PDA

View Full Version : If Pool is a Science



landshark1002000
12-21-2002, 02:27 AM
If pool is a science, then ANY player's technique could be studied until it's secrets were revealed and understood. Ultimately, these techniques could even be taught to average players.
If pool is a Science, then the difference between a Bustamante and an average player could be just natural gifts and experience.
Is Pool a Science?

bigbro6060
12-21-2002, 02:46 AM
Pool is part science, part art. I think the same is true for many sports. The science is in the physics of the balls, collisions etc and the effect of the cue on the whitey. The art is putting this all together with many other things such as strategy, vision etc to actually play the game.

This is what makes Pool so great, you will get the more technical players and you will get the artistic players and everyone can win

12-21-2002, 02:58 AM
...the application of many sciences...the most important being Physics and Psychology. "Application" of the science is most critical. Many players never become great even though they understand a great deal about both Physics and Psychology. Other players lacking a "conscious" understanding of Physics and/or Psychology can become great because they have learned to "apply" the scientific techniques (even though they might not understand them).

This is all just my opinion...

landshark1002000
12-21-2002, 02:59 AM
What about the science of technique? Do you think the technical players are relying on science?

arn3
12-21-2002, 05:06 AM
if you're talking about the science of colliding spheres, then yeah, pool's a science. but teaching what the greats do to the average player? ANYTHING done at a high level, becomes an art.

CarolNYC
12-21-2002, 05:22 AM
Hey there,
Geometry,psychology and physics and ALOT of practice!
Carol:)

CarolNYC
12-21-2002, 05:25 AM
If I may add one more thing,
An instructor is INVALUABLE! Learning techniques are a key, but applying it to YOUR OWN GAME is the ultimate key!
Good luck!
Carol

Popcorn
12-21-2002, 08:45 AM
I don't think I would call pool a science. That would imply there are ultimate answers that would apply to all players to achieve a result. Pool is a creative process with equal results achieved through different means. This would put it in the creative area and more of an art, with subjective methods and no real absolute answers. Like everything in the universe, it is governed by principals, but the knowledge of them are not necessary to ones success at the game. In fact I think, thinking this can get in the way of a player learning to play. I have known a few very smart people (one a world class violinists) who tried to play the game. They think they can apply their intellect and learn the game. They can't seem to understand that there are no answers. They will think they have learned a truth, only to find out it only applied once and may change with the slightest change in circumstance. Pool can be very frustrating, the more intelligent the person is, trying to learn the game. That's why the game is so much fun. If it was easy, at a point you would get board and move on to something else. But pool is elusive and always seems a little out reach. Not a game for the person who is a perfectionist, It can be much too frustrating.IMO

silverbullet
12-21-2002, 01:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote landshark1002000:</font><hr> If pool is a science, then ANY player's technique could be studied until it's secrets were revealed and understood. Ultimately, these techniques could even be taught to average players.
If pool is a Science, then the difference between a Bustamante and an average player could be just natural gifts and experience.
Is Pool a Science? <hr /></blockquote>

imo pool is a game. the rules of physics apply to pool but also to other sports to varying degree. i believe the ability to apply strategy and to be balanced with the physical, mental and creative are aspects as well.

blu

landshark1002000
12-21-2002, 03:05 PM
Bigbro mentioned two kinds of players; technical and artistic. Do you agree that they exist, and if so, what pros come to mind?

Tom_In_Cincy
12-21-2002, 03:22 PM
Have you ever seen Allen Hopkins' stroke?

Not technical or artistic at all..

He's still got a game.. too

Tom_In_Cincy
12-21-2002, 03:25 PM
Technical=Ralph Souquet
Artistic=Mike Massey

extreme examples, of course, but both PROS

landshark1002000
12-21-2002, 03:41 PM
Do you think Hopkins is in a different group, or has characteristics of both? And is Massey in the artistic group because of his style of play or because he does artistic trick shots?
IMO, Strickland, Massey and Hopkins would be in the technical group. Bustamante and Reyes would be in the artistic.

Tom_In_Cincy
12-21-2002, 04:25 PM
Hopkins is in a group that I would consider "all heart". He has one of the worst technical approaches to the game I have ever seen.. But, he wins. He is a "gamer"

landshark1002000
12-21-2002, 10:25 PM
That's interesting about the gamer. I'd like to hear more about it from you. I keep picturing the hero-christian-guy in Chariots of Fire with the bizarre running style. Can you help me picture it more your way?

Tom_In_Cincy
12-21-2002, 10:44 PM
"Gamer"

Pete Rose was a 'gamer'.. very little talent, but an all out effort everytime the uniform was on..

Allen Hopkins, only plays one way.. "to win" .. he has taken what he knows about his skills and uses them to his best ability.. which is just enough to win.. the big matches. He's not an overbearing winner.. but he always seems to win the game or match that counts.

sack316
12-22-2002, 12:12 AM
but remember, science is a science and some people are really good at it and others are really bad.

snipershot
12-29-2002, 03:42 PM
it depends on how you look at it, it is a science when you consider the physics involved, but i consider it to be more than just a science or a sport for that matter.

Fred Agnir
12-30-2002, 08:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote landshark1002000:</font><hr> Bigbro mentioned two kinds of players; technical and artistic. Do you agree that they exist, and if so, what pros come to mind? <hr /></blockquote>

I guess you can sort of answer that by asking "whose mechanical approach to the game can the average person study and apply?"

IMO, you can study and apply Buddy Hall's mechanical game. So, I'd put him into the technical area.

IMO, studying Evgenie Stalev's game would be a folly at best, albeit an entertaining one. So, I'd put him in the artistic side.

OTOH, the science of Stalev's game does exist, as does Hall's artistic side.

Fred

Fred Agnir
12-30-2002, 08:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote landshark1002000:</font><hr> If pool is a science, then ANY player's technique could be studied until it's secrets were revealed and understood. <hr /></blockquote>
Physics and geometry aside, there is a science to the game as much as there is a science to batting, free throws, and golf. Most easily seen in all of these endeavors is the science of body mechanics and motion provided by instructors. The application of the motions is the never-ending battle.

Again, physics and geometry aside, as the knowledge of these two sciences plays little part in true body mechanic instruction. But, in of itself, pool is not a science. Nor does it have to be scientific, IMO. Nor does science ever have to be discussed, even during a scientific approach to instruction.


Fred &lt;~~~ thinks the study of a person's hips is the most important science in pool