SS8,
I see your impression of me is as accurate as your impression of the DVD. You were way off base and your post seemed antagonistic then much like the one I am replying to. It didn't seem like something I cared to reply to as the combination of tone and content made the post seem deliberately misleading. I merely pointed out to the con artist that it was a poor post to make a decision based on, as it was. Somebody might as well judge me by your post you just made.
You look like a total ass now. I suggest you stop while you are behind.
Hu
(the post I said was a poor one to judge Perfect Aim by)
Great reply, Hu, it is as meaningful as your review of "Perfect Aim". My impression of you has always been high, by the way, until you posted your belief that my interpretation of the DVD was so inaccurrate that you felt I was deliberately misinterpreting its content. Unfortunately Hu, Gene has affirmed that my post and conclusions are accurate. Even in his subsequent post (#674) he affirms that, but Gene is an excellent salesman and quickly cloaked the simple truth I was expounding on and stated that some people need to correct perhaps as much as an inch, Who, Hu, do you think he is referring to there? You, Me? No! He is referring to complete novices that don't have a clue - guys that barely know the difference between one end and the other of the cue. Guys that don't even understand that the cue should be placed beneath the eyes.
You say my post seemed antagonistic, and that I was way off base, and the combination of tone and content made the post seem deliberately misleading. Let me first say I posted a few other times earlier trying to get a simple yes or no answer that would allow me to conclude whether I understood "Perfect Aim. (Posts 573,599,603,629,634,636,637) I even asked for an answer from anyone who understood "Perfect Aim " - and that included you. But I could never even get a reply. I do apologize if i let frustration show in the post you are referring to, but you might read the other posts also to see if a little frustration can be rationalized.
Anyway, Hu, since there are others that still might be anticipating your review of "Perfect Aim" let me point a few things out that might help you along. I realize I've said this previously, and you're convinced it's way off base, but maybe this time it will sink in.
Most all of us have eyeballs that are separated by 2 1/4 to about 2 1/2 inch. A cueball has a diameter of about 2 1/4 inch . Therefore, if we center the cue between our eyes, the left eye sights along the left side of the cueball and the right eye sights along the right side of the cueball, very nearly. (For example, if your eyespan is 2/12 inches, and your cue is centered, you might have to move your head 1/8 inch to perfectly align an eye with the cueball edge.)
Now, let's say we want to make a cut to the right that requires a half ball hit on the object ball. When we get down on this shot with centered cue, we'll see a half ball overlap that is accurate, it is as simple as that - you can shoot to it. And Hu, forget your thousand yard stare here. Just sight to the object ball. The picture is accurate, because your cue is centered. If your cue isn't centered, you can't trust the overlap you see.
If you've got a 2 1/2 inch eyespan you might need to correct 1/8 inch. But mastery of that degree of correction is beyond the scope of this video. Notice that when our bridge arm is extended, our eyes are approximately 30 inches from the cueball. A lot of people shake more than the 1/8 inch head correction we're discussing. Assume your shooting stance and try to control a 1/8 inch head movement. And, when centering the cue, how close to center and how steady do you think the average man can hold that?
Hu, as I said before, the "system" is to center the cue between your eyes, because only in that position can we trust the cueball/objectball overlap image. I am not denying that some players play well not using this system - practice makes perfect.
Sorry if I still look like an ass, Hu! But I think you've seen the above "system" presented in such a convoluted manner that its basic simplicity escaped you.
