Another sighting/dominant eye question

[j6uk]

Wrong again. It takes a lot of work to get the two components to work together consistently.

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.

[nrage]

Wrong again. It takes a lot of work to get the two components to work together consistently.

Well Duh. But, that doesn't make my statement wrong BTW.

Back to the point; Clearly he wasn't saying that getting on the line of aim guarantees you will cue straight, and that's what you seemed to be asserting. So, either I've missed the nuance of your statement or you missed the nuance of his.

Either way, nuances, important.

[j6uk]

This is were the gulf is. I'm a snooker player that knows what is important to play to a good standard. Iv done the graft. If you haven't, all you can do is use others words without knowing what your talking about. No offense

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.

[Terry Davidson]

j6uk:

I think it's fair to say most people on here understand there are many factors involved in cueing consistently straight. I assumed my meaning would be clear that straight alignment is a necessary basic to straight cueing and also assumed most people wouldn't believe they could just align themselves properly and start running centuries because they automatically started to deliver the cue straight.

In future I hope you don't take any of my posts as exactly literal and fault me for not adding tons of amplifying data in order to make everything perfectly clear to everyone. I have to assume some standard of intelligence among the readers of my posts and also assume a lot of them have seen a lot of my previous posts where I minutely described the 5 or 6 factors that go into cueing consistently straight and what most pros do in common.

As I said to you before, rather than yanking everyone's chain all the time why don't you consider trying to pass on your point of view and offer something constructive instead of something like 'I aim with my feet' or 'it all starts with the feet' which doesn't go a long way towards helping other members out unless you explain about having the straight leg foot on the line of aim and directly under the vertical grip arm forearm. Otherwise, as a regular century player they will think you have developed some other 'secret' way to achieve perfect alignment when we all know there just are no 'silver bullets' in snooker.

Terry

[nrage]

This is were the gulf is. I'm a snooker player that knows what is important to play to a good standard. Iv done the graft. If you haven't, all you can do is use others words without knowing what your talking about. No offense

Where did this come from? If you want a discussion about the nature of knowledge - that's a totally different topic.

If you disagree with something I have said, quote it and explain why. Just saying "Wrong" is not an explanation or argument, and neither is a suggestion that because I've not played snooker to a high standard, I can't comment on whether or not straight cueing and getting on the line of aim is mutually exclusive, or not, or whether you've understood or missed the nuances of a statement. That's a bit like saying I can't talk about flowers because I haven't eaten dirt - not really related TBF.

So.. I thought you and I were talking about nuances, specifically of Terry's statement. It's clear Terry meant more than he explicitly said, and it's clear you only read/understood what he explicitly said.

I immediately understood what Terry meant so either I understood the nuances, or I simply assumed Terry wasn't an idiot. Suggesting that you either missed any nuances which may have been present or you assumed Terry was an idiot. Which was it?

Edit; Sub-point, what an incredible waste of time all this has been.. I mean, I don't mind, I enjoy this sort of thing, but it's not exactly helping anyone else now, is it?

[vmax4steve]

Incorrect. Because the cue is under neither of my eyes if I close either eye then the cue appears to come from outside the line of aim. With both open, however, it all looks right. If you are cueing under one eye then it will look as you describe, but only then.

To my mind this is your problem. Your cue is not on the line of aim but on a line somewhere inbetween the two images that is being sent to you brain by your two eyes.
I have asked for top players who sight this way to post on this thread, but so far none have done so, only you with a top break of 26. I rest my case.

ROFLMAO .. it's ironic isn't it, Mr "your high break is only 20 something what kind of advice could you possibly have". Don't you wish people would judge advice based on it's merit alone, or try/test/evaluate it for themselves before judging it

Once again you show your bias. This quote isn't about you or me, it's about Nic Barrow and the fact that both Terry and Chris Small passed his coaching course and pass what they learned from that onto others on this forum and in one to one coaching sessions.
I'm not saying that Nic Barrow is wrong about anything in particular, but he also isn't the be all and end all of all that's correct in snooker theory either.
I have seen the Nic Barrow video where he tells players to line up the centre of their body with the line of aim, fine you might say, but if you have a prominant dominant eye then you need to turn your head or body slightly to your submissve side in order to sight with your dominant eye to put the cue on the line of aim. The line of aim can still be lined up with the centre of the body even with the body or head turned slightly to either side to favour ones dominant eye, but this isn't mentioned and I can envisage many players with a prominant dominant eye struggling to line up the shot correctly simply because they are standing absolutely square to the table in the belief that they are doing exactly what Nic Barrow says they must do.
This dominant eye sighting theory isn't my own, I'm taking no credit for it whatsoever, but I have observed it in myself and in others and in all the top pros and I therefore believe in it totally.

Terry

It amazes me that you sight using your preferred (dominant) eye, yet believe that you do so purely for comfort. I think your are wrong about the reason you do this, you are a top player because you do this not despite doing this. Your cue is put on the line of aim using your left eye, of course you can change that by closing your left eye and using your right, but your brain is choosing your left eye subconsciously so you don't have to think about it.

If the cue is running close to or under one eye then it's that eye that has put the cue on the line of aim and this can be done with centre chin cueing with the feet putting the body at a slight angle to the line of aim so that the head is over the cue in the correct position to allow this to happen. We're only talking about inches here as regards to the position of the feet of those players who do not have a prominant dominant eye and look to be cueing along the exact centre of their two eyes.

[j6uk]

Well I don't get a kick out of it. I find it a tad sad. Your very good at what you do here and you know how to put it up us, though I find your literary girth rather stretching on the sphincter.

Edit; Sub-point, what an incredible waste of time all this has been.. I mean, I don't mind, I enjoy this sort of thing, but it's not exactly helping anyone else now, is it?

[j6uk]

Thanks for this terry but I don't feel I'm yanking chains. My pm's would suggest different. I chose the less is more approach because I know its not that complicated besides, I would always end with the importance for a real live coach face to face and, not just the odd lesson. If a player is not willing to seek one out then I find it difficult to take them seriously.
Maybe if there were more people uploading videos of there development I could get more excited and expand on the finer elements of play.

j6uk:
As I said to you before, rather than yanking everyone's chain all the time why don't you consider trying to pass on your point of view and offer something constructive instead of something like 'I aim with my feet' or 'it all starts with the feet' which doesn't go a long way towards helping other members out unless you explain about having the straight leg foot on the line of aim and directly under the vertical grip arm forearm. Otherwise, as a regular century player they will think you have developed some other 'secret' way to achieve perfect alignment when we all know there just are no 'silver bullets' in snooker.

Terry

[nrage]

To my mind this is your problem. Your cue is not on the line of aim but on a line somewhere inbetween the two images that is being sent to you brain by your two eyes.
I have asked for top players who sight this way to post on this thread, but so far none have done so, only you with a top break of 26. I rest my case.

Your case rests on what exactly? .. a lack of evidence to the contrary, that's not evidence. My cue is definitely on the line of aim - as I said, it was confirmed by a 3rd party, repeatedly. And this head position was the position in which it also looked correct to me. I'm not saying your advice is wrong, just that it is wrong for me - and anyone else out there like me. I don't know why I am different, if I ever figure it out I'll let you know.

To repeat myself, I have no known issue with aiming/sighting, the issues I have are with other aspects of the game.

Once again you show your bias.

Bias? No, just irony and an amusing piece of it. You're complaining that people aren't listening to you, but surely you agree people should listen to Nic over you because his high break is certainly higher than yours and he is a coach, right?

If I were to start posting that people should ignore you and that you should not post because you're not Nic Barrow, and you don't have a coaching qualification that would be unfair of me. Whether or not you are Nic Barrow, or have a coaching qualification, you have good ideas and advice and people should be judging those ideas and advice on their own merits.

.. but if you have a prominant dominant eye then you need to turn your head or body slightly to your submissve side in order to sight with your dominant eye to put the cue on the line of aim.

Why? What evidence do you have that this is the case? That's what started all of this. I know I am on the line of aim (confirmed by 3rd party) and I am not doing what you suggest (and there may well be others out there - there are certainly many who do not turn their heads as you're suggesting). So.. if any exceptions exist then your theory is wrong/incomplete. This is how science operates and to date it's the best means we have of determining truth.

So, your advice may well be good advice for some people, or even a decent number but it's not right for everyone, so please stop trying to insist that it is.

The line of aim can still be lined up with the centre of the body even with the body or head turned slightly to either side to favour ones dominant eye, but this isn't mentioned and I can envisage many players with a prominant dominant eye struggling to line up the shot correctly simply because they are standing absolutely square to the table in the belief that they are doing exactly what Nic Barrow says they must do.

If someone has a truly dominant eye then it doesn't matter what they do with their head, it will always be in control. I believe the people with most of the sighting/aiming issues are those people who unbeknownst to them use one eye behind the shot and another when down on the shot. This switching of dominance is mentioned in Sidd's link and is what causes most of the all the issues in rifle shooting. In the case of a fully dominant eye this is only an issue if it's not the eye they raise the rifle up to - because it's cross dominant right handed, left dominant for example.

Turning the head may well be solving a "switching of dominance" issue for players, forcing the same eye to be in control behind the shot and down on the shot. Seems a reasonable hypothesis to me..

[nrage]

Well I don't get a kick out of it. I find it a tad sad. Your very good at what you do here and you know how to put it up us, though I find your literary girth rather stretching on the sphincter.

I am sorry you're not having any fun, I'll stop now. "What I do here" is call it as I see it, same as everyone else. Perhaps I just see more.

[Terry Davidson]

vmax:

I still believe you are taking a dangerous route by recommending a player change his set-up to favour his preferred eye, and here is what proof I can offer using myself.

When I turn my head square to the shot I can still sight the cue at centre-chin (in other words exactly the same as with my head turned to the right slightly) HOWEVER after a little while I get a crick in my lower neck which is uncomfortable.

I have no doubt I'm still using my preferred eye as my primary to sight the cue however this proves there is no need for me to either turn my head or adjust my cue to the left of my chin in order to get it under the preferred eye so I can sight the cue better. There is just no proof that this is so.

Nature has given most mammals two eyes in order for them to have binocular vision and if we have both eyes open then we are using both eyes to sight the cue however the main or preferred image is selected by the brain from the preferred eye but the non-preferred eye is still playing a part in supplying the brain with the depth perception it needs from the binocular vision in order to play the shot. It's not necessary to have the cue underneath the preferred eye to achieve this.

If what you say is true and we only use the preferred eye to sight the cue then try an experiment and put a patch over your non-preferred eye and see if you can still pot a ball if as you say all information on sighting is coming from the preferred eye. I have tried shutting my right eye and I can't pot a ball doing that but perhaps your altered set-up would allow you to do this.

I believe we use both eyes for sighting and also that there is no need to get the cue more underneath the preferred eye and what you offer as proof of your theory is actually no proof at all, just what you've observed with some of the pros and yourself and you've made the ASSUMPTION anyone who doesn't cue centre-chin is BY CHOICE aligning his cue more underneath his preferred eye and thus playing a whole lot better than if he didn't do that. I believe in most cases it isn't a choice but rather how their set-up has developed.

If you have the cue centre-chin you are still using your preferred eye to sight but it also gets required information from the non-preferred eye or else the question becomes 'why do we need and use two eyes?'.

The only players who need to re-align the cue more under their preferred eye are those players who effectively have only one eye either from degraded vision or the loss of an eye. You can still sight perfectly well with the cue centre-chin and the advantage of that is you are much better set-up and there don't have to be any compensating changes in the set-up to account for the cue running on the side of the chin or even with the head turned.

You should use the full capacity of the binocular vision when playing snooker. Preferred eye is just a theory like any other, mine included, so please don't offer it as a proven fact and encourage players to alter their set-ups to account for preferred eye and have them all changing their stances and upper body alignment in compensation.

Terry

[vmax4steve]

Your case rests on what exactly? .. a lack of evidence to the contrary, that's not evidence. My cue is definitely on the line of aim - as I said, it was confirmed by a 3rd party, repeatedly.

Who is this third party, Stevie Wonder ? joking aside, how can a third party tell if your cue is an inch offline over the distance on a snooker table or did this happen on the pool table at work, which wouldn't be a good test btw, pool tables being so much smaller.

Bias? No, just irony and an amusing piece of it. You're complaining that people aren't listening to you, but surely you agree people should listen to Nic over you because his high break is certainly higher than yours and he is a coach, right?

If I were to start posting that people should ignore you and that you should not post because you're not Nic Barrow, and you don't have a coaching qualification that would be unfair of me.

No there is no irony because I'm not complaining that people aren't listening to me, which I stated and explained in length, but of course your bias once again edited that out and made it an issue between you and me and the reasons why I believe that you, as a player who struggles to make a twenty break, is not in a position to give advice unless that advice has been proven to work for you on a consistant basis that you can prove by hiking up your high break.
Your 'lack of practise' excuse doesn't wash with me simply because you have had a child recently, anyone would think that you and your wife took turns breastfeeding and that on 'snooker night' it was your turn to get your tit out.

Lay off the computer games and get on the table, the snooker table that is not the pool table at work. A 6 x 3 pool table is no test as the margins for error aren't as great.

As for Nic Barrows high break being bigger than mine, well of course it is, but as a member of this forum he is quite capable of posting on this thread to tell me that I'm wrong and that he in fact also sights and puts his cue on the line of aim using both eyes like you do. So far he hasn't, and no other top players have either.
Over three thousand views this thread has had and not one top player so far has posted that he sights the shot and puts his cue on the line of aim using both eyes like you do, just you so far, a player who struggles to make a twenty break.

Once again I state that this theory isn't mine but I do champion it as I believe it to correct and if Nic Barrow or anyone else can give me something different that works for me and makes me a better player I would disown this theory altogether and admit to being wrong about it.

[Terry Davidson]

vmax:

Perhaps your theory would be better served by asking some of the better players to comment on if they line up under their preferred eye on purpose because they believe in this theory.

We have already had one ex-top 16 player in Chris who says he cues centre-chin so you need to have some really good players get on here and agree your theory. If none do then should we use your argument above to say 'see, we were right and there are no good players who use the preferred eye alignment theory'.

I'll withdraw from this now as I figure there's no way you'll change your mind unless Ronnie or equivalent says the opposite as it appears Chris and Nic's word (along with my own) is not 'proof' enough for you. Good luck with that.

The other thing I've always said is if a player believes something he does in his technique works for him then he should go with it just because it gives him more confidence even though it may go against 'ideal' thoughts on technique.

Terry

[vmax4steve]

If what you say is true and we only use the preferred eye to sight the cue then try an experiment and put a patch over your non-preferred eye and see if you can still pot a ball if as you say all information on sighting is coming from the preferred eye. I have tried shutting my right eye and I can't pot a ball doing that but perhaps your altered set-up would allow you to do this.

Terry

A better test I would say is to try closing your submissive eye when standing behind the shot and get down into your stance using only your preferred eye. Once down open your submissive eye and see if you can pot the ball.

Then close your preferred eye when standing behind the shot and get down into your stance using only your submissive eye, then open your preferred eye when down in the stance and see if you can not only pot the ball but tell if the cue is on the line of aim.

When I do the first test my set up is normal and I can pot the ball no trouble, when I do the second I have trouble seeing the shot, it looks wrong and feels wrong and I can't pot the ball with both eyes open at all, though I can, though inconsistantly, with my preferred eye closed.

This tells me that sighting only with the submissive eye but then using both when down in the stance causes conflict in my sighting as my submissive eye has placed my feet in a position that favours that eye and that I then cue across the cue ball as my preferred eye takes over and searches for the line of aim from the wrong position.

It's this conflict between the two eyes when down in the stance that favouring the preferred eye when standing behind the shot should be able to get rid of and I only advocate this for those who have this conflict. I'm not telling anyone who doesn't have this conflict to change their sighting or set up, just those who have. Everyone else leave well alone as you sight with your preferred eye already.

Now I can't see that this advice is at all dangerous.

[vmax4steve]

vmax:

Perhaps your theory would be better served by asking some of the better players to comment on if they line up under their preferred eye on purpose because they believe in this theory.

We have already had one ex-top 16 player in Chris who says he cues centre-chin so you need to have some really good players get on here and agree your theory.

Terry

Chris has stated that he cues centre chin, he hasn't mentined whether or not he uses a preferred eye.
Once again it's not my theory, merely one that I believe in.