Strategy is a MUCH bigger part of the game today. There are more two-way shots, more kicks, more jumps, and more need for billiard knowledge than ever before. The lack of tactical skills among the old-timers showed up in spades when Hopkins staged the "Legends of Pool" series in what I believe was 1983. The level of play was still pretty high, just not the defensive and tactical play.
There was much less need to be a great kicker/jumper or safety player back in the day, and position play errors were often forgiven because you could push out.
Even ignoring the fact that today's players play on super-tight equipment and the last generation did not, the game is much more difficult today. Similarly, mediocre position play was not punished as much on loose equipment, but today, recovering a lost pattern is a much tougher challenge than back in the day.
For every super-straight shooter there was in Mike Sigel's prime, there are probably ten of them today. Finally, the pattern play today is much better than it was ten years ago, never mind forty years ago.
The only player of the 1980s who is in the coversation with the defensive greats of today is Nick Varner.
But, as you say, comparison across the generations is near impossible. Still, the quality of play has skyrocketed to a level few could have imagined even ten years ago.
Yes there are more two-way, kick, & Jump shots… no debate there. But why?
Ball in-in-hand lends itself to more two-way shots. And of course, you see more jumps. Jumpers didn’t exist back then. The need for Billiard knowledge is one thing, having it is another, and being able to show it is yet another. Under the old rules benefits player opportunities to showcase that kind of knowledge if they possessed it
I’m not familiar with “Legends of Pool" series in 1983. but my guess anything named “Legends of pool” indicates players past their prime. That’s not a knock, at some point they earned the title “Legend.” But I wouldn’t use that series as a definitive comparison between eras.
Considering the low percentage of intended outcomes on kicks and jumps, I don’t see more strategy, I see less. I do not see how giving a professional player ball in hand is more difficult than spotting a boll and putting the cue ball in the kitchen. Honestly, giving a pro ball-in-hand is far easier than forcing them to spot a ball and shoot from the kitchen, which demanded more creativity and knowledge. Both of these changes (jump cues& ball in hand) give lesser players a chance to win and definitely lends the game to luck and diminishes that advantage of knowledge. When you rolled out you’d better have some knowledge to include safety play if you want to take advantage of the situation more than just having a way out of bad spot. If all you saw was a way out of trouble you definitely weren’t taking full advantage of situations… it wasn’t just a way out of trouble. That dynamic has been largely lost. Today, more kicks and jumps don’t mean more strategy, they just mean more variance, which again gives less experienced players more chances. Taking in account the low percentage of intended outcomes for kicking and jumping, and also considering that the rule lend more opportunities for two way shots that doesn’t add up to more strategy to me but lends the game again to more luck and more opportunities for lesser players.
If the pros had a say, I’m not convinced jump cues would even exist. Players don’t have the say, industry and promoters do and there’s too much money made with every bar player having a jump cue and lesser players having a chance to win in Bar leagues.
Generally speaking roll-out was an option after the break. Any hustle is an option but that’s how I grew up playing it so I’m not following how it’s forgives position errors?
I’d still argue that pattern-play is as an “illusion” of rules for racking the the balls.
We are definitely going to have to agree to disagree on what adds up to more strategy, luck, and what rules benefit, penalize, or rewards the more knowledgeable player. I don’t think today’s game holds any water compared to yesterday’s game as far as the rules go.
I’d also argue that today players would have no difficulty playing on any of yesterday’s equipment including cloth and I also think yesterday’s players would have adjusted to tighter equipment.
Agreed, for every super-straight shooter there was in Mike Sigel's prime, there are probably ten of them today… shot makers.
Agreed, the equipment is tighter.
Agreed, comparison across the generations is near impossible. Still, the quality of play has skyrocketed to a level few could have imagined even ten years ago.
Respect SJM
