Missing shots more often?

[hang-the-9]

Well I wear bifocals in general I never used to wear them playing pool I just played and shot at the fuzzy balls. When I got glasses I had no idea they would make that much difference. I designed them myself for playing pool.


You can see how the ear pieces are angled and the extra padding on the nose so they sit high up on my nose. When I bend down over the shot the glasses are essentially perpendicular in front of my eyes so I'm not looking through the lens at an angle, but straight at the object ball. When I'm just standing around not shooting I can actually almost look underneath the lenses.

This was not very expensive at all. The frames are an old titanium set I had from a long time ago and a single vision lenses for like $40 to have installed.
It's not an original idea I've seen English snooker players use almost an identical frame setup.
For me it was all the difference in the world I could play again.

I was thinking about just having two glasses done, one with bifocals for general use, one standard for sharper table length focus, but the hassle of carrying around two glasses is a bit blah to me.

Laser eye surgery is something I keep thinking about, but have not talked about that with an eye doctor yet.

 

[smoooothstroke]

The only way you could know me is if we met at Hard Times in Bellflower in the past 5+ years. I am not a very good player but I just discovered how to sight a shot precisely just as the pandemic started. You need excellent eyesight but you also need to know how to use what your see.

Never been there. I thought maybe you were Jeremiah.

 

[jjohnson]

I don't get it. I thought readers just magnified for close-up vision and are not for far-sighted vision. Your t.v. being six feet from the foot of your bed puts it about ten feet away and I would think that with a reader, your t.v. image would be blurry. Any reader I have ever tried, it's for close-up vision of a foot or so. Maybe it works differently depending on if one is near-sighted or far-sighted? FWIW, for many years, I was near-sighted but over time (age 67 now), my distance vision improved and my near vision got slightly worse. So, I no longer wear glasses for driving but occasionally need readers for reading up close. But my response here applies to my perception of what readers do even before my eyes changed as I described. I am just surprised that a magnifying reader would allow you to see better at ten feet.

You are correct. Very astute. Yes, these cheap readers for one showed me that I need glasses. They clearly magnify and I can see clearly and easily from about 1 foot to 9 feet. I also use my television as a computer monitor. I have noticed that the print of file names in folders is slightly out of focus when wearing these glasses. But it is still better than not wearing them at this distance. The big take-away is the strain factor. It is very frustrating when you have to strain to see something. What happens is you get tired and just stop straining and take what you get. You clearly lose your edge when playing pool like this.

 

[jjohnson]

I downloaded a video I think it was from Youtube a few years ago. It is the 1988 US Open 9 Ball Championship at Cesar's Palace in Las Vegas. There are three matches: Howard v Sigel, Hall v Sigel, and Sigel v Strickland. There is one camera shot of Earl, a tight head and shoulders shot, where he watches Mike shooting. You can see Earl's piercing eyes moving back and forth in perfect unison. Their movement looked just like the robots in the Terminator movies. I think these top players have very sharp vision and their eyes are perfectly in sync. And their eyes are set in their head such that they are perfectly side by side perpendicular to the shot line. They can focus precisely at any distant point and this gives them the edge making them tremendous shot makers. And their eyes don't shake or shudder staying perfectly still.

 

[LWW]

1.25 is pretty weak.

If everything else is OK I wouldn't fool with prescriptions yet.

 

[jjohnson]

Did you ever see those commercials where it is said, "It's good enough." And then they reply, "Good enough is not good enough." That is certainly true of sports. I am thinking that if you have any problems with vision you cannot see detail and accurate depth of field. So you cannot line up the shot perfectly.

I am now thinking that some of the best pool players even have "super vision" better than 20/20. Don't ask me why I think this but I think Cole had at least maybe 20/15 or even miraculously 20/10 vision. I have a video of Johnny Archer against Mike Sigel jacking up his stick and shooting a length of the table cut shot and nailing it. Graddy says, "He split the wicket." I wouldn't be surprised if many if not most people with extraordinary vision may not even realize it. They can just see the shot where most others can't. The only way to know for sure is to have these top athletes take eye tests.

I am still planning to get an eye exam and glasses because I know my vision is off.

 

[middleofnowhere]

Did you ever see those commercials where it is said, "It's good enough." And then they reply, "Good enough is not good enough." That is certainly true of sports. I am thinking that if you have any problems with vision you cannot see detail and accurate depth of field. So you cannot line up the shot perfectly.

I am now thinking that some of the best pool players even have "super vision" better than 20/20. Don't ask me why I think this but I think Cole had at least maybe 20/15 or even miraculously 20/10 vision. I have a video of Johnny Archer against Mike Sigel jacking up his stick and shooting a length of the table cut shot and nailing it. Graddy says, "He split the wicket." I wouldn't be surprised if many if not most people with extraordinary vision may not even realize it. They can just see the shot where most others can't. The only way to know for sure is to have these top athletes take eye tests.

I am still planning to get an eye exam and glasses because I know my vision is off.

Heres what you do. Get your eyes checked and get your prescription if you need one. Then go on Zenni website and pick out some glasses. I think you are thinking glasses are going to cost you $300.00 or more so you are hesitating. You need your eyes checked anyway. Stay out on eyeglass stores they are rackets.

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

Most normal people eve sight goes downhill 45-50 years young. Pool Room normally have poor lighting. So what one see at 50 in great light is so do in poor light.

Wonder how good you could play Pool with night vision.

I am lucky eye sight is hold ok for anything but reading, and low light driving.

 

[jjohnson]

Missing shots more often?

I met a guy coming out of the 99 Cent store...

Started this thread Aug. 3 last. And I finally filled my prescription glasses just before last Christmas. Really?!?

Anyway, those cheap readers were 1.25 but I was given a 1.5 prescription. Wow! And the distance glasses sharpen things right up. It is like having a brand new pair of eyes. Sometimes I get excited looking around now just thinking about how well I can see. Then I had her stand about 12 feet away and I got a prescription for that and shooting pool. It has been around a year and a half since I played pool. I am looking forward to trying my new pool glasses but I make anywhere from $200 to $300 a day and can't give that up right now.

 

[philly]

I would get a pair of contact lenses. A lot of pros wear glasses, but wear contacts when they play. For short practice sessions at home, I will not bother with the contacts and just wear my glasses. But it's much easier to see with contacts.

Yes.
Get contacts for distance.
You will have 20/20 vision playing pool.
I wear bifocals and have an astigmatism and contacts give me 20/20.
Still need reading glasses to look at my phone or read when the contacts are in.
Contacts are the best piece of equipment I ever got for playing.