PDA

View Full Version : Eye Dominance(?) Observation (lazy study #1)



heater451
04-23-2003, 07:58 PM
Okay, so I went downstairs and hit a couple of rack in three different states: Left-eye closed, Right-eye closed, Both eyes open.

Given the "newness" of shooting 1-eyed, I think I still hit a fair percentage well --I won't go deeply into the numbers, due to the overall lack of volume, and due to the shot randomness dividing the shots into 'fewer shots of type per total' (that is, there wasn't an equal spread of straight-in, medium-cut, long-cut shots, etc., etc.).

Shooting left-handed, I had about equal success shooting, although I noticed that I "naturally" moved the cue toward the eye in use (cue under left eye w/ right one closed; cue more chin-centered with right eye open/left closed). I did not test right-handed (maybe later).

Oddly: The cue appeared somewhat warped **optically**, when I used only my left eye. I think this might be due to a combination of factors.(see "random factors", below)

When I went back to shooting w/ both eyes open, I seemed to have greater success with keeping the cue more to the center of my chin--this surprised me, as I posted some time back (about a yr, IIRC) that I "suddenly" discovered that putting the cue under my left eye worked better(!)--This made me think that cue-position inconsistency was a partial cause of my on/off tendencies.

Anyway, when I shot w/ both eyes open, cue under the left eye, I seemed to have a tendency to under-cut on medium-to-full cut shots.

RANDOM FACTORS:

I am primarily left-handed, and somewhat ambidextrous.

I believe that my left eye is dominant, but there's a catch: I damaged it back in 1990, so that my right eye has better vision now. I am still left-eye dominant (see the triangle test (http://www.archeryfocus.com/ArcheryFocus/JanFeb99~Article7/go) ), but I think that my brain does some compensation, relying on the better focus of my right eye. If this is true, I believe that it invalidates any testing by myself--even if I performed a better study.

I blame the supposed reliance on the right eye to be the reason the cue seemed to bend, when I only used my left-eye--I noticed that the lighting seemed different somehow.

"CONCLUSIONS":

I think that you **get used** to how you personally aim, and that there are more variables that should be counted, such as whether you picture shot-lines and angles in your head, and whether you align your cue to be co-planar (vertically) with the CB-to-OB path before laying it into your stance. Note: Pre-shot routines may also include certain alignment aids to aiming--and more importantly, staying aimed.

I would also blame the "how you learned" factor for shaping what you "get used to", which may work with any dominant eye effect, or it may be a overriding of the dominant eye through training/repetition.

With further 'real' study, I think that more definite results could be obtained, but I think that, even if you found a majority of (good)shooters who relied on ther dominant eye factor to place their cue, it would not mean that using that set-up is optimal for everyone.



~~Here's a question: Would it be better to train and test subject who had never (really) played before, or to use experienced shooters who are already ingrained into their way of shooting?
=====================

cheesemouse
04-23-2003, 09:18 PM
Heat,
I see your living up to your bio......LOL

Rod
04-23-2003, 11:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]

~~Here's a question: Would it be better to train and test subject who had never (really) played before, or to use experienced shooters who are already ingrained into their way of shooting?
<hr /></blockquote>

Geez Heater, why didn't you just ask your question from the beginning! LOL Yes I know you wanted to go through the test results. You know of course those tests leave some ah-hem open areas. I know you know.

To answer your question, There are advantages both ways and it is individual. Straight up without going into details, I'll take little or no experience. I would prefer experience but it depends on the Individual.

No long explanation here, you'll have to read between the lines a little.

Rod

Fran Crimi
04-24-2003, 09:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr>
~~Here's a question: Would it be better to train and test subject who had never (really) played before, or to use experienced shooters who are already ingrained into their way of shooting?
=====================

<hr /></blockquote>


Good question. Maybe experimenting with both would be a good idea.

Good for you, heater. Some of the greatest discoveries and revelations of our time came about by simple trial and error experiments. You never know what you're liable to come across when you experiment. One thing's a guarantee, though. If you take no action, you're guaranteed no results.

Let us know if you come up with anything else.

Fran

Rod
04-24-2003, 11:03 AM
Heater,
I owe you an apology, Fran is right you never know unless you experiment. Your data may not hit the front page but in the process you learned more about yourself and your pool game. Thats what counts.

Rod

heater451
04-24-2003, 02:03 PM
No apology necessary--I took it as humor, anyways. . . .

The problem with experimenting, is that I might find something else that works--and I still forget to use it during play, or I just reinforce the knowledge that, "sometimes it works, sometimes it don't".

In any case, a lot of my 'training' has included just playing for enjoyment--of the game and the social interaction, so it's hard for me to "bear down" much of the time. --Don't ge me wrong, I like competition as well, but I'm generally satisfied if I show above "average" in a bracket, so to speak. I hate going 2-and-out.

I have also come from the "what happens, if I hit it like this?" arena, which is how I started playing masses, kisses/caroms, and billiard shots.

Like they say, "Variety is the Spice of Life".


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