Im sorry, i'll wait till i have over 900 posts before i start making stupid comments...
All around best american player??
- Thread starter tony semona
- Start date
Im sorry, i'll wait till i have over 900 posts before i start making stupid comments...
You already started with at least 2 of your 19 so why wait?
I'm quite experienced player and would definitely say that running 79 equals running 4-5 pack. The difference of course is made how the table is racking/breaking, and if you're a specialist in either and haven't played the other (almost) at all. So for example for Mosconi, running 79 must be much easier than the 4 pack, but for SVB for example, I'm sure it's the other way around.
This is what I stated earlier:
And for the record, I'm not a straight pool player nor fan, I practice it like once a year or something, but during these couple of decades I've played, I've "hit the spot" couple of times, gotten myself inside the game, and when that happened, my view point for that game changed dramatically and I started to respect it. (It's just few yrs ago when it happened first time.)
I still don't count it inside my top 5 favorite games, but certainly respect it in top 3 with 1-P and 15 ball rotation.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but you should try to respect the opinion of those who have played the game in higher levels and have more depth of experience what they're talking about.
Sorry, I missed that post where you said it's not in your top 5 games and all. My bad on that one.
I respect Larry Nevel's opinions. I respect Chris Bartram's. I respect a lot of people's, but not John Schmidt's. But since he's everyone's hero that's why his opinion is the one that people think should count. By the way, Larry and Chris have both beaten John gambling and now he always finds reasons to not play them (unless it's a game that he's the favorite in) so why don't their opinion's matter as much as his?
Of course their opinions matters. I only wanted to tell my opinion about 14.1. - which had changed after I learned something about the game. I still don't practice it almost at all, but maybe I should, cos I believe it would improve my over all game. I also feel it's boring, but I've also "seen the light", so I know smt about the essence of the game.
I'm not blaming you for trying to book a game for Larry and I'm bit surprised of some "outsiders" posts who are (blaming you for that.)
One thing I haven't understood though. I don't have now energy to study all John's posts, but didn't he already agree to play with LN? At least he wrote smt like "my backer let's me play 8,9,10, 1-p.....".
He said his backer will let him play those games, but he doesn't actually want to play them. He knows that anything but 14.1 is going to be a hard game for him and he's just looking for a lock.
And to be clear about things, I don't look down on anyone that plays 14.1 or believes it to be a tough game. I don't have hard feelings for any of the people that feel the need to jump in this thread to bash me even though they don't know me or really know what's going on. The only person I have any issues with is John. Always have, always will.
For the record, John's opinion of straight pool has no bearing on mine. I know it is a hard game. I don't need to hear John say its hard to know that.
I am not interested in debating over which games are harder than others. I already know my opinion, and thats all that matters to me. It's a never ending debate, and everyone has an opinion, which is just fine with me.
You made statements about 14.1, so I gave you the chance to back up what you said. I figured you wouldn't, and now I know I'm right.
If 14.1 is so much easier as you claim, then I can't imagine why your 9-ball players aren't jumping at the chance to get my money. I assume it's because they are smart players, and whether they like straight pool or not, they at least have enough sense to respect the game and it's champions.
You can't read either can you? How is it that so many people can post on these forums without being able to read. Go find the post that I flat out turned down your offer. Go on, try to find it. Oh, wait, it's not there. I said that if while in Vegas, myself and the players I know get bored enough we will try your $100 challenge to waste some time.
By the way, you've mentioned before that people say that 14.1 is boring and things like that because it's too hard for them. JCIN said that Shane thinks 14.1 is boring. Do you honestly believe that Shane can't run 100 or 200 or 400 balls if he really wanted to put the time and energy into it? What if Efren said it was boring (by the way I have zero idea what Efren thinks of 14.1 so this is hypothetical), would it be too hard for him too?
All this talk about straight pool being boring.
9-ball is got to be one of the most boring games I've ever played. Let's see, smack the balls open, and try and run out. If you can't run out, play safe and hope you come back to the table. Nevermind that you can also "sh*t" balls in and continue shooting. It's a chaotic f'ing mess, most of the time. The patern play in 9 ball is virtually dictated. With few exceptions, there is usually only one (maybe two) ways to "get out". It is an incredibly simple game, but difficult to execute well. I've played and gambled with champions at 9 ball and won. I can't beat champions at one pocket and straight pool....don't have a chance.
I don't shoot at Nevels or Schmidts speed, but I get so much more pleasure and satisfation playing one pocket or straight pool. The games are rich and deep. If you really "learn" the games, they offer so much in terms of cueball control and overall mastery of the table. They might be boring to watch, but they are fun to play...and difficult.
In closing, I've run 6 racks of nine ball and it did nothing for me. I made a ball on the break, they opened up well, and I had a great shot on the lowest ball. It was fairly easy. I've also played 9 ball on occasion where it is impossible to "run out". Bad break, slow cloth, dirty balls, etc...
I've run 148 in straight pool on a real tough table and the high was incredible. I was exhausted afterwards. I've also run 15 and out several times playing one pocket and that was more satisfying than running out nine ball. But most importantly, the strategy of straight pool and one pocket are what puts these games above all the others for me.
9-ball is got to be one of the most boring games I've ever played. Let's see, smack the balls open, and try and run out. If you can't run out, play safe and hope you come back to the table. Nevermind that you can also "sh*t" balls in and continue shooting. It's a chaotic f'ing mess, most of the time. The patern play in 9 ball is virtually dictated. With few exceptions, there is usually only one (maybe two) ways to "get out". It is an incredibly simple game, but difficult to execute well. I've played and gambled with champions at 9 ball and won. I can't beat champions at one pocket and straight pool....don't have a chance.
I don't shoot at Nevels or Schmidts speed, but I get so much more pleasure and satisfation playing one pocket or straight pool. The games are rich and deep. If you really "learn" the games, they offer so much in terms of cueball control and overall mastery of the table. They might be boring to watch, but they are fun to play...and difficult.
In closing, I've run 6 racks of nine ball and it did nothing for me. I made a ball on the break, they opened up well, and I had a great shot on the lowest ball. It was fairly easy. I've also played 9 ball on occasion where it is impossible to "run out". Bad break, slow cloth, dirty balls, etc...
I've run 148 in straight pool on a real tough table and the high was incredible. I was exhausted afterwards. I've also run 15 and out several times playing one pocket and that was more satisfying than running out nine ball. But most importantly, the strategy of straight pool and one pocket are what puts these games above all the others for me.
Man O man I know!! What was I thinking I can't win this game! My break was no match for Svb's power 9ball break that he came with in the end... What an idiot I am for thinking I can win!
However since I am such a sucker I'll play Svb again and the stipulation is that he does his power break the whole match and I'll lay a little odds on it.
I'm sorry, you are right. You did not flat out deny the $100 challenges. I guess I was reading between the lines. I did not hear an acceptance of the break and run 400 balls and you made it sound like the $100 challenge was only something to consider if you were bored. I had anticipate you jumping at the chance to prove your point, since you jump at every chance to shout it out. And I offered money, which usually gets most poolplayers attention. Maybe the avatar confused me.
And yes, I did says lots of people say 14.1 is boring as a way to dismiss it instead of acknowledging how difficult it is. I did not say everyone. And I do not think Shane or Efren would agree with you that it is so much easier, and knock the game as you do. I would assume that as great players, they recognize the talent required to be a master at that game, whether they like the game or not.
And yes, I agree that Shane could probably run 100 or 200 balls if he spent the time learning the game. He is a very talented player, 400 balls? Who knows, if he set his mind to it - maybe, but I would say unlikely any time soon. In fact, you can bring him for the $100 challenge if you like as well, I'd be happy to watch him do it, and I will gladly pay him $100 to watch him do this. I know how hard this is to accomplish - on command, as do most other people who truly understand the game. Unlike you, I am not on here trying to call people out, or insult a whole class of players. I am merely trying to prove to you how hard the game is to become a master at.
Still, I am wondering.. why do all the great 9-ball players you speak of need time and energy to practice for an accomplishment that you think is so much easier for a rotation-type game player? Maybe it is because in 9-ball, you break, hope to get lucky, look at the next 6-8 balls, follow the number as to what to shoot. And then repeat. In 14.1, when you reach the table, you have to consider the next 150 balls or so, and there are no instructions telling you what to shoot at.
Again, I don't care if you, or anyone, thinks it's boring, that's your opinion. But maybe you should reconsider whether it really is so much easier and that any ol' 9-ball player can become a great 14.1 player with a week or two of practice.
And it's your opinion that 14.1 is tougher than rotation games. Maybe you should reconsider that since you like telling me what I need to reconsider. Opinions are neither right or wrong so stop acting like they are.
Obviously we're never going to agree. Maybe we'll see each other in Vegas and maybe I'll let some people take a shot at some 100 balls runs. Who knows.
By the way, how many 100+ or 200+ runs does it take to be considered a great, or even a good, 14.1 player? I'm just curious.
I'd say that a great 14.1 player should be able to run 100 at least once a week. There are some that expect to run 100 on any given day.
I think you should be able to run 50 on any given day to be considered good.
JMO
What if you don't play once a week? Say you play 14.1 10 times a year. Say in those 10 sessions you have 5 runs of 100+. Where does that put you?
Wow...
I leave for a couple days and a 5 page thread spins out of control...
My thoughts..
Nick was the best all around player during his time...Buddy comes next..and then Sigel...sorry Jay..but I've been collecting character witnesses for this testimony...
Harriman is the current best all around player (american) with Schmitty behind..only cause I do not know about his bank game or 8 ball game...
Schmidt is witty as hell and funny...
John...can you please list the times you have played 14.1 for a bet of 1k or more...with whom you played and the outcome??
Bartram hasn't posted in awhile so he must be playing poker......
I leave for a couple days and a 5 page thread spins out of control...
My thoughts..
Nick was the best all around player during his time...Buddy comes next..and then Sigel...sorry Jay..but I've been collecting character witnesses for this testimony...
Harriman is the current best all around player (american) with Schmitty behind..only cause I do not know about his bank game or 8 ball game...
Schmidt is witty as hell and funny...
John...can you please list the times you have played 14.1 for a bet of 1k or more...with whom you played and the outcome??
Bartram hasn't posted in awhile so he must be playing poker......
First of all, let me dispel one very big fallacy that has been going around a long time. The one about the "easy" pockets in the old days. There were MANY poolrooms back in the 60's, 70's and 80's that had one or more tables set up for the good players. Usually tight Gold Crowns with 4.5" pockets or less, plus deep cut slates. Too bad there aren't any photos of the 5 x 10 by the counter in the 7/11, where all the big games were. Ten foot table with maybe 4.25" pockets. It was triple tough! That table brought a lot of good players to their knees. If Jersey Red got you over there, you might as well hand him your money.
Most of the major tournaments back then had tightened up Gold Crowns as well, no more than 4.5" pockets. Not exactly buckets. For the Peter Vitalie Invitational on 1987, they squeezed those pockets down to nothing with such deep shelves a ball could hide behind the point. Literally! We did things like this to find out who the best players were. Funny thing, Sigel, Hall and Strickland kept winning them. I wonder why.
As far as my statement about Efren playing great when all the balls were on the end rail, I'll gladly explain. Don't think for a moment he couldn't Bank, because he can. Very well I might add. About even with Ronnie there. And Ronnie banked good. When all the balls are down table, Efren is the most dangerous player I ever saw. If he can bank one in and somehow play position behind one ball, it's all over. He will pick them off one at a time, staying behind the balls until he's done. I've seen him play position on five or six balls, one at a time, when they are all within a diamond of the end rail. NO ONE else can run out from a spot like that, not even Ronnie.
And last, one other fallacy dispelled. It's true, Efren kicks more accurately than anyone ever, but not more accurately than Ronnie in One Pocket. In One Pocket Efren can kick to play safe or to make a ball. But nothing like the way Ronnie could kick. He would kick to win games, moving multiple balls toward his hole. If one went in, game over! You could leave him with the cue ball buried near his pocket, with balls near your hole. He would consistently kick three rails and duck behind one of your balls, sometimes completely locking you up. Now you were in the trap!
He could kick more accurately multiple rails than Efren or anyone else. Two rails into the side of the pack, knocking balls toward his hole was routine for him. One of his favorites was when you had a couple of balls near your pocket and he was on the other side of the pack. He would kick two rails, off the end rail and side rail, hit one of your balls and send it into the bottom of the pack. VOILA, several balls would go flying toward his pocket. Again, if one went in, game over! No one else has ever been able to execute this type shot like Ronnie did routinely.
Ronnie also kicked one rail to make a ball more accurately even then Efren. He was deadly kicking at a ball on your side of the table. If he didn't make it, it was near the jaws of the pocket and you were behind the stack. Good luck!
Markus, maybe this gives you some idea of why Ronnie was the best One Pocket player for so long, during an era full of great players. He will go down in history as one of the greats of the game, along with Rags, Clem, Taylor and Efren. That's a pretty select group. Even in that group, Ronnie might be number one. Old man Puckett, who saw Rags and Clem play, said Ronnie was better than either one of them. And no one ever beat Rags, as far as I know. Clem's only losses were to Rags, according to Joey Spaeth. They played more than once.
Last edited:
I leave for a couple days and a 5 page thread spins out of control...
My thoughts..
Nick was the best all around player during his time...Buddy comes next..and then Sigel...sorry Jay..but I've been collecting character witnesses for this testimony...
Harriman is the current best all around player (american) with Schmitty behind..only cause I do not know about his bank game or 8 ball game...
Schmidt is witty as hell and funny...
John...can you please list the times you have played 14.1 for a bet of 1k or more...with whom you played and the outcome??
Bartram hasn't posted in awhile so he must be playing poker......
Please talk to the guys who were around back in the 70's and 80's. See what they say. I'm curious what Billy or Freddie or Grady, or many others would say. If we're talking 9-Ball, One Pocket and Banks, it's pretty close between Buddy and Nick, but both still come after Sigel. When you throw in Straight Pool and remove Banks, it's gotta be Sigel all the way. I seriously doubt that ANYBODY wanted to play Mike an All Around for the cash back then. They could have definitely got faded. But I don't remember anybody asking.
I hate to say it, but Sigel was the best! Only the Miz could beat him at Straight Pool consistently before he got too heavy. I doubt that Sigel could have beaten Steve an All Around in the early 70's. But Mike's game really developed in the mid to late 70's. Then he took over, along with Buddy and Earl. They were the favorites, with guys like Hopkins, Rempe and Varner right behind.
Last edited:
I once chatted with Eddie Taylor on the matter, and he felt that Rags Fitzpatrick was the best of them all at one pocket, but conceded that it was a very close call between Rags and Ronnie Allen. John Ervolino was in similar awe of Rags.
Others I've chatted with say the comparison between Rags and Ronnie is near impossible, merely noting that Rags was the best ever at the "grind it out defense oriented" type of one pocket where Ronnie was the undisputed master of the more aggressive style of one pocket that followed.
Guess we'll never know, but a three man tourney with Rags, Ronnie and Efren all in their prime sure would have been fun.
I recall once on this forum the idea that a book on the history of one pocket should be called "From Rags to Reyes." Sounds like a winner to me!
Last edited:
LMAO!!! Haaaaaahaaaaaa