PDA

View Full Version : Question for those that dwell on minute scientific



Vagabond
07-31-2005, 05:58 AM
shooting the ball with scientific approach:Some dwell on minute scientific details and some don`t.Actually even the players who do NOT think that they are using the science and doing it by feel are also using some science without recognizing it.
My question is:How many times u have seen the guys ,who dwell on minute Scientific details,winning even a local tournament (let alone the regionals,state and National levels)?
I do not have problem if my opponent uses measuring tapes,scales,vernier calipers etc.to make a ball provided he can do that in 20-30 seconds. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Vagabond
07-31-2005, 03:08 PM
No takers? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Cueless Joey
07-31-2005, 03:22 PM
3-cushion, most of them.
Pool, none of 'em.

Jal
07-31-2005, 04:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr> shooting the ball with scientific approach:Some dwell on minute scientific details and some don`t.Actually even the players who do NOT think that they are using the science and doing it by feel are also using some science without recognizing it.
My question is:How many times u have seen the guys ,who dwell on minute Scientific details,winning even a local tournament (let alone the regionals,state and National levels)?
I do not have problem if my opponent uses measuring tapes,scales,vernier calipers etc.to make a ball provided he can do that in 20-30 seconds. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Well, I don't know if your making the assumption that the people who are interested in the physics actually try to calculate things while playing. I expect this is not true.

Speaking for myself, I am interested and even try working out problems, but I play by feel. (Maybe I'm just not bright enough to bring the analytical stuff to the table.)

Bob Jewett was a national collegiate champion, I believe. Nick Varner went to Purdue (a science/engineering school primarily) but I don't know what he majored in. Jose Parica has an associate degree in engineering. Whether the latter two have any curiosity about the science is, of course, another matter.

But if it's a question of who to listen to, I place more trust in the science. I have several instructional videos from some of the biggest names in the game. After some initial perfunctory lessons, some of which are murky at best and even downright wrong, they then proceed to show off. As entertainment it's great, but I would have felt very ripped off had I expected too much in the way of serious teaching.

In my opinion, and along the lines you indicated, the great players know the physics very well, better than the scientists, perhaps. But it's in a form that is not as readily communicable. The physics people just try to lay it out clearly, debunking along the way the endless stream of myths that seem to surround anything that science hasn't examined. The main reason you won't see many of them at the top levels of the game is that they have day jobs, and maybe famlies. This is not compatible with playing six hours a day. But playing six hours a day probably won't help to make one a very articulate expositor of the game either.

Jim

dr_dave
07-31-2005, 04:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr> shooting the ball with scientific approach:Some dwell on minute scientific details and some don`t.Actually even the players who do NOT think that they are using the science and doing it by feel are also using some science without recognizing it.
My question is:How many times u have seen the guys ,who dwell on minute Scientific details,winning even a local tournament (let alone the regionals,state and National levels)?
I do not have problem if my opponent uses measuring tapes,scales,vernier calipers etc.to make a ball provided he can do that in 20-30 seconds. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Well, I don't know if your making the assumption that the people who are interested in the physics actually try to calculate things while playing. I expect this is not true.

Speaking for myself, I am interested and even try working out problems, but I play by feel. (Maybe I'm just not bright enough to bring the analytical stuff to the table.)

Bob Jewett was a national collegiate champion, I believe. Nick Varner went to Purdue (a science/engineering school primarily) but I don't know what he majored in. Jose Parica has an associate degree in engineering. Whether the latter two have any curiosity about the science is, of course, another matter.

But if it's a question of who to listen to, I place more trust in the science. I have several instructional videos from some of the biggest names in the game. After some initial perfunctory lessons, some of which are murky at best and even downright wrong, they then proceed to show off. As entertainment it's great, but I would have felt very ripped off had I expected too much in the way of serious teaching.

In my opinion, and along the lines you indicated, the great players know the physics very well, better than the scientists, perhaps. But it's in a form that is not as readily communicable. The physics people just try to lay it out clearly, debunking along the way the endless stream of myths that seem to surround anything that science hasn't examined. The main reason you won't see many of them at the top levels of the game is that they have day jobs, and maybe famlies. This is not compatible with playing six hours a day. But playing six hours a day probably won't help to make one a very articulate expositor of the game either.<hr /></blockquote>

Excellent post Jim.

I use my 30-degree rule peace sign (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=186845&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1) when I play (quite a lot). Does that count as a protractor?

BTW (to others), most engineers don't like being called "scientists." Engineers don't just do science. We design, build, test, and improve devices and processes. We apply science to create useful stuff that people can use. Therefore, I think of myself as a pool engineer ... not a pool scientist.

Regards,
Dave

Vagabond
07-31-2005, 05:19 PM
I loved your response and it is definitely educational to me.
I was under the impression that `Analysis causes paralysis`` and the guys who dwell on minute details of science can`t play well.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Vagabond
07-31-2005, 05:25 PM
My father told me that it is the Engineers who make Human life comfortable-laying the roads,building the bridges,designing the cars and it is an endless list.The word scientist is a highly respectable term and I am surprised at the position taken by the Engineers. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Jal
07-31-2005, 11:20 PM
Thank you very much Dr. Dave.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>
I use my 30-degree rule peace sign (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=186845&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1) when I play (quite a lot). Does that count as a protractor?<hr /></blockquote>
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>BTW (to others), most engineers don't like being called "scientists." Engineers don't just do science. We design, build, test, and improve devices and processes. We apply science to create useful stuff that people can use. Therefore, I think of myself as a pool engineer ... not a pool scientist.<hr /></blockquote>

Other then being a misnomer, I didn't realize the term might cause some offense. My apololgy and I'll try to give you engineers due credit in the future.

Jim

Jal
07-31-2005, 11:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr>...
I was under the impression that `Analysis causes paralysis`` and the guys who dwell on minute details of science can`t play well.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks Vagabond, that was very generous. I thought it was astute of you to recognize that players understand the physics more than they think (or admit!). If there are ones that obsess on the minutia though, as you said it probably does detract from their games considerably.

It's just my experience, but as far as shot making and getting shape go, the less I think the better I play. But when I'm not too lazy to do so, I find that taking a few moments between every shot to review and adjust my strategy, if necessary, helps immensely. That sort of thinking is beneficial for me.

Jim

Rod
08-01-2005, 12:11 AM
VG, I dwell on everything, just no plots or graphs!

Rod

randyg
08-01-2005, 05:23 AM
Vagabond: How are you?

"Think Long-Think Wrong"
"Paralysis by Analysis"

I think you hit a major problem right on the head. Pool &amp; Golf are very unique to each other. Good players in both sports must learn when to think, then shut it off and shoot. That's what pre-shot routines are all about. That's why Switches &amp; Triggers are introduced into our games. You are a wise man.....SPF-randyg

Fred Agnir
08-01-2005, 05:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr> My father told me that it is the Engineers who make Human life comfortable-laying the roads,building the bridges,designing the cars and it is an endless list.The word scientist is a highly respectable term and I am surprised at the position taken by the Engineers. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif <hr /></blockquote>Engineers by and large do not dislike the term "scientist." It's just that we engineers aren't scientists, plain and simple. It would be like calling a doctor a "scientist." He certainly uses what science has uncovered, but he's a doctor, not a scientist.

Fred

Fred Agnir
08-01-2005, 05:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr> shooting the ball with scientific approach:Some dwell on minute scientific details and some don`t.Actually even the players who do NOT think that they are using the science and doing it by feel are also using some science without recognizing it.
My question is:How many times u have seen the guys ,who dwell on minute Scientific details,winning even a local tournament (let alone the regionals,state and National levels)?
I do not have problem if my opponent uses measuring tapes,scales,vernier calipers etc.to make a ball provided he can do that in 20-30 seconds. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>Here's the red herring in this: to my knowledge, there isn't a player who does what you've described.

A confusing thing about these boards is that some readers assume that what is discussed (by science types) is what is brought to the table under the gun. That's complete hogwash, and frankly I'm amazed anyone would ever think such nonsense.

Most of the science-type posters throughout the years (myself included) are pool players first when it comes to pool. I know that guys like Bob Jewett and Ron Shepard, two of the foremost authorities on the physics of pool, were already winning tournaments (local, at the least) before they were degreed (matriculated).

Where I get concerned is the posters who follow (or start) the science posts that weren't/aren't already versed in the cueing arts. They, IMO, tend to muck up the works because by and large, they don't see the arguments from both sides of the fence. That is to say, IMO, one can't espouse the virtues of the science in pool without being a decent player to begin with.

Fred &lt;~~~ yeah, that's my problem

Voodoo Daddy
08-01-2005, 06:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>Engineers by and large do not dislike the term "scientist." It's just that we engineers aren't scientists, plain and simple. It would be like calling a doctor a "scientist." He certainly uses what science has uncovered, but he's a doctor, not a scientist.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Doctors call their craft "practice". Which is what we all should be doing instead of splitting cueballs like atoms, HAHAHAHA...just my veiw

Billy_Bob
08-01-2005, 06:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> ...Engineers don't just do science. We design, build, test, and improve devices and processes...<hr /></blockquote>

Exactly. Does an engineer need to win a car race to be able to design the fastest race car?

And with billiards, there is the guy who devised the leather tip. Then someone came up with vulcanized rubber for the cushions instead of stuffed horse hair or cloth. Another person came up with plastic balls instead of ivory balls.

I don't think many of the above people were "champion billiard players".

Then so far as which person's advice to follow, I have an open mind and will try different things. Then I go by what works best for me. What helps to improve my game the most.

And I think the guys who are currently** winning national tournaments are doing just that - spending all their time at tournaments and working on *their* game. They have done little or nothing to help me with *my* game.

**I do have some old books where champions from days past "tell all" and share their knowledge. And then there are a few present day pro players who post on the forums, and produce videos/books which are real gems.

dr_dave
08-01-2005, 07:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr> My father told me that it is the Engineers who make Human life comfortable-laying the roads,building the bridges,designing the cars and it is an endless list.The word scientist is a highly respectable term and I am surprised at the position taken by the Engineers. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif <hr /></blockquote>Engineers by and large do not dislike the term "scientist." It's just that we engineers aren't scientists, plain and simple. It would be like calling a doctor a "scientist." He certainly uses what science has uncovered, but he's a doctor, not a scientist.<hr /></blockquote>
Fred,

Well stated.

Dave

dr_dave
08-01-2005, 07:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr> My father told me that it is the Engineers who make Human life comfortable-laying the roads,building the bridges,designing the cars and it is an endless list.The word scientist is a highly respectable term and I am surprised at the position taken by the Engineers. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif <hr /></blockquote>
I have tremendous respect for "scientists." I just like people to know that I an "engineer" (i.e., a practitioner). We make things work, even if the science is not complete.

Dave

dr_dave
08-01-2005, 07:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>BTW (to others), most engineers don't like being called "scientists." Engineers don't just do science. We design, build, test, and improve devices and processes. We apply science to create useful stuff that people can use. Therefore, I think of myself as a pool engineer ... not a pool scientist.<hr /></blockquote>
Other then being a misnomer, I didn't realize the term might cause some offense. My apololgy and I'll try to give you engineers due credit in the future.<hr /></blockquote>
Jim,

I took no offense. I just like taking ever opportunity I can find to educate the general public about engineering. Many people don't have a clue what we do.

Regards,
Dave

SpiderMan
08-01-2005, 07:47 AM
Insightful, articulate, and informative post! Saved me ten minutes of typing.

SpiderMan

Cane
08-01-2005, 09:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Voodoo Daddy:</font><hr>Doctors call their craft "practice". Which is what we all should be doing instead of splitting cueballs like atoms, HAHAHAHA...just my veiw <hr /></blockquote>

Well said. Yeah, I'm a damn engineer, and I love to talk about the physics of the game and what happens when you do this or do that on a level that really can't be practically seen on the table, BUT, I never take that crap to the table in my concious mind. When I get to the table, I just play pool. Now, practice... different deal. Well, kind of... I don't stand there during practice and think or say "OK, if I hit this ball with one tip of follow, at 2 speed, the cue ball should leave on a line 28 from it's original line of travel" Hell, I just KNOW where the cue ball is going from years of practice and play. What I do conciously think of during practice are things like "Are you balanced? Are you finishing on the correct line? Are you hitting the cue ball where you want? Is your grip relaxed and loose? Are you aligning correctly?" etc. The important thing about this game is to practice such that things like your preshot routine, your shooting routing, your stroke, your stance, your bridge, etc are SECOND NATURE! When it comes right down to it, the science of pool is interesting and fun to know, read and argue about, but when I go to the table and see people doing little "twist right with their fingers, then twist left" to see what's going to happen with the balls, then I just smile to myself and hope they wanna play a little, because they ARE overanalyzing and if I'm playing on instinct derived from thousands of hours of practice, I'LL GET 'EM!!! It's absolutely impossible for their concious mind to reason things out better than the subconcious can, and as VoodooDaddy said Practice "is what we all should be doing &lt;snip&gt;". BUT, I'd like to add, PERFECT PRACTICE! TARGETTED PRACTICE!

Later,
Bob

Stick
08-01-2005, 10:06 AM
My dad was an engineer and growing up I always thought that meant he worked on a train (i.e. train conductor\engineer). Then he worked at a "plant" for a while, which was also very confusing.

-Stick

Vagabond
08-01-2005, 11:59 AM
Hey Fred,
Take it easy.
I was not refering to scientists or science graduates or some one who took some courses in the college.
I was refering to those guys( from a Janitor to a Lawyer)who has proclivity to apply the scientific principles on every shot and obsessed with that aspect of the game.I was asking howmany among such players win the tournaments(there always will be few).
I never saw any body bringing the Geometry tools to the table but I have seen the guys using their pool cues to measure the angles and laying the fingers on the rails to figure out the imaginary lines.I was saying that they could bring their tools to play me and show that it works.
Lastly Fred,If u think that when the science guys come to the table, they could block their scientific thinking and shoot the ball with a feel all the time,that does not pass the scientific scrutiny.Even most ROBOTS can NOT do that and may be few ROBOTS can do that.
Vagabond /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Vagabond
08-01-2005, 12:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote randyg:</font><hr> Vagabond: How are you?

"Think Long-Think Wrong"
"Paralysis by Analysis"

I think you hit a major problem right on the head. Pool &amp; Golf are very unique to each other. Good players in both sports must learn when to think, then shut it off and shoot. That's what pre-shot routines are all about. That's why Switches &amp; Triggers are introduced into our games. You are a wise man.....SPF-randyg <hr /></blockquote>

Hi randy,
Thank u very much.I stole that Quote from SJM, :a erudite poster on AZB.I am aware of that phenomenon before, but I never put it in such words like SJM.

Fred Agnir
08-01-2005, 12:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr> I was not refering to scientists or science graduates or some one who took some courses in the college.
I was refering to those guys( from a Janitor to a Lawyer)who has proclivity to apply the scientific principles on every shot and obsessed with that aspect of the game.I was asking howmany among such players win the tournaments(there always will be few).
I never saw any body bringing the Geometry tools to the table but I have seen the guys using their pool cues to measure the angles and laying the fingers on the rails to figure out the imaginary lines.I was saying that they could bring their tools to play me and show that it works.<hr /></blockquote> Then apparently I have no idea what or why you're asking. There's a world of difference between someone using their cue to find lines of aims vs. someone who is "obsessed with (the science and minutia) aspect of the game.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly Fred,If u think that when the science guys come to the table, they could block their scientific thinking and shoot the ball with a feel all the time,that does not pass the scientific scrutiny.Even most ROBOTS can NOT do that and may be few ROBOTS can do that.
Vagabond /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

<hr /></blockquote>I have again no idea what you're saying here. Of course the "science guys" when they come to the table can block out "their" scientific thinking. What makes you think they can't? How does that not "pass the scientific scrutiny?" Why would the fact that a robot can't do that ( a robot can't block out anything), somehow validate your statement?

Fred

Jal
08-01-2005, 01:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> Insightful ...<hr /></blockquote>

Thanks a lot Spiderman. If you want to add anything, I'd be most interested.

Jim

DickLeonard
08-01-2005, 03:04 PM
Voodoo Daddy, if anyone had the pleasure of watching, not playing Louie Butera in his Prime, had to know that he had mastered playing straight pool as fast as the speed of light. He wasn't guessing, he played with prescion while flying around the table.

He beat Irving Crane 150 and out in 22 minutes to win the Worlds Championship. That run could have been played on a half hour TV show with 8 minutes for ads.####

heater451
08-01-2005, 08:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr> shooting the ball with scientific approach:Some dwell on minute scientific details and some don`t.Actually even the players who do NOT think that they are using the science and doing it by feel are also using some science without recognizing it.
My question is:How many times u have seen the guys ,who dwell on minute Scientific details,winning even a local tournament (let alone the regionals,state and National levels)?
I do not have problem if my opponent uses measuring tapes,scales,vernier calipers etc.to make a ball provided he can do that in 20-30 seconds. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>It looks to me like you are stating that 1) Some people play with a/the methodical approach, 2) The "feel" players are **actually** using the same methodology, "without recognizing it". (One of the "Old Arguments", so to speak.)

But then, it appears that you are considering the "feel" players better, because one may not see the methodical players winning the weekend tourneys.

The last bit, about not minding someone using measuring devices, provided they do so in a reasonable amount of time is, of course, just your statement of your opinion. . . .

Unfortunately, I would say that a "feel" player is still part of the "method player" group, using many, if not all of the same methods, but applying them faster. To some degree, this could just be an issue of table experience---although, to add another wrinkle, I am sure that you could make a graph, relating shooting speed (as related to time between shots) to experience, and average speed/timing would relate closely with ability. You will find extremely good players, and extremely bad ones, who shoot very slowly, or very quickly.

To look at someone who takes the time to actually get out a measuring device--a graduated one, or something like calipers/dividers, I would assume that they are a novice. However, a case could be made for someone doing a study while playing, /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif. . . .

Anyway, while I know some very good feel players,I would say that most of the **consistently** better players that I know, tend to lean more toward the methodical. This is only to a point. . .but there's the rub--they still use the feedback of "feel", to let them know what's right ("feels right").

Now, to make this longer, and even more confusing, I could say that the idea of a feel player "not recognizing" that they are applying methods is inverted, as, from my perspective, the physics are really just labels for the effects, and not the cause of what happens when playing! I'm not sure if there is a "live" example for billiards, but I would guess that there is a savant out there, who can play excellently, without ever considering whether a cut angle is 15 or 30 degrees, or whether they should use a 1/4 or 1/2-ball hit. (The kicker here is, a savant probably has a "perfect vision" and can delve in the world of single-degree difference cuts /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif ). . . .[Maybe we should ask Patrick]

For the question of, "Which is better, a feel-player or a method-player?", I can't decide on an answer---The longer race **should** favor the method-player, but, if handicaps are brought in, it would even it out, so the argument could ping-pong forever! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif (You might also consider the ebb and flow of luck, as a "not-so-good" player can beat a better player, on the right day....)

This is making my head hurt. . . .



==========================================

Rich R.
08-01-2005, 09:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Voodoo Daddy, if anyone had the pleasure of watching, not playing Louie Butera in his Prime, had to know that he had mastered playing straight pool as fast as the speed of light. He wasn't guessing, he played with prescion while flying around the table.
<hr /></blockquote>Tap, Tap, Tap.
Watching Louie play was an experience to remember. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Vagabond
08-02-2005, 03:46 AM
Hi Heater 451,
U neither seem to be confused by my post nor seem to be wondering why I am posting and what am I asking.you addressed MOST of my post and U gave your opinions and explanatons very well, to my satisfaction and liking.
Vagabond /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif [list]

Vagabond
08-02-2005, 04:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr> I was not refering to scientists or science graduates or some one who took some courses in the college.
I was refering to those guys( from a Janitor to a Lawyer)who has proclivity to apply the scientific principles on every shot and obsessed with that aspect of the game.I was asking howmany among such players win the tournaments(there always will be few).
I never saw any body bringing the Geometry tools to the table but I have seen the guys using their pool cues to measure the angles and laying the fingers on the rails to figure out the imaginary lines.I was saying that they could bring their tools to play me and show that it works.<hr /></blockquote> Then apparently I have no idea what or why you're asking. There's a world of difference between someone using their cue to find lines of aims vs. someone who is "obsessed with (the science and minutia) aspect of the game.

Fred,
<font color="red"> </font color> I thought that I expressed in simple English and I do not know why u have to be confused.There is NO world of difference between the guys that use the tools and the guys that are obsessed with science and minutia.Using the tools is a behaviral manifestation of their thinking and obsession. <font color="red"> </font color> [b]It does not mean that every obsessed player will bring the tools. <font color="red"> </font color> we do not need to reinvent the wheels.It was already a proven fact that human behavior is influenced by their knowledge and thinking and motives etc.The behavior of hitting the balls definitely will be influenced by their obsession with science.The issue does not require further debate.
Vagabond

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Lastly Fred,If u think that when the science guys come to the table, they could block their scientific thinking and shoot the ball with a feel all the time,that does not pass the scientific scrutiny.Even most ROBOTS can NOT do that and may be few ROBOTS can do that.
Vagabond /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

<hr /></blockquote>I have again no idea what you're saying here. Of course the "science guys" when they come to the table can block out "their" scientific thinking. What makes you think they can't? How does that not "pass the scientific scrutiny?" Why would the fact that a robot can't do that ( a robot can't block out anything), somehow validate your statement?
Fred [ quote ]

<font color="blue"> </font color> [b]Fred, are u saying that the science guys do not bring all their science to the table?Then what is the point in having that knowledge if it can`t be put into use. Is it only to advise the others but not using it for themselves?

Fred,
<font color="pink"> </font color> I will post about Robots some other time
I hope that I typed the stuff well.I am not wellversed with the computers or typing. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Vagabond
08-02-2005, 04:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>Engineers by and large do not dislike the term "scientist." It's just that we engineers aren't scientists, plain and simple. It would be like calling a doctor a "scientist." He certainly uses what science has uncovered, but he's a doctor, not a scientist.
Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Fred,
My original post did not mention anything about Engineers.Some one later tossed that into the broth.your opinions on who can and can`t be called a Scientist is debatable and is not that simple as u think.
Vagabond /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Vagabond
08-02-2005, 05:10 AM
Scientific knowledge has some limitations for its application in your every day practice.It is good and valuable only in ideal conditions.Most of the times the pool game is not played in such conditions.There are many variables and scietists will have tough time addressing all the variables(I will list them at the end).These variables have statistically significant influence which we all know.Occurence of these variables is not rare and infact they are very common.Given their frequent occurence definitely limits the application of science with accuracy.
Some of the variables:
(A)Lack of consistency of rubber on a individual table and from table to table.Every one knows the effects of lack of consistency
(B)the thickness of the chalk on the Tip of the cue stick
(C)Dirt on the object balls
(D)Humidity in the room
(E)Dirt,nap,lint,on the cloth
I have not seen even in the pro tournament where the game is played under ideal conditions.Scientic data comes mostly,I guess, from Scientific Labs where every variable is taken care off.Pool is played for most part in Non ideal conditions and hence I will not dwell on science but I will use it as a guideline
PS:Usually I stay away posting on technical aspects of pool,but I thought that I will post once.
Cheers
Vagabond /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Fred Agnir
08-02-2005, 05:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>Engineers by and large do not dislike the term "scientist." It's just that we engineers aren't scientists, plain and simple. It would be like calling a doctor a "scientist." He certainly uses what science has uncovered, but he's a doctor, not a scientist.
Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Fred,
My original post did not mention anything about Engineers.Some one later tossed that into the broth.your opinions on who can and can`t be called a Scientist is debatable and is not that simple as u think.
Vagabond /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif
<hr /></blockquote>I think you must be having a tough day. Obviously, my post was only addressing the false notion that somehow engineers did not like being addressed as scientists. Digressing in threads happens often. Each point that comes up can and will be addressed by many.

It's also pretty obvious that you're not reading my posts clearly. I made no judgement or opinion on who can or can't be called anything.

Fred

DickLeonard
08-02-2005, 05:32 AM
Rich R, I played Louie in the 1967 US Open, I sat in the chair for 10 minutes and I was 93 balls down. Some players wouldn't have run two racks in that time. I can't remember the final score but I do remember that the speed of which he played had totally disrupted my equalibrium.####

Fred Agnir
08-02-2005, 05:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr> Fred,
<font color="red"> </font color> I thought that I expressed in simple English and I do not know why u have to be confused. <hr /></blockquote> I read Heater's reply, and he seems to have replied exactly the same way I did. So, either both of us are under the same hypnosis, or something else.


[ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> </font color> Fred, are u saying that the science guys do not bring all their science to the table?Then what is the point in having that knowledge if it can`t be put into use. <hr /></blockquote>

??? I thought you even replied in your own post that you understood this to be false. Most "science guys" use the science as explanations, not instruction. Yes, there are many who use that knowledge as learning and instruction, but that's a WORLD of difference between the use of science in learning and "obsessing on the table."

In case you have forgotten, I am a "science guy." But when I'm on the table in a match, I am a player. It's the hopes of all true players that all the practice (science or not) prepares them such that when they are in action, it all comes naturally. If someone is still in the process of bringing practice material to the table during a match, they are doomed. But, like I said, I never see any decent player doing this.

And using a stick as a device for splitting angles is something non-science types do.

I think you need to print my answer out and read it over and over. Same with your post. It's confusing.

This is what you're original post said:

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr>shooting the ball with scientific approach:Some dwell on minute scientific details and some don`t<hr /></blockquote>
This already is a red herring. So, now what answer could you possibly be looking for when your original premise is by and large incorrect? Who do you think is dwelling on the minutia when they're shooting the balls? I'll answer: nobody.

Fred

Fred Agnir
08-02-2005, 05:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr> Fred,
<font color="pink"> </font color> I will post about Robots some other time
I hope that I typed the stuff well.I am not wellversed with the computers or typing. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif <hr /></blockquote>And in case you didn't know, for my job, I'm an Automation and Robotics Engineer for a plastics manufacturing company.

Fred

Fran Crimi
08-02-2005, 08:27 AM
Vagabond,

Here are more variables to add to your list:

1.) Physical condition of the player, such as, blood sugar levels at various times of day, blood thickness at varying times of day, fatigue, amount of intake and influences of certain foods such as caffine, eyesight, joint stiffness and pain, etc....

2.) Mental condition of the player: Mood on that particular day, personal problems, tendency towards certain behavior patterns, self esteem, etc.

3.)The effect of outside and inside climate on the player: Humidity, cold, hot, etc.

There are many, many more significant variables.

The best players in pool play by feel. There is absolutely no question about that and people who feel otherwise are unfortunately, badly mistaken. Top notch players make adjustments every day to account for any number of variables that may be in play on any given day. Their assessment of the current situation as well as their adjustments are all made by feel.

You cannot calculate the speed of your stroke. You can only feel it. You can not calculate how heavy or light your cue feels in your hand on any given day. The list of incalculables is endless.

Unfortunately, a new generation of pool students is emerging who dote on every word put out by the scientific community. What they are not getting is that along with other variables, you must take the player out of the game when you talk scientific theory. How do you shoot pool without a player? It's simple. You don't.

Fran

Rich R.
08-02-2005, 08:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Rich R, I played Louie in the 1967 US Open, I sat in the chair for 10 minutes and I was 93 balls down. Some players wouldn't have run two racks in that time. I can't remember the final score but I do remember that the speed of which he played had totally disrupted my equalibrium.#### <hr /></blockquote>
Dick, sometime around 1968-1970, I worked for Louie in his pool room, in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. So, I got to see him play many times.

During that period, he was in a car accident and suffered whip lash. As a result, he was unable to play for many months.

After getting the approval from his doctor, he came in one day, went to his favorite table, with fast cloth and tight pockets, to practice. He didn't do well, left and didn't play any more.

A couple of weeks later, he decided to try again.

He came in, went to the same table, racked the balls and set up a break shot.

When the dust settled, Louie had run 160, before missing.
He smiled, picked up his stuff and left again.

I don't remember how long it took, but I can tell you, it didn't take very long. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

I never could figure out how he could run 160, after not playing for so many months. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
I never will figure out how he played so fast. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

pooltchr
08-02-2005, 09:49 AM
Fran,
Great points! We (instructors) always need to keep in mind that it is much more than just the physical aspects that we need to teach. So much is mental and emotional, that failing to address these areas is short changing a student. Sometimes I think that on forums such as this, the trend is to try break everything down to cold hard facts. The truth is the players themselves are not cold hard machines, and the human characteristics can have as big an impact on the game as which cue tip you have on which cue, or whether or not your pinky finger is at the "correct" spot on the cue.
It's a GAME played by REAL PEOPLE.
Steve

heater451
08-02-2005, 05:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> . . . .The best players in pool play by feel. There is absolutely no question about that and people who feel otherwise are unfortunately, badly mistaken. Top notch players make adjustments every day to account for any number of variables that may be in play on any given day. Their assessment of the current situation as well as their adjustments are all made by feel.

You cannot calculate the speed of your stroke. You can only feel it. You can not calculate how heavy or light your cue feels in your hand on any given day. The list of incalculables is endless.

Unfortunately, a new generation of pool students is emerging who dote on every word put out by the scientific community. What they are not getting is that along with other variables, you must take the player out of the game when you talk scientific theory. How do you shoot pool without a player? It's simple. You don't.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>Fran, my earlier post puts more faith in the methodical players, over "feel", but I really see them as very similar.

I think that the unconscious calculation done by the brain, reinforced by experience, and repetition of correct experience, is what creates "feel".

Everything that you are saying above, I would agree with, but I think that adding the concept of "conscious calculation" clears your points--for me, anyway. For example, you don't consciously decide to stroke at a specific, measured rate, but if you measured your (basic) stroke speed, I would bet it to be fairly consistent for the shot you are taking.

To give an table example, I learned how do pull a 90-degree carom angle (that is, 90-deg between the stroke line and the movement of the cue ball after contact) by experimenting with draw/sidespin on the cue ball. Seeing the correlation between where, and how hard, I struck the cue ball and where it went, I learned what combination of draw/side/speed yielded the angle I wanted. And, although I never drilled myself on the shot, I believe that I have enough experience to shoot this shot by feel. It of course doesn't mean I hit it right every time (not enough serious practice), but I've shot it enough to think "that's about right" when I cue up for a shot like this.

I think, when it comes to the "science", then it's not required, but can't hurt.

A quick analogy that leaps to mind, is counter-steering a car that's sliding. Driving school tells one to, "turn in the direction of the slide", which doesn't make much sense, on its own. However, anyone who's driven much on ice, or power-oversteered their car in a wet parking lot for fun, immediately understands how "turning in the direction of the slide" feels.

Lastly, something I hinted at in the other post, is that the science/geometry/physics tools are best applied after the fact. Shooting, and then using the feedback of the aforementioned 'tools' to analyze the results, is what creates a self-perpetuating loop of improvement. Ignoring these results will probably cause a plateau, or decline.

A question, for you instructors: How do you teach "feel"? Or, do you have to teach the "science" of shooting, and hope the student makes the connection?

Apologies up front, if any of this seems argumentative, as I am not trying to be. Long-winded, I can't always help. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif



============================================

heater451
08-02-2005, 05:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> I read Heater's reply, and he seems to have replied exactly the same way I did. So, either both of us are under the same hypnosis, or something else.<hr /></blockquote>We did, although I took a lot more space to do it. . . .
And, Cane kind of said the same thing too, although he framed it as personal experience.

Unfortunately, these "written" forums still lack the ability to convey emotion well (smileys help), and they are just as bad as spoke word, at relating what someone "means", versus what they "say". . . .


==================================

stickman
08-02-2005, 11:54 PM
I personally think that an understanding of why and how certain things work is good, but only to a point. Only when a player has the experience and a developed feel to execute the gained knowledge instinctively, will a person become great or even good. It is terribly difficult to play great pool when a person is analyzing every move. To play great requires that you must be concentrating on just playing. Knowledge can assist learning new skills, but can't replace feel gained through experience. Some things can only be experienced, in my opinion.

pooltchr
08-03-2005, 05:25 AM
Stickman,
This is exactly why you need to have separate practice and play routines. Too many people just throw balls out on the table and shoot and think they are practicing. Practice is the time to analyze, think, repair, and adjust. If you practice properly, the things you practice become routine habits. Then when you are in a match, those things you practiced become an automatic part of your game, and you can just play without worrying if your alignment is right, or your elbow is dropping, or all those other things that can be a distraction during a match. Practice and play are two totally different animals.
Steve

Fran Crimi
08-04-2005, 09:02 AM
Quote Heater: "I think that the unconscious calculation done by the brain, reinforced by experience, and repetition of correct experience, is what creates "feel"."

Very well thought out and good description of "feel", IMO.

Yes, the learning process does contain a lot of conscious thought as the player explores different things on the table and gauges the results. However, I have found that more and more players are unnecessarily overemphasizing the conscious end of the process.

So how do you teach feel?

The approach to teaching feel depends entirely on the student's personality. For example, players who are obsessive about controlling their environment (in lay terms: control freaks) will be more resistant to giving up conscious control at some point. On the other hand, players who tend to be lazy will be only too willing to just shoot without applying any kind of correct methodology to teach themselves the "right" feel as opposed to the wrong feel which would eventually have to be corrected. It would probably be best to help these types with the benefits of a solid work-ethic and more conscious learning.

Then you have the "naturals" who don't think much consciously, but everything falls into place nicely for them, who don't need stance adjustments or alignment adjustments, whose feel tends to be mostly right with very little wrong. They just need to keep playing.

Every practice session should include a period of time where the player simply just shoots, without analyzing, without judging, just shooting. It would need to be a longer period for controlling types and shorter for lazy types. This would help train the player in being able to 'let go' on demand, which will help to let go in the heat of competition, where the most common flaw is to try to consciously control every movement, every action, which we refer to as second-gessing or overthinking.

That's the basic idea, but as you can imagine, it gets much more complicated than that and it really involves understanding the personailities of your students in great detail.

Fran