Defining a true one pocket player

[freddy the beard]

Ronnie, Ronnie, Ronnie

Hey Ghost,

Thanks for mentioning Jack Cooney and San Jose 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.

Jay, it's bad enough that you bang the "best in the world" 1pkt drum for Ronnie, and conveniently leave our Midwest guys, Bugs and Artie out of the mix, but now you're going to anoint Jack Cooney, another California guy at #2. Dont get me wrong, I love Jack. We hustled together often, and he and Barb lived in my house for 3 months. Barb still sends xmas cards. They are 2 of my favorite people on earth, and while Jack is a living legend and a great player and competitor, to offhandedly deign him #2 over Artie and Bugs must be challenged by me. I had half of Jacks bet when Bugs spotted him 1 hit and the pick (the equivalent of 8 to 6 and the break!). We finally won, but Bugs had us stuck 25 hundred. To try to win playing even would have been ridiculous. While playing a proposition game whereby Jack and Artie were partners against a weak player for high money, Artie became frustrated with Jack's shot choices and challenged Jack to a game between the two. After watching the kind of horror Artie had dispensed in the partner game, Jack unashamedly asked for 10 to 8. No knock on Ronnie either, everything you say about him is true and I dont pick anyone as better than him. But I believe no one was better than Bugs and Artie either. My personal view is that anyone would stay broke trying to find the winner between Artie, Bugs or Ronnie.

See you in Derby City Jay,
the Beard

 

[cuetechasaurus]

How would Artie and Bugs in their prime fare against Cliff and Efren if they could magically travel back in time?

 

[lfigueroa]

IMO, the true 1pocket player is the guy who can win with his offense OR his defense.

The non 1pocket player, who still plays the game, is the one always moaning about how they hate: 1pocket; all the pinching and squeezing; how the better shooter never seems to win; how boring the end game is.

There is nothing boring about a defensive shot that brings your oppponent to his knees.

Lou Figueroa


What defines a pure, excellent one pocket player...

 

[mikepage]

I had been meaning to write this thread for awhile [...].

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. [...]

Nobody plays one pocket here in Fargo, so I haven't really been able to learn the game. (I've probably played a couple hundred games of it in my life).

There is a local player who can give me 10-6 and torture me. The problem is he is not a one pocket player either. He's a smart player with strong pocketing ability and excellent cueball control, but I'm not going to learn much one-pocket playing him.

On the other hand, when I travelled to DC a few months ago I played some with Cory in DC (of AZ fame here). As overall players (e.g., at 9-ball) Cory and I play at the same speed, but he knows how to play one pocket. I don't think Cory would like giving me 10-6, but he could probably give me 9-7 or so. I learn a lot more playing Cory than I do playing the local guy. So in some sense I'd say Cory is a better one pocket player than the local guy is.

mike page
fargo

 

[Snapshot9]

In my opinion

There are NO TRUE 1 POCKET PLAYERS. Because you have to learn to crawl before you walk. The basics are learned with 14.1, 8 or 9 ball first, and then expanded to the more complex nature of 1 pocket. How fast one assimilates the subtle nuances of 1 pocket increases their knowledge base of 1 pocket shots that enables a player to maintain the advantage during play, and therefore win more.

Imagination and creativity and caution all play a part in a good 1 pocket player. Most players copy it from other good 1 pocket players, but some are very creative.

I would add one thing, most players can be beat IF YOU KNOW HOW THEY THINK. Again, I recommend 'The Art of War', by Sun Tzu.

 

[mikepage]

[...].....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.
[...]

I meant to mention this in my other post..

One time about 7 or 8 years ago, I was in Dayton, OH for work. I got knocked out of the weekly $5 9-ball tournament and was sitting at the bar watching (with the sound off) the accustats tape on the TV screen (they had a ton of them). I appreciated that the older gentleman sitting next to me was making comments on the shots because, as I said, I'm not a one-pocket player. Then he said "I was trying to freeze to the five here." or something lke that. I turned to get a better look at who I was talking to. It was Steve Cook. I went on to get a great player review !

Oh, and I got knocked out of the tournament (race to 3 on the A side, 2 on the B side) by Gary Spaeth.

These are two legends who have since died.

At that same little weekly tournament was Jason Miller and AZ poster and cuemaker Sherm Adamson.

mike page
fargo

 

[jay helfert]

Jay, it's bad enough that you bang the "best in the world" 1pkt drum for Ronnie, and conveniently leave our Midwest guys, Bugs and Artie out of the mix, but now you're going to anoint Jack Cooney, another California guy at #2. Dont get me wrong, I love Jack. We hustled together often, and he and Barb lived in my house for 3 months. Barb still sends xmas cards. They are 2 of my favorite people on earth, and while Jack is a living legend and a great player and competitor, to offhandedly deign him #2 over Artie and Bugs must be challenged by me. I had half of Jacks bet when Bugs spotted him 1 hit and the pick (the equivalent of 8 to 6 and the break!). We finally won, but Bugs had us stuck 25 hundred. To try to win playing even would have been ridiculous. While playing a proposition game whereby Jack and Artie were partners against a weak player for high money, Artie became frustrated with Jack's shot choices and challenged Jack to a game between the two. After watching the kind of horror Artie had dispensed in the partner game, Jack unashamedly asked for 10 to 8. No knock on Ronnie either, everything you say about him is true and I dont pick anyone as better than him. But I believe no one was better than Bugs and Artie either. My personal view is that anyone would stay broke trying to find the winner between Artie, Bugs or Ronnie.

See you in Derby City Jay,
the Beard

Sorry if I offended you Oh Mighty Bearded One. I think I did mention Bugs and Taylor as being second to Ronnie in one post. I did see Bugs play a few times and he was an amazing Banker and a very, very straight shooter. His moves seemed average to me and he kicked okay. Correct me if I'm wrong. Both Bugs and Taylor banked in another league from the rest of the world. I heard that Cannonball banked their speed but I never saw it.
What I will say is that the top Bankers of today would be at a minimum a ball or two under Bugs or Taylor.

I never saw anyone shoot long rail banks better than Bugs, especially
in a money game where a miss was a sellout. He would fire away at Banks that ordinary players would not consider. And make them and run out. He hit the long rails like a good player shooting cross corner banks. As for Eddie Taylor, he had the same kind of firepower as Bugs. Great banking ability and straight shooting from anywhere. Again I don't think either of them kicked like Ronnie. Just my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

And Ronnie was the best I ever saw at making funny off angle combinations (sometimes with three or more balls involved). It seemed like everything Ronnie hit moved balls toward his hole. And Ronnie could slice them thin too, with deadly accuracy. I'm sorry I didn't get to see more of Artie in his prime. I saw him play once in Vegas and he was past his peak then. He moved great and banked accurately, but missed some balls on that tight table.

Like I said, I really don't know how good Jack was. If you tell me he couldn't beat Bugs or Artie, I believe you. I saw Jack work the table with precision many times and he totally controlled the game. That impressed me. He had to play good to beat Monk and James Walden. I was in for a piece there. What I do know about Jack is that he won more money than anybody, by making huge scores on a regular basis. Of course he was hustling suckers. He was the master at getting them to go off for a big number.

See you in Louisville. Maybe we'll have a rematch in the Banks. LOL

 

[1 Pocket Ghost]

How would Artie and Bugs in their prime fare against Cliff and Efren if they could magically travel back in time?

Well, I've watched them all play a lot, and here's how I see it.....I could be wrong here, and when Freddy and Jay chime in, they may agree or disagree, but with everybody in their prime, I would make Artie, Bugs and Ronnie a small favorite over Cliff.....But I would I would pick Efren as #1 overall, and make him a slight favorite over Artie, Bugs and Ronnie.....

.....All 5 of these guys had the whole package of course, but imo, Bugs was the best banker of the group, Efren the best ball runner, and Artie was the best defensive player of the group ( I'm only putting him above Efren in this category because not only did he have the defensive skills, but unlike Efren, he was nasty and sadistic and thrived on smothering/torturing his opponent )....


.....Also, as to Cliff, his overall One Pocket skills are world class, but for some strange reason it seems like Cliff will on a regular basis, miss easy shots during sessions, if it wasn't for this, I might consider putting him in a tie with Artie, Bugs and Ronnie --- cuz, those three guys were too cold-blooded to miss these kinds of shots.

 

[HittMan]

The Aesthetics of 1-Hole

This has indeed been an interesting thread…so I simply cannot resist putting in my 2 cents worth.

People gravitate to 1-hole for various reasons. Mostly, I believe, due to the sophistication of the game. By sophistication, I am referring to the myriad of ways to prevail against an opponent, utilizing strategy (considering yourself, your opponent and general conditions) and tactics (implementation of your plan) while REMAINING in control over the long haul. The likelihood of being beaten by luck (in any form) is greatly reduced because of decreased target area (less pockets to shoot at), relatively simple (equitable) scoring format, and relatively few restrictive rules to introduce artificial advantage (referring to ball-in-hand) for the sake of format (in that particular case … television). Given this as a backdrop, the prize sought is winning, so I can’t help but say that the consistent winner is the better player, regardless of the game. HOWEVER, short set tournament format will not likely establish the better player in anyone’s mind…nor will one long match or even a few long matches. This is because the complexity of the game allows a player to exploit his opponent’s weaknesses and cash in on his strengths in so many areas. Creativity (recognition of opportunity), knowledge of the game, style, pocketing the balls, playing defensively (moving); all quite good considerations, but I cannot help but introduce these “basic” functions for consideration:

Risk Assessment – what is risky for one player is a hanger for another…what matters is the outcome…1-hole will allow you to take all the risk you want…if plans overload ability, the truth will come out. This leads to:
Self Assessment - accurate self image…can you execute your plan? Have you tested your own limits enough to become the best player you can? Are you too conservative or too aggressive?
Opponent Assessment - If you really think a guy shouldn’t be shooting a particular shot then leave it for him and find out. You must accurately discover his strengths/weaknesses to exploit them.
Phasing – Do you recognize where you (and the game) are and adjust for the different stages of the game. Can you “control the square” to use a chess analogy (quite a good one in my experience). Can you develop an effective back game? Inside game? Stack game? Run-out game? Etc.
Ability to adjust – Can you actively formulate and implement effective game plans on the fly? Do you get married to your plan and/or come undone when it doesn’t follow your preconceived notion? Do you give up on planning when you encounter adversity? Can you knock your opponent out of his plan?

It is my opinion these higher level functions of the game are the qualitative basis for the aesthetic/academic appreciation of the game at the heart of this thread. It is a game where a smarter player may overcome a less-smart player utilizing skills that are not customarily significant in pocket billiards. I have compared 9-ball to checkers and 1-hole to chess. There is no one that knows all the moves…the diversity is too broad. A player that “knows all the moves” has revealed his tragic flaw…punish him with his ego!

I have found that better 1-hole players may not win the first match or even the third...but have the ability reduce the initially perceived gap between themselves and their opponent very quickly. This is the perfume of the aesthetic endeavor that is one-pocket.

Just my rant…you be the judge.

 

[Andrew Manning]

This has indeed been an interesting thread…so I simply cannot resist putting in my 2 cents worth.

People gravitate to 1-hole for various reasons. Mostly, I believe, due to the sophistication of the game. By sophistication, I am referring to the myriad of ways to prevail against an opponent, utilizing strategy (considering yourself, your opponent and general conditions) and tactics (implementation of your plan) while REMAINING in control over the long haul. The likelihood of being beaten by luck (in any form) is greatly reduced because of decreased target area (less pockets to shoot at), relatively simple (equitable) scoring format, and relatively few restrictive rules to introduce artificial advantage (referring to ball-in-hand) for the sake of format (in that particular case … television). Given this as a backdrop, the prize sought is winning, so I can’t help but say that the consistent winner is the better player, regardless of the game. HOWEVER, short set tournament format will not likely establish the better player in anyone’s mind…nor will one long match or even a few long matches. This is because the complexity of the game allows a player to exploit his opponent’s weaknesses and cash in on his strengths in so many areas. Creativity (recognition of opportunity), knowledge of the game, style, pocketing the balls, playing defensively (moving); all quite good considerations, but I cannot help but introduce these “basic” functions for consideration:

Risk Assessment – what is risky for one player is a hanger for another…what matters is the outcome…1-hole will allow you to take all the risk you want…if plans overload ability, the truth will come out. This leads to:
Self Assessment - accurate self image…can you execute your plan? Have you tested your own limits enough to become the best player you can? Are you too conservative or too aggressive?
Opponent Assessment - If you really think a guy shouldn’t be shooting a particular shot then leave it for him and find out. You must accurately discover his strengths/weaknesses to exploit them.
Phasing – Do you recognize where you (and the game) are and adjust for the different stages of the game. Can you “control the square” to use a chess analogy (quite a good one in my experience). Can you develop an effective back game? Inside game? Stack game? Run-out game? Etc.
Ability to adjust – Can you actively formulate and implement effective game plans on the fly? Do you get married to your plan and/or come undone when it doesn’t follow your preconceived notion? Do you give up on planning when you encounter adversity? Can you knock your opponent out of his plan?

It is my opinion these higher level functions of the game are the qualitative basis for the aesthetic/academic appreciation of the game at the heart of this thread. It is a game where a smarter player may overcome a less-smart player utilizing skills that are not customarily significant in pocket billiards. I have compared 9-ball to checkers and 1-hole to chess. There is no one that knows all the moves…the diversity is too broad. A player that “knows all the moves” has revealed his tragic flaw…punish him with his ego!

I have found that better 1-hole players may not win the first match or even the third...but have the ability reduce the initially perceived gap between themselves and their opponent very quickly. This is the perfume of the aesthetic endeavor that is one-pocket.

Just my rant…you be the judge.

Wow. That post made me REALLY want to go play some one-pocket.

-Andrew

 

[1 Pocket Ghost]

This has indeed been an interesting thread…so I simply cannot resist putting in my 2 cents worth.

People gravitate to 1-hole for various reasons. Mostly, I believe, due to the sophistication of the game. By sophistication, I am referring to the myriad of ways to prevail against an opponent, utilizing strategy (considering yourself, your opponent and general conditions) and tactics (implementation of your plan) while REMAINING in control over the long haul. The likelihood of being beaten by luck (in any form) is greatly reduced because of decreased target area (less pockets to shoot at), relatively simple (equitable) scoring format, and relatively few restrictive rules to introduce artificial advantage (referring to ball-in-hand) for the sake of format (in that particular case … television). Given this as a backdrop, the prize sought is winning, so I can’t help but say that the consistent winner is the better player, regardless of the game. HOWEVER, short set tournament format will not likely establish the better player in anyone’s mind…nor will one long match or even a few long matches. This is because the complexity of the game allows a player to exploit his opponent’s weaknesses and cash in on his strengths in so many areas. Creativity (recognition of opportunity), knowledge of the game, style, pocketing the balls, playing defensively (moving); all quite good considerations, but I cannot help but introduce these “basic” functions for consideration:

Risk Assessment – what is risky for one player is a hanger for another…what matters is the outcome…1-hole will allow you to take all the risk you want…if plans overload ability, the truth will come out. This leads to:
Self Assessment - accurate self image…can you execute your plan? Have you tested your own limits enough to become the best player you can? Are you too conservative or too aggressive?
Opponent Assessment - If you really think a guy shouldn’t be shooting a particular shot then leave it for him and find out. You must accurately discover his strengths/weaknesses to exploit them.
Phasing – Do you recognize where you (and the game) are and adjust for the different stages of the game. Can you “control the square” to use a chess analogy (quite a good one in my experience). Can you develop an effective back game? Inside game? Stack game? Run-out game? Etc.
Ability to adjust – Can you actively formulate and implement effective game plans on the fly? Do you get married to your plan and/or come undone when it doesn’t follow your preconceived notion? Do you give up on planning when you encounter adversity? Can you knock your opponent out of his plan?

It is my opinion these higher level functions of the game are the qualitative basis for the aesthetic/academic appreciation of the game at the heart of this thread. It is a game where a smarter player may overcome a less-smart player utilizing skills that are not customarily significant in pocket billiards. I have compared 9-ball to checkers and 1-hole to chess. There is no one that knows all the moves…the diversity is too broad. A player that “knows all the moves” has revealed his tragic flaw…punish him with his ego!

I have found that better 1-hole players may not win the first match or even the third...but have the ability reduce the initially perceived gap between themselves and their opponent very quickly. This is the perfume of the aesthetic endeavor that is one-pocket.

Just my rant…you be the judge.

Hey Hittman, Great post, and.....I think you and I need to play each other some One Pocket!.....I'll make you a deal = You send me a plane ticket to your town, and I'll play you even - you won't have to give me any weight! ^_^

 

[enzo]

artie vs efren

Nice posts everybody.

I would love to see artie and efren play, both in their prime, which is impossible of course.

efren has so much offense, but ive seen him get frustrated when he can't shoot. i think artie (from all i've heard) may have been one of the few players who could control his offense and maybe outwait him. efren would have to be the favorite though of course. artie just seems like a guy that could find a weak point and exploit it to no end, you must admire that. im sure artie would match the game up on a tough and wet table, which would limit efrens offensive game.

anyway, its fun to talk about, too bad we'll never see it.

 

[mikepage]

[...]

Just my rant…you be the judge.

Excellent post hittman. Your use of the word "sophistication" reminds me of something I wrote a while ago about what makes a good game good...

************

So here's what I think is desirable in a game. *I'll call it
"sophistication," though I'm not sure that's the best word. *Let's say a
sophisticated game requires, perhaps among other things, the following:

(1) knowledge,
(2) strategy,
(3) physical skill,
(4) patience,
(5) courage,
(6) concentration

In a nutshell, a "sophisticated" game is one for which many or all of
these measures contribute substantially to the variance among players over
a wide range from intermediate players to the very top. *IMO it doesn't
really matter how many distinct skill levels there are between outright
beginner and low-intermediate players, but it does matter how many
distinct skill levels there are between intermediate and advanced players
and between advanced and world-class players. *

14.1, for example, could be criticized because at the very highest level,
knowledge, intelligence, physical skill, and courage are not contributing
nearly as much to the variance as are patience and concentration. *It's
not that they're not needed, it's just that they're not contributing as
much to the variance. *9-ball could be criticized because patience and
concentration don't contribute as much as the other things do to the
variance at high levels. *One-pocket perhaps has a better mix. *If the
equipment is too hard, like the pool-on-a-basketball-court example, then
physical skill dominates the variance; If the equipment is too easy, it's
possible to "max-out" on physical skill and have the variance determined
by other things.

In any case, it is desirable to be at least possible for players at a very
high level to reach a new distinct level by improvement in one of several
of the above, i.e., to improve in several different ways.

So in properly sophisticated game:

(1) knowledge

It should be possible for a pro to improve measureably just by gaining
knowledge of the game--all other things being equal as they say. *This
might include self-awareness knowledge *(success probabilities of
alternative strategies, strengths and weaknesses) or it might include
knowledge of aiming corrections, diamond systems, how to adjust to new
equipment, physics of the game, etc. *So if the pro's are generally maxed
out on knowledge, that's a flaw in the game.

(2) strategy

There should be higher levels of strategy than what is displayed by the
typical pro-level player. *It should be possible to outsmart your
opponent, and better plans should not infrequently be possible *If the
pros are generally maxed out on strategy, that's a flaw in the game.

(3) physical skill

If the pro's are generally maxed out on physical skill, that's a flaw in
the game.

(4) patience

If there's a good mix of offense and defense, there there should be times
when sustained defense requiring delayed gratification is good strategy,
and variance in patience should contribute to the variance in players at a
high level.

(5) courage

A sophisticated game should have moments where the risk is high and the
payoff is high--i.e., opportunities to choke where a decision is
involved. *An example is a 60% shot in 14.1 that is guaranteed to break
open the rack (say, following a series of safeties). *So this includes how
players react under pressure generally. And it includes whether players
are intimidated by what they perceive as *a superior opponent.

(6) concentration

A sophisticated game should sometimes require extended focus. *

****
So once again if we consider the number of distinct levels between
intermediate and semi-pro players and betwen semi-pro and world-class
players, those are important considerations. * But equally important is
that there be a rich mixture of variables that contribute to those
distinctions.

--
mike page
fargo

 

[jay helfert]

Well, I've watched them all play a lot, and here's how I see it.....I could be wrong here, and when Freddy and Jay chime in, they may agree or disagree, but with everybody in their prime, I would make Artie, Bugs and Ronnie a small favorite over Cliff.....But I would I would pick Efren as #1 overall, and make him a slight favorite over Artie, Bugs and Ronnie.....

.....All 5 of these guys had the whole package of course, but imo, Bugs was the best banker of the group, Efren the best ball runner, and Artie was the best defensive player of the group ( I'm only putting him above Efren in this category because not only did he have the defensive skills, but unlike Efren, he was nasty and sadistic and thrived on smothering/torturing his opponent )....


.....Also, as to Cliff, his overall One Pocket skills are world class, but for some strange reason it seems like Cliff will on a regular basis, miss easy shots during sessions, if it wasn't for this, I might consider putting him in a tie with Artie, Bugs and Ronnie --- cuz, those three guys were too cold-blooded to miss these kinds of shots.

Ronnie was sadistic about MAKING tough shots to get out. In every ten and out run, he would usually make one or two "impossible" shots. Oftentimes, his runs would begin with a shot from nowhere.

Efren's shotmaking is unreal and no one I have ever seen, runs the balls when they are down table better than him. He can bank a ball and get behind the balls and run out playing position within a diamond of the end rail. I've never seen anyone else (Ronnie included) do such a thing, and frequently too I might add.

Bugs meanwhile, might bank four or five balls in a row off the end rail. Same with Taylor. Freddie will have to tell you more about Artie's special skills.

One last thing about Ronnie, that made him so tough in my mind, and a notch above the others. He knew how to shoot (and kick) balls so that multiple balls would funnel toward his hole. When one went in, it was all over for that game.

I still think he was the best I ever saw at One Pocket. He did things I never saw anyone else do, over and over again. And it usually led to ten and out.
Ten and out may not sound like something so hard to do once in a while. But when you see someone do it game after game, it is mesmerizing.

 

[cuetechasaurus]

Quick question about giving up weight. Lets say you are giving someone a ridiculous spot like 20-5, and you start running out. What happens when you run out all the balls on the table in your hole? After you make the last one off the table, do you play position for the spot, and then spot up a ball, then play position for the spot again? Or do you spot up all the balls that you owe at once? If so, is it possible to run 20 and out?

 

[jay helfert]

Quick question about giving up weight. Lets say you are giving someone a ridiculous spot like 20-5, and you start running out. What happens when you run out all the balls on the table in your hole? After you make the last one off the table, do you play position for the spot, and then spot up a ball, then play position for the spot again? Or do you spot up all the balls that you owe at once? If so, is it possible to run 20 and out?

Good question. The total number of balls to be made must add up to sixteen or less to not have to spot any balls. For example, you can play someone 9-7 and not have to spot anything. But play 9-8 and you must spot your first ball.

Now playing 20-5, that adds up to twenty five, so you must spot the first nine balls you make. That happens after your turn (inning) is over. So if you make five one inning they will all come up when you are done shooting. When you reach the point where you need eleven balls, you can stop spotting them.

Now if you are someone like Efren, and continue to run balls after making all fifteen, you will spot the required number immediately to allow Efren to reach twenty. In this case five balls would come up and he would continue to shoot.

 

[HittMan]

Good games define winning skills

So here's what I think is desirable in a game. -- mike page

We definitely think in the same circle...thanks

 

[Donny Lutz]

Do you remember a one-holer from the DC area nicknamed, "Jackie Robinson"? He played on one of my league teams in '95, but I can't remember his real name.

 

[book collector]

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.

"Moves were invented by the people who could not pocket the balls".
I think moves were invented by the better players to protect an advantage once they gained it, or to force the opponent into giving up a shot or taking fouls. Moves in 1 pocket are high level safety play, if what you stated were true there would be almost no safety play in 9 ball. There is a place for both watching a shooter run out from everywhere is a beautiful thing, it's over in a couple of minutes and next game. The mover may take an hour but if you like to watch presision cue ball and object ball placement and imagination then that is equally as beautiful. Efren, Cliff Shannon , all great shotmakers but they are also know how to put you in jail and throw away the key. The story about Buddy and Grady I think actually illustrates what I am saying Grady was shocked Buddy would take what he thought were extremely difficult shots to get a ball or 2 and if he missed probably lose the game and Buddy was surprised Grady would leave him such "easy' shots to get a ball or 2. Maybe if we are lucky Grady will tell us what he meant.

 

[book collector]

Defining a true 1 pocket player

Ronnie was sadistic about MAKING tough shots to get out. In every ten and out run, he would usually make one or two "impossible" shots. Oftentimes, his runs would begin with a shot from nowhere.

Efren's shotmaking is unreal and no one I have ever seen, runs the balls when they are down table better than him. He can bank a ball and get behind the balls and run out playing position within a diamond of the end rail. I've never seen anyone else (Ronnie included) do such a thing, and frequently too I might add.

Bugs meanwhile, might bank four or five balls in a row off the end rail. Same with Taylor. Freddie will have to tell you more about Artie's special skills.

One last thing about Ronnie, that made him so tough in my mind, and a notch above the others. He knew how to shoot (and kick) balls so that multiple balls would funnel toward his hole. When one went in, it was all over for that game.

I still think he was the best I ever saw at One Pocket. He did things I never saw anyone else do, over and over again. And it usually led to ten and out.
Ten and out may not sound like something so hard to do once in a while. But when you see someone do it game after game, it is mesmerizing.

I watched Cliff giving good shortstops 11 to 6 about 10 years ago and he ran so many 11s from nowhere it was amazing. He made some banks I was sure were impossible {3 rails out of the corner and so close to the corner you wondered if the cueball got invisible to let the ball go by} also he made a 1 rail bank out of the corner and to this day the only way I think it can be made is to double kiss it , on that particular shot he rattled around the points and then kicked another ball that was lieing just off the rail and an inch from the pocket towards his hole } never seen anyone else do it and I have watched almost all the best. The funny part was one guy tries to safe him and Cliff says something like "Oh, you want to play like that" after that game the guy went back to shooting at his hole , it was his only chance.