St. Louis Louie vs. Archer 1990

sjm said:
On board with this to a point. I reckon that guys like Hall, Rempe, Appleton and Souquet had a cue ball that was comparable to today's best. Still, the general standard in pattern play has definitely risen quite a bit since the days of old.
Click to expand...
I think the break has gotten so much better too. They study it so much. It’s science vs. smash and hope.
 
Nick8400 said:
I think the break has gotten so much better too. They study it so much. It’s science vs. smash and hope.
Click to expand...
Very true, although the break used in WNT play is pretty tough, as the final position of the cue ball is very hard to predict.
 
sjm said:
This is certainly a thoughtful and well-presented post, but I'd suggest that the level of play was raised more from 2015-25 than from 1980-2015, and advances in equipment has almost
nothing to do with it. The cues and tables were just as good ten years ago as today.

As you've rightly pointed out, the biggest change is how many more players there are. The globalization of the game over the past ten years has given rise to a Fargo Top 50 that includes at least one player from each of Iraq, Spain, Singapore, Albania, Poland, Vietnam, Bosnia, Hungary, Hong Kong, and Lithuania. Today's top players shoot at a much higher level than their counterparts of ten years ago.

When the IPT came along in 2006, all living hall of famers, many of whom still played at a very high level, were invited to the first full-field event, the IPT Las Vegas tournament. Mike Sigel predicted that the hall of famers, because of their high comfort level with the nappy cloth that was being used by the IPT, would thrive. This must go down as one of the worst predictions in the history of our sport, as the younger players easily adjusted to the conditions of yesteryear and not even one old-timer made a deep run. I am not buying any suggestion that this generation would have had any trouble with the old nappy conditions.

Just ten years ago, 4 1/2" pockets were the norm in top pro competition. The pockets are much tighter now because the standard of play has risen to a level most of us never imagined possible. One reason is that today's players have training resources available to them that were unavailable to the last generation.

Still, where you are undeniably right is in suggesting that one cannot fairly compare players across generations. Each player must be measured against his/her contemporaries. There is no way to fairly compare a Lassiter to a Mizerak to a Sigel to a Van Boening to a Filler. All we can say of each is that their performance against their contemporaries was phenomenal.

In short, we agree but we also disagree.
Click to expand...
Just like in 3C the equipment now days is a big element of play advancing to high levels more quickly.

JMPO.
 
T411 said:
For the most part I won’t argue about the amount of players that can shoot as well as anyone ever has… and why. I tend to agree. But I’d argue overall that the past generation of players knew how to move around the table a little better because there were no jump cues and because of rule changes. Some of these young kids shoot so damn well though it’s hard to exploit this even if it is a weakness.
Click to expand...
sjm said:
On board with this to a point. I reckon that guys like Hall, Rempe, Appleton and Souquet had a cue ball that was comparable to today's best. Still, the general standard in pattern play has definitely risen quite a bit since the days of old.
Click to expand...
Rule changes as in how the balls are racked which totally benefits the “illusion” of better pattern play, roll out, & and the advent of jump cues IMO make it very difficult to compare past generations. These rule changes changed the game… beyond incredible shot making and getting shape, strategy is not as a huge part of the game of 9 ball anymore. Can you out think your opponent and use your knowledge if even you have it, it’s not on display. Again this is why I can’t compare the generations.

Rule changes have made superstars out of some of today’s NBA players that would not have been in yesterday’s game and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
Taxi said:
He was, but Buddy still could give him the 7 and come away with the $$$$.
Click to expand...
Buddy had his number. That's for sure. He knew exactly how to beat Louie. I watched him do the exact same thing twice, but Louie never caught on. Or just didn't care. He loved and lived to play.
 
Tha
middleofnowhere said:
Sadly about a year later after that match Louie would be dead.I Played Louie in a tournament just a few years before that and he was so messed up I asked Grady who was running the tournament should we just play later? Grady just looked at me and said go ahead and play he's not going to be any better. I beat him like 11 to 4. I felt pretty sad because I had seen him play when he probably played his best he would have given me the six or more.
Click to expand...
that was the downside to it all.
 
Island Drive said:
Ardel Lasseur (spelling?) was the top player in St. Louis till Roberts got above his level.
Louie & I.... We're both Midwest boys he's a couple yrs older that me, I got to see em play allot.
The older St. Louis man.... might of been called Blackie Lasseur (NOT Lassiter) in his day?, never heard much about em, cept he was from the depression era of shooters, fit for survival.
Click to expand...
Ardrel was strong shortstop. Lou might know something I don't tho.
 
It
sjm said:
Well said. Still, while our compassion for those that have suffered must be genuine and unswerving, we ARE on earth to learn from those who have made choices that have compromised their futures.
Click to expand...
Sad to watch a person with genius ability in any sport or game slowly destroy that in a slow downward spiral.
 
middleofnowhere said:
I think the players from years ago could play with today's players assuming they adapted to modern style of play. I don't think it is a matter of less talent. Old time players were mostly gamblers and played different because they didn't value any one game or set that much.

Tournament play is sudden death and you can't just throw away a game. Completely different mind set. Watch Ronnie Allen for example shoot some crazy one pocket shot and you think he was nuts. He is not nuts, no one is going anywhere. They are going to play till there is a winner and it may take all night or even multiple session over a few days.

People often say many money players were not good tournament players. It's just different and they probably had no desire to play that tournament style, "Going to the electric chair" if they miss a ball.
Every generation of players have tremendous talents governed by current circumstances.

I remember being at a tournament with Big Bob and he was playing a match and looked so nervous he could not get out from anywhere. When the match was over a little while later he is playing a guy in front of the same crowd who were still hanging around $500.00 nineball happy as a clam drilling the guy completely relaxed.
Click to expand...
There were some very strong players who would have done quite well in tournament play but for whatever reasons they chose not to. And back then there was a subtle dislike by gamblers and road dawgs for tourney players and vice versa.
Perhaps subtle is the wrong word.😂
 
Mensabum said:
There were some very strong players who would have done quite well in tournament play but for whatever reasons they chose not to. And back then there was a subtle dislike by gamblers and road dawgs for tourney players and vice versa.
Perhaps subtle is the wrong word.😂
Click to expand...
they kept different hours. to do a 10 am round most gamblers would have to stay up all night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top