Open or Closed?

All, no doubt, while standing tall over it with a closed bridge. :grin-square:

Brian:

Respectfully, I think you're confusing me with someone else. I do not "sight tall" nor do I have a tall stance by any stretch of the imagination. Look at my avatar. My chin is on the cue, virtually at all times. I don't know where you got the impression that I have a tall stance. Perhaps you're confusing me / mixing me in with your discussion with Pushout?

The image below is a good example of getting as low on a shot as one can, understanding fully that it's his chin on the stick and not his eyeballs. But it is as close to sighting down a rifle as a pool player can do.

Best,
Brian kc

Yes, and although I mentioned Mike Sigel and Steve Mizerak as examples of players who I "vic'ed" cues from relative to how to form a closed bridge with the internal "V" oriented correctly, I failed to throw Alex's name in there. If I had to mention a player whose style mine most closely resembles, it's Alex's. And that's partially by accident (coincidence), partially on purpose. Meaning, I blended my snooker style (down-low, chin-on-cue, remember) with some facets of the pool style -- namely, a properly-formed closed bridge.

But do not confuse this chin-on-the-cue with "a rifle sighting picture." The difference is that, Alex is using both eyes for his pool sight picture. In rifle shooting, you only use one eye. In order to best replicate a rifle sighting picture with a cue, you have to do the same, like Earl Strickland or Niels Feijen -- move the cue "past" your chin, and onto your cheek as close to your "sighting eye" as possible. In this orientation, you are only *now* replicating rifle sighting. Not by putting your chin on the cue, which speaks of using both eyes for your sight picture.

Hope this helps clarify,
-Sean
 
Originally Posted by Kickin' Chicken
All, no doubt, while standing tall over it with a closed bridge. :grin:

Brian:

Respectfully, I think you're confusing me with someone else. I do not "sight tall" nor do I have a tall stance by any stretch of the imagination. Look at my avatar. My chin is on the cue, virtually at all times. I don't know where you got the impression that I have a tall stance. Perhaps you're confusing me / mixing me in with your discussion with Pushout?

Sean, my comment (see above) was in response to your Monty Python reference regarding waving your privates in our direction. T'was humor man. :grin:

Yes, and although I mentioned Mike Sigel and Steve Mizerak as examples of players who I "vic'ed" cues from relative to how to form a closed bridge with the internal "V" oriented correctly, I failed to throw Alex's name in there. If I had to mention a player whose style mine most closely resembles, it's Alex's. And that's partially by accident (coincidence), partially on purpose. Meaning, I blended my snooker style (down-low, chin-on-cue, remember) with some facets of the pool style -- namely, a properly-formed closed bridge.

But do not confuse this chin-on-the-cue with "a rifle sighting picture." The difference is that, Alex is using both eyes for his pool sight picture. In rifle shooting, you only use one eye. In order to best replicate a rifle sighting picture with a cue, you have to do the same, like Earl Strickland or Niels Feijen -- move the cue "past" your chin, and onto your cheek as close to your "sighting eye" as possible. In this orientation, you are only *now* replicating rifle sighting. Not by putting your chin on the cue, which speaks of using both eyes for your sight picture.

Hope this helps clarify,
-Sean

It does, indeed.

I think that I may be an exception in that I sight with my left eye only with chin on cue.

If we get a chance to get together in New Milford, I will show you why and I am 99.999% confident it will make perfect sense to you. :smile:

Best,
Brian kc
 
Last edited:
Sean, my comment (see above) was in response to your Monty Python reference regarding waving your privates in our direction. T'was humor man.

Ah, I see. You started out responding *inside* the quote with blue text, point-by-point style. Then, for that one comment only, you responded outside the quote, which infers you were responding generally, not to any specific point.

Sorry for missing that. It is [now] funny!

It does, indeed.

I think that I may be an exception in that I sight with my left eye only, however, it is with chin on cue.

If we get a chance to get together in New Milford, I will show you the reason for this and I am 99.999% confident it will make perfect sense to you.

Best,
Brian kc
:grin:

Well, while you are confident about your point, I'm just as confident as mine. Respectfully, of course. Don't get me wrong; I *do* see what you're referring to, but my point was that it's slightly incorrect. For one thing, sighting down a cue is a target picture "above" the sightline. When shooting a rifle (and I do, competitively), you are sighting *through* the sightline. It's the orientation of the eyes to the sightline. In order to truly sight down the cue like a rifle, you have to put the cue on your cheekbone right under your aiming eye (impossible to do with an opposite-eye-dominant player), and you'd have to remove the rail from the same side of the table you're shooting from to get down low enough. (In other words, it's the table itself that gets in the way of doing this.)

It might seem pedantic details to you, but it's important so as not to further propagate the confusion (myth) that "sighting a pool shot is the same as sighting a rifle." It isn't.

As for New Milford, I look forward to getting together, you know that. You also know what evenings I'm always there. ;) Let's make it happen!

Warm regards,
-Sean
 
Last edited:
Sean;

And yes, the Niels Fiejen reference and point relating to rifle sighting was excellent. :thumbup:

Best,
Brian kc
 
I use both open and closed. I never even think about what bridge I'm going to use. I wish the rest of my game was that automatic. This thread probably has sharked me now. I'll be thinking what type of bridge to use for each shot. Johnnyt

haahahahahaha :thumbup::yeah:
 
It might seem pedantic details to you, but it's important so as not to further propagate the confusion (myth) that "sighting a pool shot is the same as sighting a rifle." It isn't.

Sean, I happily agree that sighting a cue and sighting a rifle (I have a little experience with this as well) are not the same. But there are distinct similarities, IMO.

As for New Milford, I look forward to getting together, you know that. You also know what evenings I'm always there. ;) Let's make it happen!

Warm regards,
-Sean

Please remind me by pm the name of the place and which nights.

Best,
Brian kc
 
This is probably the "POT" ([p]ost [o]f the [t]hread).

Those that say that they use an open bridge almost exclusive "because they can sight down the cue better / have an unobstructed rifle-like view" are, IMHO, being fooled.

pt109's right -- you can't see "down" the cue, because your eyes are located too far up on your head to get down that low. To get your eyes down that low, you'd have to tilt your head so far forwards and lower your head downwards (at the same time) that your forehead would nearly touch the shaft. And at that point, you would be straining your eye muscles to, basically, "look up into your skull" to even see that sightline "down the cue." (Probably, only the white of your eyes would be visible to someone viewing you from the side of the table.)

And, irrespective of the bridge you use, you shouldn't be looking at your cue's shaft, anyway! Your eye pattern should be shifting from the cue ball to the object ball. The shaft should be in your peripheral vision.

Let's put it this way. Everyone's been to a cinema / movie theatre, right? And you also must know that a "movie" isn't a movie at all, but rather a series of incrementally-changing still frames that are flashed by your eyes per second, right? If so, I have a trivia question for you. There are folks who think that that series of incrementally-changing frames must be so gosh-darned fast that it must be in the hundreds or thousands of frames per second. Here's the trivia question: how many frames per second does a movie in the cinema/theater flash by your eyes? The answer may surprise you. It's only 24 frames per second.

That's all of how fast it needs to be to "trick" your mind into thinking it's a continuously moving picture. Except it's not a "trick." Your mind *wants to* blend the pictures together to make a cohesive / continuous stream. Your mind, being the creative tool it is, is able to "fill in the gaps" and connect them all together to form a single video stream.

And that's how it works with the closed bridge. Remember, you shouldn't be looking directly at any part of your shaft, first of all. That shaft should be in your peripheral vision, "down underneath" where you're looking at the cue ball (which is the closest point to the shaft that your eyes should ever be looking directly at; *maybe* you'll look at the cue tip itself, to verify the contact point on the cue ball, but no earlier on the shaft than that).

When you're sighting the shot correctly, the "break in the shaft" (where your closed bridge is located) is molded back together by the creative properties of your mind -- naturally. You don't even have to think about it, nor attempt to do it. It just happens, like when you're watching that series of incrementally-changing flashes of still frames that your mind enjoys as a "movie."

I'm trained and studied in snooker. And yes, I've had the "clear sightline virtues of the open bridge" shoved down my throat until I choked on it. But while on paper this theory "looks flawless," it isn't. It doesn't take into account the mind's natural and effortless ability to "fix" broken pictures, or to create things out of nothing. (A slight digression -- that is what "art" is to us human beings anyway, right? The ability for the mind to "see" things in a picture of just blotches of colors? And how about clouds? How many of us have stared up into a sky of clouds, and "see" rabbits, trees, cars, explosions, volcanoes, people, etc.? It's the mind's natural ability to want -- no, need -- to do these things.)

So to that school of thought that the open bridge is "superior" to the closed bridge because of that "clear unobstructed sightline picture," I will borrow a hacked/customized quote from a Monty Python movie: "I wave my privates in your general direction!" :D

The true virtues of the open bridge is that it is easy to form with the hand. (Heck, it's just about as simple as slapping your hand down on the table like a hamburger patty, and, of course, forming that "V" with your thumb and the first knuckle of your index finger). Yes, it is true that for some people (that are not forming their closed bridge correctly), the open bridge "seems" to be more accurate. But this is a fault in their closed bridge itself. Either there's too much slack in there and the shaft wobbles around, or else the internal "V" in that closed bridge is not straight up and down -- i.e.: it's laying on its side, like this: ">" or this "<" (depending on whether it's the left or right hand). In that latter instance, the taper of the shaft will cause the center-line of the cue to veer off course because it's following the direction of the open aperture of that lopsided "V" (snooker players call that property "rise").

It's not that one is superior over the other. It's just a bridge and how accurately you form it.

-Sean <-- who uses a mix of closed and open bridges, probably a ratio of 70/30 percent respectively.

Wow, Sean. Makes a lot of sense.

What he said except the open bridge is waaaaay inferior.
 
I, like many others here, grew up using a closed bridge for just about everything. I saw this thread a few days ago and it spurred me into trying the open hand bridge. I have been meaning to this for a long time, as I see most pros use the open hand for a lot of shots. (Most pros doing it = probably not that bad of a idea to look into:D)

So my last 2 practice sessions I used the open hand almost on every shot. I was trying it on every shot, to see how it felt. I'm thinking I like it.:smile:

I seemed to pocket balls easier, the action off the ball and the cueball seemed more natural and pure. I have a cramped up hand right now and a couple of my fingers have some raw spots on them, because I would try to start forming the bridge before I got down, as it is still feeling a bit foreign to me, which led to me scraping my fingers against the felt sliding up to the ball:embarrassed2:. I'm still trying to figure out what position I want to go with.. the index and pinkie extended and the two in between tucked under, or the pinkie and the one next to it extended, then the next one tucked and the index extended.

Guess I have start watching some videos and see what the consensus is.

ahh... you're never to old to change some things (some things)

We ought to start a new thread of pictures of bridges you see in bars from everyday joe and jane. There are some WILD bridges I see out there:D And most of them look veeeeery uncomfortable.

It is funny to watch though. Almost as funny as the guy/gal that put the thumb the full length on top of the cue on their grip hand.:killingme:
 
Anyone notice Archer when he uses the open bridge? I swear his index finger must be double jointed, I've never seen one bend backward like his does.
 
Anyone notice Archer when he uses the open bridge? I swear his index finger must be double jointed, I've never seen one bend backward like his does.

So true. I actually used to have a big complex about his dexterity. I was so jealous.

My input on this: to answer a lot of these questions, you just need to look at what the best players in the world do. For the most part, when a great player needs to stroke a ball on a pool table, they use a closed bridge. Yet we know open bridges do help sighting because of what we see the best snooker players do.

All that in mind, I think if the advantages of sighting would outweigh the advantages of stabilizing these powerful pool strokes, we'd see open bridges on these strokes all the time. But we don't. The answers are borne from what we see these guys doing.
 
My input on this: to answer a lot of these questions, you just need to look at what the best players in the world do. For the most part, when a great player needs to stroke a ball on a pool table, they use a closed bridge. Yet we know open bridges do help sighting because of what we see the best snooker players do.

HOW does it help sighting? Are these people looking at their bridge when they get down on the shot? I've been playing a long time and my bridge has never been been in the way, whether I've used a closed bridge or open. As I said in my post previously, I think, do people sight down the shaft because I don't and don't think I know anyone who does?
 
HOW does it help sighting? Are these people looking at their bridge when they get down on the shot? I've been playing a long time and my bridge has never been been in the way, whether I've used a closed bridge or open. As I said in my post previously, I think, do people sight down the shaft because I don't and don't think I know anyone who does?

Most top players I notice get down pretty low, check out how low say Shannon gets. I'm not sure how low you are? I see the analogy here maybe like a small pistol vs a rifle. There is more length between the 2 sights on a rifle, and I would assume a higher capacity for accuracy as a result. I would think the same thing applies to open bridges. I'm sure you don't agree, but hey, there has to be a reason why those snooker players use them on those huge tables, right?
 
Most top players I notice get down pretty low, check out how low say Shannon gets. I'm not sure how low you are? I see the analogy here maybe like a small pistol vs a rifle. There is more length between the 2 sights on a rifle, and I would assume a higher capacity for accuracy as a result. I would think the same thing applies to open bridges. I'm sure you don't agree, but hey, there has to be a reason why those snooker players use them on those huge tables, right?

I played with my chin on the cue for years, until age and weight caught up with me. I still get pretty low most of the time. I saw the analogy in a post above and I've shot rifles and shotguns and the occasional hand gun. Again, do you look at your bridge when you sight the shot? Does anyone? I look at the tip placement on the cue ball and the spot on the object ball and usually, the line to the pocket. The placement of my bridge or which one I use doesn't come into play here. I'm trying hard to understand why this is so important to some players but to be honest, I guess I just don't get it.
 
The front end of a riffle analogy does not apply well because the range of a bullet from distance is not realistically comparable to that of a cue balls range.
 
I played with my chin on the cue for years, until age and weight caught up with me. I still get pretty low most of the time. I saw the analogy in a post above and I've shot rifles and shotguns and the occasional hand gun. Again, do you look at your bridge when you sight the shot? Does anyone? I look at the tip placement on the cue ball and the spot on the object ball and usually, the line to the pocket. The placement of my bridge or which one I use doesn't come into play here. I'm trying hard to understand why this is so important to some players but to be honest, I guess I just don't get it.

It makes sense to me, I try not to think about it all too much though. I guess another example would be if we could enter fairy tale land, and we could play with invisible cues yet visible tips or even ferrules... who do you think would play better all other things being equal, players with visible cues or invisible ones? And why? I mean it's a straight line directly under your eye balls and leads exactly to where your cb is going (and with english i'm sure our brain learns to compensate). Maybe you're thinking just because it's kinda in the periphery it should not make any difference? I don't know, the answer is clear to me, especially in conjunction with the snooker player habits. But as I always say, I'm just one guy here.
 
Last edited:
I played with my chin on the cue for years, until age and weight caught up with me. I still get pretty low most of the time. I saw the analogy in a post above and I've shot rifles and shotguns and the occasional hand gun. Again, do you look at your bridge when you sight the shot? Does anyone? I look at the tip placement on the cue ball and the spot on the object ball and usually, the line to the pocket. The placement of my bridge or which one I use doesn't come into play here. I'm trying hard to understand why this is so important to some players but to be honest, I guess I just don't get it.

Pushout:

I guess the issue is psychosomatic -- "having a clear unobstructed 'sightline down the cue'" probably provides some sort of "mental checkbox" that enables the player to move on. That is, even though, they don't even use that "clear unobstructed sightline."

As you mention, when aiming, the closest distance one should ever be looking at, is the cue tip contact point on the cue ball, never the cue's shaft. But, we have this "I want this [what I believe to be] a clear unobstructed sightline, even though I'm not going to use it" thing. I don't get it, either.

Me personally, I don't even see my bridge hand or the finger lapping over the shaft at all. It disappears in my peripheral vision. Even when down low, level cue (as level to the table as possible), chin on the cue, it's simply "not there." That's because I'm looking and focusing past it at the cue tip's contact point on the cue ball. In fact, I actually see a continuous shaft.

It's much like when you're driving down a long straight road, and staring down into the road's distance. Let's say that road has an interrupted lane divider line (dashed white line down the center of the paved surface). As you travel alongside that dashed white line, you see that in your peripheral vision as a continuous line, right? You don't even notice the breaks in the lane divider -- your eyes just follow it into the distance. This is the same property with the closed bridge. As you focus on points past that "break" in your shaft, you don't even notice that break -- your mind "fuses" the shaft back together.

Don't get me wrong -- an open bridge is fine for what it is -- a stable bridge for the cue to travel upon. It has a certain "feel" to it that many people like. (And some people don't like the closed bridge because they may have, say, hyperhidrosis [excessive sweating on the fleshy parts of their fingers] and don't like using powder or a glove. For them, an open bridge "feels" better, with less sticking. It's a good alternate solution, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.) But the "clear unobstructed sightline" thing touted for the open bridge is not a virtue. If you're sighting/aiming correctly, at best, it's a "technical but non-practical" myth (i.e. a "mental checkbox" thing that's still propagated by the jaded schools of thought). At worst, it's tomfoolery.

-Sean
 
Back
Top