Sighting ... which method do you think is best?

[JoeW]

Sighting: the act of observing. The use of ones eyes to see something. So what do you use to look at the shot, cue tip, contact points, edges, rear of the stick, etc.

Aiming: To direct a course. Specifically to aim a weapon.

You could aim with the stick, with the contact point or with the help of the pool gods. It depend upon what you sight with !

And here is a device with which one could aim. http://www.freshpatents.com/Aiming-device-for-billiard-cue-dt20080417ptan20080090670.php



Don't ya just love it when people look stuff up in the dictionaries of the world.

 

[dr_dave]

And here is a device with which one could aim. http://www.freshpatents.com/Aiming-device-for-billiard-cue-dt20080417ptan20080090670.php

This (see the text below from your link) sounds like a device to help you sight. You still need to know where to aim the light. Right?

Dave

"An aiming device for a billiard cue is disclosed herein, which includes a fixing member, an extending member coupled with the fixing member at one end thereof, a parallel light source coupled with the other end of the extending member and having a projection hole for passing a parallel light beam emitted from the parallel light source, and a cylindrical lens mounted on one end of the parallel light source in front of the projection hole, whereby the parallel light beam becomes a fanned light beam after it passes through the cylindrical lens. The aiming device of the present invention can provide a high precise aiming in billiards."

 

[TheConArtist]

The things you want to align for aiming (CB/OB contact points, CB/OB fractions, etc.) are rarely on the same line as your stick - they're separate lines. So when you center your vision directly over one line, the other line is necessarily off to the side a little and therefore harder to line up precisely - i.e., if you center your vision over your stick it's more difficult to be sure you're lining the contact points up precisely and if you center your vision over the contact points line it's more difficult to be sure you're lining your stick up precisely. It's a tradeoff.

So I don't think it's a given that one way is always better than the other. I'm not even sure it's necessary for a player to do it the same way every time - maybe some shots lend themselves better to one and some to the other. For instance, thin cuts and shots with lots of sidespin might lend themselves more to sighting along the contact points line, while thicker shots with less spin might be best sighted along the stick.

What's best might also change with the player - some might see the alignment better by favoring the stick while others might favor the contact points line, like how different players have different centers of vision because of eye dominance.

pj
chgo

This post is great cause the way you describe how you can't have your vision center on one line and you won't be able to to sight the other line without moving your head. The way i sight/aim is i use both my eyes as i see two cueballs, So i can sight plus aim without changing my head position. Works for me. If i am looking at the cueballs center with my eyes relaxed i can see both quarters of the cueball, if i even relax them more i can see both edges. If i look at the quarter of the cueball i'll see the center and the edge of the cueball etc... Its what both my eyes are seeing. So if i have a half ball cut its simple people either look center cueball to edge of objectball or edge of cueball to center of the objectball i see both, sorta incorporated two systems. Its just all bout head position.

 

[dr_dave]

A bump to get more participants in the poll (and more opinions).

Thanks,
Dave

We have had a lot of threads about aiming over the years, and recently there seems to be a lot of interest in "sighting." There seems to be several generally accepted approaches to sighting, all of which seem reasonable to me. Which method do you think makes the most sense for most people? Or does it really matter? As long as you sight consistently, wouldn't you learn to judge how to make each shot based on the "picture" your brain "sees," as long as your brain "sees" the same "picture" each time you have the same shot?

FYI, some background information and resources concerning sighting can be found here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#sighting​

I look forward to seeing how the poll turns out, and I hope all of the instructors and players out their will share their views on the topic.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

One last bump to give more people an opportunity to vote and contribute their thoughts and ideas.

Thanks,
Dave

We have had a lot of threads about aiming over the years, and recently there seems to be a lot of interest in "sighting." There seems to be several generally accepted approaches to sighting, all of which seem reasonable to me. Which method do you think makes the most sense for most people? Or does it really matter? As long as you sight consistently, wouldn't you learn to judge how to make each shot based on the "picture" your brain "sees," as long as your brain "sees" the same "picture" each time you have the same shot?

FYI, some background information and resources concerning sighting can be found here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#sighting​

I look forward to seeing how the poll turns out, and I hope all of the instructors and players out their will share their views on the topic.

Regards,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I don't think you have to sight straight down the cue. For me, I'm pretty sure I almost never do (I know that's strange to many people here-- I'm just saying what I do).

I position my head in the best possible place (for me) to defeat known illusions (for me).

Its my opinion you should position your eyes to the inside of the CTEL for thin shots and to the outside of the CTEL for thicker shots. For me, personally, this is a rule I never break-- it's a constant and it never changes.

 

[dr_dave]

Its my opinion you should position your eyes to the inside of the CTEL for thin shots and to the outside of the CTEL for thicker shots. For me, personally, this is a rule I never break-- it's a constant and it never changes.

I guess the trick is knowing (or developing a feel for) how much to shift the eyes (relative to the CTEL) and how much to pivot (i.e., how large of an arc to use).

Thanks,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I guess the trick is knowing (or developing a feel for) how much to shift the eyes (relative to the CTEL) and how much to pivot (i.e., how large of an arc to use).

Thanks,
Dave

I guess you're right. And knowing (not guessing) is half the battle

 

[dr_dave]

I guess the trick is knowing (or developing a feel for) how much to shift the eyes (relative to the CTEL) and how much to pivot (i.e., how large of an arc to use).

I guess you're right. And knowing (not guessing) is half the battle

I think we've finally reached a mutually-acceptable description of how CTE works. Hallelujah!

Thank you for putting with my endless questions and challenges concerning CTE over the years.

Regards,
Dave

PS: I still prefer DAM.

 

[dr_dave]

The last time I bumped this, a lot more people voted, so I thought I'd try one last time.

Thanks,
Dave

PS: Were are all of the PERFECT AIM supporters? Not many people have picked Gene's recommendation (option 3).

We have had a lot of threads about aiming over the years, and recently there seems to be a lot of interest in "sighting." There seems to be several generally accepted approaches to sighting, all of which seem reasonable to me. Which method do you think makes the most sense for most people? Or does it really matter? As long as you sight consistently, wouldn't you learn to judge how to make each shot based on the "picture" your brain "sees," as long as your brain "sees" the same "picture" each time you have the same shot?

FYI, some background information and resources concerning sighting can be found here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#sighting​

I look forward to seeing how the poll turns out, and I hope all of the instructors and players out their will share their views on the topic.

Regards,
Dave

 

[JoeW]

Many of the pros use a very long bridge and I have been trying to work with this idea lately to see what I could learn. One of the things that naturally occur with a long bridge is that the head tends to be farther back on the cue stick. Next I noticed that this leads to more emphasis on my right (back) hand. It seems that sighting from the rear of the cue stick is easier with a long bridge. This of course leads to a longer sight line from the rear hand, down the length of the cue stick to the aim line. While it was initially uncomfortable I have found that the sight lines are better in that I seem to be able to see the line of travel better from farther back on the cue stick.

I think that one must learn to have a firm trust worthy bridge and then minor adjustments for spin are easier to make. Like many things in pool one has to try it, mess around, and find what works. I do think the longer bridge tends to emphasize the back hand and sighting with the cue stick.

The technique, as I have studied it, has little to do with the length of the swing. In fact the swing length has actually decreased as I became more aware of the tendency of the arm to move off line with a longer swing. This may not be the best sighting method. The best method is probably the one that works for the player. However, there is much to be learned about your ability to sight using a longer bridge during practice.

With the longer bridge length one's focus and concentration shift to more emphasis on sighting with the whole cue stick.

 

[dr_dave]

Excellent points. FYI, I list and illustrate these and other pros and cons of both long and short bridges in my Decmeber '08 BD article. Diagram 3 in the article illustrates the impact of a longer bridge on sighting, which is especially evident with a low-stance, closed bridge. Here are the pro and con lists from the article"]the article[/URL]:

Disadvantages of a longer bridge:

• Stroking errors result in larger tip position errors (see Diagram 2).
• If the length is not needed for power (see below), the longer stroke might allow more room for error to be introduced during the stroke (i.e., a shorter, more compact stroke might be more accurate).
• If a player has a long bridge but is not using the full length on the back stroke, the bridge length (and associated tip position error) is larger than it needs to be. However, if the extra length is helping with sighting and aiming (see Diagram 3), it might be justified.
• A small change in bridge position creates a larger change in cue tip position. If the bridge hand shifts accidentally or deforms during the stroke, or if the cue shifts slightly within the bridge, larger errors will result.
• For soft touch shots, a shorter bridge and stroke is usually more effective.

Advantages of a longer bridge:

• A longer bridge can help improve visual sighting (see Diagram 3).
• Smoother acceleration is possible, especially when using more power. Not as much force will be required over the longer distance to achieve a desired cue speed. The stroke will tend to be jerkier and usually more susceptible to errors with a shorter bridge, requiring larger forces over the shorter distance to achieve the desire cue speed.
• A person with large and/or inflexible hands might need to elevate the back of the cue more with a shorter bridge, and cue elevation can reduce accuracy by creating more swerve when English is used (intentionally or not). Using a longer bridge can help some people keep their cue more level, especially with draw shots. I want to thank “Spiderman,” a user on the BD CCB online forum, for pointing out the “large-hand” factor to me. I hadn’t thought of this before.
• A longer bridge might better match the natural pivot length for your cue (especially low-squirt cues). This can help reduce CB direction errors when unintentional English is applied (e.g., due to stroke swoop). It can also be important if using the back-hand English (BHE) method to compensate for squirt when applying English intentionally. For more information on these topics, see “aim compensation for squirt, swerve, and throw” in the FAQ section of my website.
• A longer bridge and stroke might help some people gauge the speed of the shot better; although, this might not apply for soft touch shots (see above).
• Some people just feel more natural and comfortable with a longer bridge and stroke, and shortening it will feel too uncomfortable (even after practice), and their overall performance will not be better with a change. Like many things in pool, personal preference and comfort is often an important factor.

See the article for more info and illustrations.

Regards,
Dave

Many of the pros use a very long bridge and I have been trying to work with this idea lately to see what I could learn. One of the things that naturally occur with a long bridge is that the head tends to be farther back on the cue stick. Next I noticed that this leads to more emphasis on my right (back) hand. It seems that sighting from the rear of the cue stick is easier with a long bridge. This of course leads to a longer sight line from the rear hand, down the length of the cue stick to the aim line. While it was initially uncomfortable I have found that the sight lines are better in that I seem to be able to see the line of travel better from farther back on the cue stick.

I think that one must learn to have a firm trust worthy bridge and then minor adjustments for spin are easier to make. Like many things in pool one has to try it, mess around, and find what works. I do think the longer bridge tends to emphasize the back hand and sighting with the cue stick.

The technique, as I have studied it, has little to do with the length of the swing. In fact the swing length has actually decreased as I became more aware of the tendency of the arm to move off line with a longer swing. This may not be the best sighting method. The best method is probably the one that works for the player. However, there is much to be learned about your ability to sight using a longer bridge during practice.

With the longer bridge length one's focus and concentration shift to more emphasis on sighting with the whole cue stick.

 

[JoeW]

Thanks for the URL Dave. Interesting read. In my studies the most interesting and beneficial change is the shift in emphasis. With the longer bridge the head moves back about 12 inches and this naturally leads to more awareness of the placement of the cue stick as seen from further back. From this vantage point the shot line based on the whole cue stick, the cue ball, and the intended line of travel is easier to see. It is difficult to explain the change in the sight picture and it is probably best to spend some time with the altered bridge to learn the differences.

While it is technically correct that there is the possibility of more error when the cue tip strikes the cue ball this is actually an advantage for the serious player. Because of the possibility of not striking as intended the player places more emphasis of hitting the correct spot with a straight stroke that is through the cue ball. This leads to more concentration on a firm bridge and a pure stroke.

In addition, and I do not know why, the stroke seems to be smoother with better emphasis on accelerating through the cue ball. This may be due to one’s awareness of what can go wrong. Over time the stroke naturally shortens to a smoother and better stroke. There seems to be less emphasis on the actual swing and more emphasis on the purity of the swing. These are difficult concepts to explain and here again I suggest that further study by the player over an hour or so of practice is needed to learn about the advantages that accrue from the added requirements of longe bridge and a “pure” stroke.

I now understand why this longer stroke is used by many of the pro players and why it is difficult to explain. It may even belong in the archive of arcane pool mysteries that are seldom passed on to others. I think that part of the shift in emphasis is the realization that the back hand is much more important for sighting a shot than is often realized.

Pool instructors teach the “short” bridge for whatever reasons. I think they teach this technique to the new or relatively inexperienced player orthe player with bad habits as a sound method that leads to a better more consistent stroke than the student previously had. When one has learned more of the nuances of how to play, the longer bridge is used for better control of the cue stick because the player has a better knowledge of what can go wrong and has better knowledge of what needs to be done.

The more experienced player knows that a long swing is not needed and the additional room between the bridge and the cue ball is not needed. What is needed or is advantageous is the better sight picture and the emphasis on sound stroking principles. The longer bridge provides more room to work is one way to think about it.

I think that the technical possibility of increased error is substantially outweighed by the sighting and stroking improvements. Because pool playing is a multifaceted endeavor the trade offs in human factors cannot be reduced to the mathematics and the physics that are part of the problem. Unfortunately many people think that the mechanical factors are the more important and therefore limit their own development. The mechanical factors are to some extent the parameters within which one plays and these needs to be learned as they apply to limits not possibilities.

Many people (and I am one of them) think that pool is primarily a mental game. To the extent that this is true there are many unknowns that lead to excellent play and exquisite control. In my thinking one of the better ways to learn about the nuances of excellent play is to observe the highly competent players and try to tease out what they have in common. These players may not be able to verbalize or theorize why they play the way they play but highly common features were developed over time because they work. The longer bridge falls in this category of multifaceted tools that can lead to substantial improvement.

My studies on rifle sighting versus dominant eye versus binocular vision aiming lead to a similar conclusion. While many people argue for one or the other approach I find that all of these approaches have uses and advantages in different situations. When the players are studied the three approaches are often used by many of the pros. Though they may deny it, the observational results suggest that they shift as needed. Watch what they do, not what they say has been my take off point for many years.

 

[dr_dave]

Excellent points Joe. I have some responses below.

I now understand why this longer stroke is used by many of the pro players and why it is difficult to explain.

I don't think it is difficult to explain at all. There are many advantages to a longer bridge (see my previous post); and for many top players, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

Pool instructors teach the “short” bridge for whatever reasons.

I think a shorter bridge (i.e., not as long as some of the top players with really long bridge lengths) is better for most people (excluding good players who have success with really long bridges), because the disadvantages can far outweigh the advantages (per the lists in my previous post).

Many people (and I am one of them) think that pool is primarily a mental game.

Agreed, especially at higher levels.

one of the better ways to learn about the nuances of excellent play is to observe the highly competent players and try to tease out what they have in common.

I think the main things top players have in common are:

• they have great vision and visual perception (i.e., they can clearly and consistently "see" the "angle of the shot" and the required line of aim).
• they have excellent "feel" for shot speed, spin, and position play.
• they are able to consistently and accurately deliver the cue along the desired line with the tip contact point and speed needed for the shot (even if their mechanics aren't always "textbook").
• they have tremendous focus and intensity and have a strong drive to improve and win.

And the biggest thing they have in common, IMO, is: they have put in many more hours practicing and playing than most of us have. That's how they have developed all of the things on the list above. What I've learned from watching top players is: I should probably spend more time practicing and less time writing AZB posts.

Regards,
Dave

 

[JoeW]

With regard to excellent vision.

I tried to indicate, albeit it in a round about way, that good vision can be learned / trained with center ball aiming and the variety of shots that can be made by simply lining up centers. I think that when one spends a considerable amount of time learning to identify the front dead center of the cue ball and the line through the object ball the player has a substantial advantage. When this becomes the dominant method used for aiming “shots that don’t go” are seen as slightly off. That is, for shots that don’t go the player is aiming the front dead center past the contact point and thus “knows” where the cue ball will strike the object ball.

In this method the player learns and therefore always knows where the front dead center of the cue ball will be when it strikes the object ball. In a sense these are learned aiming points that other methods use as reference points. However, it takes time and intentional effort to learn to see these lines and aim points. My uncorrected vision is 20/40 corrected with billiards glasses to about 20/20 and I was able to train my eyes to see the aim and reference points. I have also found that this learned ability deteriorates quickly over about one week of not playing and that when in daily use it requires about 15 – 20 shots to get it working at its optimal level.

Given the disbelief and lack of interest in center ball aiming I dropped the whole matter until I have explained it better in writing

Of course all of this presupposes normal vision (whatever that is).

 

[JoeW]

My point in all this is that the physiological and psychological components can be trained. When natural ability is set aside, I think that many people could, with training, get to a professional level. I suspect that the “killer instinct” while trainable is the most difficult aspect for the average person and one that most of us would not want to develop.

 

[dr_dave]

My point in all this is that the physiological and psychological components can be trained. When natural ability is set aside, I think that many people could, with training, get to a professional level. I suspect that the “killer instinct” while trainable is the most difficult aspect for the average person and one that most of us would not want to develop.

Well stated.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

SpiderWebComm
Its my opinion you should position your eyes to the inside of the CTEL for thin shots and to the outside of the CTEL for thicker shots.

It sounds like this means keeping your eyes close to the contact points line. Does your rule change when using sidespin? Here's something similar I said about that:

...thin cuts and shots with lots of sidespin might lend themselves more to sighting along the contact points line, while thicker shots with less spin might be best sighted along the stick.

pj
chgo

 

[336Robin]

Sighting

Dave,
Interesting thread and interesting answers. I hope to have time to read all the replys. Sighting here is the issue. Here is one you probably dont have. Its not my only method but one I use when Im using the contact point for my method.

The most consistent method for contact point location that I have found is a little obscure but I dont complain about what works. Sure I look at the ball and the pocket like every one else but I believe "the way" you choose to view the situation makes for the possibilities. When Ive made my decisions and Im ready to do the preshot and shot routine I fix my gaze above the table and in my lower preriferal I see the contact point almost jump out at me. Hoop and Holler if you like. Works for me really, really well.

336robin

 

[Misha]

Dave said "everyone", so I'll put in my .02. <you get back change, too>

I can't remember where I heard this, but a long time ago when I had good eyes, I was getting beat up by an old timer. He didn't seem to aim at all. I have no idea how he did it.

Later, he said one thing about the ghost ball method (the term now used). He said that doing that gives you the wrong spot to aim. By that he meant that the contact point was different than what you think it is because of the sphere geometrics of the balls, how clean they were, how hard the stroke, etc.

So, aiming is not much good if you don't have the line, is it?

Anyway, he told me to just shoot the same cut until I couldn't miss, and then do it again. Then a different cut, and so on. And then do it on different size tables, dirty cloth, dirty/new balls, etc.

I never did learn how to "aim." I see the pros do it all the time now in perfect form. From my perspective, I think the perfect stance and stroke is more important, but then again, I"m no master intructor either. :grin:

I'd like some comments on if this line is right, though.....