Natural ability

[alabadi]

I have been playing for at least 18 years and have always looked at the cueball on delivery. My highest break is 147 in lineup. 147 in a solo practice frame (reds in triangle few safety shots played) then cleared for the max. Highest match break 127 and competitive practice 136. Ive had back2back centuries too.
Looking at it from my point of view. I feel as though any player who looks at the object ball on delivery, is making a hell of an assumption that everything is in line.

well if it works for you that is fine, however suggesting that everyone who looks at the OB on strike are taking a chance is far fetched.

i haven't heard any coach either through interviews, books or ones i've had coaching with suggest anything other than looking at the OB when striking plus i think i can add to that all the pros many of them who have done videos all say the same thing, they look at the OB.

you maybe the exception to the rule and good luck to you

[Ramon]

I have been playing for at least 18 years and have always looked at the cueball on delivery. My highest break is 147 in lineup. 147 in a solo practice frame (reds in triangle few safety shots played) then cleared for the max. Highest match break 127 and competitive practice 136. Ive had back2back centuries too.
Looking at it from my point of view. I feel as though any player who looks at the object ball on delivery, is making a hell of an assumption that everything is in line. Only having to strike! However i feel that looking at the cueball is much more of a reassured method. As the only physical control we have over the shot is hitting the cueball. Sighting and cueing from my perspective is a method of isolating the cueball for direction. When honed correctly, once you've hit the cueball and sent it on its way it is quite inevittable that it will do exactly what you;ve intended it to do.
I know a hell of a lot of people who object ball strike and they do do this with great success. Although i am of the belief that this is soley down to their reinforement through hours and hours of relentless practice!
I hardly put any time in at all and still maintain a decent level of accuracy.

So, you made this breaks, without looking at the OB ???
not even once ????
Wow, that's remarkable!! very nice!
I have to say, this is new to me !!! my compliments.

[thelongbomber]

I have been playing for at least 18 years and have always looked at the cueball on delivery. My highest break is 147 in lineup. 147 in a solo practice frame (reds in triangle few safety shots played) then cleared for the max. Highest match break 127 and competitive practice 136. Ive had back2back centuries too.
Looking at it from my point of view. I feel as though any player who looks at the object ball on delivery, is making a hell of an assumption that everything is in line. Only having to strike! However i feel that looking at the cueball is much more of a reassured method. As the only physical control we have over the shot is hitting the cueball. Sighting and cueing from my perspective is a method of isolating the cueball for direction. When honed correctly, once you've hit the cueball and sent it on its way it is quite inevittable that it will do exactly what you;ve intended it to do.
I know a hell of a lot of people who object ball strike and they do do this with great success. Although i am of the belief that this is soley down to their reinforement through hours and hours of relentless practice!
I hardly put any time in at all and still maintain a decent level of accuracy.

Finally! I thought I was alone here on the forums. Popular assumption as you said, is to look at the object ball, but once you try looking at the cue ball and understand it, it has its benefits.

[vmax4steve]

I have been playing for at least 18 years and have always looked at the cueball on delivery.
Looking at it from my point of view. I feel as though any player who looks at the object ball on delivery, is making a hell of an assumption that everything is in line.

I think it's you who are making a hell of an assumption. By not keeping your eyes on the end of the line of aim (object ball) I don't see how you can be certain that the cue stays on the line of aim throughout the delivery stroke.
The very reason why the eyes should be on the object ball is because the hand follows the eye all the way through the total length of the line of aim which is from the butt of the cue to the object ball.

Cue ball focussed strikers have to line up the shot just the same as object ball focussed strikers, but on the crucial delivery stroke the object ball focussed striker keeps his grip hand, and therefore his cue, on the whole of the line of aim by fixing his eyes firmly on the end of it, while the cue ball focussed striker can have his grip hand unknowingly wander off the line of aim as he has effectively cut off the line of aim at the cue ball.

I would be interested to know how you line up the shot, eyes, feet placement etc and exactly what your eyes do during the potting process as I'm not entirely convinced by any century break maker who says he looks only at the cue ball on the strike.

Do you know exactly when your eyes move to the object ball ?

I have seen many pros and really good players, who look like they are cue ball focussed strikers, move their eyes to the object ball right on the delivery stroke, and you could be the same.
Get someone to watch your eyes carefully when you play as it's something that you yourself could be unaware of.

[inevermissblue]

Like i said in my post i have always looked at the cueball on delivery. That's not to say i haven't tried the object ball, but when i have by comparison its almost as if in playing the shot blind! As all my vision is at that point only focused past the important stuff: bridge hand, cue and cueball! As i said its an assumption that this is all good. I'm not saying that this isn't effective, I'm just saying that it would take alot more time and effort to master than my approach.
I would much rather see the cueball depart from my cue, on my intended path.
I basically get into position sight both balls together and once the tip has come to rest at the desired part of the cueball i preliminarily address this fixed position transferring my eyes to the cueball. This gives the brain all the info it needs regarding contact point on the object ball and the cues relative aspect towards the cueball. Then after a front pause, i transfer my eyes to the object ball and back to the cueball midway through the backswing. Keeping the cue in peripheral vision. This is what lets me deliver the cue only watching the cueball depart.

Sorry if this seems a bit long winded but its the only way i can describe it.

[alabadi]

Like i said in my post i have always looked at the cueball on delivery. That's not to say i haven't tried the object ball, but when i have by comparison its almost as if in playing the shot blind! As all my vision is at that point only focused past the important stuff: bridge hand, cue and cueball! As i said its an assumption that this is all good. I'm not saying that this isn't effective, I'm just saying that it would take alot more time and effort to master than my approach.
I would much rather see the cueball depart from my cue, on my intended path.
I basically get into position sight both balls together and once the tip has come to rest at the desired part of the cueball i preliminarily address this fixed position transferring my eyes to the cueball. This gives the brain all the info it needs regarding contact point on the object ball and the cues relative aspect towards the cueball. Then after a front pause, i transfer my eyes to the object ball and back to the cueball midway through the backswing. Keeping the cue in peripheral vision. This is what lets me deliver the cue only watching the cueball depart.

Sorry if this seems a bit long winded but its the only way i can describe it.

if this is how you actually play looking at the cueball and not looking upto the OB as you strike then you might as well close your eyes , it wouldn't make any difference.

there has to be a poit where you are looking at the OB otherwise how would you know when you miss what happened, did you miss the actual contact point or was the cause something else.

[alabadi]

Finally! I thought I was alone here on the forums. Popular assumption as you said, is to look at the object ball, but once you try looking at the cue ball and understand it, it has its benefits.

i don't think what you do is the same, you look at the Ghost ball on strike and only look at the cueball as you are lining up the shot, what Invermissblue is saying he looks at the cueball on strike

[Byrom]

if this is how you actually play looking at the cueball and not looking upto the OB as you strike then you might as well close your eyes , it wouldn't make any difference.

there has to be a poit where you are looking at the OB otherwise how would you know when you miss what happened, did you miss the actual contact point or was the cause something else.

He is not saying that - he says he lines up both balls first looking at both then looks at the OB last but keeps OB in peripheral vision - slightly different than just looking at OB - this would still be uncomfortable for me though -

[alabadi]

He is not saying that - he says he lines up both balls first looking at both then looks at the OB last but keeps OB in peripheral vision - slightly different than just looking at OB - this would still be uncomfortable for me though -

I understand when he is standing he uses both ball to line up the shot. However he says he looks at the cueball on delivery. So he isn't looking at the OB until after he's played the shot.

It just doesn't seem like the right way to do it, however as I said if it works for him that's all that matters , I think many would find it difficult to do it his way

[Terry Davidson]

He is not saying that - he says he lines up both balls first looking at both then looks at the OB last but keeps OB in peripheral vision - slightly different than just looking at OB - this would still be uncomfortable for me though -

Read what 'inevermissblue' said again. He does his feathering as we all normally do, at the front pause he is focused on the OB and then during his backswing he locks his eyes on the point of contact on the CB. This is not what the majority of players do however it obviously works for him and is now ingrained into his natural timing. If he tried to change that timing now and switched his focus to the OB at the rear pause or the start of the delivery I think it would mess him up big time as changing a player's natural timing is the most difficult thing to do.

I don't teach focus on the CB at time of strike as I believe it shortens the line of aim of the cue down to just the "V' of the bridge to the back of the cueball and also with a new student I would think the brain would unconsciously say 'I've hit the cueball...job done!' when in fact the grip hand has to come through to the chest on every shot for the sake of accuracy and consistency. Obviously inevermissblue has learned to drive through and beyond the cueball and as long as he doesn't move on the delivery he would be fine (although I agree with alabadi here in that it's effectively almost the same as potting with the eyes closed).

Not for me, although I've experimented with different timing, like checking the cueball contact point at the start of the delivery but then I found my eyes just didn't have the time to focus properly on the OB and I was rushing all my shots. In fact trying to change my timing has screwed me up badly and I'm just now reverting back to my own natural timing with good results.

Even though inevermissblue is an accomplished player I would NOT recommend his timing and eyesight rhythm to a student and I also would NOT recommend any player trying to adopt his method. Changing the natural timing is probably the most dangerous thing a player can do. and can really mess him up.


Terry

[inevermissblue]

Hi Terry.

I appreciate your comments and can understand your point of view. Well it looks like this cueball sighting/striking is quite a grey area to most! Which i find incredible. I am also suprised that coaching organisations can so easily disregard something that is not 'text book' even though it works! I am self taught and i am quite proud of the fact. So i can't quite believe that there is so much ambiguity surrounding so many aspects of the game. We seem to be possessed by traditional practice, leaving no room for fresh ideas. Anyway the results speak for themselves. A case in point would be a Pro-am i entered a couple of months ago in Stoke-on-Trent (my local area). I was so in tune to what i was doing throughout the day (Cueball sighting/striking). I was drawn against 3 of the best players in the area, and they all lost to me 3-0. These are ALL players that Object ball strike and can all boast 147's and countless centuries in matches!!! So the proof is in the pudding! :-)

The point i'm trying to get across is this...To only look at the object ball on the delivery means that you're not seeing the cue come through, or the cueball being hit. Both of which ARE seen when the delivery is made looking at the cueball. So looking at the cueball is to me a much more involved process.

I must cease from future contribution on this thread as i have nothing more to say! Apart from don't knock what goes in! ;-)

[sealer]

Nothing has been proved by your good form. You can only speculate that maybe if you were doing it the other way round you would be smashing ronnie in masters forget a pro-am. Also when you think about it you would hit the white where you want without looking at it anyway. I consider it amazing that you hit the object where you want looking at the white

[itsnoteasy]

Maybe what has been proven is , the most important part is getting online ,staying perfectly still and getting the cue through straight.

[Ramon]

Nothing has been proved by your good form. You can only speculate that maybe if you were doing it the other way round you would be smashing ronnie in masters forget a pro-am. Also when you think about it you would hit the white where you want without looking at it anyway. I consider it amazing that you hit the object where you want looking at the white

well, I have to tell you mate,
You just used the right word. IS AMAZING !!!!!
To strike the CB without looking at the OB means : we have a blind man who is doeing the cueing, and he makes 147 breaks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I do'nt mean players who keep the OB in their vision. because they are also OB players.
Anyway, you used the right word: IS AMAZING.
Ask chris Henry about this. He'll tell you all about it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thelongbomber]

i don't think what you do is the same, you look at the Ghost ball on strike and only look at the cueball as you are lining up the shot, what Invermissblue is saying he looks at the cueball on strike

You are partly correct.

Sometimes, in my short game, I do occasionally look just at the cue ball on delivery once I have done my preliminary feathering and aiming (by looking at the ghost ball, object ball, pocket, etc). This often happens when I need to get very specific cue ball position or pace or angle. I don't do it on every shot as I believe there are times when looking at the object ball is actually more beneficial (like long shots). Generally speaking, the more difficult the pot, the more I'm likely to look at the object ball. Doing this, I'm willing to sacrifice some cue ball positional accuracy in favor of potting the ball (although I still try to strike the cue ball with purpose). I think on long shots, that there is an inverse relationship between potting and cue ball control. The more you need to pot the ball, the less likely you are going to get cue ball position. You see this all the time with pros. They get the long pot, or the position, but rarely both. I'm convinced that all standard pockets have a margin of error and this allows you to be more cue ball focused in the short game if you want to.