EyePosition

[GaryB]

Gary, a lot of people seem to have problems with the concept of lining up behind the visuals. I put together a diagram - does this make sense?

Yes it does. Still in withdrawal. Had no idea steroids could do this. Thanks for the diagram, Looking forward to experimenting with these visuals when I can get back on the table.

 

[ArtOfTheCue]

So, let me get this straight. You line up as in the above diagram, then move in to 1/2 tip from CCB (which side depends on whether or not you need to thicken or thin the hit?) then pivot to center and shoot? Am I close?

Pretty much, yeah. You move straight into the shot from that point but line up a half tip from center instead of center ball, then pivot and you're on the aiming line. It seems like magic. I was skeptical before I took a few days to try it out, but my accuracy skyrocketed, and I'm making almost everything I shoot at.

 

[AtLarge]

Gary, a lot of people seem to have problems with the concept of lining up behind the visuals. I put together a diagram - does this make sense?

For many shots, your diagram is not correct from a visual standpoint.

For the edge-to-A or edge-to-C secondary aim line, you are correct, in an absolute sense, that they converge with the CTEL behind the CB (on the player's side of the CB). And when the CB and OB are close enough together that they seem to be about the same size, the two lines will, indeed, appear to converge behind the CB.

But if the CB and OB are far apart, the OB looks significantly smaller than the CB. In that case, the CTEL and the secondary aim line to A or C appear to converge in the distance (not at the player's eyes).

As to the edge-to-B secondary aim line, it is parallel to the CTEL in an absolute sense, i.e., they do not converge at all. But, again, if the CB and OB are far apart, they will appear to converge in the distance, not behind the CB.

 

[ArtOfTheCue]

For many shots, your diagram is not correct from a visual standpoint.

For the edge-to-A or edge-to-C secondary aim line, you are correct, in an absolute sense, that they converge with the CTEL behind the CB (on the player's side of the CB). And when the CB and OB are close enough together that they seem to be about the same size, the two lines will, indeed, appear to converge behind the CB.

But if the CB and OB are far apart, the OB looks significantly smaller than the CB. In that case, the CTEL and the secondary aim line to A or C appear to converge in the distance (not at the player's eyes).

As to the edge-to-B secondary aim line, it is parallel to the CTEL in an absolute sense, i.e., they do not converge at all. But, again, if the CB and OB are far apart, they will appear to converge in the distance, not behind the CB.

You are correct on all counts. However, I was trying to simplify the concept to help these guys get started. If they get comfortable approaching the edge-to-A and edge-to-C shots this way, they'll intuitively approach the others correctly as well. The diagram was meant to be a learning tool, not a complete description.

 

[GaryB]

Here's a good supplemental youtube video describing the perceptions and how to acquire them. I suggest you subscribe to Stan's youtube channel and review all of his videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAKAP8iR3Lw

Finally got to the table for a very short while. I get it. Made all 3 shots with the same visuals. As I thought as I was recovering Stan's admonition that it is orientation sank in and all seemed natural when I finally got on the table. Although it did take me 3 shots to make the far right shot.

Thanks to all for your input.

 

[duckie]

While the top view drawing is nice, can you do a side view drawing to show how much higher the eyes are as compared to the balls or are the eyes on the same level as the balls?

In the side view, can the two lines be drawn as in the top view with the eyes being higher than the balls?