Consensus "Greatest of All Time" (GOAT) List

[dr_dave]

Alex 4
Shane 1

Lol now that's funny chit right there


1

If you don't like it, enter a vote to counter that with which you disagree. That's partly how things like this work.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Sigel 5
There is no substitute. Greatest Player in the finals period. In Dead Stroke unbeatable by anyone. Buddy Hall said it best, "No one shoots straighter than Mike Sigel."

FYI, I added your name and score to the first post.

Thank you for participating,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Efren 1
SVB 1
Strickland 1
Busty 1
Siegel 1
5 years from now, SVB will be the Goat! Money talks fellas!

FYI, I added your name and scores to the first post.

Thank you for participating,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Earl the Pearl 5

FYI, I added your name and scores to the first post.

Thank you for participating,
Dave

 

[Snooker Theory]

What makes this a valid survey if you've initially excluded some of the best? Just wondering.

All the best,
WW

Carlo Biado, but no Harold or Luther, hmmm now I am not the the historian some these guys are, but to me, in my humble opinion, seems a bit silly. Anyways off the "list", I'll give my 5 points to Varner(since Reyes is deservingly running away with it).

 

[dr_dave]

Depends on criteria. On tournament wins...as well as talent, dominance and such...


Earl Strickland is the GOAT.

But there will be bias against him due to people's opinion of him, as opposed to his game and his record. That won't change until a few decades down the road when his record will remain, not the drama.


A very close second is Efren. Efren has more diversity and success across more games, but does not have the number of big time titles that Earl does, nor was Efren ever as dominant in getting the titles he did. Earl was just a ball pocketing, perfect position play machine. What a freak. When he was in his prime, he steamrolled opponents.


After that, I'd say Sigel and Van Boening with Shane ahead. Shane can catch or pass Earl, he just needs a world championship at least, preferably two and another US Open. Earl has 3x world, 5x US Open.


Too much value is placed on Efren playing a variety of games. Is Mosconi's greatness diminished because someone else back then was stronger in 9-ball, one-pocket or 3-cushion? Nonsense.

The measure that matters is who was king and who dominated the main-game of the era.


9-ball was the game, and Earl owned it.


It's easy to understand why....Efren is likeable, a good sport, and not a man of much words and when he does speak, it isn't in a language most understand anyway. On the table, he is so absurdly creative, such immense knowledge. He is very, very fun to watch.


However, all those dazzling shots....while entertaining, most of them were recovery shots or because he was in a bad place that he shouldn't have been.


This is why in other sports, or even the arts ...there's fan opinions and expert opinion.


People get wowed by Efren's shots, but many of these come as result of a breakdown in consistency. He's human, everyone makes mistakes. But the greatest play is the most technically sound, and consistent play - which looks very routine and boring in a sense. Efren in his career rarely showed super consistent play, that also led to dominant tournaments. He wasn't the kind of machine Earl was.


Earl on the other hand has mild mental illness, and was heckled, trolled and triggered by vicious fans, leading to explosions and Earl being a sort of villain.

Thanks for the comments.

Please post your vote and I'll add your name and score(s) to the list. It sounds like you want to vote:

Strickland 5

but I'm not sure and I don't want to assume.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Well give Earl some numbers then. And maybe 1 for big E.

Please post a vote with a total score of 5 (see the instructions in the first post), and I'll add you name and score(s) to the list.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Efren Reyes 3
Earl Strickland 1
Johnny Archer 1

FYI, I added your name and scores to the first post.

Thank you for participating,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I'll give my 5 points to Varner(since Reyes is deservingly running away with it).

FYI, I added your name and scores to the first post.

Thank you for participating,
Dave

 

[Snooker Theory]

FYI, I added your name and scores to the first post.

Thank you for participating,
Dave

How did you spread your 5 votes, inquiring minds want to know, lol
Sorry if I missed it

 

[PoolBum]

My vote:

Reyes 2
Sigel 2
Varner 1

 

[Bob Jewett]

I'm going to go with old guys who had to play all-around games...

3 Varner
2 Hopkins

 

[9 Ball Fan]

If the old timers were in this; I'd include Mosconi and Lassiter for sure.

 

[PoloBob]

Efren R - 3

Alex P - 2

 

[Bob Jewett]

If the old timers were in this; I'd include Mosconi and Lassiter for sure.

You (or Dave) have to draw the line somewhere. DeOro was arguably more of a GOAT than Mosconi but no one here ever saw him play and there is no video. I doubt half even know he was a world champion. Of the list we're voting on, I've seen them all play in person and I've played against twelve of of them.

 

[AtLarge]

I'd like to see Bustamante in the next round of voting, so I'll give all 5 of my voting points to him.

 

[noMoreSchon]

Man, so many great players...
Mike Sigel. + 2
Nick Varner +1
This next one is tough....Alex/ or Dennis...Each get one...I can't choose.

 

[sjm]

What's the point of voting for "all time" when you exclude a huge part of "time"?
I thought you were scientific in your methods, but this way of listing "all time" players is a joke.

I think the poll is valid, but should have been named GLPOAT (Greatest living player of all time) instead of GOAT. GLPOAT is also good here by allowing us to compare these players in their respective primes, rather than considering the matter of who is the greatest player based on current form.

Seriously now, Ralph Greenleaf and Alfredo DeOro are dead for about 70 years. Yes, both are probably among the five best ever, but when they competed, there was no televised pool or streamed pool, so the only people who watched either one are those who watched them live. My guess is that ten AZB posters or less ever watched even one of them play, and what would be the point of including them in the poll only to see them finish well below far less accomplished players?

Omitting the guys most of us never saw play made plenty of sense to me, and I myself saw Mosconi, Lassiter, Crane, and Caras live. Thing is, though, they were all well past their playing primes when I watched them play, so comparing them to those I saw in their primes is a very difficult task.

Within its stated boundaries, this poll is indeed scientific.

 

[Poolmanis]

Reyes maybe not have so many U.S Opens or WC as Earl but he always nailed "Biggest prizepool of history tournaments" That is what Filipinos want from pool: Win money.

Reyes 3
Earl 1
SVB 1

 

[sjm]

Reyes maybe not have so many U.S Opens or WC as Earl but he always nailed "Biggest prizepool of history tournaments" That is what Filipinos want from pool: Win money.

Reyes 3
Earl 1
SVB 1

That's a very important point. Reyes won the IPT event for $500,000 and, if memory serves, two All Japan Championships back when the first prize was about $180,000. When the big money was up for grabs, nobody was tougher to beat than Efren.

I'll add that nine ball was probably Efren's third best game behind one pocket and eight ball, but he was still good enough to beat Earl Strickland in a race to 120 in the late 1990's, when Earl was still at the very top of his game. It was also in the late 1990's that Earl ran his $1,000,000 11-pack.

I've had more than a few chats with Earl over the years, and he only spoke with reverence and awe about two players during those chats: Efren Reyes and Mike Sigel.