So what you're saying is that, the salient difference between a C, B, A, Open, and Pro player is merely consistency. I think that is a ridiculous assertion.
-roger
Questions about instructors
- Thread starter 7forlife
- Start date
So what you're saying is that, the salient difference between a C, B, A, Open, and Pro player is merely consistency. I think that is a ridiculous assertion.
-roger
I didn't say that, which you well know. But, since you want to put words in my mouth, go ahead and save me the trouble of typing it out and you can make the rest of my posts for me on this subject.
Lol okay, I suppose you can just stand there and talk your student through various shots.
"Hit it a little firmer."
"how much firmer?"
"Oh, about 20% firmer."
That's just as effective as picking up your cue and executing the shot while you explain what you're doing, right?
I suppose when I train a cook how to execute a dish, I can just stand behind him and talk. No point in me actually showing him how much color I want on the sear, how thick I want the sauce reduced...how to garnish the plate, etc. Yeah, that never happens in the real world, we never teach by example.
What universe do you live in?
-roger
Pathetic Shark
Banned
The question 'why aren't instructors better players than they actually are' seems perfectly reasonable to me - whether they're good teachers or not.
What's tiresome is the fact that you're from Maine, yet feature in your avatar pic a spiny lobster which is a far inferior species than the one your state is famous for. The Maine lobster is far more succulent, tender, and flavorful than its clawless, pussified cousin.
-roger
Banks
Banned
So, being capable of learning means you can't understand what you're being told?
If I tell somebody my address, do I have to drive them there first?
I've learned plenty of things from people that weren't as able. Efren can learn from watching bangers, but an A can't be taught by a B. I guess that's why everybody has the same level of aptitude in all aspects of this game based on their skill rating.
Do people learn on their own at all then? If so, they must all learn at the same rate since you saying that only better players can teach something. Though, didn't you say that the teacher can play at the same level? Using you logic, how does that work since they know the same things?
Efren gleaned some arcane CB knowledge watching bangers crap in balls or miss, that's a little different from Efren paying a B player for lessons isn't it?
Sure, I've picked up isolated things here and there from people who play at a lower speed than me (mostly what not to do), but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay them to give me lessons. Would you?
-roger
Banks
Banned
Arcane Cb knowledge? Not really, just shots that he hadn't thought of before in different situations.
If that's what they specialized in, yes.
What you keep insinuating is that there is no difference between execution and knowledge. That's about as false as you can get. Every pro in every serious sport has a coach. They don't need to perform better, they only need to have knowledge - partially of what to look for and how to convey the information.
I could read every art book known to man, but it still won't make me an artist. Just as being an artist doesn't mean that they can explain how to paint to others.
Good eye.
This photo was sent to me, since I'm from Maine, which you noticed. I thought it was very cool, and didn't see any reason not to use it. I don't claim anything about that young lady or the lobster being from Maine.
I have pointed out the irony of it several times since I started using the photo, which I don't feel the need to apologize for.
If my avatar is tiresome to you, you need to switch your settings to "no avatars", or ignore it.
cluelesscuer
New member
I think everyone has made a valid point on this debate and nobody is completely wrong or right.
I think what we should look at is the real data...
Have people out here had real improvement in their game from instruction from a certain instructor?
(Granted determining the answer to the above question...is not that easy.)
I think what we should look at is the real data...
Have people out here had real improvement in their game from instruction from a certain instructor?
(Granted determining the answer to the above question...is not that easy.)
That picture will "never" get tired. What are you looking at the lobster for anyhow, because you think you're a chef?
Well, no, actually it's not. The point when I give lessons is to get the student to play better. That's best done by having them shoot shots and correcting errors in how they shoot them. The "about 20% harder" suggestion does, in fact, work. Most students have a general feeling for "a little harder", "about twice as hard", and "you've got to hit the shot a lot harder than that." Sometimes the next shot will need to be, "and just a little harder than that", or "split the difference between those two shots." Usually it doesn't take very long to converge on the right speed especially if the instructor is setting up the shots.
Interesting thoughts. you make it sound like people are machines. just having the knowledge doesn't make an instructor a world beater player. same goes for a commentator. talent, heart and perseverance make a champion along with the knowledge...........same for any sport. the top instructors are probably excellent players and prefer to teach vs compete for their own personal reasons and that should be respected. some top pros don't know how to teach what they do , they just know how to win and that quality is not coachable.
To a question posed earlier - does anyone have experience of improving from lessons? Yes. I was an APA 6 using some funky mechanics when I went to "Pool School" with Randy G here in Dallas. Using Set / Pause / Finish I was able to improve quickly to a 7. I would be playing better today if I had put more effort into _all_ of the methods shared. I saw the improvement I was looking for and got lazy but I'm going back now and working on incorporating more of it.
Craig
Craig
cluelesscuer
New member
Thanks for sharing cyork2...I wish this thread was filled more with testimonial than the other stuff.
The answer to this question has been known, literally for centuries, in the music field. It is simply this. Performing and teaching are two entirely different capabilities. Just because someone is a top performer does not automatically mean that they are capable of teaching anyone how to do it. That is why there are two separate college curriculums depending on the career path you chose. Either performance or music education.
The quality of a teacher is judged by their consistency in producing students that exceed their capabilities. Julliard has been producing world class musicians for I don't know how long. How many world class musicians has Ole Miss produced? None to my knowledge. It's not hard to figure out where the best instructors are. On the other hand how many Julliard instructors have given solo performances at Carnegie Hall? None.
I don't think sports is a good parallel but some coaches consistently produce good teams year after year. There was a chorus instructor at my high school who produced award winning choruses year after year even though students graduated and new ones came in. Could the guy sing? Yes, but you sure wouldn't hear him cutting a record or giving a concert anywhere.
I once won a golf lesson with a very high-ranked PGA tournament player.
It was a disaster. He watched me swing and then said "No, do it this way." and then hit a ball. He couldn't tell me what I was doing wrong or how to change it. All he could do swing a club and say "Do it like that."
One hour of "Do it like this." After 15 minutes I should have walked.
It was a disaster. He watched me swing and then said "No, do it this way." and then hit a ball. He couldn't tell me what I was doing wrong or how to change it. All he could do swing a club and say "Do it like that."
One hour of "Do it like this." After 15 minutes I should have walked.
Last edited:
Good point. I assumed it was referring to his APA handicap which wasn't any more impressive, despite what he seemed to think.
It isn't an unreasonable question. It was the way he asked and his attitude about it that was unreasonable. Neil and Buddha are having a more reasonable discussion about the topic than 7 was willing to have.
As far as that discussion is concerned, I think it's a little of both. I'll comment further shortly.
