Experiments in looking at the cueball while delivering the stroke.

The natural only gets a quick glance. Stephen Hendry gets my undevided attention. About the only thing, well short of Ronnie that would prompt me to resurrect the thread.
 
Stephen Hendry made it clear that a player can reach top level of play either way. He also laid down a 147 in the decider against Ronnie.
So the babbling of a natural just coming natural. Claim to the title of troll is recognized.🤷
 
Stephen Hendry made it clear that a player can reach top level of play either way. He also laid down a 147 in the decider against Ronnie.
So the babbling of a natural just coming natural. Claim to the title of troll is recognized.🤷
Hendry is looking through the cueball and sighting the object ball in his periphery, and at the moment of impact is diverting his eyes entirely to the object ball...so he is essentially looking at the object ball imo. I just think he would be better off de-cluttering his delivery and just focus on the object ball.
 
Like in golf...I remember recently some commentator saying "wow, he looks at the hole when devlivering the putt". I was like what? Why wouldn't he? Are you telling me that most professional golfers look at the golf ball when putting? No, you look at the hole during contact...pool is the same.
Notice, if you will, he said "when delivering the putt," not when striking it.

You don't need to look at the hole...or an ob...they aren't going to move. They aren't going to fly away like a clay bird. They are stationary. Your job is to hit the cue ball.....EXACTLY where you want to hit it. The one and only chance you have to physically affect the direction of the cue ball is at the moment of impact. If you even slightly miscue, the cue ball will not go EXACTLY where you want it to go. If I want to pull hit the baseball between the third baseman and the shortstop, I don't look at them when the pitcher is hurling the sphere. I'm trying to see the ball meet the bat, the moment of impact. In that millisecond, I am God. I can make the ball go where I want it to go. The greatest hitters of all time were looking for the stitches. The difference, of course, between hitting a baseball and a cue ball is that the baseball is moving. The cue ball is sitting very still. The object ball is sitting very still. The pocket is sitting very still. No negative waves, Moriarty. It's time to become a believer.
 
Last edited:
Suppose someone came along that closed their eyes when they shot??? WGAFF really how one person plays. Eyes on CB, OB, looking at the waitresses ass last. What difference does it make? Whatever works go with it. What i don't get is the crusade to convince us that CB-last is some better way to play. Its not. I started playing in '78 and i don't think i've had one person ever tell me they played CB last. Not saying they don't exist but its a small number and again, who cares?
 
Notice, if you will, he said "when delivering the putt," not when striking it.

You don't need to look at the hole...or an ob...they aren't going to move. They aren't going to fly away like a clay bird. They are stationary. Your job is to hit the cue ball.....EXACTLY where you want to hit it. The one and only chance you have to physically affect the direction of the cue ball is at the moment of impact. If you you even slightly miscue, the cue ball will not go EXACTLY where you want it to go. If I want to pull hit the baseball between the third baseman and the shortstop, I don't look at them when the pitcher is hurling the sphere. I'm trying to see the ball meet the bat, the moment of impact. In that millisecond, I am God. I can make the ball go where I want it to go. The greatest hitters of all time were looking for the stitches. The difference, of course, between hitting a baseball and a cue ball is that the baseball is moving. The cue ball is sitting very still. The object is sitting very still. The pocket is sitting very still. No negative waves, Moriarty. It's time to become a believer.
Delivering hitting whatever...he was referring to that at contact the golfer was looking at the hole not the golf ball...might have even been during his backswing. AND you don't have to hit EXACTLY anywhere. AND you affect the cueball for as long as the tip is in contact, including the follow through.
 
Suppose someone came along that closed their eyes when they shot??? WGAFF really how one person plays. Eyes on CB, OB, looking at the waitresses ass last. What difference does it make? Whatever works go with it. What i don't get is the crusade to convince us that CB-last is some better way to play. Its not. I started playing in '78 and i don't think i've had one person ever tell me they played CB last. Not saying they don't exist but its a small number and again, who cares?
It makes a difference both logically and in practice.
 
Hendry is looking through the cueball and sighting the object ball in his periphery, and at the moment of impact is diverting his eyes entirely to the object ball...so he is essentially looking at the object ball imo. I just think he would be better off de-cluttering his delivery and just focus on the object ball.
Oh gosh thanks for the ROFL. It seems that pretty well matches the Response received by Willie Hoppe. You know that guy that Billiards Digest named Player of the Century. He taught cue ball last. And oh yeah Harold Worst..... studied under Hoppe.
He just replied, "whatever" to the ludicrous arguments put forth by the uneducated.
 
I'd rather not be moving my eyes during the contact point of the shot..better to just be focussed on the object ball and pocket, and position. Especially if one of the fundamentals some people swear by is keeping your head still...do you really want to be averting your eyes up at the worst possible time and risk head movement?
When you are committed to staying with your eyes on the cue ball throughout the entire stroke, there is no eye or head movement.

I think we’ve made it clear that there is no crusade for some of us that have had success with this trying to push it on anyone else who doesn’t do it. It is only to present it as an option some may wish to experiment with, if they are struggling with their eye shift / focus routine during their stroke, and as a result, struggling with their shotmaking consistency.
 
Last edited:
Oh gosh thanks for the ROFL. It seems that pretty well matches the Response received by Willie Hoppe. You know that guy that Billiards Digest named Player of the Century. He taught cue ball last. And oh yeah Harold Worst..... studied under Hoppe.
He just replied, "whatever" to the ludicrous arguments put forth by the uneducated.
When you are committed to staying with your eyes on the cue ball throughout the entire stroke, there is no eye or head movement.

I think we’ve made it clear that there is no crusade for some of us that have had success with this trying to push it on anyone else who doesn’t do it. It is only to present it as an option some may wish to experiment with, if they are struggling with their eye shift / focus routine during their stroke, and as a result, struggling with their shotmaking consistency.
They are all wrong. Their games would have improved if they had better coaching.
 
The topic of OB last or CB last has been discussed in many AzB threads over the years.

Here's a poll on the subject from nearly 7 years ago. The number of voters was not large, but the split for AzB respondents was 85/15 in favor of OB last: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=394030

Here's something I've posted several times in the past.

For one large set of sports actions, let's call it Category I, the competitor is holding or is attached to a piece of equipment and desires to direct that piece of equipment elsewhere:
  • Throwing a baseball;
  • Throwing a football;
  • Throwing/shooting a basketball;
  • Throwing a dart;
  • Rolling a bowling ball;
  • Shooting an arrow;
  • Shooting a gun;
  • Driving a race car;
  • Riding a race horse.
In all of these, and many more, the competitor's "last look" is at the target for the ball or dart or car, etc. -- not at the ball (or steering wheel).

For another large set of sports actions, let's call it Category II, the competitor holds one piece of equipment and desires to hit another piece of equipment and direct that second piece of equipment to a desired target or with a certain degree of accuracy:
  • Hitting a baseball;
  • Kicking a football;
  • Hitting a tennis ball;
  • Hitting a golf ball;
  • Hitting a ping pong ball;
  • Hitting a badminton shuttlecock;
  • Striking a volley ball.
In all of these, and many more, the competitor's "last look" is at the ball -- not at the target for that ball and not at the piece of equipment he is holding.

So how about pool/billiards? Isn't it logically a Category II action? We hold one piece of equipment (the cue stick), desiring to strike a second piece of equipment (the cue ball), and send that second piece of equipment to a desired target (a proper hit on the object ball or rail). We are throwing the cue stick in an underhand motion at the cue ball. So "cue ball last" is appropriate, right?

But I am quite sure that the majority (but by no means all) of the top pool players look at the object ball last. If my analogies above are correct, why does "OB last" work so well for so many players? I believe it is because the cue ball is at rest and we can place our cue stick and bridge hand precisely behind it and thereby treat the combination of cue stick and cue ball as almost one piece of equipment instead of two. Then the cuing action becomes similar to a Category I action -- we are throwing the cue stick/ball at the object ball. So "object ball last" works just fine if the cue stick is always precisely delivered to the cue ball.

So either way -- CB last or OB last -- can work well in pool. I believe analogies with other sports argue more closely for CB last (my Category II above), but just a slightly different way of viewing what's happening can create a good Category I argument.​

And I would add that many "CB last" folks probably also have the object ball in their peripheral vision while the central focus is on the cue ball.
 
The topic of OB last or CB last has been discussed in many AzB threads over the years.

Here's a poll on the subject from nearly 7 years ago. The number of voters was not large, but the split for AzB respondents was 85/15 in favor of OB last: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=394030

Here's something I've posted several times in the past.

For one large set of sports actions, let's call it Category I, the competitor is holding or is attached to a piece of equipment and desires to direct that piece of equipment elsewhere:​
  • Throwing a baseball;
  • Throwing a football;
  • Throwing/shooting a basketball;
  • Throwing a dart;
  • Rolling a bowling ball;
  • Shooting an arrow;
  • Shooting a gun;
  • Driving a race car;
  • Riding a race horse.
In all of these, and many more, the competitor's "last look" is at the target for the ball or dart or car, etc. -- not at the ball (or steering wheel).​
For another large set of sports actions, let's call it Category II, the competitor holds one piece of equipment and desires to hit another piece of equipment and direct that second piece of equipment to a desired target or with a certain degree of accuracy:​
  • Hitting a baseball;
  • Kicking a football;
  • Hitting a tennis ball;
  • Hitting a golf ball;
  • Hitting a ping pong ball;
  • Hitting a badminton shuttlecock;
  • Striking a volley ball.
In all of these, and many more, the competitor's "last look" is at the ball -- not at the target for that ball and not at the piece of equipment he is holding.​
So how about pool/billiards? Isn't it logically a Category II action? We hold one piece of equipment (the cue stick), desiring to strike a second piece of equipment (the cue ball), and send that second piece of equipment to a desired target (a proper hit on the object ball or rail). We are throwing the cue stick in an underhand motion at the cue ball. So "cue ball last" is appropriate, right?​
But I am quite sure that the majority (but by no means all) of the top pool players look at the object ball last. If my analogies above are correct, why does "OB last" work so well for so many players? I believe it is because the cue ball is at rest and we can place our cue stick and bridge hand precisely behind it and thereby treat the combination of cue stick and cue ball as almost one piece of equipment instead of two. Then the cuing action becomes similar to a Category I action -- we are throwing the cue stick/ball at the object ball. So "object ball last" works just fine if the cue stick is always precisely delivered to the cue ball.​
So either way -- CB last or OB last -- can work well in pool. I believe analogies with other sports argue more closely for CB last (my Category II above), but just a slightly different way of viewing what's happening can create a good Category I argument.​

And I would add that many "CB last" folks probably also have the object ball in their peripheral vision while the central focus is on the cue ball.
I think your last sentence is critical. Peripheral vision is the magic potion. If I'm dove hunting (not previously identified coveys), my eyes are scanning left to right. If the dove jumps on my right while I'm looking left, my peripheral vision picks her up, it's that easy. Pool balls are sitting still. My eyes have found and locked in on the shot line. Once I've committed to the shot, I don't need to see much else because my peripheral vision can see just about the entire table. My only job is to make the cue ball travel as planned. For me, my best chance at hitting the cue ball so that it will go where I want it to go is by looking at it. Now, if the object ball was jumping around the table, I'd have to adjust to accommodate the new environment. But, it's not jumping.

I might add that in all of the games listed in Category 2 above except golf (I'm deleting football because I'm not holding my leg, it's already attached) the ball is moving. As noted, pool balls only move when they are struck and are thus considerably easier to hit than the other examples in the category. Also, in golf, when hitting driver, my eyes are approximately 66 inches from the ball and my eyes, my head, my hands (both of them), my arms, my shoulders, my hips, my legs and my feet have to move in perfect harmony just to get a chance at striking the ball. In pool, my bridge hand is fixed, and my grip hand only has to move a relatively short distance and the rest of my body is a relatively motion free platform . Point being, because of the magic and mystery of peripheral vison, I can devote all of my athletic discipline and attention to precisely striking the cue ball and still see virtually everything, up to and including the object ball and the pocket, on the table.

An easy test of the premise is to place the cue ball at the center of the table and an object ball half way between it and the corner pocket and straight in. Line up the shot and plan to draw the cue ball back to your bridge hand. Decide where on the cue ball you will need to strike it to make the cue ball accomplish your desired result, defined as making the ball and making the cue ball achieve position. Now, relax your eyes and instruct them to try to pick up the puff of chalk that happens when the tip hits the cue ball. Now, assess the results.
 
Last edited:
And I would add that many "CB last" folks probably also have the object ball in their peripheral vision while the central focus is on the cue ball
Your analysis is very good.👍
So, I am not interested in crusading. Just the Facts Mam (Dragnet or was it Car 54 Where Are You?)😉 My relating what I have found is just evidence.
The methods of the Greatest are of interest to me.
Efren was asked directly and response was Object ball. Ronnie O'Sullivan was asked directly regarding one particular shot. His answer was, "It could have been either." Then Stephen Hendry volunteered that his is the white.
My personal experience is that I have better control of the white by watching the impact. Just like baseball.
Starting out in pool,I was taught to consider the object ball the target and achieved success with that method. I was good at throwing a baseball at a target too.😉
Pocketing the object ball is the initial effect of controlling the cue ball. Where the cue ball comes to rest is the advanced control. I can achieve better advanced control watching my tip go through the cue ball. I don't expect it to work for all.
As to the peripheral vision, I think you are on to something. My periphery vision allows me to set my shooting platform very precisely while I maintain a Lazer focus on the object ball Contact Point. The snooker method of having my chin on the cue does keep both balls in a closer relationship. So the eyes don't move as far to trace the path my sighting down the cue indicates the ball should take. The leap of faith comes when I trust the judgements I have made and think about where I want the ball to go. My only control of that is at contact. Letting the ring finger make the call is another important factor for me.
 
I think your last sentence is critical. Peripheral vision is the magic potion.


Um, I was the one that brought up peripheral vision like twice already when explaining this cueball last method, so lets give credit where credit is due.

He claimed in an interview with someone, or they mentioned that he "oddly" looks at the cueball. But you can see in this video he looks at the object ball, then the cueball, then the object ball at or just after the point of contact...hes actually looking through the cueball here and seeing the black ball periphally. I tried this method and it works ok if you immediately move your eyes at the point of contact or shortly after like Hendry does here...but it is making your eye patterns unnecessarily busy for no real advantage. I'd rather not be moving my eyes during the contact point of the shot..better to just be focussed on the object ball and pocket, and position. Especially if one of the fundamentals some people swear by is keeping your head still...do you really want to be averting your eyes up at the worst possible time and risk head movement?

(Watch it in slowest playback speed)

Another example...do you type looking at the keys???? If you do you are slow and called a hunt and pecker.

Hendry is looking through the cueball and sighting the object ball in his periphery, and at the moment of impact is diverting his eyes entirely to the object ball...so he is essentially looking at the object ball imo. I just think he would be better off de-cluttering his delivery and just focus on the object ball.
 
Um, I was the one that brought up peripheral vision like twice already when explaining this cueball last method, so lets give credit where credit is due.
If you were the first person here to ever interject the concept of peripheral vision, then you may deserve a little credit, but you weren't. That said, you may qualify for a consolation prize. Which would you like, a gold star or a smiley face?
 
If you were the first person here to ever interject the concept of peripheral vision, then you may deserve a little credit, but you weren't. That said, you may qualify for a consolation prize. Which would you like, a gold star or a smiley face?
I should get all the Kudos for this topic.
 
If you were the first person here to ever interject the concept of peripheral vision, then you may deserve a little credit, but you weren't. That said, you may qualify for a consolation prize. Which would you like, a gold star or a smiley face?
A Porkchop on a string would be appropriate. On a string to hang it around his neck to get the dog to play with him.🤷
 
Back
Top