Today's pro level versus the pros of 1986

I'll buck the trend. I don't think today's top players are any better than the top players of the 2010's, 2000's, 90's, 80's, 70's, and probably further back.

You can connect players across small generation gaps. For example, Buddy hall was probably the top player in the 70's. Earl in the 80's. Do you think one was better than the other? Or one knew a single shot the other did not? Then you make that same connection between Earl of the 80's, and Archer of the 90's. Then Archer of the 90's, and Busty of the 2000's. Then Busty of the 2000's, and Shane of the 2010's. Then Shane of the 2010's, and Filler of today.

Now, that forms a "connection" between Buddy Hall of the 70's, and Filler of today. If you transplanted a 1975 Buddy Hall to today, and gave him 1 month of daily play to get used to the new equipment, the match would be a dead pickem. Same if you transplanted Filler into 1975.

IMO

Better today, yes. More (or less) talented, no.

Cornerman said:

I also point to Efren. Everyone who never lived the slow cloth era thinks of Efren as one of the best ever at 9-ball. But in the slow cloth era, Efren was an underdog to the Sigel, Strickland, Varner and Halls when Efren says he was in his prime. To me, that answers the question.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I've never thought of Efren as a "power player". He is more of a strategy and finesse player who is also a great shot maker.

The table and equipment conditions of today have made the game a whole lot different than it was back in that era. If you didn't have a "stroke" back then, you had to be a "spinner" to get the cue ball around the table. The elites of that era had the ability to both stroke and spin.

The biggest difference is the talent pool , in the 70s there were 100 great players , now there are 1000. I did a detailed study of all champion level players during the 1800s. Many of them were related and passed the knowledge on , or a couple of guys who were always around them , eventually picked up their knowledge.
You could still trace most players lineage, back to those original guys, even into the 1920s. Then you start tracing the players of the 40s 50s back to them and so on.
Places like Chicago , New York, San Francisco, Louisiana, had many of the best players in residence , and although almost no great player i ever met admitted to someone teaching them , {they are mostly all "self taught" } they learned by playing others who played them and picked up moves or shots .
Take jump cues and fast cloth out of the equation and the guys of the 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s all play as good as the guys playing today.
Nobody ever played better shape than Buddy and nobody today shoots any straighter than Earl and Archer in their primes imo.
Lassiter and Worst must have shot pretty straight also.
Then that guy in the teens and 20s Greenleaf , He went several complete tournaments without missing a called ball , lol Ask any of the new guys to try that .

AtLarge said:

How about 37 in succession (plus 2 opening break shots) in a match. That's his best.

Eddie talks about his runs of all 15 and his high run of 37 in a row starting here: https://youtu.be/IcFgsP-u7vA?t=2352

Click to expand...

This video was made many years after his prime and look at how solid he could still hit the balls. I was fortunate to see him play when he was still the GOAT at Banks. He doesn't even count the full racks he ran while practicing, only those he ran in a match or money game. I used to have a copy of his exhibition poster that proclaimed his world record of 37 bsnks in a row. I seriously doubt that record will ever be beaten. A player would have to bank five and out in seven consecutive racks of short rack banks and then make three to start the next rack! Good luck with that. I've yet to hear about a player banking out the first three racks, although Jason Miller and John Brumback came close.

book collector said:

The biggest difference is the talent pool , in the 70s there were 100 great players , now there are 1000. I did a detailed study of all champion level players during the 1800s. Many of them were related and passed the knowledge on , or a couple of guys who were always around them , eventually picked up their knowledge.
You could still trace most players lineage, back to those original guys, even into the 1920s. Then you start tracing the players of the 40s 50s back to them and so on.
Places like Chicago , New York, San Francisco, Louisiana, had many of the best players in residence , and although almost no great player i ever met admitted to someone teaching them , {they are mostly all "self taught" } they learned by playing others who played them and picked up moves or shots .
Take jump cues and fast cloth out of the equation and the guys of the 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s all play as good as the guys playing today.
Nobody ever played better shape than Buddy and nobody today shoots any straighter than Earl and Archer in their primes imo.
Lassiter and Worst must have shot pretty straight also.
Then that guy in the teens and 20s Greenleaf , He went several complete tournaments without missing a called ball , lol Ask any of the new guys to try that .

Click to expand...

I think the talent pool in Straight Pool has declined due to lack of interest in the game. The last great era for 14.1 were the days of Mizerak, Sigel, Varner, Hopkins, Rempe, West, Martin and Diliberto. There were many other great players back then I've failed to mention.

HawaiianEye said:

I agree.

I've never thought of Efren as a "power player". He is more of a strategy and finesse player who is also a great shot maker.

The table and equipment conditions of today have made the game a whole lot different than it was back in that era. If you didn't have a "stroke" back then, you had to be a "spinner" to get the cue ball around the table. The elites of that era had the ability to both stroke and spin.

Click to expand...

I think it's kinda silly to think Efren did not have the stroke during the slow cloth era.
He grew up on slow cloth and wet conditions.
That's how he had that funny bicycle and dart stroke .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HPA_l09S0I
There's Efren giving Earl all he can handle and Earl was lucky to win.
Slow cloth and full of people small venue.
I've seen Efren do wild things with the cue ball on humid conditions.
He knew how to spin the ball right

Efren did not have the power break that Earl, Sigel and Varner had.
If Bustamante broke for him, I think he beats them all easily.
The 80's was not Efren's prime in the US.
It was around 94' to '97.
And he was a competent 3-cushion player btw.
He has the stroke.
Saw him use a Meucci upstairs at the Hollywood Billiards playing 3-c in '96.

JoeyInCali said:

I think it's kinda silly to think Efren did not have the stroke during the slow cloth era.
He grew up on slow cloth and wet conditions.
That's how he had that funny bicycle and dart stroke .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HPA_l09S0I
There's Efren giving Earl all he can handle and Earl was lucky to win.
Slow cloth and full of people small venue.
I've seen Efren do wild things with the cue ball on humid conditions.
He knew how to spin the ball right

Efren did not have the power break that Earl, Sigel and Varner had.
If Bustamante broke for him, I think he beats them all easily.
The 80's was not Efren's prime in the US.
It was around 94' to '97.
And he was a competent 3-cushion player btw.
He has the stroke.
Saw him use a Meucci upstairs at the Hollywood Billiards playing 3-c in '96.

Click to expand...

He said he was in his prime when he was younger than that. I think it should be no coincidence that his best winning years started in ‘94 when Sigel was well on the retirement slide and Simonis was firmly the new standard. It’s a good comparison, Joey. It’s not a knock on Efren. We’re trying to see whether or not players of ‘86 were as good or not as the players of today. I think by examining Efren, it’s an easy “yes”l they were.”

Cornerman said:

He said he was in his prime when he was younger than that. I think it should be no coincidence that his best winning years started in ‘94 when Sigel was well on the retirement slide and Simonis was firmly the new standard. It’s a good comparison, Joey. It’s not a knock on Efren. We’re trying to see whether or not players of ‘86 were as good or not as the players of today. I think by examining Efren, it’s an easy “yes.”

Click to expand...

Most anyone that followed pool in the 70's thru today would have no question about the abilities of past players.

However, people are usually a product of their generation. That's where we older people have an edge over younger people.

Younger folks have no clue because they didn't get the pleasure to experience it.

In the end, 30 years from now the youngins of today will be answering the same questions ask by young folks during that time.

We don't know what we don't know.

Jeff

jrctherake said:

Most anyone that followed pool in the 70's thru today would have no question about the abilities of past players.

However, people are usually a product of their generation. That's where we older people have an edge over younger people.

Younger folks have no clue because they didn't get the pleasure to experience it.

In the end, 30 years from now the youngins of today will be answering the same questions ask by young folks during that time.

We don't know what we don't know.

Jeff

Click to expand...

If you look at pretty much any pursuit of a sporting type that remains valid on a big scale for generations, the level of proficiency goes up. Running, motorsports, ice skating... the list is virtually endless.

Advances in Technology, increased dissemination of knowledge, specialized infrastructure devoted to it...all marginal gains that add up to a higher level of execution.

Pool is no different.

To think any of the greats from decades past wouldn't be able to thrive at the game in any era is a mistake, imo. As would claiming proficiency levels declined or were stagnant.

Jam , I saw Keith in the early 70's I believe in Baton Rouge , and he had on a tee shirt that read " The world has the 8 " . I bet he wasn't 20 years old. If he played on Simonis, Diamond tables , lighter cue balls, controlled environments , he might not have ever missed . Same for Efren & Buddy Hall .

And I'm from La & watched Buddy beat any and all comers when he was in Shreveport. He was damned near unbeatable.

Todays Pros Vs Yesterdays Pros

I played on the old nappy felt and you actually needed a stroke to get around the table. You also had to hit the balls much harder back then to get out. I remember playing with a 73 Joss West with a 14 MM shaft and the deflection was a lot more than today's shafts.

We all know that the harder you hit the cue ball the harder it is to make a ball and maintain shape. With today's fast cloth, faster cue ball, and less deflection in all shafts the game has become much easier. A prime example is that most players (at all levels) like the Diamond table more than they do the Valley tables. That is because the Diamond tables play faster and you don't have to hit the cue ball as hard to get around the table. As a result they play better on a Diamond table and that is one reason they like the Diamond table better. I think the best players back then could compete with the best players today once they adjusted to faster tables of today.

I also remember playing winner breaks roll out and the best players would dominate the game. When you rolled out and the better player would make the hard shot and run out it became much harder to beat them. Keith McCready was best shot maker I have ever seen and few could keep up with him playing roll out. Today's alternate break one foul ball in hand rules becomes an equalizer for many players and as a result there are many more good players.
.

ill tell you the real answer why the players are better. there are more good players in the pool to have a chance to be great. and the reason for that is houses have gotten bigger.

back then houses never had a room large enough for a pool table so to get good your dad had to own a pool room or such or you had to work in one to get free time. no one can become great paying for time all the time you play.

now many homes have pool tables for those interested in the game. that is the answer.

DecentShot said:

Guys like David Howard, Kim Davenport and Allen Hopkins in their prime playing on Diamonds? Lol, Forget about it. They either played on tough Gold Crowns back then, or some furniture grade Olhausens. Playing on a uniform perfect table like a Diamond? They would be EVERY bit as good as these international boys today.

Click to expand...

sure. atleast it would be entertaining to see the wild body english and unorthodox strokes of yesteryears playing against svb or chang

of course this debate is pointless. we can't teleport david howard anno 1985 to a modern pro pool event, so what we get is the usual nostalgics vs the realists debate

skogstokig said:

sure. atleast it would be entertaining to see the wild body english and unorthodox strokes of yesteryears playing against svb or chang

of course this debate is pointless. we can't teleport david howard anno 1985 to a modern pro pool event, so what we get is the usual nostalgics vs the realists debate

Click to expand...

Or we get “people who saw both” vs “people who have only seen today.”

Freddie <~~~ realist who saw both

Cornerman said:

Or we get “people who saw both” vs “people who have only seen today.”

Freddie <~~~ realist who saw both

Click to expand...

or the "plenty enough videos about from the 80's and 90's to form a conclusion". i have not only seen today. even late 90's and early 00's world pool champs is wildly inferior compared to to todays pro events in terms of play. and thats only 20 years ago.

i know i'm poking at some feelings, and certainly don't mean to denigrate folks memories and definitely not the great players of old. i definitely enjoy watching a 30 year old accustat vid with varner or sigel more than i enjoy watching kaci put an 8-pack on alex. but elite pool is better today, too good in fact. maybe c8b tables is the future

maha said:

ill tell you the real answer why the players are better. there are more good players in the pool to have a chance to be great. and the reason for that is houses have gotten bigger.

back then houses never had a room large enough for a pool table so to get good your dad had to own a pool room or such or you had to work in one to get free time. no one can become great paying for time all the time you play.

now many homes have pool tables for those interested in the game. that is the answer.

Click to expand...

Interesting theory, but no.

skogstokig said:

or the "plenty enough videos about from the 80's and 90's to form a conclusion". i have not only seen today. even late 90's and early 00's world pool champs is wildly inferior compared to to todays pro events in terms of play. and thats only 20 years ago.

i know i'm poking at some feelings, and certainly don't mean to denigrate folks memories and definitely not the great players of old. i definitely enjoy watching a 30 year old accustat vid with varner or sigel more than i enjoy watching kaci put an 8-pack on alex. but elite pool is better today, too good in fact. maybe c8b tables is the future

Click to expand...

I guess you didn’t read the rest of the thread responses.

.



This all seems kind of weird to me. I was playing in 1986 and I still play today.

1986 wasn't that long ago and most players from then are still alive and still play, just not in the big events.

All the players from 1986 would do just fine today.

The clothe on the table, pocket size, rules just don't matter.

Good players adjust to whatever they play on.

Not too late to have an exhibition of the well known players of the past and young guns.

Older players aint' going to play a race to 100 so don't even bring it up.


Race to five is good--------LOL Small tables will be fine too with whatever pocket size

clothe, balls------you name it.






.