What do you think the best shotmakers have in common?

Oikawa

Active member
I agree with many hours off practice but there's one thing thats more important which you will find is a common thing with shotmakers.

They are all ONE EYE DOMINENT players. i.e. they either shoot right handed and their cue under their right eye. Or they shoot left handed and their cue under their left eye..........OR the other awkward thing but they are born with it which is opposed eye dominants meaning, they are right handed but their cue is under their left eye or vice versa.

Example.

Earl Strickland - right eye (right handed)
Jayson Shaw - right eye (left handed)
Albin - left eye (right handed)
Jushua filler - cant remember but his cue is directly under his eye,, I think its left eye and he's left handed.
SVB - although its not very clear but if you notice and focus in his line-up when he's straight toward the camera, the cue is under his right eye.
Efren Reyes - same to shane van boening if you are straight on the camera to him his cue is not in the middle of his chin, its more directed to the right a little bit and he's right handed.

There are many more but I don't want to list all of them, all off these players are one eye dominant's and never put their cue in the center of their chin like most of the schools are telling people to do which is very wrong in my opinion, its like a rifle shooting. If you shoot a rifle you want to aim with one eye, not in the center of your face cause thats ridiculous.
As someone who also has his right eye under the cue, I don't see how this would affect ones "upper limit" of shot making potential in any way. The pros you mentioned align when up, drop down into the shot, and then perhaps do tiny adjustments subconsciously or consciously, which can be done just as well with one or two eyed focus while down on the shot.

So, as much as there can be personal preference, I don't see any difference in terms of one way having a higher maximum skill potential.
 
Last edited:

smoochie

NotLikeThis
As someone who also has his right eye under the cue, I don't see how this would affect ones "upper limit" of shot making potential in any way. The pros you mentioned align when up, drop down into the shot, and then perhaps do tiny adjustments subconsciously or consciously, which can be done just as well with one or two eyed focus while down on the shot.

So, as much as there can be personal preference, I don't see any difference in terms of one way having a higher maximum skill potential.
Numbers and statistics don't lie. You saying words don't mean anything. Literally you just put few words together saying "I'm right eyed but I don't see how this can have higher skill protentional" what does that even prove. You don't see it that's fine, but again numbers don't lie.

Eye dominance is what makes you a better shot maker. I'm not putting just words here, providing evidence by pot machine pro's all off which are one eye dominant players.
 

Oikawa

Active member
Numbers and statistics don't lie. You saying words don't mean anything. Literally you just put few words together saying "I'm right eyed but I don't see how this can have higher skill protentional" what does that even prove. You don't see it that's fine, but again numbers don't lie.

Eye dominance is what makes you a better shot maker. I'm not putting just words here, providing evidence by pot machine pro's all off which are one eye dominant players.
I didn't mean to prove anything or say I'm objectively right, my point was to say that I don't understand why there would be a correlation between eye dominance and shotmaking potential, hoping you'd elaborate more, if you have any insights as for why what you say is true.

Listing 5 or so pros isn't really evidence yet, and doesn't answer the why. An interesting pattern indeed, but I want to hear more before making any conclusions. There are also many world class shotmakers who have their cue in the middle or almost middle of their chin.
 

smoochie

NotLikeThis
I didn't mean to prove anything or say I'm objectively right, my point was to say that I don't understand why there would be a correlation between eye dominance and shotmaking potential, hoping you'd elaborate more, if you have any insights as for why what you say is true.

Listing 5 or so pros isn't really evidence yet, and doesn't answer the why. An interesting pattern indeed, but I want to hear more before making any conclusions. There are also many world class shotmakers who have their cue in the middle or almost middle of their chin.
I always go with statistics and numbers, that's how reality prove itself to me. When I see most off the shotmakers have one thing in common, then that could 95% be the reason, in this case the thread maker asked what they have in common and this is literally what they have in common most of them. So statistics and numbers give you there answer. You asked me that you don't understand the correlation between eye dominance and shotmaking and here's your answer, When you want to be a good shotmaker you need to aim better, not just align as you stated in your previous post. Aiming better give you higher chance of making the ball (I can't believe i'm answering this haha) so therefore if you see the ball clearer and better you'd have more chance of making it, just like shooting the riffle, if you aim better you'd hit the object better. Thats number one, adding to this sometimes you don't need to understand correlations just need to look for statistics. Again I can give you million things that you don't get the correlation for but then you'd see that its real because of statistics. Trust me if you're one eye dominant you're lucky, now just need that 5% of practicing/playing more...play 8 hrs a day and you will be just like them, a good shotmaker.
 

OldOrvis

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What sort of qualities do you think seperates the best shotmakers from others? People like Filler, Shaw, Shane, etc.

Obviously every pro has their strengths and weaknesses, but what do you think it is that most seperates the absolute top from the rest of the pros, when it comes to pure shotmaking?

Nerves, eyesight, fundamentals, confidence, amount of practice, better hand-eye coordination, talent?
Hand eye coordination and fearless
 

Oikawa

Active member
I always go with statistics and numbers, that's how reality prove itself to me. When I see most off the shotmakers have one thing in common, then that could 95% be the reason, in this case the thread maker asked what they have in common and this is literally what they have in common most of them. So statistics and numbers give you there answer. You asked me that you don't understand the correlation between eye dominance and shotmaking and here's your answer, When you want to be a good shotmaker you need to aim better, not just align as you stated in your previous post. Aiming better give you higher chance of making the ball (I can't believe i'm answering this haha) so therefore if you see the ball clearer and better you'd have more chance of making it, just like shooting the riffle, if you aim better you'd hit the object better. Thats number one, adding to this sometimes you don't need to understand correlations just need to look for statistics. Again I can give you million things that you don't get the correlation for but then you'd see that its real because of statistics. Trust me if you're one eye dominant you're lucky, now just need that 5% of practicing/playing more...play 8 hrs a day and you will be just like them, a good shotmaker.
A few things:

1. When I said align, I meant the same thing as when you say aim. I just simplified the whole alignment/aiming part into a single word. So, to iterate with your terms, my point was that I don't see how sighting with one eye helps one aim more accurately than with two eyes.

2. Statistics are useful indeed, but what you have shown is a very small sample set, that is possibly also cherrypicked to not include those who don't follow the trend. I'd guess if you measure the eye/cue alignment of the top 100 players, there wouldn't be a statistically significant trend of one way or another towards the top.

3. Even if there was a trend (which isn't shown with any significance yet), a statistic alone wouldn't answer the why, without some insight. Do you have any ideas as for why what you say might be true? Understanding the trend deeper is the next step after observing it exists in the first place.

4. I am actually not one eye dominant (my vision center is in the middle), but I deliberately have my cue under my right eye and only use one of the two (the one from the right eye) peripheral images of the cue/CB while down on the shot. I don't know how many do it like this, or truly have their vision center all the way under one eye. I aim while standing, so any adjusting/aiming while down is subconscious and on a micro level anyways. This would be interesting to learn more about.

5. What about snooker pros? Do a similar statistical analysis there and see what kind of results you get. Different game, but very similar concept in sighting/aligning/aiming.

I don't argue for the sake of being right or winning, I am here to learn and observe. If you know something I don't, I want to learn it.
 
Last edited:

BlueRaider

Registered
I've always thought the super straight shooters are that way because they either had great instruction from the very beginning or lucked into really good mechanics right away. Which means they never really struggled with potting balls, even as total beginners, and from there their confidence only grew. In other words, they lacked the fear of missing most people struggle with (and continue to struggle with years later, even as strong players).

I actually know a few casual players who probably have it in them to be incredibly straight shooters if they practiced a bit. I've talked to them about their aiming process, mechanics, etc., and to them it's a joke that people struggle with making balls. Long straight-ins on a 9'er are dead simple to them. They roll them in without really knowing what they're doing.

That lack of fear goes a long way when a player becomes devoted to the game. But I think somewhat paradoxically, pool seeming "easy" to people on a surface level makes them far less likely to really dive into it. It just seems like too simple of a game to really fuss over.
 

Dunnn51

Clear the table!
Silver Member
For some reason I think of JT & Ronnie. They both have natural talent, but still practice many hr/day. Natural talent has merit, BUT practice & confidence wins the day. Natural talent does not give you perfect position for the next red after some 12foot table antics!
No one ever won titles by being "Lucky" (except Efren of course!) 😀😆🤣😁
 

CaptainBly

Registered
I've always thought the super straight shooters are that way because they either had great instruction from the very beginning or lucked into really good mechanics right away. Which means they never really struggled with potting balls, even as total beginners, and from there their confidence only grew. In other words, they lacked the fear of missing most people struggle with (and continue to struggle with years later, even as strong players).

I actually know a few casual players who probably have it in them to be incredibly straight shooters if they practiced a bit. I've talked to them about their aiming process, mechanics, etc., and to them it's a joke that people struggle with making balls. Long straight-ins on a 9'er are dead simple to them. They roll them in without really knowing what they're doing.

That lack of fear goes a long way when a player becomes devoted to the game. But I think somewhat paradoxically, pool seeming "easy" to people on a surface level makes them far less likely to really dive into it. It just seems like too simple of a game to really fuss over.
This is what I am talking about! Players play for years and never achieve this, yet others have barely hit a couple thousand balls and can't miss. They may not understand the game or position but can drill shots from everywhere.
 

smoochie

NotLikeThis
5. What about snooker pros? Do a similar statistical analysis there and see what kind of results you get. Different game, but very similar concept in sighting/aligning/aiming.
Yes, snooker players with one eye dominance are better in long potting game by miles. Issue is they mostly come from snooker schools where old snooker teachings tends to lean toward having the cue in the center of chin, but the one eyed dominance players in snooker adjust this by twisting their heads. Because they are taught and brainwashed into thinking THEY MUST have the cue under their chin. The outcome of this is either 1. tilting their heads to put the cue under their eye, or 2. twisting their chin (Mark allen) come to mind. If you see mark allen who's a very good player at this era, you can see that his chin always twist and in fact he twist is so hard to make his cue touch it but thats because in the school he's been told he must put his cue under the cue, so he twists the chin but in fact his cue is under his eye. Same with ronnie osullivan his head is kinda twisted to put the cue under his one eye. Go watch & analyze. Its a fact, you can choose not learn it or not its up to you but its clear as a sunshine.
 

tomatoshooter

Well-known member
Every technique related miss is another mixed signal to the intuitive aiming process
Ican agree. A lot of my structured practice lately has just been potting balls. And my position play has improved because as I get better at potting, I am delivering the cue ball more accurately, giving me more room for error when I spin the ball and a more precise baseline to judge deflection.
 

tomatoshooter

Well-known member
As far as eye dominance goes, I've noticed Albin Ouschan is right hand/left eye dominant. Same here. I do have to lean a couple of inches further over the cue, but it's not a big deal. I think it actually helps shooting left handed, I can learn to adjust right handed and it makes the alignment more natural left handed. If Mugsy Bogues and Spud Webb could play in the NBA, I can certainly overcome the eye dominance struggle.
 

Flakeandrun

Well-known member
As far as eye dominance goes, I've noticed Albin Ouschan is right hand/left eye dominant. Same here. I do have to lean a couple of inches further over the cue, but it's not a big deal. I think it actually helps shooting left handed, I can learn to adjust right handed and it makes the alignment more natural left handed. If Mugsy Bogues and Spud Webb could play in the NBA, I can certainly overcome the eye dominance struggle.
When I use my left hand, I play under my right eye, and I do feel the cue action is assisted by the forced alignment/proximity to body under the eye. It is purely 'feel' and subjective, but I would say that it can definitely be potentially beneficial with regard to stroke/alignment. Right handed, I have to be conscious of head position, which has a tendency to lean into my dominant eye. I have had this issue constantly brought up since I was a teenager. My snooker coach would always tell me it's when I'm 'lazy' and to get up off the shot and cue down again with a better alignment (also had the same issue batting in cricket - right-handed, 'falling over' my shot as my dominant eye wants to 'see more')

I am somebody who uses both hands for a lot of things, but was always coached when playing snooker as if I were right-handed. Only recently, while playing pool have I put a little effort into using my left-hand. I would say I can play just below the speed of my right-hand, but at this point it's purely based on how often I am playing with one or the other. Both have their perks. I will always choose right before left. But as mentioned, have noticed potential benefits regarding the alignment.
 

tomatoshooter

Well-known member
When I use my left hand, I play under my right eye, and I do feel the cue action is assisted by the forced alignment/proximity to body under the eye
Interesting. Did I misunderstand or are you saying it's easier for you to shoot left handed with the cue under your right eye? For me, shooting left handed, under my left eye gives better ergonomics that diminish the awkwardness of using my left hand. I shoot enough right handed that the slightly bad ergonomics can be overcome, as long as I'm not sloppy getting down on the shot.

Another factor is that if I get super low on the cue, I can't tilt my head back enough so I have to look "up" and my eyes don't focus as well on long shots.
 

Flakeandrun

Well-known member
Interesting. Did I misunderstand or are you saying it's easier for you to shoot left handed with the cue under your right eye? For me, shooting left handed, under my left eye gives better ergonomics that diminish the awkwardness of using my left hand. I shoot enough right handed that the slightly bad ergonomics can be overcome, as long as I'm not sloppy getting down on the shot.

Another factor is that if I get super low on the cue, I can't tilt my head back enough so I have to look "up" and my eyes don't focus as well on long shots.
I'm not saying either is easier or harder.
Naturally, I have been taught right handed and this is second nature to me. So this would be preferred, or my 'go to'.
What I meant is, I see the benefits in the differing approach that has formed in my left handed action. I feel aligned well, and feel confident in my cue action. I feel that the way I align with this hand, a little like Ouschan (right handed under left eye), means my body keeps the stroke in check in a different way.
Hard to express with text.
 

brunswick1901

Active member
Great shot makers don't always play the best position because they do not have to.

If their position isn't perfect they will run out anyway.

Position becomes important later in your career when you can no longer make everything you shoot at.
 

Brookeland Bill

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What sort of qualities do you think seperates the best shotmakers from others? People like Filler, Shaw, Shane, etc.

Obviously every pro has their strengths and weaknesses, but what do you think it is that most seperates the absolute top from the rest of the pros, when it comes to pure shotmaking?

Nerves, eyesight, fundamentals, confidence, amount of practice, better hand-eye coordination, talent?
Nothing between their ears.
 
Top