Focal point and alignment

[Neil]

You might want to reread the section on set up. He talks about where to position your head. He says that you can put it anywhere, so might as well center your chin over the cue. That seemed odd to me because everybody talks about putting your dominant eye (or at least your "vision center") over the cue. This opened my mind to the idea that the placement of your head/eyes is a choice and not necessarily mandated by your dominant eye.

Through many hours of trial and error combined with video feedback, I found that while I play left-handed, I now have my non-dominant right eye (inside corner) over the cue. For whatever reason, I found that my straightest alignment of the cue happened when I put my head in this position. It isn't like I am compensating for some weird arm position or anything like that. In fact, my upper arm is directly over the cue looking down from the ceiling.

I used the Wilson recommended "orthodox" body position as a starting point to get me where I am now, which is definitely less orthodox. Who knows, now that I believe I have found the things that are important for a straight stroke (at least for me), I might be able to go back to a more "normal" set up with the knowledge I now have. In other words, I might have changed some variables that really didn't need changing. (Not that I'm in a hurry to test that theory just yet).

So to sum it up, I think Wilson's head position is a choice, not something he just naturally set up to do without thinking. I haven't thought through and studied dominant eye thinking re pool that much, but it seems to me that many on AZ are doing a disservice by saying that "dominant eye" "vision center" "whatever" dictates where you should put your eyes.

Just some thoughts.

Proof of it is in the pudding. Meaning, it is very simple to find the answer. All you have to do is test it on the table. Oops, forgot who I was talking to...the guy that likes to claim others are doing a disservice without actually testing anything out first.

 

[Dan White]

Proof of it is in the pudding. Meaning, it is very simple to find the answer. All you have to do is test it on the table. Oops, forgot who I was talking to...the guy that likes to claim others are doing a disservice without actually testing anything out first.

Hmm, start a rumor and then repeat it like it was a fact. I think the Nazi's did that pretty well, too.

I've probably spent more time at the table working on the stroke last year than you spent working at a real job. Just a hunch.

Also, based on your posting history, I'm not sure you even understand the issue.

 

[Neil]

Hmm, start a rumor and then repeat it like it was a fact. I think the Nazi's did that pretty well, too.

I've probably spent more time at the table working on the stroke last year than you spent working at a real job. Just a hunch.

Also, based on your posting history, I'm not sure you even understand the issue.

So typical from you. Nothing but insults. I didn't start any rumor. But nice lie on your part. Based on my posting history, I understand it light years ahead of you.

Oh, congrats, you even through in the nazi comment too. I hear people do that when they have already lost the debate and can't come up with a rational rebuttal.

edit: By the way, stroke has nothing to do with where one places their eyes, which is what I responded to. See that part I put in red in the previous post? So, it looks like it is you that doesn't understand the issue, as usual.

 

[BC21]

I think it's worth a read, Brian.

My personal opinion is that footwork is more a matter of doing what's natural, being comfortable, and puts you in a steady position. IOWs, Dippy gonna do what Dippy gonna do, and trying to do some exotic dance step that is not natural will eventually break down.

I think its what a player is doing above the waist that's really critical.

Lou Figueroa

I agree 100%. Exact foot position or orientation is whatever feels right to you. Some shots I shoot in a more prone stance like a snooker player, others I'm more traditional pool player style.

 

[Dan White]

So typical from you. Nothing but insults. I didn't start any rumor. But nice lie on your part. Based on my posting history, I understand it light years ahead of you.

Oh, congrats, you even through in the nazi comment too. I hear people do that when they have already lost the debate and can't come up with a rational rebuttal.

edit: By the way, stroke has nothing to do with where one places their eyes, which is what I responded to. See that part I put in red in the previous post? So, it looks like it is you that doesn't understand the issue, as usual.

Neil, Neil, Neil... Scroll up a little and tell me who threw the first insult. You are clearly baiting me into an argument but it won't work. Congrats on getting me to respond to one of your posts, which I have rarely done for many months.

I'm well aware of the Nazi comment in debates. Doesn't apply here... different story.

Stroke has to do with everything necessary to make the cue go straight back and straight forward on the intended shot line. That encompasses pretty much everything including eye position.

How about we not ruin this thread with more attacks from left field, m'kay?

 

[Neil]

Neil, Neil, Neil... Scroll up a little and tell me who threw the first insult. You are clearly baiting me into an argument but it won't work. Congrats on getting me to respond to one of your posts, which I have rarely done for many months.

I'm well aware of the Nazi comment in debates. Doesn't apply here... different story.

Stroke has to do with everything necessary to make the cue go straight back and straight forward on the intended shot line. That encompasses pretty much everything including eye position.

How about we not ruin this thread with more attacks from left field, m'kay?

So, to be clear here, are you know stating that you will stop making attacks on others? Which, as we both know, is what I responded to, to start with.

 

[lfigueroa]

I think it is the most detailed work re: eye alignment. Several books touch on the subject (The Pro Book, Play Great Pool), but nothing is as devoted to the topic as is Answers. Kranicki does lose me, too, when he suggests to start aligning the cue with certain teeth lol.

I also realized through studying this book that although many teachers are good at teaching what makes them successful, they are not always considerate of students' differing needs.

For example, in the aforementioned book Play Great Pool, it is clear that Mr. Wilson's template for an ideal stance is best suited for a cross-dominant player. When I look at how he positions his feet and how he orients his head in pictures, Mark Wilson is assuredly a cross-dominant player. There are many useful concepts to be found in his text, but if you are same-side dominant (like moi), you will probably find difficulty getting his version of stance to work for you.

I have seen MW give many a lesson here in STL and my opinion is that he teaches what works for him, perhaps to a fault. I feel that one of the worst mistakes an instructor can make is believing that what works for one works for all.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

You might want to reread the section on set up. He talks about where to position your head. He says that you can put it anywhere, so might as well center your chin over the cue. That seemed odd to me because everybody talks about putting your dominant eye (or at least your "vision center") over the cue. This opened my mind to the idea that the placement of your head/eyes is a choice and not necessarily mandated by your dominant eye.

Through many hours of trial and error combined with video feedback, I found that while I play left-handed, I now have my non-dominant right eye (inside corner) over the cue. For whatever reason, I found that my straightest alignment of the cue happened when I put my head in this position. It isn't like I am compensating for some weird arm position or anything like that. In fact, my upper arm is directly over the cue looking down from the ceiling.

I used the Wilson recommended "orthodox" body position as a starting point to get me where I am now, which is definitely less orthodox. Who knows, now that I believe I have found the things that are important for a straight stroke (at least for me), I might be able to go back to a more "normal" set up with the knowledge I now have. In other words, I might have changed some variables that really didn't need changing. (Not that I'm in a hurry to test that theory just yet).

So to sum it up, I think Wilson's head position is a choice, not something he just naturally set up to do without thinking. I haven't thought through and studied dominant eye thinking re pool that much, but it seems to me that many on AZ are doing a disservice by saying that "dominant eye" "vision center" "whatever" dictates where you should put your eyes.

Just some thoughts.

Totally agree. It's the set up that puts the balls in the pockets and allows you to move the CB with precision, dominant eye be damned.

Perusing Kranicki again had me thinking about me eyeballs yesterday. Normally I don't think about eye placement at all, but paying attention to it I noted that my cue was under my right eye, though the previously mentioned test told me I was left eye dominant. Putting the cue under my left would have changed my setup but I was hitting them pretty crispy -- no way was I changing.

Lou Figueroa

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I have seen MW give many a lesson here in STL and my opinion is that he teaches what works for him, perhaps to a fault. I feel that one of the worst mistakes an instructor can make is believing that what works for one works for all.

It's the set up that puts the balls in the pockets and allows you to move the CB with precision, dominant eye be damned.

Lou Figueroa

There are two statements about the setup that leads to nothing and says nothing unless you make your own interpretations.

Here's one: "Mark Wilson teaches what works for him to a fault and it is one of the worst mistakes an instructor can make since one size does not fit all."
(Dan White is going to be crushed and go into a massive state of depression when he reads this about his hero and God of stroke instruction)

Then statement #2 is the SET UP puts the balls in the pockets and allows you to move the CB with precision. Screw dominant eyes.

I don't know how the set up does this since it's stagnant and not dynamic. I always thought it was the stroking hand along with eyes aiming and touch for speed.

So how do you standardize a setup that works for the masses? How should setup be taught? Where does it go from here? How many possible variations are there for set ups? Are there any 2 pro players who look identical in their set up and stroke?

Do you now have the answers you're looking for or are you lost?

 

[BilliardsAbout]

I came across this book upon hearing it recommended by Sean Leinen. Upon initial reading, some of the concepts seemed a little "heady", but it was interesting for sure.

I have revisited and reread it several times over the years, and I find that the more I discover about the game, the more that things detailed in the book start to make sense.

One of the easier (and more plausible) ideas that he relates is that the orientation of the placement of your back foot contributes greatly to how your dominant eye will be placed in your stance. I feel that many overlook the simplicity and helpfulness of this gesture.

A key point from Kranicki's fascinating book. Standing behind the aim line (as when you line up the ob to pocket with your cue stick) and standing behind the cue ball while erect and in the final stance gives three different perceptions of the geometric ob contact point.

This led to several things I teach my pool students as needed:

1. Refresh eyesight on the ob when down in the full stance. Staring down the ob from the erect position all the way into the stance is usually a bad idea and fights against quiet eyes and dead zone play, too.

2. Most cut shots will be fuller hits when in the full stance than they appear to be while standing erect to consider the shot.

3. Many cut shots will be a dash fuller when in the full stance that they appear to be in the full stance! (I'm talking to contact point and edge-to-edge players here.)

Kranicki makes another great point. Consider how the eyes and the cue stick rest on different lines for most players/most stances to blend them together to hit the contact point. (Translates to trust your cue is on line when it isn't in peripheral vision and trust to a straight stroke when you think aim is wrong or you'll miss improving aim overall.)

 

[BC21]

A key point from Kranicki's fascinating book. Standing behind the aim line (as when you line up the ob to pocket with your cue stick) and standing behind the cue ball while erect and in the final stance gives three different perceptions of the geometric ob contact point.

This led to several things I teach my pool students as needed:

1. Refresh eyesight on the ob when down in the full stance. Staring down the ob from the erect position all the way into the stance is usually a bad idea and fights against quiet eyes and dead zone play, too.

2. Most cut shots will be fuller hits when in the full stance than they appear to be while standing erect to consider the shot.

3. Many cut shots will be a dash fuller when in the full stance that they appear to be in the full stance! (I'm talking to contact point and edge-to-edge players here.)

Kranicki makes another great point. Consider how the eyes and the cue stick rest on different lines for most players/most stances to blend them together to hit the contact point. (Translates to trust your cue is on line when it isn't in peripheral vision and trust to a straight stroke when you think aim is wrong or you'll miss improving aim overall.)

These are good points. But I honestly don't pay any attention to my cue stick when I bend down into the shot. I see the aim line while standing, pick my aim/focal point if using fractional aiming, then step into that line and bend down into the shot, probably do a little subconscious fine tuning within my first couple of warm-up strokes, depending on what I want to do with the CB, then I'm ready to fire. The point of aim does not change. It's a spot on the equator of the OB, which from any perspective is always the same distance when referencing center OB or edge of OB. In other words, the aim point is not sphere-oriented.

I don't look down at my shaft to double-check alignment, though I suppose it's in my peripheral vision. So I may be doing it subconsciously. I feel like it's more of a 'see the line and just do it' method. Like when I'm throwing a baseball, I don't look at my throwing arm or my hand....I look at the target/aim line, step into the line and just know that my arm is located where it needs to be in order to release the ball down the aim line. I see my cue stick, stroke arm, and CB the same way, as one unit automatically put on track to the target. I don't envy instructors, because it seems like this process is difficult to teach.:smile:

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I see the aim line while standing, pick my aim/focal point if using fractional aiming, then step into that line and bend down into the shot, probably do a little subconscious fine tuning within my first couple of warm-up strokes, depending on what I want to do with the CB, then I'm ready to fire. The point of aim does not change. It's a spot on the equator of the OB, which from any perspective is always the same distance when referencing center OB or edge of OB. In other words, the aim point is not sphere-oriented.

If you aren't using your stick, what part of the CB are you using or recommending to align to the OB fraction?

Center of CB? Edge of CB? An equal and opposite corresponding spot on the equator of the CB?

 

[BC21]

If you aren't using your stick, what part of the CB are you using or recommending to align to the OB fraction?

Center of CB? Edge of CB? An equal and opposite corresponding spot on the equator of the CB?

When I'm actually looking at a specific aim point on or near the OB, I send the center of the CB to that point. But I consider the CB to be a part of my overall stroke -- one with my cue and stroke arm, like a bow and arrow. It's all one unit, and then the arrow breaks free and heads toward the target.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

When I'm actually looking at a specific aim point on or near the OB, I send the center of the CB to that point. But I consider the CB to be a part of my overall stroke -- one with my cue and stroke arm, like a bow and arrow. It's all one unit, and then the arrow breaks free and heads toward the target.

Well, it is different. The shaft of the arrow doesn't become detached from the arrow head when drawing it back and then reattached when the energy of the string propels it forward.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

When I'm actually looking at a specific aim point on or near the OB, I send the center of the CB to that point.

Aiming the center of the CB to one of the fractions makes no sense. If you aim the center of the CB to the outer right or left edge of the OB, the most you'll ever get is a
1/2 ball hit which eliminates a whole bunch of angles.

 

[BC21]

Well, it is different. The shaft of the arrow doesn't become detached from the arrow head when drawing it back and then reattached when the energy of the string propels it forward.

The arrow (head and shaft) is the CB. The bow, including draw string, is the cue stick. The stance is part of the bow, including the precise arm motion needed to draw the arrow back, keeping it in line with the target. It's like the stroke arm guiding the cue straight through the CB and toward the target. The fact that the CB doesn't get pulled back with the cue (as the arrow does with a bow) is irrelevant. The end result, and achieving that result, is the same.

Your a gun guy. So when you line your sights up on a target, and then slowly begin applying pressure to the trigger, what is happening? The loaded shell is just waiting in the chamber for the firing pin to smack it's hot primer backside. Ignoring the fact that the shell gets discarded as the lead blasts out of the barrel, it's just like a pool shot. The gun, with its trigger and firing pin, is your stroke and cue stick, acting as one precise unit. The bullet is the CB, locked in line with this precise unit and positioned between the firing pin and the target. When everything as a whole is lined up and ready to go, the stroke (firing pin) comes through and sends the CB (bullet) to it's target.

 

[Snooker Theory]

Where does dominant eye fit in?

I think this article, which is super short really helped me get a better understanding of dominate eye.
http://www.fcsnooker.co.uk/coaching/basics/sighting/sighting.htm

John, really loving your posts mate!!!! :thumbup:
Everything you have talked about in this thread are topics that I have thought about immensely.

 

[BC21]

I think this article, which is super short really helped me get a better understanding of dominate eye.
http://www.fcsnooker.co.uk/coaching/basics/sighting/sighting.htm

John, really loving your posts mate!!!! :thumbup:
Everything you have talked about in this thread are topics that I have thought about immensely.

Great article. Not sure if having the cue directly under your dominant eye is the accurate way to go. Your brain will have your true line of sight skewed toward your dominant eye, but not 100%, unless you're blind in the other eye. I mean, the non-dominate eye is still sending images to your brain, so your brain will form a line of focus based on both eyes.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

The arrow (head and shaft) is the CB. The bow, including draw string, is the cue stick.

I don't see it that way at all as a comparison. The head of the arrow is the CB; the arrow shaft is the cue/cue shaft, and the string is our arm which supplies the power forward.

You have no disconnect between the arrow head (CB) and the arrow shaft but that's not the way a CB and cue shaft works. It's also where the biggest problem comes into play. Returning the cue shaft back to the CB as IF it was one piece locked together. We humans have a very hard time doing it.




The stance is part of the bow, including the precise arm motion needed to draw the arrow back, keeping it in line with the target. It's like the stroke arm guiding the cue straight through the CB and toward the target. The fact that the CB doesn't get pulled back with the cue (as the arrow does with a bow) is irrelevant. The end result, and achieving that result, is the same.

We need to forget these analogies because they're leading down a dead end. I don't see what you are and vice versa. No sense beating a dead horse.

 

[Snooker Theory]

Great article. Not sure if having the cue directly under your dominant eye is the accurate way to go. Your brain will have your true line of sight skewed toward your dominant eye, but not 100%, unless you're blind in the other eye. I mean, the non-dominate eye is still sending images to your brain, so your brain will form a line of focus based on both eyes.

There is an article, which I can't find but when I do I will share it with you, cause after reading my explanation below, it isn't that great.

I will try and explain as best as I can what I took away from it.

Set something small down about 10 feet away from you, if you are at a pool table, perfect, set a piece of chalk on the headrail and stand at the footrail

1. With your right hand, point with your index finger at the chalk with both eyes open.

2 Close your right eye, is your finger still pointing at the chalk?
Do #1 again, then close your left eye, is your finger still pointing at the chalk.?

I repeated with my left hand and got the same results.
When I close either left or right eye, my finger moves equidistant to either direction. SO I actually have centered vision.
If when I closed my left eye, my finger was still pointing at the chalk, that would have meant I have a dominate right eye.