Another sighting/dominant eye question

[j6uk]

Oh okay, as I thought. Straight cueing is nothing to do with alignment, you could be on the right line but still not cue straight.

j6uk:

Of course there are a lot of other things involved but the pre-shot routine is critical and a lot of players come down on the shot from the side of the bent leg. After that of course there is solid bridge, solid stance, alignment, loose grip, slow backswing, front and rear pauses, gradual acceleration on delivery and the drive through the cueball.

But if the player gets down into the address position aligned correctly and on delivery is able to return the cue to the exact address position at the time of strike he should be cueing consistently straight.

Terry

[throtts]

Oh okay, as I thought. Straight cueing is nothing to do with alignment, you could be on the right line but still not cue straight.

Yes, but if your on the right line and follow the much promoted theory on here of the "hand follows the eyes" then would not being on the line help cue straight?.. If your on the wrong line and the hand follows the eye, that being the eye on the BOB, then because your stance is somewhat tangled through being not on line your cue will not be pushed through straight because the eye is trying to correct the cues line from fixation on the BOB.. That's what a lot on here believe, the hand follows the eyes theory. So in that respect I can see Terry's point..

[j6uk]

Yes of course you want the hand to follow the eyes and cue straight but in practice the reality is very different. It is not true if you are apparently finding the correct line of aim you will cue straight. This would only be said by someone who knows nothing about what a good player goes through in training to cue straight.

Yes, but if your on the right line and follow the much promoted theory on here of the "hand follows the eyes" then would not being on the line help cue straight?.. If your on the wrong line and the hand follows the eye, that being the eye on the BOB, then because your stance is somewhat tangled through being not on line your cue will not be pushed through straight because the eye is trying to correct the cues line from fixation on the BOB.. That's what a lot on here believe, the hand follows the eyes theory. So in that respect I can see Terry's point..

[throtts]

I stated "it would help" not definitely make you cue straight. For helping cueing straight I am a great believer in the chest contact point and of course the old old school one, keep still on the shot, of course the thing that blows all this out is matchplay pressure.

Edit add :: Every player can read what they like but if you bottle it in matchplay then all that's said on here is irrelevant..

[j6uk]

Nothing like the heat of pressure.. So if you can, get a coach that's not only a good player but someone who's felt the pressures of high level play.

of course the thing that blows all this out is matchplay pressure.

Edit add :: Every player can read what they like but if you bottle it in matchplay then all that's said on here is irrelevant..

[nrage]

Yes of course you want the hand to follow the eyes and cue straight but in practice the reality is very different. It is not true if you are apparently finding the correct line of aim you will cue straight. This would only be said by someone who knows nothing about what a good player goes through in training to cue straight.

It should be said that all your practice and effort to cue straight will be useless to you if you're not down on the line of aim correctly. In that case you have to cue crooked to get the cue back on the line of aim. In addition, a player with good hand-eye coordination will probably correct for the error subconsciously (an even better player will notice the error consciously and get back up and start again).

So.. from a purely mechanical point of view (as you say) being on the line of aim has no bearing on whether you will cue straight. But, from a cause/effect point of view it being on the line of aim will allow you to cue straight, and being off it will likely cause you not to cue straight.

[j6uk]

No, why would being on the line of aim allow you to cue straight? An experianced player will tell you about cueing straight but being off line all day..

But, from a cause/effect point of view it being on the line of aim will allow you to cue straight, and being off it will likely cause you not to cue straight.

Not true.

[nrage]

No, why would being on the line of aim allow you to cue straight? An experianced player will tell you about cueing straight but being off line all day..

You have not followed the nuance of what I have said. I agree that being on the line of aim has no bearing on whether you will or will not cue straight, mechanically speaking, the two are not in any way connected.

But, when I said "allow" in the next sentence I am referring to the fact that if you want to pot the ball, and you're on the line of aim, you are allowed to cue straight to do it. If you want to pot the ball, and you're not on the line of aim, you're not allowed to cue straight to do it. See what I mean.

So, from a cause and effect point of view, being on the line of aim allows you to cue straight and pot the ball. Being off the line of aim, disallows cueing straight - if you want to pot the ball.

[j6uk]

Go back to my original question to terry on post 81 and you will find your nuances are totally unnecessary.

You have not followed the nuance of what I have said. I agree that being on the line of aim has no bearing on whether you will or will not cue straight, mechanically speaking, the two are not in any way connected.

But, when I said "allow" in the next sentence I am referring to the fact that if you want to pot the ball, and you're on the line of aim, you are allowed to cue straight to do it. If you want to pot the ball, and you're not on the line of aim, you're not allowed to cue straight to do it. See what I mean.

So, from a cause and effect point of view, being on the line of aim allows you to cue straight and pot the ball. Being off the line of aim, disallows cueing straight - if you want to pot the ball.

[itsnoteasy]

i don't think this should tell you anything, with both eyes open the image of your finger over the object is through the dominant/Master eye. when tilting the head the dominant eye still places the finger over the image no matter which way you tilt the head, what i would say is that i found when the head is tilted towards the weaker eye the image becomes slightly sharper that's all.

the only way to test a dominant eye is to close one eye, when the dominant eye is closed the finger should shift, by closing the non dominant eye the finger should still be over the object.

for me that's only way to tell which eye is dominant or which eye does the brain use to focus on an image/object

alabbadi

I was on about once you know your dominant eye, it was not a test to find which one is dominant, the whole thread was about what we see when down on a shot or when aiming,(and the conflict between what we see and what is real) all I am saying is when turning my head it looked no different, there was no change in image, so putting my strong eye forward made no difference to what I was seeing so why do it, but that could just be me, I accept everyone is not the same that's why I was interested in what other found(try doing it with your eye shut and open head tilted and straight on, I did this and found nothing changed so I guessed my brain just sorted it out for me, so I couldn't see the point in turning it, but try it for yourself ).The only time something changed is when I moved the cue off centre chin. When down on the shot I closed my right eye(left eye dominant)and my cue was dead straight and bang on the centre of the cue ball, swapped eyes and it looked like it was coming in from the side, this point proved to me that VMax was right ,that your brain uses your dominant eye to place the cue online(for me any way).

[Terry Davidson]

j6uk:

All I really said was proper alignment is a necessary step to cueing straight although I will admit perhaps I didn't say it clearly enough for some people.

Without proper alignment a player CAN'T cue consistently straight but with it he stands a chance in learning how to

Terry

[nrage]

Go back to my original question to terry on post 81 and you will find your nuances are totally unnecessary.

I disagree, it appears to me that missing the nuances are the key to the disagreement here.

You're assuming Terry was saying that getting down on the line of aim will (mechanically) ensure you cue straight. I doubt very much that he was saying that, at all. 1) because it's patently false and 2) because Terry is not an idiot.

I suspect he was saying that getting down on the line of aim will make it more likely that you cue straight. Because... if you get down crooked and your eyes/brain tell you (consciously or unconsciously) that it's crooked you will consciously or unconsciously try to correct this.

So, nuances, important.

[j6uk]

Well to be fair you did not say that. Check #81

j6uk:

All I really said was proper alignment is a necessary step to cueing straight although I will admit perhaps I didn't say it clearly enough for some people.

Without proper alignment a player CAN'T cue consistently straight but with it he stands a chance in learning how to

Terry

[nrage]

... all I am saying is when turning my head it looked no different, there was no change in image, so putting my strong eye forward made no difference to what I was seeing so why do it, but that could just be me ...

Sidd's link talks about absolute dominance:
http://www.basc.org.uk/en/how-to/sho...nance-test.cfm

Which basically means your dominant eye is so dominant the non dominant never takes control, if you're like that then you don't need to close an eye or use a patch or do anything which stops the wrong eye from taking control.

Perhaps you have absolute dominance.

Perhaps alabadi has predominant or indeterminate dominance and he needs to do something to cause the eye he wants, to retain control.

[nrage]

Well to be fair you did not say that. Check #81

It is true that he didn't say it explicitly, but to assume he was trying to say something ridiculous is disingenuous. That was my point. You can chose to be a literalist, but at some level you have to assume a certain basic understanding, or conversations will dissolve into lists of basic definitions and no-one wants that.