I don't have a "horse" in this race, other than being a fan of any material that deals with the human mind -- the inner workings. I'm going to purchase my copy of The Talent Code today, based on yours and others' reviews of it.
Concerning Geno-marketing-machino, if I recall correctly (Lou, correct me if I'm wrong), not only Lou, but many people -- including myself -- got on Geno about his parasitic, opportunistic, loaded-bait marketing on these forums, without (at the time) having purchase either a club membership or a banner ad. Geno's since purchased a club membership, but no banner ad, and still engages in the parasitic marketing. For example, in a thread about, oh, let's say, stroke mechanics, he'll come in there with how "the eyes have to be in the correct place" and proceed to shamelessly plug his product. In a thread about cues, he'll come in there and say how the "eyes have to be in the correct place" to use that cue, with same shameless marketing. In a thread about how so-and-so matches up with so-and-so, he'll come in there and find a way to shoehorn how the "eyes have to be in the correct place" for so-and-so to beat so-and-so. You get the idea. It has nothing to do with Geno's playing ability related to his teaching ability, but rather his marketing practices. Completely separate problem from what Lou's getting at with instructors who've "never been there" (playing ability-/accomplishment-wise).
Personally, I'm on the fence about the instructors-who've-never-been-there issue. While an instructor who *has* been there will make me sit up in my chair and take notice, it's not a mandatory thing for me. I do believe in coaches, who may not be able to execute to the same level as the person they're coaching, but are EXCELLENT analysts, and are able to offer alternatives to the player, that the player him/herself might never have thought of. It's that "you can't see yourself from within yourself" thing -- outside eyes have tremendous value. I'm a firm believer in that. And I believe so are the European players, many of which have such coaches, and attribute much of their consistent success to having a coach.
Anyway, that's my scrappy lint-covered $0.02 (that I dug out of my pocket) on this issue.
This is correct, about Geno. I mean, look at the front page right now -- last time I looked there were two threads and this after a third one got pulled, not to mention all the plugs in various other threads. It's insane. (I also spent an hour with him in St. Louis and found some of what he told me hard to swallow.)
I also agree with Sean on how sometimes, just another pair of eyes telling you what they're seeing can be of immense value. But I think this is that coaching vs instruction thing agin.
Well part of the book is about hotbeds of talent. One of the examples is a tennis school in Russia where the students spend all day imitating the style of other players. Without a ball. They practice doing the same swing style, same footwork, same movements.
Perhaps SPF is a good thing to teach a group and then with that as the baseline the individuals will tweak it to suit themselves.
Another part of the book is that good coaches are able to coach each person in a group setting where all are doing the same thing by tailoring their comments to each person's needs. So I can only imagine that an SPF class also has the instructors doing a similar type of individual commenting based on what they see that each person needs.
I am NOT saying that SPF is the best and only way to play. Again I have not really followed all the discussions on it. All I am saying is that good coaches have also put in the time to become good coaches and if some of them have decided that SPF is a good basic foundation to teach from then I don't see anything wrong with that approach. Obviously success depends on the success of the students. So if the instruction leads to better performances, in league, in tournaments, in gambling then what more needs to be said? If it doesn't lead to better performance then testimonials drop off, word of mouth takes the product off the menu and that's that.
Regarding top level players knowing what they are looking for....I can't really speak for top-level players since I have never been one. I know that when I go looking for something as a leather worker then I have a pretty good idea what skills I am lacking and need improvement on. I would tend to agree that top players should be much more sensitive to where they are in their game than the average banger. Just as a race car driver is much more attuned to what the car is doing than the average driver is with their car. I am not even sure really what the point is here regarding top players. In the book there is a story about how a small time coach at a junior college who is considered to be someone who can connect with and channel big time talent. Tom Martinez. I am sure you can google him.
Get the book. It's better to discuss it rather than the pros/cons of any particular method. The book clearly explains that your brain does not care whether you are learning chess or learning to play pool. It's the WAY you practice and the input you get that determines how good you will become.
I don't have a "horse" in this race, other than being a fan of any material that deals with the human mind -- the inner workings. I'm going to purchase my copy of The Talent Code today, based on yours and others' reviews of it.
Concerning Geno-marketing-machino, if I recall correctly (Lou, correct me if I'm wrong), not only Lou, but many people -- including myself -- got on Geno about his parasitic, opportunistic, loaded-bait marketing on these forums, without (at the time) having purchase either a club membership or a banner ad. Geno's since purchased a club membership, but no banner ad, and still engages in the parasitic marketing. For example, in a thread about, oh, let's say, stroke mechanics, he'll come in there with how "the eyes have to be in the correct place" and proceed to shamelessly plug his product. In a thread about cues, he'll come in there and say how the "eyes have to be in the correct place" to use that cue, with same shameless marketing. In a thread about how so-and-so matches up with so-and-so, he'll come in there and find a way to shoehorn how the "eyes have to be in the correct place" for so-and-so to beat so-and-so. You get the idea. It has nothing to do with Geno's playing ability related to his teaching ability, but rather his marketing practices. Completely separate problem from what Lou's getting at with instructors who've "never been there" (playing ability-/accomplishment-wise).
Personally, I'm on the fence about the instructors-who've-never-been-there issue. While an instructor who *has* been there will make me sit up in my chair and take notice, it's not a mandatory thing for me. I do believe in coaches, who may not be able to execute to the same level as the person they're coaching, but are EXCELLENT analysts, and are able to offer alternatives to the player, that the player him/herself might never have thought of. It's that "you can't see yourself from within yourself" thing -- outside eyes have tremendous value. I'm a firm believer in that. And I believe so are the European players, many of which have such coaches, and attribute much of their consistent success to having a coach.
Anyway, that's my scrappy lint-covered $0.02 (that I dug out of my pocket) on this issue.
I agree. I can't stand anyone who shamelessly uses the front page on AZB forums to market their stuff all the time. Once in while is ok if done tastefully with some meaningful content.
But my point was going to the coaches must have street-cred comment. Geno is the only one I see actively participating in tournaments and he seems to place high in most that he enters among decent players. So does he get on the "good instructor list" because he can play some?
I think that there are plenty of examples in the world of world-class coaches who have themselves never been world-class performers. And there are examples of world-class performers who turn to coaching and never really do well with it.
Yes, I'm familiar with Ericsson. And I know about deliberate practice not being fun, and some of his other concepts, like the role of memory, and the multiplier effect -- that the more you practice the more you train yourself to be able to sustain more practice.
I also know a bit about how he viewed the role of instructors and coaches. But, IMO, part of the problem is that in pool -- unlike music, chess, or even other sports -- we lag far behind in the quality of instruction that is available. We don't have concerto masters, or folks that have won international competitions, or who have played Carnegie Hall teaching pool. I guess you could say some is better than none. I just believe that potential pool students should be especially wary. With the wrong instructor, that 10,000 hours could turn into 20,000.
Lou, that's not true. We have world class players teaching pool. You can take lessons from dozens of top players right now. In St. Louis you have Mark Wilson, is he not a world class player?
I have taken lessons from Jose Parica, Buddy Hall, Danny Medina, Jimmy Reid and Tracy Joe Salazar to name a few. Randy Goetlicher has at least one national championship as far as I know. Kelly Fisher teaches in Charlotte as does Allison Fisher. The amount of world championships between them can fill a room. Just about every pro player I know is willing to give lessons.
I don't think we lag behind at all. I think we have hundreds of instructors capable of getting anyone started on the basics and tons more who can take students to the pros.
Maybe we lag behind when it comes to strict training academies. We don't have any formal schools per se. But we do have places with permanent setups that afford the student a professional environment to train in. We have coaches willing to travel all over the land. And we also have pool rooms all around the country with very good players like yourself who are almost always willing to help someone get a little better.
I'd like to point out that the Amazon Kindle cloud reader is THE NUTS. I have it on the PC, on the Ipad and on the Ipod and it stays synched on all three and flips me to the page I left off no matter what device I use. I highly recommend it for folks who like to read books electronically.
Lou, that's not true. We have world class players teaching pool. You can take lessons from dozens of top players right now. In St. Louis you have Mark Wilson, is he not a world class player?
I have taken lessons from Jose Parica, Buddy Hall, Danny Medina, Jimmy Reid and Tracy Joe Salazar to name a few. Randy Goetlicher has at least one national championship as far as I know. Kelly Fisher teaches in Charlotte as does Allison Fisher. The amount of world championships between them can fill a room. Just about every pro player I know is willing to give lessons.
I don't think we lag behind at all. I think we have hundreds of instructors capable of getting anyone started on the basics and tons more who can take students to the pros.
Maybe we lag behind when it comes to strict training academies. We don't have any formal schools per se. But we do have places with permanent setups that afford the student a professional environment to train in. We have coaches willing to travel all over the land. And we also have pool rooms all around the country with very good players like yourself who are almost always willing to help someone get a little better.
Tony Robles is another example of a world-scene player who also happens to be an excellent instructor in his own right. And many folks here may recall that Tony, as a gift for his lovely lady, tapped the services of Scott Lee for a training session for Gail Glazebrook.
I don't see how, at pool, you can teach without being able to do and do well, either presently or in the past. And I don't see a lot of evidence of that level expertise in the pool instructor cadre. That's all.
I'm a bit confused by this statement. Correct me if I'm wrong but in conversations about the "secrets" of the game don't you normally come down on the side of there being no secrets? By secrets, I mean there being a sort of hidden knowledge that only the pros possess. If that is the case, then why would it be that only players that have played well would make excellent teachers?
I don't really think your stance is very logical. Would someone that grinds away at this game for their entire life and finally becomes a 100 ball runner be less capable of teaching than a world class player that could run a couple hundred balls after just a few years? I just don't see how being able to out execute someone on the table would make you a better teacher.
Why do you leave out the fact that teaching is an art in and of itself? I have seen a number of top players that can't teach a lick. Many of them don't even have much of a clue with their conscious mind what they are even doing. Their subconscious knows what to do, but their conscious mind doesn't. Example- you have no problem walking. Now, try and explain to someone exactly how to walk. You can't. You don't even know for sure just what does what in your leg. But, you can walk just fine.
Many of the top players aren't even doing what they THINK they are doing. In the last few years, Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett have proven this with slo-mo cameras. There are a few world class players that also teach, and some of them DO know what they are doing, and can explain it.
Just your statement shows that you have no idea what it takes to be a top pro. Actually, I believe you really do, but you just won't accept the fact. Playing top notch, that's for the most part just doing what you and I can already do. They just do it much more consistently than we do, and they have a much better frame of mind than we do.
So what makes us inconsistent compared to them? There can be a thousand things. That's what the good instructors do. They find out what you are doing inconsistently, and give you a way to be much more consistent.
How well you play depends at least partially on how much you play. The instructors are out teaching, not playing. They may not have the mindset to play top notch, yet they know all about what does what and why it does it. And, how to get that across to someone else. Yet, a top player may have no idea whatsoever how to communicate what is happening on a table or why.
I think you can have the greatest communication skills in the world, but if you can't, or haven't, "walked the walk" as a high level player, I think you're cheating your students.
Lou, that's not true. We have world class players teaching pool. You can take lessons from dozens of top players right now. In St. Louis you have Mark Wilson, is he not a world class player?
I have taken lessons from Jose Parica, Buddy Hall, Danny Medina, Jimmy Reid and Tracy Joe Salazar to name a few. Randy Goetlicher has at least one national championship as far as I know. Kelly Fisher teaches in Charlotte as does Allison Fisher. The amount of world championships between them can fill a room. Just about every pro player I know is willing to give lessons.
I don't think we lag behind at all. I think we have hundreds of instructors capable of getting anyone started on the basics and tons more who can take students to the pros.
Maybe we lag behind when it comes to strict training academies. We don't have any formal schools per se. But we do have places with permanent setups that afford the student a professional environment to train in. We have coaches willing to travel all over the land. And we also have pool rooms all around the country with very good players like yourself who are almost always willing to help someone get a little better.
I really wish people (not speaking to you specifically, John) would learn to paint in colors other than black and white.
Yes, Mark is here. But I was not saying that instruction from world class players is not available. Most certainly it is. But generally speaking, most of the guys you mentioned -- Jose, Buddy, Danny Medina -- while available for instruction, are not generally thought of as instructors. In fact, I'm thinking practically any pro payer out there would provide lessons at the right price. I'm talking about all the guys that don't have those playing credentials,or at least have a record of successfully competing, but are out there advertising themselves as instructors.
Tony Robles is another example of a world-scene player who also happens to be an excellent instructor in his own right. And many folks here may recall that Tony, as a gift for his lovely lady, tapped the services of Scott Lee for a training session for Gail Glazebrook.
Tony's one of those rare types who has it all -- the gift of gab, an analytical mind (with the ability to break things down into easily-digestible parts), high intelligence, friendliness, patience, openness, and availability. Not to mention he can just flat-out play!
He also recognizes when there are better-qualified people for a particular task (e.g. stroke analysis/optimization), and has no problems deferring to those people. Methinks that's how Scott entered the picture.
I'm a bit confused by this statement. Correct me if I'm wrong but in conversations about the "secrets" of the game don't you normally come down on the side of there being no secrets? By secrets, I mean there being a sort of hidden knowledge that only the pros possess. If that is the case, then why would it be that only players that have played well would make excellent teachers?
I don't really think your stance is very logical. Would someone that grinds away at this game for their entire life and finally becomes a 100 ball runner be less capable of teaching than a world class player that could run a couple hundred balls after just a few years? I just don't see how being able to out execute someone on the table would make you a better teacher.
OK, I will correct you: I think what I've written is that there is no "one secret" to pool. More specifically to your point: I do believe there is hidden knowledge, or at the very least, things that you only learn by going very far down the rabbit hole that is labeled "high level pool."
Joey has shared with me a sighting trick, something he learned from Buddy Hall. Freddy the Beard showed me things about a particular 1pocket bank. Dallas West showed me several things. All of which I have never read in any book or magazine, nor seen on a DVD, instructional or otherwise. On my own I have picked up on several things by going to big tournaments and playing guys like Alex, Buste, Buddy, Cliff, Efren, Larry, Rafael, on and on, that I take away and try and incorporate into my game. Just recently through diligent practice I had an epiphany about setting up -- something I also have not seen published anywhere -- that is working out quite nicely for me.
I disagree, and here's why: This is a true story too. A while back, I was watching a very, very, good player (has run 200 multiple times in 14.1) instruct a student. The student had trouble making the ball, so the "teacher" said to set it up and try it again, but hit a little to the left this time. Student missed it again. Teacher now tells him to hit it a little to the right, he went too far left. This went on for over 1/2 hour. Once in a while the student would make it, and then be told to try it again.
That was the extent of the instruction. Not once did the teacher tell the student that he had about a 10% chance of making that ball the way he was shooting it. He basically had no stance, head not even over the cue, cue going so crooked on each shot it almost looked like he was fanning something.
Now, at times I instruct. Never have been a great player, never will be. Student comes to me to learn how to kick. I set up the shot in the diagram. He has to hit the one. Of course, he can't do it. So, I teach him the principles behind the shot. If you hit one diamond over, where will the cb go? He wasn't sure. It goes two diamonds over with no english. Equal /opposite. Now, where do we have to hit the rail to hit the one? He tells me where correctly. I then state, good, but you can't hit that spot on the rail, so what do you do??
He says to spin the cb. I tell him to go ahead and try it. He doesn't come close to the one. So, now I teach him a basic of english. If you add one tip of english at medium speed, you will go over one more diamond. To make things simple for this shot, you know that hitting the first diamond from the side will make you scratch in the other side. Now, look at where the one is. It is two diamonds over from the side pocket.
So, add two tips of english to come over two diamonds from your known spot. He tries it. And guess what, he MAKES the one in the corner on his first attempt! Yes, I will give you that him actually MAKING it was a pleasant surprise, and he's not going to do it very often. And, that was just the very beginning of kicking. What I would call Kicking- the kindergarten class. But, even at that level, principles are being taught.
But, which teacher would you really rather go to?? The one that can't describe anything and doesn't even know what to look for, or the one that can describe things, knows what to look for, and can show you how to not only learn a shot, but teach you the principle behind the shot so that you can now take that principle and adapt it to your needs at the time?? Now, that's just ONE true life example. And, that's just from me, a nobody.
So, if you still think that us non-champions don't have anything to offer, well, don't ever go to one of us.
lol, oh, so you're *one of those,* lol. Somehow I failed to pick up on that all this time -- no wonder you're so sensitive on this topic (still chuckling).
Well, I don't know what you're disagreeing about. The instructor in your example obviously didn't have the communication skills we've been talking about. Once again, because your palette consists of black and white, you can't seem to see that while I think an instructor should be accomplished as a player *they also* need the communication skills to speak about what they know, as well as what the student does not.
As to your question: I'd rather go to the 200 ball runner because: ideally, learning is a two-way street. IOW, I have communication skills too. So if I'm not getting what I need out of the instructor, I have tools to draw out what I need or want to know. So I guess you'll never have to worry about me darkening your door
I really wish people (not speaking to you specifically, John) would learn to paint in colors other than black and white.
Yes, Mark is here. But I was not saying that instruction from world class players is not available. Most certainly it is. But generally speaking, most of the guys you mentioned -- Jose, Buddy, Danny Medina -- while available for instruction, are not generally thought of as instructors. In fact, I'm thinking practically any pro payer out there would provide lessons at the right price. I'm talking about all the guys that don't have those playing credentials,or at least have a record of successfully competing, but are out there advertising themselves as instructors.
I am not thinking in black and white at all. I just happen to think you are wrong in saying that only people who have trophies can be good instructors. This does not bear out in a hundred other activities where less-than-world-class people are able to successfully coach champions. So why should we think pool is any different?
Your contention is that if Scott Lee doesn't show up with a resume listing accomplishments you deem noteworthy then he isn't qualified to teach anyone anything in pool. At least this is how I see it since I haven't seen you make any concession to levels of competence in instruction.
So really Lou which of us is thinking black/white here?
Have you ever even asked any of these guys what their playing experience has been? It might surprise you. Then again it might not be impressive enough.
How about yourself? Are you qualified in your own eyes to instruct/coach/teach?
(I think you are, but am interested to know if you think your own resume' would pass your criteria for being able to hang out a shingle and teach)
I think you can have the greatest communication skills in the world, but if you can't, or haven't, "walked the walk" as a high level player, I think you're cheating your students.
OK, I will correct you: I think what I've written is that there is no "one secret" to pool. More specifically to your point: I do believe there is hidden knowledge, or at the very least, things that you only learn by going very far down the rabbit hole that is labeled "high level pool."
Joey has shared with me a sighting trick, something he learned from Buddy Hall. Freddy the Beard showed me things about a particular 1pocket bank. Dallas West showed me several things. All of which I have never read in any book or magazine, nor seen on a DVD, instructional or otherwise. On my own I have picked up on several things by going to big tournaments and playing guys like Alex, Buste, Buddy, Cliff, Efren, Larry, Rafael, on and on, that I take away and try and incorporate into my game. Just recently through diligent practice I had an epiphany about setting up -- something I also have not seen published anywhere -- that is working out quite nicely for me.
Thanks for the correction. I forgot about your "rabbit hole" metaphor (or whatever that would be called). So sure, I guess your view is more logical but I still don't think it is very accurate. I probably shouldn't have used the word "logical" to begin with. I was really just thinking that your views were inconsistent, but I see that's not necessarily the case.
Let me ask you this though - of all the things that you mentioned above as having learned from various people do you believe you are unable to pass that information on to others? Was this information that only the original source would be able to pass on? I'm guessing that you would be more than able to pass this information on to another player.
The thing is - I believe there is a huge benefit to spending time with and around great players. Something just seems to rub off on you and my ideal coach would probably be a former world champion that was now a world class instructor but I think it's fairly obvious that you don't have to be world class player to be a world class instructor. All you have to do is look around at the other sports to figure this out. I'll even take it a step further - when you look at a lot of other sports you find that more often than not the great players don't turn out to be great instructors/coaches. My theory here is that the truly gifted athletes don't have to work nearly as hard as the grinders. The grinders have to out work them and I think that makes them better coaches later on. I think this principle can apply to pool instructors as well.
