Pool Myths Explained

JoeyA said:
Let's see.....excluding vacation...

5 hours per week x 50 weeks per year = 250 hours per year

250 hours per year x 40 years = 10,000 hours.

10,000 hours x 60 minutes in an hour = 600,000 minutes.

At the rate of 2 balls per minute (very low number) x 600,000 minutes = 1,200,000 balls.

These are pretty conservative numbers for a lot of people that have played pool their entire life. Check my math, maybe it's wrong. Averaging 5 hours per week doesn't seem like much time spent playing pool.

I have probably averaged well over 5 hours per week over 40 years and I am not nearly at pro level speed. I know others who have easily averaged 5 hours per week over 40 years and can't beat me.


JoeyA
Click to expand...

This is entirely the logic behind the debunking of HAMB. If it is to be taken on face value, then how come a twenty something can emerge on the pro scene? Look how long logically it would take to hit a million balls, but in reality people have turned pro (John Morra running undefeated to the finals of turning stone classic when he was 18) well before hitting a million balls. He had great instructors like his dad and Lee Brett. He is living proof that HAMB on its own is a myth.

If it is possible to turn pro with instruction over 500 k balls, then HAMB is a myth. In reality it's more about the quality of shots practiced than the quantity.

"I fear not the man who has done ten thousand kicks one time, but I do fear the man who has done one kick ten thousand times" Bruce Lee.

Even Bruce Lee thought HAMB was a myth. :cool:
 
Cardigan Kid said:
This is entirely the logic behind the debunking of HAMB. If it is to be taken on face value, then how come a twenty something can emerge on the pro scene? Look how long logically it would take to hit a million balls, but in reality people have turned pro (John Morra running undefeated to the finals of turning stone classic when he was 18) well before hitting a million balls. He had great instructors like his dad and Lee Brett. He is living proof that HAMB on its own is a myth.

If it is possible to turn pro with instruction over 500 k balls, then HAMB is a myth. In reality it's more about the quality of shots practiced than the quantity.

"I fear not the man who has done ten thousand kicks one time, but I do fear the man who has done one kick ten thousand times" Bruce Lee.

Even Bruce Lee thought HAMB was a myth. :cool:
Click to expand...

That quote doesn't say diddly about HAMB.

If one had hit over a million balls and also used an aiming system, there's no way they couldn't be a pro, because between advocating hitting a million balls to be a pro and advocating an aiming system to be a pro, using both must certainly result in becoming a pro.

Obviously, everything is a myth.

I'm just about to the point where I avoid most suggestions and just play.. on barboxes.. with bar cues.. in a bar.. drinking.. with players worse than myself.
 
Cardigan Kid said:
Exactly. That's a huge undertaking 548 balls a day every day for five years.
I forgot to mention Mark Wilson's book. He busts the myth by putting it in hours. Ten thousand hours of institutionalized practice.
Click to expand...

Mark Wilson is trying to bust the myth that players can quickly develop a pro-level stroke (including stance and PSR) by doing 'whatever feels good and comfortable'.

Wilson says players are better off trying to develop what he calls an 'orthodox' stroke, which might be uncomfortable at first, but well worth the time to learn it right. His 'orthodox' stroke leaves out the sidearm, the pump handle, the slip stroke, the punch stroke, and the myriad of odd styles that have given some players great success over the years.

His claim is that learning with any stroke and stance other than what he calls an orthodox one will only add more hours to the already huge number of hours needed to get to a semi-pro or pro level of play. Then he goes on to define, teach and illustrate exactly what he means by the term orthodox stroke, leaving nothing to the learner's imagination.

I think Mark Wilson knows what he is talking about. The coach defines and teaches the fundamentals for the learner, not vice versa. Mark Wilson's big fundamental is the 'orthodox' stroke, stance and PSR, and that is not the 'do whatever feels good' method.

It's one of the things I appreciate most about Mark Wilson's book Play Great Pool - no more blathering about 'just get comfortable, whatever works for you, whatever feels right'. Heck if I knew what works for me I wouldn't a one-rack wonder at age 63 - you know, it's a wonder I can get through one rack, it's a wonder if I run one rack, it's a wonder if I can last one rack into a match before my inevitable collapse.

Mark admonishes players to use a certain specific style of stroke, an orthodox style, and gives his very logical reasoning for doing it that way.

Mark, (and some others like Tor Lowry) are at the forefront of current thinking that is trying to bust the myth that 'doing whatever feels good' is a good way to improve ones pool game. As one who has struggled to learn pool, but never had the hours available to play, I can say that the Mark Wilson 'orthodox stroke', and its cousin Tor Lowry's 'compact stroke', are great starting points to improving the pool game of beginners both young and old.

p.s. With respect to Mark Wilson and Tor Lowry, if I have misinterpreted or misrepresented any of your teaching please accept my apologies, I have the utmost respect for both of you, and for all those from who you learned the game of pool.
 
Texdance said:
Mark Wilson is trying to bust the myth that players can quickly develop a pro-level stroke (including stance and PSR) by doing 'whatever feels good and comfortable'.

Wilson says players are better off trying to develop what he calls an 'orthodox' stroke, which might be uncomfortable at first, but well worth the time to learn it right. His 'orthodox' stroke leaves out the sidearm, the pump handle, the slip stroke, the punch stroke, and the myriad of odd styles that have given some players great success over the years.

His claim is that learning with any stroke and stance other than what he calls an orthodox one will only add more hours to the already huge number of hours needed to get to a semi-pro or pro level of play. Then he goes on to define, teach and illustrate exactly what he means by the term orthodox stroke, leaving nothing to the learner's imagination.

I think Mark Wilson knows what he is talking about. The coach defines and teaches the fundamentals for the learner, not vice versa. Mark Wilson's big fundamental is the 'orthodox' stroke, stance and PSR, and that is not the 'do whatever feels good' method.

It's one of the things I appreciate most about Mark Wilson's book Play Great Pool - no more blathering about 'just get comfortable, whatever works for you, whatever feels right'. Heck if I knew what works for me I wouldn't a one-rack wonder at age 63 - you know, it's a wonder I can get through one rack, it's a wonder if I run one rack, it's a wonder if I can last one rack into a match before my inevitable collapse.

Mark admonishes players to use a certain specific style of stroke, an orthodox style, and gives his very logical reasoning for doing it that way.

Mark, (and some others like Tor Lowry) are at the forefront of current thinking that is trying to bust the myth that 'doing whatever feels good' is a good way to improve ones pool game. As one who has struggled to learn pool, but never had the hours available to play, I can say that the Mark Wilson 'orthodox stroke', and its cousin Tor Lowry's 'compact stroke', are great starting points to improving the pool game of beginners both young and old.

p.s. With respect to Mark Wilson and Tor Lowry, if I have misinterpreted or misrepresented any of your teaching please accept my apologies, I have the utmost respect for both of you, and for all those from who you learned the game of pool.
Click to expand...

The pinnacle of that "NOT doing what feels good and comfortable" is learning the snooker stance. Even Mark Wilson states that he scratches his head at the accuracy of snooker players, when the snooker stance itself is well outside of what he teaches. I.e. Mark teaches essentially the same as the Dr. Lance Perkins pool stance -- where the feet/body are oriented 45-degrees to the shot line -- but the difference is that Mark advocates standing a bit "away" from the shot line and orienting the feet more perpendicular to the shot line (at least the back foot) -- which positions the arm of the grip hand further away from the body.

The snooker stance, on the other hand, orients the player "square on" to the shot line, with the feet pointing 100% into the shot line, as opposed to 45-degrees or even closer to 90-degrees in Mark Wilson's case.

But I have to applaud Mark for taking an active stance against the notion that the pool stance must "immediately" feel good and comfortable. The human body is an amazingly adaptable "machine" and what at first is uncomfortable, soon becomes comfortable, and the level of performance is raised.

-Sean
 
Myth. If you are a right hander, you should wear your pants on the left side and the opposite if you are a left hander.

Just to balance things out.

It's not a Myth tho, it really works. Except that you may have to adjust your English a bit.
 
Hamb is about practice. It is the concept that it takes alot of practice to play consistently at a high level.

The million balls was just a example of that concept.

And Bruce Lee was all about practice and training.

You can not play at a high level without alot of quality long term practice.

Thats the whole concept of HAMB.

Oh and then theres this from Bruce Lee.... “The second-hand artist blindly following his sensei or sifu accepts his pattern. As a result, his action is and , more importantly, his thinking become mechanical. His responses become automatic, according to set patterns, making him narrow and limited”
 
Last edited:
Andrew Manning said:
This is a good one, and I agree completely. A lot of shots are missed by intermediate players, who think they missed the shot when they stroked, but who actually missed the shot when they placed their bridge hand on the table. If you're not accurately aligned by the time you're done stepping into the shot and placing the bridge hand on the table, it's too late to shoot the CB where you want.

Another one I'd add is the myth that there are arcane qualities of the stroke that allow the pros to move the CB more with less english and softer speed. Because of the loose grips and the acceleration through contact and the long follow-through and all that. The truth that is so often obscured by this thinking is that "stroke" is only about where the tip contacts the CB and how quickly it's moving when it does. The "great strokes" of the game are just much better at achieving higher cue speeds and still hitting far from the center of the CB with great precision.

-Andrew
Click to expand...
Good point re precision over magical stroking techniques.
 
TATE said:
If the "stroke" is the ability to deliver the tip as desired, I would say it's very important. What proved it to me was playing online pool video games. Some of the best players were amazingly good. Many of those I played and sked did not actually play pool, but they could aim and align the shot like a real world pro. In my opinion, besides the knowledge and experience required to aim and align, building the stroke, which is the coordination required to precisely and repeatedly to deliver the cue, is what separates the pros from the amateurs.
Click to expand...
Hi Tate,
I agree, but I think it's a bit like the sailing boat metaphor where alignment is the rudder and the stroke is the sails. Without a rudder you end up on the rocks, without a sail, you don't go far.

I'd rather play a guy who plays shape pretty well but misses a lot of shots to a guy with limited shape skill who pockets everything.

Alignment is kind of the foundation on which a game is built as I see it. The stroke and knowledge build the game.

btw: Appreciated your mention elsewhere regarding the BHE. It wouldn't let me rep you though.

Colin
 
JoeyA said:
As I stated, 2 balls per minute.

I don't doubt for a minute that most every professional player has hit a million balls.

I don't know what AAA speed is.

I have averaged a LOT more than 5 hours per week. :o :D

JoeyA
Click to expand...

If you seriously think you average two balls per minutes while practicing, you're not practicing correctly.
 
Aiming systems are a myth. =D

Sent from my X501_USA_Cricket using Tapatalk 2
 
Here is a recent one about ghost ball....

"On aiming: If you use ghost ball you must correct for throw! That is: The aim indicated by the ghost ball will undercut cut shots above 15-20 degrees, especially with stun and slow speed, but you probably know this."

And another

"Ghost ball bad"
 
Myth: 8 ball at the pro level is too easy to be entertaining.

If you've been watching Accu-Stats this week you know how false that is. Yes it's a runout game but it rewards agressive play so you get to see players attempt and complete tough outs. 1 foul 9 ball doesnt reward aggressiveness nearly as much. There needs to be more pro 8 ball events.
 
StraightPoolIU said:
Myth: 8 ball at the pro level is too easy to be entertaining.

If you've been watching Accu-Stats this week you know how false that is. Yes it's a runout game but it rewards agressive play so you get to see players attempt and complete tough outs. 1 foul 9 ball doesnt reward aggressiveness nearly as much. There needs to be more pro 8 ball events.
Click to expand...
I prefer 8 ball too, as a player and a spectator. Though how the break comes out determines the result to a large extent, at least there is often some tension leading up to the 8 ball. In 9 ball, it's usually a race to get on the 2 ball at the top level, after that, it's hardly worth watching the rest of the frame 80% of the time.
 
staypuff578 said:
This. Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Click to expand...

I agree with you if it is your shot. However, this is usually said in regards to getting hooked on the next ball after your opponent misses, or making a good break where you park the cue ball and another ball kicks it in. So while you may have a point that some blame their losses on rolls that they created themselves, the concept of bad rolls itself certainly is not a myth.
 
miscrewed89 said:
Rolls...
In my opinion very few things happen in billiards by chance. Players will say, "I just got some bad rolls," or "he got all the rolls!"
well, I believe 99% (or more) of what happens on the pool table is a reaction to an action. You hooked yourself? It wasn't a bad roll, you hit it bad. The cue ball caromed off 2 balls and scratched in the side? Not a bad roll, that's the way you hit it. Your opponent slams into the 1 ball sending it and the cue ball multiple rails, caroming off multiple balls, eventually pocketing the 9 ball. Well, if you hadn't left the cue ball there he wouldn't have had that shot.
Yes, I believe rolls, for the most part, are a myth.
Click to expand...

Meant the above post in regards to this^
 
Cardigan Kid said:
This is entirely the logic behind the debunking of HAMB. If it is to be taken on face value, then how come a twenty something can emerge on the pro scene? Look how long logically it would take to hit a million balls, but in reality people have turned pro (John Morra running undefeated to the finals of turning stone classic when he was 18) well before hitting a million balls. He had great instructors like his dad and Lee Brett. He is living proof that HAMB on its own is a myth.

If it is possible to turn pro with instruction over 500 k balls, then HAMB is a myth. In reality it's more about the quality of shots practiced than the quantity.

"I fear not the man who has done ten thousand kicks one time, but I do fear the man who has done one kick ten thousand times" Bruce Lee.

Even Bruce Lee thought HAMB was a myth. :cool:
Click to expand...

I don't think HAMB itself is meant to be taken literally, but more to make the point that frequent repetition is of great value in learning itself. It is probably an exaggeration meant to make a point, and the point certainly has some validity.
 
mantis99 said:
I don't think HAMB itself is meant to be taken literally, but more to make the point that frequent repetition is of great value in learning itself. It is probably an exaggeration meant to make a point, and the point certainly has some validity.
Click to expand...

The part in blue is what is missing from some HAMBones' statements.

Similarly, poorly worded statements about aiming systems sometimes results in missing the point that the person was trying to make.

Your post is spot on!

JoeyA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top