Questions about instructors

[Neil]

I think it's pretty obvious that for an instructor to instill any confidence in his students, he/she needs to possess a certain standard/level of play. IMO that threshold is somewhere in the "open" category.

At that level, you have a good base of knowledge of every aspect of the game. To get to Open speed, your knowledge is not merely theoretical, but based on actual experience on the table. You can actually execute the shots/safeties/kicks you're trying to teach.

The analogy to other sports is dubious. Pool doesn't require any macro-level execution, with the possible exception of the break shot, and you don't need to even come close to SVB's break to compete professionally. IOW, there are no special physical requirements to play pool at a high level, whereas in baseball/boxing w/e there exists but a handful of people who have the physical attributes to execute at a pro level.

-roger

Your statements show just how naive you are about learning. Your comments only hold true for someone looking for a "magic bullet" from instruction. The ONLY thing any instructor can give a student is knowledge. They can not pass their experience on to another player. Every person has to achieve experience on their own.

For example- Dr. Dave has on his site everything you need to know to become a pro pool player. All the necessary knowledge is there. That knowledge is worthless to anyone that does not utilize it. It takes the student learning the knowledge, then mastering the utilization of that knowledge through experience, his own experience. No instructor can pass on experience any more than you can to anyone else. All you can do is present the knowledge.

 

[buddha162]

Your statements show just how naive you are about learning. Your comments only hold true for someone looking for a "magic bullet" from instruction. The ONLY thing any instructor can give a student is knowledge. They can not pass their experience on to another player. Every person has to achieve experience on their own.

For example- Dr. Dave has on his site everything you need to know to become a pro pool player. All the necessary knowledge is there. That knowledge is worthless to anyone that does not utilize it. It takes the student learning the knowledge, then mastering the utilization of that knowledge through experience, his own experience. No instructor can pass on experience any more than you can to anyone else. All you can do is present the knowledge.

The condescending tone of your post had me expecting some argument against my points, but none was forthcoming. Rather disappointing non-sequitur.

So you're saying that in-person instruction is basically worthless given the range of materials available. I'm not entirely opposed to that position.

If a student of the game is engaged in critical thinking and possess an analytical mind, I agree: a wealth of information is available on the web. Even form/mechanical issues can be addressed effectively by oneself with a few minutes worth of video from a smart phone, but only if you're aware of the basics of physical execution.

But someone like Dr. Dave is providing raw data (hugely valuable raw data); he is not offering lessons. When you take lessons, you are paying the instructor to synthesize that information and apply it to your situation.

My point is simply that IF you are to receive in-person instruction, I don't see how an instructor who plays at a lower speed than you can possibly help your game by much, esp at the higher levels. When faced with a difficult run-out, I guess I could turn to a C player and ask his opinion...but I don't think I would profit from it.

-roger

 

[YubaCushion]

Your statements show just how naive you are about learning. Your comments only hold true for someone looking for a "magic bullet" from instruction. The ONLY thing any instructor can give a student is knowledge. They can not pass their experience on to another player. Every person has to achieve experience on their own.

For example- Dr. Dave has on his site everything you need to know to become a pro pool player. All the necessary knowledge is there. That knowledge is worthless to anyone that does not utilize it. It takes the student learning the knowledge, then mastering the utilization of that knowledge through experience, his own experience. No .

The OP has a pre determined answer in his head. I understand the sports reference, some people have the mental and some the physical tools. As far as Budda, he's not that far off. Pool is different in the way that there aren't the physical limitations. As far as your example, no. I'm not taking nutrition and exercise instruction from an overweight out of shape individual, and I'm not taking financial advice from someone who's never made money. Just because they have the knowledge.

 

[Scott Lee]

roger...That's not at all what Neil was saying. He is huge advocate of personal instruction, and thoroughly understands the short-term and long-term benefits...even if you don't.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

So you're saying that in-person instruction is basically worthless given the range of materials available. I'm not entirely opposed to that position.

-roger

 

[buddha162]

roger...That's not at all what Neil was saying. He is huge advocate of personal instruction, and thoroughly understands the short-term and long-term benefits...even if you don't.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

I was wondering where you were in this thread, given that you're an interested party to the topic discussed.

As for Neil's position: I can only go by what he wrote, which really has nothing to do with what I posted earlier in the thread. I don't really care one way or another re his opinion, but unlike you or Neil my reading comprehension is just fine:

The ONLY thing any instructor can give a student is knowledge. They can not pass their experience on to another player. Every person has to achieve experience on their own.

For example- Dr. Dave has on his site everything you need to know to become a pro pool player. All the necessary knowledge is there.

-roger

 

[Neil]

The condescending tone of your post had me expecting some argument against my points, but none was forthcoming. Rather disappointing non-sequitur.

So you're saying that in-person instruction is basically worthless given the range of materials available. I'm not entirely opposed to that position.

If a student of the game is engaged in critical thinking and possess an analytical mind, I agree: a wealth of information is available on the web. Even form/mechanical issues can be addressed effectively by oneself with a few minutes worth of video from a smart phone, but only if you're aware of the basics of physical execution.

But someone like Dr. Dave is providing raw data (hugely valuable raw data); he is not offering lessons. When you take lessons, you are paying the instructor to synthesize that information and apply it to your situation.

My point is simply that IF you are to receive in-person instruction, I don't see how an instructor who plays at a lower speed than you can possibly help your game by much, esp at the higher levels. When faced with a difficult run-out, I guess I could turn to a C player and ask his opinion...but I don't think I would profit from it.

-roger

1. It's only condescending because that's what you want to read into it. If I was being condescending, I would have said your stupid for believing what you do. Instead, I said you were naive, which means that you just don't know. Nothing wrong with not knowing something at all.

2. I never said in-person instruction was worthless. In fact, I happen to believe just the opposite. Just because I only pointed out one way to travel, does not imply that it is the only way to travel to your destination.

3. You totally missed everything I said. If you want to understand it, go back and read it again with an open mind. If not, that's fine too. If you want to think that only a top level instructor can get you to the top, despite all the mountains of evidence to the contrary, then go ahead and think that way. That doesn't make you right about it, just naive and close-minded about it.

 

[(((Satori)))]

The Earl/JJ video for those that haven't seen it.

Edited for posting in wrong thread

 

[buddha162]

1. It's only condescending because that's what you want to read into it. If I was being condescending, I would have said your stupid for believing what you do. Instead, I said you were naive, which means that you just don't know. Nothing wrong with not knowing something at all.

2. I never said in-person instruction was worthless. In fact, I happen to believe just the opposite. Just because I only pointed out one way to travel, does not imply that it is the only way to travel to your destination.

3. You totally missed everything I said. If you want to understand it, go back and read it again with an open mind. If not, that's fine too. If you want to think that only a top level instructor can get you to the top, despite all the mountains of evidence to the contrary, then go ahead and think that way. That doesn't make you right about it, just naive and close-minded about it.

I don't mind your tone, doesn't bother me.

It's interesting that you think I'm close minded simply because I disagree with you. I believe I've given reasons for my argument, but since you claim that there are "mountains of evidence to the contrary" let's hear them. I'm more than ready to change my mind based on evidence.

-roger

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

If you think about it, while a good instructor obviously needs the knowledge, the most important attributes are the ability to teach that knowledge i.e. communicate it effectively to the student, and to accurately observe what is going on in another's stroke/stance/setup. In a similar way, not all professional level players make good teachers.

One of the most respected golf instructors ever was Tom Kite's coach, World Golf Hall of Famer Harvey Penick:

Doubtful Mr. Penick was ever able to demonstrate a 300+ yard drive considering that he was approaching 70 when Tom Kite was getting out of high school and was pretty much confined to a chair when giving lessons in later years. Yet he is widely regarded as one of the best golf instructors of all time.

He passed away the week another of his students, Ben Crenshaw, won the Masters.

 

[Neil]

I don't mind your tone, doesn't bother me.

It's interesting that you think I'm close minded simply because I disagree with you. I believe I've given reasons for my argument, but since you claim that there are "mountains of evidence to the contrary" let's hear them. I'm more than ready to change my mind based on evidence.

-roger

The fact that you aren't open-minded as you say you are is evidenced by the sig line you put in every post. Also, this isn't the first time on here this subject has been approached. And, it's not the first time you have bothered to read about it. So, I see no reason to re-hash the mountains of evidence that you refuse to even see are there.

You want to believe that only a top pro can teach one to be a pro, then book a lesson with CJ and don't worry about the rest of the instructors.

 

[buddha162]

The fact that you aren't open-minded as you say you are is evidenced by the sig line you put in every post. Also, this isn't the first time on here this subject has been approached. And, it's not the first time you have bothered to read about it. So, I see no reason to re-hash the mountains of evidence that you refuse to even see are there.

You want to believe that only a top pro can teach one to be a pro, then book a lesson with CJ and don't worry about the rest of the instructors.

Funny, I would think my sig line conveys the opposite of close-mindedness. Valuing rationalism and evidence tends to rid yourself of all kinds of dogma and orthodoxy. And btw I don't manually type out my sig line in every post; you can set it in your user cp.

But back to the topic at hand: I never said you must be a pro to teach a pro, but I do think there's a minimum standard involved and that threshold is somewhere within the "open" speed range. I might be convinced to go as low as solid A. But a C or B player? I don't think so.

But again, present your evidence. So far all you've done is make ludicrous assertions that somehow in pool, a game not limited by physical ability, academic knowledge can replace actual ability/experience in an instructor.

As for CJ: his disciples are the short-cut/magic-bullet crowd that you confused me for. On that point I think we do agree.

-roger

 

[BRussell]

I never said you must be a pro to teach a pro, but I do think there's a minimum standard involved and that threshold is somewhere within the "open" speed range. I might be convinced to go as low as solid A. But a C or B player? I don't think so.

I wonder how many instructors are B or C players? What if someone was formerly an A or up player but are now past their prime in playing and instead have devoted their retirement from playing pool to teaching it?

PS: I like your sig. :wink:

 

[Neil]

Funny, I would think my sig line conveys the opposite of close-mindedness. Valuing rationalism and evidence tends to rid yourself of all kinds of dogma and orthodoxy. And btw I don't manually type out my sig line in every post; you can set it in your user cp.

But back to the topic at hand: I never said you must be a pro to teach a pro, but I do think there's a minimum standard involved and that threshold is somewhere within the "open" speed range. I might be convinced to go as low as solid A. But a C or B player? I don't think so.

But again, present your evidence. So far all you've done is make ludicrous assertions that somehow in pool, a game not limited by physical ability, academic knowledge can replace actual ability/experience in an instructor.

As for CJ: his disciples are the short-cut/magic-bullet crowd that you confused me for. On that point I think we do agree.

-roger

First off, you have to understand what separates an A player from a semi-pro from a pro from a top pro. While, at times, everyone goes braindead for a shot or two, you will find that from A level to pro level, they are essentially shooting the same patterns and position play. (remember that everyone has some idiosyncracies to that statement with preferred patterns or position routes . That little difference doesn't make one more correct than the other)

Knowing that, just what do you think it is that separates the different levels from A on up?? And, just what do you think it is that only an open player (which would be semi-pro according to most on here) can teach that an A player or even B player cannot teach?

edit: as to your sig line, you may think that article is rational, but it leaves out an awful lot of facts that I won't get into here. There is really nothing rational about it.

 

[justadub]

Funny, I would think my sig line conveys the opposite of close-mindedness. Valuing rationalism and evidence tends to rid yourself of all kinds of dogma and orthodoxy. And btw I don't manually type out my sig line in every post; you can set it in your user cp.

But back to the topic at hand: I never said you must be a pro to teach a pro, but I do think there's a minimum standard involved and that threshold is somewhere within the "open" speed range. I might be convinced to go as low as solid A. But a C or B player? I don't think so.

But again, present your evidence. So far all you've done is make ludicrous assertions that somehow in pool, a game not limited by physical ability, academic knowledge can replace actual ability/experience in an instructor.

As for CJ: his disciples are the short-cut/magic-bullet crowd that you confused me for. On that point I think we do agree.

-roger

I am no one's disciple, but I wonder what would make you say that those who are interested in someone's methods, like CJ's, must be automatically looking for a magic bullet.

All too frequently, it seems fashionable here to label anyone that is trying a different way to learn as seatching for "the magic bullet."

I have read most everyones methods, at least here on AZB, and not once has ANY instructor EVER stated that their method would work without time and serious practice.

It's rather tiresome.

 

[golubushka]

----------

 

[buddha162]

First off, you have to understand what separates an A player from a semi-pro from a pro from a top pro. While, at times, everyone goes braindead for a shot or two, you will find that from A level to pro level, they are essentially shooting the same patterns and position play. (remember that everyone has some idiosyncracies to that statement with preferred patterns or position routes . That little difference doesn't make one more correct than the other)

Knowing that, just what do you think it is that separates the different levels from A on up?? And, just what do you think it is that only an open player (which would be semi-pro according to most on here) can teach that an A player or even B player cannot teach?

edit: as to your sig line, you may think that article is rational, but it leaves out an awful lot of facts that I won't get into here. There is really nothing rational about it.

So we agree that the instructor to the pros need some standards in his own game to be effective. We can quibble over where that threshold is of course, but I would imagine that puts us on the same page.

To me, an "open" player is not a pro solely due to consistency. His knowledge of patterns, safeties, kicking, is right up there with your average pro. The only thing he lacks is the ability to dial it in each and every time he steps to the table.

An "A" player, on the other hand, has gaps in his knowledge. He might run out the "correct" patterns 8 out of 10 times, but make mental errors every now and then. His offense/defense decision making might be the same as an open/pro player, but his execution is not going to be nearly as consistent. He's not going to hit the small-window safeties as often. He will miss more kicks, or play higher-percentage kicks at the expense of kick-safeties.

To be sure, you can be a conscientious B player and be an effective instructor to a C or even fellow B player; depends on your approach to the game. But almost by definition, you're a B player and not an A or Open or Pro because you lack the knowledge in the game to get to that next level. It's certainly not for a lack of "natural talent" or due to any physical limitation. Given that fact, just what do a B player have to offer an A-open-pro player? Something he read on the internet?

And btw, it's obvious to me now that you're serious about refusing to offer any evidence for your argument.

-roger

PS. I know my sig line bothers you, but since you don't want to go into it it's probably best not to mention it at all.

 

[buddha162]

I wonder how many instructors are B or C players? What if someone was formerly an A or up player but are now past their prime in playing and instead have devoted their retirement from playing pool to teaching it?

PS: I like your sig. :wink:

I think that would qualify as having the knowledge. Your hands might shake a bit as you get older, maybe your eyes go...but your mind could stay intact.

It is usually helpful, however, to actually execute the shot on the table when you're trying to teach that shot to a student.

-roger

 

[Neil]

So we agree that the instructor to the pros need some standards in his own game to be effective. We can quibble over where that threshold is of course, but I would imagine that puts us on the same page.

To me, an "open" player is not a pro solely due to consistency. Agreed His knowledge of patterns, safeties, kicking, is right up there with your average pro.Agreed The only thing he lacks is the ability to dial it in each and every time he steps to the table.
Agreed
An "A" player, on the other hand, has gaps in his knowledge. He might run out the "correct" patterns 8 out of 10 times, but make mental errors every now and then. His offense/defense decision making might be the same as an open/pro player, then that means that he doesn't have those gaps. He has the same knowledge as the others, just not the consistency of the others. but his execution is not going to be nearly as consistent. He's not going to hit the small-window safeties as often. He will miss more kicks, or play higher-percentage kicks at the expense of kick-safeties. Again, it's not that he doesn't have the knowledge, he does. He doesn't have the consistency.

To be sure, you can be a conscientious B player and be an effective instructor to a C or even fellow B player; depends on your approach to the game. But almost by definition, you're a B player and not an A or Open or Pro because you lack the knowledge in the game to get to that next level. There's where I disagree with you. It doesn't have to be lack of knowledge,it can simply be lack of consistency which can also be nothing more than current lack of table time to ingrain into his subconscious memory to perform what his conscious memory knows to do. It's certainly not for a lack of "natural talent" or due to any physical limitation. Given that fact, just what do a B player have to offer an A-open-pro player? Something he read on the internet?
As even you stated earlier, what separates the levels for the most part is consistency. What do you think causes that consistency? It's 90%+ fundamentals and time on the table. It's not lack of knowledge on what to do or how to do it. It's lack of time on the table to make it automatic to ones subconscious.
And btw, it's obvious to me now that you're serious about refusing to offer any evidence for your argument.

-roger

PS. I know my sig line bothers you, but since you don't want to go into it it's probably best not to mention it at all.

..........

 

[Banks]

Leave it to stupid people to ask the stupid questions.

Maybe his handle was referring to his age. Talk about having issues.

 

[Neil]

I think that would qualify as having the knowledge. Your hands might shake a bit as you get older, maybe your eyes go...but your mind could stay intact.

It is usually helpful, however, to actually execute the shot on the table when you're trying to teach that shot to a student.

-roger

Why would you say that? You will find that most instructors never even touch a cue while teaching. They are there to teach you how to perform, not show that they can do it. The goal isn't to see if the shot can be performed, the goal is to get the student to perform it.