greatest living player

I'll go with Reyes all around and the Pearl for 9-ball, even though in the Hong Kong match in '95, race to 120, Efren came back from being down for 2 3/4 days to win it 120-117. Some of the best 9-ball I've ever seen, but Earl helped beat himself. Sigel?:rolleyes: I've heard Buddy was just awesome in his prime, nobody wanted to play him. period.
 
klockdoc said:
Jimmy Reed was just a great guitarist.......Jimmy Reid, on the other hand...could play some pool. :smile: ;)
Click to expand...

Jimmy Reed would get so drunk he would have his wife right off stage bc he would forget the songs. She would sing it to him so he could remember.
 
Last edited:
rayjay said:
I'll go with Reyes all around and the Pearl for 9-ball, even though in the Hong Kong match in '95, race to 120, Efren came back from being down for 2 3/4 days to win it 120-117. Some of the best 9-ball I've ever seen, but Earl helped beat himself. Sigel?:rolleyes: I've heard Buddy was just awesome in his prime, nobody wanted to play him. period.
Click to expand...

this is what i mentioned. it was in 1996. "color of money", it was for $100,000.
 
westcoast said:
Why did Sigel stop playing big time tournaments? He seemed to have stopped a relatively young age.

I know he plays an occasional tournament here and there, but didn't he essentially stop playing on a full-time basis in the early '90s?
Click to expand...

He said it was because the money wasn't worth the effort and expenses.
 
I've heard it described by someone (maybe john schmidt) that when a pro beats a bunch of other pros in a tournament, it's not like he's this godly figure and was just crushing everyone those days. It's more like, on that given sunday he was 2% better than the others, and on a different day or with a single different roll, it could've been someone else. We're always hearing that the races are too short in most pro tournaments to determine who's REALLY the better player, which is why you see TAR matches go to 100 instead of to 11 (and some tournaments don't even go to 11).

It's hard to argue with the stats, if someone lays down a lot of tournament wins in a year or in ten years, they've probably got something on the rest of the field. But that doesn't mean someone else won't surpass them in the next decade, and who knows how they'd match up gambling.

Greatest "living" player doesn't narrow it down enough, as there are 90 year olds who can vie for that title and some up-and-coming 20-somethings who will be candidates for another 50 years. The best in a 100 year stretch is so non-specific it's almost just a meaningless statistic. It's kind of like... You can tell people how good mosconi was and cite the stats, but if he died before I was old enough to see him play, and he played a game me and my buddies never play, so how can I get excited and see him as the greatest ever?
 
Jr. Norris is damn sure worthy of being named right there with them. I'm not saying he can beat them now. But he is still living and was one of the best players in his time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top