Defining a true one pocket player

1 Pocket Ghost

1 Pocket Ghost

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I had been meaning to write this thread for awhile and the recent thread asking about Mike Sigel's one pocket skills prompted me to finally write it....

....First of all, I have to disagree with the posters on the Sigel thread who said that Sigel is an excellent one pocket player - he's not, and wasn't = Winning a one pocket tournament and running 8 and out 5 times in a row to beat Strawberry doesn't make you an excellent one pocket player - that isn't even one pocket, it's just running balls. Now in Sigel's case, back in the day, he was a dominating, champion 9-ball and straight pool player, and his superior ball pocketing, superior overall pool skills, and tremendous straight pool knowledge were enough to enable him to win one pocket games, matches, or tournaments - but all of this doesn't make him an excellent one pocket player. Here's a short story...About 12-15 years ago Billy Incardona was partners in owning a semi-private 24 hour pool /card club in Chicago...One night Sigel was in town and he and Billy were at the club just bs'ing, getting ready to go out to eat, and they decide to play a game or two of pool to determine who pays for dinner...Well, Billy wanted to play one pocket and Mike didn't, but he gave in since it was just for dinner...Predictably, Billy tortured Mike and beat him, moving rings around him while Mike just fired at anything - the chirping between them during the games was priceless.


Imo, what defines a pure, excellent one pocket player is that along with having excellent ball pocketing and position play skills....He is a player who knows 95%-100% of all moves, and ALWAYS analyzes the options/percentages correctly when deciding how, and in what manner he can aggressively attack his opponent every inning that he comes to the table - And if there is no offensive option available, he will play a killer safety with perfect cueball control.....Two players from the past who come to mind as being this kind of pure and champion level one pocket player are Artie Bodendorfer and the "Cookie Monster" - Steve Cook.

In these current times, obviously Efren, and secondly Cliff, are stone-cold one pocket champions in every facet of the game, and with superior pool skills to go with...But I'm going to give an example ( there are many more, past and present ) of two one pocket players who although they are far less than champion level pool players ( more like strong shortstop level ) they are true, pure, excellent one pocket players - some of you will have never heard of them, and some of you will know them very well...

....Tom Wirth from the Maryland/DC area ( hey Jam, I know you know Tom and his game well ) and Bob Herchik from Vegas. These two guys aren't champions but they are pure one pocket players....Tom has had many high finishes in major one pocket tournaments and, under the radar-Bob Herchik opened eyes with his 3rd place finish in the derby city one pocket in 2005. Now at the DCC one pocket tournament, these two guys might draw champions who are not really one pocket players like - Johnny Archer, or Earl Strickland, or Bustamante, or Marcus Chamat, and lose to them, but even if they lost, Wirth and Herchik are in fact the excellent ONE POCKET players - not these champions that beat them.
 
Last edited:
1 Pocket Ghost said:
...(snip)...Here's a short story...About 12-15 years ago Billy Incardona was partners in owning a semi-private 24 hour pool /card club in Chicago...One night Sigel was in town and he and Billy were at the club just bs'ing, getting ready to go out to eat, and they decide to play a game or two of pool to determine who pays for dinner...Well, Billy wanted to play one pocket and Mike didn't, but he gave in since it was just for dinner...Predictably, Billy tortured Mike and beat him, moving rings around him while Mike just fired at anything - the chirping between them during the games was priceless.
Click to expand...
Not to disagree, but just to add a bit of context. It's been a while so my memory is vague, but I think you're talking about The Shark Club (5 or 6 tables, BYOB, 24 hours, poker in the back room.) If so, then the loosest table there was really tight, and the tightest one was tighter than a triple-shimmed table. I think that type of table really favors the home player. Even among pure one pocket players, that type of table should favor the "mover" over the "shooter," relatively speaking.
Cory
 
Excellent post! I think what also sets true one pocket players above "shooters" is their ability to be creative in uncommon situations. Efren and Cliff certainly exhibit this rare skill and so does Shannon Daulton. These guys can make one shot, no matter how simple or how complex, that can turn the game around and their opponent will never know what hit them.

Southpaw
 
I disagree 1PocketGhost.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately, and frankly, what determines the better one pocket player is the player who wins, plain and simple.

If Mike Sigel shot straighter than other, more knowledgable one pocket players, and this enabled him to beat them, then he was the better one pocket player.

If I gamble with someone at one pocket even up and I lose because I don't shoot as straight as they do, I still lose -- even if I know the strategy and the moves better. If I play Earl Strickland one pocket, I need a spot from him to win -- even if I know the strategy and the moves better. I can't just step up and say that I'm a better one pocket player than Earl Strickland or Mike Sigel or any player who shoots that strong.

And obviously the best one pocket players will be those who shoot and move and bank strong, ie Efren and Cliff. But if Mike Sigel were to consistently beat Tom Wirth playing one pocket, then Mike Sigel is the better one pocket player.
 
1 Pocket Ghost said:
Imo, what defines a pure, excellent one pocket player is that along with having excellent ball pocketing and position play skills....He is a player who knows 95%-100% of all moves, a
Click to expand...

Moves were invented by the people who could not pocket the balls.What is the object of the game? Whoever pockets 8 balls first wins.They are NOT mandated by the Law to make moves.When Buddy Hall was in late 20s or early 30s played Grady for 1000 $ a set.I read this in a book.Grady did not like the way Buddy was playing.To paraphrase Grady ``Buddy that is not how u play one pocket``.He said it in friendly way.``you have to make moves``.Buddie replied`` why do I have to make the moves when I could make the ball !!!`` By the way Buddy beat Grady according to the book I read.
 
Last edited:
My Take on the Topic

Take top ten one pocket player versus top ten 9-baller. Make them play 20 racks of One pocket. The 9-baller will win some of the racks and maybe even take a lead in the set. Eventually, however, the true one pocket player will win in the end. If both players have even speed in their disciplined games eventually the moves of one pocket will catch the shooting capability of the 9-baller. Many racks of one pocket are tedious to impossible to run-out without the ability to make moves(traps). All that I am saying is that if you took 10 top one-pocket players and 10 top 9-ballers made them all match up against each other for 20 racks of one-pocket in the end the one-pocket players would out win the 9-ballers. One pocket is a different animal than 9-ball. I know this first hand since I am an above average 9-baller learning one-pocket. I blister most of the one-pocket players in my area playing 9-ball, but struggle to keep up with them playing one-pocket. l after a year of learning I still know not all the moves necessary to be competitive, and probably will not all the moves for many more years to come. Until than I will be making my normal contributions in the name of "knowledge" , and "knowledge" is the key to one-pocket winning.
 
Snap9 said:
All that I am saying is that if you took 10 top one-pocket players and 10 top 9-ballers made them all match up against each other for 20 racks of one-pocket in the end the one-pocket players would out win the 9-ballers. One pocket is a different animal than 9-ball.
Click to expand...


AGREED.:cool: :cool: :cool:
 
Who would you rather take one pocket lessons from?

grady or buddy hall?

I wanna take them from the BETTER one pocket player. Grady.

Ian
________
 
Last edited:
1 Pocket Ghost said:
Imo, what defines a pure, excellent one pocket player is that along with having excellent ball pocketing and position play skills....He is a player who knows 95%-100% of all moves, and ALWAYS analyzes the options/percentages correctly when deciding how, and in what manner he can aggressively attack his opponent every inning that he comes to the table - And if there is no offensive option available, he will play a killer safety with perfect cueball control.....Two players from the past who come to mind as being this kind of pure and champion level one pocket player are Artie Bodendorfer and the "Cookie Monster" - Steve Cook..
Click to expand...

I disagree, somewhat. I think what you're discussing has merit, but for a romantic old-school sort of way. We like to consider one-pocket a movers game, similar to the idea that we like to consider 14.1 a pattern game. But, with today's players, moving or patterns can be overcome.

IMO, if you win a major one-pocket tournament against the best one-pocket players in the world, then that makes you a great one-pocket player. It might not make you a great mover, a great analyzer, or a great percentage player, but because you accomplished the objective (to pocket 8 balls into your hole) more times than the others, then that makes you a one-pocket player. How can anyone try to take that away from someone? That's not very pool player friendly.

Fred
 
This reminds me of Paul Newmans line in the hustler. " I'm the best there is fats the best you've ever seen and even if you beat me I'm still the best"
 
Cornerman said:
I disagree, somewhat. I think what you're discussing has merit, but for a romantic old-school sort of way. We like to consider one-pocket a movers game, similar to the idea that we like to consider 14.1 a pattern game. But, with today's players, moving or patterns can be overcome.



I agree with this. 3 games textbook definition

9 ball -shooters game
14.1 - pattern play
1 pocket - moving and overall ability.

But just like you said THESE skills can now be overcome. JUST like when sigel gets mad and says "Danny harriman shit out" or whatever...Sigel KNOWS Danny is a world class 14.1 player but since he didn't do everything exactly "textbook" he gets upset.
________
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
xianmacx said:
Who would you rather take one pocket lessons from?

grady or buddy hall?

I wanna take them from the BETTER one pocket player. Grady.

Ian
Click to expand...

I'd rather take them from Grady, the MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE one pocket player, because someone's execution ability doesn't help me if I'm taking lessons from them. Their knowledge is the reason I want them to teach me.

However, even though Grady's more knowledgeable, the better player is the one who WINS more, whether or not you like their style.

-Andrew
 
BackPocket9Ball said:
I disagree 1PocketGhost.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately, and frankly, what determines the better one pocket player is the player who wins, plain and simple.

If Mike Sigel shot straighter than other, more knowledgable one pocket players, and this enabled him to beat them, then he was the better one pocket player.

If I gamble with someone at one pocket even up and I lose because I don't shoot as straight as they do, I still lose -- even if I know the strategy and the moves better. If I play Earl Strickland one pocket, I need a spot from him to win -- even if I know the strategy and the moves better. I can't just step up and say that I'm a better one pocket player than Earl Strickland or Mike Sigel or any player who shoots that strong.

And obviously the best one pocket players will be those who shoot and move and bank strong, ie Efren and Cliff. But if Mike Sigel were to consistently beat Tom Wirth playing one pocket, then Mike Sigel is the better one pocket player.
Click to expand...

I understand both sides of this,but I have to agree here. Most good one pocket players are annoyed by 9-ballers who shoot their way out of a trap and then get out. After all, you left the shot and dared him to shoot it.
As Ronnie Allen said, "the best move in one pocket, is 8 and out!"
 
xianmacx said:
Who would you rather take one pocket lessons from?

grady or buddy hall?

I wanna take them from the BETTER one pocket player. Grady.

Ian
Click to expand...

BOTH!!!!!!!
 
Great opening 1 Pocket Ghost. Interesting new, and old, subject. Many of the other posts suggest that 9 ball players lack some of the skill required of one pocket. Knowledge,yes....skill, not necessarily. And to what degree that lack of knowledge affects the outcome is the question. Of course many 1 pocket players are also great shotmakers. IMHO, its not apples and oranges. Its a continueom of various skills. I remember when Ronnie Allen, yes I'm that old, was looked at by the southern 1 pocket "purists" as not playing the game with all the moves per tradition, but instead making 1 or 2 moves then running out. Many people didn't think he could move, until they were empty. Like I said, its a continueom, skill and knowledge, in every game, with each game weighted toward a little different skill, or combination of them. You don't have to be one or the other.
 
The better one pocket player is who wins in the long run, IMO. The best one pocket players in the world, like Cliff and Efren, although they are superior to almost everyone at running 8 and out, they also know how to absoloutely suffocate opponents. They dominate, they don't give up anything at all most of the time. When they do tempt a player, the good player doesn't go for it, because he's only gonna get 1 ball, and if he misses, he sells out alot of balls or even the game. That's how they play the game.
 
Snap9 said:
Take top ten one pocket player versus top ten 9-baller. Make them play 20 racks of One pocket. The 9-baller will win some of the racks and maybe even take a lead in the set. Eventually, however, the true one pocket player will win in the end. If both players have even speed in their disciplined games eventually the moves of one pocket will catch the shooting capability of the 9-baller. Many racks of one pocket are tedious to impossible to run-out without the ability to make moves(traps). All that I am saying is that if you took 10 top one-pocket players and 10 top 9-ballers made them all match up against each other for 20 racks of one-pocket in the end the one-pocket players would out win the 9-ballers. One pocket is a different animal than 9-ball. I know this first hand since I am an above average 9-baller learning one-pocket. I blister most of the one-pocket players in my area playing 9-ball, but struggle to keep up with them playing one-pocket. l after a year of learning I still know not all the moves necessary to be competitive, and probably will not all the moves for many more years to come. Until than I will be making my normal contributions in the name of "knowledge" , and "knowledge" is the key to one-pocket winning.
Click to expand...


Isn't it possible that the top 10 9 ballers ARE the top 10 1 pocket players and vise versa. If you took the top 10 of each you would probably wined up with no more than 12 or 13 overall players.

Efren would be on both list. Shannon Daultan could be on both list depending who you ask. I dont know about Earl in 1 pocket but I dont think he could get weight from anyone. And so on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top