Measurable Improvement from Equipment Change

Biloxi Boy

Man With A Golden Arm
Have any studies been done to quantify the amount of improvement that can be attributed to a player using different equipment? Not talking about Meucci's Machine, etc., but studies of actual players. I realize that there are many variables affecting such, just interested in whether anyone has tried.
 
Not sure what you're asking but, for me, after years of playing with soft tips, my shooting greatly improved when I switched to medium-hard tips, medium tips on the harder side of the "medium scale". I can still draw the same but have more accuracy in the long shots. I think the idea of soft tips "conforming" to the radius of the cue ball is greatly exaggerated. But, that's just me. Not looking for any converts.
 
I had a cue. Known name but It sucked.

Got my first Diveney and it was like flipping a light switch.

I'm talking 25%ish improvement. Unless the before cue is missing a tip, I don't think much more than that can be realized.
 
Don't know of any real studies but anecdotally after a couple decades of old school solid maple shafts I've spent the last two months with a carbon fiber low deflection shaft. I know I'm making more balls, particularly longer, close to straight-in shots. I attribute this to the shaft being more forgiving (less deflection) on unintentional off-center hits on the cue ball. It doesn't take much to throw off many shots and the shaft just helps my sometimes erratic stroke.
 
You ask a good question. I can't point to any study but I did spend a couple years of roughly twenty hours a week on a snooker table. It was an antique of unknown vintage and viciously tight. A shot down the rail could only be made with helping english. Even that wasn't quite true because the english needed off the inside rail would reverse with a different speed. A long bank had to have at least a half table between the legs. As might be expected I got pretty decent on that table and was soon playing shape about as well as on a pool table.

My game got better, but it also changed. Took me awhile to realize that. Because I would shoot the reds and wear out the seven ball I was playing on very tight pockets but I was also spending seventy-five percent or more of my time playing on a 3'x6' area. Then the final six balls were basically a drill, mostly shot them the same every game.

The snooker table was more like a bar table than a nine footer and it did more for my bar table game than my big track game. It also changed my shot selection and choice of when to shoot and when to play safe. In some ways it helped my game, in some ways it hurt it. Once I realized that I could make corrections and I was still playing many hours a week on the tables I was gambling on.

My opinion, tight pockets can harm your game if that is all you play on. If you continue to play a lot on both it has less effect. If somebody is going to spend a huge percentage of their time on their practice table I think they may be better served with the same pockets they gamble or shoot tournaments on. For a fifty-fifty mix or similar tighter pockets can improve some areas of play.

I got a chance to play with an 11.8 CF shaft. It was a REVO but not exactly. A larger shaft had been ordered, the 11.8 came, well before it was released for sale. I don't know if it was a prototype or what. I had been struggling on a snooker table with a 13mm shaft or a touch bigger. I shot a few balls with that REVO and they found the pockets like they were on rails!

Without a lot of data to work with this is more opinion than study of course, everything in this post. I would say that tight pockets can improve both pocketing and position play, all shooting skills. At the same time they can mess up other parts of your game. I think if I bought a home table it would be a coin flip if I was trying to improve my game. For pleasure I would prefer a ten foot table, preferably snooker table.

Not a study but having worked in research and development I have never seen a pool related study that I thought reached the level of scientific method required to try to put great weight to the study. More like experiments that might indicate a direction for a study to go.

I hope this provided food for thought. I can't say it is worth more.

Hu
 
Official studies.....doubtful there are any....

Hypothesis......I am sure there are many.....Here is one example.

Some equipment plays dry and fast....no real need to develop a overly powerful stroke to move the CB around........Go spend some time in the Philippines....My Hypothesis is you will develop (see measurable improvement) in your stroke.
 
You ask a good question. I can't point to any study but I did spend a couple years of roughly twenty hours a week on a snooker table. It was an antique of unknown vintage and viciously tight. A shot down the rail could only be made with helping english. Even that wasn't quite true because the english needed off the inside rail would reverse with a different speed. A long bank had to have at least a half table between the legs. As might be expected I got pretty decent on that table and was soon playing shape about as well as on a pool table.

My game got better, but it also changed. Took me awhile to realize that. Because I would shoot the reds and wear out the seven ball I was playing on very tight pockets but I was also spending seventy-five percent or more of my time playing on a 3'x6' area. Then the final six balls were basically a drill, mostly shot them the same every game.

The snooker table was more like a bar table than a nine footer and it did more for my bar table game than my big track game. It also changed my shot selection and choice of when to shoot and when to play safe. In some ways it helped my game, in some ways it hurt it. Once I realized that I could make corrections and I was still playing many hours a week on the tables I was gambling on.

My opinion, tight pockets can harm your game if that is all you play on. If you continue to play a lot on both it has less effect. If somebody is going to spend a huge percentage of their time on their practice table I think they may be better served with the same pockets they gamble or shoot tournaments on. For a fifty-fifty mix or similar tighter pockets can improve some areas of play.

I got a chance to play with an 11.8 CF shaft. It was a REVO but not exactly. A larger shaft had been ordered, the 11.8 came, well before it was released for sale. I don't know if it was a prototype or what. I had been struggling on a snooker table with a 13mm shaft or a touch bigger. I shot a few balls with that REVO and they found the pockets like they were on rails!

Without a lot of data to work with this is more opinion than study of course, everything in this post. I would say that tight pockets can improve both pocketing and position play, all shooting skills. At the same time they can mess up other parts of your game. I think if I bought a home table it would be a coin flip if I was trying to improve my game. For pleasure I would prefer a ten foot table, preferably snooker table.

Not a study but having worked in research and development I have never seen a pool related study that I thought reached the level of scientific method required to try to put great weight to the study. More like experiments that might indicate a direction for a study to go.

I hope this provided food for thought. I can't say it is worth more.

Hu
Interesting take. My buddies and I were playing liability on a Riley 6' x 12' prior to a weekly tournament on 9' tables. After a few hours on the snooker table, the 9' seemed like a bar box and 4.5" pockets looked like buckets. I couldn't miss and snapped off the tourney that night.
 
Interesting take. My buddies and I were playing liability on a Riley 6' x 12' prior to a weekly tournament on 9' tables. After a few hours on the snooker table, the 9' seemed like a bar box and 4.5" pockets looked like buckets. I couldn't miss and snapped off the tourney that night.

The effect doesn't last long but yeah, for a few hours after shooting on a snooker table shooting on a pool table seemed like shooting into a #3 washtub!

I had a local hustler staying with me a few days. About four days into his two day visit I was missing my daily time on the snooker table and took him with me. He did the usual struggle but with coaching was pocketing a few balls in forty-five minutes. After a couple hours I took him to a local small action place. Rod got on a table first. The first ball he hit, he looked over at me with a big grin! I just said "Yeah." I think he was the only other gambler I ever showed that trick to, and he was no threat. More hustler than player.

Hu
 
If you are playing the same people and you change cues or "aiming system" or fundamentals, and start to win more ball games you have your answer.
I think that may tie into (is it) the placebo effect.......IMO...what I think happens is....when you change your aiming/alignment method, grip, cue, etc etc....It temporarily makes you focus more/better.
 
When I felt I was playing my best I was rotating cues about every two weeks. They were all similar hits I used a Bill McDaniel, Josswest, Paul Mottey, early 80s Schon and a Gus Szanboti. I felt like as I rotated cues it helped me keep my focus and not relax too much and get sloppy.
 
I shoot with a ball cap on. I flat out can't shoot if the color under the bill is a light color. No idea what this does or why, but it's 100% true, can't make a freaking ball. Brian.
 
Thank y'all for your replies.

It has occurred to me that pool players spend a lot of money on cues/shafts from which we realize no appreciable or quantifiable return in performance. There is no doubt that certain cues feel good and/or instill confidence in certain people. But can a cue or shaft actually improve one's ability to pocket a ball? Is a certain variable really worth one or two balls?

I learned to play, and for many years played, "off the wall" which meant I did not have the benefit of shooting with the same cue day in and day out. Because there are many variables in house cues, my body and mind must have had the ability to adjust or adapt so that, from cue to cue, my game remained virtually the same. I fully realize Black Ball thinks he realized a 25% improvement, but if that is so, the waiting list for Diveney cues would be very long. Has anyone attempted to gain scientific proof?

What does one call call the study of variables, their effect on performance, and acceptable range? Our ability to accommodate variance? What specifics are within/without our ability to accommodate?

I thought "human factors" for a moment but . . . Any ideas?
 
Last edited:
I have never seen a pool related study that I thought reached the level of scientific method required to try to put great weight to the study.
I don't see how a study that meets scientific rigor could be feasible. I would think two groups of people, preferably with no experience, to participate in similar pool shooting activity, save for one variable, over an extended period of time. Given different talent levels, enthusiasm for the game, relevant experience, and several other things I can't think of, I have a hard time imagining a legitimate study could be done with the resources available.

As far as people saying "it's the Indian not the arrow", that's ridiculous. They are basically saying they have never had a cue that they shot particularly well wroth, nor one that they shot poorly with.

I had a 314-3 that just never quite worked for me. I could not cinch shots with it. I could move the ball around the table, it was like I could think the ball into position. I just never had a day where I felt like I was thinking the balls into the holes. I switched to a Viking Siege CF shaft and have full confidence in my pocketing ability. I can't say I'm the best potter but when I lose, it's not because my opponent shot better than me. They strategized better or played position better or the table wanted them to win.
 
But can a cue or shaft actually improve one's ability to pocket a ball? Is a certain variable really worth one or two balls?
I can say that I've definitely shot better with some shafts than others. These were shafts that I had full confidence in until the results made me believe otherwise. I suppose you'll have to take my word for it and I have no way to 100% prove that it wasn't the placebo effect, but there was definitely a difference.

I can also say better shooting shafts probably get me about half a ball a rack and low deflection shafts got me better position on at least one ball per rack. I started using LD shafts and using a lot of sidespin at the same time so I might have learned to get position well with a standard shaft but I think the LD shaft made the learning process easier.
 
I can say that I've definitely shot better with some shafts than others. These were shafts that I had full confidence in until the results made me believe otherwise. I suppose you'll have to take my word for it and I have no way to 100% prove that it wasn't the placebo effect, but there was definitely a difference.

I can also say better shooting shafts probably get me about half a ball a rack and low deflection shafts got me better position on at least one ball per rack. I started using LD shafts and using a lot of sidespin at the same time so I might have learned to get position well with a standard shaft but I think the LD shaft made the learning process easier.

The real question is did your improvements stand the test of time? Breaking out my PhD,(Pool Hall Degree, thanks Terry Ardeno) I see guys around my local hall that have made great and wonderful improvements over the years. However, they are still in the same place in the hall pecking order they were five or ten years ago.

While they get a little spurt from new equipment or a new technique, it fades and what they have done is make a lateral move rather than an upward one. When one of these guys finds something that makes a lasting effect I pay attention. I do believe CF shafts are a better mousetrap for example. Of course I have thought they would be for decades watching CF take over from wood other places.

Hu
 
The real question is did your improvements stand the test of time?
They seem to have. And realistically, we are talking about missing two shots versus three, if that. Maybe 3:4. Maybe less than that. But as I get more competitive and am matching up with tougher competition, those little differences might be the only difference. I usually can get away with one mistake per rack, but not two. We've all had sets where if three shots went right instead of wrong, the outcome would be much different.
 
Have any studies been done to quantify the amount of improvement that can be attributed to a player using different equipment? Not talking about Meucci's Machine, etc., but studies of actual players. I realize that there are many variables affecting such, just interested in whether anyone has tried.
I have never seen such a study, but I think most people will see immediate improvement in their play if they clean the balls, table and cue stick.
 
Back
Top