Lol more than half of that list are not even A players
Last edited:
Trouble with consistency
- Thread starter AlienObserver
- Start date
That is the point. I think a lot of these guys are great instructors but I am not sure that some of the lower performing ones can help players reach a really high level of play. If it were me, I would want to know all of this before I decided to make a big investment. Depends on where you want your game to go I guess. I think all of these people are decent coaches or they wouldn't be listed as a master. However, I am not sure that people can teach above their own ability or understanding of the game. Food for thought...
What exactly does it take to be an instructor a weekend or two for 1000 bucks?
Seems to vary from from one organization to the next. But a weekend course only gets you to be a recognized instructor not a Master Instructor. The people listed above have spent many years teaching. A few of them are real teachers. What I mean by that is that they have actual teaching degrees. I think Dr. Dave Alciatore, Anthony Beeler and Stan Shuffett all have actual teaching backgrounds from an Accredited College/University. No doubt all of the people listed above are the best when it comes to instruction. On the other hand, you can be the best teacher in the world and you can't instruct above your own understanding. I am just saying that if it were me I would want to pick one of the best teachers that is also one of the better players.
Those numbers for those instructors are not accurate. They are clearly just starter rating numbers for 90 percent of them. I'm sure Stan Shuffet plays around 700 speed.
It would be wise of you to not bother with these particular ratings. At least not at this time.
It would be wise of you to not bother with these particular ratings. At least not at this time.
The fact that several of them have starter ratings says enough to me that if they don't play enough to be rated I don't want them to be my teacher. Stan's ratings are based on 100 matches. I just looked it up. 634 is pretty strong. Landon has an established rating and that is around 700. Stand doesn't play as well as Landon. So mid 600s sounds about right for Stan's ability.
Last edited:
maybe you need your very own
BLANKTEQ Y719 cuestick
then you can wonns a 32 game ball thing
BLANKTEQ Y719 cuestick
then you can wonns a 32 game ball thing
I had the same problem. 2 things worked for me.
1= I was rushing my forward stroke, I like a short pause at the back of my backstroke, it helps me start my forward stroke slow then gradually accelerate.
2= Other problem was my stance, I was not comfortable in all shot positions which was causing me to move my head and sometimes my whole upper body. I just had to work on getting comfortable in different situations during practice to resolve that issue. I think many people have this issue and do not realize it.
I do the same drill shooting diagonally corner to corner to check my aim and stroke, when I start missing shots that I should be making I go straight to this drill.
I totally agree if you have an established fargo rate of below 600, you obviously are still struggling with the basics.
Stan may be a bit higher but in no way is 700 or above.
I'm suprised Stan's rating is that low to be honest. At a minimum I would think he's at least a 675.
Why would anybody expect an INSTRUCTOR to have an established PLAYER rating?
I do agree that I wouldn't want to be instructed by someone with an established low rating without a valid justification.
This could turn out to be bad for business for some player/instructor types.
Why would anybody expect an INSTRUCTOR to have an established PLAYER rating?
I do agree that I wouldn't want to be instructed by someone with an established low rating without a valid justification.
This could turn out to be bad for business for some player/instructor types.
An instuctor with a low player rating/ low ablility is the same as a fat guy that took a couple classes at the Y and wants to be my personal trainer, imo.
My take on the rankings is that Joseph Meija (541) and all those above above can play a pretty strong game of pool. Take for instance Randy G. He is a pretty decent player and has beat C.J. Wiley before. We have all heard that Scott Lee doesn't play well and it makes sense he doesn't have a rating at all. Players were given starter ratings based on their playing history. Most of these ratings aren't that far off actually. Useful information actually. I'm glad that the International Pool Society put this together for us to look at.
Great advice there.
Stan had a starter rating of 535, is now a 634 with 100 games, so he isn't established yet.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
There are elements in expert teaching (of virtually anything) that are far more important than how well the teacher currently performs what he/she is presently teaching.
A good teacher is someone with a very sound background in a given subject who is uniquely gifted at noticing things others don’t (or cannot) and knowing how to effectively transpose and transmit his/her observations into useful betterment of a student’s performance.
Pavarotti had the same voice coach for nearly 40 years. This coach was a former well-recognized operatic tenor who evolved into a world-class voice teacher long after the teacher's own abilities to perform had diminished. His coach’s stage endurance, high notes, and overall voice had simply aged normally. But he precisely knew the what, when, and why of faulty note production (and technique) and patiently gave clients his expert remedial advice moment-by-moment to maximize their talents as they implemented his suggestions, performing in front of him in his studio.
Luther “Wimpy” Lassiter famously (and insightfully) quipped: “I can’t teach because I don’t *know* what I’m doing.” By comparison, Hal Mix, a sought-after billiards instructor, far from a top player himself, invariably saw what a number of Hall-of-Fame players needed whenever they came to him for re-invigoration, re-structuring advice.
How well many of the Fargo-listed instructors presently compete -- for example Jerry Breisath or Mark Wilson (both of whom I esteem highly) -- interests me not in the least. I recognize the world-class teaching/coaching abilities of men like these, just as Pavarotti justifiably prized his vocal coach not to hear how well his ex-tenor coach sang, but rather for the usefulness and peerless accuracy of the coach’s observations about any of his students.
Arnaldo
A good teacher is someone with a very sound background in a given subject who is uniquely gifted at noticing things others don’t (or cannot) and knowing how to effectively transpose and transmit his/her observations into useful betterment of a student’s performance.
Pavarotti had the same voice coach for nearly 40 years. This coach was a former well-recognized operatic tenor who evolved into a world-class voice teacher long after the teacher's own abilities to perform had diminished. His coach’s stage endurance, high notes, and overall voice had simply aged normally. But he precisely knew the what, when, and why of faulty note production (and technique) and patiently gave clients his expert remedial advice moment-by-moment to maximize their talents as they implemented his suggestions, performing in front of him in his studio.
Luther “Wimpy” Lassiter famously (and insightfully) quipped: “I can’t teach because I don’t *know* what I’m doing.” By comparison, Hal Mix, a sought-after billiards instructor, far from a top player himself, invariably saw what a number of Hall-of-Fame players needed whenever they came to him for re-invigoration, re-structuring advice.
How well many of the Fargo-listed instructors presently compete -- for example Jerry Breisath or Mark Wilson (both of whom I esteem highly) -- interests me not in the least. I recognize the world-class teaching/coaching abilities of men like these, just as Pavarotti justifiably prized his vocal coach not to hear how well his ex-tenor coach sang, but rather for the usefulness and peerless accuracy of the coach’s observations about any of his students.
Arnaldo
It is still an average after 100 games. According to the people at Fargo they said once you get 100 games in your rating probably won't change that significantly. In fact, it most likely would not vary over 25 points one way or the other. 634 is damn strong if I do say so myself. So my understanding is there is most likely up to a 50 point variance. Could go up as much as 25 points or down as much as 25 depending on his play during his next 100 games.
That is a question for Mike Page. I don't understand the actual math behind FargoRate.
I agree 634 is strong.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Mark wilson and jerry were top players at one time.
Im more worried about someone with a 471 fargo rate being a master instructor.
Makes a guy question who gave this distinction. Could be extenuating circumstances but I do wonder how a c- player is a master.
Im more worried about someone with a 471 fargo rate being a master instructor.
Makes a guy question who gave this distinction. Could be extenuating circumstances but I do wonder how a c- player is a master.
Have you ever heard about millionaires who lose everything and in a short time get back to where they we Really?
If you mind has the path engraved in the subconscious it knows the way to get back. Some people might have lost the physical ability, and or drive to play at top speed now, but they still know how to do it..
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Pro Player Mark Tad is 690 and Nick Varner's average over his life is 731. Anything in the 600s is pretty sporty. 700s is a blistering speed (Varner, Hall, Sigel, Reyes in their primes).