Celtic said:
I agree with you sir!... 100%
Efren Officially is out of WPC
- Thread starter CebuanoNiNoy
- Start date
I agree with you sir!... 100%
And to add to all that has been said, we have to admit, the dude's getting old. But look, he's still playing awesome pool at his age, winning in derby city three times, the last two back-to-back in 2004 and 2005 (just this january). If there's a tournament that shows real pool skill, i think it is the derby city classic. how many of the other so-called best pool players in the world can still play competitive pool against the tough crop of players in recent years? most of the titles won by those other players were against players of lesser quality compared to today's players.
i think if efren were to play color-of-money types of games against every single one of them, sigel, lassiter, and mizerak included, efren would still come out on top. i think, if everyone were playing at their prime (and efren's prime was when he was in his 20s back in the 70's which we all unfortunately did not get to see except for a lucky few filipinos), efren would still win, hands down. (but of course, this is one man's opinion and speculation at best since we all know that can never happen.)
that said, at the start of the wpc, during the first two games of his first match, the commentators were saying that efren was playing great pool, possibly championship material. but then he overran and subsequently missed a slightly difficult cut on the 9 ball. he never recovered after that. it really affected the rest of his game from that moment on.
i think this is the beginning of the end. but then again, people say that every time efren plays bad but then he picks up his game for the next tournament. so, we'll never know really when it is the end for efren until he himself says so....
i think if efren were to play color-of-money types of games against every single one of them, sigel, lassiter, and mizerak included, efren would still come out on top. i think, if everyone were playing at their prime (and efren's prime was when he was in his 20s back in the 70's which we all unfortunately did not get to see except for a lucky few filipinos), efren would still win, hands down. (but of course, this is one man's opinion and speculation at best since we all know that can never happen.)
that said, at the start of the wpc, during the first two games of his first match, the commentators were saying that efren was playing great pool, possibly championship material. but then he overran and subsequently missed a slightly difficult cut on the 9 ball. he never recovered after that. it really affected the rest of his game from that moment on.
i think this is the beginning of the end. but then again, people say that every time efren plays bad but then he picks up his game for the next tournament. so, we'll never know really when it is the end for efren until he himself says so....
Celtic said:
There are players who specialize in 9ball. There are also players who specialize in one pocket and also some who specialize in bank pool. If you look at the roster of players in the DCC you'll know who I'm talking about. The fact that Efren can play these other players and beat them at their own game says a lot about his skill as a player. Sure, judge him as a nine-ball player. you still get pretty good player. Judge him as a one-pocket player? Still pretty good. bank pool? pretty respectable. 8-ball? probably the best. straight pool? okay player. snooker? hmmm, still has work to do but ok. rotation? probably the best also. all in all, the best all-around player in the world. Johnny Archer thinks so. Earl sometimes thinks so. Steve Mizerak definitely thinks so. Probably 70% of the players currently playing and maybe even those already retired think so, too. (you can check this out in the different interviews posted here in AZ and in the player surveys at the WPC). So, whose opinion matters most? I think it is the players who've actually played Efren and they say he's the best in the world!
In time, someone will come along who's probably better. I think hohmann and yang and pagulayan have it in them. But for the past 20 or 30 years, it's definitely been all Efren!
Perhaps its now time that somebody should sponsor a 15-ball Rotation Tournament... race to 3 or 5.... this will really show what pool-talent is all about... and while the Maestro still strong enough to hit the ball... then we will see the real magic in pool...
This was my first post in this forum back in 2003....
Hello. This would be my first time to post a message here or in any other fora. Until now, I've just been content with reading and learning from (and sometimes laughing at) the varied messages posted herein.
A number of times I almost wanted to post a message in reply to something I read but I decided to read on further until the last post in this thread. Apparently, there are a lot of really well-informed and great pool players in this forum (I could barely shot straight) and I thought it was not in my position to argue with what was being said or discussed. I also am relatively quite young vis-à-vis some of the older and supposedly wiser posters here.
But, I feel I do have something to say. It seems obvious that when it comes to matters of opinion, differences would naturally come up. Not everyone shares the same history, nationality, background, educational attainment, rationality or upbringing. The best would really be to respect each other’s opinion. Sure, it’s okay to debate – that’s what makes this forum so entertaining – but please, let’s be mature (I know, it’s not really fun to be mature), avoid argumentum ad hominems, or take things personally. That said, on with the less preachy stuff. (One note: this is not meant to diss anyone. Fast Larry, I mean no disrespect. Since most of the posts were by you or against you or something you wrote, your name had the most impact on me)
Fast Larry would naturally have a lot of opinion on a lot of stuff posted here. Arguably, he’s the most knowledgeable poster I’ve read so far in terms of firsthand knowledge of history of the game and actual hands-on experience (from what I gather from his posts about his friendships with the greats) and he does not mind sharing his experiences and observations, as well as his biases. Being American, naturally he would root for the most “American” player of them all, Earl the Pearl. Which is understandable. The Filipinos would naturally root for Efren or Django, the Germans for Ralph or Thorsten, the British for Steve or Jimmy. Even if he were trying to be objective, his no. 1 player (and a lot of the players in his top ten) would have to be American. How can they not be?
Let’s face it: America is the King of All Media. They might not have invented the game, but who puts it on TV and the Big Screen? Who puts out a Hall of Fame (of which, incidentally, Efren is a part and Earl is not)?
In one of his posts to argue against Efren being on his list, Fast Larry asked how many tournaments has Efren won. When someone posted a list of Efren’s accomplishments, Fast Larry then argued that the number of tournaments won is not the only consideration. Well, what is it, Larry?
Incidentally, I also feel that number of tournaments won should not be the only measure. But at least, let’s be consistent. If we’re going to have a measure of greatness, we should all agree on a standard. But what? On number of tournaments won? On number of consecutive balls pocketed? On most money won?
Americans would immediately win in any of these categories. Since they have records of tournaments that go way back, they could argue that so-and-so won this many world titles and beat this many opponents and won this much money and pocketed this many consecutive balls.
But we can argue that Efren never competed in these tournaments. Who knows what the outcome would have been had he been there. Or any of the other great world-class players playing today for that matter.
The Efren Reyes most people know is the Efren Reyes they got to know only when he surfaced in America as Cesar Morales in 1985. Some only got to know him when he won the 1999 World Championships in Cardiff. Even a great pool aficionado and historian like Fast Larry could not know the Efren Reyes before that time, unless he talked to a lot of Filipino old-timers and players.
I saw this link in one of the other forums (or was it this one?). It was a German website (I think -- I couldn’t understand a word) and it had scans from an old Philippine magazine which featured a competition in which Efren was finally acknowledged the King of Philippine Billiards. This was in the mid-80’s, before Efren got international exposure. The writer had an interesting observation. He said that Efren was good, but until he got to compete internationally, they would never really know how good he was. When Efren finally got on the international stage in 1985, he saw how the top international pool players played. And it was then that the realization occurred to him: he was world champion all along! He just saw how they played and he knew he could beat any of them any time. And beat them he did. And up till now, he’s still winning.
Another poster in that forum who read the magazine scans noted that Efren felt that his best years were behind him and that he was at his prime during the 70’s! And yet, he’s still here now, still winning, not everything, but still making the big money (look at the AZ Players Money List 2000 to 2004 and see who’s been no. 1 most of the time).
Which begs us to think, what if Efren had been released to the world much earlier, in the 70s when he was at his prime? Imagine the number of World Titles he might have won! The money he might have earned! The number of balls he might have pocketed! The number of players he might have beaten!
I understand this is a lot of might have beens. But lets look at other criteria shall we? Fast Larry also mentioned winning important games, high stakes games. Well, let’s consider the games in Color of Money I and II. Efren vs. Earl. Both times race to 120 games. Both times won by Efren. Not bad for someone uneducated in sports psychology, physiology, zen, mental states, or whatever. Not bad for someone from a third world country used to playing with cheap cue sticks and lousy tables. Not bad for someone who’s humble enough to not think of himself as the greatest (he feels some of the ladies from the women’s leagues can beat him).
It doesn’t matter whether Efren is on Larry’s list. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. What matters is Efren’s on top of a lot of people’s lists, a lot of players he’s played against lists (even Earl’s and Archer’s and Jeanette Lee’s), players he hasn’t played against (Steve Mizerak ranks him on his top ten) and on the BCA Hall of Fame list. Nuff said.
Hello. This would be my first time to post a message here or in any other fora. Until now, I've just been content with reading and learning from (and sometimes laughing at) the varied messages posted herein.
A number of times I almost wanted to post a message in reply to something I read but I decided to read on further until the last post in this thread. Apparently, there are a lot of really well-informed and great pool players in this forum (I could barely shot straight) and I thought it was not in my position to argue with what was being said or discussed. I also am relatively quite young vis-à-vis some of the older and supposedly wiser posters here.
But, I feel I do have something to say. It seems obvious that when it comes to matters of opinion, differences would naturally come up. Not everyone shares the same history, nationality, background, educational attainment, rationality or upbringing. The best would really be to respect each other’s opinion. Sure, it’s okay to debate – that’s what makes this forum so entertaining – but please, let’s be mature (I know, it’s not really fun to be mature), avoid argumentum ad hominems, or take things personally. That said, on with the less preachy stuff. (One note: this is not meant to diss anyone. Fast Larry, I mean no disrespect. Since most of the posts were by you or against you or something you wrote, your name had the most impact on me)
Fast Larry would naturally have a lot of opinion on a lot of stuff posted here. Arguably, he’s the most knowledgeable poster I’ve read so far in terms of firsthand knowledge of history of the game and actual hands-on experience (from what I gather from his posts about his friendships with the greats) and he does not mind sharing his experiences and observations, as well as his biases. Being American, naturally he would root for the most “American” player of them all, Earl the Pearl. Which is understandable. The Filipinos would naturally root for Efren or Django, the Germans for Ralph or Thorsten, the British for Steve or Jimmy. Even if he were trying to be objective, his no. 1 player (and a lot of the players in his top ten) would have to be American. How can they not be?
Let’s face it: America is the King of All Media. They might not have invented the game, but who puts it on TV and the Big Screen? Who puts out a Hall of Fame (of which, incidentally, Efren is a part and Earl is not)?
In one of his posts to argue against Efren being on his list, Fast Larry asked how many tournaments has Efren won. When someone posted a list of Efren’s accomplishments, Fast Larry then argued that the number of tournaments won is not the only consideration. Well, what is it, Larry?
Incidentally, I also feel that number of tournaments won should not be the only measure. But at least, let’s be consistent. If we’re going to have a measure of greatness, we should all agree on a standard. But what? On number of tournaments won? On number of consecutive balls pocketed? On most money won?
Americans would immediately win in any of these categories. Since they have records of tournaments that go way back, they could argue that so-and-so won this many world titles and beat this many opponents and won this much money and pocketed this many consecutive balls.
But we can argue that Efren never competed in these tournaments. Who knows what the outcome would have been had he been there. Or any of the other great world-class players playing today for that matter.
The Efren Reyes most people know is the Efren Reyes they got to know only when he surfaced in America as Cesar Morales in 1985. Some only got to know him when he won the 1999 World Championships in Cardiff. Even a great pool aficionado and historian like Fast Larry could not know the Efren Reyes before that time, unless he talked to a lot of Filipino old-timers and players.
I saw this link in one of the other forums (or was it this one?). It was a German website (I think -- I couldn’t understand a word) and it had scans from an old Philippine magazine which featured a competition in which Efren was finally acknowledged the King of Philippine Billiards. This was in the mid-80’s, before Efren got international exposure. The writer had an interesting observation. He said that Efren was good, but until he got to compete internationally, they would never really know how good he was. When Efren finally got on the international stage in 1985, he saw how the top international pool players played. And it was then that the realization occurred to him: he was world champion all along! He just saw how they played and he knew he could beat any of them any time. And beat them he did. And up till now, he’s still winning.
Another poster in that forum who read the magazine scans noted that Efren felt that his best years were behind him and that he was at his prime during the 70’s! And yet, he’s still here now, still winning, not everything, but still making the big money (look at the AZ Players Money List 2000 to 2004 and see who’s been no. 1 most of the time).
Which begs us to think, what if Efren had been released to the world much earlier, in the 70s when he was at his prime? Imagine the number of World Titles he might have won! The money he might have earned! The number of balls he might have pocketed! The number of players he might have beaten!
I understand this is a lot of might have beens. But lets look at other criteria shall we? Fast Larry also mentioned winning important games, high stakes games. Well, let’s consider the games in Color of Money I and II. Efren vs. Earl. Both times race to 120 games. Both times won by Efren. Not bad for someone uneducated in sports psychology, physiology, zen, mental states, or whatever. Not bad for someone from a third world country used to playing with cheap cue sticks and lousy tables. Not bad for someone who’s humble enough to not think of himself as the greatest (he feels some of the ladies from the women’s leagues can beat him).
It doesn’t matter whether Efren is on Larry’s list. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. What matters is Efren’s on top of a lot of people’s lists, a lot of players he’s played against lists (even Earl’s and Archer’s and Jeanette Lee’s), players he hasn’t played against (Steve Mizerak ranks him on his top ten) and on the BCA Hall of Fame list. Nuff said.
Renegade said:
i thirded (is there ever such a word?) that opinion..!!! he.he.he..
CebuanoNiNoy said:i thirded (is there ever such a word?) that opinion..!!! he.he.he..
I only ask that the balls are worth a point each and not the number value that makes the last few balls on the table that are the easiest to run worth way more then the first few balls that are much harder. That is my only gripe with rotation. Why should the easiest ball on the table be worth 15 times more points than the hardest is worth.
I think rotation is great just as it is. The value of the high balls is just enough incentive to try for the carom and combination shots. i think it is this facet of rotation that makes it such an interesting game and why filipinos excel in pool. they learned to think creatively with rotation. now if only the rest of the world can get on the program and adopt rotation as the game of choice we'd see some infinitely better shot-making and more exciting games!
sliqueshot
Registered
Yeah I think that's why a lot of Filipinos are creative because they learned how to play 15 ball rotation first. There is better shot-making in that game and skills are really capitalized. See Celtic was saying this about 9 ball where the pros play and all that and now he became oxymoron saying the 15 ball rotation is the game that the cream of the crop will shine. But of course, look at what happened to Yang and Busta, they were beaten by some neverheard.
sliqueshot said:
I'm not saying Celtic is right, sliqueshot, but i think what he meant was that rotation IS a better measure of pool skill, except that unfortunately, 9ball is what is being played professionally in competition and that we should judge players by what is being played by the majority.
The only problem i see in his line of reasoning is that according to him, if all the great pool players played one-ball exclusively, for example, they'll be great at it, too. The thing is, Efren plays all the games and he happens to be great at majority of them. I bet if Efren concentrated all his time in playing snooker, for example, he'd dominate in that, too, and this is what makes Efren great. He needn't concentrate on just one game.
sliqueshot
Registered
Yeah Celtic was doing cardstocking seeing only a single angle of his argument which is the best 9 ball player should be the best pool player. I mean he has a point but he gotta look every angle. 15 ball rotation and 1 pocket is the measuring stick of skills and Efren is the best of both world.
Renegade said:
He wouldn't make it past the 18 year old qualifiers. You clearly have no idea just how good snooker players are nowadays, and they're still getting better. I don't doubt Efren could have been a contender if he'd started out early enough and stuck to it. He missed that boat many many years ago.
Pool is just starting to learn what snooker has known for a good 20 years. It's a young man's game. Taiwan will prove this to you.
Boro Nut
Boro Nut said:
really???? wow your claim is too brave... Steve Davis (no offence), 6 Time World Snooker Champion booted out in the Last 64.... Pool and Snooker are two different discipline cue-game... I don't think you can really compare the two objectively.... point out the diffences yes.... but the talent?... I doubt it...
BallBuster said:
Steve Davis is washed up. Watch him in the last world championship. He was awful. So was Jimmy White. Steve Davis changed snooker in the 80's in that he inspired the generation that ulitimately surpassed him (Hendry et al). He may have six world championships to his name, but his greatest achievement is undoubtedly managing to claw his way back into the current top 16 at his age. I don't think he'll be there for much longer, and I very much doubt he'll be able to repeat the feat. Sad to say the same seems true of Jimmy.
There was a time when a frame with Davis consisted of the opponent breaking off and leaving Davis a peep at a distant red with the white tucked up on the baulk cushion. He would invariably pot it, land perfectly on the black, and proceed to compile a frame winning break. I haven't seen him pot one of those for 20 years.
Boro Nut