I obtained a Perfect Aim dvd so that I could review it for AZB. It’s apparently the second Perfect Aim dvd, which Gene Albrecht, its author, says contains some new and/or updated info – I haven’t seen the first one. The dvd is almost exactly one hour in length and features Gene at a pool table with his cue stick, a cue ball and an object ball describing and demonstrating the Perfect Aim method. I watched it all the way through carefully.
My opinion: it’s so bad that it doesn’t really deserve a serious review, and I wouldn't bother except for the fact that Gene continues to promote it heavily on AZB, makes extraordinary claims for its uniqueness and effectiveness, and asks an outrageous price for it ($80!).
My advice: save your money and instead reread some AZB threads on the topic.
Perfect Aim is nothing more than Gene’s opinion that we should sight all pool shots by aligning the “inside” edge of the CB with the place on the OB where it should overlap for the cut angle we want, and that we should position the eye nearest that side of the CB directly over this line to get the truest picture of it. For instance:
- for a 30-degree cut to the left (a 1/2 ball hit), sight from the CB’s left edge to the exact center of the OB by positioning the left eye over that line
- for a 49-degree cut to the right (a 1/4 ball hit), sight from the CB’s right edge to the point 1/2 radius in from the OB’s left edge by positioning the right eye over that line
- for a straight shot, sight from the CB’s edge to the OB’s edge by positioning the dominant eye over that line (obviously, using the edges on the dominant eye side)
That’s really all there is to the technique, and it’s obviously nothing new to AZB (and not proprietary intellectual property). Aligning the CB’s edge with the overlap point on the OB is simply the well known “double overlap” or “double offset” system, and positioning the eye directly over this line is one of several possible eye positions that have been extensively discussed and debated here. Gene seems to think that his opinion about the correct answer to this narrow question is worth $80 - I don’t think it’s worth very much at all, but maybe that’s just me.
I don’t know why Gene thinks this small topic should take an hour to explain and demonstrate – there’s really no more than ten or fifteen minutes worth of basic information (which, again, we’ve all heard before). I’m not counting his description of his technique for measuring cut angles and judging CB/OB overlap because, frankly, it’s not real information – it’s poorly conceived, imprecise and geometrically inaccurate.
I’m also not counting his description of his supposedly improved method of finding the dominant eye because, frankly, it’s not real information either – it’s vague and unreliable (literally “move your head until the shot looks good”), and in the end it doesn’t matter anyway because half the shots use the non-dominant eye (even though the first thing Gene emphasizes at the beginning of the dvd is that finding and knowing your dominant eye is the most important part of the Perfect Aim technique… ?).
As for Gene’s presentation style, organization and ability to communicate - well, let’s just say he shouldn’t quit his day job. Some blaring examples are (1) his non-description of how to find the dominant eye, (2) his insistence on the dominant eye's importance followed by his immediate abandonment of that idea, and (3) the fact that he describes how to sight a straight shot first, but doesn’t reveal until near the end of the dvd that you’re supposed to sight that shot from edge to edge and not from center to center. In general he’s much less articulate when speaking on camera than when writing on AZB - maybe because he’s more of a salesman than an instructor.
Production quality is amateur – every segment is done in one still-camera take with very little editing, Gene’s voice is cut off mid sentence at the end of some segments, etc., but this is a minor drawback that could have been overlooked if the dvd’s content was new or valuable (and it didn’t cost $80!).
Although Gene probably won’t appreciate me saying so at this point, I think he’s a likable and sincere guy who honestly thinks he has a uniquely beneficial technique to teach – I just think he’s wrong about the technique and the wrong guy to teach it. I also acknowledge that Gene is a very good player with many high-level tournament notches on his belt – I just don’t think that matters here.
pj
chgo
My opinion: it’s so bad that it doesn’t really deserve a serious review, and I wouldn't bother except for the fact that Gene continues to promote it heavily on AZB, makes extraordinary claims for its uniqueness and effectiveness, and asks an outrageous price for it ($80!).
My advice: save your money and instead reread some AZB threads on the topic.
Perfect Aim is nothing more than Gene’s opinion that we should sight all pool shots by aligning the “inside” edge of the CB with the place on the OB where it should overlap for the cut angle we want, and that we should position the eye nearest that side of the CB directly over this line to get the truest picture of it. For instance:
- for a 30-degree cut to the left (a 1/2 ball hit), sight from the CB’s left edge to the exact center of the OB by positioning the left eye over that line
- for a 49-degree cut to the right (a 1/4 ball hit), sight from the CB’s right edge to the point 1/2 radius in from the OB’s left edge by positioning the right eye over that line
- for a straight shot, sight from the CB’s edge to the OB’s edge by positioning the dominant eye over that line (obviously, using the edges on the dominant eye side)
That’s really all there is to the technique, and it’s obviously nothing new to AZB (and not proprietary intellectual property). Aligning the CB’s edge with the overlap point on the OB is simply the well known “double overlap” or “double offset” system, and positioning the eye directly over this line is one of several possible eye positions that have been extensively discussed and debated here. Gene seems to think that his opinion about the correct answer to this narrow question is worth $80 - I don’t think it’s worth very much at all, but maybe that’s just me.
I don’t know why Gene thinks this small topic should take an hour to explain and demonstrate – there’s really no more than ten or fifteen minutes worth of basic information (which, again, we’ve all heard before). I’m not counting his description of his technique for measuring cut angles and judging CB/OB overlap because, frankly, it’s not real information – it’s poorly conceived, imprecise and geometrically inaccurate.
I’m also not counting his description of his supposedly improved method of finding the dominant eye because, frankly, it’s not real information either – it’s vague and unreliable (literally “move your head until the shot looks good”), and in the end it doesn’t matter anyway because half the shots use the non-dominant eye (even though the first thing Gene emphasizes at the beginning of the dvd is that finding and knowing your dominant eye is the most important part of the Perfect Aim technique… ?).
As for Gene’s presentation style, organization and ability to communicate - well, let’s just say he shouldn’t quit his day job. Some blaring examples are (1) his non-description of how to find the dominant eye, (2) his insistence on the dominant eye's importance followed by his immediate abandonment of that idea, and (3) the fact that he describes how to sight a straight shot first, but doesn’t reveal until near the end of the dvd that you’re supposed to sight that shot from edge to edge and not from center to center. In general he’s much less articulate when speaking on camera than when writing on AZB - maybe because he’s more of a salesman than an instructor.
Production quality is amateur – every segment is done in one still-camera take with very little editing, Gene’s voice is cut off mid sentence at the end of some segments, etc., but this is a minor drawback that could have been overlooked if the dvd’s content was new or valuable (and it didn’t cost $80!).
Although Gene probably won’t appreciate me saying so at this point, I think he’s a likable and sincere guy who honestly thinks he has a uniquely beneficial technique to teach – I just think he’s wrong about the technique and the wrong guy to teach it. I also acknowledge that Gene is a very good player with many high-level tournament notches on his belt – I just don’t think that matters here.
pj
chgo