If the Fargo rating system existed back in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, how many of those top Legendary players do you think would have been an 800?

V

vintagecollectibles831

Well-known member
Okay, this might be a really dumb question, so please try not to laugh too hard, lol, but if the Fargo rating system existed back in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, how many of those Legendary players do you think would have been an 800, if any?

I have read a lot of the stories, but they are very hard to believe.

Would the 800 (and higher) Fargo rated players of today's Era be able to beat all of those legends, going back from the 70's to the 90's.

I wonder what the highest Fargo rating Earl Strickland, or Efren Reyes would have had, back at the highest speed of their game, back in their prime. Or, other Legends, like Buddy Hall, Nick Varner, Johnny Archer, and Mike Sigel.

I also understand that the equipment was very different, so this might not be a fair question. Efren or Mike Sigel may have been like an 850 though, lol. I do not know. I guess it depends on maybe who dominated, and beat all the other top guys, at the time.

I got thinking about this stuff, after watching this youtube video, about this guy from South Korea, who is a 650 with only about 300 games in the system, and says that he is quitting his 6 figure income job, to go Pro, and says that he wants to become an 800 Fargo someday. I was thinking that it is probably highly unlikely, because even the gap between a 750 player and an 800 Fargo player is probably huge. To get from a 650 to a 700 is probably very hard, and might take a very long time. But, to get to an 800 just sounds nearly impossible.

Oh, I just looked up Alex Pagulayan, and was kind of surprised that he is an 818, even though he might be a little bit past his prime. So, maybe guys like Efren would have been at least that high in Fargo.

Anyways, thanks for any thoughts.
 
That's a good question but I think it's apples and oranges, or the question needs to be more specific. Do I think the top players of today would beat the top players of yesteryear if you do a time warp and drop the top players from today into those times with the knowledge and equipment they have now, yes, definitely. But, had the top players of today been playing in that period then they would have the same knowledge of the game, equipment, practice routines, etc. If you look at some of the people you mention in Fargo, you'll see most of them are mid 700's and they're nowhere near their prime, if they were in their prime I have no doubt most of them would be low to mid 800's and therefore, competitive with today's top players.
 
Chili Palmer said:
That's a good question but I think it's apples and oranges, or the question needs to be more specific. Do I think the top players of today would beat the top players of yesteryear if you do a time warp and drop the top players from today into those times with the knowledge and equipment they have now, yes, definitely. But, had the top players of today been playing in that period then they would have the same knowledge of the game, equipment, practice routines, etc. If you look at some of the people you mention in Fargo, you'll see most of them are mid 700's and they're nowhere near their prime, if they were in their prime I have no doubt most of them would be low to mid 800's and therefore, competitive with today's top players.
Click to expand...

Yeah, even after probably over 50 years of playing, Strickland is still like a 770 Fargo, and way past his prime. I feel pretty stupid that I asked now.

Lol, I have wondered if the top players of today, had to not only have to go back to the 80's and 90's, but also were not able to bring their current cues with them, how well they would do on the old equipment, with the slow cloth, and non LD cues of those eras.
 
vintagecollectibles831 said:
The thing about Fargo, is that you could just quit competing forever, and your Fargo will stay exactly the same as it was the last time you competed, in a Fargo rate tournament.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of peak reading meters. They stick at the high number and only budge for a higher number.

But whatever the rating, isn't that a function of the group average? The bell curve?
 
on the old tables without air conditioning. many of the old time players would beat all but a small hand full of the best now.
but the question would be would the best now be able to beat the best then with the old rules and equipment.
they would have a lot of adjusting to do.
 
It is difficult to believe that anyone who watches footage of yesteryear believes that the old timers like Sigel, Varner, Strickland, Archer, Mizerak had a) fundamentals comparable to the players of today, b) pocketed balls as well as the players of today even while playing on much looser pockets, c) broke the balls as well as the players of today, d) kicked and jumped as well as the players of today, or e) are, on average, better trained athletes than those of today, etc. And yet, "So What?"

As Chili Palmer has noted with clarity, the comparison is apples to oranges. As we so often note on the forum, a player can only be judged against their own contemporaries. Advances in equipment, training, and online resources for gaining knowledge of the game have not only put today's players at a higher level than those of 1990, but today's players are well above those of 2015. As importantly, the globalization of the game, especially in the past ten years, means that there are three times as many straight shooters as in 2015 and possibly ten times as many as in 1990.

Another thing that has raised the level of play demonstrably is the number of world class events found on the world pool calendar. There weren't many events each year that featured at least half of the world's top 50 until recently. This has allowed today's crop to build a stronger competitive pedigree than even those of 2015, let alone those of 1990.

Was Sigel better than Filler? In absolute terms, no way, but if Sigel had all the same advantages with respect to equipment, training, online resources, I'd guess he'd have been just as good as Josh. We'll never know.

These comparisons are problematic. Are we to suggest that racecar drivers of 1950 weren't very good because they took longer to get around the track than the drivers of today? Of course not! Pro golfers hit it much further than their counterparts of yesteryear, but are they better?

In short, in most sports, the best that ever played are the ones that play it today, but it doesn't make sense to measure a player against the players of another generation. One's level of excellence against one's contemporaries is the only real measure of greatness.

Finally, I think the transition to the old playing conditions would have been extremely easy for today's best. Who will forget when Sigel predicted that the younger players would struggle with the slower conditions in use at the 2006 IPT Las Vegas 8ball event? Mike predicted that the Hall of Famers would enjoy great success in the event. In that event, every BCA Hall of Famer was guaranteed a payout of $30,000 and would earn more if they went deep enough in the event. Not even one of them earned more than $30,000 in that event. As importantly, the younger players transitioned seamlessly to the slower cloth.

Today's crop of players are better cueists and I'm not sure even one player of 1990 played at what we now perceive to be a Fargo 800 level of performance, but it is likely that the greatest of that era would have been as good as the greatest of this one given all the advantages enjoyed by today's crop of players.

The greats would have been greats in any era if given all the resources available in that era of play.

Filler vs Sigel? Apples and oranges.

PS The question posed in the thread title isn't dumb, but it doesn't get to the crux of the matter of comparing players past and present. Still, in absolute terms, the comparison is very easy. Today's best pocket as well on 4" pockets as the best of 1990 did on 4 3/4" pockets. The quality of cueing has, quite simply, gone through the roof.
 
Last edited:
fastone371 said:
It doesn't matter how good the individual player is, there still would have been 850 FR players in every era. FR isn't based on how well you pocket balls or play the game, only how well you perform against your contemporaries.
Click to expand...
This is not accurate.

The pedigree of the opponents you face figures prominently in your Fargo. As the players back in the day faced easier opponents, they would not have had high Fargo rates unless their level of domination exceeded anything we have ever seen.

Being the best doesn't mean you have a high Fargo, just a higher one than your contemporaries.
 
sjm said:
This is not accurate.

The pedigree of the opponents you face figures prominently in your Fargo. As the players back in the day faced easier opponents, they would not have had high Fargo rates unless their level of domination exceeded anything we have ever seen.

Being the best doesn't mean you have a high Fargo, just a higher one than your contemporaries.
Click to expand...
I think it is more accurate than you are giving it credit for being.

Fargo rates players within an ecosystem, based on wins and losses of games. It does not care if they can pocket balls, play safe or kick, or anything else. The only data is "who won."

Then, it builds from there on "who did THEY beat? And who did they lose to... and who did THEY beat, and who did they lose to..." on and on.

Fargo builds a pyramid. There will always be a point at the top.

In a year that a top player dominated the tournament scene, like Reyes, Strickland, Varner or Segal, they would have rated in the 800s because they were beating everyone, and the "everyone" they were beating were beating everyone else... and so on.

IF there is a case that the ecosystem was not as strong (there was less international play, for example, creating less "connectedness") the tip of the pyramid might be a few points lower (790, not 800) but not much more than that.

HOWEVER... do I think that yesterday's 780 would compete with today's 780? No. Today's 780 has achieved that rating against a tougher set of opponents (inarguably a deeper field).
 
DieselPete said:
I think it is more accurate than you are giving it credit for being.

Fargo rates players within an ecosystem, based on wins and losses of games. It does not care if they can pocket balls, play safe or kick, or anything else. The only data is "who won."

Then, it builds from there on "who did THEY beat? And who did they lose to... and who did THEY beat, and who did they lose to..." on and on.

Fargo builds a pyramid. There will always be a point at the top.

In a year that a top player dominated the tournament scene, like Reyes, Strickland, Varner or Segal, they would have rated in the 800s because they were beating everyone, and the "everyone" they were beating were beating everyone else... and so on.

IF there is a case that the ecosystem was not as strong (there was less international play, for example, creating less "connectedness") the tip of the pyramid might be a few points lower (790, not 800) but not much more than that.

HOWEVER... do I think that yesterday's 780 would compete with today's 780? No. Today's 780 has achieved that rating against a tougher set of opponents (inarguably a deeper field).
Click to expand...
I agree that Fargo is extremely accurate.

Still, it wasn't that long ago that there were zero players in the world that had a Fargo of 800. I think Shane and Wu were the first two, and that was in 2010 or so.

Actually, I think the 780 of fifteen years ago, who would have been a top ten player in the world at the time, would have had no trouble staying with a 780 of today. The 780 of today, however, is about the 150th best player in the world and makes a very marginal income from competition.
 
Last edited:
sjm said:
I agree that Fargo is extremely accurate.

Still, it wasn't that long ago that there were zero players in the world that had a Fargo of 800. I think Shane and Wu were the first two, and that was in 2010 or so.

Actually, I think the 780 of fifteen years ago, who would have been a top ten player in the world at the time, would have had no trouble staying with a 780 of today. The 780 of today, however, is about the 150th best player in the world and makes a very marginal income from competition.
Click to expand...
I think that is because at the outset everyone (most) is assigned a relatively low FR and it takes time to build up the ratings.
 
DieselPete said:
I think it is more accurate than you are giving it credit for being.

Fargo rates players within an ecosystem, based on wins and losses of games. It does not care if they can pocket balls, play safe or kick, or anything else. The only data is "who won."

Then, it builds from there on "who did THEY beat? And who did they lose to... and who did THEY beat, and who did they lose to..." on and on.

Fargo builds a pyramid. There will always be a point at the top.

In a year that a top player dominated the tournament scene, like Reyes, Strickland, Varner or Segal, they would have rated in the 800s because they were beating everyone, and the "everyone" they were beating were beating everyone else... and so on.

IF there is a case that the ecosystem was not as strong (there was less international play, for example, creating less "connectedness") the tip of the pyramid might be a few points lower (790, not 800) but not much more than that.

HOWEVER... do I think that yesterday's 780 would compete with today's 780? No. Today's 780 has achieved that rating against a tougher set of opponents (inarguably a deeper field).
Click to expand...
Thank you, much better explanation.
 
skogstokig said:
it would still be just relative to their contemporaries.. so what's the point in speculating
Click to expand...
Yes, well said. All that matters in the greatness discussion is performance against one's contemporaries. Unfortunately, Fargo is not the right metric for judging players across generations. As I've always said, greatness is measured in titles, specifically major titles, and title count is entirely about performance against one's contemporaries.
 
Last edited:
fastone371 said:
I think that is because at the outset everyone (most) is assigned a relatively low FR and it takes time to build up the ratings.
Click to expand...
Yes, well said, but you have also given a good explanation of why Fargo falls short as a measure across generations of cueists.
 
maha said:
on the old tables without air conditioning. many of the old time players would beat all but a small hand full of the best now.
but the question would be would the best now be able to beat the best then with the old rules and equipment.
they would have a lot of adjusting to do
Click to expand...
This just isn't true or even almost true.The best from yesteryear would have absolutely no chance (well of course this isn't true, it would be non-zero) against the best today. They would adjust immediately - have you actually watched them and seen how good they are?
 
Black-Balled said:
Wouldn't it be easy enough to use historical match data to bridge yesteryear with hereyear?
Click to expand...
In the years to which the original poster refers, match results were rarely archived, and awfully few matches were recorded.

We know who won which titles from back in the day, but not nearly enough about who beat who in competition, even at some of the majors.

Pools failure in recordkeeping over the years has been a topic of discussion on the forum on several occasions. Thankfully, the job being done by Fargo in the past twenty years has revolutionized pool's recordkeeping and has set the stage for meaningful study of the results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top