Comparing past and present greats

[telkwa]

After reading the current thread about the best pool player, and seeing a huge disagreement of who is the best player ever, I figured I'd toss some ideas around without mention specific players.

As a tangent, I'll talk about chess, since I know a lot more about it than pool. Garry Kasparov, who was clearly the best player in the world for the past 20 odd years, (until his retirement) was quoted in the middle of his chess domination as saying that he thought Bobby Fischer to be the greatest chess player ever, because of how much better he was than everyone else.

How does this apply to pool, and is it an accurate way of gauging 'bestness'? In determining who is best, do we look at accomplishments, skill, or talent? Vishy Anand was considered the most naturally talented chess player of the 90s, but he and Kramnik were always fighting for 2nd place.

I'm wondering what the intelligent and pool-knowledgable people think about what determines who is the best pool player. Which games should be considered? How should the apparent skill in gambling compare with tournaments? How important is the US Open, the San Miguel tour, the ... ? How do we compare the very strong Asian players we don't regularly see and therefore forget about? Tournament results are indisputable and public, but its totally impossible to publicly document all the gambling between top players. I hope people don't mention names here so as to avoid an argument about whether player A is better than player B.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

After reading the current thread about the best pool player, and seeing a huge disagreement of who is the best player ever, I figured I'd toss some ideas around without mention specific players.

As a tangent, I'll talk about chess, since I know a lot more about it than pool. Garry Kasparov, who was clearly the best player in the world for the past 20 odd years, (until his retirement) was quoted in the middle of his chess domination as saying that he thought Bobby Fischer to be the greatest chess player ever, because of how much better he was than everyone else.

How does this apply to pool, and is it an accurate way of gauging 'bestness'? In determining who is best, do we look at accomplishments, skill, or talent? Vishy Anand was considered the most naturally talented chess player of the 90s, but he and Kramnik were always fighting for 2nd place.

I'm wondering what the intelligent and pool-knowledgable people think about what determines who is the best pool player. Which games should be considered? How should the apparent skill in gambling compare with tournaments? How important is the US Open, the San Miguel tour, the ... ? How do we compare the very strong Asian players we don't regularly see and therefore forget about? Tournament results are indisputable and public, but its totally impossible to publicly document all the gambling between top players. I hope people don't mention names here so as to avoid an argument about whether player A is better than player B.

When comparing past and present, I think it's always a good idea to look at baseball which takes great pride in its history. The fact is, it's been 7 years since Maris' record was broken and are Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa or Barry Bonds ever going to have the same lure as Babe Ruth? Hell no!! The reason being, there are three of them. Even in Maris' time, there was Mantle. With Babe Ruth, what he did was revolutionary. He changed the way the game was played. He changed strategy. He may not have been the best power hitter of all time but he was the first and when he was first, there was no runner-up.

Pool needs to have the same in mind. Regardless of statistics, runs, etc., it must be remembered that we are mere men standing on the shoulders of giants. We've learned from those before us so it is incredibly important to factor that in when considering historical greatness. That isn't to say that it is impossible to be contemporary and the greatest ever. Efren Reyes might just be that. I'm simply saying that before we talk about the man with the greatest stroke, we should first recognize the first man to have one without ever having seen one before.

 

[CantEverWin]

When comparing past and present, I think it's always a good idea to look at baseball which takes great pride in its history. The fact is, it's been 7 years since Maris' record was broken and are Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa or Barry Bonds ever going to have the same lure as Babe Ruth? Hell no!! The reason being, there are three of them. Even in Maris' time, there was Mantle. With Babe Ruth, what he did was revolutionary. He changed the way the game was played. He changed strategy. He may not have been the best power hitter of all time but he was the first and when he was first, there was no runner-up.

Pool needs to have the same in mind. Regardless of statistics, runs, etc., it must be remembered that we are mere men standing on the shoulders of giants. We've learned from those before us so it is incredibly important to factor that in when considering historical greatness. That isn't to say that it is impossible to be contemporary and the greatest ever. Efren Reyes might just be that. I'm simply saying that before we talk about the man with the greatest stroke, we should first recognize the first man to have one without ever having seen one before.

You should respect the ones who come before, but you should not confuse their abilities. If your playing baseball and picking a team (Field of dreams the movie, style) Your still not picking babe in his prime over Bonds, to do so would make you a fool.
Bart Star doesn't have the abilities that Michael Vick does. The difference being that when you do it "First" you have no Competition.
All "sports" are this way. Richard Petty could not come close to having the same success with today's competitors. People should understand that every generation advances the one that preceded it. It's the old men that don't want to admit that their children are better than they are creating this nonsense.

I commend everyone that "Used to be great." I could only hope that someone will say that I used to be great at something. I'm not saying that yesterdays athletes were weak. Just had adversaries that were.

Mike

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

You should respect the ones who come before, but you should not confuse their abilities. If your playing baseball and picking a team (Field of dreams the movie, style) Your still not picking babe in his prime over Bonds, to do so would make you a fool.
Bart Star doesn't have the abilities that Michael Vick does. The difference being that when you do it "First" you have no Competition.
All "sports" are this way. Richard Petty could not come close to having the same success with today's competitors. People should understand that every generation advances the one that preceded it. It's the old men that don't want to admit that their children are better than they are creating this nonsense.

I commend everyone that "Used to be great." I could only hope that someone will say that I used to be great at something. I'm not saying that yesterdays athletes were weak. Just had adversaries that were.

Mike

You say they "had adversaries that were" weak. You fail to realize that its through their greatness that the standards have risen. Even though Sammy Sosa's numbers may put him as one of baseball's elites, can you honestly say he's greater than Babe Ruth when he cannot even be considered greater than his contemporaries?

I've been playing pool a long time and through the years, I've learned that I cannot learn from a book. I have to see it before I can do it. For a competitor to conceptualize something is remarkable. It suggests a greatness that if put among greater peers, they would still excel. I cannot tell you that these competitors of the past would surly fail.

I think it's important to have respect for the past and leave it at that. Use of the term "greatest ever" should always be taken with a grain of salt. People have to match-up. Games need to be played. The game may be greater than it ever was but it's participants remain human. Mastering the game and creating mastery are not to be compared.

 

[CantEverWin]

QUOTE=Jude Rosenstock]You say they "had adversaries that were" weak. You fail to realize that its through their greatness that the standards have risen. Even though Sammy Sosa's numbers may put him as one of baseball's elite's, can you honestly say he's greater than Babe Ruth when he cannot even be considered greater than his contemporaries?

Yes, I can say that about Sosa for this reason. If he is in baseball in Ruth's time. You don't know Ruth's name as anything but second best in everything. He would hold NO record that matters. Ruth "in his prime" wouldn't make a AAA team today.

You can't hold the fact that younger players of today weren't around then against them.
In the older time's, the best were the best. Now, the best ever is the guy who's best right now.
Yes
Manning over Marino
Bonds over McGuire
Efren over Mosconi
Tiger woods over anyone from whenever

Player's in everything are superior now.
Not just sports everything. Einstein drove himself mad trying to figure out things were taught in grade school now. Was he smart, yes, but didn't have as much knowledge as my 11 year old cousin does now.

Mike

 

[Celtic]

Yes, I can say that about Sosa for this reason. If he is in baseball in Ruth's time. You don't know Ruth's name as anything but second best in everything. He would hold NO record that matters. Ruth "in his prime" wouldn't make a AAA team today.

I disgree with that totally. If Sosa were born and competed in the era of Babe Ruth he would not have the same numbers he has playing today with the better equippment and training regimes. Babe would still be the king and Sosa would be a forgotten name because to think Sosa is going to be as good in that era and put up the same numbers is foolish. Same goes for pool, what you must ask is what would happen if Mosconi were born in 1980? How good would he be today compared to the rest of the field after playing 9-ball from the start? Same goes in reverse, if Earl Strickland had been born in 1920 would he have been as good as Mosconi as a contemporary in straight pool after rising in that era? I doubt it, noone was ever as dominant as Mosconi in pool, he was so far above the field it is not even funny.

Take Bonds, time warp him to be born in 1900, now lets see how good he is. My money is on the Babe.

 

[CantEverWin]

I disgree with that totally. If Sosa were born and competed in the era of Babe Ruth he would not have the same numbers he has playing today with the better equippment and training regimes. Babe would still be the king and Sosa would be a forgotten name because to think Sosa is going to be as good in that era and put up the same numbers is foolish. Same goes for pool, what you must ask is what would happen if Mosconi were born in 1980? How good would he be today compared to the rest of the field after playing 9-ball from the start? Same goes in reverse, if Earl Strickland had been born in 1920 would he have been as good as Mosconi as a contemporary in straight pool after rising in that era? I doubt it, noone was ever as dominant as Mosconi in pool, he was so far above the field it is not even funny.

Take Bonds, time warp him to be born in 1900, now lets see how good he is. My money is on the Babe.

I would then gladly take your money.

The question isn't How there abilities would be diffrent. What new they would learn. It's prime vs. prime. There is no question that the newer is better.

Off topic, but I always hear people talking about all the better equipment in baseball and I will agree. That's the excuse old timers give for hitting going up. now it's steriods but whatever. Why do people forget that while the batters have gotten bigger and stronger so have the pitchers. I have watched many a game on ESPN classic and the fastballs look like there 70 miles an hour. Better equipment yes, stronger batters, yes. Better pitching never gets talked about because of all the hit.

I have a tape of Irving Crane and balis in the US open. Not sure what year but it's black and white, pretty old. When they lagged it looked like they were on a 3 cusion table. It was fast. I'm young and wasn't around when they were playing, but from my old tapes none of the tables seem to be bad. Not much diffrent from what I play on now.

Mike

 

[PoolBum]

QUOTE=Jude Rosenstock]


Einstein drove himself mad trying to figure out things were taught in grade school now. Was he smart, yes, but didn't have as much knowledge as my 11 year old cousin does now.

Mike

Say what??

As Johnny Mac would say, "You CANNOT be serious!!??"

 

[BazookaJoe]

QUOTE=Jude Rosenstock]You say they "had adversaries that were" weak. You fail to realize that its through their greatness that the standards have risen. Even though Sammy Sosa's numbers may put him as one of baseball's elite's, can you honestly say he's greater than Babe Ruth when he cannot even be considered greater than his contemporaries?

Yes, I can say that about Sosa for this reason. If he is in baseball in Ruth's time. You don't know Ruth's name as anything but second best in everything. He would hold NO record that matters. Ruth "in his prime" wouldn't make a AAA team today.

You can't hold the fact that younger players of today weren't around then against them.
In the older time's, the best were the best. Now, the best ever is the guy who's best right now.
Yes
Manning over Marino
Bonds over McGuire
Efren over Mosconi
Tiger woods over anyone from whenever

Player's in everything are superior now.
Not just sports everything. Einstein drove himself mad trying to figure out things were taught in grade school now. Was he smart, yes, but didn't have as much knowledge as my 11 year old cousin does now.

Mike

This has GOT to be the DUMBEST shit I have ever read.
If this isn't supposed to be lighthearted humor, you should go now and file for disability. Because you are obviously retarded.

 

[Opie]

QUOTE=Jude Rosenstock]You say they "had adversaries that were" weak. You fail to realize that its through their greatness that the standards have risen. Even though Sammy Sosa's numbers may put him as one of baseball's elite's, can you honestly say he's greater than Babe Ruth when he cannot even be considered greater than his contemporaries?

Yes, I can say that about Sosa for this reason. If he is in baseball in Ruth's time. You don't know Ruth's name as anything but second best in everything. He would hold NO record that matters. Ruth "in his prime" wouldn't make a AAA team today.

You can't hold the fact that younger players of today weren't around then against them.
In the older time's, the best were the best. Now, the best ever is the guy who's best right now.
Yes
Manning over Marino
Bonds over McGuire
Efren over Mosconi
Tiger woods over anyone from whenever

Player's in everything are superior now.
Not just sports everything. Einstein drove himself mad trying to figure out things were taught in grade school now. Was he smart, yes, but didn't have as much knowledge as my 11 year old cousin does now.

Mike

I agree with you that today's athletes are superior to those in the past for the most part. However, the only reason they are superior are because of the groundbreaking/revolutionary works of past athletes that have been improved over time by modern athletes. As far as the Einstein thing goes, I think I know what your gettin' at. Just look at what types of math were taught to high schoolers in say 1930 compared to high school kids today. But , sorry to say, I still don't think your 11 year old cousin is smarter than Einstein.

 

[bruin70]

pool lacks a sense of history. it's all "i saw this guy run,,,,".
so there's no statistical way to evaluate the greats. the good news is the game is played by an indivisual at the table where he creates his own game. so a 400 ball run is a 400 ball in any era,,,,then you can start to evaluate equipment and come up with a close comparison.

i prefer to leave the word "great" to those who influenced the game, not how many wins they chalked up.

 

[bruin70]

You should respect the ones who come before, but you should not confuse their abilities,,,,,,,,,, no Competition.
Mike

that's a stale argument,,,but if you're going to go the flawed route and make comparisons of athletic ability between athletes decades apart, i'll argue with you one step further..............that the human body doesn't evolve in 100 years much less 40, and in terms of athletic ability, only training methods have changed.....

jesse owens ran a 9.3 100 yard dash in '36. that translates to 10.3 in 100 meters,,,,,,,,running in crappy running shoes, with archaic training methods, on a DIRT track. with all that he was less than .6 seconds behind the world record of 9.77 over 70 years later

mickey mantle, who's training method, like most athletes of his time and earlier, consisted of how many beers he could down 7 hours before a game, powered monster hr's, including a 560 footer that no steroid licker has touched yet.

and there were hardtop bb players back in the 60's who picked quarters off the top of the backboard.

the game thrives on someone who comes along and shows everyone what could be done, from which point everyone follows in droves, and the game changes. there always needs to be that one guy who breaks the four minute mile.

so it's MORE than respect these athletes should garner. how they CHANGED the game is the stuff of myths.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Player's in everything are superior now.
Not just sports everything. Einstein drove himself mad trying to figure out things were taught in grade school now. Was he smart, yes, but didn't have as much knowledge as my 11 year old cousin does now.

Mike

Ok, this example is exactly my point! Your cousin may be a genius but he's no Einstein (even though you may love him dearly). What your cousin has shown is the capacity to learn. Einstein showed the capacity to discover. Even though your cousin may one day know more about physics than Einstein, he will not, by any means be a greater scientist.

Historically, Einstein is still going to be considered far greater than your cousin. If Einstein were around today, there's really no telling what he would be capable of.

 

[dogginda9]

This has GOT to be the DUMBEST shit I have ever read.
If this isn't supposed to be lighthearted humor, you should go now and file for disability. Because you are obviously retarded.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[dogginda9]

Also, is it just me or is Jude in "rarer" form today? Normally his posts are very eloquent, but today he is just plain fantastic!!!

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Also, is it just me or is Jude in "rarer" form today? Normally his posts are very eloquent, but today he is just plain fantastic!!!

Thank you, I think.

 

[boti2634]

When comparing past and present, I think it's always a good idea to look at baseball which takes great pride in its history. The fact is, it's been 7 years since Maris' record was broken and are Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa or Barry Bonds ever going to have the same lure as Babe Ruth? Hell no!! The reason being, there are three of them. Even in Maris' time, there was Mantle. With Babe Ruth, what he did was revolutionary. He changed the way the game was played. He changed strategy. He may not have been the best power hitter of all time but he was the first and when he was first, there was no runner-up.

Pool needs to have the same in mind. Regardless of statistics, runs, etc., it must be remembered that we are mere men standing on the shoulders of giants. We've learned from those before us so it is incredibly important to factor that in when considering historical greatness. That isn't to say that it is impossible to be contemporary and the greatest ever. Efren Reyes might just be that. I'm simply saying that before we talk about the man with the greatest stroke, we should first recognize the first man to have one without ever having seen one before.

Exceptionally stated! Tap Tap Tap!

 

[catscradle]

You say they "had adversaries that were" weak. You fail to realize that its through their greatness that the standards have risen. Even though Sammy Sosa's numbers may put him as one of baseball's elites, can you honestly say he's greater than Babe Ruth when he cannot even be considered greater than his contemporaries?

I've been playing pool a long time and through the years, I've learned that I cannot learn from a book. I have to see it before I can do it. For a competitor to conceptualize something is remarkable. It suggests a greatness that if put among greater peers, they would still excel. I cannot tell you that these competitors of the past would surly fail.

I think it's important to have respect for the past and leave it at that. Use of the term "greatest ever" should always be taken with a grain of salt. People have to match-up. Games need to be played. The game may be greater than it ever was but it's participants remain human. Mastering the game and creating mastery are not to be compared.

I think what makes comparison impossible in MOST sports is the advancement of our society, nutrition of today's stars alone makes a hugh difference. Babe Ruth was raised in an orphanage, probably underfed as were all children then, and certainly with no where near the level of medical car today's stars invariably had. Even if they grew up in a slum, they probably had better food and medical treatment than yesterday's atheletes. Bill Russell was arguably the best basketball player of his time, but people foolishly say he could dominate today because he was "only" 6' 9" or so, but if he grew up when today's players grew up he would be probably damn near 7' and he would still be the most intelligent basketball player who ever played.

Pool, however, is different. It is not really what I would call an "athletic" sport, it is no big advantage to be bigger and stronger, in some respects it may be a disadvantage. Therefore a cross generational comparision is fairer. The problem with pool is that the principal game has changed over the years and that makes the comparison much more difficult. Mosconi was probably the greatest 14.1 player, and it is safe to assume he would be the a great 9-ball player. However, you can't really compare him with Earl because they just didn't play the same game.

Bottom line you can't do this cross-generational comparisions and expect them to be very meaningful.

BTW, remember the Marciano/Ali computer matchup, Marciano won. Now he may have won in a real match, but it really is meaningless.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I think what makes comparison impossible in MOST sports is the advancement of our society, nutrition of today's stars alone makes a hugh difference. Babe Ruth was raised in an orphanage, probably underfed as were all children then, and certainly with no where near the level of medical car today's stars invariably had. Even if they grew up in a slum, they probably had better food and medical treatment than yesterday's atheletes. Bill Russell was arguably the best basketball player of his time, but people foolishly say he could dominate today because he was "only" 6' 9" or so, but if he grew up when today's players grew up he would be probably damn near 7' and he would still be the most intelligent basketball player who ever played.

Pool, however, is different. It is not really what I would call an "athletic" sport, it is no big advantage to be bigger and stronger, in some respects it may be a disadvantage. Therefore a cross generational comparision is fairer. The problem with pool is that the principal game has changed over the years and that makes the comparison much more difficult. Mosconi was probably the greatest 14.1 player, and it is safe to assume he would be the a great 9-ball player. However, you can't really compare him with Earl because they just didn't play the same game.

Bottom line you can't do this cross-generational comparisions and expect them to be very meaningful.

BTW, remember the Marciano/Ali computer matchup, Marciano won. Now he may have won in a real match, but it really is meaningless.

Actually, not only has the principal game changed, the equipment has changed as well. The standard slate is thinner then it once was which makes jumping tougher (though we now use jump cues), the cloth was typically slower and the table size frequently varied. What's more, cue production is better today than it's ever been. Regardless what you may think of Predator's shafts, they are light-years ahead of what was available 80 years ago.

 

[CantEverWin]

QUOTE=Jude Rosenstock]Ok, this example is exactly my point! Your cousin may be a genius but he's no Einstein (even though you may love him dearly). What your cousin has shown is the capacity to learn. Einstein showed the capacity to discover. Even though your cousin may one day know more about physics than Einstein, he will not, by any means be a greater scientist.

Historically, Einstein is still going to be considered far greater than your cousin. If Einstein were around today, there's really no telling what he would be capable of.[/QUOTE]


I never said my cousin was a genius, nor did I say he was smarter than Einstein. What I said was that he had more knowledge.
If I could call the dead Einstein wouldn't be my phone a friend if I were on "Who wants to me a millionaire." He doesn't have the knowledge.

I'm not making a competition between the two. There are different type of intelligence. Just making a point on how you can relate it to sports.

It's also possible that if the babe was born in 1980 that he would realize he didn't have an athletic body and would have been a business man. That's why I think that argument is "Retarded."
For the one who said it, and the one who agreed. I noticed there was no argument that followed. Just people who think a certain way and don't know why. That sound's pretty fuckin' retarded to me...


Mike