What do you think the best shotmakers have in common?

A young Corey Deuel gave an interesting answer to the question of what allows him to play at such a high level.
He said it was mostly mental. All the pros have greatstrokes and mechanics. But the ability to keep out negative thoughts was paramount in Coreys view.
There used to be a video online of a young Corey Duel playing Cool Cat in 14.1. It was a round robin stage, and Cool Cat couldn't advance. If Corey lost, he wouldn't advance either. Corey was speaking into a hot mic, and he was a disrespectful whiney little bitch as Cool Cat sank ball after ball. I lost all respect for Corey Duel after watching that.
 
Last edited:
They obviously have very solid techniques as well. As Cris Mullins said about shooting a basketball, you can get real good with a wonky technique, but it will take you 600makes a day. With good technique, you can get away with 200makes.

Work horse practicers like SVB and Earl have excellent techniques but also putting in those wonky technique hours.
Does Earl have an excellent technique? Or does he make that technique work for him?
One thing that really surprises me about pool, is the fact that often someone, with what I would consider having grown up playing snooker, a technique that is an 'aberration', can run the table.
There's more of an 'if it works, go with it attitude' rather than having 'perfect' drilled in by a snooker coach.
And with someone with a little coaching background myself in other sports, that attitude of 'if it works' I would say is becoming more widespread. With less things to focus on. Cricket is a prime example, where all these rules and ideas of 'perfect' that I grew up being forced to endure, are replaced with 6-fundamental technical models. 6 areas for development that can be applied to address specific technical flaws, without reworking or homogenising a technique in it's entirety.
I am guessing this attitude comes from a desire to make sports more widespread, more playable and generally in order to create wider audiences?
 
Last edited:
The ability to consistently repeat their pool stroke with minuscule deviation in straightness of the stroke delivering it exactly where intended on the cue ball.
Knowing what works for them, after an immense amount of time at the table.
Self-confidence.
Having likely made every ball there is to make in practice.
Then translating that to the match table.
 
They dont have jobs....

Partial joke, a large part true.

Ken
privilege comes in all shapes and sizes. A lot of these players have the capital initially (whether through a backer or their own means) to make a hobby their career. I agree with you.
 
Their genetics and however you want to call what it results in such as: talent, eye-hand coordination, eyesight, quick thinking and quick learning, etc.
Yes, I would say genetics is a factor, but so is the construct of family and afforded experience. Grow up in a pool hall, or with family who are capable at cuesports, you'll likely be good at pool.
 
Does Earl have an excellent technique? Or does he make that technique work for him?
One thing that really surprises me about pool, is the fact that often someone, with what I would consider having grown up playing snooker, a technique that is an 'aberration', can run the table.
There's more of an 'if it works, go with it attitude' rather than having 'perfect' drilled in by a snooker coach.
And with someone with a little coaching background myself in other sports, that attitude of 'if it works' I would say is becoming more widespread. With less things to focus on. Cricket is a prime example, where all these rules and ideas of 'perfect' that I grew up being forced to endure, are replaced with 6-fundamental technical models. 6 areas for development that can be applied to address specific technical flaws, without reworking or homogenising a technique in it's entirety.
I am guessing this attitude comes from a desire to make sports more widespread, more playable and generally in order to create wider audiences?
ive said it before and ill say itagain, Earl hasthe purest arm swing of a stroke in all of pool.

ive studied all sorts of arm swings for a vrry long time. when i perform one with a cue in my hand ppl ask me why im copying earl. im not....thats just how a pure, unmeddled with, arm swing looks like in a low pool stance. he is the definition of 'a natural'. he actually discusses his technique as 'natural'. he is. imo one of the best cueists of all time and certainly one of the best shot makers ever. just cuz his technique doesnt fit into "the" fundamentals recipe book doesnt mean it isnt a very powerful, extremely repeatable and trustworthy technique.
 
ive said it before and ill say itagain, Earl hasthe purest arm swing of a stroke in all of pool.

ive studied all sorts of arm swings for a vrry long time. when i perform one with a cue in my hand ppl ask me why im copying earl. im not....thats just how a pure, unmeddled with, arm swing looks like in a low pool stance. he is the definition of 'a natural'. he actually discusses his technique as 'natural'. he is. imo one of the best cueists of all time and certainly one of the best shot makers ever. just cuz his technique doesnt fit into "the" fundamentals recipe book doesnt mean it isnt a very powerful, extremely repeatable and trustworthy technique.
No doubt a fantastic cueist, and shotmaker, he makes that technique work for him, and has the natural ability to do just about anything he likes with a stick in his hand :)
I wouldn't describe his stance as low.
Anyway, without getting into a back and forth about what is 'correct technique' and whether it matters. You summed it up perfectly at the end :)

"just because his technique doesnt fit into "the" fundamentals recipe book doesnt mean it isnt a very powerful, extremely repeatable and trustworthy technique"

I was making mention that many sports and the technical models promoted in them are taking this viewpoint these days. I think pool, to some extent, being identified as an everyman's bar game for a long old time, has always had an element of that in it.

There are a whole host of ungainly 'techniques' in the pool world, from players far above my speed. It both amazes and frustrates me :ROFLMAO:
 
There used to be a video online of a young Corey Duel playing Cool Cat in 14.1. It was a round robin stage, and Cool Cat couldn't advance. If Corey lost, he wouldn't advance either. Corey was speaking into a hot mic, and he was a disrespectful whiney little bitch as Cool Cat sank ball after ball. I lost all respect for Corey Duel after watching that.
u dont have yo like him as a person or his character to learn from his insights into how to perform. Mika also gets a bad rap bc of his behavior. Both of these guys are pure geniuses of the game and I'll gladly listen yo what they have to say when not in the heat of competition and not behaving at their best.
 
Keep negative thoughts out of your head? It's trite. You'll have to do better than that.
he has a lot of gems. one of the most talented players ever. unfortunately went down the rabbit hole and played dozens of strokes over the years. but i would love to pick his brain on how each of them worked. All im sayin is, i dont have yo like a guy to learn from him. Im not gonna toss out everything a bonified genius has yo say just because Im not a fan of how he took a loss in his 20s.

Steve Davis has more insightful gems than anyone imo. Lucky for u he's a class act all the way so theresno reason to toss the baby out with the bath water with him.
 
No doubt a fantastic cueist, and shotmaker, he makes that technique work for him, and has the natural ability to do just about anything he likes with a stick in his hand :)
I wouldn't describe his stance as low.
Anyway, without getting into a back and forth about what is 'correct technique' and whether it matters. You summed it up perfectly at the end :)

"just because his technique doesnt fit into "the" fundamentals recipe book doesnt mean it isnt a very powerful, extremely repeatable and trustworthy technique"

I was making mention that many sports and the technical models promoted in them are taking this viewpoint these days. I think pool, to some extent, being identified as an everyman's bar game for a long old time, has always had an element of that in it.

There are a whole host of ungainly 'techniques' in the pool world, from players far above my speed. It both amazes and frustrates me :ROFLMAO:
yep. golfers that had their natural swings destroyed by trying to squeeze themselves into some swing guru's ideal grew up and became coaches themselves, in some cases teaching the technique they originally had, in others simply teaching in as unintrusive a manner as one could and looking to refine their students' technique rather than overhaul it into something else.

All time great coaches like Jim Flick amd Harvey Pennick prided themselves on their various students having completely different swings. Crenshaw and Kite (both hall of famers) were actually forbidden to discuss what Harvey told each of them because their swings were so different that what can help one would hurt the other. This type of approach is certainly becoming more common as more and more techniques are laid out in detail amd understood.

As coaches become more knowledgable, we start seeing fewer 'my way or it's wrong' types. This trend will make its way to pool soon enough. For now, most instructors still teach one style or technique that they have full mastery of and confidence in. But at least a variety of approaches are out there and students can usually find a good match. Baby steps. Eventually there will be many Flick types.
 
No doubt a fantastic cueist, and shotmaker, he makes that technique work for him, and has the natural ability to do just about anything he likes with a stick in his hand :)
I wouldn't describe his stance as low.
Regarding his low stance. imo the most mechanivally pure stroke of Earl's career was about 1995 to 2005 after he incorporated some snooker technical elements that he said he picked up from the European team in the Mosconi cup. His stance became more open and he started getting very low.

One of my fav matches of all time is his 2002 final against Busty. That is the pinnacle of his technique imo and his stance is so low his chin is BELOW cue level let alone on the cue. He cues under his right eye and just gets as low as he can. As he got older his stance started getting higher again. But that decade was peak Earl and the time from which I enjoy watching his matches the most.


It's a great match, but even the thumbnail shows how low he was getting at the time. He didn't get way down on every shot, but def on more big shots than not. When shooting off the rail, hed often get so low the cue was even with his mustache lol. The lower he got, the cleaner he cued it.
 
Last edited:
Eyesight and Concentration

But it has often be said:: "the mark of a good pool player is a misspent youth."
Practicing 8 hours a day every day, never letting your concentration down for even one second or shot, every day of your life goes a long way.
 
What sort of qualities do you think seperates the best shotmakers from others? People like Filler, Shaw, Shane, etc.

Obviously every pro has their strengths and weaknesses, but what do you think it is that most seperates the absolute top from the rest of the pros, when it comes to pure shotmaking?

Nerves, eyesight, fundamentals, confidence, amount of practice, better hand-eye coordination, talent?
Uncompromising desire.
 
I think ability to focus and maintain that focus is crucial. A consistent, repeatable technique. I was shooting quite poorly the other day and realized later that my eye pattern had gone screwy. Having my vision center at my left eye, I have to lean a little farther over the cue. Sometimes my body position is a little off and I shoot poorly. So, what the great shotmakers have in common is they don't do what i do.
 
What sort of qualities do you think seperates the best shotmakers from others? People like Filler, Shaw, Shane, etc.

Obviously every pro has their strengths and weaknesses, but what do you think it is that most seperates the absolute top from the rest of the pros, when it comes to pure shotmaking?

Nerves, eyesight, fundamentals, confidence, amount of practice, better hand-eye coordination, talent?
Excellent hand eye and no fear. Total confidence in ones ability.
 
Back
Top