Another sighting/dominant eye question

[j6uk]

Yes you do need to give the cueing arm some room to move, or did you mean like this dean? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycLPxwt9_1I

most important...

move the lips to the left!

if everyone did that we will all be doing 147s

[j6uk]

Yes narge, terry and others are very open about not having much ability..
I do believe though, with a good, honest and focused approach to the game, you can maximize your limitations

, but, in short you either got it or you haven't. That obviously applies to anything..

[j6uk]

Good post manu,
Na just a little bit of practice ay?!
Then all you get is a few claps, handshake, a drink if your lucky and on to the next frame..

Have yet to come across a poster stating that they bang in 147s everywhere, because as any player who plays the game at a good level knows how much work and dedication and yrs practice goes into this game, maybe throtts u just want to see what is not there.

[Terry Davidson]

j6uk:

Do you think in order to be a good coach a player must be a regular century maker or perhaps an ex-pro? I don't believe this is necessary.

Manu147:

I checked out more images of Mark Allen and I stand corrected in his case. He does have his head turned to the left but he also has his cue normally running on the left side of his chin but I did find some photos with him in the address position and the cue almost exactly on centre-chin. It's still my opinion dominant eye has nothing to do with the set-up for most players unless they deliberately set-up to favour that eye. Have a good look at pictures of all the other pros and you should see the majority of them do turn their head towards the grip hand side. Now the question is...is that due to preferred eye or is it due to comfort and their natural set-up. Obviously you believe preferred eye theory but I think it hasn't been proven and will cause a player to alter his natural set-up if he believes it, as you do with your own set-up.

Vmax:

It is my opinion that dominant eye theory when it comes to making a player's set-up favour the dominant eye is just not right. After trying to get my head exactly square to the shot I was still aiming the cue correctly and I'll agree I use my preferred eye to do this but I don't believe the preferred eye has to be more in line with the cue. I find it painful for my upper spine to have the head exactly square to the shot and after checking a lot of pictures of the top pros I found the majority of them do turn their heads slightly to the grip hand side and I think this is more natural and comfortable with them.

Perhaps, like me, and if dominant eye theory is correct, they get a natural benefit with turning the head but as it's the majority of the pros, does it follow that they are all (except Mark Allen and John Virgo) dominant in the eye opposite to the grip hand side? Are all of the unusual set-ups we see due to them changing things to favour that eye?

If you do look at Mark Allen he does cue with the cue to the left of his chin. I don't know if it's to favour his dominant eye (perhaps Manu147 can ask him the next time he sees him) or whether it's just the way he learned to play as a youngster. I did find an early photo of him where he does have the cue almost under his left ear so perhaps that is the case.

In addition, I think it's unfair of both Manu147 and also J6uk to attack me personally. Manu147 feels he had a bad experience when he booked a coaching session from me and from that he feels he knows me. I dropped my fee for that trip as I couldn't provide the same facilities that I have here but he still thinks he got ripped off. As for J6uk saying I know nothing about the game then I guess playing since I was 14 years old, training to be a master coach and examiner, winning a county title, winning 4 or 5 pro-ams in the 80's just doesn't cut any ice with him, as unless I'm able to do that now at 68yrs of age my opinion just doesn't count.

J6uk...I don't know what your name is but answer this please. Have you every won a county title, as I believe you're from the London area have you ever won the London & Home Counties Title? Have you ever won any title? Have you ever played in a tournament and won it and also ran a few centuries? (I have by the way). So don't go making this personal and don't try to slag me off as I believe when it comes to coaching I know what I'm talking about.

As far as 'dominant' or 'preferred' eye theory goes I don't think it's necessary to align the cue more underneath that eye and players who still cue centre-chin would still be able to aim the cue correctly and to do that they probably use the preferred eye but where is there any proof that aligning the cue more under that eye automatically leads to better and more consistent aiming? I have never seen any proof that is so. I also think the most important thing in a snooker set-up is COMFORT and players should not compromise that comfort in order to chase after an unproven theory (even if vmax thinks it's proven to his satisfaction but doesn't have any REAL proof, just anecdotal evidence which I think is really caused by another factor).

Terry

[j6uk]

I believe you need similar credentials in experience to really know what your talking about. If your highest break is 36 you can't honestly help a player in the finer details to make a frame winning break, you'd be a little out of your depth. But you could walk them through a 30.

j6uk:

Do you think in order to be a good coach a player must be a regular century maker or perhaps an ex-pro? I don't believe this is necessary.

[Terry Davidson]

j6uk:

In one of the posts above you equated me to nrage and inferred I don't know what I'm talking about because I can no longer run centuries every day, as you have inferred you do. Just because you can run high breaks does not make you someone who can effectively coach and vice-versa too.

As there are no tournaments here during the summer I practice a lot by myself on my table which has WPBSA templated pockets and a fast cloth. I still make the odd century and this week so far I've had 3 (100, 117, 141) so does that qualify me in your eyes to provide coaching instructions on here? Or do I still have to do that in a tournament in order to be a qualified coach in your eyes?

And please answer my question above regarding what you have actually won in your snooker career.

I'm not getting my email messages from this string so there may be a delay in my answers.

Terry

[DeanH]

I believe you need similar credentials in experience to really know what your talking about. If your highest break is 36 you can't honestly help a player in the finer details to make a frame winning break, you'd be a little out of your depth. But you could walk them through a 30.

not sure this is as black and white, as it has been seen in many instances, sport and industry, where the coach/trainer is not necessarily a brilliant player but can convey easily the points that need to improve the students game/use of the equipment. And conversely a regular 147 player could very probably be the worst coach there is as they have absolutely no idea how to convey how they do things and also no idea of what is needed to improve the student's game.
"every one can play but not everyone can teach"

[j6uk]

Sorry but I'm only going what I know of you: http://snooked.wordpress.com/2013/02...erry-davidson/
In about the coach you said: I played a bit of snooker and pool as a youngster but was never any good at it so I decided at 17yrs old to get a real job and I joined the Canadian Navy. I spent 23 years in the Navy

I don't want to upset you and I believe in your passion for the game..

J6uk...I don't know what your name is but answer this please. Have you every won a county title, as I believe you're from the London area have you ever won the London & Home Counties Title? Have you ever won any title? Have you ever played in a tournament and won it and also ran a few centuries? (I have by the way). So don't go making this personal and don't try to slag me off as I believe when it comes to coaching I know what I'm talking about.

Terry

[Manu147]

j6uk:

Do you think in order to be a good coach a player must be a regular century maker or perhaps an ex-pro? I don't believe this is necessary.

Manu147:

I checked out more images of Mark Allen and I stand corrected in his case. He does have his head turned to the left but he also has his cue normally running on the left side of his chin but I did find some photos with him in the address position and the cue almost exactly on centre-chin. It's still my opinion dominant eye has nothing to do with the set-up for most players unless they deliberately set-up to favour that eye. Have a good look at pictures of all the other pros and you should see the majority of them do turn their head towards the grip hand side. Now the question is...is that due to preferred eye or is it due to comfort and their natural set-up. Obviously you believe preferred eye theory but I think it hasn't been proven and will cause a player to alter his natural set-up if he believes it, as you do with your own set-up.

Vmax:

It is my opinion that dominant eye theory when it comes to making a player's set-up favour the dominant eye is just not right. After trying to get my head exactly square to the shot I was still aiming the cue correctly and I'll agree I use my preferred eye to do this but I don't believe the preferred eye has to be more in line with the cue. I find it painful for my upper spine to have the head exactly square to the shot and after checking a lot of pictures of the top pros I found the majority of them do turn their heads slightly to the grip hand side and I think this is more natural and comfortable with them.

Perhaps, like me, and if dominant eye theory is correct, they get a natural benefit with turning the head but as it's the majority of the pros, does it follow that they are all (except Mark Allen and John Virgo) dominant in the eye opposite to the grip hand side? Are all of the unusual set-ups we see due to them changing things to favour that eye?

If you do look at Mark Allen he does cue with the cue to the left of his chin. I don't know if it's to favour his dominant eye (perhaps Manu147 can ask him the next time he sees him) or whether it's just the way he learned to play as a youngster. I did find an early photo of him where he does have the cue almost under his left ear so perhaps that is the case.

In addition, I think it's unfair of both Manu147 and also J6uk to attack me personally. Manu147 feels he had a bad experience when he booked a coaching session from me and from that he feels he knows me. I dropped my fee for that trip as I couldn't provide the same facilities that I have here but he still thinks he got ripped off. As for J6uk saying I know nothing about the game then I guess playing since I was 14 years old, training to be a master coach and examiner, winning a county title, winning 4 or 5 pro-ams in the 80's just doesn't cut any ice with him, as unless I'm able to do that now at 68yrs of age my opinion just doesn't count.

J6uk...I don't know what your name is but answer this please. Have you every won a county title, as I believe you're from the London area have you ever won the London & Home Counties Title? Have you ever won any title? Have you ever played in a tournament and won it and also ran a few centuries? (I have by the way). So don't go making this personal and don't try to slag me off as I believe when it comes to coaching I know what I'm talking about.

As far as 'dominant' or 'preferred' eye theory goes I don't think it's necessary to align the cue more underneath that eye and players who still cue centre-chin would still be able to aim the cue correctly and to do that they probably use the preferred eye but where is there any proof that aligning the cue more under that eye automatically leads to better and more consistent aiming? I have never seen any proof that is so. I also think the most important thing in a snooker set-up is COMFORT and players should not compromise that comfort in order to chase after an unproven theory (even if vmax thinks it's proven to his satisfaction but doesn't have any REAL proof, just anecdotal evidence which I think is really caused by another factor).

Terry

Terry, using the term losing the plot, was not meant to be taken literally, I made no reference to our"coaching day", but you obviously still feel some embarassement over the whole episode, did I mention anything about getting ripped off, no not a word, I was quite correctly stating the same point twice about mark allen, and maybe if you spent as much time researching before you posted, then maybe I could take you more serious at times, or maybe I shouldn't have an opinion that might contradict the master coach, especially with all these young players that you have coached. ref; your coaching profile

[throtts]

not sure this is as black and white, as it has been seen in many instances, sport and industry, where the coach/trainer is not necessarily a brilliant player but can convey easily the points that need to improve the students game/use of the equipment. And conversely a regular 147 player could very probably be the worst coach there is as they have absolutely no idea how to convey how they do things and also no idea of what is needed to improve the student's game.
"every one can play but not everyone can teach"

Quite right, Dean, bit like Alex Higgins coaching back in the day. Imagine that...

[j6uk]

Not hard to imagine really. Alex's was articulate, masterful and a great cueist.

Quite right, Dean, bit like Alex Higgins coaching back in the day. Imagine that...

[throtts]

Not hard to imagine really. Alex's was articulate, masterful and a great cueist.

Are you trying to rattle my cage too,, haha.. Of course Alex was all of that, I didn't say other did I..

So you think he could have been coach?.. ..

[DeanH]

I vaguely remember a video of Alex trying to teach another sport-pro (track runner?) how to play, ok it was not a pro-coaching session but I remember that Alex had difficulty explaining who he does things let-alone how the other guy needed to do things.
Alex the great cueist - yep, no contest
Alex the coach - hmmm...

[throtts]

I vaguely remember a video of Alex trying to teach another sport-pro (track runner?) how to play, ok it was not a pro-coaching session but I remember that Alex had difficulty explaining who he does things let-alone how the other guy needed to do things.
Alex the great cueist - yep, no contest
Alex the coach - hmmm...

Thank you, Dean. Exactly my point...

[j6uk]

Its not clear cut once you reach a standard of play and the mind work becomes just as important as the practice. Players might start looking elsewhere for inspiration.
A regular 147a could walk you through the moves of, not surprisingly, making a 147! Even if they were not the most articulate.
I agree. There is a lot that goes into coaching like being their and reliable, personable, inspirational, able to convey. Also be able to see the details and not say to much but when you do its spot-on.

not sure this is as black and white, as it has been seen in many instances, sport and industry, where the coach/trainer is not necessarily a brilliant player but can convey easily the points that need to improve the students game/use of the equipment. And conversely a regular 147 player could very probably be the worst coach there is as they have absolutely no idea how to convey how they do things and also no idea of what is needed to improve the student's game.
"every one can play but not everyone can teach"