Montse Ruiz asked karate athletes to describe their best and worst performances. In the best ones, they called anger extra energy. In the worst ones, the same feeling came with low energy and an inability to use their own resources. One emotion, two outcomes.

That is the idea behind this article: the feeling alone does not settle how you play, and what you do with it matters. The research favors changing how you read the moment over hiding the feeling. By the end, you will have a short routine for the bad roll, the unfair break, and the opponent who talks too much.

The short answer

Anger itself is not the enemy; what you do with it is. Research finds some athletes use anger as energy, while others lose resources to it. The best-supported skills are changing how you read the moment, talking to yourself by name, and giving your next shot one clear job, rather than forcing the feeling down.

Does anger always hurt my game?

No. In Montse Ruiz's 2004 doctoral study of karate athletes, the anger level that suited each athlete varied widely, from low to high. In their best performances, athletes described anger as extra energy. In their worst, it came with low energy and an inability to use their own resources.

This is a doctoral thesis based on athletes recalling their own matches, so it shows a pattern, not a cause. It also studied karate, not pool. Its useful lesson is that the question is not "how do I get rid of anger?" but "what does my anger do to me?" Ruiz argued for individualized self-regulation programs rather than simply reducing negative states.

A second line of work points the same way. Woodman and colleagues (Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2009) ran three experiments. In the first, anger was linked to better gross muscular peak force. In the third, extraverts gained more peak force when angry than introverts did. Force is not finesse, though. Pool rewards a smooth, controlled stroke, so do not read this as permission to storm the table.

Why doesn't gritting my teeth work?

Because hiding a feeling is different from changing it. In a 2012 meta-analysis of 306 experimental comparisons, suppressing the outward expression of emotion worked modestly, but suppressing the experience itself and suppressing thoughts about the event did not.

The meta-analysis, by Thomas Webb, Eleanor Miles, and Paschal Sheeran (Psychological Bulletin, 2012), is the strongest kind of evidence we have here. The numbers are averages across many kinds of emotion, not anger alone, and not pool players.

Telling yourself "do not think about the last rack" is a form of suppressing thoughts about the event, which did not help on average in this meta-analysis.

What actually calms me down?

Changing how you read the moment worked best in the same meta-analysis. Cognitive change, such as reappraising the situation, had a small-to-medium effect. Taking another person's perspective did best. Distraction helped modestly. Concentrating on the feeling backfired on average. These are averages across emotions, not anger alone.

The figures, from Webb and colleagues' 2012 paper: cognitive change d+ = 0.36, perspective taking d+ = 0.45, distraction d+ = 0.27, and concentrating on the emotion d+ = -0.26.

At the table, perspective taking means one question: what would a calm friend watching this match say about that shot? The answer is usually something like "bad roll, nothing more." That is a smaller story than "this always happens to me," and a smaller story gives anger less to feed on.

Does talking to myself by name help?

Some evidence says yes, for social stress. Ethan Kross and colleagues (2014) ran seven studies with 585 people. Using their own name or "you" instead of "I" created distance from the moment. It also reduced distress and improved performance in speeches and first impressions. Those tasks were social, not sport.

The paper appeared in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and included randomized experiments. It tested social stress, not anger at a pool table, so the transfer is a reasonable bet, not a proven fact.

A 2017 brain study by Jason Moser and colleagues (Scientific Reports) adds a clue about why. In 29 students wearing EEG caps, third-person self-talk shrank the brain's response to negative images. In a second study of 50 people recalling bad memories, it reduced activity in a self-referential brain region, without extra activity in control regions. The authors call the evidence preliminary.

Should my self-talk be a pep talk or an instruction?

For a precise game, favor the instruction. A 2011 meta-analysis by Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis and colleagues (Perspectives on Psychological Science) pooled 32 studies and found a moderate benefit of self-talk on sport performance (ES = .48). Instructional self-talk beat motivational self-talk on fine tasks.

That suggests a cue such as "smooth stroke, follow through" fits a pool shot better than "come on, you've got this." The same meta-analysis found self-talk worked better on novel tasks than on well-learned ones, so the cue may matter most when you are trying something new, such as a new break or a new safety.

Read next

FAQ