solidifying vision fundamentals/the eyes

[BilliardsAbout]

System for Aiming With Sidespin (SAWS) - Dr. Dave Billiards Instructional Resources

stream or download price: $19.95physical DVD price: $29.95 + $3.50 S&H – new and more effective system for aiming with sidespin –– compensates for cue ball deflection and throw –– aim sidespin shots accurately and consistently with confidence –– use any cue, any bridge length, and any shooting...

drdavebilliards.com

 

[Tennesseejoe]

I think I'll stick with 'Intuitive Aiming'...but thanks for the thoughts.

 

[WobblyStroke]

I think I'll stick with 'Intuitive Aiming'...but thanks for the thoughts.

This is what I lean on also and would never trust anything I can do consciously to be able to come close to what the subconscious mind can if I just get out of its way. That said, a solid eye pattern that feeds all the info to the brain still needs to be established imo and I think there were some good suggestions and linked vids on that here that can be very helpful whether one is applying an aiming system or just visualizing shots with some reference point and trusting any minute adjustments to be done on a subconscious level.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

This is what I lean on also and would never trust anything I can do consciously to be able to come close to what the subconscious mind can if I just get out of its way. That said, a solid eye pattern that feeds all the info to the brain still needs to be established imo and I think there were some good suggestions and linked vids on that here that can be very helpful whether one is applying an aiming system or just visualizing shots with some reference point and trusting any minute adjustments to be done on a subconscious level.

True, unless there is a system like "X shot = Y tips of spin" that actually works.

 

[WobblyStroke]

True, unless there is a system like "X shot = Y tips of spin" that actually works.

For planning a shot, yes. But to execute it, a myriad of subconscious adjustments will still be required... like what is deflection of the cue, how much will the ball swerve back to the line of aim on way to OB at the required speed, how much to adjust for throw, etc. I'm not even saying it would be impossible to work this out consciously, tho it would be a tall task to be sure, but why would anyone want to go through all of that? Players have been applying the 'KISS" method to aiming for a long time with success and it is as easy as building up reference points and allowing your subconscious adjustments based on experience take care of the rest.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

For planning a shot, yes. But to execute it, a myriad of subconscious adjustments will still be required... like what is deflection of the cue, how much will the ball swerve back to the line of aim on way to OB at the required speed, how much to adjust for throw, etc. I'm not even saying it would be impossible to work this out consciously, tho it would be a tall task to be sure, but why would anyone want to go through all of that? Players have been applying the 'KISS" method to aiming for a long time with success and it is as easy as building up reference points and allowing your subconscious adjustments based on experience take care of the rest.

My stable is full of students who needs more than KISS--typical students haven't improved their league handicap in decades.

 

[WobblyStroke]

My stable is full of students who needs more than KISS--typical students haven't improved their league handicap in decades.

LOL I mean I shouldn't laugh but it's pretty funny to imagine someone going through DECADES of a skill plateau before coming to a coach for help. And the idea that this could be a 'typical' student is just hilarious. Tho I guess they would have gone to other coaches before with no success. As one coach complained to me the other day, "if you try and get a student to do like 5 things, you're lucky if they do one or two for a little while and any at all a couple weeks later". Which is true but also begs the response, 'then don't teach em 5 things at once lol".

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Which is true but also begs the response, 'then don't teach em 5 things at once lol".

In terms of working on changes, one thing is best, two is probably OK and three is an absolute maximum that's workable in certain situations.

Especially for fundamentals, if there are one or two major things, like stance and grip hand position, the minor things may take care of themselves as those major things are incorporated. There is no need to mention the minor things early.

There is a large range of retention in students that can be frustrating. Some you can mention "your bridge needs to be like X," and they do that for the rest of the session without being told again. Others, you make a big deal of Y, and three shots later they are back doing Y.

(There are some instructors who are insistent that there is no such thing as talent. I'm not sure whether it is filed under "talent" but I think the ability and willingness to change as a result of instruction should be. It is very hard to reinvent top play on your own.)

 

[FranCrimi]

...(There are some instructors who are insistent that there is no such thing as talent. I'm not sure whether it is filed under "talent" but I think the ability and willingness to change as a result of instruction should be. It is very hard to reinvent top play on your own.)

I think it's interesting that athletes who are considered talented are usually good at other things they try as well, and I think it stems from a healthy level of self esteem. Confidence is key when addressing failure. They don't see failure as a negative reflection on them, but rather as a puzzle to be solved.

The big question is whether they were born that way or not. I don't know, but my experience in helping players is that those who haven't developed that level of confidence in childhood have a difficult time facing the trials and tribulations of improvement in adulthood. And they often resist change to avoid the pain of possible failure.

 

[WobblyStroke]

In terms of working on changes, one thing is best, two is probably OK and three is an absolute maximum that's workable in certain situations.

Especially for fundamentals, if there are one or two major things, like stance and grip hand position, the minor things may take care of themselves as those major things are incorporated. There is no need to mention the minor things early.

There is a large range of retention in students that can be frustrating. Some you can mention "your bridge needs to be like X," and they do that for the rest of the session without being told again. Others, you make a big deal of Y, and three shots later they are back doing Y.

(There are some instructors who are insistent that there is no such thing as talent. I'm not sure whether it is filed under "talent" but I think the ability and willingness to change as a result of instruction should be. It is very hard to reinvent top play on your own.)

You're spot on about drip feeding changes and tackling the biggest issues that may resolve other minor ones as a consequence. Any other approach is a recipe for frustration for both the student and teacher.

As for the guys who think there is no such thing as talent, I couldn't disagree more. People have talents for everything... Just as a person can have a brain made for math and can just easily build up relationships between numbers and coast through math classes through at least the high school level while their classmates have to study long hours to gain the same results and surely with less actual lasting understanding, there are people who have a naturally heightened awareness of where their bodies are in space and how to move efficiently and control force (falls under 'proprioception'...which def varies from person to person just as there are people with unusually sensitive sense of smell or taste). These people pick up any sport very quickly as they understand how to do a few things with their body very well which transfer over to any sport. That's talent by definition as it is related to their genetic makeup and 'natural ability'. Which isn't to say that the less talented can't become proficient players or movers in general...it will just take more time and effort and likely the guidance of an instructor to keep them on track.

Re Fran's comment on confidence, a certain attitude in 'the talented' def helps them grind through rough patches and continue to improve and this tends to make them more coachable and accepting of instruction. Confidence is massively important. But the naturally talented people with an increased sense of proprioception and body awareness are overwhelmingly more likely to have said confidence as success breeds confidence and as one coach famously put it, "confidence without skill to back it up is just delusion". If you have had the experience of picking up other sports quickly, why wouldn't you be confident when coming to pool too? If, on the other hand, you've never been good at sports and struggle to get your body to do what you intend in other disciplines, a lack of confidence just makes sense.
That said, there will be outliers in both directions as there are some people who struggle with confidence even though they have had a lot of success, and on the other end of the spectrum, the always entertaining inept loudmouth brimming with confidence. My money would be on the former to outperform the latter in terms of rate of improvement, they just wouldn't have nearly as much fun doing it.

 

[FranCrimi]

Re Fran's comment on confidence, a certain attitude in 'the talented' def helps them grind through rough patches and continue to improve and this tends to make them more coachable and accepting of instruction. Confidence is massively important. But the naturally talented people with an increased sense of proprioception and body awareness are overwhelmingly more likely to have said confidence as success breeds confidence and as one coach famously put it, "confidence without skill to back it up is just delusion". If you have had the experience of picking up other sports quickly, why wouldn't you be confident when coming to pool too? If, on the other hand, you've never been good at sports and struggle to get your body to do what you intend in other disciplines, a lack of confidence just makes sense.

Holy Prince Albert in a can! I can't even make a comment anymore without this guy weighing in on it. And if I even bother to write back where I think he's wrong, it will start a back and forth on and on and forever thing because he's relentless. So I'm just going to have to say that I disagree with his comment and you will never know why. What can I say? Things have come to this.

I really miss Voodoo Daddy, especially at times like this. He had a way of setting people straight with just a few words. Sigh....I spent some time with him in Florida. Man, he could play. We played a marathon set for about 8 hours. Both of our speeds started to kick in after about 2 hours. We had so much fun that day running out rack after rack of 9 ball, just pure love of the game. He was a man of few words, but whatever came out of his mouth was pure gold.

If I could make a wish right now, I'd wish he'd come back to life and we could hang out again. Then I'd call him up and say, Hey Voodoo! AZ Billiards! Ask the Instructor Forum! And he'd laugh his fool head off and make me laugh right along with him.

 

[WobblyStroke]

lol. and i thought i agreed with u

 

[evergruven]

In terms of working on changes, one thing is best, two is probably OK and three is an absolute maximum that's workable in certain situations.

Especially for fundamentals, if there are one or two major things, like stance and grip hand position, the minor things may take care of themselves as those major things are incorporated.

good timing for me to have a little insight on this, student's perspective/follow up:

while I'd considered this thread weeks ago, I wasn't able to get on a table until yesterday
due to personal conflicts, my buddy and I hadn't been able to play our weekly game
but I've had pool stuff stewing around in my head, including the vision stuff
my goal was to play the whole session ob last with the eyes..never done it before

a wrinkle is that I also decided I would change my grip to incorporate my whole hand
usually, I mostly grip with my thumb, index and middle finger, loosely
but it occurred to me recently that I could maybe straighten out my kinetic chain by adding fingers
my elbow occasionally flares out sometimes when I stroke, maybe incidentally, not sure
my thought was that if I got more fingers on the cue, that would straighten out my wrist, and so on
just an idea- maybe that's a thread in itself, but anyway, I thought I'd try it

I also tried to keep my back foot more consistently perpendicular than I usually do
so, a few things at once. the back foot thing wasn't a big change tho, since I've been doing it
before playing, it did seem like a lot to do, but it actually wasn't too bad
if it had felt like too much, I would have been glad to slow down

my eye "pattern" was:
sight the shot while up, then down, confirm aim, pause at the cb, then move my eyes to the ob, shoot
and it seemed to work well enough. there were a few moments where my timing felt off
but overall, it felt ok. and I feel good that I could trust my stroke enough to look away from the cb
one thing I realize in retrospect was difficult for me shooting ob last, is long shots
I missed a few, and feelings of being "off" were magnified shooting from distance
but I can work on that. it kind of makes sense to me that those shots would be difficult.

stroke-wise (grip hand), it felt ok, too- still had the loose grip, just more coverage from the fingers
and did my alignment change? I don't know. will have to review the video
even tho we played a few hours, I couldn't really tell that I was shooting more/less straight
I'll have to try this stuff out by myself on some exercise shots to see more detail

conclusions:
I can shoot ob last. is it the way to go? not sure- but I'm going to pursue it, if only to get the experience
even tho I changed a few things in my game, I still played well overall. would say a handful more misses
and I had some nice runs, too. think this gives credence to letting the subconscious do some of the work
otherwise, I'm glad to be on a track that I think will teach me more about the game and my place in it
thanks again all-

 

[BilliardsAbout]

LOL I mean I shouldn't laugh but it's pretty funny to imagine someone going through DECADES of a skill plateau before coming to a coach for help. And the idea that this could be a 'typical' student is just hilarious. Tho I guess they would have gone to other coaches before with no success. As one coach complained to me the other day, "if you try and get a student to do like 5 things, you're lucky if they do one or two for a little while and any at all a couple weeks later". Which is true but also begs the response, 'then don't teach em 5 things at once lol".

But most players get "teaching" from their fellow league players. It's not like tennis or golf where almost 100% of club players have lessons.

What really burns some bottoms at AZ is how I've complained that ones who have gone to teachers, who have paid THOUSANDS for lessons, have not improved. Some teachers out there are superb, others, not.

 

[WobblyStroke]

But most players get "teaching" from their fellow league players. It's not like tennis or golf where almost 100% of club players have lessons.

What really burns some bottoms at AZ is how I've complained that ones who have gone to teachers, who have paid THOUSANDS for lessons, have not improved. Some teachers out there are superb, others, not.

Very true. Most beginner league players are 'taught' by 6s and 7s doing their best to parrot youtube videos or actual lessons they've gotten. I actually had a student whose captain taught her to setup with her cue passing between her breasts bc that's how he was taught to stand and thought it was 'THE right' way... as if a woman with D-cups has any business at all setting up anywhere near how a slender man would. SMH. So ye, leagues are full of examples of the blind leading the blind and it's no wonder many don't improve much over time.

As for pros... It is a shame that some people actually pay good money for lessons and don't improve but that happens in every sport. Sometimes it's on the student (think Charles Barkley getting lessons from multiple PGA teachers of the year), sometimes it's on the teacher, especially when a teacher is such a strong believer in the particular technique they teach that they try to force it on every student, looking to completely overhaul their techniques rather than fine-tune the one they have and work with the student's natural talents and tendencies.

 

[boogieman]

What really burns some bottoms at AZ is how I've complained that ones who have gone to teachers, who have paid THOUSANDS for lessons, have not improved. Some teachers out there are superb, others, not.

I know a local guy who's a good enough guy but I feel he does a lot of harm, or at least doesn't help. IIRC he is actually certified. He teaches beginners how to translate tips of english to diamonds off or rails to make a hit. He also works on 3 rail systems on very novice players.

He's not teaching wrong info per se, but most people he is teaching have horrible fundamentals (they don't know any better and he doesn't even address that), don't know aim or how to stroke a ball. He thinks it's more important for them to learn multi rail kick systems and spin off the rails so as to get a hit and not give up BIH. Most of these folks don't understand cb leave, can barely make 2 balls in a row on a good day.

He will teach anyone that will listen and prides himself on helping people out. Again, not a bad guy, but an example of an instructor (certified even but I won't say with which organization on an open forum) who doesn't know what beginners actually need.

You could take a year of lessons with this guy and I doubt he would even teach fundamentals on stance. Can you learn this way? Sure, but it's a hard knock life.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...He teaches beginners how to translate tips of english to diamonds off or rails to make a hit.

It can be a pretty reliable way to "measure" the amount of cross-table angle change you get. In my experience 1/3, 2/3 and 3/3 of maximum tip offset pretty accurately gives 1, 2 and 3 diamonds of cross-table change. VP4 agrees...

pj
chgo

 

[Tennesseejoe]

was playing the other day, and it occurred that I should consider my eyes more
on the shot I know I start with my eyes on the cb, and end with my eyes on the ob
beyond that I confess I don't really have a routine, I just kind of go with the flow
wondering what you all think is a good way to ferret out a good vision routine?

This a very interesting post. Your question is "wondering what you all think is a good way to ferret out a good vision routine?" You cannot determine a good vision routine until you set a benchmark for your stroke. Sort of like shooting a rifle....if your rifle sights are loose, you can not tell if it is your rifle or your eye sight.

Do you think your stroke is straight? What is your benchmark? Are you consistently hitting dead center on the cue ball? The hardest part of improving ones game is to identify what the problem is?

 

[WobblyStroke]

I know a local guy who's a good enough guy but I feel he does a lot of harm, or at least doesn't help. IIRC he is actually certified. He teaches beginners how to translate tips of english to diamonds off or rails to make a hit. He also works on 3 rail systems on very novice players.

He's not teaching wrong info per se, but most people he is teaching have horrible fundamentals (they don't know any better and he doesn't even address that), don't know aim or how to stroke a ball. He thinks it's more important for them to learn multi rail kick systems and spin off the rails so as to get a hit and not give up BIH. Most of these folks don't understand cb leave, can barely make 2 balls in a row on a good day.

He will teach anyone that will listen and prides himself on helping people out. Again, not a bad guy, but an example of an instructor (certified even but I won't say with which organization on an open forum) who doesn't know what beginners actually need.

You could take a year of lessons with this guy and I doubt he would even teach fundamentals on stance. Can you learn this way? Sure, but it's a hard knock life.

That is malpractice imo.

There is a simple 'sinking ship' methodology to improvement in anything...PLUG THE BIGGEST LEAKS FIRST.
Whatever is causing you to lose the most is what you address first. Obv if one has poor fundamentals that limits their ability to execute anything else so consistent cueing must come first.

The only benefit to his approach is it ensures his students will stay bad and in need of lessons but may actually come back to him bc he did help them a bit. Lines his pockets. I've railed against suspect teaching practices designed to keep customers rather than to fix their issues as efficiently as possible in here before, but what this guy is doing takes it to another level entirely. There is good reason why kicking systems generally come at the very end of instructional DVDs...without the stuff that comes before, the kicking doesn't matter.

 

[FranCrimi]

I know a local guy who's a good enough guy but I feel he does a lot of harm, or at least doesn't help. IIRC he is actually certified. He teaches beginners how to translate tips of english to diamonds off or rails to make a hit. He also works on 3 rail systems on very novice players.

He's not teaching wrong info per se, but most people he is teaching have horrible fundamentals (they don't know any better and he doesn't even address that), don't know aim or how to stroke a ball. He thinks it's more important for them to learn multi rail kick systems and spin off the rails so as to get a hit and not give up BIH. Most of these folks don't understand cb leave, can barely make 2 balls in a row on a good day.

He will teach anyone that will listen and prides himself on helping people out. Again, not a bad guy, but an example of an instructor (certified even but I won't say with which organization on an open forum) who doesn't know what beginners actually need.

You could take a year of lessons with this guy and I doubt he would even teach fundamentals on stance. Can you learn this way? Sure, but it's a hard knock life.

It's a bizarre way of teaching but I've seen stranger things. At least the information is good information. Is he taking players money for this or is he just helping for free?