Helluva thread, fun to read.
It’s not unlike the stance my father took WRT Major League Baseball. The pitchers were better. The hitters were better. Joe D was the best baseball player ever. It’s a debate no one can ever win because we’re opining based on nostalgia and our rose-colored time machine lenses. We can’t compare players nor the game in general because things change and evolve.
Conditions, technique, equipment, science, overall health, all influence performance, whether we’re talking about baseball, football, hockey, … or pool.
But here’s one thing pool has that (most of) the others don’t have: the baggage of the seedy side.
We decry pool’s image, yet celebrate it because it was interesting, or more fun, or less clinical.
Perhaps the characters were indeed considered characters BECAUSE pool and its environment were edgy, risky, or even dangerous.
Perhaps some of us dislike the game as it is perceived today because it has lost some of that seedy edge.
My own opinion, from someone who is and has been a relatively casual participant and observer (I am a classic “nit”, I will rarely if ever gamble for more than table time or a few adult beverages, or maybe a very small wager), is that pool players have gotten much, much better.
But is “pool” better? Highly subjective, depends on the lens through which we view it, whether we celebrate the technical skill, or the psychology of gambling, or the colorfulness of the characters, or the sharpness of the “edge.”
My $0.02. Carry on…