dominant eye what is the best way to test it????

[tetricky]

Like some students. i find myself confused.

A dominant eye, is a dominant eye. It is possible that if you put the non-dominant eye over the cue, the brain may adjust and make that the dominant eye in that case. It may not. You may be able to adjust for the extra parallax error this introduces, with greater or lesser success. You may find a more comfortable stance, with a better sense of vision (in terms of the picture of the table), and learn to cue and adjust for this viewing perspective.

It doesn't matter if one eye is stronger or weaker than the other. That is the case in all people to a greater or lesser extent. Practice gets you used to playing from the perspective that you view the shot from. If you can find a comfortable stance, with a good peripheral and depth perspective, with the dominant eye as close as possible to the line of aim, why not use this? Why fight nature? It's how your brain works.

I have no problem with a view that because of the other aspects of visualising, judging the distance from tip to white ball, subconsciously calculating pace and timing, that there is a value in maximising your spatial perspective (three dimensional view, peripheral, depth), over the aiming perspective (looking down the line of the shot)....if a compromise position must be found (because of comfort in the stance, or variability in an individuals actual eyesight). It doesn't change how the dominant eye in that situation works though. It's the dominant eye! That is how your brain works with decoding a line of aim from what it sees from normal stereoscopic vision.

There are many ways to skin a cat, but to suggest that looking down the line of the aim with the dominant eye is a misnomer that causes more problems than it solves, is a view that i have a problem with. My experience is the complete opposite. Whatever position you choose, whether it be dominant eye over the cue for line of sight, or a compromise position to balance both depth perception and aim, you will still have to 'learn' to put the cue in the same place, and 'learn' to aim from that perspective, and 'learn' to bring the cue through on the line of aim straight.

For me, undoubtedly, it's easier if these aim, sight, cue position, and line of the stroke, are all aligned (as much as possible given that I can't look through the centre of the cue) with how my brain selects the line (dominant eye). For other people other factors may mitigate this advantage. We are all different.

The difference between us, is that I think it's a damn good idea to set up this way if you can, because more stuff is in 'natural' alignment.

[Nic Barrow]

Two cues

I agree with this, I have a dominant left eye, I cue under it, this is natural to me, I don't have to think about it at all.
I play wearing specs, when my eyes are tested the optician does two things, test both eyes independently and both eyes together. What I end up with is two eyes that are equal, two eyes that work together but still my left is dominant in every aspect.

What Nic calls the vision centre is the place between the eyes where the brain sees only one cue, as we have two eyes we have two sources of vision and our brains decipher the images recieved to make only one.
In snooker sighting we need not only both eyes open for depth and spatial but also only one as there is only one cue to place on the line of aim.

The brain chooses one eye for this, but needs both for everything else so even though both eyes are open only one is used for sighting along the line of aim. When the chalk test is done to determine eye dominance, you can clearly see two fingers, only one of which is pointing at the chalk, the other is outside of the chalk and there is a clear space between the two fingers you can see, and there are also two cues seen when playing snooker though you are only aware of one as the brain shuts the other one out.

What is evident to me is that you cannot aim along the space between as there is no cue there, you can cue along the line as seen by your dominant eye or you can cue along the line as seen by your submissive eye, if this is the line chosen by your brain when playing snooker. One eye or the other looking along and placing the cue on only one line while the other does the depth and spatial stuff.

I was watching Liang quite closely this weekend, he moves his head when getting down into the stance so that his left eye looks to be finding the centre of the cue ball, but then gets his right eye right over the cue when looking along the line to the object ball, his eyes do not go back to the cue ball at all once his right eye is over the cue.
Does he find the cue ball with his left eye and the line with his right ? could very well be, or simply a quirk that he has when getting down into his stance, but that movement of his head happens every time so it's of significance and worth a thought to others who have trouble with finding the centre of the cue ball.

Hi Vmax
Good post, but I am certainly not saying that vision centre is where you see one cue.
Actually we all see two cues if we have vision in two eyes - even if the cue is under one eye.
To test this, first attach a thread to a wall a couple of metres away, or turn on one of those laser pointers in the dark and aim it away from you.
Look at any point on the thread / laser and you will see ONE line where you focus and TWO lines beyond AND ALSO before that focus point.
Try it with the cue (although the effect is not so obvious) - get down to the cue ball and look at the cue ball.
You will peripherally see two cues - even if you are not aware of it to begin with.
Look at the cue shaft 12 inches away from the cue ball - you will see two cue balls.
Most players go through their whole life not realising they actually see two cues every time they go down to the table!

When you look at the cue ball you will see TWO object balls peripherally and vice versa - regardless of your eye position relative to the cue.
I have just tested it with two satsumas on my dining table - and my fiancee asked me quizically if I wanted my picture taken so I said yes!!

Capture.JPG

It is these double images that allow us to judge distances and space more easily (try looking at a 3d movie without the glasses and you will see the image that someone sees who has binocular vision issues and cannot fuse both images together in their brain.
We have one cue, but get better results seeing two images of it and fusing them together - otherwise pros would have concluded by now that wearing an eye patch gave better performance.

One eye is not used for sighting along the line of aim because otherwise all pros would sight directly under one eye or the other.
People following the intuitive thought 'do the preferred eye test with chalk on the cushion and cue under that eye' are almost exclusively the ones who come to me in a total mess with their aiming. The fees I have earned from helping players untie this have easily paid for my car I would say.
That is not to say that all players who follow that are in a mess (as some brains especially in kids can adapt over time even if it is wrong for them to start with), but most players in a mess with sighting have followed this theory to their detriment.
Of course for some players, their optimum vision centre IS under one eye as we can see with some pros.

So players who don't cue under one eye are not aiming with the space between the cue - that is simply the best eye position for them to gather the data for the shot and aim it.
Even cueing under one eye, you still have two cameras working and will peripherally (and usually unconsciously) see space between the 'two cues'
It is not the space we are aiming with as you can never see space directly because it disappears when looking at it directly and the two cues fuse into one 3d cue at our focus point.

Liang tends to settle in position unlike most pros, but once settled will look back and forth between both balls as all other pros need to do to.

[Nic Barrow]

Using traditional "dominant" eye tests, my left eye is stronger. However, I am not a believer in forcing myself to sight under one eye just because a test says one eye, by itself, is stronger. I think the brain compensates somehow and it should be a natural position when down on the shot. However, an interesting test is to get down on the shot as normal and close each eye while looking at the white or object ball. It's really hard to figure out which eye is the stronger this way - the slightest movement changes everything.

Thoughts?

Dominant eye test does NOT tell you your stronger eye.
in 10% of cases when I test, the students DOMINANT eye is the WEAKER eye!
The eye STRENGTH is tested by reading letters of reducing size over a set distance, on eye at a time.

[Nic Barrow]

There is a lot of confusion around. Dominant eye does not mean it's stronger. Your dominant eye is the one that your brain uses as reference for framing any view. It is the eye that your brain is using to pick the line of sight to an object. the other eye follows it.

It is nothing to do with the strength of vision in the eye.

If you identify your dominant eye in a certain situation, over a certain range then that's it. There is no debate. Your brain picks the line with the dominant eye and your stereoscopic vision provides other information like peripheral and distance perception views. Nothing to do with snooker. That's how your eyes work.

I disagree that the brain picks the line with the dominant / preferred eye - because otherwise players like Steve Davis would never be able to play with their cue in the centre of their chin.

[Leo]

Hi Vmax
Good post, but I am certainly not saying that vision centre is where you see one cue.
Actually we all see two cues if we have vision in two eyes - even if the cue is under one eye.
To test this, first attach a thread to a wall a couple of metres away, or turn on one of those laser pointers in the dark and aim it away from you.
Look at any point on the thread / laser and you will see ONE line where you focus and TWO lines beyond AND ALSO before that focus point.
Try it with the cue (although the effect is not so obvious) - get down to the cue ball and look at the cue ball.
You will peripherally see two cues - even if you are not aware of it to begin with.
Look at the cue shaft 12 inches away from the cue ball - you will see two cue balls.
Most players go through their whole life not realising they actually see two cues every time they go down to the table!

When you look at the cue ball you will see TWO object balls peripherally and vice versa - regardless of your eye position relative to the cue.
I have just tested it with two satsumas on my dining table - and my fiancee asked me quizically if I wanted my picture taken so I said yes!!

[ATTACH]18206[/ATTACH]

It is these double images that allow us to judge distances and space more easily (try looking at a 3d movie without the glasses and you will see the image that someone sees who has binocular vision issues and cannot fuse both images together in their brain.
We have one cue, but get better results seeing two images of it and fusing them together - otherwise pros would have concluded by now that wearing an eye patch gave better performance.

One eye is not used for sighting along the line of aim because otherwise all pros would sight directly under one eye or the other.
People following the intuitive thought 'do the preferred eye test with chalk on the cushion and cue under that eye' are almost exclusively the ones who come to me in a total mess with their aiming. The fees I have earned from helping players untie this have easily paid for my car I would say.
That is not to say that all players who follow that are in a mess (as some brains especially in kids can adapt over time even if it is wrong for them to start with), but most players in a mess with sighting have followed this theory to their detriment.
Of course for some players, their optimum vision centre IS under one eye as we can see with some pros.

So players who don't cue under one eye are not aiming with the space between the cue - that is simply the best eye position for them to gather the data for the shot and aim it.
Even cueing under one eye, you still have two cameras working and will peripherally (and usually unconsciously) see space between the 'two cues'
It is not the space we are aiming with as you can never see space directly because it disappears when looking at it directly and the two cues fuse into one 3d cue at our focus point.

Liang tends to settle in position unlike most pros, but once settled will look back and forth between both balls as all other pros need to do to.

Nic are you having a mid life crisis by going for a Mohican, quite like the new style though

[Nic Barrow]

Like some students. i find myself confused.

A dominant eye, is a dominant eye. It is possible that if you put the non-dominant eye over the cue, the brain may adjust and make that the dominant eye in that case. It may not. You may be able to adjust for the extra parallax error this introduces, with greater or lesser success. You may find a more comfortable stance, with a better sense of vision (in terms of the picture of the table), and learn to cue and adjust for this viewing perspective.

It doesn't matter if one eye is stronger or weaker than the other. That is the case in all people to a greater or lesser extent. Practice gets you used to playing from the perspective that you view the shot from. If you can find a comfortable stance, with a good peripheral and depth perspective, with the dominant eye as close as possible to the line of aim, why not use this? Why fight nature? It's how your brain works.

I have no problem with a view that because of the other aspects of visualising, judging the distance from tip to white ball, subconsciously calculating pace and timing, that there is a value in maximising your spatial perspective (three dimensional view, peripheral, depth), over the aiming perspective (looking down the line of the shot)....if a compromise position must be found (because of comfort in the stance, or variability in an individuals actual eyesight). It doesn't change how the dominant eye in that situation works though. It's the dominant eye! That is how your brain works with decoding a line of aim from what it sees from normal stereoscopic vision.

There are many ways to skin a cat, but to suggest that looking down the line of the aim with the dominant eye is a misnomer that causes more problems than it solves, is a view that i have a problem with. My experience is the complete opposite. Whatever position you choose, whether it be dominant eye over the cue for line of sight, or a compromise position to balance both depth perception and aim, you will still have to 'learn' to put the cue in the same place, and 'learn' to aim from that perspective, and 'learn' to bring the cue through on the line of aim straight.

For me, undoubtedly, it's easier if these aim, sight, cue position, and line of the stroke, are all aligned (as much as possible given that I can't look through the centre of the cue) with how my brain selects the line (dominant eye). For other people other factors may mitigate this advantage. We are all different.

The difference between us, is that I think it's a damn good idea to set up this way if you can, because more stuff is in 'natural' alignment.

The problem is the term dominant eye.
99% of people I ask think that means the stronger eye.
Which is why I prefer to use the term preferred eye.
10% of my students when tested find that their 'dominant' eye is the WEAKER eye (which is established by reading reducing text sizes at a fixed distance with one eye at a time)
There are many people who have the same strength in both eyes.

Following the 'find your dominant eye and cue under it' causes the biggest problems and confusion with players.
I have lost count of the number of players who have come to me in a total mess with no ability to sight a shot properly because they have followed this flawed and very damaging (but - to most people - intuitively correct) theory.

Some players do have their vision centre directly under one eye - others don't.
It causes tremendous problems when people follow the advice 'cue like this or that or centre because steve davis does or right because neil r does or left because ronnie favours that eye'.
The only thing that matters is performing a reliable vision centre test that finds a players individual optimum vision centre.
There is no dogma - only individual preference.

Some players (especially the young) CAN adapt their vision over time even if they are told to sight under the 'wrong' eye.
However, most people who follow dogma to give the wrong vision centre for them can never adapt to it and consequently are incapable of viewing any straight (and therefore angled) shot properly. So with perfect cueing they would miss EVERYTHING.
But they do pot some balls because their brain learns to compensate and steer the cue to try to correct the error.

[Nic Barrow]

nic are you having a mid life crisis by going for a mohican, quite like the new style though

yes! .

[Shockerz]

Started playing again about 4 years ago (11 year break) and didn't know anything about the dominant eye issue. When I played years ago I just picked the cue up and played (18 years), cannot remember where the cue was positioned and didn't even know coaching existed.

My right eye is stronger as proved by the optician and is also my dominant eye as proved with the usual look through a small circle etc.

I saw a coach at the beginning as struggled to pot anything (he was great) and sorted many things out, long straight potting has continually been a problem since returning but breaks are fine as the balls are generally closer (stacks of 50's, 60's, a few 70's an 86 and a 100); my safety and long potting has found me out on many occasions.

I hit some balls down the lines initially with a coach and decided the cue should be 1 inch to the right of chin centre and did this for 1 and a half years, ball striking still average to poor. I saw a video from nick with a German fellow who then switched to centre of chin and started knocking lots of blues in.

rightly or wrongly the message I received was to put the cue in the centre of the chin and the brain would work the rest out, still the same for me after another 18 months of doing this.

A have experimented lots of different stances positions and everything I can think of and have also just forgot the lot and just got down and played....still the same.

A little while ago I stuck the cue directly under my right eye miles from the centre and started to pot long balls, you would think that would be great?

Under my right eye I now miss short balls as I think I have trained my brain for the other 2 positions!

After reading all the dominant eye stuff I think I am faced with taking some time off and just putting it under the right eye and hoping to re-learn the short game which will cause me no end of issues (and risk).

I lost 3 league games on the bounce (never happened before) and lost a crucial frame last night in a Div 1 cup final (3 long shots) so find myself at a crossroads.

I don't think I'm alone in this issue and i'm sure the sheer mention of dominant eye has confused and wrongly steered many snooker players.

After spending a crazy amount of time trying to prove and sort the best cue position I'm sure I have confused whatever in the brain is used to bring all the information together!

Gotta love this game.........

[tetricky]

The problem is the term dominant eye.
99% of people I ask think that means the stronger eye.
Which is why I prefer to use the term preferred eye.
10% of my students when tested find that their 'dominant' eye is the WEAKER eye (which is established by reading reducing text sizes at a fixed distance with one eye at a time)
There are many people who have the same strength in both eyes....

The correct term is not a problem, just explain what it means. There is no reason that dominant eye should be any more or less complicated than preferred eye. It's just a term with a specific meaning. The dominant eye is the eye that your brain frames the line of sight with, in a specific set of circumstances, and is not related to the strength of vision in the eye. That's pretty simple in my view.

Some players do have their vision centre directly under one eye - others don't.
It causes tremendous problems when people follow the advice 'cue like this or that or centre because steve davis does or right because neil r does or left because ronnie favours that eye'.
The only thing that matters is performing a reliable vision centre test that finds a players individual optimum vision centre.
There is no dogma - only individual preference.

Some players (especially the young) CAN adapt their vision over time even if they are told to sight under the 'wrong' eye.
However, most people who follow dogma to give the wrong vision centre for them can never adapt to it and consequently are incapable of viewing any straight (and therefore angled) shot properly. So with perfect cueing they would miss EVERYTHING.
But they do pot some balls because their brain learns to compensate and steer the cue to try to correct the error.

Telling someone to cue in a particular way, without a specific reason individual to them, is of course a bad idea. I very much agree that there is no dogma, only individual preference...because any position you take is in some regard a compromise position (you are not looking truly down the line of the cue...it's impossible...the cue is in the way). The trick is to find that position that provides the spatial information, but also allows a good line of sight down the cue, and then practice it. You WILL get better with practice. Your brain WILL learn to compensate for your position.

I understand what you say about the vision centre....but here's a thing. you can identify that vision centre, and look at where that puts the cue position in relation to your stance....but you still have to practice and learn this position and alignment. For most of us, we don't naturally align the cue with this position. What we try to do is find a predictable repeatable method to get down 'in line' and practice bringing the cue along this line. We train the brain to do this through practice.

It is possible to do this, to a greater or lesser extent, from any head position. However there may be an optimal head position. This depends on a number of factors...comfort of the stance, stereoscopic vision and spatial information, aiming line of the cue. Within any one individual the balance of these factors and compromise will have a position that is better for the individual as it will provide the optimal balance of these factors.

What wont change is that the dominant eye in the situation will provide the aiming line for the shot. By definition, that's what it does. How far off the actual line of the cue that is for an individual will depend on other factors....which we agree on. head position is about finding a balanced position that is repeatable, comfortable, and provides all the visual information required....and can be practised and learned to work.

[Leo]

Let's be honest here snooker really doesn't have to be that complicated,but if people still insist on getting caught up in rhetoric of dominant eye then go ahead but be prepared to hang your stick up early

[Shockerz]

Let's be honest here snooker really doesn't have to be that complicated,but if people still insist on getting caught up in rhetoric of dominant eye then go ahead but be prepared to hang your stick up early

I get where you're coming from and no sport needs to be that complicated, you just get on and do what comes natural and accept that's your ability and enjoy it.

I would love to be like that and just accept it but I've managed to improve most things I've done in life by understanding the intricacies of things and then made choices on what I have learned, good or bad.

I'm personally caught up in it as the few coaches I have read or discussed it with have given me opposing information so this has left me personally in a quandary as to what to do.

It certainly makes a difference where I put the cue, just would like to decide with knowledge so I can get on with it (and I have tried just getting on with it and forgetting the techy stuff but still unsure which coach is right as I still have an issue!).

[tetricky]

I have come to the view that it's a bit self-selecting. Good players will often tell you that it's simple, just get down, practice, and it will all fall into place.

Of course for many people that's very much not the case. Of those for whom it doesn't work like that, it's only relatively few that really stick at it, try to learn, and get better. The belligerent sods. Like me.

[itsnoteasy]

I think people want to be good at something in five minutes or pack it in or have a hissy fit and say they can't do it. Good players say it's simple because it is for them, they have put the hard work in. What is it they say it's 10,000 hours you have to put in to get to the best you can be, well that's a far cry from 20 hours on here talking about the minutiae of it and a couple of sessions down the club.
You want snooker to be a simple game, go and put some work in.

[tetricky]

I think people want to be good at something in five minutes or pack it in or have a hissy fit and say they can't do it. Good players say it's simple because it is for them, they have put the hard work in. What is it they say it's 10,000 hours you have to put in to get to the best you can be, well that's a far cry from 20 hours on here talking about the minutiae of it and a couple of sessions down the club.
You want snooker to be a simple game, go and put some work in.

Well, with respect, that's a bit patronising.

Firstly I've played for over thirty years, and put thousands of hours in. Secondly, I don't have the luxury of endless hours to spend playing snooker as it is logistically an effort for me to even get to a table. Thirdly I'm not moaning about how good (or otherwise in my case), just trying to be the best that I can be.

Part of that can be establishing a working technique. Practice of itself has proved to not be the answer for me, but practising a more viable technique might be. I am not alone in wanting to learn well, not just take pot luck with my 'natural' ability.

I made little progress with trial and error. I have improved with some analysis of technique, and trialing and practicing that.

I do not believe that it's one or the other. In some cases both is better.

Plus it's a discussion forum. It's an appropriate place for discussion.

[itsnoteasy]

Sorry tetricky it wasn't aimed at you, it was more a general statement. I would have quoted your post if it was directed at you.