Why Do The Best Players Make The Worse Teachers?
- Thread starter Cannonball55
- Start date
I think the greatest players have a gift. They see things that most do not. Efren see angles off the rail. This is why he is difficult to safe out. Strickland sees shots. He just gets down and shoots. Amazing.
People who aspire to greatness work hard to get better. They keep learning to try and improve their game. This in my opinion is why these players know so much. The have amassed a lot of knowledge that they can pass on. This does not necessarily make them great teachers, but much can be learned from them.
Some people are just great teachers. They love the game. They have learned much about the game, and they have the ability to pass it on in a way that makes people learn well. Guys like Randyg and Scott Lee are like this. They have a style of teaching that makes people learn. I have gone through their school twice. I have never heard anyone say they were bored or disappointed. If you get a chance to learn from them you will see what I mean.
I have learned from some top pros who have a great deal of skill and knowledge. I have never taken what I consider a bad lesson, but some guys just have trouble presenting things or even looking at things like the top teachers do.
People who aspire to greatness work hard to get better. They keep learning to try and improve their game. This in my opinion is why these players know so much. The have amassed a lot of knowledge that they can pass on. This does not necessarily make them great teachers, but much can be learned from them.
Some people are just great teachers. They love the game. They have learned much about the game, and they have the ability to pass it on in a way that makes people learn well. Guys like Randyg and Scott Lee are like this. They have a style of teaching that makes people learn. I have gone through their school twice. I have never heard anyone say they were bored or disappointed. If you get a chance to learn from them you will see what I mean.
I have learned from some top pros who have a great deal of skill and knowledge. I have never taken what I consider a bad lesson, but some guys just have trouble presenting things or even looking at things like the top teachers do.
Just from my experience, once about 20 years ago, I won a local tournament and decided to invest my winnings back into the sport. I took a lesson from a world champion and got nothing from it. I asked him what happens to the cueball off multiple rails and he said just hit a million of them and find out. 
That was the last time I ever took a lesson. A million times later, I sort of understand what he was saying, but he could have cut a lot of time off, telling me how to hit with this english shortens or lengthens off this rail, which is what I was asking him.
I have seen another national instructor give his student the straight stroke drill for a half an hour while he was at the front desk BS'ing with the owner and drinking coffee, while charging $50/hr.
However, from tips and tricks from hanging out with the best players from Canada, the NW, (and indeed, the world), and books and tapes over the last 36 years, I have more knowledge than what I put into performance, lol.
I have coached gymnastics for many years and am able to break down where the body should be at any given time in the air, and more importantly, how to correct it. I was probably a B gymnast too, having placed 3rd in Regionals in Floor Ex and gone to State (after major knee surgery.)
I also always wanted to be a teacher and that was my minor in college. I was a CPR instructor in one of my jobs at a major Seattle hospital.
My husband Mike, by contrast, is an A+ player, a grandmaster in Vegas at the BCA. He was in the top 100 in the IPT well above several acknowledged pros. And he is wonderful at safeties and strategy. And yes, he does everything by feel. While I think we both have natural talent (I won the tournament last night and he took 2nd, lol) he has not studied the mechanics of the game at all.
He is great for lessons to advanced students on moves and strategies in any game, especially 1 pocket. I got one lesson on safeties and one on position play from him in the 17 years we have been together, but they drastically altered the way I was thinking and created more success for my game.
But he is not very good on basics. He does not know what a tangent line is, yet I know he knows what the principle is and uses it with every shot. We had an argument about which is inside and outside english and I proved him wrong on that one particular shot. We also argued over what constituted force follow and he was partially right on that one.
I listened to one of his lessons on 1 pocket with a group of mixed abilities and he was telling them to float the cueball over to the rail. His low intermediate student tried it just by shooting softly, but Mike couldn't explain the mechanics of how to float the cueball, or how to do a slough shot.
I have given several seminars to beginners to intermediate students and they have been highly successful. I will be doing another one in a few weeks. We go over every basic and move on to advanced principles. It is more a learning opportunity and they practice everything outside the classroom. I give them a worksheet with drills and I do contests that make it fun. (Everyone wins something.) I assume no one knows anything and start from the beginning. Eventually, as we progress, I go over most people's heads, but I open up a whole new world of possibilities to them, which is the exciting part of teaching.
Do they use those safeties and strategies against me in a tournament? Absolutely!
But the point is, by teaching, we are elevating the whole sport and demystifying some aspects that were out of our students' grasp. Watching a student 'get it' and master a new skill or a new way of thinking is like a parent feeling proud of their children. It is very gratifying for both participants. 
Every post in this thread gives valid answers to the OP's question, but I thought I would give you my .02.
That was the last time I ever took a lesson. A million times later, I sort of understand what he was saying, but he could have cut a lot of time off, telling me how to hit with this english shortens or lengthens off this rail, which is what I was asking him.I have seen another national instructor give his student the straight stroke drill for a half an hour while he was at the front desk BS'ing with the owner and drinking coffee, while charging $50/hr.
However, from tips and tricks from hanging out with the best players from Canada, the NW, (and indeed, the world), and books and tapes over the last 36 years, I have more knowledge than what I put into performance, lol.
I have coached gymnastics for many years and am able to break down where the body should be at any given time in the air, and more importantly, how to correct it. I was probably a B gymnast too, having placed 3rd in Regionals in Floor Ex and gone to State (after major knee surgery.)
I also always wanted to be a teacher and that was my minor in college. I was a CPR instructor in one of my jobs at a major Seattle hospital.
My husband Mike, by contrast, is an A+ player, a grandmaster in Vegas at the BCA. He was in the top 100 in the IPT well above several acknowledged pros. And he is wonderful at safeties and strategy. And yes, he does everything by feel. While I think we both have natural talent (I won the tournament last night and he took 2nd, lol) he has not studied the mechanics of the game at all.
He is great for lessons to advanced students on moves and strategies in any game, especially 1 pocket. I got one lesson on safeties and one on position play from him in the 17 years we have been together, but they drastically altered the way I was thinking and created more success for my game.
But he is not very good on basics. He does not know what a tangent line is, yet I know he knows what the principle is and uses it with every shot. We had an argument about which is inside and outside english and I proved him wrong on that one particular shot. We also argued over what constituted force follow and he was partially right on that one.
I listened to one of his lessons on 1 pocket with a group of mixed abilities and he was telling them to float the cueball over to the rail. His low intermediate student tried it just by shooting softly, but Mike couldn't explain the mechanics of how to float the cueball, or how to do a slough shot.
I have given several seminars to beginners to intermediate students and they have been highly successful. I will be doing another one in a few weeks. We go over every basic and move on to advanced principles. It is more a learning opportunity and they practice everything outside the classroom. I give them a worksheet with drills and I do contests that make it fun. (Everyone wins something.) I assume no one knows anything and start from the beginning. Eventually, as we progress, I go over most people's heads, but I open up a whole new world of possibilities to them, which is the exciting part of teaching.
Do they use those safeties and strategies against me in a tournament? Absolutely!
But the point is, by teaching, we are elevating the whole sport and demystifying some aspects that were out of our students' grasp. Watching a student 'get it' and master a new skill or a new way of thinking is like a parent feeling proud of their children. It is very gratifying for both participants. Every post in this thread gives valid answers to the OP's question, but I thought I would give you my .02.
What is it that makes a pool instructor a great one? Is it knowledge or communication skills?
I recall that when I was a college student, I took an economics class and the professor was a Nobel Prize winner. Unfortunately, his great scholarship wasn't enough to make him a great teacher, because he didn't seem to have the ability to communicate well with the students in the class. In other economics classes, though, professors having less scholarship taught me far more than the Nobel Laureate because they had superb communication skills.
What, then, is the perfect mix of scholarship and communication skills? In fact, it is really rather simple, it is all about maximizing P, where:
P = proportion of a subject that can possibly be taught by a given teacher
K = knowledge, the percent of a subject that is understood by the teacher
C = communication skills, percentage of the teacher's knowledge of a subject that they are able to relate to his/her student(s)
The basic idea is that P = K x C
For example, one who understands 80% of a subject and is able to communicate 60% of what they know is capable of teaching only 48% of a subject. A less knowledgeable teacher might only understand 70%, but if they have enough communication skills that they can convey 90% of what they know, they are capable of teaching 63% of a subject, and would qualify as the teacher you can learn more from.
The very best pool players tend to have very high K values, but most of them have a C value that is far lower than those who have superior communication skills (and who enhance their C values through diligent honing of teaching skills and careful preparation of teaching materials and lesson plans.) This explains why, in seemingly every sport, the best players are nearly never the best teachers. The best have a very high C value, and it's usually much more than enough to offset the fact that they may have slightly lower K values.
The instructor who can teach you the most is the one with a high P value, and the odds are that if you focus on the K values alone, you'll shortchange yourself in your quest to be the best player you can be.
I recall that when I was a college student, I took an economics class and the professor was a Nobel Prize winner. Unfortunately, his great scholarship wasn't enough to make him a great teacher, because he didn't seem to have the ability to communicate well with the students in the class. In other economics classes, though, professors having less scholarship taught me far more than the Nobel Laureate because they had superb communication skills.
What, then, is the perfect mix of scholarship and communication skills? In fact, it is really rather simple, it is all about maximizing P, where:
P = proportion of a subject that can possibly be taught by a given teacher
K = knowledge, the percent of a subject that is understood by the teacher
C = communication skills, percentage of the teacher's knowledge of a subject that they are able to relate to his/her student(s)
The basic idea is that P = K x C
For example, one who understands 80% of a subject and is able to communicate 60% of what they know is capable of teaching only 48% of a subject. A less knowledgeable teacher might only understand 70%, but if they have enough communication skills that they can convey 90% of what they know, they are capable of teaching 63% of a subject, and would qualify as the teacher you can learn more from.
The very best pool players tend to have very high K values, but most of them have a C value that is far lower than those who have superior communication skills (and who enhance their C values through diligent honing of teaching skills and careful preparation of teaching materials and lesson plans.) This explains why, in seemingly every sport, the best players are nearly never the best teachers. The best have a very high C value, and it's usually much more than enough to offset the fact that they may have slightly lower K values.
The instructor who can teach you the most is the one with a high P value, and the odds are that if you focus on the K values alone, you'll shortchange yourself in your quest to be the best player you can be.
did you ever think
You arent paying them to teach you. Why are they giving up free information. I am sure many of them would be great intstructors at 100 or 200 an hour. What happens when you want to learn the fundamentals of another sport. You either pay and instructor/coach or go to a camp and pay. Infromation isn't free, they worked hard to develop their talent and knowledge and they should get paid to distrubute it. IMO.
Cannonball55 said:
You arent paying them to teach you. Why are they giving up free information. I am sure many of them would be great intstructors at 100 or 200 an hour. What happens when you want to learn the fundamentals of another sport. You either pay and instructor/coach or go to a camp and pay. Infromation isn't free, they worked hard to develop their talent and knowledge and they should get paid to distrubute it. IMO.
Teaching is a skill that you do not posess just because you can do something well. I am a professional school teacher and see this with kids all the time. Just because a student is good in one subject does not mean they can teach that skill to their peers.
Teaching involves seeing the students strengths and weaknesses and building on the strengths while improving the weaknesses. Everyone learns differently and a good teacher can adjust their teaching methods to help the student learn in the way that is easiest for them.
Tiger Woods could spot Hank Haney anything he wanted to and beat him on the golf course, but he still pays Hank nicely to breakdown his game and help him improve.
Teaching involves seeing the students strengths and weaknesses and building on the strengths while improving the weaknesses. Everyone learns differently and a good teacher can adjust their teaching methods to help the student learn in the way that is easiest for them.
Tiger Woods could spot Hank Haney anything he wanted to and beat him on the golf course, but he still pays Hank nicely to breakdown his game and help him improve.
Swedgin said:
the poster three posts up from your post... :grin:
Cannonball55 said:
You can be a top player without actually knowing what you're doing.
There is a useful epistemological distinction between "knowing that" and knowing how". Luther Lassiter once said "I don't give lessons because I don't know what I'm doing."
Lassiter obviously "knew how" to play pool well, but he didn't have "knowledge that", i.e., he couldn't explain (maybe not even to himself) what he was doing.
To be able to teach you have to have knowledge that, and in addition to be a good teacher you have to be able to do other things well like convey information in an effective way, understand the weaknesses and strengths of someone's game, recognize what someone is doing wrong in their fundamentals, etc.
Swedgin said:
SJM is only our resident guru and one of our all-time best posters here! His name is Stu and you will always find his posts to be well-thought out and erudite.
I read every post in this thread, and there are MANY knowledgeable observations. I also think SJM puts it very concisely...and even in the context of a math equation, for those types of learners as well! LOL
Many great players simply don't know how to convey it. Here's a great example: Jack White, while not a top player, was VERY skilled in how to pocket balls well, and move the CB expertly. He also fancied himself an instructor (he charged $100 for 1/2 hour... LOL). He always maintained that he never struck the CB more than a tip outside of center...yet got incredible spin on the CB. Many times I asked him how he made certain shots. His answer?...it was either, "Like THIS!" (and he'd just shoot the shot)...or, "You gotta load up the rock, kid!" It took me years to really understand what he meant, because although HE could do it, he couldn't explain it at all (to my satisfaction, as a teacher). Finally I had the opportunity to video his stroke, and contact with the CB. When I ran it back, in slow-motion, it proved that he was hitting the CB FAR off center. He was flat amazed, and had no idea...even though he had been 'doing it' for many decades.
Lots of great posts in this thread!
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Many great players simply don't know how to convey it. Here's a great example: Jack White, while not a top player, was VERY skilled in how to pocket balls well, and move the CB expertly. He also fancied himself an instructor (he charged $100 for 1/2 hour...
LOL). He always maintained that he never struck the CB more than a tip outside of center...yet got incredible spin on the CB. Many times I asked him how he made certain shots. His answer?...it was either, "Like THIS!" (and he'd just shoot the shot)...or, "You gotta load up the rock, kid!" It took me years to really understand what he meant, because although HE could do it, he couldn't explain it at all (to my satisfaction, as a teacher). Finally I had the opportunity to video his stroke, and contact with the CB. When I ran it back, in slow-motion, it proved that he was hitting the CB FAR off center. He was flat amazed, and had no idea...even though he had been 'doing it' for many decades.Lots of great posts in this thread!
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
sjm said:
I think this thread is somewhat presumptuous. What makes a good instructor? Is it the ability to raise someone's game from D to C? C to B? Or is it producing an expert calibre player? If the measure of a teacher can be seen in the level of play in their students, IMO, there's no doubt the best players in New York City have proven to be the best teachers. Ginky, Barouty, Lipsky and Jon Smith all have taken players under their wing and gotten very impressive results. In fact, I am 100% certain if New York City ever produces another professional calibre player, they will be able to credit one (if not more) of these individuals.
To date, I have yet to see a B-level player instruct a student beyond their own ability. Now, if I were a beginner looking to get a grasp of the game, of course going to one of these fulltime instructors/B-players would do the trick. If I were a B player looking to go pro, I'd want to spend as much time as possible at the table with players I one day intend to beat.
To date, I have yet to see a B-level player instruct a student beyond their own ability. Now, if I were a beginner looking to get a grasp of the game, of course going to one of these fulltime instructors/B-players would do the trick. If I were a B player looking to go pro, I'd want to spend as much time as possible at the table with players I one day intend to beat.