1) There doesn't have to be a best. There are many skills that get rewarded in pool and depending on the situation they fare differently. For example, if player A is better at straight pool but player B plays better 9 ball, how could you answer 'who is the best' other than making it conditional upon which game they're playing? Different conditions can be almost as decisive as different games:
2) There is no 'truest' game. Each of these variables and many others simply determine what the pie chart of skills that get rewarded is that day. Top players are well rounded enough that they can dominate in many of those situations. None of them are the 'most pure', that is generally a cry from people that are only strong in one area or that look at the evolution of the game as degeneration.
For example, someone with a big break might look at 4.5" holes and say 'that is how pool should be, a run out game, practice your break!' And a player that plays better patterns may say '4" holes, let's see who's cueball is the best!' And all players may resent the change, 'when I was up and coming it wasn't about who mastered the rack!' Usually it's a combination of both, with players that dedicated themselves to mastering certain skills outraged that those skills no longer play the same role in determining the winner of matches.
Everyone is entitled to who their favorite player is (usually the one that is strong where they are either best or worst) and what their favorite game is. Let's just leave the 'best' and 'purest' terms out of it. All games are challenging and rewarding, and the top players are close enough in ability that conditions emphasizing their strengths may be pivotal in determining the outcome.
- Tighter pockets reduce the importance of the break because there will be less table runs, so safety play/pattern play/shotmaking will play a bigger role.
- The no jump cue rule clearly increases the importance of kicking and safety play.
- The time clock rewards players that make decisions more quickly and play with confidence.
- Long sets favor those with stamina, are good front runners, and can play well from far behind. Multiple shorter sets would favor those better at playing the score and managing pressure (hill-hill) situations.
2) There is no 'truest' game. Each of these variables and many others simply determine what the pie chart of skills that get rewarded is that day. Top players are well rounded enough that they can dominate in many of those situations. None of them are the 'most pure', that is generally a cry from people that are only strong in one area or that look at the evolution of the game as degeneration.
For example, someone with a big break might look at 4.5" holes and say 'that is how pool should be, a run out game, practice your break!' And a player that plays better patterns may say '4" holes, let's see who's cueball is the best!' And all players may resent the change, 'when I was up and coming it wasn't about who mastered the rack!' Usually it's a combination of both, with players that dedicated themselves to mastering certain skills outraged that those skills no longer play the same role in determining the winner of matches.
Everyone is entitled to who their favorite player is (usually the one that is strong where they are either best or worst) and what their favorite game is. Let's just leave the 'best' and 'purest' terms out of it. All games are challenging and rewarding, and the top players are close enough in ability that conditions emphasizing their strengths may be pivotal in determining the outcome.
