Quality Instructors

[FranCrimi]

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.

I don't know where the heck that rating came from. I'm referring to myself but based on some of the players I'm supposed to be worse than --- well, all I can say is that it's utterly ridiculous. I spent 20 years playing as a touring pro on the WPBA tour. I've had many top 10 finishes, one 2nd place finish and was raked in the top 16 for several years. So I've been written off as not having played in enough tournaments? That's a joke.

 

[Elmo]

I don't know where the heck that rating came from. I'm referring to myself but based on some of the players I'm supposed to be worse than --- well, all I can say is that it's utterly ridiculous. I spent 20 years playing as a touring pro on the WPBA tour. I've had many top 10 finishes, one 2nd place finish and was raked in the top 16 for several years. So I've been written off as not having played in enough tournaments? That's a joke.

Fran, I just looked up your rating and it is based on only 32 games of play, which isn't really a good indicator of your true ability. You need several more games on record to have an accurate assessment of your skill level.

 

[Black-Balled]

The higher the score the greater the player's ability.......Jerry B. with "0" is absolutely worthless as his ability to teach. He might be the most sought after instructor right now. Scott L with a "0" has nothing to do with anything. Scott's reviews are just about 100% positive. Anyone that did not care for his lesson did not practice and had no drive to improve. That's on the student and not a reflection on the instructor.

I have had table time with Scott and he is way above zero.

87, at least. Might be a 92.

Or 12.

Might be 48.

Not sure.

 

[GoldCrown]

Angelo Dundee....didn't box, but he knew boxing.

View attachment 435837

Done.

You need several more games on record to have an accurate assessment of your skill level.

I have had table time with Scott and he is way above zero.

.

That chart is worth diddly.

 

[Straightpool_99]

Done.




That chart is worth diddly.

What do you mean by that? Maybe it doesn't say a lot about the people who have too few games, but it sure tells the tale on the higher ranked players!

 

[GoldCrown]

What do you mean by that? Maybe it doesn't say a lot about the people who have too few games, but it sure tells the tale on the higher ranked players!

I don't feel it has anything to do with the quality of instructors. I'll take Azb members feedback over a chart. The person I take 1P lessons from is not on any charts but comes highly recommended...and is quite a teacher. However he is a champion and well regarded player. Honestly I had no idea how good he was when I started out with him. He came recommended from his peers.
For stroke instruction......Let's take Jerry B. He has "O". Who wouldn't take a lesson from him. Scott, Mark F. ..."0"?
I guess....Let's separate Stroke instructors from Strategy instructors. Cannot have them compared on the same chart.

 

[Straightpool_99]

I don't feel it has anything to do with the quality of instructors. I'll take Azb members feedback over a chart. The person I take 1P lessons from is not on any charts but comes highly recommended...and is quite a teacher. Maybe I'm missing the point.
Let's take Jerry B. He has "O". Who wouldn't take a lesson from him. Scott, Mark F. ..."0"?

0 means there is no information (or that the player has lost a near infinite number of games, pretty unlikely, lol), so the chart in that particular case does not speak either for or against the person, the same goes for people with rankings that are not established. When a person has over 700 points, and is established, however, that tells you that this is an excellent player (which is all the information you can possibly get from a chart of this nature). Therefore, if that aspect of a coaches credentials is important to you, it tells you what you need to know. If a players/coaches skill holds no interest, then why even look at the chart? It just gives information about a players ability (in the limited area and time where Fargo ratings are measured), it doesn't condemn someone or do any such thing. What you do with the information is up to you.

 

[rrick33]

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

For those foolish enough to believe that the better an instructor plays, the more knowledge he must posses...you are operating on a false premise.

That's not to say that there aren't quality instructors who play well but if you're seeking instruction, you're not looking for someone to take the shot for you!

You should be looking for someone who understands the principles and fundamentals intellectually and has the ability to transfer that information to you on your level....whatever that level may be.

To say that "the better the player the better the instructor".... shows a lack of understanding to the principles of teaching which is what you should be looking for in an instructor.

Those who limit themselves to only seek instruction from strong players should completely ignore the list of instructors presented in previous threads and go directly to a pro for instruction...for your inclination should demand nothing less if you really believe that only a strong player can do the job. Why mess around with anyone less than a top pro? Under your assumptions, you'd be limiting your progress to do less.

The irony in all of this is that great players are seldom great instructors. Great players specialize in playing great pool.....not teaching.

Teachers/Instructors specialize in instruction and quite often, this makes all the difference.

The greatest players in many sports...tennis. golf, etc. have coaches!
Clearly, their coaches do not play as well as they do....but their understanding of the fundamentals and principle of a great performance make them highly valued.

When seeking an instructor, look for testimonials or feedback from other students, ask about the instructors teaching style to see if it meshes with your learning style, Inquire if the instructor has any articles or books published that can offer insight to his/her understanding of the principles. How much experience do they have teaching, etc.

The absolute last thing you should be considering when selecting an instructor is if he/she plays at a very high level. Of all the variables available to choose from when selecting an instructor, limiting your search to only strong players as a requirement is the weakest of factors.

If your reasoning is weak, then it's likely it will reflect in your choices for instruction and perhaps even in your performance.

 

[SJDinPHX]

...The absolute last thing you should be considering when selecting an instructor is if he/she plays at a very high level. Of all the variables available to choose from when selecting an instructor, limiting your search to only strong players as a requirement is the weakest of factors.

If your reasoning is weak, then it's likely it will reflect in your choices for instruction and perhaps even in your performance.

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!

 

[mfinkelstein3]

Instructor Playing Ability

I think you all are missing the point. As an instructor whether I can play or not is irrelevant. The real question is how well do my students play.

Pros are judged on how well they do in tournaments, etc., and Instructors are judged on how well their students do. That's it. Whether I can make a hanger or not isn't important. Can my student make a hanger? Does my student play the simplest routes, does my student pick the easiest patterns, does my student have a strong mental game, does my student have a consistent set up and stroke, can my student win, etc., to me that is how you judge an instructor.

Is their a chart showing how well instructor's students do?

A lot of you keep bashing how instructors play, but I don't hear much about how their students are doing. To me that is the real metric.

BTW I made a ball yesterday, so can I be Fargo rating 1?

 

[kaznj]

I have attended clinics run both Scott Lee and Mark F. These, I believe are the two master level instructors running the clinic mentioned by the person who started this thread.
Each of these men can easily demonstrate EVERYTHING they teach. Both are excellent teachers. I taught for 32 years. I like to think I know something communicating with students.
Bottom line, you want to build a strong foundation? Go to this clinic.

 

[BmoreMoney]

like the advanced economics professor with holes in his 19'sleep jacket that drives an 86 Datsun, kinda makes you wonder a bit - no?

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Probably smarter than me, that he could be banking his money instead of pissing it away.

If I did that, perhaps I would not have to work until I am 70.

like the advanced economics professor with holes in his 19'sleep jacket that drives an 86 Datsun, kinda makes you wonder a bit - no?

 

[FranCrimi]

Fran, I just looked up your rating and it is based on only 32 games of play, which isn't really a good indicator of your true ability. You need several more games on record to have an accurate assessment of your skill level.

Then the system is flawed and is clearly not a true indicator of a player's ability, which is what it's claiming to be. So if it's not a true indicator, then what is it -- some sort of impromptu ranking system based on a particular period of time? It makes no sense and does nothing but give a false picture.

 

[FranCrimi]

The reason why I take such exception to the chart is because I believe that it is extremely important to be an experienced high-level player in order to be a great instructor.

This isn't football. The reason I can read a player's mind when I'm helping them with their game is because I've been in the trenches and I understand how they think at all levels. It's important to know what works and what breaks down in competition. The best way to truly understand that is to have been there and done it.

I wouldn't be nearly as good of a teacher without my professional competitive background and higher level of play. It's proof that I did the work and that I truly understand what players are gong through.

 

[mfinkelstein3]

Fargo

Also Fargo does not cover straight pool, one pocket or banks. It is only 8 ball, 9 ball and ten ball.

 

[GoldCrown]

A lot of you keep bashing how instructors play, but I don't hear much about how their students are doing. To me that is the real metric.

I have been playing for over 55 years. One day I realized I need professional help as I can't progress. I find Scott on Azb. After the first lesson with serious practice my game starts to jump up. I had no unrealistic expectations...just wanted to play better pool and have fun. Honestly I'm a strong C. Maybe weak B on given days. I do not know how to rate myself. Currently I play with stronger shooters but I hang in there. I have my days, I have flaws. I only have so much natural talent and trying to get the most out of it. I play in a senior league in S, Florida. Doubles and Singles. My goal was to win the singles and I did last year. I beat the 2 guys that usually win each year in a round robin. I made mistakes but they made more than me. I was a tense (have to deal with that) but held my own. I am 2 different players from day one and now. I thank my instructor and realize I reflect his teachings, I'm definitely a better player and still growing.
I have been taking 1Pocket lessons from Tom Wirth.(Learning the game and not mechanics). I started at step 1 as I had no idea where to start. Once again I think I'm a C and growing. I have run 8 and out few times. I do sell out but can close. At least I'm on the playing field and not making a jackass out of myself.
My post is to compliment and thank my instructors. There is no question I went from nothing to something. And a something that is enjoying playing better pool.
Just to add...I'm person that cannot learn on my own. Have no idea where to start with certain things. Eventually I had Scott teach me 2 rail kicks. His system is very simply.....especially if I can understand and remember it. I enjoy being a student of the game. Thankfully there are instructors that know how to deliver and it's nice when things click. No charts needed. Everything does not always work on paper. Do your homework. Look for quality instructors...and like anything else... You do not always get what you pay for. With Scott you certainly do. And I would not hesitate to attend Mark Finkelsteins school.

 

[mikepage]

Then the system is flawed and is clearly not a true indicator of a player's ability, which is what it's claiming to be. So if it's not a true indicator, then what is it -- some sort of impromptu ranking system based on a particular period of time? It makes no sense and does nothing but give a false picture.

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."

 

[stan shuffett]

Just for the record, I won 11-1 against Donnie Mills not Nick E.

I agree as well that the chart is a joke!!

Stan Shuffett

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."

 

[mikepage]

Just for the record, I won 11-1 against Donnie Mills not Nick E.

I agree as well that the chart is a joke!!

Stan Shuffett

OK Thanks Stan