Gene you said in another thread something about how efron aims. Can you expand on that? It was something about center and edges or something.
Sighting (not aiming) thread
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
I just spent a little time with various shots and various types of sightings, and I still seem to prefer always sighting along the aiming line through the center of the CB (maybe just because this is what I am used to). My "vision center" seems to be between my nose and right eye (maybe a little closer to my eye than my nose) ... this is where I naturally line up, and this seems to be the best position for me to see when a straight-in shot looks straight in (and to see if the cue tip is lined up center-ball or not). When I shift my head sideways in either direction, the cue doesn't look lined up right anymore.
Regardless of any of this stuff, I think most people would agree that the most important thing is to be as consistent as possible with your alignment for various types of shots (and to have a consistent pre-shot routine that allows you to achieve consistent sighting alignment with every type of shot). With consistency, I think our vision and brain can learn to "see" the right shot line for different angles and at different distances, provided we are providing the brain with a consistent "picture" with consistent alignment.
Regards,
Dave
There is no usueful information in this post. Only personl anecdotes, guesswork, and the obfuscation of a muddled idea which, if held in the brain before/while trying to make a shot, would contribute more to failure than success.
TxSkin
"Useful" being a subjective term. Hence why we have a public discussion forum for all types of muddled ideas and anecdotes regarding pool. When's the last time you had a conversation with your mother and halfway through said "there is little value in this conversation... goodbuy."
Try not to knock anyone for participating in the sharing of ideas and just plain old talking about pool stuff.
Thank you for your understanding.
You did not seem to think about your rules before responding to my post with them. How come?
TxSkin
You misunderstand...
I said "...Try not to knock anyone for their ideas..." which is merely a suggestion regarding your responses to people. What you said to Dr. Dave was purely a judgemental statement regarding the value of his post. I didn't disregard any value in your post, but merely commented on its judgemental nature and considerately asked you to try harder next time.
I said "...Try not to knock anyone for their ideas..." which is merely a suggestion regarding your responses to people. What you said to Dr. Dave was purely a judgemental statement regarding the value of his post. I didn't disregard any value in your post, but merely commented on its judgemental nature and considerately asked you to try harder next time.
BTW, in case you were unsure, by "consistency" I didn't mean to imply you have to align the same way for every different type of shot (like I seem to prefer), I meant you need to line up the same way for the same type of shot.
I'm sorry you felt my post had no useful information ... unlike most of the posts on AZB???
:grin: :boring2:Regards,
Dave
Friend, when one reads a stateement, the ordinary first step is to evaluate whether it is true and upon what basis it might be true. Then the next step would be to find out how, if it is true, it might be useful in underastanding an estabslished truth or to discover another one.
I think I went over your head...maybe???
I will retreat though and say, "The post was useless to ME." Thank you for bringiing me to that correction of my statement.
TxSkin
BTW, in case you were unsure, by "consistency" I didn't mean to imply you have to align the same way for every different type of shot (like I seem to prefer), I meant you need to line up the same way for the same type of shot.
I'm sorry you felt my post had no useful information ... unlike most of the posts on AZB???
Regards,
Dave
I wasn't basing my evaluation of your statements on the approval statistics of your posts on AZ to determine whether you might be right or wrong. It was a single sampling and the words contained therein, which of course is the correct method.
TxSkin
Can we get back to "useful" posts again?
What did people think about the ideas in Mike's videos?
Who thinks sighting should always be through the center of the CB?
Who thinks sighting should be aligned with the cue (even with English)?
Who thinks sighting should always be aligned with the contact-point-to-contact-point line, as Mike suggests?
What do most instructors recommend concerning these matters, if somebody has trouble with aiming?
Regards,
Dave
What did people think about the ideas in Mike's videos?
Who thinks sighting should always be through the center of the CB?
Who thinks sighting should be aligned with the cue (even with English)?
Who thinks sighting should always be aligned with the contact-point-to-contact-point line, as Mike suggests?
What do most instructors recommend concerning these matters, if somebody has trouble with aiming?
Regards,
Dave
Dave, those are great quastions but the answers to them do not advance the "science" of pool. They comprise only an opinion poll, which of course means nothing primary to the truth of a matter the questions are concerned with.
The questions are only important to the degree that that they get an angle on the truth. What angle is being poursued here? Feelings, opinons, and anecdotes..or facts?
TxSkin, PhD (really)
.
I watched Mike Pages’s two videos on sighting and aiming. As usual the works are excellent in many ways; including the sequencing, style of presentation, use of visuals and of course the content. Mike is a professional educator and anyone who thinks about how to go about teaching should review Mike’s work from a teaching perspective. There is much good to be said about Mike Page and any of his presentations.
I think there is a very real need for parts three and four of Mike’s videos. What he provides is the very basic introduction and none of it is truly useful without additional information. All of his visuals appear to be correct but they are given from the perspective of being located at the equator of the balls and this is impossible. This is the place to begin. It is not the place to end with a basic introduction to sighting.
I think that nearly all authors who consider this topic share Mike’s perspective taken in this set of lessons. However, we shoot in three dimensions and the eyes never see the images that are presented in these lessons. In reality the eyes are from six inches (snooker player) to few feet (Jackie Gleason) above the actual line of cue ball travel.
When sighting and aiming the player is required to see things as Mike indicates but the player sees them from an off angle and then imagines (mentally processes) the information in such a way that the player must estimate the contact point as a horizontal line parallel to the table’s surface.
I think that many pool instructors lose sight of this idea and that it is simply assumed that people will recognize and convert a three dimensional problem into a two dimensional problem. When learning to sight it may take some players substantially longer than other players because they do not think through the idea that such conversions are necessary.
It is interesting to note that part of this problem can be seen in the differences in accuracy often displayed by shots that are relatively close (say 2 inches away) and shots that are further away (such as 3 feet) The close in shot is often more difficult and made with less consistency than the longer shot because the brain is not as well trained in making the conversion from three dimensions to two dimensions over short distances and hence we do not know how to “sight” the shot.
A great deal of time and effort need to be placed on intentionally learning about these issues and then learning to sight the front center of the cue ball at the contact point on the object ball. With a sufficient number (perhaps several hundred) straight in shots or shots at slight angles these become the reference sighting procedures from which all cut shots can be seen as a deviation off the straight in shot. In this sense the player learns to use dead center and then estimate how much thinner of a cut is needed for specific shots (the use of spin is not included in this discussion). The reference line is the center of the cue stick on a line through front dead center of the CB to the contact point. All deviations are from this level horizontal line that is viewed from an off angle. For some people this is a "natural" process. Others must learn to locate the contact points using other reference points to establish a level roll of the CB and OB.
I think there is a very real need for parts three and four of Mike’s videos. What he provides is the very basic introduction and none of it is truly useful without additional information. All of his visuals appear to be correct but they are given from the perspective of being located at the equator of the balls and this is impossible. This is the place to begin. It is not the place to end with a basic introduction to sighting.
I think that nearly all authors who consider this topic share Mike’s perspective taken in this set of lessons. However, we shoot in three dimensions and the eyes never see the images that are presented in these lessons. In reality the eyes are from six inches (snooker player) to few feet (Jackie Gleason) above the actual line of cue ball travel.
When sighting and aiming the player is required to see things as Mike indicates but the player sees them from an off angle and then imagines (mentally processes) the information in such a way that the player must estimate the contact point as a horizontal line parallel to the table’s surface.
I think that many pool instructors lose sight of this idea and that it is simply assumed that people will recognize and convert a three dimensional problem into a two dimensional problem. When learning to sight it may take some players substantially longer than other players because they do not think through the idea that such conversions are necessary.
It is interesting to note that part of this problem can be seen in the differences in accuracy often displayed by shots that are relatively close (say 2 inches away) and shots that are further away (such as 3 feet) The close in shot is often more difficult and made with less consistency than the longer shot because the brain is not as well trained in making the conversion from three dimensions to two dimensions over short distances and hence we do not know how to “sight” the shot.
A great deal of time and effort need to be placed on intentionally learning about these issues and then learning to sight the front center of the cue ball at the contact point on the object ball. With a sufficient number (perhaps several hundred) straight in shots or shots at slight angles these become the reference sighting procedures from which all cut shots can be seen as a deviation off the straight in shot. In this sense the player learns to use dead center and then estimate how much thinner of a cut is needed for specific shots (the use of spin is not included in this discussion). The reference line is the center of the cue stick on a line through front dead center of the CB to the contact point. All deviations are from this level horizontal line that is viewed from an off angle. For some people this is a "natural" process. Others must learn to locate the contact points using other reference points to establish a level roll of the CB and OB.
Last edited:
My purpose for the questions (and his whole thread) is not to "advance the 'science' of pool." My goal is to hear different people's opinions (hopefully from some experienced instructors and seasoned players), and try to find out if there is any "general consensus" and/or "plausible rationale" among the answers.
Thank you,
Dave
PS: For a PhD, you sure can't spell too good.
Thank you,
Dave
PS: For a PhD, you sure can't spell too good.
Contact Point To Contact Point
For longer cut shots I can't pick out the object ball's contact point with any certainty. Shooting the five ball, for example, it looks like just a buncha orange to me - I can't be sure of the particular point I should try to hit. If I stand on a direct line from the pocket and look at the object ball to see the contact point, I will have lost track of it by the time I get back in my stance. For those that can do this, great. I can't.
What I do is envision the cue ball hitting the object ball and how the object ball is going to take off when struck. I aim through the center of the cue ball to hit the object ball in such a way that I "see" its taking off toward the pocket. Being able to see this is from learned memory.
When I hit the ball the way I aimed it but it fails to go in the pocket, that means my "learned memory" need improving. You learn these "paths" much easier when you're young, but you can still learn them when you're older. It just takes longer.
I'm not saying this is the best way but it's the way I learned.
For longer cut shots I can't pick out the object ball's contact point with any certainty. Shooting the five ball, for example, it looks like just a buncha orange to me - I can't be sure of the particular point I should try to hit. If I stand on a direct line from the pocket and look at the object ball to see the contact point, I will have lost track of it by the time I get back in my stance. For those that can do this, great. I can't.
What I do is envision the cue ball hitting the object ball and how the object ball is going to take off when struck. I aim through the center of the cue ball to hit the object ball in such a way that I "see" its taking off toward the pocket. Being able to see this is from learned memory.
When I hit the ball the way I aimed it but it fails to go in the pocket, that means my "learned memory" need improving. You learn these "paths" much easier when you're young, but you can still learn them when you're older. It just takes longer.
I'm not saying this is the best way but it's the way I learned.
Last edited:
and you added what "usueful" information to this thread? this is a great thread! dr dave pls keep on it. you never know when one of these "personl anedotes" is going to just the thing that helps you out. thanks to dr dave and everyone sharing in this thread.
brian
well that would be incorrect. "science stuff" is routinely applied to all sports and that would include pool. dave alone has proved that.
brian