Perfect Aim Video and Lesson Phoenix
- Thread starter genomachino
- Start date
Wow! Here we go again - more rhetoric to mystify the concept of centering the cue between your eyes. Gene, in paragraph 4 you say "I need to practice being in the right spot or I have trouble staying there." If the cue is centered between your eyes are you in the "right spot"? Yes or No? I've asked this over and over again, yet you continue to ignore the question. It only requires a simple yes or no.
Look at the next to the last paragraph "The only reason I talk about fractional aiming is many players, especially of lesser ability, need to get as close as they possibly can to the correct position when they first get down to aim. Now there is only a small adjustment to make when their down shooting the shot." Well, Gene, what is the correct position you are trying to get them into when they first get down to aim? Isn't that achieved by centering the cue between their eyes? Yes or No? And the small adjustment you refer to, isn't that less than 1/8 inch lateral head movement - like I've said over and over again, and like you confirmed in our phone discussion?
I believe everything you say is spam. You agree with and compliment everyone who you feel you can use for advertisement. Spider is just one more example, IMHO. Spider questioned why you mentioned fractional aiming in your DVD, so now you're distancing yourself from it. Wrong! Fractional aiming (fractional overlap) is the heart and soul of your "system". You say "By studying how much of the ball you are hitting it eventually will become automatic also." What does that mean? Doesn't "how much of the ball you are hitting" equal fractional overlap?,
Since our eyes are separated by a distance equal to the cueball diameter , and, if the cue is centered, our left eye is aligned with the left edge of the cueball, and our right eye is aligned with the right side of the cueball. Thus, if we can get our head low enough we can sight down either side of the cueball, with one or the other eye, and see an accurate cueball/objectball overlap, i.e. fractional overlap. If this is incorrect please correct me, as I have asked many times. If this is correct, and Perfect Aim is merely a requirement to center the cue between our eyes, so we can rely on the overlap we see with either eye, why confuse the issue?
Now here is some real meat, since I feel I am the only one discussing this seriously: It is too bad that 99% of us can't get low enough to really use this "system". Since we can't bend low enough, our eyes are quite elevated above the plane containing the cueball and object balls. Thus, we really can't see this overlap image - so we have to go by feel, like we always have. I've been in "Perfect Aim" for half a year, and still can't shoot like Gene. Imagine that!
By the way, where are all the instructors who have forever been insisting that centering the cue is not a requirement. Who is fulla bulla, Gene or the SPFr's?
Don't worry, I've learned not to expect a reply which seriously addresses the above issues; but, I do believe that the continued silence speaks loudly to objective readers of this and similar threads.
Shank:
I know you're fixated with the cue being in between your eyes and I think you're chasing your tail with that. It's not the case with Gene's info for sure. My cue is never between my eyes. I'd be willing to bet your cue isn't perfectly between your eyes either-- you might perceive it to be, but if you have someone take a picture dead in front of you--- you're likely to be favoring a side. Not saying for sure-- just saying "likely."
I think you're missing the point with Gene's information (as I know for a fact most others might be too based on their posts in this thread... I was one of them). When you come into the shot properly with Gene's system, you're already at the right spot--- fractions have nothing to do with his system (in my humble opinion).
Getting low has zero to do with Gene's information. As a matter of fact, higher the better. You can't find the outermost address point while you're low. I honestly think you have it all wrong - please don't take it the wrong way.
So:
1) Fractions have nothing to do with perfect aim at its highest level, imo (at least for me it has nothing to do with it)
2) You want to find your outermost address point while standing up high, walking around the OB
3) Stop ruminating about the cue being center between your eyes. In order for that theory to work well, I don't think one should have a dominant eye (if possible) plus your eyes would have to be perfectly perpendicular to the line of aim --- otherwise, you'd be looking parallax to your aim line - causing perception errors
What this does is beat the perception error by looking so far parallax that it's almost a new image. Your brain doesn't try to steer because it's so "connect the dots." The reason why I'm breaking it down for you is because I want you to get this stuff and not get into a rut with misleading info.
Clear your mind. Forget your eyes. Forget fractions. Think only alignment. Alignment is your salvation with this system. You're thinking way too much.
Just wondering at what angle after straight in does one start sighting with the perfect aim ? Is there a limit to where you sight with the dominate eye and then you reach a certain angle and you switch?According to the dvd staight in is shot one way ,after staright in you have 1 to 90 degrees of angle then according to the video you change the way you look at the shot.
Would this be right????
Is this what some of you guys get from the video???
Would this be right????
Is this what some of you guys get from the video???
Spider, thanks for the help. Please tell me where I'm wrong in the following scenario. The object ball is on the headspot, and the cueball is on the left half of the footstring. The shot is to cut the object ball into the far right corner pocket without english.
Standing above the table, you perceive the shot and the appropriate cueline. You drop into your stance which is harmonious with the perceived cueline. Now your head position and cueline is fairly close, but you've got to zero in your aim from here. First you find centerball with your tip - I don't believe your cue has to be centered to do this - however you find center accurately is the way do it. Now, when you are confident you're very near center ball with your tip, and the cue is very near the perceived cue line, you sight along the right side of the cueball with your right eye and move your head ever so slightly until you see the proper cueball/objectball overlap. At this point, believe it or not, the cue must be centered between your eyes, or the overlap image will not be accurate. When the right edge of the cueball properly overlaps the left side of the object ball, you again ascertain that your tip is on centerball, then return your right eye vision to the overlap image, and pull the trigger.
Remember, this is a center cueball hit, and your eyespan is essentially equal to the cueball diameter.
Now what am I missing, Spider. Thanks
Standing above the table, you perceive the shot and the appropriate cueline. You drop into your stance which is harmonious with the perceived cueline. Now your head position and cueline is fairly close, but you've got to zero in your aim from here. First you find centerball with your tip - I don't believe your cue has to be centered to do this - however you find center accurately is the way do it. Now, when you are confident you're very near center ball with your tip, and the cue is very near the perceived cue line, you sight along the right side of the cueball with your right eye and move your head ever so slightly until you see the proper cueball/objectball overlap. At this point, believe it or not, the cue must be centered between your eyes, or the overlap image will not be accurate. When the right edge of the cueball properly overlaps the left side of the object ball, you again ascertain that your tip is on centerball, then return your right eye vision to the overlap image, and pull the trigger.
Remember, this is a center cueball hit, and your eyespan is essentially equal to the cueball diameter.
Now what am I missing, Spider. Thanks
Forget the overlap - that's what you're missing, imo. When you're at a distance, the CB is perceived to be much larger than the OB--- therefore, if you're trying to overlap anything accurately, it'll be tough as hell.
Position your body off to the left side of the table somewhere with the CB to the right. Stare at the OB and focus on it as you SLOWLY walk around the table, maintaining your distance from the OB (walking around the "circle"). The CB will start to enter your field of vision. The moment the CB is "addressable" while staring at the OB... plant your back foot and step into the shot from that angle. You should be at the angle automatically to bash that OB into the pocket. No overlap calculation required - no worry about cue position required--- just setup and step-in.
From my experimentation, it works on every angle. You can even come in from the inside-out on real thin shit. Reminds me of the thick/thin side of the CTEL for CTE.
I hope that makes sense, Shank-- let me know.
If any of the stuff I see in this thread is "perfect aim info", I'm good without it, thanks. Hope you have luck with it.
pj
chgo
What's a shame is this is really solid info. Your attitude towards Gene is preventing you from getting really useful knowledge.
You should divorce your emotions when it comes to learning things you don't know about pool. You're a pool academic - you should learn all of this stuff whether you like it or not to complete your pool knowledge. If you don't like something/someone, you ignore the info - that's not the move, imo.
For me, I learn everything I can regardless of the source. Hell, I've learned a lot from you and a lot of times I can't hack ya (I mean that affectionately, of course).
Dave
Spider, I will have to look at the DVD again, cause I don't recall Gene discussing anything like you are discussing. Why don't you do the same thing, and we'll discuss this again, hopefully tonite. The overlap I discussed is exactly what Gene preaches. I am sure of this cause I spoke on the phone with him and part of our conversation was about it being too bad that we all couldn't get down lower so we could see this overlap better. His only advise to me was that I might move my head to one side, about 1/8 inch. That move was to slightly favor the dominant eye. When I told him that I had been having good results slightly favoring my non dominant eye, we discussed our theories on eye dominance. Any way, the overlap was explicitly discussed by us - I am sure I am not misconstruing that. Your ideas sound like they are of your own origin. I will try working with your ideas, but can't till tomorrow.
There are thousands of people with the DVD, Can any of you correct what I said above? I believe Spider is, unfortunately, creating more confusion about Gene's center the cue method, as I see it. And I really can't believe Spider thinks cueball/object overlap doesn't pertain when Gene specifically discusses this on the DVD and on the phone with me.
Gotta go to work, ugg!
There are thousands of people with the DVD, Can any of you correct what I said above? I believe Spider is, unfortunately, creating more confusion about Gene's center the cue method, as I see it. And I really can't believe Spider thinks cueball/object overlap doesn't pertain when Gene specifically discusses this on the DVD and on the phone with me.
Gotta go to work, ugg!
I don't need to review the DVD again - I pretty much have it memorized. I doubt this stuff is my origin - I'd be shocked if Gene didn't say that's how he sets up. That fractional stuff is a red herring, I think.
I'm not creating confusion--- I'm trying to UNCONFUSE the rest of you. This isn't my info, nor is it my info to "unconfuse." Truthfully, I could care less if I'm the only one in the country who actually "got it."
You seem fixated on this center cue/center eye thing and that's cool
Keep fixating.
Spider, I think your success with what you are describing may come from your understanding finding the true outermost edge with your CTE experience. Im in NO WAY saying Gene uses something similar to CTE, but I think your knowledge of it may be helping you with Gene's info.
I havent seen the video yet, Im just guessing by what I have read in the threads.
Woody
I havent seen the video yet, Im just guessing by what I have read in the threads.
Woody
I'm capable of distinguishing my annoyance about Gene's spamming from my assessment of what he's selling, thank you.
What's preventing me from getting useful knowledge is that there doesn't seem to be any around here. Your descriptions make no sense to me and Gene's descriptions are non-existent. I'm not interested in pursuing "knowledge" that can't be described in a comprehensible way.
I'm glad it's helping you.
pj
chgo
This is perhaps the most sensible and comprehensive post in this thread.
Roger
Agreed. This thread has provided lots of advertising and marketing, but very little useful information, discussion, or insight. I'm glad Gene has had great success with sales and lessons; but it is very disappointing to me (and others?) that Gene still hasn't told us what PERFECT AIM is. I hope Gene will now be willing to share some of his ideas and opinions, and be open to discussing them. At a minimum, he should at least describe briefly what PERFECT AIM is and why it is different and/or better than alternative methods. Then, we would at least know what he is selling and marketing.
Here are some questions I have asked previously in the thread, along with several more specific questions, that I hope Gene will answer. Gene seems to have strong opinions on these matters, but he has not shared any of his ideas with us. It seems like he, and all of us, could learn and benefit from sharing ideas and discussing these topics.
Questions for Gene:
Do you think everybody has a dominant eye?
Do you think somebody's "vision center" can be somewhere between the eyes, and not aligned with a dominant eye?
How do you recommend people should align their dominant eye or "vision center" differently on straight-in vs. typical cut vs. thin cut vs. spot aiming?
I would think that with straight-in shots and spot aiming (e.g., kick shots), you would want your "vision center" (dominant eye for some people) aligned with the center of the CB. With thin cuts, people have suggested it might be a good idea to align your "vision center" with the edge of the CB. With cut shots, some people seem to recommend keeping the "vision center" aligned with the center of the CB, and be consistent with this so you can train yourself to always see the angle of the shot from the same perspective. What do you think about this? Do you recommend shifting the head more as the cut angle increases? If so, how can one be consistent with this?
One option is to always align your "vision center" through the contact-point-to-contact-point line. That way, you have a clear alignment target, and the head shift toward the angle of the shot might help you see the shot better, provided you are consistent with the shift. What do you think about this?
What is PERFECT AIM? (I'm not looking for your standard marketing answer here ... instead, I hope you will provide an actual description of what it is and how it is applied, in a short paragraph.)
Would the following be a fair and accurate first sentence of the description of PERFECT AIM, based on your previous posts:
PERFECT AIM: A system for aligning your vision for different types of shots: straight-in shots, typical cuts, thin cuts, and spot aiming (e.g., kick shots).
Also, it would be nice to have some additional sentences. Here's an example of what this expanded description might look like (but I'm not suggesting this is PERFECT AIM, because I'm still not sure based on what I've seen and read so far):
??? With straight-in and spot-aim shots, you align your dominant eye with the center of the cue ball. With thin cuts you align you dominant eye with the inside edge of the CB. With cut shots, you shift your vision center toward the inside edge of the CB. ???
Please provide us with better sentences that more accurately represent the basis of PERFECT AIM. I think if you open PERFECT AIM up for discussion, and if you share some of your opinions, you might learn some things that might help you improve how you teach it to students in the future. We might also learn from your ideas on these topics.
Thank you very much. I hope you don't feel my questions are inappropriate or "out of line." I also hope you don't think the answers will "give away all of your secrets" and reduce the amount of future business you might receive. Actually, I think the opposite can be true. I think if more people new what you were trying to sell, they might be more interested in working with you to learn how to develop the skills necessary to use your system effectively.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
I think this'll be my last post in this thread because a shit typhoon is brewing for sure.
Preface:
Anything Gene says obviously trumps whatever I say... but...
My take on this is that Perfect Aim is a visual ball pocketing system. I did my best to explain how I'm running balls with this stuff. I can prob show anyone this in about 2 seconds on a table. It's harder online.
If you nerds would step off the keyboard and invest a week into hitting balls with it as I did--- you'd pick-up what I'm laying down. I mean no disrespect, but sometimes the same clique of guys care more about dissecting someones info on here and projecting thread dominance rather than taking a hands-on approach and experimenting before making posts.
I'd tell you guys this to your face--- you should be ashamed of yourself. Here I am -- a nobody player who doesn't give lessons and isn't a pool resource like you guys studying this info for 60 days straight before I even made a second post about it. Gene's obviously looking to sell his DVDs - but he should-- his info works. Nobody is forcing you guys to buy it-- but you shouldn't knock it because not a ONE of you has a clue in hell on what the technique really is. Sadly, maybe some people who actually watched the video don't get it either-- but let them get their questions answered by Gene--- not you guys who feel their owed answers without getting a video. To Roger and the other instructors-- that's like you giving a lesson to me all day and at the end of the day I tell you I'm not paying because I knew everything you told me. You'd be hot, I'm sure.
No one is putting a bottle in your mouths to spoon feed you anything on here... I'd guess Gene isn't since he wants to sell videos. He prob didn't want me posting what I did-- but what the hay, I got excited.
I personally think Gene's info is super. Some would argue poorly taught - but super it is. Even he said he prefers an in-person lesson to teach it (I now know why).
Dr. Dave wants a how-to-guide posted and the guy prob didn't even send Gene $70 for his video.
Look - it's like you guys wanna see the midget before paying the $1 at the fair to make sure she's only 24" tall. Bullshit, pay the $1 -- you learn either way. You learn something new or you learn new BS. I'm glad I sent the guy my money-- I'll make that back on won sets from the info. If you're not going to PUT IN THE TIME TO MASTER THE INFO-- don't bother paying for the info, learning the info or dogging the thread. Just my humble opinion.
If you could use your keyboard to make balls - we'd all have the 8 for life.
I'll work with Gene in private from here on out... this thread's getting too frustrating to read anymore. G'luck y'all.
p.s. I'm not convinced this is for beginners, either. Gene might correct me-- but if they paid-- they're likely lost.
Preface:
Anything Gene says obviously trumps whatever I say... but...
My take on this is that Perfect Aim is a visual ball pocketing system. I did my best to explain how I'm running balls with this stuff. I can prob show anyone this in about 2 seconds on a table. It's harder online.
If you nerds would step off the keyboard and invest a week into hitting balls with it as I did--- you'd pick-up what I'm laying down. I mean no disrespect, but sometimes the same clique of guys care more about dissecting someones info on here and projecting thread dominance rather than taking a hands-on approach and experimenting before making posts.
I'd tell you guys this to your face--- you should be ashamed of yourself. Here I am -- a nobody player who doesn't give lessons and isn't a pool resource like you guys studying this info for 60 days straight before I even made a second post about it. Gene's obviously looking to sell his DVDs - but he should-- his info works. Nobody is forcing you guys to buy it-- but you shouldn't knock it because not a ONE of you has a clue in hell on what the technique really is. Sadly, maybe some people who actually watched the video don't get it either-- but let them get their questions answered by Gene--- not you guys who feel their owed answers without getting a video. To Roger and the other instructors-- that's like you giving a lesson to me all day and at the end of the day I tell you I'm not paying because I knew everything you told me. You'd be hot, I'm sure.
No one is putting a bottle in your mouths to spoon feed you anything on here... I'd guess Gene isn't since he wants to sell videos. He prob didn't want me posting what I did-- but what the hay, I got excited.
I personally think Gene's info is super. Some would argue poorly taught - but super it is. Even he said he prefers an in-person lesson to teach it (I now know why).
Dr. Dave wants a how-to-guide posted and the guy prob didn't even send Gene $70 for his video.
Look - it's like you guys wanna see the midget before paying the $1 at the fair to make sure she's only 24" tall. Bullshit, pay the $1 -- you learn either way. You learn something new or you learn new BS. I'm glad I sent the guy my money-- I'll make that back on won sets from the info. If you're not going to PUT IN THE TIME TO MASTER THE INFO-- don't bother paying for the info, learning the info or dogging the thread. Just my humble opinion.
If you could use your keyboard to make balls - we'd all have the 8 for life.
I'll work with Gene in private from here on out... this thread's getting too frustrating to read anymore. G'luck y'all.
p.s. I'm not convinced this is for beginners, either. Gene might correct me-- but if they paid-- they're likely lost.
Last edited:
Spidey,
I've had that happen to me - twice. In each case, the student told me what he and she wanted to learn, but then after two hours of instruction each time, they said they were disappointed because they thought they would be learning some "systems" that would automatically pocket the balls 100% of the time. Even though I thought they were being unrealistic and unreasonable, I let them each off with paying only $10. I have since changed my opinion and policy on the teaching of systems.
As for your own case: Don't you think it's possible that the reason you are pocketing so many balls after a week of working with Gene's system has more to do with you shooting balls for a week, than it does with working with Gene's system?
Also, Mike Howerton, the owner of this site, told me that he doesn't mind people advertising their products and services in these forums as long as they are actively contributing to the discussions in these forums. Has Gene done that? If he has, I beg his forgiveness for missing it.
By the way; I like your posts, even when I don't agree with them. :smile:
Roger
I think I was making balls with Gene's system because it's a good system. Roger, if you read my posts you'd know I like to shoot it straight. I'm really not the best politician on here. If I devoted all this time to his system and couldn't make a ball with it---I'd say so. I missed a WHOLE lot of balls experimenting with his information until I found "the perfect spot" as Gene calls it (which is the outermost addressable point when rotating into the shot). There's DEFINITELY something to his info - it's not placebo affect as many wish it to be.
I hear what you're saying about systems. You and I have polar opposite views on systems. Systems help you repeat a process and eliminate variation. Stepping into shots from scratch each time introduce new variations. Do you kick by feel only - or do you use a system? I never kick without a system, ever. So, what's the difference with aiming? I think if your students didn't understand or couldn't apply the systems you taught - it's either a crap system, it's being taught wrong, or the player isn't advanced enough to apply it (this is the case 90%+ of the time).
There's no such thing as any system that can be taught/learned/and fully mastered in 1 lesson. If a C player is looking for the secret-- have them stroke straight. If someone who runs out consistently can't get better than their current level, all of this system stuff is for them. Not only can they apply the knowledge-- but they'll understand the importance of doing the exact same thing on every shot. Simplification is the key to getting better, imo. Gene's stuff is pretty simple.
It seems as though you guys are policing Gene-- and as a neutral reader of this forum.. that sucks. If Mike has issue with Gene, I'm sure Mike will speak up. But you guys shouldn't be playing the moderator role.
I enjoy your posts as well. Always keep an open mind, Roger. Be a student instead of a teacher when new info is presented and study it thoroughly. None of us know everything, right?