Top 10 Pool and Billiard Myths Busted and Debunked
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
terrible mechanics and stroke!
I watched a few minutes of Ralph Greenleaf shooting pool over and over. Horrible preshot and a stroke few today would envy. No question at all his warm up strokes looked like a pump handle! His tip was moving up and down a bunch. Then it appeared that on the final stroke he dropped his elbow and powered straight through the cue ball.
Almost all of us, very possibly all of us on AZB, are too smart to do things like this. Sometimes I wonder if we are too smart for our own good!
Hu
I watched a few minutes of Ralph Greenleaf shooting pool over and over. Horrible preshot and a stroke few today would envy. No question at all his warm up strokes looked like a pump handle! His tip was moving up and down a bunch. Then it appeared that on the final stroke he dropped his elbow and powered straight through the cue ball.
Almost all of us, very possibly all of us on AZB, are too smart to do things like this. Sometimes I wonder if we are too smart for our own good!
Hu
He put in the countless hours and years it takes to master his "personal style" of play. Most of us aren't able to put in that amount of time, nor do we have his level of natural talent.
Solid fundamentals and technique are more valuable than you imply, especially for people who want to improve their game more quickly.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
It's not a myth.
The great John Ervolino used to say that it was critical to play either straight pool or one pocket to develop your touch and your finesse skills, which will make you a better player at rotation games.
Playing bank pool, similarly, will make you a better one pocket player, as you face so many bank shots in one pocket.
IMO, this is the biggest myth in this thread
Lessons or fundamentals don’t help much. And the idea that it takes years to overcome some stroke idiosyncrasies does not pan out. Nearly every pro under the sun became a great player within about 4 years of picking up a cue. And it made no difference what there stroke looked like. You either have the genetic potential or you don’t.
IMO, this is the biggest myth in this thread
Lessons or fundamentals don’t help much. And the idea that it takes years to overcome some stroke idiosyncrasies does not pan out. Nearly every pro under the sun became a great player within about 4 years of picking up a cue. And it made no difference what there stroke looked like. You either have the genetic potential or you don’t.
Do you think it matters that in those 4 years all they did was play pool?
I think that's what Dave was referring to in regards to us not having the time.
Good point. Genetic factors are obviously important, but the main ingredients for success at the pro level are dedication and focus with a tremendous amount of smart playing time, where they actually learn from their mistakes.
Also, most pros actually do have excellent fundamentals, unlike most amateurs. Most pros usually aim while standing, have their vision center in the right place, hold the cue still while they carefully check cue alignment and aim, have quiet eyes during the shot with tremendous focus on their target, don’t jerk the backstroke to forward stroke transition, keep their grip relaxed during the stroke, smoothly accelerate into the ball, etc.!
But mostly, they have more dedication, desire, drive, focus, intensity, and consistency than most of us.
For more info, see:
what it takes to play like a pro
Regards,
Dave
You actually think that people are genetically pre-programmed to be a good pool player?? That's absolute bs. I've never gone for the "they were born to......." crap. Time on the table and desire will overcome all. I've known some players that were barely above cave-man level and they were world beaters. They often grew up broke-n-hungry, ALWAYS a good motivator for superior play.IMO, this is the biggest myth in this thread
Lessons or fundamentals don’t help much. And the idea that it takes years to overcome some stroke idiosyncrasies does not pan out. Nearly every pro under the sun became a great player within about 4 years of picking up a cue. And it made no difference what there stroke looked like. You either have the genetic potential or you don’t.
Fat people can be great at pool.
Dumb people can be great at pool.
People that are blind in one eye can be great at pool.
People that can't walk can be great at pool.
People with one arm can be great at pool.
Yes, table time and desire are certainly factors, but how early someone starts is probably the biggest.
If I had started playing around 10 or 12, and played 4+ hours a day. I would be a hell of a lot better than I am today. However, if I started playing 4+ hours a day now, I would certainly improve but maybe not as much.
I think genetics plays a significant role in how good you can get, and especially how quickly.
pj
chgo
Agree. I forgot who said it but it was along the lines of " Can't be great startin' late". Any eye-hand coordination pursuit is better taken-up at an early age. I still think the genetic deal is hogwash, at least as far as pool is concerned. It doesn't require the pure athleticism of the running/jumping/lifting sports. Different kettle of fish. A lil info: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genes-sports-talent/
Yep.
The only thing that all great players have in common is they started at a young age.
If Shane didn't pick up a cue until he was 25. I'd bet everything that he wouldn't have been as good as he is today.
Havent read thru all the posts but.....
How could you leave off....
I play better after a few drinks
Good one. I actually wrote an article about this for Billiards Digest many years ago. Here it is:How could you leave off....
I play better after a few drinks
“Beer-goggle effects” (BD, June, 2008)
Enjoy,
Dave
Lots of good stuff in this thread by some great contributors and experts. Thanks to all.
I understand (get) the responses to Shuddy’s original challenge of the proposition that elevated cue angle does not necessarily mean less draw. But I’m not sure that there has been any real acknowledgement of his point that the probability of accuracy is reduced when the cue is elevated. Which feeds back into the opening discussion point: Is Dr. Dave on target in saying that it is a myth that one can achieve more draw with a closed bridge than an open one? I suggest that Dr. Dave’s statement, while technically correct, could be misleading to many, as it could be read to mean that there is no practical difference between the two bridging methods. In addition to there being a reduced margin for error for the 99% (because a more elevated cue results in more unintended english than a less elevated cue, in the case of off-center hits), but even perfectly executed strokes with a more elevated cue, where english is intended, will require more aim adjustment, which is generally undesirable.
Should have known you would have researched that!
I mean if you cant find willing participants for these type experiments you are at the wrong university. I suppose this could be done on line , so maybe there is a demand for a app for that.:grin-square:
This is most certainly an issue, and it is mentioned in the video and on the resource page.
Regards,
Dave