Instructors and Instruction

D

drivermaker

Banned
In golf, I sometimes wonder if there are too many instructors out there. Every single golf course has a couple of assistant pro's and head pro that are all giving lessons. There are also big name teaching pro's that work with the tour players, ex-pro players turned instructor, and instructional writers of books and magazine articles. Some are good, some are great, and others are not so good and just plain lousy and unhelpful. I've witnessed them all.

In pool you don't have as many instructors as in golf, but the same applies to the instructor and instruction being good or not.

In your mind, what's the difference between a GOOD instructor (instruction/lesson), a GREAT instructor (instruction/lesson), and a NOT SO GOOD instructor (instruction/lesson)? They're all out there...what turns you on and what turns you off?
 
Find an instructor that is just as excited to teach as you are to learn. Avoid anyone that tries to keep you from (or prevent you from) obtaining information from another source. There's a lot of great instructors out there, and there are a lot of instructors that have no business playing, nevermind teaching. The main goal of the instructor is to provide an environment where the student not only recieves the information provided, but digests it, develops it, applies it, and builds upon it. I stay away from instructional time limits. If a student is having a problem understanding what I am teaching, it is unfair to the student to look at my watch and say "Well, sorry buddy, you're hour's almost up." I've watched one BCA certified instructor from El Paso do this several times. My lesson is complete when the student has no more questions for that day.

An instructor should make themsleves available. Some instructors are so busy throwing information out there that that forget that the person they are teaching might have a few questions. A good instructor will be receptive to their students and have the ability to recognize their needs.

Another trait is that an instructor should be honest. By this, I mean be honest with the development of the player. Don't tell the student they're doing great when you know they haven't got a clue what you are saying to them. Every student is different; they learn different, they recieve information differently and they play differently. I don't give the same lesson twice. The instructional approach that works for John's needs might not workk as effectively for Jane.

An instructor will be more than willing to recieve feedback. I always have my student grade MY performance as an instructor. This is where it becomes a two way street. I should learn how to become a better instructor while you are becoming a better player. I should provide you with the same top class instruction whether you are a league player, or if you are Ga Young Kim or George San Souci. I teach everybody the best I can, regardless of your level of play. Instruction should be able to be applied effectively at any level. The fact that I have had students utilize my instruction in a professional professional playing environment, is not an ego booster for me, what it does is show me (as well as my students) that what I am teaching works, and it works well. That didn't happen overnight, it took a long time, but I am always looking for new and exciting ways to teach this great game. If I can't teach you (not every instructor fits every student) I will gladly find someone that will suit your needs as a player.

Good Luck & God Bless
 
drivermaker said:
In golf, I sometimes wonder if there are too many instructors out there. Every single golf course has a couple of assistant pro's and head pro that are all giving lessons. There are also big name teaching pro's that work with the tour players, ex-pro players turned instructor, and instructional writers of books and magazine articles. Some are good, some are great, and others are not so good and just plain lousy and unhelpful. I've witnessed them all.

In pool you don't have as many instructors as in golf, but the same applies to the instructor and instruction being good or not.

In your mind, what's the difference between a GOOD instructor (instruction/lesson), a GREAT instructor (instruction/lesson), and a NOT SO GOOD instructor (instruction/lesson)? They're all out there...what turns you on and what turns you off?
Click to expand...


a great instructor doesn't teach you to shoot HIS WAY. he should be able to spot your weaknesses, and correct them within the framework of YOUR style and YOUR abilities. if he's teaching you to play a game, he should know what your limits are, and provide you with a plan of execution that best suits your game.

if you don't understand, he must try different tacts. if you STILL don't understand, you are not ready for him or visa versa. it is a two way street.
 
Last edited:
What makes the best instructors the best is a) top communication skills, and b) preparedness.

Communication Skills
The ability to clearly articulate one's knowledge to a student is critical. Pool is swarmed with teachers who have first-flight knowledge without the communication skills to pass that knowledge on to a student.

Preparation
Far too many pool instructors don't prepare themselves to teach. Preparation is more than preparing handouts and materials for consideration during a lesson, but adaptng lessons to the abilities of students. In the world of academics, good teachers have clear agendas and lesson plans reflective of a carefully considered curriculum. The nature and content of those lessons are greatly influenced by the abilities of students. The same kind of effort and attention to detail is needed in pool instruction, but, in my opinion, it's offered only by a few. Insturctors who simply show up figuring they'll figure out what to teach "on the fly" are rarely worth their fees.

To sum, find a pool instructor with first-rate communication skills and a commitment to being prepared for each and every lesson and you'll be in good hands. If you've already got such an instructor, hold on tight, for you're one of the lucky few.
 
A bad instructor is just like organized religion- they all say that their way is the only way, and everyone else is full of crap.
 
drivermaker said:
In golf, I sometimes wonder if there are too many instructors out there. Every single golf course has a couple of assistant pro's and head pro that are all giving lessons. There are also big name teaching pro's that work with the tour players, ex-pro players turned instructor, and instructional writers of books and magazine articles. Some are good, some are great, and others are not so good and just plain lousy and unhelpful. I've witnessed them all.

In pool you don't have as many instructors as in golf, but the same applies to the instructor and instruction being good or not.

In your mind, what's the difference between a GOOD instructor (instruction/lesson), a GREAT instructor (instruction/lesson), and a NOT SO GOOD instructor (instruction/lesson)? They're all out there...what turns you on and what turns you off?
Click to expand...

Driver, you asked me on the Tuck or Roll thread to come here and post, so here tiz!...

I'm thinking you want me to comment on whether or not Bob Jewett is a good instructor, because he deals mostly with the physical science in pool. Correct?

I have no idea is Bob is a good instructor overall, as I haven't met him in person and do not know what type of teaching he engages in with his students. I do know that, as a student of the game, I get good information from Bob's articles. Is he the "be all, end all" of instruction? Of course not. No one is.

I take what I can from him, integrate it into my shot, and then go from there.

Along with the other great responses so far (I love this board), I, personally, like and want to highlight what BlackJack said:

Avoid anyone that tries to keep you from (or prevent you from) obtaining information from another source


This is why I have no one on an ignore list, and why I try to wade through even the kindergarten posts to glean something that will add value to my shot. Yet, I still weigh the value of my time, so I can't read them all. Also, I appreciate YOUR posts as much as any, regardless of the tone, because I know your knowledge holds value---and, btw, I think it is to Bob's detriment that he has you on his ignore list. But that's his business, not mine.

Jeff Livingston
 
I think the responses have been right on. The primary aspect of instruction that gets under my craw is the geometry, physics, trigonometry type coach that breaks each and every inch of one's stroke into a segmented stop-action piece who wants to turn everyone into a cloned automaton and also sees the cueing action in these perfectly formed lines and angles that all go according to some prewritten text and then try to pump that information into a students head. I think it could be very helpful for the instructor to have that knowledge, but not to burden a student with confusing superfluous thoughts that only muddle the mind in actual play and cause their thought processes and body to work in a disjointed fashion.

There's a golf instuction book that was originally written in 1969 and still sells today that was written by an engineer called The Golfing Machine, G.O.L.F. meaning Geometrically Oriented Linear Force. It's kinda funny how many engineers and PhD.'s write books in golf or pool that coincide with their specialty linking the actions of the human body to their training yet can't and never could play a lick. In this particular book it breaks EVERY possible movement, turn, twist, slide, path that the body part can take along with the club and explains their relationship to one another as well as their position/angle to perfect or imperfect according to what they deem as the ultimate.

Is this good? I think it's very good for an instructor to know this. But I don't think it is good for a student to know all of the complex and that's what many instructors want to do, just pour out everything they know filling the students mind with THEIR advanced knowledge but it doesn't help in execution. There are a couple of teachers like that on the PGA tour, on of which is David Ledbetter. He had to be the most complex teacher out there that was pointing out angles, positions....the hands and arms need to be here...the shaft needs to be there...the clubhead should be here...your body needs to be in this or that position at various stages....KABOOOOM!! Pro players don't want to hear that shit. What they want, after the fundamentals of grip, stance, posture, aim and alignment are closely checked, is to have the instructor give them a "FEEL" or a "SENSATION" or "VISUAL IMAGERY" which they can lock onto in actual play. Ledbetter has gotten much much better in his teaching because he now does that.

A player only needs to know what and how is going to make him play better that can be immediately integrated into a flowing motion, which a pool stroke is. All of the other bullshit should be saved for the instructor, that is unless he's trying to teach the individual to be an instuctor like himself.

I found Mark Tadd's explanation yesterday very interesting in that it had to do with simplicity. He mentioned grip pressure, which fingers may or may not grip the cue more than others, and other facets of the game...but nothing about angles, lines, geometry, and all the rest that has to do with "WHY" things happen, which a PLAYER really doesn't need to know.

I think the only part that a player needs to know is if his stance or alignment fundamentals could be somewhat better (not necessarily robotic perfect)...to be shown HOW to perform a shot or a function...and the FEEL or SENSATION he should have...and NOT THE WHY. It might make the student feel like he/she is learning something fantastic and it might make the instructor feel like a brilliant Einstein on a dais communicating it, but it doesn't help make shots when your nerves are really jangling and your ass is puckering so bad you can't even pass gas.

Simplicity in instruction to the student is best, and until an instructor realizes the importance of that and can learn to break down the complex into simple, little gets tranferred into performance enhancement. A student doesn't need to be an educated teacher...just a player.
 
drivermaker said:
I think the responses have been right on.

(snip)

Simplicity in instruction to the student is best, and until an instructor realizes the importance of that and can learn to break down the complex into simple, little gets tranferred into performance enhancement. A student doesn't need to be an educated teacher...just a player.
Click to expand...

I agree with you---IF---if the student wants to just play pool "better." But what if the student has other motivations?

So, I'd say the one thing left out of this discussion so far, is that the best instructors should first help the student determine exactly what his/her motivation is for playing. Then, and only then can, the instructors help him/her with his/her pool.

The hierarchy of instruction for me would be:

WHY shoot this shot?
WHO is involved in this shot?
WHAT shot to shoot?
WHERE to shoot it?
WHEN will the shot occur?
and then the last,
HOW do I shoot it?

I submit that most students want to know HOW to do it, before they have consciously determined WHY to shoot the shot in the first place. This confusion could result in a life wasted, even though the player might beat anyone around.

Jeff Livingston
 
chefjeff said:
I agree with you---IF---if the student wants to just play pool "better." But what if the student has other motivations?

So, I'd say the one thing left out of this discussion so far, is that the best instructors should first help the student determine exactly what his/her motivation is for playing. Then, and only then can, the instructors help him/her with his/her pool.

The hierarchy of instruction for me would be:

WHY shoot this shot?
WHO is involved in this shot?
WHAT shot to shoot?
WHERE to shoot it?
WHEN will the shot occur?
and then the last,
HOW do I shoot it?

I submit that most students want to know HOW to do it, before they have consciously determined WHY to shoot the shot in the first place. This confusion could result in a life wasted, even though the player might beat anyone around.

Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...


Regardless of the order, I think everything you listed above is acceptable. "Why shoot the shot" is quite a bit different than "Why the balls react the way they do" according to science ... Or..."Why the stroke must be a certain way" to fit in perfectly with the laws of physics and geometry with no deviations whatsoever. Name ONE pro or road player, male or female, that utilizes the science gobblydegook tie-in to what they're doing in order to enhance their performance. It's not the least bit relevant other than for academia intellectualizing and for those that CAN'T perform at the highest level to elevate the game (and themselves) higher than what actually matters to a player.

And yes to your response of "IF" the individual has other motivations. And the only other motivation that also matters is if he/she wants to be an instructor.
"What do you want to be...a real player, or an instructor" is a question that I think should be asked of an instructor to a pupil and to a player of himself. The two don't really go hand in hand very well with each other at the same time. I firmly believe that you can't be a "REAL PLAYER" in addition to being an instructor at the same time. You can be an instructor AFTER you've been a real player and don't wish to be one any longer. You can be a great instructor but you won't be a real great player at the same time while you're instructing, nor have ever been a great player at all. But you damn well better know what a great player needs to know and doesn't need to know to enhance performance under extreme pressure.

A player needs to know the what, why, and how of certain facets of the game, and an instructor does too. They're just different and on a need to know basis.
 
chefjeff said:
...
I'm thinking you want me to comment on whether or not Bob Jewett is a good instructor, because he deals mostly with the physical science in pool. Correct?

I have no idea is Bob is a good instructor overall, as I haven't met him in person and do not know what type of teaching he engages in with his students. I do know that, as a student of the game, I get good information from Bob's articles. Is he the "be all, end all" of instruction? Of course not. No one is.

...
Click to expand...
In the 25 years I' ve been giving lessons, I've had maybe two students who were interested in the physics of the game. The vast majority of pool players don't know a momentum from a cucumber, nor do they have to. Referee training is a different matter, and I'm afraid that a good referee does need to understand some of the basics of pool physics.
 
Bob Jewett said:
In the 25 years I' ve been giving lessons, I've had maybe two students who were interested in the physics of the game. The vast majority of pool players don't know a momentum from a cucumber, nor do they have to. Referee training is a different matter, and I'm afraid that a good referee does need to understand some of the basics of pool physics.
Click to expand...


Well, since I'm on Uncle Bob's Ignore list (LMAO-I don't think so), this will go unanswered.

So Uncle Bob, if only two students wanted to know about the physics and geometry of the game, why don't you pretend like NONE of them do when you write your bullshit thesis for your next PhD. in Billiard's Digest or any other forum, because NONE don't!!

Take the knowledge that you have, (which I really do honestly respect) and explain why a certain way of doing something is better than another way or "HOW" to perform a shot with it's different outcomes if done one way opposed to another? How about deciphering it into a "FEEL", or something using "VISUAL IMAGERY" while shooting instead of a blackboard with formulas floating around in your head? Do you feel like you've reached your pinnacle as an instructor or might there be ways of improving to convey ideas and concepts better?
 
RichardCranium said:
A good instructor will be able to adapt to all personalities...They will be able to teach what needs to be taught.

Sometimes it may need a "science" type explination...

Believe it or not there are some students that want to "teach you" while they are getting a lesson...Thats another adaptation...
Click to expand...


I don't think it EVER needs a "science" type explanation, ESPECIALLY for those that are science geeks and learners because that's what gets them into trouble to start. I knew a guy that was a real technical junkie that thrived on positions and angles of the swing but got into a funky stage and took a lesson from Toski. Within 10 minutes into the lesson Toski had him just ripping the ball on a string and the guy wanted to know where his arms and shaft angle was in relationship to the plane and Toski's answer was "right where it should be" and REFUSED to tell him, and then proceeded to tear him a new ahole for thinking like that instead of the "FEEL" thoughts that were being instilled in him to function better during tournament play. (the guy was a pro). It was all the unnecessary teachings clouding his mind that caused him to falter under pressure. THEY DON'T NEED TO KNOW in ANY SPORT, GOLF OR POOL.

And as far as the student wanting to teach, well that has to be dealt with immediately and squelched.
 
JoeyInCali said:
A great instructor is one who simplifies the game . NOT over-complicate it.
Click to expand...


And I thank you for simplifying all of my posts. That's what I was getting at in 20,000 words or less. ;)
DM (neither a pool instructor or writer)
 
If an instructor can improve my game then he is a good instructor. But now that I think about it, anyone who can improve my game would have to be a great instructor.

But seriously it all depends on what a person is looking for when he takes lessons. One really can't expect personal attention if you take group lessons, but the price might be more affordable. And you can still learn.

I would think that the first couple hours with an instructor would be to feel each other out and build rapport and determine what the student/instructor can realistically achieve. To set goals for the future.

You have to find an instructor who is able to relate to your own level of play.

If you play at "D" level then an instuctor who can get you to "C" level might be the best thing for you. Never mind that this instructor can't compete with the pros, he may be the best for you. Then once you reach "C" level find an instructor who can get you to "B" level. A few years back I did take a block of 20 hours over 5 weeks but I wouldn't recommend him to anyone. And, unfortunately, he is the only one I could find within 50 miles of here.

But, no matter how good the instructor is it is all a waste of time if the student does not apply himself. And there is so much information to digest that it takes a heck of a lot of time at the practice table and a very good memory.

And the funny part is that after watching the local shortstop play last night and realizing the huge gap in his and my play (and he is not at pro level) I have decided that I am about at the top of my abilities and really can't improve much more. There is just too much to learn, and so little time. So I will quit the battle and just pick my games and enjoy myself. APA 9-ball isn't that bad anyway.

Fortunately we don't have a lot of good players around here like up in the NE and for the most part I can play with 95% of them and win my share of the games.

Such is my lot in life.

Jake
 
Thanks Everyone...

My major goal in pool is to become an instructor, and because of that I have to say this has been one of the most helpful threads I have ever read.

Thanks everyone for the posts, it has really got me thinking about the way instruction should be approached.
 
RichardCranium said:
and just so we can clarify I would also say that if your thinking about "mechanics" during a match or "match situation" your probably going to get beat...

I have seen Earl..."check his stroke" off to the side between shots....Those are "mechanical" moves in my opinion...but obviously he has learned to separate..."mechanics" and "feel"..but Mark also said he experimented with different grips, stances, etc. to get the tip where it needs to be....That's the mechanics, or (science).....

I do agree that the guys that due studys on friction coeficiants and mathematical breakdowns on tip deflection are a little overboard for my taste...Just give me two or three cues and I can (probably) tell you witch one has more deflection than the other....(PROBABLY)...But some people enjoy that kind of stuff and that is fine...Its kind of like the how do you aim question...Some go as far as a 1/64 breakdown of the ball...all the way to "feel"......whatever works for them to deliver the tip where they need it to be...It just may take some longer to figure it out...some may never...

and I have a hard time with a instructor questioning the ability of a "pro" (that wants to know the "why" part) separating the two.....

I also find it hard to believe (with you knowledge of the game, both pool and golf) that you are the type of person that would except that kind of answer from an instuctor and not seek out someone that would answer that question....JMO
Click to expand...


I'll take certain paragraphs here one at a time in no particular order. As far as the "pro" that wanted to know "why" from the instructor, it was the other way around. The "pro" really shouldn't have been questioning the ability of the INSTRUCTOR because the instructor was a touring pro on the PGA tour with multiple wins in his career and happened to be the leading money winner on the PGA tour the year after Hogan had his greatest year in '53. He's also recognized as one of the top teaching pro's in the world. You aren't recognized as such and neither am I. Toski knew and knows exactly what it takes and doesn't take on tour to win and what you should and shouldn't be thinking about. The "pro" taking a lesson was trying to qualify for the senior tour and had never been on the big circuit before, and one of his primary problems was too much mechanics convoluting his thinking which Toski recognized immediately. He flat out didn't want to add to his thinking problems on course...you said it in the top paragraph above. I was standing right there while the lesson was being given and Toski was right.

I think were mixing certain things up in this discussion regarding mechanics and science. The science that I'm talking about is what you said above in the paragraph about coefficients etc. Included in that would be all of the geometric angle calculations for aiming, as well as dragging every law of physics and geometry into what works and doesn't work in aiming or applying english etc. There are too many things being used by pro pool players that can't be explained by all of that and breaks those rules all the time. The scientists then get pissed because they CAN'T explain it and just say that it can't be done or it's the wrong way to do it.

And as far as Mark experimenting with grips, that's not science. That would be mechanics to a certain degree, but it has more to do in experimenting with position preferences and outcomes for him based on various changes. That would be no different than a strong, weak, or neutral grip and which fingers in both hands supply the pressure and how much pressure is applied. That IS very important and something that should be covered. That's a basic fundamental, not science. Within each fundamental you still have preferences or options just as you do in pool. You can use a standard stance, a snooker stance, your head can be placed in different ways over the cue, dominant eye over the cue is NOT a must written in stone, grip can be loose, it can be tighter, it can be in all the fingers or just a few...this isn't science...just fundamental options.

Using that example, the problem I have is with the instructor(s) that want to make EVERYONE into clones of each other with the same setup and stroke with a one way and one way only ideal. You know and I know it doesn't work that way. Bodies are different, arm length, height, and coordination. A great instructor teaches according to what's in front of him.

BTW, what is one of the biggest golf book sellers out there as well as one of the most respected that mentions NOTHING about mechanics, science, physics, or geometry? Give up? How about the Little Green Book and the Little Red Book by Harvey Penick. That was about as simple as it gets and he didn't do too bad in developing two great pro's...Kite and Crenshaw, as well as giving lessons to countless number of other men and women on tour.
 
woody_968 said:
My major goal in pool is to become an instructor, and because of that I have to say this has been one of the most helpful threads I have ever read..... .
Click to expand...
If you would like to see what is involved in a 3-day instructor training course, the outline for the SFBA's Recognized-level BCA course is available for free on www.sfbilliards.com
 
Bob Jewett said:
If you would like to see what is involved in a 3-day instructor training course, the outline for the SFBA's Recognized-level BCA course is available for free on www.sfbilliards.com
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link Bob, I actually have looked the site over before, I just wish I was a little closer to the location. I have also looked into CueU as it is about 4 hrs away from my location.
 
RichardCranium said:
I see!!! .... said the blind man as he walked into the tree...

OK...I see what you mean now...Yes I was lumping "science and fundamental mechanics" together......You were talking about instructors that give you so much information that you have a check list for each shot longer than the Space Shuttle Pilots....and you have to carry a slide ruler in your case to calculate the degree of hit on the cue ball....

That is not for me....I will stick with the doing a few practice drills to align the stroke and "fundamentals" and then practice harder on "feel" or "game situations"....

That is probably why there are many players out there saying if you want to get better..."match up"....It forces you to let go of the "mechanics" and practice the "feel" part... The ones that learn to "let go" get better....The others go broke... :D :D
Click to expand...


BINGO!!! Now we're on track together. BTW, did you happen to notice the picture of Danny Basavich on the front page of AZ this week? It looked like he sets up with his one eye BEHIND the other as you were describing a couple of weeks ago and what I thought you were trying to get away from doing. If you look at his picture, am I understanding that to be what you were talking about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top