How can you fix the sidearm stroke?
- Thread starter King Jehu
- Start date
Leaving aside the stance issue for a moment:
I think writing about pool is a peculiar challenge.
Generally, when we write, the process is about trying to find words that fit our ideas, whereas when we read, the process is about assembling meaning from the words in front of us. So reading isn't quite the reverse process of writing. Usually, the two processes fit together well enough (what we write communicates what we imagined or intended). But not always.
Taking the example from this thread: "The rotation is there to put his right shoulder higher so he don't have to use so much external rotation and shoulder extension to get his arm pointing more straight down."
You can see how the writer gets to that sentence - the words reflect his ideas. But for a reader trying to construct what specifically is happening in the player's body, you can't get back to the same image the writer imagined.
And that's fair enough - we're describing a complex process with a lot of moving parts; hard to summarize with precision in a single sentence. A picture is worth a thousand words, a video might comprise a thousand stills, and actually experiencing doing something right (with in-person instruction) might be worth a thousand videos (so one billion words).
I read recently that people's average attention span using a monitor is 47 seconds.
Part of the answer might be reviewing what we write. But when we do so, we are, in effect, reminding ourselves of what we've written - so we're still not in the shoes of our reader, who sees it for the first time. (Although a longer time between writing and reviewing helps.) There is a quote I don't quite remember, saying we should listen carefully to feedback from our readers, because they're the only ones who can tell us what it feels like to read our work.
Another quote I can't quite remember is from Robert Byrne, to the effect that 'a little factual inaccuracy can save a lot of explanation'.
That one caught my attention because my general approach (and the approach needed in my professional work) is to make factual exactness the priority, and fit clarity of explanation around that. But if you're describing ball dynamics in the Standard Book of Pool and Billiards, Byrne is absolutely right.
So context dictates what we should try to achieve.
Although for Pagaspoling, I'd say just keep writing, and try to take another look at some of your work a few days later, for a clear-headed review.
I think writing about pool is a peculiar challenge.
Generally, when we write, the process is about trying to find words that fit our ideas, whereas when we read, the process is about assembling meaning from the words in front of us. So reading isn't quite the reverse process of writing. Usually, the two processes fit together well enough (what we write communicates what we imagined or intended). But not always.
Taking the example from this thread: "The rotation is there to put his right shoulder higher so he don't have to use so much external rotation and shoulder extension to get his arm pointing more straight down."
You can see how the writer gets to that sentence - the words reflect his ideas. But for a reader trying to construct what specifically is happening in the player's body, you can't get back to the same image the writer imagined.
And that's fair enough - we're describing a complex process with a lot of moving parts; hard to summarize with precision in a single sentence. A picture is worth a thousand words, a video might comprise a thousand stills, and actually experiencing doing something right (with in-person instruction) might be worth a thousand videos (so one billion words).
I read recently that people's average attention span using a monitor is 47 seconds.
Part of the answer might be reviewing what we write. But when we do so, we are, in effect, reminding ourselves of what we've written - so we're still not in the shoes of our reader, who sees it for the first time. (Although a longer time between writing and reviewing helps.) There is a quote I don't quite remember, saying we should listen carefully to feedback from our readers, because they're the only ones who can tell us what it feels like to read our work.
Another quote I can't quite remember is from Robert Byrne, to the effect that 'a little factual inaccuracy can save a lot of explanation'.
That one caught my attention because my general approach (and the approach needed in my professional work) is to make factual exactness the priority, and fit clarity of explanation around that. But if you're describing ball dynamics in the Standard Book of Pool and Billiards, Byrne is absolutely right.
So context dictates what we should try to achieve.
Although for Pagaspoling, I'd say just keep writing, and try to take another look at some of your work a few days later, for a clear-headed review.
Sorry, PJ, that I left this out of my post, but I've described this myth in this subforum before.
Rifle shooting requires crisp sights close to my eye--two eyes on the sights will cross my eyes and blur the sights. Pool shooting is on a distant target, often over 9 feet out--and I don't want to close one eye, as I might using a rifle.
People with pure "monocular" vision sight best under one eye, pure "binocular" vision, chin/nose. Almost every right-hander I test has neither, and has instead a vision center/pool line of sight betwen their nose and eye--even players who've lost the sight capability of one eye through glaucoma or an accident.
Last edited:
Fixing it requires deliberate conscious effort, over and over and over again, until a non-sidearm stroke feels normal. This is why many sidearm players never fix it - it takes a lot of work. And, honestly, once you've done a sidearm stroke for so long, and have become consistent with it, there isn't much motivation to rework everything simply because it would look better.
This game is all about consistent and accurate stroke delivery. As odd as it looks, plenty of great players have had some very unorthodox strokes. But if you're struggling with consistency, then you should definitely rework your stroke. It's much harder to reach higher levels of play when you're trying to perfect a wonky stroke.
This game is all about consistent and accurate stroke delivery. As odd as it looks, plenty of great players have had some very unorthodox strokes. But if you're struggling with consistency, then you should definitely rework your stroke. It's much harder to reach higher levels of play when you're trying to perfect a wonky stroke.
Well, I have to agree that this dominant eye thing is partly myth. However, aligning the body with how the eyes are seeing things isn't so straightforward or simple.
The brain typically favors one eye over the other, and it depends on how that eye communicates its information to the brain. Many people incorrectly assume that the dominate eye sees better or more clearly, but really it just communicates better or more efficiently with the brain's occipital lobe. This is where light captured by the eyes gets processed as 2D images. This information then goes to the parietal lobe so we can make sense of what we are seeing (gauge distances, depth perception, gain a sense of the physical space and objects around us). This is where the mind creates the 3D world we see.
Anyway, getting our body aligned to what we are seeing involves proprioception (the sense of knowing where our body parts are in relation to the space around us). Some people have poor proprioception when compared to others, and so they struggle at getting their body aligned correctly in accordance with what they're seeing. It might feel right and look right to them, but it's really not.
Is this an eye dominance issue? I don't think so. It seems to me that it's more about faulty or poorly developed proprioception with certain muscles and body movements. The good news is that proprioception can be improved through conscious effort, deliberate and precise muscle control, over and over, training or retraining the brain to associate what we're seeing with what we're feeling (the correct alignment of our body).
Great explanation, and I think that's why the dominant eye should be taken seriously. The myth part --- that the player always sees better with the dominant eye ---- is a myth for sure. They don't always see better with that eye. But if the player is able to make the necessary aiming adjustments with the cue placed under the dominant eye, then it's a win-win situation for that player. Usually, they do make those adjustments unconsciously or consciously, based on the feedback they get from the results of shots they play.
But I think what's important to note is that forcing the cue placement somewhere else (particularly with players who have severely dominant eyes), and then building a stance around that forced placement will create a struggle for that player, because the player will unconsciously start to drift the cue back to the dominant eye. Then their stance will be off, and they are back to square-one.
Edit: And even if they are able to consciously fight off the tendency to drift back (which, by the way, is a zone-killer), they can strain and tire their eyes by opposing their anatomy and forcing a different way of seeing.
Last edited:
Yeah, I think that it would be easier and more effective to train the body to respond to what the eyes are seeing, rather than the other way around, if that makes any sense.
Maybe I still misunderstand you, but...
Dominant eye is not a myth - almost everybody has one.
For the most consistent and accurate sighting:
Sometimes the cue should be positioned directly under the dominant eye (for players with a very strongly dominant eye).
Often the cue should be positioned midway between the eyes / under the nose (for players with no or a very weakly dominant eye).
Mostly the cue should be positioned closer to the dominant eye (for players with a normally dominant eye).
pj
chgo
Last edited:
There's a lot of truth to exaggerating the fix. I use it as a tool often. Pinning the elbow to the body temporarily can help a player to adjust to a new feel and then the actual fix won't feel as drastic. But also, in this case, there will be other adjustments needed as well.
Last edited:
Zerksies
Well-known member
Other issues always pop-up. Just looking at the picture foot placement is going to be an issue.
Almost everyone has a dominant eye. Yes.
But since pure monocular (or binocular) vision--vision center under one eye (or midway between the eyes/under the nose)--is rare--most right handers have a vision center that is between their right eye and nose (left-handers between their left eye and nose).
Leigh
Registered
Just speaking as someone crosseyed dominant with my center of vision being under my left eye... there is huge difference in getting my cue where it needs to be compared to when I shoot lefty.
Leigh
Registered
Gotta say it again .... I don't think we need to attach the word "myth" to there being a biological difference between lining your cue under your center of vision when your center of vision is under your left eye and you shoot right. (And go ahead and start navigating the fact of being five foot nothing and having boobs...it's not always the easiest.) When I shoot lefty I line up easily and well balanced - I just hate doing it.
Fran - you said:
Whatever the reason, it must be corrected, as you can see in the photo that the player's ability to swing his arm is restricted. Even with a cross-dominant eye, there are stances available to the player that allow the shooting arm to hang straight down from the elbow.
Are there any tips and tricks you tell your cross eye dominant players? A straight stroke for me means getting the cue under me or standing slightly sideways to the shot. Sideways gives me more room - but it does not feel as consistent. With the cue being under me, as long as I tuck my elbow a little bit I can shoot dead center - but it is not automatic... I have to think of every little thing in my PSR. It is slowly getting more automated...
(Again... I am tiny so there just isn't a ton of clearance to begin with.)
I guess I am hijacking the original post....
Fran - you said:
Whatever the reason, it must be corrected, as you can see in the photo that the player's ability to swing his arm is restricted. Even with a cross-dominant eye, there are stances available to the player that allow the shooting arm to hang straight down from the elbow.
Are there any tips and tricks you tell your cross eye dominant players? A straight stroke for me means getting the cue under me or standing slightly sideways to the shot. Sideways gives me more room - but it does not feel as consistent. With the cue being under me, as long as I tuck my elbow a little bit I can shoot dead center - but it is not automatic... I have to think of every little thing in my PSR. It is slowly getting more automated...
(Again... I am tiny so there just isn't a ton of clearance to begin with.)
I guess I am hijacking the original post....
As long as you can comfortably take a full stroke without restriction, then either way works. I know that many players like to have the cue touching from one part to even 5 parts of their body to assure them of a straight stroke. That touch method makes sense to me for snooker, because of the large playing surface and small balls and pockets. And many snooker players- turned pool players bring that methodology with them to the pool table.
As for pool, many great pool players have played without touch points and never suffered for it. I've tried with and without, and I immediately felt the restriction even with just one touch point (not including grip and bridge, of course).
Experimentation is tricky, because you have to do it one way exclusively --- long enough to decide if you like it or not. I think you should take the time to experiment with both, so that once you decide, you're certain.
I do appreciate your concern for players and clarity, but I didn't use "myth" in that context. I've seen dozens of pool books and videos where pool is compared to rifle shooting (myth) and where players are told "directly under the chin or your dominant eye". Ah, but "the chin on stick" pros usually have their head rotated, that is, "under the chin" is also under one eye or cheekbone and not directly under the bridge of their nose.
So I believe thousands of players are held back by forcing their cue into the wrong position (thanks, YouTube) because they are forced to imagine or "feel for" a target they do not see optimally. There is a cure--some will disagree with me, but cross-dominant players will benefit, too. Put your head over the shot where you get the best view of the ball's path to the pocket. If you can see a clear target, you can push your hand along that line of sight and score the ball, even if your vision center is not above center cue ball.
Gene Albrecht's Perfect Aim System does this to an extent. He has the eyes in an object ball relationship based on degree and direction of cut. A lot of Gene's students improve their aim quickly through his system.
I'm agreeing and saying that for some backwards cut at a steep angle or what-have-you, I'll move my head a foot to one side of the stick while leaving my hands on the shot line. If I can see it, I can hit it. That's also why fraction and other systems break down. I can't visualize an eighth of an object ball nine feet away from the cue ball, let alone 1/32 of an o.b., but I can move my head laterally in the stance and see very tough cuts, and see them very well.
In other words, it looks non-orthodox, but I'll invite (some of my) students to leave their hands in the stance where they are, then move their heads and watch the angles (appear as if they) change. Then they make some otherwise difficult cuts, and begin to build subjective aim adjustments that raise their percentages overall, eventually returning to a more normal-looking stance.
I expect some pushback on this one, but you know what? The player who doesn't keep their head exactly in the same place to guess at steep angles will lose to the player who can see the shots. The sighted player will (usually!) beat the blind player.
Wow, tight-lipped Matt just gave away a good aim system for free. Move your head so you can see the target optimally, and vision center can take a hike--at least until you see good shotmaking, which will drive you toward in-the-zone optimal play.
Leigh
Registered
Int
Interesting points.
Looking at the OP pic.
If I was on the right side of this shooter in this fixed shooting position.
I could touch the r/s of his hip and easily push him to the left and knock him over.
His footwork is out of balance.
If he kept his feet in this position, rose up off the shot and put his cue on the table, I know this person would not be very stable.
That means some of his body weight is Very Likely ''on table''.
I'd first try opening up his stance with a slight kick out of the left foot, or a slight counterclockwise body rotation to get ''balanced''.... then I'd look at the chicken wing.
This body rotation could bring the ''wing'' inward naturally.
Last edited:
After a stance adjustment, I would the player then line up object balls 1 diamond from the short rail then get into his new stance and shoot these object balls (with his routine) one handed with the shaft resting on the rail. That would nearly 'force' his arm to be completely vertical and the only way to have any control. Worth investigating! Let me know how that goes.