Aiming / alignment down the stick or more "on top"?

[Low500]

A player may not be seeing what he thinks he's seeing

As I reached middle age, I noticed I began missing cut shots more often...shots that I'd previously had a high percentage of potting. I went to an ophthalmologist for an eye exam.
Eyes checked out okay...all she recommended were some cheap readers for reading a book, etc. Everything else was okay vision wise.
I explained my problems. She informed me that as we get older our depth perception changes. What we think we see standing up may be quite different when down in the shooting position. The angles the eyes see are different according to our stances.
I didn't buy into a lot of that so I got two more medical opinions and the doctors all concurred with her analysis.
I still was not satisfied (the problem continued) so I got instructions/counseling from a Brit snooker expert. And we all know how good they pot those balls on those monster snooker tables. Diagnosis: Straight stroke, good stance, follow through, all that stuff...........but still missing cut shots. Then he suggested I diagnose the angle of the cut in standup stance, (I was using the old fashioned "Mosconi mathematical fraction method" then).....but after getting down on the shot, line it up as a straight in and then move the cuestick to the predetermined angle while at the shooting position at the table.
Bingo! The balls started going into the pockets as in my younger years. This remains consistent after years of practicing it.
When I stumbled on to this CTE aiming deal, I had reservations. But I found that by getting the 15-30-45-60 degree perceptions in standup stance, I could easily transfer that knowledge to the cue when down in shooting position just as before I ever heard of the stuff.
This isn't about CTE.
This is about the concept that what a player sees standing up, may not be the same thing his eyes see when he's down on that shot.........if the guy is getting some age on him. Therefore the information that the eyes send to the brain for shot execution may be incorrect. And...he doesn't even know it. So he starts 'correcting' other things, which ends up compounding the felony and making things worse.
This post is for those with a somewhat open mind. (the haters, the un-informed, troublemakers, and know-it-alls are on 'ignore' anyway, so no need for them to reply to me whatsoever)
This is for intelligent discussion, if someone chooses that avenue.

 

[BC21]

.....
.......

This is about the concept that what a player sees standing up, may not be the same thing his eyes see when he's down on that shot.........if the guy is getting some age on him. Therefore the information that the eyes send to the brain for shot execution may be incorrect. And...he doesn't even know it. So he starts 'correcting' other things, which ends up compounding the felony and making things worse.
This post is for those with a somewhat open mind. (the haters, the un-informed, troublemakers, and know-it-alls are on 'ignore' anyway, so no need for them to reply to me whatsoever)
This is for intelligent discussion, if someone chooses that avenue.

Good post.

 

[LAMas]

I use my stick to help identify the angles.

 

[paultex]

The baseball study is very interesting. But, I'm going disagree slightly with the above. My experience has been that having your dominant eye over the cue, or having whatever feels comfortable over the cue, does not mean that the cue is set up straight in line with the shot. In my case the cue was crooked at set up, and I straightened it out with a small swoop during the stroke. I was very accurate in pocketing balls doing it this way (I believe it broke down as I hit harder and harder strokes). In shooting that way the inside corner of my left eye was over the cue. Now I shoot with the inside corner of my right eye over the cue and it feels completely normal. When I try to go back to the old way, it looks totally off. I had to find a position where the set up of the cue felt straight and was straight, and where the stroke felt straight and was straight. I may refine this again down the road, but my point is that it isn't really fair to compare your "normal" cue position to a new one because the new one will always feel unnatural and may not produce better results until enough shots are made to ingrain the new visual set up.

Or I could be wrong...

You are only wrong in some cases but not most. So if a consensus is trying to be reached, then I think you are right.

Dominant eye is more fact than theory. I really don't know why there is so much discussion or argument over it as if it's a CTE witch hunt.

In general:

FACT: Dominant eye has a strong effect on perception, thus the eyes see and the brain follows. Battleing or not lining up more with dominant eye will tend to swoop or curve the stroke toward the image the dominant eye is seeing, despite a blended comfortable vision of both eyes.

FACT: A person can override what the brain wants to do in this case but the visual will be more of shooting at a double image or a redirection of stroke delivery when making final stroke or a blend of both. Or a trust of shooting varying ball widths of aim to the left or right of actual aim point etc etc. These things listed are obviously a complicated remedy but far better than the other alternative of a swoop stroke.

I personally have not seen a high level player with a swoop or curved stroke.

FACT: Most if not all good players get low to the cue and shoot under or more toward the dominant eye.

CONCLUSION: Dominant eye is more real than opinion. If someone wants to defy that, I say go for it and I believe it can be conquered but if someone says dominant eye is bullshyte, I'm not going to bother debating.

CONCLUSION: If one is left eye dominant and shoots right handed (myself) and shoots under that dominant eye (I personally shoot dead center under left dominant eye), it's not optimal. It truly isn't and I can list a few facts as to why, but I don't have time right now and I'm not here to talk as if I'm a guru, I'm just interested in giving my opinion and conjecture, based on my own personal journey.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, in my case, like many others, the best avenue would be to shoot with right eye OR shoot left handed.

I may delve into the right eye side again but from what I tried, it's a very tough blurry image of sorts because I believe the dominant left eye is that strong of a factor and, I'll concede, that I spent too much time switching to left eye, that it could be making a right eye switch over too difficult but I'm not exactly sure.

This is all in relation to "dominant eye" litterally.

Some don't have a dominant eye or only have a slightly dominant eye. I'm not talking about those cases, only most cases where like myself, we have a definite dominant eye.

 

[paultex]

As I reached middle age, I noticed I began missing cut shots more often...shots that I'd previously had a high percentage of potting. I went to an ophthalmologist for an eye exam.
Eyes checked out okay...all she recommended were some cheap readers for reading a book, etc. Everything else was okay vision wise.
I explained my problems. She informed me that as we get older our depth perception changes. What we think we see standing up may be quite different when down in the shooting position. The angles the eyes see are different according to our stances.
I didn't buy into a lot of that so I got two more medical opinions and the doctors all concurred with her analysis.
I still was not satisfied (the problem continued) so I got instructions/counseling from a Brit snooker expert. And we all know how good they pot those balls on those monster snooker tables. Diagnosis: Straight stroke, good stance, follow through, all that stuff...........but still missing cut shots. Then he suggested I diagnose the angle of the cut in standup stance, (I was using the old fashioned "Mosconi mathematical fraction method" then).....but after getting down on the shot, line it up as a straight in and then move the cuestick to the predetermined angle while at the shooting position at the table.
Bingo! The balls started going into the pockets as in my younger years. This remains consistent after years of practicing it.
When I stumbled on to this CTE aiming deal, I had reservations. But I found that by getting the 15-30-45-60 degree perceptions in standup stance, I could easily transfer that knowledge to the cue when down in shooting position just as before I ever heard of the stuff.
This isn't about CTE.
This is about the concept that what a player sees standing up, may not be the same thing his eyes see when he's down on that shot.........if the guy is getting some age on him. Therefore the information that the eyes send to the brain for shot execution may be incorrect. And...he doesn't even know it. So he starts 'correcting' other things, which ends up compounding the felony and making things worse.
This post is for those with a somewhat open mind. (the haters, the un-informed, troublemakers, and know-it-alls are on 'ignore' anyway, so no need for them to reply to me whatsoever)
This is for intelligent discussion, if someone chooses that avenue.

Yeah this is good stuff and I feel compelled to list one fact I previously said in my last post that I didn't have time to write but I'll just say real quick:

If you (for example), shoot right handed over left dominant eye, if you "cut" to the left, because your right eye is now to the right of the cut angle, you will generally over cut on a miss.

Cutting to the right will generally miss thick.

When I say "generally", it means it's a factor that must be noted.

I am working on remedies for this that are pretty simple but have not determined yet which route I personally want to go.

I repeat, if one thinks about it, in my case of right handed/left dominant eye, one can see why it's better to shoot with right eye (if possible) or shoot left handed.

 

[Dan White]

You are only wrong in some cases but not most. So if a consensus is trying to be reached, then I think you are right.

Dominant eye is more fact than theory. I really don't know why there is so much discussion or argument over it as if it's a CTE witch hunt.

In general:

FACT: Dominant eye has a strong effect on perception, thus the eyes see and the brain follows. Battleing or not lining up more with dominant eye will tend to swoop or curve the stroke toward the image the dominant eye is seeing, despite a blended comfortable vision of both eyes.

FACT: Most if not all good players get low to the cue and shoot under or more toward the dominant eye.

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying. Of course, yes, there is such a thing as a dominant eye. It is very easy to tell which eye is dominant. On the other hand, it is a leap of logic to say that simply because you have your dominant eye above the cue, that for some reason you will now be able to stroke the cue straight back and straight forward. And looking at it from the other point of view, where is it written that you can only stroke the cue straight if you have your dominant eye over the cue. This is demonstrably false.

Regarding your fact 1 above, I think you'd be hard pressed to prove this. I think it is more conjecture than fact. If you have any evidence it would be very interesting. I don't see that happening in personal experience.

Regarding fact 2 above, I think most pro players do not have their dominant eye over the cue.

Mosconi shot right handed with left eye over the cue and he did just fine. Was he left eye dominant? Everybody assumes so, but not necessarily. Whatever issues you have may be unrelated to that.

 

[paultex]

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying. Of course, yes, there is such a thing as a dominant eye. It is very easy to tell which eye is dominant. On the other hand, it is a leap of logic to say that simply because you have your dominant eye above the cue, that for some reason you will now be able to stroke the cue straight back and straight forward. And looking at it from the other point of view, where is it written that you can only stroke the cue straight if you have your dominant eye over the cue. This is demonstrably false.

Regarding your fact 1 above, I think you'd be hard pressed to prove this. I think it is more conjecture than fact. If you have any evidence it would be very interesting. I don't see that happening in personal experience.

Regarding fact 2 above, I think most pro players do not have their dominant eye over the cue.

Mosconi shot right handed with left eye over the cue and he did just fine. Was he left eye dominant? Everybody assumes so, but not necessarily. Whatever issues you have may be unrelated to that.

Sorry, I know I'm hard to understand and:

FACT: It turns people off or most in general. I am not a teacher, just a student of the game and I'm so deeply involved in this personal journey, mostly alone, I've had to really experiment with a lot of trial and experiment and plenty of observation.

The people I have helped in person, I found, many or most (small sample size) share a lot of commonalities and we aren't as individual as some may believe. Also, combined with observation of how even good players have a "miss bias" side of an angle, I believe the commonality factor I stated has merit.

My wording is pretty clear but sort of like all the fine writing in a contract most never bother reading lol. I used the word "tend" which is a loaded word but it's too hard to encompass everything in quick detail about what is a curved or swooping stroke.

When I get people to line up under their dominant eye, if they have a curve in their stroke, it definitely straightens out to a meaningful degree, completely suggesting that the curve in the first place is due to a battle of left/right eye information to the brain. I believe this is also why many do not like to shoot center ball because, and amazingly I've heard this many times from people, their stroke feels wobbly.

So that right there in of itself I believe helps my claim because they can stroke pretty straight off center, so there is a perception issue of sorts where the brain is confused and subsequently a wobbly stroke.

These are just some of my data compilations that have ultimately lead me from speculation to conclusion and then fact but obviously in pertinence to the aspects i am addressing.

Obviously a grip adjustment can be a remedy, but that's not what I'm talking about but I do a horrible job of making things concise but I figure those who are interested or can share, will understand and or inquire or disagree with rationale and all that helps me tremendously.

I now have well over 3000 hours of alignment and perception under my belt in about 8 months and mostly on the table. I basically solved everything now to the extent of virtual complete understanding, but I still have a few ticks I have to resolve. It's mostly sequence combinations of address vs cb/ob relationship. There's so many different shots and requirements and it's hard to remember or distinguish what one thing does vs slight cue elevation to a cut angle to the left but I want the cb to deflect a certain way etc etc.

It's been hell.

I concluded I may have to chart it all in a binder of solutions to shot equations and then memorize them. Shouldn't be too hard.

 

[paultex]

Also back to the pro claim of dominant eye, yes I believe most shoot that way because, for what ever reason being taught or whatever, their head and eye relationship over the cue is not common in comparison to the recreational player or decent players under "semi pro" type levels if you understand.

So when I was really unaware a few years ago and heard a strong semi pro player say "most people's stroke sux" but meaning the stroke itself is the issue, I got the heavy side of five figures to bet, if perameters could be arranged in the bet, that overall he is wrong.

I will bet heavy that the main problem is "alignment" starting from eye address. Ehhhhhh, basically. I'm just stating it in simple terms to conclude my posts for today and now.....back to the table.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Mosconi shot right handed with left eye over the cue and he did just fine. Was he left eye dominant? Everybody assumes so, but not necessarily. Whatever issues you have may be unrelated to that.

Well if his left eye was over the cue, then yes he probably was left eye dominant.

That's not exactly a big leap to make.

Perhaps you'd care to explain why you don't think he was necessarily left eye dominant.

 

[Dan White]

Well if his left eye was over the cue, then yes he probably was left eye dominant.

That's not exactly a big leap to make.

Perhaps you'd care to explain why you don't think he was necessarily left eye dominant.

I already did in post number 7. Given that he had no real advanced instruction he probably did what felt natural and is left eye dominant. On the other hand maybe he did what he could do to reach the table standing on a peach crate at the age of 7 and developed a habit of cueing under his left eye. The point I was making is that you don't have to cue under your dominant eye to have a straight stroke, and often will NOT have a straight stroke if you do. Play for a week with the cue dead center between both eyes. Then go back to your normal eye position and tell me if it doesn't look strange all of a sudden.

 

[Dan White]

I now have well over 3000 hours of alignment and perception under my belt in about 8 months and mostly on the table. I basically solved everything now to the extent of virtual complete understanding, but I still have a few ticks I have to resolve.

I'm actually interested to delve into your post more carefully when I have the time, but I had to react to this one quick thing. To fit 3000 hrs of "alignment and perception" (whatever that means) into 8 months you'd have to be "aligning and percepting" for 12 hours per day 7 days per week. Care to rephrase?

 

[paultex]

I'm actually interested to delve into your post more carefully when I have the time, but I had to react to this one quick thing. To fit 3000 hrs of "alignment and perception" (whatever that means) into 8 months you'd have to be "aligning and percepting" for 12 hours per day 7 days per week. Care to rephrase?

Sorry, I wouldnt know how to rephrase it. I put alot of work into understanding what "it" means when formulating solution to cb static destination.

Are you the guy who did this video? I assume you are because the youtube account name is dwhite300.

Where do you get that program to produce those line calculations? Thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpljeVvOqRs&t=81s

 

[M.G.]

I've been struggling with my head position since I'm really heavily right eye dominant. Are there any drills to help find a good head/eye alignment?

The other thing I was wondering is to get get down almost touching the cue so as you use the shaft as an alignment aid or to stay more on top... any pros/cons to either way?

Thanks

- Aiming is a combination of both the situation on top (walk about the table) and down on the shot.
- Only ever down on the stick, chin to stick, like the snooker guys to it.
- right hand, right eye should work out OK
- even that old guy "Barry the Snooker coach" is able to bend down

Check his videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSVc5gvvlmc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTGMMhHfQ6U

Cheers,
M

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Are you the guy who did this video? I assume you are because the youtube account name is dwhite300.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpljeVvOqRs&t=81s

dwhite300 once bowled a perfect game of 300. He's a far, far better bowler than he is pool player, instructor, or pool diagnostician.

He obsesses with the stroke in pool and it's turned into his lifelong focus but he apparently knew what this pro bowler was talking about regarding the "stroke".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSojVNSVAJc

But, I gotta give him credit where credit is due. A perfect 300 is pretty stout. He missed his calling as a pro bowler. :thumbup:

 

[paultex]

dwhite300 once bowled a perfect game of 300. He's a far, far better bowler than he is pool player, instructor, or pool diagnostician.

He obsesses with the stroke in pool and it's turned into his lifelong focus but he apparently knew what this pro bowler was talking about regarding the "stroke".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSojVNSVAJc

But, I gotta give him credit where credit is due. A perfect 300 is pretty stout. He missed his calling as a pro bowler. :thumbup:

Are you Viffer by the way?

Hopefully I get an answer about that line calculation program, I am very interested in a tool like that and how to use it.

I spoke in a previous post about "commonalities".

Did you or anyone else happen to catch the POV live stream last night at the west state tour event at California Billiards?

Pagulyan/Shaw finals, 10 ball, race to 13. Pagulyon is on the hill, runs out to the 9 and is left with "one of those shots"....thats what I call it. I tried to find the complete match on youtube but it doesnt go all the way to the end as far as i can see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnOkeOQYSJw

Too bad I can't find the damn thing because it's a perfect example of a commonality "miss", where perception, based on cb/ob positional relationship AND positional requirement of static cb rest after launch point, dictates a peculiar bias that is quite annoying.

The shot is often missed thick by lesser players and more accomplished players tend to make it OR miss it thin because of that inherent thickness phenomenon of the entire equation.

I don't think Alex "choked", even though tension does play a part and I'm sure he was feeling it and it probably bit him in the arse......who cares. He didnt jump at delivery, he shot it like a man, that's all that counts IMO.

However, why did I see that miss coming that way if there isn't commonality?... and that's my point.

He got caught in what I call, "in between ticks" of contact point or however one formulates a delivery system.

This is why I put 1000's of hours into alignment and perception and situate this analysis into a real world working delivery system. I know for a fact, on that particular shot, because I'm so aware of just about every nuance, I can line up with a simple foot step adjustment, while maintaining a foundational shaft angle (1 of 3, in this case, a straight angle), and still fall into the shot with a comfortable thick visual instead of an over cut visual......and still hit it the required thinness.

I'm not saying I'm doing it right and Alex wrong. Results is what matters and I'm not a world beater like he is.

All I'm saying, is there is a lot of human commonalities in this game and much of it is perception based and these particular shots don't have to have a "own your ass" universal quality to them.

I believe beyond a doubt, most shots such as the one described, can be made comfortably and not be such a hair off success/failure proposition.

 

[Dan White]

Sorry, I wouldnt know how to rephrase it. I put alot of work into understanding what "it" means when formulating solution to cb static destination.

Are you the guy who did this video? I assume you are because the youtube account name is dwhite300.

Where do you get that program to produce those line calculations? Thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpljeVvOqRs&t=81s

There are a couple of apps to do that. For Android phones I use Coach's Eye. I phones have a different app but I don't know the name.

 

[Low500]

Are you Viffer by the way?
Hopefully I get an answer about that line calculation program, I am very interested in a tool like that and how to use it.
I spoke in a previous post about "commonalities".
Did you or anyone else happen to catch the POV live stream last night at the west state tour event at California Billiards?
Pagulyan/Shaw finals, 10 ball, race to 13. Pagulyon is on the hill, runs out to the 9 and is left with "one of those shots"....thats what I call it. I tried to find the complete match on youtube but it doesnt go all the way to the end as far as i can see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnOkeOQYSJw
Too bad I can't find the damn thing because it's a perfect example of a commonality "miss", where perception, based on cb/ob positional relationship AND positional requirement of static cb rest after launch point, dictates a peculiar bias that is quite annoying.
The shot is often missed thick by lesser players and more accomplished players tend to make it OR miss it thin because of that inherent thickness phenomenon of the entire equation.
I don't think Alex "choked", even though tension does play a part and I'm sure he was feeling it and it probably bit him in the arse......who cares. He didnt jump at delivery, he shot it like a man, that's all that counts IMO.
However, why did I see that miss coming that way if there isn't commonality?... and that's my point.
He got caught in what I call, "in between ticks" of contact point or however one formulates a delivery system.
This is why I put 1000's of hours into alignment and perception and situate this analysis into a real world working delivery system. I know for a fact, on that particular shot, because I'm so aware of just about every nuance, I can line up with a simple foot step adjustment, while maintaining a foundational shaft angle (1 of 3, in this case, a straight angle), and still fall into the shot with a comfortable thick visual instead of an over cut visual......and still hit it the required thinness.
I'm not saying I'm doing it right and Alex wrong. Results is what matters and I'm not a world beater like he is.
All I'm saying, is there is a lot of human commonalities in this game and much of it is perception based and these particular shots don't have to have a "own your ass" universal quality to them.
I believe beyond a doubt, most shots such as the one described, can be made comfortably and not be such a hair off success/failure proposition.

Very well written and quite eloquently presented.
Seeing as how I am one of the dumbest pool shooters alive, what does all this have to do with making a ball?
You lost me at the word "commonality".
:scratchhead:

 

[LAMas]

Very well written and quite eloquently presented.
Seeing as how I am one of the dumbest pool shooters alive, what does all this have to do with making a ball?
You lost me at the word "commonality".
:scratchhead:

Long story short, he blinked and dogged it....easy for me.

 

[paultex]

Very well written and quite eloquently presented.
Seeing as how I am one of the dumbest pool shooters alive, what does all this have to do with making a ball?
You lost me at the word "commonality".
:scratchhead:

I'm not stating anything revolutionary or reinventing a wheel when I state a concept of commonality. It simply means we share a certain disposition or propensity to execute a particular way to a meaningful extent that has to be noted if "solve" is the final equation of an endeavor. If there is commonality, then there is a direction that can lead to solve.

For instance, in golf, if you are a consistent slicer, that is a far better problem than sporadically mishitting left and right. If something is consistent, then the solve is theoretically easier.

There is no doubt about it:

FACT: For instance, if you are left eye dominant and shoot right handed, you will tend to overcut left angle shots and miss thick on right angle shots. This is a fact of commonality but ofcourse it doesn't apply to all cases, but enough to where it has to be noted and hopefully rectified through a method.....whatever it is that one chooses.

What does it all have to do with making a ball? Everything and nothing I guess.

Is making a ball the objective?

FACT: No

What is "making a ball" as it applies to pool as we know it in game theory?

FACT: Making a ball is a binary sequence that allows continuance or finality.

FACT: Making a ball is a partial formula to the ultimate equation of final static rest of cue ball destination.

The overall formula is very involved and varying, considering all the dynamics and requirements to meet the objective.

Fortunately, commonality dictates each objective is not dramatically unique.

SPECULATION:

I estimate there is about 20 shot distinctions that must be understood and mastered to achieve a cluster effect of solve for the millions of different shots on a standard 2x1 table. If perception itself is not understood, then 20 shot masteries goes out the window and I have no idea what that number would be.

For instance, if one knows perception breaks down on a zero angle shot of more than 4' of distance between cb and ob, then it's a simple solution of sighting the visual differently or simply a offsetting attack delivery to cb. Another skill of something more complex would not be needed.

If I strain my vision hard enough while down on a shot, I can litterally straighten out a break down of perception even on a long straight shot on a snooker table but that strain is unreasonable IMO.

That is my two cents if it helps. Still got to put the ball in the damn hole though and it's not easy imo. Regardless of mechanics and understanding details, I've found that FOCUS and CONFIDENCE are two inescapable esoteric requirements as well as good sleep and rest.

.....back to the tables.

 

[BC21]

..... (snip snip snip) .....

Still got to put the ball in the damn hole though and it's not easy imo. Regardless of mechanics and understanding details, I've found that FOCUS and CONFIDENCE are two inescapable esoteric requirements as well as good sleep and rest.

.....back to the tables.

I cut your technical "commonality" jargon out of the quote and left this great tidbit above.

Whether we are talking about flying a kite, racing a motorcycle, or playing pool, a thorough understanding of the exact mechanisms that make it all work is not needed in order for a person to develop excellent operating skills. I believe it might help build confidence, but no amount of confidence can overcome the problem of over-thinking the mechanics/details involved. Pocketing balls is not hard unless the player makes it hard by over-analyzing the process. Focus on the simplicity of it, not the difficulty.