Luther Lassiter: short story and quick question

By all accounts Earl wood have never come close to Mr. Lassiter, when he (Mr. Lassiter) was in his prime. He, simply, was the best there was.
How do you sum up the life of Luther Lassiter. He may have won, and lost, more money than any of us see in a lifetime, yet died with little more than eight dollars in his pocket. In his later years he depended solely upon the kindness of a childhood friend to provide sustenance, yet made hundreds of thousands of dollars through most of his life.
He used to say (and, I paraphrase here). "If I watch someone practice for an hour and they only miss once, I know I can beat them." How do you respond to a statement like that?

fjk said:

Back around 86, I watched Luther play in the BC Open 9 Ball Tournament. This was a major tournament at the time and all the big names were there. Luther looked much older than he actually was. He was only in his late 60s but looked like he was 80.

Luther cashed in that tournament and knocked off some of the big guys. One match, against Dave Bollman to cash, it went hill-hill (10-10). Luther was running out when he needed to go a few rails to get on the 8 (which was on the nameplate). The 9 was in the middle of the opposite short rail. He got perfectly straight on the 8. The crowd was all mumbling about what he was going to do. Luther quickly glanced down once again to where the 9 was, thought about 2 seconds and shot the 8 in with a stop shot. This left him a 9 foot 90 degree cut shot for the match. After shooting the 8, he immediately got down to shoot the 9, stroked it 2 or 3 times, and cut in the center of the hole. Dave just hung his head is disbelief.

Later that same tournament, I was sitting right next to Luther while we were both watching Earl Strickland steam roll someone (I can't recall who). Luther was not impressed with Earl's game at all. He kept talking to me about all Earl was doing wrong through the entire match. He especially was not impressed with Earl's position play. He told me he "would have loved to match up against Earl 30 years ago".

I was kind of leaning towards today's generation of players being stronger than previous generations. But of course, I never had the opportunity to watch someone like Luther Lassiter in his prime.

Just how good did Luther play (by today's standards / comparisons)? Do you believe Luther would have beaten Earl as Luther claimed (without any uncertainty BTW)?

Click to expand...

Wimpy died in October of 88' I believe. I'm from his hometown of Elizabeth City, NC. That tournament was only a couple years before he passed away and to beat Bollman back then was quite a feat no matter how old he was. Dave Bollman was a good friend of mine and sadly he passed away just last year. He's in the Guiness Book of World Records as being the only Golf Pro turned Pool Pro. One of the best guys I've ever met, he'd do anything for you.

But back to your question... I think maybe Wimpy just didn't like Earl to be honest. Wimpy was a very humble, soft spoken good ole boy and Earl is... well Earl. I also find it hard to believe that Earl played bad enough for Wimpy to talk about it haha... again he probably just didn't like him. Earl's pattern play and position has always been pretty amazing. I think he's one-stroked more tough shots and fallen perfectly back in line than anyone.

I've heard this from Dave Bollman himself. Dave told me he's played Wimpy AND Efren and it wasn't really that close. He said Efren was just on a different level than the older guard. He never mentioned Earl but I'm sure the same might be true. I hate to even speculate about it honestly. Wimpy was the best of his era and who's not to say that if he were born later he wouldn't have been the best of this one?

Great story, wish there were more like this.

Back around 75 I was just getting started playing. I used to be able to watch him once in a while practicing 14.1 on one of the little 9' tables. (Most in that room were 10'). I was too green yet to really learn anything from it, but was still amazed at his abilities. He would run off 100 balls. One would go in each side, and one in each far corner. The other 96 were all in the bottom pockets.

That alone is impressive, but the really impressive part is that he never once broke out more than 2 or 3 balls the entire run. Most of the time making the ob and just breaking out one ball and getting shape on it for the opposite corner. Just kept going back and forth to the two bottom pockets. Now that I know more, that is just amazing, and something you never see today.

Neil said:

Back around 75 I was just getting started playing. I used to be able to watch him once in a while practicing 14.1 on one of the little 9' tables. (Most in that room were 10'). I was too green yet to really learn anything from it, but was still amazed at his abilities. He would run off 100 balls. One would go in each side, and one in each far corner. The other 96 were all in the bottom pockets.

That alone is impressive, but the really impressive part is that he never once broke out more than 2 or 3 balls the entire run. Most of the time making the ob and just breaking out one ball and getting shape on it for the opposite corner. Just kept going back and forth to the two bottom pockets. Now that I know more, that is just amazing, and something you never see today.

Click to expand...

Straight Pool was actually Wimpy's best game, 9-Ball second. He played right up there with Mosconi, Caras and Crane. None of these guys could beat him for money and they wouldn't dare try. Wimpy was a great money player, nearly unbeatable for thirty years. That's why he got the big rep, because no one ever beat him for money. And like Shane he could win tournaments too. He had the best record of anybody playing in Johnston City and at the Stardust.

I would put Wimpy's speed right there with Mike Sigel, because both of them rarely missed a ball. Wimpy cut the balls like Lee Vann Corteza, who is the best at that today. His position play was the equal of Efren, near perfect cue ball control. He had a funny little chop stroke like Allen Hopkins, but just like Allen he made it work for him.

Wimpy was an intense player, totally focused on the match at all times. He didn't fool around or try to shark anyone. He just got up there and played lights out. Closest modern era players with his intensity were Jose Parica and Jimmy Rempe.

There is a reason that Wimpy was acknowledged by his peers at the best player of his era. Every pool player respected him, hustler and tourney player alike. If you woofed at him, you would get a game. But even the best young 9-Ball players of that era didn't want any part of Wimpy. I was there and saw it with my own eyes. Wimpy would sit in that practice room all night hoping that someone would get froggy and challenge him to play. The only man I ever saw challenge Wimpy was Harold Worst.

Wimpy was a legendary player, there is no doubt about that. IMO he could play with the best players today, although the conditions have changed quite a bit. Wimpy ruled in the Push Out era and when we played on slow cloth. Put these modern players under similar conditions and it's very doubtful anyone would play any better than Wimpy.

All that sad, Earl had the highest gear of anyone I ever saw play tournament 9-Ball and Parica was the best money player I ever saw. Wimpy could not run racks like Earl, but maybe Earl wouldn't run so many racks on slow cloth either. As good as Wimpy was, I think Parica would have beaten him for the cash. Jose was the next "unbeatable" 9-Ball player after Wimpy. He moved the cue ball around the table better than anyone else including Earl. And could do it for the cash too! That's why he beat Earl when they gambled. Earl tried to play Jose Ten Ball when he was at this peak and he got drilled.

So there you have it, all great players who dominated their respective eras, each with their own unique skills. Wimpy didn't like One Pocket or Banks and I never saw him gamble at either game. Earl, Sigel and Parica were much more well rounded at the other games, but I would take Wimpy over any of them at Straight Pool (well it's close with Sigel). That's about it, my two cents plus change.

Mosconi on Lassiter's straight pool game, from "Willie's Game."

"He (Lassiter) was basically a nine-ball player, but he could shoot a respectable game of straight pool."

"'Lassiter is of no consequence,' I said. 'I've beaten him repeatedly, once seven times straight in his hometown.'"

Lou Figueroa

lfigueroa said:

"'Lassiter is of no consequence,' I said. 'I've beaten him repeatedly, once seven times straight in his hometown.'"

Lou Figueroa

Click to expand...

This is where they actually played:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=66848&highlight=house+wimpy+built

It's still open today!

https://www.facebook.com/CityCues

Luther Lassiter is one of the most talented to pick up a cue. Don Willis handed it to him pretty good playing 9ball in Wimpy's hometown, which then lead to their partnership. When Luther was "World Champion" he flat out refused to play Harold Worst 9ball.

fjk said:

Back around 86, I watched Luther play in the BC Open 9 Ball Tournament. This was a major tournament at the time and all the big names were there. Luther looked much older than he actually was. He was only in his late 60s but looked like he was 80.

Luther cashed in that tournament and knocked off some of the big guys. One match, against Dave Bollman to cash, it went hill-hill (10-10). Luther was running out when he needed to go a few rails to get on the 8 (which was on the nameplate). The 9 was in the middle of the opposite short rail. He got perfectly straight on the 8. The crowd was all mumbling about what he was going to do. Luther quickly glanced down once again to where the 9 was, thought about 2 seconds and shot the 8 in with a stop shot. This left him a 9 foot 90 degree cut shot for the match. After shooting the 8, he immediately got down to shoot the 9, stroked it 2 or 3 times, and cut in the center of the hole. Dave just hung his head is disbelief.

Later that same tournament, I was sitting right next to Luther while we were both watching Earl Strickland steam roll someone (I can't recall who). Luther was not impressed with Earl's game at all. He kept talking to me about all Earl was doing wrong through the entire match. He especially was not impressed with Earl's position play. He told me he "would have loved to match up against Earl 30 years ago".

I was kind of leaning towards today's generation of players being stronger than previous generations. But of course, I never had the opportunity to watch someone like Luther Lassiter in his prime.

Just how good did Luther play (by today's standards / comparisons)? Do you believe Luther would have beaten Earl as Luther claimed (without any uncertainty BTW)?

Click to expand...

I think it was more of a matter of two different styles. According to Gene Nagy, who knew Wimpy extremely well, Wimpy's best game was 9-ball on tight pocket tables. He trapped many players on those conditions.

If you think about tight pocket tables, attempting multi-rail position shots with lots of spin is extremely risky. Wimpy's style was to keep position simple and take the tougher shot.

Earl, on the other hand, was a multi-rail position player, so I think it's understandable that Wimpy figured that if Earl took that style to a tight pocket table, he'd never survive.

I asked Buddy Hall, "Who was the best 9 baller he had ever seen?" (lots of folks said he was, so I was trying to trap him).

He claimed the Lassiter was the best ever.

That's a pretty good endorsement I would say.

Ken

Wimpy was one of the best during the era when there were pool halls everywhere. No television, no video games, pool was very popular.

What I wonder about, according to his wikipedia page, he made a ton of money gambling and was living on charity when he died. Did he fail to recognize the decline in his game as he aged and lose it all gambling? He doesn't seem to be the kind of guy who had an expensive lifestyle.

It is not even close. I don't think you even need to know anything about pool and it's history to figure this one out. Pool's legendary players are not as good as today's players.

Today's human specimen is bigger, stronger, faster, and more coordinated than our sports icons of the past. Take a close look at every measurable sport (track & field, swimming, weight lifting, some snow sports etc). The records just keep falling year after year. Take a hard look at the bodies of our current day athletes and compare them to even just 20 or 30 years ago, not to mention 50 and 60 years ago. It is like night and day. It is like this for every sport, individual and team. Football teams of today would crush the "Steel Curtain". Jim Brown might not even get to play today. This is also true for golf and yes, for pool also. It has to be.

If our top players played 14.1 as often as top players of the past, Mosconi's 526 would have been downed a long time ago and by a number of players. That 526 is irrelevant today.

I will admit, it is fun to embellish the stories of our historic figures. I do it too.

Paul Schofield said:

It is not even close. I don't think you even need to know anything about pool and it's history to figure this one out. Pool's legendary players are not as good as today's players.

Today's human specimen is bigger, stronger, faster, and more coordinated than our sports icons of the past. Take a close look at every measurable sport (track & field, swimming, weight lifting, some snow sports etc). The records just keep falling year after year. Take a hard look at the bodies of our current day athletes and compare them to even just 20 or 30 years ago, not to mention 50 and 60 years ago. It is like night and day. It is like this for every sport, individual and team. Football teams of today would crush the "Steel Curtain". Jim Brown might not even get to play today. This is also true for golf and yes, for pool also. It has to be.

If our top players played 14.1 as often as top players of the past, Mosconi's 526 would have been downed a long time ago and by a number of players. That 526 is irrelevant today.

I will admit, it is fun to embellish the stories of our historic figures. I do it too.

Click to expand...

An oft quoted idea that is total BS.
The idea about Mosconi is particularly ludicrous.

Name a few basketball players that are better than Wilton Chamberlain.

Jordan et al are/were more athletically capable than Oscar Robertson, but a better
Basket Ball player? Not even close.

Dale(who is not better than today's players)

legends

I agree 100% Jay ,you should compare Luther to Jose Parica not Efren or Earl. Imo. Buddy would be right there with Jose. Earl could put racks together but Buddy was steady and consistent .We only got a glimpse of Harold Worst but maybe Ronnie was right.

pdcue said:

An oft quoted idea that is total BS.
The idea about Mosconi is particularly ludicrous.

Name a few basketball players that are better than Wilton Chamberlain.

Jordan et al are/were more athletically capable than Oscar Robertson, but a better
Basket Ball player? Not even close.

Dale(who is not better than today's players)

Click to expand...

Bill Russell would be my pick over Wilt. If you have any question, compare the number of championship rings each has.

Ken

fjk said:

Wilt, athletic wise, was a freak of nature. For someone his size to be so fast and athletic was and is unheard of. He would have eaten Shaq up and spit him out.

Click to expand...

Wilt was a tremendous athlete. Do you remember what he played after basketball? Professional Volley Ball. Granted he had the height for it but he still needed the athletics for that sport. Incidentally, I saw an interview with Russell a few years ago and he said he has never touched a basketball since retirement from the NBA.

apples to oranges

The subject of who is/was the best in history always seems to come up from time to time.........I think it's useless to declare ...... no one will ever know who is the best in history; it's just a matter of opinion, since they could never play each other while in their primes.......As to Luther and Earl; I would agree with Jay......Lassiter was the most impressive 9-ball player I ever saw play, until I saw Earl running many racks on many occasions.......I believe what Ms. Crimi said; that Luther simply didn't like Earl and his demeanor, so he probably had no respect for him in that regard......So maybe Luther might've beat Earl in 9-ball on TIGHT pockets; who knows? More speculation and conjecture.....like I said, we will never know......