He dominated for 32 years!
I dont think anyone has done that in any sport or game ever.
Last edited:
The Ten Greatest Players Of All Time
- Thread starter DrCue'sProtege
- Start date
I dont think anyone has done that in any sport or game ever.
Thanks for that, I hadn't seen it. Some excellent commentating as well.
Ray Ceulemans was on top for decades, too.
Hi Stu, I'm a brand new member on the AZ forums! a big fan of Yours! Really like your top 10 list, great list of players that are solid choices. I just have two questions, one being I know buddy hall was predominantly a Nine-ball player and One pocket player but how far would you rank him below these players? and due to Shane Van Boening's recent win at the World Pool Championship were would you rank him on this list or is it to early in his career to say?
Thanks for the kind words. I'm shocked to learn that I have ANY fans.
To me, Buddy was a small notch below Sigel, Varner, and Lassiter, although he could put a beating on any player at a moment's notice and often did. Among the Americans, I'd put him more on a par with guys like Archer and Rempe, two legends of the highest order whose career resumes were remarkable.
Until SVB won his first world championship, it was hard for me to put him in the conversation for greatest ever American player, but he's in the conversation now. I still don't see how you put him on a par with Sigel, who was the best straight pool player in the world when the straight pool era ended as well as the best nine ball player in the early part of the nine-ball era, but to compare SVB with Lassiter and Varner, both of whom were giants in multiple disciplines, is now within reason.
Of course, Mosconi and Greenleaf were the most dominant players of the straight pool era, and they dominated their peers far more than Sigel dominated his peers.
Hence, a top seven ever Americans list might start like this:
1, Mosconi
2. Greenleaf
3. Sigel
4A. Van Boening
4B. Lassiter
4C. Varner
7. Strickland
Shane has certainly juiced up the debate with his career defining win at the WPC. I just can't quite put Buddy Hall in the company of these seven.
The fact that Nobody beat De Oro at straight pool or billiards for 20 years should automatically get him on any list.
Most people look at the record books and see other peoples names in those years , what they don't realize is that they did not beat him for the title he was not allowed to have both titles at the same time, so if he won the straight pool championship, his billiard title was stripped from him and given to another player. and the same when he won the next billiard title , he automatically lost his straight pool title.
World records to me are a political and marketing game more than anything. Not just pool, how about fast draw.
Anybody that ever saw Bob Mundun do fast draw ,knows that he is the fastest man who ever lived and despite him saying he has over 3500 records and trophies over his career, they do not credit him with any of them. The killer to the whole controversy is that at age 68 he did a televised exhibition on Stan Lees Superhumans where he took a regular weight colt 45 single action drew and shot 2 balloons 6 feet apart and holstered his weapon in 1 tenth of a second, the recognized world title is 1 shot in .208 , almost 3 times slower lol. and it was done with a special lightweight version. Which in my opinion makes it a farce.
I won't go far into track and field too deep, but the women are still trying to beat some of the Soviet Block womens track records from the 1960s when they looked more manly ,than most men. OH no steroids there!
Or our own track and field , Marrion Jones goes to prison , while even 1 who admitted he used steroids is still in the record books,and recognized as the greatest american of all time. While his closest opponent (who actually beat him} in an olympics was stripped of the title and they handed it to him, lol, you can't make this stuff up. It's just crazy.
I think there’s a big difference between greatest players of all time and best players of all time. Mosconi, Greenleaf, Lasiter, Crane and others people have mentioned are certainly the most accomplished and decorated players of all time, but they are not the best. I would even argue that none of them would be a top 50 player of today in any game including straight pool. There’s also no videos of them playing in their prime to get a gauge of how well they played, or how well their opponents played to truly know how good they were. Would Mosconi with 15 world championships have any chance against Filler or Gorst? I don’t think so. Perhaps in a short race tournament format.
Do you think if Mosconi grew up today under the same conditions as Filler and Gorst that he would still not be a top 50 player? To me, that's the only interesting question to ask when comparing players from different eras--given a level playing field, how would they compare? Of course it's all speculation, but it's fun to speculate about it. I personally think Mosconi would be a champion in any era, all things being equal.
I'd like to move Dennis higher, BUT who gets demoted? The order is fine.
Imho there has to be room for Keith.
If these champs played a round-robin, and each could pick the game twice, who'd prevail? Assuming top form for all.
Maybe, I don't know. I have no doubt that he would be a very good player even today. To me I imagine Mosconi being like that guy John Schmidt who had broke his record. A good pro but not a top pro. And I'm in no way trying to diminish their accomplishments. All I'm saying is that the top players of today are the best of all time.
PoolPlayerNNJ
Member
The discussion of player A from today and player B from another generation is older than dirt. There are some sports where the physical element is a major component and others where it's not. That said, Tiger in his prime was much bigger and stronger than Jack, modern technology, science, and so much more would be at play. But if Jack in his prime was somehow brought into today's time, today's day and age, he'd have access to the same things that Tiger did. On the other hand, you see tennis players today, and you think how could Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg, and so on, compete against Novack, Roger, and Rafael, and company.
So, I never saw Mosconi in his prime. My dad did numerous times and also saw many of the other greats, from the 50's right up until today. Personally, I believe that if Mosconi in his prime was dropped into today's game, all resources being equal, all things being the same, Mosconi in time would be at the top of the game. He might not dominate the competition like he did then, nor would anyone else, because there are more better players today I suspect, and the game is far more international and accessible. However, I can't help but think the talent, the skills, and the overall excellence, would rise to the top.
On a somewhat, tangentially related note -- I can't help but think, if there were any top European players in the late 19th century, early 20th century, how did they get to the United States to compete? LOL. And vice versa. LOL.
So, I never saw Mosconi in his prime. My dad did numerous times and also saw many of the other greats, from the 50's right up until today. Personally, I believe that if Mosconi in his prime was dropped into today's game, all resources being equal, all things being the same, Mosconi in time would be at the top of the game. He might not dominate the competition like he did then, nor would anyone else, because there are more better players today I suspect, and the game is far more international and accessible. However, I can't help but think the talent, the skills, and the overall excellence, would rise to the top.
On a somewhat, tangentially related note -- I can't help but think, if there were any top European players in the late 19th century, early 20th century, how did they get to the United States to compete? LOL. And vice versa. LOL.
very true- you can really only judge players off of the era they played in.
As you mentioned, people make similar comparisons in other sports. Some people make ridiculous claims like Babe Ruth would be a minor leaguer now (without thinking about the modern advancements he would benefit from). Unfortunately, some contemporary NBA players (like JJ Redick) disparage previous generations as a bunch of "plumbers".
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
Interesting. So has the game moved forwards or backwards?
That is a good question. Today's shooters are wickedly accurate on todays cloth and cushions. Because of that they aren't even trying for the position play that was almost routine.
I watched a man work very hard for years trying to improve his pool game. Each new thing showed solid gains. Yet I couldn't help noticing that six months or a year later he was still in the same place in his pool hall's pecking order despite all of the advances he made. It seemed he had moved lateral instead of forward.
I found the same thing with racehorses. The "keep" was the total package, feed, supplements, med's, training. At best a horse hit it's maximum level, but that was it. There wasn't anything that was going to make a real change in that horse's speed. I had my choice of dozens more supplements and vitamins, many other things to try but they were just putting dollar bills into one end of a horse to watch crap come out of the other end. Every horse isn't going to be a triple crown winner.
Looking at pool players and top performers in some other sports I have to wonder if they aren't very close to 100% of their abilities and they are only moving laterally. They are getting a little forward creep but very little for the effort put in.
Just some 4AM thoughts.
Hu