I've said repeatedly that I don't have experience with systems, so there really wasn't any sleuth like deduction on your part here.
This circular logic is common.
Basically in decision making one perspective is that people decide largely on the basis of emotion and then justify with logic.
If challenged about their decisions their inclination is to dig in and defend their decisions based on logic.
I was the HAMB guy who developed my game through trial and error and trying to get a feel for parts of what I wanted to do.
It wasn’t until I immersed myself in a systematic way into dealing with each problem associated with aiming, from throw to speed, to cut angle, distance, draw, follow or stun, each had its challenges when it came to producing a single consistent treatment of aiming and delivering the cue that overcame those factors on the average shot, using only one method/process.
One way to handle shots not needing anything except follow, draw or stun, regardless of speed, distance or cut angle.
I also borrowed from Dr. Dave for most shots needing outside english, I use his gearing english.
This reduced the number of shots that were left to a handful, situation specific, much easier than the million, inferred in HAMB.
So yes I moved away from trial and error into the realm of problem solving and troubleshooting.
Eliminating problems proactively is part of what Joan Vickers identified, that the best did, by dealing with the uniqueness of situations.
There has been a mentality of doing the same things over and over again, in most methods, that gets inconsistent results once, throw, angle, distance, stun, draw or follow, and speed changes are introduced.
Using their methodology you need a different way of handling each variable or combination. There is the old adage of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of madness.
The problem is that traditional methods do a version of that and so do we when we try to apply a trial and error solution on one shot, to another shot at a different distance, or speed or cut angle, or a combination of those,
Each is a different perspective and as Einstein revealed, relative to the criteria and problems found there.
A systematic approach was needed to actually find
principles and processes that were able to be carried from one context into the next to create situational consistency.
Instead of defending and justifying what I used to do, I made it part of a new way of going about my aiming methods.
Growing is just that, it’s not throwing out what works and can be used, it’s adding to the toolbox.