You simply don't get it. We're not talking about scientists pretending to be experts at pool. We're talking about a pool player (CTE inventor) who is pretending to be a scientist.
What an idiotic statement. We're talking about a Master Instructor member in the PBIA doing what he does which is TEACH AN AIMING SYSTEM IN POOL that USES UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT VISUALS TO MAKE BALLS MORE ACCURATELY.
If you have a scientist who has not achieved a relatively high level of ability at pool then I'd say it would be beneficial if they had. We have scientists who have won national titles, others who are respected instructors, and still others with no trophies to show but have decades worth of playing experience. I say this experience in pool more than qualifies as that pool background that would be nice (but not completely necessary) to have in an expert scientist.
How many scientists have won national titles and who are THEY? And who are the "others" with no trophies to show but have decades of experience? Decades of experience means nothing. It's like a guy who has been playing golf for 35 years and still can't break 90. Name the people you're alluding to.
If you want to know how to win a tournament then go see Mike Sigel. If you want to know why balls behave the way they do then go see Dr. Dave or Bob Jewett. Stan is a better pool player than either of those two guys so maybe they could learn something from him about winning tournaments, playing under pressure, or how he likes to aim. If, however, Stan wants to understand why his aiming system works for him maybe he could talk to Dave or Bob and learn something. That's all I'm saying.
Another total group of bullshit statements. Balls behave the way they do based on what the player does to make them behave to pocket balls and get position. It's a part of why Stan is a better player than either of those 2 guys. (I applaud you for at least acknowledging that). You can't win as many tournaments as Stan has or teach pro players along with his son who is the winningest Junior in the history of pool if making the CB dance for position to run the entire table isn't a part of it.
The aiming system doesn't work for him, it works for pro players and thousands of amateurs all around the world.
It would be nice for the scientist to have a basic understanding of pool (and there are many of those) and by the same token it would be nice for Stan to have an understanding of science and experimental design, which he appears not to have.
Stan got a Masters degree decades ago in another area and doesn't need a thing regarding science or experimental design any more than Efren, Busta, Mosconi, Fats, and every single great pool player who has ever been in tournaments or hustling for the last 100 years. All you're trying to do is feed your own ego and knock others down.
Puuuuleeeeze tell me what knowledge of science and experimental design these guys have compared to just knowing what balls will do and how to do it with a CUESTICK. What do you think their science knowledge is and was it used to set this all up?
You're too emotionally involved to think clearly on this one.
LMAO. Yet, you aren't. How about this exercise: YOU explain how to make one shot on the table using Center to Edge visuals
for the one I listed yesterday. OB on the spot. CB halfway between the spot and side edge of the table at the other end.
Give instructions on what to see visually and how to set up to do it. THINK CLEARLY NOW. NO SCIENCE REQUIRED!
Just CB to OB visuals with head and body positions that make it possible along with the where the tip of the cue is.
Can you do that?
If I asked you how to do it using ghost ball, contact points, or fractions, I'd be willing to bet you could with no problem. Also, no science required. They're JUST VISUALS. The way EVERYONE plays the game!
