Why does the latest generation

Interesting discussion. I have yet to see a better One Pocket player than Efren. And there is no one today who had Ronnie's overall game. He just played a different game (and better) than anyone I see playing today.

Ten Ball is another story entirely. I can remember the first pro Ten Ball tournaments held nearly 30 years ago. The players as a whole had trouble running any racks and a two rack run was something to celebrate. It was boring watching these guys struggle to get out and many games took a few innings to complete. Contrast with today's top players who are running multiple racks of Ten Ball and are treating it like an extended form of 9-Ball.

And then again, there's Bank Pool. Once again, I have only seen one or two players (John Brumback and Jason Miller) who were anything close to the speed of Eddie Taylor, Bugs or Cannonball. And if you ask John he will probably tell you that he's not in Taylor's league (true!).

Same goes for Straight Pool. Yes, players are making high runs, but not that frequently in matches. Guys like Mizerak (#1!), Sigel (#2), Varner, Rempe or Hopkins may all have been better all around players. They all had a deep understanding of safety play, the ideal break shots and how to play off the rack.

So in some cases (9-Ball, Ten Ball and Eight Ball) I will admit that today's players are superior (the best players definitely have healthier life styles) and in some cases (see above) I'm not so sure.

Pool is not like many other sports. You don't have to be bigger or stronger to excel. Take a look at all the little guys who are and have been great players. It took me decades to realize that having a short stature (Mosconi was 5'7, Willis maybe 5'6, Caras also 5'7, Boston Shorty 5'2, Parica also 5'2, and on and on) can be advantageous at Pool. Last I heard the table height was still 30" off the floor!

One last thing. For mental toughness I have yet to see anyone like Harold Worst. Nothing ever fazed him (even approaching death!) and he never let up for a second. I never saw him shoot a bad shot! And I never heard him utter a negative remark about anybody or anything. Try that one on for size. Even the most hard core hustlers paid homage to this one man. The only guy even close in this respect is Efren, and I'd still put him in line behind Worst.

jay helfert said:

Interesting discussion.......

Click to expand...

I am not going to disagree with any of this. I share your admiration of the great players from our generation.

Paul Schofield said:

Each subsequent generation is bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, and has the benefit of newer technology.

Click to expand...

The cue ball hasn't changed much.

I think moving and management have become way weaker overall.

I think the simplest explanation is that pool is a science and, just like in every other science, new discoveries are still being made and new techniques developed.

John Ervolino used to marvel at Efren and said of him [Efren looks at a layout on a pool table and sees things that no player before him ever saw.] It may seem like sacrilege for me to say so, but it's reasonable to expect that a player that sees things that even Efren didn't see or understand will emerge at some point.

Mathematics is a science that is over 2,500 years old, and yet new discoveries are still being made, new understandings are being developed, new solutions to old problems are still often found, and none of it in any way diminishes the giants of the past, for as a science, mathematics is still evolving.

... and so it is with pool. Every generation is a step beyond the one that came before it, and that's the natural progression of things.

it isnt math it is intelligence. efrin is much more intelligent than all or almost all of the other touring pros.
ervolino was stupid to say the least. so ya he didnt see what efrin sees when he looks at a rack.

maha said:

it isnt math it is intelligence. efrin is much more intelligent than all or almost all of the other touring pros.
ervolino was stupid to say the least. so ya he didnt see what efrin sees when he looks at a rack.

Click to expand...

Not a very informed post here. When it came to pool, Ervolino was among the more imaginative players of his generation, especially at one pocket. Further, Grady Matthews said Johnny played the straight pool patterns as well as anybody he'd ever seen and Jimmy Fusco called him "the man who knew everything."

sjm said:

I think the simplest explanation is that pool is a science and, just like in every other science, new discoveries are still being made and new techniques developed.

John Ervolino used to marvel at Efren and said of him [Efren looks at a layout on a pool table and sees things that no player before him ever saw.] It may seem like sacrilege for me to say so, but it's reasonable to expect that a player that sees things that even Efren didn't see or understand will emerge at some point.

Mathematics is a science that is over 2,500 years old, and yet new discoveries are still being made, new understandings are being developed, new solutions to old problems are still often found, and none of it in any way diminishes the giants of the past, for as a science, mathematics is still evolving.

... and so it is with pool. Every generation is a step beyond the one that came before it, and that's the natural progression of things.

Click to expand...

I think Diamond Tables have done a lot to elevate play. Players have had to become more precise to play the skill level they might expect to play at on a gold crown. This process, once done, could be repeated (potentially) to achieve a higher level of skill and precision continually for amateurs and pros alike. I would argue part of the advancement in today's game is a response to tough, but fair and reliable equipment.

I think the DCC has changed one pocket. Now, the biggest one pocket tournament every year is centered around a race to 3. Someone with the firepower of Scott Frost or Tony Chohan (with the right draw) can easily zoom through early rounds with little mental or physical drain. For the "die hards" of one pocket, I think many see it as a game meant to be played as a 15-hour war of attrition. Players are responding to a changed format...at least partly. Although, I would concede that Chohan and Frost are likely to play the same way in a 15 hour session.

I believe the DCC bank pool tournament has made all the pros better bankers--as a group, while maybe no one of them is as good as Mr. Taylor--according to Mr. Helfert, but I will defer to him on that matter.

Finally, I worry for straight pool. I love the DCC straight pool event, because I think as a discipline 14.1 is an endangered species. I do not want to see it go away. Anything, that gets people interested in it, playing it, and appreciating it is a good thing. As a community of people that enjoy pool, I think we should all be concerned to guard against losing knowledge about a game or its history. While pros do not compete in 14.1 like they used to, some have taken to use it as a practice tool and an additional event at the DCC, and I hope it continues. Of course, pros today don't know the strategy in the way Rempe or Sigel did, but they would catch on quick if tournaments would ever materialize.

kollegedave

maha said:

it isnt math it is intelligence. efrin is much more intelligent than all or almost all of the other touring pros.
ervolino was stupid to say the least. so ya he didnt see what efrin sees when he looks at a rack.

Click to expand...

Have you ever heard Ervolino do commentary on a match?

It would be hard for any living human that isn't a 300 ball runner to question the intelligence of a guy that ran a 360-something on his 66th birthday according to Billiards Digest. Tommy D.

it's the same in most sports. the new generation stand on the shoulders of previous generations, learning from their mistakes, acquiring knowledge through video etc

in most sports you also get the nostalgiacs thinking they saw the best play when they were young. now i have seen a lot of pool from the 80's and 90's, fine players for sure but compared with today i think it's a different level. the shots they butchered on bucket tables back then are rarely missed today on tight equipment. then add the kicking, the jumping, the breaking.. it's all gone up a notch.

i doubt that one pocket was better in the 70's, given that the game today is a lot tighter than it was just 15 years ago. straight pool might not have evolved much, but then again noone plays it anymore

I know this has been discussed before on these forums but I think the fast cloth contributes- just watching the world 10 ball and I was thinking that these guys almost never need to put a strong stroke into a shot. I know that the pockets are tighter than past eras, but the slow cloth really required a stroke and I think today’s players would really struggle under such table conditions

westcoast said:

I know this has been discussed before on these forums but I think the fast cloth contributes- just watching the world 10 ball and I was thinking that these guys almost never need to put a strong stroke into a shot. I know that the pockets are tighter than past eras, but the slow cloth really required a stroke and I think today’s players would really struggle under such table conditions

Click to expand...

EVERYBODY struggled more on slow cloth.
Many shots are not possible on rough conditions...
..and the balls are airborne a lot more.

The fast cloth makes more things POSSIBLE...which is good for the game.

cloth and pockets

pt109 said:

EVERYBODY struggled more on slow cloth.
Many shots are not possible on rough conditions...
..and the balls are airborne a lot more.

The fast cloth makes more things POSSIBLE...which is good for the game.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if fast cloth is good for the game or not. Maybe good for the game but not the sport. No question that recreational and semi-serious players will play better on fast cloth.

I think that the typical tight pockets of today, four and a half inch or bigger, are more than offset by fast cloth. In other words, I think that small pockets and fast cloth is easier to play on than bigger pockets and slow cloth. Another factor is cloth maintenance. If the old cloth had been cleaned and changed as often as today's I think it would have played much better than it did.

I think like in many things the pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other. I am not regretting no longer having to play on the shag carpet on some tables in the old days but I do think the glass fast cloth of today is too far in the other extreme.

Hu

ShootingArts said:

I am not sure if fast cloth is good for the game or not. Maybe good for the game but not the sport. No question that recreational and semi-serious players will play better on fast cloth.

I think that the typical tight pockets of today, four and a half inch or bigger, are more than offset by fast cloth. In other words, I think that small pockets and fast cloth is easier to play on than bigger pockets and slow cloth. Another factor is cloth maintenance. If the old cloth had been cleaned and changed as often as today's I think it would have played much better than it did.

I think like in many things the pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other. I am not regretting no longer having to play on the shag carpet on some tables in the old days but I do think the glass fast cloth of today is too far in the other extreme.

Hu

Click to expand...

I agree. I think the playing conditions are so different now that it is almost like comparing 2 different sports

ShootingArts said:

I am not sure if fast cloth is good for the game or not. Maybe good for the game but not the sport. No question that recreational and semi-serious players will play better on fast cloth.

I think that the typical tight pockets of today, four and a half inch or bigger, are more than offset by fast cloth. In other words, I think that small pockets and fast cloth is easier to play on than bigger pockets and slow cloth. Another factor is cloth maintenance. If the old cloth had been cleaned and changed as often as today's I think it would have played much better than it did.

I think like in many things the pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other. I am not regretting no longer having to play on the shag carpet on some tables in the old days but I do think the glass fast cloth of today is too far in the other extreme.

Hu

Click to expand...

Hu, nobody wants to putt on a green that hasn’t got mowed enough.....
...the ball skips and jumps....it’s like rolling dice...fast greens cater to more skill.

I feel fine cloth does the same for any billiard game.
...for one thing, the spin stays on a lot longer, making shots possible that do not exist
on heavy cloth.
One of the reasons the Rack in Detroit had such great action for years...IMO...is that
Gil Elias kept fast cloth on his tables....they favor the skillful players.

Limiting the game won’t pay in the long run.
I could probably write a short story on this topic...but I’m avoiding carpal tunnel...

good luck on the carpel tunnel!

pt109 said:

Hu, nobody wants to putt on a green that hasn’t got mowed enough.....
...the ball skips and jumps....it’s like rolling dice...fast greens cater to more skill.

I feel fine cloth does the same for any billiard game.
...for one thing, the spin stays on a lot longer, making shots possible that do not exist
on heavy cloth.
One of the reasons the Rack in Detroit had such great action for years...IMO...is that
Gil Elias kept fast cloth on his tables....they favor the skillful players.

Limiting the game won’t pay in the long run.
I could probably write a short story on this topic...but I’m avoiding carpal tunnel...

Click to expand...

Nobody wants to putt on the green that hasn't been mowed enough, but what about the green that has been concreted and tiled? There is no technical reason we couldn't slide a sheet of plexiglass over the slate, maybe lexan or one of the higher grades of sheet plastic. It could be more level than any cloth and almost slicker than owl snot which we all know is slicker than anything but dodobird snot which has became very hard to come by.

Today we can slide our grip hand very far forward and relentlessly bunt all night even on a nine foot table. I know, I did just that without feeling handicapped. The average player including me rarely uses a table length of power draw and even when they do it is usually because they have passed on better options. This stuff we are playing on seems to be too much of a good thing. What are they playing other cue sports on? I think carom and billiards use very fast cloth, what about snooker, pyramid, chinese eightball, what are the options for a middle ground?

I am not looking for a deep cloth but I would like to know I am playing on cloth. My comment above made me seriously wonder why aren't we playing on colored plastic? The people with the reactive table claim their plastic plays just like modern day cloth. No idea if that is true of course. I can't help but seriously think of the benefits of playing on plastic. When it gets damaged or worn, grab it at a couple of pockets, pop it out, pop a new sheet in. Less than fifty bucks a sheet, no install fee, no moving rails and cushions around and getting them out of alignment, hey this could be the next big thing for pool!

I think I am almost serious about this. I had better go take a shower and see if I am asleep. If I don't wake up I might be serious about a plastic playing surface for pool. It could easily have as much "tooth" as today's cloth and it could even be double sided. Wear out one side, flip it over and go again!

Hu

Hu....have you ever gone to a shooting range with a Saturday Special?
....you’re defending conditions because of your experiences playing with guys who couldn’t
tell a Szamboti from a bridge handle.
You know some esoteric stuff that leaves me in awe...apply that to billiards.

I used to argue...very friendly...with a great player in Britain about heavy cloth...their cloth
in the 80s was slower than any you’ve seen in America....35 to 42 ounces...as opposed
to the mid twenties that is probably the heaviest you’ve played on.
I showed him a shot that I can get position on all day...slow inside english....showed him
how the guys I give 50 points to have to play it...told him...on your heavy cloth, you have
to play it like the guys I give 50 to....how is that good for the game?....modern snooker has
went to fast cloth and heated tables....and they’re playing the game at a much higher level.

You would love my oldest brother....he’d understand what you say about car racing...
...and you would love my youngest brother ....he was a crack shot.

Me?....you’re talking to the brother that went into a strange room, saw a carom table...
...took one shot and brought the balls back...owner asks...”Something wrong?”
Told him “Putting 760 Simonis on a carom table is like white-washing your Lamborghini....
...gimme me the pool balls.”

Take all the responses together and you get a good idea. YouTube, Diamond Tables, Asian/European training. But it really comes down to what I call the 4 minute mile effect. One guy does it...others can do it (Shane's break comes to mind.)

jay helfert said:

Interesting discussion. I have yet to see a better One Pocket player than Efren. And there is no one today who had Ronnie's overall game. He just played a different game (and better) than anyone I see playing today.

Ten Ball is another story entirely. I can remember the first pro Ten Ball tournaments held nearly 30 years ago. The players as a whole had trouble running any racks and a two rack run was something to celebrate. It was boring watching these guys struggle to get out and many games took a few innings to complete. Contrast with today's top players who are running multiple racks of Ten Ball and are treating it like an extended form of 9-Ball.

And then again, there's Bank Pool. Once again, I have only seen one or two players (John Brumback and Jason Miller) who were anything close to the speed of Eddie Taylor, Bugs or Cannonball. And if you ask John he will probably tell you that he's not in Taylor's league (true!).

Same goes for Straight Pool. Yes, players are making high runs, but not that frequently in matches. Guys like Mizerak (#1!), Sigel (#2), Varner, Rempe or Hopkins may all have been better all around players. They all had a deep understanding of safety play, the ideal break shots and how to play off the rack.

So in some cases (9-Ball, Ten Ball and Eight Ball) I will admit that today's players are superior (the best players definitely have healthier life styles) and in some cases (see above) I'm not so sure.

Pool is not like many other sports. You don't have to be bigger or stronger to excel. Take a look at all the little guys who are and have been great players. It took me decades to realize that having a short stature (Mosconi was 5'7, Willis maybe 5'6, Caras also 5'7, Boston Shorty 5'2, Parica also 5'2, and on and on) can be advantageous at Pool. Last I heard the table height was still 30" off the floor!

One last thing. For mental toughness I have yet to see anyone like Harold Worst. Nothing ever fazed him (even approaching death!) and he never let up for a second. I never saw him shoot a bad shot! And I never heard him utter a negative remark about anybody or anything. Try that one on for size. Even the most hard core hustlers paid homage to this one man. The only guy even close in this respect is Efren, and I'd still put him in line behind Worst.

Click to expand...

Speaking of Harold Worst I just read an article about his 1954 world 3 cushion championship in Argentina. Worst refused to take a bribe from some mobsters - presumably to dump - and was advised by Argentine president Juan Peron to leave the country.

That's some toughness. Also shows integrity.