If you see a friend shooting well, but going by bad info, do you correct him?

[duckie]

Only if he starts making wild ass claims that whatever aiming system or stroke style he is using is the best ever and the only way play pool, then put him in his place.

 

[vapoolplayer]

Can you imagine how many people told Keith that he had to fix his stroke??

Flip side of that is "can you imagine how much better he would be if he did?"

Of course he may not have been better with a "normal" stroke, we'll never know. But its kinds nuts to think he could be even better, as he works magic with the cue ball with his stroke.

 

[lfigueroa]

I help friends out all the time, passing on my observations about their pool games. A couple of them have become quite good. What I won't do is help out an acquaintance who I see at another table at the pool hall even though they are struggling and could immediately benefit from a little help. I have found that experience to be unrewarding.

Lou Figueroa

 

[7forlife]

Funny this topic came up. I have a friend, in his practice strokes. He pumps that cuestick 900 m.p.h. for about six or seven strokes then pulls the trigger. Maniac

I also have a friend also who does the same thing, and his name is Tony Robles.

I feel the same way that you do about that but can't bring myself to mention it to just yet.

 

[Mr. Magoo]

If you see a friend shooting well, but going by bad info, do you correct him?

This comes up a lot.

There are two types of 'buddies' :

1. coachable
2. not coachable

There are two types of 'instructors/correctors' :

1. credible
2. not credible

If my buddy is coachable, and I feel that he sees me as a credible instructor/corrector, then I will enter initiate a discussion . . . . . otherwise I will hold my tongue.

This exact thing came up the other day . . . . . my buddy has gone from 0 to B in a couple years. He's kicking my azz 9-2 in 9-ball and he has a shot where he sits awkwardly upright on the table rather than just lying comfortably across it. Do I say anything?

I did not - because he only accepts coaching from the A players.

A lot of people are like that . . . . they don't know that an A coach can be a B player and a A player can be a 0 coach.

 

[Donny Lutz]

Blurry line

This comes up a lot.

There are two types of 'buddies' :

1. coachable
2. not coachable

There are two types of 'instructors/correctors' :

1. credible
2. not credible

If my buddy is coachable, and I feel that he sees me as a credible instructor/corrector, then I will enter initiate a discussion . . . . . otherwise I will hold my tongue.

This exact thing came up the other day . . . . . my buddy Les has gone from 0 to B in a couple years. He's kicking my azz 9-2 in 9-ball and he has a shot where he sits awkwardly upright on the table rather than just lying comfortably across it. Do I say anything?

I did not - because Les only accepts coaching from the A players.

A lot of people are like that . . . . they don't know that an A coach can be a B player and a A player can be a 0 coach.

I like your answer.

Problem is it's often a blurry line between the two types of "buddies" and the two types of coaches.

One of the mistakes I've made is to offer suggestions when not solicited. I want so bad to help folks enjoy the game more, that I sometimes find it hard to hold back.

I have a friend who is almost obsessed with strategy to the point where he abandons the rest of the game. He has a very weak stance and bridge. But he's been improving because of his shot selection, so he's stubborn about mechanics. Occasionally I'll say something when his mechanics cause him to miss badly, but more often I'll just bite my tongue.

 

[CreeDo]

Well, looks like we're running with the friend analogy

JB, I like your point about just starting a separate topic on the specific point of disgreement. Probably could have done more of that during the days of CTE arguments.

I find some guys are coachable and some simply aren't, as Magoo suggests. But there are times where I've been completely wrong about which is which, and at least one I swear basically flipflopped from one type to the other.

I tried calling time out on the guy and he's like NAH MAN I GOT IT and immediately hit the cue ball before I could say another word. Wrote him off. Fast forward a few months and he wants to set up practice sessions and lessons and now he listens to time outs and doesn't get offended if I call them. I dunno if he changed, or he changed how he saw me, or maybe he saw other successful time outs, or what.

 

[pt109]

Was just thinking about one more thing that should be said.

When you disagree fundamentally with something that someone pro or not has said about how to play the game then perhaps it's better to simply make a new thread about that concept.

Instead of derailing the original thread just isolate the concept and open a new discussion about it. No need to be insulting or otherwise disruptive.

Because here is the thing...unless you approach a point in the right way you are almost guaranteed to be in a fight instead of civil discussion. Believe me, I know.

Maybe by having a new and fresh discussion the person who made the disputed point could possibly see it from a fresh perspective and revise their original assertion.

THIS ^could be a sticky.
I'm gonna remember this post.

regards
pt..<..likes the new JB

 

[Mr. Magoo]

I want so bad to help folks enjoy the game more, that I sometimes find it hard to hold back.

I understand your headspace there.

I'm like that too.

Folks like us just have to sometimes hold back and let things play out.

Afterall, we aren't yet 'World Champions' that everyone will "listen to".

If you play with friends long enough, the situation may develop to where you will be able to discuss these things with them.

Until then . . . . just play the game . . . . .

I have a friend who is almost obsessed with strategy . . . . He has a very weak stance and bridge. . . . . .

If he has the 'will to win' he will, in time, be open to improving his shortcomings . . . .

Wait him out on it.

I'd rather 'start out' strong strategically; and then develop technique - then the other way around . . . . .