Archer, mataya 89

[mikemosconi]

The older tables, at least for me, with those larger pockets and also a bit slower cue ball on the move, allowed a loser style of play with success. I have always felt that the super fast tables with the smaller pockets demand a lot more precision as per stroke ( to actually control the faster moving CB), and ball pocketing, of course with the smaller pockets.

So the robotics we see today , may be a combination of several factors including ,modern equipment and a more parochial approach to teaching the game, add in the internet factor as well. Seems like in the old days the best players had good solid fundamentals and played a fast, loose game.

I'll add in that I liked the old days much more, it did really seem more human and today at high levels the game does appear more robotic.

 

[tomatoshooter]

What a treasure! For me, although I can't describe why, more enjoyable to watch than one of today's Matchroom productions. Thanks for the link.

I feel the same way about the old school matches, said it several times today is like watching robots

I think because there was so little organized instruction and everybody learned from different people the was a difference in styles more than today. The players seemed a little more colorful, too. Earl has talked about how he learned on the road, not under a coach's tutelage. You never see todays players with a beer and a cigarette, waiting for their turn at the table.

 

[tomatoshooter]

The older tables, at least for me, with those larger pockets and also a bit slower cue ball on the move, allowed a loser style of play with success. I have always felt that the super fast tables with the smaller pockets demand a lot more precision as per stroke ( to actually control the faster moving CB), and ball pocketing, of course with the smaller pockets.

So the robotics we see today , may be a combination of several factors including ,modern equipment and a more parochial approach to teaching the game, add in the internet factor as well. Seems like in the old days the best players had good solid fundamentals and played a fast, loose game.

Yeah, at the highest level, pool seems like one of those games that has been mathematically "solved" and players are executing the solution as opposed to the old school guys that were still trying to solve the game.

 

[garczar]

Tiny pockets have not improved the game. At all. IMO players with, say Efren's insane creativity, would have been hamstrung by today's 4" or less targets.

 

[Fatboy]

He must have been quite young in this video- interesting that he was reffing tournaments at such a young age

He looks younger than he is. Good guy, I’ve always liked him. I don’t know him well, but the times we’ve spoke over the years, always cool. I met him in the early 90’s. I haven’t seen him in 7-8 years, probably 7.

 

[Swighey]

Yeah, at the highest level, pool seems like one of those games that has been mathematically "solved" and players are executing the solution as opposed to the old school guys that were still trying to solve the game.

Same with all sports and games. Even a sport where the biggest prize is only 50 or 60k USD has become professional to the extent that there are recreational players with more knowledge of the game than pros had 30 or more years ago. That said, I think most of the best players back then would find a way to be at least in the conversation nowadays.

 

[tomatoshooter]

Tiny pockets have not improved the game. At all. IMO players with, say Efren's insane creativity, would have been hamstrung by today's 4" or less targets.

I agree that today's game is often less entertaining but would today's players ever miss on larger pockets?

some interesting thoughts on pocket size:

 

[Swighey]

I agree that today's game is often less entertaining but would today's players ever miss on larger pockets?

some interesting thoughts on pocket size:

I think they would miss so rarely that they would pretty much not miss. The Minessota fats quote is great - bet a little higher and they will soon tighten up. But tournaments and money games (exploitative ones rather than just making it interesting) are very different animals. Always good to hear commentators' anecdotes but often they are just that.

 

[tomatoshooter]

I think they would miss so rarely that they would pretty much not miss. The Minessota fats quote is great - bet a little higher and they will soon tighten up. But tournaments and money games (exploitative ones rather than just making it interesting) are very different animals. Always good to hear commentators' anecdotes but often they are just that.

I think the best commentary is when it's like a couple of friends chatting while watching a game. I feel like on the superficial level pool is nearly obvious. "What's he going to do here." "he'll probably shoot the 6, and then the 7. Maybe even the 8 and 9." The deeper level of the techniques can't easily be appreciated in a video and super technical commentary can be exhausting to listen to nonstop. Somehow it's entertaining when Earl does it but it's still an acquired taste.

 

[garczar]

I agree that today's game is often less entertaining but would today's players ever miss on larger pockets?

some interesting thoughts on pocket size:

Some of THE most entertaining pool ever was played in those days. Longer, winner break sets and no shorty cues(they showed up eventually) made for pool that was both fun to play and watch. Not too many safety battles, the emphasis was getting out. Efren is the Michelangelo of pool imo.

 

[tomatoshooter]

Not too many safety battles

And when there was one, the suspense could be amazing because as soon as the cue ball or object ball rolled an inch too far the game was over and you might not get back to the table for a while.

I wonder how those games compared statistically to todays games. Things like safes/resafes, potting percentage, break and run percentage, average number of balls per inning, or whatever. I think a lot was just the atmosphere and the personalities. Everything back then just seemed a little faster and looser, and less polished. Most of the players had cut their teeth on the road.

 

[garczar]

And when there was one, the suspense could be amazing because as soon as the cue ball or object ball rolled an inch too far the game was over and you might not get back to the table for a while.

I wonder how those games compared statistically to todays games. Things like safes/resafes, potting percentage, break and run percentage, average number of balls per inning, or whatever. I think a lot was just the atmosphere and the personalities. Everything back then just seemed a little faster and looser, and less polished. Most of the players had cut their teeth on the road.

Pat used to keep AccuStats on all the tour players. Some of those guys shot insanely high numbers. It was more than 'atmosphere' believe me. They played fantastic pool. Far more enjoyable than today's 'hide-n-jump' bullshit.

 

[skogstokig]

I agree that today's game is often less entertaining but would today's players ever miss on larger pockets?

maybe every 714 ball..

seriously i would really like to see a bucket table tournament with filler, dennis, gorst, shane etc just to settle the discussion. no break rules either. lag well boys..

 

[Cornerman]

I agree that today's game is often less entertaining but would today's players ever miss on larger pockets?

some interesting thoughts on pocket size:

Would today’s players ever miss on those pockets? With those same conditions, absolutely. I dont think anyone today is any better than those players. Remember that Efren was in his late 30’s at the time, and he wasnt being talked about as being favored to win. That’s how great the players were back then. It seems you’re suggesting that Strickland, Sigel, Varner etc werent every bit the shotmaker on any table that today’s players are. I would beg to differ.

 

[arnaldo]

Yeah, at the highest level, pool seems like one of those games that has been mathematically "solved" and players are executing the solution as opposed to the old school guys that were still trying to solve the game.

I know you'd agree Mosconi solved the game to the tune of 15 World Straight Pool championships . . . and oh yeah -- that 526 multiply-witnessed run.

Arnaldo

 

[Fatboy]

And when there was one, the suspense could be amazing because as soon as the cue ball or object ball rolled an inch too far the game was over and you might not get back to the table for a while.

I wonder how those games compared statistically to todays games. Things like safes/resafes, potting percentage, break and run percentage, average number of balls per inning, or whatever. I think a lot was just the atmosphere and the personalities. Everything back then just seemed a little faster and looser, and less polished. Most of the players had cut their teeth on the road.

I was there during that era, been around since 85.

Less clinical is the best way to describe it.

Milk drinkers now

Best
Fatboy<——-not complaining

 

[mikemosconi]

For great players of any era, I think it just depends on what the conditions are that they would need to adapt to at that given time in history of a game or sport. Great talent+ hard work + champion mental aptitude + top quality competitive experience= greatness in any era.

Just think of Luther Lassiter's famous line as to how he sized up a mark " I watched a guy play for an hour, if he missed one ball then I knew that I could beat him." - That type of ball pocketing confidence would translate to any era.

 

[garczar]

For great players of any era, I think it just depends on what the conditions are that they would need to adapt to at that given time in history of a game or sport. Great talent+ hard work + champion mental aptitude + top quality competitive experience= greatness in any era.

Just think of Luther Lassiter's famous line as to how he sized up a mark " I watched a guy play for an hour, if he missed one ball then I knew that I could beat him." - That type of ball pocketing confidence would translate to any era.

Its like saying Bobby Jones wouldn't have been a great golfer if he lived today. Give me a break.

 

[Fatboy]

Its like saying Bobby Jones wouldn't have been a great golfer if he lived today. Give me a break.

The best then

Would be the best now

Nothings changed

Ya got it or you don’t

 

[mikemosconi]

Its like saying Bobby Jones wouldn't have been a great golfer if he lived today. Give me a break.

Actually I was sayinging the opposite and agreeing with you- great players of yesterday would also be great players today. Yes Bobby Jones would be a great golfer today- I think we agree- so why the 'Give me a break"?