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?

[vintagecollectibles831]

I was watching the 1998 US open finals and was surprised by how visibly less good the players were back then.

No disrespect to them of course, but it is mind blowing how far the game has come in just a few decades. But I do agree with those who day that the players are more robot like these days (for better or worse).

It was still a more enjoyable game to watch back then, right? They were not all robots.

 

[mikepage]

Wow, and I thought that 6,000 games in the system was a lot. I looked at some of the ratings of some of the players who signed up for a 650 and under capped event, and was shocked to see that they had over 6,000 games in the system. I guess odds are that they will be staying a 650, for example, like, for a very long time.

So long as they keep playing a lot--which is likely if they are improving--the rating will nearly track.

Look, for example, at Lukas Fracasso-Verner.

At this time in 2022, he was 711 with 5288 games. He hit 6,000 games that fall. So,
June 2022 - 711
June 2023 - 736
June 2024 - 748
June 2025 - 756
June 2026 - 765

So is this 765 rating a lagging indicator? Well yes. But for adults who are improving fast in an adult kind of way, it is not far from tracking. A best estimate of Lukas's current skill from plotting performance vs time is he is higher than 765 by single digits.

That issue is very different for younger players who have been developing physically at the same time. Extreme cases are Savannah and Sofia, who have lagged by as much as 30-40 points.

Again for fast improvers like Moritz or Mickey or Tyler Styer or Emil or Kristina, their rating pretty much tracks.

What to Archer, me, and Corey have in common? We all have over 11,000 games and ratings that have fallen by 11 points in the last 3 years ;-)

 

[sjm]

I guess this is all because there are far more really great players.

That's right. The globalization of the game, especially in the past ten years, has raised the bar a couple of levels. Great players are popping up in every corner of the world.

 

[Swighey]

Even if they could not take their current equipment with them? And, had to play with what was available, in 1990, for example? Back then, there were no LD shafts, or Layered tips, or high tech break cues, and jump cues

Yes they would be better. Enough better. I believe that you know this.

LD shafts make a (marginal) difference on some shots and today's elite players have an equipment advantage on those shots. For most shots though, no difference. Layered tips? Again, same same.

Jump cues? The idea that the golden oldies were better at kicking because nowadays it's all jumping is not grounded in reality, it's just a nice idea.

Hig tech break cues? If the break was as understood in the 70s as it is now then the standard fornat in the 70s would have been alternate breaks. And it would be the "tradition".

 

[CanadianGuy]

I think Miz would have been a solid tier above the field in his prime, same with Sigel

same thing later with Efren and Earl

 

[skogstokig]

I think Miz would have been a solid tier above the field in his prime, same with Sigel

same thing later with Efren and Earl

i assume you mean straight pool? miz wasn't a tier above varner, hall and rempe in 9-ball?