Are men better than women at pool?

Yes. See:

“Gender in Pool … The Battle of the Trans-Sexes” (BD, May, 2025).

In general, men do have an advantage in pool due to some of the possible contributing factors below, some of which are societal and not intrinsic. These factors can be especially important at a higher level, where very small differences in skill and ability can be important:

• Males generally have more strength and faster-twitch muscles that make it easier to execute many shots (especially power shots like the break and power draw) with more accuracy, control, and consistency. See Onoda’s break speed article (BD, May/June, 1989) for example speed differences.
• Males are generally taller, which can offer advantages with perspective, visualization, and reach, but being tall is certainly not a requirement to excel at pool. For example, Alex Pagulayan (5’2″) and Ko Ping Chung (5’3″) have both reached world-class status. A disadvantage to being tall is it requires more bending down, which can cause more strain and fatigue (and ailments, presented in the physical therapy videos here).
• Males generally have larger hands with longer and stronger fingers, making it easier to elevate the bridge with more stability and a longer stroke length to reach over balls or to hit jump shots (or any elevated shots requiring more cue speed) more effectively.
• Males 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.
• Males potentially have evolutionary benefits from historically being hunters (which required good spatial perception, planning, singular focus, stoicism, fearlessness, stamina, strength, etc.) rather than nurturers and gatherers. Evolution might have also lead to males generally being more competitive and aggressive, having to attract female mates and protect one’s territory and clan.
• Males generally have more opportunities, experiences, and encouragement during childhood with activities (sports, physical play, building and taking things apart, video games, etc.) that help improve eye-hand coordination and visualization skills.
• There have been studies showing that males generally have better 3D perception and visual-spatial skills than females.  It is not clear if the cause of this is biological or societal; but these skills are critical in pool, especially for aiming, so any differences in this area are important.
• Far fewer females then males play the sport.  This is due to many potential factors including the lack of female role models and the uninviting atmosphere they often face in the male-dominated and sometimes disrespectful environment of pool halls, where males often:
  • offer unwelcomed and unhelpful “advice” assuming the females do not know how to play,
  • tease them about “breaking like a girl,”
  • “hit” on them, and
  • do other things to make them feel discouraged, uncomfortable, or unwelcome.
• Many amateur females playing pool are casual or social players, and many of them play simply because they have a boyfriend or husband who has a passion for pool.  Because these females are likely not as serious about the game, their performance would be expected to be lower.
• A female with a large chest can be limited in stance possibilities (just like a male with a large belly or lack of flexibility).

This video discusses and demonstrates how height is not a significant advantage in pool, at least at the professional level:

Here are some arguments and data (with more info in the Mike Page quote below) explaining why it should be possible for women with the right upbringing, experiences, motivation, and attitude to excel at pool:

Here is an excellent explanation of the male advantage in sports (especially running, jumping, and throwing sports), which also apply to transgender women:

The most important attributes for playing pool at a top level can be found on the what it takes to play like a pro, and “nature” vs. “nurture” resource 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 pool

At 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.

from sjm (in AZB post)

This is a nice, well-reasoned and well-presented article, but I have one complaint.

The implication is that the difference between the male player and the female player boils down almost entirely to physical attributes and gender-related physical differences, and much of it does.

I have probably attended 100 WPBA events live over the past 50 years and probably over 200 major men’s events. I have seen every female BCA Hall of Famer play live other than Ruth McGinnis and I have played pool against more than half of them, too. As somebody who has been around both men’s and women’s pro pool since 1976, I feel an enormous difference between women’s and men’s pro pool has been largely overlooked in the article and that is the difference in general shot conceptualization and decision making.

I believe that in pro pool, the gap in conceptualization and decision making between men and women is as great as the gap in shot execution. The decisions made by women in pattern play, defense, and all tactical areas are miles and miles and more miles below those of the men, and for that reason, I still do not believe that if they had exactly the same abilities as men to execute shots, women would play as well as men.

Hence, while all the noted differences between men and women noted in the article are valid, it falls well short of explaining the difference between the top men and the top women.

Maybe it is politically incorrect to say that women are much less logical in their conceptualization and decision-making skills than men at the pool table, but my roughly 50 years of live observation say it is so, and it is a huge part of the story if women are to be compared with men.

Is it possible to handicap females in open/male events so they can play together on a “level playing field?”

The current Heyball (Chinese 8-ball) rules attempt to do this. On the break shot, female players need to have only 3 object balls cross the headstring or be pocketed for the break to be legal, as compared to 4 balls for males. Female players also get an object-ball-drop handicap. Depending on the tournament, they get to drop either their last object ball (before the 8 ball), or any selected object ball after the ball group is determined.

---

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: