Pocket Billiards / Golf raising the bar

alphadog

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So this talk about "monster" players has me reflecting on history. In modern golf you had Nicklaus,Palmer , Player. The field learned they had to play better to equal those guys.

Pool had Mosconi ,Earl ,Efren SVB. The others saw what is possible and have definitely raised their games to be competitive.

Going back to golf Tiger raised the bar to a unbelievable level but that also has been equaled. The courses had to be changed to tame the Tiger , not unlike tighter pockets in pool.
 
I agree that there are many similarities, but I don't feel that anyone has equalled Tiger yet. There's not one player that has dominated on tour for a prolonged period of time, however they are all certainly capable of having an amazing 4 rounds.

He made everyone become physically fit and longer off the tee, similarly Shane's break and Corey's creativity forced everyone to greatly step it up.

I feel that we have a new level of pool being achieved right now from the dominant performances of the Philippines and Europeans. If you want to win, you need every aspect of your game dialed in.

I also feel that this wave is being generated from the easy access of information we have at our fingertips. You can learn all the best techniques, positional patterns, safety plays, etc by watching YouTube. In the days of yesteryear, you had to figure all that out on the fly.
 
I agree that there are many similarities, but I don't feel that anyone has equalled Tiger yet. There's not one player that has dominated on tour for a prolonged period of time, however they are all certainly capable of having an amazing 4 rounds.

He made everyone become physically fit and longer off the tee, similarly Shane's break and Corey's creativity forced everyone to greatly step it up.

I feel that we have a new level of pool being achieved right now from the dominant performances of the Philippines and Europeans. If you want to win, you need every aspect of your game dialed in.

I also feel that this wave is being generated from the easy access of information we have at our fingertips. You can learn all the best techniques, positional patterns, safety plays, etc by watching YouTube. In the days of yesteryear, you had to figure all that out on the fly.
Yes, well said.

There's nobody in any sport that has equaled Tiger Woods. The years 1999 - 2010 consisted of 624 weeks. Tiger was ranked #1 for 545 of those weeks. Tiger is the athlete of the century in sports.

He's in rarefied air with the likes of Gretzky and Edwin Moses.

Gretzky entered the National Hockey League when the scoring record was 152 points in a season and exceeded that number in seven of his first eight seasons.

Edwin Moses, the 400meter hurdler, went ten years, from 1977-87, without losing a final.

Few sports have an athlete that's even in the conversation with Tiger. Pool, certainly, hasn't ever had one, with only Mosconi deserving of any consideration at all.
 
Last edited:
Yes, well said.

There's nobody in any sport that has equaled Tiger Woods. The years 1999 - 2010 consisted of 624 weeks. Tiger was ranked #1 for 545 of those weeks. Tiger is the athlete of the century in sports.

He's in rarefied air with the like of Gretzky and Edwin Moses.

Gretzky entered the National Hockey Leage when the scoring record was 152 points in a season and exceeded that number in seven of his first eight seasons.

Edwin Moses, the 400meter hurdler, went ten years, from 1977-87, without losing a final.

Few sports have an athlete that's even in the conversation with Tiger. Pool, certainly, hasn't ever had one, with only Mosconi deserving of any consideration at all.
Your right, but you'll have to add Serena Williams as she has dominated womens tennis and still might have one or two more majors in her.

I think SVB should be mentioned in that rarefied too. He has dominated Pool in the USA ever since he showed up and has been just as impressive around the world.
 
As a huge fan of the Williams sisters I can't declare Serena had "monster" status. Venus was better and pushed Serena to become the best.
 
Your right, but you'll have to add Serena Williams as she has dominated womens tennis and still might have one or two more majors in her.

I think SVB should be mentioned in that rarefied too. He has dominated Pool in the USA ever since he showed up and has been just as impressive around the world.
It's in the eye of the beholder.

Serena is certainly worthy of consideration. So is Steffi Graf, who won 20 tennis majors of the 36 majors contested from 1988-96,

Don't agree on Shane. Actually, Shane's relatively poor results in overseas play was a common conversation topic on AZB for many years. He's an all-time great, but I'm looking for those that were by far the best in their sport by a lot for an extended period of time. In pool, only Mosconi seems to fit, but to me even he falls short.

Thaks for sharing your views.
 
So this talk about "monster" players has me reflecting on history. In modern golf you had Nicklaus,Palmer , Player. The field learned they had to play better to equal those guys.

Pool had Mosconi ,Earl ,Efren SVB. The others saw what is possible and have definitely raised their games to be competitive.

Going back to golf Tiger raised the bar to a unbelievable level but that also has been equaled. The courses had to be changed to tame the Tiger , not unlike tighter pockets in pool.
Tiger raised the bar to be sure, but I don’t think it has been equaled. Nicklaus ranks well ahead of Palmer IMO, but Palmer’s popularity and the overlap of their careers in the ‘60’s created a great rivalry. The famous ‘60 US Open with Hogan, Palmer, and Nicklaus coming from different eras was a very interesting moment. I have to disagree a bit on the equipment issue, although I think the failure to regulate the equipment hurt Tiger. And Tiger said this. It will get back to tight pockets in the end.

The beginning of Tiger’s career coincided with the golf ball revolution. When the good solid core balls came out it was a game changer. Pros switched over to the Pro V1 very quickly. Tiger was on top when that ball came out. But his driver was 260 cc for 4 more years. The combination of the ball and big drivers changed things. Seemingly everybody could see it except the USGA and R&A. Maybe they saw it but didn’t want to be sued like the Ping square groove situation. There have always been exceptionally long hitters and hitting it long is an advantage. But it wasn’t the only thing. Google Mike Dunaway if you haven’t heard of him. John Daly was the second longest hitter from Arkansas. But Daly was a way better player. I got to see Dunaway hit balls one day at the Tropicana in Las Vegas. Persimmon driver. His left heel didn’t come up. 400 on his good ones. Anyway, by 2005 courses were being changed.

The problem in golf is that the most expensive piece of equipment is the course. Aside from a tee, the ball is cheap and people have to buy them all the time anyway. So you would think changing the ball is a no- brainer. But instead very expensive real estate was purchased, holes were extended, it took longer to play, and some courses were considered obsolete. Dumb IMO. I am not an engineer, but it seemed to me that limiting the size of the driver head and tweaking the ball before 2010 or so would have balanced things out some. If players couldn’t go at it 100% with no risk distance would be limited more naturally. As it had been in the persimmon and balata era. Nicklaus hit it long. So did Snead, Hogan, etc... But not everyone could do that. When courses were changed it changed some of the strategy and wasn’t as interesting. Bomb and gouge became a thing. Even Augusta made changes that went against the character of the course. And lo and behold guys were laying up more on the par 5s and it wasn’t as exciting. Augusta went away from that approach but did buy some land from their neighbor Augusta CC.

In the end if courses stayed closer to what they were, drivers were limited to 260-280 cc and the solid core balls were limited just a little, the game would be more balanced and Tiger would have won more IMO. The Corey Pavins and Calvin Peetes would have stood a chance, but Tiger would actually have a bigger advantage IMO. Because he is truly great.

Back to pool. Tight pockets are OK for pros, but IMO watch that you don’t ruin the game. Pool is not snooker. Letting players shoot, cheat pockets, move the cue ball is part of it. Also, in day to day play the table used in a pro tournament gets used by amateurs. Same in golf, but the am doesn’t really play the same course, aside from just playing it 1200 yards shorter. The condition of a course used for a pro event generally can’t be maintained long. The greens are hard as concrete on the brink of death sometimes. I don’t go to many events but in the last few years I went to a Korn Ferry event. Wanted to see Hovland and some of the new players. The greens were unbelievable. Hearing the balls hit was something. On a reachable par 5 I saw how they basically couldn’t hold the green. One guy I saw managed it. You haven’t heard of him probably. Anyway, come Monday the superintendent better get some water on them. So yes, the pros need conditions that are tough to separate the field some. Let the best show why they are the best. But watch that you don’t go overboard. In pool If you go too far you will make the game all defense and the best shot makers won’t be as far ahead of the average. That’s IMO. But some how some way the best seem to make it deep in tournaments with short races or long, 5” Murray pockets or 4 1/8 Diamond pockets etc... Be reasonable, the game can protect itself.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but part of being "the GOAT" has to include a longevity piece. Tiger was phenomenal, but his star fizzled early. The fact that much of it was health related doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Couple that with 15 majors versus 18 for Jack and it's still Jack by a nose.

Prove me wrong Tiger and come on back and start winning again. We'd all love to see that!
 
You make some great points about golf courses. I have played some nice courses and can attest to a world of difference between the white tees and the tips.

Your points about pool shrinking pockets changing the game in a negative way I agree with. I will add that 5" pockets only belong in fun houses. Watch better players and they still fire balls in while cheating the pockets on 4" pockets. Me not so much.
 
Sorry, but part of being "the GOAT" has to include a longevity piece. Tiger was phenomenal, but his star fizzled early. The fact that much of it was health related doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Couple that with 15 majors versus 18 for Jack and it's still Jack by a nose.

Prove me wrong Tiger and come on back and start winning again. We'd all love to see that!
Courses got changed to lessen Tigers ability to dominate or he would have 20+ majors.
 
Tiger raised the bar to be sure, but I don’t think it has been equaled. Nicklaus ranks well ahead of Palmer IMO, but Palmer’s popularity and the overlap of their careers in the ‘60’s created a great rivalry. The famous ‘60 US Open with Hogan, Palmer, and Nicklaus coming from different eras was a very interesting moment. I have to disagree a bit on the equipment issue, although I think the failure to regulate the equipment hurt Tiger. And Tiger said this. It will get back to tight pockets in the end.

The beginning of Tiger’s career coincided with the golf ball revolution. When the good solid core balls came out it was a game changer. Pros switched over to the Pro V1 very quickly. Tiger was on top when that ball came out. But his driver was 260 cc for 4 more years. The combination of the ball and big drivers changed things. Seemingly everybody could see it except the USGA and R&A. Maybe they saw it but didn’t want to be sued like the Ping square groove situation. There have always been exceptionally long hitters and hitting it long is an advantage. But it wasn’t the only thing. Google Mike Dunaway if you haven’t heard of him. John Daly was the second longest hitter from Arkansas. But Daly was a way better player. I got to see Dunaway hit balls one day at the Tropicana in Las Vegas. Persimmon driver. His left heel didn’t come up. 400 on his good ones. Anyway, by 2005 courses were being changed.

The problem in golf is that the most expensive piece of equipment is the course. Aside from a tee, the ball is cheap and people have to buy them all the time anyway. So you would think changing the ball is a no- brainer. But instead very expensive real estate was purchased, holes were extended, it took longer to play, and some courses were considered obsolete. Dumb IMO. I am not an engineer, but it seemed to me that limiting the size of the driver head and tweaking the ball before 2010 or so would have balanced things out some. If players couldn’t go at it 100% with no risk distance would be limited more naturally. As it had been in the persimmon and balata era. Nicklaus hit it long. So did Snead, Hogan, etc... But not everyone could do that. When courses were changed it changed some of the strategy and wasn’t as interesting. Bomb and gouge became a thing. Even Augusta made changes that went against the character of the course. And lo and behold guys were laying up more on the par 5s and it wasn’t as exciting. Augusta went away from that approach but did buy some land from their neighbor Augusta CC.

In the end if courses stayed closer to what they were, drivers were limited to 260-280 cc and the solid core balls were limited just a little, the game would be more balanced and Tiger would have won more IMO. The Corey Pavins and Calvin Peetes would have stood a chance, but Tiger would actually have a bigger advantage IMO. Because he is truly great.

Back to pool. Tight pockets are OK for pros, but IMO watch that you don’t ruin the game. Pool is not snooker. Letting players shoot, cheat pockets, move the cue ball is part of it. Also, in day to day play the table used in a pro tournament gets used by amateurs. Same in golf, but the am doesn’t really play the same course, aside from just playing it 1200 yards shorter. The condition of a course used for a pro event generally can’t be maintained long. The greens are hard as concrete on the brink of death sometimes. I don’t go to many events but in the last few years I went to a Korn Ferry event. Wanted to see Hovland and some of the new players. The greens were unbelievable. Hearing the balls hit was something. On a reachable par 5 I saw how they basically couldn’t hold the green. One guy I saw managed it. You haven’t heard of him probably. Anyway, come Monday the superintendent better get some water on them. So yes, the pros need conditions that are tough to separate the field some. Let the best show why they are the best. But watch that you don’t go overboard. In pool If you go too far you will make the game all defense and the best shot makers won’t be as far ahead of the average. That’s IMO. But some how some way the best seem to make it deep in tournaments with short races or long, 5” Murray pockets or 4 1/8 Diamond pockets etc... Be reasonable, the game can protect itself.
Thanks for a well-reasoned and well-presented post. It made for a nice read.
 
Courses got changed to lessen Tigers ability to dominate or he would have 20+ majors.

Not so much Tiger as the corresponding change in technology.

Several years ago they were talking about course length versus the driver. Tiger made the comment that when he came on tour the "big carry" was 285 yards. After 10 years on tour he said it was now 315 yards. That was several years ago. Last year 93 PGA tour pros averaged over 300 yards with the driver…

Now, at 65 years old, I hit my driver further than I did when I was 30.

Imagine what Jack would've done if he hadn't been playing with persimmon woods and balata balls…

But, as they say, if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses when they jumped… 😁
 
You make some great points about golf courses. I have played some nice courses and can attest to a world of difference between the white tees and the tips.

Your points about pool shrinking pockets changing the game in a negative way I agree with. I will add that 5" pockets only belong in fun houses. Watch better players and they still fire balls in while cheating the pockets on 4" pockets. Me not so much.
I played Harding Park on a cool San Francisco morning from the whites. I can’t blame the rental clubs either. We got to 18 and I hit a pretty good drive for me. As we were walking up the fairway one of the guys I was playing with pointed out the tee that the pros used when they played an event there. I think it was a WGC event. I could barely see it it seemed so far back. Then I hit a fairway wood in the front bunker. I was happy, long par 4, cool day at sea level. I’m a short hitter. Then the guy showed me where Daly landed his drive on the hole from the tee I could barely see. Time to quit golf. At least in pool I can reach the pockets.
 
Sorry, but part of being "the GOAT" has to include a longevity piece. Tiger was phenomenal, but his star fizzled early. The fact that much of it was health related doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Couple that with 15 majors versus 18 for Jack and it's still Jack by a nose.

Prove me wrong Tiger and come on back and start winning again. We'd all love to see that!
I think Tiger’s longevity wasn’t bad. He won the Masters in 2019 at 43. Nicklaus did it at 46. Look at guys who never won a major past 35. Palmer. Watson. I think they were 34 at their last major. Tiger arguably hurt himself with how he trained - hard running and stuff. Maybe it was his swing. His leg injuries hurt him. His personal life had to hurt him. Nicklaus said well before things went bad for Tiger that only injuries or a bad marriage could stop him. Prophetic. The car wreck was the end IMO. If he can have a decent life and play the father-son with Charlie he is doing well. If he contends in a major it will be something.

Phil winning a major past 50 was amazing. Watson in the Open playoff at 59 was crazy. If he won at 59- 25 years after his last major? I think there is something to the courses, Open links course and Augusta are good and show why you don’t want to change them too much. It is hard enough to win at 34, but courses where the old guys can contend with the youngsters are healthy for the game.

Anyway, I too am a Nicklaus fan. His majors put him as the greatest probably. I admire who he is and how he went about things. I don’t view Tiger the same way. But in some ways I think he was better. If it makes sense Nicklaus is the greatest but Tiger the best. Is that crazy? Tiger’s 2008 US Open was great. Physical toughness and the peak of mental toughness. The shots and putts he made to tie.... on a broken leg basically.
 
Back
Top