Then vs. Now (One More Thread)

[BasementDweller]

The Game has NEVER been played at the level it's being played at now. To think otherwise, is wishful thinking. Of course, it's the nature of all sports for the game to progress, but many have blinders on when thinking about pool's yesteryear. Some of our past greats would have been able to keep up with the demands of today's game, but others would not have (think fitness level). We could debate which players but the physical demands alone, have grown tremendously. The problem when it comes to comparing the older players to today's is -- we can actually compare them and the video doesn't lie.

I've watched a lot of pool and I've never seen anyone cue the ball like our current crop. Just Filler and Gorst alone are doing things I've never seen. It's actually quite unbelievable to me how much the standard has been raised in just 20 years. In all the talk about the Filipino invasion, and rightfully so, I think we sometimes miss one of the huge demarcation points in the advancement of the game, and that's the arrival of Darren Appleton. I think he really ushered in an era of precision pool that really changed the game for every one that has followed him.

 

[BasementDweller]

Efren brought creativity.
Appleton brought precision.
SVB brought power and determination.

 

[skogstokig]

The Game has NEVER been played at the level it's being played at now. To think otherwise, is wishful thinking. Of course, it's the nature of all sports for the game to progress, but many have blinders on when thinking about pool's yesteryear. Some of our past greats would have been able to keep up with the demands of today's game, but others would not have (think fitness level). We could debate which players but the physical demands alone, have grown tremendously. The problem when it comes to comparing the older players to today's is -- we can actually compare them and the video doesn't lie.

I've watched a lot of pool and I've never seen anyone cue the ball like our current crop. Just Filler and Gorst alone are doing things I've never seen. It's actually quite unbelievable to me how much the standard has been raised in just 20 years. In all the talk about the Filipino invasion, and rightfully so, I think we sometimes miss one of the huge demarcation points in the advancement of the game, and that's the arrival of Darren Appleton. I think he really ushered in an era of precision pool that really changed the game for every one that has followed him.

completely agree. mika before that, and strickland before that, deserves a mention as well. reyes for the kicking. nowadays you better be not only crazy accurate, but also master the kick safe, the jump shots and have the break figured out. it's a fun time to be a pool fan!

 

[BasementDweller]

completely agree. mika before that, and strickland before that, deserves a mention as well. reyes for the kicking. nowadays you better be not only crazy accurate, but also master the kick safe, the jump shots and have the break figured out. it's a fun time to be a pool fan!

I'd say Earl may be the last truly self taught master pool player. He really was one of a kind, and had to pave his own path. Today's players all have access to so much information, that even the players that don't seek out this knowledge are still very influenced by it.

 

[BasementDweller]

completely agree. mika before that, and strickland before that, deserves a mention as well. reyes for the kicking. nowadays you better be not only crazy accurate, but also master the kick safe, the jump shots and have the break figured out. it's a fun time to be a pool fan!

I am guilty of overlooking Mika. I think the truth is, Mika lost interest in pool fairly early in comparison to many players. Sort of like Sigel in that regard. Also, the 1 v 1 scene never seemed to appeal to him, he was definitely more of a tourney warrior.

 

[BasementDweller]

Guess this thread is really more of a "how we got here" thread than a comparison one.

 

[Zerksies]

It's a real simple solution. Today you have Youtube. You can get tons of information watching matches if you watch them correctly and actually pay attention to table layout and how they are running the ball.

I'd say most of the instruction is Crap, but you do have a handful of instructors that give some decent info, but most of these guys are looking to sell their product to you.

These pool nerds need to go. No reason explaining ever small little detail is useless knowledge. A ton of pool is just feel of stroke. Show guys the reason why to choose this path over another.

 

[straightline]

I don't have too many issues with instructors. They add to my grasp of things or on the flip side, they don't get it. This of course is of no consequence to anyone, least of all their students. It's a trade and if the students learn, responsibility fulfilled.

 

[jasonlaus]

It's a real simple solution. Today you have Youtube. You can get tons of information watching matches if you watch them correctly and actually pay attention to table layout and how they are running the ball.

I'd say most of the instruction is Crap, but you do have a handful of instructors that give some decent info, but most of these guys are looking to sell their product to you.

These pool nerds need to go. No reason explaining ever small little detail is useless knowledge. A ton of pool is just feel of stroke. Show guys the reason why to choose this path over another.

You'd be wrong

 

[Cornerman]

The Game has NEVER been played at the level it's being played at now. To think otherwise, is wishful thinking. Of course, it's the nature of all sports for the game to progress, but many have blinders on when thinking about pool's yesteryear. Some of our past greats would have been able to keep up with the demands of today's game, but others would not have (think fitness level). We could debate which players but the physical demands alone, have grown tremendously. The problem when it comes to comparing the older players to today's is -- we can actually compare them and the video doesn't lie.

I've watched a lot of pool and I've never seen anyone cue the ball like our current crop. Just Filler and Gorst alone are doing things I've never seen. It's actually quite unbelievable to me how much the standard has been raised in just 20 years. In all the talk about the Filipino invasion, and rightfully so, I think we sometimes miss one of the huge demarcation points in the advancement of the game, and that's the arrival of Darren Appleton. I think he really ushered in an era of precision pool that really changed the game for every one that has followed him.

My take is that there are easily more great players today than any other era. But per my previous posts, Prime Sigel would be just fine on today’s equipment. Given his drive to be the best back then, that drive would make him one of the three elite today.

I take umbrage with people suggesting he couldn’t run the same number of racks today. My opinion is that the conditions today are much easier than in his era on a tournament-to-tournament comparison. The balls are better. The rack is better. The cushions are more consistent. And the cloth… Simonis 860 and its followers are better and easier to play on. Not to say Sigel didn’t play on Simonis, but the tour had all kinds of different cloth, yet Sigel won more than anyone by a lot.

The logical proof that Sigel wouldn’t have had problems running the same racks is looking Efren and Earl. Sigel was a better player than Efren. Better breaker. Better shotmaker. Efren didn’t have any problems when Diamonds became the norm. Earl was a better shotmaker, but Sigel was the better position player and tactician. Earl arguably was the Player of the 90’s, with all apologies to Johnny Archer.

Do I think Sigel would be the best today? I honestly do, but not by direct transportation. I based my opinion on the skills I’ve seen and his dominance over peers that didn’t retire, peers that showed that the new standard of equipment wasn’t a difficult transition. Prime Sigel would have to get good with the jump shot. Is there anything else anyone has seen (especially in this semi-finals where he BR’s.. 6 racks that he’d have to get better at?

From the instructional point of view, there are several things that instructors use from Sigel that have made into the standard book of instruction, most importantly the “Finish” in SPF.

So even if Sigel wouldn’t be the best today, he’s easily be in contention. IMO, of course.

 

[Texas Carom Club]

but the physical demands alone, have grown tremendously.

hows so?, the tables have never been faster
the balls have never been more polished along with magic racks to help spread them out and give even more chances to make balls on the break.
its completely different

 

[BasementDweller]

My take is that there are easily more great players today than any other era. But per my previous posts, Prime Sigel would be just fine on today’s equipment. Given his drive to be the best back then, that drive would make him one of the three elite today.

I take umbrage with people suggesting he couldn’t run the same number of racks today. My opinion is that the conditions today are much easier than in his era on a tournament-to-tournament comparison. The balls are better. The rack is better. The cushions are more consistent. And the cloth… Simonis 860 and its followers are better and easier to play on. Not to say Sigel didn’t play on Simonis, but the tour had all kinds of different cloth, yet Sigel won more than anyone by a lot.

The logical proof that Sigel wouldn’t have had problems running the same racks is looking Efren and Earl. Sigel was a better player than Efren. Better breaker. Better shotmaker. Efren didn’t have any problems when Diamonds became the norm. Earl was a better shotmaker, but Sigel was the better position player and tactician. Earl arguably was the Player of the 90’s, with all apologies to Johnny Archer.

Do I think Sigel would be the best today? I honestly do, but not by direct transportation. I based my opinion on the skills I’ve seen and his dominance over peers that didn’t retire, peers that showed that the new standard of equipment wasn’t a difficult transition. Prime Sigel would have to get good with the jump shot. Is there anything else anyone has seen (especially in this semi-finals where he BR’s.. 6 racks that he’d have to get better at?

From the instructional point of view, there are several things that instructors use from Sigel that have made into the standard book of instruction, most importantly the “Finish” in SPF.

So even if Sigel wouldn’t be the best today, he’s easily be in contention. IMO, of course.

I think you are blinded a bit (maybe just a touch) by your memories of Sigel's greatness. I understand this because he was the first player I ever noticed, although not up close and personal and probably more towards the end of his career -- in the early 90s. The first match I ever recall seeing on TV has stuck with me all this time. It was Sigel vs. none other than -- Danny Harriman.

The rack running comparison is just too difficult to thoroughly break-down as things have just changed way too much. So yes -- they used wooden racks, but they also would loosely rack the balls behind the 9, consistently allowing the 9 to leak towards the corner pockets, leading to early rack ending combos. I think this played a huge part in the monster runs of yesteryear. The pocket size also influenced decision making a great deal, to the point where guys played on Gold Crowns in the same fashion that David Matlock played on Valleys. Banking and caroming their way out of trouble. It's just different. As conditions got more difficult, and overall play improved, players opted to play safe much more often. So this is just not an easy question to answer and I don't think it really tells the whole story.

I would include Sigel in my list of guys who would have excelled in any era due to his drive and obvious success but he paved the way for a couple of current lefties -- Shaw and Filler who cue EVEN straighter than he ever did. In my often incorrect opinion.

It would be sort of like someone arguing that Larry Bird shot the ball better than Steph Curry while they aren't actually even in the same ballpark. Well, the bar is just constantly being raised in sports and that's just the way it is.

 

[JolietJames]

Speaking of equipment, I have a question for those who have been "in the know" through the decades.
I remember a well-known pool guru telling me that tournaments went from 760 to 860 because the pros were unable to control their speed and it didn't make for good tv.
Any truth to this or was he just BSing?
When I bought my first table, I had 760 installed on it because that's what the local room had on their tables. Today it seems 860 is the norm and I have that on my current table. How long did the tour use 760? Did they go from the thick, slow, stroke-demanding cloth right to lightening fast 760? How ling after did they move to 860 ad why?

 

[BasementDweller]

Speaking of equipment, I have a question for those who have been "in the know" through the decades.
I remember a well-known pool guru telling me that tournaments went from 760 to 860 because the pros were unable to control their speed and it didn't make for good tv.
Any truth to this or was he just BSing?
When I bought my first table, I had 760 installed on it because that's what the local room had on their tables. Today it seems 860 is the norm and I have that on my current table. How long did the tour use 760? Did they go from the thick, slow, stroke-demanding cloth right to lightening fast 760? How ling after did they move to 860 ad why?

That's a great question but I wouldn't hold my breath on getting a straight answer, as the speed of yesterday's tables has become clouded in mysticism. Regardless of the cloth used, remember -- lively Gold Crowns have been around since the 60s. Those tables pretty much always played fast enough to move the cue ball around. I've yet to come across any pool footage from back to the 80s (or even earlier) that showcases slow tables.

Give it another generation or two, and old-timers will swear they had to shoot their shots uphill both ways.

 

[BasementDweller]

hows so?, the tables have never been faster
the balls have never been more polished along with magic racks to help spread them out and give even more chances to make balls on the break.
its completely different

I was thinking about how demanding the practice schedule has become to stay in world class form. Since there are so many more elite players, staying in top form is an absolute chore. I'm wading into pure opinion here, but I think previous generations had it a little easier in this department. Once they reached the upper echelon they could stay there by simply staying in constant action.

You want to compete with SVB, Filler, and now Gorst -- you better be constantly working on all aspects of your game and for hours on end EVERY SINGLE DAY!

The sport has just really matured in the past 20 years.

 

[skogstokig]

I am guilty of overlooking Mika. I think the truth is, Mika lost interest in pool fairly early in comparison to many players. Sort of like Sigel in that regard. Also, the 1 v 1 scene never seemed to appeal to him, he was definitely more of a tourney warrior.

i think what happened to mika is the same thing that happened to darren, i.e. the onslaught of young talent made them less competitive. it had darren questioning lots of things, trying out different shafts and trying to find the holy grail. i think he settled on his old 314-2.

 

[Cornerman]

I think you are blinded a bit (maybe just a touch) by your memories of Sigel's greatness. I understand this because he was the first player I ever noticed, although not up close and personal and probably more towards the end of his career -- in the early 90s. The first match I ever recall seeing on TV has stuck with me all this time. It was Sigel vs. none other than -- Danny Harriman.

The rack running comparison is just too difficult to thoroughly break-down as things have just changed way too much. So yes -- they used wooden racks, but they also would loosely rack the balls behind the 9, consistently allowing the 9 to leak towards the corner pockets, leading to early rack ending combos. I think this played a huge part in the monster runs of yesteryear. The pocket size also influenced decision making a great deal, to the point where guys played on Gold Crowns in the same fashion that David Matlock played on Valleys. Banking and caroming their way out of trouble. It's just different. As conditions got more difficult, and overall play improved, players opted to play safe much more often. So this is just not an easy question to answer and I don't think it really tells the whole story.

I would include Sigel in my list of guys who would have excelled in any era due to his drive and obvious success but he paved the way for a couple of current lefties -- Shaw and Filler who cue EVEN straighter than he ever did. In my often incorrect opinion.

It would be sort of like someone arguing that Larry Bird shot the ball better than Steph Curry while they aren't actually even in the same ballpark. Well, the bar is just constantly being raised in sports and that's just the way it is.

This is the problem. You believe I’m a touch blinded, but your memories of Sigel are in the early 90’s when he was already semi-retired! So give me the benefit of the doubt since he was stronger in the mid 80’s than he was in the early 90’s. I think your assessments are pretty good, but by your own words, you don’t know how good Sigel was.

From a speed of cloth point of view, if you don’t understand the difference in cloth speeds from the mid-80’s tournaments to early 90’s, then we have no baseline to discuss. The cloth speeds being all over the place is one of the big challenges that got solved. Again, just look at Efren playing on some YouTube videos from those years. You’d think he sucked compared to the Efren in the 90’s and 00’s. It was clearly the conditions that made his game look even better in the later years.

 

[skogstokig]

That's a great question but I wouldn't hold my breath on getting a straight answer, as the speed of yesterday's tables has become clouded in mysticism. Regardless of the cloth used, remember -- lively Gold Crowns have been around since the 60s. Those tables pretty much always played fast enough to move the cue ball around. I've yet to come across any pool footage from back to the 80s (or even earlier) that showcases slow tables.

Give it another generation or two, and old-timers will swear they had to shoot their shots uphill both ways.

another thing that makes that argument moot is that there's an entire country of contemporary world beaters still playing on these conditions. you can literally watch pinoy money matches on crappy old wonky tables with worn old cloth EVERY DAY. chickens flying around, some dude scribbling white chalk on the cloth. and raga, bañares, orcullo do not look like they would be in deep trouble against sigel. on any table.

 

[Rocket354]

I agree. I love watching old matches, but one thing that always stands out is the level of play for the tippy-top players from yester-year definitely seems a step below that of the tippy-top players of today. I am often shocked at the mistakes made, and the frequency of mistakes, in most of those old matches.

Everyone is a product of their time. So the question of how a player from 40 years ago would fare in today's game really is two different questions:

1) If you had a time machine that moved the top player as fully formed adult from 1982 (or whatever year) to today, how would they do? I think they'd be 750 fargo at best and struggle, and have to really adapt/adjust to move into the upper-echelons.

2) If that player was born 40 years later and grew up and developed in the same environment that created today's top players, how would they do? Probably be at or near the top just like they were back then.

 

[jasonlaus]

My take is that there are easily more great players today than any other era. But per my previous posts, Prime Sigel would be just fine on today’s equipment. Given his drive to be the best back then, that drive would make him one of the three elite today.

I take umbrage with people suggesting he couldn’t run the same number of racks today. My opinion is that the conditions today are much easier than in his era on a tournament-to-tournament comparison. The balls are better. The rack is better. The cushions are more consistent. And the cloth… Simonis 860 and its followers are better and easier to play on. Not to say Sigel didn’t play on Simonis, but the tour had all kinds of different cloth, yet Sigel won more than anyone by a lot.

The logical proof that Sigel wouldn’t have had problems running the same racks is looking Efren and Earl. Sigel was a better player than Efren. Better breaker. Better shotmaker. Efren didn’t have any problems when Diamonds became the norm. Earl was a better shotmaker, but Sigel was the better position player and tactician. Earl arguably was the Player of the 90’s, with all apologies to Johnny Archer.

Do I think Sigel would be the best today? I honestly do, but not by direct transportation. I based my opinion on the skills I’ve seen and his dominance over peers that didn’t retire, peers that showed that the new standard of equipment wasn’t a difficult transition. Prime Sigel would have to get good with the jump shot. Is there anything else anyone has seen (especially in this semi-finals where he BR’s.. 6 racks that he’d have to get better at?

From the instructional point of view, there are several things that instructors use from Sigel that have made into the standard book of instruction, most importantly the “Finish” in SPF.

So even if Sigel wouldn’t be the best today, he’s easily be in contention. IMO, of course.

Sigel had way too much body movement to be competitive today, frankly, he looks like an APA 4 or 5 in some of the videos I've seen due to his body movement. Can't "steer" the balls in these days son.