My Take On Aiming Systems

[bobroberts]

This subject has been posted to death. there is enough info in the search section on cte. Not sure why this comes up every week.Most of us have learned a aiming system by now and for noobies like i said before try searching for more on the subject and you will find plenty.

 

[Neil]

................

 

[Tbeaux]

All aiming systems that get mentioned do work......for somebody. It's whichever system or lack of system (also a system) is easiest for the shooter to visualize and use. :wink:

 

[JoeyA]

I have messed around with several aiming systems, and they do work. However, they are only one part of the puzzle. And, will not make a great player out of anyone by themselves.

I liken it to a race car. You want the car to go faster. You take out the 150 h.p. motor, and put in a 500 h.p. motor. It will go faster for a little bit, but just changing the motor won't work. You also need to change the transmission, and the rear end. You won't get maximum results until you fix ALL the parts. They have to work in synchronization to get max results.

Independently, each improvement helps a little. But you only see real and long lasting results when you make the various parts work together properly.

Aiming is only one part.

You are so right, Neil.

 

[shankster8]

Perfect Aim

Perfect Aim doesn't work for me either. What we each saw playing with parts of that method is what had Joey and I scratching our heads.

No problem with me whether something is called a system or not, I haven't found anything that is called a system that works for me, well except the revolutionary new PIITH system that is sweeping the sport!

Hu

It has taken a long time for your evaluation of Perfect Aim to surface. Your (and Joey's) candor is appreciated.

 

[ShootingArts]

gave 90% long ago

It has taken a long time for your evaluation of Perfect Aim to surface. Your (and Joey's) candor is appreciated.

I actually gave 90% of the evaluation long ago. The one thing I wasn't satisfied about after a short test was my results with what I considered the core and really only new concept on the DVD. It wouldn't have been fair for me to say it didn't work and then keep fooling with it and declare it the greatest thing since bottled beer.

What Gene has acknowledged and seems to apply to me, some of us genuinely see things differently. Much like somebody that is blind in one eye learns to adapt pretty well over time, I can close either eye and still get basically the same information assuming the balls are in my binary viewing area. That makes things like swapping eye dominance invalid for me, or so it seems in my experiments.

Joey sees something radically different than I do which left us both puzzled. Since we are both very comfortable with the other's honesty and integrity seeing each other pretty often only living twenty miles apart and playing out of the same pool hall, we have to accept that we both really see the way we say we do.

I can't praise or condemn Gene's method, it simply isn't valid for me. He says this is only true for a very very low percentage of people. That I have no way to judge myself. There is some other good information on the DVD but on the older DVD I saw this information wasn't anything new to me although obviously it might be new to some viewers. Gene has revised his DVD several times since the version I viewed adding more information that may give value. I'm not really interested in anything other than the core concept after this many years playing. For me it wasn't a new holy grail.

Hu