National Geographic's Brain Games - Visualization & Aiming

[BasementDweller]

I was watching an episode of Brain Games on National Geographic.

I can't find a link to the specific episode but here's a link for the show:
http://braingames.nationalgeographi...G_Priority&utm_campaign=MSN_NG_Priority_Broad

It's a really interesting show that deals with how the brain works in the real world. One of the segments that I found most interesting dealt with basketball players. What they did was they took several decent shooters and they made them wear goggles that moved the image of the basket over several feet (probably around 6 feet or so). Then they shot some jumpers. Of course they all missed them by 6 feet or so. Here's where it got interesting -- after a few minutes shooting like this, they adjusted and began making the jumpers again. Then they took the goggles off and started missing them again until their brain/eyes adjusted back.

Could this apply to aiming in general? Or eye dominance issues?

I've always been a bit biased when it came to eye dominance. I've never really worried about it. I've always thought that I would just develop a consistent stance, with a consistent head position and I would allow my brain to sort out the details. This show sort of cemented that idea to me. Why monkey around with something that the brain can take care of for you?

I guess there's the opposite line of thought. That would be, why wait for your brain to adjust when you can assist it immediately if you know how? I have stepped to the table before after not playing for a while and felt very uncomfortable when it came to seeing the shot angles. I usually just shoot for a bit and eventually everything comes back in line.

I don't know....I do know that our brain is very powerful. If it can visually adjust a basketball target over 6 feet it makes me lean toward believing that we should rely on it more and not less.

What do you think?

 

[LAMas]

Like good basketball players, good pool players have good memories and one can start their practice shooting straight in shots...to get their eye/s square to the line of centers and let their memory take over for any adjustments.

Fast or slow cloth and live or dead rails requires adjustments....like moving the basket.

Thanks for this thread.

 

[Neil]

I was watching an episode of Brain Games on National Geographic.

I can't find a link to the specific episode but here's a link for the show:
http://braingames.nationalgeographi...G_Priority&utm_campaign=MSN_NG_Priority_Broad

It's a really interesting show that deals with how the brain works in the real world. One of the segments that I found most interesting dealt with basketball players. What they did was they took several decent shooters and they made them wear goggles that moved the image of the basket over several feet (probably around 6 feet or so). Then they shot some jumpers. Of course they all missed them by 6 feet or so. Here's where it got interesting -- after a few minutes shooting like this, they adjusted and began making the jumpers again. Then they took the goggles off and started missing them again until their brain/eyes adjusted back.

Could this apply to aiming in general? Or eye dominance issues?

I've always been a bit biased when it came to eye dominance. I've never really worried about it. I've always thought that I would just develop a consistent stance, with a consistent head position and I would allow my brain to sort out the details. This show sort of cemented that idea to me. Why monkey around with something that the brain can take care of for you?

I guess there's the opposite line of thought. That would be, why wait for your brain to adjust when you can assist it immediately if you know how? I have stepped to the table before after not playing for a while and felt very uncomfortable when it came to seeing the shot angles. I usually just shoot for a bit and eventually everything comes back in line.

I don't know....I do know that our brain is very powerful. If it can visually adjust a basketball target over 6 feet it makes me lean toward believing that we should rely on it more and not less.

What do you think?

The problem with pool is with left cut vs. right cut shots. Most people prefer one over the other because their eyes aren't in the right spot to see both shots the same. So, in a game, if you get a right cut and make it, and your next shot is a near identical left cut, odds are you will miss it and think you hit it perfectly. In pool, you don't have the luxury of time to allow your eyes to adjust because you only get one try to make it.

 

[sfleinen]

I was watching an episode of Brain Games on National Geographic.

I can't find a link to the specific episode but here's a link for the show:
http://braingames.nationalgeographi...G_Priority&utm_campaign=MSN_NG_Priority_Broad

It's a really interesting show that deals with how the brain works in the real world. One of the segments that I found most interesting dealt with basketball players. What they did was they took several decent shooters and they made them wear goggles that moved the image of the basket over several feet (probably around 6 feet or so). Then they shot some jumpers. Of course they all missed them by 6 feet or so. Here's where it got interesting -- after a few minutes shooting like this, they adjusted and began making the jumpers again. Then they took the goggles off and started missing them again until their brain/eyes adjusted back.

Could this apply to aiming in general? Or eye dominance issues?

I've always been a bit biased when it came to eye dominance. I've never really worried about it. I've always thought that I would just develop a consistent stance, with a consistent head position and I would allow my brain to sort out the details. This show sort of cemented that idea to me. Why monkey around with something that the brain can take care of for you?

I guess there's the opposite line of thought. That would be, why wait for your brain to adjust when you can assist it immediately if you know how? I have stepped to the table before after not playing for a while and felt very uncomfortable when it came to seeing the shot angles. I usually just shoot for a bit and eventually everything comes back in line.

I don't know....I do know that our brain is very powerful. If it can visually adjust a basketball target over 6 feet it makes me lean toward believing that we should rely on it more and not less.

What do you think?

Chris:

Thanks for posting this -- interesting study by NatGeo! You know I've always been a fan of leveraging the subconscious...

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=216564

...so we don't need to touch on that here. But what I think may distinguish pool from sports like basketball, are the following:

1. In basketball, you have more intimate contact with the object ball. That is, you're holding the object ball directly, and shooting it towards the basket (pocket) with your hands. Your mind -to- hands -to- object-being-thrown is unbroken. In pool, you have two additional objects that break that chain -- the cue, and the cue ball.

2. Quick timing / execution of the shot. In basketball, as soon as the ball enters your hands, you're immediately in the mode of "getting rid of it" -- whether that means dribbling the ball in your approach to the basket (all the while avoiding intercepting players from the opposing team) to shoot it; or passing to a fellow player; or shooting it from where you stand. In other words, you have so many other things going on, that there's no time for an aiming system or "systematic approach to viewing the shot to the basket." You have to RELY on your subconscious to take care of all those repeatable (and pedantic) details, because you have other more pressing urgencies to occupy your conscious mind (i.e. that player or players from the opposing team that are tasked to guard you!).

3. Lack of repeatable fundamentals in pool, even as compared to basketball. Yep, you read that right. While it might appear that basketball players don't have repeatable fundamentals, they actually do. Kareem Abdul Jabbar had set placement for his feet, the way the ball felt in his hand, and the way he twisted his body, to execute his famous "sky hook" lob towards the basket. Good 3-point shooters have an established way they plant (or distribute the weight on) their feet, align themselves, cock their wrists and arms, and then release, to execute those long-distance shots. Compare that to the loosey-goosey pool stance, where for the longest time, no set/tested/advocated fundamentals were available (until the creation of a semi-syllabus courtesy of the BCA), and it was pretty much "pick up the cue, hold it 'here', stand 'sort of like this', and shoot the cue ball into the object ball." Even now, with all the pool instruction available today, there are a far cry of people who take instruction "seriously," as compared to the basketball student who takes his/her instruction seriously, and seeks out knowledge. It's not like a basketball player is inadvertently putting spin on the basketball because he's "cueing" the basketball slightly off-center. Pool players don't like to hear it, but compared to other cue sports like snooker where proper fundamentals are taught as part of a regimen, pool is a back barroom hack's sport at best.

4. I'm going to catch heat for this, but hey, it's not like I didn't say it before. Here goes... I think far too many people diagnose themselves as "needing a new aiming system" for problems that are ACTUALLY due to poor fundamentals than anything else. When I watch certain folks play (aiming system advocates or not), I tend to pick up things that make me go, "ah, I saw that! That is occurring awfully close to the time the cue tip contacts the cue ball." In other words, stroke hitches, inconsistencies, etc. Many of the average folks just don't know how crooked their strokes are (and strangely, many don't want to know). This contrasts with a basketball player, who in general WANTS to look correct and expert. But many pool players will seek out a solution that doesn't directly solve his/her problem, and instead subscribes to the notion of "self diagnosis" -- in other words, "I missed because I must've aimed wrong." (When, the correct thing to do in the case of repeated inconsistencies, is to take a good hard look at one's fundamentals.) In other, other words, comparing the shot as if one were firing a rifle -- "hey, I just pull the trigger, and if I miss, I must've aimed wrong." They oversimplify what it takes to swing a cue accurately through a cue ball towards its target. Pros on the other hand, in general, work on their form and function whenever they're at the table, and "aim" is the least of their worries.

The mind is indeed a very powerful *adaptive* computer, and is very goal-oriented -- i.e. shooting that ball into the basket, or cueing one ball into another to pocket it. However, it does need a foundation to build upon, to know where (and how) to correct "from." It does need a "control" to compare against. Lack of this control (as in lack of proper fundamentals for delivering the cue through the cue ball at the same spot consistently) means that even this powerful adaptive computer is constantly in a battle with the very body it's paired with.

I hope this makes sense, and is helpful,
-Sean

 

[LAMas]

Sean,

Great post and well written as usual.

I marvel at those speed pool competitions...like those at Las Vegas during the BCA Tourney.

In the vendor's room, I saw Charlie WIlliams making many "Wing Shots" in a row and that reminded me of basketball's "Catch and Shoot."

Indeed the mind is powerful at processing information quickly.

http://billiards.about.com/od/easypropositionshots/a/TrickShotsBilliards.htm

 

[Ratta]

Sean wrote: ". But many pool players will seek out a solution that doesn't directly solve his/her problem, and instead subscribes to the notion of "self diagnosis" -- in other words, "I missed because I must've aimed wrong." (When, the correct thing to do in the case of repeated inconsistencies, is to take a good hard look at one's fundamentals.) In other, other words, comparing the shot as if one were firing a rifle -- "hey, I just pull the trigger, and if I miss, I must've aimed wrong." They oversimplify what it takes to swing a cue accurately through a cue ball towards its target. Pros on the other hand, in general, work on their form and function whenever they're at the table, and "aim" is the least of their worries.

The mind is indeed a very powerful *adaptive* computer, and is very goal-oriented -- i.e. shooting that ball into the basket, or cueing one ball into another to pocket it. However, it does need a foundation to build upon, to know where (and how) to correct "from." It does need a "control" to compare against. Lack of this control (as in lack of proper fundamentals for delivering the cue through the cue ball at the same spot consistently) means that even this powerful adaptive computer is constantly in a battle with the very body it's paired with."

Very well chosen words my friend!
It s this special always repeating story with many many pool players
In the past 2/3 years i had 4 already very strong players-- 3 were of these have had very bad and strong issues with their fundamentals- the 4th had a *smaller* issue.
1 one was a pleasure to work with, because he was kind of *following and believing* me blindly- that was very special-and very soon he received his *fruits* he earned through his hard work/practice.
2 other guys ....phew-- that was hell of a pain for *both sides*. Typical *Yes....but* students. And it took both a very long time until they believed and saw it themselves. Both started to believe, bc (in each case another *guy*) another instructor told em both the same (that they have an issue with this or that).
So imo it s always the same: You need the willing to change somethig-and then furthermore you have to be able to *believe*- and to change something. That s it.

This is not only in billiards-- it s all about the attitude during your whole life- everyone needs the willing-and being serious about yourself. if someone is doing something wrong over years....how the hell something could change it? As someone said long ago:
If the student is ready......the right instructor will be there.


lg from overseas,
Ingo
Ingo