Coaches and Instructors.......

I agree with the spirit of this post but not with its logic.

What I like about this post is that is stresses an important truth about learning the game. Studying how the pros play is one of the most critical aspects of learning the game and, as you've done well to point out, Accustats makes it possible to do this and learn volumes from doing so. Hence, I agree with you that to lack a great thirst for studying the great matches of the past is to overlook a great learning resource.

Where I disagree is that the commentary, which I find to be very cursory, represents anything even approaching a full analysis of the play. A full review of the play froom the standpoint of instruction must reference choices made and choices foregone, and what makes one better than the other. It must also reference stroke selections and strokes executed. It must explain the cause of errors, and there are dozens of possible causes of an error. Needless to say, commentators don't have time for detailed analysis of the play, so nobody can fault them for their superficial review of the play.

A good instructor, however, can offer a much more detailed analysis and can even spend a few minutes discussing a key shot, position, or tactic with a student when it's deemed appropriate.

As you say, a true student of the game absolutely must study the great matches, but I'd argue they must also have an instructor who can evaluate and discuss all aspects of their shot selection, shot design, and shot execution on a shot by shot basis.

I agree Stu to a certain extent. No question there is not enough time to do a full analysis of a shot during the course of a match. BUT, there is often something obvious that a player has done wrong before or during the execution of the shot that a good commentator will point out to his audience. I can't tell you how many times I've wondered out loud about a shot I would see a player lining up to shoot. Why shoot a low percentage shot when a safety is a better option? And after they miss the shot, they walk back to their chair shaking their head. So if you're paying attention you just learned something about when to shoot and when to play safe. And what constitutes a bad (or low percentage) shot.

This also can happen when a player is not comfortable with a shot. When you see them get down and get back up a couple of times. That uncertainty will often carry over to how they execute the shot. Especially if they still look unsure when the clock is running down. We have an old saying which is very often proved correct, "Think long, think wrong!"

I've also seen a nervous player shoot quickly after only one practice stroke. The cue went off in his hands is the expression I might use. That's nerves baby! Same thing when a player misses a relatively easy shot after making a hard shot. It happens frequently, when a player relaxes after making the difficult shot and doesn't fully concentrate on the next shot. Often it shows up as a missed ball or bad position. These (and many more) are all things that a good commentator will notice and remark about. And an observant viewer can learn from.

One more thing that I've personally pointed out on many occasions is how much tougher a shot becomes when the player elevates the butt end of his cue. When you jack up to shoot a shot, it dramatically increases the chance of missing it. And often they do. Even great players miss, especially when they aren't thinking clearly. Some just do it less, like Ralf who rarely makes a mental error.
 
Last edited:
I agree Stu to a certain extent. No question there is not enough time to do a full analysis of a shot during the course of a match. BUT, there is often something obvious that a player has done wrong before or during the execution of the shot that a good commentator will point out to his audience. I can't tell you how many times I've wondered out loud about a shot I would see a player lining up to shoot. Why shoot a low percentage shot when a safety is a better option? And after they miss the shot, they walk back to their chair shaking their head. So if you're paying attention you just learned something about when to shoot and when to play safe. And what constitutes a bad (or low percentage) shot.

This also can happen when a player is not comfortable with a shot. When you see them get down and get back up a couple of times. That uncertainty will often carry over to how they execute the shot. Especially if they still look unsure when the clock is running down. We have an old saying which is very often proved correct, "Think long, think wrong!"

I've also seen a nervous player shoot quickly after only one practice stroke. The cue went off in his hands is the expression I might use. That's nerves baby! Same thing when a player misses a relatively easy shot after making a hard shot. It happens frequently, when a player relaxes after making the difficult shot and doesn't fully concentrate on the next shot. Often it shows up as a missed ball or bad position. These (and many more) are all things that a good commentator will notice and remark about. And an observant viewer can learn from.

One more thing that I've personally pointed out on many occasions is how much tougher a shot becomes when the player elevates the butt end of his cue. When you jack up to shoot a shot, it dramatically increases the chance of missing it. And often they do. Even great players miss, especially when they aren't thinking clearly. Some just do it less, like Ralf who rarely makes a mental error.

Thanks for this, Jay, and there is no question that the commentators offer some instructional value. All I stated was that such analysis was superficial due to time constraints that come with commentating.

To be honest, I've never heard a commentator say "I wouldn't have used running english on that kick and this is why" or "stun follow was a poor choice there, I would have used outside english draw because ...." or "that wasn't the best shot available, and here are a couple of choices that should have been considered ..." or "that miss was due to the fact that the player used insufficient speed which led to the object ball being thrown more than intended ..." or "the jump shot would have been a better choice than the masse in that situation and here's why ..." and some other types of other observations that time simply doesn't permit commentators to make.

In truth, I'm not sure it's even the role of a commentator to analyze at this level. But an instructor, who can teach at any pace and spend as much time on any shot as is considered appropriate can add this kind of value, and this type of tutelage, I feel, is best left to the instructors.
 
I think in some respects it depends on the match up in the booth... I love having Danny and Billy in there because they will argue on the right shot and explain their thinking right up until someone pulls the trigger... You put JR and Malvin in there and I would just as soon listen to Rap music as the commentary.......
 
I totally agree .......

All I know, I won everything I did without a coach (natural talent)....now that I teach...I just can't imagine how strong of a player I would have become, if I would of had a world class coach in my corner. I know more today from teaching, then I ever did in the winner's circle.

All players should be teaching. It's not only rewarding but good for the game.

Kind of like an avalanche. Your knowledge just keeps growing and growing and many of the things we learn are from the players we are teaching.

it's hard to play for 5 days 8 hours a day to get ready for a tournament. I coach would push a little bit or maybe a whole lot.

I'm not surprised with china's success.

Great thread Chris , great insight Robin............
 
All players should be teaching. It's not only rewarding but good for the game.

Kind of like an avalanche. Your knowledge just keeps growing and growing and many of the things we learn are from the players we are teaching.

it's hard to play for 5 days 8 hours a day to get ready for a tournament. I coach would push a little bit or maybe a whole lot.

I'm not surprised with china's success.

Great thread Chris , great insight Robin............

Geno I 100% agree that we should all be teaching.. However in the US pool players eat their young.... Heaven forbid you teach someone something they may beat you with.... I am as guilty as the next person.. And here is where it gets embarrassing.... All the stuff you showed me for free is mine now.... I won't share it with even my best friends.... I pretend I am taking the high road and that I am not telling them because it was your information but I am holding out on them for purely selfish reasons..... Even tho I have given all of them your number I will not personally try and raise them up... There is after all a pecking order you see... And if they are going to climb over me they will have to do it like it's always been done... on their own.....

Kind of hypocritical I think on my part... I am starting to think the gambling/matching up aspect of the game in this country may very well be one if not the worst of our problems.... Too many of our players are still holding on to the part where Newman said it's all about the money... The guy with the most is the best.... They forget that wasn't what made him come back at the end... It's all about the game.... The sooner we all come to grips with that like Europe and Asia... The sooner we might just get to see a network of coaches and mentors......
 
"All vague notions must fall before a pupil can call himself a master. " Bruce Lee

You will never become a master by depending on others.
 
Last edited:
"All vague notions must fall before a pupil can call himself a master. " Bruce Lee

You will never become a master by depending on others.


Umm Duckie the word pupil means someone under the tutelage of others.... I'd stick to quoting Bruce Lee and leave out the personal addendum.....


from Wiki...
"Probably fewer than six people in the whole Wing Chun clan were personally taught, or even partly taught, by Yip Man".[27] However, Lee showed a keen interest in Wing Chun, and continued to train privately with Yip Man and Wong Shun Leung in 1955.[27]

Bruce did have masters... Ie Mentors and Coaches....
 
Tap, tap, tap! :thumbup: Your 'logic', once again, shows it's pertinent head! :thumbup: Excellent post!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I agree with the spirit of this post but not with its logic.

What I like about this post is that is stresses an important truth about learning the game. Studying how the pros play is one of the most critical aspects of learning the game and, as you've done well to point out, Accustats makes it possible to do this and learn volumes from doing so. Hence, I agree with you that to lack a great thirst for studying the great matches of the past is to overlook a great learning resource.

Where I disagree is that the commentary, which I find to be very cursory, represents anything even approaching a full analysis of the play. A full review of the play froom the standpoint of instruction must reference choices made and choices foregone, and what makes one better than the other. It must also reference stroke selections and strokes executed. It must explain the cause of errors, and there are dozens of possible causes of an error. Needless to say, commentators don't have time for detailed analysis of the play, so nobody can fault them for their superficial review of the play.

A good instructor, however, can offer a much more detailed analysis and can even spend a few minutes discussing a key shot, position, or tactic with a student when it's deemed appropriate.

As you say, a true student of the game absolutely must study the great matches, but I'd argue they must also have an instructor who can evaluate and discuss all aspects of their shot selection, shot design, and shot execution on a shot by shot basis.
 
When the world's best women players show up to a world class even in China the Western players have no coaches, with the exception of Jasmin. All the Chinese players have world class players as their coaches.

They also practice relentlessly under the direction of their coaches.

So maybe the results speak for themselves that the of the top 16 in the World Championships two weeks ago 15 of the remaining players were Chinese.

This is possibly the only world class sport where most of the top competitors are pretty much on their own.


Nuthin' wrong with world class players as coaches.

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:
I think in some respects it depends on the match up in the booth... I love having Danny and Billy in there because they will argue on the right shot and explain their thinking right up until someone pulls the trigger... You put JR and Malvin in there and I would just as soon listen to Rap music as the commentary.......


As a team, Grady and Billy were the best at this. You could learn a bunch just by hearing them argue the shot selection.

Lou Figueroa
 
Nuthin' wrong with world class players as coaches.

Lou Figueroa

Sure. You can certainly learn from them. As well some of the players have world class coaches. The up and coming players have coaches of all levels not just world class players.
 
If a coach/teacher works for you by all means use them. I have taken instruction formally as well as just off the cuff during a practice game with a friend that is much more skilled than myself. The more information you have, the wiser you become. Information and knowledge are powerful tools if used correctly and smartly. That's my take on it. Self teaching will get you far if you are skilled, but you will get there much faster with someone showing you the hard lessons they have already learned. Just my 2 cents.
 
Back
Top