Buddy on how he'd stack up with todays players. :-)
- Thread starter hello
- Start date
Buddy Holly was a musical legend that would stack up...........Oh Wait............wrong Buddy...............
Agreed. The comparison is impossible. Asking the question "could Buddy, playing as he did have beaten Filler or Gorst, as they play now?" is totally unfair. I personally think that Fedor and Josh would have demolished him, but so what?
A champion is a champion and one must presume that the greatest champions of the past, if they a) had access to all the learning and instructional resources available today, b) played on/with the equipment in use today, and c) had as many top level events in which to continually hone their skills as today's pros, could have adapted to the playing conditions of this era.
The top-flight BCA Hall of Famers, and Buddy is one of them, would have been among the biggest stars in any era, but as you properly note, even though we have fun with it on the forum, comparison across generations is ultimately impossible.
Last edited:
Keith, ever bashful, stepped into a room full of champions at a big event. "I'll give anyone in here the eight!" Without even catching a breath he said, "Not you Buddy."
Like SJM, I think the monsters would be monsters whatever era they played in. Evolution hasn't done anything to make people better pool players and that is what it would take to bury the legends from yesteryear.
Hu
Like SJM, I think the monsters would be monsters whatever era they played in. Evolution hasn't done anything to make people better pool players and that is what it would take to bury the legends from yesteryear.
Hu
But I can't concur, especially as we don't know how well Buddy played when he was their age.Prime buddy hall would play AT LEAST 820 pool today maybe higher
my question is could filler and gorst beat buddy in his top prime shape, while betting all money they got in the world, on neutral conditions and both playing in a strange poolroom. with opponent racks the balls with the wood rack.
without choking and losing, or not adapting to maybe no air conditioning and not so clean balls and tables that may roll off some.
without choking and losing, or not adapting to maybe no air conditioning and not so clean balls and tables that may roll off some.
Buddy FTW
Buddy is used to adapting so he would adapt very quickly to today's conditions. Today's players are not so flexible. We have all became hothouse players and that definitely includes me. I want Diamond or Brunswick, the occasional Valley. In good condition with quality balls. I'm not interested in hitting balls on the same crap I didn't hesitate to bet hundreds on forty or fifty years ago.
Hu
Now you're not giving him enough credit. I think he would have played to 845 or better. As I noted, a true champion can adjust to the playing conditions of any era given the learning and equipment resources of that era.
.. but if you asked me to put a Fargo, using today's standards, to the actual play we got from Buddy in his prime (and yes, I'm old enough to have seen his prime), no way am I going higher than about 760. He missed far more balls on 4 5/8" equipment than Josh and Fedor miss on 4" pockets. He didn't break the balls as well as they do, either.
As noted in my post, it's a so what, as the game has evolved quite a bit in the last 50 years.
I agree.. I think most would just adjust to the equipment.
Said it before and I'll say it again, considering the top players of yesteryear and even during Mosconi's time were sinking the balls dead center of the pocket, I doubt those guys would have a hard time adjusting to todays game. A top elite talent from the past would still be a top elite talent today in pool.
Now, the mental side is very very different today vs back then. That's the only quantifiable thing if you ask me. But even then, you can't say who is better because in that argument, people are going to lean on one environment vs the other.
Now, the mental side is very very different today vs back then. That's the only quantifiable thing if you ask me. But even then, you can't say who is better because in that argument, people are going to lean on one environment vs the other.
Playing in the 70s and 80s didn't include carbon fiber shafts and jump sticks. You had to be mindful of deflection on many shots, calculate aim and spin. They knew when to avoid excessive english and too much speed. They maintained self control, knowing consistency and making the right decision is the key to high-end play.
Far from the truth.
In fact, the pocketing was much, much, much less accurate back then and because there were so few of them, the really straight shooters enjoyed an advantage greater than those of today. Today, even on very tight equipment, there are hundreds that run out consistently. In Buddy's day, maybe twenty-five. Similarly, probably 99% of the best pattern players that ever played have played in the last 10 years. The game of nine ball has evolved very far and the level of technical excellence is far greater than even in 2010. On another note, few had figured the break-out back in Buddy's prime. Again, the quality of the break has skyrocketed since 2010.
As for shooting accuracy, I'd guess that 98% of the straightest shooters that ever played the game have played in the last 10 years.
Definitely agreed here. Had they had access to today's equipment, instructors, instructional materials, and playing conditions, it would have been different. Another advantage that the top players have today that the players during Buddy's prime did not enjoy was a huge number of elite tournaments in which to play. The top 100 9ball players in the world are, quite simply, competing with a frequency that Buddy's generation might never have imagined possible.
... but time-travel Buddy to this generation and give him all the advantages that today's players have and, as I suggested, I feel he'd be at least a Fargo 845.
That’s a big, fat NO!!!
I always love when the pundits and so called experts summarize it as impossible with their carte blanche statements in favor of the younger generation. I wonder why they add very little weighting to the possibility that the older generation champions could / would adapt and overcome. That their game would morph as required to be competitive. A pool stroke is a pool stroke and Buddy had one of the best.
Buddy's breakfast woulda take care of the mental side. For days.
Not sure there's even one post in this thread suggesting that the greatest champions of any era could not adapt and be champions in any other era. It's pretty unanimous that they could.