70s/80s Era Questions

Pawlowski424

Pawlowski424

New member
So, here's my list of questions lol:

What was the general pocket size for pro-speed tournaments?

What were table conditions like?

I've noticed players of this era (Varner, Hall, Sigel, etc) playing with steel joint. What was the belief behind forward balanced/steel joint cues?

Is the information that's available today (pocket lines, cue ball physics, navigating the table, etc. Advanced details, so to speak), the same information as back then? If not, what has changed?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Taxi said:
I only stayed in San Francisco briefly in 1969, and most of my pool playing was at Kip's in Berkeley. But I did get to the Palace long enough to get smoked by a pot bellied hippie looking guy who I later learned was the great Denny Searcy, who was maybe the greatest payball artist ever, and not a bad nine ball player, either. Most of what I remember about the Palace was its leather slop pockets and nicely maintained new cloth. There was also a bar downstairs that featured gigantic steamship round roast beef sandwiches for all of a buck. It took half an hour to get your teeth through the tough cut of meat and the Kaiser roll, but for that price you couldn't complain.
Click to expand...
How did payball work? I remember reading about it here and in "Playing Off the Rail," but I don't have a clue how it's played.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
most of the east coast payball games were rotation with try to hit your ball and no ball in hand. if you missed you might not get to the table again that rack. you got barred if it looked like you worked with a partner.
money balls changed around but frequently were 1,3,5,9,12,15. usually less than that.
ranged from 25 cents to 5 bucks depending on how good the players were and who had money.

some ring games were like 5 on the 5ball and 10 on the 9ball.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
BasementDweller said:
I did take a bit of liberty with what Bob J said, but he clearly stated he didn't have trouble back then, getting 5 rails on the up and down test. How was that possible?
Click to expand...
Cushion sometimes were explosive. It was the problem back then with so many different table conditions long before Diamond tried to make "standard specifications" based on the what the players wanted. There were fast tables back then, but the common tables were either napped cloth or at least heavy backed cloth. They were slow. I wish they hadn't been. Once Simonis became more prevalent on pool tables, this game got easier by a lot.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
BasementDweller said:
I've watched all those matches. Sorry -- that Gandy table was not that slow.


We're reaching urban legend territory.

Before you post more -- I know there are matches on slow tables out there. Just don't believe it was the norm.
Click to expand...
You're right this table isn't the slowest, but you'll never see some of today's player hitting the shots so hard. I'll try to just pick a couple obvious shots. I'm sure we can find other videos with slower.

Here's one that he's near straight in. With the pace Varner hit this ball, on today's cloth you'd way over-run into the next county. Instead he came up short by a few feet. The shot prior, Nick smoked it to stun about a couple of feet. (6908s if the link doesn't get it correct.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUJ_UW9X3pM&t=6908s
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cornerman said:
You're right this table isn't the slowest, but you'll never see some of today's player hitting the shots so hard. I'll try to just pick a couple obvious shots. I'm sure we can find other videos with slower.

Here's one that he's near straight in. With the pace Varner hit this ball, on today's cloth you'd way over-run into the next county. Instead he came up short by a few feet. The shot prior, Nick smoked it to stun about a couple of feet. (6908s if the link doesn't get it correct.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUJ_UW9X3pM&t=6908s
Click to expand...
Disagree. I don't think he hit that shot that hard. He may just have not hit quite as high on the cue ball as he was intending. So what did he do on the next shot? He hit the 9 hard AND the cue ball almost scratched after going 4 RAILS? The table just isn't slow. I played on those exact Gandy's and they were lively tables. They would spit some balls out though.

So yes the cloth was a bit slower, but I don't think the overall speed of the tables was drastically different. What they did clearly have to contend with was playing on all different types of tables, sometimes even furniture style tables. That's impressed me the most about that generation.

I actually think the game overall is more difficult on faster cloth. Yes, you may not need quite as much stroke but differences in arm speed translate to much bigger errors on the table on faster cloth. So lively rails, with grabbier cloth MAY have been easier! Playing on a different table every weekend was not.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
BasementDweller said:
I actually think the game overall is more difficult on faster cloth
Click to expand...
I don't know about you, buy I grew up in the transition from playing on slower cloth to faster cloth, from conditions all over the place to the more standardized. Faster cloth made this game immensely easier. It's not even close. Anecdotally, my local pool hall never had Simonis growing up until it did. So the tables were the same, but the cloth changed. I suddenly became someone who was multi-packing people when the week before I couldn't get a break and run but once a day. Never had to swing hard, and the balls would scatter without having to swing for the fences.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cornerman said:
I don't know about you, buy I grew up in the transition from playing on slower cloth to faster cloth, from conditions all over the place to the more standardized. Faster cloth made this game immensely easier. It's not even close. Anecdotally, my local pool hall never had Simonis growing up until it did. So the tables were the same, but the cloth changed. I suddenly became someone who was multi-packing people when the week before I couldn't get a break and run but once a day. Never had to swing hard, and the balls would scatter without having to swing for the fences.
Click to expand...

Gotta disagree.

There is nothing worse than playing on fast cloth and in fact most places wait a few weeks after new cloth has been installed to break it in, which translates to it slowing it up. I have played in events where the cloth and balls were new it is was almost impossible. You want the cloth to offer some resistance so you can gauge your position play. Good players are not going five rails for positions -- maybe two, three, and very occasionally four when they get out of line.

Faster cloth makes things tougher. I suppose if the tables you're playing on have big pockets then perhaps the faster equals easier argument holds up but for any kind of decent player, on reasonably tough equipment, you want some grab from the cloth because you're not going to be so out of line that faster cloth helps.

Lou Figueroa
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
you might be talking of too fast of cloth being tougher. normally faster cloth than the old days is certainly easier to pocket balls and get around the table without forcing your stroke which induces errors.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
lfigueroa said:
Gotta disagree.

There is nothing worse than playing on fast cloth and in fact most places wait a few weeks after new cloth has been installed to break it in, which translates to it slowing it up. I have played in events where the cloth and balls were new it is was almost impossible. You want the cloth to offer some resistance so you can gauge your position play. Good players are not going five rails for positions -- maybe two, three, and very occasionally four when they get out of line.

Faster cloth makes things tougher. I suppose if the tables you're playing on have big pockets then perhaps the faster equals easier argument holds up but for any kind of decent player, on reasonably tough equipment, you want some grab from the cloth because you're not going to be so out of line that faster cloth helps.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
You have your experience. I have mine. Games like 9-ball where cue ball movement is always going to happen, faster cloth makes that movement easier. Games like 8-ball and 14.1, getting the balls open leads to easier runs. Balls always break open easier on fast cloth. Drawing the ball is always easier on fast cloth. That’s my experience.

But hey, I’ve got my experience. You have yours.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
L.S. Dennis said:
I used to go to Palace and Cochrans during the early and mid 60's and I can tell you a huge book could have been written about Cochrans and Palace actually. Cochrans in particular had all kinds of stories that could have been written about all the things that went on there. It had its dark side that's for sure, here's just one thing that happened there:

Although I didn't see this, but if my recollection is correct a murder is what finally caused the famed 'Cochran's' pool room in San Francisco to a close in the early to mid sixties. The place had become a pretty rough place towards the end. There was an incident where someone didn't pay off his debt on some game, (it may have been a game of pink ball that was popular back then) and he was promptly dragged into the mens' bathroom where he was pummeled to the floor. An old man who was taking a leak while this happened simply looked over his should and said "yep that otta get it!"
Click to expand...
Man! That's unfortunate...However, I'm not surprised.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cornerman said:
The easier answer to the steel joint question was that the wood-to-wood joint wasnt really around in the 70’s so much. Jim McDermott popularized the wood-to-wood joint in the mid-70’s, whereas the piloted metal joint had been around decades prior. So most of the player who were top pros in the 70’s and 80’s would have grown up with metal piloted joints.

That said, Meucci( flat-faced and non-steel) and McDermott for sure had their following in the 80’s as so many top pros were playing wirh them. However, by the late 80’s, both Varner and Sigel (who had played with Meucci) were playing with Joss, and Hall (who also played with Meucci) eventually started playing with Lucasi in the early 90’s.

So all these pros didnt exactly favor steel joints.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying! It certainly seemed that they did, from my perspective. But I dont know. I did assume that it could just be the standard, at the time. Thanks!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Taxi said:
I only stayed in San Francisco briefly in 1969, and most of my pool playing was at Kip's in Berkeley. But I did get to the Palace long enough to get smoked by a pot bellied hippie looking guy who I later learned was the great Denny Searcy, who was maybe the greatest payball artist ever, and not a bad nine ball player, either. Most of what I remember about the Palace was its leather slop pockets and nicely maintained new cloth. There was also a bar downstairs that featured gigantic steamship round roast beef sandwiches for all of a buck. It took half an hour to get your teeth through the tough cut of meat and the Kaiser roll, but for that price you couldn't complain.
Click to expand...
Bay Area in the late sixties is quite a moment!..I'm gonna have to look into this, payball, game. I've heard a couple people mention it...Thanks!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
maha said:
you might be talking of too fast of cloth being tougher. normally faster cloth than the old days is certainly easier to pocket balls and get around the table without forcing your stroke which induces errors.
Click to expand...
Exactky. The OP question was about evolution of cloths from the 70’s/80’s with respect to pro tournament play, not ice skating rink Day 1 installation cloth. I had a friend who had a heated pool table with 760. Wasnt fun. But that also didn’t represent normal fast cloth.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cornerman said:
I don't know about you, buy I grew up in the transition from playing on slower cloth to faster cloth, from conditions all over the place to the more standardized. Faster cloth made this game immensely easier. It's not even close. Anecdotally, my local pool hall never had Simonis growing up until it did. So the tables were the same, but the cloth changed. I suddenly became someone who was multi-packing people when the week before I couldn't get a break and run but once a day. Never had to swing hard, and the balls would scatter without having to swing for the fences.
Click to expand...

I like bar table 8 ball. I hate Simonis on those, especially on Valleys. I would prefer a properly setup barbox with clean, fresh, Mali type cloth. That's the easiest setup for me to control the cue ball. I suspect the greats didn't have much trouble playing 14.1 (or 9 ball as the game of choice transitioned) wiith similar setups on 9 footers. The key being clean balls and LIVELY rails. Which is what we tend to see in 90 percent of the video footage.

My other experience with non-worsted cloth on tables other than bar tables would be the odd 8 foot furniture tables. I've played on maybe a dozen different ones over the years and again, didn't have much trouble moving the cue ball around.

I really think the legend of the slow cloth has grown over the years. Problem is we have a lot of video evidence that points in the opposite direction. Let's not forget about the IPT. Everyone thought things were going to be so different as they went back to a slower cloth, but it had minimal to no effect on the outcome. Maybe that's partially because they were playing 8 ball, but I suspect it was because it's just not that difficult to move the ball around on a Diamond with any type of fresh cloth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
maha said:
most of the east coast payball games were rotation with try to hit your ball and no ball in hand. if you missed you might not get to the table again that rack. you got barred if it looked like you worked with a partner.
money balls changed around but frequently were 1,3,5,9,12,15. usually less than that.
ranged from 25 cents to 5 bucks depending on how good the players were and who had money.

some ring games were like 5 on the 5ball and 10 on the 9ball.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a typical ring game but with all 15. I thought there was something different with who actually had to payout. Guess I'm just remembering it wrong.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Large
Pawlowski424 said:
So, here's my list of questions lol:

What was the general pocket size for pro-speed tournaments?

What were table conditions like?

I've noticed players of this era (Varner, Hall, Sigel, etc) playing with steel joint. What was the belief behind forward balanced/steel joint cues?

Is the information that's available today (pocket lines, cue ball physics, navigating the table, etc. Advanced details, so to speak), the same information as back then? If not, what has changed?
Click to expand...
1. Large. Lol.
2. Excellent.
3. Firmer, more consistent hit for 9 ball. Implex joints were one pocket and straight pool cues. Softer hit w more feedback, Supposedly.
Steel gave a more solid predictable hit and pocketing speed - According to a coupla 'fair' world beaters I knew.🤣
4. Today the Info is diff, Available, free and reliable. Unlike in the past, guarded and somewhat secretive, but there, nonetheless.
Material advances helped and knowledge gaps all but gone now.
My 2¢. Plain. Lo.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top