Quality Instructors

[SJDinPHX]

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

......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

Joey,

I am somewhat confused by your reply, it seems to be a little contradictory.. Do you want an instructor who plays better than you, or not?..... I voted a definite 'yes' in that area..Why would anyone want to waste their time, (or money) being taught what they already know?

You wisely pointed out that some coach/instructors, may be much better at teaching the 'mental' aspects of the game, than the physical/mechanical part..I can certainly concur with that observation..That may well be the most important part of mentoring!.. However, nowhere does the OP offer it as an option in his poll, or even mention the fact.

There is definitely no shortage of "inflated egos" in the pool world. (I may even be one myself) ..But given my long accumulated knowledge of the game, finding a qualified coach would be a lot tougher for me, than for Cocobola Cowboy, or Cowboy Dennis! :embarrassed2:

PS..As for myself, a coach had better be able to teach me something new and better..Or else, as Joe Rogan says in his great impersonation of Earl,.."Get the f**k off the table"!

 

[Cameron Smith]

I think for a discussion like this one needs to clarify what standard they feel is appropriate for an instructor to play at. I do not think it's necessary for an instructor to be at a pro level, but there are benefits to that if they are also good teachers.

 

[Cornerman]

Joey,

I am somewhat confused by your reply, it seems to be a little contradictory.. Do you want an instructor who plays better than you,
or not?..... I voted a definite 'yes' in that area..Why would anyone want to waste their time, (or money) being taught what they
already know?

You wisely pointed out that some coach/instructors, may be much better at teaching the 'mental' aspects of the game, than the physical/mechanical part..I can certainly concur with that observation..That may well be the most important part of mentoring!.. However, nowhere does the OP offer it as an option in his poll, or even mention the fact.

There is definitely no shortage of "inflated egos" in the pool world. (I may even be one myself :embarrassed2 ..But given my long accumulated knowledge of the game, finding a qualified coach for me..would be a lot tougher than, say for Cocobola Cowboy, or Cowboy Dennis!

PS..As for myself, a coach had better be able to teach me something new and better..Or else, as Joe Rogan says in his impersonation of Earl,.."Get the f**k off the table"!

I'm 100% in agreement with this post, SJD. The poll was narrowly focused on physical playing ability to show people the new thingy they are instructing vs being able to communicate effectively said physical thingy. There weren't other choices about the ability to deconstruct, diagnose, video, coach, soothe, calm, strategize, etc.

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

Of the two choices, and the way it was asked, seems like YES was the answer for me.

Freddie <~~~ thinks any level can coach, but instructing is something else

 

[one stroke]

Joey,

I am somewhat confused by your reply, it seems to be a little contradictory.. Do you want an instructor who plays better than you,
or not?..... I voted a definite 'yes' in that area..Why would anyone want to waste their time, (or money) being taught what they
already know?

You wisely pointed out that some coach/instructors, may be much better at teaching the 'mental' aspects of the game, than the physical/mechanical part..I can certainly concur with that observation..That may well be the most important part of mentoring!.. However, nowhere does the OP offer it as an option in his poll, or even mention the fact.

There is definitely no shortage of "inflated egos" in the pool world. (I may even be one myself :embarrassed2 ..But given my long accumulated knowledge of the game, finding a qualified coach for me..would be a lot tougher than, say for Cocobola Cowboy, or Cowboy Dennis!

PS..As for myself, a coach had better be able to teach me something new and better..Or else, as Joe Rogan says in his impersonation of Earl,.."Get the f**k off the table"!

ok let me see if I can spit this out right ,, one pocket is a game that you would certianly want to learn from a accomplished player for me now that's Reggie Barksdale and Readings of Tom Tom's book ,, Tom's not in my area anymore but he's also a instructor he could offer both mechanics and stradigy things
But with Reggie I learn by playing on the cheap and he'll give me pointers along the way
There is so much more to playing one pocket than rotation games the use of a good one pocket player coach would pay bigger faster dividends than in other game IMHO

1

 

[lfigueroa]

ok let me see if I can spit this out right ,, one pocket is a game that you would certianly want to learn from a accomplished player for me now that's Reggie Barksdale and Readings of Tom Tom's book ,, Tom's not in my area anymore but he's also a instructor he could offer both mechanics and stradigy things
But with Reggie I learn by playing on the cheap and he'll give me pointers along the way
There is so much more to playing one pocket than rotation games the use of a good one pocket player coach would pay bigger faster dividends than in other game IMHO

1

At 1pocket there are different levels of instruction and insight.

Just speaking for myself, what I have learned over the years makes me share a totally different game with those I teach, than what I might have shared years before. I guess I'm saying that in the case of some games it's more cerebral than for others. Still, it takes mechanical ability and finesse. But the thinking part at 1pocket, when it comes to shot selection, is huge.

Lou Figueroa

 

[one stroke]

At 1pocket there are different levels of instruction and insight.

Just speaking for myself, what I have learned over the years makes me share a totally different game with those I teach, than what I might have shared years before. I guess I'm saying that in the case of some games it's more cerebral than for others. Still, it takes mechanical ability and finesse. But the thinking part at 1pocket, when it comes to shot selection, is huge.

Lou Figueroa

Goes back to my ole friend RIP Richard Keef sayings they will teach you what you know but nothing they Know for that you pay extra lol luckily for me that's 5 dollars a game with Reggie

1

 

[rrick33]

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 of the principle questions of this poll is "How can someone teach what they cannot do themselves?" There are only 2 choices in this poll.

You claim you did not see this poll as a choice. I find this very confusing because that's what polls are! They ask you to make a choice.

At its core, this poll is nothing more than a "yes or no" proposition, and the limited choices have created controversy. While many have tried to infuse their opinions to find a middle ground, unfortunately, the poll does not afford an option to address those grey areas.

You find my statement unappealing and I suspect it's because you felt you were on the opposite side of my "rally".

And yet, you provide no foundation for your position, which makes your statement nothing more than a poorly supported opinion.
Keep in mind, this is a forum. You're allowed to type more than one sentence at a time.

Right now your opinion holds absolutely no weight. Perhaps you can explain what level of reasoning would lead you to conclude that a poll, designed to elicit a choice, was not presented to elicit a choice?

 

[krupa]

One of the principle questions of this poll is "How can someone teach what they cannot do themselves?" There are only 2 choices in this poll.

You claim you did not see this poll as a choice. I find this very confusing because that's what polls are! They ask you to make a choice.

At its core, this poll is nothing more than a "yes or no" proposition, and the limited choices have created controversy. While many have tried to infuse their opinions to find a middle ground, unfortunately, the poll does not afford an option to address those grey areas.

You find my statement unappealing and I suspect it's because you felt you were on the opposite side of my "rally".

And yet, you provide no foundation for your position, which makes your statement nothing more than a poorly supported opinion.
Keep in mind, this is a forum. You're allowed to type more than one sentence at a time.

Right now your opinion holds absolutely no weight. Perhaps you can explain what level of reasoning would lead you to conclude that a poll, designed to elicit a choice, was not presented to elicit a choice?

Take a deep breath and count to 10.

Here's one of your first posts:

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

The original question was:

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

So no one voted to "only get lessons from those who play at a high level." They simply voted that an instructors playing ability impacts their decision to take lessons from them.

And it should.

If a person claiming to be an instructor claims to have invented a great aiming technique, but isn't actually good with it, would you listen to him?

 

[FranCrimi]

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.

Sorry Mike, but that's not good enough. It still allows for comparisons to be made that have no meaning. Changing the color or the font or making it lighter will not account for my 20 years of pro level competition.

If I didn't catch this misrepresentation, then everyone would have thought that I can't play. That is not acceptable. I should not have to be the one to explain why I was being falsely represented.

First, I have no idea how you rate from event to event when there are so many different types of events played on different levels. I seriously question your credentials to do that. Second, if you insist on having a ranking system, you're better off leaving out all the names of players who haven't met your minimum requirement.

And by all means, I would appreciate it if you take my name off your list because I do not want to be misrepresented like this again.

 

[mfinkelstein3]

I'm guessing from the latest studies that there are 35,000,000 million people who play pool once in a while. For the ten or 100 guys here that have all these criteria for instructors, I applaud you. For you and who you seek instruction from I certainly can't or won't argue with you. You are absolutely correct. I certainly am not qualified to teach anyone high level one pocket or banks, but high level straight pool or 8 ball yes, so I agree with your assessment. But I can probably help you tweak your set up and stroke so that you hit the cue ball a wee bit more consistently, and play your best game a hair better.

As an instructor, I will focus my attention on the 34,999,900 people that I can help learn to play better pool, learn to love our sport and most importantly support our sport by playing in rooms, buying products and spreading the good word about how much fun pool is. I like my odds here.

And I'm totally in support of Fran's comments! Fran has probably forgotten things about pool that most people haven't learned yet. Wisconsin State Champion Jerry Briesath and Scott Lee a 0! David Sapolis not mentioned! Where is Tony Robles? Was Mark Wilson on the list? Dr. Dave? Bob Jewett? All of these guys are awesome instructors, players and people who every day are quietly doing wonderful things for our sport. We need more of you. Thank you for what you are doing! I apologize to anyone who I left out.

I want our sport to thrive and grow, not wither and die, and I'm doing my best to educate and promote pool. I'm not sitting in a sniper's nest taking shots at people who are trying their best to grow our sport.

My call to action here is if you are unhappy with the state of pool instruction, please don't put down those of us trying, do something to make it better. Write a book, make a video, teach kids how to play. The days of taking your secrets to the grave are over!

Now please go out and do something positive for pool today! Thank you.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

I'm guessing from the latest studies that there are 35,000,000 million people who play pool once in a while. For the ten or 100 guys here that have all these criteria for instructors, I applaud you. For you and who you seek instruction from I certainly can't or won't argue with you. You are absolutely correct. I certainly am not qualified to teach anyone high level one pocket or banks, but high level straight pool or 8 ball yes, so I agree with your assessment. But I can probably help you tweak your set up and stroke so that you hit the cue ball a wee bit more consistently, and play your best game a hair better.



As an instructor, I will focus my attention on the 34,999,900 people that I can help learn to play better pool, learn to love our sport and most importantly support our sport by playing in rooms, buying products and spreading the good word about how much fun pool is. I like my odds here.



And I'm totally in support of Fran's comments! Fran has probably forgotten things about pool that most people haven't learned yet. Wisconsin State Champion Jerry Briesath and Scott Lee a 0! David Sapolis not mentioned! Where is Tony Robles? Was Mark Wilson on the list? Dr. Dave? Bob Jewett? All of these guys are awesome instructors, players and people who every day are quietly doing wonderful things for our sport. We need more of you. Thank you for what you are doing! I apologize to anyone who I left out.



I want our sport to thrive and grow, not wither and die, and I'm doing my best to educate and promote pool. I'm not sitting in a sniper's nest taking shots at people who are trying their best to grow our sport.



My call to action here is if you are unhappy with the state of pool instruction, please don't put down those of us trying, do something to make it better. Write a book, make a video, teach kids how to play. The days of taking your secrets to the grave are over!



Now please go out and do something positive for pool today! Thank you.

tap ... tap ... tap



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cornerman]

One of the principle questions of this poll is "How can someone teach what they cannot do themselves?" There are only 2 choices in this poll.

You claim you did not see this poll as a choice. I find this very confusing because that's what polls are! They ask you to make a choice.

At its core, this poll is nothing more than a "yes or no" proposition, and the limited choices have created controversy. While many have tried to infuse their opinions to find a middle ground, unfortunately, the poll does not afford an option to address those grey areas.

You find my statement unappealing and I suspect it's because you felt you were on the opposite side of my "rally".

And yet, you provide no foundation for your position, which makes your statement nothing more than a poorly supported opinion.
Keep in mind, this is a forum. You're allowed to type more than one sentence at a time.

Right now your opinion holds absolutely no weight. Perhaps you can explain what level of reasoning would lead you to conclude that a poll, designed to elicit a choice, was not presented to elicit a choice?

I think my opinion holds as much weight as any, especially since I stuck to the poll.

I think you need to re-read what you specifically wrote, re-read what I specifically wrote, and digest what Krupa wrote.

The point you're rallying against is not represented in the poll. It simply isn't. The poll doesn't say anything about high level of play or anything. The only leap we can make is that someone is instructing something, whether it's stop shots, English, lagging, consistent follow-through.

The poll asks if the instructor's ability influences my decision to take instruction from them. There are only two choices in the poll:

Yes: they need to be able to show me
No: communication skills trump that

Broken down to the simplest that the OP presented, the answer is easily Yes. Now, the question that WASNT asked, you can rally against all day long. That has nothing to do with me, who voted Yes.


Freddie <~~~ instructor, but not a pro player

 

[Cornerman]

Take a deep breath and count to 10.

Here's one of your first posts:



The original question was:


So no one voted to "only get lessons from those who play at a high level." They simply voted that an instructors playing ability impacts their decision to take lessons from them.

And it should.

If a person claiming to be an instructor claims to have invented a great aiming technique, but isn't actually good with it, would you listen to him?

Thank you. That's exactly how I read the poll and answered. I have about 12 students. I'm not a professiona. I don't play at the highest level. Im certainly a tournament winner and I know the science. I have absolutely no issue calling myself an instructor to my students.

If they get to a position that they outgrow learning from me, then they should move on to someone they can continue learning from.

If I can't show them, they need to seek out someone who can.


Freddie <~~~ thought the question was easy

 

[fastone371]

Do you guys think, After a certain level of skill is achieved from that point forward you need more gaming knowledge than spf "type" training. Personally I don't miss many balls, I lose my games because I read the table differently. Sometimes after I play a great player they ask me why I didn't shoot this order or this shape route. My answer is honestly because I didn't see it! For me this requires a better player that can teach multiple table routes. I look at like driving a car, sure I can drive from Newyork to LA as good as anyone but the guy that can read a map has all the options if the roads are blocked and will get to LA sooner!

By that line of reasoning most pro's do not need a coach. I am sure most pro's easily outplay their coaches yet they still use one.

 

[jburkm002]

You go into a pool hall and there are two instructors at two different tables. One has a sign that says. I will show you what can be done with a pool cue and then I will teach you how to do it. The other has a sign that says. I will teach you what the other instructor can do. Which would you choose? Some students need a visual aid. Would you take piano lessons from someone who only knew how to play Mary had a little lamb.

 

[nine_ball6970]

You go into a pool hall and there are two instructors at two different tables. One has a sign that says. I will show you what can be done with a pool cue and then I will teach you how to do it. The other has a sign that says. I will teach you what the other instructor can do. Which would you choose? Some students need a visual aid. Would you take piano lessons from someone who only knew how to play Mary had a little lamb.

It depends on what you are getting lessons for. Most people getting lessons need work on the fundamentals. The skill level of the instructor should not be as important as his/her knowledge of things such as stance and how to correctly get your body into a consistent position for you that puts in a place to deliver a straight stroke. An instructor doesn't need to be able to run out 6 racks to show you what is best for you fundamental wise. I would rather have someone with knowledge of how to correct fundamentals based on past experiences giving many lessons than a good player who just knows how to play well.

I believe execution and skill level is more important when working on things such as position play and safeties. Those are the things most people want to work on but it is usually their fundamentals which prevent them from getting better at what they think they should be working on.

Would you want an instructor to show you how they can draw the cue ball the length of the table or one who can tell you what you need to do differently to be able to do it yourself? Those are completely different things.

 

[Bob Jewett]

The answer to the poll is obviously "yes" because I'm very unlikely to want to take a lesson (about pool) from an APA 3.

However, the real requirement is that the instructor be able to get you to play better. As an off-the-wall example, Willie Hoppe's father was not a great player but he taught Willie to play like a champion. His technique, so the story goes, is that he beat him when he missed. Willie learned not to miss. It was a different time and culture. I can testify that my mechanical drawing teacher used a paddle effectively with trouble makers and his students probably learned more because of it.

A gentler example might be a former shortstop who has declined physically to the point where he can't give good demos -- too many miscues from the shakes -- but is an excellent observer of both great players and students and is also an excellent explainer. He might be able to help significantly with lots of students except those who can only learn by example.

Another aspect is the parts of pool that are strategy and knowledge. Those parts can be transferred without the instructor hitting a ball. And there are some very strong players who are as dumb as doorknobs when it come to some non-standard shots.

Finally, when I give a lesson I try to shoot as little as possible. It is the student who should be shooting. Sometimes I have to resort to shooting an example shot, but I'd rather get the student to do the technique just by explanation.

 

[BRussell]

It depends on what you are getting lessons for. Most people getting lessons need work on the fundamentals. The skill level of the instructor should not be as important as his/her knowledge of things such as stance and how to correctly get your body into a consistent position for you that puts in a place to deliver a straight stroke. An instructor doesn't need to be able to run out 6 racks to show you what is best for you fundamental wise. I would rather have someone with knowledge of how to correct fundamentals based on past experiences giving many lessons than a good player who just knows how to play well.

I agree, but I wonder where some of the rules for stroke and stance fundamentals come from, and whether we know for sure what the best practices are. Many things are common sense, like your stance being balanced, but many things aren't common sense at all, and even common sense is often wrong. There's so much variation in the advice given about fundamentals, and even when there are widely accepted practices, WHY are they widely accepted? Because someone who is influential recommended them 20 years ago, or because they are grounded in solid principles and have been rigorously tested against alternatives? My guess is that most of what is recommended is based on good principles and sound logic (e.g., a pendulum swing reduces movement and therefore the chance of introducing error), but probably not all of it.

In big pro sports, because there is so much money involved, they have teams of researchers with PhDs and labs that rival major universities examining all facets of their sports. In pool, not so much.

 

[ronscuba]

....

In big pro sports, because there is so much money involved, they have teams of researchers with PhDs and labs that rival major universities examining all facets of their sports. In pool, not so much.

Maybe that is because a good pool stroke does not require power, margin for error to pocket balls is fairly forgiving, plus the pool stroke is much simpler and smaller in range of movement compared to other sports. Basically, you want stroke straight, hitting a 12mm-13mm spot, with an 8"-12" stroke.

I think because of the above, you can have varying styles of stroke, grip, stance, yet still be successful.

 

[nine_ball6970]

Maybe that is because a good pool stroke does not require power, margin for error to pocket balls is fairly forgiving, plus the pool stroke is much simpler and smaller in range of movement compared to other sports. Basically, you want stroke straight, hitting a 12mm-13mm spot, with an 8"-12" stroke.

I think because of the above, you can have varying styles of stroke, grip, stance, yet still be successful.

The point where the tip strikes the cue ball is 1mm. It is the deviation from the spot players try to hit and where they actually hit which determines someone's skill level to a large degree. A bigger table magnifies this.

That is why snooker requires extreme precision and they are so strict about fundamentals. Pool is more lax because of shorter shots and more forgiving pockets but players will become better if their stroke becomes more consistent.