To all SPF students: Pix = 1000 words

[td873]

I've been playing with, and teaching, some sort of SPF process, for more than 30 years. I have yet to find the flaws and shortcomings. Maybe you can enlighten me?

Scott Lee

SPF is simply a tool to achieve a goal. Saying it is the "only" tool, the "best" tool, the "right" tool, etc., is marketing - nothing more. It will work for some, but not for others. Kinda like buying houses with no money down. Individual results will vary...

Hypothetical for you: what would you do with a player that shoots very good (just below pro level) that came to you for help going pro - BUT they didn't want to learn SPF? What would you do with that student? Turn them away? Make them learn SPF? Just wondering.

-td

 

[randyg]

This is JMO about teaching this game.

I am NOT a BCA certified instructor.

I have no affiliation with SPF.

A closed mind is a brick wall for knowledge. An open mind is back hole for knowledge. I don't agree with everybody on every topic, but I try to see where there are similarities in what we are teaching. I try to concentrate more on the similarities and the agreements rather than the differences. I made a decision a long time ago to work WITH other instructors, not against them.

Since adopting that philosophy, I have accumulated more knowledge than I could have ever imagined. I feel that adopting this approach, I have done a great service to the people that come to me in hopes of improving their abilities and expanding their knowledge.

I am not original in my approach.

I learned it through the example that was set by Randy Goettlicher.

For everybody that believes that there is a cookie cutter or a rigid approach/style of teaching coming from the SPF instructors camp, then you are guilty of baseless prejudgment prior to investigation. Spend some time with these gentleman and learn what they are teaching - then make an assessment.

Like I said, I am not a BCA instructor or an SPF instructor, but I do know enough to keep my ears and my mind open more than my mouth when it comes to any style/approach to teaching/shooting/standing/aiming/thinking/executing.

I learn from everybody - and I pass that along to other players. I also make about 150 recommendations every year to other instructors. I don't do that for brownie points or to kiss a$$. I do that because a long time ago I was taught that it was the right thing to do.

Learning is a two way street. As teachers of the game we must never forget that the more we teach, the more we learn. The more we learn, the more we have to teach. Just think of what we could do if we all got together and worked towards improving the way this game is taught. That's where we need to focus all of our energy.

Thanks Blackjack, this thread needed that...... randyg

 

[Scott Lee]

td...A fair question. If that person, or even a pro (I've worked with 6) came to me, with an open mind (which means they don't say "who have you beat?" or "what the heck can YOU teach ME?"), and asked me point-blank if I could help them to become a better player than they are...the answer would be unequivocally YES! All good instructors have something to offer expert and pro players. The players just have to find the humility to come looking for it!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Hypothetical for you: what would you do with a player that shoots very good (just below pro level) that came to you for help going pro - BUT they didn't want to learn SPF? What would you do with that student? Turn them away? Make them learn SPF? Just wondering.

-td

 

[randyg]

SPF is simply a tool to achieve a goal. Saying it is the "only" tool, the "best" tool, the "right" tool, etc., is marketing - nothing more. It will work for some, but not for others. Kinda like buying houses with no money down. Individual results will vary...

Hypothetical for you: what would you do with a player that shoots very good (just below pro level) that came to you for help going pro - BUT they didn't want to learn SPF? What would you do with that student? Turn them away? Make them learn SPF? Just wondering.

-td

TD: "Hypothetical for you: what would you do with a player that shoots very good (just below pro level) that came to you for help going pro - BUT they didn't want to learn SPF? What would you do with that student? Turn them away? Make them learn SPF? Just wondering."

Well Stated! I would guess that that is where the misunderstanding starts. Maybe I can try to explain again.

We don't learn SPF, it's a grading system. ALL pool players have to do the same three things in their stroke movement. SPF highlights those three things, then possibly compliments or corrections would be the next order of business. Thanks for careing. SPF=randyg

 

[stumpie71]

I recently had a lesson with Scott Lee. At no point did Scott tell me that I had to do it this way or that way. He did show me things that I was doing that could have a negative impact on my shot. It was up to me to change or not, he only gave me the info. Scott also set me up with the mother drills. These drills would correct my fundamentals and make my stroke more consistent if applied properly. That should be the first goal of any instructor.
The biggest difference between most players comes down to two things IMO. Consistency and knowledge. SPF is a way to develop "YOUR" own rhythm while making you consistent in your approach and delivery in the shortest time frame possible.

 

[3kushn]

3kushn:

I'm a little confused; what does your excerpt of my previous post (bullet item #3) have to do with your post? How does it pertain? My post was not against the instructors sharing information (lord knows I'm a big-time proponent of open information sharing). Rather, my post pertained to how arguments / flame wars start on these threads, and offered humble suggestions on how to avoid them. That was the whole purpose of my post. Did I miss the boat on my post?

-Sean

You didn't see or hear me laugh as I'm writing.

Get it now? 110% Sarcasm.

I could go on with it, but I'll just say this. I'd love to take lessons from any of the coaches that post here and have done so. I'm due for another tune up right now.

 

[td873]

if that person [..] asked me [...] if I could help them to become a better player than they are...the answer would be unequivocally YES!

The classic SPF instruction regimine is an entire set of tools starting with fundamentals. When you have an advanced player, do you re-teach fundamentals? Or do you instruct WITHOUT teaching them the SPF routine?

-td

 

[td873]

We don't learn SPF, it's a grading system. ALL pool players have to do the same three things in their stroke movement. SPF highlights those three things, then possibly compliments or corrections would be the next order of business.

Are you distinguishing SPF grading from SPF instruction? IMO, the metrics by which you grade someone are directly related to the method taught. Specifically:

1) Implicit in a grading system is a baseline. That baseline is the benchmark by which you are graded against. The minimum benchmark for pool is desired outcome - better pool. This can be evaluated regardless of mechanics.

2) However, for the SPF school, the benchmark encompasses a very specific set of movements (i.e., mechanics for execution).

3) SPF instruction provides a system and tools designed to achieve the benchmark (i.e., movements). Consequently, SPF grading directly compares actual movements against the SPF benchmark.

4) The SPF grading system can be applied REGARDLESS of the desired outcome (better pool). For example, you could emulate the SPF benchmark perfectly every time and still miss all your shots. Conversely, you could perform without resembling the SPF benchmark but still play great pool.

5) Thus, the SPF grading system itself has no direct bearing on better pool, as it is only used to determine if mechanics resemble the SPF benchmark.

IMO, the issue is the assumption that performing all of the steps of the SPF school correctly will always result in the desired outcome (better pool). That is the marketing. That is Lou's issue.

-td

 

[ShaneT58]

It sounds like you don't really understand what SPF is all about but have decided it isn't any good. I think if you learned more about SPF then you would change your mind.

Are you distinguishing SPF grading from SPF instruction? IMO, the metrics by which you grade someone are directly related to the method taught. Specifically:

1) Implicit in a grading system is a baseline. That baseline is the benchmark by which you are graded against. The minimum benchmark for pool is desired outcome - better pool. This can be evaluated regardless of mechanics.

2) However, for the SPF school, the benchmark encompasses a very specific set of movements (i.e., mechanics for execution).

3) SPF instruction provides a system and tools designed to achieve the benchmark (i.e., movements). Consequently, SPF grading directly compares actual movements against the SPF benchmark.

4) The SPF grading system can be applied REGARDLESS of the desired outcome (better pool). For example, you could emulate the SPF benchmark perfectly every time and still miss all your shots. Conversely, you could perform without resembling the SPF benchmark but still play great pool.

5) Thus, the SPF grading system itself has no direct bearing on better pool, as it is only used to determine if mechanics resemble the SPF benchmark.

IMO, the issue is the assumption that performing all of the steps of the SPF school correctly will always result in the desired outcome (better pool). That is the marketing. That is Lou's issue.

-td

 

[randyg]

The classic SPF instruction regimine is an entire set of tools starting with fundamentals. When you have an advanced player, do you re-teach fundamentals? Or do you instruct WITHOUT teaching them the SPF routine?

-td

When I have Advanced Players or Professional Players come through school they are looking for errors in their fundamentals. We don't teach them to play 9-Ball, we find their stroke errors with them. That's what they come to us for!!!!! SPF=randyg

 

[pooltchr]

4) The SPF grading system can be applied REGARDLESS of the desired outcome (better pool). For example, you could emulate the SPF benchmark perfectly every time and still miss all your shots. Conversely, you could perform without resembling the SPF benchmark but still play great pool.


-td

The ultimate goal of a pool stroke is to move the cuestick forward in a straight line. The SPF guidelines ensure that the end result is exactly that. You can achieve the same results through other methods, but SPF is the easiest way to consistently move the cue properly. Of course you can still miss shots. You must do two things to make the shot...aim at the right place, and be able to deliver the cue ball where you are aiming. SPF address only the delivery aspect. There are other parts of the class where we address aiming.

Most good players, whether they know it or not, have most likely already incorporated some form of SPF into their stroke. We just bring those aspects to the forefront, so when there is a breakdown, it is very easy to identify and correct the problem.

Steve

 

[JoeW]

I think of SPF as similar to a golf swing analysis. Everyone who plays has one and they are all similar. When I am playing a round and get out of line the fellow next to me can often help with a suggestion or two. The house pro almost always provides a better analysis and suggestions because he has made a much more thorough study of the game and is more likely to be aware of the subtle nuances that will improve my game. With the SPF crew they sometimes have to explain the real fundamentals, kinda like explaining sex to a 12 year old who has been told all the facts by his buddies. Then they analyze your game and because they are pros they move to individual attention showing you how to use those fundamentals for your unique approach. You can grab a golf club any way you want to but some ways are better than others. While I have not attended their advanced classes I suspect they take on other concepts.

 

[td873]

It sounds like you don't really understand what SPF is all about but have decided it isn't any good. I think if you learned more about SPF then you would change your mind.

Why do you say that? I would venture that I understand it more than you.

-td

 

[td873]

The ultimate goal of a pool stroke is to move the cuestick forward in a straight lineThe SPF guidelines ensure that the end result is exactly that.

Thus, you can clearly evaluate a students stroke against the SPF instruction method WITHOUT even striking a cue ball.

You can achieve the same results through other methods, but SPF is the easiest way to consistently move the cue properly.

Again, this is the marketing. "Bigger," "better," "stronger," "faster," "easier," etc, are all marketing words. Again, I am not detracting from the actual success of SPF instruction, rather I am simply pointing out that it is only a tool to achieve the goal - which you have accurately identified as moving a pool cue.

You must do two things to make the shot...aim at the right place, and be able to deliver the cue ball where you are aiming. SPF address only the delivery aspect. There are other parts of the class where we address aiming.

Fair point on the other instruction received.

However, I was primarily addressing Randy's point that SPF is a grading system and not learning system. Clearly the SPF school is more robust than a simple grading system. As for the delivery aspect, the SPF system is really targeted to the mechanics of moving the cue stick through a particular range of motion, which is then INTENDED to provided a desired result, i.e., cue ball movement.

Most good players, whether they know it or not, have most likely already incorporated some form of SPF into their stroke. We just bring those aspects to the forefront, so when there is a breakdown, it is very easy to identify and correct the problem.

This necessarily implies that every player must be (re-)taught the SPF system in order to be graded against it. The marketing lies in the fact that knowing and understanding the SPF movements will result in improved pool playing. While this may be true, it is once removed from the actual result of being able to tell if you are moving the cue stick along the SPF taught specific motions (i.e., the grading benchmark).

Just to reiterate, I am confident that SPF does work for some players. Some people actually benefit from the tools enabling diagnosis of stroke mechanics. And without a baseline (i.e., benchmark stroke) this may not be possible. However, to say that achieving the benchmark stroke will result in better play is as much hyperbole as fact.

-td

 

[lfigueroa]

It stands for "Set Pause Finish" and it refers to an instructional approach advocated by instructors who have been trained at the Cue Tech pool school in Dallas run by Randy Goettlicher.

Many of the instructors that have come through there call themselves part of the "SPF family of instructors."

damn. And here I was, reaching for a bottle of suntan lotion, to find out

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Not to take sides, but Lou is making a number of points, none of which is that SPF instructors have zero to add. One of his main points relates to the nature of the information SPF instructors provide, i.e., that SPF is the "right" way, the "better" way, the "scientific way" etc. What he's implying is that the marketing of SPF is not necessarily related to the effectiveness of SPF.

He's also made some great points, and although colored against SPF on their face, they apply to ALL systems, methods, and styles.

Lastly, there is a bit of irony if you understand what he's saying: accepting that SPF is the benchmark implicitly forces one to recognize its flaws and shortcomings if you want to EXCEED the benchmark...

-td

Thank you, td, for standing in as my spokesmodel. You pretty much summed things up, including how they are pegging out the irony meter.

I dan't know. It just seems as though much of what they say comes across with a certain arrogance.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Randy:

No offense, but this is Exhibit A of a point that, while I (and certain others) understand what you're trying to say, is very easily taken as sarcastic, inflammatory, and actually *propagates* (instead of extinguishing) an argument or flame war. You're trying to point-out that others seem to be engaging in an "us vs. them" attitude (which you imply you're trying to get out of), yet your post itself only adds fuel to the fire by propagating the "us vs. them" stance.

High road, my friend, high road. Professionalism always prevails.

Meant completely constructively of course,
-Sean

Yeah, what he said!

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

The players just have to find the humility to come looking for it!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Now see, that's what I'm talking about.

Lou Figueroa
The Master must show humility
so that the Student may learn

wax on
wax off

 

[JoeW]

You know, some of you are pretty good at being destructive, that is the easy part. Ever thought about being helpful? How should they announce their school in such a way that people would want to learn about their approach?

I realize that the onus is on he who makes a claim. However, there is some onus on he who criticizes too. If you are going to challenge their approach perhaps you should offer some evidence that your destructive analysis is worthy of consideration by the general pool playing public (all 3600 people who have reviewed this thread). Sophistry is easy to come by, substance is another matter.

 

[Roger Long]

You know, some of you are pretty good at being destructive, that is the easy part. Ever thought about being helpful? How should they announce their school in such a way that people would want to learn about their approach?

I realize that the onus is on he who makes a claim. However, there is some onus on he who criticizes too. If you are going to challenge their approach perhaps you should offer some evidence that your destructive analysis is worthy of consideration by the general pool playing public (all 3600 people who have reviewed this thread). Sophistry is easy to come by, substance is another matter.

Joe,

I've read this whole thread through and I'm not sure I would agree with you about the critics here being "destructive." I am a BCA Certified Instructor, and I have pretended that the critics' comments are aimed directly at me, and I have actually managed to glean a lot of constructive and instructive advice from them.

You see, if I'm doing something wrong in my marketing or instructional approach, I want someone to point it out to me. Then, what is required of me is an attitude that is humble enough to weigh the merit of all the criticisms so that I can gain the most when retuning my program. I might also learn that there is no merit to some of the criticisms, and I can then offer feedback to those critics so that they can understand that their opinion was based on a misperception of the facts. But if my critics and I try to silence each other without openly and honestly discussing the issues, neither of us will ever learn anything.

So, as I see it, we still have unanswered questions on both sides of the issue at hand, and since this is a DISCUSSION forum...let's discuss!

Roger