.

You're not understanding my point. John, do you really think I'm a PowerPoint drone who just shows slides and speaks to them? If this is your assumption or innuendo, you're very wrong -- the information security industry doesn't work like that. This is not like creating PowerPoint slides on how to work with leather to create cases -- showing pics of leather being cut and manipulated. (Just offering an example that I think would hit home with you.) You do that in this industry, and you'll last about two seconds before getting booed out. White hats and especially black hats have no tolerance for sales types.

Rather, if I'm doing a "stand up" presentation on information security, the monitor of my laptop is projected onto a screen, and I'm giving a live demo of the concepts -- with me typing at the keyboard and actually showing how to perform the security exploits.

And of course, if I'm teaching a class, you can bet I'm teaching *all* different ways of approaching security (and yes, there are different ways -- not just "the latest techniques" as you tried to frame it).

If I were giving a lecture on playing pool then I would mention the various aiming methods and perhaps my opinion of their value.

If I were teaching someone to play pool then I would certainly only teach them the best methods I know of which were commensurate with their ability at the time.

Again, you got it wrong. These are not lectures. They are demonstrative classes.

In this very small world of pool it can be the kiss of death to be a professional instructor who gets a bad rep for teaching bogus or confusing information. But beyond that there is also the professional ethics part of it in that no top level instructor is going to teach something that they know does not work.

I believe CTE is demonstrable (if that's a word) enough to show that it "works." Sure, we have problems explaining "just how" here -- the historic plethora of thread topics on this proves it out -- but if it didn't work, it would've died a long time ago. I don't think that's a question. (Well, it may be a question for the die-hard naysayers, but it's certainly not a question for me. And I'll extend that onto the top-level instructors, too.)

I firmly believe that the top level instructors in pool who DO teach these methods teach them because they have examined them from every angle and found them to work well AND they have figured out how to teach them to students without confusing the students. To me this validates the methods much the same way as if some unknown hacker developed a new security protocol and you a well known security consultant were to adopt it. Your adoption is the validation I need to sign off on it for all my servers.

Hope this explains my position a little better.

John, you need to Google a little better for those topics you don't know. Hackers don't "develop" security protocols -- they BREAK them. Security professionals like me learn the code behind behind the security protocols, and find ways to shore them up so the hackers can't break them. Regardless, though, while your point of "making sure the widget works before teaching it" is, of course, sound, I personally think you're missing the "cornucopia" aspect of my point -- that, once proven that it works (which, for me, is a non-issue), that it's taught as part of an overall "fruit basket" of knowledge. Not that it's a stamp of approval of the "best" techniques, but rather that it's a different flavor of something that students from all walks of life, with different life experiences, can grab onto. You like oranges? Here's an orange. You like apples? Here's an apple. The student then walks away with something that he/she "likes," rather than having that empty feeling of unfulfillment.

I hope that helps clarify,
-Sean

 

[JB Cases]

To clarify [the point about it makes sense for instructors to teach many different methods, for students of all types to have something to latch onto], silly!



You're not understanding my point. John, do you really think I'm a PowerPoint drone who just shows slides and speaks to them? If this is your assumption or innuendo, you're very wrong -- the information security industry doesn't work like that. This is not like creating PowerPoint slides on how to work with leather to create cases -- showing pics of leather being cut and manipulated. (Just offering an example that I think would hit home with you.) You do that in this industry, and you'll last about two seconds before getting booed out. White hats and especially black hats have no tolerance for sales types.

Rather, if I'm doing a "stand up" presentation on information security, the monitor of my laptop is projected onto a screen, and I'm giving a live demo of the concepts -- with me typing at the keyboard and actually showing how to perform the security exploits.

And of course, if I'm teaching a class, you can bet I'm teaching *all* different ways of approaching security (and yes, there are different ways -- not just "the latest techniques" as you tried to frame it).



Again, you got it wrong. These are not lectures. They are demonstrative classes.



I believe CTE is demonstrable (if that's a word) enough to show that it "works." Sure, we have problems explaining "just how" here -- the historic plethora of thread topics on this proves it out -- but if it didn't work, it would've died a long time ago. I don't think that's a question. (Well, it may be a question for the die-hard naysayers, but it's certainly not a question for me. And I'll extend that onto the top-level instructors, too.)



John, you need to Google a little better for those topics you don't know. Hackers don't "develop" security protocols -- they BREAK them. Security professionals like me learn the code behind behind the security protocols, and find ways to shore them up so the hackers can't break them. Regardless, though, while your point of "making sure the widget works before teaching it" is, of course, sound, I personally think you're missing the "cornucopia" aspect of my point -- that, once proven that it works (which, for me, is a non-issue), that it's taught as part of an overall "fruit basket" of knowledge. Not that it's a stamp of approval of the "best" techniques, but rather that it's a different flavor of something that students from all walks of life, with different life experiences, can grab onto. You like oranges? Here's an orange. You like apples? Here's an apple. The student then walks away with something that he/she "likes," rather than having that empty feeling of unfulfillment.

I hope that helps clarify,
-Sean

Didn't google it. Originally hackers were simply those who "hacked" code in order to tweak it, always trying to outdo the other guys to make routines run faster. And yes some hackers break code so they can build something better. The PC word is now "security researcher" as I am sure you well know. Don't assume that I had to google anything. You know I like you, I really do, but dude you have a way of putting things that is really cutting.

But here since you said I should work on my google skills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackers:_Heroes_of_the_Computer_Revolution Stardate: 1984

Ok so you are giving a live demonstration. You are STILL not going to put your rep on the line demonstrating something that is sketchy UNLESS telling everyone that it's sketchy is part of the lesson, i.e. I know that this is not quite all there but I find it interesting to mess with......

Top pool instructors don't do that. They teach what is dependable and they can pass on with full confidence.

Back to your cornucopia no one who cares about their reputation offers rotten apples or oranges.

 

[sfleinen]

Didn't google it. Originally hackers were simply those who "hacked" code in order to tweak it, always trying to outdo the other guys to make routines run faster. And yes some hackers break code so they can build something better. The PC word is now "security researcher" as I am sure you well know. Don't assume that I had to google anything. You know I like you, I really do, but dude you have a way of putting things that is really cutting.

Ha, pot meet kettle! But you know something? Sometimes, when you're trying to make a point and it's being misunderstood even with the best of efforts, sometimes, with some people (like it or not), you have to cut a bit. You know that yourself.

Or, sometimes, when somebody's a formidable opponent in a debate (as you are -- you're a giant in these parts, and I mean that as a compliment), one has to cut a bit to get past the armor. You know this.

As to the different meanings of the word, "hacker," as it's changed throughout the ages, it's a "keeping up with the Joneses" thing. There's a difference between a "hack" and a "hacker." But I don't think we need to go there for this discussion.

Ok so you are giving a live demonstration. You are STILL not going to put your rep on the line demonstrating something that is sketchy UNLESS telling everyone that it's sketchy is part of the lesson, i.e. I know that this is not quite all there but I find it interesting to mess with......

Top pool instructors don't do that. They teach what is dependable and they can pass on with full confidence.

Back to your cornucopia no one who cares about their reputation offers rotten apples or oranges.

Sure, that's absolutely true -- you can't offer rotten apples or oranges. But as to the experimental aspect of "new things," it very much proves that offering, I don't know, carambolas (starfruits) in your cornucopia is a good thing. "Hey class, have you ever tried a starfruit before? Try this... do you like, or no?" Some people will, some people won't. But the instructor offered it, and for those students that liked starfruits, they now have something they didn't have before. Those that didn't like the starfruit just tossed it into the trash, or at least remembered they tried it, and perhaps will try it again some other time or at some other point in their life.

-Sean

 

[JB Cases]

Ha, pot meet kettle! But you know something? Sometimes, when you're trying to make a point and it's being misunderstood even with the best of efforts, sometimes, with some people (like it or not), you have to cut a bit. You know that yourself.

Or, sometimes, when somebody's a formidable opponent in a debate (as you are -- you're a giant in these parts, and I mean that as a compliment), one has to cut a bit to get past the armor. You know this.

As to the different meanings of the word, "hacker," as it's changed throughout the ages, it's a "keeping up with the Joneses" thing. There's a difference between a "hack" and a "hacker." But I don't think we need to go there for this discussion.



Sure, that's absolutely true -- you can't offer rotten apples or oranges. But as to the experimental aspect of "new things," it very much proves that offering, I don't know, carambolas (starfruits) in your cornucopia is a good thing. "Hey class, have you ever tried a starfruit before? Try this... do you like, or no?" Some people will, some people won't. But the instructor offered it, and for those students that liked starfruits, they now have something they didn't have before. Those that didn't like the starfruit just tossed it into the trash, or at least remembered they tried it, and perhaps will try it again some other time or at some other point in their life.

-Sean

Fair enough but no one who cares about their rep is going to offer a starfruit (what it that anyway? Don't make me google it) if starfruits are known to make 20% of the people who try them really ill.

 

[sfleinen]

Fair enough but no one who cares about their rep is going to offer a starfruit (what it that anyway? Don't make me google it) if starfruits are known to make 20% of the people who try them really ill.

Again, I don't think it's a question of "does it work ('period') or is it broken ('period')?" I don't think aiming systems work like that. I know that in my experimentation phase with aiming systems (and yes, I have Stan's DVD -- part of that "going back to try the starfruit again at a later time" thing), I *know* they work. It's more a question of, "what resonates with me?" For me, it's the pure geometric relationship of the balls to each other, and to the pocket. And I think the fruit basket of knowledge taught to a student is just that -- what resonates with him/her?

As to carambolas, you should try one, John. Not sure if they're available in China (they're a South American fruit), but if you have the opportunity, definitely do. They might be labeled with either the name carambola or starfruit. They're delicious! And for me, it wasn't a question of not liking it, and going back to try it again at a later time in my life. I liked them immediately on my first try. They don't look very appetizing, but man, slice 'em up (they make strange looking star-shaped slices), and they burst with sweet juice.

-Sean

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Star fruits absolutely rock. Good analogy.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

Again, I don't think it's a question of "does it work ('period') or is it broken ('period')?" I don't think aiming systems work like that. I know that in my experimentation phase with aiming systems (and yes, I have Stan's DVD -- part of that "going back to try the starfruit again at a later time" thing), I *know* they work. It's more a question of, "what resonates with me?" For me, it's the pure geometric relationship of the balls to each other, and to the pocket. And I think the fruit basket of knowledge taught to a student is just that -- what resonates with him/her?

As to carambolas, you should try one, John. Not sure if they're available in China (they're a South American fruit), but if you have the opportunity, definitely do. They might be labeled with either the name carambola or starfruit. They're delicious! And for me, it wasn't a question of not liking it, and going back to try it again at a later time in my life. I liked them immediately on my first try. They don't look very appetizing, but man, slice 'em up (they make strange looking star-shaped slices), and they burst with sweet juice.

-Sean

Let's back up to my original point that the very fact that some top instructors teach it is what was the final validation for me. Prior to that I could certainly accept that maybe I was "making it work" on some level even though I didn't feel that way.

So with it being accepted and taught by people I feel know way more than me I felt that it had become "real". And I think that others probably feel this way as well.

Going into your field if you are someone that I look up to who has a sterling reputation and a body of work that is outstanding then if you adopt something on the fringe then I will certainly give that something a lot of consideration simply based on the fact that you endorse it. I think that this is reasonable. Now you could be wrong, you could have gone bonkers in which case I will follow you down that hole for a while until I see for myself that it's not going anywhere. But practically we have to look at those with the most experience to guide us somewhat.

 

[sfleinen]

Let's back up to my original point that the very fact that some top instructors teach it is what was the final validation for me. Prior to that I could certainly accept that maybe I was "making it work" on some level even though I didn't feel that way.

So with it being accepted and taught by people I feel know way more than me I felt that it had become "real". And I think that others probably feel this way as well.

Going into your field if you are someone that I look up to who has a sterling reputation and a body of work that is outstanding then if you adopt something on the fringe then I will certainly give that something a lot of consideration simply based on the fact that you endorse it. I think that this is reasonable. Now you could be wrong, you could have gone bonkers in which case I will follow you down that hole for a while until I see for myself that it's not going anywhere. But practically we have to look at those with the most experience to guide us somewhat.

John:

This is a very good point, and I thank you. I guess where all of this is falling apart, is just how *are* the instructors teaching this? If they're doing the "here's an alternative way to aim", then it's a cornucopia thing. If, on the other hand, it's being taught as a core fundamental, that's a completely different matter. The former is a "pick a fruit from the basket; which one resonated with you?" thing; the latter is -- like you seem to be saying -- "I, pool instructor so-and-so, put my stamp of approval on this technique and therefore say it's NOT an alternative way to aim, but *is* the way to aim" thing. Very different approaches.

I gather from reading Randy's and Scott's postings to this board (as well as feedback from pool-playing friends of mine that've gone to their courses -- a couple of whom *I* directly referred to Randy/Scott, and you can ask them directly) that they teach it in the cornucopia aspect. This is not so much a "I live and die by teaching you this method" as it is "here, try this technique; it works for many people and it may resonate with you!" In this regard, it's presented to the student as a CHOICE of whether to adopt it or not.

Of course, I welcome Randy or Scott to correct me if I'm wrong.

-Sean