Dechaine just chopped up Busty, but he's not even considered for MC.

Meucciplayer said:
WRT pool there is another angle, too. I suppose we all agree that back in the old times there were a lot more pool players than nowadays. 5-fold, 10 times as many, 100x or even more? Whatever. How likely is it that from a pool (pun intended) of 5 times or more as many than nowadays there will be less skilled players at the top?

If you don't believe it - why would a German football (US football) team not stand a chance against any US college team? Why do tiny countries (even if they are rich enough for all the most modern sports equipment and medical attention) not show up significantly in Olympic medal statistics? And why do some relatively small countries make an impact in some athletic competitions which can be considered a national past-time?

Yep, the answer is always: If there is a larger base of people seriously committing to some activity, they are highly likely to have many record holders, medalists etc.

The same concept can be applied to pool over time. It is not an intelligent assumption that the top players from yesteryear were in any way worse than today's players.

If you could make them compete directly a fair competition would involve both sets of players either play 50/50 on old and new equipment or on totally new equipment which neither group ever played on. Something like Russian pyramid tables :-)
Click to expand...

In pool the best example is the Philippine players. There are many more pool players in the USA then in the Philippines, maybe ten to twenty times as many or more. And I'm talking about players who take the game seriously and practice religiously. Yet the Philippines turns out many more quality players than here in the USA. Why? I think the answer lies in motivational factors as well as economic ones. Also being a pool player in the Philippines has no negative stigma to it. Remember Efren is an icon there.

There is probably more to this equation than I'm stating here. Even a country like China with tens of millions of pool players are barely a match for the Philippines. With all their advanced training methods and discipline I'm not sure a team of Chinese players would be favored over a team of Filipinos. It would be close for sure.
 
Pool tech. hasn't changed much. I started around '76-'77 and three things stand out: worsted-wool(Simonis) cloth, LD shafts and layered tips. That's really all that's come down the pike in 40yrs. I didn't mention jump-cues 'cause i've never seen those as a step forward as far as tech. goes. Oh wait, before the piling-on starts let's not forget the glove. If you play in humid/sticky conditions they can be a great help. Now, as far as chemical technology goes that's whole other story. ;)
 
jay helfert said:
In pool the best example is the Philippine players. There are many more pool players in the USA then in the Philippines, maybe ten to twenty times as many or more. And I'm talking about players who take the game seriously and practice religiously. Yet the Philippines turns out many more quality players than here in the USA. Why? I think the answer lies in motivational factors as well as economic ones. Also being a pool player in the Philippines has no negative stigma to it. Remember Efren is an icon there.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in large parts. Still, we would have to look at the Philippines a lot closer as to why they excel at pool. From what I've seen, there is also a lot of deep dedication and enthusiasm for pool there, not seen in Western countries to any similar degree. How many Westerners would sleep on or under a pool table like Efren did when he was a kid? I would assume that the base of the extremely dedicated players - the ones who supply the players of the Top 100 players in the world - might be similarly large there compared to the US. We would also have to look at how much money you need in Western countries if you don't want to be considered a bum. Which means that most players here need a real job besides pool. I would assume that there are a lot more players in the Philippines who don't fall in the bum category when they don't make a living considered to be standard in our hemisphere. And they don't need to make at least 50 grand to survive decently there.

There is probably more to this equation than I'm stating here. Even a country like China with tens of millions of pool players are barely a match for the Philippines. With all their advanced training methods and discipline I'm not sure a team of Chinese players would be favored over a team of Filipinos. It would be close for sure.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you that there is a lot more to consider.

Back to the players of Buddy Hall's era vs. nowadays. There are quite a few differences, too. Many of them are not comparable to the differences between different countries. However, the assumption that today's players are so much better than the Buddy Halls and Mosconis of yesterday are absolutely a religious belief vs. scientifically based, IMHO. Sadly, we cannot make a direct comparison between them. But we can watch the old videos/tv broadcasts and we can see how they played. And the older ones amongst us know the differences in equipment. True, the "buckets" were larger. The cloth, the cues, the tables, the balls and so on would be considered inferior nowadays.

To summarize it, I don't see that it was easier to win 50 years ago. Probably not harder either due to pocket sizes. Just different. I would strongly suggest that the competition was AT LEAST as strong then, though. Even if it were only for the fact that the top 2% came from a much larger base of players - at least in the US. It is also true that the world is smaller nowadays since it is much easier to compete internationally. Pool also became popular in many countries where it was largely unknown before WW2. So you might argue that in the long run places like China with their huge population may increase the base of pool players so significantly in the future that the top 100 players in the world taken from such a pool might really be better on average. Reducing it to current US players vs. US players from 30 or more years in the past I don't see any increase in great players at the top - rather the opposite.
 
BasementDweller said:
This is certainly true at the macro or global level but boy how I wish it were true here in the U.S. I think humans continually improve in just about any endeavor AS LONG AS the carrot is tasty enough. Here in the U.S., for the past 20 years or so, guys have really only been playing for either the love of the game, or they were just chasing some cash. So the evolution of the game has certainly taken a sabbatical here in the states.

Globally, anybody that's been paying even a little bit of attention knows today's top players do everything better than those from the past, with the minor exception being running balls at 14.1 but that goes back to the whole carrot thingy. I used to think Mike Sigel had the most picture perfect fundamentals and now I'll sit back and watch some of his old matches and I can't believe how often that cue of his goes flying off to the side. His technique would be pretty questionable by today's standards.

For a more dramatic example of how quickly fundamentals have improved compare today's crop of Filipino players to yesterday's. Efren, Bustamante, Parica, Luat, and company all had wonky cue actions. In comparison Orcullo has such a tight cueing motion and remains as still as can be. Now comes James Aranas and he practically plays with a snooker technique.

The bottom line is -- the top dogs today ALL cue better than yesterday's players.
Click to expand...


Is that why they all use jump cues?
 
jay helfert said:
T...snip....The one thing this speaker glosses over is the mental factor. The stronger willed and more unflappable competitor also has an edge over someone with less similar qualities.
Click to expand...

And that is one area where PED have helped pool players, specifically;) Was it Archer who said in a Billiards Digest magazine he was taking all of the stuff the competitive video gamers take that helped him focus so much during his heyday? And that was a pro who admitted it. I'm sure he was not the only one.
 
Last edited:
BeiberLvr said:
Players are fundamentally better today.

That's a physical skill.
Click to expand...

The physical skill in pool is coordinating your mind and body in order to hit an exact spot on the CB with the tip of the stick and with an exact speed. That skill has not improved since humans were humans.
 
Last edited:
iusedtoberich said:
And that is one area where PED have helped pool players, specifically;) Was it Archer who said he was taking all of the stuff the gamers take that helped him focus so much during his heyday? And that was a pro who admitted it. I'm sure he was not the only one.
Click to expand...
Some years back some of the UK snooker players got busted taking Beta-blockers. Some said it was virtually impossible to be nervous when taking them. Not sure how they caught them but it was kind of a scandal when it happened. Guy named Foulds was one of the bigger named players. Wouldn't be surprised if they still take them. Never know.
 
Last edited:
BasementDweller said:
Like many -- De420MadHatter just doesn't get how progress works.

Nobody doubts that if Earl, Buddy, Varner, or any of them in their primes were transported to today that they would certainly still be great players and probably even rise to the top. However, they would be BETTER than their historically accurate selves. That's just how things work. The bar is constantly being raised ever so slightly over time provided there's an equal amount of participation (or greater).

I just heard today that there was a marathoner that averaged around 4:25 minute miles for the whole thing. That's just crazy. Something happens within all of us when we see things that we previously thought were impossible and the bar just keeps getting raised. The exceptional becomes the norm.
Click to expand...

I think the recently established world record pace was 4:38. You need a 4:34.5 to break the two hour mark. I think we will definitely see that happen in the next 10 years - and then you're right - once someone breaks that barrier it is likely that more and more people will accomplish something previously thought to be impossible.
 
Poolfiend said:
I think the recently established world record pace was 4:38. You need a 4:34.5 to break the two hour mark. I think we will definitely see that happen in the next 10 years - and then you're right - once someone breaks that barrier it is likely that more and more people will accomplish something previously thought to be impossible.
Click to expand...

Obviously, eventually the runners will "hit a wall" and just physically not be able to go any faster. I mean, you're never going to see a one-hour marathon nor a five-second 100-yard dash.

I do not think the wall will be hit in any of our lifetimes though.

Maniac
 
Selective breeding

Who knows in the future? Perhaps selective breeding will produce humans that are tuned to a certain attribute. Just like the variety of registered dogs that evolved from the wolf.
Not in my lifetime either....
 
Pacecar said:
Who knows in the future? Perhaps selective breeding will produce humans that are tuned to a certain attribute. Just like the variety of registered dogs that evolved from the wolf.
Not in my lifetime either....
Click to expand...

Not sure if your last sentence is referring to selective breeding, but if it is, it's already here in a way. Not selective breeding, but designer babies, which kinda falls into what you are talking about. We can already do it, but morality is still in the way, so it's still taboo. It's progress, the future nonetheless, if we as a species are to survive. We just splice the gene out of a spider, into a goat, and we are now for the first time ever, on the the threshold of commercial silk production. The goat produces silk, with its milk. Milk the goat, take out the silk.
Can you imagine the marathon, if they splice the muscle density gene from a chimp into a human....
Nightmares, and dreams. Way off topic, but that stuff fascinates me.
 
De420MadHatter said:
In a nutshell, todays players are better, but have no more physical ability(as it relates to pool), than players of the past.
Click to expand...


I know the thread has derailed from the MD but I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Not only in pool, but other areas as well. But for the sake of the argument I'll stick with pool.

It's comical to dismiss the achievements of the players of the past. In regards to pool, Mosconi's record still stands after 56 years. No small feat on any table. He achieved greatness on the equipment available to him and would arguably do it again on what is the standard equipment today. According to Mosconi himself, his high run on a 9ft table were 608 and 589, respectively.

After a brief search, I found where our own Mark Wilson attested to Dallas West having over 3 runs of 400 on a 5x10 table. That's amazing! I realize this is a game with little present day concentration but it shouldn't diminish the overall achievement.

Talented players are resilient and find a way to rise to the top and win no matter the conditions. Many of the years the USA won the MC, the Euro team roster was stacked with great players as well. Steve Davis, Oliver Ortmann, and Darrel Peach among top names for Euro in 1995. And another great team in 1996 with the USA winning 15-13. USA players found a way to win just like so many of the players of yesteryear.

So, no I don't subscribe to the theory that today's players are superior. Someone stated earlier there are more great players and I will agree with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top