Tweet
I would just like to put in a little clarification of some of the statements made here and attributed to me, especially by komakino.
First of all, I've always taught every student I've ever had that there is ALWAYS and off-set between BOB and the line of aim of the cue with the exception of a full-ball pot. For goodness sakes, there's even a training device called 'Site Rite' which I use to demonstrate this to a new student.
Every student I've ever had understands he has to get the cueball to the plant position, contacting BOB to pocket a ball and the statement that you should consider 'throw' between CB and OB when selecting your aiming point is complete and utter crap unless you happen to be playing on a cloth so thick that it takes more power to get the OB moving and I've never seen a cloth that thick. As proof, set up a plant dead on and then hit it dead on with no side and you WILL pocket the object ball every time. Where does the throw come into it? Because the cueball is moving? There is some friction which causes such a small amount of throw that it's not even measureable.
Next point is, in my documentation from Nic Barrow here there is some discussion on where to focus the eyes when down on the shot and that is either the object ball itself or even better the point on the waistline of the OB which corresponds to BOB. For my own aiming technique, I do all my aiming (or at least try to) when standing behind the shot and then get down straight.
If I do my pre-shot routine correctly and aim while standing up I imagine getting my cueball into the plant position, or in other words get the LEADING EDGE of the cueball to contact exactly at BOB and then drop straight down I then focus my eyes just on the object ball itself as a whole BECAUSE I ALREADY KNOW FOR CERTAIN I'M ON THE CORRECT LINE OF AIM WHICH I DETERMINED WHEN STANDING UP BECAUSE THE PERSPECTIVE IS BETTER!!!
What I visualize while standing up is exactly what I think every other player does and that is to cover an arc on that OB with the CB. That is EXACTLY the Steve Davis method and EXACTLY what every other coach I've ever spoken to uses.
In actual fact, if you do your aiming correctly IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE YOUR EYES ARE FOCUSED since as long as you don't move your cue will be on the line of aim you determined and which by the way every player I've ever seen finds it very easy to determine and there's no need to try and focus the eyes on a point a measured distance outside or inside the OB.
Why would one select a point of aim when standing up and say to themselves 'OK, my cue has to be pointed exactly 0.892" outside the edge of that object ball and then get down and ensure their aim is exactly on that 0.892". (How in hell can one determine that?) and the statement that estimating 10mm outside an object ball that is 10ft away is easy just blows my mind as I don't know if anyone can do that with precision and I believe precision is exactly what snooker is all about.
Komakino, what works for you is not what works for the majority of players and saying what I'm teaching is wrong is complete and utter BS. I DO teach there is an off-set, so I'm not BSing my students but in reality EVERY student and player I have ever seen understands the aiming point AND what to look at intuitively and naturally. What you are doing just won't work for the majority of players and here you are saying not only am I wrong, but also Nic Barrow, Steve Davis, Del Hill, Terry Griffiths and a host of other excellent coaches.
I believe the sighting method everyone uses WHILE STANDING UP BEHIND THE SHOT is some type of 'ghost ball' where they imagine covering an arc of the object ball such that the leading edge of the cueball will contact BOB. I also believe most players get down on the shot and are still aiming to cover a portion or arc of the OB and their eyes will have to look at something concrete, even if it's the OB as a whole or even if they try and imagine BOB on the waistline of the OB (which I find hard to do so I just think about covering an arc of the OB).
There's one other point I would like to make regarding komakino's method. Let's say a 3/4-ball pot on a ball frozen on the top cushion and in this case I think every player (except komakino of course) will focus on getting the cueball to contact the edge of the OB right at the point which will send it straight along the cushion and they WON'T be looking and aiming at a point somewhere around 3mm inside the edge of the object ball but rather will be aiming to get the EDGE of the cueball to contact BOB.
Or even here is an example which may make it clearer. A red ball is about 6" from a top pocket and perhaps 1/2" off the side cushion. The CB is situated so the player has a very fine cut into the top pocket for an easy black, perhaps with a bit of running side to get the cueball up to 12" to 15" for an easy black. Any player I've ever seen will actually look at getting the very edge of the CB to contact the very edge of the OB (there's that pesky BOB again!). When they get down into the shot I'm absolutely certain their eyes will be looking at the extreme edge of the OB and not some point on the side cushion somewhere around 24mm OUTSIDE the very edge of the OB (How in HELL can you estimate that? Of course for the British it would be 1.02" or so and as it's a closed pocket it has to be EXACTLY 1.02". Anyone in Britain up for that?)
I believe this is where komakino's sighting theory gets a little off-putting for most players, but perhaps he DOES focus on a spot on the cushion in this case? Although I think he will be sighting edge-to-edge of the 2 balls and his eyes will be on the edge of the OB.
BUT ONE MORE POINT (which I make over and over) - WHO CARES??? about where the eyes are looking when down on the table because 99.9% of pots are missed not because of where the player was looking but because he delivered the cue off-straight. If a player can get down on a shot, close his eyes and pot a ball, does it make any difference where the eyes are looking if they're CLOSED?
All komakino is succeeding in doing is adding even more confusion to an already vexing subject. I agree with Nic Barrow's theory that WITH EXPERIENCE the brain will automatically and unconciously select the correct line of aim (read correct off-set) without any trouble at all. Why try and turn something natural into some damned 'system' which no one understands and no one can use (except komakino of course)
Terry
First of all, I've always taught every student I've ever had that there is ALWAYS and off-set between BOB and the line of aim of the cue with the exception of a full-ball pot. For goodness sakes, there's even a training device called 'Site Rite' which I use to demonstrate this to a new student.
Every student I've ever had understands he has to get the cueball to the plant position, contacting BOB to pocket a ball and the statement that you should consider 'throw' between CB and OB when selecting your aiming point is complete and utter crap unless you happen to be playing on a cloth so thick that it takes more power to get the OB moving and I've never seen a cloth that thick. As proof, set up a plant dead on and then hit it dead on with no side and you WILL pocket the object ball every time. Where does the throw come into it? Because the cueball is moving? There is some friction which causes such a small amount of throw that it's not even measureable.
Next point is, in my documentation from Nic Barrow here there is some discussion on where to focus the eyes when down on the shot and that is either the object ball itself or even better the point on the waistline of the OB which corresponds to BOB. For my own aiming technique, I do all my aiming (or at least try to) when standing behind the shot and then get down straight.
If I do my pre-shot routine correctly and aim while standing up I imagine getting my cueball into the plant position, or in other words get the LEADING EDGE of the cueball to contact exactly at BOB and then drop straight down I then focus my eyes just on the object ball itself as a whole BECAUSE I ALREADY KNOW FOR CERTAIN I'M ON THE CORRECT LINE OF AIM WHICH I DETERMINED WHEN STANDING UP BECAUSE THE PERSPECTIVE IS BETTER!!!
What I visualize while standing up is exactly what I think every other player does and that is to cover an arc on that OB with the CB. That is EXACTLY the Steve Davis method and EXACTLY what every other coach I've ever spoken to uses.
In actual fact, if you do your aiming correctly IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE YOUR EYES ARE FOCUSED since as long as you don't move your cue will be on the line of aim you determined and which by the way every player I've ever seen finds it very easy to determine and there's no need to try and focus the eyes on a point a measured distance outside or inside the OB.
Why would one select a point of aim when standing up and say to themselves 'OK, my cue has to be pointed exactly 0.892" outside the edge of that object ball and then get down and ensure their aim is exactly on that 0.892". (How in hell can one determine that?) and the statement that estimating 10mm outside an object ball that is 10ft away is easy just blows my mind as I don't know if anyone can do that with precision and I believe precision is exactly what snooker is all about.
Komakino, what works for you is not what works for the majority of players and saying what I'm teaching is wrong is complete and utter BS. I DO teach there is an off-set, so I'm not BSing my students but in reality EVERY student and player I have ever seen understands the aiming point AND what to look at intuitively and naturally. What you are doing just won't work for the majority of players and here you are saying not only am I wrong, but also Nic Barrow, Steve Davis, Del Hill, Terry Griffiths and a host of other excellent coaches.
I believe the sighting method everyone uses WHILE STANDING UP BEHIND THE SHOT is some type of 'ghost ball' where they imagine covering an arc of the object ball such that the leading edge of the cueball will contact BOB. I also believe most players get down on the shot and are still aiming to cover a portion or arc of the OB and their eyes will have to look at something concrete, even if it's the OB as a whole or even if they try and imagine BOB on the waistline of the OB (which I find hard to do so I just think about covering an arc of the OB).
There's one other point I would like to make regarding komakino's method. Let's say a 3/4-ball pot on a ball frozen on the top cushion and in this case I think every player (except komakino of course) will focus on getting the cueball to contact the edge of the OB right at the point which will send it straight along the cushion and they WON'T be looking and aiming at a point somewhere around 3mm inside the edge of the object ball but rather will be aiming to get the EDGE of the cueball to contact BOB.
Or even here is an example which may make it clearer. A red ball is about 6" from a top pocket and perhaps 1/2" off the side cushion. The CB is situated so the player has a very fine cut into the top pocket for an easy black, perhaps with a bit of running side to get the cueball up to 12" to 15" for an easy black. Any player I've ever seen will actually look at getting the very edge of the CB to contact the very edge of the OB (there's that pesky BOB again!). When they get down into the shot I'm absolutely certain their eyes will be looking at the extreme edge of the OB and not some point on the side cushion somewhere around 24mm OUTSIDE the very edge of the OB (How in HELL can you estimate that? Of course for the British it would be 1.02" or so and as it's a closed pocket it has to be EXACTLY 1.02". Anyone in Britain up for that?)
I believe this is where komakino's sighting theory gets a little off-putting for most players, but perhaps he DOES focus on a spot on the cushion in this case? Although I think he will be sighting edge-to-edge of the 2 balls and his eyes will be on the edge of the OB.
BUT ONE MORE POINT (which I make over and over) - WHO CARES??? about where the eyes are looking when down on the table because 99.9% of pots are missed not because of where the player was looking but because he delivered the cue off-straight. If a player can get down on a shot, close his eyes and pot a ball, does it make any difference where the eyes are looking if they're CLOSED?
All komakino is succeeding in doing is adding even more confusion to an already vexing subject. I agree with Nic Barrow's theory that WITH EXPERIENCE the brain will automatically and unconciously select the correct line of aim (read correct off-set) without any trouble at all. Why try and turn something natural into some damned 'system' which no one understands and no one can use (except komakino of course)
Terry
Comment