I think this is a pretty loose definition of the word "aim". Yes, both eyes are usually open when aiming a rifle, but only one eye is used to align the sights with the target.
pj
chgo
Now we are getting somewhere.
I think this is a pretty loose definition of the word "aim". Yes, both eyes are usually open when aiming a rifle, but only one eye is used to align the sights with the target.
pj
chgo
Apparently you mean that you should position your eyes so you're looking along the line between the CB and OB contact points. Am I interpreting you correctly?
There has been a fair amount of discussion about whether or not this is best, considering that you also have to align your stick correctly and it usually has to point in another direction. Some say it's best to sight along the contact points line, some say it's best to sight along the stick, others say it's best to compromise the two, still others say it's different for different kinds of shots (thicker vs. thinner, sidespin vs. centerball, etc.), and yet others say it's different for different players.
I think this is an important aspect of aiming that should get more attention, but I'm skeptical that there's a one-size-fits-all solution. If all you do is focus players on this issue and help them understand it, you've done something useful. If you've also found a way to help them quickly and easily find their own personal solutions without dictating too much, then you've done something valuable.
pj
chgo
*************
I don't think closing one eye is very useful in pool because you're almost always trying to align things on two separate lines at once: the CB with the OB and the stick with wherever it should be pointing. Having your eyes above these things is actually helpful to that process, and depth perception, which is best with both eyes, is a key part of coordinating the two.
*********************
IMO, once the bridge position is established, the alignment of the stick is nearly exclusively proprioceptive. The only thing you need depth perception for in aiming is to avoid fouling by accidently hitting the CB with warm-up strokes. This is why you can look at the OB last. Your brain and body know where the stick is in space so you don't have to be looking at it.
IMO, once the bridge position is established, the alignment of the stick is nearly exclusively proprioceptive.
The only thing you need depth perception for in aiming is to avoid fouling by accidently hitting the CB with warm-up strokes.
This is why you can look at the OB last. Your brain and body know where the stick is in space so you don't have to be looking at it.
woody i'm not sure that joeya deserves any rep for his post. i dont really understand why he feels like he has to defend gene all the time. i'm sorry but most of his "contribution" to this forum is just his schtick. if gene was chased away by his naysayers would the forum really be diminished? however if he left he would prolly be cutting of his single best source of revenue b/c if as gene claimed in one of his earlier posts "perfect aim" really is the best selling instructional pool dvd right now its is ONLY b/c of his incessant sales pitch here an AZB. at least he bought a membership.
brian
woody i'm not sure that joeya deserves any rep for his post. i dont really understand why he feels like he has to defend gene all the time. i'm sorry but most of his "contribution" to this forum is just his schtick. if gene was chased away by his naysayers would the forum really be diminished? however if he left he would prolly be cutting of his single best source of revenue b/c if as gene claimed in one of his earlier posts "perfect aim" really is the best selling instructional pool dvd right now its is ONLY b/c of his incessant sales pitch here an AZB. at least he bought a membership.
brian
Did you believe in the product you were selling?
Were 95% of your customers satisfied?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought Dave was trying to add to the thread, not distract from it. To me the stuff he linked seems like useful related info that adds depth to the discussion.
Maybe you don't like the fact that lots of Dave's posts seem like he's "steering" people to his website, but I think of him like those useful hyperlinks you see in many internet articles (you know, the highlighted words you can click on to see some related background info) - if you're not interested in following the links you don't have to (sound familiar?), and it would be nice if Dave didn't have to make special posts to give us the option, but that's not how AZB works. I'm sorry if it annoys you (maybe you have your own reasons), but I'm glad he does it.
pj
chgo
joeya feel better now that you got that out of your system? this kind of post hurts your credibility imo. for one thing the OP was asking for opinions of folks that had tried perfect aim. i dont believe the intent was for gene to start another lengthy sales pitch (which he had no problem doing). dave has the same right to post in this thread as gene and isnt certainly not so blatant about pitching his own stuff as gene who apparently knows no shame. as for gene contributing to this forum answer me this question: if you sorted out all of genes posts and then calculated the percentage of them that were mostly self promoting of his product what do you think that would be? 90, 95, 98%? sure it would. whats more despite his fine playing ability he is not on here sharing his knowledge, he is on here selling it (rather expensively i might add). i think its prolly genes constant sales pitch that some (many?) forum members find so irritating. and gene just so you know just b/c a lot of pple have purchased your product doesnt necessarily mean anything other than youre a good sales man.
brian
I could NEVER spread enough rep around to give you the green you deserve :bow-down:
I'm going down the line as I read the posts brian and what I object to is the insinuation that Dave who knows lots of stuff, says that Patrick's post is the only post in the thread that makes any sense to him. That's tacky especially when Dave throws in his own self promotion (which I am all for providing he isn't throwing someone else under the bus). Just because you don't like Geno's great salesmanship, his message shouldn't be discounted. This is a thread about Perfect Aim, not Dave's website.
I post with lots of prejudices. I believe everyone has a right to their opinion, including Dave but when he discounts another poster's information and then throws up his information as Gospel, it doesn't sit well with me. The fact is that this thread is about Perfect Aim and I want to hear everything there is to be said about Perfect Aim and if Gene makes a million dollars on Perfect Aim, I couldn't be more happy for him. Unlike some people I don't begrudge another man making a good profit or I would have cursed Bill Gates a long time ago.
I personally don't care if you think my posts hurt my credibility. I don't know you and don't care what you think unless you can add to my ability to play better pool or if maybe you can add to the entertainment value I receive from the Main Forum.
So far you are running one E.....
No harm, no foul. Just sayin.
JoeyA
Hi there Brian,
I was very lucky that I started my Perfect Aim journey in Las Vegas and then to Phoenix. With my van broke down in Utah I bought a little Chevy Metro to get the rest of the way. Gave some lessons and won a tournament and then headed to Phoenix.
really? this is your response to my post? incredible. you tell the perfect aim story again. what makes you think gene that i (and probably everyone else here) didnt already know your story? what makes you think that i like joeya havent been following perfect aim from the beginning? you know there is not a requirement that you sell in every post you make.
brian
you know there is not a requirement that you sell in every post you make.
AMEN..A BIG GREENIE 4 U....
Joey,Well alright then Dave. I know you are about to be headed my way for the holidays and I look forward to meeting you but right now you're chapping my azz. First off, I do appreciate all of the nice work you have done so don't get the impression that I don't like you. I know you think that others don't like you when they ride you a little bit. With me, it definitely is not the case so that's out of the way too.dr_dave said:It is refreshing to see a post with actual content (and useful information) for a change in this thread.
Good job,
Dave
PS: The topics of "sighting," "dominant eye," and "aiming" have been "covered" on the forums at great length over the years. If people are curious, I have good summaries from past discussions, and links to additional resources on these topics, here: aiming, dominant eye, sighting
I thought the thread was about what people think about PERFECT AIM, which is related to sighting, dominant eye, and aiming. I have extensive summaries of what many people think about these topics on the FAQ pages I linked. The pages also contain many links to additional resources (from me and others) dealing with these topics. I thought some people might be interested in more background and information on these topics. The topics have certainly been debated extensively on this forum over the years.The thread was started about PERFECT AIM, not your links that you so kindly took the opportunity to throw in for good measure.
Agreed.What you may consider useful or not useful is your own personal business and that's fine with me.
I also respect Gene's level of play, and I appreciate that he now seems more willing to discuss some of his ideas. My "useful information" comment was not directed at Gene. I was just giving PJ props for providing information that I thought could help prompt some interesting discussion and debate ... and it seems like it has. Again, good job PJ!It isn't often that someone of Gene's caliber of play comes on this GD forum willing to tell a GD thing about what they do and how they do it.
I don't care if what Gene says doesn't make sense to you, my friend Patrick or my friend RandyG, I like the fact that Gene posts on this forum on a regular basis and snide remarks and innuendos about how useful information is or is not is a proven method to chase people like Gene away from this forum. If you don't like what Gene or anyone else has to say and don't view it as useful information THEN DON'T READ IT.
I don't agree with you about having "negative input." In the past, I have often asked Gene to share some of his thoughts on sighting and aiming, and I have provided links to additional resources on these and related topics. Why do you think this is "negative?" I like Gene, and I hope he shares more of his specific ideas about sighting and aiming for open discussion in the future. (But I understand and accept why he can't disclose all of his "secrets" publicly. He needs to make a living. I appreciate that.)If what Gene says is too deep for you to comprehend or too shallow for you to comprehend, please just quit reading. At least let those of us who VALUE what Gene has to say to continue reading his posts without your continuous negative input.
I provide the links for people who want additional information on some of the pertinent topics. I have worked hard to compile these resources, which isn't just my stuff ... I quote and provide links to resources from many people and sources. I admit it ... I do want people to benefit from my hard work. But people who don't want the info don't have to click on the links.When I read posts like yours I get the impression that you want people reading yours links and not reading information that Gene is willing to share.
Agreed. I also appreciate that Gene is here.There just aren't that many people who play at Gene's level willing to post on this forum with any regularity and even fewer who are making an attempt to share any of their insights.
Again, my comment was directed at all of the personal-attack messages in the thread, which have been plentiful. It was not directed at Gene.I would like to see Gene continue making posts on this forum. I think, no, I know it is good for my game and don't care what brand of kool-aid he is offering; I'm going to sip it until I CHOOSE TO NO LONGER DRINK IT. I don't want you or anyone else to tell me what is useful and what is not.
Joey, I also look forward to meeting you. You seem like an interesting and fun guy.Sorry for the rant but I still look forward to meeting you this holiday season.
Excellent comments!Apparently you mean that you should position your eyes so you're looking along the line between the CB and OB contact points. Am I interpreting you correctly?geno said:With Perfect Aim the thin cuts are the easiest to see and understand. Many players over the years understand how to shoot these but many don't. Just like I say the is only one place to have the eye on this shot to see it absolutely perfect.
There has been a fair amount of discussion about whether or not this is best, considering that you also have to align your stick correctly and it usually has to point in another direction. Some say it's best to sight along the contact points line, some say it's best to sight along the stick, others say it's best to compromise the two, still others say it's different for different kinds of shots (thicker vs. thinner, sidespin vs. centerball, etc.), and yet others say it's different for different players.
Agreed.I think this is an important aspect of aiming that should get more attention, but I'm skeptical that there's a one-size-fits-all solution.
Agreed. I think this is the real value Gene (and other experienced instructors who have solid understanding of these topics) can provide with a private lesson.If all you do is focus players on this issue and help them understand it, you've done something useful. If you've also found a way to help them quickly and easily find their own personal solutions without dictating too much, then you've done something valuable.
joeya you kill me. i enjoy hearing commenate matches on live streams and generally enjoy how you take a positive approach folks trying to get new things done in the pool world. that being said you long rant was completely out of place. from the rep i received for that post i am not the only person who believes this as well. i dont begruge gene making money. i do begruged him turning this forum into his personal sales zone. i think you tried to insult me there at the end of your post. truthfuly i dont really give a damn what you or anyone else thinks of me. but chastising dr dave who really does contribute to this forum and is not not afraid to share (rather than sell) his information was way out of line. also tell me what EXACTLY is it you think gene contributes to this forum (which i did not that you completely ignored in your response to me)? i mean really what? thats what i thought.
brian
Joey,
I look forward to meeting you too. Please PM or e-mail me your phone number so I can reach you when I'm in the Big Easy.
I thought the thread was about what people think about PERFECT AIM, which is related to sighting, dominant eye, and aiming. I have extensive summaries of what many people think about these topics on the FAQ pages I linked. The pages also contain many links to additional resources (from me and others) dealing with these topics. I thought some people might be interested in more background and information on these topics. The topics have certainly been debated extensively on this forum over the years.
Agreed.
However, you must admit that the early pages of this thread had very little meaningful discussion. It was mostly lots of personal attacks. My "useful" comment was directed at all of the childish posts, which have been plentiful. In the most recent pages of the thread, there seems to be more discussion of the pertinent topics, which I personally prefer.
I also respect Gene's level of play, and I appreciate that he now seems more willing to discuss some of his ideas. My "useful information" comment was not directed at Gene. I was just giving PJ props for providing information that I thought could help prompt some interesting discussion and debate ... and it seems like it has. Again, good job PJ!
I don't agree with you about having "negative input." In the past, I have often asked Gene to share some of his thoughts on sighting and aiming, and I have provided links to additional resources on these and related topics. Why do you think this is "negative?" I like Gene, and I hope he shares more of his specific ideas about sighting and aiming for open discussion in the future. (But I understand and accept why he can't disclose all of his "secrets" publicly. He needs to make a living. I appreciate that.)
I provide the links for people who want additional information on some of the pertinent topics. I have worked hard to compile these resources, which isn't just my stuff ... I quote and provide links to resources from many people and sources. I admit it ... I do want people to benefit from my hard work. But people who don't want the info don't have to click on the links.
Agreed. I also appreciate that Gene is here.
Again, my comment was directed at all of the personal-attack messages in the thread, which have been plentiful. It was not directed at Gene.
Joey, I also look forward to meeting you. You seem like an interesting and fun guy.
Regards,
Dave