Quality Instructors

[Scott Lee]

Very isolated incident? Nope...just the most recent example of many that could be cited. But as closed minded as you are, you are clueless to what is really possible. You sir, will never "get it", because it's beyond your comprehension. You simply don't know anything about quality instruction, it's possibilities, and it's historical impact on the sport. You don't know what you don't know...and you never will. You were a player who gave a few lessons. That's not an instructor...and I'd love to take your money about betting the 90% of top pros didn't get some kind of high level instruction. That's baloney. The truth is they did get the instruction...it just wasn't from somebody who had professional teaching credentials...because they didn't have something like that available back then. The number of pro players that Jerry Briesath helped is quite long and distinguished...especially back in the day when he was the ONLY master instructor.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Scott, if you want to point out one, very isolated incident, to support your endless claims..be my guest!..I will not bore everyone with the hundreds of 'teaching' incidents, that are much more realistic!..If that makes me wrong in your eyes..so be it!..I already conceded that 'good' instructors serve a much needed purpose..You insist on trying to make them out to be a completely infallible benefit, to ALL pro players!..Sorry, but that is simply not the case!..

From what I know of Rodney, he would go out of his way to be polite to anyone, regardless of the actual benefit, especially now that he is becoming an instructor himself!...Do you even wish to argue the point I made earlier, that I doubt 90% of all top players, have ever had even one single lesson, from a 'Master Instructor'?..Don't go there, you can't win!

 

[SJDinPHX]

Very isolated incident? Nope...just the most recent example of many that could be cited. But as closed minded as you are, you are clueless to what is really possible. You sir, will never "get it", because it's beyond your comprehension. You simply don't know anything about quality instruction, it's possibilities, and it's historical impact on the sport. You don't know what you don't know...and you never will. You were a player who gave a few lessons. That's not an instructor...and I'd love to take your money about betting the 90% of top pros didn't get some kind of high level instruction. That's baloney. The truth is they did get the instruction...it just wasn't from somebody who had professional teaching credentials...because they didn't have something like that available back then. The number of pro players that Jerry Briesath helped is quite long and distinguished...especially back in the day when he was the ONLY master instructor.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Well, you seem to be drifting off into 'insult land' again.(not surprising at all)..Let me just say this..I am not clueless, and I do "get it"!..In fact, I will put my qualifications for being able to 'teach' pro level players, up against yours, or any other 'master instructor' you can name!..The fact that I never cared for it all that much, even in my later years, (when boredom set in) should have no real bearing on the subject!

Yes, what little instructing I did, was specific to one pocket, and that was by choice!..I pre-date any actual records, as to my early years, but there are still a few people above ground, that will testify to my level of play and all-around knowledge!..Not to upset you, but even with all your **"professional teaching credentials", I would venture to say, I have probably forgotten more, about all facets of the game of pool, then you may ever learn!

FYI, I did not even become hooked on 1P, until I was almost 30..Prior to that, I played 9ball with anyone who came through the door, and with a pretty decent W/L record too!..Very few came hunting for me!..So don't think what I know about pool, is limited to 'moving games'!..Thats all the bragging you'll get out of me, for now!..I really see no need for us to continue this pointless dialogue!....Eventually, one of us is going to say something that really pisses the other one off! :bash:

Sayanara, PBIA guy :nanner:

PS..**BTW, you never did say who it was that 'certified' all 400 of you PBIA Instructors??? :shrug: (never mind, I don't care)

 

[rrick33]

The responses to this poll have hovered around 50/50 but I'm curious about the mindset of those who voted against using an instructor who is "Unable to teach what they cannot do themselves".

I sense that many if not most were viewing this question from a purely physical aspect of performance. The notion , for example, is that if the instructor cannot draw the ball the full length of the table, then how can they teach me to do it. (As if physical success in one area defines overall ability).

I know of one pro who could draw the cue ball two lengths of the table and yet I can think of several other pros, who play at a much higher and more consistent level, despite the fact that they lack the ability to draw two lengths of the table.

Focusing on this physical approach may seems plausible on the surface but I think it misses the big picture.

Most advanced players reach a point where they recognize that this game is 90% mental. Performance has much more to do with what's going on in your head as you sight the shot and physically execute the stroke....not simply the principles of physical execution.

So, if the game is 90% mental, why do so many focus only on the physical aspects when choosing an instructor?

Wouldn't it make more sense to base your criteria on instructors who understand the 90% more so than just using the 10% that encompasses physicality as your basis in choosing an instructor?

Einstein couldn't travel at the speed of light but he was one of the few who understood it's implications.

Imagine how little we would understand about the universe today had we required him to physically prove his point.

 

[krupa]

The responses to this poll have hovered around 50/50 but I'm curious about the mindset of those who voted against using an instructor who is "Unable to teach what they cannot do themselves".

No one voted against "using an instructor who is 'unable to teach what they cannot do themselves.'".

It's interesting that you put that phrase in quotes, since that's not what the poll is asking, nor is it an option.

Once again:

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

Yes: How can someone teach what they can't do themselves?
No: Teaching ability and the ability to communicate effectively trumps playing ability

I sense that many if not most were viewing this question from a purely physical aspect of performance. The notion , for example, is that if the instructor cannot draw the ball the full length of the table, then how can they teach me to do it. (As if physical success in one area defines overall ability).

I know of one pro who could draw the cue ball two lengths of the table and yet I can think of several other pros, who play at a much higher and more consistent level, despite the fact that they lack the ability to draw two lengths of the table.

Focusing on this physical approach may seems plausible on the surface but I think it misses the big picture.

Most advanced players reach a point where they recognize that this game is 90% mental. Performance has much more to do with what's going on in your head as you sight the shot and physically execute the stroke....not simply the principles of physical execution.

So, if the game is 90% mental, why do so many focus only on the physical aspects when choosing an instructor?

Wouldn't it make more sense to base your criteria on instructors who understand the 90% more so than just using the 10% that encompasses physicality as your basis in choosing an instructor?

Considering the fact that most players are not and will never be "advanced" players, they probably don't need as much "mental" help as you suggest.

And even so, I'd rather listen to past high-level tournament players discuss how they keep it together between the ears than some guy who read a couple sports psychology books.


If you read and consider the poll as it is written it simply asks if a person's ability affects our decision and the answer is yes. If I had to choose between two instructors and all other things were equal, I'd choose the one who could play better because they not only know their shit they can perform their shit. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

I wouldn't take lessons from a high level player who couldn't actually teach and I wouldn't take lessons from someone who has simply memorized all of Cappelle's and Byrne's books.

A good instructor, whether it's pool, golf, piano, etc., needs to be able to do as well as instruct. They don't need to be the best in the world, but they need to be able to do what they're trying to get me to do.

Einstein couldn't travel at the speed of light but he was one of the few who understood it's implications.

Imagine how little we would understand about the universe today had we required him to physically prove his point.

I'll tell you what, I can't ride a motorcycle but for $50/hour I'll teach you how to ride one. Don't worry... it's 90% mental. Sound good?

 

[randyg]

So Who is and who isn't , let's get those facts straight ,

1

Two great guys have passed.
Roy Yamane
Tom Simpson

NOT Master Instructors
Bert Kinister
Phil Cappelle (Author)
Dominic Espisito
Tom Rossman
KJ Williams

Facts
randyg

 

[randyg]

Two great guys have passed.
Roy Yamane
Tom Simpson

NOT Master Instructors
Bert Kinister
Phil Cappelle (Author)
Dominic Espisito
Tom Rossman
KJ Williams

Facts
randyg

Now I have to correct myself.

Rossman & Williams are listed on the ACS website as Level 4 Instructors.

My bad
randyg

 

[GoldCrown]

Considering the fact that most players are not and will never be "advanced" players, they probably don't need as much "mental" help as you suggest.

Everyone wants to win regress of their level. I'll rate myself a C. My $5.00-$10.00 a game is worth the same as an advanced players money. Mental goes with physical, Lately I need as much mental as I do physical(stroke). I can be my own worst enemy.
I'll take whatever an instructor can teach me to be real confident and mental strong(er). Can I buy that. Can someone(instructor) teach mental fitness. I'll take it. And yes books are worthless. The Pleasures Of Small Motion....must be me. I trashed my copy.

 

[krupa]

Everyone wants to win regress of their level. I'll rate myself a C. My $5.00-$10.00 a game is worth the same as an advanced players money. Mental goes with physical, Lately I need as much mental as I do physical(stroke). I'll take whatever an instructor can teach me to be real confident and mental strong(er). Can I buy that. Can someone teach mental fitness. I'll take it.

But not counting one-off lessons, do you think you need that 90/10 ratio?

Obviously, it depends on the person, and speaking only for myself, I'm not looking for that kind of a balance. My absolute best game might be a C and I'm looking for help with my game, not my brain.

 

[SJDinPHX]

This may be worth repeating.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5681155&postcount=122

 

[Cornerman]

The responses to this poll have hovered around 50/50 but I'm curious about the mindset of those who voted against using an instructor who is "Unable to teach what they cannot do themselves".

When I suggested that you reread the poll, I didn't expect that you'd even get it worse. And are you reading your own post??? If there even was a hint of a choice that suggest, per YOUR quote:

"I'm curious about the mindset of those who voted against using an instructor who is 'Unable to teach what they cannot do themselves'."

Exactly who in their right mind would actually think about taking a lesson from someone who "is unable to teach what they cannot do themselves"?

Now if there were a choice that stated, "ABLE to teach what they cannot do themselves," then that would be an interesting poll choice. Sadly to say, and obvious to say, that although the NO choice seem to suggest this, that's not how the poll was presented.

I sense that many if not most were viewing this question from a purely physical aspect of performance. .

I sense that half of the responders didn't read the question, assumed what the question was asking, and then hit the NO button. Maybe how YOU interpreted the question was exactly what the OP was asking, but that's not what was asked.

The simple poll *as asked* had a simple answer: YES.

The more not-simple answer to the question that wasn't asked seems to be what you're rallying against. I have no interest in this thread to discuss that since it's a completely different discussion. But, keep on keeping on.

Freddie

 

[GoldCrown]

...............

 

[BRussell]

I sense that half of the responders didn't read the question, assumed what the question was asking, and then hit the NO button. Maybe how YOU interpreted the question was exactly what the OP was asking, but that's not what was asked.

The simple poll *as asked* had a simple answer: YES.

Without the choices it seems obvious, but reading the specific choices makes me think the other way. I definitely agree that "Teaching ability and the ability to communicate effectively trumps playing ability." I'd take someone who is a worse player but can teach and communicate in a way that actually helps over someone who is a better player but not as good of a teacher.

I also agree with the "Yes" statement: "How can someone teach what they can't do themselves?" but I can see scenarios where someone has knowledge but whose physical skills have declined, as an example.

I'm trying to read the two choices as plainly as possible, and I think I agree with the "No" statement more.

 

[Cornerman]

Without the choices it seems obvious, but reading the specific choices makes me think the other way.

Maybe the problem is that the choices weren't mutually exclusive, and they weren't in sync with the poll question. It feels like the poll choices force people to look at things that the initial question didn't ask, which might have been the OP's original intent all along. It's a strawman, I think.

 

[ronscuba]

Analyze any question or poll deep enough and you will be able to find points of view and arguments to validate your answer.

 

[Cornerman]

Analyze any question or poll deep enough and you will be able to find points of view and arguments to validate your answer.

That's why IMO it was best to answer the actual question with a Yes or No answer. I assume the words after the Yes or No to be tongue and cheeky and they actually added confusion when there shouldn't have been any.

 

[Tramp Steamer]

If you think that this is the first time someone has gotten the wording screwed up on a poll, you've got another think coming.
I remember when a pollster asked the question, "Do you smoke after sex?"
One of the ladies responded with, "I don't know. I never looked."

 

[ronscuba]

That's why IMO it was best to answer the actual question with a Yes or No answer. I assume the words after the Yes or No to be tongue and cheeky and they actually added confusion when there shouldn't have been any.

The poll and thread has been entertaining to read.

While the instructors level of performance when in their prime may not be the most important deciding factor, it's kind of silly to say it has NO IMPACT on their credentials or potential student decision to select them.

When selecting an instructor, you can consider:

experience in teaching
experience playing/performing
level of performance when in their prime
formal certifications
playing style
teaching style
technical knowledge
reputation
specialty

 

[jeffj2h]

Imagine if money were no object

Regarding coaching of pro pool players, imagine if money were no object. Tennis is a good example of that. 20 years ago pro tennis players had one coach, but then the money kept growing and now they might have a half dozen.

If pro pool players made millions, they would probably have a coaching team like this:

Coach #1: Head coach. Does drills with the player daily, and directs the other coaches

Coach #2: The Scout. Analyzes strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies of other players. Devises a strategy for playing each opponent.

Coach #3: Breaking

Coach #4: Physical fitness

Coach #5: Nutritionist

Coach #6: Mental / Spiritual fitness. Does daily yoga, meditation, etc with the player

Coach #7:The Manager. Handles travel logistics, negotiates with sponsors, and makes sure the checks cash.

A player with this coaching team would probably have another team member: the super hot girlfriend that traveled with the team and who the streaming camera would constantly cut to for reaction shots. It all seems to go together.

 

[one stroke]

Regarding coaching of pro pool players, imagine if money were no object. Tennis is a good example of that. 20 years ago pro tennis players had one coach, but then the money kept growing and now they might have a half dozen.

If pro pool players made millions, they would probably have a coaching team like this:

Coach #1: Head coach. Does drills with the player daily, and directs the other coaches

Coach #2: The Scout. Analyzes strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies of other players. Devises a strategy for playing each opponent.

Coach #3: Breaking

Coach #4: Physical fitness

Coach #5: Nutritionist

Coach #6: Mental / Spiritual fitness. Does daily yoga, meditation, etc with the player

Coach #7:The Manager. Handles travel logistics, negotiates with sponsors, and makes sure the checks cash.

A player with this coaching team would probably have another team member: the super hot girlfriend that traveled with the team and who the streaming camera would constantly cut to for reaction shots. It all seems to go together.

Nice list in a dream world
To me if I was a young buck again and knew what I know now ,, I'd have one coach to keep my mechanics in check I'd visit him once a month and I would have videos of matches I played for us to review I'd set a camera up myself for that
Then I would have a sports shrink I'd see every 3 months or as needed ,, being some what a head case no lesson no book readying no video ever paid bigger dividends than one trip to the Doc it's paid for its self 10 fold
Next I'd join a gym to stay in top shape and it's pretty cheap to do that
The it's practice events and action in all games
Do all the above and I like your chances to be a very good player

1

 

[rrick33]

1. No one voted against "using an instructor who is 'unable to teach what they cannot do themselves.'".

2. Considering the fact that most players are not and will never be "advanced" players, they probably don't need as much "mental" help as you suggest.

3. I'll tell you what, I can't ride a motorcycle but for $50/hour I'll teach you how to ride one. Don't worry... it's 90% mental. Sound good?

1. Apparently you didn't read very many posts.

2. I would say most players who bother to frequent a pool related website are already advanced or hoping to achieve that level....compared to the average player. Except for you of course. You'll get at least 1 vote for your position.

3. Wow! Misapplied word salad that completely misses the point.

Based on the naiveté in your responses, I can't help but think you're fairly young. Perhaps time will open your mind.