Defining a true one pocket player

[Harvywallbanger]

Two guys are playing PAC MAN. Player 1 just always clears the board without getting the ghost or the fruit. He makes it all the way through PAC MAN all the time defeating the game. Player 2 plays much different. He takes his time getting all the fruit and goes after the ghost all the time. Player 1 scores very high and makes it past the last level but even though Player 2 didn't clear all boards his score is higher.

Whos better? Player 2 because in PAC MAN the higher score wins.

But in 1 Pocket you get 0 points for making moves. (getting the ghost and finding the fruit)

You can say someone has more knowledge of the game, sure, but the buck stops there in ANY Billiards game.

Now thats an analogy folks.

 

[Harvywallbanger]

Two guys are fighting. Guy 1 knows everything about the sweet science. Guy 2 doesn't even know how to block. As Guy 1 is measuring up his opponent Guy 2 just runs in and strangles the flucker. They fight 10 times with the same result. Whos the better fighter?

Answer: Guy 1 KNOWS more about the ART of fighting.

Guy 2 IS the better fighter.


Theres another one for ya. OK I'm done.

 

[onepocketchump]

You said > "However, last time I checked, the better player in 1 pocket had to pocket 8 balls first"......Ah, no, it's the winner that has to pocket 8 balls first.

But, you've got me pegged wrong on Corey. I think Corey is a great one pocket player, and underrated - as a matter of fact I've said this many times. I think his imagination and cueball skills are killer....And in a thread that was on here around last winter where some of us were ranking one pocket players - I rated Corey in a tie for 3rd best after Efren and Cliff.

I agree. I sat and watched Corey play Scott at the DCC and Corey did torture him in a way. Corey shot a lot of shots that one hole purists might find unconventional but he wasn't selling out if he missed. Scott was playing with an unfamiliar cue that he was obviously having trouble with.

I think Corey is a pool genius of the highest caliber. He studies all games and is not afraid to bring unorthodox methods to the table in big matches. I am sure that he could play super old-school if he had to but why should he when he has moves that other people haven't concieved yet.

John

 

[onepocketchump]

REAL one pocket is about knowledge.



If pocketing ability is equal, the one pocket player is gonna gain an advantage just by knowing more, and being more creative then the guy who just knows how to shoot. When the shooters are put to the one pocket test, and are stuck in a situation that calls for a move, or intentional foul, they fail.

I think a good example of this would be Efren vs. the World. Efren posseses all the pocketing ability that any other player has PLUS he has the moves. The result - Erfen is hailed as the BEST one-pocket player alive. I have seen Cliff Joyner many, many times and have seen him straight up dog easy shots. If it weren't for this trait I would put him even with Efren.

Efren vs. Archer pocketing balls - toss up. Efren vs. Bustamante pocketing balls - toss up. Efren vs. Either of Them in a decent 1 hole match - Efren all the way.

John

 

[Alex Kanapilly]

And Jay, obviously I agree with you about Ronnie - he has the whole package and I believe that he and Efren are the best one-pocket players of all time....

Now this I agree with completely. They were/are the best and will be remembered that way because they WIN. If they were just a shade worse than they are and lost to great shooters more than occasionally, they wouldn't be considered the best ever... I believe you have to have it all to be the best.

I think the only way you can consider a losing player "the better one pocket player" is if it was a fluke. IOW, if that guy Strawberry who Sigel beat would get the best of Sigel most of the time playing one pocket, then sure, he's the better one pocket player.

It reminds me of a few years back when me and some BCA team mates were at the Cue club watching Tony Chohan and Jesse Bowman playing 1p. We had a good local short stop with us who used to be a very strong 1p player (he's old now) and he kept saying "yeah but these guys have no end game". I just shook my head and finally after 3 hours or so of watching them run 8 and out, he says "OK, I guess they have a lot of firepower, maybe they don't need an endgame". Of course at least Tony has plenty of end game, but you get the point.

Just so you get where I'm coming from I love 1p, don't want to play anything else now days. It's a wonderful game and i am hard at work trying to learn as much as I can but to me it still comes down to winning. There is as much beauty in watching great players run 8 and out consistently as there is in watching a guy come up with a creative move that you've never seen before.

Alex

 

[enzo]

imo...

I didn't get to read this entire thread, but one of the things that defines a true one hole player to me is, when on tight pockets, the guy doesn't shoot at a spot shot when he has the lead. ESPECIALLY when he knows he can outmove/outthink his opponent.

 

[1 Pocket Ghost]

Nope

your previous post in which u said even if the "shooter" won ten times in a row, they arent the better player.

Nope, I never said that - I would make each one pocket level judgement on a player by player basis ( and actually I used to do this some years ago, when I ran a handicapped one pocket tournament ) - on my first post and my last post, I gave several exact names for examples.

 

[1 Pocket Ghost]

>>>>>

If Vagabond says it, you have nothing to say. I agree with him and you feel the need to jump. LOL

Wrong.....If you look again, you'll see that I included his quote with yours...I'm just lazy and took the 2 for 1 option....And what I did was not jump - What I did was, I got out my 'truth laser gun', and vaporized an incorrect statement.

 

[RSB-Refugee]

Wrong.....If you look again, you'll see that I included his quote with yours...I'm just lazy and took the 2 for 1 option....And what I did was not jump - What I did was, I got out my 'truth laser gun', and vaporized an incorrect statement.

That whole "Wrong...." thing is very irritating. You make a really silly statement and hope everyone will cheer you for it. Most people start a thread with the idea of conversing or debating. It seems to me, you started this thread only to pontificate. Have fun in fantasyland, I'm through with this thread.

Tracy

 

[1 Pocket Ghost]

That whole "Wrong...." thing is very irritating. It seems to me, you started this thread only to pontificate.

Tracy

.....Wrong

 

[Southpaw]

Two guys are playing PAC MAN. Player 1 just always clears the board without getting the ghost or the fruit. He makes it all the way through PAC MAN all the time defeating the game. Player 2 plays much different. He takes his time getting all the fruit and goes after the ghost all the time. Player 1 scores very high and makes it past the last level but even though Player 2 didn't clear all boards his score is higher.

Whos better? Player 2 because in PAC MAN the higher score wins.

But in 1 Pocket you get 0 points for making moves. (getting the ghost and finding the fruit)

You can say someone has more knowledge of the game, sure, but the buck stops there in ANY Billiards game.

Now thats an analogy folks.

First of all, I cant believe there is an analogy linking pool to pac man. Second of all, I cant believe that I am going to reply with an extension of said analogy.....but here goes. If these 2 guys play pac man 10 times, Im going to bet the farm on player 1 that knows all the moves (or patterns in this case) over player 2 that plays looser. Sure player 2 may "outrun" some traps here and there, but in the longrun he can only run so far. Same is true in one pocket. You see more repeat winners in one pocket tournies than in 9 ball tournies. Thats b/c the knowledge of the game will rise to the top eventually.

Southpaw

 

[nyjoe14.1]

IMO, its real simple: IF YOU WIN THE MOST YOU’RE THE BEST. It doesn’t matter how you get there. This is true in baseball, football, soccer, and so on. Maybe I’m a little slow, but how else can you put it. It seems like some of you would tell your opponent that you’re not going to pay off if you lose because the guy out shot you and didn’t know the moves. The point of the game is to get 8 no more no less.

 

[Harvywallbanger]

First of all, I cant believe there is an analogy linking pool to pac man. Second of all, I cant believe that I am going to reply with an extension of said analogy.....but here goes. If these 2 guys play pac man 10 times, Im going to bet the farm on player 1 that knows all the moves (or patterns in this case) over player 2 that plays looser. Sure player 2 may "outrun" some traps here and there, but in the longrun he can only run so far. Same is true in one pocket. You see more repeat winners in one pocket tournies than in 9 ball tournies. Thats b/c the knowledge of the game will rise to the top eventually.

Southpaw

I don't think you grasped my analogy. Player 1 is the run out player. Player 2 is the one making moves...but whatever your way works fine to I guess. I was just countering that 1 pocket doesn't score points for making moves. The only points you get is for making a ball. SO in PAC MAN if you don't get points for getting the fruit or ghost then there is no need to and Player 1 would be the better player this time...BECAUSE HE WON THE GAME!

 

[jay helfert]

Is he the same Henderson from Northern California that posts here in AZB ?

No, that's John Henderson. Marvin died a few years ago.

 

[jay helfert]

First let me say thanks to all who have made intelligent posts to this thread, whether they were with me or against me - and OK Andrew, I might have been stretching a little with the boxing analogy, but I was trying to make a point.

And Jay, obviously I agree with you about Ronnie - he has the whole package and I believe that he and Efren are the best one-pocket players of all time....and as to my evaluation of Mike Sigel's pure one-pocket game, refer to my buddy and long-time sparring partner Freddy the Beard's post.


Let me make one last hypothetical scenario to state my case....We're at the DCC and these three one pocket matches are drawn : mega-champion Johnny Archer vs. very excellent one pocket player Richie Richeson, mega champion Earl Strickland vs. very excellent one pocket player Ike Runnels, and mega champion Ralf Souquet vs. very excellent one pocket player Billy Palmer....the three mega-champions all win their matches by a score of three to two, each of them having run eight and out three times....These players never play each other again.....Now the question here is, who are the three very excellent one pocket players out of this group of six ?....

....Well, the answer is a freaking no-brainer - Richie, Ike, and Billy are the Very Excellent One Pocket Players out of this group.



And let me go back a little ways into the past like Jay did....What is a pure, killer, one pocket player ?....From the eastern half of the U.S. guys like Patch-eye and Miami, from the western half, guys like San Jose Dick and Jack Cooney...and many, many, more - God bless them all.

Hey Ghost,

A Race To Three is a very short match. Let these same six guys play for a while and the outcome may be a little different. Ike is another very strong "under the radar" One Pocket player. And Billy Palmer may be one of the top ten One Pocket players. Johnny and Richie is probably a close match. Johnny shoots so straight and banks so good, that Richie must be very careful not to give up anything.

Thanks for mentioning Jack and Dick. Dick could hold his own against anybody (and still plays jam up). And no one really knows how good Jack was. I suspect he was the second best player in the world (after Ronnie) for a number of years. Of course, Jack had no interest in playing the top players and proving anything. He was all about the money, and making big scores. And he did a pretty good job of that, winning more money than any of the tournament champions, by far.

 

[Cory in DC]

I've never tried it, but I've heard of a "shoot 1 and safe" version of 1 Pocket -- you make a ball and then you have to play safe.

If the "8 & out specialists" could beat the more classical one pocket specialists in this game, then there'd be no debate. But if Johnny Archer consistently beats, say, Ike Runnels in regular one pocket, but Ike aways wins "shoot 1 and safe" then who's the better one pocket player? (I lean towards Archer, but this would establish Ike as the better mover.)

Cory

 

[desert1pocket]

I don't undertsand why you are all debating whether shooting or moving is better in one pocket. They are both equally important aspects of the game. I have seen good movers who shoot poorly beat great shooters who move poorly, and the other way around as well. If you are going to play one pocket, you had better work on both skills if you ever want to beat anyone. If you are lacking in one of these skills, you had better work on it. Also, you should be matching up in ways that play to your stronger points. For example, I move much better that a regular opponent that shoots straighter than me, so when he asks for a couple balls in weight, rather than give him 9-6, where he could easily run out if I make a mistake, I offer him 11-8, and settle for 10-7. When playing an old timer that knows all the moves, but has failing eyesight, I try to match up the other way around.

 

[Southpaw]

Here is another aspect that I would like to mention on this debate. I have seen Cliff give players who were solid "B" players 12-4 playing one pocket. Now, anyone who has ever seen Allen Hopkins, Grady, Bill Incardona, Steve Cook, etc. play, understand that sometimes taking a foul is a vital part of survival in one pocket. What Cliff is genius at is putting a lesser skilled player in situations where they know the best move is to take a foul and loose a ball. Ok now, Cliff has just made it a 12-5 game. And even if Cliff takes a foul himself to put this player in this situation its a 13-5 game. The 13 means absolutely nothing to Cliff, but now the weaker player is going from 4-5 which is HUGE!! This is just one of the complex "moves" that come into play in one pocket. This knowledge is what wins one pocket games in the long hall.... JMO.

Southpaw

 

[1 Pocket Ghost]

I've never tried it, but I've heard of a "shoot 1 and safe" version of 1 Pocket -- you make a ball and then you have to play safe.

Cory

Hey Cory, Yeah, One Pocket games have been matched up that way a lot....Actually, more often it would be played as 3 and safe - it can also be played as 3 and stop......With three and safe you get to run 3 balls and then you have to play a safety on your fourth shot....In three and stop, you don't get a fourth shot, so what you want to do is, while pocketing your 3rd ball, you also want to have the cueball come to rest in a defensively safe position.

 

[1 Pocket Ghost]

I don't undertsand why you are all debating whether shooting or moving is better in one pocket. They are both equally important aspects of the game. I have seen good movers who shoot poorly beat great shooters who move poorly, and the other way around as well. If you are going to play one pocket, you had better work on both skills if you ever want to beat anyone. If you are lacking in one of these skills, you had better work on it. Also, you should be matching up in ways that play to your stronger points. For example, I move much better that a regular opponent that shoots straighter than me, so when he asks for a couple balls in weight, rather than give him 9-6, where he could easily run out if I make a mistake, I offer him 11-8, and settle for 10-7. When playing an old timer that knows all the moves, but has failing eyesight, I try to match up the other way around.

d1p, I agree with everything you said....and as a matter of fact I didn't start this thread as a moving vs. shooting debate, it just got steered slightly off-center, into that direction at times......Believe me I love the smooth ball-pocketing satisfaction of running 8 and out (almost), as much as I love torturing my opponent with moves and traps until he's muttering to himself and considering breaking his stick in half. ^_^

Seriously though, without a doubt, the ultimate One Pocket player is one who can do it all... move-shoot-bank-think-and control whitey...at a world champion level.