Cornerman said:
Well said Fred,
You have captured the essence of what it takes to excell at any sport, and I see nothing there that precludes a woman from being the best or at least one of the best at Pool.
Women? Why can't they hang with the men?
- Thread starter PROG8R
- Start date
Well said Fred,
You have captured the essence of what it takes to excell at any sport, and I see nothing there that precludes a woman from being the best or at least one of the best at Pool.
Cornerman said:
i hate to get off topic with this, but.......i understand your meaning, but just for the f*ck of it,,
the definition of "natural athlete" is a strained one. i feel bird was just as natural an athlete,,well, let's say natural bb player, as wilkins. i don't consider that because wilkins was a human hilite film, that he was a better athlete. it takes more than jumping through the ceiling to be considered a natural bb player. it is a heady game, but ultimately bird was a great shooter...that makes him a better naturall bb player than dw ever was. maybe dw could high jump better, but so what. and you can't assume dw slouched on practicing. there is a misconception that the slower guys work harder. maybe yes, maybe no.
on very rare occasions will you find a totally dense, pure athlete and a totally brilliant stumble-bum. they're all somewhere in the middle.. in pool, the distinctions are more blurred, because if there's ONE THING they all do well, it's pocketing. so at the top level, it's not simply pocketing that seperates them, never was.
i hate distinctions about natural gifted. every pro was naturally gifted. you need the talent before you can hone it.
Actually ...
If you view yourself as having a handicap because of being shorter, you classify it into the 'problem' category for which you must find a solution to, therefore you work harder at overcoming the problem areas because of your height. This goes back to your determination and how to solve Pool problems, and sometimes, it fans the flames.
Not to dispute you Jay, but I thought Rafael was about 5'5" (at least it looked like it to me when I shot him ... I am 5'7", and I was studying him particularly when he shot jump shots), and Mosconi looked to
be 5'9" to me when I shot him in an exhibition match in late 60's. Shorter people are much more cognizant about height than the average person, but
your points were well made and received.
If you view yourself as having a handicap because of being shorter, you classify it into the 'problem' category for which you must find a solution to, therefore you work harder at overcoming the problem areas because of your height. This goes back to your determination and how to solve Pool problems, and sometimes, it fans the flames.
Not to dispute you Jay, but I thought Rafael was about 5'5" (at least it looked like it to me when I shot him ... I am 5'7", and I was studying him particularly when he shot jump shots), and Mosconi looked to
be 5'9" to me when I shot him in an exhibition match in late 60's. Shorter people are much more cognizant about height than the average person, but
your points were well made and received.
jay helfert said:
it's not fair to cite these extraordinary shorter players. they are great IN SPITE of their size. great is great.
as a short player, i feel there are very important advantages that tall players have. one is perception:the table simply looks smaller to a taller player. it is that same perception that make a 7 foot table easier to play on than a 9 footer.
another is their perspective of the layout. i watched a game from a stairway that gave me a chance to "look down" on the table. it struck me immediately that this perspective is something taller players enjoy, and it changes how you see angles.
It's like no one who posted after me read my post or something. It is a simple fact that male and female brains develop differently leading to males being better at some things (visualization/conceptualization skills, math, etc) and females being better at other things (language skills, etc.). It is scientific fact. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule and with training and practice, blah, blah, blah. There is no difference in the ability to handle stress. I don't believe the strength difference is a handicap. You obviously don't need an extremely powerful break to spread and pocket balls. It is conceptualization ability and that's all it is.
jay helfert said:
I think that even though these guys are short for guys, they are about average to tall (all tall to me!) for women players. If you take a 5'4" man player against the same height woman player, the woman's center of gravity is lower. I know that having more mass over the table, helps strengthen the stability of one's stance.
djp2k6 said:
I understand you. I've brought this up before in similar previous posts, and I cited psychological studies as references. People tend to just look past it..
I don't know if I'd agree that that's ALL there is to it, but it is a big part. Because what is pool other than the spatial/visualization of where the balls are going to go?
jay helfert said:
I was trying to say that I thought they may be great putters. I'm not so interested that I'm going to go to pgatour.com and start comparing stats but, being that women might possess more of whatever skill is utilized in something like marksmanship, and perhaps free throws, I would think that it may be a determining factor in putting as well.
Here's the thread with the research
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=23720
The last time this discussion came up, I did some research...here is the thread that has it.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=23720
The last time this discussion came up, I did some research...here is the thread that has it.
Godfather
Out of the racket
This whole height question is a little ridiculous
First let me point out that the level of the pool table has not been modified, that I'm aware of, since its inception. People were shorter even a hundred years ago, so the table was designed for shorter people. That's not to say that it could have been designed poorly and taller people could not also excel.
The number of shots that are difficult to reach are fairly minimal and there are ways around it. Opposite hand, behind the back, and if course the bridge. The Fillipinos very rarely have to use the bridge, and even if a person has to get it out every now and again, it's not the most difficult thing in the world to use. If a person is shorter, and knows they will encounter these shots more often, they would spend the time to master at least one of these skills. The short people who are good at pool have not overcome a brutal disadvantage. And you don't get some incredible read on the table from having your eyes a couple inches higher. I know guys with bad vision that shoot great. They just know what the shots look like to them. And the arguments about a more stable bridge or something, seem odd to me as well. I've played on higher equipment and haven't had any trouble in that area.
The post about conceptualization differences was good. I don't think it's enough of a disadvantage for women, that they couldn't find a way to overcome. We're not talking about higher level math here, and all the good women players I know, have a good understanding of the basic nine-ball patterns. One rail, two rail shape. There may be a super-imaginative shot that comes up every couple thousand shots that they're not capable of seeing or something, but they're more than able to visualize the things necessary to play run-out pool.
First let me point out that the level of the pool table has not been modified, that I'm aware of, since its inception. People were shorter even a hundred years ago, so the table was designed for shorter people. That's not to say that it could have been designed poorly and taller people could not also excel.
The number of shots that are difficult to reach are fairly minimal and there are ways around it. Opposite hand, behind the back, and if course the bridge. The Fillipinos very rarely have to use the bridge, and even if a person has to get it out every now and again, it's not the most difficult thing in the world to use. If a person is shorter, and knows they will encounter these shots more often, they would spend the time to master at least one of these skills. The short people who are good at pool have not overcome a brutal disadvantage. And you don't get some incredible read on the table from having your eyes a couple inches higher. I know guys with bad vision that shoot great. They just know what the shots look like to them. And the arguments about a more stable bridge or something, seem odd to me as well. I've played on higher equipment and haven't had any trouble in that area.
The post about conceptualization differences was good. I don't think it's enough of a disadvantage for women, that they couldn't find a way to overcome. We're not talking about higher level math here, and all the good women players I know, have a good understanding of the basic nine-ball patterns. One rail, two rail shape. There may be a super-imaginative shot that comes up every couple thousand shots that they're not capable of seeing or something, but they're more than able to visualize the things necessary to play run-out pool.
pokerhammer said:
Again give her a break shes still quite young and she is becoming a great player, one who will eventually bridge the gender gap.
Who are you? I don't want to sound disrespectul but you have claimed to be a top golfer and a top poker player. Im almost afraid to mention another sport
.
Godfather said:
Thank you son. lol
Ultimately in pool it comes down to who controls the cue ball best (i.e. Efren) and who misses the least (i.e. Sigel in his prime). Knowledge and recognition of patterns may be the next most important. Funny thing about pool that I've witnessed for many years, is it really doesn't matter (as much as people think) what the rules are and how long the races are. The better players somehow manage to come up with the big shots under pressure. And the weaker players wilt (and miss under pressure).
The universal term to express this is "HEART". The champions have a lot of it, and lesser players (like me) have a little more 'dog' in them. How do you define and analyze Heart? I don't know, but it certainly plays a part in separating the men/women from the boys.
And then there's Earl, the greatest tournament 9-Ball player of all time. When he was in gear it looked like he was practicing on a bar table. That's how easy he made 9-Ball look. He simply had a higher gear than anyone else. Earl stringing racks was 9-Ball at its best. IMHO
I think you slightly missed my point. Both were obviously exceptional athletes. But one was clearly a better athlete by birth. I chose Dominique for no particular reason other than it is obvious to most that he is faster, can jump higher with more easy, shows more flexibility, etc. than Bird. It is impossible to say whether Bird was more naturally gifted than Wilkins in shooting. But, what is easy to say is that Bird worked harder than Wilkins. Please don't say that I said Dominique was a slouch at practicing. Of course he wasn't. But Larry's work mentality is legendary to the point of OCD (I do live in Celtic Nation). There was physical advantage to Wilkins, just by birth. But, as I said, it's the combination of physical innate ability with a whole bunch of other things that makes excellence. That was the point.bruin70 said:
Nothing I said implies in any way shape or form that Bird wasn't a natural athlete or Wilkins was a slouch in practice. I don't mind the debate, but debating against something I didn't say or completely out of context is really unfair and forces me to respond.
Fred
Thank you Linda. This again is one of those physiology ideas, a very simple and obvious one that gets brushed aside. It's not brute strength people. But it is physiology and strength in general.rackmsuckr said:
A short study on center of gravity really should be done before anyone dismisses the physical reasons. It also answers why too tall is a disadvantage.
Fred
Cameron Smith said:
Appropriate timing here for me to link to this, I guess.
I never got into this thread and just now started reading on the first page, but has anyone yet mentioned the fact that men are generally better at things like geometry, 2D/3D "shape," and so forth?
Pool is more unlike golf (in regards to the men/women divide) than it is like golf. Whereas power is a big part of golf (when played from the same tees in particular), I don't see power as being anywhere near as much of a requirement in pool. 95% of the shots you hit in pool are between a 1 and a 7 on a 1-10 power scale. I think most women can hit "7s" pretty comfortably.
I think there are a few factors that contribute to women not being as "good" as men. They're general factors and there are exceptions, of course, but I don't want to add "in general" to every point below. They are, IMHO:
- Competitiveness. Boys are taught to compete at younger age than women, so they have that "killer" instinct. Go look at a typical pool room. Go to a bar and find four people on a double date - the men will be trying to win and the women will be trying to socialize.
- Geometry. Men are typically better at understanding things "in space" than women. Women have skills in other areas (language, arts, etc.) more so than men.
- Society. It's kept a lot of women out of pool halls. They're smoky, men swear and drink, and they're still regarded as bachelor havens. I'm guessing that even most of the top women these days learned in private halls or on tables in their homes as kids, or they had a nice hall that didn't fit the stereotypical "pool hall." Pool, too, is a gambling sport... and gambling (until recently with poker) hasn't been as attractive to women as it is to men. How many women do you see betting on horses at the track? This one is a bit weird, too, since 70% of lottery ticket buyers are women (and the lottery is a form of gambling).
- Nails. I've known women that won't play pool because they don't want to mess up their nails. I'm not specifically saying "nails" keep women out of pool, but things like nails might. Women seem to have more reasons to not play than men do, whether it's "if I bend over, someone will see my panty line" (I've heard this one also), etc. I could call this one "vanity" perhaps. If a person never starts to play, they never get "hooked".
Godfather
Out of the racket
This is a serious question.
Do you people really believe this? I've seen very short people play pool and they're not wobbling all over the place because they're stance isn't stable. Short people are just as able to form solid body positions. What exactly are you saying? That these people lose their balance in the middle of shots and that causes their misses? Shorties are more than capable of putting their two feet a little bit apart and leaning over in a stable manner. I'm confused here. It's not as if you have to withstand some force that is knocking you over and if it were, short people would be more stable. I'm going to keep my eye out, next time I'm in a pool room, for all the wobbly midgets.
Cornerman said:
Do you people really believe this? I've seen very short people play pool and they're not wobbling all over the place because they're stance isn't stable. Short people are just as able to form solid body positions. What exactly are you saying? That these people lose their balance in the middle of shots and that causes their misses? Shorties are more than capable of putting their two feet a little bit apart and leaning over in a stable manner. I'm confused here. It's not as if you have to withstand some force that is knocking you over and if it were, short people would be more stable. I'm going to keep my eye out, next time I'm in a pool room, for all the wobbly midgets.