Johnny Archer vs SVB- Subjective Question

B

billb

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
With being quarantined through all the coronavirus stuff, I have been watching a ton of old videos on youtube.

Question for everyone.......in your personal opinion, when they were at the top of their game, each possessed the maximum mental drive to be the best, factoring in their breaks, safety play, shot making, nerves, mindset to overcome tough situations and sharking and any other factor that comes into play, who was better at 9 ball each of these two settings......gambling and tournament play........SVB or Archer?

Personally, there is something about Johnny Archer's game at his peak that makes me think Archer may have him beat in both categories by the slightest of margins. Again, this is a subjective opinion and I wanted to see other people's opinions.
 
B

billb

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I forgot this part of the equation......neutral racker using a traditional wooden rack. None of the new style flat templates.
 
iusedtoberich

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think in 9 ball Archer had a fire in his eyes that Shane never has. I'd give the edge to Archer.

All the other games, Shane by a large margin. (straight pool, one pocket, banks). I won't mention 10 ball, because it wasn't played in Archer's time.
 
G

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
iusedtoberich said:
I think in 9 ball Archer had a fire in his eyes that Shane never has. I'd give the edge to Archer.

All the other games, Shane by a large margin. (straight pool, one pocket, banks). I won't mention 10 ball, because it wasn't played in Archer's time.
Click to expand...
I think Archer is the better 14.1 player. He's won the American 14.1 and finished 2nd as well. To me 9ball us toss-up. Too close to call.
 
Tin Man

Tin Man

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
table conditions

billb said:
I forgot this part of the equation......neutral racker using a traditional wooden rack. None of the new style flat templates.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's fair to ask for a comparison and then specify conditions that are advantageous to one party.

If a 2012 SVB went back to the 1990s playing Archer 9 ball on Gold Crowns with triangle racks I'd bet on Johnny. If a 1990's Archer came to 2012 and wanted to play SVB 9 ball on a Diamond table with a template rack, break from the box, and a three point rule, I'd bet on SVB.

If we could somehow solve for the differences in equipment, AND have them both at their prime, then SVB wins due to the game having evolved over 20 years and him being better at safeties and kicks. If we could somehow solve for the knowledge available to them and just test their pool spirit and heart, then they are both stone champions that belong into the hall of fame.

Whenever these comparisons are made the answers say more about the equations we are using rather than the legends we are discussing.
 
MattPoland

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In terms of different aspects of the game, SVB in his prime was a 9 out of 10 or a 10 out of 10...in every category. I think Archer was 8 out of 10 in a couple areas in his prime. The break and kicking comes to mind. More recent players seem to have better 2 and 3 rail kicks to escape safeties than players of the 90s. I think that starts making a difference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
BC21

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Tin Man said:
I don't think it's fair to ask for a comparison and then specify conditions that are advantageous to one party.

If a 2012 SVB went back to the 1990s playing Archer 9 ball on Gold Crowns with triangle racks I'd bet on Johnny. If a 1990's Archer came to 2012 and wanted to play SVB 9 ball on a Diamond table with a template rack, break from the box, and a three point rule, I'd bet on SVB.

If we could somehow solve for the differences in equipment, AND have them both at their prime, then SVB wins due to the game having evolved over 20 years and him being better at safeties and kicks. If we could somehow solve for the knowledge available to them and just test their pool spirit and heart, then they are both stone champions that belong into the hall of fame.

Whenever these comparisons are made the answers say more about the equations we are using rather than the legends we are discussing.
Click to expand...


Excellent post. I agree with all of this.
 
hang-the-9

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
billb said:
With being quarantined through all the coronavirus stuff, I have been watching a ton of old videos on youtube.

Question for everyone.......in your personal opinion, when they were at the top of their game, each possessed the maximum mental drive to be the best, factoring in their breaks, safety play, shot making, nerves, mindset to overcome tough situations and sharking and any other factor that comes into play, who was better at 9 ball each of these two settings......gambling and tournament play........SVB or Archer?

Personally, there is something about Johnny Archer's game at his peak that makes me think Archer may have him beat in both categories by the slightest of margins. Again, this is a subjective opinion and I wanted to see other people's opinions.
Click to expand...

I thought the players form last 20 years were better than the players from 30,40 years ago overall. I asked Ralph Soquet during a lesson if he though that the current top players are better than from his generation and he agreed. Say if you take the top 20 from the 80s and 90s and put them against the top 20 now, the top 20 now would be the better players.
 
G

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
hang-the-9 said:
I thought the players form last 20 years were better than the players from 30,40 years ago overall. I asked Ralph Soquet during a lesson if he though that the current top players are better than from his generation and he agreed. Say if you take the top 20 from the 80s and 90s and put them against the top 20 now, the top 20 now would be the better players.
Click to expand...
You think Buddy, Earl and Efren wouldn't be just as good now? No way. Overall fields i'd kinda agree but the best back then would have been at the top now as well.
 
hang-the-9

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
garczar said:
You think Buddy, Earl and Efren wouldn't be just as good now? No way. Overall fields i'd kinda agree but the best back then would have been at the top now as well.
Click to expand...

Not against SVB, Ko brothers, Shaw, etc... Not just me, it was also Soquets opinion and he played with all those guys toe to toe. Yes those top players would still cash, but if the new top guns were in a tournament the top 4 players would be a lot harder to call and I would put the earlier players to cash but not top 4 as a safe bet. Especially on the modern equipment with tighter pockets and tight racks. No 9 ball flying in several times a set.
 
Last edited:
Rico

Rico

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Tournament play ,gambling and Texas express vs winner break .There is so many differences.Playing 10 ahead instead of a race.In there prime Buddy ,Earl , Nick, Jose P. and many others could put a set on you.Sorry Kieth also..Sorry but old school freeze it up 7,9 11 ahead the cream comes to the top.
 
hlymnstr14

hlymnstr14

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
i think the players today would struggle on the conditions of the 80's and 90's. the conditions weren't as perfect as they are today. so that logic says the players from the 80's and 90's would thrive on perfect conditions on today's tables and setups.

Now, any of the top pro's could adjust and get better but if you are just jumping in a time machine and playing for 10k as soon as you got out, advantage: Archer.
 
alstl

alstl

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'd say Van Boening's 5 U S Open championships probably came against stiffer competition because of the international players.
 
G

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
alstl said:
I'd say Van Boening's 5 U S Open championships probably came against stiffer competition because of the international players.
Click to expand...
I agree but for some to say that the top players from '80's-'90's would not have been top now is crazy. Efren, Buddy, Earl, Sigel would have been champions in any era. They would have adapted to cloth, styles of play just like any other top player. Also, today's players rarely play a set longer than a race-to-11 or maybe 13. I' d like to see some of them play the long ahead sets for serious money. I don't know how many have the heart/stamina for long heavyweight fight-style matches. I know KillerFiller does after watchin' him BAR-B-Q that Pino with the funky hair-do.
 
A

animatedvmaker

Banned
billb said:
With being quarantined through all the coronavirus stuff, I have been watching a ton of old videos on youtube.

Question for everyone.......in your personal opinion, when they were at the top of their game, each possessed the maximum mental drive to be the best, factoring in their breaks, safety play, shot making, nerves, mindset to overcome tough situations and sharking and any other factor that comes into play, who was better at 9 ball each of these two settings......gambling and tournament play........SVB or Archer?

Personally, there is something about Johnny Archer's game at his peak that makes me think Archer may have him beat in both categories by the slightest of margins. Again, this is a subjective opinion and I wanted to see other people's opinions.
Click to expand...

I believe that Archer had a better stroke, if that means much. The cloth during his prime days was much slower too, so players needed to have a really good stroke.

I would have to bet on Archer to win, if you put SVB in a time machine, and took him back to the early 90's, to play Archer in his prime.

Archer was just so awesome back in those years. He was my favorite player as a kid. My favorite player ever. Loved everything about his game.

Also, I believe that if you took early 90's Archer to the years that SVB was in his prime, I would still want to bet on Archer, even though he may not win.

SVB was such an amazing player in his prime too. Still a really great player, but I do not think he is the same Shane that he was back win he won his 1st US Open for example.

I do not know, Shane might win in both situations, but I still love Archers game more, from when he was in his prime.
 
A

animatedvmaker

Banned
hang-the-9 said:
I thought the players form last 20 years were better than the players from 30,40 years ago overall. I asked Ralph Soquet during a lesson if he though that the current top players are better than from his generation and he agreed. Say if you take the top 20 from the 80s and 90s and put them against the top 20 now, the top 20 now would be the better players.
Click to expand...

And if you put the top 20 now, against the top 20 from the 80's and early 90's, on the old slower cloth tables? I just can't see them winning, because players back then needed a much stronger stroke on that slower cloth.

Also, make the newer generation of players use Joss and Meucci cues from the 80's and 90's, or whatever they wanted that was made in those years, and none of the newer high technology cues.

Also remember, there were no jump cues back in those years, if that makes a difference.

Then who would win?
 
A

animatedvmaker

Banned
hlymnstr14 said:
i think the players today would struggle on the conditions of the 80's and 90's. the conditions weren't as perfect as they are today. so that logic says the players from the 80's and 90's would thrive on perfect conditions on today's tables and setups.

Now, any of the top pro's could adjust and get better but if you are just jumping in a time machine and playing for 10k as soon as you got out, advantage: Archer.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said. I remember the cloth, and playing conditions from the early 90's. It was very slow, and players needed a much more powerful stroke. The top players of today would need probably who knows how long to adjust to those conditions, and they also would not have their high tech cues that have been available in more recent years.
 
P

poolsucker

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I’ve always been a Johnny fan, but you have to remember back in his prime you got to rack for each other and Johnny was the best professional racker of all time. Even with larger pockets back then Johnny racked so good the other player would brake dry so often. So I think Johnny would get beat consistently against the young guns of today playing on tighter equipment.
 
A

animatedvmaker

Banned
garczar said:
I agree but for some to say that the top players from '80's-'90's would not have been top now is crazy. Efren, Buddy, Earl, Sigel would have been champions in any era. They would have adapted to cloth, styles of play just like any other top player. Also, today's players rarely play a set longer than a race-to-11 or maybe 13. I' d like to see some of them play the long ahead sets for serious money. I don't know how many have the heart/stamina for long heavyweight fight-style matches. I know KillerFiller does after watchin' him BAR-B-Q that Pino with the funky hair-do.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but James Aranas / AKA Dodong Diamond is an amazing player. He did get 73 games, iirc, to 100, on Filler, so it was not that bad of a beating.

I understand that Filler is the stronger player though.

Now, if you took James Aranas back to the early 90's, then I think he would do really good, because those Philippine players can adjust to any type of equipment very quickly, and he is one of the best in his home country.
 
S

skogstokig

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
there are few people in pool i have more respect for than archer. but the level of play is better now, that's a fact. not only seen in TPA but in aspects like kicking, breaking and jumping as well. top dogs like filler, shane, ko and shaw kicks safe with high frequency and jumps with draw and position. rotation pool has never been better and shane is on the top of the heap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top