Mixed thoughts
Joe,
What you are saying about open discussion has a lot of merit if people have actually seen the DVD's, read the books, or been to the classes. However, what always seems to happen is that only a small portion of the information originally presented is discussed, and often inaccurately. Therefore forum readers get a very false impression of the material.
My first impression of the DVD's was exactly the same as yours, too much repetition. After I had watched them several times and actually listened to Joe's introduction instead of skimming over it, I understood the reason for how he made the tape. These videos gain in value every time I watch them and there are more to come to fill in a few gaps. Perhaps because I am always secretly hoping for that "magic bullet" that we all know doesn't exist but still long for, I tend to be disappointed the first time I watch DVD's or read a book. Only when I watch them the second or third time do I fully appreciate them.
One of the best instructional videos I have ever purchased isn't an instructional video, it is John Schmidt running 245 balls. I bought it directly from John when it was first offered primarily to support a good guy's efforts to make a buck doing what he loved. There aren't any great secrets to be learned from his tape. Every shot he makes is within my skill level. He considered a couple shots lower percentage than I do which surprised me, either my skills are better on some shots or he is a better judge of percentages, I will let others decide which is the case!
While I picked up several valuable tips from John's comments, what was really hammered home to me was the value of fundamentals and insurance balls, having fallbacks when you are shooting risky shape. I have found this is often possible even shooting nine ball.
Several people have expressed disappointment that they didn't learn anything from John's tape and what I have learned seems like very little at first glance. However, I have learned as much of value from less than a dozen sentences spoken by the right person at the right time, as the rest of my life's education combined.
The original poster assumes that the BCA instructors have nothing to teach him. He may be right. It is far more likely that he will learn something of great value if he takes lessons from one. The knowledge may come from the whole experience, it may come from one phrase or sentence, or it may come when he reflects on the experience. I have taken dozens of courses, classes, and seminars over the years on a wide range of subjects. One or two were truly worthless to me, and come to think of it one of those was four hours well spent because the "snack" they served afterwards was all you could eat catfish and shrimp catered from one of the finest seafood restaurants around that was in the same building so the refills came fresh and hot! I'd go sit through another four hour seminar on stucco for free seafood and beer, and there were other benefits that I put to use making decisions about a commercial building when I think about it, although I have never spread an inch of stucco myself.
Hu
JoeW said:
I am not sure what to do here and would appreciate all sorts of comments.
I bought Little Joe's two DVDs and find they are useful. The kicking video is a creative presentation of kicking systems published in other places. The cue ball control video is a unique, creative, and highly useful way to look at the Wagon Wheel System that is also published in other places. When the repetition is excluded both videos could have been presented on one DVD and thus the company is doubling its profits by having two DVDs.
The problem is with discussing the contents of the videos and the contents of instructions provided by instructors in general. There seems to be some sort of open secret that one does not discuss what one paid to learn. I don't understand why the pool world allows this to continue.
I paid for the instruction and it seems to me that I can discuss the contents as needed. Little Joe's cue ball control system is good, published, and therefore public. For some reason his ideas are not discussed publicly. I think that this is wrong.
One cannot copyright ideas, math formulas and similar types of things. Little Joe says that what he has is a formula and too some extent he is right. In fact he has a system. It is useful and it should be discussed for its merits and limitations. However, no one here has discussed any of the actual content. I would be more than willing to do so but it seems that there is some sort of unwritten rule.
I see the same thing with instructors in general. That is a general secretiveness about what they teach. Personally I find this objectionable. The value of instruction is in the way it is provided, not the content. Nearly all of this stuff is available in books if one cares to obtain the books. So why are people hesitant to discuss the content of an instructional program?
For now I will not discuss the contents of Little Joe's DVD as I have no need to make everyone angry. I would rather determine why many players think that such a non-disclosure policy is in effect.
Personally, I like Little Joe's system and find it quite useful. I would like to discuss the ideas he has made in a public discussion to fill in the merits and limits of these ideas. I assume that those who are sufficiently impressed will either buy his DVDs or seek out instruction. I have no need to "knock" his action but would like to discuss his ideas. So what do you think about publically discussing information obtained from various places such as books, instructors, DVDs?
I am quite interested in responses to this query as I too have been considering placing the thoughts of a psychologist in the public domain.
