Diamond Las Vegas Open

jay helfert

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
mikemosconi said:
What everyone is describing here is not unique to pool in terms of great sports talents who often perform CLOSE to the top of their profession; but fail to become consistently great at their chosen field. I am not talking about"flash in the pan" types who dominate for short periods and then just disappear. I am talking about the truly skilled and talented who, for some reason, either refuse to, or fail to develop the finer points of their chosen sport to truly dominate at the highest levels. Besides that; there have been some in every sport who, for reasons we may never understand, but many have tried to explain in endless sports psychology books, just cannot develop the mental forces needed to compete in a dominating fashion at the highest levels consistently.
I think that most of the true greats in sports ARE wired to win mentally right from the start; combined with the ability and willingness to develop great skills. Then there are those who are blessed with great skill; hone it ; and also have such a burning desire to dominate that they persist at every finer point of their sport until they are the BEST; and then have the ability, mentally, to maintain that mindset over time.
Can great "coaching" help some get "over the hump" and enlighten them as to what aspects of their game need to be honed? Sometimes yes and sometimes no; it will be interesting to see how this develops with the player that we are speaking of at this time.
Click to expand...

The player who comes to mind for me is Jim Rempe, who was the equal talent-wise with Sigel, Varner, Mizerak and Hopkins but had trouble winning the big ones. Jimmy was consistently finishing in the top five but rarely winning, although he did manage a couple of big wins in his career, most notably over Efren in the finals at Resorts International in 1987. He has other international wins of note (English Eight Ball for one) but not against the strong fields he had to play against domestically.

His overall record pales in comparison to either Sigel or Varner who were his contemporaries. Jimmy Rempe was one of the greatest all around players I ever saw but he always seemed to falter in the final four to six players. That said he made a good living at pro pool and managed his money well. If you were consistently winning two and three thousand in tournaments with all expenses covered (from Meucci cue sales at each event) then you were doing just fine. Jimmy was almost always right there on the last day and it took one of the champions to knock him out.
 
Last edited:
JoeyInCali

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
Island Drive said:
When he wins as many US Open 9 ball events as Earl or Shane, then I'll become a true believer. I don't doubt his prowess or what and his wins, but character traits of thee best in all sports is a special person. Nadal, Woods, Earl, SVB, Lassiter, Mosconi. I just don't see the total package yet is all. He needs to roll with it a little more....then he'll get more. Being too rigid with ones character does not help one create, Efren qualities. You gotta be nice to the man in the mirror....
Click to expand...

The field Earl had to beat for USO titles is nowhere near the talent field there is now . Not even close .
 
Island Drive

Island Drive

Otto/Dads College Roommate/Cleveland Browns
Silver Member
JoeyInCali said:
The field Earl had to beat for USO titles is nowhere near the talent field there is now . Not even close .
Click to expand...

Every-things....relative.

All I'm doing is giving you ''my'' perspective of a horse that runs. "Just the straights."

Records mean allot, And, who owns the turntable?

Willie Mosconi.
 
Last edited:
G

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
JoeyInCali said:
The field Earl had to beat for USO titles is nowhere near the talent field there is now . Not even close .
Click to expand...
Tend to agree here. The fields today are way deeper. Not knocking Earl's record, he did win them, but the game has matured. More high-level players from all over the world.
 
Island Drive

Island Drive

Otto/Dads College Roommate/Cleveland Browns
Silver Member
garczar said:
Tend to agree here. The fields today are way deeper. Not knocking Earl's record, he did win them, but the game has matured. More high-level players from all over the world.
Click to expand...

oK....THEN svb.


But really, think about the makeup of lets say the US Open. There's probably 16 that can win it. Back in Sigels day, there were close to that same amount, that were ah knockin'. Like, Wade Crane, Dennis Searcy, Mataya, Jimmy Reid, Nick Varner, Kim Davenport, CJ Wiley, Buddy Hall, Jimmy Rempe, Cole Dixon, George Breedlove, Roger Griffis, Liscotti, Hopkins, Mizerak and quite a few others, it was never Easy.
 
Last edited:
JoeyInCali

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
garczar said:
Tend to agree here. The fields today are way deeper. Not knocking Earl's record, he did win them, but the game has matured. More high-level players from all over the world.
Click to expand...

When SVB won it, he had to freaking beat WORLD CHAMPIONS .
 
BeiberLvr

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Island Drive said:
oK....THEN svb.


But really, think about the makeup of lets say the US Open. There's probably 16 that can win it. Back in Sigels day, there were close to that same amount, that were ah knockin'. Like, Wade Crane, Dennis Searcy, Mataya, Jimmy Reid, Nick Varner, Kim Davenport, CJ Wiley, Buddy Hall, Jimmy Rempe, Cole Dixon, George Breedlove, Roger Griffis, Liscotti, Hopkins, Mizerak and quite a few others, it was never Easy.
Click to expand...

Most of those players you mentioned wouldn't stand a chance in today's fields.

Sigel, Varner, Hall, Rempe, Hopkins and Miz are the only ones I think would have any shot at winning a major event these days. In their primes, of course.

The rest were good players. Just not that top tier.
 
sjm

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
Forum members so often compare JL Chang to Buddy Hall, and I've tended not to be totally on board, but …..

The similarities are truly striking:

a) both are great technicians and have beautiful strokes that hold up even when the heat is turned up and the pressure is greatest

b) both in their day were, arguably, the best action player in the world, Buddy in his Shreveport days and JL Chang over the past few years. In much the way that people learned to avoid Buddy in the biggest action matches at his best, most have come to understand that Chang is to be similarly avoided.

c) both won some big titles and were counted among the best but neither was ever counted as the best tournament player. Buddy tended to play in the shadow of guys like Sigel, Varner, Parica and Strickland, while JL Chang has played in the shadow of SVB, Filler, Appleton, Souquet, Orcullo, Wu and a few others.

Guess what I'm saying is that to the many who have made this comparison on the forum, I'm gradually coming around to your point of view. That said, though, it's well known among those who read my posts that I'll always be more influenced by what a player achieves in competition than how he performs in action matches.

That, to me, is why I'll never rate Buddy Hall as high as a Sigel or Varner and why I'll never see JL Chang as having had the kind of career enjoyed by several of his contemporaries. Nonetheless, I'm glad I got to watch both Buddy Hall and JL Chang in their playing primes --- it has truly been a privilege.
 
sixpack

sixpack

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
sjm said:
Forum members so often compare JL Chang to Buddy Hall, and I've tended not to be totally on board, but …..

The similarities are truly striking:

a) both are great technicians and have beautiful strokes that hold up even when the heat is turned up and the pressure is greatest

b) both in their day were, arguably, the best action player in the world, Buddy in his Shreveport days and JL Chang over the past few years. In much the way that people learned to avoid Buddy in the biggest action matches at his best, most have come to understand that Chang is to be similarly avoided.

c) both won some big titles and were counted among the best but neither was ever counted as the best tournament player. Buddy tended to play in the shadow of guys like Sigel, Varner, Parica and Strickland, while JL Chang has played in the shadow of SVB, Filler, Appleton, Souquet, Orcullo, Wu and a few others.

Guess what I'm saying is that to the many who have made this comparison on the forum, I'm gradually coming around to your point of view. That said, though, it's well known among those who read my posts that I'll always be more influenced by what a player achieves in competition than how he performs in action matches.

That, to me, is why I'll never rate Buddy Hall as high as a Sigel or Varner and why I'll never see JL Chang as having had the kind of career enjoyed by several of his contemporaries. Nonetheless, I'm glad I got to watch both Buddy Hall and JL Chang in their playing primes --- it has truly been a privilege.
Click to expand...

Every post you make is pure class Stu. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this forums.
 
pt109

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
sjm said:
Forum members so often compare JL Chang to Buddy Hall, and I've tended not to be totally on board, but …..

The similarities are truly striking:

a) both are great technicians and have beautiful strokes that hold up even when the heat is turned up and the pressure is greatest

b) both in their day were, arguably, the best action player in the world, Buddy in his Shreveport days and JL Chang over the past few years. In much the way that people learned to avoid Buddy in the biggest action matches at his best, most have come to understand that Chang is to be similarly avoided.

c) both won some big titles and were counted among the best but neither was ever counted as the best tournament player. Buddy tended to play in the shadow of guys like Sigel, Varner, Parica and Strickland, while JL Chang has played in the shadow of SVB, Filler, Appleton, Souquet, Orcullo, Wu and a few others.

Guess what I'm saying is that to the many who have made this comparison on the forum, I'm gradually coming around to your point of view. That said, though, it's well known among those who read my posts that I'll always be more influenced by what a player achieves in competition than how he performs in action matches.

That, to me, is why I'll never rate Buddy Hall as high as a Sigel or Varner and why I'll never see JL Chang as having had the kind of career enjoyed by several of his contemporaries. Nonetheless, I'm glad I got to watch both Buddy Hall and JL Chang in their playing primes --- it has truly been a privilege.
Click to expand...
I’ve often thought of the difference between a tournament player and a money player.

The tourney player thinks like a dasher....and is used to grabbing for the brass ring.
....that takes a lot of heart besides the obvious talent.

A money player thinks like a miler....and has time to let his game prevail...
...even if he runs out of money, he can get some more....the best player here wins more often.

So who needs the most heart?.....I never could decide....a tournament player can snatch
a win from the jaws of defeat perhaps more often....he lives in that territory...
...but the loser in a money match is the man who has to take his cue apart....
...that hurts more extremely than a player who loses a tournament match.

If you win half your matches in tournaments, I predict a good year.
If you win half you money matches, you might be going no place.
 
A

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
pt109 said:
... If you win half your matches in tournaments, I predict a good year. ...
Click to expand...

Well, if you go 2-and-out a bunch of times in a row and then win the US Open 9-Ball (winning half your matches overall), yeah. But a lot of 4-and-outs (winning half your matches) won't pay the bills.
 
pt109

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
AtLarge said:
Well, if you go 2-and-out a bunch of times in a row and then win the US Open 9-Ball (winning half your matches overall), yeah. But a lot of 4-and-outs (winning half your matches) won't pay the bills.
Click to expand...

If you won half your matches in sequence, yeah, that would be a bad year.....
....but it would be a minor miracle, also....like flipping 200 heads and 200 tails.

I wonder if any player has ever went 50-50 for a whole season.....lemme think...
....who the hell would ever have a chance of knowing that? :)

We need more money in the game so someone could be paid for that info....
...pretty sure they got it at snooker.
 
A

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
pt109 said:
... I wonder if any player has ever went 50-50 for a whole season.....lemme think...
....who the hell would ever have a chance of knowing that? :)
Click to expand...

Not me, pt. I track just a small fraction of any player's matches.

pt109 said:
We need more money in the game so someone could be paid for that info....
...pretty sure they got it at snooker.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the snooker stats are super compared to pool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top