Pool and Billiard History

book collector

book collector

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I realize there is only a small group of people who have spent much time getting educated about the game and it's players for the past 150 years. Since Michael Phelan in the US and John Roberts Senior in England were considered champions at their games but I think a lot of people are interested by the pool players stories and being able to see some of the equipment and how they were treated as living legends at that time. I was doing some research {first time in about 8 years} and I keep seeing articles written about players that are not true, I realize Wikipedia is not the greatest place to find information but the last straw was an article written by someone for one of the pool magazines that said Mosconi was also a 3 cushion world champion. I do think he was a good player but he was never world champion , there were only 3 people who ever did it and they were Alfredo De Oro, Thomas Hueston and Johnny Layton. I don't really blame this guy, someone probably told him that and he never checked. On a side note is anyone interested in why I think Alfredo De Oro was the greatest all around player to ever live?
 
Rich93

Rich93

A Small Time Charlie
Silver Member
book collector said:
I realize there is only a small group of people who have spent much time getting educated about the game and it's players for the past 150 years. Since Michael Phelan in the US and John Roberts Senior in England were considered champions at their games but I think a lot of people are interested by the pool players stories and being able to see some of the equipment and how they were treated as living legends at that time. I was doing some research {first time in about 8 years} and I keep seeing articles written about players that are not true, I realize Wikipedia is not the greatest place to find information but the last straw was an article written by someone for one of the pool magazines that said Mosconi was also a 3 cushion world champion. I do think he was a good player but he was never world champion , there were only 3 people who ever did it and they were Alfredo De Oro, Thomas Hueston and Johnny Layton. I don't really blame this guy, someone probably told him that and he never checked. On a side note is anyone interested in why I think Alfredo De Oro was the greatest all around player to ever live?
Click to expand...

You're right - Mosconi was never 3 cushion champion. He played in the 1947 World's and placed fourth (after Hoppe, Rubin and Bozeman) - thanks Charlie Ursitti. In his bio he did talk about how he would have liked to be world champion at both pool and 3C after Hoppe retired, but it was not to be.

Well, I think you should add Harold Worst to your list of De Oro, Hueston and Layton, or at least add him with an asterisk. He was world 3C champion in 1954 and successfully defended the title in a few challenge matches over the next few years (they didn't have tournaments - lack of interest). In 1965 he won the Johnston City all-around and the Stardust Open in pool. These were not world's tournaments but did attract the top talent in the country. He died in 1966 of cancer in his late 30's.

Yes, tell us about why you like De Oro so much. Danny McGoorty was quite funny discussing De Oro in the Byrne book on Danny's life (Danny played him when De Oro was quite old).
 
Last edited:
book collector

book collector

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I agree Harold Worst at least deserves an asterisk. My reasons for believing De Oro to be the all around best player are many .
1. From 1887 to 1913 he was Pocket Billiards champ in 17 of those years
2. From 1908 to 1919 he was 3 Cushion Champion 10 times
It is also my understanding that during the years that he was Pocket Billiards Champion that they would strip him of his 3 cushion title and in the years he became 3 Cushion Champion he was stripped of his Pocket Billiards title , so he was never beaten during those years he was just forced to give up the title to someone else and then had to take it back from them . Which he mostly did. In my mind had they allowed him to keep both titles simultaneously he would have been champion at least 50% more of the time during those years and possibly a lot more.
3. He was the only player to ever cross the boundary between American Billiards/Pool and English Billiards by going to England and beating none other than his equivalent there John Roberts, a player who dominated their sport for over 20 years. I have had the privilege of watching Efren Reyes over the years and to me he is the number 2 at this point but imagine what it would have been like to watch these 2 battle at their best.
 
Rich93

Rich93

A Small Time Charlie
Silver Member
book collector said:
I agree Harold Worst at least deserves an asterisk. My reasons for believing De Oro to be the all around best player are many .
1. From 1887 to 1913 he was Pocket Billiards champ in 17 of those years
2. From 1908 to 1919 he was 3 Cushion Champion 10 times
It is also my understanding that during the years that he was Pocket Billiards Champion that they would strip him of his 3 cushion title and in the years he became 3 Cushion Champion he was stripped of his Pocket Billiards title , so he was never beaten during those years he was just forced to give up the title to someone else and then had to take it back from them . Which he mostly did. In my mind had they allowed him to keep both titles simultaneously he would have been champion at least 50% more of the time during those years and possibly a lot more.
3. He was the only player to ever cross the boundary between American Billiards/Pool and English Billiards by going to England and beating none other than his equivalent there John Roberts, a player who dominated their sport for over 20 years. I have had the privilege of watching Efren Reyes over the years and to me he is the number 2 at this point but imagine what it would have been like to watch these 2 battle at their best.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the De Oro info - I hadn't known his history.

I'll add one thought for what it's worth. In the past it was possible for an exceptionally talented and motivated player to become a champion at both pool and billiards - De Oro, Hueston, Layton, Worst. But now I think both games have progressed to the point that it is no longer possible. Look at the European billiard players - they have taken three cushion to such a high level that it's unimaginable for a pool champion to compete on the world 3C stage. And none do. Efren is probably the best 3C player among pool champions, but he plays far below, say, a Jaspers or Caudron.
And no 3C players could stay on the table with Efren for long, although Blomdahl is a talented pool player.

Worst was the last to do it, so his achievement may be the greatest in this regard. However, he didn't try to be a pool and billiard champion at the same time. It appears that 3C competition dried up in this country after he won his world championship, and eventually he focused exclusively on pool.
 
book collector

book collector

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I agree, unless a champion left their best game and went and practiced a couple of years at the new one I doubt it will happen either. Seems it must be easier for a pocket player to become a billiard player than vice versa but I also think Blomdahl is a pretty good pocket billiard player. Could he compete with top 5 in a few years ? I doubt he or any other would do it since it would have to cost them a lot of money with no guarantee of financial reward at the end.
 
Mr. Bond

Mr. Bond

Orbis Non Sufficit
Gold Member
Silver Member
book collector said:
I realize there is only a small group of people who have spent much time getting educated about the game and it's players for the past 150 years....
Click to expand...

You're right, and it's a shame. Because the old masters are not like broken pottery from a village 3 thousand years ago, having only a limited connection with the modern day. These were real people, playing the same games we do. Struggling with the same shots we do. And certainly as capable as any player today, maybe even moreso.
(For example, I think he's a worthy master, but I'd like to see how Reyes performs with a one piece wood-only cue, on an 1890 10ft table, using ivory balls, playing under gas lamps)

book collector said:
but I think a lot of people are interested by the pool players stories and being able to see some of the equipment and how they were treated as living legends at that time. I was doing some research {first time in about 8 years} and I keep seeing articles written about players that are not true, I realize Wikipedia is not the greatest place to find information but the last straw was an article written by someone for one of the pool magazines that said Mosconi was also a 3 cushion world champion. I do think he was a good player but he was never world champion , there were only 3 people who ever did it and they were Alfredo De Oro, Thomas Hueston and Johnny Layton. I don't really blame this guy, someone probably told him that and he never checked. On a side note is anyone interested in why I think Alfredo De Oro was the greatest all around player to ever live?
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention " the greatest player that ever lived " because I was just about to post a thread posing that question...

Alfred was a very very keen player I have no doubt. Hueston as well. You've got me thinking about this one...
 
book collector

book collector

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I have had the privilege of holding an 1830 Mingaud in my hands and I was amazed at the shots that are diagrammed in it. He single handedly figured out the majority of the shots we play now. The book was printed in France first and when he took it to the famous John Thurston {who owned billiard rooms and manufactories and had seen all the best players in Europe at the time} to ask about having the book printed in English, Thurston said he couldn't print such a book of fantasy shots, whereupon Mingaud proceeded to make every shot diagrammed in the book. I believe there are 70 I will have to look at the copy I made. I showed a couple to Mike Massey years ago and also a May Karluss shot that she made in nearly every exhibition she gave and he just looked at me like I had 3 heads. I guess I can't blame him. If I can figure out how to set the table
up I will post the May Karluss shot , no one will believe it but several World Champions testified that they had gone to her show and seen her perform the shot numerous times. {None of them could duplicate it either}
 
Rich93

Rich93

A Small Time Charlie
Silver Member
Mr. Bond said:
......
(For example, I think he's a worthy master, but I'd like to see how Reyes performs with a one piece wood-only cue, on an 1890 10ft table, using ivory balls, playing under gas lamps)
Click to expand...

Very well, I think. Playing in the Philippines since an early age, Efren has probably played in bad conditions more than most anyone today.

I'm inclined to your point of view with respect to the greats of the past, but I think perhaps you underrate Efren Reyes. This is a guy who has mastered every billiard game - rotation games, one pocket, straight pool (though he never plays it), banks, three cushion and balkline.

Unlike many American stars of the past, he didn't get the opportunity to learn from observing Greenleaf and other pocket greats, like Mosconi did. I'm sure the talent pool in the Philippines was much thinner when Efren learned to play than in, say, Philadelphia circa 1930.

It's been impossible for Efren (or anyone) to dominate the game as Mosconi once did. The world championships of yesteryear were small affairs, with 8 or 10 competing in round robins in a game (straight pool) where the luck factor is minimized. So the best man usually won, and that was Mosconi during his time and Greenleaf during his. Today's tournaments are much larger, usually double elimination, and luck plays a bigger factor in the games being played (as well as such irrelevancies as how hard you can slam the balls). And he has a tremendous record, considering these factors.

Even though you haven't asked yet, I rate Efren the greatest pocket player of all time, Mosconi and Greenleaf tied for second, and Harold Worst third, though his reign was very very brief.

By all accounts, Efren is very likable and generous, an easy person to admire. At the last Derby City I was having dinner with a well-known player who knows Efren well. Efren was at the next table eating with Van Boening. My dinner companion said to me "You don't know Efren and he doesn't know you, but I bet if you went up to him and said you needed money he'd throw you a couple hundred." I don't know if that's true but that's what he said. He went on to describe how Efren supports lots of people in his country and is an all-around prince of a guy. I do believe that.
 
book collector

book collector

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I agree Efren is a fantastic player and as nice a person as you could want to meet. From what I have seen watching him at tournaments the last 20 years or so. I have mixed feelings about Mosconi, I think he was a great player but there were some tournaments that were boycotted by the other top players which he won , also the tournaments today have 100 players in them who on a given day might beat you as opposed to 10 or 12back then. I will have to dig up some of the clippings from the straight pool tournaments Ralph Greenleaf was in where he went the whole tournament without missing a called ball. Ask John Schmidt or any of the top straight pool players what they think of that. Unfortuneately like many others, Ralph had an alcohol problem that cut his brilliant career short. As I said at the beginning of the post, its a shame that there is not more information about the old time players so that people could fairly compare them. I never got to watch Mosconi or Greenleaf live but I watched every match Buddy Hall played in 1999 ? at the US Open he won and he played the most perfect 9 ball I have ever seen for the whole tournament and I have watched almost everyone for the last 30 years. Thanks for the input to everyone who has posted and anyone reading.
 
Mr. Bond

Mr. Bond

Orbis Non Sufficit
Gold Member
Silver Member
Rich93 said:
Very well, I think. Playing in the Philippines since an early age, Efren has probably played in bad conditions more than most anyone today.

I'm inclined to your point of view with respect to the greats of the past, but I think perhaps you underrate Efren Reyes. This is a guy who has mastered every billiard game - rotation games, one pocket, straight pool (though he never plays it), banks, three cushion and balkline.

Unlike many American stars of the past, he didn't get the opportunity to learn from observing Greenleaf and other pocket greats, like Mosconi did. I'm sure the talent pool in the Philippines was much thinner when Efren learned to play than in, say, Philadelphia circa 1930.

It's been impossible for Efren (or anyone) to dominate the game as Mosconi once did. The world championships of yesteryear were small affairs, with 8 or 10 competing in round robins in a game (straight pool) where the luck factor is minimized. So the best man usually won, and that was Mosconi during his time and Greenleaf during his. Today's tournaments are much larger, usually double elimination, and luck plays a bigger factor in the games being played (as well as such irrelevancies as how hard you can slam the balls). And he has a tremendous record, considering these factors.

Even though you haven't asked yet, I rate Efren the greatest pocket player of all time, Mosconi and Greenleaf tied for second, and Harold Worst third, though his reign was very very brief.

By all accounts, Efren is very likable and generous, an easy person to admire. At the last Derby City I was having dinner with a well-known player who knows Efren well. Efren was at the next table eating with Van Boening. My dinner companion said to me "You don't know Efren and he doesn't know you, but I bet if you went up to him and said you needed money he'd throw you a couple hundred." I don't know if that's true but that's what he said. He went on to describe how Efren supports lots of people in his country and is an all-around prince of a guy. I do believe that.
Click to expand...

Dont get me wrong Rich, I DO think Reyes is a master. And a naturally talented one at that, like unto Beethoven or Mozart. It never ceases to amaze me how easy he makes it look.

I just meant to point out that back in the day, they were playing under conditions that we'd find less than desirable today - and the tables were huge - but they still managed to play amazingly well, even by today's standards.

In other words, the players of 100+ years ago were just as skilled, if not moreso, than the players of today. This is not neccesarily true with all sports.
 
Mr. Bond

Mr. Bond

Orbis Non Sufficit
Gold Member
Silver Member
book collector said:
I have had the privilege of holding an 1830 Mingaud in my hands and I was amazed at the shots that are diagrammed in it. He single handedly figured out the majority of the shots we play now. The book was printed in France first and when he took it to the famous John Thurston {who owned billiard rooms and manufactories and had seen all the best players in Europe at the time} to ask about having the book printed in English, Thurston said he couldn't print such a book of fantasy shots, whereupon Mingaud proceeded to make every shot diagrammed in the book. I believe there are 70 I will have to look at the copy I made. I showed a couple to Mike Massey years ago and also a May Karluss shot that she made in nearly every exhibition she gave and he just looked at me like I had 3 heads. I guess I can't blame him. If I can figure out how to set the table
up I will post the May Karluss shot , no one will believe it but several World Champions testified that they had gone to her show and seen her perform the shot numerous times. {None of them could duplicate it either}
Click to expand...

I think we have a copy of that book.

Click Here
 
L

LApoolbum

New member
I don't want to appear contentious or to diminish anyone's opinion. Comparing great players ( or the various games) to each other is a discussion which seems to excite the interest of most of us. It is certainly an entertaining exercise but I feel that trying to reduce the players or games to a 'best', in the end, does a disservice to those being compared and those comparing. I have been most enriched by learning what I can from each player( or game) and leaving their accomplishments intact and alone. Again, I am not trying to disparage this discussion or any posts, I'm simply trying to share a thought that has helped me appreciate many great players and all the games.

Cheers and Happy New Year to all of you!
 
Mr. Bond

Mr. Bond

Orbis Non Sufficit
Gold Member
Silver Member
i can agree with that statement. and i'll add that what constitutes a 'great player' is sometimes something more than just winning games
 
book collector

book collector

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
LApoolbum said:
I don't want to appear contentious or to diminish anyone's opinion. Comparing great players ( or the various games) to each other is a discussion which seems to excite the interest of most of us. It is certainly an entertaining exercise but I feel that trying to reduce the players or games to a 'best', in the end, does a disservice to those being compared and those comparing. I have been most enriched by learning what I can from each player( or game) and leaving their accomplishments intact and alone. Again, I am not trying to disparage this discussion or any posts, I'm simply trying to share a thought that has helped me appreciate many great players and all the games.

Cheers and Happy New Year to all of you!
Click to expand...

I appreciate and enjoy all of the great players also.
As in every part of life , there are some who stood head and shoulders above the others in their accomplishments on the table.
Most people have never even heard of some of the greatest players
How many would know that Walter Lindrum was at least twice as good as his nearest opponents for about 15 years and almost single handedly took English Billiards out of existence because of the fact there was no one who could compete with him.
Would it be fitting to place a player who had won major tournament in his lifetime in the same category as Buddy Hall ?
If I have done a disservice because I have favorites who I believe were the top 1% of all players who ever lived, then it is what it is.
My intent was to teach people other names than Mosconi and Fats.
I read a post recently where the OP stated that according to the BCA rulebooks Alfredo De Oros High run was 84 ... therefore the players of today would have murdered him.
In his prime almost no one beat him at any game, 3 cushion or pocket billiards and he was the only person who ever went over and beat them at English Billiards.
I guess since there has been almost no interest in this or many of the threads in this section that most players don't know and don't care.
 
L

LApoolbum

New member
book collector said:
Would it be fitting to place a player who had won major tournament in his
I guess since there has been almost no interest in this or many of the threads in this section that most players don't know and don't care.
Click to expand...

When I was younger I was only interested in playing and didn't care about those who preceded me, maybe age changes ones perspective. Thanks for the tip on Walter Lindrum, I hadn't heard of him before and now there's a new player to learn about!
 
G

gmillioni

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
champions

in the hey days of pool, late 1800's up to WW2 tournaments were played more by qualifying then by open invitation. im not entirely accurate in my statements by the game was played differently for the "title". that is players competed in matches across the country for the right to play in qualifying tournaments to get to play for the championship title. so in the end, yes, there were fewer players playing for the "title" in a round robin format, but those fewer players had already played numerous games against many competitive players across the country, and won. so ultimately the few left were to compete against themselves for the title. unlike today where there are many titles and chamopionship games, which means there are many champions at one time, with the shadow of thought questioning who is the best. back then the best held the single "title" because he beat everyone who qualified to even play for it. IMHO as somewhat learned from reading. gerald
 
Mr. Bond

Mr. Bond

Orbis Non Sufficit
Gold Member
Silver Member
gmillioni said:
in the hey days of pool, late 1800's up to WW2 tournaments were played more by qualifying then by open invitation. im not entirely accurate in my statements by the game was played differently for the "title". that is players competed in matches across the country for the right to play in qualifying tournaments to get to play for the championship title. so in the end, yes, there were fewer players playing for the "title" in a round robin format, but those fewer players had already played numerous games against many competitive players across the country, and won. so ultimately the few left were to compete against themselves for the title. unlike today where there are many titles and chamopionship games, which means there are many champions at one time, with the shadow of thought questioning who is the best. back then the best held the single "title" because he beat everyone who qualified to even play for it. IMHO as somewhat learned from reading. gerald
Click to expand...

Sometimes I really wish I had a couple million bucks lying around so I could hold a first class national championship like they used to. Its a dam crying shame that nobody will step up and do it.

I also like the old school "room sponsorship" that players would get back in the day... you'd ready in the paper " Joe Schmoe representing Foley's room is playing a match tonight against Lenny Penny of Smith's Pool House.."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top