Dominant Eye-another view

[sfleinen]

Thank you for your answer, but it isn't an answer to my question, I am familiar with all the posibilities of cue/eye placement and I do think it matters, but that is not what I was asking.

Thanks anyway..

Anyone else?!

Mirza:

Mind if I take a swing? I have a nice new bat made of Hickory that I cut from a tornado-felled Hickory tree in my area, and I'm dying to use it...

Let me ask you some questions:

1. Do you find, when you discover that your eye dominance has shifted, that if you concentrate on something with your opposite eye, that you can get it to shift to that other eye? For example, if you notice that your left eye is dominant "today" when your right was "yesterday," if you stare at something with both eyes open, but making a conscious effort to ignore the information from your left eye, that suddenly, your right eye is now "dominant" again? If so, I think this is normal. This happens with me, and I can quite literally make either eye "dominant" almost at will. It's not a question of whether an eye is "dominant," but rather which pathways in the brain were lit up last.

2. Do you have eye preferences for different tasks? For example, if you need to read the fine print on a medicine bottle or coupon or what-have-you, do you find that you "prefer" a certain eye? And, does the "other" eye have a purpose for opposite/other tasks, like trying to make things out at a distance, or aiming/aligning the iron sights on a rifle to a target in the distance? Again, I think that's normal -- just different brain pathways that were "paved" that way when you were very young (although I think they *can* be repaved in a different direction with focused, conscious effort).

3. I don't mean to get personal here, but when's the last time you had a physical -- with blood work? Here, the question would be about blood sugar and triglycerides. I say this, because some blood sugar imbalances can, and do, affect your vision first, as one of the early warning symptoms. I'm just throwing this one out there -- again, not to get personal.

Thoughts?
-Sean

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Thanks, Patrick, again!

Where's my money?

pj
chgo

 

[Mirza]

Mirza:

Mind if I take a swing? I have a nice new bat made of Hickory that I cut from a tornado-felled Hickory tree in my area, and I'm dying to use it...

Let me ask you some questions:

1. Do you find, when you discover that your eye dominance has shifted, that if you concentrate on something with your opposite eye, that you can get it to shift to that other eye? For example, if you notice that your left eye is dominant "today" when your right was "yesterday," if you stare at something with both eyes open, but making a conscious effort to ignore the information from your left eye, that suddenly, your right eye is now "dominant" again? If so, I think this is normal. This happens with me, and I can quite literally make either eye "dominant" almost at will. It's not a question of whether an eye is "dominant," but rather which pathways in the brain were lit up last.

2. Do you have eye preferences for different tasks? For example, if you need to read the fine print on a medicine bottle or coupon or what-have-you, do you find that you "prefer" a certain eye? And, does the "other" eye have a purpose for opposite/other tasks, like trying to make things out at a distance, or aiming/aligning the iron sights on a rifle to a target in the distance? Again, I think that's normal -- just different brain pathways that were "paved" that way when you were very young (although I think they *can* be repaved in a different direction with focused, conscious effort).

3. I don't mean to get personal here, but when's the last time you had a physical -- with blood work? Here, the question would be about blood sugar and triglycerides. I say this, because some blood sugar imbalances can, and do, affect your vision first, as one of the early warning symptoms. I'm just throwing this one out there -- again, not to get personal.

Thoughts?
-Sean

Well actually I got my physical a few days ago and I do have high triglycerides (3.6). That has something to do with my vision?

I always use both eyes, but when something needs just one eye to concentrate with (like I do it while aiming, I feel like it'll be more precise) I always tend to use my right eye coz I did the test and saw I'm right eye dominant, never even tried to use the left one.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Hi Mirza, a right-handed player who sticks their left, dominant eye over the cue may not shoot better, but they will need a chiropractor.

But to answer your question, yes, a right-handed, right-eyed dominant player may want the cue closer to their left eye just for pool -- especially if their head is tilted so that their left eye is closer to the object ball, which some players do...

 

[GoBilliards]

Anyone who doesnt think dominate eye is important has never fired a shotgun. If you are right eye dominate and and left handed you will not be a good shot with both eyes open. Close the dominate eye when you shoot and the theory is out the window with the rest of the trash.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Matt:

I think the issue is that "About.com" is not recognized as a source of vetted pool information. To be honest, I'd not heard of it until a few years ago, and I'd long been an AZB member by then. I think I was searching for something one day, using very targeted Google searches, and some article of yours came up. I was like, "hmph. Didn't know this generic information site had a pool corner. I'll have to check it out one day." It was only until I saw a few Google searches turn up more articles that I perused your area for a while to become familiar.



We're not going to agree on this, Matt, so I'll leave it to you if you want to burn CPU cycles trying to "convince" me otherwise.



Good grief. We were once on the topic of this site compared to the AOLs of the Internet (e.g. About.com, eHow.com) and how articles should be vetted against "conventional wisdom" in think-tanks before being published. But, a passing mention of an article that I, to this day, still disagree with (a single sentence mention -- to use as an example of the point I was trying to make), inspired all this? It's not going to work, Matt. For one thing, that Shari Stauch article is 3 years short of being 20 years old. That article has long, l-o-n-g been discussed here on these forums, if you'll care to look. It's old, dead fodder -- no need to resurrect it. That is, unless, via your new-ish membership here, you're thinking it's "valid ammo" to bring to a discussion of aiming, not realizing it's already old fodder? I'll give you a hint: that article has already been identified for what it is -- a collection of quoted anecdotes from pro players, and not really a de-facto description of "how the pros aim." I don't know about anyone else, but back then -- and even now -- I didn't "learn" anything by reading that article. Rather, I came away with a, "hmph, that's interesting" notion. That's it. No, "Ooo! I'll have to go try that!" light bulb illumination or anything like that. Just, "Hmph. Ok, that's an interesting way Buddy puts it." Just like when reading the morning paper.

Let's get back on topic with the original topic of this thread -- dominant eye, and the OP's misuse of the scenario he describes.

-Sean

1. About.com isn't vetted for pool? Is AZ vetted? (I'm talking about the Wild West that is these forums.) Everyone who tells me, "You should check out the latest posts at AZ!" also says with the next breath, "There are a lot of uninformed and/or rude people there, though."

2. I'm not interested in "convincing you" but I will reply publicly every time someone looks down their nose publicly at About.com's readers. And you're offering a cursory opinion, having read some articles (I do appreciate that). But I webmaster the site and I'm personally aware of the fabulous readers and contributors we have.

3. Most every thread here at AZ has contrary arguments. I do look for previous posts on a lot of things, but disdaining Shari's article that "the pros didn't tel the truth" or "Shari didn't print the real stuff" is pretentious and Ad hominem IMO.

No, the article doesn't need to lead to a shattering revelation, but a careful read reveals most pros saying they use contact point aim now, and played ghost ball as a kid. And that's okay, my Aim Primer shares both methods and others. But since most everyone at AZ uses aim methods Lassiter and Crane, Greenleaf and Mosconi used, taught to them by earlier players, saying it's 20 years old isn't a weighty argument for me. Tommy Kennedy and Efren Reyes still use the same aim methods they used then.

--I'd like to get back to the topic at hand also, but I will not sit by and let people disdain my teaching or my readers.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Anyone who doesnt think dominate eye is important has never fired a shotgun. If you are right eye dominate and and left handed you will not be a good shot with both eyes open. Close the dominate eye when you shoot and the theory is out the window with the rest of the trash.

Sir, one's dominant eye is vital in target shooting. I've shot rifles, P99s, PPKs, ASPs, etc.

But in rifle shooting the target can be blurry while the nearby sight is crisp.

In pool, we want a crisp object ball in our vision instead, and we usually don't look at the cue tip and the white ball too much, right? If we do, it may be blurred in our peripheral vision, the inverse of target shooting with a gun.

Kranicki's and Alciatore's "Vision Center" is more accurate. The pros who go one eye right over the cue are possibly eye dominant and not ambiocular, and/or they were told that by a pool teacher and adjusted over time to shoot the lights out.

 

[sfleinen]

Hi Mirza, a right-handed player who sticks their left, dominant eye over the cue may not shoot better, but they will need a chiropractor.

For a snooker ("square-on") stance, yes. Trying to angle the head over the cue where the opposite eye is over it, yes, that will cause some neck and back problems. There are some snooker players that shoot this way, though, like Liang Wenbo, who's a lefty but cranes his neck to put his right eye over the cue:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2ZugWPvJkNY#t=35s

However, for pool players, this "needing a chiropractor" is not true, since the classic Lance Perkins pool stance positions the hips, legs, and feet at approximately a 45-degree angle, and it thus naturally angles the head/face over the cue where the opposite eye "leads" the other eye. The player just merely "leans more" over the cue to place that opposite eye over it.

But to answer your question, yes, a right-handed, right-eyed dominant player may want the cue closer to their left eye just for pool -- especially if their head is tilted so that their left eye is closer to the object ball, which some players do...

I'm not sure of the logic to that one. If anything, one would want their stronger / sharper-focusing eye over the cue. I'm not sure what value having this eye "providing an outside, passenger-side mirror angle" to the shot gives, and may, in fact, distort the shot picture to that one side. And I wouldn't say "tilted," either. Rotated, yes. But tilted? Tilt, to me, means the head is canted to one side. (Although some successful players, especially in the past, have shot this way.)

-Sean

 

[BilliardsAbout]

For a snooker ("square-on") stance, yes. Trying to angle the head over the cue where the opposite eye is over it, yes, that will cause some neck and back problems. There are some snooker players that shoot this way, though, like Liang Wenbo, who's a lefty but cranes his neck to put his right eye over the cue:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2ZugWPvJkNY#t=35s

However, for pool players, this "needing a chiropractor" is not true, since the classic Lance Perkins pool stance positions the hips, legs, and feet at approximately a 45-degree angle, and it thus naturally angles the head/face over the cue where the opposite eye "leads" the other eye. The player just merely "leans more" over the cue to place that opposite eye over it.



I'm not sure of the logic to that one. If anything, one would want their stronger / sharper-focusing eye over the cue. I'm not sure what value having this eye "providing an outside, passenger-side mirror angle" to the shot gives, and may, in fact, distort the shot picture to that one side. And I wouldn't say "tilted," either. Rotated, yes. But tilted? Tilt, to me, means the head is canted to one side. (Although some successful players, especially in the past, have shot this way.)

-Sean

1. Yes, I understand what you are saying, but it's got to be undertaken with caution. I've posted photos before to show how someone can get in trouble leaning over too much and crumpling the arm.

It's been upsetting that people insist on eye over cue stick or chin over cue stick when the arm placement is more important IMO and shoving the head around can ruin stance and hamper aim--more below.

2. Yes, sir, rotated on the neck, not tilted off-level. Thanks for the excellent correction.

[[If anything, one would want their stronger / sharper-focusing eye over the cue.]]

3. I'm going to go for it here if that is okay. I'm not arguing with you, just inviting more thoughts from everyone...

...Say you are cutting a ball thinly. Do you want your better eye (if you have one) over the cue stick on a center ball stroke, or is there a best practice for positioning it for the upcoming stroke? I'm not challenging you here, I'm just opening it up to discussion and I think there are several good answers here. Example eye positions would differ for those who stand on the parallel aim line, and for those using Perfect Aim, and etc. Your comments?

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Where's my money?

pj
chgo

I gave it to "Willie" to hold while you play "the fish of the day." You'll cash tonight, I know. Go get 'em!

Seriously, I wish you well. The world needs more players who know the game as well as you. And I'm grateful for your diagrams also.

 

[sfleinen]

1. About.com isn't vetted for pool? Is AZ vetted? (I'm talking about the Wild West that is these forums.) Everyone who tells me, "You should check out the latest posts at AZ!" also says with the next breath, "There are a lot of uninformed and/or rude people there, though."

"Is AZ vetted?" You betcha. If anything wrong is posted, it's quickly replied to, and corrected. Are there a lot of uninformed readers here, of course. But like any forum with a good mix of contributorship, the reader is quick to notice who the real contributors of valuable information are.

2. I'm not interested in "convincing you" but I will reply publicly every time someone looks down their nose publicly at About.com's readers. And you're offering a cursory opinion, having read some articles (I do appreciate that). But I webmaster the site and I'm personally aware of the fabulous readers and contributors we have.

Fine. Continue to reply publicly if you feel as passionately as you do about the value of About.com's ability to offer very focused and valuable information. There is one problem, though -- you are the only contributor, and your readership relies on *you* to be up to date and accurate with your information. You'll find out very quickly when you "advertise" links for your articles here, and erroneous information is found in them -- and *that* was the point that you're so expertly dodging.

3. Most every thread here at AZ has contrary arguments. I do look for previous posts on a lot of things, but disdaining Shari's article that "the pros didn't tel the truth" or "Shari didn't print the real stuff" is pretentious and Ad hominem IMO.

Disdain? There *you* go, inserting words or innuendos that weren't said or even intended by me. All I said was the article didn't give startling revelations, and instead offered an interesting mix of quotes and anecdotes from various pool players. That's not disdain for the article, Matt. In fact, I enjoyed the article then, and I enjoy reading it now. I just didn't learn anything by reading it. Please put away *your* pretenses and attempts to mark me as an ad hominem attacker.

No, the article doesn't need to lead to a shattering revelation, but a careful read reveals most pros saying they use contact point aim now, and played ghost ball as a kid. And that's okay, my Aim Primer shares both methods and others. But since most everyone at AZ uses aim methods Lassiter and Crane, Greenleaf and Mosconi used, taught to them by earlier players, saying it's 20 years old isn't a weighty argument for me. Tommy Kennedy and Efren Reyes still use the same aim methods they used then.

Um, excuse me. Here you go with the pretenses again, and you're actually showing your newbie unfamiliarity with some of the membership here. I actually use ghost ball, CP-to-CP, and these other classic methods of aiming, rolled into a technique called back-of-ball aiming (as taught in snooker circles). I also try to keep up with some of the alternative aiming methods taught like CTE.

--I'd like to get back to the topic at hand also, but I will not sit by and let people disdain my teaching or my readers.

<yawn> You put yourself in that position, bucko. You come on here "advertising" your articles, and when erroneous information is found in them, you resort to opening one side of your trench coat to show us all your certifications and reasons why we should just "automatically" bow-down to you. As you can see, it ain't happening the way you planned.

-Sean

 

[dr_dave]

Kranicki's and Alciatore's "Vision Center" is more accurate.

Since this thread got sidetracked quite a bit, I'll post some links again for people who are interested in learning more. Articles, drills, and video demos dealing with the substantive topics of this thread can be found here:

"vision center" resource page
sighting resource page
dominant eye resource page​

Regards,
Dave

 

[BilliardsAbout]

[[If anything wrong is posted, it's quickly replied to, and corrected.]]

**Sometimes that is true. I find the cure worse than the disease here, lots of times. I know others have expressed the same sentiment even on this thread. You're also assuming much about the About.com site, that it exists in a vacuum of my making. We have forums, places to comment on every article, and I receive thousands of e-mails from readers. I've mentioned elsewhere that I have several fellows pros and pro teachers with me on the site as well as I've had them with my book/DVD and at InsidePool.

[[You'll find out very quickly when you "advertise" links for your articles here, and erroneous information is found in them -- and *that* was the point that you're so expertly dodging.]]

**I'm not dodging anything and have been egged on by others to continue fighting. I've said in numerous posts I'm here this week to debate with some good people, including you, and not to merely advertise. You'll appreciate though, that it is my right to point out when opinions are being confused with facts. When someone points out erroneous information--note I thanked you for your correction in something else just this evening--I try to respond and thank the contributor. But when someone points out "erroneous" information like "About.com readers don't know as much about pool as we at AZ do", I respond with facts and continue to thank the contributor.

[[Please put away *your* pretenses and attempts to mark me as an ad hominem attacker.]]

I apologize as I in no way meant to loop you into that mess. I meant that threads saying Shari's scholarship is slipshod or the pros didn't "really" tell her how they aim is spotty. Many of those pros are still with us and still say similar things regarding aim methods.

You didn't attack me, and I apologize certainly, I didn't mean your remarks, but I'm saying I wouldn't find much "conventional wisdom" in threads saying such things.

[[you're actually showing your newbie unfamiliarity with some of the membership here]]

No, I'm saying two things. 1) A careful look at Shari's article affirms the many pros who like contact aim, not that you have to use contact aim 2) I'm not putting on a pretense, nor am I saying you are pretentious, but I was surprised you cited the age of the article as a problem, when those pros were playing actively when they were quoted and those still with us use the same or similar aim technique today. It's not pretentious to say "Greenleaf used backhand english so it wasn't evolved by today's smarter players". And we all know H.H. was teaching CTE 50 years ago. This should lead both of us, who use a variety of methods and "aim" by standing on these giants' shoulders, to a place of respect and humility. Would you say to Tommy Kennedy, "Hey, you didn't give a real quote in Shari's article and your aim method (with which you became the then-youngest U.S. Open Champion) is old news, bucko? No, you wouldn't. Tommy gets on the back of the ball then looks a little left and/or right with his eyes until he's shooting accurately. Just like he said then. The difference with me lately is I can't just pass over all the attacks anymore, the way Tommy takes the jeers when he refuses to gamble as a born again Christian. Perhaps my character is lacking.

[[resort to opening one side of your trench coat to show us all your certifications and reasons why we should just "automatically" bow-down to you]]

No, but a careful review of threads this week had me responding to others with my references and background when those were attacked without basis in fact. I also put that in the record in those posts, that I was told, "No credentials," then gave credentials or "This aim article is wrong" then gave some facts.

[[As you can see, it ain't happening the way you planned.]]

All I've planned to date is 1) be respectful to you and the others at AZ 2) defend myself when attacked 3) often, this means saying "where are your facts, here are my facts" in a debate.

Let's shake on it and be friends. But friend, let's debate aim like gentlemen, perhaps on another thread more pertinent to the debate, and let's continue to share facts. You understand pool. I'm neither accusing you nor attacking you, ever.

 

[GoBilliards]

Sir, one's dominant eye is vital in target shooting. I've shot rifles, P99s, PPKs, ASPs, etc.

But in rifle shooting the target can be blurry while the nearby sight is crisp.

In pool, we want a crisp object ball in our vision instead, and we usually don't look at the cue tip and the white ball too much, right? If we do, it may be blurred in our peripheral vision, the inverse of target shooting with a gun.

Kranicki's and Alciatore's "Vision Center" is more accurate. The pros who go one eye right over the cue are possibly eye dominant and not ambiocular, and/or they were told that by a pool teacher and adjusted over time to shoot the lights out.

The proper way to shoota shotgun (Wing Shooting) is with both eyes open. This practice is almost exactly the same as pool shooting. I was trying to make my point that If you do this, and you are right handed and right eye dominate it is the best way to wing shoot. but if you are right eye dominate and left handed, or the opposite, You cannot get your aiming correct because you cannot look down the BBl with the correct eye. You will always miss in the same spot because you are looking accross the barrel without realizing it. The only fix for this is to shoot opposite handed or close your dominant eye.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

The proper way to shoota shotgun (Wing Shooting) is with both eyes open. This practice is almost exactly the same as pool shooting. I was trying to make my point that If you do this, and you are right handed and right eye dominate it is the best way to wing shoot. but if you are right eye dominate and left handed, or the opposite, You cannot get your aiming correct because you cannot look down the BBl with the correct eye. You will always miss in the same spot because you are looking accross the barrel without realizing it. The only fix for this is to shoot opposite handed or close your dominant eye.

I see, that is interesting. Thanks for sharing that very much.

 

[AtLarge]

... And we all know H.H. was teaching CTE 50 years ago. ...

If by "H.H." you mean Hal Houle, what's the basis for your statement? (He didn't tell me that.)

 

[AtLarge]

...a plurality of pros aim right at the contact point. ...the player is merely making an unconscious adjustment

Matt, I apologize for shortening what you said to the two fragments above, but I think it may briefly summarize something you believe. And I have not yet taken the time to read all the articles you have cited in this thread.

BUT, I would urge you to consider the following as a strong possibility. When good players say they aim at the contact point, I would not necessarily take that to mean that they initially aim the center of the cue stick through the center of the CB (let's assume no english) at the contact point on the OB, and then make some unconscious adjustment that sends the CB on a different path to the OB -- the path needed to make the shot.

Rather, I believe in many cases "I aim at the contact point" simply means they aim at the contact point on the OB in some fashion with the CB. "In some fashion" might mean trying to explicitly identify the necessary CB contact point and send that into the OB contact point. It might also include other approaches. But common to them would be consciously pointing the stick outside the intended contact point on the OB, not at it.

 

[dr_dave]

Rather, I believe in many cases "I aim at the contact point" simply means they aim at the contact point on the OB in some fashion with the CB. "In some fashion" might mean trying to explicitly identify the necessary CB contact point and send that into the OB contact point. It might also include other approaches. But common to them would be consciously pointing the stick outside the intended contact point on the OB, not at it.

Good post. I agree. What people say and write isn't always what they do. And what they say and write doesn't always make sense ... and sometimes it is flat wrong. This has been true of what many pro players have said and written over the years ... and even some instructors at times. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that what they say and write can't be helpful to some people (even if it is unhelpful to others).

To extend your thought, if somebody says they "aim at the contact point," in reality they could actually be using any of the following systems that use the contact point to help one visualize sending the CB to the required ghost-ball position (which can be adjusted for throw when necessary):

ghost-ball aiming
contact-point-to-contact-point or parallel-lines system
double-the-distance or double-the-overlap aiming method
DAM aiming system
...​

Regards,
Dave

 

[sfleinen]

[...]
[[you're actually showing your newbie unfamiliarity with some of the membership here]]

No, I'm saying two things. 1) A careful look at Shari's article affirms the many pros who like contact aim, not that you have to use contact aim 2) I'm not putting on a pretense, nor am I saying you are pretentious, but I was surprised you cited the age of the article as a problem, when those pros were playing actively when they were quoted and those still with us use the same or similar aim technique today.[...]

Matt, you COMPLETELY missed my point. I cited the age of the article not because the age itself is a problem, but rather because that article has had many years of "air time" here on the forums, if you'll just look. That latter part -- the "air time" was the point I was trying to get across, if you would've just taken a bit more time and care in actually reading the full context of the paragraph wrapped around it, instead of zeroing on on the fact that I pointed out it was 17 years old. 17 years of existence has a habit of making the article pop up over those course of years, and *of course* it's going to get discussed in detail. Your bringing that old article to the table as some new revelation was being replied to, when in fact that article had been discussed ad-infinitum was my point.

You need to be more careful in how you read people's responses here. And this point is cemented by Exhibit A -- your method of "Ginsu-chopping" my response into little sentence fragments that you zero your crosshairs on and blast away at in serial fashion.

Please read and understand the *context* of what people are trying to say, instead of blasting away at certain sentence fragments.

BTW, for ease of getting your points across, you might be interested in learning how to use the "QUOTE" tags -- either by "stealing" the "QUOTE" tags in the quoted text you're replying to (i.e. copy/pasting them elsewhere in the quote text to break it up into sections), or else using the "QUOTE" button in the menubar at the top of every Reply to Thread form (this menubar sits on top of the text box itself -- just float your mouse cursor over each one and wait a second for the tooltips bubble to appear).

The double-square-bracket, while I was able to understand what you were trying to do, is definitely a non-conventional way of quoting text that you're replying to. Even in publishing circles (which I'm a member of), I've not seen the double-square-bracket method used.

[[As you can see, it ain't happening the way you planned.]]

All I've planned to date is 1) be respectful to you and the others at AZ 2) defend myself when attacked 3) often, this means saying "where are your facts, here are my facts" in a debate.

Let's shake on it and be friends. But friend, let's debate aim like gentlemen, perhaps on another thread more pertinent to the debate, and let's continue to share facts. You understand pool. I'm neither accusing you nor attacking you, ever.

Agreed. BTW, you'll notice that in my initial post to you and Pat, that I was very respectful, but in subsequent replies I responded in kind as you went on a defense and certifications/affiliations display to what you perceived as a slight to your About.com readership. I think what you're seeing here is that you'll get as good as you give -- from multiple angles, no less. Forums have an uncanny way of mirroring back behaviors projected out. In a way, it's behavior that's auto-correcting; if the writer/poster truly cares about he/she is perceived (as you do), the ship rights itself eventually.

Handshake gladly offered and accepted,
-Sean

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Matt, I apologize for shortening what you said to the two fragments above, but I think it may briefly summarize something you believe. And I have not yet taken the time to read all the articles you have cited in this thread.

BUT, I would urge you to consider the following as a strong possibility. When good players say they aim at the contact point, I would not necessarily take that to mean that they initially aim the center of the cue stick through the center of the CB (let's assume no english) at the contact point on the OB, and then make some unconscious adjustment that sends the CB on a different path to the OB -- the path needed to make the shot.

Rather, I believe in many cases "I aim at the contact point" simply means they aim at the contact point on the OB in some fashion with the CB. "In some fashion" might mean trying to explicitly identify the necessary CB contact point and send that into the OB contact point. It might also include other approaches. But common to them would be consciously pointing the stick outside the intended contact point on the OB, not at it.

That's a good clarification, thank you. I agree with you 100% regarding many good players.

Also, and it's interesting if not very important, I've had students who consciously point their cue stick through center ball at the contact point (undercut) who unconsciously are pointed at the ghost ball or near to it/CIT adjusted.

I clarify by asking a student to share their thoughts and whether they use an aim system or cut balls by instinct before suggesting adjustments, which I might not need to do--problems could be stance or stroke and not aim-related, of course.

I see what you are saying and what Dr. Dave is saying. As I wrote in an earlier post, what a good player does to pocket a ball is not always what they say--it seems it is usually not what they say.