fundamentals

[KingJerryO]

Has the definition of proper fundamentals changed in the last 75 years. If so, is it reasonable to expect that if the new fundamentals are superior to the old ones, that the modern generation of players has surpassed the previous in skill?

 

[Black-Balled]

Has the definition of proper fundamentals changed in the last 75 years. If so, is it reasonable to expect that if the new fundamentals are superior to the old ones, that the modern generation of players has surpassed the previous in skill?

BEtter players now? Yes, by some measures. As a whole or the 2 best...whaddya mean?

BEtter fundamentals now? There's more than one way to skin a cat...or run 400b in 14.1.

 

[ronscuba]

Could it be modern players are better or there are more good players now because it is now easier to get access to information ?

Discussion boards like this, internet articles, online video, diagrams, etc..

 

[KingJerryO]

I'm not saying that players are better now. I have been watching some videos of ralph greenleaf, mosconi, willie hoppe, etc. There fundamentals in my opinion are very different from the typical modern player. The same goes for most of the players of that era that I have seen on tape. From what I can tell, they play the same speed as the best of the best in this era. They just look different doing it. So what gives. If the fundamentals (more snooker like) that instructors teach now are more efficient bio-mechanically than those of yesteryear, why aren't pros achieving greater feats like higher runs etc. with these "new and improved fundamentals"

 

[Neil]

..........

 

[sfleinen]

I'm not saying that players are better now. I have been watching some videos of ralph greenleaf, mosconi, willie hoppe, etc. There fundamentals in my opinion are very different from the typical modern player. The same goes for most of the players of that era that I have seen on tape. From what I can tell, they play the same speed as the best of the best in this era. They just look different doing it. So what gives. If the fundamentals (more snooker like) that instructors teach now are more efficient bio-mechanically than those of yesteryear, why aren't pros achieving greater feats like higher runs etc. with these "new and improved fundamentals"

KingJerryO:

That's because the equipment we're playing on has gotten better -- tighter constraints; accurately-cut pockets (and smaller pockets, too); more responsive cushions (instead of the mushy cushions of yesteryear); worsted cloth on which it's more difficult to control the cue ball (you have to have much better "touch"); etc.

For what it's worth -- and this is my opinion only -- I think Thomas Engert's straight pool high run of 491 balls on a modern 9-foot table with 4.5" pockets ("Dynamic" -- a German brand/make of modern table with Artemis cushions) ranks right up there with Mosconi's 526 on a 4'x8' with 5" pockets.

Getting to the snooker fundamentals, something needs to be said about those. You won't find any champion-caliber snooker pros using pool fundamentals. There's a reason why snooker fundamentals work on a snooker table -- because snooker fundamentals have proven over time that they are more consistently accurate than pool fundamentals. Pool is slowly (but surely) borrowing from snooker as the pool equipment itself gets tighter and more precise. The days of loosey-goosey fundamentals on loosey-goosey equipment are over.

Again, IMHO,
-Sean

 

[KingJerryO]

KingJerryO:

That's because the equipment we're playing on has gotten better -- tighter constraints; accurately-cut pockets (and smaller pockets, too); more responsive cushions (instead of the mushy cushions of yesteryear); worsted cloth on which it's more difficult to control the cue ball (you have to have much better "touch"); etc.

For what it's worth -- and this is my opinion only -- I think Thomas Engert's straight pool high run of 491 balls on a modern 9-foot table with 4.5" pockets ("Dynamic" -- a German brand/make of modern table with Artemis cushions) ranks right up there with Mosconi's 526 on a 4'x8' with 5" pockets.

Getting to the snooker fundamentals, something needs to be said about those. You won't find any champion-caliber snooker pros using pool fundamentals. There's a reason why snooker fundamentals work on a snooker table -- because snooker fundamentals have proven over time that they are more consistently accurate than pool fundamentals. Pool is slowly (but surely) borrowing from snooker as the pool equipment itself gets tighter and more precise. The days of loosey-goosey fundamentals on loosey-goosey equipment are over.

Again, IMHO,
-Sean

So then you are saying that pros today are indeed better than those guys. I mean if one guy has a 300 ball run on loosey goosey equipment with loosey goosey fundamentals he would certainly be beaten by a modern day pro that can do the same on a really tight diamond. Essentially one of those old timers would get on a modern table and get spanked by the modern pros that have the fundamentals necessary to play on these tables. So your answer would be yes to my original question. This generations pros are better.

 

[Andrew Manning]

I'm not saying that players are better now. I have been watching some videos of ralph greenleaf, mosconi, willie hoppe, etc. There fundamentals in my opinion are very different from the typical modern player. The same goes for most of the players of that era that I have seen on tape. From what I can tell, they play the same speed as the best of the best in this era. They just look different doing it. So what gives. If the fundamentals (more snooker like) that instructors teach now are more efficient bio-mechanically than those of yesteryear, why aren't pros achieving greater feats like higher runs etc. with these "new and improved fundamentals"

They're not achieving higher runs because 14.1 isn't "the game" anymore.

The new and improved fundamentals are mostly improved in the areas of accuracy on longer shots (or into tighter pockets), and stroke power, both of which are more important in 9-ball (or 10-ball) than in 14.1.

I think if the top 10 players from 50 years ago matched up against the top 10 now in 9-ball, the top 10 now would win easily, party because of greater accuracy and stroke power in today's players. If the same players matched up in 14.1, the players from 50 years ago would win, mostly because of better knowledge of 14.1 patterns, and better touch in manipulating the stack.

The balls are still round and the table's still rectangular, but the game has changed. Today's players have skills more tailored to today's game. Who's "better" is as hard to define as it is moot.

-Andrew

 

[The Renfro]

They're not achieving higher runs because 14.1 isn't "the game" anymore.

The new and improved fundamentals are mostly improved in the areas of accuracy on longer shots (or into tighter pockets), and stroke power, both of which are more important in 9-ball (or 10-ball) than in 14.1.

I think if the top 10 players from 50 years ago matched up against the top 10 now in 9-ball, the top 10 now would win easily, party because of greater accuracy and stroke power in today's players. If the same players matched up in 14.1, the players from 50 years ago would win, mostly because of better knowledge of 14.1 patterns, and better touch in manipulating the stack.

The balls are still round and the table's still rectangular, but the game has changed. Today's players have skills more tailored to today's game. Who's "better" is as hard to define as it is moot.

-Andrew

Stroke power has definitely taken a hit from the modern equipment. On the old slow cloth stroke power was a defining attribute between normal players and the great players.

With the cloth today moving the cueball large distances is much easier so power is not a needed commodity.. Otherwise Hill Billy and Nevel would be forces to reckon with instead of alsorans.......