Some people are un-teachable!

We can't teach anyone to play pool. We can only teach them how to learn to play pool. If the student isn't willing to open their mind to new ideas, and try new things, it's going to be frustrating for all involved.
Instructors have the easier part of the job. We just share our knowledge and experience with the students. The student is the one who has to apply it. If they aren't willing to do that, it just isn't going to work.
I have turned down two potential students, both of whom had the attitude that they already knew this, that, and the other...and wanted to know what I could teach them. I told them "nothing, you already know it"
Steve
 
pooltchr said:
We can't teach anyone to play pool. We can only teach them how to learn to play pool. If the student isn't willing to open their mind to new ideas, and try new things, it's going to be frustrating for all involved.
Instructors have the easier part of the job. We just share our knowledge and experience with the students. The student is the one who has to apply it. If they aren't willing to do that, it just isn't going to work.
I have turned down two potential students, both of whom had the attitude that they already knew this, that, and the other...and wanted to know what I could teach them. I told them "nothing, you already know it"
Steve
Click to expand...



I couldnt agree more, and with certain exercises the student can actualy correct bad habbits themselves without really being aware they are doing so. I think the first step is a lil show and tell, followed by moral support and the right exercises. I feel this opens the student to the importance and certain key elements needed to play the game with confidence.

SPINDOKTOR
 
While the guy in your story was probably a bit of an ass, he actually had a perfectly fair question... what answer did you give?

In one of his books robert byrne goes out of his way to point out that you don't HAVE to follow through on anything, and he said more or less the same thing as your ex-student: the cueball has no idea what your stick is doing after it's been struck.

If I remember right, byrne's argument for following through anyway (even though it's not necessary) is that your brain and muscles "know" ahead of time when you plan on jerking the stick to an abrupt halt, and this affects how much speed and effort you put into your stroke. Without intending to, you shorten up, jump up, or hit with less force than you meant to. Also, it takes actual muscle effort to make the stick stop moving forward. The arm wants to travel forward on its own and there's no reason to waste energy forcing it to stop.

He may not have understood that 'follow through' is one of those unbreakable sacred rules of shooting, as opposed to one of those rules that's just 'strongly recommended' like "get as low as possible over the stick", or something that's completely arguable like open vs. closed bridging.
 
Secaucus Fats said:
I have been teaching the basics to local newbies for quite some time now. The guys I teach are mostly younger players in their early 20's who come to me and express a sincere desire to learn the game. I have never charged anyone for lessons, I only ask that they pay the table time at the local pool room, or the quarters for the bar table at the pub. A couple of the more dedicated guys I have taught are now B+ players and on their way to being A players.

There's one guy who asked me to teach him and after attempting to get him to listen I have given up and told him I will no longer waste my time with him.

The problem is that this individual feels a need to dispute everything I tell him.
For instance, I told him about the importance of a full follow through and freezing after the shot until the object ball is pocketed. His response was: "What difference does it make? Once the ball is struck, freezing in place won't have any effect on the shot, same thing for follow through!".

I explained all the reasons for proper form and execution and he still kept arguing. Finally I just told him "Look, YOU came to me because you can't play worth a damn, I didn't seek you out. You and I are going to have to part company because I think you are un-teachable".

For those of you who teach others, how often do you run into this problem? I would suspect that for the professional instructors this wouldn't happen too often because their students are already motivated and are paying for their lessons. How do you handle guys who won't go along with the program?

Fats
Click to expand...

Some students will simply follow instruction without question, while others have a curiosity about everything. In all fairness to this student, he was probably the latter and not necessarily a wise-guy. There is likely a teacher that can work with him and do well, it's just not you. Some student-teacher relationships just don't work out.
 
CreeDo said:
While the guy in your story was probably a bit of an ass, he actually had a perfectly fair question... what answer did you give?

In one of his books robert byrne goes out of his way to point out that you don't HAVE to follow through on anything, and he said more or less the same thing as your ex-student: the cueball has no idea what your stick is doing after it's been struck.

If I remember right, byrne's argument for following through anyway (even though it's not necessary) is that your brain and muscles "know" ahead of time when you plan on jerking the stick to an abrupt halt, and this affects how much speed and effort you put into your stroke. Without intending to, you shorten up, jump up, or hit with less force than you meant to. Also, it takes actual muscle effort to make the stick stop moving forward. The arm wants to travel forward on its own and there's no reason to waste energy forcing it to stop.

He may not have understood that 'follow through' is one of those unbreakable sacred rules of shooting, as opposed to one of those rules that's just 'strongly recommended' like "get as low as possible over the stick", or something that's completely arguable like open vs. closed bridging.
Click to expand...
That's precisely the point. Why I mentioned earlier it could be an attitude problem.
 
I dont know how the situation unfolded, but he may just be the type of person who questions everything. I am that way. When I started playing pool, I questioned everything I was told to the point of pissing some people off. I wanted things explained so they made sense to me. I dont think it is good to take someones advice just because they are offering it. If someone cant make me understand it or explain it in a way that makes sense I usually blow it off. Lots of people out there giving bad advice to people who dont know better.(not saying that you dont). Some advice works for some and not others. I was told, if it dont apply let it fly.
 
JoeW said:
I think that teaching is about questioning. I like to have people like him in the university classroom.

The fellow you describe I would have him try it his way 10 times with me setting up or describing the shots. Next have him try it my way. Then let him judge based on shot completion if it is worth while.

If someone is less than sincere, I refer to another person.
Click to expand...

Not for all though eh? Take Bob Jewett's example. Bob explained in his post that "he refused to even consider shooting the shot that way.Not even once"

If Bob couldn't get him to even consider trying it once what makes you think you could make that guy try it 10 times?:)

Embracing a spirit which encourages a questioning attitude in pupils is one thing..........wasting your time on obstinate pillocks who simply wish to display their intransigence to you, is quite another;)

I wish I had the patience of you, Bob or Fats:)
 
Last edited:
At least I won't be that stubborn to not even try shooting a ball this way or that way once or twice. Learning afterall.
 
When I'm 'teaching' someone and they tell me that, basically, they know better than me, here's what I say:

"So, how much do you want to play for then?"

All future requests for help are ignored (unless they wanna pay time + $25/hr).

-s
 
I understand you frustrations but teaching is a two way street, and can be a double edged sord. Perhaps this guy is teaching you something about teaching! Don't give up on him! Be patient, keep incouraging him and try different things. You will receive a much greater reward by helping someone like this as opposed to the oppisite. Throught our tuffest experiences we are made better!
 
Secaucus Fats said:
.....
The problem is that this individual feels a need to dispute everything I tell him......

Fats
Click to expand...

I have a friend/student who has a strong desire to improve, and in two years he has gone from an SL3/4 to an SL6.

One day he says to me that someone noticed his head was moving side to side during his warmup strokes. I said, yeah, I have been telling you that for years now. :D He puts it off as having a bad day at the office, or his muscles are tired today.

Point is, he listens but either it doesn't sink in, or he ignores what I am telling him.

Last month he had a 4 hour lesson with Mike Massey and my friend jokes to me: he told me all the things I was doing wrong, like moving my head side-to-side, not following through properly, not bringing the cue back straight sometimes, etc. - all the things you have been telling me. Maybe I should have just given the money to you. :D BTW, he really enjoyed his time with Mike Massey.

Poor guy bought a beautiful cue for around $1,500 and after I tried it I told him it had too much deflection. I mean the shaft bent like a wet noodle and pushed the ball sideways practically. And all he had to say was: huh? Mike Massey told him the same thing and Mike set up a shot which clearly demonstrated how much deflection his cue had. He is thinking about getting Predator shafts for it now.

This is something my wife (psychologist) have never figured out totally with a theory that explains all: why some people just can't learn.

Where's Joe, our on-line psychologist? :D I would like to hear his thoughts on this subject.
 
Students

Before I teach anyone, I tell them, 'You have to agree to do exactly as I tell you. You can ask questions, but not argue with what I tell you to do. Some things I will teach you will take 3-4 weeks of practice before you see much improvement. Do you agree to this?'

If the answer is no, I tell them to go elsewhere.

And I don't take in casual students, only ones truly interested in getting better.

Some people are not really interested in learning the sport, they just want a few shots where they can impress someone they are with, or other players
that might be watching them. Kind of a 'fad' type thing.
 
Just tell him from now one he can get his info from Spider Pig.

Spdier Pig
Spider Pig
Doin' what
A Spider Pig does

Jeff Livingston
 
The hungry rat

Why some people just can't learn.
There are many reasons but a few stand out very quickly for me. I have taught in a university setting for 30 odd years so my answer is biased from that perspective. Setting that aside here are the ideas that seem to apply to learning and pool.

I think that in situations where the student is not paying for the lessons the student's approach is more concerned with not looking stupid. They want it to be a collegial discussion and are more impressed with their contribution than with what they could learn. For this reason they do not pay attention and they are not really looking for help. In this situation (at school) I give the student reading material and tell them to discuss the matter with me in a week or two. When they come back I ask about the material on page xx and what they thought, tried, and how well it worked.

I also find that it is best not to give advice until the advice is sought. On occasion I will drop a hint here and there to perhaps elicit some interest. Then I simply have to wait for the question. There are a few other ideas from psychology that will work here.

People solve problems when they have problems to solve. Some times I have to create the problem so the student (or potential student) sees that they have a problem.

In psychology one can only provide treatment when the other person wants to be helped. If a child's parents sent their child to me and the kid did not want to be there, I would tell the parents that they should come in and I would help them. This usually involved showing the parents how to make a problem the child wanted to solve.

When a person asks a question, why are they asking the question? The answer to this usually guides me in the answer I provide to the question.

I think that to provide a good answer to any question one must first specifically state and demonstrate what the problem is, provide a solution, and then demonstrate how well the solution works. This is best accomplished by having the student do all the things necessary. Mike Massey's approach outlined above is an excellent answer to an unasked question.

Some food for thought. In all the psychology classes that you ever took when they talked about the different types of learning. You know, classical conditioning, instrumental conditioning, social learning theory, etc, they always, and I mean always, had a hungry rat. All learning is based on a need to solve a problem. In criminal justice I require my students to memorize the idea that -

In order to teach you must have a hungry rat.

All puns intended.:eek:

Hey Whitewolf, ask your wife what she thinks about that. It would be neat to hear anothr perspective.
 
Last edited:
A long way of saying 'when the student is ready, the teacher will appear'.

I could go into probably 100 personalities factors which influence which method is best for a particular student. It need not be 'pool specific', yet learning in a classroom is different than functioning at a sports event with distractions, inner and outer pressure.

Some also thrive on the same pressure which would cause another to choke and fall apart. There are variations in sports, but if you think distractions in a pool event are a problem, try a karate tournament.

Seriously, it is not just the student, but also the teacher. I think that is what makes the above quote make sense. Like 'when the student is ready to learn, the RIGHT teacher appears'. Where students have a learning style which facilitates learning, so do teachers have a teaching style based on their makeup, drives and values.

Rare is the teacher who is so highly intuitive and flexible, that they find that 'switch' in most they teach.

OTOH- I would not call a person unteachable even if I had tried many methods to find that switch. I would say either somewhere is the right teacher but it is not I, the student is not ready now (not never), or etc. I suspect there are some who are called unteachable, but then what does that mean? Did not they learn to walk, read, ride a bike?

How much of what lies within them is truely unteachable or could it be that they did not meet our expectations? Or perhaps they thought they wished to learn a certain thing, signed up for a class or lesson before 'counting the costs'. Perhaps they were looking for a 'quick fix' and did not know they would have to face some fears, look in that mirror which showed that they were not as adept as they thought and eat a bit of humble pie.

I remember Randy's pool school. Well lots is presented and skills are improved but only if the student practices them for 1-3 months. The student is also required to dump diagnosed errors..oops again humble pie. Let's be nice. This is scary stuff for some people. What looks like obstinance, arrogance and laziness may be fear. There maybe other underlying issues as well, so why one does not emerge courageous, willing to dump old stuff to get new better stuff-only God Knows.

But hey, nuthin is forever and the very student who seemed totally 'unteachable' may shock you next year or 5 years later. I am no fortune teller. If such a person exists on this forum, I do NOT want to know my future. Laura
 
Bluewolf said:
I remember Randy's pool school. Well lots is presented and skills are improved but only if the student practices them for 1-3 months. The student is also required to dump diagnosed errors..oops again humble pie. Let's be nice. This is scary stuff for some people. What looks like obstinance, arrogance and laziness may be fear. There maybe other underlying issues as well, so why one does not emerge courageous, willing to dump old stuff to get new better stuff-only God Knows.

Laura
Click to expand...

Laura...It's a little more complicated than just that. After learning something new (replacing old conditioned behavior with new learned behavior), the most difficult thing to achieve is resisting going back to your "old comfortable method", when the 'new' way doesn't give immediate positive results. Humans are, by nature, immediate gratification creatures, and more often results oriented, as opposed to 'process' oriented. When the new way doesn't fix the problem right away (i.e.: missing the shot or shape), the unconscious mind nags the conscious mind to "give up" and go back to the way you KNOW will work. The problem is that the student has not given the 'medicine' enough time to work. It's different for everyone, but you're right...you have to practice (CORRECTLY) for a month or more, before the new process takes root, and replaces the old way. When that happens, it's like you never played any other way, and stays with you forever...even if you lay off for years at a time!

I have always used the analogy of learning to ride a two-wheeled bicycle (which is something that EVERYONE can relate to). At first it was very difficult, and balance + pedaling didn't always happen smoothly. However, after a period of time (usually a couple of weeks), riding the bike became easy. After a year or so it becomes 'unconscious', to the point that most of us were riding that bicycle with no hands. Even if you didn't ride a bike for decades, you'd still be able to hop right on and pedal away with no problem. Perhaps not no hands, but you'd have no trouble operating the bicycle. The pool stroke is very similar. Most people don't invest the time and conscious effort to OWN their new set up and delivery process, and either give up (going back to their old way), or get lazy after a period of time, and forget the subtle nuances that make up the perfect delivery.

BTW, I'd love to work with you again with the new video stroke analysis process we're using. I wasn't using that much detail the last times we worked together! :D

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
 
Last edited:
JoeW said:
Why some people just can't learn.
There are many reasons but a few stand out very quickly for me. I have taught in a university setting for 30 odd years so my answer is biased from that perspective. Setting that aside here are the ideas that seem to apply to learning and pool.

I think that in situations where the student is not paying for the lessons the student's approach is more concerned with not looking stupid. They want it to be a collegial discussion and are more impressed with their contribution than with what they could learn. For this reason they do not pay attention and they are not really looking for help. In this situation (at school) I give the student reading material and tell them to discuss the matter with me in a week or two. When they come back I ask about the material on page xx and what they thought, tried, and how well it worked.

I also find that it is best not to give advice until the advice is sought. On occasion I will drop a hint here and there to perhaps elicit some interest. Then I simply have to wait for the question. There are a few other ideas from psychology that will work here.

People solve problems when they have problems to solve. Some times I have to create the problem so the student (or potential student) sees that they have a problem.

In psychology one can only provide treatment when the other person wants to be helped. If a child's parents sent their child to me and the kid did not want to be there, I would tell the parents that they should come in and I would help them. This usually involved showing the parents how to make a problem the child wanted to solve.

When a person asks a question, why are they asking the question? The answer to this usually guides me in the answer I provide to the question.

I think that to provide a good answer to any question one must first specifically state and demonstrate what the problem is, provide a solution, and then demonstrate how well the solution works. This is best accomplished by having the student do all the things necessary. Mike Massey's approach outlined above is an excellent answer to an unasked question.

Some food for thought. In all the psychology classes that you ever took when they talked about the different types of learning. You know, classical conditioning, instrumental conditioning, social learning theory, etc, they always, and I mean always, had a hungry rat. All learning is based on a need to solve a problem. In criminal justice I require my students to memorize the idea that -

In order to teach you must have a hungry rat.

All puns intended.:eek:

Hey Whitewolf, ask your wife what she thinks about that. It would be neat to hear anothr perspective.
Click to expand...

Great post! Having also taught (pool) in the university environment for several years, I can agree with all the points made here.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
 
I hate to say it, but I too would be a terrible student. I've butt heads with pool instructors who advocated certain things I didn't agree with. I've seen some pretty crackpot instruction out there, so I would be skeptical toward all instruction until the teacher earned my trust. I would think developing demonstrations to prove your point would be a real asset to a teacher.

Chris

Ps. I took a lesson from Scott Lee and he was easily able to handle my skepticism and demonstrate exactly what he was talking about.
 
Last edited:
JoeW said:
The fellow you describe I would have him try it his way 10 times with me setting up or describing the shots. Next have him try it my way. Then let him judge based on shot completion if it is worth while.

If someone is less than sincere, I refer to another person.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an oppositional/defiant personality. Good way, Joe, to present it to him. BTW, Secaucus Fats, great avitar! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top