Is Eye Dominance Real in Tennis?

[johnyandell]

Let's discuss Chris Lewit's latest article, "Is Eye Dominance Real in Tennis?"

[jeremy93]

Thanks for the article. 99.9% of factors are more important than focusing how you’re dominant eye can affect how you should do your technique. This article makes me even more confident in this thought.

[clewit]

Thanks for the article. 99.9% of factors are more important than focusing how you’re dominant eye can affect how you should do your technique. This article makes me even more confident in this thought.

Thanks very much. In the next article we will discuss some important factors that are more important than the dominant eye.

[clewit]

Happy to answer any questions on the this article this month. Eye dominance is a complex and thorny subject.

[dimbleby69]

Hi Chris, many thanks for the article. I’ll be rereading it for a bit, but my first response is: what a relief. I’ve been wanting to discount a lot of what I’d heard on the subject recently from some influential sources (esp. Moratoglou on serving), and now I feel I can. There’s a discussion to be had about what your researches say about evidence based approaches vs non-evidence based. Some very successful and influential coaches out there using the latter.

Always had a nagging worry that eye dominance was important because of its believed significance for batting in Cricket (my first sporting love).

Looking forward to the next instalment. Thanks again.

Regards
Rob

[mitchc]

Great article Chris.

My thoughts around eye-dominance are that it's mainly bogus in terms of ball tracking and performance, but I do wonder if having the ability to play the shot with head turned toward the ball more (like federer and alcaraz) creates a "reactive brake" similar to how how the left arm works on a forehand.

[jeffreycounts]

I can't even imagine how one eye would ever be impeded by the body. No matter how much shoulder rotation or coiling you have, your head is still above your shoulders. And last I checked everyone has a neck that can turn to focus on on something. And even if one eye was super charged, it still wouldn't trump the power of two eyes - binocular vision - working together. I just googled "why do we have two eyes" and here is the first explanation that came up:

"Having two eyes comes with various advantages and the main advantage is that we can see the world in three dimensions. The depth and distance can be seen because of the positions of the eyes."

I would take "depth and distance" over the faster reaction time of one eye any day of the week.

Really interesting article, but I can't get past the most primitive questions to see any kind of argument here. And the thought of compromising technique - less shoulder turn for example - to aid one eye just sounds like coaching malpractice. If Patrick is compromising his student's technique so they get their one super eye a better look, then he is doing them a great disservice. Maybe he tried it with Holger Rune and that's why Holger went running for the hills.

But I don't see any scenario where one eye gets less of a look at the ball than the other. Here is Zverev with the full upper body coil and left arm stretch. Looks to me like he has a clean line of sight to the ball since his head, surprise, surprise, is above his shoulder. And he has this neat thing called a neck that lets him turn his head so both eyes can look at the the ball.

zverev.jpg

[clewit]

Hi Chris, many thanks for the article. I’ll be rereading it for a bit, but my first response is: what a relief. I’ve been wanting to discount a lot of what I’d heard on the subject recently from some influential sources (esp. Moratoglou on serving), and now I feel I can. There’s a discussion to be had about what your researches say about evidence based approaches vs non-evidence based. Some very successful and influential coaches out there using the latter.

Always had a nagging worry that eye dominance was important because of its believed significance for batting in Cricket (my first sporting love).

Looking forward to the next instalment. Thanks again.

Regards
Rob

Thanks very much. You can be a great coach even if what you are saying is not evidenced-based but you will also be wrong about a lot of things you say. That’s actually very common in high level coaching. Let me know if you have any questions after your reread.

What do they say about eye dominance in cricket? What I wrote here would apply to cricket.

[clewit]

Great article Chris.

My thoughts around eye-dominance are that it's mainly bogus in terms of ball tracking and performance, but I do wonder if having the ability to play the shot with head turned toward the ball more (like federer and alcaraz) creates a "reactive brake" similar to how how the left arm works on a forehand.

Thank you. Reactive brake is a Vic Braden term and used in Great Base curriculum. Can you explain how the head and eye dominance would relate to a reactive brake situation?

There is some research that suggests cross-dominant individuals have an advantage in some sports like baseball but also conflicting research on that subject. Don Tieg believes it could help some tennis athletes. Dan Laby does not.

Thanks.

[clewit]

I can't even imagine how one eye would ever be impeded by the body. No matter how much shoulder rotation or coiling you have, your head is still above your shoulders. And last I checked everyone has a neck that can turn to focus on on something. And even if one eye was super charged, it still wouldn't trump the power of two eyes - binocular vision - working together. I just googled "why do we have two eyes" and here is the first explanation that came up:

"Having two eyes comes with various advantages and the main advantage is that we can see the world in three dimensions. The depth and distance can be seen because of the positions of the eyes."

I would take "depth and distance" over the faster reaction time of one eye any day of the week.

Really interesting article, but I can't get past the most primitive questions to see any kind of argument here. And the thought of compromising technique - less shoulder turn for example - to aid one eye just sounds like coaching malpractice. If Patrick is compromising his student's technique so they get their one super eye a better look, then he is doing them a great disservice. Maybe he tried it with Holger Rune and that's why Holger went running for the hills.

But I don't see any scenario where one eye gets less of a look at the ball than the other. Here is Zverev with the full upper body coil and left arm stretch. Looks to me like he has a clean line of sight to the ball since his head, surprise, surprise, is above his shoulder. And he has this neat thing called a neck that lets him turn his head so both eyes can look at the the ball.

zverev.jpg

Thanks Jeff. Agree with you. The neck allows the head to be turned to optimize binocular vision. It would be evidenced-based if Mouratoglou and others would say that the head needs to be facing the incoming ball to promote binocular vision. But the focus on a “super eye” is misguided. Players can turn their shoulders fully whether cross dominant or same side dominant while still maintaining proper binocular vision by turning their neck.

The idea of adjusting the shoulder turn or stance based on a flawed dominant eye field test is very misguided. Yet this is happening now all the time on the court by some coaches.

The idea that a coach can identify eye dominance based on how a player sets up is probably false.

There are some atypical situations where a player could be running diagonally backward where the dominant eye might be able to help. Emergency shots for example. And some players try to turn so much that they could obscure binocular vision. That can happen. The best evidenced-based way is to ensure that BOTH eyes can see and track the ball clearly. That’s the key.

[clewit]

Thanks Jeff. Agree with you. The neck allows the head to be turned to optimize binocular vision. It would be evidenced-based if Mouratoglou and others would say that the head needs to be facing the incoming ball to promote binocular vision. But the focus on a “super eye” is misguided. Players can turn their shoulders fully whether cross dominant or same side dominant while still maintaining proper binocular vision by turning their neck.

The idea of adjusting the shoulder turn or stance based on a flawed dominant eye field test is very misguided. Yet this is happening now all the time on the court by some coaches.

The idea that a coach can identify eye dominance based on how a player sets up is probably false.

The entire eye dominance focus is a powerful red herring. Binocular vision is key

There are some atypical situations where a player could be running diagonally backward where the dominant eye might be able to help. Emergency shots for example. And some players try to turn so much that they could obscure binocular vision. That can happen. The best evidenced-based way is to ensure that BOTH eyes can see and track the ball clearly. That’s the key.

Also with many recreational players they may be taught to turn their trunk and close their stance. This could obscure binocular vision especially if they have limited cervical rotation/range of motion. Many adults do have limited cervical spine ROM so I think that is a real concern at the club level. You want to maximize ROM in the neck to allow a big turn without obscuring binocular vision.

From Don Teig:

It’s a proven fact that the Dominant Eye does indeed process information to the brain slightly faster than the other eye. So, assuming that all other visual-motor skills are optimized, I do agree with coach Saviano and Mouratoglou in that there is a definite benefit in positioning the dominant eye in a favorable place to strike the tennis ball. However, it needs to be reiterated that the relevance of the Dominant Eye in this process is only one piece of the visual puzzle. Of equal importance (and not to be overlooked) is the role that binocularity takes (using two eyes together as a team) when playing tennis. I think that we would all agree that seeing in “stereo” surely beats the alternative “monocular” approach. After all, we were all put on this earth to use our two eyes together as a team!
Above all, a comprehensive Visual-Cognitive-Motor evaluation is the most important first step on the road to excellence in all sports (and in life as well!)

[johnyandell]

The dominant eye may be faster, but I completely agree with Jeff Counts post above. Neither eye is blocked with good technique. So I think the issue is moot.

[clewit]

From Don Teig:

It’s a proven fact that the Dominant Eye does indeed process information to the brain slightly faster than the other eye. So, assuming that all other visual-motor skills are optimized, I do agree with coach Saviano and Mouratoglou in that there is a definite benefit in positioning the dominant eye in a favorable place to strike the tennis ball. However, it needs to be reiterated that the relevance of the Dominant Eye in this process is only one piece of the visual puzzle. Of equal importance (and not to be overlooked) is the role that binocularity takes (using two eyes together as a team) when playing tennis. I think that we would all agree that seeing in “stereo” surely beats the alternative “monocular” approach. After all, we were all put on this earth to use our two eyes together as a team!
Above all, a comprehensive Visual-Cognitive-Motor evaluation is the most important first step on the road to excellence in all sports (and in life as well!)

Thanks for sharing Don. Your insight and experience are great. There seems to be some conflict in the literature about whether cross-dominance is an advantage for baseball players and other athletes like tennis players. I know we discussed this. It’s an interesting topic. The issue of field testing for eye dominance is also important. Are there field tests that you believe are accurate? Dr. Laby argues that the field test used by Mouratoglou is not accurate, for example.

I can imagine a few situations on the run or emergency situations where the dominant eye could be blocked. Presumably that might favor some players over others, depending on if they are cross dominant or same side dominant.

One of the major questions for coaches is whether they should adjust player shoulder turns and stances in accordance to eye dominance. I think John, myself, and Jeff are saying that’s not necessary so long as the head is positioned well.

[nickw]

Hi Chris,

Great article, and an interesting subject for me personally, and my coaching, so I have a few comments and a couple of questions!

I'm cross-dominant, right handed, but also have a lazy right eye. If I shut my left eye, everything is blurry. If I shut my right eye, nothing changes and I have sharp vision. My first question is does this affect the importance of eye dominance, when vision in one eye is significantly stronger than the other, compared to someone with equal vision quality in both eyes?

I experimented a bit the other day, by hitting balls with my right eye shut. I expected there to be no difference but was surprised to find I couldn't focus on the ball, though I could still hit it ok. That's conclusive proof for me that despite my right eye being lazy, it still plays a crucial role in my ability to see and hit the incoming ball. When I shut my left eye, I couldn't see clearly but was also surprised that I could make clean contact with the ball most of the time.

From my own experience previously, I'm most susceptible to framing the ball when running down a wide forehand, unless I consciously keep my eye on the ball until contact, and this would seem to make sense as my dominant eye is furthest away from the ball in that situation. Based on that, I have believed that there is something in this eye dominance thing, but I totally agree that any intervention with stances or technique based on eye dominance, doesn't make any sense at all.

As a coach, I have always asked players to be aware of which is their dominant eye, and have only offered them the following advice: If they are cross-dominant, then it's more important for them to watch the ball onto the strings of the racket (like Roger Federer does so famously), and if they are same side dominant, it's less important to do this. As we know, some players watch the ball onto the strings, whilst others clearly don't. I'd like to also ask if you think there is any value in the advice I give my players regards the relationship between the importance of watching the ball onto strings based on their eye dominance?