It is difficult to believe that anyone who watches footage of yesteryear believes that the old timers like Sigel, Varner, Strickland, Archer, Mizerak had a) fundamentals comparable to the players of today, b) pocketed balls as well as the players of today even while playing on much looser pockets, c) broke the balls as well as the players of today, d) kicked and jumped as well as the players of today, or e) are, on average, better trained athletes than those of today, etc. And yet, "So What?"
As Chili Palmer has noted with clarity, the comparison is apples to oranges. As we so often note on the forum, a player can only be judged against their own contemporaries. Advances in equipment, training, and online resources for gaining knowledge of the game have not only put today's players at a higher level than those of 1990, but today's players are well above those of 2015. As importantly, the globalization of the game, especially in the past ten years, means that there are three times as many straight shooters as in 2015 and possibly ten times as many as in 1990.
Another thing that has raised the level of play demonstrably is the number of world class events found on the world pool calendar. There weren't many events each year that featured at least half of the world's top 50 until recently. This has allowed today's crop to build a stronger competitive pedigree than even those of 2015, let alone those of 1990.
Was Sigel better than Filler? In absolute terms, no way, but if Sigel had all the same advantages with respect to equipment, training, online resources, I'd guess he'd have been just as good as Josh. We'll never know.
These comparisons are problematic. Are we to suggest that racecar drivers of 1950 weren't very good because they took longer to get around the track than the drivers of today? Of course not! Pro golfers hit it much further than their counterparts of yesteryear, but are they better?
In short, in most sports, the best that ever played are the ones that play it today, but it doesn't make sense to measure a player against the players of another generation. One's level of excellence against one's contemporaries is the only real measure of greatness.
Finally, I think the transition to the old playing conditions would have been extremely easy for today's best. Who will forget when Sigel predicted that the younger players would struggle with the slower conditions in use at the 2006 IPT Las Vegas 8ball event? Mike predicted that the Hall of Famers would enjoy great success in the event. In that event, every BCA Hall of Famer was guaranteed a payout of $30,000 and would earn more if they went deep enough in the event. Not even one of them earned more than $30,000 in that event. As importantly, the younger players transitioned seamlessly to the slower cloth.
Today's crop of players are better cueists and I'm not sure even one player of 1990 played at what we now perceive to be a Fargo 800 level of performance, but it is likely that the greatest of that era would have been as good as the greatest of this one given all the advantages enjoyed by today's crop of players.
The greats would have been greats in any era if given all the resources available in that era of play.
Filler vs Sigel? Apples and oranges.
PS The question posed in the thread title isn't dumb, but it doesn't get to the crux of the matter of comparing players past and present. Still, in absolute terms, the comparison is very easy. Today's best pocket as well on 4" pockets as the best of 1990 did on 4 3/4" pockets. The quality of cueing has, quite simply, gone through the roof.
