What Do You Look For in a Pool Instructor

gregcantrall said:
I remember a time when I got off work and hit McCorie's on the Slough. Played a friend that was on unemployment for $1. He would invariably have me stuck $10 before I got my alcohol content right. After that kind of physical work, it was 3. What good workouts those were.
Click to expand...
That was just before I made my best tournament performance at The Big Show. In Fife, WA.
I was in top physical and mental shape. I had just quit the job of 2 years.
Cliff Thorburn speaks of the frame of mind, when he just knew it was his. That's the big variable.....how to get "in the zone". It takes different things. The Fighter said, as he licked his lip, "hmmmm the taste of blood excites me".
My most recent feeling of that was when I landed 4th in the A division. That kicked me up to the Masters. I had caught my opponent at hill/hill. It was alternating break. I just knew if I got to the table.....I would win. The coward snapped the 9. :😁🤷 The coward part become our friendly joke.
 
Some great answers here!
I kept coming back to ONE concept when thinking about "Who" would be the one I would take lessons from. YMMV (stands for:"Your mileage may vary,"). Picking an Instructor could be seen like picking a carpenter/plumber/auto mechanic. They could do well for your friend who made the rec., but maybe they have a different motive for you.
Assuming you make a good choice ,I would want someone who makes sure my Fundies are very good FIRST. Then I would expect them to pickup on the next level of accomplishment for my skill and/or how to reach a higher "speed" given what I excel at.
In this regard, going back to pg1 and CC's statement: why would an instructor focus on cutting/ball angle skills when they notice you have good stroke? If you have a steady stroke; use it and play longer with CB control as your forte. I have played with BOTH the 7 & 9ft crowds, and they are indeed different. Should they all be Instructed the same thing?
Just my .02

(PS" PJ,...... she would kill you, lol)
 
I'm still stuck on "how well should an instructor play?"

I think it's theoretically possible that a wheelchair bound quadriplegic could intricately study all aspects of the game and become an instructor worth listening to. But at the same time, I can't quite put my finger on why I remain skeptical that any instructor that's below say -- 600 FR could help me, or any advanced player, enough to justify paying for their services. Guess I'll try to put my finger on it...

I know that Fargo Rating list has been around for a while, and some of those ratings aren't fair but there are enough instructors with low enough ratings to entertain the question.

There seems to be only 2 reasons any of them could give for having a lower rating: 1. At some point in their pool journey they gave up on becoming an EVEN decent regional player and began coaching instead or... 2. They've continued playing and their instructor tool kit is limited to the point where it doesn't help their own game.

If 1 is true, I think there would always be at least some level of disconnect between what they are TEACHING as correct and what they KNOW as correct. If you haven't been to the mountaintop, describing it properly will always be lacking in detail. If you don't have a tried and true method that you have used to increase your own skill to a certain level, you will HAVE TO have some level of faith in someone else's technique that you pass on to your students. This seems less than ideal to me.

If 2 is true -- well that's just alarming.

A regressing rating is totally different to me and no cause for concern. That's just life.

So in my book the instructors that have played at a high level and communicate well -- I'd put at the top. Guys like Demetrius, Stan Shuffet, Beeler (just based on what I've seen here in the past few days), maybe someone like Allison Fischer, and Alex Lely, who I spent some time with a few years back.

Below them, you need to bring something to the table that compensates for not having reached the mountaintop, while still exhibiting that you can play respectably. This is where there's room for superior knowledge. Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett fit this bill, and I'm sure there are a lot of others. They both play well and I suspect above the 600 rating litmus that I've proposed (at least for myself).

Why 600? Maybe you could convince me to go down a little lower, but when you get around 600, that's when your pool eyes fully open up. Before that, it's hard to really distinguish good from great, and if you can't see the difference, how could you lead a player to greatness? There are things in life, you just can't comprehend unless you've experienced them. There are things I think I see when watching SVB play. Like little idiosyncrasies that I think could actually be flaws, but I guarantee if he was to explain how these things feel to him, it would be different and I would probably be the one learning something.

That's just how I see it.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Me personally, I’d want the best player that’s available to me. I don’t care if he has never given a lesson in his life.

Whether that’s the local hot shot, or the regional pro, or Efren who I’d have a language barrier with.

That’s just me:)
Click to expand...

I have taken and seen some lessons with top pros, that is not enough just to be good. You need to be able to break down the ideas and theories into digestible chunks of info that the student can understand and make use of. For example, I have talked to people that struggled with shots for years, and in 5 minutes of saying something to them that clarifies how they should think about the shot they improved that very same day, sometimes within a few shots, and I am not even the best player in my family never mind the local area LOL
 
hang-the-9 said:
I have taken and seen some lessons with top pros, that is not enough just to be good. You need to be able to break down the ideas and theories into digestible chunks of info that the student can understand and make use of. For example, I have talked to people that struggled with shots for years, and in 5 minutes of saying something to them that clarifies how they should think about the shot they improved that very same day, sometimes within a few shots, and I am not even the best player in my family never mind the local area LOL
Click to expand...
I understand this viewpoint, and every lesson/instruction/school class I've ever had has been verbal.

However, I think if a top pro had his mouth taped shut, he/she could show how to hit the ball in most situations, how to hit it bad, a few different options, etc. Then the student could copy right after. I'd actually like to have a lesson like that one day, in any activity. I think there might be something to it. It's Inner Game of Tennis territory. Completely removing the "voices". IMO:)
 
I think the better question to ask is “How well do the Instructor’s students play?” Not who the students are but over time how have the students performed from the instruction they have received? To me that is the measure of an instructor.

Also, the Fargo yardstick truly is inadequate to measure playing ability for these reasons: It is new and it only measures 9 ball tournament games. I don’t think that is an accurate measure of pool skill. Running 100 balls, 8 ball, one pocket, and 3 cushion are all cue sports that as far as I can tell are not measured by Fargo.

Finally, a lot of players on the Instructor Fargo list played in the 50’s and 60’s, before tournaments, Fargo and internet. I don’t think that means they can’t play. In fact, a lot of these old guys have forgotten things most of you haven’t learned yet.
 
BasementDweller said:
I'm still stuck on "how well should an instructor play?"
Click to expand...
And the other side of it is how well can a top player teach especially in the established pro player ranks?

I think some of the best stuff I've seen is nuggets done on video by Grady Matthews. But that didn't involve teaching
it to another player. It was more about how balls react and what to do to make it happen as well as playing different
shots that come up on the table.

I think "how well should an instructor play" depends on who his/her target audience is and how well they play. There are
a lot of different areas of the game that can be taught. If the instructor is a master in one but not in all, that could still
be a good fit for a percentage of players but not others.

I think maybe more important than "how well should an instructor play" would be "how well can an instructor diagnose, prioritize, and convey."
 
Last edited:
Student expectations. I try to stay realistic. I have and had what I feel are the best instructors (for me). I have limited talent. I rate myself a C player but a much improved C player. Occasionally get a B game going. My goal is to keep learning/improving and having fun. I do not compete or play for $$. Just looking to play a respectable game. Favorite game is 1p and work solely on that... but I might try 3c this Summer. I'd look for a dedicated instructor and see how that clicks. Would start with recommendations.
 
hang-the-9 said:
I have taken and seen some lessons with top pros, that is not enough just to be good. You need to be able to break down the ideas and theories into digestible chunks of info that the student can understand and make use of. For example, I have talked to people that struggled with shots for years, and in 5 minutes of saying something to them that clarifies how they should think about the shot they improved that very same day, sometimes within a few shots, and I am not even the best player in my family never mind the local area LOL
Click to expand...
The concept of digestible chunks is an important one. It is hard to adhere to since the student wants as much ingo as possible and even as ateacher it is very tempting to show how things fit together.

Legendary golf coach Harvey Pennick wrote about a lesson he gave that he thouhht would be the best lesson ever. After laying everything out to his student in one go he realized it was actually his worst lesson ever. Drip fed the golden nuggets from then on.
 
WobblyStroke said:
The concept of digestible chunks is an important one. It is hard to adhere to since the student wants as much ingo as possible and even as ateacher it is very tempting to show how things fit together.

Legendary golf coach Harvey Pennick wrote about a lesson he gave that he thouhht would be the best lesson ever. After laying everything out to his student in one go he realized it was actually his worst lesson ever. Drip fed the golden nuggets from then on.
Click to expand...
Can any person that plays golf from tour pro to beginner ever get enough time spent on lessons in the fundamentals and advanced techniques for the short game which is pitching, chipping, sand play, and putting? It is where most of the ability to
score comes from but what do they seek? I wanna hit it LONGER!
Pool players are the same way in what THEY think needs fixed and how to go about doing it. I think a good instructor should
make the assessment, take the bull by the horns, and go from there. They might lose some bullheaded lessons though.
 
Imagine the GOAT saying, "We had to take my game apart and rebuild it." Oh wait he did say that. 🤷‍♂️
Just in case anyone missed it. At the 8:30 mark he gets into coaching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
SpiderWebComm said:
Can any person that plays golf from tour pro to beginner ever get enough time spent on lessons in the fundamentals and advanced techniques for the short game which is pitching, chipping, sand play, and putting? It is where most of the ability to
score comes from but what do they seek? I wanna hit it LONGER!
Pool players are the same way in what THEY think needs fixed and how to go about doing it. I think a good instructor should
make the assessment, take the bull by the horns, and go from there. They might lose some bullheaded lessons though.
Click to expand...
Ye the marketing obsession with going longer and the resulting lofts of clubs getting stronger and stronger over the years to the point that a modern 7i is like an old 5i is a bit absurd, tho some of that is technology driven. still overdone tho.
with regards to getting longer in lessons tho my view is a bit different in that a good swing lesson gets the student to use their body the right way. Most people generate speed in the swing either the wrong way or at the wrong time. So really, a coach may not care about clubhead speed directly, but by teaching the student the proper sequence of things and how to get the thing to go most efficiently, clubhead speed improves a lot as a result and they hit longer. But they also hit straighter and more consistently...which is what the games about.

I played a 70yr old woman last year who has 13 hole in ones in her life. Her drives are like 160. zero power. She was pouring out 'birdie juoce' on her birdies. by the 12th hole the bottle was done as that was her 4th or 5th of the round. power is way over rated.

In pool it is similar. everyone wants to juice the ball. while a vain motive on its face, when a coach gets the player to use his body correctly and make the stroke more efficient, the ability to juice the ball invariably goes up. But playing all shots with less effort, more control, and more consistency is the real payoff.
 
WobblyStroke said:
In pool it is similar. everyone wants to juice the ball. while a vain motive on its face, when a coach gets the player to use his body correctly and make the stroke more efficient, the ability to juice the ball invariably goes up. But playing all shots with less effort, more control, and more consistency is the real payoff.
Click to expand...
My brother, who was scratch but working more these days, talks to me about golf and similarities between it and pool. My back is really screwed up now and needs surgery so there's no attempting to swing a club. But I can't say I was ever good.

He said the fundamentals are very similar for both golf and pool. The grip, stance, posture, and alignment (aim) for body, eyes and club (or cue).

There's a strong, neutral, and weak grip in golf as well as pool based on where and how the cue is held in the fingers/hand, grip pressure, and wrist position. It can be concave (Keith McCready), convex (bowed-fingers curled under and wrist arched-Stan), or neutral.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
My brother, who was scratch but working more these days, talks to me about golf and similarities between it and pool. My back is really screwed up now and needs surgery so there's no attempting to swing a club. But I can't say I was ever good.

He said the fundamentals are very similar for both golf and pool. The grip, stance, posture, and alignment (aim) for body, eyes and club (or cue).

There's a strong, neutral, and weak grip in golf as well as pool based on where and how the cue is held in the fingers/hand, grip pressure, and wrist position. It can be concave (Keith McCready), convex (bowed-fingers curled under and wrist arched-Stan), or neutral.
Click to expand...
ye, my general stroke model for both pool and golf is exactly the same. the details obv differ but the conditions i try yo set up and what i do when is the same... just fulfilled in a different way.

Pool players tend yo be great putters.... we see the lines in our mind's eye better than most.
 
WobblyStroke said:
Pool players tend yo be great putters.... we see the lines in our mind's eye better than most.
Click to expand...
Unless there's a case of "whisky/booze" nerves where the putter jumps almost out of the hands...aka yips.
Ernie Els, Sam Snead and a bunch of others are/were great golfers who could see the line but were plagued by the yips.
Booze and pool players go hand in hand causing shakes and tremors.
 
mfinkelstein3 said:
I think the better question to ask is “How well do the Instructor’s students play?” Not who the students are but over time how have the students performed from the instruction they have received? To me that is the measure of an instructor.

Also, the Fargo yardstick truly is inadequate to measure playing ability for these reasons: It is new and it only measures 9 ball tournament games. I don’t think that is an accurate measure of pool skill. Running 100 balls, 8 ball, one pocket, and 3 cushion are all cue sports that as far as I can tell are not measured by Fargo.

Finally, a lot of players on the Instructor Fargo list played in the 50’s and 60’s, before tournaments, Fargo and internet. I don’t think that means they can’t play. In fact, a lot of these old guys have forgotten things most of you haven’t learned yet.
Click to expand...

Fargo does a very good job with any normal pool game (snooker and 3C would be expections). You just can't develop skills that don't translate into other games to reach a certain Fargo level. A good 8 ball or 9 ball player would be at least OK in straight pool and as you can see with Shaw and others, can be amazing at straight pool. A 700 Fargo that is a strong player will very likely be running 50s in straight pool and the pro level 750+ you can expect 100s out of them pretty often. Same as any top player. Yes there will be a few players that are specialized in some single game, but that is just that, a few players out of thousands. All you need to do is look at the DCC results for one pocket and banks, many of the top 10 players are top 10 players in 9 and 8 ball.

The Fargo rating was made for the games it tracks but it will be very easy to just start keeping stats on other games using it with maybe different expectations for results.
 
lfigueroa said:
You said:

“I will make your game much better in a one-hour lesson. …my claim for the upcoming clinic is you will go up several handicap points/an entire letter ranking in a day, from "C" to "B" and so on:”

Clearly, you were using the C to B as an example. So, nevermind, you’ve revealed your true attitude far more than mine. The outcome you’ve provided us is pretty much the expected crawfishing.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
Hi Lou,

I welcome skepticism but I see I need to patiently explain, again.

I see people go up two APA points in ranking after a 1 or 2 hour lesson, yes, and up what (I think we would both call) a letter ranking in an 8-hour intensive.

I'm not trolling for paid lessons, I make most of my income at a day job and several side businesses.

I've had teachers offer me free pool instruction, I'm offering you the same, you have great potential IMHO.
 
BilliardsAbout said:
Hi Lou,

I welcome skepticism but I see I need to patiently explain, again.

I see people go up two APA points in ranking after a 1 or 2 hour lesson, yes, and up what (I think we would both call) a letter ranking in an 8-hour intensive.

I'm not trolling for paid lessons, I make most of my income at a day job and several side businesses.

I've had teachers offer me free pool instruction, I'm offering you the same, you have great potential IMHO.
Click to expand...

I just read — from the beginning — the 16 page thread sparkle84 referenced in another thread from a few years ago:

why did jose hit the 9 this way?

it seems intuitive to use outside english on this shot, but jose is using a bit of inside instead- why? what's funny, is that I like to shoot balls in like this too, but again, I don't really understand how come..
forums.azbilliards.com

Anyone even remotely considering paying you so much as a penny for a single solitary lesson should read through it.

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
I just read — from the beginning — the 16 page thread sparkle84 referenced in another thread from a few years ago:

Anyone even remotely considering paying you so much as a penny for a single solitary lesson should read through it.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
If you scroll down each page quickly one after the other, it'll make you dizzy. If you read all 16 pages slowly it'll also make you dizzy. How are you sitting upright now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top