Are men intrinsically better than women at pool?
In general, men do have an advantage in pool for some of the following reasons, some of which are societal and not intrinsic:
- Men generally have more experiences through their childhood (sports, physical play, building and taking things apart, video games, etc.) that help improve eye-hand coordination and spatial skills.
- Men generally have more strength and faster-twitch muscles that make it easier to execute many shots (especially power shots) with more accuracy, control, and consistency.
- Men potentially have evolutionary benefits from historically being hunters (which required good spatial perception, planning, singular focus, stoicism, fearlessness, etc.) rather than nurturers and gatherers.
- A woman with a large chest can be limited in stance possibilities (just like a man with a large belly or lack of flexibility).
- Men are generally taller, which can offer advantages with perspective and reach, but many (if not most) top pros are short.
- Men are generally more competitive and self-confident, and they hate losing.
Regardless, there is no intrinsic reason why individual females with the right upbringing, experiences, motivation, and attitude cannot excel at pool. Here are some supporting arguments:
The most important attributes for playing pool at a top level can be found on the what it takes to play like a pro page.
from Mike Page (in AZB post)
Another factor besides simple numbers (fewer women playing) is the nature of the culling of the populations of players–how meritocratic is it?
We might find 10,000 males and 1,000 females play and compete with a certain level of commitment. At first glance if there are no inherent differences we might expect that if there are 1000 men over 700 there will be 100 women over 700.
Looking closer, though, we have to ask how meritocratic was the culling of the larger populations to get these smaller groups and is the culling more meritocratic for one sex than the other.
Those 10,000 men started as a group of 10,000,000 men who played 10 games of pool.
Of those, most quit and 1,000,000 continued to play 100 or more games of pool
100,000 continued to play 1,000 or more games of pool
10,000 continued to play 10,000 or more games of poolAt each stage 90% quit and 10% continued. But to what extent was it the best 10% that continued?
In a popular competitive sport for which the pros are rich and famous heroes, the culling is quite meritocratic. The fastest kids on the schoolyard make the freshman team, and the best amongst those make the traveling team and get the coaching and encouragement, and the best amongst those are playing in college, and the best amongst those go pro. But if at any stage there are people who quit because they need to go to work or have parents who can’t afford the equipment or they pivot to a more popular sport, then there are nonmeritocratic filters playing a role.
Pool, even amongst men, is only weakly meritocratic. The better players at the fraternity house are probably a little more likely to later play in a league. Those with more early success in league are a little more likely to try out tournaments. Those with a little more success in early tournaments are a little more likely to hang out with and get encouragement and advice from better players.
The culling of the women, IMO, is far more complicated and more often has to do with whether a significant other plays and whether they have a family that is in the pool community somehow. That, overall, makes the culling less meritocratic for women. If so, then the 1,000 women can be drawn from a weaker population than the 10,000 men even if there are no inherent differences amongst the whole populations.
Dr. Dave keeps this site commercial free, with no ads. If you appreciate the free resources, please consider making a one-time or monthly donation to show your support: