PDA

View Full Version : Blackjack's Dominant Eye Theory Challenge



DSAPOLIS
04-21-2003, 01:45 AM
This is my response to the myth of the dominant eye theory:


I still contend that eye dominance means absolutely nothing unless you are shooting with only one eye open. When both eyes are open, you see what both eyes see. To prove my point, I suggest the following experiment:

Look at the text in this message with both eyes open at the same time. Now here's the tricky part, with both eyes open at the same time, tell me what your dominant eye is seeing. When you are finished with that, continue looking at this text with both eyes open at the same time, and tell me what your non-dominant eye is seeing. After you have completed this exercise, elaborate on the difference of what one eye saw compared to what the other eye saw.

This exercise might sound ridiculous, and along with being ridiculous, it is a complete waste of time. So is worrying about the dominant eye theory, unless you are shooting with only one eye open. There is nothing you can change in your stance, cue position, head postion, etc, that is going to change the optic nerve's communication with the brain. The first I had ever heard of this "theory" was just a few years ago. To me it sounds like a bunch of hogwash that distracts players away from what they should be working on, which are the fundamentals of the game.

I believe that this "theory" was started when Jim Rempe discussed it in a video a few years back. Before that, it was never discussed. Dominant eye is important in marksmanship, and archery, but in pool, I fail to see its significance.

bluewolf
04-21-2003, 05:07 AM
David,

Are you crossed dominant? Looking at print and looking down an exact line from the cb to the ob to the pocket, imo, is a horse of a different color.

Then there is the issue of 'occular fusion', to use a big word, sorry. This is the ability of the eyes to focus together. It is said that young boys are able to do this approximately 2 years later than young girls. Who is to say that each person does this equally or the same? This is about like saying that everyone has the same vision,depth perception etc.

Only the individual knows what is affecting them. No test will tell what any particular poolplayer is experiencing. I have taken lots of dominance tests and they were all bogus.

In shooting rightie and being left dominant, I shoot very low on the shot with the cue under my chin. If I stand up the least little bit, I am cocking my head, attempting to line up the shot with my left eye.

Additionally, when I shoot leftie, the cue is under my left eye.

Just like Fancher, and his psychobabble, if a person does not have this situation, all of the experiments in the world will not prove a thing.

I know that Fancher has a PhD, but I have been around the block a few times. When I got my first job as a School Psychologist, which incidentally is an advanced degree program, just under a PhD; My then boss said 'drop the big words, some of the people you will be seeing, cannot even read'. So I became a human being.

Lots of folks here have college degrees and even though some do not, many are quite intelligent,even genious in many cases.A piece of paper tells nothing about the person, how smart they are etc. Using psychobabble or jargon is one thing among like professionals.It is grossly inappropriate in a mixed group. Now you David do not do this so I am not talking about you.

To use this kind of language outside of ones professional peers, even though I understand it, it is in my opinion, demeaning, degrading and insulting.

His book (Fancher), at least, does have some redeeming qualities.

David, if you are not crossed dominant, how can you know what that is like?

Laura

just my .02..finally making the plunge. Am going leftie, though that will keep me a lower sl for awhile. It is the long term goal of being the best I can be at pool that is most important to me.

Ken
04-21-2003, 07:17 AM
I can't see how looking at a flat surface will tell you anything about aiming or dominant eye. You seem to have picked a ridiculous test and are now concluding dominant eye is ridiculous. Sorry, but that is not logical.

I think the idea of dominant eye is not important as long as you use the same eye for aiming and put the cue under that eye. Otherwise you will have to learn to compensate for systematic errors. There are very few top players that do that.

Jeanette Lee learned to play with the cue in the middle of her eyes and compensates very well after all these years. That proves it can be done. Very few others do not put the cue under one eye.

Aiming the cue is no different than markmanship, by the way. Lining up a linear object at a distant target. Pistol shooters even wear a patch over one eye. Of course, depth perception is not important since the distance to the target is well known. Distance to an object ball is also of little importance due to the well known size of the tables and the relative difference in the apparent size of the balls which gives a clue to distances.

As long as you can suppress the view of one eye and aim with the other one, placing the cue under that eye, you can aim precisely. Otherwise you must compensate for errors in your view.

I see no reason for introducing errors in pool aiming but I am aware that others disagree.
KenCT

Tom_In_Cincy
04-21-2003, 10:22 AM
David,

I get it, although it might not be clear to some.

When you use both eyes to focus on a target, the data is still interpreted by the brain. Regardless of what eye provides the data.

If one of your eyes is the 'leader' of data to the brain, what difference does that make? Its still the same data.

And, if you have non-developed approach to the table, your aim won't make a difference anyway. You will continue to miss.

If you site the aim line by looking at the cue tip then cue ball and finally, the object ball and repeat up to 3 times, then you have reinforced and provided feedback for your original aimming.

But, it still doesn't make any difference if you don't have a good stroke. And to have a good stroke, you have to learn the basics and be consistant with them.

I believe that the aim is nothing more than an aquired learning process that is, at best, an educated guess.

WaltVA
04-21-2003, 10:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr>Aiming the cue is no different than markmanship, by the way. Lining up a linear object at a distant target. Pistol shooters even wear a patch over one eye....
As long as you can suppress the view of one eye and aim with the other one, placing the cue under that eye, you can aim precisely. Otherwise you must compensate for errors in your view.
KenCT <hr /></blockquote>
Ken - A minor disagreement with one point; VERY FEW pistol shooters wear a patch over one eye. The only ones I know of are those without a strong dominant eye effect. Almost every shooting coach will stress that binocular vision is superior to monocular, and that shooting with both eyes open is the way to go as long as your sights are in sharp focus. A few shooters cannot achieve sharp sight focus without partially or completely closing their weak eye.

I am right hand/eye dominant, and shoot with both eyes open with no problems. But when I shoot weak (left) hand courses of fire, my stance, grip, and head positions naturally modify themselves so that the gun comes up in front of my right eye.

I agree 100% with your statement, "As long as you can supress the view of one eye and aim with the other one...."
I think the natural tendency is to align the sights with the vision of your master eye. The problem arises with people who do not have a strong master eye differential, or with those who are cross-dominant. As you state, they must find a way to compensate. JMHO

P.S. - Have just conducted an experiment with cue, table and a mirror. Despite a strong right eye dominance, my cue position is about in the middle of my chin. So Blackjack may be correct in that compensations are learned, and that aiming in pool is different from shooting.

Walt in VA

Wally_in_Cincy
04-21-2003, 11:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr>

.....But, it still doesn't make any difference if you don't have a good stroke. And to have a good stroke, you have to learn the basics and be consistant with them.

I believe that the aim is nothing more than an aquired learning process that is, at best, an educated guess. <hr /></blockquote>

I agree with that. And if you don't have good cue ball control you're screwed too.

If this dominant-eye theory had never been written about in the first place would it even cross anybody's mind and would we be any worse poolplayers for not knowing it? I doubt it.

Wally~~needs to work on cueball control.

eg8r
04-21-2003, 11:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
just my .02..finally making the plunge. Am going leftie, though that will keep me a lower sl for awhile. It is the long term goal of being the best I can be at pool that is most important to me. <hr /></blockquote> Outside of the rest of this thread about eye domination, why are you switching from right handed to left handed? Why don't you just play the way it feels the most natural and quit worrying about your darn SL. I think the worst thing ever for you was to start playing competitive pool. It appears all you ever refer to is a skill level rating. IMHO, it would have been better for you to just play by yourself or with whitewolf until you got better.

In an attempt not to poke fun, I think it is funny to see an sl2/sl3 worry about individual things in order to increase their sl.

I suggest you quit worrying about your skill level, and worry about your stroke, aim, etc. Sl will come in time. I wonder if all the emphasis you put on your sl might hold you back also.

eg8r

DSAPOLIS
04-21-2003, 11:49 AM
Quote by Bluewolf:
"Only the individual knows what is affecting them. No test will tell what any particular poolplayer is experiencing. I have taken lots of dominance tests and they were all bogus."

If this is your belief, then why do you challenge what I am saying? I am also saying that the tests, validity and significance is bogus and should be ignored, but you are defending the significance of this in relation to shooting pool. If you are indeed cocking your head to compensate for this, it will adversely affect your balance, and your overall shotmaking ability. This will vary according to skill level, but it does not change the fact that when both eyes are open, they work together, not independantly.

Wally_in_Cincy
04-21-2003, 12:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
....why are you switching from right handed to left handed? ....<hr /></blockquote>

She did kinda slip that one in there under the radar. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
================================================== ====

Bluewolf,

Your post made sense until you threw in that gem. Why in the world would you do such a thing?

You know what I tell my sl/2 on my team? I'm gonna say this one time. Just shoot the damn balls in the holes. sheesh........

Fred Agnir
04-21-2003, 12:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> Aiming the cue is no different than markmanship, by the way. <hr /></blockquote>I've never agreed with this statement and have never seen one sentence written that makes a convincing argument for it. The beauty of pool and billiards is that the aim is unlike any other sport. No other sport has three targets (that I can think of at this moment). Golf (putting) has two. Pistols have one.

Fred

Rod
04-21-2003, 01:10 PM
I agree Tom, although the test seems bogus it's only used to make a point.

Players, especially new to the game, don't know how to aim. They haven't developed the same pre-shot routine and are not likely to stand at the table the same way twice. If I sight down their aim line sometimes I wonder just what they are aiming at. They start out by aiming in the "general direction". They find out general isn't precise enough. In time it gets better, that is because they learn how to walk into the shot and adjust their feet to align their body the same way each time. No one is 100 percent on this one.

Our brain is constantly making calculations on what "We" see, we meaning each person. No matter how we stand and aim it is individual. Many people need guidance though because aim is only one element. Just one point part of stance and alignment is how and where the cue is held on that line. Their wrist may be cupped or inverted, elbow in or out etc. It can start out ok but during the stroke it changes. This is where many times aim gets a bad rap no matter how you choose to aim. Everything was perfect but something in the stroke or body and head movement caused the problem. By being consistant in our set up our brain makes fewer calculations, I thing that's always good.

People can blame eye dominance and all the other horse pucky to justify missed shots. In the long run, and believe me in the looooooong run they'll find working on fundamentals will be in their best interest. Show me a person that misses shots LOL and I'll show you any number of reasons besides eye dominance that caused the miss.

Speaking of eye dominance, anyone that tells someone to put the cue under their dominant because of a simple little test or because they do it that way for what ever reason is doing that person an injustice. Just because they aim or learned that way doesn't make it right for everyone, quite the contrary. You use both eyes to aim unless there is a severe vision problem.

I know some players that have to aim with one eye because of vision. I know a few that aim under one eye that probably don't have to. They were taught or learned that way
so there is no going back. I have one player that is right handed and aims under his left eye. Over a couple of years with lessons on and off I changed his stance and how he held the cue. He is a much better player today and the cue is closer to his chin but still favors his left eye, which is ok.

Rod

John G
04-21-2003, 01:34 PM
Hi Laura.
Before you switch to lefty, make sure all else is right. Two of the most common faults in the early stages of learning pool are (1) overthinking everything and simple as it sounds (2) not having fun. In another post you mentioned
being diagnosed with an illness. some of the effects of this illness can be a loss of concentration, distorted depth perception, and distortion of hand/eye cordination
as a result of the vertigo.

All of these have a direct impact on your timing. Timing is perhaps the biggest problem that most of us have when we are having a pocketing and/or control problem. Your hand /eye timing overshadows everything else. I know your having questions about eye dominance. Perhaps it's real, but even if we have a dominate eye, I would have to agree with Blackjack. It has little or no effect on your ability to pocket balls.

Head position seems to be in the forfront when discussing eye dominance (position of eyes and/or angle of head In relation to cue line of site) You can prove it's a nonfactor every time you drive a car. Your head is always moving while driving but it has only a slight on our perception of the road and/or surounding vehicles.

Hand/eye timing on the other hand if off in only nanoseconds can directly contribute to missing a ball. If that's your problem, and that's much more probable then eye dominance, you need someone to watch you closley and check for that. And not everyone is qualified to look for that.

I believe you need to get back with your instructer and have them look for the answer. There's an old adage "to many cooks in the kitchen can spoil the soup". I think you have to many people telling you how to cook the soup. Stay with one instructer and trust thier competence and experience. To many differant theories only contribute to your confusion, and confusion is our single greatest enemy in sports and war. Best of luck to you, John G

bluewolf
04-21-2003, 02:13 PM
I am okay rightie as long as I am very low on the shot, with the cue under my chin. When I raise up somewhat, as one has to do on certain shots, my left eye tries to do the sighting.

When I shoot leftie, My cue is under that eye.

WW and I have done some other experiments too and he also thinks I am left dominant, as do other unamed pool players and professionals who are much better than I.

This never impacted my other favorite sports karate and swimming for obvious reasons.

Maybe I should not have brought it up. I obviously do not agree with David and he is a better pool player.

I have been called a heretic before and it will not be the last time.

I just know what I know. I know what my eyes are doing.
I will not say anything more on this topic. enuff said

Laura

"A thing is true whether you believe it or not"

Fran Crimi
04-21-2003, 02:16 PM
First, I don't think it's appropriate to say something is bogus without presenting scientific proof. Everything to this point regarding the significance or non-significance of dominant eyes in pool is speculation and theory. I think it's important that we all recognize that.

I don't buy into the theory that because something wasn't recognized or discussed in the past, that it shouldn't be recognized or relevent in the present. We know a lot more about pool today than our predecessers and because of that knowledge we are able to help players improve much faster.

As an instructor, I'm more than willing to accept that we don't know for sure what the relevance is regarding dominant eyes in pool. I do know one thing, though. Head placement is relevent to pool.

My initial studies with dominant eyes were more of a curiosity than anything else. However, I found over time that the astounding correlation between dominant eye and the player's desire to view their shots with a particular head placement could not be ignored. The farther away from the circle that object jumps with the recessive eye, the more the player fights to place the cue under their dominant eye. In all my exprerience teaching, that is a fact. Another interesting fact is that if I attempt to try to train that person to view their shots from a more centered perspective, they will invariably start to bring the cue out towards their dominant eye again over time. However, they will not have made the proper stance adjustment and their body alignment will be off-line.

I have also come across beginners who place the cue under their recessive eye. The only reason I know it's their recessive eye is because of the dominant eye test they take after watching them shoot. I've also found that players who initially start out with their cue placed under the recessive eye are more easily able to accept a centered cue under their chin with a little training. I've also found that beginners with cue placement under their recessive eye have had little or no experience in hand-eye coordination athletics or physical activities and in many cases, have initially, very little comfort in a pool shooting stance.

Knowing a players dominant eye helps me as an instructor because based on the correlations I can't ignore, it helps me understand the players tendencies towards head placement. As for the player, those tendencies are unconscious, and if their head will shift in that direction over time, it's better to accommodate that early on, rather than the pain and suffering they will suffer in a misaligned body position.

Fran

DSAPOLIS
04-21-2003, 03:05 PM
Quote Fran Crimi:

"As an instructor, I'm more than willing to accept that we don't know for sure what the relevance is regarding dominant eyes in pool. I do know one thing, though. Head placement is relevent to pool."

And that is my point, and obviously as instructors, most of us agree on that. The point I was making in my "ridiculous" experiement was that when both eyes are open, the player can't tell the difference between the dominant eye from the recessive eye. My experiment (admittedly an obnoxious one) proves that unquestionably. In the experiment, I said to look at the text on the screen. Some said it was one dimensional. Okay, extend your shooting arm out in front of you with your index finger extended at eye level. Look at the tip of your finger and repeat the experiment. Same thing, not one dimensional.
I have an article entitled "Factors of Stance Mechanics" where the issue of alignment is covered at length. This would be the problem as you have pointed out, Fran. I believe that a misalignment is more the culprit rather than the dominant eye. Any player that is compensating for eye dominance would probably do it subconsciously, which is to say that the mind would adjust the eyes to sight correctly, regardless of correct head position. I completely agree with what you stated in your post, which is mostly about proper alignment, rather than eye dominance. My point is, that both eyes focus together, and work together irrelevant of choice. I can't wake up one day and say, "Hey, I think I'll start using my dominant eye more than my recessive eye today." Put in that context, eye dominance theories are ridiculous. Placed in the context in which you phrased your post, eye dominance may be a factor along with proper alignment. In the same context, it does not change the signals the brain is recieving. Each eye works as a receptor of images. The images are collected through two receptors, but the two paths become one, and they are interpreted as one image. Over a cue, this will change according to head placement, but I believe its relationship with eye dominance is questionable, as long as both eyes are being used.

04-21-2003, 03:31 PM

eg8r
04-21-2003, 03:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway eg8r, it is not about skill level. It is about what comes natural. <hr /></blockquote> In my post to her I stated that she should just shoot the way it feels most natural. She mentioned that it might keep her sl down for awhile. My point is that she seems to be more worried about the darn sl than anything else.

If it feels better, produces better results whatever, then do it. It justs gets a little tiresome hearing about skill level all the time, especially everytime something new comes along, or a change is implemented.

I did not post originally to poke fun. Maybe I am wrong, however it appears more often than not, the sl is mentioned and she is a bit too beginner to worry about sl. Get the mechanics and other stuff in place and execute it correctly on a regular basis for a decent period of time and then worry about sl.

eg8r

Fran Crimi
04-21-2003, 05:12 PM
Agreed. Alignment is a key factor. However, I'm not as certain as you that there isn't more to dominant eye than that. When a player who says they have no vision abnormalities other than a strong dominant eye, tells me they can't seem to find the line of a shot when the cue is anywhere but under their dominant eye, I feel I don't have enough scientific proof to tell them they can place the cue under their chin and they would get used to it.

What if they can't, and they struggle with it for months and months? In the same light, I have never come across a player who insists they can't find the line of the shot unless the cue is under their recessive eye. That never occurs.

Is all this mere coincidence? Maybe. But I'm going to need to see more definitive proof before I start insisting that my students will be able to see just as well from head positions they tell me they can't.

Fran

curt
04-21-2003, 05:14 PM
I'm going blind in Both eyes reading these posts! Just put the balls in the holes!!!

John G
04-21-2003, 05:46 PM
Well there you go. after reading your and Whitewolfs posts it sounds like your a natural lefty and were fighting your instincts. For what it's worth I'm glad you figured it out.

For the record I was responding more to one of your recent posts about an ailment you suggested you had. One which I'm very familiar with and I hope you never get to know.

Mostly it was just an observation, All of us, at times, let to many cooks in the kitchen.

Best of luck to you, John G /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ken
04-21-2003, 07:50 PM
Fred, You must be shooting from the hip. In that case I agree with you that you might as well use both eyes to focus on the one target. If you are lining up a linear object such as a cue or a gun barrel and one or more targets you better use only one eye or else practise a lot. It's impossible to put both eyes along one line at the same time (there's your sentence).

I will admit that with practise you can compensate for the errors you are introducing. Don't call it aiming though; it's pointing.
KenCT

heater451
04-21-2003, 08:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> . . .The beauty of pool and billiards is that the aim is unlike any other sport. No other sport has three targets (that I can think of at this moment). Golf (putting) has two. Pistols have one.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>Doesn't the 'target' of/on the CB supercede the others, once the contact point on the OB is chosen? --Assuming that the correct point(s) were chosen.

That is, once the OB path to pocket ("target 1") line is chosen, then a contact point ("target 2") is derived, and then the tip-to-CB point is selected ("target 3"). Since you can break the process down into separate sections of action, aren't the first two targets basically rendered irrelevant?

Golf, however, I'm not sure really fits, since any "target" on the ball would be viewed as something like the edge of a plane (that is, looking down on the "target", between the ball and club head). Besides, if you decide upon a "swing-through" line, from the club head to the hole, then you aren't actually targeting the ball, but keeping the club head on a (roughly) linear path (assuming that the swing arc is seen as co-planar, with the intended roll-path of the ball being a line tangent to the swing-arc). Again, wouldn't the "target" of/on the ball be irrelevant?

As for the dominant eye stuff, I would think that, given practice shooting a certain way, it wouldn't matter which eye is dominant, However, I would also think that aligning a shot by using any natural eye-dominance would simply be an advantage for some people--depending on how they see/feel the target. After all, isn't aiming in three visual dimensions mostly an illusion, since most aiming/targeting can be done with a reference of only two dimensions?

---This is making me think of breaking down the action into two: "static aim" and "dynamic aim". . . .This is just coming to me now, if I get my thoughts fleshed out, I'll post again. . . .



~~BTW, how many targets are there in curling? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif


==========================

L.S. Dennis
04-21-2003, 11:03 PM
All of this makes me wish that Jim Rempe and Robert Byrne and Lori Jon hadn't said anything about all this. I remember somthing that George Harrison once said, and that is: "All I know now is that I know nothing!" Just for the record I did ask Nick Varner about this dominant eye thing and how he aimed and he told me that since he is right eye dominant he starts out his aim under both his eyes then gradually shifts slightly toward his right (dominant eye).

I think I'm still inclined to go with the Harrison quote though at this point!

Fred Agnir
04-22-2003, 06:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr>It's impossible to put both eyes along one line at the same time (there's your sentence).<hr /></blockquote> But this sentence only works if you indeed believe that aiming in marksmanship is the same as aiming in pool. Since they're nowhere near the same, then the sentence doesn't make sense.

The aim in pool is different, as I said. That's what makes it unique. If it was all about single targets, then sure it's be just like marksmanship I suppose. Fortunately, it's not a single target. The overall "aim" in pool has so much more than just hitting a single target. A single target would be just the cue tip hitting the cueball. That collision-aim itself is already different than the static aim of marksmanship.

Fred

Fred Agnir
04-22-2003, 07:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> This is making me think of breaking down the action into two: "static aim" and "dynamic aim". . . .This is just coming to me now, if I get my thoughts fleshed out, I'll post again. . . .<hr /></blockquote> Yes, yes, yes. And it's the dynamic aim that makes pool different, and it requires the the use of both eyes in harmony, IMO.


[ QUOTE ]
~~BTW, how many targets are there in curling? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif<hr /></blockquote> Depends on if it's the Men's or Women's World Championship.

Fred

Ken
04-22-2003, 07:08 AM
Take a long straight object (like a rifle barrel except it's smaller), use it to propel a round ball like a bullet (except it's larger), at a point in front of it like a target (except sometimes the point must be imagined) and it's "nowhere near the same".

I never understood "new math" either. To me the old math worked just fine but that didn't sell books to the new generation. If the wheel is to be reinvented I wish someone would let me examine the new version and show me how it works.

I've always had trouble with faith based beliefs.
KenCT

Fred Agnir
04-22-2003, 07:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> Take a long straight object (like a rifle barrel except it's smaller), use it to propel a round ball like a bullet (except it's larger), at a point in front of it like a target<hr /></blockquote> Nowhere near the same. Are you telling me you use Dr. Tom Rossman's trigger-fired cue? I didn't think so. The cueball isn't part of the cue stick. You hit the cueball. Therefore, in your analogy, the the cueball would be the target, and the cue tip would be the projectile, except, it isn't a projectile is it? The tip moves with the cuestick. I think the term "dynamic aiming" might say it best. There really isn't anything analogous. Do you use the sight on the gun barrel? What's analogous to the barrel sight on the cuestick? Nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
(except sometimes the point must be imagined)<hr /></blockquote>Do you think that the imagined point is somehow nearly the same as marksmanship? Isn't the fact that you're visualizing a target in space in relation to a round object that's some distance away one of the main things that separates pool from target shooting? Isn't this one of the reasons why I say it's nowhere near the same?

Fred

Ken
04-22-2003, 07:23 AM
I think static aim is where I line up the shot. Dynamic aim is during the stroke when I twitch and make last millisecond adjustments in order to miss the shot.

Once the shot is lined up you can close your eyes and have a good chance to make the shot. It does seem to work better if the eyes are left open so maybe there is something to this "dynamic" aiming. I suspect that it can be done quite effectively with one eye closed, however.
KenCT

Ken
04-22-2003, 08:01 AM
Fred, The differences you list necessitate a different means of execution but not a different means of aiming. I certainly admit there are differences but the two processes are analogous and lend themselves to the same aiming technique.

I can't accept that since there are differences in the manner in which the object is propelled towards the target that there is necessarily a difference in the aiming method.

The sight on a gun barrel is merely an aid in lining up the barrel. It is not necessary for aiming purposes it's just an improvement. Some people put a line on their ferrule but that kind of precision is not needed in pool since we can't get close enough to the table to use a sight. In fact, the farther one stands from the cue the less the benefit of aiming with one eye. If your eyes are far enough away from the cue then do it all with binocular vision.

A point to aim at is no different if it's a red bullseye or an imagined point. The red bullseye is just easier to see. There is a difference but that doesn't mean a different aiming system must be used.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain this new aiming system to me. Let's see, you use both eyes and put the cue somewhere underneath your head. Anywhere will do, or so it seems. I guess you then shoot a lot of shots with the cue in different positions until you get the best results. When you find a position that seems to work with a lot of shots you then replicate that position for all shots. And there's your precise scientific method.

When I see one top pro other than Jeanette Lee doing it then I'll take it seriously. I see a fair number of "A" and "B" level players doing it and I suspect that is one reason why they are not playing at a pro level.
KenCT

Fred Agnir
04-22-2003, 08:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> A point to aim at is no different if it's a red bullseye or an imagined point. <hr /></blockquote>This is the idea of contention that prevents me from considering the two aim styles as analogous. An imagined point at a distance with reference to a round object is not analogous to a finite, defined bullseye point. It is the "visualized 3D aimpoint" that makes pool a different animal. If there is a finite, defined point in pool, then it would be at the cueball, but that's not what you're talking about, obviously. So, even then, there's non-clarity in your own "a point is a point" theme.

The exact idea of contention is what you are seemingly taking as equalities. Which target are you talking about? The point in space (which it seems you are), or the point on the cueball? Isn't the fact that you have to decide which target you're discussing in an effort to make an analogy to marksmanship proof enough that the two simply aren't the same?

Fred

Ken
04-22-2003, 12:21 PM
On longer shots I make the approximation that the object ball is a flat two dimensional surface. I will try to send the center of the cue ball to some point along a horizontal line passing through the center of the OB. The target point will be either the center or a certain distance from the center to the left or right side. That point can be on the OB or out past the edge up to one half the width of the OB. This can give a precise aiming point just as if there were a mark there. There will be error in determining where that aiming point should be but it is useful as a rough estimate of where to shoot. It has the potential of being very precise.

I don't concern myself with the dimension of depth since that is automatically compensated for by the apparent width of the OB. For closer shots I find it much better to just send the point on the cue ball to hit the appropriate point on the OB. I don't think it's practical to do that with long shots.

If you're not considering the target to be a point at a specific didtance then you must see it as a line. So you have to match the line of the cue up with the line of the shot. This still is most precisely done with one eye although there have been many gerat players who stand back and acquire that line at a distance that would permit using both eyes.

The tendency now seems to be to get down as close to the cue as possible and aim and I think that requires using one eye. Dalton seems to sight as if shooting a rifle, for example.

Charlie Williams, on the other hand, seems to acquire a line before getting down and then gets close to the cue and refines his aim and then gets up and does it again, and again and again etc. ad nauseum. This can be done on the first try as he ocasionally demonstrates.

Personally, I prefer just to put the cue down where I think it should go and shoot without further aiming but I don't have enough faith in that method to stick with it. Wanderone seemed to do that. Salvas seems to acquire the line before the balls stop rolling. I'm working on that.
KenCT

04-22-2003, 12:45 PM
Post deleted by ccb_admin_2

Rod
04-22-2003, 12:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still waiting for someone to explain this new aiming system to me. Let's see, you use both eyes and put the cue somewhere underneath your head. Anywhere will do, or so it seems. I guess you then shoot a lot of shots with the cue in different positions until you get the best results. When you find a position that seems to work with a lot of shots you then replicate that position for all shots. And there's your precise scientific method.

Ken,
The concept of using both eyes to aim is hardly new. Past and present champions have the cue under their chin. Some may favor their domaninant eye which can be natural for those that do. No not anywhere, and you know better than that. It's achieved by walking into the shot and using the same stance each time. This doesn't change no matter how one aims.

With your new wave aiming method, would you give them a test to see which eye is dominant? Then after that test tell them to put the cue under that eye? That's a little short sided only giving them one option. What if they can't see that way? Where under that eye, center, left or right side? There is always adjustments. It holds true no matter how a person aims.

People, plain and simple do not see the same and they need options with nothing carved in stone. All I'm saying it would be an injustice to tell someone to put the cue under their dominant eye just because someone else does. Let them utilize their vision to it's best advantage no matter where the cue falls.

If a person comes to me for help on their game what ever the problem. They shoot with the cue under one eye, BTW I find that rare. I'll not even try to change their aiming method. I'm looking for fundamental flaws. In the process if I change something in their stroke, stance etc, it may change the relationship of the cue line to their eye slightly, but it still is under or favors that eye. I can't change that and would be a fool to even suggest such. What your saying is have them all put the cue somewhere under their dominant eye. It has to be referred to as somewhere until they find the exact location.

The only scientific method of aiming is a repeated preshot routine where your body is located by your feet and have a consistant head position related to the cue line. No matter how you aim if this prerequisit isn't met the shot is destine to fail.

Aiming is only a small part of the big picture. Without solid fundamentals no matter if the aim is perfect a poorly delivered stroke, body movement etc spells failure.



I see a fair number of "A" and "B" level players doing it and I suspect that is one reason why they are not playing at a pro level.
<hr /></blockquote>

Don't kid yourself here, aiming has little to do whether they can be a pro. Do they want to be a pro? Do they have the heart and desire to be out on the road. Perhaps most really like their day job and security. Way to many factors to even consider putting aiming in the same sentence.

Rod

Jimmy Mendoza
04-22-2003, 01:18 PM
Post deleted by Jimmy Mendoza

04-22-2003, 01:33 PM
Post deleted by ccb_admin_2

Ken
04-22-2003, 01:50 PM
Rod, It's strange that you would call what I advocate "new wave". In fact it was mentioned a long time ago by Byrne and apparently by Rempe and Strickland also. I have never said I believed anything about "dominant eye". Don't blame that on me. I have always said use whichever eye you are comfortable with and suppress the view of the other one. If there is a dominant one then I presume that is the one that would be used but that's not my idea. This dominant eye crap is just a way to reject any aiming method that uses one eye to line everything up. There are other ways to point but I wouldn't call that "aiming".

I am simply subscribing to the dogma that has been in vogue for decades. It is the new crop of "experts" who are trying to debunk this method. As I have stated, the only top pro that I can recall not putting the cue under one eye is Lee and she has explained that she does it only because she first learned that way and has done it so long that she won't change.

I much prefer the method of using both eyes and not getting right down on top of the cue. I simply say that it is not as precise and that is born out by the many top pros who do get down on the cue and use one eye.

I have been observing all the best players I can and can't recall anyone but Lee that puts the cue between the eyes. My main interest was in determining if it was a great disadvantage not to aim with the outside eye. It's easier to get that eye close to the cue and also exactly the way a rifle is aimed. I don't do that since I am left handed and shoot a rifle right handed. Perhaps my right eye is dominant but I don't care. I use it and that's all that matters. I initially thought such an arrangement would be rare but I have found that is actually very common for top players to shoot using the inside eye for aiming.

I find that a far more interesting question and wonder if it might be an advantage to put the cue under the eye that is inside. It's curious that Buddy Hall is called "the Rifleman" but he uses the inside eye opposite to how one would shoot a rifle.

Players in the past with a more erect stance didn't have to be concerned about using one eye since they were far enough from the cue where it didn't matter.

Again, don't pin the dominant eye stuff on me. I say ignore the concept.
KenCT

Jimmy Mendoza
04-22-2003, 02:29 PM
Post deleted by Jimmy Mendoza

eg8r
04-22-2003, 03:47 PM
I wonder if Laura Wolf is someone else using her identity. Somehow trying to mock her. The language used in her first reply to Fran is not the same type of wording that she uses normally when she posts here.

My vote is that someone is being a fool and posting using a variation of her name in an attempt to fool you.

eg8r

eg8r
04-22-2003, 03:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still waiting for someone to explain this new aiming system to me. Let's see, you use both eyes and put the cue somewhere underneath your head. Anywhere will do, or so it seems. I guess you then shoot a lot of shots with the cue in different positions until you get the best results. When you find a position that seems to work with a lot of shots you then replicate that position for all shots. And there's your precise scientific method.
<hr /></blockquote> When moving the cue around to all these different positions determining where you are more consistant in your shot making ability, are you always thinking about your eyes? I think you are placing a little too much emphasis on the eyes. Maybe the change in position is due to the fact that the body is hampering the ability to follow through, or maybe it is screwing up your stroke. These changes in the position were not done soley on the fact that you are not aiming correctly, or your dominant eye is not being used effectively or whatever.

Since there are so many different opinions on this dominant eye issue, you all sort of sound like Bob Meucci trying to prove his shaft is scientifically better while Predator is trying to prove their shaft is scientifically better.

On the issue of the B players not moving to the next level, maybe they have someone in their ear talking about dominant eye stuff and they are not concentrating on the other things that brought them to that position.

eg8r

Tom_In_Cincy
04-22-2003, 03:59 PM
Apparenly the CCB Admin agrees and NOW "Laura Wolf" is GONE-ski

eg8r
04-22-2003, 04:03 PM
I wonder after all that, how do you associate the aim point on the cb. When shooting a pistol, you are not worried about where the hammer hits the back side of the bullet (or whatever makes the bullet shoot out), all you have to worry about is where you want to the bullet to hit the target. How is this similar in pool?

You seem to be ignoring this simple fact. In pool you need to aim at a point on the cb (deflection and squirt are ignored right now) in order to send that cueball to yet another point in which to contact the right spot on the ob. This is not done when shooting a gun. The two are totally different.

eg8r

eg8r
04-22-2003, 04:04 PM
Wow, they move quick. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Score one for me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

bluewolf
04-22-2003, 05:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I wonder if Laura Wolf is someone else using her identity. Somehow trying to mock her. The language used in her first reply to Fran is not the same type of wording that she uses normally when she posts here.

My vote is that someone is being a fool and posting using a variation of her name in an attempt to fool you.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Yup. It is not me. Looks like ccb admin is staying on top of these 'fakes'

Laura

Rod
04-22-2003, 06:03 PM
Ken,
I thought I'd get you on the "new wave" aiming method. LOL Actually the concept being put into instructional material such as by Byrne is recent in terms of evolution of the game. I don't like the word evolution here but I had to call it something. We are talking in the last 15 years so in the grand scheme of things it is new.

Ok my mistake I thought you did favor the dominant eye. You do however favor putting the cue under an eye. To each his own but just because someone else does is not a good enough reason. Heck I could teach under or outside one eye and dupilcate a bunch of little Earl's running around! I'd fall short teaching his quirky attitude though. Another small problem that I'd have to get past is the fact half of them couldn't make a ball, but they would look good?

Aiming really isn't a problem and no one should be told to put the cue under one eye as I said before. If it falls their naturally once they have acquired the basic fundamentals, then that's where it stays. If however it falls under their chin or off a little to one side then that's where it stays. The biggest problem people have is staying in their stance and keeping their head still so they can keep their eyes locked on target. Although this is the single biggest problem IMO it's just an effect. The root of the problem lies within balance (ie solid stance) and good stroke mechanics. A wrong or quick move here and they lose focus on the target. I'll see it happen literally "countless" times in a day or night at the pool room. For those people they can throw any method of aiming out the window. It ain't going to help them here. People blame the dog and it was the cat and his buddies all along.

Aiming to me is using the cue as a basic guide. It doesn't always have to be extremely precise. I'll qualify that with I use my feel of stroke to aid the aiming process. This especially holds true using any amount of side english. The ball is subject to squirt and or swerve. Even if my aim, or anyone for that matter is perfect, the c/b won't find it's exact target because the stroke did not come off as intended. Once again we can find "something" to blame it on.

I hate to bring this up but I will anyway. LOL People may buy the latest "game improving" equipment. One such could be a Predator cue or shaft or possibly a Meucci red dot or of course the latest black dot. I think many "may be" steered into believing it's an instant cure. I won't say they are not more accurate. Lets say they are and meet the claim of 25 percent more accurate. Lets say they have the best aiming method known to man! Lets just say that. LOL Well it doesn't mean didley a miss is a miss and a poor stroke or body and head movement isn't cured by a new cue or shaft.

Rod

Rod
04-22-2003, 06:43 PM
Ken I hit the post button to soon. I wanted to tell you that I am a stand up player. It's not as noticable where the cue is positioned when it's 16" below my eyes. You mentioned the inside eye, well that's just how some have to aim to have the correct picture. I take it all with a grain of salt, nothing more or less. If you watched me it could be confused with my inside left eye being forward and my dominant right eye in back. It may appear it is under or towards my left eye but that isn't the case. Unless were up close and personal I think sometimes the camera angle may fool us in what we think we see. Not always but it can happen, just like in golf.

Ok I'm not going to blame you for the dominant eye deal, your off the hook. Some other brilliant mind created that one. LOL The sad thing is someone either does something different or says something to the effect. Because they have a higher ranking in the pool community be it an author, pro player, cue mfg etc they can create a market for their goods. That's fine but the average pool player thinks this could be the Holy Grail, the end all of their problems. The same with eye theory, and all it is, is theory. Well Rempe does it so it will work for me. Perhaps but if the wall falls down what peices will they use to put it back together. My preference is know what's broke before a repair. Don't try to fix something that isn't broke. Spend money on a good instructor and find out what needs to be repaired. The list goes on but I've flapped my gums enough. Well that's what a pooh-bah does. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Rod

Ken
04-22-2003, 06:55 PM
Rod, I don't mean to imply that one method is right or wrong or even better, only that there are different methods and I'd like to determine if one is better than another. My best results on long shots of medium cut is to simply walk up to the shot and pull the trigger without getting down and aiming. I just don't have the faith to rely on that procedure.

If I close one eye, put the cue directly under the eye and line everything up I at least have a pretty good idea where the ball is going but then execution is where error comes in.

I hear hall-of-famers saying put the cue under one eye. See a lot of pros doing it. Then a self styled expert asks "how can you aim with one eye"? Thousands of years of human endeavor are rejected so he can appear to be the "new wave guru". I guess he never had a B B gun when he was a kid. Maybe he's a pacifist and never served in the military and nobody ever took him hunting.

Then I hear that you have to use two eyes in order to "triangulate", right? Now I know triangulation has nothing to do with aiming so I know that this "expert" doesn't know what he is talking about.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain the physics behind using two eyes to line up two or more points. Homo sapiens has been doing it with one eye for thousands of years and along comes a bunch that says "use both eyes". I've had physics courses up to the post graduate level and studied optics for years. Just tell me and I'll look up the words I don't understand.

I just want to find the best way to do it.
KenCT

eg8r
04-22-2003, 07:04 PM
Oh yeah. Sometimes it is easy to tell.

eg8r

Rod
04-22-2003, 07:48 PM
Ken,
By no means neither did I imply either way is best. My stand point is let the person that sees the image decide. I can't make that decision because my eyes simply don't see the same as another.

In your case it seems you found the answer. If you set up lower with one eye you see the target better. It seems to me working on execution is the answer.

I'm sure not trying to create any new wave. I'm just using what has been in existance for thousands of years. I grew up on a farm and have owned numerous rifles, pistols etc. Heck i've owned my share of red ryder BB guns. I sure don't aim them the same as a pool shot. I use one eye when I shoot firearms.

Your not going to get any hard facts that support either option so don't hold you breath. All we can do is use what we feel works best for our game. If I waited on such answer, first of all if it was different then I'd never be able to adjust. Now of course if I lived another another 75 years I might change my mind. Then I'd be so old I couldn't bend over the table! LOL

Rod

Alfie
04-22-2003, 08:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> If I close one eye, put the cue directly under the eye and line everything up I at least have a pretty good idea where the ball is going <hr /></blockquote> Ken, do you patch one eye to play pool? Your rant seems to indicate that you can play better one eyed.

SpiderMan
04-22-2003, 09:46 PM
Compare the general style with the recent impersonation by "ALF".

SpiderMan

bluewolf
04-23-2003, 04:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> Compare the general style with the recent impersonation by "ALF".

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

It was taken off by admin before I saw it. And the one that posted that nasty about Fran, turned around and reposted in on playpool in my name. I complained to their admin but have not been back to see if they did anything.You know there you can type in any name you want. Whoever is doing this is sick!!!

Whoever has done these things, it is my opinion that they know history on this board. Perhaps as an anon in the 'old' days.

Laura

bluewolf
04-23-2003, 05:31 AM
In defense of David, he really is a nice person, as is Fancher, who also does not believe as some of us here about dominant eye being a possible issue.

I think that each person sees things and even comes up with experiments based on their experiences. When my sis got glasses at age 12, the first thing she said was 'I thought the leaves were supposed to look fuzzy'. So it is with many of us. If we have always 'seen' things a certain way, we think that that is reality.

In my earlier years, I worked quite a bit with learning disabled kids and many were cross dominant. I was tested for this and it seemed I was right handed (by then, by conditioning), left footed and left eyed. Over the years, I found, I guess through Karate and swimming, that I used both sides pretty well,although my left was stronger and I favored my left eye in swimming and in karate stance.

I think that both karate and swimming both encouraged me to be more ambi. In karate, especially, you are a better martial artist if you can use both sides very well. Many of my opponents always led with one side and favored one side for kicking. Being able to use both gave me an edge.

I was switched (left or ambi to right)when I was in kindergarten though. I grew up struggling to write right handed and was deemed severly dysgraphic. I struggled all though my life in my writing and could never learn to write really so I type.

Last year I did my own personal 'experiment'. I wrote with my left and with my right. Since I was brought up right handed, I wrote faster but it was very sloppy. When I wrote with my left, not having writing experience with that hand, it was slow, but it was much neater, the letter formation was practically perfect.

I guess everyone has a story and for some it isnt an issue and for some it is.

I know that lots of kids who are labeled as LD really arent. They just need a different approach. The educators, rather than considering that their approach is flawed, stick kids in special classes, Grrr. Sorry, that is one of my pet peeves, bringing up a whole slew of kids who think that there is something wrong with them, when there is not.

My brother was left and switched right in the first grade. Since he is ambi, he always did well in school and it was never an issue. My son was left and switched and deemed severly Learning Disabled and went to a special school for LD kids for three years, then stuck in those special classes.

Most people learn to compensate and never know the difference. For some, I agree with Fran, it is very much an issue.

I just think that it depends on the person. This is just my opinion, just like David has his opinion.

Laura

Ken
04-23-2003, 06:07 AM
ALF,
I don't wear a patch but I'm sure it would be a helpful tool for learning to aim precisely. Please excuse me for ranting. I ask that you no longer read my posts and save yourself all that unpleasantness.

Perhaps you could make an attempt to come up with some useful information to add to the discussion, or am I asking for too much from you?

Some pistol shooters in certain competitions do wear a patch so I suspect it is useful. Some one-eyed poool players play pretty good. I'm sorry for giving you so much information in one post. I know how hard it is for you to absorb so much.
KenCT

Fred Agnir
04-23-2003, 06:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I wonder after all that, how do you associate the aim point on the cb. When shooting a pistol, you are not worried about where the hammer hits the back side of the bullet (or whatever makes the bullet shoot out), all you have to worry about is where you want to the bullet to hit the target. How is this similar in pool?

You seem to be ignoring this simple fact. In pool you need to aim at a point on the cb (deflection and squirt are ignored right now) in order to send that cueball to yet another point in which to contact the right spot on the ob. This is not done when shooting a gun. The two are totally different.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>Exactly, Ed. Last night, when I was shooting, just like always, my eyes go back and forth from one target (the cueball) to the other target (the "ghost ball"). With english, my cueball point almost has no relation other than 3D-spatial with the ghostball. With centerball, perspective makes this simply a unique aiming challenge.

Somehow, when the few times I've shot a shotgun, rifle and BB gun, I didn't do this (go back and forth with my eyes). My eyes were fixed. My face was pinned close to the gun. How this is remotely the same, I still need someone to give me one convincing sentence. So far, nothing. Maybe I've been doing it wrong? Maybe every real marksman actually puts the barrel under their chin somewhere rather than by their face? Maybe below their dominant eye? Maybe they go back and forth with their eyes from sight to target? I've never seen them do this.

Fred

Fred Agnir
04-23-2003, 06:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> I hear hall-of-famers saying put the cue under one eye. See a lot of pros doing it. Then a self styled expert asks "how can you aim with one eye"? <hr /></blockquote>Considering there are as many hall-of-famers and pros that put it in the center (think snooker), then your argument is moot.

[ QUOTE ]
Then I hear that you have to use two eyes in order to "triangulate", right? Now I know triangulation has nothing to do with aiming so I know that this "expert" doesn't know what he is talking about.<hr /></blockquote>You're still equating pool aiming with rifle aiming and base your entire discussion around it. Fortunately, they're not the same. Pool is not a straight-line-to-a-point aim. It never has been. How you see the shot is part of the aiming in pool. Depth and perspective are important. Where is that in rifle-aiming?

Fred

heater451
04-23-2003, 08:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> I think static aim is where I line up the shot. Dynamic aim is during the stroke when I twitch and make last millisecond adjustments in order to miss the shot. . . .

KenCT <hr /></blockquote>That's pretty much where I was going (although the change sometimes works in my favor). . . .

BTW, have you ever noticed your inner voice actually telling you that you shouldn't be doing something--as you're doing it? Like those last moment english additions, which send the ball off-line--just as your head is saying, "if you put left on it, you will undercut it", and that's exactly what happens. This is usually the same 'voice' which screams at you when you're about to lock your keys in the car, the moment before the door latches.


~~sorry, to make the long thread even longer, by tangent. . . .
===============

eg8r
04-23-2003, 10:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I still need someone to give me one convincing sentence. So far, nothing. <hr /></blockquote> I have not seen anything either, and so far Ken has ignored these posts.

eg8r

DSAPOLIS
04-23-2003, 11:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I still need someone to give me one convincing sentence. So far, nothing. <hr /></blockquote> I have not seen anything either, and so far Ken has ignored these posts.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


And this is my point exactly, Ed. I find it very interesting how when we discuss this "theory", those that defend it eventually run out of ammunition. Fran Crimi, while maintaining her position, also pointed out that alignment has a lot to do with this "Theory" of a dominant eye. My reasoning for starting this thread, is because I believe that a player at Laura's level should be worrying about the basic fundamentals, not dominant eye theories or ambidextrous shooting. Fred and I have participated in discussions like this over at RSB for years. I have yet to see any proof that this has ANYTHING to do with putting the balls in the subway. I believe the mind takes care of this on it's own, in much the same way you're alerted that you have to go potty. Well, maybe that's going a bit too far, but I maintain my position that this is a theory, and a weak theory at that.

Fred Agnir
04-23-2003, 11:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DSAPOLIS:</font><hr> I believe the mind takes care of this on it's own, in much the same way you're alerted that you have to go potty. <hr /></blockquote>I think going potty is just like aiming a gun.

Hope this helps,

Fred &lt;~~~ set, pause, fire

Fran Crimi
04-23-2003, 12:19 PM
Where are we?

Does anyone know what we're talking about? I got lost about 10 posts ago.

Are we firing nuclear warheads, shooting pool or going potty?

I'm so confused.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran

eg8r
04-23-2003, 12:24 PM
It is a theory and that is about all there is to it.

I have Mr. Scott Lee coming to show me how wrong my aim is on Friday of this week. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I am sure he is going to have a few "constructive" things to say about my stance and stroke, which in turn are probably more the issue with my aim, than which eye is more dominant. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
04-23-2003, 12:25 PM
I think if you close one eye, you have a better chance hitting the water and not the seat. LOL

eg8r

Rod
04-23-2003, 01:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote DSAPOLIS:</font><hr> I believe the mind takes care of this on it's own, in much the same way you're alerted that you have to go potty. <hr /></blockquote>I think going potty is just like aiming a gun.

Hope this helps,

Fred &lt;~~~ set, pause, fire <hr /></blockquote>


Well this is educational. I did scientific research, only moments ago. LOL During my aim of, er well you know, I found I could hit the target with either eye or both. However if I closed my dominant eye my aim went to the right. It was close enough though. It's not like looking down a rifle, more like a pistol. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif I can't conclude anything from here. I'll drink more water in order to give a complete report! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

~~~ what's wrong with this thing, the barrel is crooked

Scott Lee
04-23-2003, 02:11 PM
Ed...You may be surprised! I may say nothing at all about your "aiming"! I will, however, comment substancially on how I feel you deliver the cue through the CB...which I believe to be the MOST important issue, even on this subject! Who knows? You may already be doing it quite well already! At least you will know how to appraise it, and how to fix it, if it (your stroke) is out of whack!
See you Friday!

Scott

eg8r
04-23-2003, 02:25 PM
Oh Scott, I am sure you will have plenty of stuff to say about my deliverance of the cue. LOL

eg8r

eg8r
04-23-2003, 02:27 PM
Rod, I think that is a little TMI. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Rod
04-23-2003, 02:44 PM
Well ok Ed I agree. But I had to allow for swerve with a bent barrel! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Alfie
04-23-2003, 04:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr>I don't wear a patch but I'm sure it would be a helpful tool for learning to aim precisely. Please excuse me for ranting. I ask that you no longer read my posts and save yourself all that unpleasantness.

<font color="green"> But I enjoy an occasional rant. </font color>

Perhaps you could make an attempt to come up with some useful information to add to the discussion, or am I asking for too much from you?

<font color="green"> No info, only an IMO. This quote from another thread is the best I can do.

"The criteria for cue alignment wrt/the eyes should have nothing to do with eye dominancy but rather whether the cue points to where you think it points. [(a) and (b) notwithstanding,] others disagree, and we will be stuck with this split in thinking until a rigorous test is done specifically for pool. IMO" </font color>

Some pistol shooters in certain competitions do wear a patch so I suspect it is useful. Some one-eyed poool players play pretty good. I'm sorry for giving you so much information in one post. I know how hard it is for you to absorb so much.

<font color="green"> Given what you said in your...ah...post, it was a legitimate question. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

bluewolf
04-24-2003, 05:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DSAPOLIS:</font><hr> My reasoning for starting this thread, is because I believe that a player at Laura's level should be worrying about the basic fundamentals, not dominant eye theories or ambidextrous shooting. Fred and I have participated in discussions like this over at RSB for years. I have yet to see any proof that this has ANYTHING to do with putting the balls in the subway. I believe the mind takes care of this on it's own, in much the same way you're alerted that you have to go potty. Well, maybe that's going a bit too far, but I maintain my position that this is a theory, and a weak theory at that. <hr /></blockquote>

David,

I have had lots of instruction from scott, especially, and from Randy g at pool school. What you call the fundamentals, I am assuming you mean stroke, alignment, stance, eye tracking from the cb to the ob, etc and correct follow with the cue. In my last lesson with Scott, he said that that stuff looks good.

Even though those 'fundamentals' were pretty good, I was still missing short shots, I mean anything that isnt a long cut more often than I should with a nice stroke.

When I switched to left, I no longer missed those shots. I still break slightly better on my right so I break with my right. My long difficult cuts are about the same on both, crappy. But sometimes my elbow drops on the left on long shots due to lack of practice on the stroke with that arm.

I want to very clear about this: Scott will tell you that I worked long and hard on my stroke and follow. That is why I use my right on the long ones. Not because it is better but because the stroke is better.

I am better naturally left handed with the cue under that eye but am not willing to sacrifice good fundamentals. I am sure it is just a matter of time, practice. Perhaps next time, Scott and I will be meeting again soon and if I have not fixed it by then,I think that Scott will help me.

Face reality!!! Even with all the instruction AND using both eyes to shoot, and with a very good stroke, I was still missing shots. HELLO!!! WAKE UP!!!! Why should I wait 20 years and play bad for 20 years before doing it in such a way that is better in terms of my shooting.

Just shooting and not worrying about it? There are people like scott , fran, randy g that help people of all levels to have a good stroke and they also know how to LISTEN.

Why not shorten the learning curve rather than lenthen it?

Grrr. I shoot good leftie under my dominant eye. I just dont see what my experience or lack of has to do with the understanding of dominance. This just seems silly to me.

Dominance is a word. Right brained left brained are words. We are human beings, each of us, trapped in these bodies alone and gropping for words to communicate with each other. Often words are an attempt to try to communicate with another human being.

Maybe dominance means something difference to me, you, rod, whoever. Why pick the word apart when the purpose is communication.

Of course we see with both eyes. Perhaps weak vs stronger eye would be better words. Who knows? In my book, listening, openmindedness among other things are the most important.

Personally, regardles of all of your intellectuality and hypotheses and experiements, Fran knows what she is talking about. At least, she is openminded. That to me is more valuable, and others too (scott, randy, even FL in my conversations with him) listen to what others say, the great and the small, the beginners and the oldtimers.

Instead of staying in some self-imposed intellectual box, they listen and they get better as instructors, learning from these 'begginers' and others too.

Laura

Nothing personal David, I like you even in your 'box'

eg8r
04-24-2003, 07:46 AM
Laura, the point I think he was trying to make, is to shoot with what feels right. Who cares really at your stage of the game if you can play ambidextrous (sp?). Playing with both hands doesn't really matter if you are not great with either one. Stick with one and go for. No one is judging you, so just pick one. If you like Left, then go left.

[ QUOTE ]
I still break slightly better on my right so I break with my right. <hr /></blockquote> How is this helping you. Why don't you just work on developing a good break stroke with your left hand?

[ QUOTE ]
I am better naturally left handed with the cue under that eye but am not willing to sacrifice good fundamentals. <hr /></blockquote> Then play left handed and use your fundamentals that way. If you are dropping your elbow, then work on it to fix it. You did not have good fundamentals when Scott first saw you and you were playing right, so you are almost back at the beginning. Now you have some knowledge to help you on the right side.
[ QUOTE ]
Face reality!!! Even with all the instruction AND using both eyes to shoot, and with a very good stroke, I was still missing shots. HELLO!!! WAKE UP!!!! Why should I wait 20 years and play bad for 20 years before doing it in such a way that is better in terms of my shooting. <hr /></blockquote>I don't think it is better to constantly be switching hands. I think it is best to be able to do all shots on one side and just use the other side on hard to reach shots.

eg8r

bluewolf
04-24-2003, 12:39 PM
I do not guess anybody will agree on the eye dominance part.

As far as being ambi, I took karate and swimming and lifted weights on both sides in an attempt to beat the odds. I also enjoyed them emmensely.

Yesterday evening, I told the experts that I was supposed to be leftie. Sorry, if I led anyone astray. I guess I was doing my usual denial thing of choosing to not think about certain things which are not pleasant.

Now the experts are trying to see if they can do enough with my twisted spine so that I can shoot left.

I really did not know why, when I shot two straight racks of leftie, I was in severe pain for two days.

Even though I do shoot better leftie on most shots, the jury is still out.

If I say anything else on this, it will be on the NP forum where it belongs.

Sorry for using this bandwidth, it does not belong on the pool related side.

It is just that for now, it is ambi.

Carpe diem,

Laura

eg8r
04-24-2003, 01:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
As far as being ambi, I took karate and swimming and lifted weights on both sides <hr /></blockquote> I think you would look funny lifting weights on only one side. This is not being ambi. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I never heard of someone being ambi when swimming, I use both arms and legs anyways. Karate I know nothing about.

In pool, being ambi does not seem to do anything positively for you except in hard to reach shots. Like I said before, if you are ambi fine, that is great for you, but why not just work with one side and get it right instead of switching back and forth. It serves no purpose for you to have a better break when playing right handed if the rest of your game is left handed. Either is fine, I just think for a beginner it is easier to focus on one thing. You think you shoot more naturally left handed, go for it for whatever you think it is worth. Now you find out your body does not exactly like you shooting left handed, I am sure you will find out why.

eg8r