PDA

View Full Version : Kinister Coaching Session



Doctor_D
08-19-2003, 05:30 AM
Good morning:

Just a brief note to comment on a recent Four (4) hour coaching session I had with Bert Kinister. Bert was in New Jersey for Two (2) weeks and I had the opportunity to schedule some time to work with him. Let me tell you, in no uncertain terms, that the time I invested with Kinister was nothing short of phenominal! He worked with me for more then Four (4) hours, sharing a significant amount of knowledge and technique, which I found to be worth every single penny. Regardless of the opinions individuals may have about Kinister, I would recommend him highly to anyone who wants to improve thier game.

Dr. D.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

jjinfla
08-19-2003, 06:24 AM
Lucky you, Dr. D. Care to tell us how much that investment cost you?

I think you were wise in just taking 4 hours. In my opinion that is about all anyone should take at any one time. 2 or 3 hours would probably be better. I am not talking about playing with someone but rather concentrated instruction. There just is too much to learn and retain. Look at what he shows in his one hour workout video. I wonder why he never put that material into book form? Perhaps he should get together with Steve Campana and they could put it into a manual similar to what Steve wrote.

But I would suggest that he would put it into looseleaf form. That way once the initial book is out he could produce supplements every few months.

I believe Steve was a former student of Bert and Steve wrote a book. Now that you are a student of Bert perhaps you too will come out with your book. I believe a while back you did mention you were compiling drills.

Jake

Alfie
08-19-2003, 06:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Doctor_D:</font><hr> Just a brief note to comment on a recent Four (4) hour coaching session I had with Bert Kinister. <hr /></blockquote>How much did 4 hours cost?
What were the surroundings?
What did you work on?
What did you learn?

Doctor_D
08-19-2003, 06:37 AM
Good morning:

In regards to Kinister's hourly rate, as I am certain his rate is variable based on the number of hours being booked, I will suggest that you contact him directly as I would not want to publish it on an open forum. Send me a PM and I will be happ to shre the rate with you.

As far as a book is concerned, I have been working on a Drill / Workbook for the past Two (2) years. This publication will be introduced at the Super Billiards Expo in Pennsylvania in March of 2004. In the interim, you can visit the WebSite at www.billiardsworkbook.com (http://www.billiardsworkbook.com) and yes, it is in a loose leaf format!

Dr. D.

Fran Crimi
08-19-2003, 06:55 AM
Glad to hear it, Diana. I like Burt. He gave me some great tips on breaking awhile back. (No, I'm not sharing them, Alfie. LOL)

Another thing I really like about Burt is that he puts his money where his mouth is and he competes. I'm not a big fan of teachers who are big on telling you what to do but never put themselves on the line. That's like saying, "let's experiment with your money and see if it works."

Fran

Doctor_D
08-19-2003, 07:12 AM
Good morning Fran:

Kinister, commenting that they were very solid, did not touch my fundamentals. His knowledge, and most importantly his ability to communicate his knowledge clearly, was what impressed me most. Kinister, who many beleive is quite the character, was one very serious coach who took a definitive interest in the work we were doing.

The next time he is in town, or nearby enough to drive to, I will definitely book another Four (4) hour session with him.

Dr. D.

Sid_Vicious
08-19-2003, 07:27 AM
"I think you were wise in just taking 4 hours. In my opinion that is about all anyone should take at any one time. 2 or 3 hours would probably be better. I am not talking about playing with someone but rather concentrated instruction. There just is too much to learn and retain."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Great comment! These pool schools for 500+ bucks running 3 days, 8 hours a day seems like lots of bang for the buck, but as you stated, you definetely get clouded minds with too much to absorb. The bargain just gets lost in the production style approach in those schools, and I agree that even with personal instruction, about 2 hour blocks is right...sid

cycopath
08-19-2003, 08:53 AM
All I can say is:

"You got yer man, you got yer man."

Scott Lee
08-19-2003, 10:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Another thing I really like about Burt is that he puts his money where his mouth is and he competes. I'm not a big fan of teachers who are big on telling you what to do but never put themselves on the line. That's like saying, "let's experiment with your money and see if it works."

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Gee Fran, I guess that means you don't think much of teachers like Jerry, Mark, and myself...who CHOOSE to spend the majority of our time working with others to permanently improve their own games! Even RandyG competes very little, playing in his local leagues...but much more busy with teaching, than competing. BTW, Bert plays locally in a VNEA league in the Chicago suburbs (and consequently goes to Vegas once a year), but rarely "competes" in any of the larger tournaments, either around the midwest, or anywhere else. I love to compete...and regularly enter small, local tournaments just for fun. Usually I go out early, or win it all. I don't have the time, energy or desire (read: $$$) to play at the 'higher' tournament level. The only person who wins ANYTHING is the person who finishes 1st! In the average "pro" event, someone who finishes 10th, out of a field of 128, played terrific! However, they LOST money being in the tournament, as they'd never recoup their expenses (you, of all people should understand this)! Personally, I think your comment is a slap in the face to many fine instructors.

Scott Lee

Fred Agnir
08-19-2003, 10:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Scott Lee:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Another thing I really like about Burt is that he puts his money where his mouth is and he competes. I'm not a big fan of teachers who are big on telling you what to do but never put themselves on the line. That's like saying, "let's experiment with your money and see if it works."

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Gee Fran, I guess that means you don't think much of teachers like Jerry, Mark, and myself...who CHOOSE to spend the majority of our time working with others to permanently improve their own games! <hr /></blockquote>

I think there's a mile of difference between what Fran said and what you think she said.

Are you a big fan of teachers who are big on telling you what to do but never put themselves on the line? How could they possibly know what really works in the real world if they haven't?

I think you, RandyG, Mark have all played enough tournaments at a relatively higher level to consider yourselves "putting themselves on the line."


Fred

DSAPOLIS
08-19-2003, 10:40 AM
I agree with Scott. I didn't start writing or teaching until I stopped competing. My time was finished, and I decided that the best thing for me to do was to pass along what I used in hopes that it could be put to good use by others. Many of the top instructor's in Golf are better instructors than they are competitors. It just depends on how you are gifted. I know some top players that haven't a clue of how to pass along their knowledge, and when they try, it shows. Some of the players I am referring to have charged much more than I charge, and some of them have been part of the Predator Pro Pool School.

I would be more than willing to join my peers, such as Scott Lee, Tom Simpson, Tim Miller, and others for a super-pool workshop, of which I would not accept one dime, and if was forced upon me, I would donate it to various charities. The cost per student would be substantial to cover travel expenses.

Diana, I applaud your efforts to put such a workbook together. I am glad you were able to benefit from Mr. Kinister's instruction, as his knowledge is top quality, and so is Bert.

Candyman
08-19-2003, 11:19 AM
Fran, you need to think about what you just said! If it weren't for your resident pro's where would pool be today and who would be going to the tournaments? I just read about a 3-day deal with Jeanette Lee and several other Pro's and the cost was hugh. Most of us can't afford that kind of money. I could afford Scott Lee. In 2 months my game has jumped more than I would have ever guessed. Not only that, he has time to check on me from time to time and I feel like he really cares about my progress. How many tour pro's do that. One last thought for you to ponder is the fact, that Tiger Woods goes to Butch Harmon for lessons. I guess Butch doesn't put his money where his mouth is.
Regards, Lock

Scott Lee
08-19-2003, 11:25 AM
Fred...Perhaps it is semantics here. Fran said "never put themselves on the line", not "never HAVE put themselves on the line"! Fran, as far as I know, is one of the only highly qualified instructors, who still competes on a pro circuit full time. I respect her desire to do that (even though there's no way she's making money at it), and I know it doesn't affect her ability as a teacher. In fact, it may enhance her teaching. I still don't like the 'flat' statement she made. You are, of course, correct in your statement that almost all of us have at one time, pursued tournament play and/or gambling with a passion and persistance seen in many top players. Perhaps I misinterpreted it, but like David said, I'm not the only one.

Scott Lee

bluewolf
08-19-2003, 12:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>
I think there's a mile of difference between what Fran said and what you think she said.

Are you a big fan of teachers who are big on telling you what to do but never put themselves on the line? How could they possibly know what really works in the real world if they haven't?

I think you, RandyG, Mark have all played enough tournaments at a relatively higher level to consider yourselves "putting themselves on the line."

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

I agree with Fred, but I was wondering if someone would take this personally. Forums are wonderful but it is sure easy to get misunderstood and all of that also.

Laura

Alfie
08-19-2003, 03:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Doctor_D:</font><hr>Let me tell you, in no uncertain terms, that the time I invested with Kinister was nothing short of phenominal!<hr /></blockquote>So...
Where was the lesson held?
What did you work on?

jjinfla
08-19-2003, 04:24 PM
I think it should be remembered that it is not important how talented the instructor is at playing the game but rather what achievements the student attains after the lessons. Really good coaches/teachers are rated by the awards/achievements of their students. I would keep away from any instructor who brags about himself/herself rather than the accomplishments of their students. Jake

Steve Lipsky
08-19-2003, 05:05 PM
Well said, JJ.

Fran Crimi
08-19-2003, 07:45 PM
C'mon Scott. Everyone you mention including yourself has had competitive experience. That's all I meant. I was referring to instructors who never competed a day in their lives.

Interesting how you chose to look at my comment from the most negative standpoint.

Fran

Fran Crimi
08-19-2003, 08:48 PM
You know what, Scott? There are teachers out there teaching the same damn things exactly the same damn way for the past 20 years. I find that appalling. Teaching billiards is not just a history lessson. It's a progressive sport. There is always new ground to break and new things to be learned.

Take for example what happened in the 80's when the Filippinos came to the U.S...no one could ever imagine doing some of the things those guys were doing on a pool table. I still remember the shocked looks on the other pros faces.

Do you know that there are still teachers out there who say it doesn't matter how you stand as long as you're comfortable? I simply can't believe it. I'd like to see their "comfortable" stances hold up in competition.

Competition is the ultimate proving ground for any methodology that a teacher shares with a student.

Maybe someone can explain to me how you would teach something new and progressive to a student that you haven't worked out and tested yourself? I guess you could try to explain to somebody what Efren does without testing it out yourself, but it's not easy to explain how something feels when you can't feel it yourself and you don't know how easy or difficult it is to do under pressure.

If you're teaching tried and true methods that have been proven over and over, great. But if you're going to teach something progressive, then you'd better understand it inside out and upside down (and I don't mean you, personally, I mean you in general).


Fran

Fran Crimi
08-19-2003, 08:56 PM
Exactly. Thank you.

Fran

Qtec
08-19-2003, 09:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Take for example what happened in the 80's when the Filippinos came to the U.S...no one could ever imagine doing some of the things those guys were doing on a pool table. I still remember the shocked looks on the other pros faces <hr /></blockquote>


Fran , your whole arguement is that people should not listen to teachers who have not proven themselves in competion . My question is ,


"Who taught the Fillipinos all this new stuff ?" /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q

Rules for stance .
You must be able to stroke freely.
You must be able to remain motionless on the shot .
You must be able to relax.

Any stance that conforms to these rules is acceptable .

Fran Crimi
08-19-2003, 09:27 PM
Wrong. Try again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif That's not my whole argument.

As for the Filippinos, I heard there was a master level competitor in the Philippines that created that style and used it himself in competiton and passed down the information.

Fran

Fran Crimi
08-19-2003, 09:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Rules for stance .
You must be able to stroke freely.
You must be able to remain motionless on the shot .
You must be able to relax.

Any stance that conforms to these rules is acceptable .

<hr /></blockquote>


Hey Q, I think you forgot one important rule of stance. The ball must go in the pocket.

Fran

Qtec
08-19-2003, 10:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. Try again. That's not my whole argument <hr /></blockquote>

What is your arguement then ? I thought you were making the distinction between playing teachers and non playing teachers .

Also , what level do you have to have played at to qualify as a playing teacher ?

Most women players would never get past the first round in a mens pro competition . Should this 'level of excellence' be lowered for women teachers ? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

Fran Crimi
08-19-2003, 10:40 PM
No no...it's not about being the best competitor.

Let's say a teacher is working on a new idea or methodology. Maybe it comes from something they saw a pro do that they've never seen before, or a combination of things that sparks their interest, or even maybe something they created on their own.

They work it out on the table and it looks good. Now what? should they try it out on a student to see how it works? How about testing it out in a local tournament yourself to see how it holds up and if it needs some tweaking. Does that mean you have to win the tournament in order to see if it works, or beat the best player in the tournament?

But the instructor can certainly learn a few things about the new methodology by trying it out competitively, maybe if it would suit a higher level player, or maybe if it would be easy for an intermediate level player to use competitively, or maybe a beginner.

Or maybe it's harder to do under pressure and should be reconsidered.

That's all I'm saying. If it's new, then why not test it? Competiton is a test. Practice is not a test. Practice is preparation for a test.

If it's not new, it's tried and true, and it's something you're familliar with from your past experience in playing, then it's not necessary to test it again, is it? You can rely on your past experience to teach it.

But how on earth do you teach something you're not familliar with up and down, inside and out? The answer is you don't.

So Q, do you want to be progressive or do you just want to keep teaching the old stuff? Nothing wrong with teaching the old stuff, but somebody's got to break new ground or we stand still.


Fran

Qtec
08-19-2003, 10:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Q, I think you forgot one important rule of stance. The ball must go in the pocket.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

No. If you are practising not moving on the shot , its not neccessary to pot every ball. Especially for begginers its important to concentrate on one thing , one focus point . A good stance will only decrease you chances of missing, in that way it will help you pot more balls ..

Once a player has a good stance they will automatically play better because they will have eliminated a fault that effects many players and is the cause of many missed balls,namely, moving on the shot.

IMO, of course. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q

Fran Crimi
08-19-2003, 10:47 PM
Oh, OK. If that's your methodology, that's fine. For me, I'd rather the ball goes in the pocket pretty early on, like maybe in the first 30 seconds. LOL!

Fran

bigbro6060
08-19-2003, 10:57 PM
i'm going to England next year

I intend to have some lessons with Terry Griffiths who currently coaches World Snooker champ Mark Williams and snooker legend Stephen Hendry

Billy
08-20-2003, 02:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bigbro6060:</font><hr> i'm going to England next year

I intend to have some lessons with Terry Griffiths who currently coaches World Snooker champ Mark Williams and snooker legend Stephen Hendry

<hr /></blockquote>

Terry Griffiths, 1979 World Champion, Former WPBSA Director of Coaching
and acknowledged as the World's leading Snooker Coach - has announced
the launch of his own School of coaching.

Griffiths, known throughout his career as a leading exponent of the
technical and mental side of the game, has coached for many years, both
locally and internationally.

Griffiths coaches many of the World's leading players, who seek him out
to ask advice regarding cueing problems or seek tactical advice or wish
to discuss strategy or just chat to "someone who's been there" about
tournaments and matches.

Griffiths is unique in his repartoire of skills, in that he also
"Coaches the Coaches". For several years now Griffiths has trained
players who have sought to pass their skills and knowledge on. Coaching
is not just something anyone can do - any more than anyone can play! -
and Griffiths devised a system of "common criteria" that could be learnt
and applied to pupils of all levels, physiques etc worldwide.

The popular Welshman has travelled the world advising Governing Bodies
on the formation of their own Coaching Foundations and training their
coaches, in addition to recruiting and training more than 30 World Class
WPBSA Coaches, who now undertake assignments all over the World.

Terry is "unnaturally" reticent when asked about his pupils, but many of
them have spoken out to sing his praises. Amongst these - at Sheffield
this year - Darren Morgan held a press conference to publicly thank
Terry for all the help he had given him, both on and off the table.

Terry's latest "success story" Patrick Wallace is testiment to what can
be achieved when Coach and Player work together - as Patrick won 15
successive matches at Plymouth and has qualified for 3 venues, having
never succeeded in reaching a venue before.

The philosophy of Terry's Coaching School is simple, to take his
experience and expertise and match it to the enthusiasm of his pupils.
Griffiths says "Coaching is for everyone, whatever their level,
everybody can gain something from Qualified Coaching". "As a Coach I can
derive as much pleasure from seeing the progress and results of a pupil
as I did from my own victories as a player".

this is the instructor I want in my corner

not a has been who never was

imo

Billy
08-20-2003, 02:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> You know what, Scott? There are teachers out there teaching the same damn things exactly the same damn way for the past 20 years. I find that appalling. Teaching billiards is not just a history lessson. It's a progressive sport. There is always new ground to break and new things to be learned.

Take for example what happened in the 80's when the Filippinos came to the U.S...no one could ever imagine doing some of the things those guys were doing on a pool table. I still remember the shocked looks on the other pros faces.

Do you know that there are still teachers out there who say it doesn't matter how you stand as long as you're comfortable? I simply can't believe it. I'd like to see their "comfortable" stances hold up in competition.

Competition is the ultimate proving ground for any methodology that a teacher shares with a student.

Maybe someone can explain to me how you would teach something new and progressive to a student that you haven't worked out and tested yourself? I guess you could try to explain to somebody what Efren does without testing it out yourself, but it's not easy to explain how something feels when you can't feel it yourself and you don't know how easy or difficult it is to do under pressure.

If you're teaching tried and true methods that have been proven over and over, great. But if you're going to teach something progressive, then you'd better understand it inside out and upside down (and I don't mean you, personally, I mean you in general).


Fran


<hr /></blockquote>Another thing I really like about Burt is that he puts his money where his mouth is and he competes. I'm not a big fan of teachers who are big on telling you what to do but never put themselves on the line. That's like saying, "let's experiment with your money and see if it works."

tap tap

Ralph S.
08-20-2003, 06:23 AM
Fran, I am not looking to turn this into a personal spat or armtwisting thing, but the way your initial response reads, is very easy to be interpreted the way Scott and David intrepreted it. I myself, interpreted it that way too.

What I am asking is if you would maybe be kind enough to give an example here in this thread of those new methodologies in teaching.

I personally have greatly benefited from Scotts instruction and will continue to get instruction from him, but my mind isn't closed to new ideals. How 'bout an example please.

Qtec
08-20-2003, 09:16 AM
Fran, call me old fashioned , but I teach only one way , the right way /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif. Let me try and explain .

I had been giving snooker lessons to all players from 18 to 70 yrs old for 10 yrs. You cant do much with someone who takes 1 lesson a month and plays maybe with a friend for 8 hrs a month .[ once a week ]. Then along came a kid [ 13 yrs ] who came right up to me and asked me if I would teach him how to play snooker .
To cut a long story short , my problem was where do I begin and in what order I should teach him to achieve the maximum progress in the shortest space of time .

I had to rethink everything I had ever taught . I was afraid to mess it up . The kid had talent [ in my eyes , not everybody agreed with me ] and his future as a player was in my hands . I thought , discussed and researched to be sure I was doing it right . I even joined Tai Chi classes because I wanted to learn about balance [ full and empty ] and about how to focus . As a player , this was my main problem . [ I would sometimes watch my opponent and look at the faults in his cueing or stance etc ].


For a time it looked to others that he was not progressing , but I kept on . Everyday we practised on specific points , in an specific order . The first hour was not about potting balls , mostly it was about hitting the ball in the right way . Fundamentals was the name of the game . When he was allowed to play a game , [ after practice ] he was not allowed to play safe . He had to go for every ball ! I did this on purpose to eliminate the fear of losing .Everything I told him or made him do had a specific purpose.
In the begining , he lost almost every time. LOL .[ he didnt like it much ]

When he made the 'jump', this is the point that a player has control of the Qball [ mostly ] and pots the ball , he made rapid progress .

First learn the fundamentals , then you cannot fail to pot balls .

Put it like this , you want to play guitar , you go to a teacher and in one month he teaches you how to play a song . At the end of the year you can play 12 songs .

Your sister goes to another teacher , he doesent teach songs , he teaches you first how to read music and cord structures , gives you exercises for your fingers etc . After six months , you cant play a tune . Your sister can play 6.


Then , at the end of the year , you can play 12 songs and your sister can play ANY tune , she can even play her own tunes because she has learned the fundamentals , the basics .

She is a musician , you are not .

In times of pressure , you can only rely on your technique and if its good enough , it will see you through .


Q

jjinfla
08-20-2003, 11:06 AM
Hi Q,

You failed to tell us how the kid turned out.

Jake

Qtec
08-20-2003, 01:02 PM
What can i say . Technically he was improving but his attitude to other players was bad .

After about 18 months , he made his first 100 break . Two days later he made 2 100s on the same day .[ which is more than I ever done ]. I felt that I was doing a good job . It was such a relief.
I reckoned another 2 years and he could turn pro .He was playing competition and many PH owners had their eye on him . They all knew me and that the kid was my pupil .

One rat, that I didnt know personally, promised the kid the world , he assured him that he could continue taking lessons with me and that he would pay his pro ticket etc etc .
Of course , he was just being used . When I saw him again ,2 years later, the damage was done . To tell you the truth , it broke my heart . What a waste .

He still plays pool nowadays and on his day , if he turns up ,if hes sober and drug free , he is capable of beating anybody .

Still tho , I think I got as much out of our time together [ sometimes 20 hours a week ] as he did .We learned from each other.

All those guys in the club that used to make jokes about the kid having lessons and not being able to beat them ,eventually had to eat dirt and they didnt like it .

the better he played , the cheekier he became . Sometimes to the point that he beat players so badly it was almost humiliating .[ at this point he did not understand the meaning of winning gracefully . /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif ]
It didnt make him popular , but I enjoyed it . /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
It can go to your head when you are that young and in a year you play better and know more about what you are doing on a snooker table than full grown men . At that crucial time , when he needed me most , I couldnt do anything to help him .He was out of my hands.

You have to make your own mistakes .

Thats life , I guess.

Q

Fran Crimi
08-20-2003, 02:51 PM
Glad to hear it. I like your style but what has that got to do with being progressive and discovering new things? Here in the U.S. the fundamentals that were taught as "the right way" were discovered over the years to be mostly wrong. One reason is because those who were teaching their "right way" didn't have a true understanding of what was really going on.

Take for example the old timers who taught players to use their wrist excessively and to use a 4 inch bridge length. Sure, that was the way they played back then. But, does anyone know why they played that way? It was because they stood more erect. Players now who stand lower to the shot are still being taught the short bridge length and wrist snap and all the teacher knows is that's how he learned.

That's what I'm talking about when I say "progressive teaching." What makes you think that what you know now is the absolute only and best way? It's one way and that's all it is. Good for you if it's successful, but by closing your mind to other possibilities, you don't know how much more successful your students can be.

Fran

Fran Crimi
08-20-2003, 03:22 PM
Ralph, Scott and I know each other personally. We've even taught together. I have never ever tried to publicly insult him. This is not the first time Scott has jumped the gun here on the CCB. Even if what I wrote came off all wrong, Scott knows me better than that. All he had to do was PM me or post asking me to clarify and I would have been happy to oblidge.

As much as I'd like to answer your question, I'm going to stay away from getting into specific examples of progressive stuff. The only thing I'm willing to say about it is that it's out there and it's up to the instructor to go get it and bring it to the student. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Fran

Qtec
08-20-2003, 04:21 PM
Fran , I'm not knocking anybody or any teacher , I'm all for diversity. Sure things have changed , teaching methods have changed certainly, but for me there is only one way to play snooker , one stroke .It took me a long time to develop my 'snooker principals'and if I wasnt 100% confident of what I teach , I would still be looking for answers .

The definitive book on snooker was written 50 years ago by Joe Davis . This was the snooker bible till Frank Callen pointed out that Joe sighted totally out his left eye . When Joe demonstrated the 'stance 'and showed where to put your feet , it was how HE did it .[ right foot on the line of the shot ].

Showing somebody what to do is easy , the trick is getting the player to do it . This is the difference between a player and a teacher for me.

I cant speak for pool players but I know that all top snooker players adhere to the same principals and the wrist snap [ lose wrist ] is essential . [ we can agree to differ ] /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I also think that there are many factors that come into play when player is in a tournament that determine a win or a loss.

I watched the whole WPC and I did not see anything wrong with the technique from the US pool players. I was most impressed by Rodney Morris . He hits the ball sweet . Earl too .


Have I gone off topic again ? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q

Oh. That shot they showed by Corey D, that was something special . As a snooker player , that shot would never have occurred to me. So I am still learning /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fred Agnir
08-20-2003, 07:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ralph S.:</font><hr> Fran, I am not looking to turn this into a personal spat or armtwisting thing, but the way your initial response reads, is very easy to be interpreted the way Scott and David intrepreted it. I myself, interpreted it that way too. <hr /></blockquote>

THe fact that some people took it one way, others took it another, and that Fran clarified which position she was saying should end any other discussion on it.


[ QUOTE ]
What I am asking is if you would maybe be kind enough to give an example here in this thread of those new methodologies in teaching. <hr /></blockquote>

I'll answer this in my own way, since it's the same theme I've been saying for over 7 years on the internet. Every time I see in print the same old stale and tired lines that may have been helpful in years on past, it bugs the sh*t out of me. Especially when someone on this board decides to repeat it. The game has changed, evolved, progressed. So too should the teaching style to incorporate today's faster paced, firmer and powerful game.

I'm not saying "think outside the box." I'm saying "why would instructors continue to hammer ideas that focus on mediocrity?" Ideas that may have worked in a straight pool world, but may not really apply in today's 9-ball world. How many times do we hear:

Keep it simple
Don't use much english
Hit is slower
Shoot as level as possible


All of which NOT ONE halfway decent player abides with any huge percentage. And I'm not talking pro players. Hell, no pro pool player sticks to the above. The best player in your local room doesn't stick to the above. The best local league players don't. Who does? Beginners? Not even instructors abide by these statements. And I've watched many instructors. Watch yourself on video. Watch other decent players on video. Watch the pros on video. Nobody in practical use follows these "good pieces of advice" without breaking those rules on a relatively high percentage of shots. This ain't straight pool.

Should we drop the elbow or not?
Should we swing when shooting english.
Should we keep a grip so loose that the cueball nearly falls out.
Should we lunge forward on the break.

I know what all the instructors would say. I know what I'd say. I have nothing against how they teach it. But by golly, they should be open to the way I do when I do. Especially when you look at the tournament winner to see which style they more closely resemble. The "straight and narrow" or the "not quite standard."

I know (and everyone on this board knows) that certain instructors have incorporated different techniques very recently that wouldn't be considered "standard." Because of that, they should feel at odds disagreeing with me at this time since I will bring up that fact (that they have changed to include non-standard fare into their teaching very recently).

Fred &lt;~~~ in praise of non-standard *additional* instruction

Fred Agnir
08-20-2003, 07:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Fran , I'm not knocking anybody or any teacher , I'm all for diversity. Sure things have changed , teaching methods have changed certainly, but for me there is only one way to play snooker , one stroke .It took me a long time to develop my 'snooker principals'and if I wasnt 100% confident of what I teach , I would still be looking for answers .
<hr /></blockquote>
This is true. But, just like in the U.S. and the golden age of 14.1 has gone, 9-ball's introduction and absorption into Europe will prove to change the "right way to shoot." I guarantee it.

Look at the women champions Allison and Karen. Their respective styles are so different that it has been remarked that Allison does NOT have a snooker-style stance. By snooker players. THat's because the game they play isn't snooker anymore, and they have had to incorporate things in their stroke and stance that just wasn't necessary in snooker.

As the game evolves, so does the instuction. It has to. That's the period we are in in the U.S.

Fred

Voodoo Daddy
08-21-2003, 05:03 AM
One person voices their opinion and the fur starts to fly. Though I do believe in the "shut up and show me" theory, I also have the perfect example of not needing certain credentials to achieve success as a instructor.

A kicking coach for the Miami Dolphins showed up for his new job several seasons ago. The Head Coach's secretary told him that the Kicking Coach was waiting to meet him. This coach was hired on his ABILITY to instruct in the art of kicking the football. The Head Coach said he was ready to meet him. This man in a wheelchair rolled in and introduced himself announcing that he was his new kicking coach...to the head coach's suprise. The kicking coach has been in a wheelchair since childhood, never COMPETING in football, never kicked a football but did studied the art of kicking and made a career at it!!

Hope all you "teachers" read that slowly or again...for adults all trying to reach the same goal, we have some thin skin /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif&lt;including myself&gt; /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif...dont we?

eg8r
08-21-2003, 06:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Oh. That shot they showed by Corey D, that was something special . As a snooker player , that shot would never have occurred to me. So I am still learning <hr /></blockquote> Q, will you please diagram the shot on the Wei?

eg8r

bluewolf
08-21-2003, 07:28 AM
VD,

Thankyou. I have been holding my tongue on this. I know a swimming coach who sends kids to the olympic trials every time, because he is such a super coach. He does not swim.

Laura

Qtec
08-21-2003, 07:43 AM
START(
%AM3D2%BL7P8%CJ5O4%DL7N1%EM7P1%FK6P1%GK6N8%HM7N8%I L7O4%JK6M5
%KJ5P7%LJ5N2%MK6Q4%NJ5R0%OJ5M0%Pr4H8%Qd8X8%Wr7T5%X O8C5%Yh3X7
%Zr7U6%[D5D2%\L0D2%bN4D7%cX1G4%dq3H9
)END

He was about an inch from the rail , he jacked the cue up untill it was almost vertical and with right English , got the ball back to position A.


I swear , I almost fell off my seat . LOL I'm thinking 'what the F is he doing ".

The funny thing was , he had been put in by his opponent . { only that shot is accurate , the actual table position I cant remember .]

Q

eg8r
08-21-2003, 10:27 AM
Thank you.

eg8r &lt;~~~would like to see a tape of it

jjinfla
08-21-2003, 10:50 AM
It's really getting deep in here. BW just topped VooDoo. LOL Jake

Fred Agnir
08-21-2003, 11:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> VD,

Thankyou. I have been holding my tongue on this. <hr /></blockquote>I don't understand what you've been holding your tongue about? I see a bunch of replies responding with vigor to something that Fran didn't say. I find that odd, but normal around here.

Fred

Fran Crimi
08-21-2003, 07:47 PM
I'm sure those people exist and hats off to them. They're very special people. But why would any of those special people pick pool? I think we have to work with what we've got, like people like you and me and all the rest of the instructors out there, and maybe even Fred. (And maybe that ain't so bad.) /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran

nhp
08-22-2003, 08:21 AM
I was under the impression that as long as one's stance does not hinder one's ability to hit the CB good then its okay. This makes more sense since everyone's body is different.

smoovestroke
08-22-2003, 03:25 PM
Isn't it true that when Mosconi was young and Ralph Greenleaf was playing, the tables were 5 X 10? Weren't the pockets tighter then than they are today? And, the balls were not perfectly round were they? Given all of this, it seems to me that they played a heck of a game, isn't that right? I sometimes think that maybe the way we play today needs to be altered to more resemble the way they played in the past. We have players today like Effren who seems to be truly gifted and yet, he doesn't seem to play in an orthodox way, or the way most instructors currently teach.

As for instructors and whether it's important if they play the game or not, I don't beleive Hal Nix played that well and it sure seemed to me that Nick Varner was listening to him during a period of time that Nick was doing awfully good. The Skill that the thread starter mentioned that impressed him/her the most about Bert was his ability to communicate. Interesting?

Fred Agnir
08-23-2003, 07:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote smoovestroke:</font><hr> Isn't it true that when Mosconi was young and Ralph Greenleaf was playing, the tables were 5 X 10? Weren't the pockets tighter then than they are today? And, the balls were not perfectly round were they? Given all of this, it seems to me that they played a heck of a game, isn't that right? I sometimes think that maybe the way we play today needs to be altered to more resemble the way they played in the past. <hr /></blockquote>

I think you're making my point. The game they played was a different game with different equipment and different strategy. I'm not sure how you make the conclusion then that today's players should play like the old players given that the game and its approach is completely different.

[ QUOTE ]
We have players today like Effren who seems to be truly gifted and yet, he doesn't seem to play in an orthodox way, or the way most instructors currently teach.
<hr /></blockquote>

He learned his style from someone. All the Filipinos seem to emulate the same philosophy of stroking. So, I think that it's fair to say that someone directly or indirectly is instructing this type of stroking and philosophy with what I'd consider pretty good results.

Fred &lt;~~~ doesn't think instruction is limited to the U.S.

Qtec
08-23-2003, 10:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
simpler.
<hr /></blockquote>

A. Einstein.


Q

Fred Agnir
08-23-2003, 01:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
simpler.
<hr /></blockquote>

A. Einstein.


Q <hr /></blockquote>
I think this is a perfect quote for pool instruction and for my point. Thank you.

Fred

smoovestroke
08-23-2003, 01:45 PM
One time I was watching these two young guys playing 9 ball for money. The kid that won played really good. There were some older players playing golf on a 6 X 12 and one of the better players there challenged the kid that won 9 ball to a game of 1 hole. The kid didn't know how to play 1 hole so the old guy showed him how. After a few instructions, the kid said he thought he'd be able to play it. The old man asked the kid if he'd like to play for some money and the kid said sure. After about an hour, the kid was counting all the money he had just made and the old man asked the kid, "I thought you didn't know how to play one hole?" The kid replied, "I didn't know how to play it, but I know how to make balls."
My point here is, if you're playing pool with pockets, the bottom line is that you make balls. They made balls back in Mosconi's early days, a lot of them and with tougher conditions. All I'm suggesting is that we do not discount what these great players of the past accomplished. I think Effren and some of the other Filipinos are more similar to the players of the past. They don't analyze the game to death, they just play it. They play it with "feel" not analysis. They also play with style and grace and I wish we had some American players that could not only play more like that but be more like the Filipino players off the table too.

Qtec
08-23-2003, 01:54 PM
And my point . /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Q

Qtec
08-23-2003, 02:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
He learned his style from someone. All the Filipinos seem to emulate the same philosophy of stroking. So, I think that it's fair to say that someone directly or indirectly is instructing this type of stroking and philosophy with what I'd consider pretty good results.
<hr /></blockquote>

Exactly. In pool/ snooker this will translate to a set of rules which one is obliged to follow. Once this is understood , everything becomes simple . You understand what you want to do , why you want to do it and how to do do it .

Q

Qtec
08-23-2003, 02:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
They play it with "feel" not analysis <hr /></blockquote>

Tap Tap Tap

Q

Fran Crimi
08-23-2003, 03:55 PM
Being progressive doesn't mean ignoring the past. One of the things it means is taking the things we've learned from the great players of the past and factoring in the present playing conditions, new games and new rules, new equipment composition, etc. The result is something more applicable to the present.

For example: A lot of players from the past had fundamentals that were geared towards playing with clay balls and slower cloths. If we were to incorporate some of those same fundamentals today, we'd play much worse than they ever did because the balls react differently and the cloth reacts differently. Yet, what they did during their time was perfectly applicable to the conditions.

The other aspect of progressiveness is creating new things to suit todays playing conditions. Maybe if some of the great players from the past were here playing today, they'd create the same new things.


Fran

Alfie
08-23-2003, 04:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> The other aspect of progressiveness is creating new things to suit todays playing conditions.<hr /></blockquote>What are you talking about here, Francine? fer instance?

Fran Crimi
08-23-2003, 07:25 PM
Here's an obvious one: The introduction of jump cues brought with it a new set of mechanics. Yes, it's easier to get the ball airborne but we now have the capacity to jump higher, lower, shorter, farther, faster, slower, etc, providing you know proper cue stick elevation, speed, arm swing, etc. That stuff is all new and only recently created...not to mention the new strategy that goes along with it. I think we're going to see more creative things done with the jump cue in the future than we see now.

Think, Alfie. What else? There's more.

Fran

Alfie
08-23-2003, 07:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Think, Alfie. What else? There's more. <hr /></blockquote>uuuh.. grippier shoes?

Steve Lipsky
08-24-2003, 12:51 AM
I'm having a little trouble following this thread. What kind of teaching/instruction are we talking about here? Is it only on the fundamental side of the game? If this is so, my rather pitiful two cents is that mechanics do not make a great player at all. I've seen many average players with seemingly strong fundamentals, and many top players with atrocious fundamentals.

I think the best players become great with four ingredients:

1) A playing environment with other top players
2) A strong desire (and ability) to put in thousands of hours of practice
3) Starting young
4) An inordinate amount of talent

Formal lessons, in my opinion, will never make a player great. Another thing I've been having difficulty with concerning this thread is what kind of players are we talking about teaching? Lessons are very useful in turning average players into above average players, or awful players into average players. I am not knocking lessons, as I think the above is wonderful. I have seen how happy people get when they start taking lessons and truly see improvements. I also am not knocking instructors, because the ability to convey the nuances of this game is a very, very difficult thing. I have tried to teach someone to draw a ball and my explanation is laughable. (I don't even try anymore /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif.)

If by "instruction" we are just talking about being exposed to great players, then I could not agree more. The "student" will pick up things about the game that transcend words. When you see 10 players better than you routinely go two rails for position on a certain shot - and you see this for months or years, you adopt it and you may not even realize it.

The lessons I have received in this game have all come from years of watching better players play. It has come from racking for them while they kicked my ass. It has been from sitting on the rail and watching how they go about running a table. I never pay attention to their bridges or strokes, and this is because any bridge or stroke will get the job done if it is a talented player.

- Steve

Qtec
08-24-2003, 04:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Steve Lipsky:</font><hr> I'm having a little trouble following this thread. What kind of teaching/instruction are we talking about here? <font color="blue"> It would be helpful to know who we are teaching . Young, middle aged or old ? Begginer , novice , above average or up and coming top amateur ? Ever had a lesson , never had a lesson ? Also , what game are we teaching them to play ? I am always talking about 9B because thats the game of the present and future. I cannot imagine people paying to watch 1p , even if it is a better test of a players ability . eg During the WPC , a bank shot was a rareity , shape is all important . </font color>

Is it only on the fundamental side of the game? If this is so, my rather pitiful two cents is that mechanics do not make a great player at all. I've seen many average players with seemingly strong fundamentals, and many top players with atrocious fundamentals. <font color="blue"> Who said anything about great players ,Steve. The cases you mention are the exceptions to the rule. I dont know of any top snooker players with bad fundamentals . In pool , I dont know that many players , but I have seen pictures of Keith M,s style and theoretically he shouldnt be able to pot a ball with his sidearm stroke . I would like to see him shoot . </font color>

I think the best players become great with four ingredients:

1) A playing environment with other top players
2) A strong desire (and ability) to put in thousands of hours of practice
3) Starting young
4) An inordinate amount of talent

<font color="blue"> If you can start young it is a big advantage . Playing good players is neccessary to sharpen you up , it makes the game more critical because to miss is fatal . You stop taking on silly shots and go for control instead. Most importantly , you pick up the better players rythm.
Talent is something you have or you dont. You cant teach talent. What you can do is to give a talented player the tools the he needs to become the best that he can . </font color>

Formal lessons, in my opinion, will never make a player great. Another thing I've been having difficulty with concerning this thread is what kind of players are we talking about teaching? Lessons are very useful in turning average players into above average players, or awful players into average players. I am not knocking lessons, as I think the above is wonderful. I have seen how happy people get when they start taking lessons and truly see improvements. I also am not knocking instructors, because the ability to convey the nuances of this game is a very, very difficult thing. I have tried to teach someone to draw a ball and my explanation is laughable. (I don't even try anymore /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif.) <font color="blue"> There is nothing easy about teaching , and its not just the basics .
Lets say I have a young kid 15/16 yrs . He has been playing a year , has some potential but hasnt really got a clue what he is doing . Lets take your example of teaching the 'draw '.

My method .
I will show him how to play the shot , explain to him what he is supposed to be doing and let him hit a few balls . Of course he hasnt a clue what I am talking about at this point . He plays shot after shot , continualy failing to bring the Qb back . Then he hits a shot the right way and the ball comes back .
I ask ," did you feel that .? Did you feel the difference between this shot and the last shot . Remember that feeling . " Basically I am trying to teach him how to use a cue . What I am also doing is getting him to remember the good shots , the right way to hit the ball . This process is repeated in all stages of instruction , constantly focussing on what the player does right . In this way a positive attitude in all aspects of the game is imprinted in the players mind . He must be able to rely on his technique . </font color>

If by "instruction" we are just talking about being exposed to great players, then I could not agree more. The "student" will pick up things about the game that transcend words. When you see 10 players better than you routinely go two rails for position on a certain shot - and you see this for months or years, you adopt it and you may not even realize it.

The lessons I have received in this game have all come from years of watching better players play. It has come from racking for them while they kicked my ass. It has been from sitting on the rail and watching how they go about running a table. I never pay attention to their bridges or strokes, and this is because any bridge or stroke will get the job done if it is a talented player.

- Steve <hr /></blockquote>


This thread was about [ in my mind ] the average player .


Even if you are talented , you will never make it if you have the wrong attitude .

The 'secret ', if there is one is to do the simple things perfectly.
If you saw the final of the WPC and Thorsten,s performance , it was a perfect example of what I am talking about .


Q

Rich R.
08-24-2003, 07:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> , but I have seen pictures of Keith M,s style and theoretically he shouldnt be able to pot a ball with his sidearm stroke . I would like to see him shoot .
<hr /></blockquote>
Q, seeing Keith M. play would not help you comprehend how he does it. I have seen Keith play a few dozen times and I still can't figure out how he makes a ball, let alone run the racks, the way he does. It is a site to be seen.
He is also one of the more entertaining players in the pro ranks. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
08-24-2003, 08:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Q, seeing Keith M. play would not help you comprehend how he does it. I have seen Keith play a few dozen times and I still can't figure out how he makes a ball, let alone run the racks, the way he does. It is a site to be seen.
He is also one of the more entertaining players in the pro ranks.

Rich R.<hr /></blockquote>

I have seen a few players with unorthodox styles. Most are limited in their game because of it . Never having seen Keith but knowing a little of his achievments I would like to try , Keith , if I may be so presumptuous, have a stab at his profile .

First of all , to be a great player with this kind of stroke , you have to be a cool customer . The first thing that breaks down under pressure is your stroke.
This kind of stroke will let you down occasionly . This has to be accepted .
I would imagine Kieth as a player that is up and down . If he plays bad , he plays really bad , but if he plays well , he can beat anybody and not even break sweat .

Although every player has their own style , orthadox is best .

Imagine if Kieth had a more conventional style ? He might be better but would it be Kieth ?

Q

Rich R.
08-24-2003, 12:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Imagine if Kieth had a more conventional style ? He might be better but would it be Kieth ? <hr /></blockquote>
Keith is definitely one of a kind, in all respects. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fred Agnir
08-24-2003, 01:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote smoovestroke:</font><hr> All I'm suggesting is that we do not discount what these great players of the past accomplished. <hr /></blockquote>You've somehow twisted this around as if someone suggesting differently, while all along I'm saying "don't discount the players of today and tomorrow." How'd that happen?

Sure, they made balls. But as many would-be instructors fail to see is that if this game was all about making balls, this game would be like bowling. Fortunately, it's not bowling. Today's game has much more power involved than yesterday's game.

Fred &lt;~~~ knows how it happened

Voodoo Daddy
08-24-2003, 01:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Here's an obvious one: The introduction of jump cues brought with it a new set of mechanics. Yes, it's easier to get the ball airborne but we now have the capacity to jump higher, lower, shorter, farther, faster, slower, etc, providing you know proper cue stick elevation, speed, arm swing, etc. That stuff is all new and only recently created...not to mention the new strategy that goes along with it. I think we're going to see more creative things done with the jump cue in the future than we see now.

Think, Alfie. What else? There's more.

Fran
<hr /></blockquote>

I hate that jump thing...cant hit the end rail with it, right Fran?...BAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Voodoo~~~havin' way too much fun onna Sunday afternoon at work!!

Fred Agnir
08-24-2003, 01:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Think, Alfie. What else? There's more.

Fran
<hr /></blockquote>I'll keep bringing up the fact that just 15-20 years ago, there were hardly any decent playing Europeans, even though they had American Pool Tournaments. The overall lack of understanding of power shots (force follow, power draw, high speed/spin ratio, and of course, the break) was a very obvious disadvantage.

The European game has adapted to include those and it shows. With respect to Mr. Qtec, I doubt highly that those power shots were in the Joe Davis instructional legacy.

I ask all those that are talking about teaching with the past in mind, exactly where in the past do we pick up the tidbits for the power shots?

Fred &lt;~~~ won't ever discount the past

Alfie
08-24-2003, 04:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Think, Alfie. What else? There's more.<hr /></blockquote> .... that new vibration dampener?

MikeM
08-24-2003, 08:16 PM
OK. Let me try to respond to what Fran DID say and use Voodoo's point to back me up.

I think Big Steve is trying to point out that you don't have to "put your money where your mouth is" to be an effective teacher. The kicking coach is only one good example.

Butch Harmon teaching Tiger is another. Tiger chooses to use Butch to help him with his swing. He doesn't expect that Butch will try Q school next year to get on the tour or play a big money match with Ernie Els to prove he believes in what he teaches.

I really don't get the "let's experiment with your money" line. Are there instructor's out there experimenting with new techniques on unsuspecting student's? That's the only way to interpret that statement. (Other than as a slap in the face to instructors who don't maintain touring pro status).

You go to an instructor to help you improve your game. The instruction is good or bad, helps or doesn't help based on how good the instructor is, not whether or not they gamble or play in big tournaments.

Fran's original post seened to many (me included) to be saying that you aren't as good a teacher unless you're out competing and "putting your money where your mouth is."

I (and others) think she is wrong.

MM

landshark1002000
08-24-2003, 08:47 PM
Hi Fran:
In my opinion the Phillipinos re-introduced "feel" to the game at the pro level.

"Feel" has no formula; it's naturally subjective. It's like water. It has no shape of it's own. It conforms to the shape of it's container. To say it "adapts" is a foolish misunderstanding. It's an "Eastern" method from head to toe.

The opposite of "feel"? Rational play. Describing play with words in your head. Using a shot routine to try and control or avoid your thought process. Attempting to suppress your emotions. Using mechanical methods to produce similar movements.It's "Western" mind and body control.

Maybe a trip to the Phillipines is too advanced for most U.S. players (all varieties). The first step may be to open our minds to a creative difference in our approach to pool.

Joining mind and body together is Eastern. Trying to separate or "control" mind and body is Western.

--Ted from Phoenix

wolfdancer
08-24-2003, 09:12 PM
Re: the original post by Dr.D....didn't think anybody could listen to Bert for 4, four? hours...I get a headache just thinking about it. Bert's got some good tapes out, but they tend to be redundant.. a good editor would throw 2 out of every three tapes out, and not lose a thing.
Don't think you were implying anything negative about Scott Lee....but I'm thinking about those Jack-In-The-Box commercials...the new turkey sandwich one..where Jack says that anything that goes gobble! gobble! deserves to end up in a sandwich.................
Anybody that wears them loud "Hawaiin" shirts, deserves...
lol

Fran Crimi
08-24-2003, 11:03 PM
Mike, I'm here.

You can write directly to me and ask me anything you like. It's a lot easier than trying to guess what I'm saying. I have a question for you. Where did I write that you have to gamble or compete in top level tournaments in order to teach pool?
Maybe you and others could name some of the great pool teachers who never competed and some great pool teachers who never played pool. I'm wondering who these people are who you're all defending.

Thanks,

Fran

Fran Crimi
08-24-2003, 11:19 PM
Great post, Ted!

I just want to add that it seems to me that they do have a techinque, but it requires feel in order to be successful...very similar to martial arts where you learn a particular style, but success only comes when you can execute with feel.

Fran

Fran Crimi
08-25-2003, 12:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alfie:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Think, Alfie. What else? There's more.<hr /></blockquote> .... that new vibration dampener? <hr /></blockquote>

Alfie, 'maybe' to all your answers. I don't know. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

I'll tell you a story about shoes, though. A few years ago the WPBA had a tour stop in Rochester, NY. The event took place in a hockey arena and it turned out that we actually played on the ice. They laid rubber flooring over the ice. We were playing side-by-side with a bar box tournament on the ice and the pro side was lucky because they laid area rugs over the rubber flooring. But they didn't do that for the bar box tournament and the flooring started to develop a thin sheet of frost. The players were slipping and sliding all over the place. I saw at least two go down. LOL! It was the funniest thing. I guess in that case, snow boots would have been in order. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran

Alfie
08-25-2003, 12:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> ... the flooring started to develop a thin sheet of frost. The players were slipping and sliding all over the place. I saw at least two go down. LOL! It was the funniest thing. I guess in that case, snow boots would have been in order. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif<hr /></blockquote>in stitches /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

jjinfla
08-25-2003, 06:53 AM
Fran, I too thought that in your post you were implying that if a person was not "presently" actively playing in tournaments then he/she can not be a good instructor.

Of course that is nonsense. Take the Monk or Jerry Brieseth. Were they ever top contenders? Or are they presently competing? But they are renown instructors.

Look at any sport and you will find coaches (another name for instructor) who are bent over from injuries, fat, can't see but are valued for what they know about their specialty. And more important, they can transfer their knowledge to the player and improve his play. That is why they get the big bucks.

If a coach/instructor can't transfer his knowledge to the player then the coach is worthless and is gone. The coaches worth is based on how well the student does.

Wasn't it Yogi Berra who once remarked about one of his players "As soon as his batting average drops below 400 I am going to tell him exactly what he is doing wrong."

I suppose a lot of Instructors look at Allen Hopkins play and think the same thing. LOL

And precisely what does it prove if an instructor does enter tournaments and keeps going two and out? To me it tells me that person has a business and is able to write off the tournaments as a business expense.

Now people who enter tournaments and win them (no one remembers who came in second) can command the big bucks for giving lessons, even if they can't teach, because people want to rub elbos with winners.

Jake

Fred Agnir
08-25-2003, 07:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MikeM:</font><hr> OK. Let me try to respond to what Fran DID say and use Voodoo's point to back me up.

I think Big Steve is trying to point out that you don't have to "put your money where your mouth is" to be an effective teacher. The kicking coach is only one good example. <hr /></blockquote>

She didn't say that.

The kicking coach situation is unique, not the norm. Aaron Aragorn is a good example of this idea in the pool world. He is known as an effective instructor, even though he sits in a wheelchair. Observation and ability to communicate are key. Fran knows this, and didn't imply in her words that she doesn't follow that philosophy.

[ QUOTE ]
Butch Harmon teaching Tiger is another<hr /></blockquote> Yet another reference to Butch Harmon. The way you guys throw his name around, you'd think he didn't win a tournament. A former touring pro, Butch Harmon, son of Master's Champion Claud Harmon, won the BC Open in '71. Now, let's drop the idea that Butch Harmon doesn't play at pro level, cuz he did.


[ QUOTE ]
I really don't get the "let's experiment with your money" line. <hr /></blockquote> This is the only quote that should have mattered and should be questioned. There's a fool that comes on this board every month about his aiming secrets that he sells. That's certainly one person Fran was talking about. There are many would-be instructors who will tell you that they know how to do this and that, but it never translates into playing. These aren't to be confused with instructors who have demonstrated effective communication and teaching skills.




[ QUOTE ]
Fran's original post seened to many (me included) to be saying that you aren't as good a teacher unless you're out competing and "putting your money where your mouth is."<hr /></blockquote>

Fran's original comment was how she felt about Bert. I'm not defending Fran as much as I am defending how I interpreted her words. And she's already confirmed that I was correct. People are using strawman extremes on this one sentence. Who said anything about being professional players?


[ QUOTE ]
I (and others) think she is wrong.<hr /></blockquote> Of course you do. You've interpreted incorrectly what she was saying, and interpreted it as something that you think is wrong. How does one defend each one of your posts other that to say, that's not what she said, and certainly not what she meant.

Fred &lt;~~~ knew Butch Harmon was a player

RedHell
08-25-2003, 08:49 AM
LOL, billiard on ice...

That reminds me of two little stories. First, our annual league Championship is played in an arena. But, as it is at the end of the season, they melt the ice and we play on concrete. Last season, the arena manager forgot about the tourney and the league volonteers had to setup the lights with the ice still frozen. Just picture this, guys up in a huge step lathers over an icy surface.

Second one was a bar where we used to play league in, it was a small place and would setup the bar box over the dancing floor. That floor was waxed enough to satisfy Travolta in Saturday Night Fever. Let me tell you that I knocked a few balls that weren't stripes nor solids in that place...

About intructions and instructors, I think that at a certain level, instructors stop telling you what to do and starts helping you realise what you're doing so that you can learn and adjust. On that regard, the instructor might not know what you need to do to fix a problem, but he knows how to help you find out what will fix it. (If that make any sens...)

It's like that fish story, give a fish and feed for a day, teach to fish and feed for life. I don't want an instructor to tell me how to play a shot, books will teach me that. I want an instructor to help me understand why when I play the shot like it's supposed too, I don't get the expected result.

Fran Crimi
08-25-2003, 07:54 PM
Haha! Funny stories! I definitely wouldn't want to be the one on the ladder on the ice. I'd have to pass on that one. LOL

As for your comment on teachers, I agree with your basic premise, but with a few 'buts' inserted here and there. But I'm giving myself a headache just thinking about the 'buts' because they're so complicated, so fuhgettaboudit. LOL

Fran

Fran Crimi
08-25-2003, 08:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jjinfla:</font><hr> Fran, I too thought that in your post you were implying that if a person was not "presently" actively playing in tournaments then he/she can not be a good instructor. <font color="blue">I thought I cleared that up two posts later. Why are you still bringing it up? </font color>

Of course that is nonsense. Take the Monk or Jerry Brieseth. Were they ever top contenders? Or are they presently competing? But they are renown instructors. <font color="blue"> Who said anything about top contenders? Me? </font color>

Look at any sport and you will find coaches (another name for instructor)

<font color="blue">With all due respect, Jake, coaching and teaching are not the same thing. I think it's a mistake to use them interchangeably.</font color>


who are bent over from injuries,

<font color="blue"> How did they get the injuries? LOL </font color>

fat, can't see but are valued for what they know about their specialty. And more important, they can transfer their knowledge to the player and improve his play. That is why they get the big bucks.

<font color="blue"> Well sure, if they're coaching. But what does a batting coach do when they see a batter doing something fundamentally wrong? They send them to an instructor. </font color>

If a coach/instructor can't transfer his knowledge to the player then the coach is worthless and is gone. The coaches worth is based on how well the student does.

<font color="blue">Basically I agree but it does depend on the student. There are some really bad students out there. LOL </font color>

Wasn't it Yogi Berra who once remarked about one of his players "As soon as his batting average drops below 400 I am going to tell him exactly what he is doing wrong."

<font color="blue"> I missed yor point on that one. </font color>

I suppose a lot of Instructors look at Allen Hopkins play and think the same thing. LOL

<font color="blue"> Yeah. We think he's a great player. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

And precisely what does it prove if an instructor does enter tournaments and keeps going two and out? To me it tells me that person has a business and is able to write off the tournaments as a business expense.

<font color="blue"> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! </font color>

Now people who enter tournaments and win them (no one remembers who came in second) can command the big bucks for giving lessons, even if they can't teach, because people want to rub elbos with winners.

<font color="blue"> So, we're back to the top competitor thing again? I thought we got past that. </font color>

Jake <hr /></blockquote>

Keith McCready
08-26-2003, 03:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>but I have seen pictures of Keith M,s style and theoretically he shouldnt be able to pot a ball with his sidearm stroke . I would like to see him shoot.<hr /></blockquote>

Capital City Classic, Philly, 8/27-31/2003.
Come on down! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Earthquake