Dominant Eye-another view

duckie said:

I'm a firm believer of the more you know the better a decision can be made and the better you will understand the whole.

With all the hype about the dominant eye in aiming, I thought this needed to be presented to give a balance view of the dominant eye and how vision works

http://www.azbilliards.com/poolshrink/column9.cfm

Flame away all you want, cause remember I could care less what most on here think.

If you are running a series of tests to prove a theory, one false result is all that is needed to disprove that theory.

The notion that there is a certain position the eyes need to be in to make a shot can be easily disproved with several shots. Here is just one. Cut the red stripe ball into the upper corner without using a bridge. The only way to do this is to hold the stick out over the table, no where under your face, chest, or eye. Oh, btw way, I made that shot just as I described.

In the real world of pool, the balls do not always lay in the idea shooting position and you need to be able aim tough shots like this.

Click to expand...

I remember reading that article in the past and while I pretty much agree with his findings I think it's worth noting that it contains some faulty reasoning. Just because something hasn't been extensively studied doesn't mean that it doesn't "exist" so to speak. At one point in time, a scientist could have said that there hadn't been many studies about the roundness of the earth; therefore the earth must be flat.

Other than that, that's how I feel about all the eye dominance stuff. Find your vision center (think that's Dr. Dave's term) and go with it. That should take all of about 2 minutes, maybe 5 minutes if you are reading AZ at the same time. Filling your mind with the idea that you need to use a certain eye for a certain cut shot, or you need to line up over this eye on this shot and that eye for that shot - that on its surface seems like complete non-sense to me. Maybe it's just me.

duckie said:

I'm a firm believer of the more you know the better a decision can be made and the better you will understand the whole.

With all the hype about the dominant eye in aiming, I thought this needed to be presented to give a balance view of the dominant eye and how vision works

http://www.azbilliards.com/poolshrink/column9.cfm

Click to expand...

Greg:

"Hype" about the dominant eye in aiming is not new. It's been going on in archery circles for, if not centuries, then scores of decades.

duckie said:

Flame away all you want, cause remember I could care less what most on here think.

Click to expand...

If you're expecting to get flamed, "and" you could [sic] care less what most on here think, then why even post it? What's the purpose? Are you saying (or intentionally not saying) you're purposefully causing a stir?

duckie said:

If you are running a series of tests to prove a theory, one false result is all that is needed to disprove that theory.

The notion that there is a certain position the eyes need to be in to make a shot can be easily disproved with several shots. Here is just one. Cut the red stripe ball into the upper corner without using a bridge. The only way to do this is to hold the stick out over the table, no where under your face, chest, or eye. Oh, btw way, I made that shot just as I described.

In the real world of pool, the balls do not always lay in the idea shooting position and you need to be able aim tough shots like this.

Click to expand...

Just as you say, if you're running a series of tests to prove a theory, one false result is all that is needed to disprove that theory. However, going along with this, one must conduct the tests in a way that unquestionably conform to the theory, and is actually testing that theory.

In your "test," you're proving nothing. All you're proving is that you can lean over the table, and estimate the cut angle correctly. The two balls are right next to each other, and you're looking *over* them (which, in a condition such as this -- where the two balls are so close together -- is what you're *supposed* to do in the first place).

If you're so confident about your "theory" that the dominant eye thing is just hoopla, try this -- which is a more conducive test:

1. Move that cue ball away from next to that red-stripe ball, and towards the center spot on the table.

2. Now try that same shot again, leaning over the table from the side.

I'll bet your "test results" are radically different. Do report back.

-Sean

1) Who would lean over the table, arms extended and blind-cut this in without a bridge to begin with? That comment alone sheds a lot of light on Mr. Duck's ability. No decent player would ever blind-cut that shot if it really meant anything. Just because you think it's cool to make that shot without a bridge doesn't mean it's the right way of doing it. Furthermore, as Sean correctly pointed out, it doesn't prove your point.

2) Let's say you use the bridge, as you should, for this shot. Eye positioning and correct sighting are even more important. When balls are close together, it's always a tougher shot. That doesn't mean correct eye position / sighting aren't important nor does it eliminate the importance of your dominant eye (assuming you're a player who has a strong eye dominance, like myself).

3) It's obvious Duckie isn't a believer in correct eye positioning or a dominant eye's importance in pool. I know a lot of respected instructors think dominant eyes have nothing to do with sighting. That simply means they've been blessed with not being plagued with a strong dominant eye or shifting dominance. Everyone sees differently--- eye positioning means different things to different people--- all with different levels of importance. For me, I never truly hit center ball until I fully understood eye dominance (figured that out with JoeT's 3rd Eye.... that thing wouldn't allow my right eye to take over, and later reinforced with Geno). Therefore, blanket statements like Duckie's are just plain false.

4) Although dominant eyes are studied a great deal in other sports (shooting, archery, etc), there really hasn't been a ton of studies within billiards. Although there are some overlaps, pool is just different. I'd hypothesize that 1/2 of players REQUIRE Gene's information (or similar) and the other 1/2 can't figure out why it matters. The half that require it will swear by it and the others who don't will say the other half is nuts. For me, I'm GLAD I learned this stuff because it definitely helped me click to the next level.

Anyways, keep blind-cutting balls in buddy.:thumbup:

SpiderWebComm said:

1) Who would lean over the table, arms extended and blind-cut this in without a bridge to begin with? That comment alone sheds a lot of light on Mr. Duck's ability. No decent player would ever blind-cut that shot if it really meant anything. Just because you think it's cool to make that shot without a bridge doesn't mean it's the right way of doing it. Furthermore, as Sean correctly pointed out, it doesn't prove your point.

Click to expand...

The bolded part is the fly in duckie's ointment. He comes on here, oh-so-authoritative (and thorns bristling in every direction) -- presumably for the readership to take him as a some source of knowledge authority.

And yet:

• He disdains "instructors" or knowledge transferrers of every type, advising instead that everyone should get the knowledge on their own. (Interesting paradox posed by taking this stance to the next logical conclusion -- should we take duckie's advice and ignore duckie himself, precisely because he's coming off as so authoritative of a knowledge source?)
  
• He's an admitted skill level "5" in his league, and lets his pants drop to his ankles with proposals such as this -- to shoot that shot, that way. Although yes, it can be done, *nobody* would shoot that shot that way in a match that matters.

SpiderWebComm said:

2) Let's say you use the bridge, as you should, for this shot. Eye positioning and correct sighting are even more important. When balls are close together, it's always a tougher shot. That doesn't mean correct eye position / sighting aren't important nor does it eliminate the importance of your dominant eye (assuming you're a player who has a strong eye dominance, like myself).

Click to expand...

Although in general shots where the cue ball and the object ball are so close together tend to be tougher shots for "make" reasons, one of the tricks used to help with them is to look *over* them -- that is, looking over the cue ball into that little space between it and the object ball -- so that you can accurately see the cut angle. Another thing -- this particular shot is made easier, because the two balls are located partially mid-way on the short cushion. If one has played this game for any decent amount of time, it's *easy* to cut that ball by using the cushion as a guide -- sort of like "runway lights." While duckie proposes leaning over the table sideways like that, heck, I'll do the mirror image of that shot (reverse the shot so the cut angle goes into the opposite corner) and play the shot opposite-handed (left-handed). But again, what does that prove, except that this particular shot has qualities that make it easier?

SpiderWebComm said:

3) It's obvious Duckie isn't a believer in correct eye positioning or a dominant eye's importance in pool. I know a lot of respected instructors think dominant eyes have nothing to do with sighting. That simply means they've been blessed with not being plagued with a strong dominant eye or shifting dominance. Everyone sees differently--- eye positioning means different things to different people--- all with different levels of importance. For me, I never truly hit center ball until I fully understood eye dominance (figured that out with JoeT's 3rd Eye.... that thing wouldn't allow my right eye to take over, and later reinforced with Geno). Therefore, blanket statements like Duckie's are just plain false.

Click to expand...

And I'm unfortunately one of those that don't have the bias of a truly dominant eye. (I say unfortunately, because that fact alone, in some folks' view, may undermine my input in these topics.) I've an interesting situation where each eye is specialized at certain duties -- like reading the fine print on a medicine bottle, for example. I tend to favor my left eye for that. Conversely, if I'm trying to make things out at a distance (e.g. lining up iron sights on a rifle for competitive shooting), I favor my right eye for that. However, I need *both* eyes in shooting pool, because unlike the other two activities, I need both for spacial relationships. If I even try to "favor" one eye or the other when lining up shots, things go to hell in a handbasket in a jiffy. I have to have the cue centered under my chin, even though the focal lengths of my individual eyes are different. Each one is offering a unique view that my mind blends into a solid, cohesive picture.

I can empathize with those with strong eye dominance, however, because of eye injuries suffered where I had to wear a patch over one eye. Losing spacial relationship and depth perception is definitely not something I want to suffer any time soon.

SpiderWebComm said:

4) Although dominant eyes are studied a great deal in other sports (shooting, archery, etc), there really hasn't been a ton of studies within billiards. Although there are some overlaps, pool is just different. I'd hypothesize that 1/2 of players REQUIRE Gene's information (or similar) and the other 1/2 can't figure out why it matters. The half that require it will swear by it and the others who don't will say the other half is nuts. For me, I'm GLAD I learned this stuff because it definitely helped me click to the next level.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The lack of definitive study dedicated to pool opens the doorway to these type of "arguments." The role of eye dominance in shooting and archery has been studied and espoused for decades. And in the cueing sports (specifically snooker), the idea of proper head/eye alignment, as root-level part of proper form and mechanics, has been studied for decades as well. It's nothing new. Because pool has long suffered without proper introduction to mechanically-correct form and sighting, opportunities arise where -- e.g. Geno -- makes a "discovery" that fills a void that pool has long suffered. The knowledge is obviously welcomed -- what Geno's offering is TRULY needed, because pool, exclusively, has suffered without it. But introduced and espoused as innovative and earth-shattering? Hardly.

That's the problem with pool specifically -- instead of taking cues (forgive the pun) from other cueing sports, it's more an anarchist approach of, "here, pick up the cue, get comfortable and look over it, 'see' and line up the shot, and stroke the cue forward." Later on, the player finds out "what works for him/her" and integrates it. That leads to much homegrown knowledge, with little to no audit trail or abilities to pay it forward in a cohesive way that others can benefit from.

SpiderWebComm said:

Anyways, keep blind-cutting balls in buddy.:thumbup:

Click to expand...

-Sean

So much for scientific method...

BTW, I once made a freethrow whilst facing the opposite net (I tossed it, one-handed, over my shoulder)...SWISH!! By extension of your logic, that result conclusively indicates that a basketball player doesn't need to use his eyes to shoot freethrows.

sfleinen said:

And I'm unfortunately one of those that don't have the bias of a truly dominant eye.... I need *both* eyes in shooting pool, because unlike the other two activities, I need both for spacial relationships.

I can empathize with those with strong eye dominance, however, because of eye injuries suffered where I had to wear a patch over one eye. Losing spacial relationship and depth perception is definitely not something I want to suffer any time soon.

Click to expand...

I have the same problem, only mine is of a more permanent nature. I caught a block of wood to the right eye from my table saw five years ago, destroying much of the fine internal structure inside the eye. After the accident, my vision gradually got better at first, but I developed a severe traumatic cataract in that eye. My vision quickly degraded to the point I couldn't recognize my wife at the dinner table with that eye. I was always very right-eye dominant, but as I gradually lost vision in that eye, the dominance changed to the left.

I was finally able to get surgery to restore my vision, but it is still really bad because my pupil is permanently blown out in that eye. Kinda like looking through a camera lens with the aperture open all the way. Shallow depth of field and lots of glare.

Bottom line is that my dominance switches at times, and I never know when it is doing it. But if I line up the shot, stroke well, and remember to stay still, the shot usually goes in anyway. Amazing what we learn to adapt to.

I went to a clinic with Chris Lynch this weekend and explained my problem. His feeling is that I should center my chin over the shaft rather than my dominant eye, and he modified my stance and the way I address the table to achieve that. I'll be working on that in the coming weeks to see if my shotmaking improves.

duckie said:

I'm a firm believer of the more you know the better a decision can be made and the better you will understand the whole.

With all the hype about the dominant eye in aiming, I thought this needed to be presented to give a balance view of the dominant eye and how vision works

http://www.azbilliards.com/poolshrink/column9.cfm

Flame away all you want, cause remember I could care less what most on here think.

If you are running a series of tests to prove a theory, one false result is all that is needed to disprove that theory.

(snip).

Click to expand...

So, I'm curious here...does ANY miss mean your aiming method has been invalidated, so you need another method to replace it?

Jeff Livingston

chefjeff said:

So, I'm curious here...does ANY miss mean your aiming method has been invalidated, so you need another method to replace it?

Jeff Livingston

Click to expand...

That sounds terribly pragmatic, Jeffrey.

I've only been here a short while and I see the Duckie makes some smart posts, and some not smart posts. This falls into the not smart category. While the jury is still out for me on the significance of dominant eye, to think making a shot without aiming somehow disproves that aiming makes you pot more balls is not smart.

sfleinen said:

Greg:

"Hype" about the dominant eye in aiming is not new. It's been going on in archery circles for, if not centuries, then scores of decades.



If you're expecting to get flamed, "and" you could [sic] care less what most on here think, then why even post it? What's the purpose? Are you saying (or intentionally not saying) you're purposefully causing a stir?



Just as you say, if you're running a series of tests to prove a theory, one false result is all that is needed to disprove that theory. However, going along with this, one must conduct the tests in a way that unquestionably conform to the theory, and is actually testing that theory.

In your "test," you're proving nothing. All you're proving is that you can lean over the table, and estimate the cut angle correctly. The two balls are right next to each other, and you're looking *over* them (which, in a condition such as this -- where the two balls are so close together -- is what you're *supposed* to do in the first place).

If you're so confident about your "theory" that the dominant eye thing is just hoopla, try this -- which is a more conducive test:

1. Move that cue ball away from next to that red-stripe ball, and towards the center spot on the table.

2. Now try that same shot again, leaning over the table from the side.

I'll bet your "test results" are radically different. Do report back.

-Sean

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I agree with this.

SpiderWebComm said:

1) Who would lean over the table, arms extended and blind-cut this in without a bridge to begin with? That comment alone sheds a lot of light on Mr. Duck's ability. No decent player would ever blind-cut that shot if it really meant anything. Just because you think it's cool to make that shot without a bridge doesn't mean it's the right way of doing it. Furthermore, as Sean correctly pointed out, it doesn't prove your point.

2) Let's say you use the bridge, as you should, for this shot. Eye positioning and correct sighting are even more important. When balls are close together, it's always a tougher shot. That doesn't mean correct eye position / sighting aren't important nor does it eliminate the importance of your dominant eye (assuming you're a player who has a strong eye dominance, like myself).

3) It's obvious Duckie isn't a believer in correct eye positioning or a dominant eye's importance in pool. I know a lot of respected instructors think dominant eyes have nothing to do with sighting. That simply means they've been blessed with not being plagued with a strong dominant eye or shifting dominance. Everyone sees differently--- eye positioning means different things to different people--- all with different levels of importance. For me, I never truly hit center ball until I fully understood eye dominance (figured that out with JoeT's 3rd Eye.... that thing wouldn't allow my right eye to take over, and later reinforced with Geno). Therefore, blanket statements like Duckie's are just plain false.

4) Although dominant eyes are studied a great deal in other sports (shooting, archery, etc), there really hasn't been a ton of studies within billiards. Although there are some overlaps, pool is just different. I'd hypothesize that 1/2 of players REQUIRE Gene's information (or similar) and the other 1/2 can't figure out why it matters. The half that require it will swear by it and the others who don't will say the other half is nuts. For me, I'm GLAD I learned this stuff because it definitely helped me click to the next level.

Anyways, keep blind-cutting balls in buddy.:thumbup:

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, Spider, I agree with you. I have an astigmatism in my dominant eye & good never shoot with my non-dominant eye unless I put a patch over my dominant eye. I might have to actually try that.

Sloppy Pockets said:

I have the same problem, only mine is of a more permanent nature. I caught a block of wood to the right eye from my table saw five years ago, destroying much of the fine internal structure inside the eye. After the accident, my vision gradually got better at first, but I developed a severe traumatic cataract in that eye. My vision quickly degraded to the point I couldn't recognize my wife at the dinner table with that eye. I was always very right-eye dominant, but as I gradually lost vision in that eye, the dominance changed to the left.

I was finally able to get surgery to restore my vision, but it is still really bad because my pupil is permanently blown out in that eye. Kinda like looking through a camera lens with the aperture open all the way. Shallow depth of field and lots of glare.

Bottom line is that my dominance switches at times, and I never know when it is doing it. But if I line up the shot, stroke well, and remember to stay still, the shot usually goes in anyway. Amazing what we learn to adapt to.

I went to a clinic with Chris Lynch this weekend and explained my problem. His feeling is that I should center my chin over the shaft rather than my dominant eye, and he modified my stance and the way I address the table to achieve that. I'll be working on that in the coming weeks to see if my shotmaking improves.

Click to expand...

Simular accident for me, only it was I piece of metal from a golf shaft. I just responded earlier on this tread & was kidding about a patch over my now bad eye & I said I might have to actually try that & I think that I actually am going to try it & see what happens. Good luck with your 'solution'.

duckie said:

I'm a firm believer of the more you know the better a decision can be made and the better you will understand the whole.

With all the hype about the dominant eye in aiming, I thought this needed to be presented to give a balance view of the dominant eye and how vision works

http://www.azbilliards.com/poolshrink/column9.cfm

Flame away all you want, cause remember I could care less what most on here think.

If you are running a series of tests to prove a theory, one false result is all that is needed to disprove that theory.

The notion that there is a certain position the eyes need to be in to make a shot can be easily disproved with several shots. Here is just one. Cut the red stripe ball into the upper corner without using a bridge. The only way to do this is to hold the stick out over the table, no where under your face, chest, or eye. Oh, btw way, I made that shot just as I described.

In the real world of pool, the balls do not always lay in the idea shooting position and you need to be able aim tough shots like this.

Click to expand...

Pool is not rifle shooting using a dominant eye or with one eye closed:

Rifle shooting - A distant target is blurry, the gun sight looks crisp

Billiards shooting - The distant target is crisp (or get eyeglasses), the pool stick (gun sight) is in the peripheral vision and may be blurry or even doubled in vision, and if it is "crisp" it's seen with a tilted head at a parallax angle - in the stance is a truly poor time to adjust aim with the stick

Most people are somewhat ambiocular and not binocular in vision; they have a preferred "vision center" as mentioned on this thread.

Right hand shooters who are left-eyed dominant and vice versa, if they place their dominant eye over the cue, will not shoot much better, but they will need appointments with their chiropractor!

One alternative I prefer to the tired old "chin atop cue" or "dominant eye over cue" is this: Put your head where you can best see the target spot on the object ball and also the path to the intended pocket.

But keep your eyes off the cloth runway!

BasementDweller said:

... Find your vision center (think that's Dr. Dave's term) and go with it. That should take all of about 2 minutes ...

Click to expand...

FYI to those interested, here's a useful link on this topic, which includes a useful drill and video demonstration:

Regards,
Dave

BilliardsAbout said:

.....
One alternative I prefer to the tired old "chin atop cue" or "dominant eye over cue" is this: Put your head where you can best see the target spot on the object ball and also the path to the intended pocket.

But keep your eyes off the cloth runway!

Click to expand...

I read your article link. It makes sense, but.... I'm just a beginner, but I have been having better success looking at the "runway" on cut shots.

Once I decide on the aim line, I focus on that line, trying to stroke my cue on that line. If I focus on the OB, I tend to hit thick. I believe it's because focusing on the OB for a cut, makes me stroke towards the OB instead of the aim line.

I've tried focusing on the OB and while it works well for straight or short shots, long cut shots always end up hitting thick. Maybe it is just me or because I am still a beginner.

ronscuba said:

I read your article link. It makes sense, but....

Click to expand...

It's pretty clear that this guy's articles on pool haven't had much (or any) critical review by knowledgable players. I'd avoid them if I was you.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson said:

It's pretty clear that this guy's articles on pool haven't had much (or any) critical review by knowledgable players. I'd avoid them if I was you.

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

I’d like to respond to your uninformed comment, Patrick:

My book and DVD combo, Picture Yourself Shooting Pool, I passed through quite a number of reviewers before publication, including every word checked by a BCA Master Instructor named by Pool & Billiards Magazine as one of the Top 20 Pool Instructors in the world. I was already confident in my work but wanted to ensure other pro instructors would not object to my terminology, diagrams, etc.

I have a number of teacher and development contributors to my site including another Top 20 Pool Instructor, and also The Drill Instructor, Dominic Esposito, who turned playing pro at age 18 and whose own instructional materials are endorsed by Hall of Fame member, Nick Varner.

As a member of InsidePool Magazine's, Instructional Staff, my contributions include three year-long columns, “The Year of Pro Secrets," "The 8-Ball Debates" and "Get In Shape". Every article I’ve contributed and every shot I’ve proposed has been tested by InsidePool’s content editor, Tom Simpson, PBIA Master Instructor & BCA Master Instructor.

I have the student success stories to match also. Patrick, some comments on my book and DVD follow. I'm asking you politely and respectfully to cease and desist from slandering my professional teaching reputation. Thank you.

**
"...In the Marine Corps the best comment you can get from a D.I. is "Outstanding" and I have to say this book falls into the "outstanding" list of books. In fact, I have an Adult Ed class that I teach in the local high school and I start new classes this fall, I will recommend this book to them without any problem..."

Ken Tewksbury, Master Level Instructor
American Cue Sports & World Billiard Instructors Association

“…I would highly recommend this book and video as a supplement to pool lessons. I do not recommend any one type of training as a cure all. I believe reading good material, viewing videos, practice, training with an instructor and competing all have merit and when used together, will form a training program that is unbeatable. Picture Yourself Shooting Pool will supplement any training program.”

John Harlach, Instructor
Billiards Congress of America & American Cue Sports

“Picture Yourself Shooting Pool by Matthew Sherman looks like something else. The something else is a computer software book or trade edition of a non-pool book. It's a quality printing with a DVD (almost three hours long) in a sleeve in the back. And it only costs $29.95. An amazing price… I'd like to stress the value again: stress, stress. A DVD almost three hours long and a book that's 342 pages long, in full color and very nicely printed, all for $29.95. Such a deal!"

Tom Shaw, Managing Editor
Pool & Billiards Magazine

“I have a reasonably large collection of pool/billiard instruction books and Matthew Sherman's book, Picturing Yourself Playing Pool is clearly in a class by itself for its professionalism, its photography, historiography, scientific accuracy, athletic common sense and anecdotal insight. Mr. Sherman is obviously a tireless, gifted and consummate teacher and loves sharing his knowledge (which is extensive) and enthusiasm for this very difficult game with as many people as possible. I can well imagine that his students are very lucky indeed and I think he has, in fact, produced some top caliber collegiate champions at the University of Florida. The book comes with a superb DVD illustrating many of the arcane principals necessary for playing good pool. Picture Yourself Playing Pool belongs on your shelf next to Byrne, Fels, Martin and Schneider.”

Arthur Bacon, Billiards Reviewer

ronscuba said:

I read your article link. It makes sense, but.... I'm just a beginner, but I have been having better success looking at the "runway" on cut shots.

Once I decide on the aim line, I focus on that line, trying to stroke my cue on that line. If I focus on the OB, I tend to hit thick. I believe it's because focusing on the OB for a cut, makes me stroke towards the OB instead of the aim line.

I've tried focusing on the OB and while it works well for straight or short shots, long cut shots always end up hitting thick. Maybe it is just me or because I am still a beginner.

Click to expand...

Ron, you seem disciplined and self-aware when you practice, I'm sure you'll go far.

You hit the nail on the head with your observation. Last month I'd done a whole article on not aiming with one's hand during practice strokes.

But many top players look at the object ball as they stroke, not the aim line/shot line.

Here's a perfect training shot I call the Home Again Stroke. It's designed to teach you to take the same relaxed and even-paced stroke you use on a stop shot for an object ball less than a foot away, to pocket a tough cut and send the cue ball all around the table and back to you on the same stroke.

Hitting five "Home Agains" thoughtfully will do more for you than practicing 8- or 9-Ball for hours and it is my favorite tune-up before an important match.

I think only one pro has ever endorsed scanning the runway with her eyes, in print. And be encouraged, most intermediates overcut their shots rather than strike them too thick, so you're in a good place. A thick hit helps kill that cue ball and grants you maximum "feel" on the shot.

Keep it up and send me any questions.

BilliardsAbout said:

Ron, you seem disciplined and self-aware when you practice, I'm sure you'll go far.

You hit the nail on the head with your observation. Last month I'd done a whole article on not aiming with one's hand during practice strokes.

But many top players look at the object ball as they stroke, not the aim line/shot line.

Here's a perfect training shot I call the Home Again Stroke. It's designed to teach you to take the same relaxed and even-paced stroke you use on a stop shot for an object ball less than a foot away, to pocket a tough cut and send the cue ball all around the table and back to you on the same stroke.

Hitting five "Home Agains" thoughtfully will do more for you than practicing 8- or 9-Ball for hours and it is my favorite tune-up before an important match.

I think only one pro has ever endorsed scanning the runway with her eyes, in print. And be encouraged, most intermediates overcut their shots rather than strike them too thick, so you're in a good place. A thick hit helps kill that cue ball and grants you maximum "feel" on the shot.

Keep it up and send me any questions.

Click to expand...

Nice links to some very interesting articles Matt. I thought that I had read most of them, it appears I have missed a few.

Thanks for all that you do.

John