10 best players in the world
- Thread starter jbart65
- Start date
probably. he's the current buffalos one pocket champion, he has won the american 14.1 championship (in which he ran the set out in several matches), won DCC banks, etc. but fedor should be clear favorite in banks.
in the last four years, out of 15 available DCC banners they've won 11 between them.
Thanks for your input. It's possible Fedor is still a hair above Josh as an all-around player.
In fact, in a chat I had with Fedor at Derby City one time, I told him that I felt that if he passed Efren's Master of the Table count, he'd have a reasonable claim to being the best all-around player ever. Some would suggest Lassiter, who had an incredible record at Johnston City and won tournaments across all the disciplines, is also in the conversation, and perhaps they have a point. Sigel and Varner, of course, are always in the discussion. To pass Efren, Fedor needs three more Derby City Master of the Table awards, and he might well get them, but they won't come easy.
Even as an all-around player, Josh has shown a little more range than Fedor. Although Josh has major titles in both disciplines, I would agree with you that Josh is still a slight underdog to Fedor at both banks and 1-pocket, but Josh has also won the American 14.1, the European 14.1 and also the World 8ball Championship. I think you have to go back to Nick Varner to find the last pool pro with such a wide range of titles across the disciplines.
In the final result, however you size up Josh vs Fedor, the one thing that is clear is that they are generational talents, among the best that ever picked up a pool cue. I consider myself very fortunate to get to see them play so often. Still, I saw prime Efren Reyes and prime Mike Sigel up close and cannot put either Josh or Fedor above them. Of course, that could well change at some point.
PS As is so often pointed out here on AZB, if one speaks of all cuesports, Harold Worst, a great all-around pool player and a World 3-cushion champion. might belong at the top of the all-around discussion, but that's a debate for another day.
8intheside
Well-known member
I always appreciate your knowledge and input! Unless I’m wrong the only titles Filler has that Gorst doesn’t is the world 8-ball and one more major 14.1 championship. I’m not sure how often Fedor competes at 14.1, but I’d be willing to bet that the world 8-ball will come at some point. It’s good to hear some acknowledgment of Nick Varner!, he’s without a doubt in the conversation of best all-around player ever. Another player I’d mention is SVB, in my mind he’s right on Efren’s heels as the GOAT!
If you mean outside of rotation pool, you are, I believe, correct, provided you mean at singles only.
If rotation games are included, however, the Qatar Open 10ball, European Open 9ball, UK Open 9ball, China Open 9ball, Las Vegas Open 10ball, and Jacksonville 10ball, are a few more examples of major titles that Josh has won that Fedor hasn't. That said, we'll give Fedor time for, as special a player as he is, he will likely capture some of these at some point.
Honestly, I don't feel that the Filler/Gorst rivalry can be compared to the Sigel/Varner rivalry quite yet. For that to be the case, many more chapters must be written. I just feel that the Filler/Gorst rivalry is the best since the 1980s when the Sigel/Varner rivalry was on full tilt.
891014+1
Active member
There is no other ranking system that shows the reality of rotation pool than Fargo ratings. And jf it included 8, 9, and 10 ball, would even be more accurate.
WPA and WNT points are from their respective events, so, nothing wrong with them both, just not getting the full picture of players ranking skill.
WPA and WNT points are from their respective events, so, nothing wrong with them both, just not getting the full picture of players ranking skill.
Of course, SVB is an all-time great with a top ten resume of all that ever played. Still, Shane, Varner and Lassiter cannot stand up to Sigel for the title of greatest ever American player. Mike was a top five of all time straight pooler and a top five of all time rotation games player. He was also very accomplished at both one pocket and banks. Both Earl and Efren said of him: "Mike Sigel is the best player I have ever played against."
Efren, however, is in a category by himself. He is the best ever one pocket player, he is in the conversation for the best 8-ball player ever, he won the most celebrated 9ball event of the period over the seemingly unbeatable Earl Strickland in an unprecedented race to 120. To be fair, though, I think Efren is considered the greatest for the way he broadened the theory of the game, introducing ideas and shots never seen before. The legendary player of the 1960s Jonny Ervolino once, admiringly, said two things of Efren a) when Efren looks over a pool table, he sees things that no player that came before him ever saw, and b) Efren does things with inside english that I didn't know were even possible.
Efren changed the way we think about and play pool, and that's why so many, myself included, put him on the pedestal. It won't be easy to knock him off, but Josh and Fedor are putting together careers that make one think it could happen. Josh is winning major titles at the highest rate since Mike Sigel, but has many battles left to be fought, so we will stay tuned.
we can guess closely but no real way to compare players that are so close in skill as even day to day events changes how they perform.
only playing in headsup long matches spaced weeks apart, can you get a more realistic view of who is really beter than the other.
plus most are not being judged against another solely both being in their best prime. which few except for a couple now can be .
my real test is when to each put up their own money and play a long race for it on neutral conditions.
that brings out the best and worst in them.
only playing in headsup long matches spaced weeks apart, can you get a more realistic view of who is really beter than the other.
plus most are not being judged against another solely both being in their best prime. which few except for a couple now can be .
my real test is when to each put up their own money and play a long race for it on neutral conditions.
that brings out the best and worst in them.
Not my real test. Stamina has nothing to do with pool greatness. If two players play a $100,000 race to 13 once a day, day after day, you'll find out who is the better player within a couple of weeks, not which player can play on and on and on and on.
Of course, these days nobody bets their own. It is largely myth that the top guys usually bet their own in the 1980s, too. For a big stake, give a player a choice between betting their own or risking nothing but getting 30% of the profits if they win and they'll rarely choose the first option. It is true today, and it was always true.
The myths grow larger with time. I recall the night of Jack Cooney's induction into the one pocket hall of fame several years ago. One speaker commented that he admired Jack for betting his own. The next speaker spoke of how often he was Jack's stake-horse.
Of course, there's no better test of pedigree than putting all the great players in the same place at the same time and see who's the last man standing. To win at the majors, there's no getting comfortable with any opponent. You have to beat a multitude of tough opponents, each having a different style and each having different strengths and weaknesses, and you might play each of them on a different table. That's a much tougher assignment than gradually wearing down a single opponent.
If we go by action results, Jack Cooney is probably the best player of all time, but it's not about money won, it's about regularly dismissing the most elite players in the biggest spots. If it were about the money, the tycoon with a Fargo of 520 who won 10,000,000 gambling with another tycoon having a Fargo of 520 would dominate the pages of AZB for having won more than four times the money that Efren made in his entire career.
Last edited:
If they ever stage such an event, count me in!
i would be all in for a true all around tournament. as that is the real test.
although a long race does include stamina it gives a more reliable sample .
true many had stake horses but most when they had money would bet their own. unfortunately for them they were not good game makers but had big heads and usually went broke shortly after. cooney wasn't a big all time money winner. he actually was on short money most times.
he was very conniving though and did take off some nice scores. most times he just beat very good players even up.
and since he spent time setting up some scores got his rep.
actually guys like uj pucket, and amarillo slim, ty thompson far outclassed him for hustling. and many road players from the south, were good hustlers but few could keep the money for long.
i knew many or most of the old time big gamblers of all kinds and almost all ended up broke or close to it.
although a long race does include stamina it gives a more reliable sample .
true many had stake horses but most when they had money would bet their own. unfortunately for them they were not good game makers but had big heads and usually went broke shortly after. cooney wasn't a big all time money winner. he actually was on short money most times.
he was very conniving though and did take off some nice scores. most times he just beat very good players even up.
and since he spent time setting up some scores got his rep.
actually guys like uj pucket, and amarillo slim, ty thompson far outclassed him for hustling. and many road players from the south, were good hustlers but few could keep the money for long.
i knew many or most of the old time big gamblers of all kinds and almost all ended up broke or close to it.
Last edited:
?? FargoRate does include 8-Ball, 9-Ball, and 10-Ball.
And one pocket as well, but with less data.
Here's what ChatGPT has to say:
That statement is essentially making a “greatest American pool player” hierarchy argument, and it’s a defensible opinion—but not uncontested. Let’s break it down in a structured way so you can evaluate it critically.
The Players Being Compared
- Shane Van Boening
- Mike Sigel
- Nick Varner
- Luther Lassiter
What the Claim Is Saying
The speaker is arguing:- Van Boening = all-time great (top 10 globally)
- But…
- Sigel > Van Boening, Varner, Lassiter
→ therefore Sigel = Greatest American ever
That hinges on how you define “greatest.”
Case for Mike Sigel (why someone would say this)
Mike Sigel has one of the most dominant resumes in U.S. pool history:- 100+ pro titles (depending on how counted)
- Multiple world championships (across disciplines)
- Dominant in the 1980s (arguably the hardest era domestically)
- Elite in multiple games (9-ball, 8-ball, straight pool)
Key argument:
Sigel wasn’t just winning—he was outclassing fields across disciplines, which carries weight in “greatest ever” debates.
Case for Shane Van Boening (the modern GOAT argument)
Shane Van Boening has a very different profile:- Multiple U.S. Open 9-Ball Championships
- World Pool Championship winner
- Dominant in the global era (far deeper international competition)
- Long-term consistency (15+ years at elite level)
Van Boening succeeded in a much tougher, globalized field, where Americans are no longer dominant.
Where Varner and Lassiter Fit
Nick Varner
- World Champion
- Extremely versatile
- Known for longevity and consistency
- Less dominant peak than Sigel
Luther Lassiter
- Straight pool legend
- 9-ball pioneer dominance (pre-modern era)
- Revered historically, but era competition was narrower
The Real Issue: Era vs. Dominance
This debate boils down to two competing evaluation models:1. Dominance in your era (Sigel argument)
- Sigel crushed his peers
- Multi-discipline superiority
- High volume of titles
2. Strength of competition (Van Boening argument)
- Shane faced:
- Europeans
- Filipinos (e.g., Reyes-era influence)
- Winning is harder today
Critical Take
The statement is reasonable but not definitive:- Saying Sigel is the greatest American ever → valid opinion
- Saying Van Boening “cannot stand up” → too strong
A more balanced ranking from many serious players today would look like:
- Tier 1 (interchangeable depending on criteria):
- Sigel
- Van Boening
- Tier 2:
- Varner
- Lassiter
Bottom Line
The person is:- Correct that Sigel has a GOAT-level American resume
- Likely undervaluing how difficult Van Boening’s era is.
- Peak dominance → Sigel
- Modern competitive achievement → Van Boening
-------
Not a bad assessment by AI, but I feel like SVB's strength of competition holds a little more weight. Sigel didn't have to face as many world beaters as SVB did and constantly still does currently. Sigel wasn't dominating when there were 72 different 800+ Fargos in the world (which is not his fault as he's from a different era).
SVB and Filler are my favorites to watch not close. Biado, Yapp , the Ko brothers... I'll value flow type players over methodical, check every angle guys (*cough* fedor) any day. Kledio Kaci can eat a sausage, watching that clown car play is torture. Winning means shit if your product is unwatchable.
That said can you call Filler the best all-around player until he plays a long format money game against Fedor/Shane which ain't gonna happen? Also, Fedor would be a clear favorite in one pocket, no?
As a side note, if there's been any social media output by Fedor about how grateful he is for being here I'd like to see it cuz I haven't. The patriotism for damn sure hasn't been evident in his Mosconi play...I'm hoping to stand corrected...
That said can you call Filler the best all-around player until he plays a long format money game against Fedor/Shane which ain't gonna happen? Also, Fedor would be a clear favorite in one pocket, no?
As a side note, if there's been any social media output by Fedor about how grateful he is for being here I'd like to see it cuz I haven't. The patriotism for damn sure hasn't been evident in his Mosconi play...I'm hoping to stand corrected...
How does watchability have anything to do with a rating of the best players?
Harlem globetrotters were fun to watch, and compared to regular NBA basketball, where only the last 2 minutes are worth watching at all, there's no comparison. But the Globetrotters aren't winning a game against anybody.
Either the players were better than others or not. Whether someone enjoys watching them has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Also, how does patriotism figure in this thread at all? Who cares?
Harlem globetrotters were fun to watch, and compared to regular NBA basketball, where only the last 2 minutes are worth watching at all, there's no comparison. But the Globetrotters aren't winning a game against anybody.
Either the players were better than others or not. Whether someone enjoys watching them has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Also, how does patriotism figure in this thread at all? Who cares?
Uh...do you like that our sport is third world status? I think it sucks and I think a major reason why is slow play. To me it don't matter how good you play if no one wants your product.
And....I care about patriotism. Shane ALWAYS talks about his love of country. It's not relevant which is why it was a side note, but I'll not mention Fedor ever without pointing that out and I appreciate your points.
While I'm usually inclined to ignore anything from Chat GPT, this isn't half bad.
Still, the "the competition is tougher and deeper today than back then" argument has never carried much weight with me. Although the fields are deeper, being the best is no harder today than it was in Sigel's day. No doubt, it's a lot harder to be top 25 today than it was back in the day because pool has, especially in the last ten years, gotten to the point where superstars are found in every corner of the globe. No doubt, mass producing major titles over the past 10 years has been much harder than ever before. An examination of the SVB record will show that even he has not won over the toughest internationally diverse fields very often over the past 10 years, which is noteworthy because many on the forum, me included, think he is playing the best pool of his career right now.
FYI, for much of his career, the knock on SVB was that he won so few titles overseas. Ten years ago, the four most prestigious titles to win were the World 9ball, the US Open 9ball, the China Open, and the All-Japan Championship, and as of ten years ago, the SVB resume lacked all three of the ones played outside of the US and, yes, he played in them on a regular basis.
As we've tended to take note of here on the forum, players can only be judged against their contemporaries. We ignore this because the comparison is fun. but ultimately, there's no way to compare a Filler to a Sigel or a Mosconi. All we can say is that each dominated the competition he faced.
It can be argued that it was harder to be the best in the late 1970s. Sigel played at the hinge of times, when straight pool legends were still playing great (Crane, Butera, Martin, Hopkins, Varner, Rempe, Margo, Balsis, Di Liberto, West, Mizerak, just to name a few) and when 9ball had already taken off with many future BCA hall of famers already playing it exclusively. The straight pool era and the 9ball era shared the period of 1976-83. Sigel was a stone-cold killer against both groups of players and mass-produced titles in both straight pool and 9ball. Varner did the same, but to a slightly lesser extent.
In the end, this is all a matter of opinion, and some of the players we are trying to assess are still writing more chapters of their story. In the end, we probably don't need a definitive answer in player comparisons that cross generations. Still, such comparisons bring us a lot of joy here on the forum, so I'm sure we will persist.
Patriotism is another thread, and should have nothing to do with best player in the word. And as for whether I care that our sport has "third world status". Sure. But that's also a different thread.
Last edited:
