Quality Instructors

lfigueroa · Sep 29, 2016

I think, for pool, an instructor has to play well AND be able to communicate well.

It has to be a package deal and the last thing I want is an instructor whose main qualification is a certificate he got from other guys with certificates. (I am particularly appalled when I see instructor credentials "on sale" in the FS Forum here, but I digress.)

I also believe instructors should be competing. Unless a player is just going to be knocking balls around in their basement, instructors should be able to speak to issues related to competing based upon first-hand experience. Competition is an important element in pool and instructors should have a proven record of playing and succeeding in open events. To me, it often appears than some instructors are always sitting on the sidelines (perhaps out of fear of defeat and embarrassment) because you never hear of some of these guys at the US Open events or the DCC.

Lou Figueroa

FranCrimi · Sep 29, 2016

mikepage said:
This chart is nonsense. On that we agree. We actually have no rating for most of those people, and I would not have posted that.

But the system is far from nonsense. Pool can give the 6-out to all other head-to-head sports/activities for which you'll find ELO-like system, chess, tennis, scrabble, badminton, table tennis, and on and on.

You can view the system as noting who (in terms of their rating) you tend to beat by a little, who you tend to beat by a lot, who tends to beat you by a little, and who tends to beat you by a lot. By "tends," we mean you have to have enough matches that the swings even out. We say a rating based on 200 or more games is established.

We don't need to have all the tournaments a player has played. But we need to have enough. For you we have very little information. In fact we just have three matches from one JPNEPT event several years ago, not even close to enough to make an assessment. In that event, you lost 4-7 to Borana( who is a 575); you won 7-4 against Michele Li (who is a 518) and you lost 5-7 to Erin McMannus (who is a 558). That's only three matches, 34 games. If you had five more sets of three matches like this in our system, 18 matches total, then that would be about the threshold for having an established rating.

Below is what we have for Stan Shuffett. He only has about 100 games, and for those 100 games he is playing at 746 speed--about top 50 in the US. The chart above doesn't show 746, his actual performance, because there is a default "starter rating" that is holding it down. Bottom line is we need more information on Stan before we would say he has a rating. Another hundred games like this hundred, and we'd say he plays 746 speed. Right now anything you find for him would just say "preliminary."

That old event was eons ago. I played in a NEWT event two years ago where I finished 5th. But you missed that one and you missed the extremely tough 14.1 League at Amsterdam Billiards where I finished first in my division. But I know, you probably don't include 14.1.

I understand your system as you explained it here and although I understand where you're coming from, I think it's still a very flawed system. There are too many unaddressed variables when comparing players playing in all types of events across the board and I'm not just referring to different games. You obviously can't keep proper track of everything everyone plays in for starters. I'm sure you're probably doing the best you can, but it's not fair to players like myself who have put in the time and work for all those years. Those years count for a whole lot in my book.

You say that chart shouldn't have been posted, but yet there it is, for all to see and it gives a totally false impression, not just about me, but about several names in that chart.

It's wrong to even publish a chart like that, and I'm surprised and disappointed that you have something like that published where someone can lift it and post it somewhere else.

justadub · Sep 29, 2016

FranCrimi said:
It's wrong to even publish a chart like that, and I'm surprised and disappointed that you have something like that published where someone can lift it and post it somewhere else.

Pretty sure someone else created that chart, not Mike.

FranCrimi · Sep 29, 2016

justadub said:
Pretty sure someone else created that chart, not Mike.

Those ratings came from somewhere, chart or no chart. I don't appreciate my 30 years of hard work and accomplishments being diminished that way due to "lack of information."

rrick33 · Sep 29, 2016

SJDinPHX said:
Here is my take on this subject..The benefits derived from a decent, well qualified instructor, will have as much (or more) to do with the pupil, than the instructor. It will always be on a sliding scale..As the pupils skills escalate, the teachers overall playing skills, must also escalate accordingly!

In other words, a mediocre player, may learn a lot from a well trained teacher/instructor, as far as basic mechanics etc. are concerned..As the pupils skill level increases, so must that of the instructor!..When it reaches a point where the student surpasses the teachers level of play, the less benefit the student can possibly derive..In other words, the bigger the gap, the less helpful knowledge an instructor can possibly impart!

I readily admit, a good, qualified instructor may be able to teach more about the game than a top level pro can, strictly because he will be better at 'teaching' per say!..However, I just cannot see how, (other than spotting a few minor flaws) a teacher can possibly improve a high level players game!..I have also yet to see any of them concur with this line of reasoning!

Lets use Bustamante (or Hopkins) as an example in pool, and Jim Furyk in golf..All have very unique methods of playing their game, at a very high level!..Even though they employ very awkward looking, and unorthodox methods, no instructor in his right mind, would try to change anything about their game, given the success they have enjoyed with it!

Now if that instructor had won more events (ie; money) than either of them, he may get their attention!..To my knowledge, that has never been the case!..If it were, all the people teaching the game, would be (or would have been) out on tour, getting rich!..Don't get me wrong..Good instructors and coaches, will always be in demand, as they should be..But, believe me, there are very few 'Butch Harmon's' in the world, in any sport!

PS..It will be interesting to see how Tiger Woods does with his comeback attempt, after his injuries!..He has canned all his coaches, and is going to work on his game all by himself!

Regarding the points you made:
How does the instructors ability to execute the shot determine his ability to teach a student what is necessary to execute the shot properly? This is strictly a transfer of knowledge.
If Willie Mosconi were alive today stuck in a wheel chair and unable to move his arms and legs...I'd listen very carefully to any lessons he might offer.

Why do you assume that the instructor would lack knowledge of advanced principles simply because the student has surpassed the instructors physical ability?

You claim the majority opinion differs from mine. You are siding with what you see as majority opinion which has absolutely no bearing on truth or reality. There was a time when the majority of people also thought the world was flat. If you're not already playing like a pro, then perhaps it's time you stop thinking like the crowd.

You claim a good instructor wouldn't change a successful players approach. There is always room for improvement, even for successful players. A good instructor would take what these players have and be able to improve upon it, regardless of their earlier success.

Whether Tiger makes a come back or not it will be based on his comprehensive knowledge of himself and his years of previous coaching. Coaching, which was provided by inferior performers than he.

krupa · Sep 29, 2016

Plain and simple: If an instructor can't show me what they're talking about, I'm finding another instructor.

Special consideration will be made for the ghost of Mosconi or other well-established greats who cannot physically play the game anymore.

justadub · Sep 29, 2016

FranCrimi said:
Those ratings came from somewhere, chart or no chart. I don't appreciate my 30 years of hard work and accomplishments being diminished that way due to "lack of information."

I don't mean to speak for Mike....my observations are based on the discussions that have taken place here since the system was released.

There have been players that don't want to be included, for various reasons. Many who want to fly under the radar, lol. And you're right, without enough data, a player won't be represented accurately in the system.

So the issue becomes whether to not even attempt to create such a system, which has many, many positives attached to it, for fear of some folks not liking how they are represented in said system.

Its unfortunate that there isn't a way to make some sort of indicator in the system that a particular player has incomplete information and shouldn't be considered current and/or accurate. Perhaps there is, and I'm not aware of it.

This won't be the last time charts like this will be created, not simply regarding instructors, but to try and illustrate any point that someone is trying to make.

Pete · Sep 29, 2016

Elmo said:
Thanks to Alma Mottey, Fargo and the International Billiards Society for compiling the graph below. Here is an all inclusive list of the industry's Master Instructor's Fargo Ratings. After viewing the thread title I thought I would share this information with anyone interested. I find it interesting that many of the instructors on the list haven't played in enough tournaments to have ratings or they have starter scores of 525. By the way 675 is considered to be around pro speed. The higher the score the greater the player's ability. I don't claim to be an expert on this, but it is good food for thought.

Is this rating system done on the "honor system" or do these folks have to be officially graded???

mikepage · Sep 29, 2016

justadub said:
I don't mean to speak for Mike....my observations are based on the discussions that have taken place here since the system was released.

There have been players that don't want to be included, for various reasons. Many who want to fly under the radar, lol. And you're right, without enough data, a player won't be represented accurately in the system.

So the issue becomes whether to not even attempt to create such a system, which has many, many positives attached to it, for fear of some folks not liking how they are represented in said system.

Its unfortunate that there isn't a way to make some sort of indicator in the system that a particular player has incomplete information and shouldn't be considered current and/or accurate. Perhaps there is, and I'm not aware of it.

This won't be the last time charts like this will be created, not simply regarding instructors, but to try and illustrate any point that someone is trying to make.

This is where the information would have come from. Note Fran's entry compared to Francis's.

--Number is faded rather than bold
--Robustness bar is filled in only about one sixth of the way rather than all the way
--number is accompanied by "preliminary" rather than "established."

IF we had 200 or more games for Fran, the Fargo Rating would be a pretty good representation of how she plays, whether it includes the events she feels were her best or not. But we have very few games, and so Fran is nearly unrated. I would not put that number in a chart, nor would I reference it without the word "preliminary" or some indication it is tentative.

cuenut · Sep 29, 2016

Two people with decent talent come to mind. I think Ronnie O'Sullivan had/has a coach if I am not mistaken, and I know early in his career when he was arguably playing his best golf, Tiger Woods had a coach and later fired him, and his game tanked shortly thereafter. Why would the very best need a coach? I think that you don't have to be able to execute what you know for the knowledge to be of no use to anyone else.

jburkm002 · Sep 29, 2016

What would keep an instructor from not being able to do what they teach? Age or ailments aside. I see some older players that still shoot darn good. If I have exhausted my natural ability and decided to try imstructions. I want to be taught a system that takes away natural ability. So my instructor should be able to do what they teach. Granted they might not play as often as needed to play at the highest level. Same goes for what I may be taught. Still need to practice and put lots of time in at the table. For me. I want an instructor that can help me with my setup. Once corrected. I want an instructor to grab my cue and show me what can be done with it. Then teach me how he did it.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

justadub · Sep 29, 2016

mikepage said:
This is where the information would have come from. Note Fran's entry compared to Francis's.

--Number is faded rather than bold
--Robustness bar is filled in only about one sixth of the way rather than all the way
--number is accompanied by "preliminary" rather than "established."

IF we had 200 or more games for Fran, the Fargo Rating would be a pretty good representation of how she plays, whether it includes the events she feels were her best or not. But we have very few games, and so Fran is nearly unrated. I would not put that number in a chart, nor would I reference it without the word "preliminary" or some indication it is tentative.

Very cool, and I'm not surprised. Of course, those who will use your ratings in charts to prove their particular points won't share all of that information....

Blackjack · Sep 29, 2016

Wow ... I'm not even on that chart - that must mean that I can't play - that I can't teach - and that I probably don't know jack-$hit about anything. The funny thing is - since 1987, my phone hasn't stopped ringing - and in that time, the players that I have worked with continue to play better and win more often - and we really don't' care about anything other than that ... because ... in the end that's really all that matters.

Til next time -

:kma:

:rotflmao1:

Coop1701 · Sep 29, 2016

I use to give tons of Tennis Lessons... I am by no means a pro. But I can hone someone skills and help them in areas that I may not be good at. I have gotten several kids scholarships to college based off of what I showed them. I have never competed at a Pro Level. I do however now how to teach and the proper manner to help someone.

That being said..., Pool is a different sport. Mentally and Physically. I am currently taking lessons from a very well known Pool Pro. Just because I need something to get me to the next level. She is a great player however we have some difficulties in terminology and how to pass that information a long to me for best results.

So sometimes it's all in how the information is given by the teacher and processed by the student.

alstl · Sep 29, 2016

An instructor should either have the ability to play or be someone who used to be a good player.

Neil · Sep 29, 2016

Countless arguments on here about instruction not being a magic pill to playing really well. That, besides the knowledge of how to play, one must spend countless hours actually on the table practicing what they have learned to be able to replicate the learned skills on demand. This is something every instructor agrees with.

Yet, here in this thread, it seems many are talking out both sides of their mouths. By definition, an instructor spends most of his time instructing. Not playing. Yet, just from the fact that they are instructors, they are now also supposed to have that magic pill that they don't need to put in the time consistently to play at a high level. They are somehow supposed to just have that skill by their knowledge alone.

And, if they don't have that magic pill of not being able to play at a high level without playing countless hours, they are supposedly not worth going to.

Doesn't make a bit of sense to me. Seems some are totally missing the point of instruction. Instruction is to gain knowledge on HOW to do something. No instructor can pass on any ability of his to someone else. They can only pass on the knowledge of how the student can achieve the ability themselves. And, that ability comes from spending a lot of time practicing what the instructor taught them.

JoeyA · Sep 29, 2016

Instruction vs. Coaching

I will be the first to say that I want an instructor who plays well to provide me with pool lessons.

But I am certainly not silly enough to say that an instructor that does not play at a high level should not be providing instruction to players that play at my level or above.

Also, I would prefer a trained instructor who does not play at a high level to a highly talented player, who cannot teach but only demonstrate.

The bottom line is that any instructor must be able to help their student perform at a higher level.

Now coaching may be a slightly different animal but the bottom line remains the same.

I think coaching requires additional skills beyond knowledge such as competitive success and competitive experience relative to the skill level the student is interested in. In these cases, I may defer to higher skilled players instead of instructors who do not play at a high level.

I still remember how, many years ago, Jerry Briesath was able to discern a single thing that was wrong with my game in about two minutes. (It kind of ticked me off at first because I promised to pay $100 for his advice and initially thought I was being taken for a ride.) His instructional advice helped me to go undefeated through some of the best one pocket players at the DCC in a midnight 1 pocket event with 32 players.

Mental coaching is different than fundamental instruction or pattern play or specialty shots but the bottom line remains the same.

It's results that you are looking for, not certificates and certainly not inflated egos that can demonstrate but not teach.

JoeyA

Neil said:
Countless arguments on here about instruction not being a magic pill to playing really well. That, besides the knowledge of how to play, one must spend countless hours actually on the table practicing what they have learned to be able to replicate the learned skills on demand. This is something every instructor agrees with.

Yet, here in this thread, it seems many are talking out both sides of their mouths. By definition, an instructor spends most of his time instructing. Not playing. Yet, just from the fact that they are instructors, they are now also supposed to have that magic pill that they don't need to put in the time consistently to play at a high level. They are somehow supposed to just have that skill by their knowledge alone.

And, if they don't have that magic pill of not being able to play at a high level without playing countless hours, they are supposedly not worth going to.

Doesn't make a bit of sense to me. Seems some are totally missing the point of instruction. Instruction is to gain knowledge on HOW to do something. No instructor can pass on any ability of his to someone else. They can only pass on the knowledge of how the student can achieve the ability themselves. And, that ability comes from spending a lot of time practicing what the instructor taught them.

Cornerman · Sep 29, 2016

rrick33 said:
This thread presents a terrible proposition, especially for those who voted to only get lessons from those who play at a high level.

That's not how the poll was presented, I didn't vote with that reasoning, nor did I see that as a choice. Your statement here is as bad as what you presume you're rallying against.

Freddie

one stroke · Sep 29, 2016

JoeyA said:
I will be the first to say that I want an instructor who plays well to provide me with pool lessons.

But I am certainly not silly enough to say that an instructor that does not play at a high level should not be providing instruction to players that play at my level or above.

Also, I would prefer a trained instructor who does not play at a high level to a highly talented player, who cannot teach but only demonstrate.

The bottom line is that any instructor must be able to help their student perform at a higher level.

Now coaching may be a slightly different animal but the bottom line remains the same.

I think coaching requires additional skills beyond knowledge such as competitive success and competitive experience relative to the skill level the student is interested in. In these cases, I may defer to higher skilled players instead of instructors who do not play at a high level.

I still remember how, many years ago, Jerry Briesath was able to discern a single thing that was wrong with my game in about two minutes. (It kind of ticked me off at first because I promised to pay $100 for his advice and initially thought I was being taken for a ride.) His instructional advice helped me to go undefeated through some of the best one pocket players at the DCC in a midnight 1 pocket event with 32 players.

Mental coaching is different than fundamental instruction or pattern play or specialty shots but the bottom line remains the same.

It's results that you are looking for, not certificates and certainly not inflated egos that can demonstrate but not teach.

JoeyA

Well as I pointed out Iv spotted flaws in players much better than me they changed and had much better results these were players I watched many many times possibly hundreds of games so I was very familiar in every part of there game from PSR head and foot alignment and stroke one little thing changes and a undesired result will follow sooner or later ,,
Unfortunately pool doesn't pay enough for coaches to travel with thier students like golf does nor is there tape to review during compitition to make make adjustments on the fly
If it did there is zero doubt in my mind that they would be utilized more
The mental part of the game breaks down to 2 things stradigy and mental focus too very different things the first yes would require someone with a great deal of knowledge of the game , the latter would be much better left to a sports shrink in that area , like Ronnie O does to the tune he thank his doctor in his speech after he won another world championship
Being maybe the only one here who actually paid to see one there is no substitute for that there's many who think there is but theirs a reason why so many other sports use thier services it paid huge dividends for me and I could name several high level pro's that wouldn't be hard to guess who they are that would certainly benifit the same , infact we just saw 2 of them in rare form just recently

1

KRJ · Sep 29, 2016

jburkm002 said:
What would keep an instructor from not being able to do what they teach? Age or ailments aside. I see some older players that still shoot darn good. If I have exhausted my natural ability and decided to try imstructions. I want to be taught a system that takes away natural ability. So my instructor should be able to do what they teach. Granted they might not play as often as needed to play at the highest level. Same goes for what I may be taught. Still need to practice and put lots of time in at the table. For me. I want an instructor that can help me with my setup. Once corrected. I want an instructor to grab my cue and show me what can be done with it. Then teach me how he did it.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Why did the best pitching coach not win a Cy Young, and in some cases, ever pitch in the MLB?.

Why does the best hitting coach usually a guy who never played pro ball or if did, was a .200 hitter?

What did they learn about their shortcomings as well as the shortcomings of many other players? What did they learn from very good hitters? What did they learn from other very good coaches?

What did they learn about learning to "tweak" someone and getting them to "buy" into their program even though it goes against everything that hitter was taught before?

Why didn't Tiger Woods take lessons from Arnie, instead of a guy who never played pro? Makes you wonder, why in all American sports is does not seem to matter, except in the game of pool

It's simple, they all became serious students of the game and starting analyzing every aspect of it, from mechanics to the mental game and then begin teaching what they wish they knew years before :thumbup:

Quality Instructors

Does an instructor's playing ability impact your willingness to take lessons?

Yes: How can someone teach what they can't do themselves?

No: Teaching ability and the ability to communicate effectively trumps playing ability

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Rattling corners nightly

AzB Silver Member

Rick

The Dream Operator

Rattling corners nightly

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Attachments

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Rattling corners nightly

Illuminati Blacksmack

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Efren's Mini-Tourn BACKER

Cue Author...Sometimes

AzB Silver Member

Support UKRAINE