Seeking Input: Archer ‘93 vs. Today
- Thread starter Callaghan
- Start date
8intheside
Well-known member
I agree!
From these comments, it seems you are relatively new to the pool scene. He is certainly the best American player of this generation, a deserving hall of famer and an all-time great, but ...
... at best, he's the fourth best ever American, behind Greenleaf, Mosconi and Sigel, all of whom rate behind Efren Reyes. So, no, he's not top five of all time. Possibly top ten, but not definitely. Don't leave out names like Earl Strickland, Nick Varner, Luther Lassiter, Harold Worst, Willie Hoppe and Irving Crane when you put together your top ten list.
Rest assured, I feel honored to have seen SVBs career up close and personal from its very beginning, and I have limitless respect for his accomplishments, but there are many that were much more successful in winning world championships than him.
8intheside
Well-known member
Actually I’m not new to the “pool scene” I’ve been following professional pool since 1994. Greenleaf and Mosconi, couldn’t beat Shane in any long race in any rotation games, and that goes for crane also. Sigel, varner, worst, Lassiter, id day would give Shane fits since they were proficient in many pool disciplines. Hoppe played billiards, and as dominating as he was he didn’t play pool did he? Let me clear. My opnion on who’s better is the player who’s won championships in several pool disciplines., not the guy who has many in one.
,
,
Last edited:
Good post. Agreed that Hoppe should have been omitted,
If you consider all-around cueing, Worst always tops Reyes as a legend in both pool and 3-cushion.
What does the speed of the straight pool legends at 9ball have to do with anything? SVB couldn't beat them at straight pool either.
One thing most of us agree on is that a player must be judged against his contemporaries, and the greatest measure of a player is how many world championships they won in their career. For SVB, his very first came in 2022 at age 38 and he has just two. Earl, Sigel, Lassiter, Varner, Greenleaf, and Mosconi all had more. Even Gorst and Filler already have two, and they are in their mid-20s.
As you rightly point out, it is all in the eye of the beholder, and SVB is, by every account, an all-time great with a legendary resume. We are all lucky to have seen Shane's career up close and I cannot overstate how honored I felt to attend his hall of fame induction.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Wherever one rates Shane, he has achieved immortality in our sport.
8intheside
Well-known member
Cicerone88
Active member
This video does a good job putting into perspective the dominance of Shane. Pretty cool.
All-around play had almost no relevance to the days of Mosconi, Crane and Greenleaf. 9ball was barely played before Johnston City. which began in the early 1960s, and it wasn't the primary competitive game until the early 1980s. Are you really going to put a blot on the records of Greenleaf, Mosconi and Crane because they played in an era in which straight pool was, to a large extent, the only tournament game?
Yes, today there are more tournaments across the disciplines, and yet in Europe, most players have never even heard of bank pool and few have ever tried one pocket, both of which are important fringe games in the United States.
Are we to dismiss European players from GOAT discussions because, for the most part, they only play straight pool and rotation pool or should we take note that the majority of the top 100 players based on Fargo are from Europe? Six of the last ten World 9ball champions are European-born. The American 14.1 has had ten consecutive European-born champions.
You are entitled to your opinion, but your inclination to summarily dismiss from GOAT discussions those who restricted themselves to the games that prevailed in their respective times and places is ridiculous. I feel that players must be judged by the challenges they faced in their careers and how well they met them, not by their performance across today's more varied set of games contested.
8intheside
Well-known member
I’m fully aware of 14.1 being the main game and decider of world championships back in the day, and I’m not taking anything away from the legends of the game, however pool has many disciplines and I’m not going to crown Ralph greenleaf the Goat just because he has 19 straight pool titles. I will say he’s arguably the best 14.1 player off all time though. Let me ask you this Question, if they brought Greenleaf back to life and him and Shane played a race to 120 in 8,9,10 ball, one pocket who would your money be on?
Nobody denies that the standard has risen continuously since the days of Greenleaf, so what difference does your question make?
As so often noted on this forum and in this thread, a player can only be judged by his performance against his/her contemporaries. You really seem to be struggling with this idea.
I think if you had a Time Machine and brought the greats either forwards or backwards, had them acclimate to the equipment of the period for a year, it would be a pickem.
Switching games might take a little longer. For example 14.1 vs 9 ball.
The biggest switch would be disciplines, such as pool vs snooker vs carom. We’ve seen in modern times no player has made that transition in either direction. (To the top level). The only exception has been the women snooker players, but that’s because they were head and shoulders above the pool players of their era in cuing ability.
What major difference we would see is we could assemble 10 player’s Shane’s speed today, but probably only 1 from each of the older generations.
Switching games might take a little longer. For example 14.1 vs 9 ball.
The biggest switch would be disciplines, such as pool vs snooker vs carom. We’ve seen in modern times no player has made that transition in either direction. (To the top level). The only exception has been the women snooker players, but that’s because they were head and shoulders above the pool players of their era in cuing ability.
What major difference we would see is we could assemble 10 player’s Shane’s speed today, but probably only 1 from each of the older generations.
8intheside
Well-known member
As much as I love Earl and not so much archer I have to admit the level of play now is head and shoulders above what it was then in terms of the number of top level players. If you brought archer and Earl in their prime forward in to the future could they compete? Absolutely.. but they wouldn’t dominate. It’s a truly international sport now with players getting solid training early in life. What sets the older players apart was their ability to gain knowledge in a pre internet world where you only learned by experience or if a better player took you under their wing.
Time travel doesn't work and suggesting it's easy is comical. No, it's hard.
For the same reason I wouldn't think about how Shane would have done at straight pool on the ten-footer on slow cloth, I am not very interested in how Greenleaf would have done in today's game. But given all the advantages available to players of the modern era and time to acclimate to the conditions, Greenleaf, a winner of 19 world championships when there was just one world title available each year (not three like today) would, in my opinion, have won easily over Shane, whose record in world championship play falls far short of what one would expect of an all-time great.
As I've said, the level has risen. The players of yesteryear, playing at the speed they played at back then, generally speaking, could not stay with the great sharpshooters of today. There might be fifty, even one hundred, today who shoot as straight as the superstars of 1940-1960. Yes, we are watching the best cueists that ever played pool right now, but greatness is measured in major titles, and when it comes to GOAT discussions, especially world championships.
8intheside
Well-known member
I agree with you
if we could bring him back now it would make the great egyptian pyramids look like a big waste of time