Is it worth becoming a snooker and pool coach?

[Quackers]

I would disagree with that vmax4steve.
It is possible to know what a good cue action and stance are and be able to teach them without being able to do it yourself. (David Leadbetter springs to mind - but that's golf)

[thinsy]

I started playing snooker and was taught by my father who used to be able to play a fair bit but knew the ins and outs of what was needed.... My father started out as a mechanic but turned a hobby of flying into his profession and bacame a airline pilot. He is a stickler for perfection and not only wants to know how to do something the best way but wants to know WHY it's the best way!!! The point i'm getting to (slowly) is that someone shouldn't be/can't become a coach just because they want to. There has to be a passion, eagerness and, of course, at minimum basic knowledge!! My father coached me very well. :snooker:

I have coached in my time and I think have a fair talent for 'teaching'.....

But as someone said in an earlier post after many years even as a coach you are still learning!!

I've coached a young boy of only 6 who had to stand on a crate to a gentleman of 80 who wanted to be able to screw back even though he could no longer straighten this fingers to lay flat on the table!!!

And as for how much to charge....... I used to teach about half a dozen kids at a time and charged their parents £1 for an hour and a half... Oh yeah........ Every penny went on supplying them with dvd's and books to help them learn!!

WHAT DID I GET OUT OF IT? Satisfaction, and it helped me with my own game too.

[Snookster]

Im looking to get in to coaching, i was a pretty good pro between 1987-1995 and also played in 2 world amateur champs.
Ive always been able to see where i was going wrong with my own technique fairly well.
I would appreciate some advice on starting out

Thanks

[bob1]

Just a quick update.

I finally did my coaching course at The Snooker Farm, and what an eye opener it was. I learnt so much in the short time I was there.

So I'm now a Del Hill qualified snooker coach and can't wait to pass on what I learnt from Del.

Del is a great bloke, I can see why he's recognised as the best coach in the world.

Hi JazzyJust: Alot of people suggest they are the best coach, there are
alot of great coaches in any sport. Who is to say which system is the best
Nic Barrow vs Del etc...

Both have coached Ronnie but that guy, as everyone knows, was born gifted.
Although he still needs a coach to watch him as everyone would.

I think it is great you have found an interest in coaching. I would do as
many programs as you can to get a well rounded knowledge of coaching.
But as someone has said it is hard to believe that a 4 day or one or two
week course will make you a coach. Experience will as again someone has
already said is the key go to as many clubs and watch all the players.
I do think that you could charge a little more then 10 pounds but I don't
know the climate as far as number of coaches in your area of England.

But I think you may be right of starting low for the 10 pound hour rate.
You will get regular students that can pay that fee. As time goes by the
rate should go up as they see improvement. And if you coach them
regularly they will see that improvement.

I think the best coaches at least in Canada have been not necessarily
trained by someone, but played for a long time and at a certain level.
I am not saying that you have to be a great player to coach but I know
of two coaches that were very good players and they are very sharp
and knowledgeable people one you would know Cliff Thorburn, another
you probably don't know Paul Thornley. I wished Paul still coached he
is a smart guy, and was one of the best snooker players in Canada
in the late 60's early 70's in Canada.

Way before the Nic and Dels courses were available, not that they
probably are not helpfull, which they probably are. But there are costs
to take these courses, less for you and if you can affford them they
can't hurt.

You seem to be going about it the right way! Best wishes.

P.s. You also might want to look at Nic Barrows dvd's I think they are
a great stuff.

[StevieB13147]

Certificates

Hi vmaxsteve,
Whether a coach holds a certificate or not.
The first lesson should give you a "vibe" on what the coach has to offer and their methods.

I personally offer free first lessons and from that the potential client/pupil can decide on whether or not they wish to engage my services on future occassions.
Snooker coaching with interested pupils usually becomes a long term path for both pupil and coach.
There is not many "quick fixes" for instant success at this game, more a studied and logical progression in attaining goals.

So try out a few coaches and choose the one that yopu personally feels suits you best and the one that you have faith in.

Good Luck

[bob1]

I've been thinking about becoming a snooker and pool coach for a while.

I had a chat with Del about going to his Snooker Farm to become a coach, I've also contacted Cue Academy about doing their course as well, but still waiting to hear back from them.

So my question is: -

Is it worth becoming a snooker and pool coach?

A final comment. " Worth being a coach" Depends what you mean. In
Canada there are a few coaches, because there are not many snooker
players anymore. Over in Canada there is no way to make a full time
living from snooker coaching. Interesting enough a couple of guys from
England came over, and they both said that they were "coaches".
One guy a pretty good player at one time but he was not a trained
coach, but a nice guy. The other guy was a nut, who's name or location
I don't need to mention, he ended up going back to England.
That guy had said among many things that "his mentor was Del Hill", even
though after contacting Del he mentioned that he was not one of
his trained coaches, as all his coaches are listed on his site.

I would think in England there are alot of coaches, alot of competition
to the point that there may be few that make a living and do it full time.
I guess thats why the two guys I mentioned came over to Canada.
But for the most part Snooker is dead in Canada.

You seem to be doing it for the right reasons and know that it would not be
a full time job, not now but maybe in the future!!

best wishes

p.s. are you listed on his site now as one of his, Del's, trained coaches?

[bob1]

Hi vmaxsteve,
Whether a coach holds a certificate or not.
The first lesson should give you a "vibe" on what the coach has to offer and their methods.

I personally offer free first lessons and from that the potential client/pupil can decide on whether or not they wish to engage my services on future occassions.
Snooker coaching with interested pupils usually becomes a long term path for both pupil and coach.
There is not many "quick fixes" for instant success at this game, more a studied and logical progression in attaining goals.

So try out a few coaches and choose the one that yopu personally feels suits you best and the one that you have faith in.



Good Luck

The "vibe" comment I totally agree with. Some people think because they
have taken all kinds of courses or programs- Nic,Del etc makes them a
coach.
Finding someone that you can get along with and is not negative is the
best way, as you have suggested. I just wish there were more coaches
in Canada, the Toronto area. I have tried some and in one case tried
several lessons until I finally gave up.

You don't need a coach that tells you from the get go that you are doing
8 things wrong or you have " a pool player stance". Saying that is like
calling someone an A hole, that's the impression I get. All may be true .
But not the way to coach. To bad you are not in the Toronto area
you have the right attitude.

Just one question if you can answer. How often should coaching lessons
be done? Weekly , monthly giving the person a time to work on stuff from
the previous lesson. I know it might depend on the level of the student.
Comments appreciated.

[StevieB13147]

How Often

bob1,

In my opinion bob, I always recommend that the pupil decides how often.
I do this from a few points of view:

1. Being that the interest, desire and finances of the player usually drive the will to learn - So their choice at all times.

2. Nothing worse than the pupil feeling intimidated or worse still - embarassed or pressured (yes I have seen coaches do that!) into taking lots of regular lessons.

3. In all my years around the game, I have yet to see anyone (even the Jimmy's and Ronnie's) being instantly good or great at Snooker, and given that we all have differing learning curves, grasp and ability, what is right for one person may not necessarily suit another.
So the gaining of knowledge at Snooker always seems to be at the individuals pace.

4. Point 3 is bourne out by the example I could give over the years when doing regular junior group sessions.
You start a bunch of kids off as a group. Initially, some obviously have differing ability levels, but over the following weeks, months and years the ones who advance the furthest are not necessarily those who started off higher up the ability level, or the ones who attended every session.
No - It always comes down to those that use the initial ability to build on and are interested and dedicated enough to "do the time" to achieve their goals.

5. So to get back to answering your "How Often?" question, I would say that can be derived from lots of differing options, but most importantly the pupil should do whatever they feel is right for them, in a structured, monitored and recorded way.

A real funny thing about most "good players" is that many years, trophies and achievements down the line - they still feel "personally inside of themselves" that they are not much better than when they started playing the game.

I personally think that "that" is the answer to understanding if you have what it takes to be good - and that is this constant craving to find improvement.

Recording and monitoring your game and results is a good way to sometimes help you look back down the rungs on the ladder - You may just see how high you have climbed without realising it.

Good Luck on your climb!

[vmax4steve]

I would disagree with that vmax4steve.
It is possible to know what a good cue action and stance are and be able to teach them without being able to do it yourself. (David Leadbetter springs to mind - but that's golf)

Say I had a cue action like Joe Swail and went to a coach who had taken Nic Barrow's course. Would he/she be able to pinpoint something minute in my action that changed under pressure and made me miss.
I very much doubt whether they could see what made my action good in the first place, like some very subtle change in the fingers or wrist on the final delivery that makes it straight somehow going awry. Surely they would need to deconstruct my entire action and make it orthodox to bring it into their own understanding of what is right.
In the main I am against coaching because I believe that it constricts the emergence of unorthodox natural talent that makes a sport or game evolve. Leave the equipment alone, leave the players alone and something new will come along naturally that we can all learn from. Keep a rigid idea of what is correct and stick to it and nothing ever changes.
As an avid football fan, I despair at the crap I'm about to witness in the forthcoming world cup from footballers who have all been coached since the age of five and have no idea how to beat a man to open up a "murinho" style defence. And don't give me Messi, he's only got one foot and failed miserably : so if he's the best there is heaven help us.

This cannot be coached :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU-k-Ots3iY

[Quackers]

Isn't that the "cream will always rise to the top" theory? Well, in my experience that is not always the case.
With regard to your Joe Swail type action question I would have thought that a coach who had worked with the player for some time would know what was wrong and make suggestions to fix the problem.
A naturally gifted player may not achieve his/her full potential without coaching.
I agree that coaching can be in danger of becoming "mass produced" in that the same things are taught to everyone, and that this may not necessarily be a good thing. People are different.
With regard to "Keep a rigid idea of what is correct and stick to it and nothing ever changes" I would say that games do change and sometimes it is because of new talent and sometimes it's because of new ideas. Otherwise we would still be watching football teams playing a 5 3 2 formation.
There are several coaches on this site and I would like to hear their views on this.

[bob1]

bob1,

In my opinion bob, I always recommend that the pupil decides how often.
I do this from a few points of view:

1. Being that the interest, desire and finances of the player usually drive the will to learn - So their choice at all times.

2. Nothing worse than the pupil feeling intimidated or worse still - embarassed or pressured (yes I have seen coaches do that!) into taking lots of regular lessons.

3. In all my years around the game, I have yet to see anyone (even the Jimmy's and Ronnie's) being instantly good or great at Snooker, and given that we all have differing learning curves, grasp and ability, what is right for one person may not necessarily suit another.
So the gaining of knowledge at Snooker always seems to be at the individuals pace.

4. Point 3 is bourne out by the example I could give over the years when doing regular junior group sessions.
You start a bunch of kids off as a group. Initially, some obviously have differing ability levels, but over the following weeks, months and years the ones who advance the furthest are not necessarily those who started off higher up the ability level, or the ones who attended every session.
No - It always comes down to those that use the initial ability to build on and are interested and dedicated enough to "do the time" to achieve their goals.

5. So to get back to answering your "How Often?" question, I would say that can be derived from lots of differing options, but most importantly the pupil should do whatever they feel is right for them, in a structured, monitored and recorded way.

A real funny thing about most "good players" is that many years, trophies and achievements down the line - they still feel "personally inside of themselves" that they are not much better than when they started playing the game.

I personally think that "that" is the answer to understanding if you have what it takes to be good - and that is this constant craving to find improvement.

Recording and monitoring your game and results is a good way to sometimes help you look back down the rungs on the ladder - You may just see how high you have climbed without realising it.

Good Luck on your climb!

Thanks Stevie for the information and your time, very helpful. Like i said
I wish you were on this side of the pond!
I am resorting to DVD's although they seem to be of value, but nothing
is as good as a coach actually watching a student.
The Dvd's is the Nic Barrow one's, and interesting enough the guy who
I had some coaching sessions with played with and had the same coach
growing up as Nic. I forget the name. In any event this guy wanted
weekly sessions at $50 an hour, which I felt was to much and he seemed
to be running out of thinks to teach, I think he was a good player but
not a good coach. And how could anyone run out of thinks to teach
in snooker!

Thanks again
ps. My family roots on my Dad's mothers side go back to Scotland
in the 1500's . William Mcleod.

[Terry Davidson]

First of all I think vmax is being very unfair to the snooker coaching fraternity and perhaps coaching in general but not only that he is also ignoring something that would be very useful and would likely help him improve were he able to find a coach that he liked and trusted.

To offer proof of this there are some points I would like to make:

1. It is generally recognized by everyone (except perhaps vmax and alex higgins) that the standard of the top professionals in snooker has risen quite a lot in the past 20 years and many, if not all, of these top players have gone to coaches to improve their skills. For sure Hendry, O'Sullivan, Higgins, Murphy, Ding and anyone in the top 16 you would care to mention.

2. A few years back Doug Mountjoy was having real problems and was falling down the ranking list rapidly. He went to Frank Callan and asked him to change his technique so he could me more consistent and more accurate. After he worked on what Frank had given him he came right back up the rankings and in fact won the UK I believe it was. This is a case where there can be no doubt coaching helped.

3. Every player I have ever come across as both player and coach has always been 'fine tuning' their technique in order to get some small measure of improvement but the problem is a lot of players do not understand the mechanics of technique sufficiently to be able to develop small improvments correctly, and this is where a good coach can come in.

4. On vmax's Joe Swail point. A good coach will ask the student what he wants to get out of the coaching. If Joe came to me (I am one of those Nic Barrow 'instant wonders' someone referred to) and in answer to my question stated he wanted to go the Doug Mountjoy route then I would point out to him that his present cue action is all about perfect timing and coordination and as we age hand-eye coordination deteriorates and we can no longer get that perfect coordination required under pressure to remain as consistent as we were when younger.

5. However, if Joe came to me and said he wanted to be more consistent without changing his basic natural style then I would work within the boundaries he has set and try and get more consistency by closely analysing videos of him in action and under pressure to see if there were some minor corrections that he could make without destroying his natural style.

If Nic or I get a new student with no ingrained natural style then we start out by teaching what's considered the 'ideal' technique however Nic has always advocated if a player has developed his own natural style then it's much better to get him to keep that style and work with that to increase the player's competence and consistency.

And I'm not a 5-day wonder who has taken just one course and then gone to being a coach. I started coaching in 1985 and got the B&SCC training and then when I got back into it in 2008 I decided to get some training which would teach me the latest techniques and I've initially chosen both Nic Barrow and Terry Griffiths Matchroom and I intend to visit Del Hill on my next visit to the UK and get certified there.

Let's face it, there are good and bad coaches but also there are good coaches who may not be the best coach for a particular student. The coach and student must develop a rapport in order for the information to flow. Sometimes this just doesn't happen and the fault is usually on both sides. There are students who will not listen and there are coaches who teach one set method (the 'ideal') but that's not all coaches.

For bob1...I don't believe you are one of my students but in order to give you a chance to assess my abilities I can offer you a first free 2-hour session if you like at my facility in Alma and if you like what you hear and see then we can carry on a whatever pace you would like to.

Terry

[hotpot]

First of all I think vmax is being very unfair to the snooker coaching fraternity and perhaps coaching in general but not only that he is also ignoring something that would be very useful and would likely help him improve were he able to find a coach that he liked and trusted.

To offer proof of this there are some points I would like to make:

1. It is generally recognized by everyone (except perhaps vmax and alex higgins) that the standard of the top professionals in snooker has risen quite a lot in the past 20 years and many, if not all, of these top players have gone to coaches to improve their skills. For sure Hendry, O'Sullivan, Higgins, Murphy, Ding and anyone in the top 16 you would care to mention.

2. A few years back Doug Mountjoy was having real problems and was falling down the ranking list rapidly. He went to Frank Callan and asked him to change his technique so he could me more consistent and more accurate. After he worked on what Frank had given him he came right back up the rankings and in fact won the UK I believe it was. This is a case where there can be no doubt coaching helped.

3. Every player I have ever come across as both player and coach has always been 'fine tuning' their technique in order to get some small measure of improvement but the problem is a lot of players do not understand the mechanics of technique sufficiently to be able to develop small improvments correctly, and this is where a good coach can come in.

4. On vmax's Joe Swail point. A good coach will ask the student what he wants to get out of the coaching. If Joe came to me (I am one of those Nic Barrow 'instant wonders' someone referred to) and in answer to my question stated he wanted to go the Doug Mountjoy route then I would point out to him that his present cue action is all about perfect timing and coordination and as we age hand-eye coordination deteriorates and we can no longer get that perfect coordination required under pressure to remain as consistent as we were when younger.

5. However, if Joe came to me and said he wanted to be more consistent without changing his basic natural style then I would work within the boundaries he has set and try and get more consistency by closely analysing videos of him in action and under pressure to see if there were some minor corrections that he could make without destroying his natural style.

If Nic or I get a new student with no ingrained natural style then we start out by teaching what's considered the 'ideal' technique however Nic has always advocated if a player has developed his own natural style then it's much better to get him to keep that style and work with that to increase the player's competence and consistency.

And I'm not a 5-day wonder who has taken just one course and then gone to being a coach. I started coaching in 1985 and got the B&SCC training and then when I got back into it in 2008 I decided to get some training which would teach me the latest techniques and I've initially chosen both Nic Barrow and Terry Griffiths Matchroom and I intend to visit Del Hill on my next visit to the UK and get certified there.

Let's face it, there are good and bad coaches but also there are good coaches who may not be the best coach for a particular student. The coach and student must develop a rapport in order for the information to flow. Sometimes this just doesn't happen and the fault is usually on both sides. There are students who will not listen and there are coaches who teach one set method (the 'ideal') but that's not all coaches.

For bob1...I don't believe you are one of my students but in order to give you a chance to assess my abilities I can offer you a first free 2-hour session if you like at my facility in Alma and if you like what you hear and see then we can carry on a whatever pace you would like to.

Terry

Excellent post

[thinsy]

First of all I think vmax is being very unfair to the snooker coaching fraternity and perhaps coaching in general but not only that he is also ignoring something that would be very useful and would likely help him improve were he able to find a coach that he liked and trusted.

To offer proof of this there are some points I would like to make:

1. It is generally recognized by everyone (except perhaps vmax and alex higgins) that the standard of the top professionals in snooker has risen quite a lot in the past 20 years and many, if not all, of these top players have gone to coaches to improve their skills. For sure Hendry, O'Sullivan, Higgins, Murphy, Ding and anyone in the top 16 you would care to mention.

2. A few years back Doug Mountjoy was having real problems and was falling down the ranking list rapidly. He went to Frank Callan and asked him to change his technique so he could me more consistent and more accurate. After he worked on what Frank had given him he came right back up the rankings and in fact won the UK I believe it was. This is a case where there can be no doubt coaching helped.

3. Every player I have ever come across as both player and coach has always been 'fine tuning' their technique in order to get some small measure of improvement but the problem is a lot of players do not understand the mechanics of technique sufficiently to be able to develop small improvments correctly, and this is where a good coach can come in.

4. On vmax's Joe Swail point. A good coach will ask the student what he wants to get out of the coaching. If Joe came to me (I am one of those Nic Barrow 'instant wonders' someone referred to) and in answer to my question stated he wanted to go the Doug Mountjoy route then I would point out to him that his present cue action is all about perfect timing and coordination and as we age hand-eye coordination deteriorates and we can no longer get that perfect coordination required under pressure to remain as consistent as we were when younger.

5. However, if Joe came to me and said he wanted to be more consistent without changing his basic natural style then I would work within the boundaries he has set and try and get more consistency by closely analysing videos of him in action and under pressure to see if there were some minor corrections that he could make without destroying his natural style.

If Nic or I get a new student with no ingrained natural style then we start out by teaching what's considered the 'ideal' technique however Nic has always advocated if a player has developed his own natural style then it's much better to get him to keep that style and work with that to increase the player's competence and consistency.

And I'm not a 5-day wonder who has taken just one course and then gone to being a coach. I started coaching in 1985 and got the B&SCC training and then when I got back into it in 2008 I decided to get some training which would teach me the latest techniques and I've initially chosen both Nic Barrow and Terry Griffiths Matchroom and I intend to visit Del Hill on my next visit to the UK and get certified there.

Let's face it, there are good and bad coaches but also there are good coaches who may not be the best coach for a particular student. The coach and student must develop a rapport in order for the information to flow. Sometimes this just doesn't happen and the fault is usually on both sides. There are students who will not listen and there are coaches who teach one set method (the 'ideal') but that's not all coaches.

For bob1...I don't believe you are one of my students but in order to give you a chance to assess my abilities I can offer you a first free 2-hour session if you like at my facility in Alma and if you like what you hear and see then we can carry on a whatever pace you would like to.

Terry

AGREED..... EXCELLENT POST.

I will take up you free 2 hour session as long as you also pay my flight and accomodation expenses!!!

I would comment on my ideas of how a coach and player should both contribute to a team effort of desire and goals but I don't need to because you have described it all so perfectly here

[vmax4steve]

On your first point Terry I would very strongly disagree. Over the last twenty years the game of snooker has become "easier with the advent of lighter balls, bigger pockets and faster cloths and this has made it so that more players can play the game to a seemingly higher standard because that standard is now lower than it used to be.
Coaches have produced players that can use the characteristics of the equipment used now to play the game to this standard, that on the onset, looks better than it used to, but it is entirely wrong to put that pseudo improvement down to coaching.
I can beat anyone in the world at nine ball pool, and anyone in the world can beat me at nine ball pool because it is an easy game played on a small table with very big pockets. Bring Shaun Murphy to my local club and even at his very best he won't be knocking in century after century on a table as tight as the one I play on.
Alex Higgins in his prime could have though.
Coaching is killing sport and games as a spectacle because children are being shackled into doing only what's conceded to be "right".