70s/80s Era Questions

[Pawlowski424]

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?

 

[Cornerman]

I didn't say he "dominated" here. That's you exaggerating my position. Efren never really dominated here on "slow" cloth or fast. He just had a long successful career REGARDLESS of the conditions he played under. I'll ask just one question: How did he have success in the IPT, with a "weak" break AND on slow cloth?

Again you would have to argue with the actual evidence and not someone's opinion. In regards to Efren, the evidence points out that the table conditions mattered very little to him winning or losing. The game didn't even matter much. He's succeeded at everything he's tried on a pool table. The idea that it's the fast cloth that made him is a horrible argument.

P.S.
The idea that Efren had a weak break was greatly exaggerated as well. He had an average break. Which is much different than having a weak one. It wasn't really until 10 Ball become a popular game -- that his break disadvantage really showed up heavily in the results.

Well, I’m not here to try to convince you since you apparently did not see it first hand, and you already have a belief. And since opinions of those that were there aren’t what you’re looking for, then there’s no reason to think any proof would change your mind. It’s similar to those that believe that professionals (and they name guys like Buddy and JL Chang) don’t use much English. And they’ll point to videos. But get in the front seat live that’s the only thing that can change their viewpoint, literally. We can’t do that today.

So, to anyone else, the cloth in the 70’s and 80’s was slower. I’m sure Glenn could make any cloth just as fast, but Glenn wasn’t at every pool hall and tournament performing magic. Steven’s and Mali were the defacto standards. The switch to Simonis made the game easier. Shockingly easier. Not a “I’m falsely reminiscing the good ol’ days” scenario. So for me personally, it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that there wasn’t a big difference.

 

[BasementDweller]

Well, I’m not here to try to convince you since you apparently did not see it first hand, and you already have a belief. And since opinions of those that were there aren’t what you’re looking for, then there’s no reason to think any proof would change your mind. It’s similar to those that believe that professionals (and they name guys like Buddy and JL Chang) don’t use much English. And they’ll point to videos. But get in the front seat live that’s the only thing that can change their viewpoint, literally. We can’t do that today.

They don't point to videos.

Your example is a perfect one. Those that claim pros don't use much English can be easily shot down by watching videos of pros! They use a lot of English and the evidence is overwhelming. You're arguing the opposite here -- Ignore the evidence and only rely on first hand accounts.

So, to anyone else, the cloth in the 70’s and 80’s was slower. I’m sure Glenn could make any cloth just as fast, but Glenn wasn’t at every pool hall and tournament performing magic. Steven’s and Mali were the defacto standards. The switch to Simonis made the game easier. Shockingly easier. Not a “I’m falsely reminiscing the good ol’ days” scenario. So for me personally, it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that there wasn’t a big difference.

Again -- I agree the cloth was slower. I don't agree that the overall speed of the tables was slow, as the overall speed has as much to do with the rails as it does the cloth. I know that's a bit subjective but that's what the video evidence tells me. Were there some slow tables in dingy old pool rooms, where their upkeep may have been suspect? Sure. Was it the standard? Not so sure. Was it the tournament standard? There's little reason to believe it was.

 

[lfigueroa]

Using Efren as an example is probably not helping your side of the argument. He literally won his very first event on U.S. soil. He also came from the Philippines (which I know you're well aware). Do you really think he wasn't familiar with and dominating the competition on "slower" tables back home? His biggest problem early on was just getting over the finish line, he wasn't having trouble going deep in tournaments.

It's not that I don't believe their accounts, it's that the archived video evidence continues to accumulate, and most of the video evidence, probably at least 9 out of 10 videos, if viewed through an objective lens, doesn't show these really slow conditions that many would like us to believe. The IPT experiment wasn't that long ago either and it just didn't prove out that the slower cloth changed things that much. Efren (see above paragraph) didn't have any trouble, and the tables didn't even really appear that slow anyway.

Some of this is probably due to the "back in my day" narrative that we can all be guilty of from time to time.


If I can find it -- I think it was CreeDo who had a great post about fast cloth years ago where he spelled out why he thought it was more difficult. I'll see if I can find it.

During the whole transition to Simonis there was the period where the players complained about things getting too fast. I think Greg Sullivan played a role in the whole transition. I think they tried 760 first and then finally settled on creating a new cloth -- 860. 860 isn't even super fast in my estimation. It all has way more to do with the rails. If the rails are super bouncy, then it doesn't really even matter what cloth is on the table. This is what we see repeatedly in old videos. The healthy tables with lively rails and the older woolen cloth appears to perform just fine. Contrast that with even more recent videos you can find of matches on slow tables. You'll sometimes see this with older Gold Crowns, that are either in need of cushion replacement or they were recently recovered and probably have the rail cloth too tight and needing to be broken in. If the cloth is fast and the rails are slow -- good luck getting the ball around the table.

Bottom line for me -- I think the older woolen "slower" cloth gets way too much focus. Video after video show fast tables pre-Simonis. So maybe, just maybe the culprit of slow tables, where they existed, was more attributable to poor cushions.

I think there's a continuum of cloth speeds to consider.

At one end you've got cloth as nappy as your grandma's favorite sweater and at the other you have cloth slicker than cat snot on linoleum (where did those analogies come from, phew?!) I think I've played on just about every variation and uber fast cloth is just flat out harder to play on -- the CB gets away from you more which is a particular problem if the pockets are tight. Add in bouncy rubber and/or new highly polished balls for more fun. With the tighter pockets you need more exact CB position and that's harder to achieve on fast cloth. That's not an issue of one guy's experience vs another's. I mean, what's next? Alternate facts, lol.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Cornerman]

I think there's a continuum of cloth speeds to consider.

At one end you've got cloth as nappy as your grandma's favorite sweater and at the other you have cloth slicker than cat snot on linoleum (where did those analogies come from, phew?!) I think I've played on just about every variation and uber fast cloth is just flat out harder to play on -- the CB gets away from you more which is a particular problem if the pockets are tight. Add in bouncy rubber and/or new highly polished balls for more fun. With the tighter pockets you need more exact CB position and that's harder to achieve on fast cloth. That's not an issue of one guy's experience vs another's. I mean, what's next? Alternate facts, lol.

Lou Figueroa

I think the fair comparison in this context is Mali/Stevens of the 80’s vs Simonis 860. I’d say all other things equal, but all other things weren’t equal. Ball cleaning and balls themselves are better in general, air conditioning is prevalent today, even lighting is better today.

 

[maha]

maybe you guys should listen to cornerman and jay. been there done that. i have also.

lou, has been around but he is basically talking super fast cloth being harder. which is certainly true as most cant control where the cue ball goes.

as in many arguments get the parameters straight.

and nowadays you dont need a big strong stroke. in the past you did. that should tell you something.

 

[maha]

efrin was better than anyone that ever lived on slower wet tables like back home. he didnt do as well as his speed because of the faster tables and conditions.
but he still played better on those tables than 95 plus % of his competition. so he placed 2nd more than first an got beat more often
as the best were in the finals with him. over time he adapted.

and he beat the best spotting them a jump cue playing ball in hand.

 

[BasementDweller]

maybe you guys should listen to cornerman and jay. been there done that. i have also.

Their accounts should be considered as evidence and they shouldn't be discounted. I've heard these stories for about 30 years now. So it has taken me a long time to come to the conclusion that maybe things weren't EXACTLY how we remembered them.

lou, has been around but he is basically talking super fast cloth being harder. which is certainly true as most cant control where the cue ball goes.

True

as in many arguments get the parameters straight.

I'll try.

and nowadays you dont need a big strong stroke. in the past you did. that should tell you something.

This has been greatly exaggerated too. Do you think Irving Crane had a stronger stroke than SVB? Or Lassister's was more powerful than Bustamante's? I don't. I mean the greatest stroke that everyone points to between the 14.1 and 9 Ball eras was Strickland's and I actually would take Shane's stroke over his. The powerful stroke is still needed it's just not called upon as much.

efrin was better than anyone that ever lived on slower wet tables like back home. he didnt do as well as his speed because of the faster tables and conditions.
but he still played better on those tables than 95 plus % of his competition. so he placed 2nd more than first an got beat more often
as the best were in the finals with him. over time he adapted.

Now you're arguing my side. Check those parameters.

and he beat the best spotting them a jump cue playing ball in hand.

He was something to watch.

 

[pt109]

And then you ran across the odd person who either by ignorance or design, sometimes it might not be clear,
would put absolutely the wrong cloth on a table. Like the fella I met one time with Simonis 300 (3 cushion cloth)
on his Olhausen 8ft home table.
Imagine playing on a formica counter top, the balls skated around like it was an air hockey table, and he had
one of those too.

I played 9-ball on carom cloth in the late 60s at Baker’s in Tampa….I thought it was wonderful…I could do things that were impossible on slow cloth…..that’s the grudge I have against slow cloth….lotta shots don’t exist for ANYBODY.

When Gil Elias owned the Rack in Detroit in the golden years, we were playing on Granito carom cloth.

 

[jay helfert]

Your description of both places is spot on. I remember Palace as bring a safe place to be for the most part. They had a cue repair shot on premises, nice railbird seating all around so you could watch all the games going on. I remember watching Joe Bachelor running racks of straight pool with his wonderful position play.

Cochrans on the other hand was another story as you point out. The few times I went there there was always a feeling of uneasiness in that place. It's no wonder it ended up closing the way it did.

That upstairs room sat empty from the time of its closing until Tony Annigoni got some investors together to bring that place back to life in the early 90's as The Q Club (which later became Hollywood Billiards before finally closing again this time for good). Tony did a wonderful job in setting the place up and retuning it to its former glory even refurbishing the old cue lockers that were still there and proudly displaying J.T.S. Brown behind the beautiful refinished mahogany bar, the place was beautiful. But alas what worked in the 50's no longer worked in the 90's as there was no safe parking in that bad Tenderloin area and you never knew what to expect on the street below after that walk down those stairs. What a shame!

The interesting thing was they were only a block or two apart on opposite sides of Market street. It was easy to walk from one to the other, just keep a lookout for muggers. I think they stayed away from guys like me carrying cue sticks. Maybe we looked imposing or better yet, armed! I don't remember hearing too much about anyone getting robbed out there. Mostly pool players shared stories of what they saw on Market street; muggings, knifings and other skirmishes. The police seemed few and far between, mostly giving tickets in the daytime.

 

[jay helfert]

Okay, I will chime in again here. The game of pool, especially 9-Ball, changed dramatically in the 1980s. For two good reasons and they happened almost concurrently. Number one, we changed the rules of 9-Ball to Texas Express. The skill set changed with it. Shoot-out pool was an entirely different game than Texas Express. You could escape any safety with a roll out, but then you were often forced to shoot a very difficult cut shot or bank. Number two, the cloth was changed to erstwhile billiard cloth, Simoniz and Granito. A simple tap would send the cue ball scooting along, and the trick was learning how to slow roll everything. The stop shot and variations of it became the most important shot in pool. It went from a shooters game to a game of duck and cover in an attempt to get BIH. That brought on the need for and advent of the Jump cue. Now we found a new way to escape predicaments.

For these reasons it is hard to compare the players of the pre 80's with the current crop of champions. If you could magically transport Gorst and Filler back to 1980, they would have to relearn the game and how to play and win. No doubt there would be a learning curve for them. By the same token if you brought Lassiter, Cornbread or Greg Stevens in their primes to today's game they would be baffled for awhile. The top Filipinos made the adjustments better than anyone else, because that's what they do! Ever since Efren, Parica and Luat first graced these shores, their countrymen have been cleaning our collective clocks! Dennis had an illustrious fifteen year career here, playing mostly in games he had never played before arriving on these shores! He had only played a smattering of 9-Ball because most money games in the Philippines were either Rotation or Ten Ball. He had to learn One Pocket, Banks and Straight Pool. Plus there are no bar tables in the PI. On his first trip here in 2007 he won two of the three bar table tourneys he played in. His English was limited, but when he was handed his first place money in the U.S. Bar Table, I congratulated him and asked how he liked playing in the U.S. He laughed and said, "I never miss on this table!" And he didn't either for the next fifteen years!

P.S. I changed my post to remove Sigel and Varner and replace them with Cornbread and Stevens. The first two did play in the modern era for a period of time in the late 80's and early 90's (Varner longer). The latter two were great players from the pre 80's days, although Cornbread continued playing money games through the 90's.

 

[maha]

the ones that tend to adapt the best, are the players that play all games or more games than one.

when parica first got here he came in the pool room with his backers and unlucky for him dan louie was there.
they covered all bets but not many bet enough so i was able to get 500 on dan. of course he ran right through him as he wasnt used to our conditions at the time. later on he lost to no one going across the country.

 

[trob]

A common pocket size back then was 4 3/4", but to make a true comparison to today, you need to take into account that in the 1970's they were still playing on the old nappy cloth and the balls had to be hit harder to get around the table.

No idea about steel joints.

Much more information is available today than back then. Even ignoring the wealth of information now offered on the internet, there weren't many books on pool back then. Back in the day, diagramming/illustrating a shot was hard work, but today it's very easy and putting shots on video is also very easy. The tools of the instruction trade have come a long way.

Perhaps the biggest difference is knowledge of the 9ball break, which was not very developed back then. Position play was more instinctive until Buddy Hall's clock system changed the way most players thought about position play over forty years ago.

... and let's not forget that until the late 1980s, old matches between the legends of the game could not be studied. Accu-stats changed the world and this generation can learn from the last.

The clock position buddy hall video on you tube i watched 10 years a go made me 2 balls better I swear. Thats a life changer..

I’m not sure about the metal joints. I know I played with them for a long time but now think they are terrible.

Like he said pockets were big but you really had to pound balls back then. You couldn’t finesse balls around the table like you can now. fast cloth and red circle cue balls changed everything including bar pool

In the 80’s there were a few books that were must read Robert byrnes was my favorite but the little secrets of the game the old men hold onto like their balls lol you had to really get them to like and them see you working hard to get those secrets. Now you just get on you tube and all that info is readily available.

 

[maha]

that said by trob who is a high level player who has been around.

 

[Pawlowski424]

Six balls on a Snooker table, numbered 2-7 (snooker balls). It was a Ring game with anywhere from three to six players. Every ball was a money ball and the seven paid double. A big game was 10 and 20, ten dollars a ball and twenty on the seven. When you made a money ball everyone paid you and if you ran out they all paid double!

So in a five handed 10-20 game every ball was worth $40 and the seven was worth $80. A run out (2-7) was worth $480! $120 per player ($60 doubled for the run out to $120, times four players). Denny Searcy won over $25,000 two years in a row in Dayton! He pretty much busted everybody.

Thanks for explaining!

 

[maha]

jay knows he has been everywhere.

i dont remember many places that had a snooker table except older ones that had a crew that liked to play golf on it.
mostly in california.
and now billiard tables are going away as well as the extinct ten foot pool tables which were perfect for one pocket.

as seen from the league players the next generation will do away with most of the nine foot tables.
dinosaurs disappear and rabbits flourish.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Six balls on a Snooker table, numbered 2-7 (snooker balls). It was a Ring game with anywhere from three to six players. Every ball was a money ball and the seven paid double. A big game was 10 and 20, ten dollars a ball and twenty on the seven. When you made a money ball everyone paid you and if you ran out they all paid double!
...

The game I saw that had those same rules was called "pink ball" because red through pink were used. I never saw yellow through black (2-7) played.

 

[book collector]

I wonder how pool would have continued, if it had not been for the resurgence in bar table play in the Busch League?
It was dying pretty quickly by the mid 70s. Towns that once had 15 pool rooms had 3 and towns that used to have 5 , might have 1 or 0.

 

[BasementDweller]

I wonder how pool would have continued, if it had not been for the resurgence in bar table play in the Busch League?
It was dying pretty quickly by the mid 70s. Towns that once had 15 pool rooms had 3 and towns that used to have 5 , might have 1 or 0.

That's a great point. As much weeping and gnashing of teeth that goes on in regards to bar table play, it's quite humorous to think that barbox pool may have kept the game alive through the lean years.

 

[jay helfert]

The game I saw that had those same rules was called "pink ball" because red through pink were used. I never saw yellow through black (2-7) played.

Same game played with different balls is all. Five reds and the pink six ball, or 2-7 snooker balls. I've seen it played both ways.
By the way this game was (and is) played on the American sized snooker table, 5'x10' and not the European 6'x12' table. Another difference in these tables that not everyone is aware of is the height difference. The American version's playing surface is typically right around 30" high (same as a pool table) and the Euro table's playing surface is closer to 32" high. Sounds small but that's a huge difference!

 

[Poolhall60561]

Maybe with that 32 inch high table I will finally be able to get down on that stick.