Well pretty good post except the gambling/action culture thing.
It's pretty simple. There isn't & never really has been any real tour that makes playing pool a viable living for more than 4-5 guys & they aren't making that much. Combine that with the amount of time and dedication required to play at a world class level & what other alternative do players have than to gamble?
I'm sorry but I've been hearing this "spectre of gambling" thing for over 30 years being blamed for all of pools woes. It's why sponsors won't touch pool. It's what gives pool a bad image, on & on. You seem to like snooker, do you feel if people couldn't bet on it as they CAN, would it be as popular with the public, I don't think it would.
I think pool ought to embrace gambling. If it could be legalized & sanctioned to where people could bet on it then there would be more interest in pool than there ever was. It might also be the source of prize $ necessary to run a proper tour.
If pool tournaments had the money that golf has, of course tons more people would pick up pool, and the competition would increase and the play would get better.)
Physically impossible. Some improvement?...likely. 10 fold?...never happen in a million years.
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Wow, age is coming out here...
If you think the old timers were better on that slow carpet and huge buckets, or they could even come close to the top players today, you've lost your mind! Ok Ok enough wolfin.. LOL
I reality, being great takes very hard work, but that is only subject to the parameters. Today's parameters are vastly more difficult than that of 20+ years ago, however, that does not mean that ancient greats could't be great today. This being said, I believe the top players today, would still be the top players, before you respond, consider who are "still" the top players today.
Never understood this either. I mean pool is far more accessible on a number of fronts than golf, I.E. cost to play, cost of equipment, access for places to play, yet it's not as popular.
People say pool is boring to watch & there is very rarely something you can see pool wise on TV anywhere anymore. Watching golf is beyond boring yet it gets major network coverage due to its popularity & draws ratings, I don't get it. I golf regularly and love the game but you couldn't pay me to watch it.
...
And I'd rather watch golf than a weekend long pool tournament any day of the week. I could listen to golf commentary for an afternoon....
I have to agree with this if pool is on TV or my computer. If I am there in person, however, I could sit for hours and hours and watch pool. Not so sure I'd feel the same way about golf: ALL THAT WALKING!![]()
Never understood this either. I mean pool is far more accessible on a number of fronts than golf, I.E. cost to play, cost of equipment, access for places to play, yet it's not as popular.
People say pool is boring to watch & there is very rarely something you can see pool wise on TV anywhere anymore. Watching golf is beyond boring yet it gets major network coverage due to its popularity & draws ratings, I don't get it. I golf regularly and love the game but you couldn't pay me to watch it.
It all comes down to money. If there was PGA Tour-type money in pool, the quality of play would increase 10 fold.
I'm going to make an assumption here. I know that's dangerous, but in this case it's a harmless one. (If your response, was a response to my comment about the level of play then vs now.)
First, I ain't some old curmudgeon, dude. lol People have this weird tendency to think that my association with history makes me this 90 yr old blind man who is stuck in the past. So the "age showing" comment is rather silly. If anything, the older generation has a much better understanding of the past than you, and you should respect that, even if you don't agree with it.
Second, people also have this weird tendency to think that billiards/pool in the past was a walk in the park with all that " shag carpet and giant pockets".
Do you have any idea what the pro tournament table specs were 100 yrs ago?
150?
175?
Get Shane Van Boening playing 14" Balkline on a 10ft table, or American 4ball on a 6 pocket 12ft table, either game with ivory balls, and he'd be lost like a child in the park.
Third - what parameters have changed drastically in the last 20 years?
Minor changes in cloth that are not uniform across the nation?
Low deflection products not used by everyone?
More expensive chalk?
Diamond tables with better rails, not used uniformly across the country?
I think the depth of great players would increase quite a bit, but I don't think the quality of play of the champions would. It's not like there would suddenly be a bunch of guys who could give weight to Shane at 10-ball.
I don't think they can get any better unless an improvement in equipment allows it. The evolution of pool play happens at an individual level. Not as a group.
I too believe the gambling aspect has pretty much denied pool it's acceptance to general audiences. It's one thing to gamble on a sporting event, but quite another when the player does it. Ask Pete Rose.
I also believe that Snooker has more drawing power than other pocket billiard games, but not here in the States.![]()
no but if pool had a farm league like tee ball on up there'd be plenty of shanes.....and i'm sure a tiger would show up and beat shane and everyone elses head in lol.
we had true prodigy's before keith mcCready...but i don't think we have had any true ones since. I'd maybe consider cole dixon but i dont know his story that well to know exactly how young he started busting horns with the big boys i know keith was disgustingly young lol
mosconi, harold worst, greenleaf, mcCready, schaffer jr. (anyone else?)