Why Look at the Object Ball Last?

[Ronoh]

I do both

I look at the object ball last when I hit the cueball. Today I was experimenting with looking at the cueball last, focusing on the spot I want my tip to hit. I found that I was controlling the cueball slightly better and my pocketing was a little cleaner. It wasn't that big of a difference, and I don't know if I'm going to change to doing this.

From what I hear, the majority of pool players look at the object ball last. Most instructors teach this too. What I want to know is, why does it matter? Once you are down on the shot, and you keep your body still like you are supposed to, you should be able to close your eyes and make the ball, right? What advantage does looking at the object ball last give you? I can understand it as using it for a learning process, i.e. seeing if you are sending the cueball to where you are aiming, but you can do that AFTER you make contact with the cueball.

Is it ok to look at the cueball when you strike it, but quickly shift your eyes to the object ball to make sure it goes where you hit it? Or should you completely focus on the object ball *all* throughout your final forward stroke?

Who here looks at the cueball last, and who thinks that you shouldnt, and why?

Depends on the shot.

Is the shot straight and level? I usually look at the object ball last.
Is a jump shot required? Once I figure out my trajectory, I usually look at the cue ball last.

Darting your eyes up and down the "cue ball to object ball" line, and adjusting your stance to allow for a comfortable stroke, isn't a bad thing. That's a big part of "focus".

 

[chefjohnb]

efren looks at cue ball last??

I was watching a US open match (2003?) between Luat and Deuel last night with Billy I. and Buddy doing the commentary. Corey got a little funny on a ball and Buddy commented that Efren would load it up with inside and go three rails to get position and that he can do that "because he looks at the cue ball last". (from where the balls laid it would be a pretty incredible shot) They didn't say anything more about it but I thought it was an interesting comment, I'm not sure how Buddy knows that, or if its 100% true but, if anyone but Efren would know I imagine it would be Buddy.

 

[unknownpro]

By "steer" the cue, I imagine you mean "guide" it, as opposed to swipe it across? I have this problem with steering even though I try to focus only on the line and target. I don't know if it's alignment, or if it's my eyes playing tricks on me. I literally feel "forced" to steer my cue, even though I'm trying my best to stay on course.

It's gotten better since I decided to let the cue go completely, gripping it almost none at all. That way it HAS to go along the shotline I've decided upon during my standing address. Still, I sometimes forget all about it and grip it with ruinous consequences.

Right, guide would be a better word. I try to deflect the cueball a certain amount. On slower shots I exagerate the follow through to hold the cueball on its deflected path and keep it from curving back in, guiding it along a line parallel to the cue stick path. Hit hard it will go with the same aim line.

Santos (the shortstop who gave Ginky the 7 and robbed him) appears to completely let go of his cue before it hits the cueball. Who is what's her names husband anyway?


unknownpro

 

[jwpretd]

I don't shoot firearms but I would speculate that professional shooters arent looking at their sites [sic] when they pull the trigger but are looking at the target.

Target shooters using open (i.e., non-optical) sights focus on the weapon's front sight, even if that means (as it generally does) that both the rear sight and the target are fuzzy. This, combined with the automatic centering the eye/brain can do, is one reason that aperture rear sights (commonly called "peep sights") are preferable for open sights on rifles. Even with optical sights ("telescopic sights", "scopes") the attention-focus is on the point-of-aim indicator (crosshair, dot, post, whatever), though both it and the target are in visual focus. One of the benefits of optical sights is that they put the point-of-aim indicator and the target in the same visual plane.

For combat shooting, especially handguns, the above does not necessarily apply. This is an area of continuing, and often acrimonious, debate in the combat handgun shooting community. Note, however, that the debate is NOT whether target shooters should focus on the target. Rather, it is whether in the two-to-seven yard range the combat shooter, with his markedly different goals, needs to use the sights, or even see the gun. Much beyond that, the debate ends; it is clear that the shooter needs the sights and should be focusing on the front one.

As both a shooter and pool player, albeit mediocre in both cases, it is my opinion that there is no valid analogy between the mechanics of the two sports. Actually, I also play darts (again, at a mediocre level) and I don't believe there's a valid analogy between darts and pool, either (or shooting, for that matter).

 

[cuetechasaurus]

Right, guide would be a better word. I try to deflect the cueball a certain amount. On slower shots I exagerate the follow through to hold the cueball on its deflected path and keep it from curving back in, guiding it along a line parallel to the cue stick path. Hit hard it will go with the same aim line.

Santos (the shortstop who gave Ginky the 7 and robbed him) appears to completely let go of his cue before it hits the cueball. Who is what's her names husband anyway?


unknownpro

Do you mean Santos Sambajon? He's definately not a shortstop anymore, he's a pro. He stroke-slips, as opposed to slip-strokes. The cue slides forward in his hand at the bottom of his forward stroke. Efren lets go of the cue also, but it doesn't slip.

 

[3kushn]

Target shooters using open (i.e., non-optical) sights focus on the weapon's front sight, even if that means (as it generally does) that both the rear sight and the target are fuzzy. This, combined with the automatic centering the eye/brain can do, is one reason that aperture rear sights (commonly called "peep sights") are preferable for open sights on rifles. Even with optical sights ("telescopic sights", "scopes") the attention-focus is on the point-of-aim indicator (crosshair, dot, post, whatever), though both it and the target are in visual focus. One of the benefits of optical sights is that they put the point-of-aim indicator and the target in the same visual plane.

For combat shooting, especially handguns, the above does not necessarily apply. This is an area of continuing, and often acrimonious, debate in the combat handgun shooting community. Note, however, that the debate is NOT whether target shooters should focus on the target. Rather, it is whether in the two-to-seven yard range the combat shooter, with his markedly different goals, needs to use the sights, or even see the gun. Much beyond that, the debate ends; it is clear that the shooter needs the sights and should be focusing on the front one.

As both a shooter and pool player, albeit mediocre in both cases, it is my opinion that there is no valid analogy between the mechanics of the two sports. Actually, I also play darts (again, at a mediocre level) and I don't believe there's a valid analogy between darts and pool, either (or shooting, for that matter).

Some of my analogy has to do with perfect form. When a kid I was in a rock quarry with an old man/expert shooter Mr. Satterly. He got out his .17 cal and was tossing up rocks the size of quarters and pulverizing them with a scope. Since I've never practiced shooting but have done some, I've found it somewhat of a challange to get a scope to my eye to even be able to see through it. I assume Mr. Satterly actually saw the rock in the scope but his fundamentals were so tuned that the rock had to be right there instantly at the critical time to shoot which was also timed so the bullet went into the high wall of the quarry. Again from a non shooter and not to argue but just a thought. Is there enough time to line up the cross hairs or is it more instinctive at that point. In other words "there's the rock - got it - hit it."

 

[lewdo26]

Right, guide would be a better word. I try to deflect the cueball a certain amount. On slower shots I exagerate the follow through to hold the cueball on its deflected path and keep it from curving back in, guiding it along a line parallel to the cue stick path. Hit hard it will go with the same aim line.

Santos (the shortstop who gave Ginky the 7 and robbed him) appears to completely let go of his cue before it hits the cueball. Who is what's her names husband anyway?


unknownpro

Won't an exagerated follow-through on soft shots cause you to decelerate unless you double-hit foul? I was having problems with my safeties and roll-outs and I studied certain pro players like Archer. I found it interesting that they never let up on the acceleration even if bunting the cueball half-an-inch. Since then, what I've done for soft shots is shorten my backstroke and follow through, but keeping a constant acceleration until the cue stops on its own...

 

[unknownpro]

Target shooters using open (i.e., non-optical) sights focus on the weapon's front sight, even if that means (as it generally does) that both the rear sight and the target are fuzzy. This, combined with the automatic centering the eye/brain can do, is one reason that aperture rear sights (commonly called "peep sights") are preferable for open sights on rifles. Even with optical sights ("telescopic sights", "scopes") the attention-focus is on the point-of-aim indicator (crosshair, dot, post, whatever), though both it and the target are in visual focus. One of the benefits of optical sights is that they put the point-of-aim indicator and the target in the same visual plane.

As both a shooter and pool player, albeit mediocre in both cases, it is my opinion that there is no valid analogy between the mechanics of the two sports. Actually, I also play darts (again, at a mediocre level) and I don't believe there's a valid analogy between darts and pool, either (or shooting, for that matter).

That's interesting. The tip is your front sight, you've just got to hit the ball with the end of your barrel while you stay lined up on the target... no wonder pool is so easy, lol.

unknownpro

 

[unknownpro]

Won't an exagerated follow-through on soft shots cause you to decelerate unless you double-hit foul? I was having problems with my safeties and roll-outs and I studied certain pro players like Archer. I found it interesting that they never let up on the acceleration even if bunting the cueball half-an-inch. Since then, what I've done for soft shots is shorten my backstroke and follow through, but keeping a constant acceleration until the cue stops on its own...

I was talking about longer shots hit more softly with english. Keeping a loose grip and long bridge, I let the cue slow down and speed back up on its own. The loose grip lets the cue deflect, and the exaggerated slow follow through gives it a chance to naturally bounce back to the cue's original line, sending the cue ball on it's fully deflected path.

I think cue acceleration through the hit is basically not possible. It always decelerates. Right Bob??? Bob will know. But that is what makes the long bridge better. Gets the speed up and even before the hit. Instead of pushing through the cueball you swing right through it.

unknownpro

 

[pete lafond]

I was watching a US open match (2003?) between Luat and Deuel last night with Billy I. and Buddy doing the commentary. Corey got a little funny on a ball and Buddy commented that Efren would load it up with inside and go three rails to get position and that he can do that "because he looks at the cue ball last". (from where the balls laid it would be a pretty incredible shot) They didn't say anything more about it but I thought it was an interesting comment, I'm not sure how Buddy knows that, or if its 100% true but, if anyone but Efren would know I imagine it would be Buddy.

Since I first noticed this topic pop up a year ago I have paid special attention to players eyes. I have yet to see a player who does not focus on the OB last, Efrin included. The only exceptions I've ever seen have been on shots where making the OB was a low percent and I.E. the CB required a curve due to obstruction.

I'm wondering if maybe the topic is rather how much attention the CB gets before the shot. Even still, not a single player I have ever noticed looks at the CB last. In some cases I've seen a player look at the OB to CB a few times with a little more attention to the CB just before contact (contact: tip to CB). In each case at the moment of contact, their eyes are on the OB.

I have seen most pros and I do not think I missed anyone. I've seen some look the OB through the CB as if they were almost looking down a sight, though the primary attention again is still the OB.

 

[Habitmaster]

Looking at not just the object ball last but the exact spot you want to hit on the object ball would seem to make sense. Our skill in pool comes from the subconscious mind performing a practiced habit. The better the habit the better the skill. If we could not only get our thinking or conscious mind out of the way, but actually do something to help our subconscious then we would be better players. By seeing the exact spot on the object ball and watching that spot till the cue ball stikes it will help in several ways. One is that by watching the spot till the cue ball strikes it will prevent you from jumping up or moving before the shot is over. Another reason is that if you cannot see and know exactly what you are hitting on the object ball, how do you ever know if you hit where you are aiming at?
You might say, if the ball went in?
Two pool balls only strike each other in around a one-eighth inch area. Skill in making shots comes in striking the exact one-eighth area you want not in pocketing balls.
So by seeing the exact spot on the object ball you want to hit you can determine if you miss the spot or not. If you never see the spot then you can never improve your skill at hitting the exact spot.

 

[rackmsuckr]

I just went to practice. I always thought I looked at the object ball last and I was right. HOWEVER, I also tried lining up ridiculous shots and looking at the cueball last, I still made them, probably with more accuracy than the OB last method! I will have to do more playing around with it.

I aim a lot of my shots with the ferrule, so sometimes, it's just a matter of pointing my cue in the right direction.

 

[Jimmy M.]

It's a well documented fact that heterosexuals look at the object ball last.